HomeMy WebLinkAboutord2011-034 strike through WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2011 - 255
CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to:
Originator: M.A. 7/14/2011 7/26/2011 Introduction & Planning
Matt Aamot & Development Comm.
Division Head: -7 _ 6--- [ j 8/9/2011 Council
Roxanne Michael l t '
' a 1 t D
Dept Head: PAP%-
Sam Ryan 1J® (
Prosecutor ��?? / / JUL.. t9 2011
Royce Buckingham l l ( VV q COM CO
UNTY Purchasing/Budget:
COUNCIL
Executive: a'a
Oft)Kremen 7 -� if
TITLE fl F DOCUMENT:
Ferndale Urban Growth Area and Capital Facility Planning.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Proposed Ordinance and Exhibits
2 . Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action
Other background information is on file at the Council office.
SEPA review required? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X t ) NO
SEPA review completed? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date
The Council must hold a hearing if they want to change the Planning Commission 's
recommendation IWCC 2.160. 100(2)1.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public
hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be
clear in explaining the intent of the action.)
Proposed amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and zoning map that would reduce the size
of the Ferndale Urban Growth Area (UGA), re-designate areas removed from the UGA to UGA Reserve, rezone
areas removed from the UGA to Rural one dwelling/ten acres, amend sewer and fire protection capital facility
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and make related amendments to Chapters 2 , 4, 6 and 8 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
COMMITTEE ACTION:: COUNCIL ACTION:
7 / 26 / 2011 : Committee recommends introduction 7 / 26 / 2011 : Introduced with substitute pages
this evening and approval ( no need to 8 / 09 / 2011 : Council Adopted 7 - 0
schedule in committee again) Ord . 2011 -034
Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number:
PLN2011 -00017 Ord . 2011 -034
Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on
the County 's website at: www. co. whatcom. wa. us/council.
SPONSORED BY : Consent
PROPOSED RY ! PDS
INTRODUCTION DATE : July 26 , 2011
ORDINANCE NO . 2011 -034
AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE
OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES
RELATING TO COMPLETION OF THE 10 YEAR REVIEW OF THE URBAN
GROWTH AREAS REQUIRED UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act ( GMA) required
Whatcom County to review , at least every ten years , its urban growth areas ( UGAs )
and the densities permitted within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of
the UGAs ; and
WHEREAS, the GMA further requires that the County amend its
comprehensive plan designating UGAs , and the densities permitted in the UGAs to
accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding
20 year period ; and
WHEREAS, time was of the essence to complete the review and revision of
Whatcom County 's UGA boundaries and the densities permitted within them due to
an order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in Petree,
et a/ v. Whatcom County, Case No . 08 - 2 - 0021c requiring completion of the County 's
10 year review by December 1 , 2009 ; and
WHEREAS, Whatcom County adopted Ordinance 2009 - 071 on November 24 ,
2009 completing the required 10 year UGA review ;
WHEREAS, on February 16 , 2010 the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board ( GMHB ) agreed to a stipulation that Ordinance 2009 -
071 was acted on prior to the December 1 , 2009 deadline of the GMHB and cured
the non -compliance regarding the County 's failure to act ;
WHEREAS, multiple Petitions for Review were filed in a timely manner with
the GMHB challenging Ordinance 2009 - 071 ;
WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council met with Petitioners for purposes of
settlement negotiations in an open public meeting on April 12 , 2010 ;
WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council adopted Ordinance 2010 - 037 on
August 10 , 2010 to settle Petitions for Review relating to the Birch Bay and Ferndale
UGAs ;
WHEREAS, new Petitions for Review were filed in a timely manner with the
GMHB challenging Ordinance 2010 - 037 ;
Page 1 of 12
WHEREAS, in April 2011 , the GMHB ruled that the Ferndale UGA was
oversized and that adequate sewer and fire capital facility planning had not occurred
prior to the adoption of Ordinance 2010 - 037 ;
WHEREAS, the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered in support of
Ordinances 2009 - 071 and 2010 - 037 are hereby incorporated by reference , except
as specifically amended herein ;
WHEREAS, legal notice requirements have been met ; and
WHEREAS, the County Council finds the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
amendments in the interest of the public health , safety , and welfare , based on the
following findings and conclusions :
FINDINGS OF FACT :
Growth Management Act
1 . The Growth Management Act requires review of Urban Growth Areas
( UGAs ) pursuant to RCW 36 . 70A . 130 ( 3 ) . This review was initially
completed in November 2009 with the adoption of Ordinance 2009 - 071
and was amended in August 2010 with the adoption of Ordinance 2010 -
037 to settle appeals relating to the Ferndale and Birch Bay UGAs .
Because of further appeals and a subsequent Growth Management
Hearings Board order relating to Ordinance 2010 - 037 , the subject
amendments are being undertaken as a continuation of the UGA review
required by RCW 36 . 70A . 130 ( 3 ) .
2 . The Growth Management Act expects that the county attempt to reach
agreement with each city on the location of an urban growth area . If such
an agreement is not reached with a city , the county must justify in writing
why it so designated the area an urban growth area ( RCW 36 . 70A . 110 ( 2 ) ) .
Whatcom County and the City of Ferndale have reached agreement on the
boundaries of the Ferndale UGA .
3 . Notice of proposed comprehensive plan and zoning amendments was sent
to the State Department of Commerce on May 25 , 2011 pursuant to RCW
36 . 70A . 106 .
Whatcom County Code
4 . Pursuant to Whatcom County Code ( WCC) 2 . 160 . 080 , in order to approve
the proposed comprehensive plan amendments the Whatcom County
Planning Commission and County Council must find all of the following :
a . The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth
Management Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning
policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements .
Page 2of12
b . Further studies made or accepted by the department of planning and
development services indicate changed conditions that show need for
the amendment .
c . The public interest will be served by approving the amendment . In
determining whether the public interest will be served , factors including
but not limited to the following shall be considered :
i . The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population
growth , employment growth , development, and conversion of
land as envisioned in the comprehensive plan .
ii . The anticipated effect upon the ability of the county and/or other
service providers , such as cities, schools , water and/or sewer
purveyors , fire districts , and others as applicable , to provide
adequate services and public facilities including transportation
facilities .
iii . Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural , forest and
mineral resource lands .
d . The amendment does not include or facilitate spot zoning .
e . Urban growth area amendments that propose the expansion of an
urban growth area boundary shall be required to acquire development
rights from a designated TDR sending area , with certain exceptions .
5 . In addition to comprehensive plan amendments, the subject proposal also
includes a zoning map amendment . Pursuant to WCC 20 . 90 . 050 ( 4 ) , the
Planning Commission is to evaluate the zoning amendment in relationship
to the goals , policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan . The
Planning Commission must create written findings and a recommendation
to the County Council .
Public Participation and Inter-governmental Coordination
6 . On April 12 , 2010 , the Whatcom County Council met as a Committee of the
Whole to review issues and concerns submitted by Petitioners regarding
Ordinance 2009 - 071 .
7 . In furtherance of settlement, on April 27 , 2010 , the Council met as a
Committee of the Whole to request staff to prepare proposed amendments
to Ordinance 2009 - 071 .
8 . On May 11 , 2010 , the Council convened as the Committee of the Whole to
review the amended draft ordinance and findings for the review . The
ordinance was introduced for consideration by the Council on May 25 ,
2010 .
9 . On August 10 , 2010 , the Council adopted Ordinance 2010 - 037 , restoring
476 acres to the Ferndale UGA that had been removed by Ordinance 2009 -
Page 3 of 12
071 . This ordinance was appealed to the Growth Management Hearings
Board .
10 . On April 11 , 2011 the Growth Management Hearings Board ruled that the
Ferndale UGA was oversized and that adequate sewer and fire capital
facility planning had not occurred ( Stalheim et al v. Whatcom County, Case
N o . 10 - 2 - 0016c, Final Decision and Order, April 11 , 2011 ) . The Growth
B oard found that other challenged portions of the 2010 ordinance complied
with the Growth Management Act .
11 . On May 11 , 2011 the Ferndale Planning Commission held a public hearing
and issued recommendations relating to the UGA boundary .
12 . On May 16 , 2011 the Ferndale City Council held a public hearing and issued
recommendations relating to the UGA boundary .
13 . Notice that draft UGA boundary alternatives had been posted on the
County's website was sent to the County 's e - mail list on April 29 , 2011 .
N otice that the Ferndale recommended UGA boundary and draft capital
facility amendments had been posted on the County 's website was sent to
the County 's e - mail list on May 20 , 2011 . Notice that the staff report and
proposed Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and zoning map
amendments had been posted on the County 's website was sent to the
County 's e - mail list on June 14 , 2011 . The County 's e - mail list includes
citizens , media , community groups , and agencies .
14 . Notice that draft UGA boundary alternatives had been posted on the
County 's website was sent to the cities on April 29 , 2011 . Notice that the
Ferndale recommended UGA boundary and draft capital facility
amendments had been posted on the County 's website was sent to the
cities on May 20 , 2011 . Notice that the staff report and proposed
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments had
been posted on the County 's website was sent to the cities on June 14 ,
2011 .
15 . Public Hearings : The Whatcom County Council and Whatcom County
Planning Commission held hearings to collect public input about various
issues . All hearings were duly advertised and addressed the following
issues :
• Land Capacity Methodology ( 12/9/2008 - County Council )
• Environmental Impact Statement Scoping ( 2/ 17/2009 - Joint Planning
Commission and County Council )
• City UGA Proposals ( 6/23/ 2009 - County Council with an invitation
extended to Planning Commission members )
• Executive Recommendations ( 9/ 17/2009 - Joint Planning
Commission/County Council )
Page 4 of 12
• Ordinance 2009 - 071 amending comprehensive plan and zoning code ,
including maps ( 11/ 24/09 - County Council )
• Ordinance 2010 - 037 amending Ordinance 2009 - 071 ( 07/ 13/ 10 - County
Council )
• Proposed amendments to the Ferndale UGA and capital facility planning
( 7/ 14/2011 - Planning Commission ) .
Environmental Review
16 . The Final EIS was published and made available to the public on October
23 , 2009 . All proposed changes in UGA boundaries are within the range of
alternatives studied in the EIS . The City of Ferndale issued a Mitigated
Determination of Non - Significance ( DNS ) on May 27 , 2011 for the City of
Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan . Whatcom County issued a DNS on
July 30 , 2010 for the fire protection level of service amendments to the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan . The City of Ferndale issued a DNS
on May 4 , 2011 for the Fire District 7 Capital Facility Plan , including
referencing this Plan in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan .
Land Supply
17 . On February 10 , 2009 , Whatcom County Planning and Development
Services published an initial analysis of the capacity of the ten UGAs in
Whatcom County to accommodate growth over the next twenty year
period . On March 16 , 2009 , a revised analysis was published . The August
2009 Executive Recommendations included a slightly revised method and
results . In April 2011 , a revised land capacity analysis for Ferndale UGA
boundary alternatives 1 through 3 was posted on the County website . In
May 2011 , a revised land capacity analysis for the Ferndale City Council 's
recommended UGA boundary was posted on the County website .
UGA Boundaries
Ferndale
18 . The City of Ferndale submitted a written paper to the County Council and
Planning Commission regarding its UGA on June 9 , 2009 . The proposal did
not include a proposed UGA boundary , but stated the city would submit a
specific proposal by October 30 , 2009 after the County Council approved
the land capacity analysis .
19 . The County Executive , after consultation with city elected and
administrative officials , recommended reduction of the Ferndale UGA to be
consistent with the county - wide land capacity analysis . The County
Executive proposal was released in August 2009 for public review .
Page 5of12
20 . The City of Ferndale held two neighborhood meetings , two open record
public hearings before the City Planning Commission and Council , and
several Planning Commission public workshops in 2009 . The City also sent
a mailer to every property owner in the impacted Urban Growth Areas,
placed nearly two dozen postings in and around the subject areas between
June and August 2009 , and issued press releases notifying the public of
Ferndale 's process . The comments from these meetings were reviewed and
incorporated into the City of Ferndale proposal to reduce the UGA, which
was transmitted to the County Council and Executive in August 2009 .
21 . The City of Ferndale provided a written proposal to the Whatcom County
Council on August 19 , 2009 . The City also provided a map that included
proposed reductions in the UGA and proposed expansion of the UGA for
employment purposes , both consistent with the City 's June proposal .
22 . Based on its location north of Bellingham and along - I - 5 , Ferndale is now
both an employment center as well as a residential community . Ferndale
accounted for approximately 8 . 2 % of the county growth between 1990 and
2008 , third to the City of Bellingham and City of Lynden during this time
period .
23 . The County-wide Land Capacity Analysis methodology allows the County to
consider achieved densities . Achieved densities reflect development which
has already occurred , while planned densities reflect the potential density
allowed within a zone . Analyses for Ferndale were completed in 2010 and
2011 that provided greater emphasis on achieved densities .
24 . Residential achieved densities , including vested applications within the City
of Ferndale, have increased over the previous decade .
25 . The City of Ferndale has initiated several incentive- based sprawl - reducing
measures : increased height limits and reduced setbacks within multi -family
zones , minimum residential densities within Downtown zones, reduced
water and sewer connection fees for dense developments and infill
projects , the establishment of a cottage housing ordinance , expansion of
mixed - use commercial zones , incentives for commercial developments
which incorporate residential elements .
26 . The County Council action in November 2009 removed approximately
1 , 556 acres from the unincorporated Urban Growth Area of the City of
Ferndale ( Ordinance 2009 - 071 ) . The County Council action in August 2010
restored 476 acres into the unincorporated Urban Growth Area ( Ordinance
2010 - 037 ) . This 2011 amendment would remove 580 acres from the
Urban Growth Area .
27 . The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Ferndale to
establish new residential developments at densities averaging five to ten
units per net residential acre .
Page 6of12
28 . Whatcom County 's Urban Residential ( UR4) zoning requires a minimum net
density of four dwelling units per acre in the unincorporated portion of the
UGA when public water and sewer are available .
29 . The density assumption used in the revised land capacity analysis was 4 . 7
units per net residential acre ( 5 . 7 within the city and 4 . 0 in the
unincorporated portion of the UGA) .
30 . Portions of the Ferndale UGA lie within the Drayton Harbor and Birch Bay
watersheds, which have been designated as Shellfish Protection Districts
( Drayton Harbor in 1995 and Birch Bay in 2009 ) pursuant to RCW
90 . 72 . 045 . These designations were due to water quality degradation
caused by ongoing nonpoint sources of pollution that closed or downgraded
the recreational and commercial shellfish growing areas in Drayton Harbor
and Birch Bay .
31 . The City of Ferndale has adopted stormwater protection requirements
which meet or exceed Department of Ecology standards . Such standards
will apply to new development throughout the City , including all future
annexations .
32 . The City requires that new development connect to City services , including
sanitary sewer . The City will provide incentives for property owners within
the City who own or maintain an onsite septic system to transition to public
sewer . Within the city , the elimination or gradual decrease of septic
systems within protected watersheds may improve non - point pollution in
these areas .
33 . The City of Ferndale currently has water capacity to serve the existing and
proposed UGA . The city has identified and planned for water storage
capacity improvements that will be needed in the 20 -year planning period ,
as well as near-term distribution improvements . The city updated its
Water Comprehensive Plan , which was approved by the Washington State
Department of Health on April 30 , 2010 .
34 . The City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan , adopted by the City
Council in 2011 , plans for the entire UGA and was designed to
accommodate the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 's population
projection for Ferndale .
35 . The Ferndale UGA is provided fire protection services from Whatcom
County Fire District 7 . Fire District 7 adopted a Capital Facility Plan in
2011 . This Capital Facility Plan indicates that the District can meet the
adopted level of service for the Ferndale UGA at the current time and also ,
with proposed capital facility and staffing improvements , over the 20 -year
planning period .
36 . Information from the City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan ( 2011 )
and the Fire District 7 Capital Facility Plan ( 2011 ) has been incorporated or
Page 7 of 12
referenced in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as required by
RCW 36 . 70A . 070 ( 3 ) .
37 . Based on the population allocation , and considering the proposed UGA
boundaries , the land capacity analysis shows a small deficit of residential
capacity, but is essentially in balance .
38 . Based on the employment allocation and the proposed UGA boundaries ,
the land capacity analysis shows a small surplus of capacity but is
essentially in balance .
39 . Consistent with RCW 36 . 70A . 110 , the Ferndale UGA has sufficient capacity
to accommodate projected growth , densities allowed are urban in nature ,
and adequate public facilities and services can be provided . The land
capacity analysis was done consistent with the county -wide methodology .
The rationale for the UGA size includes bringing a greater balance between
supply and demand for urban land .
40 . The City has an " annexation blueprint" map ( City of Ferndale
Comprehensive Sewer Plan , Exhibit A, March 2011 ) . Ferndale anticipates
refining this map when the UGA boundary is finalized . The blueprint will
facilitate planning for the timely , efficient and coordinated expansion of
service .
41 . Urban Growth Area Reserves are areas that are adjacent and
contiguous to Urban Growth Areas which appear to be suitable for future
inclusion of the respective Urban Growth Area . " ( Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan , Appendix A) . The locational criteria for Urban Growth
Area Reserves state that these are "Areas adjacent and contiguous to
Urban Growth Areas in which urban development would likely occur beyond
current growth allocations" ( Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan ,
Chapter 2 ) .
42 . The Vista/ Brown Rd . area , which was in the Ferndale UGA from 1997 to
2009 , is proposed as UGA Reserve . This area is surrounded on three sides
by UGA . This area is south of employment centers along Grandview Road
and north of schools . Vista Dr . provides a transportation corridor and
potential utility corridor between the existing City limits and the northern
portion of the UGA .
43 . Other areas proposed as UGA Reserves were in the UGA from 1997 until
2011 . These areas are adjacent to the UGA and are generally in the vicinity
of existing or planned water lines, sewer lines and/or schools .
44 . The Ferndale City Council recommended that all land removed from the
UGA (Vista/ Brown Rd . area and the other areas) be classified as UGA
Reserves ( Ferndale City Council Notice of Decision , May 17 , 2011 ) .
Page 8 of 12
•
45 . Areas being removed from the Ferndale UGA are not, by this action ,
designated as resource lands of long -term commercial significance under
RCW 36 . 70A . 170 .
Conclusions
1 . Whatcom County concludes that the proposed amendments conform to the
requirements of the Growth Management Act regarding the designation
and review of urban growth areas .
a . The proposed amendments are consistent with Whatcom County
County -wide Planning Policies , including the designation and review of
u rban growth areas .
b . The comprehensive plans of the county and the city accommodate the
u rban growth projected to occur in the Ferndale UGA in the succeeding
twenty year period .
c . The comprehensive plan and development regulations include areas
and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth projected to occur
in the county or city for the succeeding twenty- year period .
d . Whatcom County reached agreement with the City of Ferndale on the
location of an urban growth area through extensive consultation and
direct meetings , including ongoing discussions after Petitions for
Review were submitted to the Growth Management Hearings Board and
the 2011 Growth Management Hearings Board decision that the
Ferndale UGA was oversized .
e . The urban growth area includes those areas already characterized by
u rban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service
capacities to serve such development or are within areas that will be
served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities
and services and any additional needed public facilities and services .
f. This ordinance has taken into consideration actions to mitigate or
cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state .
g . The Ferndale UGA can be provided with adequate public facilities and
services in accordance with RCW 36 . 70A . 020 ( 1 ) and ( 12 ) and RCW
36 . 70A . 110 .
2 . Whatcom County concludes that the amendments to the comprehensive
plan and development regulations harmonize the GMA planning goals in
RCW 36 . 70A . 020 .
a . The public participation goals of the Growth Management Act have
been met through the Public Involvement Plan , including early and
continuous public involvement, opportunities through public meetings ,
public hearings and public notices as legally required by state and
county laws and regulations .
Page 9 of 12
b . The proposed amendments protect resource lands of long -term
commercial significance from urban development .
c . The proposed amendments are consistent with the housing planning
goal of the GMA, as the review and designation of adequately sized
urban growth areas, combined with the variety of planned residential
densities within the city and the unincorporated areas of the county
promote a variety of residential densities and the affordability of homes
by providing adequate lands supply within urban growth areas for
development of a variety of housing types .
d . The proposed amendments do not take any private property for public
use .
e . The proposed amendments do not impair the retention of open spaces
within and between the urban growth areas of the county which have
been identified consistent with RCW 36 . 70A . 160 on Map 10 - Open
Space Corridors - within the comprehensive plan , and that the
amendments are consistent with the open space goal of the GMA ,
which encourages retention of open spaces .
f. Whatcom County considered the availability of lands for employment
and economic development purposes and concludes that by providing
adequate land supply within the urban growth area where businesses
can develop and expand , the proposed amendments are consistent
with the economic development goal of the GMA .
g . The transportation impacts of various alternative urban growth
strategies were examined in the EIS . The proposed amendments ,
which encourage urban growth in urban areas and the development of
efficient multimodal transportation systems by encouraging population
growth into areas where transportation by means other than
automobile may be more easily developed , are consistent with the
transportation planning goal of the GMA .
3 . Whatcom County concludes that the Vista/ Brown Rd . area and other areas
proposed as UGA Reserves meet the definition and locational criteria set
forth in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan for UGA Reserves .
4 . Whatcom County concludes that the proposed comprehensive plan
amendments are consistent with the criteria for amendment of the
comprehensive plan .
a . The studies and record made or accepted by the department of
planning and development services, include but are not limited to the
Final Environmental Impact Statement ( October 2009 ) , the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement ( May 2009 ) , review of densities
permitted within urban growth areas , as well as rural growth ( Whatcom
County Urban Growth Area Proposal , Appendix A, August 2009 ) , land
Page 10of12
capacity and demand results (Appendix B, August 2009 , revised in
April/ May 2011 ) , public participation activities summary (Appendix D ,
August 2009 ) and assessment of existing Whatcom County countywide
population and employment growth projections ( February 2009 ) .
These studies , when viewed along with the ruling of the Growth
Management Hearings Board , indicate changed conditions that show
the need for the amendments proposed .
b . The public interest will be served by approving the amendment .
i . The rate or distribution of growth and development has been
studied as part of the review process as demonstrated in the EIS
and other documents provided as part of the record .
ii . The effect on county and other service providers is documented
in the Whatcom County 20 -Year Capital Facilities Plan , the EIS
and other environmental documents .
iii . This ordinance does not include expansion of urban growth areas
into designated resource lands .
c . The amendments do not include or facilitate spot zoning .
5 . Whatcom County concludes that the proposed amendments to the zoning
map are consistent with the Growth Management Act and the Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan .
a . The development regulations are consistent with and implement the
comprehensive plan as required in the Growth Management Act .
b . The development regulations encourage urban growth within the urban
growth area and prohibit urban development without adequate public
facilities and services by limiting the density allowed for development
without extension of water and sewer, while also requiring concurrency
for public facilities .
c . The development regulations prohibit urban growth outside urban
growth areas .
d . The special provisions of WCC 20 . 90 . 063 do not apply as the
amendments are not defined as site specific rezones .
6 . Whatcom County considered the potential effects of this proposal on the
environment by review of the impacts analyzed in the DEIS and FEIS , as
well as considering whether certain areas were more environmentally
suitable for urban development than others . The proposed amendments
are consistent with the environment planning goal of the GMA, encouraging
the protection of the environment in land use decisions , and consistent with
the procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act .
7 . Whatcom County concludes that no action is proposed that would take
property for public use or unduly burden a property owner by leaving him
or her without a reasonable use of his or her property , or otherwise deprive
Page 11of12
him or her of legally recognized rights . This is consistent with Whatcom
County Charter Section 1 . 11 , which states , "The rights of the individual
citizen shall be guaranteed under the Constitutions of the United States
and the State of Washington . No regulation or ordinance shall be drafted
and adopted without consideration of and provisions for compensation to
those unduly burdened . "
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that :
Section 1 . The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan ( Chapters 2 , 4 , 6 and 8 ) is
hereby amended as shown on Exhibit 1 .
Section 2 . The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan ( sewer provisions of the
Whatcom County 20 -Year Capital Facilities Plan ) is hereby amended as shown on
Exhibit 2 .
Section 3 . The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan ( fire protection provisions of
the Whatcom County 20 -Year Capital Facilities Plan ) is hereby amended as shown
on Exhibit 3 .
Section 4 . The Official Whatcom County Zoning Map is hereby amended as shown in
Exhibit 4 .
Section 5 . Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections , clauses , or provisions of
this Ordinance shall not affect or impair the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or
any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid .
ADOPTED this 9th day of August 2011 .
\o t *IBA T EOM COUNTY COUNCIL
TTEST : • Fj flM OUNTY, WASH N A' N
COUNTY $; "
y
•
yDan Brown - Davis , C . cil �CJJr&TATE OF * : Si Crawford , Co ncil Chair
0 • y .
S O •
° • . y/ NG-C • •
• •® •
APPROVED as to form : ��' , - - * ‘,.\\\\ ( Ap . • ved ( ) Denied
irk/ .
Civil Vrurfilintrecutor ' ete Kremen , Executive
Date :
12 of 12
14, 2011 Exhibit 1 — Comp Plan Amendments
1July
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Exhibit 1
Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
( Chapters 2 , 4 , 6 and 8 )
NOTE # 1 : For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes, portions of the
Comprehensive Plan that are not being modified by this ordinance are not shown below. The
text, goals, policies and maps that are not shown below are retained as previously adopted .
1
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 1 — Comp Plan Amendments
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Chapter Two
LAND USE
Ferndale
County goals encourage Ferndale to develop residentially zoned areas at average net densities of
five to ten units per net developable acre. Net developable acreage is calculated by subtracting
areas with development limitations such as steep slope, flood areas, and other critical areas, and
land needed for rights-of-way, utilities, infrastructure, and open space.
Issues in defining the Ferndale Urban Growth Area include protection of wetlands, provision of
serviced industrial land , inclusion of adjacent land with services and urban levels of development
or urban zoning , and proximity to the Bellingham UGA.
The Grandview Industrial Park is included in the urban growth area . This inclusion supports the
policies in the Economics chapter of this plan to provide a sufficient supply of serviced industrial
land .
Ferndale provides most of the urban governmental services within the Urban Growth Area , except
for fire protection and schools. The City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan , adopted by the
City in 2011 , includes improvements to the wastewater treatment plant to serve planned growth
over the 20-year planning period .The city's 1996 sewer plan has a horizon of 2015 , but the city is
in the procese of updating this plan in 2010 . The City of Ferndale does not experience any
sewage capacity LOS deficits in the 6 year timcframc ending in 2015 . However, small sewage
until the city updates its wastewater treatment plan . The City of Ferndale 2006 Water System
Plan indicates that the city has adequate water rights and contracts to meet water system
demands to the end of its 2026 planning period . The Ferndale School District has a capital
facilities plan , which has been adopted by Whatcom County.
Fire District 7 serves the City of Ferndale . The Whatcom County Fire District No. 7 Capital
Facilities Plan , adopted by the District in 2011 , indicates that the District currently meets the level
of service standard for the Ferndale UGA. Additionally, the Plan indicates that, with proposed
capital facility and staffing improvements, the District will meet the level of service standard over
the 20-year planning period . The Fire District does not have a capital facilities plan .
Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA-4)
North
The Urban Growth Area extends north to include the commercial / industrial area around the
Grandview Road / 1-5 interchange. Land between the Grandview industrial area and the Ferndale
city center is designated Urban Growth Area Reserve , as this area may be a logical extension of
the Urban Growth Area in the future. The area between the Grandview commercial / industrial
area and the Ferndale city center has been included in the Urban Growth area and zoned for
2
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 1 — Comp Plan Amendments
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
West
Areas west of the city are included in the UGA, as these areas are generally located in proximity
to existing water lines , sewer lines and/or schools . mees a - e • . • _ - a -
..
- - - - -
East
There are only limited areas to the east that are included within the Urban Growth Area . Existing
large lot development patterns to the east make the extension of efficient public facilities and
services to this area more difficult.
South
Very little land area to the south has been included in the urban growth area .
GOAL 2W: Provide a sufficient Urban Growth Area for Ferndale to retain existing
character and attain Growth Management Act and county land use
goals.
Policy 2W- 1 : Support City of Ferndale planning efforts for in-fill development within the
existing city limits and development of its UGA.
Policy 2W-2 : Ensure that adequate capital facilities can be provided to the Grandview
Industrial area within a timely fashion to accommodate development of the
area .
Policy 2W-3 : Establish a revenue sharing agreement which fairly compensates the
county if a loss of revenue from the Grandview Industrial Area exceeds
reduction in associated costs .
Policy 2W-4: Encourage Ferndale to work towards development of a "wetland bank" to
mitigate impacts of development on scattered wetland areas within the city.
Policy 2W-5: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Ferndale, as needed , to
provide for:
• policies regarding utility service outside the UGA.
• identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they
will be paid for.
• zoning designations and density within the UGA.
• coordination with the county of greenbelts and open space.
• timing and procedures to be used for review of adequate land supply.
• consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan
3
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 1 — Comp Plan Amendments
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
I Delete existing Map UGA-4 and replace it with the map shown below:
Map UGA-4
11/ kirl' �� _� . �: Ali ��iIN`
cc
tS ii -- P-,
-� : �
• . r .LPG t IT I
I"IN 0 a! =_Igria ___.sa oisi llpriN vL� • . w Pole lal
•
I��II�:a �B'�`��lira ,4 ``u w 4y*tt' �5� 4u, �, �� make ■ i'�'III
ZEZZANI t • • e < 5 \ -�`1 . ' RI a �'
�.f ,
1141
16pilemmii
ME
Lia�� �� 3;= 4 a.=.= ra , . 'rte - �.. w 16dllllllinll - i1 si
I
ti ft) (g, -- �R' ��1 a i lI „ 'is-szt ig �r an
S 9 .r. .:. Mk .:�.,`; . M s., , . . ` -� .11 1.
7 �� g -� 'ate 11 j ling ME
i' y �• r
[ij !■��kw ` � � ,.. rr 2 r '� ;ar 17 - ��S ; i "3 UHii •�GlT �Illl��r i mid
��I ��...J!.j���.' ` ;J .. ,-- �n'$� cti ''''N;-”"i 1' � ����III
0
II:�IJ led. /�',,� �a a H - 7: . ° .Z�°°= " trill"
L _rl '� % ate ' irx ;-1" ' E MI
"Ew r .. ..: A , . 1� PRI isli1A� 1
LL � '� . "= aniai •i �;.ii'
riiii 16 li
ill
r � - kt,¢ yI '` ti 14111, 11 l� 11 li;i
solo_aA� sia = r-R , . z a� A „ s - �&j*,,i •l1
do mwr 7 '
liss
ra
i ,r
Irturt Ra hors x v.. ..) �f 1��! .d111�;�1�1��
,puPannsbxarvtnrs pm __I
m Ir� iris
2011 sbw.
- Ferndale Urban Growth Area
t °.
Urban Growth Area °A
21111 ' .
aE�w9'�lwrcoum^seuwnu■vurslaeueaa e \ °e
, .. Aa■E�1EnMn■FOLLOWSVATEMEJC i ,
I
W/rwefw.btl-41wrE•+n•p.Ir, bflZMIelr•mro � '
' Urban Growth Area Reserve Is _ _.��. _ - 'NW*map nag an repadbillty
Drq�m tll•bold En* S.mind Ng
lama lets.u mII,flM M.O.n r tf n-.
Me,
0 015 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
4
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 1 — Comp Plan Amendments
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
U rban Growth Area Reserves
The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map includes the designation of Urban
Growth Area Reserves . Urban Growth Area Reserves means a land use designation that may be
applied to those areas which are adjacent and contiguous to either incorporated or unincorporated
U rban Growth Areas which appear to be suitable for future inclusion in the respective Urban
Growth Area . The purpose of the Urban Growth Area Reserve varies by urban area. Expansion
of urban growth into the Reserve area may occur if criteria are met.
U pon establishing an Urban Growth Area Reserve, Whatcom County will establish land use
controls intended to reserve the area for future urban densities and development by limiting the
potential of the properties to be developed with incompatible uses , densities, or public facilities
which would interfere with the likely expansion of urban development in the future. Properties in
these areas should generally have land use designations of no more than one unit per ten acres,
and uses such as agriculture, forestry, conservation , and low density residential development,
may be encouraged provided that the continuation of such uses may not be a basis for preventing
future expansion of the Urban Growth Area to the Urban Growth Area Reserve.
General criteria for transferring properties from the Urban Growth Area Reserve to the Urban
Growth Area are set forth below:
1 . Need for Land Capacity. The need for additional land is necessary due to growth higher
than allocated to the urban area or less land capacity than analyzed . A transfer from
Urban Growth Area Reserve to Urban Growth Area will not be allowed which would
provide capacity to accommodate substantially more than 20 years of urban growth .
Additional consideration can be made regarding the mix of housing and employment
opportunities that are required to serve the Urban Growth Area which could be
accommodated in the Urban Growth Area Reserve and which cannot be accommodated
within the Urban Growth Area .
2 . Adequate Public Facilities and Services. There are plans and capacity to serve the areas
with urban governmental services as set forth in the Growth Management Act. There is
no requirement to extend these services prior to transferring the area from Urban Growth
Area Reserve to Urban Growth Area, but the Capital Facility Plans must document the
capacity and plans to serve at urban levels of service within the 20-year planning period .
3. Land Use Plans. The respective city, or county for unincorporated Urban Growth Areas,
have comprehensive plans and land use regulations in place to allow for the transition
from Urban Growth Area Reserve to Urban Growth Area. The respective jurisdiction will
also have in place development regulations that ensure urban densities are achieved
within the existing Urban Growth Area . Urban Growth Area Reserves should be jointly
planned between Whatcom County and the respective city_;
4. Natural Resource Lands. Expansion into the Urban Growth Area Reserve will not allow
uses that are incompatible with adjoining natural resource lands unless mitigated through
buffers , increased setbacks or other measures as necessary to maintain the productivity of
the adjacent resource lands . If the expansion is into lands zoned Agricultural , the city and
county shall have an interlocal agreement or regulations in place that implement a
program that outlines the respective roles in protecting at least 100 , 000 acres of
agricultural land in Whatcom County.
5 . Environment. Land use regulations are in place to ensure protection of the environment
and sensitive watersheds .
5
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 1 — Comp Plan Amendments
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
6 . Open Space Corridors . Continued provisions are made for open space corridors within
and between Urban Growth Areas where not otherwise precluded by previous
development patterns.
Below are issues , established by urban area that must be addressed in order to authorize areas
to be re-designated from Urban Growth Area Reserve to Urban Growth Area .
Ferndale Urban Area
Lands in the vicinity of Enterprise Rd . and Slater Rd . have been designated as Urban Growth
Area Reserves for future employment growth at the request of the City of Ferndale . A portion.
of the Enterprise UGA Reserve on the northeast side of the Ferndale Urban Growth Area is within
the Drayton Harbor Watershed . The City may utilize this area as a corridor to provide utilities to
the Grandview area . The Slater Urban Growth Area Reserve , on the southeast side of Ferndale ,
is adjacent to and abuts the Bellingham UGA and consultation with the City of Bellingham will be
required before this area is designated as Ferndale UGA. Both the Enterprise and Slater Urban
Growth Area Reserves include existing rural and residential uses that must be considered when
developing land use plans for these areas. Lands in the Vista/Brown , Thornton , Mtn . View and
Douglas Rd . areas have been designated as Urban Growth Area Reserves for future residential
growth . These Reserves are logical areas for the city to grow and should be jointly planned with
the city and county in conjunction with Urban Growth Area plans .
6
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 1 — Comp Plan Amendments
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
� � t
e re �^' f�a .;f a ask . 2° sraNU r ee, a' CauY&�. ...) mc
I - _..... yp•_ .. ) soma-{- i`� ^'pw•he ,� ; Sa eeaMwalsa
` ` I \ I 3 lYn4an 1
,f {, 6 z.. � f �.. . � "aa" ------ , ,d Ft 1 F x .>
�� I _ i I . `
1n iLT wgom}an
emr A t I
j •
, I 1- 1 1, fed cw.Rd. an • ' },. k ws t o ♦ % I PoiMRobet s I I — 'i 1• 'a.wr••
sz r , YFambMr L. r 4r— C° Y t. � - : I
oe q
N. ,. '.c t .� s - s 1 Imo,
1 „ i
42■ y A
•`:'rAj4F} Ira ' . .i4. . .i;
e e f :d W^ATC
� tiL
rF `` . 7I
ICAMa 1 Y' +OP r\0." - 3 ✓ w
f' .,1� d Homo 1+1/41' Smr♦ .. ,...
rr a ` .1 t�nq Fnswn
II"' .. ri e v ' I t
jF r,�`�� x _ � (`��-'1 Inter � � � °+Ir'h' "`•o' t I 22 i Y " ^r'� �sb' Cpaj vaw 4 3 * ter I �I
I. '1' �yk3u4.r� ttyfi L ,c I� 'J { , "� 174.:S_ 't I f
'^'tea .Gts�' � - _ C ., Swtai-�uxn �'�: rrl � _r': %., " <.. '` ": ,- ` ' :�� .. .. �. l �;,:`'.r
�/""^ro Whatcom
x Legend
•1x""'1 County
Incorporated City limits Rural Rural Forestry ^COI : r^'Yeni°1'•Y"a'tamcUi°° t°o'OH'°" Map 1r8
Y •SSTs bl DCC. 30. Hx4 wwcb an..At in rM
?1:' ' Comprehensive wIM.•MUwavwuaxwrrlw aa,m nn. Comprehensive
, w '; Urban Growth Area Rural Community s Commercial Forestry amwL.an n.a m,MYl, wn. n,Ia,"w
Plan X ,mw mw 1MGra nawwM.aUMai.awMN, Plan
nuln � N Urban Growth Area Reserve Rural Business ' Mineral Resource Lands ""^'"m•unm"H"""'
0 1 2 5 e Designations
Major/Pon Industrial UGA Agriculture ,{, Public Recreation
t ,�`" �.�. '; ' g9i �^Y a`i n x u *.- ''`3 � � S r�. s ,k'� t: , r :h .:x . ,---
� 5 dr. SS ,S: - .xi ) .„� %
yattirtWtVe>r 8 7eyy,a e . 3 wrsnawrax.-” J I�� �{us—n f - J/�� //// ��� S t i 1 I ,>,; _■
,1 c('1' 1 et. J� I J-,-1-•e I n c S'- sq I : • { C, , • / --(5 {/ ' Vi ! T: --. � � l -r i
y °� frv- xwMr I . t ` J A d / \•, Sz � Y'l I is �� ; ' +I p ' � tP �L.. y't ' ''yc ., 1C2i/ . Y9 r �Yoil- � .
' r \ an4 t/ 1 t .. ••(/' �� ,G:r �' / ��' ' 1 .� I -•• !�T / I l �xoxrt�b i / l t
�„ r-rI 1 _� I . %J / /i% %/ r 1,14 i I-c�"a+ ; i li /I iii
ir s x E (t J%i� li a - .- yTri• �_cr l I .1�•� � �j / 7 F!J/,y . . ':
�'"'° r ' r-( I IL axwa I / ) r 1 JX fj ) "°"r'�r 1•
%PW ovens „
>,•.//4 I� \z'} Iy , - 11• } , )1H ,4 % . I�%. '
•
p: ? t - � \ I/ L _ J - � ' / F• �j t I 1 y�� r l � i i' a, : /
0. -- r; . \ . / /i $ )Iy ! t 1 �- j- r ., , 0 � 7.-'I
0. •
�� r . 5 y i t Y i i- ,✓/f� {� � a.l,'.'. +`L } }r % ...1 r0 ..If
1• } '�i� 01: 1-^ temrF UV 41^ ceiiFVU.'. • l I / ♦-r . f ( f f
a Y �•° wzy / , 2, i i y }t. I • ,esa _ zr t/�i G4� ' _I ,`—W., !K1
Ift
k I�Ib t. .�%
A a "✓ I "Salt f..'" / '', •'1 'II i (-4--'J J# rTl �' - t i' -•
"6 + 1 r , �/ . �/ ".1.41.11.1 1 F i T1r1( i I f J i � ) - 7 /.an
r
a t ', lam. % , -' "a"° �. ��� YI >/ v-' � �� 5 ' � flip.
l j uawa � �� ; ��:.. � �� � i LI . 1 � �1 1{ rrt � ! J J^.
sr mvu I ;F'a .� rl / h �� Yf✓ 1r / j�n lr -r10,1=;46-'.t.;f /i r' u %i//...
! � efa. i/ 1�"' ; " f" ✓a �r. F.>%
a t I r 5 I . . r J wruYCOx xrv( r
.a .,. .�. .aswleSrn/Mh';➢.x _- , . ,+-:., e "�. s ..r , •z <..C73-. sue,. .v . 1t�
, ,^.,. Whatcom ` w'..:"" °.:, ,.. °`.. .,°^ Ma #10
le "� Legend Urban Growth Areas Trails - Existing and Proposed p
,,, . Coon '„ ..,�a�.�.,>"..�aAw.a 4.�,...q.._ .,,.�.e.. f"
f4 t. Comprehensive >;-az,., Parks & Preserves a Public Shoreline - Developed _ M.N. .mow Open Space
w::w Plan nrrap.. Natural Shoreline Designation
• Public shoreline - Undevelopetl °•`•"`•'^"°" Corridors
wn: TN Remus Cary couMCaeepse a*w,ce Hera o"o.c x{ aria,
Niles a whim win'nark. lMwwntl"n wKWO.NUNY IN riM M tlx 6raWlaw R6
0 1 2 4 6 e �� FEMA FIoodplain - January itat Public Shoreline Potential ...o, oF-rid I, rl4a nfpshows
NO rinriJ.iawaew.YM amwha,"Y wltlJn
Riparian Areas, Wildlife Rabi[at H.uryHFarriaw.
7
July 14> 2011 Exhibit 1 — Comp Plan Amendments
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Chapter Four
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Policy 4N-9 The Whatcom County Fire District No . 7 Capital Facilities Plan , dated May
2011 , is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan (except that the
UGA boundaries shown in the Fire District No . 7 Capital Facilities Plan are
not adopted by reference) .
8
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 1 — Comp Plan Amendments
l Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Chapter Six
TRANSPORTATION
No Text Amendments Proposed
oc r T s r- -a
\ 3, �� SUMQS� `, .x g _ n'"
gee iefftetto 4.4 BLAINE ri 1 y x„s ,,t . 3i la I zc ie �°ar? '' s ' �;
2 Re Ix, A : . �'LP` s y�pp r2^ 3 mt�+' )3./ S d a• v
•
- e ^' te 444e LYNDEN 3e4t3$.,,r,j y u$. T. s pi ; ' 4 9 .� , 4,40-7,-.5 " ,� � .Pt4- 8." '•' „ ✓/`� zv" . .1 fs� ro`' a+ts °{ , t� 1 4 F� �aE. r ,. _ .
1
``. r - . d
." fr• ig e-1. f, . A ,,,E4`�ERSON� 4 �,.n r .. spa-rd"C ! yl „
� _ aW t :. - s / F 4.
�1 �� �¢ FERNDi E M s { 'r� , yi 13 $ ,, . tO" i.=` 1 ffF' � . fG � .. 2 4.
/lrR� 5e ruu.. f'; A` ° '✓ Syr ""',try, " y_r. r r .+ .e° .,,`fs' t'g N;irra
/tom' �A5-.z 4 i 490144 ci'
/ �/ , CI �,n w `^# `1M., }1.47::, `�` .: :jam ,eJ4� ¢Y
in .. -` +3J F � A '`" {- w^' 1 O .vx,� ,� G F• BEHAM b �H' i�� y ' l w •I,' C�f5 . jpqpWNG
we
1 - ���� • fir' a °! .61),11'S;44it o- � 'v F
r b 'T �} a J,'.n - -�lz h
Legend
Map #14A
r�.� WhetCOm Equal To Or Less Than +r»�d+.wc�u.sw.eorsm..�rrrsoen.•.�a zora
�`A .rm.rrwewn•.w..xm•r is Gammon adon .w.ma
Courtly Urban Growth Areas Wlboprry LOS.BO - cnuw., "•°"'N'•'011. TM•W^0'•r^iOii°'r"•1gf". ----B
Mr�b•afyaR Randal*
Level of Service
'•,;d° ` Comprehensive ��� LummiReservation — vaboap•dPLos - rtnclvuyR Standards
Plan a)rrWr, w�WLbospw4/LogBO - autlPM1iw/aM•
, • Incorporated City — W mc. LOS
. ! . oewm.ma•m Volume/CapaeityRatio
_ st_tv ..-
9
1July 14, 2011 Exhibit 1 — Comp Plan Amendments
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Chapter Eight
RESOURCE LANDS
No Text Amendments Proposed
t ;: 4 Y F '?
$��'' f p,� �� i!✓ essmq s� Y"� . rq€- s ...Sr t•
J �r ��� q,� b� 6' t �i � r ° y 7s y .e r :' /�� b ' i"" 0
n t0Nr- %sr'vr v, �rn,fr �' C a r , a r r f'9 T §7 fi>' ,/',.'.r r ,'.i., D r s
.r J yg R , t rl .. Fl ° f
<dr✓'ga °�f9' ., fJ}v a ` ��2wi Nr 1r ! . . �� �::, qn •g)) �
s✓ taiiP " RF t "" 2 s �� dos � I ro3 , ,,� . . �� C s _. '
P >lsyvisd� L.-::::, '' e es a ®rte 'w mil t1w 'F fl > .1"% efi $ ,
,PTV Ji �Jrj �s. � t � � f r � f ' �a ' � ?
.,rp 1 . ddl, F� y�� > r ,,. . ' / _ el kl k �' " z
1%/ea v v e,§p. F x,. ,y . rr
s slip asB/6 grit .4475-ri --' 4473 7P ••••• -i + f r 4 � .
.� : d� l af,,✓✓ :�.�rsm'g" s ra #so-r'`'` �` � •'�� � •44•-, •• ••••,./. ®� � : a .t `�' ♦: y .. .....^' ^ r
� 'S ✓ -„�
rBV.f`d���y
s6 as�� rf � ®• yr Js r�r ' � dg ! j :'£ a T >. Y rs •' . 's , r .rte .4
Mr J f N• er✓ PoCkq9 X V.., r !" , , c frFsne.#9 EJ rst '.�� B � y 1 e�e fr Pxa j � ih 6s 1 � f �P R ./ P +' 6 a , .✓ n >a} � A r,yyd��4!//!� sF 'a'' ?a�p. °9 �P, � .: 1 .3 J �,,} . e� ' m -
< \�- .. �i"�6 R @ �sZ sr d P ls) Y.r r e 0 / ,d V ( C. s I, i 5 1:. ?ri� Y , . e it: P
r '. %il �e it na r°,Es' '� �i > q.'`O/se o j , " �r w '.r
d .:1 ti� 6 .'.- "1. e!' c..mi Sitrr0! ?. Per �l e :i/9e6,� .+��'p ¢a d l . v 'rr 2� 3 a
I. ci1/4,15 1C•E^ p A ® ,o d + ddJ J 9. 6 6' �G e i d1
`rvieme" .mra � $"s i �;�176y.1t� v im . �6' 1 J ?;r �° > rte' a
' / �� @ iG render / ,P9eii 9f's 0 .. ..• "PA t °a9�p 1 s, v
�f a'✓ 1 � Ft�� /� rf/r eru� 0....,n .f 9 °!� 9d✓�j° e � v 4m - ,✓+` f' #' i>
e / t tit ..1.0Ir49 {r n. ry n5' 9jf,'0 J. 1. etp s f 2 J. may:'.•✓4 re Bi9.,, ,b a sI Pa, GFdd'.'> , ✓ �m +' x;. I� y F ‘:-.4v->6:6614:01104411610641; 11.616.61•1241410.64 •
✓ re, I S t" "ere, s ,Att/ raai �i a , c r� r ' y ,j
E "O 4,r t ',4 i '� -. .. P�•
rye �p 7
y, . . ®°.� v' i ��r�Sri,, '%O" -` °'�a ,: - 'r ';I } � � '
` t� ' i4142i e, yam. eJd, z Mg r,-8, b A, yctt' °tea .,75: Xr Cr f m,� ' A a ' M `IA Y ,may J _ " :� '
F m pg
£ « y 4 F -- .m -?Ir
47traztar-azit-Wnra.;.1.4ear) ,. v'-�`t j 1 {'%10 4- Yf $'` �ld i . d iM$ % 4 y 6... r�fp
n1r . e .. ` o�1 '( -^rte '' : zr � 4 p
misiNli %gt 1-- :All 4� rgp /,�dg "' 4111' Cyr?s :.. . T•
� io v ° Tet�+ *edr .,..ix
so."—"„,, Whatcom Legend Map #19
"" ` County , .;: APO Soils and Agriculture Open Space APO Protection Areas
Comprehensive APO Soils, Agricultural Open
`__ Plan n,.ymn,bw. ST, APO Solis
etlNeW jproxi�MYfNSmHtlw�ere,M1�R6
0 , 2 4 6 8 Agriculture Open Space without APO Soils °^ ossie•a°^• ��^°°"ea ^��^WCeu,+^Space, andAPOProteetionArea
uw ayaP.etlr.
10
•
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Exhibit 2
Whatcom County 20 -Year .
Capital Facilities Plan
Amendments
( Sewer Provisions)
NOTE # 1 : For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes, portions of the Whatcom
County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan that are not being modified by this ordinance are not
shown below. The text and maps that are not shown below are retained as previously
adopted.
1
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Amend the "Executive Summary " of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan
(Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows:
Sanitary Sewer
A review of LOS standards found in individual sewer purveyor' s plans in relation to population
and employment projections indicate that the City of Bellingham, Birch Bay Water and Sewer
District, City of Lynden, City of Sumas, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District have
adequate sewage treatment capacity to meet projected demands through 2029. The City of
Everson shows a sewage treatment deficit in 2029 and the city' s own analysis of sewage
treatment capacity indicates that it has available capacity to meet approximately 8 to 12 years of
residential growth and that expansion of the sewage treatment plant will be necessary. In
addition, the City of Blaine expects to provide an additional 0 .7 MGD of sewage treatment
capacity when its new wastewater treatment plant starts operation in 2010 . With this additional
sewage treatment capacity, the City of Blaine is expected to have a sewage treatment capacity
reserve in both 2015 and 2029. The City of Nooksack, which shares a sewage treatment plant
with City of Everson, is expected to have a sewage treatment deficit in 13 to 15 years. Expansion
of the Everson sewage treatment plant would be needed to accommodate growth in City of
Nooksack to 2029. Water District 13 , serving the Columbia Valley UGA, has existing capacity
of approximately 197 additional connections and Evergreen Water and Sewer District does not
provide sewer service at the present time. Additional sewer planning will be needed to serve
growth in the Columbia Valley UGA. The City of Ferndale wouldis expecting to have sewage
treatment deficits in 2029 if no improvements were made to the existing wastewater treatment
plantas well. However, Ferndale adopted a comprehensive sewer plan in 2011 to address needed
improvements to serve planned growth over the 20-year planning period. For those service
providers with plans, a variety of short and long-term projects are identified to address
deficiencies (see Sanitary Sewer Capital Project and Funding Section) . For those service
providers without an adopted plan, the Capital Facilities Implementation section of this CFP
provides options for addressing any identified deficiencies in their capital planning process.
2
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Amend the "Sanitary Sewer " chapter of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan
(Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows:
Sanitary Sewer
Overview
There are a total of 10 wastewater collection systems and seven wastewater treatment facilities
that serve UGAs in Whatcom County. Most of the facilities provide services within city limits
with plans for future service to areas designated as UGAs. However, some systems provide
service to unincorporated UGAs (Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, Water District 13 , and
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District).
Inventory of Current . Facilities
The following cities and sewer districts (in alphabetical order) provide sanitary sewer services in
the County:
• City of Bellingham maintains a collection system within its city limits and operates wastewater
treatment facilities that are also used by Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. The city
plans future service within its UGA and for connections to both undeveloped properties and
those that are using septic systems within the city limits.
• Birch Bay Water & Sewer District owns and operates a collection and treatment system that
serves the Birch Bay UGA and portions of the Blaine and Cherry Point UGAs.
• City of Blaine provides a collection and a wastewater treatment system for property within the
city limits. There is a second wastewater treatment facility located in Blaine that was
constructed in 1986 to treat wastewater from the Port of Bellingham and fish processors that
lease from the Port of Bellingham other than T.M. Protein. The city plans to serve portions
of its UGA that are not served by Birch Bay Water and Sewer District.
• The City of Everson maintains a collection system to serve property within the city limits. The
city' s sewer system also provides wastewater. treatment for the City of Nooksack. Both cities
provide funding for operation and maintenance of the treatment facility. The city sewer utility
plans future service to areas within its UGA.
• The City of Ferndale provides a sewer collection and treatment facility for property within the
city limits as well as future service to the city' s UGA_ and the area to the east in "North
Beihroan
• Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly called Water District 10) maintains a sanitary
sewer collection system that serves the UGA adjacent to Lake Whatcom, east of the city
limits. This special district relies upon the City of Bellingham wastewater system for
treatment.
• The City of Lynden provides sewer collection and treatment facilities for property within the
city limits and future collection and treatment to the city' s UGA.
• City of Nooksack constructed a wastewater collection system for property within the city limits
in 1989. The city has plans to provide future service to unserved properties within its city
limits and to properties within its associated UGA. By agreement with the City of Everson,
3
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Nooksack pumps its sewage for treatment at the wastewater treatment plant located in
Everson. Nooksack also provides funding for the operation and maintenance of the Everson
wastewater treatment plant.
• The City of Sumas provides a wastewater collection system for property within the city limits.
Since 1999, the city has had wastewater treatment provided at a large regional treatment
facility in Abbotsford, BC owned and operated by Fraser Valley Regional District. The city
sanitary sewer utility has plans to extend service to UGA property upon annexation.
• Whatcom County Water District 13 provides wastewater collection and treatment to a portion of
the Columbia Valley UGA in unincorporated Whatcom County.
An inventory of existing wastewater facilities located in the County is presented in the table on
the following pages. The table summarizes millions of gallons treated per day, the most current
existing flow data, and surpluses or deficits for each of the wastewater systems in the County.
Existing population served is also noted.
4
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Table 43. Sanitary Sewer Inventory
System
Name Collection System Treatment Plant Service Area Notes
Surplus/ 2008 Existing
Miles of Existing Design Flow Deficit Population Connection
Pipe Collection System Existing Conditions Flow (mgd) (mgd) 1 (mgd) Served2 s (ERU)
City of 324 The city operates and maintains approximately 12.5 20 7.5 86,990 26, 100
Bellingham 324 miles of mains and force mains. The system
includes 27 pump stations and associated force
mains, and one Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
structure. Modeling indicates that portions of the
interceptor downstream from Oak Street are close
to capacity. The system needs improvements to
collection system to limit CSO events to the
allowable frequency and volume. Long Term
Simulation modeling shows needs for additional
10 mgd conveyance and treatment capacity, or 1 .7
MG of storage to limit CSOs to 1 event per year in
2026. Additional collection system improvements
are required to maintain CSO volumes at current
"baseline" levels.
Lake 82. 18 District has completed several improvement 0.75 4.6 3.85 10,690 3,729 Relies on
Whatcom projects including Lake Louise Rd Interceptor and City of
Water & Sudden Valley Sewage Detention Basin. District Bellingham
Sewer also has an ongoing program to upgrade aging WWTP.
District sewer lift stations. District is also working to Flow is
decrease potential build-out density within the restricted by
district boundaries which allowed the district to contract with
decommission Clematis Pump Station. city to 3,200
gpm (4.6
mgd).
City of 40 The existing service area for the Blaine sewage 0.496 0.8 0.304 4, 780 2,391
Blaine treatment system is the Blaine city Limits. The City
of Blaine wastewater collection system consists of
gravity sewers, force mains and eight pumping
stations. The collection system is divided into two
primary areas which are separated by Drayton
5
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
System
Name Collection System Treatment Plant Service Area Notes
Surplus/ 2008 Existing
Miles of Existing Design Flow Deficit Population Connection
Pipe Collection System Existing Conditions Flow (mgd) (mgd) 1 (mgd) Served2 s (ERU)
Harbor. The Semiahmoo portion of the service
consists of the Resort Semiahmoo. Effluent from
Central Blaine is collected at Pump Station 1 on
Marine Drive, where it is pumped through a
submerged pipeline under the entrance to Drayton
Harbor to the sewage treatment plant. The city
invests in reducing I&I in the collection system as
well as investing in additional off-line storage for
peak rain events.
Birch Bay 52 District operates 11 pumps, 7 of which follow the 0.901 1 .28 0. 379 5, 970 6,658 3
Sewer beach line. The district monitors its I/1 in the
System collection system.
Plan
City of 8.52 Consists of 9 pump stations in City of Everson (in 0.270 0.44 0. 170 2,380 716
Everson addition, 4 pump stations are located in Nooksack
to serve that population). Rehabilitation of
manholes occurred in mid-1990's and study of l&I
finds that it does not exceed EPA standards.
City of 58.4842:6 Ferndale's existing collection system contains 2. 18 3.23 1 .05 11 .280 5. 183
Ferndale more than 308,000 lineal feet of sewer piping 1,5 1 . 73 4-314-30 NIA
(gravity and force main). It is made up of piping 4
to 48 inches in diameter. Approximately 64% of
the system consists of 8-inch gravity sewers.
There are also 17 pumping stations currently used
for transmission of wastewater flows.The-sewer
City of 37 Collection system includes 14 operating pump 1 .31 2. 18 0.87 • 11 ,610 4,440 4
6
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
System
Name Collection System Treatment Plant Service Area Notes
Surplus/ 2008 Existing
Miles of Existing Design Flow Deficit Population Connection
Pipe Collection System Existing Conditions Flow (mgd) (mgd) I (mgd) Served2 s (ERU)
Lynden stations. Three existing pump stations and some
associated force mains and piping were identified
as having inadequate capacity for projections to
2024. In addition sewer extensions will be needed
to service new development.
City of 6.89 Wastewater collection system has sufficient 0.075 See Notes N/A 1 , 140 250 Relies on
Nooksack capacity for future flows. The city anticipates City of
extension of existing collection system to serve Everson
new development. The city requires annexation of WWTP.
unincorporated areas of the UGA prior to service. Flow
restricted to
154,000 gpd
(0. 154 mgd).
City of 10 Collection system will be extended to serve new 0.2325 See Notes N/A 1 ,280 900 Relies on
Sumas development within city jurisdiction. New WWTP in
extensions to portions of the city that require Abbotsford,
crossing natural barriers of Bone Creek and BC. Contract
Sumas River are anticipated to be more expensive limits to
capital projects. The city requires annexation of 339,500 gpd
unincorporated areas of the UGA prior to service. in 2008,
increasing to
maximum
400,000 gpd
by 2019.
W.C. Water 4. 1 Collection system consists of 8- to 12-inch 0.056 0. 125 0.075 900-1 ,000 379 5
District #13 interceptor pipe, and 8-inch collector pipe. All
Sewer pipes are constructed of PVC. Interceptor and
collector pipe gravity drains to one pump station
which is then pumped through 1 ,800 feet of 4-inch
force main pipe to treatment systems comminutor
and the treatment plant.
mgd = million gallons per day, gpd = gallons per day, Ill = inflow and infiltration, CSO = combined sewer overflow, WWTP = wastewater treatment plant, N/A = not available
1 Based on the average day flow during peak flow month as reported on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
I 7
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
2 2008 Population provided by Berk & Associates estimates or comprehensive sewer plan. For Ferndale, population served is for 2010 (City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan , 2011 ,
p. 11 ).
3 Birch Bay uses "Equivalent Living Units". Information is from May 2009 Birch Bay Comprehensive Sewer Plan (see page 5-2). Information is from December 2008.
4 2007 data. Assuming 2.5 persons per ERU (Personal communication, Tammy Adams, Wastewater Plant Manager and Dean Martin, July 10, 2009).
5 Source is from Foothills Subarea Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (December 2008), p. 83
6 Personal communication: Rodney Langer email to Matt Aamot on 6/24/09 forwarding Kelly Wynn email.
Sources: Unless otherwise noted source comes from Department of Ecology NPDES Permit data (accessed via Internet February 5, 2009); review of latest sewer system plan; and Berk &
Associates for 2008 population.
8
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Level of Service Capacity Analysis
The adequacy of existing sewer facilities to meet present and future needs is based on the estimated gpd
of wastewater for the current population and the projected future population. This figure represents the
LOS standard for sewer service for sewer providers.
Most of the 10 sewer service providers have developed their own LOS standard based upon their local
geography and service area demographics. Table 44 outlines LOS standards established by each sewer
provider.
Table 44. Sewer Level of Service Standards
Service Provider LOS Standard
City of Bellingham 102 gallons/capita/day 1
Birch Bay Water and Sewer District 85 gallons/capita/day
City of Blaine 300 gallons/household/day
City of Everson 300 gallons/household/day
ICity of Ferndale 193164 gallons/capita/day 2
Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer (formerly Water 198 gallons/day/connection 3
District 10)
City of Lynden 100.7 gallons/capita/day 4
City of Nooksack 250-275 gallons/household/day 5
City of Sumas 300 gallons/household/day 5
Whatcom County Water District 13 217 gallons/household/day s
1 Section 4.3.2 Per capita flows, page 4-6, City of Bellingham Comprehensive Sewer Plan, June 2009.
2 Derived from City of Femdale Comprehensive Sewer Plan, pp. 9 and 11- 2011 . The LOS for Femdale is based upon
peak month flow. - -
3 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Sewer Plan, page 8, September 2007.
4 City of Lynden General Sewer Plan, page 4-1 , December 2007. .
5 Personal communication from Erin Osbom to Matt Aamot, Email July 14, 2009, citing communication with Rollin Harper
of Sehome Planning.
6 Source of this LOS is the Whatcom County Foothills Subarea Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, December
19, 2008, page 89.
Table 45 identifies how future population and employment for each sewer service provider affects
treatment capacity based on existing treatment capacity mentioned in Table 43 above.
As can be seen from the analysis in Table 45 , only the City of Everson is anticipated to experience a
sewage treatment deficit in 2015 . The City of Everson' s response to the County' s CFP growth
projections indicate that the city has sufficient capacity to serve the majority of growth anticipated in the
20-year timeframe. In response to the highest growth alternative considered in planning this CFP Everson
indicates that the city has available capacity to accommodate approximately 8 to 12 years of residential
growth, and that expansion of the treatment plant will be necessary (Memorandum from Rollin Harper of
Sehome Planning & Development Services to Matt Aamot, dated April 8 , 2009, page 3). See narrative
under City of Everson Treatment below for more detailed information. The City of Blaine expects to
provide an additional 0.7 MGD sewage treatment capacity when its new wastewater treatment plant starts
operation in 2010. This will increase the 2015 reserve shown for Blaine in Table 45 .
9
G,
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 - CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Table 45. Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2015
Service Provider Current Treatment 2015 Treatment Capacity
Capacity (MGD) Surplus (Deficit)
expressed in MGD
Bellingham 20.00 10.44
Birch Bay Water & Sewer 1 .28 0.69
Blaine 0.80 ' 0.06
Everson 2 0.29 (0.01 )
IFerndale 3.23 0.64 8767
Lynden 2. 18 0.85
Nooksack 3 0. 15 0.03
Sumas 0.39 0.22
Lake Whatcom Water & 3.82
Sewer District (formerly
Whatcom County Water
District 10) 4.60
WC Water District 13 0. 13 See 4
1 City of Blaine anticipates opening a new wastewater treatment plant in 2010 which will increase treatment capacity to 1 .5
MGD. With the anticipated additional treatment capacity, the City expects to have additional reserve available in 2015.
[City of Blaine website: http://www.ci.blaine.wa.us/, accessed April 24, 2009].
2 Everson's Treatment Plant has a total capacity of 0.44 mgd. However, 2/3 of capacity, or 0.29 mgd are owned by Everson,
while 1 /3 of capacity or approximately 0. 15 mgd is owned by neighboring Nooksack.
3 This analysis uses 275 gallons/household/day as a LOS measure, the upper end of the range provided by the City of
Nooksack in communication with Erin Osborn, as communicated in email to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.
4 A more detailed analysis of wastewater utility service to the Columbia Valley UGA was provided in the Foothills Subarea
Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) (December 2008, pages 83-89). Please see discussion
related to Water District 13 below for more detail on ability to serve the Columbia UGA with sewer service in 2029.
Table 46 below provides an LOS analysis for sewer providers to the 2029 planning horizon. The 2029
LOS analysis finds sewage treatment deficits for the cities of Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, and Nooksack,
and Water District 13 . The City of Everson' s expectation of a sewage treatment deficit is consistent with
the city' s analysis (Sehome Planning & Development Services 2009). The same communication from
Sehome Planning & Development Services indicated that the City of Nooksack, sharing the same Everson
sewage treatment plant, is expected to have sufficient sewage treatment capacity for the next 13 to 15
years and an expansion of the Everson sewage plant may be needed to accommodate some growth
occurring outside the current city limits (Sehome Planning & Development Services 2009) . The LOS
analysis for City of Nooksack to 2029 in Table 46 confirms this assessment. Although the City of Blaine
shows a deficit in Table 46, when accounting for the additional 0.7 mgd of sewage treatment capacity that
is expected to be available in 2010, the City is expected to have a net reserve of sewage treatment
capacity in 2029. The City of Ferndale would also experiences a sewage treatment capacity deficits in
2029 if no additional capacity were constructed. However, the City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer
Plan (2011 ) includes plans to almost double the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, which will
more than accommodate wastewater flows through the year 2029. According to the Foothills Subarea
Plan Final SEIS (2008), Water District 13 , providing service to a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA,
has existing capacity for approximately an additional 197 sewer service connections. Total new
households projected in the Columbia Valley UGA by 2029 would exceed the 197 sewer connections
available within Water District 13 ' s service area. Evergreen Water and Sewer District currently does not
provide sewer service to the UGA. Therefore, a sewage service deficit is expected by 2029. Individual
10
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
jurisdictions and districts have planned projects that may help alleviate some or all of the deficits
identified in Table 46. More discussion is provided below by service provider.
Table 46. Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2029
Service Provider Current Treatment 2029 Treatment Capacity
Capacity (MGD) Surplus (Deficit) expressed
in MGD
Bellingham 20.00 8.86
Birch Bay Water & Sewer 1 .28 0.5
Blaine 1 0.80 (0.29)
Everson 2 0.29 (0.09)
Ferndale3 3.23 (0.99) (0726)
Lynden 2. 18 0.49
INooksack a a 0. 15 (0.03)
Sumas 0.39 0. 16
Lake Whatcom Water & 3.79
Sewer District
(formerly Whatcom County
Water District 10) 4.60
IWC Water District 13 0. 125 Seel'
1 City of Blaine anticipates opening a new wastewater treatment plant in 2010 which will increase treatment capacity to 1 .5
MGD. With the anticipated additional treatment capacity, the City will be able to meet the projected sewer flow
requirements to 2029. [City of Blaine website: http://www.ci.blaine.wa.us/, accessed April 24, 2009]
2 Everson% Treatment Plan has a total capacity of 0.44 MGD. However, 2/3 of capacity, or 0.29 MGD are owned by
Everson, while 1/3 of capacity or approximately 0. 15 MGD is owned by neighboring Nooksack.
3 The City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2011 ) includes planned improvements to increase the capacity of the
wastewater treatment plant from 3.23 MGD to 6.37 MGD (p. 13 and Exhibit H). This will increase the capacity by 3. 14
MGD and address the deficit that would occur if no capacity improvements were planned.
43 This analysis uses 275 gallons/household/day as a LOS measure, the upper end of the range provided by the City of
Nooksack in communication with Erin Osborn, as communicated in email to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.
54 A more detailed analysis of wastewater utility service to the Columbia Valley UGA was provided in the Foothills Subarea
Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) (December 2008, pages 83-89). Please see discussion
related to Water District 13 above and below for more detail on ability to serve the Columbia UGA with sewer service in
2029.
Capital Projects and Funding
Population
Table 47 below identifies each sewer provider' s latest sewer plan' s horizon year and population, as well
as the populations expected under County' s 2029 population projection. This table serves to provide an
order of magnitude check with respect to the population that each service provider is planning on serving
in comparison to the latest population projections for the 2029 Whatcom County CFP.
11
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Table 47. Population Comparison : Sewer Plans and 2029 Population Projection
Horizon year of 2029 Population
Service Provider Capital Plan Capital Plan Population Projection
Bellingham 2026 122,007 109,200
Birch Bay Water and 2029 11 ,307 9, 160
Sewer
Blaine 2025 10,871 9,040
Everson 2024 4,202 3,610
Ferndale 2034 24.600' 21 ,8272
291-5 27496 21 ,260
Lynden 2024 18,235 16,790
Nooksack 2024 2,039 2,080
Sumas 2024 1 ,625 2,080
Lake Whatcom Water 2027 13,936 11 , 190
and Sewer District
(formerly Water
District 10)
W.C. Water District � 1 ,595
13
1 The City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (p. 3) uses a 2029 population projection of 20,707 for the Ferndale UGA,
consistent with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. The Sewer Plan extrapolates the population projection to 2034 for
consistency with the City's planning horizon date.
2 This projection is higher than the projected UGA population because City sewer currently serves two existing areas east of the City
that are outside the UGA.
34 W.C. Water District 13 has not provided an adopted sewer plan as of date of this CFP.
Source: Berk & Associates (2029 population projection); each individual purveyor capital facility plan for horizon year and capital plan
population columns.
Capital Project Funding
Sewer services and capital are funded primarily by the users of the system through service charges and
connection fees. These rates are adjusted as needed to fund capital and operational needs. Some grant
programs exist for the construction of sewer facilities and upgrades, but, like many grant programs, they
are generally very competitive.
In addition to this general approach to funding, the following Capital Facilities plans list additional
possible funding sources:
• The City of Ferndale - The Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan states that the City has various funding
sources available for sewer capital projects including (but not limited to) sewer rates and connection
fees, bonds, loans, grants, utility local improvement districts (ULIDs), and developer extension
contracts. : . .. . . ' ! - . . . . . . . . . . . - . - - . --
• The City of Lynden — The City considered using $4,000,000 in capital reserves as well as a bond or
Public Works Trust Fund loan to fund their desired capital improvements.
12
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
City of Bellingham
The City of Bellingham maintains and operates a wastewater collection and treatment system that
provides existing service to the city limits as well as sewer service zones within the Bellingham UGA.
The existing sewer network is most dense in the central city, and there appear to be portions of the city,
particularly in the south that are not yet sewed by sewer. There are also less extensive sewer networks
extending into the city' s UGA. The City has established a potential future sewer service area that extends
beyond the city limits and encompasses all of the city' s UGA not currently served by Lake Whatcom
Water and Sewer District (formerly Water District 10) . The city' s current Comprehensive Sewer Plan
(Carollo Engineers, 2009) indicates that the city' s long-range sewer system plan accounts for sewage
treatment capacity for approximately 122,007 people by 2026 (Carollo Engineers, 2009). This is a larger
population than the 109,200 projected under this CFP. The city' s sewer service area and population
forecast excludes Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District.
The city' s sewage treatment plant is designated for a two phase expansion to accept future demand. The
phase one facilities plan has just begun and will be sized to accept future Biological Oxygen Demand as
required in the city' s Ecology permit. A phase two expansion is expected in the 20 year planning period.
This expansion will build on the upcoming facilities plan to adequately size the treatment plant capacity
to meet future needs.
Birch Bay Water and Sewer
Birch Bay Water and Sewer District adopted a Comprehensive Sewer Plan in 2009. The district' s plan
indicates where current sewer service exists and establishes a future service area that consists of portions
of the Birch Bay, Blaine, and Cherry Point UGAs. The plan does not appear to identify future service
lines. A review of a GIS layer of existing sewer lines indicates that sewer is concentrated along the coast
of the Birch Bay UGA, though there are less extensive networks of sewer lines inland in the Birch Bay
UGA. The sewer district' s 2009 plan had higher population projections in the 2029 horizon year for the
district than the 9, 160 anticipated in planning for this CFP. The 2009 Sewer Plan indicates that the
district will exceed existing capacity by 2019. However, with the wastewater treatment plant upgrade
projects noted in the 2009 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, the District will be able to accommodate the
growth anticipated to 2029. (Birch Bay Water and Sewer District and CHS Engineers 2009, pages 6-6
through 6-7)
City of Blaine
The 2004 City of Blaine General Sewer Plan and its 2005 update shows major existing sewer service lines
and some future sewer trunk lines. The City of Blaine Comprehensive Plan includes a map showing
future sewer service area as portions of the Blaine and Birch Bay UGAs not served by Birch Bay Water
and Sewer District. A GIS layer showing existing sewer lines indicates that large areas of the city east of
1-5 are not served by sewer or close to sewer trunk lines. Table 46 above indicates that the City of Blaine
reaches a sewage treatment deficit by 2029 using existing treatment capacity. However, the City of
Blaine 2005 General Sewer Plan and 2006 Comprehensive Plan both indicate that the City has plans to
upgrade and expand sewage treatment plant capacity to meet future demands for service, Ecology
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, and to replace aging
infrastructure. The city plans to complete construction on its new wastewater treatment plant and begin
operation in 2010 (City of Blaine 2009) . The new wastewater treatment plant' s design capacity of 1 .5
mgd would accommodate projected wastewater flows to the end of the 2029 CFP planning period.
Another major component of the city' s capital improvement plan is a program for reduction of inflow and
infiltration (I&I).
13
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
City of Everson
The City of Everson does not have a sewer comprehensive plan. The sewer system was addressed in the
2004 update of the Everson Comprehensive Plan. Wilson Engineering also provided an analysis of the
sewer system in a memorandum prepared in early 2007.
Collection & Transmission
The Everson sewer system includes a collection and transmission system that serves all of the
incorporated portions of the city except for a small number of residential customers and one industrial
customer located on Mission Road. The City operates a system of sewer lift stations that direct sewage to
the Everson sewage treatment plant. Sewage from the City of Nooksack is also transmitted to the Everson
treatment plant through a system of lift stations.
Treatment
The Everson sewage treatment plant has a capacity of 440,000 gallons per day (gpd) . Of this total
Everson owns two-thirds or 294,800 gpd. According to the 2007 memorandum prepared by Wilson
Engineering, at that time the City had 222 ERUs of capacity available in the treatment plant. Although
this amount of capacity is sufficient to serve the majority of growth anticipated within the existing City
limits, it is insufficient to meet the anticipated demands to 2029 as seen on Table 46. Depending on the
rate of growth, the available capacity is sufficient to accommodate approximately 8 to 12 years of
residential growth. Therefore, expansion of the treatment plant will be necessary. The City is beginning
work on a sewer comprehensive plan that will address future needs at least through 2029 . This plan will
be developed in conjunction with the City of Nooksack and will be funded in part through the Community
Development Block Grant program.
Improvements and Financing
All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. The City may
participate in constructing a new east-west connector to serve the City' s industrial zone and would need to
access Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) and Economic Development Initiative (EDI)
funding at that time. The City also has planned to extend the sewer system to serve the residential area
along Mission Road as part of the Mission Road Phase 3 project. Funding for this project has not yet been
identified. It is recognized by the City that expansion of the sewage treatment plant will require the City
to secure major sources of funding, primarily low-interest loans. The Everson Comprehensive Plan
shows the locations of some but not all of the system extensions necessary to serve new development in
the Everson UGA. The City has identified creation of a comprehensive sewer plan as a key project in the
City' s future plans for sewers (personal email communication, Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14,
2009).
City of Ferndale
The City of Ferndale provides sewer service inside the City limits, and plans to provide service to areas
within the UGA as they are annexed to the City. The City also serves two areas outside the UGA, east of
the City, but has no plans to expand service in these areas. The LOS analysis in Table 45 indicates that
the City would experience a sewage treatment capacity surplus in 2015 . The LOS analysis in Table 46
indicates that the City would experience a sewage treatment deficit by 2029 if no improvements were
made to the wastewater treatment plant. However, the City has plans to expand wastewater treatment
capacity (City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan, 2011 , Exhibit H). Implementation of the Sewer
Plan will increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant from 3 .23 MGD to 6.37 MGD (p. 13).
This will increase the capacity by 3 . 14 MGD and address the deficit that would occur if no capacity
improvements were planned. Ferndale' s Comprehensive Sewer Plan states that the "City' s existing sewer
14
July 14. 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
collection and treatment systems have sufficient capacity (with planned improvements) to provide sewer
service to growth within the City limits and UGA for the next twenty years" (p. 26) .
Y. - _ _. -. . _. . . . . .. . . . . .. .
service to the city limits and a sewer service area based on the city' s UGA (City of Ferndale 1996). The
city appears to also serve a small area outside of its current UGA to the st (North Bellingham). The
. •
scenarios ( 1996 Comprehensive Wastewater Plan, Figures 5 1 and 6 1 ) . Existing sewer lines are
concentrated in the central part of the city with trunk lines also extending in the vicinity of the I S
corridor. The City of Ferndale does not experience a sewage capacity LOS deficit in the 6 year
a sewage treatment deficit by 2029. The city currently has no plans to expand sewage treatment capacity
(City of Ferndale Comprehensive Plan, March 2007, Capital Facilities Element, page 18). However, the
city may re evaluate its need for capacity improvements in light of the long range deficits anticipated
under this CFP. The city does include Phase 3 Wastewater tr- atment plant upgrades as well as a series of
•
March 2007, Capital Facilities Element, page 22).
City of Lynden
The City of Lynden General Sewer Plan (BHC Consultants 2007) indicates that the city provides service
to areas within the city limits, and will provide future service to areas within its UGA. The Sewer Plan
indicates future sewer trunk lines to serve areas of the city and UGA not currently served (BHC
Consultants 2007). The sewer plan provides for a sewer system population of 18,235 people by 2024,
which is greater than the 16,790 anticipated by 2029 under this CFP. The LOS analysis in Table 46
above indicates a small sewage treatment reserve in 2029 with existing sewage treatment capacity. The
city' s General Sewer Plan anticipates planning for additional sewage treatment capacity in 2019. A series
of pump station and force main improvements are planned as part of the city sewer system' s capital
improvement plans to maintain system capacity within the planning period.
City of Nooksack
The City of Nooksack does not have a sewer comprehensive plan. The Nooksack sewer system was
addressed in the 2004 update of the Nooksack comprehensive plan in the Capital Facilities Element.
Wilson Engineering also provided an analysis of the Nooksack sewer system in a memorandum prepared
in early 2007.
Collection & Transmission
The City of Nooksack maintains a system of collection and transmission pipes and four sewer lift stations
that direct sewage to the Everson sewage treatment plant.
Treatment Capacity
The Everson sewage treatment plant has a total capacity of 440,000 gallons per day (gpd). Of this total,
Nooksack owns one-third, which equals 145 ,200 gpd. The 2007 memorandum prepared by Wilson
Engineering states that the City of Nooksack had 230 additional ERUs available. The available capacity
is insufficient to meet the growth anticipated in this CFP. Available ERUs appear to be sufficient to
accommodate anticipated growth over the next 13 to 15 years. Expansion of the Everson sewage
treatment plant will be necessary to accommodate some of the growth that will occur outside of current
city limits.
15
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Improvements and Financing
All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. It is
recognized by the City that expansion of the Everson sewage treatment plant will require the City to
secure major sources of funding, primarily low-interest loans. The Nooksack Comprehensive Plan does
not show the locations of system extensions necessary to serve new development in the Nooksack UGA.
The City has identified creation of a comprehensive sewer plan in conjunction with the City of Everson
comprehensive sewer plan project as a key project in the City' s future plans for sewers (personal email
communication, Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009).
City of Sumas
The City of Sumas does not have a comprehensive sewer plan. The Sumas sewer system was addressed in
the 2004 update of the Sumas Comprehensive Plan. The Sumas Comprehensive Plan addresses the 20-
year period from 2004 through 2024 including a 2024 population of 1 ,750.
Collection & Transmission
The City of Sumas owns and maintains a sewage collection and transmission system that includes gravity
sewer lines and a small number of sewer lift stations. The Sumas system directs sewage to a discharge
into the City of Abbottsford system in British Columbia, Canada.
Treatment
The City has an ongoing contract with the City of Abbotsford to receive and treat sewage collected in
Sumas. This contract provides for the receipt and treatment of a maximum volume of 400,000 gallons per
day through December 31 , 2028 . Discharges from the Sumas system are metered on a daily basis. A
review of City records from February 2009 indicates that typical maximum effluent levels are
approximately 270,000 gallons per day total. One-third of the City' s total maximum daily discharge is
generated by a single industrial customer. Using the conversion factor of 300 gallons per day per
equivalent residential unit (ERU), the total contract amount equates to 1 ,333 ERUs. The available
capacity of 130,000 gallons per day is equivalent to approximately 433 ERUs. Excluding the one large
industrial customer, which generates the equivalent of 300 ERUs, leaves an available capacity of 1 ,033
ERUs for the remainder of the City. This available capacity equals a 72% increase over the current City
typical maximum daily volume of 180,000 gallons per day or 600 ERUs (e.g., maximum daily volume
without considering the single large industrial use). This CFP assumes a population increase from 1 ,279
to 2,080 along with a comparable level of employment, representing a 63% increase through 2029 . On
this basis it appears that Sumas has sufficient sewer service capacity to meet its needs through 2029.
Improvements and Financing
All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. The City has
recently completed a sewer lift station that was designed to be deep enough to receive gravity flows from
all of the currently designated areas within the Sumas unincorporated UGA+. No additional major City-
funded improvements to the sewer system are anticipated at this time. The Sumas Comprehensive Plan
shows the locations of sewer main extensions necessary to serve new development in the Sumas UGA.
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District (Formerly Water District 10)
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District includes areas within Bellingham' s UGA and rural areas
surrounding Lake Whatcom within its sewer service area. The district relies upon the City of
Bellingham' s sewer system for treatment capacity. As noted in Tables 46 and 47 above, the sewer
1 Refers to the UGA approved by Whatcom County as of the 2004 County Comprehensive Plan. UGA boundaries have decreased with the
2009 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
16
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
district' s contract with City of Bellingham provides adequate treatment capacity through both 2015 and
2029.
The district plans sewer extensions to newly developing areas on an as-needed basis. The 2007 Lake
Whatcom Sewer Plan identifies several future service extensions to serve vested developments, including
a handful of vested lots located within the district' s boundaries, but outside of the UGA. The 2007 Plan
notes a number of collection system improvements, including upgrades to various district pumping
stations.
Water District 13
Water District 13 , serving the Columbia Valley UGA, is expected to experience a sewage treatment
deficit in 2029 based upon information provided in the Foothills Subarea Plan Final SEIS, December
2008 (pages 83-89). Water District 13 has the existing capacity for approximately an additional 197
sewer service connections. Based upon projected increases in the number of households by 2029, Water
District 13 will experience a sewer capacity deficit. The water district is currently updating its
Comprehensive Sewer Plan. It is expected that Water District 13 will need to address expected sewage
capacity issues based on this CFP' s growth projections. Evergreen Water and Sewer District 19, which
provides water service to a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA, currently does not provide sewer
service. As noted in the Draft Foothills Subarea Plan (October 2007, page 116), in the future Water
District 13 may contract with its neighboring water district to provide sewer service to the portion of the
Columbia Valley UGA served by Evergreen Water and Sewer District 19 .
Sewer System Capital Projects and Financing
Sewer providers have identified capital projects as noted in Table 48 below, broken down by service
provider, to accommodate the future needs of sewer service in the County. Specific revenue sources are
not identified for the non-County service providers included in Table 48 below. Sewer providers obtain
their revenue from a variety of sources, including but not limited to service charges, connection fees, and
grants, as noted at the beginning of this section.
Table 48. Sewer Projects
Project
CostslRevenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Phase 1 and 2
Improvements
Cost 5,990 3,320 16,340 28,250 16,030 69,930
Priority 1 and 2
Collection
System
Improvements 1
Cost 3,430 23,470 2,340 800 5,020 9,780 37,690 82,530
Infiltration &
Inflow ( MI) Study
Cost 520 2,080 2,600
17
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
I & I
Improvements
Cost 1 ,286 1 ,624 1 ,606 1 ,838 2,005 1 ,974 17,858 28, 191
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Headworks
Cost 2,000 2,000
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
New Process
Water
Cost 41 41
Wastewater
Treatment Plant -
2 new oxidation
ditches
Cost 3,591 3,591
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
— New Flow Split
Structures
Cost 103 103
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
— Upgrade
Aerobic Digesters
Cost 385 385
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Convert to
Digestion
Cost 309 309
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Gravity Belt
Thickener
Cost 1 ,504 1 ,504
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—New Dewatering
Cost 3,248 3,248
18
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
Costs!Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Secondary
Sedimentation
Cost 2,470 2,470
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Demolish Small
Secondary
Clarifiers
Cost 52 52
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Demolish
Primary Clarifiers
Cost 52 52
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—New UV
Modules
Cost 102 102
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Third New
Oxidation Ditch
Cost 1 ,978 1 ,978
Continue 16 and
18 inch force
mains from Pump
Station #3 to
Pump Station #4
Cost 1 ,066 1 ,066
Increase Pump
Station #2
Capacity
Cost 2,850 2,850
Increase Pump
Station #3
Capacity
Cost 344 344
Pump Station #6
Upgrade and
force main
capacity
Cost 1 ,318 1 ,318
19
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
Costs(Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Increase Pump
Station #7
capacity and
replace force
main
Cost 341 341
Replace electrical
system including
standby
generator and
relocate from
vault to building
Cost 365 365
Upgrade Pump
Station #8
Cost 336 336
Increase Station
Capacity (#P-8)
Cost 359 359
Modify pump
station and 18"
force main (#P-9)
Cost 1 ,252 1 ,252
Increase Pump
Station Capacity
(#P-10)
Cost 1 ,834 1 ,834
Construct
submersible
pump station
north of
Semiahmoo
Drive near
Semiahmoo
Dr/Birch Pt Rd
(#P-11 )
Cost 1 ,750 1 ,750
Construct
submersible
pump station
west of
Semiahmoo
Drive (#P-12)
Cost 638 638
20
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
CostslRevenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Construct
submersible
pump station
south of
Hall/Blaine Rd .
(#P-13)
Cost 1 , 169 1 , 169
Construct
submersible
pump station
south of Lincoln
Rd and wet of
Harbor View Rd.
(#P-14)
Cost 711 711
Construct
submersible
pump station at
intersection of
Harbor View Rd
and Drayton
Harbor (#P-1.5)
Cost 1 ,775 1 ,775
Continue
evaluation of
sewer system
(Collection-1 )
Cost 350 350
Install parallel
gravity sewer
between Pump
Stations #5 and
#4 (Collection-2)
Cost 1 ,305 1 ,305
Install parallel
gravity sewers
between pump
stations #6 and
#5 (Collection-3)
Cost 1 ,272 1 ,272
Install parallel
gravity sewers
between pump
stations #7 and
#6 (Collection-4)
Cost 1 ,336 1 ,336
21
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
CostslRevenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Install parallel
gravity sewers
between pump
stations #8 and
#7 (Collection 5)
Cost 1 ,583 1 ,583
Construct 10"
parallel sewer
between Birch Pt
Rd and Selder
Rd (Collection-6)
Cost 132 132
Construct 21 "
sewer between
Birch Pt Rd and
Selder Rd
(Collection-7)
Cost 1 ,218 1 ,218
Construct 10"
sewer north of
Birch Pt Rd to
receive discharge
from Pump
Station A force
main. (Collection-
8)
Cost 891 891
Construct 18"
sewer north of
intersection of
Semiahmoo
Dr/Birch Point Rd
north along
Semiahmoo Dr.
(Collection-9)
Cost 1 ,000 1 ,000
Construct 15"
sewer from
Semiahmoo
Dr/Birch Pt Rd
north along
Semiahmoo Dr.
(Collection-10)
Cost 1 ,410 1 ,410
Construct parallel
10" sewer and 8"
sewer
(Collection-11 )
Cost 288 288
22
•
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
CostslRevenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Construct 24"
parallel sewer
beginning east of
Birch Bay
Drive/Alderson
Rd east along
Alderson Rd.
(Collection-12)
Cost 649 649
Construct 15"
parallel sewer
from west of
Blaine Rd
/Alderson Rd
along Alderson
Rd. (Collection-
13)
Cost 576 576
Construct 10"
sewer from Birch
Bay Dr/East Golf
Course Dr east
along East Golf
Course Dr. —
replace 8" sewer
(Collection-14)
Cost 367 367
Construct 18"
parallel sewer
from Harbor View
Rd/Birch Bay Dr
north along
Harbor View Rd
and associated
construction
(Collection-15)
Cost 750 750
Construct 12"
sewer beginning
at Harbor View
Rd. (Collection-
16)
Cost 442 442
Construct 12"
sewer from
Harbor
View/Anderson
Rds east along
Anderson Rd.
(Collection-17)
23
.: -
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
CostslRevenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Cost 1 ,476 1 ,476
Construct 15"
parallel sewer
along Cedar Ave
to Anderston Rd
and parallel 8"
sewer line
(Collection-18)
Cost 340 340
Construct 21 "
sewer from
Cedar
Ave/Anderson Rd
north parallel to
Cedar Rd.
(Collection-19)
Cost 525 525
Construct 10"
sewer from north
of Shintaffer/
Anderson Rds
north to Lincoln
Rd. (Collection-
20)
Cost 545 545
Construct 18"
sewer at
intersection
Drayton
Harbor/Harbor
View Rds.
(Collection-21 )
Cost 1 , 126 1 , 126
Construct 12"
sewer at Harbor
View Rd/Drayton
Harbor Rd
northward
(Collection-22)
Cost 498 498
Construct 18"
sewer from south
of Blaine
Rd/Birch Bay —
Lynden Rd south
along Blaine Rd
(Collection-23)
Cost 522 522
24
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
CostslRevenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Construct 12"
sewer from
intersection of
Blaine Rd/Arnie
Rd, south along
Blaine Rd
(Collection-24)
Cost 442 442
Construct 12"
sewer beginning
south of
intersection of
Blaine Rd/ Birch
Bay-Lynden Rd
east (Collection-
25)
Cost 986 986
Construct parallel
15" and 18"
sewer
(Collection-26)
Cost 784 784
Construct parallel
10" 12" and 15"
sewer through
Anchor Manor
(Collection-27)
Cost 960 960
Construct 10"
sewer from
Blaine Rd/Loomis
Trail Rd north
along Blaine Rd
to Drayton
Harbor Rd
(Collection-28)
Cost 990 990
Construct 8"
parallel sewer as
noted in detail
project
description
(Collection-29)
Cost 72 72
Acute and
Chronic Toxicity
Testing (0-1 )
Cost 5 5
25
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
•
Outfall Evaluation
(0-2)
Cost 15 15
Effluent Mixing
Study (0-3)
Cost 35 35
Application for
NPDES Permit
Renewal (0-4)
Cost 6 6
Engineering
Report Update
(0-5)
Cost 60 60
Comprehensive
Sewer Plan
Update (0-6)
Cost 80 80
Water
Reclamation
Engineering
Report (O-7)
Cost 60 60
(timing
TBD)
Construct New
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility for West
Blaine or convey
to Birch Bay (T-3)
Cost 500 4,012 4,512
Proposed New
Sewer Sub-Main
Extensions
(locations
unspecified) (P-3
through P-5 & P-
8)
Cost 860 860
26
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
CostslRevenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Proposed new
Sewer Sub-Main
Extension along
Jerome Street (P-
6)
Cost 400 400
Proposed Sewer
Sub-Main
Extension along
Harvey Road (P-
7)
Cost 390 390
Proposed Sewer
Sub-Main
Extension along
Old Mill Road (P-
9)
Cost 380 380
Comprehensive
Sewer Plan 3
Cost TBD
Miscellaneous
Capital Projects
Cost 18 18
General —
Planning,
Telemetry and
Programs
Cost 25.0 278. 1 217.5 5.5 5.6 635.2 1 , 166.9
Misc. and
Maintenance
Cost 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.6 99.0 125.6
Sewer Collection
Projects
ICost 887.5 903.9 554.3 426.6 401 . 7 6,738.9 9,912.9
Sewer Pump
Station Projects
Cost 95.0 566.5 1 ,060.9 437. 1 562.8 3.710.6 6,432.9
27
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
CostslRevenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Vehicle and
Heavy Mobile
Equipment
Cost 55.0 20.6 21 .2 21 .9 61 .9 756.0 936.6
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Improvements
Cost 97.0 453.2 461 .5 92.9 377.0 5,916.4 7.398.0
WA/astewatec
Treatment
Facility: Phase 3
Upgrade
Cost 400 400 408 1 ,200
Sewer--System
Upgrades-and
Improvements
( 14 projocts)
Gest 200 200 200 400
Pump Station 3 &
FM
Cost 120 120
Pump Station 9
Cost 30 120 150
Pipe
Replacements
Cost 100 100 100 100 400
Infiltration/ Inflow
Study
Cost 100 100
Asset
Management
Update
Cost 100 100 200
Fats, Oils, and
Grease (FOG)
Study
Cost 20 20
TV Pipe
Inspection
Cost 10 10 10 10 40
28
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Treatment
Outfall
Improvements
Cost 350 350
Biosolids Dryer
Cost 80 160 2,060 2,300
Compost Screen
Cost 100 100
New Front
Loader
Cost 150 150
Everson
Treatment Plant
Cost 76 76
Comprehensive
Sewer Plan 3
Cost TBD
No Projects
Noted
Sewer Collection
System I&I
Improvements
Cost 77 77 77 77 77 77 462
Rehabilitate
Sewer Manholes
Pilot Project
Cost 70 70
Sewer Tightline
Project
Cost 250 250
Old Lakeway &
Euclid Interceptor
Pigging
Cost 52 52
Boulevard Pump
Station Retrofit
29
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
CostslRevenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Cost 257 257
Agate Bay Pump
Station Retrofit &
Generator
Placement
Cost 297 297
Strawberry Point
Pump Station
Retrofit
Cost 267 267
Tomb Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Afternoon Beach
Pump Station
Cost 257 257
Geneva Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Edgewater Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Country Club
Pump Station
Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Par Lane Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Dellesta Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Rocky Ridge
Pump Station
Retrofit
Cost 307 307
Lakewood Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
30
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 2 — CFP Amendments (Sewer)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project
CostslRevenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
To Be
Determined 5
1 Collection system improvements includes: remote wet weather facility and priority 1 , 2, 3 collection system improvements.
2 City of Blaine 2005 Sewer System Plan. Note: Plan only shows projects in individual years from 2005-2010, and in a lumped group
2011 -2025. All projects shown in 2011 are projects included in the 2011 -2025 timeframe.
3 Source: Personal communication (email) from Bin Osbom to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.
4 See the City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2011 ) for more detailed information on these projects.
54 No projects noted per personal communication (email) from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.
65 Water District 13 is in the process of updating its comprehensive sewer plan at time of this plan's development (2009).
31
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Exhibit 3
Whatcom County 20 -Year
Capital Facilities Plan
Amendments
(Fire Protection Provisions)
NOTE # 1 : For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes, portions of the Whatcom County
20-Year Capital Facilities Plan that are not being modified by this ordinance are not shown below.
The text and maps that are not shown below are retained as previously adopted.
1
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Amend the "Executive Summary " of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows:
Fire Protection
Most fire districts in Whatcom County do not have their own adopted capital facility plans. In some
cases, districts have recently been reorganized or consolidated into fire protection authorities. However,
the cities of Bellingham and Lynden fire departments both have adopted capital facilities plans, and North
IWhatcom Fire and Rescue, Fire District 7 and Fire District 14 have recently adopted CFPs addressing
their facility needs.
Whatcom County adopted a level of service standard in 2011 based upon response times and fire ratings.
There will necessarily be a transition period in which the County will work with the fire districts to
develop or amend CFPs in accordance with the new county-wide LOS standards. For capital facility
planning purposes, fire districts that have not yet developed or amended CFPs in accordance with the
County' s adopted LOS standards are evaluated under a square feet per emergency incident method of
calculating LOS . There are multiple methods used to determine LOS for fire districts: square feet per
- -- - - - - • .. - - ..: : ; : -- .. - . -: -- : : . Since many districts operate using a LOS
standard tied to response time, it is included for discussion within the CFP. Most fire districts base their
response time LOS standards on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards.
However, because The square feet per emergency incident method is utilized for can be more closely tied
to capital facility needs, it is the focus of the fire protection LOS analysis in this CFP for fire districts that
have not yet developed or updated their plans to address the county-wide LOS standards adopted by the
County in 2011 . Using this method of analysis bBased upon information provided by the County Fire
Marshal' s Office, all sixseven fire districts serving urban areas that were evaluated under the incident per
square foot method are expecting to have a future deficit in capital facilities by 2029. Most fire districts
serving rural areas are also expected to have capital facility deficits by 2029 based on this analysis. The
exceptions are that Fire District 18 and Fire District 5, both of which show small facility surpluses in
2029.
The County adoptedplans to develop a countywide fire level of service standards based upon response
times and fire ratings in 2011in the future. The Fire District 7 CFP was developed to meet the new LOS
standards. The County may incorporate by reference fire district CFPs as they are adopted or amended in
accordance with the new county-wide LOS standards. The Capital Facilities Implementation section of
this CFP identifies measures that service providers without adopted CFPs can take to address any
identified deficiencies.
NOTES : "CFP" means capital facilities plan and "LOS" means level of service.
2
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Amend the "Fire Protection " chapter of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows:
Fire Protection
Overview
The County is served by 15 different fire departments or districts, 13 of which serve unincorporated
portions of the County:
• City of Bellingham • Fire District 7 • Fire District 17
• City of Lynden • Fire District 8 • Fire District 18
• Fire District 1 • Fire District 11 • Glacier Fire District 19
• Fire District 4 • Fire District 14 • North Whatcom Fire and Rescue
(Fire District 21 )
• Fire District 5 • Fire District 16 • South Whatcom Fire Authority
The cities of Bellingham and Lynden have their own fire departments. Fire District 7 serves the City of
Ferndale and the Cherry Point UGA. North Whatcom Fire and Rescue (Fire District 21 ) serves the City
of Blaine and the Birch Bay UGA. Fire District 14 serves the City of Sumas and the Columbia Valley
UGA. Fire District 1 serves the cities of Everson and Nooksack.
Each city and fire protection district is assigned a numeric fire protection rating (a Class 1 rating is
considered best) by the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau. Insurance companies fund the
Bureau to perform on-site inspections of fire districts to determine the rating. The Bureau analyzes five
areas: average response time, water supply, communication network, schedule of fire inspections, and
existing conditions of fire stations. Fire station evaluations focus on the age of vehicles, amount of
personnel training, and whether the facilities are staffed or not. Insurance companies use the fire
protection rating to help determine insurance rates on all fire insurance policies. Quality of fire service
can have a significant impact on fire insurance rates with the greatest impact experienced by commercial
occupancies.
In addition to fire protection services, the agencies listed here provide responses to medical emergencies.
In fact, EMS calls account for 75% of the responses by most fire protection agencies.
A countywide 911 dispatch system is jointly operated by the City of Bellingham Fire and Police
Departments and administered by a countywide governmental board called "What-Comm Administrative
Board" (Boyd pers. comm.) .
3
tt-
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Inventory of Current Facilities
Table 74 summarizes the capital facilities for each fire district. It also includes each district' s fire rating
and service population. Unless otherwise stated, the 2008 population is based on estimates prepared for
the CFP update process.
Table 74. Fire Facilities Inventory
Fire Protection Number Fire Fire Units EMS Service Area Serves UGA
Provider of Rating 1 2 Services Population (YIN)
Stations (YIN) (2008)
City of Bellingham 8 3 3 22 Y 78,500 Y
City of Lynden 1 5 6 Y 11 ,350 Y
North Whatcom Fire & 10 ° N/A 32 Y 28,246 5 Y
Rescue (District 21 )
Fire District 1 2 8T 6 10 7 Y 8,460 Y
Fire District 4 3 6 13 Y 8,600 6 Y
Fire District 5 2 6 6 Y 1 ,370 N
Fire District 7 6 6/5 9 24 Y 19,530 Y
Fire District 8 4 N/A N/A Y 6,240 Y
Fire District 11 1 8 5 Y 1 ,610 N
Fire District 14 3 8 15 Y 7,262 10 Y
Fire District 16 3 N/A N/A Y 1 , 160 N
Fire District 17 2 6 8 Y 1 ,520 N
Fire District 18 2 N/A N/A Y 2,460 N
Glacier Fire District 19 1 7 4 Y 1 ,630 N 11
South Whatcom Fire 6 N/A 12 26 Y 13,000 13 Y
Authority
N/A = Not Available; Y/N = Yes or No
1 Fire rating is based upon the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau. Insurance companies use the Bureau's ratings to help determine
insurance rates on all fire insurance policies.
2 Fire units include fire and/or emergency response units such as fire engines, water tenders, and medic units.
3 Two of the 8 stations are medic stations that serve unincorporated areas of the County, one serving northwest and the other north and east of
the Bellingham city limits. Station 1 also houses the countywide fire/EMS dispatch center. (Boyd, Bill, Fir e Chief, Bellingham Fire
Department, personal communication, April 14, 2009 email.)
4 Includes 3 career fire stations and 7 volunteer fire stations. Source: North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan, August 2009,
Exhibit 1 ).
5 Source: North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan, August 2009
6 This indicates a tanker rating, which means that the rating is achieved through additional water for fire flow provided from tanker trucks
(Personal email communication from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009).
7 Per email communication from Erin Osbom to Matt Aamot (July 14, 2009), this figure includes 3 fire engines with 1 ,000 gallon water tanks, 2
tanker trucks with 3,000 gallon capacity (water delivery at 1 ,000 gallons per minute), 3 aid cars, and 2 rescue boats.
8 Personal communication, Email from Bill McLaughlin to Matt Aamot, on February 25, 2009.
9 Fire rating for Cherry Point is 6 and fire rating for Femdale is 5 (Personal communication between Gary Russell and Alex Cleanthous, July 1 ,
2009)
10 Personal communication, Email from Denise Christensen to Matt Aamot, on February 19, 2009.
11 Although Glacier Fire District 19 does not specifically serve the Columbia Valley UGA, it is part of a mutual aid agreement that would provide
back-up to Fire District 14 which does include the Columbia Valley UGA within its service area.
4
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
12 At time of inventory, the South Whatcom Fire Authority has not received a rating for the whole agency. Agency was formed in January 2009.
Currently, Geneva and Sudden Valley communities are rated Class 5; Yew Street Road and Chuckanut Drive areas are rated a Class 6; and
the Lake Samish Area is rated Class 8.
13 Personal communication, Email from Bill Hewitt to Matt Aamot, on March 10, 2009.
Source: Individual district plans and district communications with County staff.
Level of Service Capacity Analysis
Twe-fnMethods that can be used to determine LOS for fire districts includeare square feet per emergency
incidents and-response time and fire ratings . Since many districts operate using Whatcom County adopted
a LOS standard tied to response time and fire ratings in 2011 , it is included in this discussion. Fire
district capital facility plans submitted in 2011 or later will be reviewed against the new county-wide LOS
standards. However, for capital forecasting, a For capital facility planning purposes, a method that ties
fire and EMS response incidents to projected population, employment, and/or land use (square feet per
incident) is being utilized for fire districts until they develop new capital facility plans that meet the
adopted County LOS standardprovides a more quantifiable LOS that can be easily related to facility
needs.
Whatcom County will consider adoption of fire district capital facility plans by reference into the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, as they are approved by the districts.
Square Feet per Incident
Whatcom County will consider adoption of fire district capital facility plans by reference into the
. .•
Until the County defines a level of service as proposed in its Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 policies, this
This Capital Facilities Plan will rely on analysis based on a square feet per incident for fire districts that
have not yet adopted or revised their capital facility plans to meet the County LOS standard. The
methodology in the plan is based upon review of records received from the Whatcom County Fire
Marshal' s Office for Fire Districts. These records include 2008 existing square feet of fire district
facilities, and calls for fire and aid service for the years 2006-2008 were used to provide average annual
calls for service per district. This information and a LOS methodology are outlined in Table 75 below.
A review of the Fire District LOS analysis provided in Table 76a below indicates that all districts sewing
urban growth areas that were evaluated under the square feet per incident method would have a fire
facility deficit by 2029, if new facilities were not added.
5
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Table 75. Level of Service Standard for Fire Districts : Square Feet per Incident
Fire District Total Facility Size (2008) Average Annual Calls For Square Feet Per Incident
(Square Feet) Fire and Aid Service
(2006-2008)
Fire District 1 17,008 682.3 24.93
Fire District 4 25,314 531 .3 47.64
IFire District 7 397007 1 , 761 22. 15
Fire District 8 28,460 1 ,025.3 27.76
Fire District 14 18,400 747.0 24.63
North Whatcom Fire and 72,422 2,362.3 30.661
Rescue
South Whatcom Fire 35,418 734 48.25
Authority
Fire District 5 8,250 134.0 61 .57
Fire District 11 4,200 60.67 69.23
Fire District 16 9, 100 121 .3 75.0
Fire District 17 6,892 89. 7 76.86
Fire District 18 5,400 118.7 45.51
Fire District 19 3,600 84.0 42.86
1 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue prepared a draft Capital Facilities Plan (undated) that was reviewed and evaluated as part of the
preparation of the Capital Facilities Plan. This undated version of the District's draft CFP included a square foot per incident
measurement as one of many factors reviewed in evaluating the District's ability to respond to emergency incidents, whether fire or
medical (Square feet per incident for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue was listed as 35.64 in the undated draft). Since that time, North
Whatcom Fire and Rescue has prepared and adopted an updated Capital Facilities Plan (dated August 15, 2009) which does not utilize
a square footage per incident analysis. The updated methodology relies on response time and fire station geographic coverage to
arrive at a number of stations and apparatus needed to maintain recent ratios to existing development. Most fire districts in Whatcom
County do not currently have this information. For this reason, and to ensure consistency of analysis, the North Whatcom Fire and
Rescue Square Feet per Incident in Table 75 utilizes the information obtained from the Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office.
Source: Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office, Warner Webb, email to Matt Aamot, April 23, 2009.
Table 76a indicates that all fire districts serving urban growth areas that were evaluated under the square
feet per incident method are projected to experience deficits in 2029. With the exception of Fire District
4, all fire districts serving urban areas also have higher fire facility deficits than their rural counterparts in
2029. All rural fire districts, with the exception of Fire Districts 5 , and 18 are expected to have facility
deficits in 2029. All fire districts can reduce these anticipated fire facility deficits with capital facility
projects that maintain or replace facilities and equipment in the 2009-2029 planning period.
6
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Response Time/Fire Rating
Whatcom County adopted the following level of service standards in 2011 :
Urban levels of service for fire protection shall be a response time of 8 minutes 80% of the time
when the department covering the urban area has staffed the fire station. When the fire station is
not staffed the response time shall be 10 minutes 80% of the time, or a WSRB Rating of a 6.
Rural levels of service for fire protection shall be a response time of 12 minutes 80% of the time
when the department covering the urban area has staffed the fire station. When the fire station is
not staffed the response time shall be 14 minutes 80% of the time, or a WSRB Rating of an 8 .
Staffed stations shall be a fire station that is staffed 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year.
Staff may be paid, volunteer, or combination of the two.
There will necessarily be a transition period in which the County will work with fire districts to develop
capital facility plans that meet the adopted LOS standards. Fire district capital facility plans that have
been developed utilizing the County LOS are shown below in Table 76b below.
- . - - -- - _
arrival of the first emergency unit on site. Most firc service providers base their response time on the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. NFPA 1710 provides minimum standards for
. � ' • e . . . Ansa • . • • • • - - - • • aa a a 4. . •• - . . . . . . . .,•
_ . • . - . . • •. . . . . . • . • • f • • • •
along the lines of a shorter response time in urban areas, and longer response times in rural areas, with
. .
• .
specifically each fire district or department is required to establish objectives for a variety of measures
that evaluate the ability of the district or department to arrive at a scene and begin mitigation operations
prior to a critical EMS or fire event.
• .
. . - - . . • _ . . - .. . -
. . .
• - •- • • - - .
..
p "ter
•
. . •
. . v . .
. .
. . . . _
. .
•
department programs. Capital facility planning alone cannot assure that a given response time will be
met. However, it may be appropriate to develop a response time level of service standard for evaluating
proposed developments for concurrency. The County may undertake a process to develop fire protection
concurrency standards in 2010 2011 .
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 - CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Table 76a. Fire District Level of Service Analysis - Square Feet Per Incident'
Annual
Average 2029 Projected
Calls For Facility
Fire and Aid Total Facility Size Level of Service Reservel(Deficit)
Service Incidents per (2008) Square Feet Per Expressed in Square
Fire District (2006-2008) capita (2008) (Square Feet) Incident Feet of Facilities
Fire District 1 682.3 0.08 17,008 24.93 (4,952)
Fire District 4 4 531 . 3 0.05 25,314 47.64 (2,428)
IFire District 7 1 ,761 0:89 39:847 22. 15 (19,505)
Fire District 8 1 ,025.3 0. 17 28,460 27. 76 (8,421 )
Fire District 14 4 747.0 0.07 18,400 24.63 (4,369)
North Whatcom 2,362.3 0. 10 2 72,422 30.66 3 (37,498)
Fire and
Rescue
South Whatcom 734 0.05 35,418 48.25 (3,308)
Fire Authority 4
Fire District 5 134.0 0.07 8,250 61 .57 549
Fire District 11 60.67 0.04 4,200 69.23 (1 , 164)
Fire District 16 121 .3 0. 12 9, 100 75.0 ( 1 ,853)
Fire District 17 89.7 0.06 6,892 . 76.86 (2,865)
Fire District 18 118.7 0.05 5,400 45.51 85
Fire District 19 84.0 0.05 3,600 42.86 (380)
I 1 Fire districts that have not developed capital facility plans that incorporate the county-wide level of service standard for fire protection,
adopted in 2011 , are included in Table 76a.The steps used to calculate the results are as follows:
a) Determine incidents per capita: Average calls for service 2006-2008 supplied by Whatcom County Fire Marshal / 2008 estimated
population (Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 10-Year Urban Growth Area Review, May 2009, Appendix D)
b) Determine square feet per incident: Current square footage of fire stations supplied by Whatcom County Fire Marshal / Average
calls for service 2006-2008
c) Calculate 2029 incidents: Future 2029 population of each district (Appendix D) x incidents per capita
d) Calculate square footage required: 2029 estimated incidents x Square feet per incident
e) Compare to square footage available: 2008 inventory of fire station square footage supplied by Whatcom County Fire Marshal
D Calculate Reserve (Deficit): Square footage available - square footage required
2 The district's own population estimate of 2008 population (28,246) is higher and was developed based on 2000 U.S. Census calculation
of district population plus the City of Blaine, which annexed to the district in 2004 (District Plan, p. 3). Population estimates prepared for
the CFP analysis indicate a lower population including Blaine of 23,570. If assuming the higher population, the incident per capita would
be 0.08. For a conservative analysis the higher 0.10 rate was applied to the future growth numbers. If using the Districts 2008 population
as a base and the net increase of each alternative, the results would be 15% lower than the square footage estimates above.
3 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue prepared a draft Capital Facilities Plan (undated) that was reviewed and evaluated as part of the
preparation of the Capital Facilities Plan. This undated version of the District's draft CFP included a square foot per incident
measurement as one of many factors reviewed in evaluating the District's ability to respond to emergency incidents, whether fire or
medical (Square feet per incident for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue was listed as 35.64 in the undated draft). Since that time, North
Whatcom Fire and Rescue has prepared and adopted an updated Capital Facilities Plan (dated August 15, 2009) which does not utilize a
square footage per incident analysis. The updated methodology relies on response time and fire station geographic coverage to arrive at
a number of stations and apparatus needed to maintain recent ratios to existing development. Most fire districts in Whatcom County do
8
•
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
not currently have this information. For this reason, and to ensure consistency of analysis, the North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Square
Feet Per Incident in Tables 75 and 76 utilizes the information obtained from the Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office.
4 If using these Districts own 2008 population estimates, the incidents per capita would be higher (incidents per capita divided by smaller
population). The facility deficits would be approximately 16% higher for Fire District 4, 28% higher for Fire District 14, and 6% higher for
the South Whatcom Fire Authority.
Source: ICF Jones & Stokes, Berk & Associates, and Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office (2008).
Table 76b. Fire District Level of Service Analysis - Response TimelFire Ratings
WSRB Rating Response Time Meets
Fire District Standard Standard Adopted LOS?
Fire District 7 6 for the 8 minutes 80% of Yes2
Cherry Point UGA the time for the
Ferndale UGA
I Fire districts that have developed capital facility plans that incorporate the county-wide level of service for fire protection, adopted
in May 2011 , are included in Table 76b.
2 Table 74 and Whatcom County Fire District No. 7 Capital Facility Plan 2011 -2029.
Capital Projects and Funding
Capital Project Funding
City Fire Departments and Regional Fire Districts usually fund needed capital improvements through a
combination of revenue sources. These can include General Fund revenues, excess property tax levies,
sales taxes, capital bonds, fire benefit charges, and, for city fire departments, fire impact fees.
The State of Washington authorizes cities and regional fire districts to levy both "regular" and "special"
property taxes to support their operational and capital needs. As part of the regular property tax levy, a
fire service provider is authorized to levy a property tax at a total maximum rate of $ 1 .50 per $ 1 ,000 of
assessed value. However, the total maximum aggregate "regular" property tax levy by all taxing agencies
in an area may not exceed $5 .60. Occasionally, all local levies will total more than this limit. In this case,
"junior" taxing districts, including fire districts, must follow state statute to lower their levy rate so that
the total aggregate rate does not exceed the statutory limit. Fire districts may also pass "special" property
tax levies for short-term periods without a statutory maximum levy limit.
An Emergency Medical Service property tax may be levied at a total maximum rate of $0.50 per $ 1 ,000
of assessed value. This levy must pass by at least 60% of the vote and must be renewed every six years.
These funds can be charged by city fire departments, but not by fire districts.
9
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Fire impact fees may beace collected on new residential and commercial development to fund facility
improvements necessary to serve that development. These fees are usually charged on an average call
percentage basis. _ - -- ' : . . e e • . e I e • - . . - _ -- -
Additional comments on capital funding strategies of note are discussed below:
• Bellingham Fire Department - The Bellingham Fire Department receives capital dollars from the Medic
One Fund, which is funded by a 1 % sales tax that can be used for operations or capital; from the first
0 .25% of Real Estate Excise Taxes, and from general fund revenues.
• Lynden Fire Department — The City of Lynden Fire Department receives capital funding from the
general fund and from impact fees. Impact fees for the fire department are project driven, and are
expected to pay a set portion of the costs of needed expansion due to growth.
Capital Projects
Capital projects for the Bellingham Fire Department, Lynden Fire Department, North Whatcom Fire and
Rescue (which serves the Birch Bay and Blaine UGAs), Fire District 7 and Fire District 14 are provided
below. The following fire districts do not have approved capital facility plans:
• Fire District 1 (serving the Everson and Nooksack UGAs)_
•
As these districts approve capital facility plans, they will be incorporated by reference into the Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan.
Table 77. Fire District/Department Capital Projects 1
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
CostslRevenue 2029
(thousands $)
Boat House
Cost 150 150
Revenue 150 150
REET (1St Quarter)
Classroom/Office
Cost 1 ,000 1 ,000
Revenue 1 ,000 1 ,000
REET ( 1St Quarter)
Broadway Fire
Station Upstairs
Carpet
Cost 9 9
Revenue 9 9
REET (1St Quarter)
Cardiac Monitor/
10
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
CostslRevenue 2029
(thousands $)
Defibrilator
Cost 24 24
Revenue 24 24
Medic 1 Fund
Field Computers
Cost 11 12 23
Revenue 11 12 23
Medic 1 Fund
Medic Unit
Cost 158 158
Revenue 158 158
Medic 1 Fund
Rechassis Medic
Unit
Cost 111 111
Revenue 111 111
Medic 1 Fund
Thermal Imaging
Camera
Cost 12 12 24
Revenue 12 12 24
General Fund
Ladder Truck
Purchase
Cost 950 950
Fire Station
Remodel —
Sleeper
Cost 380 380
New Ambulance
Cost 130 130
New Pumper
Truck
Cost 600 600
New Station A
with engine and
aid vehicle
11
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
Costs!Revenue 2029
(thousands $)
(location TBD, but
likely northwest
area of district)
Cost 5, 723. 1
New Station B
with engine and
aid vehicle
(location TBD)
Cost 5,723. 1
Station 62 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 376.2
Station 63 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 340
Station 63
Exhaust system
Cost 140
Station 64 Exterior
Skin Replacement
Cost 117.5
Station 64 Reroof
Cost 87.5
Station 64 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 218.7
Station 65 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 227.5
Station 65 Exterior
Skin Replacement
Cost 121 .8
Station 68 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 223.8
Station 68 Site
Paving Overlay
Cost 97.5
Station 69 Seismic
12
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
CostslRevenue 2029
(thousands $)
Upgrade
Cost 279.9
Station 69 Site
Paving Overlay
Cost 126.2
Station 70 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 226.2
Station 71 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 426.8
Station 71
Exhaust System
Cost 70
Station 72 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 285.7
New Maintenance
Vehicle
Cost 40 40
Reserves 40 40
New Medic Unit
Cost 150 150
Reserves 150 150
New Tender
Cost 320 320
Reserves 320 320
Finalize Short Plat
Cost 35 35
Property Tax 35 35
Funds
Station 43 -
Carpet & Repairs
ICost 50 50
IReserves 50 50
13
July 14. 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
CostslRevenue 2029
(thousands $)
Station 45 - New
Water Service
ICost 25 25
Property Tax 25 25
Funds
New Staff Vehicle
Cost 40 40
Reserves 40 40
Refurbish Medic
Unit
ICost 75 75
Reserves 75 75
Station 42 -
Remodel
ICost 1 .500 1 .500
Voted Bond Issue 1 ,500 1 .500
or impact fees
INew Staff Vehicle
ICost 40 40
Property Tax 40 40
Funds
INew Engine Unit
Cost 375 375
Reserves 375 375
Replace Two
Engines
Cost 900 900
IReserves 900 900
Station 44 -
Improvements
Cost 300 300
Reserves 300 300
Station 2 — Fiber
Connection
Cost 30 30
IReserves 30 30
14
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
CostslRevenue 2029
(thousands $)
Station 42 -
Remodel
ICost 108 108
IReserves 108 108
Station 44 — Fiber
Connection
ICost 35 35
Station 43 —
Improvements
ICost 77 77
New Ambulance
Unit
Cost 165 165
Data Terminals for
Apparatus and
Stations
Cost 90 90
Department
Training Center
ICost 2.000 2.000
Station 45 —
Improvements
Cost 245 245
Station 46 —
Improvements
Cost 75 75
Station 41 —
Support Facility
Cost 500 500
Tender 91 -02
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 240
Tender 93
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 240
Initial Attack 91
15
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
CostslRevenue 2029
(thousands $)
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 140
Tender 92
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 240
Utility 91
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 40
Utility 93
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 40
Aid 91 -02
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 155
Engine 91
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 275
Utility 92
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 40
Brush 92 CAFS
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 140
Aid 93
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 155
Aid 92
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 155
Aid 91
Replacement
(Vehicle)
16
July 14, 2011 Exhibit 3 — CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Whatcom County Planning Commission Recommendations
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
CostslRevenue 2029
(thousands $)
Cost 155
Tender 91
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 240 240
Engine 93
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 350 350
C 91 -03
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 40 40
Engine 92
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 350 350
Initial Attack 93
Replacement
(Vehicle)
Cost 140 140
1 Specific revenue sources in Table 77 are only provided where identified within the service provider's individual plans.
2 City of Bellingham 2008 Adopted Budget includes Fire Department projects through 2013, while the City of Bellingham Comprehensive
Plan Capital Facilities element (Chapter 5) only include fire department projects through 2011 . Locations are not provided for projects.
3 City of Lynden Fire Department 2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan shows projects through 2014. Locations are not provided for projects.
4 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue's August 15, 2009 Capital Facilities Plan identifies cost but does not identify year of funding.
Therefore, all project costs are noted only in the Total column. Locations are not provided for new stations, and locations of projects at
existing stations are associated with the station number per August 15, 2009 Capital Facilities Plan (page 25).
5 Fire District 14's September 2009 Capital Facilities Plan identifies cost but does not identify year of funding for all vehicle replacements.
Therefore, project costs that do not have a specific date associated with them or are shown as overdue are noted only in the Total
column. (Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan, September 2009, Figure 2).
Sources:
For Bellingham Fire: City of Bellingham, 2008 Adopted Budget, Capital Facilities Plan (page 408), and Bellingham Comprehensive Plan,
Capital Facilities (Chapter 5), page CF-75.
For Lynden Fire: City of Lynden 2008-2014 Fire Department Capital Facilities Plan
For North Whatcom Fire and Rescue: North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan prepared by Henderson, Young & Company,
(August 15, 2009).
I For Fire District 7: Whatcom County Fire District No. 7 Capital Facility Plan 2011 -2029 (May 2011 )
For Fire District 14: Whatcom County Fire District 14 Fire and EMS Capital Facilities Plan prepared by Kent Greene and Robert McNally of
Emergency Services Consulting International, (September 2009).
17
Exhibit 4
Official Zoning Map Amendments
Official Zoning Map - Map UGA 4-a
�� .� mE n .r- ��n■�M --- en np�ry a
I
D
��. ` 'in. ■11 9::`r ��� i�lii 1 � ' i iii/+I
a ■
•
t k„ y \\ y.. 0 1ki_1in Dim / apITAI El
ar,c, _.... 6
Ite �. RI/l1 palls, �3 ,,,, , III/' ii �J® I
hr,=iii; %11' �ia� ;��`;\\\���`�� ��� 19 �; . 1.
:' I�IIII�I��� i,... i:v � 1� � .",ll r Sri i
111 IP• I l F . a� :`sue`, R10A��,t ®`+g al I r° •s ��
III II��i'I illy — `���. R�, �w1C ' �- R14 mt
:."o \ham\ ♦ k L ' rcur
���I
MUM &, alit ` 1 `r �� _ 1�
illi 111J11 NMI 0 •4411. ■ ■19-0 ar
11 Er III
R10A
y 1 • v a 9 p /
11.1 '��Y .... as 8 's €� . "911A r44 - IM ]♦
=MIN SIN� t -UR4 6 > '.,, , ', �° sl`81 ' e�` ■ /ll�wwiairm I
,. C ii is -- r / ili i
Ir ��■ 4 \.• I i , &5'" 7 e " a tffi �'a ���' " ��
um. MI tc� � i� 'nd I•MIIII
1111: 1��r �. R10A1t4 I '`�1°� { 7 `k y � .vai r ?' i�I��} V` • �::'1
u j
II E Ely, 1 {' ra, m:s I Mr--". ♦ •, 311. 11
S��-1/ c,�,�� $ ' .El! Iv � i5 t *`1 o°w1 .'b`\ J ��!Y
��# Mtn. 7 ils itiliN. .1 d,3ar1 mrtei 4 . t _ '± 1 —' o ll
a.',.:1144 .� k.� 1/4x,1 , S p Aaa. iw ' f35'L/mpn, x & • i m11r
Eli 1i1 yS\4 ! rce tiiiai°9 004 iq " clik4� tx �t -a4 -. ��S•lt�1� y i.
arillINI RIOA P=Irei l rt isi "xi,-
4, A./A AD A 's n Iii ,i,4.,+w�.t iir it k
q y��\°�,iii I 1i,l 41R4 I e AG, c +qr�t7 to b.^ C& t g�'�" 't "' m�nitl n d
�'`��t -n it +!• „ma n4 � `� 3 /� 5itta:cc a �/PIO
111.�rillft'R5AR1RA 1 , �& `a 0) ,� 3 : ■∎zg� ='
_ ��jj�� p� � I�� ItlsY9 � �� �.fthY• .� �r
seem�■61,�...r 5/ '� ...� nlfl T+ n` � $t8' agS } rt." L(t^'�r �y� I ,1
r � �. kx `y a 13-.-�_ C . rt� 11011:6i�1, " ��'.
1' 4',_ L, •lamaaLJL r ` 51kN r Iii � • ;
irr 11 1 ors s , ; J�%ha,
0 eA Millitat:Fati sialrilill
El if
Ferndale Urban Growth Area • �,�� �,
Urban Growth Area (UGA) X\� Urban Growth Area (UGA) Reserve ;ao..r..,�..",-.... ( {• \,
/N/ Existing Zoning Boundary ••••se Proposed Zoning Boundary S�z _.
Proposed Zoning in bold- \ �
to,
Existing Zoning Designations,
when channinac in italics