The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutord2009-071WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009 - 52 G CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Council 11/3/2009 11/10/2009 Introduction Division Head: 11/24/2009 Hearing Dept. Head: AAA ` Prosecutor: Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Ordinance amending Code, Comp Plan, and maps - 10 -year UGA review ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance and exhibits SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT 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.) This ordinance amends Whatcom County Code Title 20, the Official Whatcom County Zoning map, the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and maps, to implement changes relating to completion of the 10 year review of the Urban COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 11/10/2009: Introduced 11/24/2009: Council Amended & Adopted 4 -3 Kelly, Nelson & Crawford opposed Ord. 2009 -071 Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers. Ordinance or Resolution Number: Ord, 2009 -071 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 BY: Consent INTRODUCTION DATE. November 10, 2009 ORDINANCE NO, 2009 -071 ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, 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) requires Whatcom County to review, at least every ten years, its urban growth areas and the densities permitted within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the urban growth areas; and WHEREAS, the GMA further requires that the county amend its comprehensive plan designating urban growth areas, and the densities permitted `in the urban growth areas to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding 20 year period; and WHEREAS, time is 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 Council Resolution 2009 -025 added the required 10 year UGA review to the docket of comprehensive plan and zoning code amendments to be considered this year; WHEREAS, the recommended amendments have been considered by the Whatcom County Planning Commission, the Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee and the Whatcom County Council; and 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 Requirements 1. The Growth Management Act (GMA) at RCW 36.70A.130(3) requires Whatcom County to review, at least every ten years, its urban growth 1 oil areas, and the densities permitted within them. The comprehensive plans of the county and each city located within the urban growth area shall be revised to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty year period. 2. The Growth Management Act at RCW 36.70A.110(1) requires urban growth areas to be designated, within which urban growth is encouraged, and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. 3. The county and each city must include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty -year period based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management. Urban growth areas shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. Cities and counties have discretion in their comprehensive plans to make many choices about accommodating growth. (RCW 36.70A.110(2)) 4. 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 each city, the county must justify in writing why it so designated the area an urban growth area. (RCW = 36.70A.110(2)) 5. Urban growth must be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. (RCW 36.70A.110(3)) 6. The Growth Management Act requires that the land use element of a comprehensive plan "provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies.... Where applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flooding, and storm water run -off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound." 36.70A.070(1). 7. Notice of proposed comprehensive plan and zoning amendments were sent to the Department of Commerce on August 21, 2009 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(1). 8. Notice of proposed comprehensive plan and zoning amendments were sent to all cities on August 19, 20090 oil Whatcom County Countywide Planning Policies 92 The countywide planning policies (Appendix C of Comprehensive Plan) include several policies that relate to the designation and review of urban growth areas and their size: C. URBAN GROWTH AREAS 1. Urban growth needs shall be met by a combination of in -fill within cities and by growth within designated municipal and non - municipal Urban Growth Areas. 2. The size and location of Urban Growth Areas shall be consistent with adopted local policies and with the capital facilities plans. 3a. The most current, accurate population projections based on a range provided for Whatcom County by the Office of Financial Management shall be used as the basis for determining that Urban Growth Areas shall include sufficient area to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty -year period. 3b. The County and Cities shall develop a consistent approach to calculating the land supply needed within an urban growth area. This approach shall consider limitations imposed by critical area regulations, infrastructure needs, open space, existing uses, local market factors and the ability of the jurisdiction to provide services. It is recognized that the above limitations may vary by jurisdiction, but the method for applying them shall be consistent. Urban growth areas shall permit a range of densities and uses; however, in recognition of community character, these uses and densities may vary among jurisdictions. 4. Urban Growth Areas shall be evaluated at least every ten years to determine if they contain sufficient area to accommodate the urban growth that is projected for the succeeding twenty -year period. The market factor for each Urban Growth Area shall also be evaluated to determine whether the land supply is adequate to meet the needs of the community or whether the land supply is excessive and contributing to sprawl. 5. Urban Growth areas should be established in a way that minimizes impacts on agricultural land, forestry, mineral resources, water resources, and critical areas. Urban growth shall maintain proper buffers from natural resource areas to minimize conflicts with natural resources and industries based on them. D. CITY URBAN GROWTH AREAS 4. Existing cities should absorb additional population at a range of densities appropriately responsive to the city's community vision before extending city Urban Growth Areas into areas where growth would adversely impact critical areas and resource lands.... 5. All cities should grow in an efficient manner while maintaining their character and, where reasonable, shall provide for adequate open space between cities to prevent strip development. 6. Cities should be encouraged to provide positive incentives for in -fill. 3 Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Orders 10. A Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board order (Petree, et al v. Whatcom County, Case No. 08- 2 -0021c ) found: a. The original deadline to complete the 10 -Year UGA review was May 23, 2007, and the County had not completed the required 10 -Year UGA review. b. The 10 -Year UGA Review was required to be completed by June 30, 2009. 11. On March 30, 2009 the deadline was extended by the Board to December 1, 2009. 12. Early in the review process, the county determined that to most efficiently use resources and avoid duplication of efforts that will be necessary as the seven -year comprehensive plan update is completed over the next two years, the UGA review would be designed to allow as much information, analysis and public participation as possible to be relevant both for the 10 year UGA review and the seven year update. Since the seven year update of 2011 may amend the comprehensive plan to include a planning horizon of 2031, the combined review and update project has been called " Whatcom 2031." 13. As stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the 10 year UGA review (Draft EIS) issued on May 8, 2009, the objectives of the County's 10 -Year UGA Review were as follows: a. Revise the comprehensive plan to extend the planning horizon from the year 2022 to the range 2029 -2031. b. Adopt population growth projections within the range of forecasts from the State of Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) as required by GMA. c. Assure continued compliance with Countywide Planning Policies. d. Revise UGA boundaries that direct where urban land uses and urban public services may occur to accommodate adopted growth projections. e. Amend the Plan's land use map designations that direct zoning regulations to accommodate population and employment forecasts and to meet other community objectives for management of growth. f. Incorporate changes to the Plan to accommodate population and employment growth and ensure consistency among elements, M including, but not limited to land use, transportation, and capital facilities. g. Include additional or updated information and address changes in the County. County Code Requirements 144 Comprehensive plan amendments require (WCC 2.160.080) that the Planning Commission and County Council 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. 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 on 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. i. One development right shall be transferred for every five acres included into an UGA. The county council may modify this requirement if a development agreement has been entered into that specifies the elements of development in the expanded UGA. The development agreement should include, but not be limited to, affordable housing, density, allowed uses, bulk and setback standards, open space, parks, landscaping, buffers, critical areas, transportation and circulation, streetscapes, design standards and mitigation measures. i.7 ii. Exceptions to required TDRs include urban growth area expansion initiated by a government agency, correction of map errors, properties that are urban in character, or expansions where the public interest is served. iii. Urban growth area expansion initiated by the county, cities or other agencies shall be subject to review by county and city planning staff, and the appropriate administrative bodies, to determine whether the subject site is appropriate for designation as a TDR receiving area. 15. Zoning code amendments require (WCC 20.90.050(4)) the hearing body to evaluate the merits of the amendment in relationship to the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for compliance with any other special provisions as provided by WCC 20.90.060. The hearing body must create written findings and a recommendation to the county council for each amendment. Public Participation and Inter - governmental Coordination 16. GMA Goal 11 states that in developing comprehensive plans and development regulations, local governments should "encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts." (RCW 36.70A.020) GMA further states that counties and cities planning under GMA shall engage the public in "early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans..." (RCW 36.70A.140). 17. Following consultation with county and city representatives at the Growth Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) meeting in August 2008, ICF Jones & Stokes prepared on behalf of Whatcom County a public participation plan for Phase 1 of the 10 -Year UGA Review process dated September 2008 to address activities between August and December 2008. An updated Phase 2 public participation plan was prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes on behalf of Whatcom County on September 9, 2008 addressing completed activities between January and August 2008, and planned activities from September through December 2009. The Public Participation Plan was presented to the Whatcom County Council on September 23, 2008 and was open for public review and comment. A revised public participation plan was prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes on behalf of Whatcom County in December 2008 to address Phase 2 efforts to achieve the 10- Year-UGA Review generally between January and June 2009, the original compliance period. 0 18. The Whatcom 2031 page on the County's website ( http: / /www.co.whatcom.wa.us /pds /2031) provided a central point of information and announcements about the review process. All public comments received throughout the process (visioning, EIS scoping, DEIS review, comments on city and Executive proposals, comments to GMCC, etc.) have been scanned and posted on the website. In addition, an e-mail distribution list, composed of over 300 contacts, received regular updates and announcements regarding the Whatcom 2031 update- process, including the UGA review. 19. Between August 29, 2008 and September 1, 2009, the County received over 100 written comments regarding the UGA update. All comments were reviewed and posted to the website, and were made available to decision makers, staff and consultants in preparation of recommendations and actions. 200 To assist in communication among the various jurisdictions and coordinate information and analysis for the review, the County invited representatives from all seven of the cities to participate with county representatives in a Growth Management Coordinating Council. The Growth Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) held monthly meetings between June 2008 and July 2009. The County was represented by the County Executive and two County Council members. The City of Bellingham was represented by its Mayor and a City Council member. The cities of Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, and Sumas were represented by their Mayors or City Council members. The GMCC meetings were open to the public. GMCC packets were posted to the Whatcom 2031 website prior to the meetings, and meeting summaries were posted following the meetings. Written public comments were posted to the Whatcom 2031 website and shared with GMCC members. 21. To both assist in development of technical studies, to improve communication among the various jurisdictions, and to provide staff input to the Growth Management Coordinating Council, a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) composed of planning directors and planners from the county, cities, Port of Bellingham, Whatcom Council of Governments and tribes (invited), met approximately fourteen times between October 2008 and June 2009. The TAG recommended growth forecasts, land capacity methodology, growth allocation methodology, EIS scoping documents, public involvement strategies and regional UGA policies to the Growth Management Coordinating Council. 22. Prior to submitting the proposal to the Whatcom County Council and Planning Commission for their consideration, the County Executive met with elected officials and staff from each of the cities in an attempt to reach agreement with the city on the location of the urban growth area. 7 23. Whatcom County invited cities, special districts, and other service providers to two coordination meetings regarding development of a comprehensive Capital Facilities Plan focusing on the regional growth alternatives. The first meeting was held on February 18, 2009 and the second meeting was held on March 18, 2009. Drafts of documents were provided to service providers for their review and comment prior to publishing the proposed amendment. 24. The County held three county -wide vision workshops in October 2008. In mid September 2008, a workshop postcard announcement was emailed to community organizations and project stakeholders, who then forwarded the announcement on to their constituents and members. The announcement was also placed in various County offices in public areas. Cities were given an opportunity to place them in their offices. A news release was distributed to local newspapers on October 2, 2008. Articles and workshop announcements were included in the October 3 and 15, 2008 editions of the Bellingham Herald. Nearly 100 citizens attended the three meetings combined. 25. The County held three regional growth alternatives workshops in March 2009. In mid- March, a workshop announcement was emailed to community organizations and project stakeholders, who then forwarded the announcement on to their constituents and members. A news release was distributed to local newspapers on March 13, 2009. Nearly 65 citizens attended the three meetings combined. 26. Whatcom County held four open houses presenting Executive recommendations as follows: • August 31, 2009 - Ferndale • September 1, 2009 - Birch Bay • September 3 - Lynden • September 17 - Bellingham 27. Whatcom County held three Birch Bay UGA- specific workshops on January 7, March 23 and May 18, 2009. All meetings were announced with a press release distributed to media outlets, the Whatcom 2031 email list, and through the Birch Bay list maintained by the Birch Bay Steering Committee. Between 20 and 40 people attended the various workshops. 28. Since 2006, the Columbia Valley UGA residents have had opportunity to provide input at more than 40 Advisory Committee and County- sponsored workshops in association with the Foothills Subarea Plan update. 29. After consultation with the GMCC, Whatcom County released a questionnaire addressing community values, population and economic growth, the natural environment, transportation, and the county vision. The questionnaire was distributed via the Whatcom 2031 website, at public meetings, and at select locations across Whatcom County. Between October 10 and November 14, 2008 Whatcom County received 387 responses to the questionnaire. Those results were tabulated and posted on the Whatcom 2031 website, and also presented to the GMCC. 30. With assistance from Whatcom County, the Whatcom Legacy Project conducted a statistically valid phone survey about the values and beliefs of a random sample of Whatcom County residents. The survey addressed questions about residents' attitudes toward population growth and land • 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) • UGA Ordinance amending comprehensive plan and zoning code, including maps (11/24/09 - County Council) 35. City Public Input. Each city conducted its own public input and /or hearings to develop their respective UGA proposals. The cities documented their 9 use. Results of the survey conducted in January 2009 became available on March 31, 2009, and were presented to the GMCC and the County Council. Results were also posted at the Whatcom 2031 website. 31. Following publication of a Determination of Significance and Scoping notice, an EIS scoping comment period extended from January 28 to February 18, 2009, a 21 -day period. Public and agency comments were accepted by letter, e -mail, or in person at a public open house held from noon to 7:00 p.m. on February 17, 2009, and at the joint Whatcom County Planning Commission /County Council public hearing to accept comments held that. same evening from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. 32. The Draft EIS comment period extended from May 8 to June 22, 2009, a 45 -day period, during which time written comments were accepted. = 33. A joint County Planning Commission /County Council work session was held on June 16, 2009 where each City could present its UGA proposal. Each local government developed its UGA proposal with local public participation. The County also presented its proposals for unincorporated UGAs. UGA proposals were made available at the joint County Planning Commission /County Council Workshop, and were posted on the 2031 website. A County Council public hearing was held on June 23, 2009 to accept public comment on the UGA proposals. 34. Public Hearings: The County Council and 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) • UGA Ordinance amending comprehensive plan and zoning code, including maps (11/24/09 - County Council) 35. City Public Input. Each city conducted its own public input and /or hearings to develop their respective UGA proposals. The cities documented their 9 own efforts at public outreach in their proposals submitted in June 2009 and subsequent communications. 36. The Planning and Development Committee of the Whatcom County Council held work sessions to review the Executive's proposal and information being provided by staff at Planning Commission meetings on September 15, September 29, October 6, October 13, October 20, and October 27, 2009. 37. At the October 27 meeting, each of the cities was invited to respond to a series of written questions posed by the Committee and provided to the cities the previous week. 38. On November 3, 2009, the Council met as a Committee of the Whole in a full -day work session to review the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission. Approximately two hours of the meeting was devoted to an opportunity for public comment. 398 One November 10, 2009, the Council convened as the Committee of the Whole to review the draft ordinance and findings for the review. The ordinance was introduced for consideration at the evening meeting of the Council that same date. Growth Forecasts 40. The GMA and the Countywide planning policies require UGAs to include sufficient areas and densities to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the next twenty years. The growth forecast must be based upon the growth management population projection prepared by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). (RCW 36.70A.110 and CWPP C and D.) 41. Cities are to include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses. (RCW 36.70A.110) 42. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan established population growth allocations for the year 2022. The 2022 countywide population forecast is 234,917 people. 43. Between 1990 and 2008, the largest share of population growth in the County was in Bellingham, with the rural unincorporated County areas having the next highest share. After Bellingham, the UGAs receiving the greater shares of growth include Lynden, Ferndale, Columbia Valley, Birch Bay and Blaine. 44. In the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Bellingham was allocated the greatest share of population. Rural areas were slated to take the least share of growth, but have seen substantially more growth than was intended, for a 10 11 variety of reasons, including the presence of more than 18,000 vacant lots in rural and resource lands, and substantial growth in Sudden Valley, a provisional urban growth area which has subsequently been re- designated to non -urban status. 45. As part of the 10 -Year UGA Review, Whatcom County is selecting a horizon year of 2029 and has prepared Comprehensive Plan Amendments reflecting that year. OFM forecasts for 2029 for Whatcom County range from a population estimate of 216,300 to a high of 318,832 (the 2008 OFM estimate of population in Whatcom County was 191,000.) 46. Whatcom County contracted with ICF Jones & Stokes and Berk and Associates to develop countywide population and employment extrapolations and scenarios. These projections were reviewed with cities and the Growth Management Coordinating Council, and their report was first published on September 23, 2008 and later edited and re- published on February 9, 2009. 47. According to the Office of Financial Management, the "development of any series of population projections necessarily reflects the purpose and use of the projections. Purpose and use usually determine the length of the projection horizon, the update cycles, and considerations relating to =how and when projection adjustments are made .... As such, the long -range population projections used for planning should be allowed to play out over time." (Growth Management (GMA) Population Projections, Final 2007 County Projection Update Population Projections, OFM, Forecasting Division, November 2007) 48. The population projections prepared by OFM, Berk and Associates, and recommended by city, county and regional planning directors, and the Growth Management Coordinating Council, reflect an overall declining rate of growth in Washington State and Whatcom County. 49. The employment projections considered the various sectors of the labor force in Whatcom County, including construction, finance, government, manufacturing, retail, services, transportation, and wholesale trade. The projections also considered the labor participation rate as the proportion of labor to the total population of all ages. 500 The GMCC recommended a countywide population forecast of 253,951 (62,951 additional people from 2008) and an employment forecast of 35,424 additional non - agricultural jobs for the planning horizon of 2031. 51. To determine overall employment growth, the GMCC endorsed a labor participation rate of 49% based on analysis prepared by Berk & Associates, finalized in February 9, 2009. N 52. The GMCC supported the allocation requests of the individual jurisdictions without any adjustments. As a result, the GMCC's original population forecast of 251,490 for the year 2031 made in October 2008 was adjusted 11 to compile the individual requests of the cities. These requests reflected a significant increased shift in the share of growth allocated to the smaller urban areas, and a corresponding decrease in share allocated to the city of Bellingham. 53. The County Executive recommended allocating 245,973 in population to UGAs and rural areas with a reserve population allocation of 8,548. This results in a total potential allocation of 254,521 population. The County Executive proposal was based on the following elements: • The county wide population forecast of 251,490 for the year 2029 was included in the analysis prepared by Berk & Associates, finalized in a report dated February 9, 2009 and recommended by city, county and regional planning directors. • Bellingham has been, and will continue to be, the primary population and employment center in Whatcom County. Bellingham was requested to come back as part of the 7 -year review process in 2011 with a proposal for how they would accommodate an additional 4,441 people. • Having small cities become more self- sufficient should allow more efficient delivery of public services and facilities, and reduce commuter traffic into Bellingham. • Growth should be focused in urban areas. The share of rural growth should be reduced compared to historic trends. Growth allocated to areas outside UGAs should not exceed 15% of total population growth. 54. The Council finds that the growth forecasts recommended by the Growth Management Coordinating Council are likely higher than what is expected to occur in the next 20 -year planning period. Since release of the Berk and Associates report on growth forecasts, a recession has significantly reduced growth, resulting in significant drops in employment, construction and net migration to Whatcom County. Migration is an important component of the state and county growth and is largely driven by employment opportunities. According to OFM (2009 Population Trends, OFM Forecasting Division, September 2009), population gains due to migration in the state dropped from 81,000 in 2006 to 58,000 in 2008 to 39,000 in 2009: "Continued housing difficulties nationwide and poor economic conditions appear to be limiting the mobility of the population usually influenced by labor market opportunities. Many job seekers are finding it difficult to find a job and /or sell their homes, thereby inhibiting relocation opportunities." 55. The Council finds that the growth forecast of 246,602, with a request for Bellingham to return with a proposal to accommodate additional population of 4,441, is both within the range of OFM population forecasts for 2029 and is a reasonable forecast considering migration trends and the purpose of and use of the projections during an Urban Growth Area review process. M An active land monitoring program, communication with the cities, and monitoring of and participation in efforts to broaden current capital facilities plans will give the County sufficient information to determine if the growth rates, population allocations and land supplies in various localities need to be adjusted. 56. The 2008 share of the population in urban areas is 69% of the county -wide population. The Council finds that the allocation of approximately 85% of the forecasted population growth to urban areas, and the remaining growth to rural areas, accommodates the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty year period. 57. The 2008 share of the employment in urban areas is 87% of the county- wide non - agricultural employment. The Council finds that the allocation of approximately 93% of the forecasted employment growth to urban areas, and the remaining growth to rural areas, accommodates the urban employment growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty year period. 58. The current rural population accounts for approximately 31% of the county -wide population. The share of population growth in rural areas has been declining from 24.7% between 1990 and 2000, to 19.7% since 2000. The Growth Management Coordinating Council and County Executive proposed allocation of approximately 15% of the population growth to rural areas. The allocation of approximately 15% of the population growth to rural areas will continue to encourage more growth into urban areas while recognizing that an estimate of over 18,000 existing vacant parcels exist in rural and resource lands (Table 9 and 10, Appendix A - Review of Growth, August 14, 2009)2 EIS and Alternatives 59. To comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the County issued a Determination of Significance on January 28, 2009 and initiated the preparation of an EIS. 60. The EIS scoping comment period extended from January 28 to February 18, 2009, a 21 -day period. Comments were accepted by letter, e -mail, or in person at a public open house held from noon to 7:00 p.m. on February 17, 2009, and the joint Whatcom County Planning Commission /County Council public hearing held that same evening from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. 61. The Draft EIS compared natural and built environment impacts of and mitigation measures for two No Action alternatives and two Action growth alternatives: 13 • No Action Current Comprehensive Plan Alternative. The No Action Current Comprehensive Alternative assumes growth similar to the 2008 adopted comprehensive plan. • No Action Trends Alternative. The No Action Trends Alternative assumes future growth that matches the recent historic pattern of urban and rural growth. • Action Alternative X. Action Alternative X would shift future growth from the rural areas and resource lands into the UGAs and would continue to focus on Bellingham as the primary employment and population center in the County. Action Alternative X would emphasize infill development in the existing UGAs and assumes that planned densities would be achieved. • Action Alternative Y. Action Alternative Y would shift future growth from the rural areas and resource lands into the UGAs to a lesser degree than Action Alternative X or the adopted comprehensive plan. Growth would be shifted away from Bellingham to other small urban areas. Densities would be similar to the patterns achieved in the last 5 years. 62. The Draft EIS comment period extended from May 8 to June 22, 2009, a 45 -day period, during which time written comments were accepted. 63. The analysis in the Draft EIS was based on an assumption that the County's population will grow to between 234,917 and 258,448 by the years 2029 -2031. The Draft EIS studied employment levels of 110,933 to 122,044 by the years 2029 -2031. 64. 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 and suitability analysis, as is the countywide population projection for 2029 of 246,602. Land Supply, Land Demand, and Monitoring 65. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.115) requires that" ... adoption of and amendments to their comprehensive plans and /or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment growth, ... as adopted in the applicable countywide planning policies and consistent with the twenty -year population forecast from the office of financial management." 66. In the Final Decision and Order, Case No. 08- 2- 0021c, Jack Petree, et al v. Whatcom County, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board indicated that a Land Capacity Analysis is a "critical mechanism for the sizing of a UGA because it is utilized to determine how much urban land 14 is needed. It is prospective - looking forward over the coming 20 years to see if there is enough land within the UGA to accommodate the growth that has been allocated to the area. However, part of this determination of how much land is available is filled with assumptions or `educated guesses" that lack absolute certainty..." FDO, October 13, 2008. 679 A land capacity analysis method addressing land demand and land supply was prepared by Berk & Associates in Fall 2008, reviewed by staff from cities and the county, and presented to the GMCC, Planning Commission and County Council between Fall 2008 and Spring 2009. Consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies' requirement of a coordinated effort to establish a methodology for the analysis, Whatcom County's land capacity methodology includes a common framework for preparing the analysis but allows for local jurisdictions to propose alternative assumptions in some instances. Whatcom County's land capacity methodology was approved by the GMCC on December 3, 2008, and subject to public hearing before the Whatcom County Council on December 9, 2008. The GMCC was presented with minor amendments to the methodology on January 21, 2009. The amended land capacity methodology was presented to the Whatcom County Planning Commission and County Council at the February 17;. 2009 EIS Scoping Hearing. Following that scoping hearing, additional minor amendments to the methodology were incorporated and published on March 11, 2009 based on discussions with city planners. Following discussion with city planners and consideration in the Draft EIS, Executive Recommendations included proposed revisions including additional limitations on calculating development potential in floodplain areas. 68. 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. On August 14, 2009, Executive Recommendations included a slightly revised method and results. 69. Based on results in Draft EIS Chapter 2, achieved single family densities in the UGAs shows a range of 2.2 dwellings per acre in Sumas to 4.9 dwellings per acre in Bellingham, with an average for remaining UGAs of 4.3 dwellings per acre. Planned single family densities are urban in character for all UGAs and range from 4.0 to 5.5. 708 The Draft EIS issued May 8, 2009 was based on the March 16, 2009 land capacity analysis. The Draft EIS tested the use of achieved densities for Alternative Y. 71. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan adopted a countywide 2022 population forecast of 234,917. The land capacity analysis shows that, except for the 15 Lynden UGA, all UGAs exceed the amount of land the projected 20 -year population growth. 72. With a 2029 countywide growth forecast of 251,4! and Associates, the land capacity analysis showed nine UGAs out of ten were identified as exceeding needed to accommodate the projected alternative needed to accommodate a0 recommended by Berk that between eight and the amount of land population growth for a 16 20 -year period. 73. With the exception of the Lynden UGA, the results of the 10 -Year UGA Review land capacity analysis in 2009 are similar to the results of the 2008 land capacity analysis contained in Whatcom County Resolution 2008 -007 which found all UGAs oversized with respect to allocations contained in the current comprehensive plan when considering just short -term planning areas within UGAs, exclusive of long -term planning areas within UGAs. The 2008 land capacity analysis was generally based on city comprehensive plans and county subarea plans. 74. City proposals presented on June 16, 2009 included requests to modify particular land capacity analysis assumptions for their communities. These changes to assumptions tended to reduce the potential excess of UGA land though the general conclusions of UGA sizing tended to remain. 75. Executive Recommendations dated August 19, 2009 documented the city proposals for UGAs and the County Executive's recommendations for UGAs and UGA Reserves, and included adjustments in land capacity assumptions and minor changes in methodology. 76. The Land Capacity Analysis process is very data intensive and required significant contributions from local jurisdictions to provide data on recent residential and commercial development, local plans and policies, and critical areas. Cities provided proposed land uses and densities to be used within the analysis, and then checked and modified the classification of parcel status as to vacant, underutilized or developed. The data was then analyzed and represented to cities in both tabular and graphic form to check before being released to the public for review. 77. Whatcom County, in partnership with the cities, intends to monitor growth to ensure that assumptions used in the land capacity analysis are current and accurate. Executive recommendations included a proposed land monitoring methodology recommending annual data collection and reporting tasks to facilitate proposed five -year mid -term report and future 10 -year UGA reviews. In addition, periodic review of the land capacity methodology will also be pursued to improve the accuracy of the results. 16 UGA Boundaries 78. Based on RCW 36.70A.110, counties must designate UGAs —areas already characterized by urban development or adjacent to areas characterized by urban development —in consultation with cities. UGAs are to be revised, if necessary, to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding 20 -year period. Designated UGAs are to accommodate future urban growth; services and facilities and their areas should be available or planned to support future urban growth. All cities must be within UGAs; unincorporated land within UGAs must be urban in character or adjacent to such lands. Lands outside. of UGAs are to be designated as resource lands or rural. In general, urban development is not to be permitted on these lands and all development must be resource - related or rural in character. 79. The GMA requires protection of agricultural, forest, and mineral lands of long -term commercial significance. GMA Goal 8 states: "Maintain and enhance natural resource -based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses." (RCW 36.70A.020) The GMA provides guidelines for classification of resource lands in RCW 36.70A.050, and the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) further defines them in Chapter 365 -190 WAC. 80. A Suitability Analysis produced and used in advance of public workshops in mid -March 2009 was also published in the Draft EIS. It provided additional UGA- specific information about factors that influence the shape and size of each UGA in Whatcom County. The suitability analysis considered urbanized areas and areas adjacent to urbanized areas, location of services, environmental and resource constraints, and community choices. 81, Based on County studies, public comments, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) water quality criteria, the Suitability Analysis identified land located in watersheds identified as sensitive to additional development including Lake Whatcom, Lake Padden, Birch Bay and Drayton Harbor Watersheds. The locations of water bodies that are impaired and do not meet all of the state's water quality criteria were also mapped. Bellingham 820 The City of Bellingham submitted a UGA proposal in June 2009. The city proposed that no changes be made to the UGA at this time, that no additional lots be created in the Lake Whatcom Watershed UGAs, and that the city be allocated at least 113,055 total population and 18,829 new jobs. 17 83. The County Executive proposed that the portion of the UGA within the Lake Whatcom watershed be removed from the UGA and that the portion of the UGA in the Lake Padden watershed be placed in an Urban Growth Area Reserve. The Executive proposed a reduction of the population allocation to what could be accommodated in the proposed UGA without the watershed areas. The Executive also requested that the city develop a proposal as part of the 7 -year review process on how they would accommodate an additional population allocation of 4,441 through infill, changes in land use densities within the city and UGA, or expansion of the UGA. 84. The City of Bellingham responded to the County Executive proposed UGA on September 17, 2009. The city accepted the request to plan for a future population of approximately 116,200, requested that the areas within the Lake Whatcom Watershed currently in the UGA remain in the UGA, and agreed with removal of that portion of the Lake Padden watershed until at least the 7 -year planning review due in December 2011, 85. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Bellingham to establish new residential developments at densities averaging six to twelve units per net residential acre. The Council finds that the city of Bellingham should encourage densities at .a higher range of six to twenty -four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 7.3 units per net residential acre (7.5 within the city and 7.1 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). 86. Continued urban development within the Lake Whatcom watershed contradicts County goals of protecting the watershed. Lake Whatcom, the drinking water source for the City of Bellingham and other areas of the county, is designated as an impaired water body under the Clean Water Act. In its analysis of the lake in preparation of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), the Washington Department of Ecology has determined that the low dissolved oxygen levels in the lake are the result of excess phosphorous loading, at least partially the result of urbanization in the watershed. (Lake Whatcom Watershed Total Phosphorus and Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Loads: Water Quality Study Findings, DOE publication #08- 03 -024) Although the TMDL is not yet final, it is clear that the City and County will be required to significantly reduce the phosphorous loading to the lake and prevent additional loading. One way to prevent additional loading from urbanization is to limit the opportunities for urbanization through comprehensive plan policies and zoning codes. The City of Bellingham requested that the County's UGA review decision prevent the creation of any additional urban lots in the Lake Whatcom watershed. (Resolution #2009 -14) im 87. The interlocal between Bellingham and Whatcom County concerning annexation and development within the City of Bellingham UGA (WC Contract # 9712012) requires the County to consider City input before rezoning any property within the UGA. It further provides that the City and County agree to work on appropriate zoning within the Lake Whatcom watershed, recognizing its status as a water resource protection area. The City has requested by Resolution #2009 -14 that the UGA review decision not result in the creation of any additional urban lots in the watershed. The terms of the interlocal have been met by the extensive coordination with the City of Bellingham during the UGA review, and we further find that by rezoning the Lake Whatcom watershed UGAs to UR (1 unit per 5 acres), the zoning will be consistent with the City's request for the creation of no additional urban lots in the watershed and consistent with the procedural requirements of the interlocal agreement. 88. Both the city and county recognize that the Lake Whatcom Watershed should not be further developed at urban densities. The city has requested that the watershed areas stay in the UGA to permit future annexation. The Council finds that permitting future urban level densities is inconsistent with the phosphorous loading reductions necessary to restore the water quality of Lake Whatcom. The Council also finds that there is very little population capacity remaining in the watershed UGA areas, and that the City of Bellingham has expressed interest in exploring the possibility of annexing those areas. To allow sufficient time for those exploratory discussions to occur and for Bellingham to pursue annexation of the areas under all annexation processes available to it, the watershed UGAs will remain in the Bellingham UGA until December 2012, or until the City of Bellingham formally notifies the County that they do not intend to annex the areas, whichever is sooner. 89. Lake Padden Park is located within the Bellingham city limits, south of the Yew St. Rd. area. The park is used for a variety of recreational activities, including fishing and swimming in Lake Padden, While Lake Padden is on the Clean Water Act's list for PCBs, there are also potential water quality issues associated with development in the watershed. The Final Environmental Impact Statement For: The City of Bellingham; Bellingham Urban Growth Area; Five -Year Review Areas; and Whatcom County Urban Fringe Subarea (July 1, 2004) states: ... Urban runoff, septic tank leakage and fertilizer /pesticide runoff have degraded Padden Creek and Lake Padden water quality. In recent years there have been consistent high fecal coliform counts, turbidity and visible oil sheen. Water quality in Lake Padden has improved with the extension of sewer service to the vicinity, but still suffers late in the 19 summer due to reduced flushing, increased urbanization and growing waterfowl populations. Lake Padden occasionally experiences periods of high water temperature and low dissolved oxygen. Potential threats to this watershed include urban, industrial and commercial runoff, industrial expansion and increased urban development... (p. 3 -28)8 90. The City of Bellingham has capital facility plans for key urban services including sewer and water. The city's water and sewer plans accommodate the population alternatives considered in the 10 -Year UGA Review. 91. Draft EIS alternatives generally indicated that there was a surplus of capacity for population and a deficit of capacity for employment; exceptions included the No Action Current Comprehensive Plan Alternative which shows a small surplus of employment capacity and Action Alternative X which showed a deficit for population capacity. 92. In June 2009, a series of modifications to the Land Capacity Analysis were made addressing a variety of issues, including city- specific densities and,< household sizes, employment corrections, and master planned development corrections. The county and city collaborated on these 20 adjustments, which are all within the parameters of the approved LCA; methodology. 939 Based on the proposed population allocation, and a proposed UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a balanced residential land demand and land supply. 94. In order to ensure that there is not pressure on development in rural and resource lands due to insufficient housing opportunities in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area, the City of Bellingham is requested to develop a proposal to demonstrate how it will accommodate a future population of 116,200. The comprehensive plan includes a request for the city to submit a proposal as part of the required 7 -year comprehensive plan and development regulation update process due December 1, 2011 for how they would accommodate this additional population. Whatcom County will then consider the recommendations of the city, including additional growth allocations and adjustments to land use plans to accommodate the projected growth. 95. Based on the proposed employment allocation and the proposed UGA boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a surplus of employment acres. 96. The Bellingham UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth, densities allowed are urban in nature except for special environmentally sensitive areas, and adequate public facilities and services can be provided. 20 Birch Bay 97. The current Birch Bay Community Plan for designation of the UGA was submitted by the county in June 2009 as a basis for UGA review. The proposal included keeping the current UGA boundaries and the allocation of population as outlined in the 2004 Community Plan, 98. The County Executive proposed a reduction in the future population forecast for Birch Bay, and a resulting decrease in the size of the UGA. The County Executive also proposed deleting the provisions of a rezone at the intersection of Blaine and Alderson Roads in Ord. 2004 -049, 99. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Birch Bay to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The Birch Bay Community Plan also encourages multi - family residential densities in some areas of the UGA. The. assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 5.9 units per net residential acre. 1000 Birch Bay serves primarily as a resort community, although its identity is shifting as more full -time residents move into the area. 101. The Birch Bay community has been engaged in ascertaining the viability of incorporation. An incorporation feasibility study was completed in March 2008, 102. The Birch Bay community has actively planned for its future, drafting the Birch Bay Community Plan in 2004, updating the Transportation chapter in 2009, and crafting design guidelines for commercial areas. 103. Public facilities and services have been planned for Birch Bay. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District provides sanitary sewer and domestic water to the area. 104. The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District's 2009 Comprehensive Water Plan indicates that the existing water supply contract with the City of Blaine is only sufficient to provide a maximum daily rate through 2011. The district's plan states that additional water supply, including use of surplus storage, and /or conservation will be necessary to meet the demand beyond that time. The plan further states that the District is able to serve its projected population through 2015 with contracted water supply provided by the City of Blaine and the District's water storage capacity. The district's 2009 Comprehensive Water Plan includes several new supply and distribution projects expected to address supply deficiencies. The district's Comprehensive Water Plan population projection accommodates all studied alternatives including the Executive proposed growth allocation. 105. 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 21 22 accommodate the growth anticipated to 2029. The district's 2009 sewer plan accommodates the proposed growth allocation as well as all but one Draft EIS alternative. 106. Fire District 21 (aka North Whatcom Fire and Rescue), which serves the Birch Bay UGA, has completed and adopted a Capital Facilities Plan for its fire district. The capital facilities plan is adopted by reference in the comprehensive plan, and is implemented through concurrency requirements in county code (WCC 20.80.212) and through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 107. The Birch Bay community is developing plans to protect aquatic resources in Birch Bay, through the Birch Bay Watershed Characterization Project and the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Management (BBWARM) program. The Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District designated BBWARM as a subzone of the district and levies an assessment on all properties within the subzone to pay for stormwater management improvements in an effort to improve the water quality of Birch Bay. Whatcom County was also required to designate Birch Bay as a Shellfish Protection District pursuant to RCW 90.72.045 due to water quality degradation caused by ongoing nonpoint sources of pollution that closed or downgraded the recreatbn;al shellfish growing areas in Birch Bay. 108. The growth forecast in the 2004 Community Plan for Birch Bay was done during a significant boom in residential development in that area. Since then, construction has slowed (Table 4, Land Capacity & Demand Results, August 14, 2009). 109. Cities in Whatcom County raised the concern during the Growth Management Coordinating Council process, and in public hearing testimony, that the priority should be on urban growth in incorporated areas before growth into unincorporated areas. 110. Under all Draft EIS alternatives there was a surplus of land capacity for population and employment, except for Action Alternative Y which shows a small deficit for employment. 111. Based on the proposed population allocation, and a proposed UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a surplus of residential acres. 112. Based on the proposed employment allocation, and the proposed UGA boundaries, the land capacity analysis shows a surplus of employment land supply. 113. The Birch Bay UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth, densities allowed are urban in nature except for special environmentally sensitive areas, and adequate public facilities and services can be provided. The proposed reduction brings the UGA into a greater balance between supply and demand for urban land, and removes some 22 sensitive lands from the UGA that are not suitable to urban development and might degrade the quality of water entering Birch Bay, Blaine 114. The City of Blaine submitted a proposal for its UGA in June 2009 that included reductions of its current UGA by over 2,000 acres, focusing on removal of the most environmentally sensitive lands surrounding Drayton Harbor. The city also proposed an allocation of 4,700 additional people and 1,903 additional employees in the 20 -year planning period. 115. The County Executive proposed to remove an additional area called "West Blaine" along Semiahmoo Drive from the UGA. The Executive recommended a smaller population allocation of 4,249. 116. No formal response to the County Executive proposal was received from the City of Blaine in the public hearings held in June. Upon request of the County Council, the City of Blaine provided information on October 27, 2009 to the Council Planning and Development Committee relating to its: - planning efforts for manufacturing and industrial lands in the East Blaine UGA, including transportation and additional infrastructure. To explain why part of the East Blaine planning area within the city limits could not be rezoned to meet the City's industrial land needs, the City provided information relating to two vested subdivisions at either end of the East Blaine area, making the are in the middle incompatible for manufacturing uses, in addition to its distance from major trucking and rail routes. 117. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Blaine to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 4.7 units per net residential acre (4.8 within the city and 4.0 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). 118. Under all Draft EIS alternatives there would be a significant surplus of capacity for population and a deficit of capacity for employment. 119. Prior land capacity reviews in 2008 identified the surplus capacity as stated in Resolution 2008 -007. 120. The City of Blaine's Comprehensive Water System Plan accommodates population projections studied in the Draft EIS and in Executive recommendations. The plan notes that the city has adequate supply to meet projected demand. 121. The City of Blaine reaches a sewage treatment deficit by 2031 using existing treatment capacity. The City plans to complete construction on its new wastewater treatment plant and begin operation in 2010. The new wastewater treatment plant's design capacity accommodates projected wastewater flows for the 20 -year planning period. 23 122. Fire District 21 (aka North Whatcom Fire and Rescue), which serves the Blaine UGA, has completed and adopted a Capital Facilities Plan for its fire district. The capital facilities plan is adopted by reference in the comprehensive plan, and is implemented through concurrency requirements in county code (WCC 20.80.212) and through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 123. Based on the proposed population allocation, and considering a proposed UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a surplus of residential acres, without the need to retain the "West Blaine" part of the UGA. 124. Based on the proposed employment allocation and the proposed UGA boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a deficit of employment land supply. The area included within the proposed UGA immediately east of the city along Odell Road south to Sweet Road, while designated by the county as residential areas, are planned by the city as employment lands based on its June 2009 proposal and October 2009 response to Council questions. These residential lands within the UGA can, be used to accommodate the employment deficit. 125. The Blaine UGA lies almost wholly within the Drayton Harbor watershed, which has been designated as a Shellfish Protection District in 1995 pursuant to RCW 90.72.045 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. From 1999 to 2004, the entire harbor was downgraded to a "Prohibited" status for shellfish harvesting. Due to improvements in water quality, the state conditionally reopened the main shellfish beds to harvesting in 2004. 126. The Blaine UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth, densities allowed are urban in nature except for special environmentally sensitive areas, and adequate public facilities and services can be provided. The lands proposed for removal from the UGA are shown to be the most environmentally sensitive where development at higher densities could pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound and Drayton Harbor or waters entering Drayton Harbor. Cherry Point 127. Cherry Point has been designated for industrial uses since Whatcom County's first Comprehensive Plan in 1970. 128. This region of Whatcom County has a number of factors that have made the location ideal for industrial uses, such as the availability of large parcels to meet demands of the types of industries likely to locate there, access to a deep water port, proximity to Canada, energy service from three providers and access to the Burlington Northern Railroad. 24 129. The Cherry Point UGA is a Major /Port Industrial UGA permitted under a different section of the GMA from other UGAs, RCW 36.70A.365. This GMA section allows for jurisdictions to designate an area outside of the traditional UGAs for Heavy Impact Industrial uses. RCW 36.70A.365 lists a number of criteria that must be met for a jurisdiction to designate a UGA, such as Cherry Point, including a requirement for an inventory of developable land to be conducted with findings that land suitable to site major industrial development is unavailable within other UGAs. This inventory was conducted as part of the designation in 1997, and no additional heavy industry locations have developed within other UGAs to alter these findings. 130. Public Utility District 1 appears to have adequate capital plans for water. 131. Currently the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District does not fully serve the Cherry Point UGA with sewer service. 132. Industrial UGAs require implementation of a Traffic Demand Management Program (TDM). The proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning code include a requirement that any employers in the UGA with 100 or more full -time employees meet the TDM requirements of WCC 16.24 133. Reduction of the Cherry Point Industrial UGA is not advisable or practical, even though there appears to be excess capacity beyond the twenty - years. The boundaries are drawn along major roadways that serve as a transition or buffer to adjacent rural areas. Moving the boundary in would only increase the conflicts between rural and heavy industrial uses. Columbia Valley 1340 The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan was amended in 1999 to establish a UGA in the Columbia Valley (Ordinance 99 -075). A total population projection of 5,000 people was established for the 2022 planning horizon period (Ordinance 2004 -013). 135. The Columbia Valley's 2000 population was approximately 2,490 people. By 2008, the population had grown to about-3,924, The Columbia Valley's population is greater than three of the seven cities in Whatcom County, 136. The Foothills Subarea Plan Advisory Committee issued a Draft Foothills Subarea Plan in October 2007, This Draft Subarea Plan, which has not yet been adopted, contains recommendations for the Columbia Valley UGA. The Foothills Subarea Plan Advisory Committee recommended a total population projection of 7,053 for the UGA. This would have constituted planned growth of 3,129 people if applied to the 2008 to 2029 planning period, or about 149 people per year. 25 137. On March 17, 2009, the County Council passed a motion to forward a population projection for 2029 -31 of 5,000 people in the Columbia Valley UGA, consistent with the growth projection and allocation in the current comprehensive plan. This constitutes planned growth of 1,076 people from 2008 to 2029, or about 51 people per year. 138. Under all Draft EIS alternatives there would be a surplus of land capacity for population and employment, except for the No Action Trends Alternative which shows a small deficit for population capacity. 139. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Columbia Valley to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 4.0 units per net residential acre. 140. The Columbia Valley UGA is served by two special purpose districts that provide public water, one district that provides public sewer, and a fire district. However, current capital facility planning does not support allocation of additional population, over the existing projection of 5,000 people, to the Columbia Valley UGA. 141. The Water District 13 Water System Plan (2005) indicates that it has adequate water supply to serve its service area by the district's planning horizon year of 2024. The district's capital improvement plan identifies a variety of projects through 2010 that are needed to ensure adequate water service. Pursuant to state regulations, Water District 13 is required to update its water system plan by March 2011, 142. Water District 13, serving a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA, is expected to experience a sewage treatment deficit under all studied alternatives without additional treatment capacity. The water district is currently updating its Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 143. Evergreen Water and Sewer District 19 provides water service to portions of the Columbia Valley UGA. The Evergreen Water and Sewer District's Comprehensive Water System Plan is from 2004. Pursuant to state regulations, Evergreen Water and Sewer District is required to update its water system plan by August 2010. 1440 The Columbia Valley UGA population is greater than the population of three of the seven cities in Whatcom County. However, the Columbia Valley UGA does not have a centrally located town center to meet the commercial and public service needs of the residents. The Foothills Subarea Plan Advisory Committee recommended a 44 acre Planned Town Center in the UGA. General Commercial zoning for this Planned Town Center will allow a mix of commercial, institutional, and higher density residential uses. 145. The retention of a portion of the approximately eighty acre parcel on the west side of the UGA for residential uses will help facilitate the development of the adjacent town center in an effort to provide needed 26 commercial services in the area and reduce commuter trips into Bellingham. It is not appropriate to consider urban development within the portion of that parcel that lies within an alluvial fan hazard area. Designation of the planned town center for general commercial zoning will help facilitate employment opportunities in the UGA. 146. Based on the proposed population allocation, and considering a proposed UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a surplus of residential acres. 147. Based on the proposed employment allocation, and the proposed UGA boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a balance of employment land demand and land supply. 148. The Columbia Valley UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth, densities allowed are urban in nature, and adequate public facilities and services should be provided within the 20 -year planning period. The Planning Commission recommended reducing the size of the Columbia Valley UGA from 1,489 acres to approximately 1,197 acres. This constitutes a reduction of about 292 acres (just under a 20% reduction). Reducing the size of the UGA will assist in bringing a greater balance between supply and demand for urban land and recognize that there Ore capital facility issues that need to be addressed as part of the forthcoming 7 -year plan and code update process. 27 Everson 149, The City of Everson submitted a proposal for its UGA in June 2009. The proposal included removal of some lands from the UGA and expansion in the UGA to the north. In net, the city proposed a reduction of its UGA by 22 acres. The city proposed an allocation of 1,948 additional people and 628 additional employees. 150. The County Executive proposed a slightly smaller UGA by removing a portion of the UGA expansion lying within floodplain areas, and placing some large lot residential areas in an Urban Growth Area Reserve. The County Executive also proposed lower allocation of population and employment to be consistent with historic growth patterns and overall county -wide growth projections. 151. The City of Everson responded to the Executive proposal with support, but did note that the city believed that it acted responsibly by having a net acreage returned to agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance from urban designations. 152. The City of Everson and its UGA serve the surrounding area as a commercial, retail and industrial center. 153. Under all Draft EIS alternatives, the existing UGA provides a surplus of capacity for population and employment. 154. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Everson to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 4.5 units per net residential acre (4.6 within the city and 4.4 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). 155. The City proposal presented to Whatcom County requested a high growth allocation consistent with its 2.5% average annual growth rate experienced during the 1990s. Some of this additional growth is proposed to accommodate a shift from Bellingham and rural areas to the small cities as envisioned by one of the Draft EIS alternatives. 156. The City would like to see the jobs -to- population ratio increase over time so that more citizens of the area will be able to work in their own community and avoid traveling to job centers. 157. The City proposed a swap of UGA territory that is less suited for urban development for land better suited. The area proposed to be added is adjacent to the current city limits and planned expansion of the city's largest park. This land is within walking distance to downtown and can be easily served by the sewage treatment plant. 158. Land proposed for removal from Everson's Urban Growth Area is composed of prime agricultural soils, as determined by the USDA's Natural Resources 28 29 Conservation Service (Map #18, Prime Agricultural Soils - Designated Agricultural Lands, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, 2008). A majority of the land proposed for removal from the UGA and placement into resource lands are within designated flood plain areas. Parcels range in size and can be used for commercial production of agriculture products. The areas proposed for removal were first proposed by the city and indicate its consent that public facilities and services will not be extended and that the most appropriate land designation is agricultural lands of long- term commercial significance. 159. GMA was amended effective July 26, 2009 to prohibit the expansion of an UGA into the one hundred year floodplain of any river or river segment that: (i) Is located west of the crest of the Cascade mountains; and (ii) has a mean annual flow of one thousand or more cubic feet per second as determined by the State of Washington Department of Ecology. (RCW 36.70A.110; Engrossed House Bill 1967). The Nooksack River meets these criteria, and some of the area proposed for removal are consistent with this new provision of GMA. 160. Based on a review of its plans, assumptions, and agreements, the city concluded in its proposal to the county that the city has adequate water source capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. 161. The city's wastewater treatment can serve the majority of growth anticipated within the existing city limits, but is insufficient to meet the demands that are anticipated to serve the entire UGA. 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 2031. 162. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan identifies agricultural lands as an "important resource to the people of Whatcom County and Washington State. Yet these lands are often considered available for urban or rural uses. Often the conversion process begins when rural uses move onto agricultural land, creating smaller parcels, more buildings, and activities that, in some cases are incompatible with agriculture. In many cases, this blurs the line of distinction between agriculture uses and other uses and sets the stage for further conversion of the limited agricultural land base in Whatcom County." 1630 Based on the proposed population allocation, and considering a proposed UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a surplus of residential acres. 164. Based on the proposed employment allocation and the proposed UGA boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a small surplus of capacity, but is essentially in balance. 165. The Everson UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth, densities allowed are urban in nature, and adequate public facilities and 29 services can be provided. Reducing the Everson UGA will assist in bringing a greater balance between supply and demand for urban land and protection of adjacent resource lands from incompatible development. Designation of some lands as urban growth reserve will provide time for the County to complete development of a program to mitigate for the loss of agricultural lands when UGAs are expanded while allowing the city to begin planning for those lands, so that they are fully capable of serving those areas by the time they are needed within the UGA. Ferndale 166. The City of Ferndale submitted a written paper to the County Council and Planning Commission regarding their 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 approves the land capacity analysis. The city suggested in its June proposal that it would request the county reduce the UGA by 900 gross acres for residential purposes, and expand the UGA for employment purposes by 100 gross acres in the vicinity of Slater and I -5, abutting the Bellingham UGA, _and by 80 acres on the west side of Enterprise Road. The city requested an allocation of 8,687 additional people and 4,747 additional employees. 167. 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 methodology. The Executive proposed a lower allocation of population and employment than requested in order to shift growth back to Bellingham, the county's primary population and employment center, and to be consistent with historic growth patterns and overall county -wide growth projections. The County Executive proposal, released on August 19, 2009 for public review, found the request for additional employment allocation, without any specific area designated or environmental review completed, not timely for consideration during this review process. 168. The City of Ferndale provided a written proposal to the Whatcom County Council on August 19, 2009, the same day that the Executive released his recommendations. The city affirmed its earlier positions as to the size of the UGA, provided a map that included proposed reductions in the UGA and proposed expansion of the UGA for employment purposes. The city also did not support the county's proposal for Urban Growth Area Reserves. The city also raised concerns about the inputs and assumptions used in the land capacity analysis. 169. Based on its location north of Bellingham and along -I -S, Ferndale is now both an employment center as well as a residential community. Ferndale L 170. 171. 172 173 174. 1758 accounted for 8.2% of the county growth between 1990 and 2008, third to the City of Bellingham and City of Lynden during this time period. In 2005, the City completed a Buildable Lands Inventory, which concluded "'that Ferndale has enough residential land in it's [sic] planning area to accommodate the projected population growth over the next 20 years. In fact, the 20 -year "supply" of potential dwelling units at 5,697 is nearly twice the population's "demand" for dwelling units over that same 20- years." This conclusion was reached despite the fact that the city used conservative calculations, "meaning that there is probably more buildable land existing within the city and UGA than this study indicates." The City has provided comments regarding densities that they would like to have used in the land capacity analysis. These proposals are based on a different definition of net developable acres than what is within the County- wide Land Capacity Analysis methodology approved by the Growth Management Coordinating Council and County Council, The City has not provided. documentation as to how its proposal is consistent with the methodology used for all other UGAs in Whatcom County. Other adjustments to assumptions were considered and included as documented in the assumptions. All Draft EIS alternatives showed a significant surplus of capacity for population and a surplus for employment. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Ferndale to establish new residential developments at densities averaging six to eight units per net residential acre. The Council finds that the city of Ferndale should encourage densities at a wider range of five to ten units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 5.2 units per net residential acre (6.5 within the city and 4.0 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). Portions of the Ferndale UGA lie within the Drayton Harbor and Birch Bay watersheds, which have been designated as a Shellfish Protection District (Drayton Harbor in 1995) pursuant to RCW 90.72.045 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. From 1999 to 2004, the Drayton Harbor was downgraded to a "Prohibited" status for shellfish harvesting. Due to improvements in water quality, the state conditionally reopened the main shellfish beds to harvesting in 2004. The areas proposed by the City of Ferndale for expansion,. Slater and I -5 and Enterprise were not evaluated for employment capacity under the land capacity analysis, but the transportation analysis in the final EIS assumes capacity for a total of 363 additional jobs within the transportation analysis zones in which they are located. This may be a low estimate depending on 31 the intensity of commercial or industrial uses that may be developed there. Adding these areas would increase the surplus of commercial and industrial land within the Ferndale UGA. 176. RCW 36.70A.160 states, "Each county and city that is required or chooses to prepare a comprehensive land use plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas." County -wide Planning Policies (D -5) also state, "All cities should grow in an efficient manner while maintaining their character and, where reasonable, shall provide for adequate open space between cities to prevent strip development." The City of Ferndale's proposed expansion in the Slater and I -5 is adjacent to the Bellingham UGA. The City of Ferndale has not addressed how the expansion would provide for an open space corridor between the UGA's. 177. The City of Ferndale's proposed expansion in the Enterprise Road area for employment purposes does not address the potential impacts to agricultural lands. The 2007 Whatcom County Rural Land: A Collaborative Report Identifying Areas of Agricultural Significance, was in response to criticisms about the "scattered" nature of protection provided by the county's Agricultural Protection Overlay approach. The Agricultural Advisory Committee met in 2006 to identify areas in Rural 5 and 10 acre zones that are most important to maintaining the agricultural sector of Whatcom County. The area proposed for expansion by the City of Ferndale was included in the Harksell Road study area as 99% of the area's soils are considered prime APO soils, approximately 44% was in agricultural use and 27% of the total acreage was in parcels greater than 20 acres. The area was identified as a buffer to the agricultural resource lands of long -term commercial significance. Development pressure in this area was seen as a concern due to the proximity of the area to the I -5 corridor and the City of 32 Ferndale UGA. 178. The City of Ferndale did not propose any measures to ensure that measures were in place to buffer the expansion of the UGA on agricultural lands, including those rural lands designated APO. 1795 The City of Ferndale did not provide any documentation that the proposed urban growth area expansions are appropriate for designation as TDR receiving areas as outlined in WCC 2.160.080. 180. The City of Ferndale has plans to serve a retail water service population greater than any of the population projections of studied alternatives. The city has identified water storage capacity improvements that will be needed in the 20 -year planning period, as well as near -term distribution improvements. 181. Small sewage treatment deficits would be anticipated under some Draft EIS alternatives and the Executive Recommendations. The city's 32 Comprehensive Wastewater Facilities Plan does not include the entire UGA within the planning service area, but does include lands outside the UGA (Figure 2 -1, 1996 plan). The city currently has no plans to expand sewage treatment capacity. The city does include wastewater treatment plant upgrades as well as a series of sewer collection system upgrades in its 6- year capital facilities plan for 2007 -2012. 182. The Ferndale UGA is provided fire protection services from Fire District 7. Fire District 7does not have a capital facilities plan. 183. Based on the proposed population allocation, and considering a proposed UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a surplus of residential acres and is essentially in balance. 184. Based on the proposed employment allocation and the proposed UGA boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a small surplus of .capacity but is essentially in balance. 185. 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 used for all UGAs. The rationale for the UGA size reduction includes bringing a greater balance between supply and demand for urban land, capital facility items still need to be addressed for areas removed from or not added to the UGA, and measures need to be in place for protection of the waters entering Puget Sound, including Birch Bay and Drayton Harbor watersheds. Lynden 186. The City of Lynden submitted a proposal for expansion of its UGA in May 2009. The city proposed a growth allocation of 7,414 additional population and 3,559 additional employees during the planning period. In order to accommodate this growth request, the city proposed an expansion of the UGA into agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance by approximately 327 acres. 187. The County Executive proposed that the land requested by the City as a UGA expansion into agricultural lands west of Double Ditch Road be placed into an UGA Reserve, allowing the city and county to work on strategies and agreements to ensure that the county maintains the agricultural land base (100,000 acres) necessary to support this industry. 188. The County Executive proposed reducing the overall amount of impact on agricultural lands countywide by removing urban lands and re- designating them for agricultural purposes elsewhere in the county. Reduction of UGAs and placement of lands back into agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance were proposed by the Executive in Everson, Ferndale, Nooksack and Sumas. 33 189. The City of Lynden responded to the County Executive proposed UGA in several letters and public input. The city's response included comments regarding its ability to accommodate the requested growth within its proposed UGA, the extent of capital facility plans completed for its UGA, the criteria for designation of agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance, and water rights. 190. All Draft EIS alternatives show that maintaining the current UGA size would result in a deficit of capacity for population and a surplus capacity for employment, except that under Action Alternative Y there is a small deficit of employment. 191. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Lynden to establish new residential developments at densities averaging five to eight units per net residential acre. The Council finds that the city of Lynden should encourage densities at a wider range of five to ten units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 6.8 units per net residential acre (6.1 within the city and 8.1 in the unincorporated 34 portion of the UGA). 1922 In 2003, Whatcom County designated Target Areas for Purchase of Development Rights for agricultural lands north of Badger Road and =west of the Guide Meridian following consultation with the City of Lynden (see Resolution 2002 -040 and 2003 -036). The City's UGA proposal is not located within those Target Areas. 1930 The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan identifies agricultural lands as an "important resource to the people of Whatcom County and Washington State. Yet these lands are often considered available for urban or rural uses. Often the conversion process begins when rural uses move onto agricultural land, creating smaller parcels, more buildings, and activities that, in some cases are incompatible with agriculture. In many cases, this blurs the line of distinction between agriculture uses and other uses and sets the stage for further conversion of the limited agricultural land base in Whatcom County." 194. The city's proposed UGA expansion did not take into account the need for a sufficient quantity of agricultural land to support a healthy agricultural industry in Whatcom County, nor required mitigation when land is converted to another use, or required buffers on all new non - agricultural uses located adjacent to agricultural activities (Policy 8A -2). 195. The results of the land capacity analysis show that the City's requested growth allocation cannot be accommodated within the existing UGA without modification in land use plans to allow additional infill or increased densities. The city has not proposed any modification to land use plans to accommodate the requested population growth, instead requesting that the UGA be expanded. Without changes in land use plans or meeting the 34 35 county's agricultural resource land protection goals, it was found by the Planning Commission that the population growth allocation to Lynden would require reduction to fit within the existing UGA. 196. The City of Lynden Water System Plan (August 2008) indicates that the city has adequate water supply to meet the needs of population growth over the 20 year period. The City and the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) have entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to address long- standing water rights issues between the city and Ecology. Under the terms of that agreement, DOE agreed not to enforce against what it asserts is Lynden's over - appropriation of its water rights and not to disapprove any update of the city's water system plan based on concerns about the city's water rights for as long as the agreement is in effect. 197. The city's sewer plan accommodates a population similar to studied alternatives and a small sewage treatment capacity reserve was estimated in the Draft EIS. The city's sewer plan anticipates planning for additional sewage treatment capacity during the planning period. The sewer plan . indicates future sewer trunk lines to serve areas of the City and UGA not currently served, but additional planning will be necessary for areas proposed to be added to the UGA. _ 198. The Planning Commission recommendation to allocate 3,465 additional people to the City of Lynden by 2029 is less than any allocation alternative studied in the Environmental Impact Statement. This allocation amounted to 6.4% of the share of growth county -wide. Lynden has averaged 8.2 % of county -wide growth from 1990 -2008. The Council finds that providing sufficient land for housing in the City of Lynden will reduce pressure on utilizing development rights on agricultural land within the vicinity and surrounding the City of Lynden. The allocation of 5,175 additional people is consistent with the historic share of growth in Lynden. 199. Allocating a smaller than requested population to Lynden and expanding the UGA by only 157 acres will allow time for Lynden to work with the county and others on resolution of agricultural land mitigation strategies. The results of growth monitoring, comprehensive plan updates and UGA reviews will allow the county ample information to determine whether and to what extent the Lynden UGA should be expanded before any shortage in developable land occurs. The urban growth reserve west of the city can be planned for by the city, so that when the UGA needs to be expanded consistent with the comprehensive plan and agricultural land mitigation policies, the area will be available. 200. The proposed 12 acre (approx) addition in the southeast part of the city is within the 100 year flood plain of the Nooksack River. However, its addition to the UGA complies with the exceptions to the new restrictions on expansions of UGAs into floodplains in that its addition will be conditioned 35 on the extinguishment of all development rights on the property and its uses restricted to those consistent with the GMA exemption in 3630A.110(8)(b). Nooksack 2010 The City of Nooksack submitted a proposal for maintaining its existing UGA in June 2009. The city proposed a growth allocation of 1,137 additional population and 290 additional employees during the planning period. 202. The County Executive proposed a reduction in the UGA by removing lands south of Breckenridge Creek and east of the Sumas River from the UGA. The lands proposed to be removed were placed into agricultural resource lands. The Executive proposed a lower allocation of population and employment than requested to be consistent with historic growth patterns and overall county -wide growth projections. 2030 The city responded (9- 17 -09) to the County Executive proposal by requesting the area proposed for removal be put back into a designated UGA Reserve due to future employment and residential growth needs. The city noted that part of the lands removed from the UGA include areas the city had designated for future industrial growth. The allocation of employment to Nooksack was reduced because the UGA did not have the ability to accommodate that employment. 204. The city's expressed vision is to maintain safe and friendly family living in a small town rural setting, while protecting and enjoying the natural environment and agricultural lands of the surrounding area, and promoting development of new jobs and businesses. 2058 All Draft EIS alternatives show the existing GUA boundaries would result in a surplus land capacity for population and employment, except for Action Alternative Y which generally shows a balance of employment capacity with demand. 206. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Nooksack to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 4.4 units per net residential acre (4.3 within the city and 4.9 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). 2070 Areas east of the Sumas River and south of Breckenridge Creek are prone to flooding, and some areas of the Sumas River floodplain, both inside and outside of the city, have been surveyed to be affected by sediment from the Swift Creek landslide, carrying chrysotile asbestos fibers. 208. The area being removed from the UGA is currently being used for agricultural purposes and is currently zoned Agricultural. Land proposed for removal is composed of prime agricultural soils, as determined by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (Map #18, Prime Agricultural Soils - Designated Agricultural Lands, Whatcom County 36 Comprehensive Plan, 2008) and has long -term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products. Urban facilities, particularly water or sewer service, are not located in the area proposed for removal. Parcels in the area proposed for removal are large lots conducive to agricultural practices. 209. The City of Sumas provides the source of supply to the Nooksack water system. The City of Sumas has indicated a willingness to supply an increased quantity of water to the City of Nooksack if necessary to support growth, and the City of Sumas has stated that they believe they have adequate water rights to be able to provide such an increased supply. Additional analysis of water storage will be necessary. 210. 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. Expansion of the Everson sewage treatment plant will be necessary to accommodate some of the growth that will occur outside of current.Nooksack city limits. 211. Based on the proposed population allocation, and a proposed UGA reduction in flood prone areas, the land capacity analysis shows a minor surplus of residential acres, essentially in balance. 212. Based on the proposed employment allocation, and the proposed UGA boundaries, the land capacity analysis shows a balance between employment land supply and land demand. 213. The Nooksack UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth, densities allowed are urban in nature, and adequate public facilities and services can be provided. The reduction will achieve a greater balance between supply and demand for urban land, removal of lands subject to flooding from the UGA, and protection of adjacent resource lands from incompatible development. 214. An area east of the Sumas River and south of Breckenridge Creek may be suitable for future inclusion in the UGA. The area includes lands currently used for agricultural purposes, and includes lands that may be flooded and exposed to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) from a natural landslide adjacent to Swift Creek. Holding this area in an Urban Growth Area Reserve will allow the opportunity for Whatcom County and the City of Nooksack to work on strategies and plans to ensure protection of at feast 100,000 acres of agricultural land in Whatcom County, and for the city and county to review studies to determine the proper land use controls necessary to protect public health from NOA. Sumas 37 215. The City of Sumas submitted a proposal for maintaining its existing UGA in June 2009. The city proposed a growth allocation of 793 additional population and 391 additional employees during the planning period. 216. The County Executive modified the city's proposal by reducing the size of the UGA and proposed placement of those lands within an Urban Growth Area Reserve for potential urban growth beyond the current planning horizon. The County Executive supported the growth allocation requests of the city. 217. The city responded (9- 17 -09) to the County Executive proposal by requesting some areas proposed to be placed into UGA Reserve be placed back into UGA, retaining other areas as UGA Reserve, and consideration of additional acres west of the Sumas Industrial district as UGA Reserve. 218. The community's vision for the City is to take advantage of its location and function as an international border crossing to capitalize on commercial and retail economic opportunities presented by border traffic. The City has also expressed an interest in becoming a regional industrial center. 219. All Draft EIS alternatives show the current urban growth area provides surplus land capacity for population and employment. 2205 The City expressed concerns related to the baseline employment figures which appear to have underestimated the potential demand for employment land. In growth forecast information finalized as of February 2009, Berk & Associates used available information based on State Employment Security Department figures which addressed covered employment and did not fully allocate employment geographically. 2211 The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Sumas to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 5.6 units per net residential acre. 222. Some areas south of the city are identified as floodplain according to FEMA flood boundary maps. 2239 The area removed from the UGA is currently being used for agricultural purposes and is currently zoned Agricultural. Land proposed for removal is composed of prime agricultural soils, as determined by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (Map #18, Prime Agricultural Soils - Designated Agricultural Lands, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, 2008) and has long -term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products. Urban facilities, particularly water or sewer service, are not located in the area proposed for removal. Parcels in the area proposed for removal are large lots conducive to agricultural practices. 224. Based on the proposed population allocation, the land capacity analysis shows that the city can accommodate projected residential growth within city limits. However, the population growth request for Sumas and the allocation was based on the limits imposed by the high population allocation studied in the Draft EIS. If the allocation process for Sumas had been the same as that used for Blaine, Everson, Nooksack and Ferndale, growth of 1,133 would have been allocated to Sumas instead of 793. This indicated that the Urban Growth Area Reserve may be needed to accommodate future growth. 225. Based on the proposed employment allocation and the proposed UGA boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a surplus of employment land supply. 226. Based on past and ongoing analyses, the Sumas well fields and water rights provide a source of supply well in excess of the future needs of the city's retail and wholesale customers through the planning period. 227. 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. Sumas, , has sufficient sewer service capacity to meet its needs through the planning period. 2289 The Sumas UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected g- rowth, densities allowed are urban in nature, and adequate public facilities and services can be provided. The reduction in UGA size will bring a greater balance between supply and demand for urban land, remove lands subject to flooding from the UGA, and protect adjacent resource lands from incompatible development. 229. The area designated as Urban Growth Area Reserve for Sumas includes lands currently used for agricultural purposes, and includes lands that may be flooded and exposed to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) from a natural landslide adjacent to Swift Creek. Holding this area in an Urban Growth Area Reserve will allow the opportunity for Whatcom County and the City of Nooksack to work on strategies and plans to ensure protection of at least 100,000 acres of agricultural land in Whatcom County, and for the city and county to review studies to determine the proper land use controls necessary to protect public health from NOA. Conclusions 1. As set forth in the above findings, the Whatcom County Council concludes that the proposed amendments conform to the requirements of the Growth Management Act regarding the designation and review of urban growth areas. 39 a. The proposed amendments are consistent with Whatcom County County -wide Planning Policies, including the designation and review of urban growth areas. b. The comprehensive plans of the county and each city accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county 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. The growth management population projection made for the county of 246,602 is based on the projection made by the Washington State Office of Financial Management, which provides a range from 216,300 to 318,832 in the year 2029 for Whatcom County. e. Whatcom County attempted to reach agreement with each city on the location of an urban growth area through extensive consultation and .o direct meetings. f. The urban growth areas include those areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development or are within areas that wiii be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services. g. The determination of the location of urban growth areas has taken into consideration actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound, by carefully limiting the extent of urban development within sensitive watersheds. h. There is evidence that the proposed UGAs can be provided with adequate public facilities and services. However, the Council also concludes that there are public facility and service gaps that have been found during this review. The Council concludes that the purpose of this UGA review is based on RCW 36.70A.130(3) that specifies the requirement for the plan designating urban growth areas, and .the densities permitted in the urban growth areas to be revised. GMA requires each city and the county to review and revise comprehensive plans and development regulations by December 1, 2011, which will include review of capital facility, transportation and utility elements. The proposed policy which allows reconciliation of the capital facility and service gaps as part of the 7 -year review process provides additional time in which to document the anticipated ability to provide adequate services and public facilities. 2. The Council concludes that the amendments to the comprehensive plan and development regulations harmonize the GMA planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020. .o a. The Council concludes that the public participation goals of the Growth Management Act have been met through the Public Involvement Plan prepared and implemented through Whatcom 2031, including early and continuous public involvement, formal opportunities through public hearings and public notices as legally required by state and county laws and regulations. b. The proposed amendments protect resource lands of long -term commercial significance from urban development not warranted based on the record before the Planning Commission and Council. The Council further concludes that the proposed expansion of UGAs for Everson and Ferndale do not include measures to ensure adequate buffers from adjoining agricultural resource lands. Lynden provided information in a letter of October 27, 2009 relating to maintaining compatibility between the UGA and adjacent agricultural lands. c. The Council concludes that 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 cities and the unincorporated areas of the county promotes a variety of residential densities and promotes the affordability of homes by providing adequate lands supply within urban growth areas for development of a variety of housing types. d. The Council concludes that the proposed amendments do not take any private property for public use. e. The Council concludes that 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 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. The Council considered the effect of its proposed decision on the availability of lands for employment and economic development purposes and concludes that by providing adequate land supply within urban growth areas 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 DEIS, and the Council concludes that the proposed amendments, which encourage urban growth in urban areas, also encourage the development of efficient multimodal transportation systems by encouraging population growth into areas 41 where transportation by means other than automobile may be more easily developed, consistent with the transportation planning goal of the GMA. 3. The Council concludes that the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan are consistent with the criteria for amendment of the comprehensive plan. a. The Council concludes that 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 23,2009), the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (May 8, 2009), review of densities permitted within urban growth areas, as well as rural growth (Appendix A, August 14, 2009), land capacity and demand results (Appendix B, August 14, 2009), land monitoring proposed methods (Appendix C, August 14, 2009), public participation strategy and results (Appendix D, August 14, 2009) and assessment of existing Whatcom County countywide population and employment growth projections (February 9, 2009). These studies indicate changed conditions that show the need for the amendments proposed. b. The Council concludes that the public interest will be served by approving the amendment. i. The rate or distribution of growth and development has been well 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 Appendix E, 20 -Year Capital Facilities Plan, and within the EIS. iii. Consideration was made regarding the anticipated impact upon designated resource lands. The Council further concludes that the proposed expansion of UGAs into agricultural lands is not warranted at the current time, except as provided in the findings above. The Council also concludes that the proposed reduction of UGAs and where applicable, re- designation as agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance, is consistent with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. c. The Council concludes that the amendment does not include or facilitate spot zoning. d. The Council concludes that the cities of Everson and Ferndale that proposed expansion of their respective UGAs did not include proposals or studies to determine whether the expansion is appropriate for designation as a transfer of development right receiving areas as set forth in WCC 2.160.080(A)(5). In a letter of October 27, 2009, Lynden proposed establishment of TDR receiving areas during its 2011 comprehensive plan update. 42 4. The Council concludes that the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code are consistent with the Growth Management Act, County -wide Planning Policies, Comprehensive Plan, and criteria for amendment of the Zoning 5 6. that: Code. 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 areas 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. The Planning Commission, by,sepa`rate action on October 8, 2009, forwarded a recommendation to the Whatcom County Council that limits areas of more intensive development in rural areas as set forth in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) and as ordered by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ( #05 -2- 0013). d. The Council concludes that the special provisions of WCC.20.90.060 do not apply as the amendments are not defined as site specific re.ones. The Council considered the potential effects of this proposal,o;n,,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 Council concludes that 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. The Whatcom County Council 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 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 Section 1, The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A. 43 Section 2. The Whatcom County Official Zoning Code is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit B. Section 3. The Whatcom County Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit C. Section 4. 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 24th day of `! C O ''% ATTE,%tJC H A rC ��'''�: r� -f- Dana Br&X4VPaVis,e\6gt�nciLtlerk 00*0 •. HING • APPR&,D t�f m:``.```�� Civil Prosecutor November 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON !EI h Fle0wood, Chairman ('Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, Executive Date: 1A - C/ • D 6 November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction EXHIBIT A HOW THE PLAN WAS CREATED Chapter One INTRODUCTION Whatcom County's Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide growth in unincorporated areas for the next 20 years in coordination with the new plans of its cities. The fundamental purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish a framework of goals, policies and action items for the more detailed growth planning and implementation actions which will occur in the near future in designated urban growth areas and in the county's rural areas. The plan identifies urban growth area (UGA) boundaries and contains a future land use map. The majority of the county's growth will be located within the UGA's. Several factors influenced the development of the adopted goals and polices contained in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. First, this plan has been reviewed for consistency with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA), the thirteen (13) goals of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.020), mandatory plan elements (RCW 36.70A.070), and the current County.-Wide Planning Policies. Second, through inter - jurisdictional cooperation, Whatcom County has coordinated planning and decision making with all levels of government to ensure compatibility of goals and desires, and has made this plan consistent with local plans. Third, extensive citizen participation was facilitated through educational forums, surveys /questionnaires, videe— presentations, public hearings, and written comments made throughout this process. The Planning Commission and County Council quickly learned that for every group or individual that sought a benefit, another's rights were potentially impacted. This Plan will probably not satisfy any one particular group of citizens with strongly held views. It does, however, provide common ground on the most sensitive issues that all sides can stand on, if somewhat uneasily, in the interest of what is best for the County as a whole. County -Wide Planning Policies The Whatcom County Council in conjunction with all local cities previously adopted a set of County -Wwide Planning Policies. The framework provided by the adopted County -Wide Planning Policies ensures that local planning efforts will be consistent with one another and supportive of regional goals. Whatcom County: The Next Generations In April 1993, the County Executive appointed a committee of individuals representing a broad cross - section of county residents. Their charge was to produce a graphic and written description of what the people of Whatcom County wanted the county to be in 2010 and beyond. They designed an extensive public input process to define this vision for the County. The committee's work was supported and facilitated by Planning staff. Staff also provided the committee with information about GMA requirements and existing conditions in the county. Information included Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -1 November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction land use facilities, population, environment, resources, and existing plans and zoning designations. The committee helped staff a booth at the Northwest Washington Fair in August 1993. Over 1,500 people visited the booth where they perused displays and maps, completed questionnaires, and read newsletters. In June, August, and September, the Visioning Committee hosted sixteen town hall meetings throughout the county that were attended by over 500 people. Committee members also met with various community groups to explain the Visioning Process. To encourage public input, over 12,000 surveys were distributed, and by October 1, over 1,000 had been returned. A countywide statistically valid phone survey was conducted which added another 410 people's opinions to the Visioning Process. The telephone survey and questionnaire data were then analyzed, and the results tabulated and summarized by professional survey consultants. By February 1994, the committee had thoroughly reviewed the data and generated a set of Visioning Community Value Statements. These statements are included in Appendix C of this plan. They were distributed to all committees working on components of the plan. The committee then developed four land use alternatives in order to explore and test different ways of expressing the value statements. These fear alteFRatives are the same altp- .,,, +;,,o `nom fnr +t,Q �ni�irnnmonfo/ Impact cf�fom$nt fer this— esmFrehensive— plan. The four land use iv-r es-r�.. crrs�rre�rrr rr errz pl Impact oxerxcrrr alternatives were presented around the county in another series of town hall meetings. Finally, in June 1994, the committee produced a recommended land use alternative expressed -through written value statements and a conceptual land use map. The Visioning Community Value Statements and written recommendations were the basis from which individual committees and Planning staff developed land use issues, goals, policies, and action plans as presented to the Planning Commission in the November 1994 Draft Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Whatcom 2031 Whatcom 2031 is the County's work program for the period 2008 to 2011 to prepare for the next 20 years of growth and update its Comprehensive Plan consistent with GMA. Phase I focused on the required 10 -Year UGA Review and included developing population and employment forecasts and reviewing land capacity and UGA boundaries. An EIS addressing four regional growth alternatives was prepared addressing urban and rural growth patterns to the year 2031. Phase 11 will address the required 7 -Year Review which is anticipated to involve a broader review of the Comprehensive Plan elements in relation to GMA amendments and other required topics. Other Growth Management Committees Citizen committees were used extensively to develop this plan in the 1990s. Almost all of the elements of the plan were generated using input from appointed citizen committees. Each committee was given the results of surveys and town hall meetings from the Whatcom County: The Next Generations. Each committee spent countless hours reviewing background material, identifying issues, generating goals and policies, and, in some cases, action plans. Committees and committee members are listed in the front of this document. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -2 I - Introduction For the purposes of updating the Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) in 2009 and as Phase I of the Whatcom 2031 comprehensive plan update process the Growth Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) was formed in 2008. This committee was composed of elected officials from all the affected jurisdictions mutual including one representative from each of the small cities two from Bellingham, and three from Whatcom County. Planning staff from each of these municipalities met with county staff on a regular basis to review methodologies data and policies and provide guidance to the GMCC on these issues At its last meeting for the UGA update process on July 1 2009. the GMCC approved a document showing their recommendations for the Urban Growth Area review. This document was presented to the county planning commission and county council to provide perspective to their decision - making process The Whatcom 2031 process will be on -going through 2011 and the comprehensive plan will be revised and updated as part of that process C: ..:.,,,.:.: __a:,::.::.. :,z Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -3 :rlii mutual Am la ��.•Y:1 _ -i a' y• �.ia: _a��..r: r�-a iv:.i.�e�i - • • - • • • • • _ • • ♦ _ _ - • • a • • • _ _ - a _ -- -• _ •_ • a• _ Mao W��aw a a •- • a •• •♦ • a• slmr=zz _ awkwormL • • • • _ a•au _• • • • _ _ a a • a_I • a •_ _ s _.- •. �. ♦_ a _ . • . u 1! Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -3 :rlii mutual Am la ��.•Y:1 _ -i a' y• �.ia: _a��..r: r�-a iv:.i.�e�i Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -3 Am la WIMR - • • - • • • • • _ • • ♦ _ _ - • • a • • • _ _ - _ Mao W��aw _ _ awkwormL • • • • _ • • • _ _ a a • a_I • a •_ _ s _.- •. �. ♦_ a _ . • . u 1! MAJA . .. ♦- • 1.. _ ._ -- Mano Ana _ •. • • - • • • _ ♦ ♦ • ♦ _ _ _ ♦ • - _ a -- • - • a _ • • • • • - _ • •• a •_ l •_ _ Ow • - _ • a • 0 0 ow �_ _ �• a a• a• MMAWMallowl • _ _• •_ _ • -_ • • • • • a..• •_ _ 00 W e! a•_• s _ • • •_ • • l a•• • • a_ NSA - • • • _• • _• • _••• u _ �♦ . a • I l a lob • ♦ • _ • • a• • u _ EVA • - . . .• - - - - • - - • • . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -3 Am la WIMR Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -3 • • • • • INS •a MI WQk _ • • • _ _ a a • a_I • a •_ _ s _ ._ -- a• •• • _ _ -•• -- a _ • _ • •• a •_ l •_ _ Ow 0 0 ow �_ _ •_ 00 W e! _ • • • • • • u - . a • I l 1 • - . . .• - - - - • - - • • . _ • . a _ a a . u Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -3 • • • • • INS •a MI WQk _ • • • _ _ a a • a_I • a •_ _ s _ ._ -- a• •• • _ _ -•• -- a _ • _ • •• a •_ l •_ _ �{1 �_ _ •_ Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -3 • • • • • INS •a MI WQk _ • • • _ _ a a • a_I • a •_ _ s a• •• • _ _ -•• -- a _ • •• a •_ l •_ _ �{1 �_ _ •_ _ • • • • • • u - . a • I l 1 • - . . .• - - - - • - - • • . _ • . a _ a a . u J - 1 - _ - • a • a • • a a • • • • a • • - _ _ _ _ _ r _ • _ • ♦ _ • _ _ a a u • _ _ _ • _ • _ • a • • • _ _ _ • • _ • _ • Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -3 November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction Original Adoption and Amendments The County Council adopted the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan in May of 1997. Since then, amendments have been made on an annual basis. Additionally, the periodic review of the comprehensive plan for consistency with the GMA; required by RCW 36.70A.130, is occurring over a three -year period from 2002-24042008-2011 and is called Whatcom 2031. GMA GOALS, COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES, AND VISIONING COMMUNITY VALUE STATEMENTS Every chapter in this plan was reviewed for consistency with the GMA Planning Goals, the County -Wide Planning Policies, and the Visioning Community Value Statements generated by the Visioning Process. Each individual chapter describes how consistency was achieved. The connections between this plan's goals and policies, and the goals, policies, and value statements of the other documents are evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement for this plan. For the complete text of the GMA Planning Goals, the County -Wide Planning Policies, and the Visioning Community Value Statements, see Appendix C of this plan. INTRODUCING WHATCOM COUNTY Whatcom County lies in the northwest corner of both the State of Washington and the coterminous United States. It is bounded on the north by the Canadian border, on the east by Okanogan County, on the south by Skagit County, and on the west by the Strait of Georgia and Bellingham Bay. These borders enclose large parts of the Mount Baker National Forest and the North Cascades National Park, which take up about two- thirds of Whatcom County's total area. All but a few residents live in the western third of the county. Bellingham, with an estimated 2008 population of 69;26875,750 (89.284 with unincorporated UGA), is Whatcom County's largest city. Other cities include Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, and Sumas, and there are several smaller unincorporated communities. Two Indian reservations and associated trust lands are located within Whatcom County's borders. The Lummi Nation reservation is on the Lummi Peninsula and Portage Island on the western side of the county; the Nooksack Tribe reservation and trust lands comprise several parcels along the Nooksack River in the west - central area of the county. Population Population growth in Whatcom County since the arrival of the first Euro- American immigrants in the 1850s has been driven largely by in- migration of people from other sections of the state and country. Table 1 displays the growth of population in Whatcom County from 1910 to 2000, and Table 2 shows the growth figures for each year of the current decade. These tables indicate a steady increase in population over time, with varying rates of growth often driven by factors external to Whatcom County such as international events or changes in technology and transportation. Approximately 73% of the population growth between 1960 and 2000 was due to in- migration of people from outside the area seeking jobs, life styles, and amenities found in Whatcom County. It should be noted that the first decade of planning under the Growth Management Act (1990- 2000) accompanied the reversal of a 30 -year trend from 1960 -1990 where unincorporated areas grew faster than cities. From 1990 to 2000, cities grew at a more rapid rate than unincorporated areas for the first time since the 1950's. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan ia! November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1- Introduction Source: US Census 'Cities include Bellingham, Blaine, Everson (since 1930), Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack (since 1920), and Sumas. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -5 I November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction *Cities include Bellingham, Blaine, Everson, Femdale, Lynden, Nooksack, and Sumas. In the last ten yeaFsBetween 1997 and 2007, the total population of Whatcom County had grown at an average annual rate of 21.83% per year, with the incorporated cities growing at an annual rate of 1.86% and the unincorporated areas (including the urban areas of Birch Bay and Columbia Valley) growth at 1.50% per year (source: OFM°°, �4 ). The total 2007 estimated population was 188,300 and the 20082 estimated population of Whatcom County is 172288191,000 rennrosr�ntinn a 1 QL�'o/ annral roto �f nrnsnrth in firo roarc / 1�Q7_ )flrl �\ - More than half of all Whatcom County residents live in cities. Map 1 displays the 2000 population density for Whatcom County. The highest densities are in and around cities, though there are other small centers of medium to high population density such as the ones at Sudden Valley, Birch Bay, Paradise Lakes near Kendall, and along the Guide Meridian. The 2000 Census data showed 92,583 people, or about 55.5% of the county's total population, living inside the city limits of Whatcom County's seven incorporated cities. Another 13,920 people were living near the cities in city urban growth areas (derived from Whatcom County Population and Economic Forecasts, ECONorthwest, May 2003, Table 3 -2 and Census counts). Counting these neighborhoods, the urban population was about 64% of the county total. Population Projections Projections of future population required by RCW 36.70A.110, in developed a 20 -year population and OF projections for 2029 -are size are ai 20072, the projection Y and the provided in Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan i essential component of land use planning. As Washington State Office of Financial Management for Whatcom County. Meanwhile, Bellifgharn, -in tither ritiec , a nnntrrtPd )Kith a nrirrate nensUNRg firm tinny far the next 20 Years The OFM Table 3 below: iQy November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1- Introduction Employment Extrapolations and Scenarios. Memo. Berk and Associates. February 9, 2009 Note: The OFM population estimate of 17-22200 pe9ple iR Wh ^t^ ^m r^ Rty i^ '^ ^'estimate of 191.000 in 2008- was utilized as a starting point for calculating the average annual growth rates and average annual population growth figures in this table. Seu; ^ ^:� ' �; ee- o#- FiraanciaEMaaaaereent- R ©aulat +on- Rreiestiens -; ^.oa„ =go2,_ The Growth Management Act requires that the County plan for a 20 -year population growth that is based upon the growth management population proiection by the office of financial manaaement MR Me period. _ - is justified. �i�.• �� _..._ i� ism -rte +. No mFFA&a!A Is MWA The County's 2422-2029 population projection of 234,91-7-246,602 is within OFM's range and therefore requires no further justification. The rationale for using this figure, which is close to OFM's medium projection, include: an overall slowing trend for growth in Washington State and Whatcom County, rnneic +onn,r With poet nrnw+h +rnn`+c the quality n+ life in and-- ensuring an adequate land supply to accommodate this growth, the need to plan for growth and the need to protect the quality of life and natural resources in Whatcom County. This population projection is selected for planning purposes only and does not obligate the County to encourage growth. Given past population trends and the requirements of GMA, planning for population growth, whether it occurs or not, is critical for the quality of life, protection of natural resources and economic health of Whatcom County. Table 45 shows how the total projected 2022-4 that all of the UGAs have been annexed into receives a share of the county's overall growth, approximately 85% of county -wide growth, with to eaGh Gity'S GE)rnpreheRsiye plan growth pFejer Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan !029 exi: and the � tt N4 - population would be distributed assuming: 1) sting cities;, aPA-2) that each e4y—urban area 3) that the portion of growth to urban areas is balance to rural areas. ?. 1 -7 (November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction 28- 2002April1, 2009) aad- Gouniy- CourtGi�-fdaapapy -2004} Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan . 1 -8 WE I FM FImI gaT, .. _ r ME • t .. _ . .. .: - - e- - Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan . 1 -8 WE I FM .. _ r .. _ . .. .: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan . 1 -8 I November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction Employment Forecasts and Distribution The Growth Management Act requires that comprehensive plans and /or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions to accommodate employment growth. In 2009, the Act was amended to ensure that the employment growth accommodated medical, governmental, educational institutional commercial and industrial facilities. Whatcom County contracted with ICF Jones & Stokes and Berk and Associates to develop Countywide Population and Employment Extrapolations and Scenarios, and then to provide allocation scenarios to the various urban and rural areas. These employment scenarios were reviewed with cities, the Growth Management Coordinating Council and their report was first published on September 23, 2008 and later edited and re- published on February 9 2009 prior to the scoping process for the Environmental Impact Statement on the Urban Growth Area review. The employment forecasts considered the various sectors of the labor force in Whatcom County, including construction, finance, government, manufacturing retail services transportation and wholesale trade. The forecasts also considered the labor participation rate as the proportion of labor to the total population of all ages For the purpose of Urban Growth Areas non - agricultural labor force was considered in the forecasts. After the county -wide employment forecasts were complete the allocation of that employment to the various urban areas was also developed in a report by Berk and Associates. published on January j .s, zuua. i nese allocation scenarios considered allocation based on current pattern of iob distribution and an alternative approach to allocating job growth distinguishing between regional and local employment growth. Variations on these scenarios were tested in an EIS prepared in 2009. The common theme recommended by the Growth Management Coordinating Council was a labor participation rate of 49 %. In some urban areas this rate is either high (Bellingham) or low (Columbia Valley and Birch Bay). City requests for allocation of employment and the sizing of the Urban Growth Area, were based largely on the local request recognizing the incentives that cities have for larger employment areas (sales tax property tax) Due to the challenge in designating lands for commercial or industrial development the allocation of employment allowed for these optimistic scenarios if they did not result in expansion of Urban Growth Areas. If expansion of an Urban Growth Area would be considered for employment purposes greater justification for the need for employment lands should be required. Table 5 shows the allocation of total non- agricultural employment to the various Urban Growth Areas. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -9 LNovember 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction Table 5: Whatcom County Employment Proiections and Distribution 2008 i Growth 2029 Total Study Area Employment Allocation Employment Bellingham UGA 51,153 18,829 69,982 Birch Bay UGA 436 489 925 Blaine UGA 2,971 ; 11903 4,874 Cherry Point UGA 1,182 760 1,942 Columbia Valley UGA 90 359 449 Everson UGA 638 ; 602 11240 Ferndale UGA 51534 4,335 9,869 Lynden UGA 41832 3,115 71947 Nooksack UGA 206 ; 130 336 Sumas UGA 254 i 391 645 current estimate of non - agriculture wage and salary employment for the County as a whole (84,850) likely due to lobs for which ESD was unable to assign a specific location. Demographics The culturally diverse demographic makeup of the county's population has an effect on land use patterns. For example, Whatcom County residents with children may choose different kinds of transportation and recreation than retired people. Single- parent families and large extended families need different kinds of housing. And levels of service requirements will vary according to cultural and individual abilities. Another influence on county demographics is the cyclical influx of seasonal residents, primarily from Canada, who maintain recreational homes in parts of the county. Areas most influenced by seasonal residency include Point Roberts, Birch Bay, and the Foothills Subarea . In the period between 1990 and 2000, the age composition of Whatcom County's population changed appreciably, and some of the changes were different from what was happening state- wide and nation -wide. These changes were partly due to in- migration. For instance, the number of people at or nearing retirement age (50 -69 years) increased in Whatcom County faster than simple aging could account for, and at a much greater rate than the state average (Whatcom County Population and Economic Forecast, ECONorthwest, May 2002, pp. 2 -7 & 2 -8). In 2000, there were 19,400 people age 65 and older in Whatcom County (11.6% of the total population). Over 4,900 of the 65+ group had self -care or mobility limitations. Approximately 1,560 (8 %) had incomes below the poverty level. By comparison, approximately 15% of Whatcom County residents under age 65 lived in poverty. Census age groups containing the traditional ages of college students (15 -19 and 20 -24) have significantly larger counts than the pre - college -age and post - college -age groups. In 2000, Whatcom County residents between the ages of 15 and 64 numbered 114,185. There were 33,229 children under 15. The county's racial composition also changed between 1990 and 2000. Although in 2000 88% of all county residents were white, there has nevertheless been an increase in populations of Native Americans, African Americans, Asian - Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. The Hispanic population Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -10 November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction is the most difficult to assess accurately because of its mobility. It is the primary component of a large contingent of migrant farm workers. The Washington State Employment Security Department estimates that of the approximately 3,600 farm workers employed annually in the county (not including agricultural support services such as processing and trucking), 2,300 are seasonal or migrant workers. Land Use History When Euro- American immigrants first arrived on Bellingham Bay in the 1850s, the landscape of Whatcom County was comprised of mature conifer forests, winding streams and rivers, numerous lakes and wetlands, and small natural meadows. Lummi and Nooksack people inhabited villages near the coast and along the rivers and lakes at strategic fishing locations. The Nooksack Indian people cultivated root crops they had developed along the Nooksack Valley where sub - irrigated meadows were ideal sites for such plants as camas and "Indian carrot." They emphasized the use of root crops, perhaps much more than other native peoples along the Pacific Coast. The abundance of high - quality timber and easy accessibility to water for milling and transport were the principal reasons Euro- American immigrants first came to Whatcom County in the 1850s. Small communities grew along Bellingham Bay and the Nooksack River as more immigrants arrived in Whatcom County. They began clearing the forests and draining the wetland areas for farmsteads. Between 1890 and 1925, 130,000 acres of lowland Nooksack Valley forests were cleared for farms. In addition, logging companies sold logged -over land to their employees and to immigrants from the East Coast for small farmsteads. As a result of the sale of small parcels of logged -over lands, the average farm size in Whatcom County is relatively small - -about 84 acres -- compared to the statewide average of 523 acres (1997 Census of Agriculture Profiles, USDA). Many lumber and shake mills and other industrial plants were built in Bellingham, on Lake Whatcom, and in other areas of the county, while new commercial and residential buildings were being developed in all communities. Coal mining was taking place at several locations in Whatcom County at this time, and major fish processing plants were constructed on Bellingham Bay. Whatcom County's population in 1910 was 49,511. Between 1925 and 1950, there was little change in the land use patterns that had been developed during the previous fifty years. Some land, which had been cleared for agriculture was abandoned and naturally regenerated into second - growth forests. Most areas that were harvested for timber had reseeded and were growing mixed forests of conifers and deciduous trees. Residential and industrial development continued to grow, but at a slower pace than during the previous fifty years. Commercial centers remained within the core of the major cities. By 1950, Whatcom County's total population had grown to 66,733, with the majority of the growth occurring in the cities. Between 1950 and 2000, the amount of land devoted to commercial activity gradually increased in response to population growth. Expanded use of the automobile encouraged commercial activities and residential development outside city centers. Coal mining ceased, but sand and gravel mining grew in importance. Farming became increasingly competitive, and the economic pressure tended to concentrate agricultural resources on the most productive soils. The trend toward abandonment or conversion of farmland to other uses continued. Some lands in the Nooksack Valley, which were formerly cleared for agriculture reverted back to native forest cover. Residential, commercial, and industrial uses continued to expand into agricultural areas. These Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -11 I November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction changes picked up speed during the 1960s and 1970s as Whatcom County experienced a population boom. The total population for Whatcom County in 2000 had grown to 166,814, an increase of approximately 137% in 40 years. Current Land Use Whatcom County covers 1,377,645 acres, or approximately 2,152 square miles. Of that total area, about 1,107,453 acres, or 80 %, is either covered with forest or is managed for forest resources. This total includes virtually all federal lands and all state and private forest lands in unincorporated Whatcom County. A significant portion of this total (877,000 acres) is under federal management by either the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service or the US Interior Department, North Cascades National Park. Cities cover 29,06 0,647 acres. a , Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -12 _ _ _ _ - .. MA .- .. - - -- -- -. ... .- •• a -- -- - . .. .. . ... . . a , Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -12 November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction Resource land uses, which include agriculture, forestry, and minerals, are the largest category of land use in Whatcom County. Map 2 displays the distribution of agriculture and forestry land uses based on County Assessor's data within Whatcom County. From the map it is evident that agricultural land use predominates throughout the western lowlands of the county and in the South Fork Nooksack Valley. Forest land use is concentrated on the uplands of the county. (See Chapter 8, "Resource Lands," for more detailed information on each of these land uses.) Map 3 displays the distribution of commercial and industrial land uses in Whatcom County. The majority of commercial land uses occur next to major transportation routes, such as the Guide Meridian, or within the boundaries of cities. There are also concentrations of commercial uses in the Birch Bay UGA and Point Roberts. The majority of industrial parcels are also located in the cities, their UGAs or at the Cherry Point industrial area. TheFe aFe a t"tal Of 1 A 222 aGran „f iRdustFially ZORed land iR WhatGOM COURty, iRGIuding 4,095 aGFes w4hiR Gity limits and 7,045 Y 4A \V IVY V! � , onroc+ in the Cherry Point industrial area. The locational pattern shown by Map 3 indicates the importance of transportation connections to these land uses. (See Chapter 6, "Transportation," and Chapter 7, "Economics. ") Vacant lands are scattered throughout the county. Map 4 depicts the general distribution of vacant lands, as defined by the latest Whatcom County Assessor's records. Vacant lands are land which at the time of the assessor's survey appear to be undeveloped, or if previously developed, are presently vacant and unused. They are usually lands being held for future development. Vacant lands are particularly concentrated in and around urban areas of the county. Map 5 graphically portrays the distribution of all single - family residential parcels in unincorporated Whatcom County, as interpreted from the Whatcom County Assessor's property information database. The majority of single - family residents are concentrated in the cities and the major urban and intensely developed rural portions of the county such as Sudden Valley, Paradise Lakes, Glacier, Lake Samish, Lake Whatcom (north end), Cain Lake, Birch Bay, Sandy Point, and Lummi Island. A fairly even, but lower, density distribution of single - family residences is scattered throughout the central rural portion of the county between Bellingham and Lynden, Ferndale and Everson /Nooksack. Another even but lower density distribution of single - family residences occurs between Ferndale and Blaine. As may be expected, single - family homes are also located along the valley floors of the three forks of the Nooksack. The Cherry Point industrial area, the agriculturally dominated area north of Lynden and the forested foothills in the eastern part of the county have very low to zero residential density. A prominent characteristic of Whatcom County housing is the high number of vacation, resort, and second -home units found throughout the county. In 2000 approximately 2/3 of the "vacant" units were actually occupied part of the year for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. Multi- family residential land use is displayed on Map 6. The majority of multi - family residential units are located in the urban areas of the county, primarily in and around Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, and Blaine. Within the unincorporated area of Whatcom County, multi - family housing units are found near Birch Bay, Sudden Valley, Glacier, Point Roberts and in the area between Bellingham and Lynden. According to the 2000 Census, there were 34,421 housing units within the unincorporated portions of Whatcom County. This figure equates to a residential housing density of 0.127 dwelling units per acre of land, or one residence per eight acres, on land currently zoned to permit residences (Rural, Urban, Rural Residential, Agricultural, certain commercial zones, the Point Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -13 November 24, 2009, Council Action Chapter 1 - Introduction Roberts Transitional zone, Eliza Island and Rural Forestry). The density Gf nitiec in WhAtnnm Under the direction of the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County is required to develop transportation plans for future population growth. Part of the analysis for transportation planning includes defining the density of population by transportation analysis zones. Map 7 presents the housing density per acre for Whatcom County in 2000, displayed by Census Block. (See Chapter 3, "Housing," and the Housing Background Document for more information.) F uture Land Use Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -14 •. . . . 1 • ... . . •� a �. �. . .� . -. • . . . - - .. . . .. . . . •. • .. . . . . . . a ON . . AN .• - - AN . .. . . .. ..... .. . . a .. . a . . . . . . 3 Wpm. - • . .. . . .. • . . . . a an a a .- . . .. . .�. .••a•- .. .. W aft"• a - •• a . . . a • . as - • - • a •• . . . a • • •• a a . . NINE= Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1 -14 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Chapter Two LAND USE INTRODUCTION The fundamental precept of this chapter and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is to implement the Vision for Whatcom County as defined through the Gepernfenno Vioinninn Prnnooc Whatcom 2039 visioning process. Chapter Organization The Land Use chapter and map include a set of adopted land use designations which combine the predicted needs of future populations with.the availability of land and the desires of residents. These needs and desires are expressed through the goals, policies, and actions included below as well as through implementation of the land use map. This chapter is divided into sections that address: • Overall Land Use • Urban Growth Areas • Rural Lands • Open Space • Essential Public Facilities; and • Adult Businesses Process Each subsection of this chapter describes the process used in creating that section. GMA Goals, County -Wide Planning Policies, and Community Value Statements The Land Use chapter supports many of the GMA goals. The land use plan is based on a vision of Whatcom County that concentrates growth in urban areas but recognizes the need for economic diversity in all of theacross the county. This chapter has been coordinated with all other chapters in the plan. Natural resource industries are encouraged and property rights and the permitting process are addressed. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -1 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) are supported throughout the Land Use chapter in goals, policies, and actions and in land use designations. The "Urban Versus Rural Distinctions" and "Urban Growth Areas" sections of the CWPP are addressed by discouraging urban levels of development outside urban growth areas, allowing small cities adequately sized UGAs, accommodating the projected population and calculating needed land area, defining rural areas and drawing distinct boundaries between rural and urban areas, and minimizing impacts on resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas. The "Contiguous, Orderly Development and Planning in Urban Growth Areas" section of the CWPP is addressed through the urban growth area analysis and identification of areas where timely and adequate services can be provided. The "Open Space /Greenbelt Corridors" section of the CWPP is addressed and supported in goals and polices in the Open Space section of this chapter and in the designation of Open Space Corridors. Goal 6 of the Growth Management Act, regarding Property Rights and the "Private Propel ty Rights" section in the CWPP and Visioning Community Value Statements have been addressed by the emphasis on incentives including transfer of development rights rather than downzoning. The Fiscal Impact section of the CWPP has been addressed by providing urban growth areas in the county, providing for economic development opportunities in the eastern portion of the county, and addressing fiscal impact in interlocal agreements with cities. The Citizen Participation goals of both the Growth Management Planning Policies have been addressed in the development of this County: The Next Generations Visioning Process (see Appendix C), tl process, citizen committee participation, and public hearings. Also, give direction for property owner notification and the establishment of input. Act and the County -Wide chapter through Whatcom ie Whatcom 2031 visioning specific goals and actions on -going citizen committee The Land Use chapter also incidentally addresses and is coordinated with many others of the County -Wide Planning Policies. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -2 November 24, 2009 Council Action OVERALL LAND USE - INTRODUCTION Purpose Two - Land Use The purpose of this section is to provide a broad, general direction for land use policy in Whatcom County. It is the foundation upon which all of the subsections of the Land Use chapter are based. It sets direction for the subsections and provides a mechanism of measurement for consistency for readers. Process The Land Use chapter was developed to address future land use in Whatcom County in accordance with Section 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act. It represents the county's policy plan for growth over the next twenty years. The Land Use chapter implements many of the goals and objectives in the other plan chapters through adopted land use designations and other action recommendations. The Land Use chapter was also developed in accordance with the County -Wide Planning Policies and the Whatcom County: The Next Generations and Whatcom 2039 Visioning recommendations . and community value statements, and was integrated with the other plan chapters to ensure consistency throughout the comprehensive plan. The Land Use chapter considers the general distribution and location of land uses, the appropriate intensity and density of land uses given current development trends, and the provision of public services. The root of the Land Use chapter is the Whatcom County: The Next Generations Visioning Recommended Land Use Alternative. An appointed group of citizens designed and implemented a public process to give people the opportunity to express their views, criticisms, and concerns. Through an extensive series of surveys and town hall meetings, a set of value statements for Whatcom County were drafted. These statements and the overall county vision are being re- evaluated as part of the Whatcom 2039 visioning workshops that occurred in the fall of 2008 and subsequent comprehensive plan update. The nomrrmitt °o then developed four ruff°r°nt F t r° la44 use pattems representing residents' vision and ,,.,n.° _ The final ReGommenrl Preferred Land Use Alternative —based on citizen input on the four land „ss° alt°rnati„ °sgathered throughout the Whatcom 2039 process during Phase 1, as well as ^itizen input from the first Found of surveys and meet+Rg-s, was a conceptual depiction of the community vision which guided the development of the Land Use chapter. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -3 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use GMA Requirements Section 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act requires that the comprehensive plan of a county include a land use element which designates proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land,,where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses. It is required to include population densities, building intensities, and projections of future population growth. Building intensity can be described in terms of such variables as lot coverage, building height, and the spacing between buildings and property lines and between buildings and other structures. BACKGROUND SUMMARY Almost 4-°.Most of the non - federal land in unincorporated Whatcom County is dedicated to forestry and agricultural uses. The next largest category of land use is residential, with 11.3% ef the -laed any. Much smaller areas of the county are dedicated to industrial, commercial, and other uses. The goal of growth management is to provide sufficient land area with adequate facilities and utilities either presently available or economically feasible to accommodate future growth. This means having an adequate distribution of land to provide housing, services, jobs, and resource land for the expected population. Whatcom County has almost 790 square miles of area outside of National Park and National Forest, which will accommodate the expected increase of 65,114 55.602 people over the 20 -year planning period from 7000 to 2022 in Whatcom County. However, this growth must be accommodated in ways that achieve desired land use goals. An adequate supply of serviced industrial and commercial land must also be provided. It is expected that an increase of approximately 33.188 new non - aaricultural related iobs will be a a .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • u InI III am A�Lvla` a In �• ••�• • • • •• u • • �. . ice ie IsI311MMMI. A, a A, ralmm Epp III • � • • � • a— • • • • ♦ • •• I • .• • a • •• a • a a s • •.• a aa• u • • s • • • • • • I • a • • • a • • a • • u • • a • 1 1 f a a • � • � � a a • • s •• .1 a. a •• •• • • a • • • f • • • • • • � ! a • • • a • a a A key need for meeting land demands to generate family wage employment is land that is "ready to go" for industrial development. Most potential industrial employers seeking to locate in Whatcom County require large tracts of land where the infrastructure and site improvements are already in place. This is a major missing element of the industrial land supply. It is important to assess the demand and supply of land planned and zoned for various types of uses to meet the economic needs of the county, as well as utilize this information to guide policy decisions regarding land use. The multiplicity of values reflected in the vision statements must all be considered, in addition to the competing goals and policies in other chapters of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-4 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use comprehensive plan. Having adequate residential lands must include adequate provision of services, and it means densities that meet the mandates of the Growth Management Act to prevent urban sprawl as well as reflecting the desires of Whatcom County residents. Industrial lands should be provided in areas that have access to transportation routes and adequate infrastructure and can meet the demands of market trends. Commercial areas should also be located so as to provide the kinds of goods and services that meet the needs of local residents with consideration given to market - driven forces. Sufficient urban land must be provided to accommodate growth. Rural areas with a range of densities must also be available. All of this needs to be done in light of those aspects of the county which are most valued: water quality, productive agricultural land, economic development in rural areas, distinct boundaries between rural and urban areas, and predictability in land use plans. ISSUES, GOALS, AND POLICIES Issues for this section were drawn from those identified in the Whatcom County: Next Generations Visioning Process and reinforced during the Whatcom 2031 visioning process. Numerous meetings, surveys// uestionnaires and other methods were used to identify what was important to people in Whatcom County. Accommodating Growth Community Value Statements encourage concentrating growth into urban areas. This allows for efficient provision of services and preservation of rural areas as quiet, open spaces where development pressures are not such that extraordinary regulations must be imposed. A distinct boundary is also encouraged between rural and urban areas, discouraging sprawl, maintaining desired rural lifestyles, and conserving agricultural land. GOAL 2A: Ensure provision of sufficient land and densities to accommodate the growth needs of Whatcom County and protect the qualities that make the county a desirable place to live. Policy 2A -1: Concentrate urban levels of development within designated urban growth areas. Policy 2A -2: Where existing development does not already prohibit it, draw a distinct boundary between urban and rural uses. Policy 2A -3: Provide a range of land uses which considers locational and market factors as well as required quantities of land. Policy 2A -4: Designate land uses that reflect the best use of the land. Policy 2A -5: Provide predictability to property owners in land use designation. Policy 2A -6: Allow appropriate development in existing small self - contained communities through the use of the "Small Town" land use designation. Policy 2A -7: Provide sufficient and appropriately located residential, commercial, and industrial lands. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -5 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2A -8: Include business /industry parks, tourist/resort areas and allowance for existing crossroads commercial areas in commercial lands designations. Policy 2A -9: Retain existing rural and heavy industrial areas in the northwestern region of the county. Policy 2A -10: Recognize the importance of tourism and its influence on the need for land for various types of development. Policy 2A -11: Ensure that the development potential of contiguous lands in common ownership is not compromised when urban growth boundaries are designated. This should be accomplished without expanding UGA boundaries beyond that ownership and without bridging natural divisions of urban /rural land uses such as roads, rivers, and other natural features. Policy 2A -12: Adoption of residential, industrial and commercial comprehensive plan or zoning designations in rural areas must comply with the criteria for "limited areas of more intense rural development" in the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070(5)). Resort Communities and Master Planned Resorts The County's resort areas are important to tourism and provide numerous and varied recreational opportunities for county residents and visitors. Historically important resort areas include Birch Bay, Point Roberts, the Resert- Semiahmoo and. �.Alest Serniahmee areas, and the Mount Baker winter recreational area. New developments, have expanded the role of the resort communities in providing recreational and employment opportunities for residents. GOAL 26: Encourage the continued viability of existing resort communities and allow the development of new Master Planned Resorts in the future. Policy 26 -1: Support the economic viability of the County's tourist industry by permitting master planned resorts within urban growth areas through the planned unit development process. Policy 213-2: New resort development in rural areas outside of UGAs and outside established resort areas, should only be permitted as Master Planned Resorts and only when substantially in compliance with these policies. Policy 2B -3: Work with property owners in the resort communities to develop an understanding of the unique needs of these areas and evaluate land use regulations for their responsiveness to these needs. Policy 213-4: New resort development and Master Planned Resorts should be developed consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas. Policy 213-5: No new urban or suburban land uses should be allowed in the vicinity of Master Planned Resorts, except in areas otherwise designated fer-as urban growth areas under the Comprehensive Plan. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -6 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 213-6: Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm water, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical, provided on -site shall be limited to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and services may be provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers, including municipalities and special purpose districts, provided that all costs associated with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master planned resort are fully borne by the resort. A master planned resort and service providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, provided that such facilities and utilities serve only the master planned resort or urban growth areas. Policy 213-7: Master Planned Resorts should only include other residential uses within its boundaries if residential uses are integrated into and support the on -site recreational nature of the resort. The density of such residential uses should be consistent with density requirements of the planned unit development regulations. Policy 2B -8:. Master Planned Resorts should only be approved when it can ',be, demonstrated that on -site and off -site impacts to public services and infrastructure have been fully considered and mitigated. Policy 26 -9: Master Planned Resorts should not be located on designated agricultural lands. Master Planned Resorts should not be located on forestry resource lands designated under the Comprehensive Plan. Capital Facilities There should be a relationship between provision of services and land use designations. Levels of service need to be set that will assure adequate services within realistic financing capabilities. This needs to be balanced against the amount of funding which taxpayers are willing to support. GOAL 2C: Channel growth to areas where adequate services can be provided. Policy 2C -1: Coordinate capital facilities and land use planning. PolicV 2C -2: Support the comprehensive plan with capital facilitV plans that facilitate urban growth in UGAs at acceptable urban levels of service. Policy 2C -3: Preclude urban development within a UGA until public services and facilities are available. Policy 2C -4: Prior to modifying growth allocations or UGA boundaries, ensure that capital facility plans address the following elements: a. Provide a 20 -year facility plan to serve urban growth within the UGA boundaries. b. Provide financial plans addressing at least a 6 -year period with funding sources. c. Address existing un- served areas as well as new UGA expansion areas. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -7 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2C -5: Where public facility and service plans are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, allow for reconciliation of the public facility and service gaps as part of the 7 -Year Review scheduled for completion in 2011. Reconciliation steps will include: a. Consistencv Analvsis. The Countv and cities will review capital facilit plans for consistency with the results of the most recent 10 -Year UGA Review process and current comprehensive plans. Capital facility plan consistency means demonstrating the ability to serve the proposed growth levels, growth boundaries, and land use patterns established in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. b. Government and Special District Coordination. The County will coordinate with city, special district, and other service providers to ensure amendments to capital facility plans support the Comprehensive Plan. on the key issues associated with the update. d. Amendment. Only those portions of capital facility plans in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan are required to be amended. Local issues of concern or changed conditions may be addressed. e. Refined Growth Levels and Boundaries. Where the planning process results in refined recommendations for growth levels, growth boundaries, land uses or other essential features, corresponding capital facility plan amendments will be considered in coniunction with the 7 -Year Review process. Regulations It is very important to Whatcom County citizens to maintain local control over land use decisions. At the same time some people want to see regulations streamlined and reduced. Regulations should be clear, concise, and predictable with enough flexibility to allow for reasonable and efficient decision - making. Regulations should be enforced. People would like to see an incentive program to encourage land to be used in ways that meet community goals. GOAL 2D: Refine the regulatory system to ensure accomplishment of desired land use goals in a fair and equitable manner. Policy 2D -1: Eliminate unnecessary regulations. Policy 2D -2: Eliminate regulations that could be more effectively achieved through incentive or education programs. Policy 2D -3: Streamline development regulations to eliminate unnecessary time delays. Policy 2D -4: Coordinate permitting requirements among jurisdictions to minimize duplication and delays. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -8 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2D -5 Provide enforcement of regulations. Policy 2D -6: Review and update the Whatcom County Shoreline Management Program ORGe as the State issues new guidelines. UThe- updates should improve the integration of the Shoreline Program with Growth Management in order to provide predictability and consistency in regulation, and eliminate regulatory redundancy. Policy 2D -7: Incompatible uses will be discouraged adjacent to public use airports to preserve the safety and efficient use of these airports. Incompatible uses are land uses that: • Could be impacted by airplane noise; • Could create or be impacted by airplane accidents; or • Create height hazards that could adversely impact aircraft that are taking off or landing. Policy 2D -8: Require disclosure of potential airport noise impacts to people who are buying or obtaining a permit on property within one mile of a public use airport. Policy 2D -9: Land uses that are incompatible with the operation of the Bellingham International Airport; Blaine MuniGipal AiFpert or Lynden Airport should be discouraged when Whatcom County evaluates conditional use permits and rezones. Specifically, Whatcom County should follow the process set forth below when considering whether proposed conditional use permits and rezones would allow incompatible land uses: • Notify the applicable airport representative of the proposed conditional use permit or rezone. Consider comments submitted by the airport representative relating to compatibility of the proposed land use with the operation of the airport; and • Determine whether the proposed conditional use or rezone is within zone 1 (runway protection zone), zone 2 (inner approach /departure zone), zone 3 (inner turning zone), zone 4 (outer approach /departure zone), zone 5 (sideline zone), or zone 6 (traffic pattern zone) as shown on the Safety Compatibility Zone Examples from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Shutt Moen Associates, January 2002, p. 9 -38). Safety compatibility zone "example 1" will be-applied to the glaiRe eeURiG pal ° iFpei4 and Lynden Airport and safety compatibility zone "example 3" will be applied by the Bellingham International Airport; and • Compare any proposed or potential land uses within zones 1 through 6 with the Basic Safety Compatibility Qualities and the Safety Compatibility Criteria Guidelines in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Shutt Moen Associates, January 2002, pp. 9 -44, 9 -45 and 9 -47) and identify incompatible land uses. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -9 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use • The above provisions of Policy 2D -9 do not apply to property owned by the airport. However, airport owners should assess the compatibility of land uses proposed on airport property with operation of the airport. Policy 2D -10: Discourage tall structures around public use airports that hamper the efficient and safe use of navigable airspace. Specifically, discourage structures from exceeding the height of the imaginary surfaces defined in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 around airports that have mapped such imaginary surfaces (airports that have mapped Part 77 imaginary surfaces are shown in Appendix I of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan). GOAL 2E: Encourage and support individual responsibility to achieve community values. Policy 2E -1: Provide education on the assets of the community and offer incentives.for individual citizens to take responsibility to protect those assets. GOAL 2F: Give a high priority to the use of a comprehensive incentive program to encourage achievement of land use goals. Policy 2F -1: Develop a set of incentives, including economic, which encourages property owners to achieve land use goals. Policy 2F -2: Base incentive programs on suggestions from citizens, government officials, and experts in the field. Policy 2F -3: Revise regulations to include incentive programs. Policy 2F -4: Review and adopt, where appropriate, incentive programs such as cluster density bonuses in urban growth areas, purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights and tax deferrals. Policy 2F -5: Monetary compensation as an economic incentive shall be based only on market value at the time of compensation, not on "possible" future value of the land. Policy 2F -6: Monitor incentive programs on a five -year basis to ensure the comprehensive plan goals are being achieved. Develop an alternate approach if necessary. Policy 2F -7: Establish a transferrable development rights (TDR) sending area in the Drayton Harbor Watershed. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -10 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Public Participation in Decision - Making People in Whatcom County want to be involved in government decision - making. They want government to be responsive; they want to be personally notified of changes; they want their input considered. People also want to see more issues subject to a vote. GOAL 2G: Encourage citizen participation in the decision- making process. Policy 2G -1: Examine and improve methods to notify affected property owners of proposed land use changes. Policy 2G -2: Ensure early and continuous public involvement in planning decisions through development and implementation of public participation plans for large- scale, long -range planning activities. Property Rights Property rights are an important issue in Whatcom County wish as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others. of property rights and protection of the environment and People are looking for ways to achieve all of these things. protect the community's general interest. People want to use their land as they It is not necessary for the preservation resources to conflict with one another. They understand that it is important to GOAL 2H: Preserve private property rights while recognizing the importance of the rights of the community, including protecting the natural environment and conserving resources. Policy 2H -1: Review and retain regulations that serve to protect the public welfare, health, and safety. Policy 2H -2: Establish programs such as cluster density bonuses in urban growth areas, purchase of development rights and transfers of development rights, where appropriate, to compensate property owners when rights are unduly infringed upon. Policy 2H -3: Provide information to the public as to government's role and responsibility in relation to property rights. Diverse Cultural Composition It is recognized that Whatcom County is becoming more diverse and people understand that accepting this diversity is important. GOAL 2J: Encourage individuals to accept cultural diversity in our community. Policy 2J -1: Encourage the preservation of cultural resources. Policy 2J -2: Ensure that land use policies are not discriminatory. Policy 2J -3: Cooperate with Tribal governments to ensure local traditions are respected in all land -use decisions. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -11 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2J -4: Protect culturally and spiritually significant places from non - essential development that is viewed as incompatible by the affected community. Flooding Flooding of rivers and streams in Whatcom County is a natural event due to the combination of climate, geology, and topography present in the region. Two major floods occurred in 1989 and 1990 along the Nooksack River, with damage estimates running over $20 million for 1990 alone. The cities of Nooksack, Everson, Sumas, and Ferndale are often flooded by the Nooksack. A major study and plan for managing flood hazards on the lower Nooksack, entitled the Lower Nooksack River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, was completed in October 1999. Flood damage can also occur along smaller streams in Whatcom County, especially on those streams associated with alluvial fans. The majority of the Nooksack River floodplain is currently used for agricultural purposes. Residential density within the floodplain is low; however, several major transportation routes cross the floodplain and have been temporarily closed during periods of flooding. Increased building development within the floodplain, and especially within the floodway where flood water velocity can be great enough to sweep away structures, could heighten the existing level of flood hazards along the Nooksack. Development on alluvial fans can also increase flood hazards. Chapter 11: Environment, contains more detailed discussion of flood issues, as well as goals and policies for managing flood hazards in Whatcom County. GOAL 2K: Discourage development in areas prone to flooding. Policy 2K -1: Limit lands in one - hundred year floodplains to low- intensity land uses such as open space corridors or agriculture. Policy 2K -2: Use the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan as a basis to balance land use and flooding. Policy 2K -3: Discourage Prohibit expansion of urban growth areas into flood - PreReplainsaFeas, except where allowed under the GMA, and consider danger to individuals related to flooding when designating land use in other areas. Policy 2K -4: Encourage multi- purpose problem solving relative to flooding, aquifer recharge, improved water quality, water for human consumption, and fish habitat. Consider the purchase of land along the Nooksack River for flood water storage that could be utilized by cities and water providers. Policy 2K -5: Development in flood prone areas must comply with adopted regulations to mitigate identified flood hazards. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -12 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Regions of Whatcom County Whatcom County is a large and diverse county. People living in different parts of the county have different priorities and understanding of what constitutes rural and urban lifestyles. It is important to citizens to emphasize these regional differences. GOAL 2L: Recognize the important regional differences within Whatcom County. Policy 2L -1: Use the subarea planning process to identify and support distinctions among different areas of the county. Policy 2L -2: Retain and periodically update the adopted Subarea Plans (Lummi Island, Cherry Point - Ferndale, Lake Whatcom, Urban Fringe, Lynden - Nooksack Valley, Chuckanut -Lake Samish, Birch Bay - Blaine, Foothills, Point Roberts, South Fork Valley, and Eliza Island). Subarea Plans represent a Iona history of plan development in Whatcom County and provided the foundation for the county's first Growth Management comprehensive plan adopted in 1997. To the extant that they ore nnncictent With the Whatnnm GOURty Gompr:ehensive PlaR, they Femain valid in the detail they pFevide fe spenifin areoc a. Utilize a process which ensures consistency between the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and subarea plans. The subarea plan. update process should include the following steps: 1) Consistency Analysis. The County should review subarea plans based on the priority order in subsection "b" for paps, overlaps, or inconsistencies. Topics include, but are not limited to, plan boundaries, growth forecasts, land uses, capital facilities and services, horizon year, and other appropriate issues. 2) Regional and Local Government Coordination. The County should consult and coordinate with cities where city- associated UGAs are included in subarea plan boundaries. 3) Public Participation. Each subarea plan update process will be based on a public participation program that addresses citizen input on the key issues associated with the subarea plan update. 4) Subarea Plan Amendment. Only those portions of existing subarea plans in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan are required to be amended. Local issues of concern or changed conditions may be addressed. 5) Comprehensive Plan Revisions. Where the subarea plan process recommends growth levels, growth boundaries, or other essential features, Comprehensive Plan amendments will be considered in conjunction with the subarea plan update process. Land capacity analysis may also be updated if appropriate. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -13 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use b. Prioritize update of subarea plans. Subarea plans should be updated in the following order. 1) Post -GMA Subarea Plans addressing UGAs. These subarea plans should be amended during Whatcom County's 7 -Year Review scheduled for completion in 2011. Subarea plans addressing UGAs associated with a city should be coordinated with the city's comprehensive plan update process. 2) Post -GMA Subarea Plans addressing Rural Areas. These subarea plans should subject to a consistency review. If significant inconsistencies are found, these should be considered for potential update during Whatcom County's 7 -Year Review scheduled for completion in 2011. Minor updates may be considered through the County's docket process in subsequent years. 3) Pre -GMA Subarea Plans. These should be updated in accordance with County department work programs or the docketing process. Priority criteria may be used to determine the. order of update. Example criteria include: a) whether update is needed for health, safety, or welfare concerns; b) whether there is a city- associated UGA included in the subarea plan boundaries — in which case, the subarea plan update could be timed to be developed in association with or following city comprehensive plan update process; c) whether the subarea plan would benefit from broader Policy concepts to be completed in advance or in tandem, such as agricultural land protection measures; d) whether a significant policy obiective would be met by amending the plan. In the event there is an inconsistency between a Subarea Plan and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan shall prevail. Policy 2L -3: Emphasize forestry uses with some provision for rural and agricultural uses in the south and southeastern regions of the county. Policy 2L -4: Expand the rural economic base by supporting natural resource, cottage, and light industries, forestry, fishing, and agriculture, as well as allowing for some Small Towns in appropriate regions of the county. Policy 2L -5: Emphasize agriculture in the north central regions of the county. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -14 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Fish and Wildlife Whatcom County has historically enjoyed abundant and diverse fish and wildlife populations. However, the combined effects of habitat reduction or degradation, fish harvest, hydropower .development, hatchery management practices, and variations in natural conditions are now causing the decline of some of these populations. Maintaining healthy fish and wildlife populations is a vital goal in maintaining the quality of life in Whatcom County. Chapter 11: Environment, contains additional discussion of fish and wildlife issues, as well as goals and policies regarding fish and wildlife habitat protection and management. GOAL 2M: Protect and encourage restoration of habitat for fish and wildlife populations. Policy 2M -1: Ensure that new land uses do not degrade habitat of threatened and endangered species. Policy 2M -2: Ensure that existing land threatened and endangered Policy 2M -3: Develop educational tools restore degraded habitat threatened and endangered ises do not cause further degradation of habitat for species. and incentives to encourage existing land uses to to properly functioning conditions, especially for species. Policy 2M -4: Place a note on all permits issued by the County for clearing or development activity within Y4 mile of the documented habitat of threatened or endangered species, as shown on the county fish Distribution Map, alerting the property owner to the presence of these species. Policy 2M -5: Require subdivisions and short plats to be designated in a manner to protect fish habitat and water quality when a fish bearing stream or river passes through the site. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -15 November 24, 2009 Council Action I Chapter Two - Land Use URBAN GROWTH AREAS - INTRODUCTION This section presents policies, map designations and rationale for the urban growth areas for Bellingham, Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, Sumas, Birch Bay, Columbia Valley, and Cherry Point, and Guste Map 8 shows designated urban growth areas. Purpose The Growth Management Act requires the designation of urban growth areas (RCW 36.70A.110). These areas are to include cities and other areas characterized by urban growth or adjacent to such areas, and are to be designed to accommodate the projected population growth for twenty years. Any growth that occurs outside the areas cannot be urban in nature. The Act further specifies that urban growth should, first, be located in areas that already have adequate existing public facilities and service capacity and, second, in areas where such services if not already available, can be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and serves services and any additional public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources. The purpose of this section is to establish areas within the County where growth will be directed. The boundaries, as defined, are an attempt to concentrate growth and provide urban areas in accordance with expected growth needs while ensuring the county's identified values to preserve private property rights and reduce unnecessary regulations. Process a As = wo Ins • •• I;Iliiiill!lllllllllll!!!!IllllllllllI •• 11111111 gpi!I1111111111111 ••u +• r • ♦ •• a• • •+ + a• •+ L • • • r 4"WrW • • • • • a + • • • a • • .. . • a a • • • • + • • • • a • + • . • • + • + a • • • a • • a • + splemove Me, in 0 • • — • • • MR11 Ile • + • + F + • *9 011r1M OSTIMI • • • • • • • • • • MV a w • . • • a • • a •— •. .. . • • • . •. . •+ •.0 • •+ • . . .. . u u +•. OR yeaFs. gFewth t 1. a ! •. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -16 As = wo Ins • M I am IT, V raw a rra • + • + L • • • r 4"WrW • • • • • a • • • IMMIL. • • • • a • + • . • • + • + a • • • a • • a • + • • • • MV a w • . • • a • • a ARy OR yeaFs. gFewth that GGGUFE; outside the areas Gannet be urbar; nature. The aGt fuFthe + a a a WMA • a • • • MITI • • • a a II a a • a Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -16 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use URBAN GROWTH AREAS - BACKGROUND SUMMARY Each city provided information in their comprehensive plans, in work sessions with planning staff, and at public hearings and work sessions before the County Council to provide the data and assumptions used as a guide in setting Urban Growth Boundaries. The comprehensive plans for each city and the written and oral input provided by them at the public hearings and work sessions serve as background for establishing UGAs. EaGh City utilized dif eFenf methedelegioc to deteFFNRe their present land GapaGity and land use R8ed!q ThAiramalySes iRGeFPoFated rnan!f faGtGrn 0 ormo of ieshinh are unique f„ iRdivi dual reifies The cities worked with Whatcom County staff to develop a single methodology for analysis of the urban land capacity within the County. Such variables as- seFViGe Gapabili+,,, average population per household, occupancy, residential and employment densities, infrastructure reguirementse�..ide„fi ^I I�,�,T- ,an�Re�,�, natural systems and critical areas constraints, ownership and development trends, and appropriate market factors to assure adequate supply and affordable housing were considered. URBAN GROWTH AREAS - ISSUES, GOALS, AND POLICIES Overall The Growth Management Act assigns the responsibility of designating urban growth areas to counties. Growth is to be encouraged within urban growth areas and discouraged outside them. Urban Growth BeuRdaFies -Areas are set in accordance with the policies established in Chapter 36.70A RCW and applicable regulations. Specific consideration is given to approved comprehensive plans for the municipalities and their supporting justification. Modifications have been incorporated into this plan during the 10 year UGA review based upon several criteria: • The need to assure logical service boundaries, • The need to avoid isolated pockets or abnormally irregular boundaries, • Consideration of land needs and capacity analysis of residential, commercial and industrial needs within urban areas, and • Identification of special needs with respect to unique non -city industrial sites (such as Cherry Point), and County areas for which the County will actively support incorporation as appropriate (such as Birch Bay, or Columbia Valley). County -Wide Planning Policies set guidelines for designating city urban growth areas including: • Small cities' UGAs shall be of an adequate size to allow them to become viable economic centers. • The size of cities' UGAs shall be consistent with their ability to provide services. • UGAs shall include contiguous areas with urban characteristics and zoning. • Sufficient land shall be provided within UGAs to accommodate the 20 -year urban growth projection, plus a reasonable land supply market factor. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -17 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use • Setting of UGAs shall minimize impacts on agricultural land, forestry, mineral resources, watersheds, water resources, and critical areas. Cities should absorb additional population at appropriate urban densities before expanding into areas where growth would adversely impact critical areas or resource lands. • Short Term Planning Areas (STPA's) are used as a tool for facilitating provision of urban levels of services and to prevent sprawl within the Urban Growth Area (UGA). , service. Areas within the STPA's have provided the minimum level of urban facilities and services, including sanitary sewer, water service, police protection, fire protection and emergency medical services, parks and recreation programs, solid waste management, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities and public schools, to support urban levels of development. A full range of services would add urban public transit, natural gas, storm drainage facilities, street lighting, libraries, local parks, local recreation facilities and services, and health services. previde wateF, seweF and 9theF essential St.=NiGes; and 5) all 9theF related issues have been typiGally resolved The Short Term Planning Area (STPA) is designed to promote urban levels of density and 'cost - effective provision of services and avoid sprawl. The STPA will be adopted as a zoning overlay and can be reviewed and changed anytime during the year. It would not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Short Term Planning Areas are s# wn en Maps 2 _ 28J AppeR iv ;= of tfir . In deciding appropriate ways to manage land within urban growth areas, there are some overriding guidelines suggested in the Growth Management Act and, County -Wide Planning Policies, and the Gemm„nit„ Value Statements I. GMA requires counties to include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty -year period. Urban growth should be first located in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facility and Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -18 a III ENM"A _ . . . . . . - - Of - - AN . ma^ . . go ORM ENNE rim Mr. 4011. am EN • -- - -. •. .. ._ . . a . . . . . _. .. _. _ _ -. ZRAW .- .. .- .. .. _^M"* _. . OtW W - .72ME ... _ _. .. .. .. . -- e• we MENEM MEN am oil 11111111 [WININT Ogg -_ In deciding appropriate ways to manage land within urban growth areas, there are some overriding guidelines suggested in the Growth Management Act and, County -Wide Planning Policies, and the Gemm„nit„ Value Statements I. GMA requires counties to include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty -year period. Urban growth should be first located in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facility and Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -18 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use service capacity to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources. County -Wide Planning Policies require establishment of interlocal agreements between the county and cities to manage development within urban growth areas until annexation takes place. Factors to be addressed in these agreements include a mechanism to compensate jurisdictions that suffer revenue losses without attendant reductions in service delivery demands, and mitigation for activities related to development. It should be assured that utilities can be delivered at urban levels of service within city urban growth areas. Timing of required improvements and who pays for these improvements within urban growth areas are issues to be addressed between the county and cities. This is particularly difficult when costly transportation improvements are required within an urban growth area prior to annexation by a city. Transportation planning for Whatcom County has n„+ nnnsidered improvements within eity —urban growth areas- on the rmptien assumes that costs and installation of the improvements would be completed by the city associated with the urban growth area. In the case of Bellingham where some growth will continue to occur prior to annexation, this may need to'.be negotiated. Areas within designated urban growth areas which are not yet ready for urban levels of_density can become a problem if they are allowed to develop at low densities because a suburban' land use pattern can become established that will disrupt later in- filling at urban densities. On the -ethe hand, sarne of the urbaR qrcm4h areas iRG161dE.2 la4Ad� Mlohinh is presently zeRed Rural (R) and Rural Residential (RR), E;GFAe Of WhiGh is alFeady developed 9F pai4ially developed at suburban densities. Other areas have environmental constraints such as flood plains and sensitive watersheds which would dictate using lower, everafl densities. County -Wide Planning Policies call for the county to become a government of rural areas that encourages growth to occur primarily within cities and designated Urban Growth Areas. Outside urban growth areas, the presence of urban levels of services such -a °per and sewer can put financial pressure on rural areas to develop more densely than desired. County -Wide Planning Policies restrict cities from delivering urban levels of water and sewer service for urban uses outside urban growth areas. The Growth Management Act requires that the County plan for a 20 -year population growth that is within the range projected by OFM unless the County has studies to prove that a different figure is justified. The current 244-&-2029 OFM projection for Whatcom County ranges from to a Low projection of 193,667 216.300 people to a Medium projection of 208242258.448 people and a High projection of 224,994318.832 people. The County's figure of 229;400 246.602 is within Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -19 ailli IM MUZAMEAUMM or OWN& MTA F _0104101 The Growth Management Act requires that the County plan for a 20 -year population growth that is within the range projected by OFM unless the County has studies to prove that a different figure is justified. The current 244-&-2029 OFM projection for Whatcom County ranges from to a Low projection of 193,667 216.300 people to a Medium projection of 208242258.448 people and a High projection of 224,994318.832 people. The County's figure of 229;400 246.602 is within Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -19 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use OFM's range and therefore requires no further justification. Due to the imprecise nature of growth forecasts, and due to the fact that Whatcom County will be required within two years (by 2011) to review and update the comprehensive plan, the growth allocations are expected to remain the same for the 2029 to 2031 planning horizon years. Goal 2N: Establish Urban Growth Boundaries outside present city limits, within which the County will maintain jurisdiction until annexation or incorporation of the property. During this interim period the following policies shall be in place to assure that the purposes of this plan and growth management are in fact accomplished. Policy 2N -1: Establish urban growth areas for cities, first, by determining the capacity of the existing city limits to accommodate growth in the 20 year planning period. If it is determined that additional land is needed to accommodate the projected allocated growth, or to meet other goals of the GMA, then include ad+ag- contiguous areas which have urban characteristics; seeanrl by including areas which presently have urban zeninn; and, finally, by including other suitable areas that demonstrate the ability to provide adequate public facilities and services at urban levels of service to accommodate growth. Policy 2N -2: Re- evaluate UGA boundaries when significant changes in city land uses are proposed. Policy 2N -3: Consider cities and Short Term Planning Areas as receiving areas for development rights transferred from sending areas. Policy 2N -4: Ensure that cities or other service providers do not extend sewer or urban levels of water service to serve new areas of urban densities outside urban growth areas unless emergency or health hazards exist. Policy 2N -5: Protect resource lands by controlling or buffering adjacent uses and encouraging (increased densities within existing city boundaries before expanding into county resource lands_ arm- Fr-stee r°6G91WF4Ge lands by (.GRtFelliRg 9r buffering adja •e Rt uses. Policy 2N -6 Encourage provision of serviced industrial sites by cities. Policy 2N -7: Prevent Encourage GOURty has an interlocal agreements to be in place prior to annexation to address with the aRRe„in„ UFAsdin+ion on issues such as timing, logical service areas, and economic balance between commercial, industrial, residential and other lands within the UGA. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -20 l • r •• • a a• a •• r •- a s a • a• •• r •• r r • AT== a _ - • a u a a r• a a • • • a • • as �.a !� 1 -• •� •a r a a a •a as • a a •� a� aru a •• • • •• ! • • a IMMOM • a •• • am r • WLrW&M• >•i i w�iv�•i r..inr��a� s i��a.��r.�a a i� +ia� Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -20 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use use t%1P- powers granted to assist in the. � �Rde ap.-.hleying - G-e SO ght barRrrh Goal 2P: Encourage Bellingham to establish new residential developments at densities averaging six to twenty four twelve units per net residential acre; encourage Ferndale to establish new residential developments at densities averaging six-five to eight-ten units per net residential acre; encourage Lynden to establish new residential developments at densities averaging five to eig#*ten units per net residential acre; and encourage remaining smaller cities and Unincorporated Residential /Recreational Urban Growth Areas, not associated with a City, to establish new residential development at average densities of four units per net residential acre, while respecting unique characteristics associated with each city. Policy 2P -1: Ensure that cities have adopted mechanisms which will encourage densities at desired levels. Policy 2P -2: Consider natural limitations on the development capacity of land, such. as critical aquifer recharge areas or floodplains, and other characteristics unique to each city, such as seasonal population or adjacent county urban zoning, in designating urban growth areas and densities. Policy 2P -3: Encourage in- filling to occur in existing areas with urban characteristics in a manner which is more harmonious with existing neighborhood character. Policy 2P -4: Encourage housing to develop with the greatest possible mix of household incomes by utilizing such techniques as lot clustering, varied lot sizes, small scale multi - family dwellings, and responsible reductions in infrastructure requirements for subdivisions. GOAL 2P1: Ensure that development in Unincorporated Residential /Recreational Urban Growth Areas not associated with a City is of an urban level and proceeds in a logical and efficient manner. Policy 2P1 -1: Establish urban standards for development within Unincorporated Residential /Recreational Urban Growth Areas. Policy 2P1 -2: Ensure that service providers do not extend sewer or urban levels of water service to serve new areas of urban densities outside urban growth areas unless emergency or health hazards exist. Policy 2P1 -3: Establish interlocal agreements with each urban service provider located within Unincorporated Residential /Recreational Urban Growth Areas with include provisions that address coordination and timing of service extensions. Policy 2P1 -4: Provide planning assistance to Unincorporated Residential /Recreational Urban Growth Areas for the purpose of developing and implementing Comprehensive Community Plans to further define future uses and facilitate orderly urban development. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -21 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2P1 -5: Encourage the establishment of, an advisory committee for each Unincorporated Residential /Recreational Urban Growth Area to provide a mechanism to interface with the County regarding their respective community development issues. Policy 2P1 -6: Encourage and assist Unincorporated Residential /Recreational Urban Growth Areas with incorporation requirements when appropriate. GOAL 2Q: Establish an interlocal agreement with each city which sets out general guidelines to address revenue sharing, the provision of services, management of growth, annexation, delivery of services, protection of critical areas, and designation of open space within urban growth areas. Policy 2Q -1: Include in interlocal agreements, a clear, predictable, and fair formula for revenue sharing agreements which compensates jurisdictions that suffer revenue loss without attendant reduction in service demands as a result-of annexation. Policy 2Q -2: Establish procedures for development project review within urban growth areas which protect the interests of both the city and the county. Generally, city development standards and adopted levels of service should be applied within urban growth areas. Policy 2Q -3: Responsibility for construction of capital facilities, including transportation facilities to accommodate urban levels of growth, generally, should be assigned to cities. In some cases, timing may require installation of these improvements prior to annexation. In these cases, interlocal agreements should address allocations of costs and revenues between cities and the county. Policy 2Q -4: Limit development within urban growth areas with no municipal sewer and water service through zoning at a density no greater thanto one unit per fAte-ten acres. Policy 2Q -5: Ensure that cities have done an adequate job of planning for development within urban growth areas and have coordinated this planning with the county including timing of annexations, service extensions and linkage of greenbelts and open space. Policy 2QR-6: Encourage the use and coordination of the existing geographical information system by cities and the county to provide a consistent and economical data base for making land use decisions. GOAL 2R: Ensure adequate land supply is provided to accommodate twenty years of growth within urban areas. Policy 2R -1: Review all urban growth areas for all urisdoGtions at least every seven en years or in accordance with adopted policies in city comprehensive plans. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -22 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Coordinate with cities to determine the population and employment growth proiected to occur within the urban growth areas, and revise the urban growth area boundaries, if necessary, to ensure they are appropriately sized to accommodate the proiected growth within the planning period. Policy 2R -2 Ensure that land use plans provide for development at urban densities within the 20 -year planning period. Policy 2R -3 Facilitate phasing of development within urban -growth areas as follows: • Require at least ten acre minimum lot sizes within unincorporated portions of urban growth areas until public facilities and services are provided to serve such development at urban levels of service. • Recoanizina that UGAs are sized to accommodate urban arowth over a 20 year period and that all land within UGAs will not be required to meet urban land needs immediately, allow Agriculture and Rural Forestry zoning designations, on an interim basis, within UGAs. These zones function as holding districts that will allow continued resource land uses. in the near term while protecting these areas from suburban sprawl. It is anticipated that they will be rezoned to allow phased urban development within the 20 -year planning period when public facilities and services can be provided at urban levels of service. Policy 2R -4: Coordinate with cities to maintain a land capacity analysis methodology that is consistently applied to all urban growth areas, including a common definition of net developable land, upon which planned net densities are based. When determining urban land needs, assume that urban densities will be developed within UGAs over the 20 -year planning period. Policy 2R -5: Annually monitor land capacity by compiling annual reports from the cities on development activity, and comparing that data with adopted growth projections for the urban growth areas. Coordinate with the cities to amend growth projections, or amend urban growth area densities or boundaries if, over several years, the data indicate that growth is occurring at a significantly different rate than adopted proiections. GOAL 2S: Establish Short Term Planning Areas within which annexations and urban levels of development can occur and outside of which annexations and urban levels of development will not occur. This is intended to be a sprawl preventing measure where a need exists to promote phased development from the urban core outward, where final plans for urban services are not yet in place, and where joint planning at the development regulation level is appropriate. This will assure both conformance and consistency for future plans and developments. Policy 2S -1: A Short Term Planning Area is a zoning overlay designation and is modified through the rezoning process as provided in Title 20. Initial Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -23 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use designation or subsequent modification of Short Term Planning Area boundaries may be made when the following criteria have been satisfied: • The County and the City have agreed on a joint plan or are working toward agreement upon a city /county interlocal agreement for land use and development standards; and • The County and the water and /or sewer service provider, if an Unincorporated Residential /Recreational Urban Growth Area, have entered into an interlocal agreement; and • The land to be included within the revised Short Term Planning Area has planned facilities available or facilities capable of being made available in time to serve development within the new Short Term Planning Area at the time development occurs; and • The City and County have agreed on annexation issues identified in Policy 2N7, Goal 2Q, Policy 2Q -1, Policy 2Q -3, and Policy 2Q -5 above; and • The Short Term Planning Area adjacent to the vicinity proposed for inclusion is meeting UGA density objectives and there is a demonstrated need for additional land in the local area; and • The City has annexed to the STPA, or the Unincorporated Residential /Recreational Urban Growth Area has infilled up to the LTPA and extension of the boundary is necessary to accommodate provision of urban services; or 1. The planning area extension is otherwise consistent with the policies of this Comprehensive Plan; and 2. The City, or the primary utility service providers(s) in the case of Unincorporated Residential /Recreation Urban Growth Areas, has corrected the deficiency which created the need for the Short Term Planning Area; and • In any event, that adequate capacity in public facilities exists or is projected within ten years to serve the new area; and • Short Term Planning Areas would be moved by zoning action consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2S -2: Land within a UGA but outside a Short Term Planning Area shall retain its current zoning until a new joint plan is identified and the Short Term Planning Area is moved, but with the following additional limitations on development which shall be included in the County development regulations: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -24 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use • No sewer shall be extended outside a Short Term Planning Area. Water lines shall not be extended to serve urban levels of development outside a Short Term Planning Area. Exceptions may be made in cases where human health is threatened as determined by the County Health and Human Services Department (the use of interties for emergency purposes will be allowed to the extent that other needed approvals are given; (2) where vested rights currently exist - the city /district will provide the County detailed maps specifying the location and nature of the vested rights; (3) to help meet regional supply needs, as discussed under the CWSP, so long as the purveyor has sufficient quantities of water to meet needs in its entire UGA as determined by the purveyor and agreed to by the County. • All development in urban growth areas shall be done in a manner which will not preclude development at urban levels of density when the area is annexed into the city. • No residential development shall occur at a gross density greater than one dwelling unit per fkve -ten acres. • All residential land divisions will be developed as cluster subdivisions: All clustered lots will be grouped together in one cluster. Clustered lots will be as small as possible in order to maintain a large reserve tract available for future urban development. Wells, sewage disposal systems, and easements associated with these facilities may be placed on the reserve tract only if it is not feasible to place them within the boundaries of the clustered lots. • When the site is rezoned to short term planning area and public water and sewer serve the site, the reserve tract of a cluster subdivision may be developed with urban densities allowed in the zoning district. • If the clustered lots are served by wells, sewage disposal facilities and /or associated easements that are located on the reserve tract, then the clustered lots will be required to hook up to public water and sewer when the reserve tract is developed with urban densities. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the reserve tract can be developed to its fullest potential, and such development will not be restricted by the existence of wells, sewage disposal facilities and easements associated with these facilities. Policy 2S -3: Land which exhibits severe environmental constraints for on -site septic systems may be included within a Short Term Planning Area, to allow for the provision of sewer to reduce or eliminate on -site sewage system related environmental impacts, if all of the following conditions exist; • The land area is contiguous to existing city limits • The underlying zoning is urban and the land is located in an Urban Growth Area Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -25 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use • The land has been designated as an area of special concern pursuant to WCC 24.05.230 due to extenuating environmental constraints and /or failing on -site septic systems have been identified as a significant source of non -point pollution as part of the development of a Closure Response Strategy Report for a Shellfish Protection District • Continued reliance on on -site sewage systems for existing development density and future low density development, within the subject area, would not provide adequate protection of adjacent critical areas from significant environmental impacts from on -site sewage systems • Where a Local Improvement District for necessary urban levels of service has been established • Where interlocal agreements have been established between the County and the water and /or service provider Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -26 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Bellingham Bellingham's sUFFeRt Urban Growth Area (UGA) was first established in 1997 as a result of a lengthy public involvement process. Three geographical areas comprise the City's UGA_ - iRGIudes Bellingham's Northern UGA, the GenevaiWatershed Resource Protection UGA, and the Yew Street UGA. Together, these areas make up approximately X190 5,595 acres. Background In 1984, Whatcom County developed the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan (UFS Plan) applicable to approximately 20,000 acres located immediately north, west and east of Bellingham's city limits. Slater and Smith roads are generally this area's northern boundary. Mission Road is the eastern boundary and the Lummi Indian Reservation forms the western boundary. Recognizing that uncoordinated and unplanned growth pose a threat to the local environment and sustainable economic development, Bellingham and Whatcom County began a process in early 1990 to update the land use section of the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. In September 1997, the Whatcom County Council adopted an the- updated plan. This Plan was subsequently amended in 1999, 2004, 2008 and 2009 and now includes the entire Bellingham UGA. year. SinGe 1980 to the preseRt, the Gity planning area inc;luding it's UGA has neady doubled to over 24,000 aGFeS; the population has nearly deubled, to ever 80,000 Fesidents; and the annual Between 2000 1990 and 2008 2000, Whatcom County grew by 24,174 34-,000 people, or 14.5% 30-0 During that same period of time, the City and its UGA grew by 11,345 or 14.5% 494Jnn i32oi Bellingham and its UGA received 47% 43-5-% of the county's total growth during this time period. The 20 2022. Urban Fringe Subarea Plan The UFS Plan provides the policy framework for addressing the impacts and opportunities of growth in Bellingham's UGA. It addresses establishes County zoning designations, comparable City zoning upon annexation, land uses, development standards and Transfer of Development Rights from the Lake Whatcom Watershed to receiving areas in the UGA. The Plan addresses a number of important objectives related to plan development, public participation, land use, housing, density, the natural environment, open space, parks, recreational opportunities, transportation, utilities and other public services. Plan updates will be made in the context of the Growth Management Act planning goals, the Countywide Planning Policies, the UGA goals and policies of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan. 2011 Update Bellingham is, and will continue to be, the primary population and emplovment center for Whatcom County. In order to avoid tightening the land supply around this population center and puttinq additional pressure on rural development, the City of Bellingham is requested to return as part of their required comprehensive plan and development regulation update in 2011 with a proposal for how they would accommodate a total of approximately 116,200 people, either through infill, changes in densities within the city and Urban Growth Area, or expansion. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -27 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use �t. ... : _. :. ..- ..o,:. -... �. �. GOAL 2T: Evaluate every ten seven years or as necessary Bellingham's Urban Growth Area to determine if the UGA is sufficient in size to accommodate twenty year growth, provide an adequate supply of affordable housing, industrial, commercial and recreational development and recognize historical development patterns and commitments for service. Policy 2T -1: Establish and periodically update procedures for joint city /county review of development proposals in the UGA prior to annexation. Policy 2T -2: Work with Bellingham to identify and establish a system of neighborhood parks, greenbelts and open space to serve the urban growth area as it develops. Policy 2T -3: Establish an agreement with Bellingham to share costs of and revenues from improvements within the UGA. Policy 2T -4: Review land supply analysis and consider appropriate urban growth area boundaries consistent with the Growth Management Act, C2811iRgham Comprehensive Pan;; Seunty Comprehensive Plan and County -wide Planning Policies . Policy 2T -5: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Bellingham, as needed, to provide for: • timing and provision of utility services and other urban services • timing of annexations revenue sharing formulas prior to and after annexation • development standards and regulations • joint City /County review of development proposals in the UGA • affordable housing • transfer of development rights within the City of Bellingham Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -28 11111:1 iiijillillilillillill1111111111111111 111111111111111111111 1 .. .- -.. -. -. -. - - .- .- .... .. .. Too as mmmr — — ■ .... . .. a A A. .. . FAWOMMM so GOAL 2T: Evaluate every ten seven years or as necessary Bellingham's Urban Growth Area to determine if the UGA is sufficient in size to accommodate twenty year growth, provide an adequate supply of affordable housing, industrial, commercial and recreational development and recognize historical development patterns and commitments for service. Policy 2T -1: Establish and periodically update procedures for joint city /county review of development proposals in the UGA prior to annexation. Policy 2T -2: Work with Bellingham to identify and establish a system of neighborhood parks, greenbelts and open space to serve the urban growth area as it develops. Policy 2T -3: Establish an agreement with Bellingham to share costs of and revenues from improvements within the UGA. Policy 2T -4: Review land supply analysis and consider appropriate urban growth area boundaries consistent with the Growth Management Act, C2811iRgham Comprehensive Pan;; Seunty Comprehensive Plan and County -wide Planning Policies . Policy 2T -5: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Bellingham, as needed, to provide for: • timing and provision of utility services and other urban services • timing of annexations revenue sharing formulas prior to and after annexation • development standards and regulations • joint City /County review of development proposals in the UGA • affordable housing • transfer of development rights within the City of Bellingham Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -28 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chanter Two - Land Use Policy 2T -6: Whatcom County and Bellingham should continue to coordinate protection and development within the Lake Whatcom Watershed Rene ;;Ge Policy 2T -7: Whatcom County and Bellingham should designate receiving areas within the City of Bellingham and its UGA for Transfer of Development Rights from the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Policy 2T -8: The City and Whatcom County should designate appropriate zoning and residential densities in Bellingham's UGA consistent with Whatcom County's Comprehensive Plan and Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan as amended. Policy 2T -9: Joint planning in Bellingham's UGA should include joint review of development proposals. City design and development regulations should be required in Bellingham's UGA. Policy 2T -10: Annexation should be considered prior to or concurrently with the extension of City sewer and water and prior to urban development. Annexations. should be a logical extension of the city boundaries and not create unincorporated islands. Policy 2T -11: The Geneva and Hillsdale areas, located within the Lake Whatcom Watershed, are designated urban growth areas in order to allow the City of Bellingham to annex these areas. The City has a long -term interest in the water quality of Lake Whatcom because the City is responsible for providing Bellingham with safe drinking water from the Lake. Whatcom County and the community also have long -term interests in the watershed based upon the special environmental sensitivity of the Lake Whatcom Watershed as a drinking water source and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) findings requiring a reduction of phosphorus inputs into the lake. Therefore, only non -urban densities should be allowed in that portion of the Urban Growth Area within the watershed. The City of Bellingham has expressed interest in exploring the possibility of annexing those areas. To allow sufficient time for those exploratory discussions to occur and for Bellingham to pursue annexation of the areas under all annexation processes available to it, the watershed UGAs will remain in the Bellingham UGA until December 2012, or until the City of Bellingham formally notifies the County that they do not intend to annex the areas, whichever is sooner. Policy 2T -12: In the 2011 comprehensive plan update evaluate the feasibility of changing zoning from General Commercial to Light Impact Industrial in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area in the vicinity of Interstate 5 north of the Bellingham International Airport. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -29 A I 1 Z � A A - Bellingham Urban Growth Area Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - November 10, 2009 Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve USE OF WHATCDM COUNTY'S Gig DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: Whafcom County disclaims any warramy of merchealahllity or warrardy of tunes; of this map tar any particular pmpwa. either express or Implied. No representation at warranty is made concerning the accor• acy, currency, completeness or quality of data depicted WI this map. Any user of this map assumes all responsibility for use thereat, and further agrees to hold Whatcom County harmless Imm and against any damaoa. loss. or liability arising Imm any use at this moo. Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 �`� tNFOAMgrrO QP ?,CUM. Cp NSY �40 2008 y' dOf PELOPN'�a November 24, 2009 Council Action Blaine Two - Land Use Blaine is the northwestern -most city in Whatcom County and is home to 4 667 people The city is divided by Drayton Harbor into two parts: central Blaine and the Semiahmoo area to the west These two areas are distinctly different areas of Blaine The central area is a traditional northwestern city with a vibrant downtown surrounded by neighborhoods of single family houses The central area includes an extension of largely undeveloped incorporated land about 3 miles out H Street. The Resort at Semiahmoo is located in west Blaine The unincorporated UGA around Blaine was originally designated in 1997 It was larger then but all that remains today was there originally. The 1997 plan states that the area to the south along Drayton Harbor connecting the two sides of Blaine was included in the UGA: "...because of its location sandwiched between the western and eastern expanses of the Blaine city limits which, at this time, is only connected by water. It is also included because of the urban level of zoning historically assigned by the county (UR4) Blaine seeks control of this area to coordinate transportation planning and ensure water quality protection and coordinated shoreline management." Other areas included in the UGA were largely due to the area's adjacency to the existing city limits or for ease of provision of services. The concerns that Blaine expressed in 1997 about protecting Drayton Harbor remain as studies show that fecal coliform levels in the harbor are harmful to the shellfish populations causing a decline in quality and closing of the harbor to shellfish harvesting in 1999 In 2007 the count' adopted the update to the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Recovery Plan This plan reflects the success of re- opening some areas for shellfish harvesting in 2004 and outlines future plans for Drayton Harbor Restoration. Continued urbanization of the harbor remains a concern for those working to restore it and protect the portions of the harbor that have been able to revitalize under a coordinated effort. Public the facilities Blaine issues in the UGA are primarily concerned with the provision of an urban level of fire and emergency medical services. Fire District 21 does not indicate in their Capital Facilities includes Plan a set of response times for the Birch Bay UGA or the Blaine UGA separately. It does indica the response time trends in "urban areas of its service area" in Exhibit 11 This table shows that the district is only meeting their 8- minute standard for Urban response 65% of the time in 2008 The to correspond to projections district indicates that 90% of the time for their urban areas they reach the scene of a priority one incident most in a little over 11 board minutes. to The Blaine General Sewer Plan, updated in 2005 would need to be updated to reflect the new, contracted UGA. The plan does not have an extensive plan for much of the unincorporated UGA but it does have some areas in the east UGA adjacent to the city planned for future sewer extension. The City does not extend sewer outside of the City limits without annexation unless there is a demonstrated threat to public health that can only be remedied by the City sewer extension. Finally, the Blaine School District does not have an adopted capital facilities plan for their service area which includes both Blaine and Birch Bay. As their enrollment is declining they are frequently modifying remodeling and construction plans to correspond to projections and needs They were unable to pass their most recent bond attempt causing the school board to halt any efforts toward new construction in at least the next 2 years Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -31 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -32 • _ a .. - • 11 • . _ 11 i 1 11 . •• . . MMMMMI _ • • . _ MrSINIFIM VAIMI�nta No @"a INS* • _ • . . • . ..a + • • .• 111,11 WAS • • • . • . a . 6w a wow .. . . a •_ . • . • Am SWIM= _ •a . •• _ _ .• _ • AN aN I YWI 11 III III - 11 11 111 lli;llll 1: 1111 IS 11 111 1 10111 NO WE [ IM is TURTMITIMPAWR .0 . . sm go a .. a .. .. .. MCI . . all, 1 _ • A. . • . . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -32 • _ a .. - • 11 • . _ 11 i 1 11 . •• . . MMMMMI _ • • . _ MrSINIFIM _ •• . • _ • . . • . ..a + • • .• .• • • • . • . a . 6w a wow .. . . a •_ . • . • Am SWIM= _ •a . •• _ _ .• _ • a go I YWI 11 III III Will 11 11 111 lli;llll 1: 1111 IS 11 111 1 10111 NO [ IM is sm ME ma a all, 9 I • _ _ - • _ . 1 • _ u _ . • w7al wMtww . . _ .. _ aa . . . Boo ! • • • . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -32 • _ a .. - • 11 • . _ 11 i 1 11 . •• . . MMMMMI _ • • . _ MrSINIFIM _ •• . • _ • . . • . ..a + • • .• .• • • • . • . a . 6w a wow .. . . a •_ . • . • Am SWIM= _ •a . •• _ _ .• _ • .. • . III III Will 11 11 111 lli;llll 1: 1111 IS 11 111 1 10111 NO [ IM is sm I • _ _ - • _ . 1 • _ u _ . • . . _ .. _ aa . . . Boo ! . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -32 • _ a .. - • 11 • . _ 11 i 1 11 . •• . . MMMMMI _ • • . _ MrSINIFIM _ •• . • _ • . . • . ..a + • • .• .• • • • . • . a . 6w a wow .. . . a •_ . • . • Am SWIM= _ •a . •• _ _ .• _ • .. • . III III Will 11 11 111 lli;llll 1: 1111 IS 11 111 1 10111 NO [ IM is sm • _ _ - • _ . 1 • _ u _ . • . . _ .. _ aa . . . • ! • • • _ u t - •. •- . . _ _ _ a a _ _ .._ • a..a . ALAAAMIA .. _ • • _ . l 1 . - • _ .. • - . • .. • . u • . a • . • • • . _ gas �mm •. • • - . .u•• • a •.- ._ . a. •. • •_ .. • -u_ �230097W=MMTMNMI M. _ • . _ . . . _ . MMMOMMMM x I NO MMMMM MA Aft Ah API • .. a - .. *A: .. _ a • . •• . a . #�� a a .. •• . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -32 • _ a .. - • 11 • . _ 11 i 1 11 . •• . . MMMMMI _ • • . _ MrSINIFIM _ •• . • _ • . . • . ..a + • • .• .• • • • . • . a . 6w a wow .. . . a •_ . • . • Am SWIM= _ •a . •• _ _ .• _ • .. • . a wlwnillioa a • • . • 10111 NO [ IM is . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -32 • _ a .. a • 11 . _ 11 1 1 1 11 . •• 1 . MMMMMI . • Arrym MrSINIFIM _ •• • • _ .• .• t •. .• • . .__- •• ._ . .. . . a •_ . • . • Am SWIM= _ •a . •• _ _ .• _ • .. • . a a • • . • all . . _ [ IM is . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -32 November 24, 2009 Council Action Two - Land Use Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -2) As part of the 2009 UGA Update portions of the Blaine UGA were removed to place Blaine's land supply in closer proximity to its projected population growth The unincorporated UGA was reduced from 3.315 acres to 476 acres. Only the eastern portion of the unincorporated UGA remains in the UGA. The rest of the UGA has reverted to a Rural designation ._ .. ra PI . -• — - -- -- -- - WAM�mtwumw&WA ._. UNKNOWN - win in . . — I PA _ . e _ . 1 IAI== ARIMAANOX . a a A FAVOR am a at • — — - - - A • ON - F—I A a ON I .. .. _ - • - ZA Wwa _ _ _ Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -2) As part of the 2009 UGA Update portions of the Blaine UGA were removed to place Blaine's land supply in closer proximity to its projected population growth The unincorporated UGA was reduced from 3.315 acres to 476 acres. Only the eastern portion of the unincorporated UGA remains in the UGA. The rest of the UGA has reverted to a Rural designation ._ .. ra PI . -• — - -- -- -- - WAM�mtwumw&WA ._. UNKNOWN - win in . . I PA Wwa _ _ _ - .- .. - .. ■ UnIma AN a .. u _ u _ Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -2) As part of the 2009 UGA Update portions of the Blaine UGA were removed to place Blaine's land supply in closer proximity to its projected population growth The unincorporated UGA was reduced from 3.315 acres to 476 acres. Only the eastern portion of the unincorporated UGA remains in the UGA. The rest of the UGA has reverted to a Rural designation ._ .. ra PI . -• — - -- -- -- - WAM�mtwumw&WA ._. UNKNOWN - win in . . I .. u _ u _ . . . - _ . . . • . . . ... _ .. .. . • 11 .�. s._ - _ • .. • • . • l • ■ .. . EMS — — — . - Fml§ftv^M ! Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -2) As part of the 2009 UGA Update portions of the Blaine UGA were removed to place Blaine's land supply in closer proximity to its projected population growth The unincorporated UGA was reduced from 3.315 acres to 476 acres. Only the eastern portion of the unincorporated UGA remains in the UGA. The rest of the UGA has reverted to a Rural designation ._ .. ra PI . -• — - -- -- -- - WAM�mtwumw&WA ._. UNKNOWN - win in . . I Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -33 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use GOAL 2U: Provide a sufficient Urban Growth Area for Blaine to ensure an adequate housing supply and meet ebtain Growth Management Act and county land use goals. �iarrr_r.�enir_ranYMMS z•�Lt... _ M a IN 3 1 FAWTPOPOW1 Morm I I vrsMWOOM identity of the seweF and 449R eF by agreement sheuld be GORsistent with this resolution .._ Policy 2U-12-: Requi��Work cooperati vely with Blaine to increase critical area protection and water quality controls sufficient to protect shellfish harvesting and marine resources in Drayton Harbor. Policy 2U -23: Ensure that Blaine adopts measures to implement in -fill policies in the proposed Blaine Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2U -34: Readjust the SheFt TeFFF1 Plap ,;ng or Urban Growth Area as urban services are made available and need is demonstrated. Policy 2U -45: Ensure that adequate capital facilities can be provided to the Blaine Urban Growth Area. Policy 2U -5&: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Blaine, as needed, to provide for: • a project review process for development within Blaine's UGA that ensures consistency with Blaine's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and standards. • County adoption and maintenance of 10- acre.lew density r, r °' zoning for the UGA which would allow urban densities to develop only in conjunction with annexation or a commitment to annex within a very specific timeline and under very specific conditions. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -34 - ._ .. It 041W in�wmaxw�aw It It It It W LN It W :Eta _ . . . . - . - . — . . . - - . - . It ■ . . _ l Ah III It WO .. - ._ _. It 1 No OIL GOAL 2U: Provide a sufficient Urban Growth Area for Blaine to ensure an adequate housing supply and meet ebtain Growth Management Act and county land use goals. �iarrr_r.�enir_ranYMMS z•�Lt... _ M a IN 3 1 FAWTPOPOW1 Morm I I vrsMWOOM identity of the seweF and 449R eF by agreement sheuld be GORsistent with this resolution .._ Policy 2U-12-: Requi��Work cooperati vely with Blaine to increase critical area protection and water quality controls sufficient to protect shellfish harvesting and marine resources in Drayton Harbor. Policy 2U -23: Ensure that Blaine adopts measures to implement in -fill policies in the proposed Blaine Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2U -34: Readjust the SheFt TeFFF1 Plap ,;ng or Urban Growth Area as urban services are made available and need is demonstrated. Policy 2U -45: Ensure that adequate capital facilities can be provided to the Blaine Urban Growth Area. Policy 2U -5&: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Blaine, as needed, to provide for: • a project review process for development within Blaine's UGA that ensures consistency with Blaine's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and standards. • County adoption and maintenance of 10- acre.lew density r, r °' zoning for the UGA which would allow urban densities to develop only in conjunction with annexation or a commitment to annex within a very specific timeline and under very specific conditions. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -34 - ._ .. 041W in�wmaxw�aw It W :Eta _ . . . . - . - . — . . . - - . - . .. ■ . . _ l Ah III It WO GOAL 2U: Provide a sufficient Urban Growth Area for Blaine to ensure an adequate housing supply and meet ebtain Growth Management Act and county land use goals. �iarrr_r.�enir_ranYMMS z•�Lt... _ M a IN 3 1 FAWTPOPOW1 Morm I I vrsMWOOM identity of the seweF and 449R eF by agreement sheuld be GORsistent with this resolution .._ Policy 2U-12-: Requi��Work cooperati vely with Blaine to increase critical area protection and water quality controls sufficient to protect shellfish harvesting and marine resources in Drayton Harbor. Policy 2U -23: Ensure that Blaine adopts measures to implement in -fill policies in the proposed Blaine Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2U -34: Readjust the SheFt TeFFF1 Plap ,;ng or Urban Growth Area as urban services are made available and need is demonstrated. Policy 2U -45: Ensure that adequate capital facilities can be provided to the Blaine Urban Growth Area. Policy 2U -5&: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Blaine, as needed, to provide for: • a project review process for development within Blaine's UGA that ensures consistency with Blaine's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and standards. • County adoption and maintenance of 10- acre.lew density r, r °' zoning for the UGA which would allow urban densities to develop only in conjunction with annexation or a commitment to annex within a very specific timeline and under very specific conditions. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -34 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for. • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -35 e � A n Whatcom Coun y Blaine Urban Growth Area Cornprehensive nsive Plan - November 10, 2009 Urban Growth Area 1uFOaAa,grro USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S INS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S Q.44 (�!pM COG d'y AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: OG P % ^ S� Whalcom County disclaims any Warranty of merchantabili ty or wan 2QVq emy ju APS of fitness at [his map for any particular purpose, either express or Implied. Me representation or Warranty is male concerning the scour, V��„< say, oarrmrcy, completeness or quality of data depicted on this map. ' Any user of thin map assumes all responsibility for use thereof, and further agrees to hold Whatcam County harmless from and against any Z� _Q.. damns. lose. or liability arisinu lmm any use of this man. -ZC— ¢ miles OEVELOPH`�� 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.6 - November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Everson - •• -- -. -• - MEN resource - -• - e- - -- - - -• working resource -• -- - and - •- - -• factors considered - - in determining protection the land base. City of Everson Urban Fire District # 1. The City of Everson has an approved 2005. Growth Area boundar .. that - water to meet water system demands - -. IN With conservation e- measures, the City Planner has indicated that _ - .. •. .• meet demand for the next 20 years. I• - - • • . . - • . • _ - _ I - • -. of agricultural ._ resource lands. - •. appropriate use or re -use of adjacent mineral working resource lands and provision of adequate urban level services are among the factors considered Fire in determining protection the land base. City of Everson Urban Fire District # 1. The City of Everson has an approved 2005. Growth Area boundar .. that - water to meet water system demands - -. IN With conservation and re- distribution measures, the City Planner has indicated that _ - .. •. .• meet demand for the next 20 years. I• Everson urban -growth area is located in western Whatcom County, northeast of Bellinqham. The City and its UGA serve the surrounding area as a commercial, retail and industrial center. The entire UGA is accessible by two maior state highways, SR 544 and SR 9 that connects the city to the Canadian border and to points further south. The UGA is also accessible by Burlinaton Northern railway. Flood UGA is also prone areas, preservation of agricultural resource lands. land, appropriate use or re -use of adjacent mineral working resource lands and provision of adequate urban level services are among the factors considered Fire in determining protection the land base. City of Everson Urban Fire District # 1. The City of Everson has an approved 2005. Growth Area boundar .. that the city has adequate water to meet water system demands through 2022. With conservation and re- distribution measures, the City Planner has indicated that water supply and storage capacity is sufficient to meet demand for the next 20 years. - - • • . . - • . • _ - _ I M W I ONSW - 1 -•• 1 • •- -. = -I - MW we a - •• • - 1 - - - - I• - - - I I w - • - - - •• •- • I - �1 • ••1 -• ♦ - - -• •-- •- - • •• - •_ Everson urban -growth area is located in western Whatcom County, northeast of Bellinqham. The City and its UGA serve the surrounding area as a commercial, retail and industrial center. The entire UGA is accessible by two maior state highways, SR 544 and SR 9 that connects the city to the Canadian border and to points further south. The UGA is also accessible by Burlinaton Northern railway. Flood UGA is also prone areas, preservation of agricultural resource lands. land, appropriate use or re -use of adjacent mineral working resource lands and provision of adequate urban level services are among the factors considered Fire in determining protection the land base. City of Everson Urban Fire District # 1. The City of Everson has an approved 2005. Growth Area boundar .. that the city has adequate water to meet water system demands through 2022. With conservation and re- distribution measures, the City Planner has indicated that water supply and storage capacity is sufficient to meet demand for the next 20 years. The City is bisected by the Nooksack River, which periodically floods and inundates parts of downtown Everson. Lying to the south of Everson are mineral resource lands and several active gravel mines. Everson UGA is also adjacent to agricultural the area lands. County goals maintained include by working cooperative with the School City of Everson to enhance Fire or maintain protection the county's agricultural land base. by The City of Everson provides public sewer, water, stormwater, and police services, while public schools for the area are operated and maintained by the Nooksack Valley School District. Fire protection services are provided by Fire District # 1. The City of Everson has an approved 2005. Water System Plan indicating that the city has adequate water to meet water system demands through 2022. With conservation and re- distribution measures, the City Planner has indicated that water supply and storage capacity is sufficient to meet demand for the next 20 years. The City of Everson is challenged by a number of urban service issues that must be considered when establishing geographic boundaries to accommodate future urban growth. The City does not have a Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and City of Everson 2004 Comprehensive Plan Capital Facility Element indicates that the City will exceed sewage treatment capacity in 2014. However, recent analysis shows that the capacity may be adequate for a period of 8 -12 years. Expansion of the treatment plant will be necessary in the future to meet the needs of projected growth for the 20 -year planning period. City of Everson and City of Nooksack share costs in operating the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -37 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Everson Sewage Treatment Plant, and have plans to begin a cooperative effort to develop a comprehensive sewer plan that will address future needs at least through the 20 -year planning period. Fire District #1 does not currently have a capital facilities plan. Although the Nooksack School District serving Everson, Nooksack and Sumas does not have a Capital Facilities Plan, capacity analysis indicates that the District is able to provide sufficient capacity for the 20 -year planning period. The urban growth area for Everson is intended to provide sufficient land area to accommodate future urban growth with adequate public services, while minimizing impacts to resource lands and critical areas. County goals encourage Everson to develop residentially zoned areas at average net densities of four units per net developable acre. Net developable acreage is calculated by subtracting areas with development limitations such as steep slopes, flood areas, and other critical areas, and land needed for rights -of -way, utilities, infrastructure and open space. Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -3) East This area, is appFeximately 120 onrec and is located east and south of the existing city limits, strap straddles State Route 9 and adjacent rail access, and drops below the southern boundary of City of Nooksack- The proposed uses for this area are industrial to the east and residential useto the west. An area northwest of Everson is included in the UGA to allow expansion of the existing Everson Riverside Park. West The most likely place for future development to GGG :F is in the upland areas located west of the city lim its, adjacent to existing residential development, and with a public school in close proximity. ` ^,hinh nnrrently have nnUnty urban znninn nppreximately tern hundred arres of lend are designated in this -area. Proposed future zoninq for this area includes a A mix of uses i-s wed- including industrial, commercial, and residential -aed agFiGUlt Current agricultural zoning in portions of the UGA serve as holding districts until rezoned for urban uses in the future. South M - _ - e - - -- - - •c e• a A a M 21MT.7r7r,=IM2 .. MM rf 271 r2mm STAW"Am .. OW Ogg Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -38 I November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use GOAL 2V: Set an Urban Growth Boundary for Everson which accommodates future growth needs and recognizes constraints imposed by Nooksack River flooding and mineral resource mining issues. Policy 2V -1: Work with Everson to adopt measures to limit development in floodplains. Policy 2V -2: Recognize adjacent mineral resource lands as potential urban development areas and work with Everson and land owners to develop an environmentally safe plan to facilitate this conversion. Policy 2V -3: Avoid new land uses that are an identified threat to groundwater quality within the delineated wellhead protection area of the Everson wellfield. Policy 2V-4: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Everson, as need, to provide for: • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for • timing and procedures to be used for review of adequate land supply • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan • cooperation regarding conversion of mineral resource lands • resegnitiea efrecoanize opportunities for future growth to the west of the existing city • limitation of development on floodplain on parcel adjacent the former golf course long term measures to assure compatibility with resource lands Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -39 I I 1 AO� A n - atcomCou Co Everson Urban Growth Area Plan - November 10, 2009 Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve USE NP WHATCOM COUNTY'S CIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: Whalcom County disclaims any warranty of mershaelahiilty or warranty of fitness of Ihls map for any particular purpose. either express or Implied. NO representation or warranty is Me& Wo"Ining the aaWr, any, currency, completeness or quality of data depicted on this map. Any user of this map assumes all responsibility for use thereof, and further agrees to bald Whatcom County harmless Imm and against any damaoe, lose. of Ilahllity arieino from ally use at this mac. 0 485 970 1.940 2,910 3.880 4P,�GOM RMCOG UQ.P S L� �4?.&N 20 ©9 y' <'a y. L6 64W, z SV, 2 � , tZag; . yc Ilk — �2 I November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Ferndale County goals encourage Ferndale to develop residentially zoned areas at average net densities of si�x-five to ek�*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 overlapping jurisdiction with Bellingham. 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 • .. 7ZWal WMAI most of the \ \ services _ . the Urban Growth . • for • • and _ ... _ . The city sewer plan 1 horizon of 2015. The City of Ferndale . a • _ 1 • • • r a • . • . • • • • \ \ 1 • .. . . A _ . _ _• _ •• .,. . r . • _ 16t . . • s .. LWA am 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 sewer plan has a horizon of 2015. The City of Ferndale _OS deficits in t However, small sewage treatment deficits are anticipated within the 20 -year planning period under this growth allocation 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 Fire District does not have a capital facilities . .. sk .. — . . . . . . .. • . .. . .. . _ . — — .. r Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA_4) 1 . _ . • • . _ O• _••. • �•• SNOW MANSE "ORWAKWO WI w io IWOam 04 9 M. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -41 A s Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA_4) 1 . _ . • • . _ O• _••. • �•• SNOW MANSE "ORWAKWO WI w io IWOam 04 9 M. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -41 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use between the Grandview commercial / industrial area and the Ferndale city center has been removed from the Urban Growth area but is zoned for 10 acre lots to accommodate future urban development, as the area may be a logical extension of the Urban Growth Area in the future. : - West T44s -The area west of the ridge that divides the Terrell Creek and Nooksack River watersheds is generally not a logical extension of the city as urban facilities can not be extended in an efficient r: r- 111111 rtr-r rr�:T.e��rs z� r.�z r_�nrts�0 - - • e - • - - East There are only limited areas to the east that are included within the Urban Growth Area. Existin r IM 11M M Will .. .. W .- .. South Very little land area to the south has been included in the urban growth area. However, the. .. r . . ttLnLc_1xz_ iI It i.stmat . . WLn40C JAS . _ 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 2WI Support City of Ferndale planning efforts for in -fill development within the existing city limits and development of its UGA IN N& 11I real It in Overage denoitiec of ever Q units nor residenti�llit manned �nre Policy 2WI Ensure that adequate capital facilities can be provided to the Grandview Industrial area within a timely fashion to accommodate development of the area. Policy 2WI 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 -54: Encourage Ferndale to revise its development regulatinnS to ennnUgone GlestefiHg ef Qevetepment n, e Af GFitiGal are<. s-aIwork towards development of a "wetland bank" to mitigate impacts of development on scattered wetland areas within the city. Policy 2W -56: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Ferndale, as needed, to provide for: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-42 : - .. . . .. . .. .. .. . Policy 2WI Support City of Ferndale planning efforts for in -fill development within the existing city limits and development of its UGA IN N& 11I real It in Overage denoitiec of ever Q units nor residenti�llit manned �nre Policy 2WI Ensure that adequate capital facilities can be provided to the Grandview Industrial area within a timely fashion to accommodate development of the area. Policy 2WI 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 -54: Encourage Ferndale to revise its development regulatinnS to ennnUgone GlestefiHg ef Qevetepment n, e Af GFitiGal are<. s-aIwork towards development of a "wetland bank" to mitigate impacts of development on scattered wetland areas within the city. Policy 2W -56: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Ferndale, as needed, to provide for: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-42 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use • policies regarding utility service outside the ch,,Ft TPoFr , P'aR iR9 AFe of 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 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-43 {. -.... ♦�i�- isle %♦ y r a :LL Map Rd. - Ferndale Urban Growth Area MA 4 Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve G"4 UGA-4 W. Pole Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - November 25, 2009 O }NfaaMgNJ USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S CIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S @P .,�60M CoG sy AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: Ov �.P' 4s fpm Whalcom County disclaims any warreply of merchantability or warranty 2009 F� DI fitness of [his map for any particular purpose, either express or rc Implied. NO repmsnntallon or watranly is made concerning The ascoa aeT, currency, completeness or quality of dais depicted an this map. - Anyuserofthismapassumesallrespaneihiiltyforusethereof ,and further agrees to hold Whmcom Coumy harmless Imm and against any damage. loss. at liability arlsino learn any use at this Mao. Miles $OFyELOPM�at. 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 .__ ....� ...:.......... : ... :......: . -- 2. L: _ -- .......................... .. ...... ...:._..._... arrRd. y r a :LL Map Rd. - Ferndale Urban Growth Area MA 4 Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve G"4 UGA-4 W. Pole Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - November 25, 2009 O }NfaaMgNJ USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S CIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S @P .,�60M CoG sy AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: Ov �.P' 4s fpm Whalcom County disclaims any warreply of merchantability or warranty 2009 F� DI fitness of [his map for any particular purpose, either express or rc Implied. NO repmsnntallon or watranly is made concerning The ascoa aeT, currency, completeness or quality of dais depicted an this map. - Anyuserofthismapassumesallrespaneihiiltyforusethereof ,and further agrees to hold Whmcom Coumy harmless Imm and against any damage. loss. at liability arlsino learn any use at this Mao. Miles $OFyELOPM�at. 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 .__ November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Lynden County goals encourage Lynden to develop residentially zoned areas at average net densities of five to ekjht— en units per net developable acre. Net developable acreage is calculated by subtracting areas with development limitations such as step slopes, flood areas, and other critical areas, and land needed for rights -of -way, utilities, infrastructure, and open space. Issues in defining the Lynden Urban Growth Area include preservation of agricultural resource lands and uses allowed within county zoning designations. Lynden is surrounded by agricultural resource lands. The Growth Management Act requires cities to protect adjacent resource lands through the adoption of buffers or the regulation of uses. Lynden provides most of the urban governmental services, except for schools. The city has a General Sewer Plan completed in 2007 that will meet the needs of growth over the 20 year period. The City of Lynden 2008 Water System Plan indicates that the city has adequate water to meet water system demands to the end of its 2026 planning period. However, the City of Lynden and the Washington State Department of Ecology have an existing dispute over the city's water rights. The city has entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Ecology to address long - standing water right issues. The Lynden School District has a capital facilities plan, which has been adopted by Whatcom County. Fire protection facilities are provided by the City of Lynden and are included in their Capital Facilities Plan. The Lynden Urban Growth Area has been designated to provide a sufficient land supply for Lynden and minimize impact on adjacent agricultural resource land. Areas included in UGA - (Map UGA -5) FEMM �s., .�4,•r err- zrs: Frr..:, rta,: s�nrr ,3�rr�m:�,:�r_�.r,rssrmr -� ..rrrr_��:�r.�. _ _ . nrr_r.�r. :,:r- a a AT V�X*VAAV� I a &SAMg r.=KW.r^ rmmm M. KxZnq=: r=m x=r^TN= C "n=MrZ.J M r.r4 Ma^=�MIAV�T�T� a a 1LfLll:�1:J.i: NOW IN AA am ar. AMEE apavrar= AL AL The Lynden Urban Growth Area has been designated to provide a sufficient land supply for Lynden and minimize impact on adjacent agricultural resource land. Areas included in UGA - (Map UGA -5) FEMM �s., .�4,•r err- zrs: Frr..:, rta,: s�nrr ,3�rr�m:�,:�r_�.r,rssrmr -� ..rrrr_��:�r.�. _ _ . nrr_r.�r. :,:r- NOW f 1LfLll:�1:J.i: North A wag -tract of land te-in the northwest area of Lynden has been included in the UGA_. While this is prime agricultural land, it is logically located for service provision and is necessary to adequately accommodate Lynden's growth needs through 2015 the 20 -year planning period. Double Ditch Creek and Benson creek, which flow through drainage ditches in this area, have been identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as anadromous creeks. If this area develops in the future, the City and County should work with the State to address drainage and flooding issues and protect or restore fish habitat in these creeks. West A large amount of land located west of Lynden is included to facilitate industrial and commercial growth for the City of Lynden. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-45 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Goal 2X: Designate an Urban Growth Area for Lynden of sufficient size to provide for future growth, protect the existing character of Lynden, and minimize impact on county resource lands. Policy 2X -1: Review county zoning regulations to ensure that conditional uses in the agricultural zone do not discourage the development of such uses within the City of Lynden. Policy 2X -2: Require Lynden to propose long term measures to assure compatibility of adjacent uses to mineral and agricultural resource lands. Policy 2X -3: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Lynden, as needed, to provide for: • restrictiGR of-extension of urban levels of service to urhon uses o utside. the Sher+ Term Planning Areas of the urban growth areas • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for zoning designations and density within the UGA timing and procedures to be used for review of adequate land supply • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan and demonstration of sufficient water rights for current and projected needs. Policy 2X -4: Land uses that are incompatible with the operation of the Lynden Airport should be discouraged when rezoning land in the Urban Growth Area west of Benson Rd. and south of Badger Rd. Specifically, Whatcom County should follow the process set forth below when considering whether a proposed rezone discourages incompatible land uses: • Determine whether any land in the proposed rezone is within zone 1 (runway protection zone), zone 2 (inner approach /departure zone), or zone 3 (inner turning zone) as shown on Safety Compatibility Zone Example 1 from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Shutt Moen Associates, January 2002, p. 9 -38). • Compare the land uses allowed by the proposed zoning with the Basic Safety Compatibility Qualities for zones 1, 2, and 3 and the Safety Compatibility Criteria Guidelines for zones 1, 2, and 3 in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Shutt Moen Associates, January 2002, pp. 9 -44 and 9 -47) and identify incompatible land uses. • Determine whether land in zone 1, 2 or 3 is proposed for a zoning district that allows residential land uses, schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, or above ground bulk fuel storage. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -46 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use • Unless no alternatives are feasible, require residential land uses, schools, day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes to be clustered or otherwise located outside of zones 1, 2 and 3 and require above ground bulk fuel storage to be located outside of zones 1, 2 and 3. The intent is to preserve as much open space as possible in zones 1, 2 and 3. Policy 2X -5: Land uses that are incompatible with the operation of the Lynden Airport should be discouraged if expansion of the Urban Growth Area west of Benson Rd. and south of Badger Rd. is considered. Specifically, the Lynden Urban Growth Area should not be expanded in this area unless it can be demonstrated that: • Residential land uses, schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and above ground bulk fuel storage would be clustered or otherwise located outside zone 2 (inner approach /departure zone), zone 3 (inner turning zone), and zone 4 (outer approach /departure zone) as shown on Safety Compatibility Zone Example 1 from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Shutt Moen Associates, January 2002, p. 9 -38). (located in section 15, T40N, R3E, W.M.) is within the 100 -year flood plain of the Nooksack River, and its addition to the UGA and subsequent uses are subject to the restrictions of RCW 36.70A.110(8). Its addition to the UGA is conditioned upon and subject to the extinguishment of all development rights on the property, and it may not be annexed by the City of Lynden until those rights have been extinguished. Further, the uses of the property must remain consistent with the exemptions in RCW 36.70A.110(8), excepting propertv from the aeneral prohibition aaainst additions to UGAs in floodplains. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-47 IL A 1 14rg A r - Lynden Urban Growth Area Whatcensive my Comprehensive Plan - November 25, 2009 Urban Growth Area gool Urban Growth Area Reserve USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S GIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: Whalcom Coumq disdeima any warranty of mmaheniahlity or warmniy of fitness of [his map for any particular Impose, eHher express or Implied. No represenlationmwarromY is made concerning The acar acy, currency, completeness or quality at data depicted on Ibis map. Any user of this map assumes all responsiMlily for use thereof, and further agrees to hold Whalcom County harmless Imm and against any damage, lose, or liability aNSina from env use of ibis map. Miles 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 \G OjF0RAg4 ry0 U� ° 4. 2009 t '.2k I November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Nooksack The Nooksack urban growth area is located in western Whatcom County, northeast of Bellingham. The UGA is located immediately to the east and northeast of the City of Everson and is served by a major state highway, SR 9 that connects the City with City of Sumas extending north to the Canadian border. From points south, Burlinaton Northern railwav passes through the town center, on the way to Canada. The Community's expressed vision is to maintain an atmosphere of safe and friendlv family livin in a small town rural setting, while protecting and enjoying the natural environment and agricultural lands of the surrounding area, and promoting development of new jobs and businesses (City of Nooksack, Comprehensive Plan, 2004). Flood prone areas, preservation of agricultural resource land, appropriate use or re -use of adiacent mineral resource lands and provision of adequate urban level services are among the factors considered in designating the City of Nooksack Urban Growth Area boundary. The Nooksack UGA is located entirely within the Sumas River watershed, with portions of the City's eastern boundary following the Sumas River as it flows north toward Sumas and British Columbia, Canada. Nooksack is surrounded on all sides by physical constraints that present challenges to development. West of the city limits is the Nooksack River floodplain with a history of recurrent flooding, and east of the city are the Sumas River, Breckenridge Creek and Swift Creek, all of which are prone to flooding. Mineral resource desiqnated lands with active mining roll an area with high aquifer recharge susceptibility, protected by. City and County critical areas regulations. Nooksack UGA is surrounded by agricultural land, or rural land identified with agricultural protection soils on nearly all sides. County goals include working cooperatively with the City of Nooksack to enhance or maintain the county's agricultural land base. The City of Nooksack is challenged by a number of urban level service issues that must be considered when establishing geographic boundaries to accommodate future urban growth. The City of Nooksack collects and transmits wastewater to City of Everson's Sewage Treatment Plant for treatment. Both cities provide funding for operation and maintenance of Everson's sewer treatment facility. The City of Everson's treatment facility is not planned to accommodate the projected growth of both cities at this time, although it is expected to have sufficient capacity for the next 13 to 15 years. Neither city has a Comprehensive Sewer Plan adopted but efforts are beginning to have a plan that will meet future needs through the 20 -year planning period Fire District 1 serves Everson and Nooksack. The Fire District does not have a Capital Facilities plan. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-49 The City of Nooksack has a Water System Plan approved by DOH on February 22 2006. The Plan covers the 20 year planning period through 2022. City of Nooksack purchases water from City of Sumas, providing 199 acre feet of water annually to Nooksack per the terms of a mutual supply agreement between Sumas and Nooksack and the Nooksack Valley Water Association (NVWA). Sumas has water rights to provide City of Nooksack with adequate supply necessary to support projected growth. Fire District 1 serves Everson and Nooksack. The Fire District does not have a Capital Facilities plan. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-49 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use The Nooksack Vallev School District serves Everson. Nooksack and Sumas. The School District does not have a Capital Facilities Plan, although capacity analysis indicates that the District is able to provide sufficient capacity for the 20 -year planning period. The urban growth area for Nooksack is intended to provide sufficient land area to accommodate future urban growth with adequate public services, while minimizing impacts to resource lands and critical areas. County goals encourage Nooksack to develop residentially zoned areas at average net densities of four units per net developable acre. Net developable acreage is calculated by subtracting areas with development limitations such as steep slopes, flood areas, and other critical areas, and land needed for rights -of -way, utilities, infrastructure and open space. \ re" • . - . • • .. • . \ - - • I . t . _ - • _ . .. - - • I• • •• Mr. - • - - • - . •• • - • •• • - A, AL A. • FAS1 •• I FAIIIIIIIATmal FAX • "Al . I . . mad &VISIAMIS • • . mug . • • . f N= -. _. •• n. • .• a .... - •• . .. ._ WIN Am . u u ml CY'•!- fsl - • . . ;hamjrI-- \ re" • . - . • • .. • . \ - - • I . t . _ - • _ . .. - - • I• • •• Mr. - • - - • - . •• • - • •• • - A, AL A. • FAS1 •• I FAIIIIIIIATmal FAX • "Al . I . . mad &VISIAMIS • • . mug . • • . f N= •• • . a .... - •• . •• . u u ml \ re" • . - . • • .. • . \ - - • I . t . _ - • _ . .. - - • • • •• - • - - - . •• • - • •• • - i mad &VISIAMIS • V om a mug a .... •• ml •• - • . . . WIWI •• • - 1 . - l Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -6) East ediatety -Land east of the existing city limits and north of gfee " Breckenridge Creek ; 224 onrac of land have has been included in the Urban Growth Area. This land is mostly located outside floodplains, and upon annexation Nooksack has indicated a willingness to provide urban services. This area currently contains the Nooksack Elementary School and an adjacent cemetery, both of which are considered public uses. The majority of the remaining area is planned for residential development, GOAL 2Y: Set an Urban Growth Boundary for Nooksack which accommodates future growth needs and recognizes constraints imposed by Nooksack and Sumas River flooding, agricultural uses, and mineral resource mining issues. Policy 2Y -1: Work with Nooksack to adopt measures to limit development in floodplains. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -50 IdOmME"a • • .. • . \ • - • . t . _ • _ . .. i mad &VISIAMIS • V om a mug Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -6) East ediatety -Land east of the existing city limits and north of gfee " Breckenridge Creek ; 224 onrac of land have has been included in the Urban Growth Area. This land is mostly located outside floodplains, and upon annexation Nooksack has indicated a willingness to provide urban services. This area currently contains the Nooksack Elementary School and an adjacent cemetery, both of which are considered public uses. The majority of the remaining area is planned for residential development, GOAL 2Y: Set an Urban Growth Boundary for Nooksack which accommodates future growth needs and recognizes constraints imposed by Nooksack and Sumas River flooding, agricultural uses, and mineral resource mining issues. Policy 2Y -1: Work with Nooksack to adopt measures to limit development in floodplains. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -50 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2Y -2: Encourage Nooksack to review land use proposals for available agricultural and flood prone lands for designation in open space type uses. Policy 2Y -3: Encourage Nooksack to pursue multi - family development and to adopt measures to develop within the existing city limits at increased densities. Policy 2Y -4: Ensure Nooksack can provide adequate urban services to accommodate projected population growth within the urban growth area. Policy 2Y -5: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Nooksack, as needed, to provide for: • identification of needed capital facility improvements and establishMeRt ef how they will be paid fe adequate sources of funding timing and procedures to be used for review of adequacy of land supply consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan • periodic reexamination of Dead; flood prone and agricultural areas • measures for protection of adjacent resource lands through control of incompatible uses and /or buffers —long term measures to assure compatibility with resource lands Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -51 Map UGA -6 - Nooksack Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve Matcom County Comprehensive Plan - November 10, 2009 ?�yC 1H_FOFtM,gt,O USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S GIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S y,P '.( .0m CpG s�, AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: �O �'. % ��P. Whalcom Caumy disclaims any warranty of merchaotablity, or warramy Ce '"oo� �+ of fitaasn of map for any particular purpose. either express or r� Implied. NO representation at warranty is mods tancening the aca> V- acy, currency, completeness or quality of data depicted an this map. t L„ -W Any user of this mop assumes all responsibility forest thereof, and 'A 'N'L further aortas to bald Whatcam County harmless from and againsl any It _ demons. loss. or flahiflN arising lrem any use M this mail. Miles $�fVELOPM�? 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 _ ._ I November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Sumas The Sumas urban growth area is located in north central Whatcom County along the USA - Canada international border, with the communities of Everson and Nooksack to the southwest The UGA is served by state highway (SR 9) connecting the City to the Canadian border and extending to points further south. The Community's vision for the UGA is to take advantage of its location and function as an international border crossing to capitalize on commercial and retail economic opportunities presented by border traffic, and the City has also expressed an interest in becoming a regional industrial center. The UGA is served by Burlington Northern railway. Flood prone areas, preservation of agricultural resource land, and provision of adequate urban services, are among many factors considered in designating the City of Sumas Urban Growth Area boundary. The UGA and surrounding area consists of gently sloping terrain tributary streams and creeks draining into the meandering northward flowing Sumas River. The UGA is also surrounded by agricultural land with agricultural protection soils on all sides. County goals include working cooperatively with the City of Sumas to enhance or maintain the county's agricultural land base. Urban level service capacities must be considered when establishing geographic boundaries to'�'' accommodate future urban growth. The City of Sumas has a Water System Plan (WSP) that was approved in 2000. This Plan covers the 1998 to 2018 planning period with a projected population of 1,625, which is slightly less than what the Countv has allocated for urban arowth durina .the 20 uires munici City of Sumas is currently in the process of updating its Plan. The City of Sumas owns and operates seven wells in two major well fields that provide a significant quantity of water within recognized water rights. City of Sumas supplies wholesale water to the Sumas Rural Water Association (SRWA) the Nooksack Valley Water Association and the City of Nooksack. Although not covered in the 2000 Plan, preliminary analvsis indicates that the combined storage of 1,000,000 gallons is sufficient to meet the need of the combined systems for the 20 -year planning period. City of Sumas collects and transports wastewater across the USA - Canada border for treatment in the City of Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, on a contractual basis. This agreement extends through the year 2028. Although the City of Sumas does not have a Comprehensive Sewer Plan, it appears that the City has sufficient capacity to meet the growth allocated within the 20 -year planning period. Fire District 14 serves Sumas by contract. The Fire District has indicated that it currently can provide urban level of service to Sumas. The Nooksack School District serves Everson Nooksack and Sumas. The School District does not have a Capital Facilities Plan, although capacity analysis indicates that the District is able to provide sufficient capacity for the 20 -year planning period. The urban growth area for Sumas is intended to provide sufficient land area to accommodate future urban growth with adequate public services, while minimizing impacts to resource lands and critical areas. County goals encourage Sumas to develop residentially zoned areas at average net densities of four units per net developable acre. Net developable acreage is calculated by subtracting areas with development limitations such as steep slopes flood areas and other critical areas, and land needed for rights -of -way, utilities, infrastructure and open space. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -53 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -7) An area south of Sumas and east of SR9 has been designated urban -growth area to accommodate future growth needs. - e- -- - -- F1111!I111 1111111111 - - - - -- - -- - - e IIIIIIIIAL Vill, Ill AS W IS W AS WSW ImpIV EIPTIVIT1=24M AS Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -7) An area south of Sumas and east of SR9 has been designated urban -growth area to accommodate future growth needs. AS W IS W AS WSW ImpIV Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -7) An area south of Sumas and east of SR9 has been designated urban -growth area to accommodate future growth needs. AS W AS WSW ImpIV EIPTIVIT1=24M AS Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA -7) An area south of Sumas and east of SR9 has been designated urban -growth area to accommodate future growth needs. GOAL 2Z: Set an Urban Growth Boundary for Sumas which accommodates future growth needs and recognizes the unique constraints imposed by flooding of the Sumas River and the Nooksack River, Policy 2Z -1: Ensure Sumas can provide adequate urban services within the urban growth area. Policy 2Z -2: Work with Sumas to adopt measures to limit development in floodplains. Policy 2Z -3: Encourage Sumas to increase densities for areas located outside the floodplain. Policy 2Z -4: Avoid new land uses that are an identified threat to groundwater quality within the delineated wellhead protection area of the Sumas City wellfield and May Road wellfield. Policy 2Z -5: Negotiate and adopt an interlocal agreement which provides for: • restriction of extension of urban levels of service to I lrh;;n 1lgt= outside the Short Term Planning Areas of the urban growth areas • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for • timing and procedures to be used for review of adequate of land supply Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -54 AS W AS ImpIV GOAL 2Z: Set an Urban Growth Boundary for Sumas which accommodates future growth needs and recognizes the unique constraints imposed by flooding of the Sumas River and the Nooksack River, Policy 2Z -1: Ensure Sumas can provide adequate urban services within the urban growth area. Policy 2Z -2: Work with Sumas to adopt measures to limit development in floodplains. Policy 2Z -3: Encourage Sumas to increase densities for areas located outside the floodplain. Policy 2Z -4: Avoid new land uses that are an identified threat to groundwater quality within the delineated wellhead protection area of the Sumas City wellfield and May Road wellfield. Policy 2Z -5: Negotiate and adopt an interlocal agreement which provides for: • restriction of extension of urban levels of service to I lrh;;n 1lgt= outside the Short Term Planning Areas of the urban growth areas • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for • timing and procedures to be used for review of adequate of land supply Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -54 November 24, 2009 Council Action • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan V Two - Land Use • protection of groundwater quality within the wellhead protection areas of the Sumas wellfields • re- examination of the densities outside the floodplain to see if they can be increased • Long term measures to assure compatibility with resource lands Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -55 I 1 1 / � A �r - S u m as Urban Growth Area Whaber25, 009 Comprehensive Plan - November 25, 2009 Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S CIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: Whaicom County diaslains any warranty of merchantability or wanamy of fitness of this map for any particular purpose, either express or Implied. No representation at warranty is made conuming The asap acy, currency, ccmplefamms or quality at data depleted on This map. Any user of this map assumes all responsibility for use thereof, and further agrees to hold Whatcum County harmless from and against any damage. lose. of Ilahlift arisina from env use of this moo. Q� +O 114F°Rrdar /0 °Q,p P.�GOM CpG d+y 2004 Miles FVELOPW`�' 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ., ... November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Unincorporated Residential /Recreational Urban Growth Areas and Recreational Subdivisions Birch Bay, Sudden Valley, and the Columbia Valley /Kendall area are unincorporated areas with sizable populations and substantial amounts of existing, residential /recreational development. These areas are characterized by a mix of permanent residents, recreational units and /or second home use, which reflects both the population growth that has occurred in the unincorporated areas of Whatcom County and the resort/recreational nature of these areas. Birch Bay Birch Bay s a resort community hich has the highest gFewth rote and the mn } potential }'nr y y IIQV uaV highest VL yl YYV[ H \V Ni[lA l[[r [[ /VVt t.lViL[(UliT T�JT' has historically been a second - home resort area with a trend toward permanent, often retirement homes. A high proportion are still second homes. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, approximately 51 % of the housing units in the Birch Bay Census Designated Place are vacant or seasonally occupied. The community, however, feels that trend is shifting to more permanent residents as the cost of housing in other areas of the county increases. The 2000 census counted 5,094 housing units in the Birch Bay Census Designated Place, including recreational units and RV sites. During the 2009 UGA update, land was removed from the Birch Bay UGA. The land removed from the UGA was put into a Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and re -zoned from urban densities to Rural one dwelling /ten acres. Water and sewer are provided by Birch Bay Sewer and Water District which has a network of water lines throughout most of the district inn6[rlin9 the Rirnh Dnin} area Whinh Was Femnvnrl from _. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District has the capability of providing sewer service to the entire urban growth area, but the present system covers a much smaller geographic area than the water distribution. The sewer service area also includes land which was removed from the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area or is included in the Blaine Urban Growth Area, hi } }hnrn io nn co[emr 68RTiGe n[ i}cirJo of the urban nrronr}h •+rol+ The district purchases water under a contractual agreement from the City of Blaine. In April 2002, the District entered into a 30 year contract with the City of Blaine to purchase water adequate to serve the Districts projected need for water through 2022. The District continues to work closely with Blaine as need for water changes given updates to population oroiections. The District also has a pending application for groundwater rights to a well drilled by the District, and an application to transfer water from the Nooksack River, by means of a contract with Whatcom County PUD 1, to supply the longer term needs of the community. rm 40 • _ •r r r• r _ - • - - - - ! • ! • - - - - - _ - - • _ - . . - - . -r - - - - - - ._ e• e e M a - - -- *11 _ ... .. . . . [won Wawa= •r . . . _ .. . _ . . During the 2009 UGA update, land was removed from the Birch Bay UGA. The land removed from the UGA was put into a Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and re -zoned from urban densities to Rural one dwelling /ten acres. Water and sewer are provided by Birch Bay Sewer and Water District which has a network of water lines throughout most of the district inn6[rlin9 the Rirnh Dnin} area Whinh Was Femnvnrl from _. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District has the capability of providing sewer service to the entire urban growth area, but the present system covers a much smaller geographic area than the water distribution. The sewer service area also includes land which was removed from the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area or is included in the Blaine Urban Growth Area, hi } }hnrn io nn co[emr 68RTiGe n[ i}cirJo of the urban nrronr}h •+rol+ The district purchases water under a contractual agreement from the City of Blaine. In April 2002, the District entered into a 30 year contract with the City of Blaine to purchase water adequate to serve the Districts projected need for water through 2022. The District continues to work closely with Blaine as need for water changes given updates to population oroiections. The District also has a pending application for groundwater rights to a well drilled by the District, and an application to transfer water from the Nooksack River, by means of a contract with Whatcom County PUD 1, to supply the longer term needs of the community. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -57 rm 40 • _ •r r r• r _ - • - - - - ! • ! • - - - - - _ - - • _ Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -57 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use In 2002, a citizen group completed a Community Plan for the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area and surrounding rural area. The Birch Bay Community Plan, as revised, was adopted as a Subarea of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan in 2004 and provides more detailed background information and policy direction regarding growth and development within Birch Bay. Where there are conflicts between the Birch Bay Community Plan and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, The County Comprehensive Plan shall prevail. In 1992, an attempt was made to incorporate Birch Bav: however. it was defeated by the voters. In 2008, the county completed an incorporation feasibility study for the Birch Bav UGA which identified the issues with and benefits of incorporating. It concluded that Birch Bay incorporation was financially feasible given the community's tax base and service needs. The community has not made another attempt to incorporate as of 2009. Columbia ValleylKe tda4 Located in the northeast region of the developed portion of the county, the Columbia ValleyXendall UGA is the most populous area in the eastern part of Whatcom County. The Columbia Valley area, like many other areas in Whatcom County, was originally developed to cater to a seasonal population, primarily Canadians who are allowed to spend up to six months per year in the United States. 2000 U.S. Census data indicates that approximately 32% &"' of the existing housing was is- either seasonal or vacant. However, peFtiens of +hn this area; partiGUIarly Paradise Lakes, h has become attractive for permanent residents and has transitioned to a higher percentage of year -round residents ; ,.,i +h +hio +rend evnen +orl +o ir,nreace +o 600 in the 20 year planning period. The lots are affordable and the current and projected development will provide an available work force for economic development. 010M a 0 Owe • - .. • • 1 • • - - - - • - 1 • • - • • • . • OTT W - W •'• C- -- 111 • 11: - ••• • • - ' - -• • • 1'. '•• • - ••• • - - - - •- - • - - • Mr. OF 37REFIRM01 KIWAI appla"A III "11M 1 _ _ ••■ IN �Aa�a�waw • _ . • . • . • _ . u . - • a 1 • • • • • • • ST7=6 _ • _ - PON 1M2T=MWA1OTA1r.r.r2". FM Paradise Lakes has public roads and continues to utilize septic systems for sewage disposal. The Evergreen Water -Sewer District provides public water service (formerly provided by the Paradise Lakes Country Club) to residential and camper lots within the Paradise Lakes divisions. Peaceful Valley has private roads and a water and sewer system managed by Water District 13 i.I has ample GapaGity. The dic+rir+ has none through baRkri ptGy heGa gee of the need to Garry the Gapital debt and epeFatiRg Gosts ef a system that is undeF utilized, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -58 pop In 2002, a citizen group completed a Community Plan for the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area and surrounding rural area. The Birch Bay Community Plan, as revised, was adopted as a Subarea of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan in 2004 and provides more detailed background information and policy direction regarding growth and development within Birch Bay. Where there are conflicts between the Birch Bay Community Plan and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, The County Comprehensive Plan shall prevail. In 1992, an attempt was made to incorporate Birch Bav: however. it was defeated by the voters. In 2008, the county completed an incorporation feasibility study for the Birch Bav UGA which identified the issues with and benefits of incorporating. It concluded that Birch Bay incorporation was financially feasible given the community's tax base and service needs. The community has not made another attempt to incorporate as of 2009. Columbia ValleylKe tda4 Located in the northeast region of the developed portion of the county, the Columbia ValleyXendall UGA is the most populous area in the eastern part of Whatcom County. The Columbia Valley area, like many other areas in Whatcom County, was originally developed to cater to a seasonal population, primarily Canadians who are allowed to spend up to six months per year in the United States. 2000 U.S. Census data indicates that approximately 32% &"' of the existing housing was is- either seasonal or vacant. However, peFtiens of +hn this area; partiGUIarly Paradise Lakes, h has become attractive for permanent residents and has transitioned to a higher percentage of year -round residents ; ,.,i +h +hio +rend evnen +orl +o ir,nreace +o 600 in the 20 year planning period. The lots are affordable and the current and projected development will provide an available work force for economic development. 010M a 0 Owe • - .. • • 1 • • - - - - • - 1 • • - • • • . • OTT W - W •'• C- -- 111 • 11: - ••• • • - ' - -• • • 1'. '•• • - ••• • - - - - •- - • - - • Mr. OF 37REFIRM01 KIWAI appla"A III "11M 1 _ _ ••■ IN �Aa�a�waw • _ . • . • . • _ . u . - • a 1 • • • • • • • ST7=6 _ • _ - PON 1M2T=MWA1OTA1r.r.r2". FM Paradise Lakes has public roads and continues to utilize septic systems for sewage disposal. The Evergreen Water -Sewer District provides public water service (formerly provided by the Paradise Lakes Country Club) to residential and camper lots within the Paradise Lakes divisions. Peaceful Valley has private roads and a water and sewer system managed by Water District 13 i.I has ample GapaGity. The dic+rir+ has none through baRkri ptGy heGa gee of the need to Garry the Gapital debt and epeFatiRg Gosts ef a system that is undeF utilized, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -58 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Public transit service is provided to the Columbia Valley /Kendall area by the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA). Local east - county law enforcement is provided by a full time resident Sheriffs Deputy that is based out of Kendall. The small town of Kendall, located outside of the UGA, has a commercial district, fire station, and an elementary school. Sudden Valley Recreational Subdivision Sudden Valley was established in the early 1970s as a recreation /resort area located in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. But over the last thirty years it has developed into an Urban Residential area. Sudden Valley has private paved roads, all underground utilities (electricity, gas, cable and telephone), and a public water and sewer system provided by Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. Fire District #2, strategically located in Sudden Valley, provides fire and ambulance service. Sudden Valley's 1,724 total acres originally included 4,648 platted single- family lots /condominiums, a limited commercial area, community facilities, a marina, and a golf course Of the 1,545 acres, 835 acres of open space and 140 acres of golf course (63 %) are community association owned. The remaining 749 acres (43 %) are private property. 2000 US Census data indicates that approximately 26% of the existing housing in Sudden Valley is either seasonal or vacant. Sudden Valley contributes to a high volume of vehicle trips on Lake Whatcom Boulevard and Lake Louise Road. Right -of -way and alignment studies have been proposed for the 6 -year TIP to study alternatives, cost and location relative to addressing the growing volume of vehicular trips on Lake Whatcom Boulevard and Lake Louise Road. Public transportation services are provided by the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA). Sudden Valley lies within the Lake Whatcom Watershed where limiting development has been identified as desirable. The Sudden Valley Community Association (SVCA) has a Board of Directors mandated lot consolidation program with a targeted density reduction of 1,400 lots, reducing the total lots for development from 4,648 to 3,248. To date approximately 75% (1,047 lots) have been placed into density reduction of which 452 are voluntary private lot consolidation. SVCA funding has been set aside to purchase additional lots for density reduction. In accordance with the 2000 Lake Whatcom Management Program, the County and lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District have also assisted Sudden Valley with their density reduction program through several joint agreements and exchanges of property and restrictive covenants. To date, the SVCA, County, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District have acquired 115 undeveloped lots in Sudden Valley at annual tax foreclosure auctions. The Lot Consolidation Covenant to Bind process has, also, increased voluntary private lot consolidation. The County Council has exempted Sudden Valley from the Lake Whatcom Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program because Sudden Valley's density reduction plan meets the intent of the TDR program. Since 1985, Sudden Valley has mandated the use of appropriate stormwater best management practices through standards for individual stormwater detention for all new construction. Any new building permits on existing lots must be able to demonstrate that stormwater detention is included on the plan as a precondition to issuance of a permit. Sudden Valley is also subject to additional regulatory protections that apply to the Lake Whatcom watershed under the Water Resource Protection Overlay District, Stormwater Special District, and Water Resource Special Management Area requirements. Under the provisions of these special districts, potential impacts from impervious surfaces, stormwater runoff, and clearing activities are required to be addressed on -site. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -59 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Sudden Valley has implemented a 10 -year Forest And Wildlife Stewardship (FAWS) plan with the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This plan provides environmental education and guidance to the Sudden Valley community, on a continuing basis, to assure sound environmental health and safety for plants, animals, and residents with an emphasis on properly managing flora and fauna indigenous to the region. GOAL 2AA: Recognize Birch Bay and the Columbia ValleyM4lt area as county urban growth areas, not associated with existing cities. Policy 2AA -1: Work with the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District to amend the District service area boundaries to be consistent with the revised Urban Growth Area and establish policies for provision of water service to portions of the District that were removed from the UGA. Policy 2AA-2: Work with Birch Bay Water and Sewer District and the City of Blaine to resolve the-any issues of jurisdiction. north Gf LiRGGIR Read and east of the betweeR LiRGOIR Road and Drayton HarbGr tG ultimately be part of Blaine but • w teF and - a from the Policy 2AA -3 Recognize the resort nature of Birch Bay and Columbia ValleyXendaU, including the significant second home factor when analyzing land supply for urban growth area boundaries. Recognize the recreational nature of a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA when analyzing land supply for urban growth area boundaries. Policy 2AA -4: Encourage incorporation of Birch Bay when financial viability can be achieved without including the Cherry Point Industrial Area within proposed city boundaries. Policy 2AA -5: Recognize the impacts of tourist development on local residents in the Birch Bay, Sudden Valley, and Columbia Valley and provide for mitigation of those impacts. Policy 2AA -6: Work with all parties to resolve infrastructure and public service issues so that the Columbia Valley414°ndall area UGA can develop to its full potential. Capital facility plans should provide the information required by RCW 36.70A.070(3). Policy 2AA -7: Study the Columbia Valleydatl UGA to identify the factors necessary to create an economically viable city, the implications of such development within the County overall, and make recommendations as to how and when incorporation should be initiated. Policy 2AA -8: Require unplatted areas in the Columbia Valley/ Kendall UGA to obtain "ability to serve" letters from schools, fire districts, and water and sewer service providers and demonstrate adequate road capacity in order to receive county approval for new subdivisions. Policy 2AA -9: For new subdivisions, encourage the use of clustering with adequate setbacks along Kendall Creek, Kendall and Sprague lakes, and wetlands to Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -60 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use avoid environmental degradation of surface waters, to enhance /restore fish habitat relative to complying with listings under the Endangered Species Act, where they might apply, and to protect the aquifer underlying the Columbia Valley. Policy 2AA -10: For existing lots in the Columbia appropriate stormwater best n public sewer to protect surface permits on existing lots must be is available to provide adequate a permit. Valley�k4e► alt UGA, encourage the use of ianagement practices and connection to waters and the aquifer. Any new building able to demonstrate that the water service water as a precondition to the issuance of Policy 2AA -11: Encourage use of low impact development (LID) standards in the Columbia Valley UGA. � eFk with the hemeewnerb p eniatienc and the eWRerp 9 V V pf IC with 1 Li iTi I lqi 1 IGCJVV 1TVL T.ia7�a'CTILLlTC7TT CT aTtTf undeveleped traGts iR Gln,lupribia ValleyXendall to develep regiGna subdivisie Policy 2AA -12: Recognize the need for light impact industrial land uses within the Columbia ValleyA <e Urban Growth Area. Consider establishing a light impact industrial zone within the long term planning aFea located_ on the north side of Limestone Road. Retain the existing zoning within this iang term plaRRipfg area until a master plan has been completed to identify traffic impacts and infrastructure /utility /service needs, and appropriate mitigation measures. Policy 2AA-1 3: Recognize the Columbia ValleV UGA as a developing urban community with potential to establish a viable town center, which includes commercial uses, a variety of residential housing types, and institutional uses. PFeGlUde additiOnal GOFnMeFGial .. .. WithiR the uFbaR growth .. .. a land supply additiGRal land. Policy 2AA -14: Facilitate meeting the unique needs of Sudden Valley due to its location within the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Policy 2AA -15: Recognize the existing parcelization and the commitment for development of the remaining multi - family parcels in Sudden Valley. Policy 2AA -16: Work with the Community Association towards achievement of the density reduction target of 1,400 lots within Sudden Valley. Policy 2AA -17: If the county acquires lots through tax foreclosure, consider selling them as non - buildable lots. Policy 2AA -18: Support Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District's effort to maintain adequate sewer capacity and control stormwater run -off in keeping with appropriate environmental controls and the Sudden Valley Community Association's density reduction goal. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -61 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2AA -19: Explore alternatives for traffic impact mitigation including: • enhanced bus service to Sudden Valley • consideration of some additional commercial and limited light industrial development within existing Neighborhood Commercial and Resort Commercial zones to create a fuller service community to limit shopping and journey to work trips Policy 2AA -20: Recognize Sudden Valley as a "Recreational Subdivision' Policy 2AA -21: Work with all parties to maintain, and appropriately plan for infrastructure, public services, and stormwater retention so that Sudden Valley can develop to its appropriate potential. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -62 _ _ . M 0 Ol - . . . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -62 AL A I 1 f� A Il Whatcom County Co Birch Bay Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan - November 10, 2009 Urban Growth Area C Urban Growth Area Reserve USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S CIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: Whalcom County disclaims any warranty of merchantability or warranty of fitness of this map for any particular purpose. either express or Implied- No representation nrwanamyis made wnttming IDs asar• 2a currency, completeness or quality of data depicted on Ibis map. Any user of Ibis map assumes all responsibility for use thereof, and further agrees to hold Whatcom County harmless from and against any damson, lose. or tiablidy arising from any use of this moo. 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 aTG }1dF.ORMgT7O Q4e.��pM op� sy 7009 y" «g ihy ZZ 5 kl ' 0 , 4 - q OFVELOPk`�� - ► I 1 1 e � A !1 Urban Growth Area 0 Urban Growth Area Reserve USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S CIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: Whatcom County disclaims any waremy of merchantability or warmrdy at fitnus at this map tar any particular purpose, e0her express or Implied. No representation or watramy is made canceming The attar, sty, currency, completeness or quality at data depicted on We map. Any user of this map assumes all responsibility for use thereat, and further agrees to hold Whatcom County harmless from and against any damane, lose. or liability arfaino here soy use of this mail. Whatcom ber25, 009 Comprehensive Plan - November 25, 2009 Qa`C, iNfORMq TrO �4 ,��oM co ros P O y41 2009�< - Columbia Valley Urban Growth Area Miles c cyD y OPW`�a 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.4 0.6 0 0.8 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Major Industrial Urban Growth Area / Port Industrial Cherry Point The Cherry Point Urban Growth Area (UGA) contains approximately 7,000 acres of industrial land. The land has long been planned and designated by Whatcom County for industrial development and is currently the site of three major industrial facilities including two oil refineries and an aluminum smelter. Together, the existing industrial developments occupy about 4,100 acres of the total Cherry Point industrial lands. In addition to existing industry, the planning and permitting for a new 1,100 acre bulk commodities shipping port in the Cherry Point UGA is nearly complete. The four major industrial areas (three existing and one proposed) together would consume about 5,200. acres of the heavy industrial land in the Cherry Point UGA or about 74 percent of the heavy industrial area. Land consumption at Cherry Point has been about 1,000 acres per facility on the average which includes sufficient land to avoid wetlands and provide buffer areas. Based on this consumption figure, there is only sufficient remaining land in the Cherry Point industrial area to support two additional industrial complexes of the character of those presently located there. Because of the special characteristics of Cherry Point, this area has regional significance for the siting of large industrial or related facilities. Because of the large acreage demands of the types of industries likely to locate there, the remaining undeveloped acreage at Cherry Point will likely be absorbed during the 20 year planning period. The Cherry Point shoreline also has great importance to the fisheries and ecology of Northern Puget Sound because it provides essential spawning habitat for the largest herring stock in Washington State. This herring stock has supported important commercial fisheries and provides forage for salmonids and other important marine species. In September 2003, the DNR accepted the recommendation that Cherry Point be further evaluated for Aquatic Reserve status. A supplemental EIS is currently being prepared for the proposed reserve. It is expected that the final supplemental EIS will be published in spring of 2005. The proposed reserve extends from the southern boundary of Birch Bay State Park to the northern border of the Lummi Indian Nation Reservation. The site excludes three existing leases (BP, Intalco, ConocoPhillips shipping piers) and one proposed lease (Gateway Pacific Terminal site). The County and industrial users have long recognized that the Cherry Point area exhibits a unique set of characteristics that makes land there not only locally but regionally important for the siting of major industrial developments especially where deep water access for shipping is a critical locational factor. These characteristics were articulated in the Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) for Whatcom County adopted by the Whatcom County Council of Governments in May, 1993 and in the 1997 Property Counselors Report on supply and demand for industrial land in Whatcom County and at Cherry Point, the 2002 Greater Whatcom Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, and the 2003 Whatcom County Industrial Land Study. The characteristics that make Cherry Point unique as a site for major industrial development include the following: Port Access - The marine waters off Cherry Point provide deep water access for shipping. Deep water access for shipping was a major siting consideration for the three major industries currently located at Cherry Point and for the two industrial /shipping facilities currently being proposed. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -65 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Rail Access - Cherry Point is served by a branch line of the Burlington Northern mainline serving western Washington from Blaine to Portland. Rail service is considered to be vital to statewide as well as local interests for the competitive movement of freight. Rail service is particularly important in relation to water borne commerce. The Cherry Point area has the rail access to support marine terminals and industrial users in the area. The BP refinery at Cherry Point uses the railroad to ship calcined coke to U.S. markets and to other port facilities for transshipment to foreign markets. Proximity to Canada, Alaska and Foreign Ports - Cherry Point occupies a unique location for the siting of industry because of its close proximity to Canada and because of its shorter travel distance than other regional port facilities for shipping to Alaska and to other Pacific Rim locations. The Cherry Point industrial area benefits from proximity to Canada, as trade between the U.S. and Canada grows in response to the lifting of trade barriers under the Free Trade Agreement of 1989. Canadian exports to the U.S. are expected to increase and Canadian firms exporting to the U.S. are expected to seek locations in the U.S. as a way of improving access to U.S. markets. The City of Sumas is already experiencing an influx of Canadian industries seeking to improve access to U.S. markets. Additionally, just as other port facilities in Washington are constrained by lack of extensive upland areas to support major industrial development, Canadian port facilities are likewise constrained. There are limited expansion sites available at Roberts Banks and in the Vancouver Harbor, and development sites further up the Fraser River are constrained by limitations on vessel draft. Marine terminals at Cherry Point could serve a portion of the potential growth in Canadian marine cargo. Presence of Necessary Utilities and Infrastructure Cherry Point has been a major industrial area in Whatcom County since the 1960's. The BP oil refinery, ConocoPhillips Oil Refinery and the Alcoa Aluminum Plant have all been operating at Cherry Point for more than thirty years. The infrastructure to support these industries and future industrial users at Cherry Point is in place and includes the following: Electric Power: Electric Power is available from three providers in the Cherry Point area: Puget Sound Energy, Public Utility District #1, and Bonneville Power Administration. One of these providers, Puget Sound Energy, has a combustion turbine generating facility located in the Cherry Point industrial area. An additional cogeneration facility is proposed at the BP Refinery. The high cost of electrical power has been a problem for Cherry Point industrial users over the past few years. The proposed cogeneration facility could help stabilize the supply of electricity. Water: Whatcom County Public Utility District #1 currently provides process water to all major industrial facilities at Cherry Point and has contracts in place to provide process water to two major undeveloped parcels and provides potable water to the BP refinery Praxair. The other industries operate their own water treatment facilities and treat process water to provide potable water for their facilities. Sewer: Sewer service is not typically required for large industrial developments. Most of the existing industrial users provide their own on -site sewage treatment and waste water treatment. Sewer service for domestic wastewater is provided to the BP Refinery by the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. If and when sewer service should become necessary for other industries, service could be provided on a contractual basis with the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, which borders the Cherry Point industrial area on the north. Natural Gas: Natural gas is currently available at Cherry Point. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -66 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use All- weather Roads: Grandview Road, the major east -west connector between Cherry Point and Interstate -5 provides all- weather road access to Cherry Point. The industries currently located at Cherry Point are a substantial part of the economic base of Whatcom County and the region and the economic welfare of the county is strongly tied to the health of these industries and their ability to flourish and expand as opportunities present themselves. These industries need to be protected from the inappropriate encroachment of incompatible uses; particularly residential uses that could affect their ability to expand. The best means for protecting these industries from incompatible adjoining uses and to assure their continued regulatory conformity is to maintain the industrial land use designation of these lands and adjoining properties currently designated for industrial development. The Cherry Point industrial lands have been designated for industrial development fer ever: 25 yeaFs and as a direct result of the industrial designation, incompatible and inappropriate residential development has been curtailed. GOAL 2136: Maintain Cherry Point as an unincorporated urban growth area based on its unique location and characteristics and its significant contribution to the overall industrial land supply and Whatcom. County's tax base. Policy 2 BB -1: Designate Cherry Point as a major industrial Urban Growth Area to accommodate major users that need to be located away from concentrated urban residential areas. Policy 2BB -2: Assure that Cherry Point's unique features of large parcelization, port access, and transportation availability are maintained and protected from incompatible development. Policy: 2BB -3: Require the master planning of each large parcel in advance of any development or subdivision at Cherry Point. Policy: 2BB -4: Require the designation and site plan for a major user (generally 40 acres or more) before the development of accessory or supporting uses to assure that accessory or supporting uses are compatible with and will not interfere with the major industrial user. Policy: 2BB -5: Specify 160 acres as a minimum area for planning, prior to the commitment of a parcel for a major user (40 acres or more, singularly or as a cluster or group). Policy: 2BB -6: Permit support activities, warehousing, shipping, machine repair and service, educational services, food service and conveniences, to locate on a parcel only after the completion of a master plan, and the identification and site plan approval for the major user. Policy 2BB -7: Resist inclusion of Cherry Point as part of any future incorporation of Birch Bay • to protect interests of the property owner in terms of taxation and urban regulations; Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -67 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use • to preclude urbanism near "smokestack" industries; • to preserve county government tax base. Policy 2136 -8: Continue to work with service providers that serve Cherry Point to ensure the delivery of services and to allow it to develop to its fullest potential. Policy 2136 -9: It is the policy of Whatcom County to limit the number of piers at Cherry Point by establishing a development moratorium. Notwithstanding the above, this moratorium shall not affect, no otherwise apply to, any proposed pier that Whatcom County approved under its Shoreline Management Program prior to adoption of the moratorium. Policy 2BB -10: RCW 36.70A.365 requires the implementation of Traffic Demand Management (TDM) programs for the designating of a Maior Industrial Urban Growth Area. Any employer in the Cherry Point Urban Growth Area that employs one hundred or more full -time employees at a single worksite who begin their regular work day between 6:00 am and 9:00 am on weekdays for at least twelve continuous months during the year are required to meet the TDM requirements of WCC 16.24. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -68 Map UGA -10 - Cherry Point Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Whatcom Count Comprehensive Plan - November 10, 2009 Q�yc iLdFORnTglrQ USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S CIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S U�P P,��qM BOG Sy AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: ��0 �'T: �oO� ?TLfi� Whalcom County dlstlaims any warranty of merchantability or wanamy of fitness of this map Mr any particular purpose. either express or P."04�11� Implied. No representation orwatrantg is mark wnceminpibe acsdh a �' ' ziK -N asy, currency, completeness or quality at data deplcled on Ibis map. Any user of this map assumes all responsibility for use thereat , and further agrees to hold Whmcom County harmless tram and against any 2 - l2 z 0' . damage. loss. or flablifl arlaina tram say use of Ibis moo. Miles 4�FyELOPM�a 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 - ...... - November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use NOTE: There are no changes to the Rural section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the 10 -Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 (which will be amended in the Rural element update) has not been included in this document. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -70 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Urban 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 Urban 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. Upon 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 Capacitv. The need for additional land is necessary due to arowth hiaher Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -71 than allocated to the urban area or less land capacity than analyzed. A transfer from 'l 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. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -71 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use 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. Bellingham Urban Area Lake Padden is considered a sensitive water body because it is designated as impaired by pollution under Clean Water Act standards 1303(d) Category 5 Waters?. This area has also not demonstrated the ability to provide adequate public facilities and services within the twenty year planning period. The portion of the Lake Padden Watershed that was previously designated as an Urban Growth Area is designated as an Urban Growth Area Reserve. The Urban Growth Area Reserve should be jointly planned with the city and county in conjunction with Urban Growth Area Ip ans. Birch Bay Urban Area The Birch Bav Community Plan adopted in 2004 used a high growth forecast that does not appear to be warranted over the new twenty -year planning period. The community is currently . working on a planning process (Birch Bay Watershed Characterization) to identify areas most suitable for development. A portion of the Urban Growth Area along Blaine Road not needed for the _growth allocation but within a loqical urban boundary is designated as an Urban Growth Area Reserve. Blaine Urban Area There are no areas proposed for Urban Growth Area Reserve adjacent to the Blaine Urban Growth Area. Cherry Point Urban Area There are no areas proposed for Urban Growth Area Reserve adiacent to the Cherry Point Industrial Urban Growth Area. Columbia Valley Urban Area An area on the west side of the UGA has been placed into an Urban Growth Area Reserve. This area is within lands designated as geologically hazardous, and suitability for urban development has not vet been demonstrated. Everson Urban Area Land to the north of Everson along Trap Line Road is designated as Urban Growth Area Reserves. This area was designated as agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance. The Everson UGA has been reduced in other areas and those lands were put into agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance, thus not causing a reduction in the resource land designations in the Everson area. Holding this area in an Urban Growth Area Reserve through the year 2012 will allow the opportunity for Whatcom County and the City of Everson to work on strategies and plans to ensure protection of at least 100.000 acres of agricultural land in Whatcom County, including acquisition of development rights consistent with WCC 2.160.080(5). The Urban Growth Area Reserve should be jointly planned with the city and county in conjunction with Urban Growth Area plans. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -72 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Ferndale Urban Area Areas that are primarily characterized by rural residential development on the north side of the Ferndale Urban Growth Area have been designated as an Urban Growth Area Reserve. Portions of the area on the north side of the Ferndale Urban Growth Area are within the Drayton Harbor Watershed. Ferndale's Urban Growth Area includes sufficient land to accommodate the projected twenty year growth without the need for the Urban Growth Area Reserve. This area is a logical area for the city to grow and should be iointly planned with the city and county in conjunction with Urban Growth Area plans. Lynden Urban Area Growth of Lynden is constrained by agricultural lands. In 2003, Whatcom County designated Target Areas for Purchase of Development Rights following consultation with the City of Lvnden. Those Target Areas included lands north of Badger Road and west of the Guide Meridian. Lynden has not proposed expansion into those Target Areas. The city has also requested a moderate amount of growth, and has implemented significantly higher densities in their land use plans. Capital facility plans have been developed and implemented based on the assumption of a modest growth level. A_portion of the lands west of Double Ditch Road have been designated as an Urban Growth Area Reserve, instead of Urban Growth Area as requested by the City. Holding this area in an Urban Growth Area Reserve through the year 2012 will allow the opportunity for Whatcom County and the City of Lynden to work on strategies and plans to ensure protection of at least 100,000 acres_ of agricultural land in Whatcom County. The Urban Growth Area Reserve should be jointly planned with the city and county in conjunction with Urban Growth Area plans. Nooksack Urban Area An area east of the Sumas River and south of Breckenridge Creek has been designated as an Urban Growth Area Reserve. This area is currently used primarily for agricultural uses, and includes lands that may be flooded and exposed to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) from a natural landslide adjacent to Swift Creek. Holdinq this area in an Urban Growth Area Reserve will allow the opportunity for Whatcom County and the City of Nooksack to work on strategies and plans to ensure protection of at least 100,000 acres of agricultural land in Whatcom County. This area will be kept in reserve status until the County has determined that development will not expose future residents and employees to unacceptable risk from naturally occurring asbestos. The Urban Growth Area Reserve should be jointly planned with the city and county in conjunction with Urban Growth Area plans. Sumas Urban Area Growth of Sumas is constrained by agricultural lands. Lands in agricultural use on the south end of Sumas along Hovel Road have been designated as an Urban Growth Area Reserve. While there is sufficient land within the city to accommodate projected growth, there is little surplus, and growth outward may become necessary. This area will be kept in reserve status until the County -has determined that development will not expose future residents and employees to unacceptable risk from naturally occurring asbestos. The Urban Growth Area Reserve should be jointly planned with the city and county in conjunction with Urban Growth Area plans. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -73 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Special Study Areas Lake Whatcom Lake Whatcom is the drinking water source for approximately half of Whatcom County. Recent studies on Lake Whatcom indicate water quality in the lake has declined. Oxygen levels in Lake Whatcom are declining to lower levels, and are declining faster than in the past. In 1997, the Washington State Department of Ecology listed Lake Whatcom as an impaired water body and place Lake Whatcom on the Federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list because of low oxygen levels. The 303(d) listing requires the establishment of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that designates loading capacity of the lake such that there will be no measurable change in oxygen levels from natural lake conditions. The TMDL goals will require a variety of planning, pollution prevention, pollution reduction and technical approaches. Meeting the TMDL goals will be required in order to stabilize water quality in Lake Whatcom. The primary cause of declining oxygen levels had been from residential development in the watershed. Past development permitted by the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County has led to increased phosphorus loading into the lake, which in turn has led to lower oxygen levels in the lake. Poorly managed forest practices can also lead to significant increases in phosphorus loading to the lake. In November /December 1992, a joint resolution was passed by the Bellingham City Council, Whatcom County Council, and Water District 10 Commissioners, which reaffirmed this position with six general goal statements and a set of specific goal statements in various categories. The specific goal statements for urbanization were the following: • Prevent water quality degradation associated with development within the watershed. • Review and recommend changes in zoning and development potential that are compatible with a drinking -water reservoir environment. • In addition to zoning identify and promote other actions to minimize potential for increased development in the watershed (i.e. land trust, development rights, cost incentives, etc.). • Develop specific standards which reduce the impacts of urbanization, such as minimal lot clearing; clustered development to reduce infrastructure; collection and treatment of stormwater before entering the lake. • Develop appropriate interlocal agreements with governing agencies to prohibit the potential for additional development once an agreed upon level is set. The joint resolution included goals for watershed management that extended beyond urbanization. Goals were included for stormwater management, on -site waste systems, conservation, forest management, spill response, hazardous materials transport and handling, data /information management, education /public involvement, and other topics. A joint strategy was agreed to for developing specific plans to meet the adopted goals. Eight high priority goals were selected first and plans have been completed and jointly adopted for each of the goals. In 1998, the City, County, and District 10 formalized their joint commitment to protect and manage the lake through the joint adoption of an interlocal agreement and allocation of funding toward Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -74 ( November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use protection and management efforts in the watershed. A five -year program plan was developed for ten program areas. Specific priority was placed on activities related to watershed ownership, stormwater management, and urbanization /land development. The watershed contains four developed UFban areas: the City of Bellingham, which straddles the upper portion of the northern -most basin of the lake; Geneva, which is immediately south and east of Bellingham's city limits and is part of the city's urban growth area; Hillsdale, which is immediately north and east of Bellingham's city limits and is also part of the city's urban growth areas; and #he- Sudden Valley . In addition, it includes a variety of other zones, including resource, rural, and suburban zones. Over 75% of the watershed is in Forestry zoning and more than 73% of the current land use is forestry. In 2003, there were approximately 2,730 existing dwelling units in the Lake Whatcom watershed located outside of the Bellingham UGA. Under the zoning adopted in January 2004, the gross potential build -out in this area is about 6,507 total dwelling units. Therefore, even under the more restrictive zoning adopted in January of 2004, there could be a significant amount of new development in the watershed. Water and sewer service are provided by Water District 10. Capacity problems in the district's . sewer line, which serves Geneva and Sudden Valley, have caused overflows into the lake in the past. An aggressive program to preclude stormwater infiltration has eliminated the overflow problems to a large extent. In addition, the district has a contractually limited flow capacity to Bellingham. The Lake Louise Road sewage interceptor was constructed in January 2003 to carry waste water from Sudden Valley and Geneva and serves as a complement to the Lake Whatcom Boulevard trunk line. The interceptor was designed to service full build -out of Sudden Valley and Geneva. years of rnmrde #inn of the pFejeGt There are several pending subdivisions in the area which are being proposed at less than full density but which will increase the overall development level outside of urban areas to a significant degree. In 2004, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Board on Natural Resources adopted the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan. This plan provides additional protections on state managed lands within the Lake Whatcom watershed. The plan provides additional protections on streams and potentially unstable slopes on normally included in forest practices in Washington State. If the DNR exchanges land from the watershed the protections provided by the plan would not be applicable to the new owner. In 2006 the Whatcom County Council approved funding to study reconveyance of DNR managed County Forest Board Lands. Chapter 11: Environment, contains more discussion of Lake Whatcom issues and includes additional goals and policies related to watershed management, stormwater, and water quality. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -75 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use GOAL 2PP: Prioritize the Lake Whatcom area as an area to minimize development, repair existing storm water problems, specifically for phosphorus, and ensure forestry practices do not negatively impact water quality. Provide sufficient funding and support to be successful. Policy 2PP -1: Work with property owners to find acceptable development solutions at lower overall densities than the present zoning allows. Policy 2PP -2: Develop a storm drainage utility district or other funding mechanism to deal with the unique problems of development in a drinking water watershed. Policy 2PP -3: Recognize that all users of Lake Whatcom water have an interest in the resource and should share in the cost of its protection. Policy 2PP -4: Work cooperatively with the City and Water District 10 to identify, review, and, as appropriate, recommend changes to existing monitoring programs that will address the needs of the various jurisdictions. Place a particular focus on the information needed to evaluate the impacts of additional development in the watershed. Include an analysis of the diversion from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack. Coordinate effort with the Lake Whatcom Management Committee process. Policy 2PP -5: Evaluate and pursue, as appropriate, the use of incentives to encourage voluntary lot consolidation, transfer or purchase of development rights, current use taxation, and participation in open space conservation programs. Policy 2PP -6: Do not allow density bonuses within the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Policy 2PP -7: Work cooperatively with the City and Water District 10 to develop benchmarks to determine the effectiveness of management options; when goals have been achieved; or when additional actions are necessary. Policy 2PP -8: Continue to develop and refine structural and non - structural best management practices (BMPs), both voluntary and required, to minimize development impacts within the Lake Whatcom watershed. Policy 2PP -9: Work to keep Whatcom County Forest Board and Forest Purchase lands within the Lake Whatcom watershed in public ownership, and support managing forestry on said lands in a manner that minimizes sediment and phosphorus yields from streams. NOTE: There are no changes to the "Private Parcels Surrounded by National Park or National Forest" section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the 10 -Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 has not been included in this document. NOTE: There are no changes to the "Subdivisions on the Lummi Reservation" section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the 10 -Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 has not been included in this document. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -76 November 24, 2009 Council Action COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS MAP Two - I anal (Ica The Comprehensive Plan designations map (Map 8) is intended to provide direction for future land use decisions in Whatcom County. It is officially adopted as part of this document. Because of the scale of the map, specific boundaries are identified on maps in the County Planning and Development Services office. Comprehensive Plan Designation Descriptors These descriptors are intended to be general in nature. More specific criteria and explanation will be incorporated into subarea plans. Title: Urban Growth Areas Purpose: To denote where future urban growth may occur. Definition: Areas characterized by urban growth that have existing public facility and service capacities; areas characterized by urban growth that may be served with urban services in the future; and lands adjacent to, areas characterized by urban growth. Locational First urban growth may be located on lands characterized by urban Criteria: growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities; next urban growth may be located on lands characterized by urban growth that eey-can be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources o o -ith arbaR sep,'iGe ;R the future; and finally urban growth may be located on lands adjacent to areas characterized by urban growth. Title: Urban Growth Area Reserve Purpose: To denote lands which appear to be suitable for future inclusion in an adjacent and contiguous Urban Growth Area when the need arises and adequate public facilities and services can be provided and other issues identified in the comprehensive plan are addressed Definition: Areas that are not vet suited for urban growth but are logical areas in which the urban area would likely grow beyond current growth allocations after being properly designated as an Urban Growth Area. Locational Areas adjacent and contiguous to Urban Growth Areas in which urban Criteria: development would likely occur beyond current growth allocations Title: Major Industrial Area / Port Industrial - Urban Growth Areas Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -77 I November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use Purpose: To reserve appropriate areas to attract heavy industrial manufacturing uses and provide employment opportunities while minimizing land use conflicts and off -site impacts. Definition: Land area for large -scale heavy industry that has a high impact on the surrounding neighborhood and environment. Locational Industry should be located in areas adequate for its use away from Criteria: residential centers, but within reasonable commuting distance; near transportation facilities and services. NOTE: There are no changes to the other Comprehensive Plan Designation Descriptors proposed as part of the 10 -Year UGA review. Therefore, these other descriptors have not been included in this document. NOTE: There are no changes to the Open Space section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the 10 -Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 has not been included in this document. NOTE: There are no changes to the Essential Public Facilities section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the 10 -Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 has not been included in this document. NOTE: There are no changes to the Adult Businesses section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the 10 -Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 has not been included in this document. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -78 November 24, 2009 Council Action LAND USE - ACTION PLAN Regulatory Changes Overall Land Use Two - Land Use 1. Refer to a technical advisory committee to review the following: • Redundant regulations • Unnecessary regulations • Regulations that could be replaced by incentive programs • Regulations that could be replaced by education programs • Regulations which serve to protect the public welfare, health, and safety • Regulations that prohibit fair, timely and well publicized review 2. Draft and propose regulatory changes to implement the recommendations from this plan and give serious consideration to recommendations from advisory committees appointed by the County Executive or County Council. 3. Propose zoning ordinance changes to designate and develop guidelines and policies and appropriate regulatory amendments to accompany Business /Industry Parks and Crossroads Commercial designations. 4. Design, present, and adopt a creative land use regulatory program which utilizes such innovative techniques as cluster development, purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights and mitigation banking. 5. Revise the zoning ordinance to: • Include a new zone designation(s) for business /industrial parks possibly as a supplement to the existing LII zone • Incorporate Master Planned Resort Guidelines and develop specific locational criteria for Master Planned Resorts • Include development standards for the Guide Meridian Corridor 6. Undertake a limited planning process for exclave parcels and incorporate the results along with the Newhalem - Diablo area plans in the Foothills and South Fork Subarea Plans. Education 7. Design and produce presentations, written materials and other programs to educate citizens on the value of preserving the assets of the community and each individual's responsibility to preserve those assets. Incentives 8. Establish a committee comprised of citizens, local officials, including one or more Planning Commissioners, and land development experts to design a set of economic incentives for property owners to voluntarily reduce density on their property, and to encourage protection of valuable open space identified on the Open Space Map. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -79 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use 9. Undertake complete and programmatic environmental review for identified growth areas to facilitate urban and industrial development. 10. Monitor the results of incentive programs on an annual basis to ensure desired results are achieved and produce a report outlining results of the programs. Subarea Plans 11. Revise county subarea plans to incorporate urban growth area boundaries as identified in this plan, ensure consistency with this plan, and eliminate any redundancy in policy. Continue to implement existing subarea plan action items that are consistent with this plan. 12. Examine alternatives for meeting the transportation and utility needs for Sudden Valley. 13. Update the Blaine -Birch Bay Subarea Plan to re- evaluate the amount and location of area designated as resort commercial and multiple family, and the total amount of land dedicated to urban land use in light of available water and sewer supplies. 14. Continue the industrial land supply study, identify appropriate additional industrial land_in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and update subarea plans accordingly. 15. When completed, review the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan to ensure consistency with land use plans and regulations. Citizen Involvement 16. Establish Council appointed subarea citizens' committees to participate in the updating and review of subarea plans. 17. Improve methods of notification to affected property owners of land use decisions. Timing /Review 18. Using the Growth Management Oversight Committee, establish a methodology for land supply and urban growth area boundary review. Urban Growth Areas 19. Using the Growth Management Oversight Committee, develop a cooperative approach to Geographic Information System use with all the cities and interested special districts which may include regular user meetings, cooperative funding, and data needs. 20. Work with the City of Blaine to establish a project review process for development within Blaine's UGA that ensures consistency with Blaine's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and standards. 21. Adopt and maintain County low density ru a -1 zoning for the Blaine UGA which would allow urban densities to develop only in conjunction with annexation or a commitment to annex within a very specific timeline and under very specific conditions. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -80 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use 23. Work with the City of Blaine to develop an appropriate level of regulation to adequately protect the Drayton Harbor watershed. Cooperate with the City in enforcing these regulations. 24. Work with all cities to ensure limitation of development in floodplains within their UGAs. 25. Establish a time frame and process to work with the City of Everson and land owners to develop an environmentally safe plan to facilitate conversion of mineral resource lands adjacent to Everson to urban or rural land uses. 26. Work with cities Blaine EyeFse^ L ` RdeR nook aGk and S T a to develop regulations that assure.compatibility of uses adjacent to resource lands. 27. Develop a time frame and process to work with cities to make the appropriate changes to urban growth area boundaries and zoning designations when necessary. 28. Review and update interlocal agreements with each city, as necessary, to address: levels of service within and outside the UGAs • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be funded • development standards within the UGA and review procedures, including wetland and floodplain protection, for development proposals • coordination with the county on greenbelt and open space designations • timing and procedures for review of adequate land supply • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan • actions specific to each city and identified in the goals and policies for that city. • extension of water and sewer services within UGAs. • specific development density requirements within annexation proposals. • cities should show evidence of meeting their infill goals as identified in their comprehensive plans. • mitigation agreements for conversion of lands designated on the County Comprehensive Plan map as Resource Lands, with the exception of depleted Mineral Resource Lands. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -81 1. imp Mr 23. Work with the City of Blaine to develop an appropriate level of regulation to adequately protect the Drayton Harbor watershed. Cooperate with the City in enforcing these regulations. 24. Work with all cities to ensure limitation of development in floodplains within their UGAs. 25. Establish a time frame and process to work with the City of Everson and land owners to develop an environmentally safe plan to facilitate conversion of mineral resource lands adjacent to Everson to urban or rural land uses. 26. Work with cities Blaine EyeFse^ L ` RdeR nook aGk and S T a to develop regulations that assure.compatibility of uses adjacent to resource lands. 27. Develop a time frame and process to work with cities to make the appropriate changes to urban growth area boundaries and zoning designations when necessary. 28. Review and update interlocal agreements with each city, as necessary, to address: levels of service within and outside the UGAs • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be funded • development standards within the UGA and review procedures, including wetland and floodplain protection, for development proposals • coordination with the county on greenbelt and open space designations • timing and procedures for review of adequate land supply • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan • actions specific to each city and identified in the goals and policies for that city. • extension of water and sewer services within UGAs. • specific development density requirements within annexation proposals. • cities should show evidence of meeting their infill goals as identified in their comprehensive plans. • mitigation agreements for conversion of lands designated on the County Comprehensive Plan map as Resource Lands, with the exception of depleted Mineral Resource Lands. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -81 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Two - Land Use 29. Adopt interlocal agreements with water and sewer districts by June 1, 2011 to assure service to county unincorporated urban growth areas and limit urban levels of service outside Short Term Planning Areas. 30. Work with the Sudden Valley Community Association to implement the density reduction program. 31. Establish on -going communications link with Whatcom County Water District 13, Evergreen Water and Sewer District 19, and r °��se Laspeaeef{�� °, Community Associations to work towards mutually beneficial infrastructure solutions including combined services in the Columbia Valley UGA. 32. Develop a mechanism for addressing neighborhood parks in Bellingham 's Urban Growth Area when development occurs prior to annexation. Use the Urban Fringe planning process and the city /county development review process to address neighborhood park needs in Bellingham's UGA if development occurs prior to annexation. 33. Continue to work with Bellingham and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Water is#iG Ito protect and manage the Lake Whatcom watershed in accordance with the 1998 jointly adopted interlocal agreement. Focus on continued implementation of the 2099 5 -Year Work Plans of the Lake Whatcom ReseweiF Management Program, exaFn*RatiE)R n{ the. 1 IrbanizatmeR Plan. In addition, work with the affected jurisdictions and secure funding for programs. 34. Review and modify (as needed) the current development review process for projects in the Lake Whatcom Watershed to ensure coordination with other jurisdictions. 35. Establish a provision that prevents density increases from occurring as a result of provision of sewer in the Rural zone in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Open Space 35. Review Whatcom County land use and taxation policies to ensure that there are incentives for landowners to pursue agriculture and forestry open space designations that implement the Open Space section of this plan. 36. Develop strategies to encourage utilization of open space designations in order to protect natural resources, open space, and critical areas. 37. Develop a strategy to implement the Open Space Corridor map included in this chapter. 38. Working with landowners, develop a list of priority sites for acquisition or other form of open space preservation based on criteria from Preserving a Way of Life: A Natural Heritage Plan for Whatcom County and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan. 39. Continue to acquire priority sites utilizing the Conservation Futures Levy and other funding sources. Work with Whatcom County Land Trust and others to facilitate protection of these designated sites. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2 -82 Y _ S R 7 z z z z. 3 2 NATIONAL ar ' c�cr ,�a. .>� •ms's t, ' � < <y: � m r 1 x ' ( m scrILL ,x LILL tI ILL s r,;,'< >a v . y >' �, F'�S ✓z a.> y �>,,i� °" s y '' r r* L `a,.e! � „;, k.:�,.Kis3a I'`�ty>•� ` � � .. �M2' � I r- ��.� p 3 a s� I Y �.�''.. *N.�C,,��,? r" F; ''` ror' �_� ,r 6 tl^�•�MH alb ItA - .:x q mss+ It nN I ILL, I 9'isr L�'v }. p — -- � __ f. sr3'� a�^i�'�'+. �"�" � -. ':� vw� ��lv ss "i•'� sy "vim sr r Q � ! �.;�. s• °az;•`x}'..r✓s"v, YZ' Kyw�} u ' la''y rk'� ,� Pi rte_,: r cam✓ { t r xy rr It 'a I Z4 , wiG1 �..:v yp `V 'A 4'} V 9y Y v j` f 1 fi Li sa � I '•Z d� � Pa AMN I .Miry, I ^•� r v..Y P ,,u' .:, n3' ..; r I , r ��, r' Iyp }Y� .�' ♦ r ' ILL. v ia u I NY I a Y 1 wIn � �, �I:Pa uaOPUUS I I I �'�� r4 V ti oil `N8 u*Fr+.MI PInO'L' g°OO,y 4 aPl O ; '�'a.'' ( �jj ! I $ I IL m r ,ts i I w I .�f� n$i Ll moo. I �I ` =t e e� r J- z iii �3 NM I rl < Ftg= a y— J — ±�.� ! t v1 �- LI ArNMPM Y � 4 ".NNN ?r, J t i V a A m ,� � I� r• x r LIM L. ILL IL ILL so e� %[y..pr� Imo`•• co � 191 -1 a, � oILL k f 9 as Y 1 lu Ilk cc �z Ly Y �2 . I Iwo IL MCI C 1 T AN od •v I 1 of 1�a \ I . as 0 A C Y, r' i- � -mot- — — . —I 1 t — � �•r.L�' \��1� k\��l' IOGN r�� \\ �I� /fir I'�•�IJ �.: AL r M1 o tj J p� 3:t � I C rm, o v9 5 5 e \1 • � I m 3 � r` a3 J s If f 7 C m E r 0 C CL �m� v . 0 Oa$S8 5 2g�S 8 ECIV �5 u� SIM EC:o& �— NIB x! d3s`20 a s8 a N 4) C CL W > C a i 0 a° ��1 0 w 0 O L Jc � U � (L CL a' S• 1{pp l0 Ol C N R Ca rn D Q z rn d n a m m (o CL Q �. G C � H 7 I m W .4 a a LL it I Z\Ml cm 3i m. mN 0 8g �m $E� Z m No C �V�d A W v' N November 24, 2009 Council Action INTRODUCTION Chapter Three - Housing Chapter Three HOUSING Housing is not only a basic human need; it is a fundamental building block in the development of strong communities. The quality, price and availability of housing have far reaching effects. Housing is an issue of equity, and a healthy community strives to provide housing affordable to households at all income levels. Every community and neighborhood needs a healthy mix of housing sizes, types and prices, affordable at the wages of the jobs nearby. A balanced mix will have housing costs in sync with wages and incomes. Purpose The purpose of this housing element is to consider future needs for housing in Whatcom County by examining existing housing patterns, projected population growth, and most - likely growth scenarios, and to suggest realistic ways to provide for those housing needs within the wishes of county citizens, sound public policy, and within the mandates of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). First, the number, type, and condition of housing units in place today must be compared with current housing needs. Second, future housing needs must be proposed based on expected needs of identifiable social and economic groups. Third, future housing needs must be addressed through a package of incentives, local requirements, and regulations that encourage development of housing that matches the incomes of citizens throughout the county. Process In 2004 and 2009, the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan has been updated, adding new information and updated data to the chapter produced in the mid- 1990s. The earlier chapter was produced through the efforts of the Residents' Housing Advisory Committee (RHAC). The committee was formed and appointed by, the Whatcom County Executive, in September 1993. Members included representatives of the building industry, of special needs groups, of Christian, AIDS and other advocate groups, and an attorney. The RHAC met every month, and frequently more than once per month. The focus on identification of key issues, development of goals and policies, and careful framing of action plans. Two members were delegated by the committee to sit on the GMA Coordinating Committee to review all comprehensive plan chapters for consistency. When the RHAC completed its tasks in June 1994, those two members continued making valuable contributions to the work of the Coordinating Committee. The RHAC sent the final version of the chapter to Planning Commission for review. GMA Goals, County -Wide Planning Policies, and Visioning Community Value Statements Realization of all the thirteen Growth Management Act goals is fostered by the goals, policies, and action plans in this chapter. Those directly relating to housing will be met with successful adoption of this comprehensive plan chapter. This chapter has been written to satisfy those goals while also meeting the intent of the County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) and general guidelines of Visioning Community Value Statements. CWPP's direct the county and its cities to ensure a balance of housing and economic growth consistent with diverse income levels and allowing for a range of housing types and costs. Further, the county and cities can employ innovative Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -1 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing techniques providing for a variety of housing types: single - family- detached, multifamily building for both ownership and rental, accessory dwelling units (Ado's), manufactured and modular homes, manufactured and mobile home parks, along with mixed use and increased densities as affordable housing alternatives. Visioning Community Value Statements identify the importance of affordable housing and encourage even distribution of housing affordability and a mix of housing types throughout the county. Growth Management goals, Visioning Community Value Statements, and County -Wide Planning Policies will be served by adoption and implementation of this chapter. GMA Requirements The Growth Management Act mandates that counties required to plan under the act adopt comprehensive plans that "encourage the availability of affordable housing to all segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock." (RCW 36.70A.020 (4)) BACKGROUND SUMMARY Comprehensive plans have been developed for Whatcom County and each of the cities that lie within its boundaries. Each of these plans contains a housing element that addresses the housing needs of each jurisdiction and offers suggestions for changes that could occur to help meet these needs. This chapter will overlap many of the ideas put forth in those plans —the problems perceived in each community, their changing demographics, and the directions the communities seem willing to go to improve the overall situation. It also incorporates other recent studies of Whatcom County, such as Community Counts: Whatcom County Health Indicator Report 2002 and the Whatcom Real Estate Research Report. Demographic Overview Whatcom County's population is growing steadily. Between 1990 and 2000 and 2008 it rose 14.5 % - 30.5%. An estimated 75% of that increase is attributable to in- migration as opposed to birth rate. In addition to increasing the number of people living in the county, in- migration is resulting in changes to its demographic makeup. Increased minority, retirement -age, and single - parent household populations characterize demographic changes resulting from in- migration. Single- parent households are proportionally more sensitive than two- parent households to factors contributing to poverty and sub - standard living conditions such as housing costs, health care costs, and other increases in the cost of living. The number of such households is increasing at a faster rate than households with two parents. Shifts in proportions of various groups comprising county population also shift the need for various types and sizes of housing. Some families require larger homes to accommodate larger extended families. Some groups, such as single - parent households, require smaller and more efficient housing. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -2 November 24, 2009 Council Action 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% ,RYA Figure 1 Population Change 1990 - 2008 Chapter Three - Housing Bellingham Balance of Whatcom Whatcom County Washington County Delete Figure 1 Below Figure 1 Population Change 1980 - 2000 Bellingham Balance of Whatcom Whatcom County Washington County Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -3 November 24. 2009 Council Action Income Distribution Chapter Three - Housing • 1 1 • • • - • • 1111pl 1111111111i • 1111111111111111111111111111 a . ll 1111:1111IM1111111 111111111111 - • oil • &M •• • • - 1'. • • - • 0621 • • • • - • • • u • - . f f • - • • • - • • - - • . • • — • — f • t • • • • a u Alm • • . Family incomes are slightly higher than household incomes, but still lower than the State numbers. F^,-e„ Sixteen percent of Whatcom County's population fell below the federal poverty level in 2007 999, a percentage significantly higher than Washington State's 11 %. 0 threugh 2020 despite aR expeGted 224 1 T= e ITT= - - .. Ia �. - ' :: .. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -4 November 24 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing Statistics have shown that as housing prices increased at a faster rate than household incomes, so decreased the ability of Low- to Moderate - Income (LMI) populations to obtain decent housing in Whatcom County. • Between 1999 and 2007 1989 and 49 the median household income grew 16% 44°/s while housing costs grew 103% 189% over the same period.23 • In each year 1999 -2007 1998 -2898 the average wage in Whatcom County was not enough to afford a two- bedroom rental unit. • There are about 20,000 morwe than 7 very low- income households in Whatcom COUntyBelfiRgharn, 70% a& . Table 2 • r Population Living in Poverty Population Living in Poverty Whatcom Washington County f f Total Population -' 1 ©� # Individuals 18 plus .. Individuals 65 plus Families living in poverty r • 44.2% ., Females with related . . •• • children • _ .. . f .. • +. r •r a . Females with related • children under 5 au••. W! M Statistics have shown that as housing prices increased at a faster rate than household incomes, so decreased the ability of Low- to Moderate - Income (LMI) populations to obtain decent housing in Whatcom County. • Between 1999 and 2007 1989 and 49 the median household income grew 16% 44°/s while housing costs grew 103% 189% over the same period.23 • In each year 1999 -2007 1998 -2898 the average wage in Whatcom County was not enough to afford a two- bedroom rental unit. • There are about 20,000 morwe than 7 very low- income households in Whatcom COUntyBelfiRgharn, 70% a& . • • r r • l F f f !� . .. r • • •• . . •• • . • • a . • +. r •r a . • • au••. •r •a l • a • ru r • ruu 1 !.• • a •� •� �• •. • • ••• •6 . •• "rqr r . •. •s r• . a r •• s i f f • 1 •. r • rANIMM MZWONAW I INNOTMr. • •• . • r a . • a r LINE 2 WA Center for Real Estate Research: U.S. Census Bureau ' GOMMURity GOU'At'S'. I'AlhaRtGOM GOURty Health indaGater Report • • 3 National Low Income Housing Colition ' GOMFMARity GOIARtG� kAAatGGFn GG61RtY Health lRdiGater RepoFt •f U.S. Census Bureau, 1 American Community • • • . u • • • a Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Ii7 November 24 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Kesel . - . NS. - ... .. .. rm. _ _ _ _ ... s�• . - - -. ...- .- Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Kesel a,_._� November 24, 2009 Council Action Between 1990 and 2000, Bellingham's multi - family housing It is- esti.m.ate. housing w4-comprised 50 %-56 °74 of the housing in the City. units may pose a challenge to community development h< Consolidated Plan, as rental tenants move frequently.6�7 Chapter Three - Housing experienced a 65% increase7-44ew d that by 204nln 2009, multi- family Concern that an increase in rental is been expressed in Bellingham's Accommodating our future housing need will require substantial effort and planning. There is an increasing need for all forms of affordable housing including multi - family housing and smaller single - family houses constructed on smaller lots. Unaffordable Housing The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines unaffordable housing as that which places a cost burden of greater than 30% on a household's income. One th;Fa -Forty -two percent of Whatcom County households put more than 30% of their income towards housing costs in the year 20072000. This cost burden is most detrimental for those in the lower income categories, but its negative effects are felt well into the middle- income range. Households with incomes at less than 30% of the area median income are the hardest hit -61 % of them putting more than 50% of their income toward housing costs. As seen in Figure 2, the next two income categories also experience significant housing affordability problems with 62% and 42% experiencing cost burdens. j�7 Bellingham Consolidated Plan Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -9 November 24, 2009 Council Action 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 2 Housing Cost Burden by Income Catagory in W hatcom County, 2000 Chapter Three - Housing Less than 30% 30% to 50% 50% to 80% More than 80% Housing Mismatch Part of the problem is the disparity that exists between the number of lower- income households in the county and the number of housing units that are affordable to these households. HUD calls this the "housing mismatch" and derives a functional data set of this mismatched data from each U.S. Census. 1'• • :1'. • - -•• 111 - - - • - • • • • • - • • - • • a • a • a • • u • - 11111111 1111111 ! t1fiff ff from a frWME • . a • • . KIN . a • •a . a . a- • . • . I= . . • .� • . . . a WAR • • • • a u - a a • • a • - r a � • • • a - • a • • • . • - u . a A Julv 2008 Countvwide Housina Action Plan extrapolated to 2025 the number of households with extreme housing burden — those paying more than 50% of their income for housing, and earning under 80% of the area median income — putting the number at 14,193, which is a 62% increase above 2000. This is an increase at a rate faster than population growth if present trends continue — meaning the housing crisis will get worse over time.' 7 Countywide HOIIsing Action Plan submitted by the Countywide Housing Affordability Task Force July 18 2008 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -10 November 24, 2009 Council Action Delete Figure 3 Below Figure 3 Whatcom County Housing Mismatch 0 IIIIIVi DAffordable housing units available in 2000 50000 ®Total Households 2000 ■ Projected 2022 Total Households 40000 30000 20000 1111 n 11004 Less than 30% 8 10641 854 7556 � 30% to 50% P NO1077V 16279 50% to 80% Chapter Three - Housing 53324 More than 80% - Thirty -six Twe 4t -�^°r+ of Whatcom County homeowners put more than 30% of their income into their housing costs in 2007 1999 (up from 15% in 1989 and 26% in 1999)8 and it has been estimated that renters spend 55% of their income on housing. 8 U.S. Census Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -11 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing The median value of an owner occupied house in Whatcom County Bellingham increased 95% between 42000 and 2007. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -12 November 24 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing Currently Available Law - Income Affordable Housing Various subsidized housing exists in all of the cities in the County. Small -scale affordable housing projects are located in each city. The Whatcom /Skagit Homes program funded by USDA Rural Development is available in rural parts of the County. Habitat for Humanity of Whatcom County builds single family homes affordable to very low income homebuyers. Kulshan Community Land Trust provides affordable homeownership opportunities that remain affordable for each successive owner of the CLT homes. Mobile and manufactured homes are allowed in designated areas (usually mobile home parks) throughout the County and often provide housing to low- income populations. The Bellingham/Whatcom Housing Authorities owns and /or manages 1. ,712 4-,642- subsidized units that house families, the elderly, and disabled people. They also have 1,891 4-,493 Shelter Plus Care and Section 8 rental assistance vouchers to—distributed throughout the County. Although the Bellingham/Whatcom Housing Authorities facilitates the provision of a total of 3,603 3,335 subsidized housing units, they do not receive enough funding to provide housing assistance to all of the families in need in the County. Most of the funding they do receive cannot be recaptured. In addition to this, the City of Bellingham's housing programs, using federal funds, include rehabilitation of existing housing units, acquisition of housing units or land for housing, new Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -13 Table,' Median Price of Houses Sold in Whatcom County 1980" Year Median Price Year Median Price Year Median Price .. all ... oil I Currently Available Law - Income Affordable Housing Various subsidized housing exists in all of the cities in the County. Small -scale affordable housing projects are located in each city. The Whatcom /Skagit Homes program funded by USDA Rural Development is available in rural parts of the County. Habitat for Humanity of Whatcom County builds single family homes affordable to very low income homebuyers. Kulshan Community Land Trust provides affordable homeownership opportunities that remain affordable for each successive owner of the CLT homes. Mobile and manufactured homes are allowed in designated areas (usually mobile home parks) throughout the County and often provide housing to low- income populations. The Bellingham/Whatcom Housing Authorities owns and /or manages 1. ,712 4-,642- subsidized units that house families, the elderly, and disabled people. They also have 1,891 4-,493 Shelter Plus Care and Section 8 rental assistance vouchers to—distributed throughout the County. Although the Bellingham/Whatcom Housing Authorities facilitates the provision of a total of 3,603 3,335 subsidized housing units, they do not receive enough funding to provide housing assistance to all of the families in need in the County. Most of the funding they do receive cannot be recaptured. In addition to this, the City of Bellingham's housing programs, using federal funds, include rehabilitation of existing housing units, acquisition of housing units or land for housing, new Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -13 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing construction, assistance to homebuyers, rental assistance to tenants and assistance to homeless households and those at risk of becoming homeless. Several other organizations, including the Archdiocesan Housing Authority and Intercommunity Mercy Housing, own and manage nonprofit rental housing affordable to low- income households. The Whatcom County Health Department conducted a detailed inventory of affordable housing resources in August 2007 and determined the total number of public and nonprofit affordable housing units included 4,901 housing units equal to 9,877 bedrooms. Other Subsidized Housing The federal government expends billions of dollars each year in tax breaks and mortgage interest deductions —all government subsidies on housing that disproportionately serve high income populations. The federal government spends more on these subsidies each year than it allocates to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Federal benefits to renters – including low income housing tax credits and HUD direct expenditures to fund subsidized housina throuahout • • -• •- 1 • s - ■ - - •• ISSUES, GOALS, AND POLICIES In order to offer appropriate and affordable housing for everyone in the County, programs and policies designed to meet a variety of housing needs can be implemented. With the right mix of policy decisions and local programs, we can increase the supply of affordable housing and offer a variety of housing choices, thereby strengthening our communities. Thousands of Whatcom County households do not live in affordable housing. Looking ahead, the incomes of working people in Whatcom County will make affordability one of the County's biggest challenges. Both public and private investments can be directed into housing that ensures that low- to moderate - income people will be able to continue to live near where they work in the community. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 11I a AWN" The federal government spends more on these subsidies each year than it allocates to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Federal benefits to renters – including low income housing tax credits and HUD direct expenditures to fund subsidized housina throuahout • • -• •- 1 • s - ■ - - •• ISSUES, GOALS, AND POLICIES In order to offer appropriate and affordable housing for everyone in the County, programs and policies designed to meet a variety of housing needs can be implemented. With the right mix of policy decisions and local programs, we can increase the supply of affordable housing and offer a variety of housing choices, thereby strengthening our communities. Thousands of Whatcom County households do not live in affordable housing. Looking ahead, the incomes of working people in Whatcom County will make affordability one of the County's biggest challenges. Both public and private investments can be directed into housing that ensures that low- to moderate - income people will be able to continue to live near where they work in the community. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 11I November 24 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing Adopting an Ambitious but Achievable Affordable Housing Goal Whatcom County and its cities might consider adopting a HOUSING GOAL that sets the bar at a high but achievable level: By the year 2020, every community and neighborhood has a healthy mix of housing sizes, types and prices, affordable at the wages of the jobs nearby. A balanced mix of housing will have housing costs in sync with wages and incomes in the community. To achieve this overarching goal, the following goals, policies and actions are adopted: Permitting Process Efficiency Building codes and zoning ordinances, in part, influence costs of development and construction of housing. The permitting processes require time (raising finance costs), fees, and the personal time investment of parties involved. Building plan reviews increase cost and time. Local plans checking of non - commercial development by county officials could save time and money. A budget that allows adequate staff is necessary to minimize processing time. Also, to the extent possible, regulatory predictability and certainty in the processes required of the private sector will contribute to its willingness to contribute to housing affordability. GOAL 3A: Minimize the time required for processing housing - related development and construction permits in the interest of overall cost reduction. Policy 3A -1 Streamline and simplify existing and proposed permitting processes. Policy 3A -2: Educate interested parties in the permitting process using easy to understand publications such as brochures or handouts readily available to the public. Policy 3A -3: Consistently apply the International Building Codes and do not increase requirements. Mixed Land Uses with Appropriate Buffering and Siting Criteria Where feasible, mixed land uses should be encouraged. The concept of encouraging housing near employment and siting employment near the work force is well- accepted and logical. Housing, transportation, and employment -base needs are well - served by this proximity; it is desirable from public, employer, employee, and public service perspectives. Incompatible uses such as heavy, noisy, or noxious industrial facilities adjacent to residential uses should continue to be discouraged. Some non - polluting, low- impact types of light industrial uses such as textile manufacturing, which could be large -scale but not environmentally or aesthetically offensive, could, with some buffering, be perfectly acceptable and probably desirable near residential development. Design standards and funding sources will be needed to fully explore the potential for mixed use since, in some instances; lenders are reluctant participants in mixed -use projects. County -Wide Planning Policies, Visioning Community Value Statements and prefe FFed alteraafes (f ern the Visioning PFOGess), preservation of agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive a`'re\as, the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations generally prescribe preferred locations for housing a growing population of county residents. Various levels of affordability and types of housing are needed and must be somehow blended into locational constraints. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -15 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing Subsidized housing, homeless housing, transient, emergency, and special needs housing are all part of the affordability riddle, and in some instances a major part. Citizens currently possessing safe and decent housing may not fully understand the scope of the housing problem and they may tend not to want housing for less advantaged households near them. In that regard, the location of affordable housing can be as difficult an issue as funding. GOAL 3B: Support residential housing near employment opportunities and transit. Policy 313-1: Enable and support housing development opportunities integral with, and near, compatible industrial and commercial activities and transit. Policy 313-2: Establish commercial zoning regulations that accommodate residential uses at a density higher than surrounding residential or rural zoning provided adequate transportation access and services are available. Policy 313-3: Establish industrial zoning regulations that accommodate temporary residential uses at a density higher than surrounding residential or rural zoning provided adequate transportation access is available. Policy 313-4: Residential development adjacent to major transportation routes may require buffering. GOAL 3C: Create opportunity for a broad range of housing types and encourage mixed affordability. Policy 3C -1: Support lot clustering, varied lot sizes, small -scale multi - family dwellings, accessory housing and reductions in infrastructure requirements for subdivisions as incentives for development of housing obtainable by purchasers with the greatest possible mix of household incomes. Policy 3C -2: Support programs in which citizens participate in the construction of their own home. Policy 3C -3: Support development of manufactured and mobile home parks and establish design criteria that will enable them to fit into the surrounding community. Policy 3C -4: Develop zoning criteria in order to appropriately site group homes and accessory dwelling units within county residential urban growth areas. Access to Housing Changing demographics demand flexibility in siting, regulating, and designing future housing stocks. Family size, household size, proximity to employment and services, living space requirements due to cultural preferences, immigration patterns, and other factors contribute to changes in the type, number, and location of housing opportunities required for the future. The demographic makeup of Whatcom County's population can logically be expected to change over time through the 20 -year Growth Management Act planning period. Availability of housing for seniors, young adults, single parents, and groups is frequently overlooked by both the private development sector and the public sector. In addition, many Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -16 November 24 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing migrant farm workers entering the county each season face substandard housing and homelessness. While the upper ends of the housing scale are normally well - served by the developers of housing projects, other housing needs are frequently overlooked or neglected. Making housing affordable and accessible in all residential areas will help integrate these groups of people into the larger community. Housing appropriate for those with temporary, transitional, emergency, and special needs is available only on an exceptional basis. Population growth will directly affect the number of people seeking such shelter. A portion of the agricultural workers have difficulty in obtaining adequate housing. Prior to adoption of the comprehensive plan, Whatcom County considered ordinance amendments allowing for easier and better provision of migrant worker housing. Difficult issues associated with the amendments such as water, sewer, and other health concerns caused them to be tabled while an accessory housing ordinance allowing development of detached second dwelling units was adopted. Nevertheless, those farm worker housing amendments must proceed to provide some relief for this important housing need. GOAL 3D: Encourage provision of housing at every income level. Policy 3D -1: Participate with other agencies to provide housing options for all income levels by donating land, providing expertise, expediting permits, and other appropriate mechanisms. Policy 3D -2: Enable the ability of the farmer to provide housing for all agricultural workers. Policy 3D -3: Support programs which assist agricultural workers seeking affordable housing opportunities. GOAL 3E: Provide for future housing needs by responding to changing household demographics. Policy 3E -1: Review and revise existing regulations to identify inhibitions to housing for the varying preferences of those needing housing. Focus on population segments with particular needs such as temporary, transitional, or emergency housing. Policy 3E -2: Evaluate all new regulations or codes developed at the county level to ensure they accommodate housing preferences and needs existing at that time. Policy 3E -3: Encourage financial institutions to participate in creative housing solutions which respond to changing demographics and needs. Policy 3E -4: Support the development of housing specifically for young adults, seniors, groups, and single parents. Incentives for Affordability Profit generally drives the production of most housing. Some types of housing, particularly some of the more affordable types, are less profitable to build. If the private sector is expected to play a Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -17 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing part in the provision of affordable, obtainable housing, there must be incentives encouraging them to do so. GOAL 3F: Provide incentives to create affordable housing. Policy 3F -1: Include density or inclusionary bonus provisions in land use regulations, where appropriate, to offset the reduced profit inherent in more affordable types of housing. These bonuses may be transferred to other locations. Policy 3F -2: Review accessory housing ordinances for effectiveness and appropriateness and revise when necessary. Policy 3F -3: Support innovative housing ideas including co- housing (essentially a micro - community with some centralized facilities), elder cottages (temporary housing units for healthy but aging family members), and shared living residences or group quarters. Regulatory Controls Many forces act to inhibit the availability of affordable housing. Among these are regulatory controls, including zoning, subdivision regulations, development standards, and critical areas requirements. In addition, growth management itself implies some restrictions to affordable housing, by excluding land from development by focusing growth in urban areas, avoiding environmentally sensitive areas, and other ways. Mechanisms are needed to balance these inhibitions to affordability, such as design variety promoted through covenants, conditions, and restrictions, relaxed infrastructure requirements, and zoning. GOAL 3G: Identify and remove impediments to affordable housing. Policy 3G -1: Create opportunities to provide more affordability by relaxing or eliminating some infrastructure requirements or impact fees where it is clearly demonstrated that such action does not create a safety hazard and is not contrary to the interests of the health and well -being of county residents. Policy 3G -2: Review and revise existing and proposed regulations for consistency with other housing goals. Policy 3G -3: Educate the public on equal opportunity laws specifically related to housing and housing conditions including options available to anyone discriminated against. Policy 3G -4 Allow development of smaller lots and creative options. Preservation of Existing Housing Stocks Destruction of existing housing units due to redevelopment may be counterproductive for housing affordability. Instead, redevelopment should be taken as an opportunity to increase affordable housing. GOAL 3H: Facilitate maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -18 November 24 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing Policy 31-1-1: Wherever there is potential for destruction of existing structures, provide for preserving existing housing or creating new housing, whether by incorporation into the new project, moving, or recycling. Policy 3H -2: Support creation of one or more additional housing units, within permitted density, when existing housing is remodeled or commercial or light industrial facilities are redeveloped. Policy 31-1-3: Identify and implement incentives to preserve and sensitively rehabilitate historic properties. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan IMA November 24, 2009 Council Action HOUSING = ACTION PLAN Zoning Chapter Three - Housing 'Action Plan 1. Amend regulations and establish criteria for appropriate development standards to allow an appropriate mix of manufactured and mobile home parks in certain Urban Residential (UR) zones. 2. Amend zoning regulations to more broadly allow child and senior day care facilities with traffic and buffers adequately addressed. 3. Allow innovative housing ideas including co- housing, elder cottages, and shared living residences or group quarters. Permitting 4. Allow conditional occupancy by the owner of a residence under construction, yet not ready for permanent occupancy, where health, liability, and legal concerns have been addressed. Such occupancy would be conditioned on identified criteria. Regulatory Review and Reform 5. Review any changes to county regulations affecting the provision of housing for negative influence on direct costs and on the indirect costs of permit processing time. 6. Review any new changes to regulations affecting the provision of housing for population and housing preferences and needs prevailing at that time. 7. Establish a regular periodic review schedule of policies and procedures, including accessory housing ordinance, by Planning Commission, panel, task force, executive review, or other methods. 8. Adopt land use regulations and development standards which allow lot clustering, varied lot sizes, small scale multi - family dwellings and reductions to infrastructure requirements for subdivisions to encourage development of housing obtainable by purchasers with the greatest mix of household incomes. 9. Adopt land use regulations and development standards which allow innovative housing ideas including co- housing, elder cottages, and shared living residences or group quarters. Review Committees 10. Form a special task force consisting of farmers, workers, lenders, public housing providers, and elected officials to initiate regulations designed to encourage and enable farmers to provide housing for farm workers. 11. Establish a broad -based citizen committee consisting of interested and affected parties to: 1. Review existing regulations for consistency with the goals contained in this plan and review proposed regulations for their affect on housing affordability and availability. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -20 November 24 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing **Action Plan 2. Evaluate local legislative actions for opportunities to enhance availability of affordable housing to all residents of the county and enforcement of laws pertaining to tenant rights. Staffing 12. In general budget review, allow for adequate staff to provide timely review of land use proposals. Building Standards 13. Encourage private groups to inventory sets of pre- approved residential building plans that can be offered to the public free of charge. 14. Investigate and enable creative options to reduce or eliminate infrastructure requirements such as road width, sidewalks, curbs and gutters where it is clearly demonstrated that such action does not create a safety hazard and is not contrary to the interests of the health and well -being of county residents. Lot Size /Shape 15. Adopt land use regulations and development standards that allow innovative lot designs (Z lots, zero lot lines, small lot districts) in the interest of reducing the serviced -lot portion of overall housing development costs. 16. Eliminate lot consolidation criteria when it is in the interest of serving housing affordability. 17. Where appropriate, and through density adjustments, decrease minimum lot sizes. Mixed Use 18. Adopt development regulations that provide for adequate buffering requirements (trees, other vegetation, and fences) and sound insulation between uses to minimize drawbacks of mixed use such as noise, odors, and cluttered views. 19. Review and revise land use regulations and adopt "adaptive re -use" to allow the conversion of single - family dwellings, commercial /light industrial facilities and other non- residential structures to a variety of housing types where water and sewage treatment can be provided. Developer Incentives 20. Review potential for offering density bonuses, reduced lot size, and other incentives for including specified proportions of housing targeted for low- and moderate - income households. 21. Through adoption of a set of incentives, use some form of inclusionary zoning that encourages provision of housing targeted for low- and moderate - income households. 22. Make a series or menu of incentives, including but not limited to density bonuses, transfer of development rights, and /or infrastructure concessions available to project developers wherever special needs populations are specifically served. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -21 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Three - Housing **Action Plan 23. Require impact and mitigation fees, if any, to be paid at the time the occupancy permit is issued by Whatcom County. 24. Provide additional bonus housing density for inclusion of affordable housing in a Planned Unit Development. Buyer Assistance 25. Establish a housing development fund, accessible to individuals qualified for affordable housing assistance who are legal residents of the county, administered by an agency such as Bellingham - Whatcom County Housing Authority or the Whatcom County Opportunity Council, and funded by contributions from developers wishing to utilize affordable housing incentives and bonuses, but not wishing to include affordable housing in their own projects. 26. Support existing agencies which provide for, or provide assistance in obtaining, low- or no- interest loans for first -time home buyers and others needing assistance to purchase homes. Education 27. Prepare an easily- understood guide or set of guides, readily available to the public, describing in a step -by -step fashion the processes required for land use actions. 28. Educate the public about permitting processes, and the availability of existing house plans by providing easy access to information through media such as videotapes, workshops, the Internet and others. 29. Educate the public about innovative housing ideas including co- housing, elder cottages, and shared living residences or group quarters. 30. Coordinate with local, state, and federal housing agencies, organizations and jurisdictions to further Whatcom County's goals and polices relating to housing. 31. Work with local, state and federal agencies to coordinate programs and secure grants or other funds available for housing programs. Housing Affordability Distribution and Targeting 32. Allocate to each UGA and city a "fair share allocation" that specifies the number of affordable housing units that are needed to accommodate each economic segment of the population in each area. Policy Priority in Favor of Permanent Community Benefit 33. Seek perpetual affordability achievable through nonprofit -owned rental housing and certain forms of homeownership including community land trusts, limited equity condominiums, and deed restricted homeownership. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -22 November 24, 2009 Council Action Inclusionary Zoning Chapter Three - Housing "Action Plan 34. Develop inclusionary zoning incentives and requirements that integrate affordable housing into new market -rate developments. 35. Develop a system for inclusionary zoning payments made in lieu of providing inclusionary units in some developments. Financial Incentives to Encourage Affordability 36. Explore legislative authority to use "current use taxation policies" to benefit affordable housing by applying the tax - abatement policy now available for farmland, timberland and other open spaces. 37. Explore other financial incentives such as tax credits for low- income households who opt into a nonspeculative housing market. 38. Encourage "employer- assisted housing" as a recruitment/retention strategy using down payment assistance, interest rate buy- downs, second mortgages, etc. Funding Strategies 39. Create a "housing trust fund" to provide dedicated funding for housing priorities set_by the jurisdictions involved. 40. Consider using the "Housing and Conservation Trust" used in Vermont to fund affordable housing inside urban areas that takes pressure off farmland, open space and rural lands. 41. Consider a ballot measure for a "housing levy" that funds affordable housing development. 42. Consider a housing levy that adapts the Vermont model by proposing a combination of open space /farmland /salmon protection along with support for permanently affordable housing at the right location. 43. Consider using a "real estate excise tax" or a "real estate transfer tax" a County -wide tax or levy to provide a revenue stream for the local housing trust fund for affordable housing. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3 -23 November 24, 2009 Council Action INTRODUCTION Chapter Four- Capital Facilities Chapter Four CAPITAL FACILITIES Capital facilities as defined here, and for purposes of the plan, include facilities owned by Whatcom County and other public entities. Capital facilities typically have long useful lives, significant costs, and are not mobile. Whatcom County capital facilities include buildings, land, parks, and roads. Capital facilities provided by other public entities may be included.in this plan by reference. Those capital facility plans that may be adopted by reference include plans for water, sewer, fire protection, storm water, schools, parks and recreation facilities. Purpose This chapter contains policies to guide Whatcom County in providing adequate public services within the county's financial capability, and provides a unifying framework for facilities planning. It also establishes levels of service for county -owned and operated capital facilities. The cities and other public owners of capital facilities are encouraged to use the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as a guide in preparing their own plans and capital improvement programs, particularly with respect to designated urban growth areas (UGAs). Process In 1991, the firm of Henderson, Young and Company (HYCo) was hired to obtain the necessary expertise in capital facilities planning to assist the county in preparing this chapter. Unlike most other chapters of this plan, Capital Facilities did not involve a citizen's committee or a technical advisory committee per se. The functions assumed by committees for other chapters were not required for completion of this chapter. Methodology, however, was needed to bring together technical expertise concerning all county organizational divisions that manage the capital facilities of the county. HYCo provided that methodology. Department and division administrators have been called upon repeatedly to provide detailed information on existing facilities, levels of service, funding, projected improvements, and revenue sources. Through that process, they participated in the plan as an ad hoc technical committee. Because of the complexity of this topic, the County Council went through an exercise to establish preliminary levels of service after receiving recommendations from department heads. After review and input by the public, these preliminary levels of service were finalized. HYCo was responsible for organizing the effort toward completion of this chapter in the original 1997 Comprehensive Plan, with much of the actual work performed by the Whatcom County Planning Division. This chapter was updated in 2004 as part of the seven -year review required under the Growth Management Act and in 2009. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4 -1 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Four - Capital Facilities GMA Goals, County -Wide Planning Policies, and Visioning Community Value Statements The goals, policies, and action plans in this chapter contribute to achievement of several of the GMA planning goals, including those considering urban growth, open space and recreation, and public facilities and services. The chapter has been written to satisfy those goals while also meeting the intent and requirements of the County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP), and general guidelines of the Visioning Community Value Statements. Although CWPPs do not separately address capital facilities, as defined in this chapter, they are addressed within a number of the policies. Policies requiring fiscal and physical ability to provide adequate public facilities, services, and infrastructure are satisfied in this chapter. The interlocal agreements specified in the policies must address reasonable criteria for annexation and ensure adequate public services including transportation, parks, administrative services and corrections facilities. In relation to capital facilities, the Visioning Community Value Statements emphasize the importance of law enforcement, crime prevention, and other social services, as well as encourage retention and development of recreational opportunities. Growth Management Goals, County -Wide Planning Policies, and Visioning Community Value Statements will be served by adoption of this chapter and implementation of its goals, policies, and action plans. GMA Requirements The Growth Management Act mandates that counties required to plan under the Act adopt comprehensive plans including an inventory of facilities, a forecast of future needs for such facilities, the proposed location and the capacities of expanded or new facilities, minimum levels of service of facility capacity, a six -year plan for financing those facilities with indication of sources for that funding, and a requirement to re- assess the Land Use chapter of this plan if there are funding shortfalls. The Land Use element must be consistent and coordinated with the capital facilities plan with respect to adopted minimum levels of service and adequacy of facilities to serve development. These Growth Management Act requirements are addressed in this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the 20 -Year Capital Facilities Plan (Appendix E) and in the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (Appendix F). BACKGROUND SUMMARY Once a level of service standard is established for a particular facility, then a cost can be assigned to achieve the desired level of service. The next step is to develop funding mechanisms to pay for the desired levels of service. Levels of service for different facilities are defined differently. In this chapter, the level of service for most facilities is defined as a unit per population; for example, a fraction of a square foot of office space per capita or a number of jail beds or park acres per 1,000 population. The major exception is roads, for which level of service is measured as volume over capacity ratios, i.e. how many cars are anticipated to use a particular section of road (volume) divided by how many cars the road can theoretically accommodate over a specific period of time (capacity). Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4 -2 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Four - Capital Facilities One of the major issues confronting Whatcom County in relation to capital facilities is the question of availability of revenue versus ability to provide services. While it is generally desirable to provide high levels of service for roads, law enforcement, and other essential services, costs for those services continue to rise and, generally, new or additional taxes are undesirable. Whatcom County has kept additions to its capital facilities to a minimum over the past ten years (1999 -2009 1994 2004) in order to contain the cost of government operations. Whatcom County has relied on a pay -as -you go approach for funding capital expenditures under one million dollars. Large capital acquisitions have been financed with general obligation debt. The 2009 2904 budget for debt service is $1,893,618 $2,487,000, revenues of $188,439,728 . or one tIe -per cent of 2009 2804 budgeted The GMA expressly authorizes cities and counties to impose impact fees on new development to help finance the capital facilities required to serve new development. This authorization applies only to capital facilities owned or operated by government entities: (a) public streets and roads; (b) publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; (c) school facilities; and (d) fire protection facilities in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district. Certain background information that must be included in a capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan in order to collect transportation impact fees is included in Appendix G. If the desired level of service cannot be achieved without acquiring major debt, raising taxes beyond acceptable levels or establishing unacceptable impact fees, then the level of service standard must be adjusted, facility costs must be reduced, or growth must be curtailed until a balance is achieved. Adjusting land use to moot the -,hti*to achieve desirable levels of service is one means of attaining concurrency. Concurrency, as required by the GMA, means that adequate facilities as defined by adopted levels of service are available at the time that the impacts of development occur or within a specified time thereafter. The GMA, at minimum, requires concurrency for transportation facilities. Concurrency is obviously desirable for all other capital facilities as well if the overall goal is to provide for new development while maintaining a quality of life that people desire. t4"ia.nagengent and Gapit i i ae*it, irz and Requomonto 1995 7000 nd to 2014, N y ' With regard to fire protection. Whatcom County has not adopted level of service standards (NFPA 1720 or any other response -time based level of service) for most urban or rural areas. The County should define an urban level of service for fire protection during the required 7 -year comprehensive plan review and update process The pear plan review and update process should demonstrate that the urban growth areas have adequate existing fire protection facilities and service capacities to meet the urban level of service and any additional needed fire facilities and services. If the level of service standard adopted by the County can not be provided over the 20 -year planning period, then re- designation of UGAs to rural designations should be considered. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4 -3 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Four - Capital Facilities ISSUES, GOALS, AND POLICIES Adopted levels of service are incorporated within the following goals, policies, and action plans. GOAL 4A: Within the county's financial capacity, adopt a carefully planned program of county services and facilities. Policy 4A -1: Establish appropriate level of service standards for county facilities commensurate with the ability of the county to fund them. Policy 4A -2: Extend County facilities and services in a manner that supports future urban growth in urban growth areas (UGAs). Policy 4A -3: Evaluate all types of facilities to determine whether they should be provided at county -wide, or strictly unincorporated levels of service. Transportation facility levels of service should be evaluated for appropriateness as to adopted urban or rural levels of service. Policy 4A -4: The land use element of the comprehensive plan must be reassessed to ensure that land use is coordinated and consistent with the financing plan within the capital facilities element and to ensure probable funding does not fall short of meeting existing needs. GOAL 4B: Develop a six -year financing program for capital facilities that meets the requirements of the GMA, achieves the county's levels -of- service, and is within financial capability as determined by projected financial resources. Policy 413 -1: Maintain and update, on at least a biennial basis, a six -year capital improvement program (CIP) that identifies projects, outlines a schedule, and designates realistic funding sources for all county capital projects based on a review of population and revenue conditions existing at that time. GOAL 4C: Locate county facilities which require urban infrastructure, serve primarily urban populations, and are urban in character within identified urban growth areas (UGAs). Policy 4C -1: Evaluate all new capital facilities requiring a new site for urban characteristics and limit selection of sites for urban projects to designated UGAs. GOAL 4D: Develop and implement a coordinated program of facility expansion for the departments and agencies which together carry out the county's law enforcement and corrections functions. Policy 4D -1: Complete those capital improvement projects necessary to eliminate existing-gMspace deficiencies in law enforcement facilities. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4 -4 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Four - Capital Facilities GOAL 4E: Develop and carry out a realistic long -range program of facility expansion or improvement to accommodate the county's projected staffing requirements for departments and agencies. Policy 4E -1: Include in the cq ital facilities masteF plan, a program of building and space improvements to efficiently provide quality work space for projected staffing levels through the 20 -year planning period`° 24. Policy 4E -2: Investigate alternatives to Capital Facility construction through the private sector, and pursue technologically feasible alternatives. GOAL 4F: Achieve level of service targets for park and recreational facilities identified in this chapter and which support objectives and priorities identified in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan, in the Natural Heritage Plan, and in this plan. Policy 4F -1: Seek non - capital opportunities to acquire, enhance and maintain park lands, trails, and other recreational facilities. Policy 4F -2: Include acquisition and development costs in the six -year CIP for future trails projects. Policy 4F -3: Develop a recreational facilities program that achieves and maintains the level of service for athletic fields and courts, trails, and support facilities for shoreline access, picnicking, and camping without adding to capital costs. Policy 4F -4: Place a high and facilities in the Whatc Plan, before facilities. Policy 417-5: GOAL 4G: priority on improvements to existing county recreational sites and using them to their full potential, including those outlined om County Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space investing capital in the acquisition and development of new Continue to provide centers for use by senior citizens and others. Establish levels of service for roads, parks, corrections, and administrative services. Policy 4G -1: For purposes of transportation management systems, adopt level of service standards (LOS) for transportation facilities as listed in Chapter 6, Transportation, Policy 6A -3. Policy 4G -2: Adopt the following level of service standards for park facilities: developed parks ................ ............................... 9.6 acres per 1,000 population trails ..................... ...........................0.60 9-75 of a mile per 1,000 population activity centers ......... ........................... five centers per 100,000 population Policy 4G -3: Adopt the following level of service for correction facilities: jails ......... ............................... ...........................1.42 beds per 1,000 population juvenile detention . ............................... 0.125 0.165 beds per 1,000 population Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4 -5 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Four - Capital Facilities Policy 4G -4: Adopt the following levels of service for administrative facilities: office space ( unincorporated) ................ ...........................0.51 sq. ft. per capita maintenance & operations (unincorporated) ....................0.41 sq. ft. per capita sheriffs office (unincorporated) ............. ...........................0.26 sq. ft. per capita office space ( county- wide) ............. ...........................0.63 8-.74 sq. ft. per capita sheriff emergency ops (county- wide) .... ..........................0.011 sq. ft. per capita GOAL 4H: Coordinate with non - county facility providers such as cities and special purpose districts to support the future land use pattern promoted by this plan. Policy 4H -1: Establish interagency planning mechanisms and interlocal agreements to assure coordinated and mutually supportive capital facility plans from special districts, cities, and other major non - county facility providers which are consistent with this and other chapters of the comprehensive plan. Policy 4H -2: In consultation and coordination with special districts, cities, and other capital facility plans supporting UGAs in conjunction with GMA 7 -Year Review and 10 -Year UGA Review. P_ olic_y 4H -3 Whatcom County should define an urban level of service for fire protection by December 1, 2011. The 7 -year comprehensive plan review and update process should demonstrate that the urban growth areas are served by urban levels of fire protection facilities and service. If the level of service standard adopted by the County can not be provided over the 20 -year planning period, then re- designation of UGAs to rural designations should be considered. GOAL 4J: Maintain effective concurrency measures and procedures for all facilities and services necessary for development. Policy 4J -1: Based on established levels of service for all road segments under control of the county, administer a concurrency management program that provides for consistent and predictable evaluation of the impacts of future proposed development. GOAL 4K: Consider alternative funding sources to assure levels of service adopted in the plan. Policy 4K -1: After all other financing options have been exhausted, consider the use of bonded indebtedness to finance major capital investments in infrastructure c-e aeGument: Financial Reseur-Ge P4;9jeet-iens fA9F Growth Mapagement (Chapter- 414. Policy 4K -2: Identify and promote public private partnerships to provide and enhance the provision of necessary services. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4 -6 ..........._. _......... . November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Four - Capital Facilities GOAL 4L: Ensure that capital facilities provide protection for threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species. Policy 4L -1: Fish and wildlife habitat should be carefully considered when selecting projects for the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program. Policy 4L -2: Projects selected for the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program shall not degrade habitat for threatened and endangered species. Policy 4L -3: Projects selected for the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program should strive to restore degraded habitat for threatened and endangered species, when the projects are in direct contact with such habitat. The County Council will determine when such restoration is financially feasible through adoption of the six -year capital improvement program and the County budget. District adopted by the district GOAL 4M: Enable school districts to receive impact fees to fund a proportionate share of system improvements reasonably related to new development by adopting into this plan their capital facilities plans and establishing interlocal agreements with the districts to collect and transfer funds. Policy 4M -1: The capital facilities plan for the Bellingham School District, adopted by the district on July 16, 2009MaFGh 25 2004, is adopted into the comprehensive plan by reference. Policy 4M -2: The capital facilities plan for the Ferndale School District, adopted by the district on December 23, 2005, is adopted into the comprehensive plan by reference. Policy 4M -3: The capital facilities plan for the Lynden School District, adopted by the district on June 29, 2006, is adopted into the comprehensive plan by reference. Policy 4M -4: The capital facilities plan for the Meridian School District adopted by the district on June 30, 2009, is adopted into the comprehensive plan by reference. Goal 4N: Adopt special district and County capital facility plans for unincorporated UGAs into this plan by reference when consistent with the Whatcom County. Comprehensive Plan, Policy 4N -1: The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Water System Plan, dated March 2009, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive Ip an. Policy 4N -2: The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Sewer System Plan, dated May 2009, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4 -7 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Four - Capital Facilities Policy 4N -3: The Birch Whatcom Bay Comprehensive Fire Stormwater District Plan, dated Capital July 2006, is Facilities Water System Plan, dated October August 2009, is adopted by reference into the by reference into the comprehensive plan. adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. Policy 4N -4 The North Whatcom Utility Fire and District Rescue Capital Comprehensive Facilities Water System Plan, dated October August 2009, is adopted by reference into the by reference into the comprehensive plan. Policy 4N -5: The Public Utility District No. 1 Comprehensive Water System Plan, dated October 2004, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive Plan. Policy 4N -6: The Evergreen Water -Sewer District Comprehensive Water System Plan, dated June 2004, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. This water system serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. Policy 4N -7: The Water District No. 13 Water System Plan, dated February 2005, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. This water system serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. Policy 4N -8: The public stormwater facilities sections relating to the Columbia Valley UGA in the Water Quantity and Quality Report Foothills Subarea (Aspect Consulting, July 18, 2008, pp. 2 -31 36 -39, and 55 -56) are adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan I November 24, 2009 Council Action CAPITAL FACILITIES = ACTION PLAN 1. Adopt a county six -year CIP to meet the GMA specifications including concurrency and all other capital needs for the six -year financing program component of the capital facilities element. 2. Identify appropriate levels of long -term bonded debt to finance major capital investments in infrastructure. 3. Explore alternative funding sources as authorized under the GMA to help fund the cost of infrastructure expansions required to serve new development. 4. Maintain Establish a concurrency management or monitoring process for transportation and adequacy reviews of new development as an integral part of land use and building permit review. 5. Explore alternative funding techniques for law and justice facilities and operations, including contracts for service with other agencies, private providers, and joint use of facilities. 6. Analyze probable future staffing and space requirements in conjunction with the budget process and updating of the capital facilities plan. 7. Pursue acquisition strategies for resource conservancy and linear parks (trails) on an other than fee simple basis to reduce cost without significant reduction in public use /benefit potential. 8. Pursue joint ventures with cities, school districts, and other potential partners in developing regional athletic parks as recommended in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan. 9. Work with special districts, cities, and other major non - county facility providers including water and sewer districts, fire districts, public utility districts and others as appropriate to establish levels of service for urban growth areas. This must be done in order to assure facilities adequate to provide for anticipated population growth and development consistent with land use plan designations and zoning. 10. Explore alternative technology to create cost savings for capital facility needs. 11. Establish public /private partnership alternatives to capital financing. 12. Capital facility plans for water, sewer, stormwater, fire and schools that serve unincorporated UGAs will be incorporated by reference when consistent with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4 -9 November 24, 2009 Council Action Chapter Five - Utilities Chapter Five UTILITIES Whatcom County strongly encourages utilities to develop in a safe and rational manner based on the demand requirements of development consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. The 20 -Year Capital Facilities Plan (Appendix E) provides additional information relating to water systems, sewer systems, and solid waste management. Policy 5Q -3: Review Urban Growth Areas at least eveFy seveR years to ensure appropriate actions have occurred to provide adequate water supplies. 27. Review urban growth areas every sev8R years to ensure adequate water supplies are available and revise boundaries accordingly. NOTE. There are no changes to portions of Chapter Five preceding or following the above text. Chapter Six TRANSPORTATION No Text Amendments Proposed (See attached map amendment) ZIZ Z'Z ZI Yi 92I�2 It -„ 1H NATIONAL FOREST ISO `* 9x Iss t i'g aIn u anzgl C l 'p a VIS 8 91MI g 3 a :i- 0 o egg:,, pip �3Z RIX �Q 3� v gaga UU sB �3t� i �', dad Xry b ,y e I � • .. 9 0 V ` rjry N I "On N3tl110 Ntl� I Otl tl3d5 ' c i I t :. pa - — - F f - W i I ¢ I U I } Z` 1 Q p o �Otl NY03NNYN T I i I H °m ui a 8 I ; 1 I 'Otl 351nNOS I OYOn A � 1 P M NOYLa9 G:r.w 1 Q• P4A J r j ~ I ' 1 i �', dad Xry b ,y e I � • .. 9 0 V ` rjry N I "On N3tl110 Ntl� I Otl tl3d5 ' c i I t :. pa - — - F f - W i I ¢ I U I } Z` 1 Q p o �Otl NY03NNYN T I i I H °m ui a 8 I ; 1 I 'Otl 351nNOS I OYOn A � 1 P M NOYLa9 G:r.w 1 Q• P4A 'T� -1S m31!r 3 w 1� Cal I o 3 3 if 000! ow a no g �� (a °aalevNaai pEOIA < _ LUIS \9M0 Y O r� N J y RA illy R SEEMS Ix Off 0 E 0 V Y sv.3 •Ly N vy A- 'O ^ O J r 'T� -1S m31!r 3 w 1� Cal I o 3 3 if 000! ow a no g �� (a °aalevNaai pEOIA < _ LUIS \9M0 Y O r� N J y RA illy R SEEMS Ix Off 0 E 0 V Y sv.3 •Ly N vy A- 'O ^ O Chapter Eight RESOURCE LANDS No Text Amendments Proposed (See attached map amendments) zl I E'y eag i w z z z clz z z:. 3 -Wsw 44 V� MM nip �- -y e =Y t 1 eav s3 — — ,. .q 9�9 S I vN — rt L ;'fl30 '9r. h ! S; IZ �---� / NpT10NPL FOREST ly .,'�i3 es e! Z.;,g� •l i C .1 We I G 40 1 fa Qcm EIj a C ,y s v LL e IL ME .o a E� a. 11 j G smy� Y m 9 u�. Q a . T. w� ®i a � � ON 8 M C a � •�aae N ysy, t O I'. z� 0 I . I I} 0 us 2 2 en r g F d NATIONAL FOREST .y re- a. UE :E a�§ 1 I I o , lu eL LL e e - ell V I � 1 A M q ....... a IIL r •1 (, wp[ IN", ` - - - - - ell lee >. 1 � � m a' o .18 Z 1 j N Sot � All m i / } x ¢ L O //��II Q. iii :d Q 3 We 40P M 'g 00 a 'Im ,ww N a� 03 to fp Qc O e a O a Q 0 c� N c O vi a e Q O rs 0 W Q c cp m rn � � a a a to e O ® N k v 3 ca �ai. r'auy r 8i 0 November 24, 2009 Council Action Appendix A - Glossary Appendix A GLOSSARY used as a tool for facilitating provision of urban levels of services and preventing sprawl. T-14e • .. Urban Fringe Subarea Plan: A plan pertaining to the Bellingham Urban Growth Area and a portion of Whatcom County surrounding Bellingham ' subrbarl-girelailla. It is a plan designating the interface between urban and rural land uses. Some pa# -Part of the Urban Fringe Area will be is included in an Urban Growth Area. Some of the area already lies within Bellingham's Urban Service Area. Urban growth area (UGA): An area designated, within which urban growth will be encouraged and outside of which growth can only occur if it is not urban in nature. (rte "r, ) Urban growth areas around cities are designated by the county in consultation with the cities; urban growth areas not associated with cities are designated by the county. , Urban Growth Area Reserves: These are areas that are adiacent and contiauous to Urban Growth Areas which appear to be suitable for future inclusion of the respective Urban Growth Area. These lands are held in reserve until it is demonstrated that they are needed for urban growth, and that consideration is given to ensuring adequate public facilities and services, reduction of sprawl, economic development, open space corridors and natural resource conservation. NOTE: There are no changes to portions of Appendix A preceding or following the above text. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan A -1 W0926RTAT 1. .. ... .. .. .. A Gvf' I AT:T:T. RMS d..� kj • .. 0 f2 W.Wmagmim 1, i ii MrSUIT&YRNEW nP.M.0r. M man rJPaMwaWWl72W i i . i� .. . M Vr&qW..Wl!!M m WO EM= PSIM R=ME Of 9 . . . ..-,... ».a ins =AI W- .= =a�..s �.:a :..� .ia t•r.,.��..�a�• PROPOSAL: Repeal "Appendix E Short Term Planning Area Maps" entirely, because Short Term Planning Areas are zoning designations not comprehensive plan designations. Therefore, they are shown on the zoning maps rather than on comprehensive plan maps. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan E -1 Sam PROPOSAL: Repeal "Appendix E Short Term Planning Area Maps" entirely, because Short Term Planning Areas are zoning designations not comprehensive plan designations. Therefore, they are shown on the zoning maps rather than on comprehensive plan maps. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan E -1 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan — Appendix E ■ November 2009 Jones & Stokes an ICP fnternational Company Whatcom County 20 -Year Capital Facilities Plan Prepared for: Whatcom County Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, WA 98225 Prepared by: an 1CF International Company 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 Contact: Lisa Grueter 206/801 -2800 Berk & Associates Suite 200120 Lakeside Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 Contact: Erica Natali 206/324 -8760 In consultation with: Henderson, Young & Company 8060 -165th Ave. NE, Suite 220 Redmond, WA 98052 -3935 Contact: Randy Young 425/869 -1786 November 2009 This document should be cited as: ICF Jones & Stokes. 2009. Capital Facilities Plan. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review. November. (ICF AS 00710.08.) Seattle, WA. Prepared for Whatcom County 2031. Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 Contentsof the Plan ............................................. ..............................1 GrowthAssumptions .........:.................................. ..............................1 PublicFacility Costs ............................................. ..............................1 Public Facility Financing ...................................... ............................... 2 CFP Level of Services Consequences ................ ............................... 2 PublicBuildings.............................................................................. ............................... 2 Sheriff's Office and Juvenile Detention ( County) ............................ ............................... 2 Parksand Recreation ... :...... ............. . ....................... . ...................... .............................. 3 SanitarySewer ............................................................................... ............................... 3 WaterSystems ................................................................................ ..............................4 Schools 4 SolidWaste ..................................................................................... ..............................5 Stormwater , ....................................................... ............................... .........................111.15 Transportation................................................................................ ............................... 5 Transit............................................................................................ ............................... 5 FireProtection................................................................................. ..............................5 CFP Source Documents ..................................... ............................... 6 Introduction....................................................... ............................... 7 Capital Facilities Plan Purpose ........................... ............................... 7 Growth Management Act .................................... ............................... 7 CapitalFacilities ................................................ ............................... 8 Land Use Projections.,,,,,,,,,, 8 Assumptions........................................................ ............................... 8 Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis 9 Introduction.................................................................................... ............................... 9 Assumptions.................................................................................. .............................10 Dedicated Capital Revenues .......................................................... .............................10 General Capital Revenues ............................................................. .............................16 Impact of Reduced Levels of Annexation ............ .............................19 ' November 2009 Potential Policy Options ...................................... .............................19 Six -Year Funding Balance ..................:.............. ............................... 20 Other Service Providers .................................... ............................... 21 Economic Development Planning ..................... ............................... 21 Public Buildings (County) .................................. ............................... 22 Overview........................................................................................ .............................22 Inventory of Current Facilities. 0 ................. am ... a .......................................................... a..22 Level of Service Capacity Analysis ................................................. .............................23 Capital Projects and Funding .......................................................... .............................25 Sheriffs Office and Juvenile Detention ( County ) .............................. 27 Overview........................................................................................ .............................27 Inventory of Current Facilities ......................................................... .............................27 Level of Service Capacity Analysis.. .... 0 .................................................. 0 .................... 29 Capital Projects and Funding .......................................................... .............................32 Parks and Recreation (County and Special Districts serving UGAs)35 Overview........................................................................................ .............................35 Inventory of Current Facilities ......................................................... .............................35 Level of Service Capacity Analysis.. ............................................................................ 39 Capital Projects and Funding .......................................................... .............................42 ExistingStructures ............................................ ............................... 48 SanitarySewer .................................................. ............................... 50 Overview........................................................................................ .............................50 Inventory of Current Facilities ......................................................... .............................50 Level of Service Capacity Analysis ................................................. .............................55 Capital Projects and Funding .......................................................... .............................57 WaterSystems .................................................. ............................... 77 Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan ( CWSP) .......... .............................77 Urban Water Systems (within UGAs) ............................................. .............................78 Schools................................ ............................... ............................112 Overview........................................................ .....a.........0............... ............................112 Inventory of Current Facilities.. ....................................... 0 .......................................... 112 Level of Service Capacity Analysis ..... . ..... ..... ............. I... I.. ".......... ............................119 Capital Projects and Funding .......................... ............................... ............................121 Solid Waste (County) .......... ............................... ............................128 Overview........................................................ ............................... ............................128 Inventory of Current Facilities ......................... ............................... ............................128 r-� Comprehensive Plan Update - 10 Year UGA Review Level of Service Capacity Analysis ...................... . ... vote ............................................. 130 Capital Projects and Funding ......................... ............................... ............................131 Stormwater(County) ........... ............................... ............................132 Overview........................................................ ............................... ............................132 Inventory of Current Facilities,.., ............................ .............................................. 132 Level of Service Capacity Analysis ................ ............................... ............................133 Capital Projects and Funding ......................... ............................... ............................134 Transportation ( Countywide ) .............................. ............................136 Overview........................................................ ............................... ............................136 Inventoryof Current Facilities.,,.,, ......................... 00,8460., ............................................ 136 Level of Service Capacity Analysis ................ ............................... ............................136 _. Capital Projects and Funding ......................... ............................... ............................142 Transit.. ............................... ...........................Wass ................. ......... ..152 Overview........:............................................... ............................... ............................152 Inventoryof Current Facilities ......................... ............................... ............................152 Level of Service Capacity Analysis ................ ............................... ............................153 Capital Projects and Funding ......................... ............................... ............................153 FireProtection ..................... ............................... ............................154 .. Overview........................................................ ............................... ............................154 Inventory of Current Facilities ......................... ............................... ............................154 Level of Service Capacity Analysis ................ ............................... ............................156 Capital Projects and Funding ......................... ............................... ............................159 Capital Facilities Implementation ................... ............................166 References......................... ............................... ............................167 Appendix 1 Growth Estimates by Special District ...................173 Appendix 2 Birch Bay Draft Capital Facilities Funding Analysis Effects of Birch Bay's Potential Incorporation ..........................179 Introduction....................... ............................... ............................ 181 Dedicated Capital Revenues............. to suessons, oxmomasomas masons man No mosomm an a 181 Transportation..................... ............................... ............................181 RoadLevy ...................................................... .....................I......... ............................181 State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax ......................... ............................... ............................182 Transportation Grants ......... ............................... ............................183 fit November 2009 State Transportation Grants ........................... ............................... ............................183 Federal Transportation Grants........................ ............................... ............................183 General Capital Revenues ............................... ............................185 Real Estate Excise Tax ....... ............................... ............................185 Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax ................... ............................185 Total General Capital Revenues ........................ ............................186 Summary............................. ............................... ............................186 Appendix 3 Whatcom County Rural Water Systems ................187 RuralArea Water Systems ............................. ............................... ............................189 Appendix4 Maps ............... ............................... ............................195 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review IV Tables Table 1. Regional Growth Population and Employment Assumptions ............................... 8 Table 2. Projected Future Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 2010 -2029 (Allocated forCapital Projects) ............................................................... .............................11 Table 3. Projected Future Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 2010 -2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) .............................................. .............................13 Table 4. Projected Future Whatcom County State Transportation Grant Revenues 2010- 2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) ..................................... .............................14 Table 5. Projected Future Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues 2010 -2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) ............................ .............................15 Table 6. Projected Total Transportation Revenues 2010 -2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) ................................................................................ .............................16 Table 7. Projected Future Whatcom County Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 2010 - 202917 Table 8. Projected Future Whatcom County Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax Revenues 2010 -2029 (Available for Capital Projects) ........... .............................18 Table 9. Projected Total General Capital Revenues ........................... .............................18 Table 10, Projected Total Capital Revenues ......................................... .............................19 Table 11. County -Wide Administrative Office Space ........................... ............................... 22 Table 12. Administrative Office Space Serving Unincorporated Areas .............................. 23 Table 13. Maintenance and Operations Facilities ............................... ............................... 23 Table 14. Administrative Level of Service (LOS) Standards ................ ............................... 23 Table 15. County-Wide Office Space LOS Requirements Analysis .... ............................... 24 Table 16. Unincorporated County Office Space LOS Requirements Analysis ................... 24 Table 17. Maintenance and Operation Facilities LOS Requirements Analysis ................... 25 Table 18. Office Space Improvement Projects to Serve County-wide 2010 - 2015 .............. 26 Table 19. Office Space Improvement Projects To Serve Unincorporated Areas 2010 - 201526 Table 20. Sheriffs Office Facilities ...................................................... ............................... 27 Table 21. Emergency Operations Office Space .................................. ............................... 28 Table 22. Jail Facility Inventory ........................................................... ............................... 28 Table 23. Juvenile Detention Inventory ................................................. .............................29 Table 24. Law Enforcement Level of Service Standards ..................... ............................... 29 Table 25. Sheriffs Office (Unincorporated County) Level of Service Requirements Analysis30 °� November 2009 Table 26, Emergency Management Level of Service Requirements Analysis .......... 6 ......... 30 Table 27. Jails Level of Service Requirements Analysis ........................ .............................31 Table 28. Juvenile Detention Level of Service Requirements Analysis . .............................32 Table 29. Sheriffs Office Space Improvement Projects 2010 - 2015 ....... .............................33 Table 30. Emergency Management/EOC Improvement Projects 2010 -2015 .....................33 Table 31. Jail Improvement Projects to Serve County -Wide 2010 - 2015 .............................34 Table 32. Current Developed Park Inventory ......................................... .............................36 Table 33. County Trails Inventory .......................................................... .............................37 Table 34. County Activity Center Inventory ............................................ .............................38 Table 35. Parks and Recreation Level of Service (LOS) Standards ...... .............................39 Table 36. Developed Parks Level of Service Requirements Analysis .... .............................40 Table 37. Trails LOS Requirements Analysis ........................................ .............................41 Table 38. Activity Centers Level of Service Requirements Analysis ...... .............................42 Table 39. New Developed Park Facilities — Park Improvement Projects 2010 -2029 ..........43' Table 40. Trail Improvement Projects 2010 - 2015 .................................. .............................44 Table 41. Activity Center Improvement Projects 2010 - 2015 .................. .............................47 Table 42. Northwest Parks & Recreation District Projects 2010 - 2015 ... .............................48 Table 43. Sanitary Sewer Inventory ....................................................... .............................52 Table 44. Sewer Level of Service Standards ......................................... .............................55 Table 45. Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2015 .............................. .............................56 Table 46. Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2029 .............................. .............................57 Table 47. Population Comparison: Sewer Plans and 2029 Population Projection ..............58 Table48. Sewer Projects ....................................................................... .............................64 Table 49, Water System Inventory (Serving UGAs) ............................... .............................79 Table 50. Water Level of Service (LOS) Standards ............................... .............................81 Table 51. Population Comparison: Water Plans and 2029 Population Projection ...............82 Table 52. Urban Area Water Projects .................................................... .............................91 Table 53. Bellingham School District Current Enrollment Capacity ...... ............................113 Table 54. Blaine School District Current Enrollment Capacity .............. ............................114 Table 55. Ferndale School District Current Enrollment Capacity .......... ............................115 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review v1 Table 56. Lynden School District Current Enrollment Capacity ............ ............................116 Table 57. Meridian School District Current Enrollment Capacity .......... ............................117 Table 58. Mount Baker School District Current Enrollment Capacity ... ............................118 Table 59, Nooksack Valley District School District Current Enrollment Capacity .............119 Table 60. Whatcom County School District 2015 Level of Service Analysis: Student Capacity' .............................................. ............................... ............................120 Table 61. Whatcom County School District 2029 Level of Service Analysis: Student CapacityI .............................................. ............................... ............................121 Table 62. School District Capital Projects ............. ............................... ............................124 Table 63. Solid Waste Facility Inventory ............... ............................... ............................129 Table 64. Solid Waste LOS Analysis ..................... ............................... ............................130 Table 65. Inventory of Public Stormwater Facilities .............................. ............................133 Table 66. Whatcom County Stormwater Projects .. ............................... ............................135 Table 67. Inventory of County Roadways by Functional Classification ............................136 Table 68 Roadways with Deficient Segments by 2029 ........................ ............................139 Table 69 Projected Roadway Segment Deficiencies by 2029 ............. ............................142 Table 70. Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program ................... ............................144 Table 71 Whatcom County Transportation Improvement Projects ...... ............................147 Table 72. Whatcom Transportation Authority Park & Ride Facilities .... ............................152 Table 73. Transit Capital Projects' ........................ ............................... ............................153 Table 74. Fire Facilities Inventory..,.., ................ M .... *.so ....... M ........................... m .................. 155 Table 75. Level of Service Standard for Fire Districts: Square Feet per Incident .............157 Table 76. Fire District Level of Service Analysis I . ............................... ............................158 Table 77. Fire District/Department Capital Projects 1 ........................... ............................160 V1i November 2009 Figures Figure 1. Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 1988 -2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) ................................................................................. .............................11 Figure 2. Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 1988 -2029 (Allocated for CapitalProjects) ..................................................................... .............................12 Figure 3. Whatcom County State Transportation Grant Revenues 1988 -2029 (Allocated for CapitalProjects), ............... m ............. I ........... ......................... v ............... 14 Figure 4. Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues 1988 -2029 (Allocated forCapital Projects), .................... I'll, ............... P-P, ..................... m ........ * ............ m .... 15 Figure 5, Whatcom County Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 2004-2029,,, .................... 17 Figure 6, Whatcom County Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax Revenues 2005 -2029 (Available for Capital Projects) ............................................... .............................18 comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review vw Executive Summary The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is one of the elements of the Whatcom County's comprehensive plan that is required by Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). Capital facilities generally have very long useful lives, significant costs, and are not mobile. The focus of the CFP is the planning and provision of needed public facilities for the County's unincorporated and countywide populations. It is also intended to support the County's 10 -year review of urban growth areas. The County's population base and other demand factors, together with the adopted LOS, are the principal factors considered in the CFP. This Capital Facilities Plan represents the six year period of 2010 -2015 of forecasted need for public facilities, along with specific capital projects expenditures and revenues. The County's adopted projections for population and employment growth to 2029 are also considered in this CFP. Contents of the Plan The CFP Element of the comprehensive plan is presented in three sections: I. Introduction Purpose of the CFP, statutory requirements, and methodology. II. Capital Improvements List of proposed capital projects, including financing plan, and reconciliation of project capacity to level of service standards. III. Implementation Summary of management tools that will be used to implement the CFP. Growth Assumptions For purposes of capital facility planning coordination, Comprehensive Plan population and employment forecasts were created to the year 2029. A Geographic Information System (GIS) was utilized to break down the population, household, and employment forecasts by capital facility provider. Capital facility purveyors were provided with these forecasts as a planning tool to assist service providers in understanding implications of growth under each alternative that the County considered in the development of this CFP. Public Facility Costs The cost of capital improvements for 2010 -2015 and, when available, for 2016 -2029 are provided in the Capital Facilities Plan. 1 November- 2009 Public Facility Financing The purpose of this financial analysis is to support the financing plan for the CFP that is required by RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d). Revenue estimates have been developed to assist in project planning, and represent realistic, but not exact, estimates of revenue available for the CFP. Forecasts of revenues were prepared for County- provided services. The revenue sources and forecasts for municipal and special district service providers are also summarized from available plans and compared to typical revenue sources for those service providers. More detail on CFP financing can be found in the Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis section of the CFP. CFP Level of Services Consequences The CFP outlines the level of service (LOS) consequences of growth for the County both to 2015, and in a longer -term review to 2029. LOS consequences are as follows for each County maintained and owned facility: Public Buildings County -wide Office Space With capacity projects programmed in the next six years, the County will be able to maintain its LOS for County -wide Office space to 2015. The County anticipates that it will be able to continue to meet its County -wide Office space needs to 2029 with an LOS standard of 0.63 square feet per capita. Unincorporated Office Space With capacity projects planned for the 2010 -2015 time period, the County will be able to maintain current LOS standards for unincorporated office space through 2015 and 2029. Maintenance and Operations The County will be able to maintain its LOS standards for maintenance and operations facilities for all time periods through 2029. Sheriff's Office and Juvenile Detention (County) Sheriff's Office The CFP shows that the County will be able to meet LOS standards for Sheriffs Office facilities serving unincorporated Whatcom County in 2015. With capacity projects from the 2010 -2015 timeframe, the County will be able to meet LOS standards under this category for 2029 as.well. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGR Revievr Emergency Management The CFP shows that the County is expected to maintain its current LOS standard for emergency management facilities when 2010 -2015 capacity projects are taken into account in both 2015 and 2029 horizon years. Jails The County is expected to maintain its existing LOS standard for jails when capacity projects for 2010 -2015 are included. The County has a reserve in this capital facility category in both 2015 and 2029. Juvenile Detention With a LOS standard of 0.125 beds per 1,000, the County is projected to maintain adequate juvenile detention space to the 2029 horizon year. The County currently has no juvenile detention capacity projects planned. Parks and Recreation Parks When considering capacity projects that the County has for the 2010 -2015 timeframe, the County will be able to maintain its developed parks LOS standard through the 2029 planning horizon. Trails With a proposed LOS standard of 0.60 miles of trail per 1,000 population, the County expects to have adequate trails to meet this standard in 2029 with planned capacity projects. Activity Center The County has plans to construct one additional activity center during the planning period. With this additional center, the County expects to meet its LOS standard of 5 activity centers per 100,000 population by 2029. 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 3 November 2009 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 is expecting to have sewage treatment deficits in 2029 as well. 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. Water Systems A comparison of the water system plans of urban water systems in Whatcom County shows that most of the water systems plan for populations greater than that projected for their service area as part of the Whatcom County 2029 capital facility planning process. This indicates that these water systems generally plan conservatively for drinking water needs, particularly given the time it takes to seek new water supplies to serve growth. Evergreen Water District, City of Everson, City of Nooksack, City of Sumas, Water District 7, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District all plan for populations lower than that found in the Whatcom County 2029 CFP projections, potentially indicating a need to update their analysis with updated population and employment figures as part of their planning for water system needs. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District's Plan identified a near -term need for additional water sources, and is actively working with its partner, the City of Blaine, to obtain new water sources. In addition, when the Ecology water rights calculation for the City of Lynden of 1,110 gpm is considered, instead of the City's source capacity estimates, then the City of Lynden experiences water deficits in the planning period. Other urban area water purveyors identify storage and/or distribution projects that will be needed to continue providing service at adequate levels over the planning period. For those service providers with plans, a variety of short and long -term projects are identified to address deficiencies (see Urban Water Systems Capital Project and Funding Section). Schools School enrollment projections are affected by demographic trends and a variety of alternative educational programs which make projecting traditional public school enrollment more difficult. A review of school district capacity in the County calculated for this analysis through 2029 reveals that the Bellingham, Blaine, and Lynden school districts are expected to have school capacity deficits by 2015. By 2029, the three deficits anticipated in the districts mentioned above are larger. In some cases, the districts may elect to accommodate future capacity through additional long -term projects or the addition of portable classrooms. Comprehensive Plan Update— 10 Year UGA RoView 4 Solid Waste The County does not have any landfills located within the County. Solid waste is shipped outside of the County through two solid waste transfer facilities. The Solid Waste LOS standard analysis shows that the County can expect an increase from 2008 of 147,070 tons of solid waste generated per year to 189,884 tons of solid waste per year by 2029. Stormwater Although the County does not have a formal and explicit capital facility LOS standard for stormwater facilities, the County has adopted a stormwater compliance program in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Phase II program. This program applies to specific areas of the County currently designated as UGAs, or urbanized areas in or near the cities of Bellingham and Ferndale. Goals of the program include detection and elimination of illicit discharges to surface waters, controlling runoff from new development, redevelopment, and new construction, pollution prevention and operation and maintenance for municipal operations, and public education, stormwater monitoring and report requirements. Transportation As population and employment are projected to increase, the resulting increase in traffic is expected to degrade the LOS on the transportation system. The Transportation section of this CFP provides a summarized list of the county roads with projected 2029 volume to capacity (V /C) ratios that exceed LOS standards . The Transportation section summarizes the total projected lane -miles expected to be deficient. In addition projects are identified in the Transportation Capital Projects and Funding section of this CFP that will address identified deficiencies. Transit Public transit providers typically provide LOS standards which are difficult to relate to capital facility needs with respect to changes in population over time. For example, Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) provides one capital facility standard of a shelter at each transit stop that has 25 boardings or more. 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 Whatcom Fire and Rescue and Fire District 14 have recently adopted CFPs addressing their facility needs. There are multiple methods used to d determine LOS f for fire districts: square feet p per emergency incident and response time are two m methods. Since m many districts operate using a a LOS standard 5 I November 2009 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 square feet per emergency incident can be more closely tied to capital facility needs, it is the focus of the fire protection LOS analysis in this CFP. Using this method of analysis based upon information provided by the County Fire Marshal's Office, all seven fire districts serving urban areas 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 plans to develop a countywide fire level of service in the future. The County may incorporate by reference fire district CFPs as they are adopted. The Capital Facilities Implementation section of this CFP identifies measures that service providers without adopted CFPs can take to address any identified deficiencies. CFP Source Documents The source documents used in preparing this CFP are the capital improvement plans prepared routinely as required by the State, and that are necessary for obtaining funding. These individual capital improvement plans define projects and proposed funding for those projects required to rehabilitate existing facilities and to provide level of service capacity to accommodate new growth in the county. Generally, the proposed new capacity, replacement, and rehabilitation capital facilities and financing for 2010 -2015 reflect the general planning goals and policies, as well as land use infrastructure requirements, identified in each provider's long -range planning document. For example, each of the urban water systems has a water system plan that (1) identifies existing facilities, needs for rehabilitation and new capacity facilities, (2) evaluates methods to meet those needs, and (3) recommends capital facilities, and estimates costs, and funding options. The CFP planning process described above combined with the LOS methodology used to identify the requirements for and affordability of future capital facilities constitutes the capital facilities planning process. This process enables the County to make more (1) informed decisions about its investment of public dollars, and (2) timely decisions about maintaining levels of service in accordance with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of this CFP. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review Introduction Capital Facilities Plan Purpose In 2009, the County focused on the required 10 -Year Urban Growth Area (UGA) Review in which the County considered: growth forecasts and allocations, urban growth boundaries, and comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The population and employment growth to 2029 is a key assumption of this CFP. Capital facilities are the facilities needed to support growth. They include roads, sewers, parks and recreation, and facilities for drinking water, stormwater, garbage disposal and recycling, and all the government buildings which house public services, including law enforcement, fire protection and schools. The purpose of the CFP is to use sound fiscal policies to provide adequate public facilities consistent with the land use element and concurrent with, or prior to, the impacts of development in order to achieve and maintain adopted standards for levels of service. Growth Management Act The CFP is required by the State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires the CFP to identify specific facilities, include a realistic financing plan, and make adjustment to the plan if funding is inadequate. Capital facilities are important because they support the growth envisioned in the County's Comprehensive Plan, RCW 36.70A.070(3) requires the capital facilities plan to include "a six -year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes." RCW 36.70A.070(3) requires that all capital facilities have "probable funding" to pay for capital facility needs, or else the County must "reassess the land use element." Recent Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board cases indicate a Comprehensive Plan should have a 20 -year plan for capital facilities, though only 6 years need to be fully financed; additionally, existing developed areas that are un- sewered should be addressed as well as undeveloped areas in UGAs. (Die] et al. v. Mason County 06 -2 -0005; Irondale Community Action Neighbors V. Jefferson County 04 -2 -0022 and 03 -2 -0010) The cases also appear to favor the County's and cities' current approach of not allowing urban development in UGAs until urban services are available. November 2009 Capital Facilities The CFP presents capital improvement projects, and the financing plan to pay for these projects. It also contains the inventory of existing facilities, a list of existing and planned facilities, the LOS (level of service) standards and forecast of future needs, and possible non - capital alternatives to achieving the LOS standard. Each type of public facility is presented in a separate subsection, which follows a standards format. ■ Overview: A narrative summary of the various capital facilities being considered in the CFP. ■ Inventory of Current Facilities: A list of existing capital facilities, including the name, capacity, and location. ■ Level of Service (LOS) Capacity Analysis: A table outlining the County or service provider LOS standards is presented for each type of public facility. This section includes the calculation of the amount of facility capacity that is required to achieve and maintain the standard for LOS. ■ Capital Projects and Financing Plan: This section of the CFP lists capital improvements that will address existing deficiencies, make available facilities for future growth, and repair or replace obsolete or worn our facilities through the end of the planning period. A more detailed financing plan is provided for County- provided facilities in the six -year period (2010- 2015y, while major projects and general funding is identified for the remainder of the planning period (2016- 2029). For non - County providers, capital project funding is provided along with listing of projects identified in the service providers' most recent plans. Land Use Projections Whatcom County's current Comprehensive Plan addresses plans, policies, and growth allocations through the year 2029. This CFP considers regional growth for the County through the period 2009 -2029. This CFP is based upon the County Council's recommendations for growth through the 2029 plan horizon. Table 1 lists the population and employment growth assumptions used in this CFP countywide. Table 1. Regional Growth Population and Employment Assumptions Population/Jobs Growth Total Population/Jobs 2008 -2029 2029 Population 55,602 246,602 Jobs 33,188 118,038 Source: Whatcom County PDS, Berk & Associates Assumptions This CFP is based on the following sources of information and assumptions: Comprehensive Flan Update —10 Year UGA Review ■ Adopted and Proposed Capital Facility Plans: The capital plans of each service provider, particularly those serving UGAs, was collected and reviewed including inventories, levels of service, planned facilities, growth forecasts, and potential funding. ■ Growth Forecasts: Forecasts of population and job growth were allocated to each UGA and the rural areas. The current 2008 population and employment as well as the 2029 growth for each capital facility service provider were then estimated by special district boundary; to obtain six -year estimates, a straight -line projection was used. The capital plan assumptions are compared to the County's regional growth forecasts. The assumptions are included in Appendix 1. ■ Revenue Forecasts: Forecasts of revenues were prepared for County- provided services to the 2029 horizon year. The revenue sources and forecasts for municipal and special district service providers are also summarized from available plans and compared to typical revenue sources for those service providers. Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis This section discusses Whatcom County's Capital Facilities Revenue for County- provided facilities and services. Each capital facility and service provider is treated by category prior to reviewing the capital facility inventories, LOS standards, and proposed projects. It assumes that the County continues "to be responsible for Birch Bay and Columbia Valley. In the past, the County had conducted an incorporation study for Birch Bay UGA. Analysis of revenue without Birch Bay UGA is included in Appendix 2. Non - County provided capital facility providers (e.g., sewer, water, schools, fire, and transit) are treated separately prior to the capital project section under each capital facility category. Introduction The purpose of this financial analysis is to support the financing plan for the CFP that is required by RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d). These revenue estimates have been developed to assist in project prioritization and planning, and represent realistic, but not exact, estimates of revenue available for the CFP.1 Estimated future revenues have been projected for the Plan's 2009 -2029 time period, in year of expenditure dollars. These revenues have been grouped according to the following categories: ■ Dedicated Capital Revenues — these revenues are required by law to be used for specific types of capital expenditures. ■ General Capital Revenues — these revenues must be used for capital, but the types of projects are not restricted. The revenue estimates are not intended to be precise forecasts. Exact funding levels are difficult to predict given the uncertainties of funding sources. The estimates discussed in this section are to be used for planning purposes; actual revenues are highly sensitive to local, state, and federal policy decisions; personal choices of residents; and other market forces. z Year of expenditure dollars have been inflated to the year in which they are expected to be received. i 11 November 2009 ■ Potential Policy Options — these policy options may make additional capital revenues available to the County via policy changes. Some of the funds discussed in this analysis may be used to fund the maintenance and operations of existing capital facilities or to construct new ones. However, if maintenance and operations costs of existing facilities increase faster than inflation, jurisdictions are confronted with difficult decisions regarding whether to fund these costs, at the expense of building new capital, or to adjust LOS standards. Those decisions will be made by the County Council and executive leadership of the County according to the County's needs and opportunities. Assumptions The revenue projections included in this analysis are based on the assumption that all UGAs in Whatcom County will be annexed by their respective cities by the end of the study period, and that Birch Bay and Columbia Valley will remain unincorporated for the duration. To the extent that a city's UGA represents land that is needed to accommodate the next 20 years of projected growth, and that actual patterns of growth are in line with the patterns envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, one would expect that most or all of these areas will be annexed during the study period. Assuming complete annexation also gives this analysis the most conservative estimate of future revenues. A discussion of the implications of more scaled -back levels of annexation follows the base revenue projections. Dedicated Capital Revenues Transportation Road Levy This Property Tax is collected by Whatcom County specifically for transportation funding and accounts for a large portion of the County's transportation funds. Since the passage of Initiative 747 in 2001, property tax increases are restricted to 1.0% of the previous year's revenues plus new construction. In inflation - adjusted terms, revenues from property tax are actually declining, since the 1.0% allowed increase does not keep pace with inflation (which has averaged about 3.5% since 1980), or population growth. Assumptions: Because real estate is currently appreciating slower than recent historical averages, this analysis assumes a 2.0% growth rate in assessed value for 2009 and 2010, less than the assumed general inflation rate of 3.5 %. Beginning in 2011, assessed value is assumed to increase at 4.0% annually, in keeping with historical averages. If a jurisdiction does not adjust the Property Tax levy rate annually to collect the full 1.0% allowed increase in revenues, the difference between the collected value and the legally - allowed 1.0% increase becomes "banked capacity" which may be collected in future years. Currently Whatcom County has banked capacity of approximately $1.0 million. For this portion of the Comprehensive Plan Update - 10 Year UGA Review �u analysis we have assumed that the County will not increase the levy rate to collect this banked capacity, nor will they collect the allowed 1.0% increase, but will continue to collect funds at a level equal to the previous year's revenues, plus new construction. By not taking the maximum allowed annual revenue increase, the County's banked capacity will increase each year. Because assessed value is increasing while the property tax revenues increase only with new construction, the levy rate necessarily declines each year. However, because there are assumed incorporations and annexations throughout the study period, there is a counter - influence of less assessed value to support the same revenue base, which puts upward pressure on the levy rate. The result (in most years) is that the levy rate, although decreasing, does so at a slower rate than it would without the incorporations and annexations. Road Levy revenues may be used for operations and maintenance as well as capital needs. Based on current spending practices, 10% of these revenues are assumed to go towards capital. Figure 1 shows historical Road Tax revenue to the left of the dotted line, and projected revenues to the right. Figure 1. Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 1988 -2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) $ 2.0 M ...................... $ 1.6 M }--------------------------- $ 1.2 M ----------------------------------- $0.8M j...__ .......... ...... $ 0.4 M + ------ ----------------- ----- --- -- ---- $ 0.0 M t i 1 Road Levy Revenues 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 2 shows estimated total Road Levy revenues in four summary time periods. The first three summary time periods are six years, and the last is two years. Table 2. Projected Future Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 2010 -2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) Estimated Future Revenues $ 9,565,786 $ 91889,790 $10,220,402 $ 314812452 $ 332157,429 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Counties and cities receive a portion of the State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVF) based on a complex reimbursement formula based largely on road miles within the jurisdiction. State MVF Tax rates have seen a series of voter - approved increases in recent years. Most of these additional 77 November 2009 funds, however, are earmarked for specific transportation projects throughout the State, and local jurisdictions are not expected to see an increase in average revenues. In addition, after 2008, no increase in the state rate is expected again in the near future. Assumptions: Revenues in this category have been projected using estimated revenues per centerline miles of road in the unincorporated county. There are two counter forces changing miles of road within this area. Road miles increase as the County builds new roads and expands current ones, and road miles decrease in the unincorporated areas through annexation and incorporation. To account for both of these forces, this analysis uses recent historical trends in centerline miles of roads as they relate to population in the unincorporated County. The rate of growth in road miles is about 0.2% annually. Fuel Tax revenues per mile of road are assumed to increase at an annual average rate of 1.0% - slower than assumed average inflation of 3.5 %. Fuel Tax revenue increases have slowed statewide in recent years, averaging 2.3% from 2000 to 2006. In general, gas tax dollars are likely to be under pressure with potentially- increasing fuel prices and the increasing emergence of hybrid and alternative -fuel cars. Historically, Whatcom County has used the majority of these dollars for maintenance and operations expenses. The only portion of the MVF Tax the County puts toward capital is the I %, required by state law that must go toward establishing and maintaining paths and trails for pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. Given the pressures on revenues discussed above, and given continuing increases in the costs of road operation and maintenance, it is unlikely that the County will decide to begin dedicating a portion of its MVF Tax revenues toward transportation capital projects. Based on recent history and legislation, we have assumed 1.0% of the County's total fuel tax revenue will continue to be used for paths and trails capital expenditures in the future, with the rest being utilized for maintenance and operations. Figure 2 shows 1.0% of the historical MVF Tax revenue to the left of the dotted line, and projected revenues available for paths and trails capital to the right. Figure 2. Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 1988 -2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) $60,000 T ................. ........... ..... ...._ $ 50,000 $ 40,000 $ 30,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $0 1 __________________________/_____________-__________________ ________- __- ___________________ 1 .<M........ 1 1 ........_ 1.... ......__......________- ___._... _.. _ ._.._.._. _._......________...___........ _.._.. _...... I 1 ______________________________________ ___________________ ______ __ ___. 1 1 ----- r----------- -------------- --- -------------- Motor Vehicle Fuel 1 Tax Revenues 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 12 Table 3 shows anticipated total Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenues available for paths and trails capital in four summary time periods. Table 3. Projected Future Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 2010 -2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) Estimated Future Revenues $ 244,877 $ 262,322 $ 280,986 $ 98,032 $ 886,218 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Transportation Grants State Transportation Grants Grants are an important funding source for transportation capital projects; however, these funds are distributed in a competitive process making it difficult to determine future grant funding levels. State grants are primarily funded with the state - levied portion of the MVF Tax. There have, in recent years, been increases in the State MVF Tax rate. However, many of these additional funds were earmarked for specific large projects, although there was some allocation,to local jurisdictions. The Transportation Partnership Act of 2005 provided some additional funds to the Transportation Improvement Board and the County Road Administration Board, for a total of $80 million to be disbursed to local jurisdictions as grants over a 16 -year period. However, these increases in funds are very small relative to demand, with requests to the Transportation Improvement Board overreaching available funds by 800 %. For this analysis, recent historical grant revenue trends were considered. However, because the current grant- funding climate is shifting, future revenues have been estimated to be lower than recent trends. This is due, in part, to other financial forces. One of those forces is the passing of I -747. Because jurisdictions within the State have had their property tax capped at a rate (1.0 %) lower than inflation (3.5 %), inflation- adjusted revenues are declining each year. This impacts transportation spending in two ways. First, property tax funds that are collected for transportation spending are therefore able to purchase less each year. Second, property tax funds that are non - restricted and are used for other jurisdictional necessities are also declining. Cities and counties often then must pull from non - restricted funds that were going towards capital projects and put them towards other immediate needs. This creates a second tightening of funds available for capital. In addition, as explained in the MVF Tax discussion, fuel tax revenue is declining in inflation - adjusted terms and able to fund less and less each year. Because jurisdictions are feeling the squeeze these forces are putting on their capital funding programs, they are competing for, and relying more heavily on, grants. As more jurisdictions compete, securing grant funding becomes more difficult. Ws November 2009 Assumptions: These revenues have been estimated on a per capita basis on the assumption that over time a jurisdiction will generally receive its "fair share" of available grant revenues. Since 1988 Whatcom County has averaged $10.60 per capita in grant revenues per year. However, given the forces discussed previously, this number has been lower in recent years averaging $5.74 per capita since 2000. This analysis assumes $5.00 per capita in the future with no annual increase. Total revenues are therefore expected to change on pace with changes in population. For this analysis average annual dollars are assumed in each year. However, in reality these dollars will vary greatly from year to year since they are awarded on a project - specific basis. Figure 3 shows historical state grant revenues to the left of the dotted line, and projected revenues to the right. Figure 3. Whatcom County State Transportation Grant Revenues 1988 -2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) $ 2.5 M $ 2.0 M $ 1.5 M $ 1.0 M $ 0.5 M $ 0.0 M -------------------- ------------ -------------------- -------------------- ________________ j ______________________ State Transportation - Grant Revenues '• 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 4 shows estimated total state grant revenues in four summary time periods. Table 4. Projected Future Whatcom County State Transportation Grant Revenues 2010- 2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) Estimated Future Revenues $ 23567,461 $ 21509,891 $ 21450,205 $ 803,074 $ 893309631 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Federal Transportation Grants Federal transportation grants are funded through the federal portion of the fuel excise tax. The federal gas tax rate has fluctuated between $0.183 and $0.184 per gallon since 1994. The majority of these funds are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and disbursed to the states through the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts. As with state grants, these funds are distributed in a competitive process making it difficult to determine future grant funding levels. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 14 Assumptions: Because of this increase in competition for grant dollars and decrease in available grant funds, grant revenues have been estimated at lower levels than recent historical rates. Since 1988 Whatcom County has received an annual average of $29.10 per capita of federal grant funding. This average has been slightly lower in recent years, averaging $27.86 per capita since 2000. Future average annual per capita federal grant dollars were estimated at $25.00 with no annual increase. As with state grant dollars changes in total revenues are expected to occur at the rate of change in the population. In addition, average annual dollars are assumed in each year while in reality these dollars will vary greatly from year to year since they are awarded on a project - specific basis. Federal Grant estimates in this analysis include Federal Forest Title I payments, which have averaged about $830,000 annually since 2000. Historically, Whatcom County has used all Title I payments for operations and maintenance of schools and roads. However, Title I payments may legally be used for capital, and therefore these dollars are included for future capital spending if the County so chooses. Figure 4 shows historical federal grant revenues (including all Federal Forest Title 1 payments) to the left of the dotted line, and projected revenues to the right. Figure 4, Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues 1988 -2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) $s.OM ....................................._....................................................... ..._........................... a i 1 $3.0M .- _- _............ _....._... ..... ......................... ............................... ............. t._..__.._...._........_........__----____..__....__...._........_........_. ....._..---...._....__......__. $ 2.0 M ------- ... --'--__ ____.. _ _ _ ___ ___ __ _ ___._____ f ___________ __..___________________________ _. i I $1.OM ._ ................ i... � Federal Transportation t Grant Revenues $ 0.0 M 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 5 shows anticipated total federal grant revenues in four summary time periods. Table 5, Projected Future Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues 2010- 2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) Estimated Future Revenues $12,837,306 $12,5491456 $121251,023 $ 41015,371 $ 41,653,156 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 6 shows total projected dedicated transportation revenues for Whatcom County in four summary time periods. i J November 2009 Table 6. Projected Total Transportation Revenues 2010 4029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) Estimated Future Revenues $ 251215,430 $ 25,211,459 $ 25,202,615 $ 813972929 $ 849027,434 Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis General Capital Revenues Real Estate Excise Tax Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues are levied in two portions and must be expended on capital projects. Since the REET is based on the total value of real estate transactions in a given year, the amount of REET revenues a county receives can vary substantially from year to year based on the normal fluctuations in the real estate market. During years when the real estate market is active, revenues are high, and during softer real estate markets (as we are currently seeing), revenues are lower. REET is levied in two sections, REET I (the first 0.25 %), and REET II (the second 0.25 %), for a total tax of 0.5% of total assessed value. REET I and REET II revenues must be spent on capital projects that are listed in a county's current capital facilities plan. The definition of capital facilities, according to RCW 82.46.010 is: those public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets; roads; highways; sidewalks; street and road lighting systems; traffic signals; bridges; domestic water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems; parks; recreational facilities; law enforcement facilities; fire protection facilities; trails; libraries; administrative and judicial facilities... REET II follows the above guidelines, but is more restricted, as it may not be spent on recreational facilities, law enforcement facilities, fire protection facilities, trails, libraries, or administrative or judicial facilities (RCW 82.46.035). It is up to the discretion of each jurisdiction to choose how to spend REET funds within the above parameters. Whatcom County has traditionally allocated 40% of REET II to Parks and 60% to Public Works, including funding 75% of the wages and benefits of the Parks Department Construction Coordinator, who supervises REET parks projects. Since none of these distributions are formal policies, County decision makers may in the future decide to allocate REET funds to whichever capital projects they choose. Assumptions: Because REET dollars are directly related to the sale of real estate, which is in a slow period in 2009, this analysis assumes a slower- than - average annual rate of turn -over of existing property at 2% in 2009, increasing incrementally to 7.0% by 2016, implying an eight - year recovery period from the current economic recession. The exception to this is turn -over in n Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review l 16 1 Birch Bay which is assumed at 8.0% for the entire study period for residential property and 4.0% for commercial. Because REET revenues must be used for capital projects, this analysis assumes all REET revenues are available for the capital projects discussed in this plan. Figure 5 shows historical Real Estate Excise Tax revenue to the left of the dotted line, and projected revenues to the right. Figure 5. Whatcom County Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 2004 -2029 $ 14 M T---------------------------- I--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---- ------- $12M tax is c ............................__.......................'_.._......_........_.... _................._.......__.._ based future projections on an assumed increase of 3.5% i in per c capita taxable retail sales within t the County. The total revenue is i i i $4M i ._.... .....____........_ .... ..................... .........................._.... _... ......_..._....._......__...._................................_._............_.._...._.......... ..............__.........._.... _.._.._......_...... $2M 1 --------`-`---------- - ---- �.. 4��------------------------------------ -- --- ----- --------------------- Real Estate Revenues Excise Tax i $OM 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 - Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 7 shows anticipated total Real Estate Excise Tax revenues in four summary time periods. Table 7. Projected Future Whatcom County Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 2010 =2029 Estimated Future Revenues $ 20,500,716 $ 40,209,412 $ 52,296,150 $ 20,755,910 $133,7621188 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax Washington State allows rural counties to impose a local sales tax to fund capital projects that have an economic development purpose and finance personnel positions in economic development offices. This tax, which is deposited in the County's Public Utilities Improvement Fund, is not an additional sales tax for residents, but rather is given to the jurisdiction in the form of a tax credit against the 6.5% state sales tax. This tax, which is deposited in the County's Public Utilities Improvement Fund, is currently levied at 0.09% in Whatcom County and is collected countywide. The definition of a Rural County is any county with a population of less than 100 persons per square mile. Once that level is exceeded, the county may no longer collect this tax. Whatcom County, with a land area of 2,119.5 square miles, is estimated to cross this threshold in 2017. This revenue is assumed to end in the year after the population limit is exceeded. Assumptions: Because this t tax is c collected on retail sales we have b based future projections on an assumed increase of 3.5% i in per c capita taxable retail sales within t the County. The total revenue is 17 I November2009 therefore expected to increase at the rate of inflation for each person within the County and additional revenue will be received as the population increases countywide. Revenues are assumed to discontinue after the total County population passes 211,950 people. Historically, Whatcom County has chosen to fund 1.5 FTEs and a portion of its economic development services out of Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax revenues. This is a policy option that County decision makers could reconsider in the future if they would like to dedicate more of these funds to capital projects. Figure 6 shows historical Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax revenue to the left of the dotted line, and projected revenues to the right. Figure 6. Whatcom County Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax Revenues 2005.2029 (Available for Capital Projects) $6M ---- ------ $5M ......... _.......: _.. $4M ----------- �________________________ $1M $OM Rural Counties Public - - - - - -- ----- ------ -- -------- ------- - - - - -- Facilities Tax Revenues $2M ._ ................._._.........-..__.......... ..........__...._.............. _..............._._.. t $1M $OM 2005 2007 .2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 8 shows anticipated total Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax revenues in four summary time periods. Table 8. Projected Future Whatcom County Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax Revenues 2010 -2029 (Available for Capital Projects) 2029 Estimated Future Revenues $22,605,853 $ 91074,264 $ - $ - $ 31,680,117 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Total General Capital Revenues Table 9 summarizes total general capital revenues in four summary time periods. Table 9. Projected Total General Capital Revenues Estimated Future Revenues $43,1063570 $49,283,676 $ 52,2962150 $ 20,755,910 $165,442,306 Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 18 Rural Counties Public - - - - - -- ----- ------ -- -------- ------- - - - - -- Facilities Tax Revenues 2005 2007 .2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 8 shows anticipated total Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax revenues in four summary time periods. Table 8. Projected Future Whatcom County Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax Revenues 2010 -2029 (Available for Capital Projects) 2029 Estimated Future Revenues $22,605,853 $ 91074,264 $ - $ - $ 31,680,117 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Total General Capital Revenues Table 9 summarizes total general capital revenues in four summary time periods. Table 9. Projected Total General Capital Revenues Estimated Future Revenues $43,1063570 $49,283,676 $ 52,2962150 $ 20,755,910 $165,442,306 Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 18 Total Capital Revenues Table 10 summarizes total capital revenues (transportation and general) available in four summary time periods. Table 10, Projected Total Capital Revenues Estimated Future Revenues $ 68,321,999 $ 74,495,136 $ 77,498,765 $ 29,153,840 $24934693740 Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis Impact of Reduced Levels of Annexation Based on the structures used for each revenue projection outlined above, if the UGAs in Whatcom County were not completely annexed by the end of the study period, revenues would increase from the base, 100% annexation assumption. All else being equal, Whatcom County would have more assessed value of real property in the unincorporated parts of the County, leading to higher road levy and BEET revenues; it would have more road miles, leading to higher state fuel tax distributions; and it would have more population remaining in the unincorporated areas of the County, leading to higher state and federal grant revenues. Potential Policy Options Road Levy Banked Capacity As discussed in the first section of this analysis, if a jurisdiction does not increase the Property Tax levy rate annually to collect the full 1.0% allowed increase in revenues, the difference between the collected value and the allowed 1.0% increase becomes "banked capacity" which may be collected in future years. Currently Whatcom County has banked capacity of approximately $1.0 million. Going forward, the policy decision to not take the 1.0% increase will lead to increasing banked capacity. If the County chooses not to take this banked capacity, it increases each year. Under this scenario, by the end of the study period (2029), total estimated banked capacity is about $5.2 million. Stormwater Management Revenue A funding mechanism will be necessary to adequately respond to mandated stormwater activities in the Lake Whatcom watershed and the entire National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulated areas. To meet the goals and objectives outlined in the Lake Whatcom Stormwater Management Plan, additional ongoing and stable funding sources will be required. With the creation of a funding mechanism the County aims to enhance its programmatic activities (public education and material support), increase staff presence in the regulated areas 19 November 2009 and the Lake Whatcom watershed, and will be able to begin constructing more capital projects to deal with existing stormwater and phosphorus related runoff issues. The County is currently evaluating several potential funding mechanisms as possibilities for funding these necessary improvements to the stormwater management system. Transportation Impact Fees Impact fees are a financing tool that requires new development to pay a portion of the costs associated with infrastructure improvements that are "reasonably related" to that development. The GMA allows agencies to develop and implement a transportation impact fee program to help fund some of the costs of transportation facilities needed to accommodate growth. State law (Chapter 82.02 RCW) requires that impact fees be related to improvements to serve new developments and not existing deficiencies; assessed proportional to the impacts of new developments; allocated for improvements that reasonably benefit new development; and spent on facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Plan. Legally, financing for improvements that will serve the new development cannot rely solely on impact fees and must include other sources of public funds, and the fees must be structured in a manner that ensures that funds collected do not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of improvements reasonably related to new development. The County is considering the implementation of a transportation impact fee and has recently completed a study report. If the County were to implement this fee, revenues would vary based on the chosen fee rate and the types and amount of development that occurs. Park Impact Fees The same state law that authorizes transportation impact fees described above also authorizes the County to adopt impact fees for parks and recreational facilities. The same rules and conditions for transportation impact fees would apply to park impact fees. Six -Year Funding Balance Estimated revenues from dedicated sources within the six -year time period (2010 -2015) have been compared to capital project costs showing a gap of $53 million regarding transportation facilities and $82.5 million for general capital facilities. The $5.3 million transportation deficit is the difference between six -year estimated transportation capital expenses, and dedicated transportation capital revenues projections. The County may choose to balance this deficit using general capital funds, other state and federal sources, and unused debt capacity. For example, the County passed its 2010 -2015 six -year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in September 2009, where it has balanced its six -year transportation capital revenues and expenses using local, state, and federal funds. Comprehensive Plan update -10 Year UGA Review 20 1 Regarding general capital facilities, if the Consolidated Services Building is delayed beyond the six -year planning period, the deficit will be reduced by $24 million to approximately $58.5 million. Also, in 2009, Whatcom County lowered the level of service for trails. Therefore, considering planned trail improvement projects over the six -year planning period, there would be a net reserve of trails by 2015. One option to reduce expenditures in the six -year planning period would be to construct several of the high -cost trail segments later in the 20 -year planning period with the assumption that the County's revenue situation will improve in the future. In addition, the County's unused long -term debt capacity, according to the County's 2009 -10 Final Budget, is about $315 million, which far exceeds the six -year costs presented above. Therefore, it would be possible to issue bonds to cover the deficits shown if revenue is increased, expenses decreased, or programs reprioritized to make debt service payments. Other Service Providers For service providers other than Whatcom County we have presented general funding information for each type of service in the appropriate sections below. For review of the specific funding sources for each provider we have relied on the most current Comprehensive Plan available for that provider and have supplied specific comments where appropriate. -. Economic Development Planning In addition to this CFP and the County's Comprehensive Plan Economic Element, the County has also engaged in an economic development strategy through the Economic Development Investment (EDI) Program. The program plans for and funds infrastructure including but not limited to roads, bridges, water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, and storm sewer facilities. Economic development planning efforts also resulted in a report entitled the 2002 Greater Whatcom Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) which identifies goals and strategies for growing the Whatcom County economy without sacrificing its natural assets. The Study identifies and prioritizes actions for achieving its goals. It also identifies projects, including their cost and potential funding sources, that are needed to help the County achieve its economic development goals. The CEDS project list was most recently updated in 2008. I :' I November 2009 Public Buildings (County) Overview Whatcom County public buildings include government administrative offices and maintenance and operations facilities. Since Whatcom County provides some services for the County as a whole, and other services oriented more specifically to unincorporated areas, this category is broken down into "county- wide" and "unincorporated" categories. Inventory of Current Facilities County -wide Administrative Office Space The 2009 inventory of County government administrative office space that serves the population of the entire County is 153,063 square feet at seven locations. This inventory is shown in Table 11 below. Table 11. County -Wide Administrative Office Space Facility Name Location Size (Sq. Ft.) County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue 94,378 509 Girard Street Office 509 Girard Street 13,189 Forest Street Annex 1000 North Forest Street 5,817 1500 N. State Street Office (leased) 1500 N. State Street 12,281 3373 Mt. Baker Highway Parks Office 3373 Mt. Baker Highway 29110 Civic Center Annex 322 North Commercial 14,981 Central Plaza Building 215 N. Commercial 102307 Total 153,063 Source: Whatcom County Six Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2009 -2014 Office Space Serving Unincorporated Area The 2009 inventory of County government office space that serves only unincorporated areas of Whatcom County (i.e., does not serve city residents) is 28,512 square feet at four locations. This inventory is shown in Table 12, Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review! �� Table 12. Administrative Office Space Serving Unincorporated Areas Facility Name Location Size (Sq. Ft.) Northwest Annex 5280 & 5256 Northwest Dr. 21,438 1000 N. Forest St. 1000 N. Forest St. 670 Copper Building 2011 Young Street 6,000 Civic Center Annex ' 322 North Commercial 404 Total 28,512 1 Planning and Development Services primarily provides services to the unincorporated population, although several Natural Resources Planning staff members provide services to the County -wide population. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014 Maintenance and Operations The 2009 inventory of County operations and maintenance facilities management space is 44,411 square feet. This inventory is shown in Table 14 below. Table 13. Maintenance and Operations Facilities Facility Name Location Size (Sq. Ft.) Central Shop (Maintenance and 901 W. Smith Rd. 35,773 Operations) 316 Lottie Street (Facilities Management) 316 Lottie Street 4,978 Minimum Security Correction Facility Division Street 31660 (Facilities Management Storage) Total 443411 Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014 Level of Service Capacity Analysis Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes LOS standards for administrative facilities (i.e., government office space), among other things. Whatcom County has adopted LOS standards for its office space serving county -wide population, its office space serving unincorporated population, and its maintenance and operations facilities as shown in Table 14 below. Table 14. Administrative Level of Service (LOS) Standards Category LOS Standard Office Space (County -Wide Population) 0.63 sq ft per capita Office Space (Unincorporated Population) 0.51 sq ft per capita Maintenance and Operations Facilities 0.41 sq ft per capita Source: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, chapter 4. 23 November 2QQ9 Office Space Serving the County -Wide Population The LOS standard (Table 15) for office space serving county -wide population is established by policy in the Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With implementation of Whatcom County's six -year plan, the square feet of office space available rises from 153,063 to 164,563: With the planned office space additions, there would be no deficiencies over the 20 -year planning period. Table 15. County -Wide Office Space LOS Requirements Analysis Time Period Whatcom County Square Feet Needed Square Feet Population (County= to Meet LOS Available Wide) M1: 191,000 Capacity Projects (to 2015) 135,610 153,063 Net Reserve or (Deficiency) 17,453 Central Plaza Building' +0 Consolidated Services Building +11,500 2015 207,922 130,991 164,563 33,572 2029 2463602 1552359 164,563 91204 1 The Central Plaza Building is being purchased in 2009. Prior to that, it was leased. Therefore, it does not add square footage to the inventory. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Office Space Serving Unincorporated County Population The existing LOS standard for Office Space serving unincorporated Whatcom County population outlined in Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is 0.51 square feet per capita. The current LOS results in a deficit of 15,880 square feet of office space in 2008. If assuming current UGAs are annexed over the planning period, deficiencies in county office space serving unincorporated areas is expected to decrease by 2015. With one capacity project planned in the 2010 -2015 six -year planning period, Whatcom County anticipates expanding county office space serving unincorporated Whatcom County by 51,000 square feet. This provides Whatcom County with a surplus of office space for both 2015 and 2029. Table 16. Unincorporated County Office Space LOS Requirements Analysis Time Period Whatcom County Square Feet Needed Square Feet Net Reserve Population to Meet LOS Available or (Unincorporated) (Deficiency) 906 87,044 44,392 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 24 28,512 i (15,880) Time Period Capacity Projects to 2015 Net Reserve or (Deficiency) Consolidated Services Building 44,411 +517000 82723 2015 717688 36,561 792512 42,951 2029 817221 417423 792512 38,089 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Maintenance and Operations The existing LOS standard for maintenance and operation facilities set by policy in Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is 0.41 square feet per capita of unincorporated County population. Whatcom County's existing inventory of 44,411 square feet of maintenance and operations space is adequate to provide a surplus of maintenance and operations facility space for both 2015 and 2029. Table 17. Maintenance and Operation Facilities LOS Requirements Analysis Time Period Whatcom County Square Feet Square Feet Net Reserve Population Needed to Meet Available or (Unincorporated) LOS (Deficiency) 2008 1 87,044 2015 1 71,688 2029 1 817221 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Capital Projects and Funding 35,688 44,411 82723 29,392 44,411 15,019 33,301 442411 11,110 The following capital projects support anticipated growth in the County for the Office Space (both county -wide and unincorporated) and Maintenance and Operation facilities. Countywide Administrative Office Space One improvement project is proposed to provide additional square footage to meet future needs and to consolidate County services. This project would add approximately 11,500 square feet of County -owned office space to serve the entire population of Whatcom County as shown in Table 18 below. I November 2009 Table 18. Office Space Improvement Projects to Serve County -wide 2010 -2015 Site No. and Square 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Project Feet 2029 Cost/Revenue (thousands $) 51,000 2 #8 11,500 2 See 3 Consolidated Services Building' Cost 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 24,000 Revenue— 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 24,000 Bonds 1 This project may be delayed to the latter part of the six -year planning period, or perhaps beyond the six -year planning period, because of the current decline in governmental revenue. 2 The overall size of the Consolidated Services Building is planned for approximately 62,500 square feet. However, only about 11,500 square feet would be utilized for office space that serves County -wide population. Note: This project is the same building and has the same project costs as in Office Space for Unincorporated population noted below. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. Office Space That Serves Unincorporated Areas One improvement project, a Consolidated Services Building, is proposed to provide additional square footage to meet anticipated need for office space serving unincorporated areas by 2015. This project would add approximately 51,000 square feet of government office space to serve the unincorporated population of Whatcom County. Table 19. Office Space Improvement Projects To Serve Unincorporated Areas 2010 -2015 Site No. and Project Sq Ft 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Cost/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) #5 Consolidated Services Building' 51,000 2 Cost See 3 1 This project may be delayed to the latter part of the six -year planning period, or perhaps beyond the six -year planning period, because of the current decline in governmental revenue. 2 The overall size of the Consolidated Services Building is planned for approximately 62,500 square feet. However, only about 51,000 square feet would be utilized for office space that serves Whatcom County's unincorporated population. 3 For costs of this building, please see Table 18. This is the same building. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. Maintenance and Operations There are no improvement projects identified that would add usable maintenance and operations space within the 2010 -2029 planning period. Only maintenance projects are proposed. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 26 1 Sheriff's Office and Juvenile Detention (County) Overview County law enforcement facilities include Sheriff's office facilities that principally serve unincorporated areas as well as jails and emergency operations facilities that serve the County as a whole. Juvenile Detention is operated by the Juvenile Court Administration Department, but is included in this category because it is law enforcement - related. Inventory of Current Facilities Sheriff's Office The 2009 inventory of Sheriff's facility space is 98,916 net square feet of total space serving the County. This includes approximately 22,733 square feet of office space serving the unincorporated population of the County. This inventory is shown in Table 20 below. Table 20. Sheriff's Office Facilities 1 The Sheriffs Office also has storage and evidence facilities at various locations in Whatcom County. 2 The County has two mobile homes and an old detention facility in Point Roberts but the County does not provide formal office space for the resident deputies stationed there. The resident deputies operate out of their homes or utilize space at the U.S. Customs office at the border. 3 The Sheriffs Office will vacate the office space at the Public Safety Building, Minimum Security Correction Facility, Inspector's Office at the Civic Center Building, and Cascade Satellite Office by 2015. Additionally, the Sheriffs Office will occupy the 4,500 square foot space at the Laurel Fire Station by 2010 (space that was formerly occupied by Emergency Management). Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. `/ November 2009 Office Space Other Total Size Facility Name Location (Sq. Ft.) (Sq, Ft) (Sq. Ft.) Public Safety Building - Sheriffs Facility 311 Grand Ave. 15,102 58,183 73,285 Minimum Security Correction Facility 2030 Division Street 61000 18,000 24,000 Inspector's Office, Civic Center Building 322 N. Commercial 500 0 500 Cascade Satellite Office (leased space in 5373 Guide 730 0 730 business park northwest of Smith Rd /Guide Meridian Intersection) Kendall Satellite Office (space utilized at no 121 0 121 charge in the Fire District 14 fire station) Birch Bay Fire Hall 192 0 192 Nugent's Corner Fire Hall 88 0 88 Total 225733 76,183 98,916 1 The Sheriffs Office also has storage and evidence facilities at various locations in Whatcom County. 2 The County has two mobile homes and an old detention facility in Point Roberts but the County does not provide formal office space for the resident deputies stationed there. The resident deputies operate out of their homes or utilize space at the U.S. Customs office at the border. 3 The Sheriffs Office will vacate the office space at the Public Safety Building, Minimum Security Correction Facility, Inspector's Office at the Civic Center Building, and Cascade Satellite Office by 2015. Additionally, the Sheriffs Office will occupy the 4,500 square foot space at the Laurel Fire Station by 2010 (space that was formerly occupied by Emergency Management). Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. `/ November 2009 Emergency Operations The Emergency Management/Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which serves the entire population of the County, presently occupies 2,250 square feet in the Olympic Coordination Center. This inventory is shown in Table 21 below. Table 21. Emergency Operations Office Space Facility Name Olympic Coordination Center Location 3888 Sound Way Size (Sq. Ft.) 2,250 Source: Personal communication: e-mail of 6/23/09, Doug Dahl of Whatcom County Emergency Management confirmed that the County Emergency Management would move into the Olympic Coordination Center in 2009. Jail Facilities An inventory of County jail beds is located in Table 22 below. The existing Main County Jail Facility is located in the Public Safety Building next to the County Courthouse in downtown Bellingham. It was designed for 148 beds, although it currently regularly serves 28' ) to 300 beds due to double bunking, some internal remodeling, and the use of temporary beds in the general housing areas. None of the ancillary functions (kitchen, medical area, booking area, etc.) have increased in area to accommodate additional offenders. Additionally, the jail is not in compliance .; with building code requirements for double bunking, fire exiting, and seismic events, although a plan is being created to bring the facility into compliance. The Minimum Security Work Center opened in 2006 in a new location on Division Street. This facility has 150 beds for minimum security offenders and the Jails Alternative program, plus office space for Jails Alternative, work release, electronic home monitoring, and other related jail programs. Table 22. Jail Facility Inventory Facility Name Location Beds Public Safety Building Jail 311 Grand Ave. 283 Minimum Security Correction Facility 2030 Division Street 150 Total 433 Note: Correction facilities are considered to be "full" when they have reached 95% of their maximum number of beds. Therefore, the Public Safety Building Jail is effectively out of beds once the inmate count has reached 268 beds and the Work Center has reached 143 beds(Note source: email communication from Wendy Jones, Chief of Whatcom County Sheriff's Office, Corrections Bureau (March 4, 2009)). Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014 and email communication with Wendy Jones, Chief of Whatcom County Sheriffs Office, Corrections Bureau, (March 4 and March 10, 2009). Juvenile Detention Facilities The 2009 inventory of County juvenile detention facilities includes 32 beds serving the countywide population. The juvenile detention facility is located on the sixth floor of the County Courthouse. An inventory of juvenile detention beds is located in Table 23. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year llGA Review �� Table 23. Juvenile Detention Inventory Facility Name Location County Courthouse Juvenile Detention Facility 311 Grand Avenue 32 Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. Level of Service Capacity Analysis Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes level of service (LOS) standards for various law enforcement - related facilities, including office space for the Sheriff's Office serving unincorporated Whatcom County, Emergency Management office space serving the County as a whole, and the number of jail and juvenile detention beds per 1,000 population as shown in Table 24 below. Table 24. Law Enforcement Level of Service Standards Category LOS Standard Sheriff's Office (unincorporated) 0.26 sq ft per capita Emergency Management 0.011 sq ft per capita Jails 1.42 beds per 1,000 population - Juvenile Detention 0.125 beds per 1,000 population Source: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, chapter 4 Sheriff's Office (Unincorporated. County) Level of Service Capacity Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan provides a LOS standard for office space for the Sheriff's Office that serves unincorporated Whatcom County (Table 25). This LOS standard is 0.26 square feet per capita. There are no deficiencies when this LOS standard is applied to projected Unincorporated County population out to the 2015 6 -year planning horizon. The County has plans to add 25,000 square feet of office space serving unincorporated Whatcom County by 2015. However, the Sheriff's Office would also switch other office space by 2015. With the new office and other space changes, there would be a total of 29,900 square feet of office space available by 2015. Applying the established LOS standard to County population projections shows that with the additional space, there will be no deficiencies in office space for the Sheriff's Office serving unincorporated areas in 2015 and 2029. �a November 2009 Table 25. Sheriff's Office (Unincorporated County) Level of Service Requirements Analysis Time Period M County Population (Unincorporated) 87,044 Capacity Projects to 2015 Square Feet Needed to Meet LOS standard 22,631 Square Feet Available 22,733 Net Reserve or (Deficiency) 102 Sheriff's Office at +25,000 Law and Justice Center Campus 2015 71,688 18,639 29,900 11,261 2029 81,221 1 213117 29,900 8,783 1 Although the Sheriffs Office will add a new law and justice center campus that of 25,000 sq. ft, the Sheriffs Office will also switch other office space by 2015. With the new office and other space changes, there would be a total of 29,900 square feet of office space available by 2015. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. Emergency Management Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes a LOS standard of 0.011 square foot of emergency management space per capita on a countywide basis. The County has an existing surplus of emergency management space when using 2008 population estimates. The County has one capacity project that will add 3,250 square feet of emergency management space. This would provide a reserve of emergency management space through both 2015 and 2029 planning horizons. Table 26. Emergency Management Level of Service Requirements Analysis Time Period County Population Square Feet Needed Square Feet Net Reserve to Meet LOS Available or standard (Deficiency) 9 191.000 Capacity Projects to 2015 2,101 2,250 iji Sheriffs Office +31250' Emergency Management space at Law and Justice Center Campus 2015 207,922 21287 32250 963 2029 246,602 21713 31250 537 1 There would be a total of 3,250 square feet available, because Emergency Management would move from the existing 2,250 square foot space to a new 3,250 square foot space at the new Law and Justice Center Campus. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 30 Jail Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan sets a jail LOS standard of 1.42 beds per 1,000 population. This standard results in a surplus of jail beds in 2015. There are indications, based on a recent master facilities plan compiled as part of new jail planning process, that this number under - represents the current use of the existing adult corrections facilities. A review of the jail population over the past 2 years has shown a significant increase in the offender population, growing from an average daily population (ADP) of 261 in 2006, to an ADP in 2008 of 428. This is due primarily to the added capacity resulting from the opening of the new Minimum Security Work Center. This higher ADP represents utilization of 2.24 beds per 1,000 people in the County in 2008. In the short-term, the County will be adding an additional 50 beds to the Minimum Security Work Center on Division Street to address short-term jail needs. The County also has plans for construction of a new law and justice center jail facility, tentatively scheduled to open with 600 beds .3 The new jail would replace both the current main jail facility and the 150 -bed Minimum Security Correction Facility on Division Street, resulting in a net increase of 167 jail beds over existing conditions.4. The increased number of jail beds means that, by application of the County's adopted LOS standard, the County will have a net reserve of 252 jail beds by the end of the 2029 planning horizon. Table 27. Jails Level of Service Requirements Analysis Time Period County Population Beds Needed to Meet LOS standard goo: 191,000 Capacity Projects to 2015 271 Beds Available Net Reserve or (Deficiency) 433 1 162 New Jail at the Law +167' and Justice Center Campus Minimum Security +502 Correction Facility (Division Street) 2015 207,922 295 600 305 2029 246,602 350 600 250 1 Construction of new 600 bed jail facility would allow replacement of existing main jail facility and relocation of the 200 jail beds (150 existing + 50 proposed) from the Minimum Security Correction Facility on Division Street to the new jail. The increase in jail beds is +167 over 2009 levels, as the new jail replaces the other two facilities. 2 The 50 beds shown as an addition to Minimum Security Correction Facility on Division Street are temporary. They are meant to address a short-term need, until the new 600 bed jail facility is constructed. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. 3 Additional projections and analysis indicate there may be a need for more than 600 beds, but these are still under review. 4 The net increase will be 117 new beds once the 50 new beds are added to the Minimum Security Work Center at Division Street. 31 November 2009 Juvenile Detention Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan sets a LOS standard of 0.125 beds per 1,000 population for juvenile detention in the County. The County meets this LOS standard with the current 2008 population. By 2015, the County will have a surplus of 6 juvenile detention beds based upon future population projections. This surplus is expected to decrease from 6 beds to 1 bed by 2029. Table 28. Juvenile Detention Level of Service Requirements Analysis Time Period Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. Capital Projects and Funding Net Reserve The following capital projects support anticipated growth in the County for the Sheriff's Office, Emergency Management, and the Jail and Juvenile Detention facilities. Sheriff's Office Facilities At the current time, one Sheriff's Office improvement project is proposed to locate new facilities in the County. The purpose of this project is to achieve reduced response times and otherwise upgrade service to the public in a manner of design and function yet to be determined. This project would add approximately 25,000 square feet of space at the campus of the proposed Law and Justice Center. The proposed Sheriff's Office would be proximate to planned new criminal justice facilities. Comprehensive Plan update -14 Year UGA Review si! Table 29. Sheriff's Office Space Improvement Projects 2010 =2015 Site No. and Square 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Project Feet 2029 Cost/ Revenue Square 2016 - (thousands $) Feet 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Sheriffs Office at 25,0002 Law and Justice Center Campus' Cost 500 200 41000 23500 73200 Revenue 500 200 41000 2,500 71200 (Cash reserves, General Fund, REET I, and Bonds.) See 3 Total 500 200 4,000 22500 77200 1 The location of the Sheriffs Office facility has not yet been determined. 2 The Sheriffs Office facility is planned for approximately 28,250 square feet total. About 25,000 square feet would be utilized for Sheriffs office space and the remainder would be allocated to Emergency Management. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. Emergency Management Facilities One improvement project to provide space for Emergency Management/Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is proposed to meet anticipated needs by the year 2015 and beyond. This project would allocate 3,250 square feet of space in the new Sheriffs Office facility to house Emergency Management/EOC as shown in Table 30. Table 30. Emergency Management/EOC Improvement Projects 2010 -2015 Site No. and Square 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Project Feet 2029 Cost/Revenue (thousands $) Sheriffs Office 3,2502 Division of Emergency Management space at the Law and Justice Center Campus' Cost See 3 The location of the Sheriff's Office facility has not yet been determined. The overall size of the Sheriffs Office facility is planned for approximately 28,250 square feet. Approximately 3,250 square feet would be utilized for Emergency Management on a day to day basis. It is assumed that, in an emergency, other space in the building would be utilized for the EOC. See Table 29 above for costs and revenues of the Law and Justice Center Campus building. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. ss November 2009 Jail Facilities Whatcom County will be siting and constructing a new law and justice center, tentatively scheduled to open with 600 beds. At the time the new law and justice center is open, the offenders at the minimum - security corrections facility would be relocated to the new center. A location for the new law and justice center has not been selected, but it is anticipated to come on line no later than 2015. An additional 50 work release beds are being proposed at the minimum security facility on an interim basis. Table 31. Jail Improvement Projects to Serve County -Wide 2010 =2015 Site No. and Beds 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 - Total Project 2029 Project Cost! Revenue (thousands $) New Jail at 6002 the Law and Justice Center Campus' Cost 43000 21000 81000 10,000 17,000 41,000 Revenue 43000 2,000 81000 10,000 172000 41,000 Jail Fund, General Fund, REET and bonds #2 Minimum 50 Security Correction Facility (Division Street) Cost 324 324 Revenue 324 324 Jail Fund Total 4,324 2,000 8,000 10,000 17,000 412324 1 The location of the new jail has not yet been determined. Construction of the new jail at the Law and Justice Center Campus would not be completed until approximately 2015. 2 There are indications, based on a recent master facilities plan compiled as part of new jail planning process, that this number under - represents the current use of the existing adult corrections facilities. A review of the jail population over the past 2 years has shown a significant increase in the offender population, growing from an average daily population (ADP) of 261 in 2006, to an ADP in 2008 of 428. This is due primarily to the added capacity resulting from the opening of the new Minimum Security Work Center. This higher ADP represents utilization of 2.24 beds per 1,000 people in the County in 2008. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. Juvenile Detention Facilities There are no improvement projects currently proposed for juvenile detention facilities that would increase the number of permanent beds in the 2010 -2015 six year planning period. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 34 Parks and Recreation (County and Special Districts serving UGAs) Overview The County categorizes its Parks and Recreation facilities into parks, trails, and activity centers. The inventory of parks includes developed park acreage. The County also owns a number of undeveloped park facilities that are not counted in the parks inventory. Trails are counted in terms of miles of developed trails. In addition, there are two special parks districts in the County that serve UGAs: Lynden Regional Parks District and the Northwest Parks and Recreation District. These parks and recreation districts are presented after County facilities. Inventory of Current Facilities Parks The County's 2009 inventory of developed park facilities is shown in Table 32 below. This inventory shows approximately 1,847 acres of developed and/or usable parks at various locations throughout the County. The County owns a large amount of undeveloped park properties that . serve a variety of passive park needs, such as hiking and wildlife viewing. In some cases, a portion of undeveloped park property may be converted to developed parks, reducing the overall cost of park development since the land is already owned by the County. This inventory does not include undeveloped parks that are not readily useable by the general public. 35 1 November 2009 Table 32, Current Developed Park Inventory Park Name Capacity (Acres) Monument Park 6.90 Lighthouse Marine Park 20.50 Semiahmoo Park 17.90 Birch Bay Properties (includes several properties) 0.27 Sunset Farm Equestrian Center 69.50 Bay Horizon Park 48.00 Hovander Homestead Park/Tennant Lake Interpretive Center 333.40 Northwest Soccer Park & Northwest Baseball Complex 35.00 Alderwood Property 0.20 Bayview Marine 1.40 Teddy Bear Cove 11.19 Chuckanut Mountain Park 140.00 Nugent's Corner River Access 14.00 Lummi Island Stairway (Beach Access) 0.01 Samish Park 30.60 Squires Lake Park 84.20 Ted Edwards Park 3.90 Lake Whatcom Property North 218.00 Park Headquarters 4.50 Silver Lake Park 412.10 Maple Beach Park 0.50 Deming Homestead Eagle Park 33.00 Josh VanderYacht Memorial Park 3.00 Jensen Family Forest Park 22.70 Point Whitehorn Marine Reserve Park 54 Lily Point Marine Reserve Park 276 Sunset Beach ( Lummi Island) 6 Total 13846.77 Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014 and Comprehensive Parks, Plan (April 2008). Recreation and Open Space Trails As the 2009 inventory shows below, the County currently has approximately 51 miles of trails in various locations throughout the County. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 36 Table 33. County Traits Inventory Trail Name Capacity (Miles) Bay Horizon 0.25 Bay Crest 0.21 Bay to Baker Maple Falls- Glacier 0.35 Canyon Lake 4.50 Salal 1.18 Madrona 0.78 Hemlock 3.53 Lower Sala[ 1.30 Huckleberry 0.43 Lost Lake 3.07 Raptor Ridge 0.40 Chuckanut Ridge 0.36 Deming Homestead Eagle Park 0.30 Jensen 0.61 - Hovander Marrietta Coast Millennium Trail 4.90 Interurban 2.80 Lake Samish 1.30 Lake Whatcom Park 4.02 Lily Point 4.17 Monument Park 0.18 Ostrom Property 0.66 Pine and Cedar Lakes 3.62 Silver Lake Park 3.10 Soccer Trail 0.30 Squires Lake 2.14 Stimson Reserve 4.04 Teddy Bear Cove 0.33 Semiahmoo East Paved 0.63 Semiahmoo West Footpath 0.45 Halverson 0.31 Sunset 0.57 Total 50.81 Source: Whatcom County CIP 2009 -2014. L 3 1 November 2009 Activity Centers The County operates 12 activity centers that provide a variety of year -round programs for various age groups. Activity centers are facilities that are open for public use for events and a variety of activities throughout the year. The activity center inventory is shown on Table 34 below. Table 34. County Activity Center Inventory Activity Center Name Capacity (units) Plantation Rifle Range 1 Roeder Home 1 Bellingham Senior Activity Center 1 Blaine Community /Senior Center 1 Everson Senior Center 1 Ferndale Senior Center 1 Lynden Community Center 1 Point Roberts Community Center 1 Sumas Community Center 1 Welcome Valley Senior Center 1 Bay Horizon 1 Van Zandt Community Hall 1 Total 12 Source: Whatcom County CIP 2009 -2014 Other Parks Districts Lynden Regional Parks District The Lynden Regional Park and Recreation District ( LRPRD) was formed in 1996 with the purpose of maintaining and improving the public parks and recreational facilities within the Lynden School District's borders. The LRPRD is committed to providing public parks and recreation services to residents within the district's boundaries. The LRPRD lists the following parks as included in the District: Bender Fields, Berthusen Park, Centennial Park, and Lynden City Park ( LRPRD, May 2009), and all but Berthusen Park lie in the City limits. The LRPRD owns a portion of the Bender Fields Recreation Complex (about 21 acres). Within the District boundaries and outside the city limits, the City of Lynden owns and maintains Berthusen Park. This park facility is approximately 300 acres and is located about 3 miles northwest of Lynden's city limits. Besides providing picnic areas and interpretive trails, Berthusen Park is also the home of the antique tractor showing grounds, the Lynden Shotgun Club, and the Lynden Model Airplane Club. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review su Northwest Parks and Recreation District The Northwest Parks and Recreation District encompasses the City of Blaine and its associated UGA, the Birch Bay UGA, the northern portion of the Cherry Point UGA, and some nearby rural areas. This parks and recreation district has been inactive until 2007, at which time it passed a levy to provide additional parks in the Blaine and Birch Bay areas. However, at this time, the parks and recreation district has no inventory of capital facilities. Level of Service Capacity Analysis Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes LOS standards for developed parks, trails, and activity centers (Table 35). Table 35. Parks and Recreation Level of Service (LOS) Standards Category LOS Standard Developed Parks 9.6 acres per 1,000 population Tails 0.60 of a mile per 1,000 population Activity Centers 5 centers per 100,000 population Source: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4. Developed Parks Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan outlines an LOS standard of 9.6 acres per 1,000 population for developed parks. Compared to the current inventory of 1,846 acres of developed park, there is a 2008 surplus of 12 acres of developed park land. Accounting for the County's capacity projects in the 2010 -2015 timeframe, the County expects to add approximately 730 acres of developed park to the park system by 2015. With this additional capacity, the County is expected to have a net reserve of developed park by 2015 and 2029. 39 November 2009 Table 36. Developed Parks Level of Service Requirements Analysis Time Period County Population Acres needed to Acres Available meet LOS standard 191,000 Capacity Projects to 2015 1,834 11846 Net Reserve or (Deficiency) 12 South Fork County +582 Park Sunnyside Landing +6 Park Dittrich Park Lake +24 Samish Cherry Point/ Point +35 Whitehorn Industrial Area Lake Whatcom +83 County Park (south unit) 2015 207,922 11996 27576 580 Columbia Valley +17.5 Park 2029 246,602 21367 2,593 226 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Whatcom County Trails Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes a LOS standard of 0.60 mile per 1,000 population for County trails. Using this standard compared to 2008 population estimates, Whatcom County experiences a deficit of 64 miles of trails. However, with County trail capacity projects for the 2010 -2015 period accounted for, the County has a net reserve of approximately 32 miles of trail in 2015, and a reserve of approximately 9 miles of trail by 2029. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 40 Table 37. Trails LOS Requirements Analysis Time Period 70 We Capacity Projects to 2015 County Population 191,000 Miles needed to meet LOS standard 115 Miles Available 51 Net Reserve/ (Deficiency) (64) Bay to Baker Trail project of adding the +14 Resource Center in Chuckanut Mountain will be no deficits for +2.7 2015 or 2029. Trails Hertz North Lake +1 Whatcom Trail Extension South Fork County +3 Park Olsen Property Trail +3 Coast Millennium Trail +10 Lake Whatcom County +2 Park South Trail Sunnyside Landing +1.75 Connector Trail Camp 2 — Lake +4 Whatcom to Squires Lake Trail Nooksack River Trail — +11.75 Ferndale to Lynden Nooksack River Trail — +6.5 Lynden to Everson Sumas Mountain Trail +7 Lake Whatcom Trail +39.3 2015 207,922 125 157 32 2029 2462602 148 157 9 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. Activity Center Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes an activity center LOS standard of 5 activity centers per 100,000 County population. The County has a net reserve of activity centers in 2008 with this standard applied. Including the County's capacity project of adding the East Whatcom Regional Resource Center in the 2010 -2015 timeframe, there will be no deficits for activity centers in either 2015 or 2029. aI November 2009 Table 38, Activity Centers Level of Service Requirements Analysis Time Period Capacity Projects to 2015 Net Reserve or (Deficiency) East Whatcom +1 Regional Resource Center 2015 2079922 10 13 3 2029 246,602 12 13 1 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. Other Parks and Recreation District LOS Analysis The Lynden Regional Parks and Recreational District does not have established LOS standards. The City of Lynden has an established parks and recreation standard for parks and recreation facilities located within the city limits. The city's.CFP specifically excludes Berthusen Park from its LOS analysis since the park is located outside city limits and serves as a regional park (page 229, City of Lynden Capital Facilities Element). As mentioned above, the Northwest Parks and Recreation District has only recently reactivated itself. The Northwest Parks and Recreation District adopted its Parks Master Plan on May 12, 2009. The District's new Master Plan contains recommended LOS standards for neighborhood, community, and regional parks as well as trails (NW Park & Recreation District 2, Master Plan Document, April 2009, page 7). These LOS standards are as follows: ■ Neighborhood Parks: 1.0 acre per 1,000 population ■ Community Park: 5.2 acres per 1,000 population ■ Regional/Facility: 7.0 acres per 1,000 population ■ Trail: 0.5 acres per 1,000 population. It should be noted that Northwest Parks & Recreation District LOS standards do not represent County LOS standards for parks and trails. County population projections for the two parks and recreation districts indicates that the Lynden Regional Parks & Recreation District can expect approximately l 7,304 people by 2015 and 21,200 by 2029. The Northwest Parks and Recreation District can expect a population of approximately 14,404 by 2015; and 19,900 by 2029. Capital Projects and Funding Capital projects and the funding needed to complete them for Whatcom County developed parks, trails, and activity centers in the 2010 -2015 time frame are included below. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Reviev� 4L Developed Parks The following park improvement projects are proposed to provide additional developed and/or usable park space to meet the anticipated future needs. These projects would add 747 acres of developed and/or usable park space to Whatcom County, as shown below. Additionally, improvement projects are proposed on parkland already in the inventory of existing developed park facilities. These projects will add recreational facilities at these parks, but will not add acreage to the inventory. The total cost and funding sources of for the developed park improvement projects are shown in Table 39. Table 39. New Developed Park Facilities — Park Improvement Projects 2010 -2029 Site No. and Project CostlRevenue 2016= (thousands $) Acres 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total #25 South 582 Fork Community Park Cost 45 500 545 Revenue 45 500 545 Foundation Grants, Park Improvement Fund, and REET II #26 6 Sunnyside Landing Park Cost 200 50 250 Revenue 200 50 250 Grants and REET II #27 Dittrich 24 Park Lake Samish Cost 250 250 250 351.5 11101.5 Revenue 250 250 250 351.5 11101.5 Grants and REET II #28 Cherry 35 Point/ Point Whitehorn Industrial Area Access 43 November 2009 Site No. and FSEIS, December 2008, pg. 92 -94; and Draft Foothills Subarea Plan, October 2007, p. 43. Source: Unless otherwise noted, Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. Project Cost/Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) Acres 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Cost 14 ' 157 250 157 564 Revenue 157 250 157 564 Grants 13442.9 10442.9 11442.9 11442.9 1,442.9 7,214.6 #29 Lake 83 11442.9 11442.9 11442.9 11442.9 11442.9 71214.6 Whatcom County Park (south unit) Cost 20 250 250 520 Revenue 20 250 250 520 Grants and REET 11 Columbia 17.5 Valley UGA Park Cost TBD TBD Revenue TBD TBD Grant, General Fund, Recreation Service Area special taxing district, developer contributions' Total 747.5 200 365 907 750 758.5 2,980.5 1 Foothills Subarea Plan FSEIS, December 2008, pg. 92 -94; and Draft Foothills Subarea Plan, October 2007, p. 43. Source: Unless otherwise noted, Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. Trail Improvements There are 13 trail improvement projects proposed to provide additional trails to meet the anticipated need by the year 2015. These projects would add 106.7 miles of trails in Whatcom County to meet future needs of County residents. Table 40. Trail Improvement Projects 2010 =2015 Site No. and Project Cost/Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) Miles 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total #32 Bay to 14 ' Baker Trail Cost 13442.9 10442.9 11442.9 11442.9 1,442.9 7,214.6 Revenue 11442.9 11442.9 11442.9 11442.9 11442.9 71214.6 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review as Site No. and Project Cost/Revenue 2016= (thousands $) Miles 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Conservation Futures, Levy and Grants #33 2.7 Chuckanut Mountain Trails Cost 26 25 25 76 Revenue 26 25 25 76 Conservation Futures, Levy and Grants . #34 Hertz 1.0 North Lake Whatcom Trail Extension Cost 11500 65 17565 Revenue 12500 65 11565 Grants, Donations and REET II #35 South 3 Fork County Park Cost 100 200 200 500 Revenue 100 200 200 500 Grants, REET II, Donation #36 Olsen 3 Property Trail Cost 100 68 68 68 68 372 Revenue 100 68 68 68 68 372 Grants, REET 11 #37 Coast 10'.2 Millennium Trail Cost 47808.4 188.4 188.4 188.4 188.4 51562 Revenue 41808.4 188.4 188.4 188.4 188.4 5,562 #38 Lake 2 Whatcom County Park as November 2009 Site No. and Project CostlRevenue 2016 - (thousands $) Miles 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total South Trail Cost 158 158 316 Revenue 158 158 316 Grants and REETII #39 1.75 Sunnyside Landing Connector Trail Cost 73.5 73.5 Revenue 73.5 73.5 Grants and REETI I #40 Camp 2 — 4' Lake Whatcom to Squires Lake Trail Cost 168 168 Revenue 168 168 Grants and Donation #41 Nooksack 11.75' River Trail — Ferndale to Lynden Cost 51428.5 615 615 615 73273.5 Revenue 5,428.5 615 615 615 71273.5 Grants and REET II #42 Nooksack 6.5' River Trail — Lynden to Everson Cost 31003 343 343 343 41032 Revenue 31003 343 343 343 41032 Grants and REET II #43 Sumas 7' Mountain Trail Cost 322 322 Revenue 322 322 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 46 Site No. and Projects 2010 -2015 Site No. and 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Project Project 2029 Cost/Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) (thousands $) Miles 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Grants and Whatcom donations Regional #44 Lake 39.3'3 Resource Whatcom Center Cost 176 176 176 176 704 Revenue 61250 Revenue 176 176 176 176 704 Grants, REET Grants, EDI II, and legislative Donations appropriation, Total 106.7 71851 10,498 3,058 31216 31555 and bond. 28,179 Trail segments identified are preliminary, and represent preferred trail alignments. Final trail alignments and lengths are pending land acquisition, property easement negotiation and final trail design. The overall length of the Millennium Trail will be approximately 45 to 50 miles, developed with other partners from the public and private sectors. Most of this length will consist of existing or new trails on lands that are not owned by the County. The new portion on County lands, including road right -of -way will be 10 -12 miles. Trails identified are predicated on pending Department of Natural Resources (DNR) re- conveyance transaction with the Lake Whatcom watershed. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. Activity Centers One activity center improvement project, the East Whatcom Regional Resource Center located in the Columbia Valley/Kendall UGA, is proposed within the six -year planning period as shown below. Table 41. Activity Center Improvement Projects 2010 -2015 Site No. and 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Project 2029 CostlRevenue (thousands $) #13 East Whatcom Regional Resource Center Cost 41000 21250 61250 Revenue 41000 21250 61250 Grants, EDI funds, legislative appropriation, and bond. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009 -2014. gr November 2009 Other Parks and Recreation Districts The Northwest Parks & Recreation District approved its first parks master plan in May 2009. This new parks master plan includes a three -year capital improvement program that identifies projects and estimated costs (see Table 42 below). Table 42. Northwest Parks & Recreation District Projects 2010 -2015 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Cost/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Bay Horizon Park Children's Play Structure Cost 40 40 Bay Horizon Park Upgrade to Gymnasium Cost 35 35 Bay Horizon Park Develop Sports Fields Cost 70 70 140 Trail Connection between Lincoln Rd and Dakota Creek Cost 15 15 30 Acquire Property for Saltwater Access Cost 150 150 Total 75 85 235 395 Source: NW Park & Recreation District 2 Master Plan Document, April 2009. Existing Structures The County also addresses capital projects that make improvement to a variety of existing structures. The County Six Year CIP for 2009 -2014 included five projects providing upgrades and improvements to the Division Street Minimum Security Correctional Facility, Civic Center Annex, Jail, Courthouse, and the Point Roberts Sheriff s Facility. The total of the improvements found in the 2009 -2014 timeframe accounted for the County Six -Year CIP is $5,718,000. When n Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 48 removing 2009 projects to provide a 2010 -2015 project cost, the total project cost for existing structure projects is $3,004,000. n 4V November 2009 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 Bellingham." ■ 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, Nooksack pumps its sewage for treatment at the wastewater treatment plant located in Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 50 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. 51 November 2009 a Y 0 z l0 L) a N U w N c f0 CL w c a) E w fQ (D i H Q) 0. N c O i O � � O � U c L 3 N CO cc R cwi N N U) Z LO V' F- U) C c +r � N d LU o m W_ L c O'C W O U) a) U O U) C � O a co ,, a a) o m Z L O O'C CO N Q a) 3 O cn o� CL U) �+ � v a � �tS 01 O N � L O O'C CO m r N 3 o� N J cn 3:(n5 c a rn � Z E d � a C � E W � U) c O c O U G7 c U) .X W N V) U c O V a) T 0 O N U) N O C) U7 N C) rn m CD W LO n C) N Lq N >.(D $CQ yO a0� m U) � E (0-00 Xtw.r. O An U > O�.N t°n0 m. U) " Co Co W c Ea 3 m m 0 C U) C � ° o a) 0; - -O C m L c m. E m U) U O rn C 0U a)mEa) m E m c a) � O O O_ O 1*-- -O O U) N C m U) m V '� 0 s N U m �M.S E V N M Fz m L O C Y Um L 0 O U) C O E O 0. m w U) a) U 'v C .O .0 a) 0 O N 7 cnV) u) 0 O U () f6 a) N U) Y m O O .k:: E m N N c 0 O 0 Q W 0 .O-. C c _ o U' 0 m N m m 0 0>` O U Ya'vm> E I— -0 m O- O m > O m 0- G Q U) OL .m. O O U N .E N w 0. c J .. > > `nam�a) —' (O0cm >W0 a) m O sU) N U _ In (n r- cU > 3-�:;0 ° cEE =U m a) E M >& 0) N C NOCC)coi'm a)Eucia)m0 @EUi Lam) 00 d a) C O N H� (DE >rnQ-00) U) w C 0 C N O U -0 •` () Q U Co f0 0). _ cu N: E U) O L U O 0 .E 0 0 N0 a) m 0 mfn N cc L C m -0 3NO U) rnd U) v v @M Oc Co0 -r w— o w r rn wom L coi'c�i CD rn N M Cl m ED O r LO tb M v LO O � U r` � m O 0)0w U d m rn c E > O C m O) O T O a CL m .� v c O tna. Q' ,O O U1 C N W a2woE._ OOE 0 O m +•+ O m 0 NCO o a)`av� -0 y 01 L1.N '� t 0,0.03E c_ m 0) ` U C ,0 a) m C U O a) O � -0 O V) U M c N O. 0 to m C m N Cl) N co -O E ,U U a) L Co U E ) a) � 'C O to O 0 cn N i5 D. fn fa U) 'O -0 -0 CV O a1 M N d' O co O 0 O 0) C O �tS 01 O C O �{- L C O'C N m r N N J cn 3:(n5 O a a1 M N d' O co O 0 O m •a i Um G SU {J m } 0 e- •a t�. O c m a. w N C d s Y SZ T 0) C m in •- 01 O C O �{- L C O'C N n cn U O a CL a) m J 0 L > Q En �� v m N d ,._TN v v m a) c E ..-. C O m a) m O_ w CO U fn N m CO N U T t A U cn CD CU.Lm.. E 0 Cu U.- U U U CU CD Z E 3 :%2= N O U co , 0 t` O T to d O CO cn 3 3� m a) C V) •X E 0 a) m .w Co a) mm >' E cu cu O 0) u) Q m •a i Um G SU {J m } 0 e- •a t�. O c m a. w N C d s Y SZ T H Q) O Z R a) Q a) U Po a) U) [l a C a) E (6 () V (D U) T U) C 0 v a) L y T � � Z F� U) ° N C +) N UJ N W_ N 0 a) W O cn U U) ° N co U CD N E N Q a) o CO IL U) O U N E 3 o� U C � � oC] y E a) 0 C � W O LL H 0 w 0 0 U a) c N X W E N a c 0 m 0 o � N CL (D il- L C O rn 0 O O = T Of C) w a W (p Q O O LO qT to t� Z ? N rfl V 0) M C ( r (O N cr .– M 0 r coo Q O O O Z 0 OD Nt m OD a) N T N O Z O M N N W U) O _ O N LO co O O n O O C 70 E ° N y 06 a) O cu a) O O cc �tO E CY O C a) n0" a1 p�a)() 30 (A° >% 3yo°) Em CA c C m (u o� ow�v no m 3 E a) =s -0 a) o ID c. os$L >W% c o a)Z O ° E c m� os °.C.-a � m a) rn Ho �c > C as ° n m' v �° w� °� c: CO) s- W�o`�c °ornici«�° �N�� -v WU°cc°a) °= o�' =°a) coo =rm a) ca) o3 0 onw a)6c sY >, :t:!m(n rn�Noraa))a) No3nrn to no 3 a) —m Nc-0 a) 0)mrn�C (n T o E� C w w oZ Q °•` a) U cn n»-• C o° Co E °a)a)coo o' Uocooa oa)wO° •• C) Co La no O U O C L O W 3..-. a) O T _o E-c a) r c a) 4) 0) c� o c N C � CL E a) E "O n N +c O (n O C a) a) N y O..N 'o >' y 7 N X C .0. rz (D a) °- E O N • .O (D « C CO 0 a) (D = a) n (6 O. a) a) >, vac` v mcooE U) C: `) ��'cL))a`)n cco e a) • ° a) uS o n m S, C E a) o cn u) � :� . (D 0 p 0 ° O N m O— r (n O• w (6 -O O ° U C U C in a) @ a) N ;«, ,�- �!n C a) a3i rnvi n� E nfl ED (D 0'> ° E aa)) E ac (D o m Qw�c� ��°; o:3 L)io 6:2 ccooE� �ai``'�o3 U3 .'C.-. C N .n.00 N V) > (a I- j, O OL U-0 c0> = O (On O a) a3 T= ° C -0 a) L o m.? a) > m Qai w ova° w �Q v> �-0 ° c ~-0 - cu C w o imp mo.c c.c oo Co (n c a) a) a) 3 a)- m 3-0 o v as > Q to 0 (6 ,,, (n Z ° a) N <6 0 0 0 a) .0 VI Co N U Jc c �9fl m ma—) �0ofC� m E °Ecya o U) C) u°)) c`nao oa) °o >�o a)o °� c0C �;°m()°a)x °wacn(no as UU� (n2.E 3 n 0.0 U U a)$ E I- m(L CL Urn a) (6N ° U N (D d) N to N W to co V co (O ca C a) U m E O a) C ca a) () O N 0-0 O a) O y U 3 N C a) T E T C T O ODintoa Uw ULL (�.j Uz 0 N S) } O r..i U) w O Z R Q d v a) U) c R FL d d F N N ca T c O i () T E E A co U) Z U) c a ,c �0 rn LU W E O W O N U U '4T c t0 O � co w LL N L O N 3 d O W M U) CO a ,c �0 rn E E O o� U. c � E a) � a c °7 W O LL N c O 'a c O 0 c N x W E ) c O V Q) T O N Ca CL CL C w 0 c a) U O U N N w O c o c E o a) N 'C N N Q. O (D .UL U L O O) (6 S a) N o a)EcD O_ " O O N O > Q- a) u1 O C a U (D C X () C a)c:3 a o a co a o_ o' ° co 00 � o0-) a. a) O Do (A O (D -U Eco)iN U @O> w Qm — M.E.E E'vm r O CC) N Q Z F w I LO N M N O a) O C N N a X. a) 3 6 @ a) o Z (D o @(DE m0(D a z C� ai a U O O X . N a) m a a) ` O 4? o > 0 W ° ca U C: • N y C ` 3c.oMco E 'c 'C O -0 a) 3 CL @ cn > CEO •3 a) a) w co C E C C of O Q O O) cn L) O C N >(D0E C) -0 () 0U) O � O O @ .> E U U) a) O U C a) o N c N X$ N C C ,O a5 Q. a) < O Z) N ) > 0 U O a) N r o H m U a) a) N O O O_ Cl. U 'a C U 7 C` M O O O O O M ti C) 0 f O OiO O O Q t � C CL N O O U CO O � U O N U y .E y i C ap U C E (a a) T O. > O. C O O O. U a) N O U c v z� c a C) o ;g E ``)0 o E CL NE�� i CL C) O u1 Uop)w V (A O C a c o N @ L E O a + N G E ° c 7 O Q 0) Q a) o U •ate C Q) (D @ � •— E N U) U L +L (D N U U a Q O aU3 °o ` CO a ,c rn o) E O O d U C) '4T C t0 it � LL N L O w 0 c a) U O U N N w O c o c E o a) N 'C N N Q. O (D .UL U L O O) (6 S a) N o a)EcD O_ " O O N O > Q- a) u1 O C a U (D C X () C a)c:3 a o a co a o_ o' ° co 00 � o0-) a. a) O Do (A O (D -U Eco)iN U @O> w Qm — M.E.E E'vm r O CC) N Q Z F w I LO N M N O a) O C N N a X. a) 3 6 @ a) o Z (D o @(DE m0(D a z C� ai a U O O X . N a) m a a) ` O 4? o > 0 W ° ca U C: • N y C ` 3c.oMco E 'c 'C O -0 a) 3 CL @ cn > CEO •3 a) a) w co C E C C of O Q O O) cn L) O C N >(D0E C) -0 () 0U) O � O O @ .> E U U) a) O U C a) o N c N X$ N C C ,O a5 Q. a) < O Z) N ) > 0 U O a) N r o H m U a) a) N O O O_ Cl. U 'a C U 7 C` M O O O O O M ti C) 0 f O OiO O O Q t � C CL N O O U CO O � U O N U y .E y i C ap U C E (a a) T O. > O. C O O O. U a) N O U c v z� c a C) o ;g E ``)0 o E CL NE�� i CL C) O u1 Uop)w V (A O C a c o N @ L E O a + N G E ° c 7 O Q 0) Q a) o U •ate C Q) (D @ � •— E N U) U L +L (D N U U a Q O aU3 °o ` CO as U` �DU \I @ a a) d N C O @ O) a CL m a a a� a 0) c 0 @ Ol c 0 E II rn E atS Y a) a) m a C @ C @ 06 E 0 a) N n T a) N E a) U a) O N D a) E o a' 0 0 m w N w Ul O c o T a) E � �� a) E c_ CLc 0 co — @ N W D N @ L6 a Z u) a) Z � D @ E a) n .0 a) a) @ CO li m a c c @ o c c _ @ @ co c a a O C N @ R W 0 m m E a) a) U) E a) w d @ @ U C U N a) o @ c Y N @ E ui aEi � o E m m'€ a m Q U) m a) CL m m T N U) o E E @ M a Z F @ 0 Z E V T C N -0a O a) N ° E m 0 � U O o W CL aa) E E ij E `o N 0 O @ C @ w @ Q @ t N U C E c E c m E 2 C E N @ U 0 a) o _ D a• c° 0 0 °- U) E E Y (p _ O @ U C = @ a) U O Q� c a) N d U) --.N W 11 m a) m Q -E Q m M °a a O) C @ N U a) C O O C >i m > 0 -0 00 C 0 T J @ _ U) 9 n a_ @ aa a) 0 v) E a) m o> N m o o 0 C 0 CL 0) o •� c L U O OD ca cr a) O W E O C p N O U1 N W E a) N m m E E r o a) m u Q o O °„ 7 � ` U N N c O_ T @ Ul U) -O d m -0 U � C U O a) m r � o N 0 o rn @ O O O a) m m N m N U) a- U Q 2 z 0 <- N M W7 LO (O U) a> C7 O m r 0 c> iC c as Q c m s Q lul 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 1 Section 4.3.2 Per capita flows, page 4 -6, City of Bellingham Comprehensive Sewer Plan, June 2009. 2 Ferndale Comprehensive Wastewater Facility Plan, Section 4.2.1, page 4 -1, February 1996. 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 Osborn 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 n as Noveber2009 Service Provider LOS Standard City of Bellingham 102 gallons /capita /day' Birch Bay Water and Sewer District 85 gallons /capita /day City of Blaine 300 gallons /household /day City of Everson 300 gallons /household /day City of Ferndale 164 gallons /capita /day 2 Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer (formerly Water District 10) 198 gallons /day /connection 3 City of Lynden 100.7 gallons /capita /day" 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 6 1 Section 4.3.2 Per capita flows, page 4 -6, City of Bellingham Comprehensive Sewer Plan, June 2009. 2 Ferndale Comprehensive Wastewater Facility Plan, Section 4.2.1, page 4 -1, February 1996. 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 Osborn 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 n as Noveber2009 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. Table 45. Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2015 Service Provider Current Treatment Capacity (MGD) 2015 Treatment Capacity 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) Ferndale 3.23 0.67 Lynden 2.18 0.85 Nooksack 3 0.15 0.03 Sumas 0.39 0.22 Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly Whatcom County Water District 10) 4.60 3.82 WC Water District 13 0.13 See ° 1 City of Blaine anticipates opening anew 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 Osbom, 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 also experiences a sewage treatment capacity deficits in 2029. According to the Foothills Subarea Plan Final SEIS (2008), Water District 13, providing service Comprehensive Plan Update -1Q Year UGA Review 56 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 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 Capacity (MGD) 2029 Treatment Capacity Surplus (Deficit) expressed in MGD Bellingham 20.00 8.86 Birch Bay Water & Sewer 1.28 0.5 Blaine 0.80 (0.29) Everson 2 0.29 (0.09) Ferndale 3.23 (0.26) Lynden 2.18 0.49 Nooksack 3 0.15 (0.03) Sumas 0.39 0.16 Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly Whatcom County Water District 10) 4.60 3.79 WC Water District 13 0.125 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 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's 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 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 (SETS) (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 ar November 2009 is planning on serving in comparison to the latest population projections for the 2029 Whatcom County CFP. Table 47. Population Comparison: Sewer Plans and 2029 Population Projection 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 City planned to issue a 20 -year bond and apply for grants as well as increasing user fees to fund capital improvements. ■ The City Horizon year of $4,000,000 in capital reserves as well as a 2029 Population Service Provider Capital Plan Capital Plan Population Projection Bellingham 2026 122,007 109,200 Birch Bay Water and 2029 11,307 91160 Sewer Blaine 2025 10,871 91040 Everson 2024 4,202 31610 Ferndale 2015 273796 21,260 Lynden 2024 18,235 16,790 Nooksack 2024 21039 22080 Sumas 2024 11625 21080 Lake Whatcom Water 2027 13,936 112190 and Sewer District (formerly Water District 10) W.C. Water District ' 11595 13 1 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 City planned to issue a 20 -year bond and apply for grants as well as increasing user fees to fund capital improvements. ■ 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. 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 served by sewer. There are also less �1 Comprehensive Plan update -1© Year UGA Review 58 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 I -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. L as November 2009 Another major component of the city's capital improvement plan is a program for reduction of inflow and infiltration (I &I). 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). Comprehensive Plan Update- 10 Year UGA Review uu City of Ferndale The City of Ferndale's 1996 Comprehensive Wastewater Plan indicates that the city provides sewer 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 east (North Bellingham). The 1996 Plan also identifies some alternative future sewer line alignments based on varying future growth 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 -5 corridor. The City of Ferndale does not experience a sewage capacity LOS deficit in the 6 -year timeframe ending in 2015. However, the LOS analysis in Table 46 indicates that the city will experience 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 treatment plant upgrades as well as a series of sewer collection system upgrades in its 6 -year CFP for 2007 -2012 (City of Ferndale Comprehensive Plan, 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 Ul November 2009 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. 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. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 62 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 UGA5. 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 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 5 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. 63 November 2009 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 Costs /Revenue (thousands $) 2010 Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase 1 and 2 Improvements Cost Priority 1 and 2 Collection System Improvements' Cost Infiltration & Inflow (I &I) Study Cost I & I Improvements Cost 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 51990 1 3, 32 0 1 167340 1 28,250 2016- 2029 1 Total 16,030 1 699930 31430 23,470 21340 800 51020 91780 37,690 82,530 520 21080 2,600 11286 11624 106 11838 2,005 11974 173858 283191 Wastewater Treatment Plant Headworks Cost 21000 21000 Wastewater Treatment Plant New Process Water Cost 41 41 Wastewater Treatment Plant - 2 new oxidation ditches Cost 31591 31591 Wastewater Treatment Plant . New Flow Split Structures Cost 103 103 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review Project Costs /Revenue 2016= (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total 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 11504 Wastewater Treatment Plant —New Dewatering Cost 31248 30248 Wastewater Treatment Plant — Secondary Sedimentation Cost 21470 21470 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 15978 11978 oa November 2009 Project Costs /Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Continue 16 and 18 inch force mains from Pump Station #3 to Pump Station #4 Cost 1,066 11066 Increase Pump Station #2 Capacity Cost 27850 21850 Increase Pump Station #3 Capacity Cost 344 344 Pump Station #6 Upgrade and force main capacity Cost 12318 11318 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 12252 11252 Increase Pump Station Capacity ( #P -10) Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Reviavr b Project Costs /Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Cost 11834 11834 Construct submersible pump station north of Semiahmoo Drive near Semiahmoo Dr /Birch Pt Rd ( #P -11) Cost 13750 1,750 Construct submersible pump station west of Semiahmoo Drive ( #P -12) Cost 638 638 Construct submersible pump station south of Hall /Blaine Rd. ( #P -13) Cost 17169 12169 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 -15) Cost 1,775 11775 Continue evaluation of sewer system (Collection -1) Cost 350 350 67 November 2009 Project Costs /Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Install parallel gravity sewer between Pump Stations #5 and #4 (Collection -2) Cost 11305 11305 Install parallel gravity sewers between pump stations #6 and #5 (Collection -3) Cost 12272 11272 Install parallel gravity sewers between pump stations #7 and #6 (Collection -4) Cost 11336 11336 Install parallel gravity sewers between pump stations #8 and #7 (Collection 5) Cost 11583 11583 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 11218 11218 Construct 10" sewer north of Birch Pt Rd to receive discharge from Pump Station A force main. (Collection - 8) Cost 891 891 Comprehensive Plan Update -1 ©Year UGA Review °� Project Costs /Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Construct 18° sewer north of intersection of Semiahmoo Dr /Birch Point Rd north along Semiahmoo Dr. (Collection -9) Cost 11000 12000 Construct 15 sewer from Semiahmoo Dr /Birch Pt Rd north along Semiahmoo Dr. (Collection -10) Cost 11410 11410 Construct parallel 10" sewer and 8" sewer (Collection -11) Cost 288 288 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 oa November 2009 Project Costs /Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total 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) Cost 11476 11476 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 Comprehensive Plan Update -1© Year UGA Review 70 Project Costs /Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Construct 18" sewer at intersection Drayton Harbor /Harbor View Rds. (Collection -21) Cost 11126 17126 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 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) 71 1 November 2009 Project Costs /Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total 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 Outfall Evaluation (O -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 (O -5) Cost 60 60 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update (0-6) Cost 80 80 Water Reclamation Engineering Report (0-7) Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review Project Costs /Revenue 2016a (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Cost 60 60 (timing TBD) NOMIM Construct New Wastewater Treatment Facility for West Blaine or convey to Birch Bay (T -3) Cost 500 41012 47512 Proposed New Sewer Sub -Main Extensions (locations unspecified) (P -3 through P -5 & P- 8) Cost 860 860 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 ogling Comprehensive Sewer Plan 3 Cost TBD Miscellaneous Capital Projects Cost 18 18 73 November 2009 Project �. a. a �� . %'�'�fi•S�r``C•a�� ° .�.�S.�eix'��P,• ,�v�''f, v,;�✓i.. � .,�. .iii �� Wastewater Treatment Facility: Phase 3 Upgrade Sewer System Upgrades and Improvements (14 projects) Cost 1 200 1 200 1 200 Pump Station 3 & FM Cost Pump Station 9 Cost Pipe Replacements Cost Infiltration/ Inflow Study Cost Asset Management Update Cost Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Study Cost TV Pipe Inspection Cost Treatment Outfall Improvements Cost Biosolids Dryer Cost 120 30 120 100 100 100 1 100 1 100 100 1 100 20 10 10 10 10 350 80 1 160 1 21060 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 4 Total 1,200 ,GfiIi; i f, 200 20 S 350 2,300 Total 150 76 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 Cost , ( f 257 257 Placement Cost 297 297 ra November 2009 Project Costs /Revenue 2016 - (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Strawberry Point Pump Station Retrofit Cost 1267 1 I 1 1 I I 1267 Tomb Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257 257 Afternoon Beach Pump Station Cost 257 257 Geneva Pump Station Retrofit Cost I I I i 1 1257 1 1 1 1257 Edgewater Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257 257 Country Club Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257 257 Par Lane Pump Station Retrofit Cost I I I I 1 1257 1 1257 Dellesta Pump Station Retrofit Cost I I I 1 1257 1 1 1257 Rocky Ridge Pump Station Retrofit Cost I I I 1307 1 I I 1307 Lakewood Pump Station Retrofit Cost I I I I I 1 1257 1257 To Be s Determined 1 Collection system improvements includes: remote wet weather facility and priority 1, 21 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 Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. 4 No projects noted per personal communication (email) from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. 5 Water District 13 is in the process of updating its comprehensive sewer plan at time of this plan's development (2009). 7 76 Comprehensive Plan update -10 Year UGA Review Water Systems This section identifies current water supply and transmission inventories within the County. Public water systems are classified into two categories, Group A and Group B systems. Group A water systems serve 15 or more connections or 25 or more people /day for 60 or more days /year. A Group B water system is a public water system that serves less than 15 connections or fewer than 25 people /day for 60 days or more /year. A full description of Groups A and B water systems can be found in WAC 246 - 290 -010. For purposes of this Capital Facilities Plan, water systems are divided into those that serve urban growth areas (Urban Water Systems) and those that provide 50 or more connections located outside of UGAs (Rural Area Water Systems). A summary of the countywide water planning process encompassed in the Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan is presented first followed by inventories of urban water service providers. Information about rural water service providers is included in Appendix 3. Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) The CWSP was prepared by the Whatcom County Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) representing individual water utilities located throughout the County. The CWSP was developed to ensure that County water purveyors meet state and federal laws governing potable water supply in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) and State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Whatcom County CWSP (February 2000) presents an assessment of municipal and industrial water supply needs in the County and a program to effectively provide water supply and service to customers throughout the area. The CWSP represents the continued efforts of the County in managing the County's potable water resources according to all applicable State and County public policy. The current CWSP provides further refinement of process and strategy for existing water utilities to define their role in a program consistent with adopted land use policies and projected growth strategy. The CWSP establishes agreed upon water system service boundaries, and identifies future population growth that waters systems must plan on providing over the long -term. The County is responsible for updating, maintaining, and implementing the CWSP. The February 2000 Whatcom County CWSP identified 186 Group A water systems and 183 Group B water systems that constitute the public drinking water systems currently found within Whatcom County. This Capital Facilities Plan inventories water facilities owned by public and private entities in Whatcom County, including all Group "A" Community Water Systems with 50 or more connections located within the County as identified by the State Department of Health. 77 November 2009 Urban Water Systems (within UGAs) Overview There are 14 systems that provide primary service to the County's UGAs. Inventory of Current Facilities This section of the CFP inventories each of the major 14 Group A Water Systems that provides water service to Whatcom County's UGAs. Table 49 provides an inventory of water systems that identifies the name of each water system, the portion of the County population the system serves, and the existing DOH approved connections. The inventory identifies both existing connections, as identified by DOH records, as well as an equivalent residential unit (ERU) number of connections. This is helpful to note if a water system has commercial or industrial connections that use larger amounts of water than a typical residential unit. Level of Service Capacity Analysis Water system purveyors provide a LOS standard, generally expressed in water consumption of gallons per capita (or per connection) per day. When applying this standard to existing and future population, household, and employment estimates, and comparing to the water source capacity noted in the inventory table above, a water system provider can obtain a sense for how planned growth will affect water service into the future. Each water service provider is required to prepare a water system plan (WSP) and a program of capital improvements that address the system's anticipated needs within their designated water service area, consistent with local land use plans. When the utility is requested to provide water service, it will identify that portion of the planned capital facilities as well as other installations which are necessary to provide the service necessary. As growth occurs, the full level of water service will eventually be provided throughout the service area of the utility in a planned development plan program which meets governmental requirements and minimizes overall costs to the customers. More detail on planned improvements for urban water service providers is provided under Capital Projects and Funding, below. Table 50 identifies both water system plan LOS standards, or in the absence of an LOS standard identified in the individual water system plan, a comparable Countywide standard for urban water systems identified in the Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 8 U) Q 0 d v O .a+ i CD E M L d ci Ig d' W W L 0 R L 92 O O N C O `N R H w N N C W V X W N U CO C O CO O R N O j N C a) d 03 N T V 0 T R a� �v R M UL1) "= L V E m m O m C U U) Q U ay. E t OL d N N ry, V i I > N C L O C' C. N Q C c O C N W E R Z 4) A rz (6 m ZT C N m O U (O V co O M O 1 OD v O N O O O O N O N T a N C E Y a) O Z -00 a m w U N CL N C O LO N ( N E L rn C m O w U A" +n ❑ m G Q Z N ti V M O N O O T (D a) U) N (U In a) N N 00 N O O N U co ❑ m U Mn ❑ 4D m qct M O d) T co M O O O O N U) N N a) N O V T tt M (D U ❑ N Y E U N -C E ca J (p O M M O O T u) N qt C V O V a1 T M 06 O f` T a a) Lr- N C M O U O O7 co (O O V' (O 44t RCT C M O N O O O N a a) w l N N N C m O U 3 Q) (n cc a C >w T f6 m U t 'L Y L (n m 5 r` co O W O O M O O M N N N fn a) N In a a) U N Q N C 7 M O O V N m co c in E L N 0 O m (n a C R @ U 'C C _y N ❑ L L W (n M qcd- N T V C) O M O O O O O O O n N M N V' T M V N T N I_ a) . 0).r- ca w'o M rn U r C M (6 Y U) a cu N Z a) E O E O `0 m C N CD ❑ N LL N N N Y (n O T J 06 N C M O U O O7 co (O O V' (O 44t RCT C M O N O O O N a a) w l N N N C m O U 3 Q) (n cc a C >w T f6 m U t 'L Y L (n m 5 r` co O W O O M O O M N N N fn a) N In a a) U N Q N C 7 M O O V N m co c in E L N 0 O m (n a C R @ U 'C C _y N ❑ L L W (n M qcd- N T V C) O M O O O O O O O n N M N V' T M V N T N I_ a) . 0).r- ca w'o M m U T C N (6 U U) a y N Z a) E O E O U C N CD ❑ W LL N Z to M O O T O O C U _ � 3 C U . U U d U U V M M O O M CO O O O O O 49t V O O M M T n V M M T All ❑ cu m i YM 1- O O M N u O O ti T go go U N O_ N C O O O n C O W O 1a, N CO d) C T P` N O O CO O O (O N O O C N a m 4= U N Q U) C 3 (O O (fl V U. N f6 a U. 0 O .T. Al a Z 0 N M M O O OD OD N w w O M N O O) V' Q Z Q Z a Ny! M O_ T O M N N N N U) N N N a a) U N CL CO) C 7 O qT "IT Y U N U) Y O O Z O w U O co V O O M T O O O O O a� O O) M _N '9 'ci' M a a) U N Q U) C C (o W NT (n [6 E U) O z1 C N a C J O U O N M O It V T N d' N N T V V N O) n T a a) 4= U N U) O C 7 O O V V C N a C J O U N m Q O Z II Q Z a c O U C N CD O N M N +. N N w N C U _ � 3 C U . it L W @ U _ C d 3 rC > C 3 G i c i a i 7 ( rc ( s r( f 1 Q C I rr m 0 N f N L @ 1 , I 00 i w r Q 1 { Y N i (a I U 0 O N C q O 1 { a O [1 y� 4 N E > O C @ C O @ a) a 3 CL (7 3 C) O T� C E E p O O. a) Z O U N < — N Q c O @ - .- C p @ C W C N N O L O N T 7 U W L ' QUO N > O• C O Oto @ m ul C O N a) w O w > c N @ w a) U w C Q 0 N .� @ E C S] a y O. W E -00 U u1 rz N O C a) O O ° (a N U E.— L 3 ° 0 @ N .L.,, 0) ` .0 O_ d c a) > @ w M > 0 3 E ° ma c° c a) ° p my @ E m N 3 -0 N4) c N 3 p (Ni) O) U @ C O) .= @ N @ O @ N N @ -0 3 U O) a) @ U ) @ 0 Co a N L Q L 3 (D p N d ` @ ° E U 3 @ 0) E N -0 L @ U) O Z' @ 0 @ (n ` 3 c ° @ W O N a) C ` w O CO E L O) 0) O Z C C E O d (O�` O U o 0 c � Eo E oj mmr w N O C N c ° O. O C> N -0 0 N a) E u) Q @ N N C m T O T N QC >. m L .0.. O. co O Q a) @' N O W a) U Q N 3 Q @ C a) a) @ L OTj O O .L-. N C= O a _O E — _ u) Co N a) a) o O N a) N 0) T C j > C > C m N V �U T U N CO a) U O L O) 3 N@ E N (n L N .E a w w N (N c m N O a) C c @ Q a) w O N @ O Q p S 3 O. a) a Q E N O❑ "O N ... O- O E m t � d >. @ O ..T. l6 O� j O C W >. @ E a) a) N U J @_ O O U U N O a) �' U �- U O M@ O N E 0 O N Q O W 0 p a) C a) Cl) 0 U-0 (� �� w (O O r � r C C O N _C @ W >i T N — O '0 _O C-4 N W O U) U F O L.. 0 @ ° C w � N v Q N ao C _ i> @ a) 3 _ O @ m - C @ T @ N N N O @ @ a@ m °° a) a) n E E 0 Cl a) @ O O_ a) @ U o E S O. N a) L �� U a) N N @ �j N 'C ..- N to w 3. �O p er^ E C m Q @ '0 E 3 N C O a v) Q L O L '� 31 �o T in O .�... @ O @ N d c 3 T Q Cl) Q o _ @ m > C c0 N . c N (� N @ 0 3 W a> .... d a) E m Q 0 3 M �- 3 E N o (n > a) w N o T° Z (D t o a) o E .T. C N O C U C r @ U E 0)+ CO ) @ a N T .T. 0 �. O N Co 0 'C C 0 rn V @ N m V@ EO N U N 3 T m C �. f. E N N 0) L a) EO d :E E N (moo N O V @ 0 C @@ .U. 2 a) ,._ > LL j O` >@ N > L Q w Y N U O 3 Q@ C ° @ Y7 C @ E C E @ 30 L 0 >,= a) w0 2 3 0 3 N L N N co n p N a) @ U a) p_ J C N C t V U L U N U L a) a) >i N 0 7 3 3 .L-. 3 O. U .L.. -° a N a) a) O 3 (a N O 3 O w O O 7 w T O > X a) aj W a Q U) n. (A O (n n. a O j Q 0 a) -0 U 7 O N CO V p M V (O CO N CO W r r (n C'3 m Y G •a Q C } C G T i 0 Table 50. Water Level of Service (LOS) Standards Service Provider LOS Standard (Average Daily Demand) City of Bellingham 199 gallons /day /ERU' Water District 2 210 gallons /day /ERU 2 Water District 7 221 gallons /ERU /day Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer (formerly Water District 10) 219 gallons /day /ERU 3 City of Blaine 300 gallons /household /day Birch Bay Water and Sewer District 140 gallons /capita /day" Evergreen Water and Sewer 270 gallons /household /day Whatcom County Water District 13 270 gallons /household /day City of Everson 300 gallons /ERU /day City of Ferndale 140 gallons /capita /day ° PUD 1 140 gallons /capita /day ° City of Lynden 235 gallons /day /ERU City of Nooksack 250 gallons /day /ERU 5 City of Sumas 225 gallons /day /residential connection 1 City of Bellingham Water System Plan, Tables 2 -8 and 2 -11 (June 2009). 2 Whatcom County Water District #2, Draft Water System Plan, August 4, 2009, page 2 -5. 3 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Water System Comprehensive Plan (August 2009). Based on water demand forecast for the combined Geneva/Sudden Valley portion of the District (Appendix B of Water System Plan). 4 Where an LOS standard was not specifically identified in a water system plan, the average daily water consumption figure for urban water systems was taken from the CWSP, Table 3 -4, page 3 -5 (February 2000). Other LOS standards found in Table 50 are provided in gallons /ERU /day or gallons/household /day rather than gallons /capita /day noted in the Whatcom County CWSP. 5 Personal communication. Email from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. Table 51 provides an overview of the planning horizon year and horizon year population for the latest urban water system plans in comparison to Whatcom 2029 population projections. As can be seen by a review of the table, most urban water systems plan conservatively for drinking water needs, particularly given the time it takes to seek new water supplies to serve growth. Evergreen Water District's WSP projected population of 3,000 is lower than the population of 3,584 projected in this CFP for 2029. The City of Everson's WSP projected population of 3,114 is lower than the population of 3,337 projected in this CFP for the 2029 horizon year. Nooksack's WSP projected population is lower than the 2,047 population projected in this CFP's horizon year. Sumas' WSP projected population of 1,625 is lower than the 2,095 anticipated in the city by 2029. Although Lake Whatcom Water District's 2027 horizon year population is lower than that projected for the district by 2029 in this CFP, the district's plan also includes a build -out population which is more conservative than the district's 2029 horizon population considered in this CFP. VI November 2009 Table 51 also identifies each urban water system's horizon year average daily demand (ADD) in millions of gallons per day. The table shows that most of the water systems are proactively planning in a long -range and conservative fashion in order to be prepared to obtain future water resources, as needed. As can be seen from a review of individual water system descriptions in the next section, most districts have identified capital improvement projects in both the near -term and long -term planning in order to be prepared for future population growth in their districts. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District's Plan identified a near -term need for additional water sources, and is actively working with its partner, the City of Blaine, to obtain new water sources. In addition, if the DOE water rights calculation for the City of Lynden of 1,110 gpm is considered, instead of the City's source capacity estimates, then the City is expected to experience a future water deficit. Capital Projects and Funding Capital Project Funding Water services and capital improvements are funded primarily by the users of the system through water rates and general facilities charges. Water rates can be adjusted to match the funding required for capital and operational needs. Connection fees are usually charged to developers when a development necessitates expansion of the district's capacity. Improvements and new infrastructure that will benefit the majority of the district are funded through water rates, capital, improvement fees, revenue bonds, or state or federal programs. These programs include the Public Works Trust Fund, a revolving loan fund designed to help local entities through low - interest loans; and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which involves low- interest, federally funded loans. Table 51. Population Comparison: Water Plans and 2029 Population Projection Service Provider Horizon year of Capital Plan Horizon Year ADD 2029 Population City of Lynden Capital Plan Population (mgd) Projection Birch Bay Water/ 2035 14,326 2.39 91616 Sewer 2018 11625 N/A 2 21095 City of Bellingham 2028 122,672 18.3 107,648 City of Blaine 2027 11,587 3.45 81647 City of Everson 2022 31114 0.46' 31337 City of Ferndale 2026 19,334 1.84 17,550 City of Lynden 2027 20,120 4.0 15,312 City of Nooksack 2022 19881 N/A 2 21047 City of Sumas 2018 11625 N/A 2 21095 Evergreen Water and 2023 31000 N/A 2 31584 Sewer District PUD 1 N/A 3 N/A 3 N/A 3 32 82 VL Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review Service Provider Horizon year of Capital Plan Horizon Year ADD 2029 Population Capital Plan Population (mgd) Projection Lake Whatcom Water 2027 1078554 0.875 119368 and Sewer (W.C. Water Dist. 10) W.C. Water Dist. 2 2029 N /AS 0.25 7 11646 W.C. Water Dist. 13 2024 N/A 8 0.397 11665 W.C. Water District 7 2027 271009 0.207 21719 N/A = Not Available All figures in this table, unless noted below, are population figures. Employment or residential equivalents are not considered in this table unless specifically noted. 1 Based on system design standard of an ADD of 300 gpd /ERU, and a horizon year estimate of 1,540 ERUs. 2 Latest WSP does not identify a horizon year ADD. 3 Since PUD1 provides retail water service only to areas characterized by and designated for industrial and commercial uses, the district's 2004 WSP does not provide population projections or a horizon year. PUD 1 also owns and operates the Grandview potable water supply system — retail (Jilk, Stephan, PUD 1, memorandum to Matt Aamot commenting on Whatcom County 10 -Year Urban Growth Area review documents, April 20, 2009). 4 Although Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District's 2027 horizon year anticipates a population of 10,855, the plan indicates a "build -out" population of 15,192. 5 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, Water System Comprehensive Plan (August 2009). See Appendix B for forecast to 2027. Also, there is a build -out forecast of 1.2 MGD. 6 Water District 2 August 2009 Draft Water System Plan does not identify population. The plan indicates that the District plans to serve a total of 1,175 ERUs, or 797 service connections (Whatcom County Water District 2 Draft Water System Plan, August 4, 2009, Tables 2 -9 and 2 -10. Applying the City of Bellingham average household size of 2.5 and occupancy rateV 94.4% to the 797 projected water connections results in a future population of 1,881 in 2029. 7 Based on analysis of ADD /ERU compared to projected number of ERUs in WSP. 8 Water District 13 does not identify population. It plans to serve a total of 1,338 connections. Applying the Peaceful Valley Census Designated Place average household size of 2.79 and an occupancy rate of 79.8% results in approximately 2,979 people that could be served by the 1,338 connections in 2024. 9 Water District 7 only identifies connections rather than population. The district plans to serve 888 connections by 2027. Applying the Bellingham average household size of 2.5 and occupancy rate of 94.4% results in approximately 2,100 people served by the 888 connections in 2027. However, Water District 7 is approved to serve up to 1,145 residential service connections (State Department of Health letter from Richard Rodriguez and John Thielmann to James Trowbridge dated January 5, 2009). Therefore the District could serve a population of about 2,700. Any plans involving funding mechanisms not mentioned above are explained below: ■ Birch Bay Water System - The District will institute Latecomer's Agreements to help fund any water main that serves property beyond that owned by the developer financing the project. ■ City of Everson - The City plans to pursue Community Development Block Grants and Community Investment Fund Grants to finance major water system improvements. If these applications are unsuccessful, then the low- interest loans listed above will be used. ■ City of Ferndale - The City may, under certain conditions, construct new infrastructure for specific areas as Utility Local Improvement Districts. ■ City of Lynden - In addition to the funding mechanisms listed above, the City expects to receive between $125,000 and $51,000 annually from interest income through the year 2013. Birch Bay Water and Sewer The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District obtains its water supply from the City of Blaine (well field). The district's Comprehensive Water Plan (2009) indicates that existing water supply is only sufficient through 2011 (page ES -3). The district's plan states that additional water supply, including use of surplus storage, and /or conservation will be necessary to meet the demand beyond that time. The district's 2009 Comprehensive Water Plan includes several new supply 83 VV November 2009 and distribution projects expected to address supply deficiencies. Besides its residential and commercial customers, the district provides water supply to. BP Cherry Point Refinery through a wholesale agreement with PUD 1 (see below). The district plan's 2035 population projection of 12,913 is greater than the population projection considered for the district's water service area by 2029 in this CFP. Birch Bay's Comprehensive Water Plan indicates that it will extend future service areas to areas within the district boundaries and provides future connection policies. However, it does not provide a map identifying future major service lines. The District is bounded on the east by the Bell Bay Jackson Water Association which served approximately 231 households in 2008, mostly outside of the UGA. City of Bellingham The City of Bellingham provides retail water service to the city limits and portions of the Bellingham UGA that are not served and identified as a service area by other water purveyors. The city's water service area overlaps with that of other water districts within the UGA. The WSP does not assume that the city will take over other districts with retail water service areas identified in the Whatcom County CWSP. Instead, the city assumes that it will be the retail water purveyor for areas within its UGA that are not served by other service providers. The City of Bellingham has adequate water rights and water plant capacity to provide water service to its retail service area under all future growth scenarios listed. The City's 2009 water comprehensive plan, provides for water storage and distribution systems to all of the current city UGAs and has been adequately sized to serve the projected 2028 population of 122,672. The city anticipates that any additional storage required to accept population greater that the 2028 projection can be addressed in the next planning cycle. Future reservoir projects can be up sized to serve additional population load. The city's WSP identifies future service lines extending into the city's UGA. City of Blaine The City of Blaine's Comprehensive Water System Plan (CHS Engineers 2008) provides a city population projection of 11,587 by 2027, larger than anticipated for the city water service area by 2029 in this CFP. The city provides water to both the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District and the Bell Bay Jackson Water Association. The 2008 WSP notes that the city has adequate supply to meet projected demand through the 2027 planning period considered (City of Blaine Comprehensive Water System Plan, CHS Engineers, July 2008). The Comprehensive Water Plan shows a series of capital improvements needed in the planning period to 2027 to maintain capacity and provide adequate distribution. The city's WSP does not appear to show water service extensions to areas within the city or UGA that are not currently served. However, the city's future service policies indicate that the city is planning to serve those areas. City of Everson The City of Everson's 2005 WSP addresses anticipated growth through the year 2022, including a city population of 3,114. The Everson water system is also addressed in the Capital Facilities 8� Comprehensive Plan update —1© Year UGA Review I "' I Element of the Everson Comprehensive Plan, which anticipated growth through 2024, including a projected population of 4,202. Source / Water Rights The City of Everson holds water rights authorizing a maximum instantaneous pumping rate of 800 gallons per minute and a maximum annual withdrawal of 601 acre feet. Given adequate storage, which Everson has developed, the annual withdrawal maximum is the system limiting factor in terms of source of supply. The Everson WSP uses the figure of 300 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU) to analyze the system capacity. On this basis, the Everson source is equivalent to 1,788 ERUs. In 2002 the Everson water system served 1,147 ERUs of which 440 went to serve two large water association customers and 707 went to regular City customers. Assuming a total increase of 15 ERUs for the water associations from 2002 to 2029 would leave 626 ERUs of capacity to serve new growth within the City service area for a total of 1,333 ERUs for the City. For 2008 the City estimates that the Everson water system is serving 1,238 ERUs (440 ERUs for the water associations and 798 ERUs in the City). The CFP population projection equates to an 45% increase in population over the 21 -year period from 2008 through 2029. Using the 2008 City ERU estimate of 798 and applying an 45% increase would result in the need for a total of 1,157 ERUs in 2029. This represents an increase of 359 ERUs. This number of ERUs falls within the - non -water association capacity of 1,333. It is important to note that the above analysis includes the City's continuing to supply 455 ERUs to the two water associations. In 2004 the City instituted a series of rate increases that are intended to reduce water consumption by the associations. Under the terms of their supply agreements, the City also has the ability to reduce the total volume of water supplied to the associations. Given the above factors and considering the fact that the Everson water system plan utilized a relatively conservative 300 gallons per day per ERU, the City concludes that it has adequate source capacity to accommodate anticipated growth through the 2029 CFP horizon year. Storage In 2006 the City constructed a third water storage reservoir. The system analysis completed in 2007 indicated that total storage is equivalent to 1,900 ERUs. Adding the 455 ERUs noted above for the water associations to the 1,157 ERUs calculated previously as being necessary to supply the City's future needs in 2029 yields a total of 1,612 ERUs. This total is less than the ERUs supported by the storage capacity; therefore, the City concludes that it has more than enough storage to accommodate anticipated growth through 2029. Improvements and Financing In the past few years the city has completed two major capital projects. These include construction of a third water storage reservoir and installation of a manganese treatment facility that allows full use of the city's deep well (and full instantaneous pumping capacity). The new reservoir was paid for out of capital reserves and the manganese plant is being financed through a low- interest loan from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Payment on this loan will be covered by revenue from existing water rates. The city anticipates that all new extensions to serve VV November 2069 new development will be provided by developers. The only exception to this might be the installation of a new trunk line in conjunction with construction of a major east -west connector to serve the city's industrial zone. If the city were to participate in construction of such a facility, it is anticipated that state CERB funding and County EDI funding would be utilized. 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's WSP indicates that the City will serve areas of the city and its UGA that are not currently served, though the Plan does not map future service lines into these areas at this time. City of Ferndale The City of Ferndale 2006 WSP indicates that the city has adequate water rights and contracts to meet water system demands to the end of its 2026 planning period (City of Ferndale 2006). As noted in Table 51 above, the city is planning to serve a retail water service population greater than the CFP population projection to 2029. The city has identified water storage capacity improvements that will be needed in the 20 -year planning period, as well as near -term distribution improvements needed to meet fire flow requirements (City of Ferndale 2006). The city has some neighboring small water associations which are surrounded by the city water service area on many sides. These include the Central Water Association, Ferndale Mobile Village, Northwest Water Association, and the Mountain View Water Association among others. These water associations each serves between 50 and 200 households in 2008. They all experience additional growth through the 2029 planning horizon because they are located mostly within the Ferndale UGA. There does not appear to be any plan for the City of Ferndale to take over these smaller water services. City of Lynden The City of Lynden WSP (Gray & Osborne, 2008) indicates that the city has adequate water supply to meet the needs of population growth over the 20 year period. However, the City of Lynden and Ecology have an existing dispute over the city water rights. Where the City of Lynden indicates that it has 5.91 million gallons per day (MGD) in water rights, Ecology believes that the city only has approximately 1.599 (MGD) in water rights (Fabiniak and Rodriguez, pers. Comm.). The city has entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Ecology to address long- standing water right issues between the city and Ecology. Resolution of water supply issues for City of Lynden is important for future planning in the city's water service area. Using water rights amounts that Ecology believes the city possesses, it is expected that the city will experience water supply deficits based on the Whatcom 2029 of this CFP. The city's water plan also identifies capital projects needed in the 6 -year planning period, as well as some longer term projects. Six -year planning capital projects include construction of a new treatment plant with additional capacity, acquisition of land for a new reservoir, and a variety of distribution improvements to improve fire flow. The city's WSP includes a map showing future water extensions within the city limits, but not extending into the surrounding unincorporated UGA. Comprehensive Plan update -1Q Year UGA Review The city borders several water associations, including five associations that receive wholesale water from the city: Berthusen Water Association, the Twin Ditch Water Association, the Meadowbrook Water Association, the EDB Service Area, and the Stickney Island Association. The Berthusen Water Association has a service area overlap with Lynden in its western UGA. The city's water system plan addresses service policies in its western UGA, and indicates that many of the five water associations mentioned above may be annexed to the city's water system if they are within the city's retail water service area. City of Nooksack The Nooksack water system is addressed in the Nooksack WSP that was approved by the Washington Department of Health on February 22, 2006. The Nooksack WSP addresses the 20- year period through 2022. This includes a 2022 population of 1,881. The Nooksack water system is also addressed in the 2004 update of the Nooksack Comprehensive Plan. The Nooksack Comprehensive Plan addresses the 20 -year period ending in 2024 and includes a 2024 population of 2,039. Source The City of Sumas provides the source of supply to the Nooksack water system. The City of Sumas provides up to 199 acre feet of water annually to Nooksack per the terms of a mutual - supply agreement between the two cities and the Nooksack Valley Water Association (NVWA). The City of Sumas has indicated a willingness to supply an increased quantity of water to the City of Nooksack if necessary to support growth, and the City of Sumas has more than adequate water rights to be able to provide such an increased supply. Storage The City of Nooksack shares storage with the Nooksack Valley Water Association. Combined storage includes three reservoirs totaling 700,000 gallons. The Nooksack WSP indicates that the City has enough storage capacity to serve a population of 1,881. The CFP projects a 2029 population allocation of 2,047 for the City of Nooksack. Although the total storage described above is jointly owned, NVWA utilizes more than 70% of the total storage. Additional analysis will be necessary to determine whether enough additional storage capacity is available or can be made available to accommodate growth under the CFP projections without constructing additional storage capacity. However, if additional storage capacity is needed, the City is prepared to participate in such a project to ensure that new growth under the CFP can be fully accommodated through 2029. Improvements and Financing All system expansions necessary to serve new development will be paid for by developers. The City is currently preparing construction plans for a new booster pump that will increase system pressures to well above State minimum standards throughout the entire system. This improvement will be paid for out of capital reserves. Similarly, if construction of a new 500,000 gallon water storage reservoir is necessary, the City will share the costs with NVWA and will pay VI November 2009 its share out of capital reserves. The Nooksack WSP shows the locations of some but not all of the system extensions necessary to serve new development in the Nooksack UGA. City of Sumas The Sumas water system is addressed in the Sumas WSP that was approved by the Washington Department of Health on December 4, 2000. The Sumas WSP covers the 20 -year period from 1998 to 2018 including a 2018 population of 1,625. The City is currently in the process of updating its WSP. In addition to municipal customers, the City of Sumas supplies wholesale water to the Sumas Rural Water Association, the Nooksack Valley Water Association and the City of Nooksack. Source I Water Rights The City of Sumas owns and operates seven wells located in two major well fields (Sumas well field and May Road well field). These wells provide a significant quantity of water on both an instantaneous and annual basis. The City holds numerous water rights that allow a total withdrawal of approximately 3,322 acre feet of water annually. Based on past and ongoing analyses, the Sumas well fields and water rights provide a source of supply well in excess of the future needs of the City's retail and wholesale customers through the year 2029. For example, the existing Sumas WSP indicates that in 2018, with conservation included, the Sumas water system would still have over 1,000 acre feet of excess capacity. Storage The City of Sumas owns a 500,000 gallon storage reservoir that provides storage for both the City and the Sumas Rural Water Association (SRWA). The Sumas WSP indicates that the Sumas reservoir provided sufficient capacity to meet the City's needs through 2018. However, the WSP also indicates that to serve both the City and the SRWA systems an additional 60,000 gallons of storage would be needed by 2005 and an additional 160,000 gallons of storage would be needed by 2019. In 2002 the SRWA constructed an additional 500,000 gallon reservoir that provides storage to both SRWA and the City. The City of Sumas is in the process of updating its water system plan. The preliminary storage analysis indicates that the City's 500,000 gallon reservoir is sufficient to meet the City's needs through 2029 and the combined storage of 1,000,000 gallons is sufficient to meet the needs of the combined systems. Improvements and Financing System extensions required to serve new development will be provided by developers. A system of new water mains will be extended into the City's UGA as new developments are approved following annexation. The City does not have any plans for major City- funded water system improvements. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs are covered by existing water rates. Evergreen Water and Sewer District The Evergreen Water and Sewer District's Comprehensive WSP (2004) indicates that the district has sufficient supply to meet the district's water needs to its 2023 planning horizon and beyond so long as unaccounted water loss can be reduced. However, the district's plan only accounts for a VV Comprehensive Plan Update - 90 Year UGA Review n future population of 3,000, which is lower than the population projected for the district to 2029 in this CFP. The district's capital projects include water main and pressure zone improvements to help meet growing demand expected within the district's boundaries. The district also has plans to address unaccounted water loss, which should enable the district to apply for additional water service connections needed to meet some of the growth anticipated by 2029. The district's plan does show future water service mains and lines in maps located in the plan appendices. Pursuant to state regulations, it is anticipated that Evergreen Water and Sewer District will update its water system plan in 2010. PUD 1 PUD 1 provides water service to both the Grandview industrial /commercial service area north of Ferndale, as well the Cherry Point UGA (an industrial area). PUD 1's Comprehensive Water Plan (Donald E. Wright 2004) does not measure water demand in population as most other WSPs do. The majority of the district's water service customers are industrial and commercial customers. The PUD's Comprehensive Water Plan indicates that it has sufficient water supply to meet the district's needs to the end of the district plan's 20 -year planning period (2024). The plan includes a series of capital improvements including the acquisition of other potable water system treatment plants and water distribution and storage improvements. Although the district's plan does not include maps showing future water service extensions, portions of the narrative on future., water service indicate the district's future water service plans to serve its entire district. Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District (Water District 10) The Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Water System Comprehensive Plan (2009) indicates that the district has adequate supply to meet its 20 -year planning needs. The district takes water supply and provides service to four separate areas: Sudden Valley, Geneva, North Shore /City, and North Shore /Wells. City of Bellingham water is provided to most of these subareas. The North Shore /City subarea is served partially by City of Bellingham water and partially by well water, while the North Shore /Wells subarea is served exclusively by well water. A review of population projections found in Table 51 indicate that the district is planning for less growth by 2027 than projected in this CFP to 2029. However, the district's build -out plans are for a population of 15,192, which is larger than the CFP 2029 horizon year population projections for the district. The district's plan identifies a number of capital improvement projects for maintaining system reliability and distribution with expected growth. The district does not specifically identify future water service lines within the district. Water District 2 Water District 2's Draft WSP (2009) includes plans to serve approximately 797 connections by 2029. When translating this to population, the district is planning for a population that is slightly larger than that being projected to 2029 for the district in this CFP. The district's plan identifies capital improvements needed by the district over the 20 -year period ending in 2029. These improvements include the systematic replacement of the district's water distribution system over 89 �---� November 2009 the 20 -year period which in many cases will address fire flow issues. Additional projects necessary to provide fire flow in the Bellingham UGA have also been identified and are likely to be paid for by developers. The plan indicates that the district has enough water supply for its planning period. The district's plan does not specifically identify future water service lines within the district. Water District 2 and City of Bellingham have an overlap in service areas south of the Bellingham Airport according to the County's CWSP. Water District 13 Table 51 indicates that Water District 13's WSP (Reichardt & Ebe 2005) anticipates a number of connections similar greater than the district population being considered under the CFP 2029 horizon year. The Water District 13 Water System Plan indicates that it has adequate water supply to serve its service area by the district's planning horizon year of 2024. The district's capital improvement plan identifies a variety of projects through 2010 that are needed to ensure adequate water service. The district's plan does not show future service extensions within its service area. Pursuant to state regulations, it is anticipated that Water District 13 will update its water system plan in 20111 Water District 7 The Whatcom County Water District 7 WSP (Reichardt & Ebe 2008) indicates that the district has enough water supply to serve its customers in the 20 -year period ending in 2028. However, the District does not plan for as large a population as is being projected under the CFP 2029 horizon for population projections (see Table 51). The district's plan indicates a need for a new storage facility in one of the pressure zones to improve water pressure, as well as a variety of distribution system improvements in order to maintain adequate water service in the district's planning period. The district's plan shows future service extensions in figures found within the water system's service area. Capital Projects and Funding The urban water service providers have identified capital projects as noted in Table 52 below, broken down by service provider, to accommodate the future needs of urban water service in Whatcom County. Note that specific revenue sources are not identified in Table 52 below. Water district providers obtain their revenue from a variety of sources, including but not limited to connection charges, as noted at the beginning of this section. JV Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review Table 52. Urban Area Water Projects Project 2010 2011 2012 Costs /Revenue (thousands $) New Booster Pump Station - Portal Way at Blaine Connection (SU -3) Cost M 2013 f 2014 I 2015 2016- Total' 2029 General Facilities 446 446 Charge New Source and 10" Transmission Main at Portal Way (SU-4) Cost 11260 11260 General Facilities 11260 19260 Charge 16" Transmission Main from Blaine Rd Booster Pump Station along Hall and Dearborn to Drayton Harbor Rd. (SU -5) Cost 791 791 General Facilities 791 791 Charge Local Facilities Charge 14" Transmission Main on Blaine Rd from Double R Ranch to Alderson Rd. (SU -6) Cost I I I I I 1 1688 1688 Booster Pump Station Upgrade at Blaine Rd. (SU- 7) Cost 18" Transmission Main on Blaine Rd from Blaine meter to Blaine Rd Booster Pump Station (SU -8) 526 1 526 November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 11178 11178 Replace Birch Point Reservoir at existing site (ST- 2) Cost 11400 11400 General Facilities 11400 11400 Charge Rates Kickerville Reservoir upgrades at existing site (ST- 3). Cost 667 667 Rates 667 667 Replacement Semiahmoo Reservoir (ST -4) Cost 11018 11018 General Facilities 11018 11018 Charge Rates Point Whitehorn Reservoir at Point Whitehorn (ST -5) Cost 606 606 General Facilities 606 606 Charge 3" Distribution Main Replacement along Birch Bay Drive (T -4) Cost 366 366 Rates 366 366 Abandon Distribution Main from Loft Lane to Gemini St. (T -5) Cost 3 3 Rates 3 3 92 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Waste Water Treatment Plant Meter Relocations to Pt. Whitehorn Booster Pump Station area (T -6) Cost 45 45 Rates 45 45 Point Whitehorn Booster Pump Station at Pt. Whitehorn (T -7) Cost 122 122 General Facilities 122 122 Charge Replace Distribution Main from Pt. Whitehorn Booster Pump Station to Pt. Whitehorn Rd. (T- 8) Cost 137 137 General Facilities 137 137 Charge Birch Point Booster Pump Station at existing site (T -9) Cost 526 526 General Facilities 526 526 Charge 12" Transmission Main from Birch Point Booster Pump Station to replacement Semiahmoo Reservoir (T -10) Cost 785 785 General Facilities 785 785 Charge Semiahmoo Booster Pump Station (T -11) Cost 395 395 f� I "" I November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) General Facilities 395 395 Charge 10" Transmission Main generally at Birch Point along Birch Point Rd and along southeast side of Cannery Hill (T- 12) Cost 21566 21566 General Facilities 21566 21566 Charge Local Facilities Charge Main Replacement at multiple locations in District (T -13) Cost 500 500 Rates 500 500 King Mountain Reservoir (ST -2) (1.9 MG) Cost 450 51890 61340 Upper Yew Reservoir (1.35 MG) (ST -1) Cost 51919 51919 Padden Reservoir 457 South Pressure Zone (ST -3) (2.5 MG) Cost 81997 80997 730 Alabama Hill Pressure Zone Reservoir (1.5 MG) (ST -4) Cost 41858 41858 519 Dakin & Yew Pressure Zone Reservoir (2.2 MG) (ST -5) Cost 5,937 51937 94 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) New 40`" Street Pump Station (PS -1) Cost 22664 21664 New Kerney Road Pump Station (PS -2) Cost 300 31950 41250 Consolidated Pump Station Upgrade (PS -3) Cost 11295 11295 Reveille Street Pump Station Upgrade (PS -4) Cost 1,503 11503 New 950 Zone Constant Pressure Pump Station located near Upper Yew Reservoir (PS -5) Cost 11705 11705 New James Street Pump Station (PS -6) Cost 22980 21980 870 Upper Yew Reservoir West Connection (PL -1) Cost 11702 11702 870 Upper Yew Reservoir East Connection (PL -2) Cost 11689 11689 King Mountain Reservoir West Connection (PL -3) Cost 21853 2,853 Transmission Main Extension to 950 Rezone Area (located near Upper Yew Reservoir) (PL -4) November 2009 Project Costs /Revenue (thousands $) Cost Yew Street Transmission Main Extension (PL -5) Cost Annual Main Replacement (PL- R) Cost Mt. Baker Highway Replacement II (PL-8) Cost Hydraulic Model 3 -year updates lPAI -1 l Metering Program (M -1) (throughout caniira nraml Nooksack Diversion Pnccnna !nl / -11 New Source: Prospecting for new wells and water rights (SU- 1) New Source: Completion of Woll *R 1 !SI I-Rl I elemetry System Upgrades including system fnr Well #9 !SI I -91 96 JV Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Replacement of Chlorination Treatment System and associated building (SU -10) Cost 250 250 Rehabilitate or reconstruct Well 2 and other wells in well field (SU -11) Cost 50 50 Replace transmission main from Birch Bay Water District north to Hughes Avenue and east to 1 -5 (T /D -4) Cost 11250 13250 Construction of 630 -zone Booster Pump Station (BPS -1) Cost 11500 11500 Sweet Road Water Main Upsizing East toward well field — Phase 1 (T /D -5) Cost 19250 11250 Sweet Road Water Main Upsizing East toward well field — Phase 2 (T /D -6) Cost 11250 1,250 Sweet Road Water Main Upsizing East toward well field — Phase 3 (T /D -7) Cost 1,250 1,250 97 November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) E Street Replacement of 6" main with 8" main and associated pipe on E Street between 6m and 12th Streets (T /D- 13) Cost 145 145 11`h Street Pipe Replacement between H Street and B Street (T /D- 14) Cost 250 250 Addition of Standby Power Generator at Lincoln Park for Booster Pump Stations #2 and #5 (BPS -3) Cost 115 115 Water Distribution Extension (East Blaine) Local Improvement Districts Cost 11000 11000 13000 1,000 11000 17000 21000 81000 Reservoir #1 Replacement (ST- 1) (location to be determined in conjunction with project SLI-1) Cost 500 41000 41500 Construction of Additional Reservoir for 330 Zone (ST-4) (location to be determined) Cost 500 51100 5,600 Construction of East Blaine Reservoir for 630 Zone (ST -3) Cost 21500 21500 ✓V Comprehensive Plan Update -1Q Year UGA Review Project Costs /Revenue (thousands $) Water System Plan Update (P -2) Cost Miscellaneous Capital Projects Cost Mission Road Gvnnn¢ inn Prnicr+ Upgrade Pipe in . Labounty, Sunset fn I -R /rcf AIM Upgrade Pipe in Pacific Place (ref# 4Q1 Upgrade the Axton Pressure Zone by Moving Pressure Reduction Valves and Pipe in Deer Creek Drive (ref# A'2 2. AA1 Water System Plan Update (no rcf IA New Tank, Booster Station & Connecting Pipeline North of Smith (ref # 40 & 411 Cost Additional Treatment Plant I InnroAc I1NR -91 �� November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 27000 127000 71000 219000 Site and Construct 1.0 MG Reservoir in northeastern part of service area(ST -1) Cost 250 250 Replace undersized water mains along Glenning Street and 14th Street (D- 3) Cost 425 425 Replace undersized water mains along British Columbia Avenue (D-4) Cost 103 103 Replace undersized water mains along Garden Drive and Garden Circle (D- 5) Cost 576 576 Replace undersized water mains along Line Road for fire flow (D -6) Cost 83 83 Install water main along 8th Street between Grover Street and Liberty Street (D -7) Cost 105 105 Replace undersized water mains along South Prairie Drive and Park View Drive east of Depot Road (D -8) Cost 238 238 Comprehensive Plan update -10 Year UGA Review Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Replace undersized water mains along East Badger Road for fire flow (East) (D- 9) Cost 536 536 Replace undersized water mains along East Badger Road for fire flow (Center) (D -10) Cost 118 118 Replace undersized water mains along East Badger Road for fire flow (West) (D -11) Cost 770 770 Replace pipes in Benson Road for improved fire flow (D -12) Cost 160 160 Replace undersized water mains along Cedar Drive and West Park Street to Cedar Court and along West Park Street north of Cedar Drive (D- 13) Cost 259 259 Install water main connecting Woodcreek Road and Double Ditch Road (D -14) Cost 125 125 Replace undersized water mains along South Meadow Lane and Meadow Lane (D-15) l 101 f November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 209 209 Install a water main connecting 19'h Street Court and South Pine Court (D -16) Cost 41 41 Expansion of water system to Northeastern part of service area (M -1) Cost 926 926 New Booster Pump at Gillies Road (south of city limits) Cost 2502 Cash Reserves i No Projects currently planned 3 Annual Repair and Maintenance Program (WM1) Cost 30 31 32 33 126 Comprehensive Water System Plan Update (M2) Cost 30 30 Annual Small Tools & Equipment (M4) Cost 6 6 6 7 25 Cross Connection Control Program (OP -1) Cost 2 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Emergency Response Program (OP -6) Cost 7.5 Water Conservation Program (OP -7) Cost 5 Grandview — Northgate Supply Reliability (IMP -1) Cost 20 Grandview — Northgate Chlorination Reliability (IMP -2) Cost 1 Water System Telemetry and Alarms — Phase 2 Cost 70 Meter Testing and Replacement (IMP -4) Cost 2.5 Grandview — Northgate Emergency Power (IMP — 5) Cost 15 Grandview — Northgate Reservoir Piping (IMP -6) Cost 5 Cherry Point Potable System Acquisition (EXP - 1) Cost 100 Cherry Point Potable Water System Storage (EXP -1.1) 103 1 �VJ November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 250 Cherry Point Potable Water System Treatment (EXP -1.2) Cost 10 Cherry Point Water System Transmission System Cost 500 Cherry Point Potable Water System Emergency Power (EXP -1.4) Cost 75 Expansion of Water System to Unserved Areas of Grandview — Northgate Distribution System (EXP 2) Cost 1,000 Grandview — Northgate Additional Storage (OP -101) Cost 75 Grandview — Northgate Ferndale Intertie (IMP -101) Cost 10 Cherry Point Potable Water System Storage (IMP -102) Cost 750 Cherry Point Potable Water System Treatment (IMP -103) Cost 400 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 104 11 l I November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Grandview — Northgate Water Distribution Expansion (EXP- 101) Cost 500 Cherry Point Potable Water Distribution Expansion (EXP- 102) Cost 500 Engineering reports benefiting future customers Cost 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 21.6 54 Computers (office - server) — Replace hardware, network security, and operating system Cost 5.6 5.6 5.6 11.2 28 Computers (staff workstations) — Replace /Update Hardware, operating system, and software Cost 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 21.6 54 Meter Reading Handheld Data Collectors Cost 10.4 10.4 Computers — Replace Utility Billing Printer Cost 2.0 2.0 2.0 6 Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant — Replace Generator Transfer Switch Cost 54 54 l I November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant - Raw Water Pump Emergency Bypass Port Cost 5.4 5.4 Water Service Rebuilds Cost 50.4 50.4 50.4 151.2 Replace Pressure Reduction Valves (PRVs) Cost 14 14 28 Smoke Blower Cost 5.6 5.6 Trailerable Genset -. Cost 33.6 33.6 Replace Backhoe Cost 134.6 134.6 Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant - Emergency Generator Upgrade Cost 325 325 Replace Office Staff Vehicle Cost 17.9 17.9 35.8 Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant - Raw Water Pump Motors Cost 29.1 29.1 Blow -off Installations at Dead Ends Cost 33.6 33.6 Reservoirs - Inspection and Maintenance 106 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 11 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 24.2 24.2 Replace Camera Equipment Cost 33.6 33.6 Replace Tool Truck Cost 56 56 56 168 Division 22 Reservoir (0.5 MG) Cost 664.7 664.7 Replace Meter Reading Van Cost 22.4 22.4 Eagleridge Fire Pump Control Upgrade Cost 56 56 Sudden Valley Replace AC and 2" PVC Water Lines Cost 82.4 82.4 Lowell & Oriental PRVs Cost 185 185 Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant Clearwell Overflow Drain Cost 80.9 80.9 Agate Heights Water Treatment Plant — Additional Capacity Cost 300 300 Geneva Area Water Main Replacement Cost 158.6 907.9 11066.5 107 1 November 2009 Project Costs /Revenue (thousands $) Geneva Street Water Main Replacement Cost Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant — Transfer and Transmission Pump (�nef Replace Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant Filfarc Replace Small M imn Trnirle Replace Mini FYravatnr Replace Light Tn irk Replace Fire I iArnnfe Cost Inspection and Maintenance of Racaninire Replace Dump Tnink (ncari\ Gust orwwwj Fort Bellingham Rd, replace 4" pipe with 8" pipe Cost 1 I I I I I 1 1 62 Olympic View Drive, replace 4" with 8" pipe Comprehensive Plan update - 10 Year UGA Review Project Costs /Revenue (thousands $) Cost Howard Street, replace 4" pipe with 8" pipe Cost Bancroft RD, replace 4" pipe with 8" pipe Cost Marine Drive, replace 8" with 16" pipe Cost Update Water System Plan Cost Well Pump Generator Cost Upgrade Britton Road Pump Cost Emerald Lake Cost Emerald Lake Cost Road Pump Cost Academy Booster Cost 1 180 I ( I ( 180 1119 November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Upgrade the Pumps and Pressure Reducing Valve in the Sapphire Trail Pump Station Cost 65 65 Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition System Cost 75 75 Upgrade the Pressure Reducing Valve in Control Vault A to 6" Cost 15 15 Upgrade the -. Pressure Reducing Valve in Control Vault B to 6" Cost 15 15 Remove the Woodlake Meadows Pressure Reducing Valves Cost 15 15 Replace Ex. 4" water main on Emerald Lake Way & Swamp Creek Road with 8" Cost 180 180 Replace Ex. 4" Transmission Main on Emerald Lake Way with 8" Cost 145 145 Replace 6" Main on Hillsdale with 10" Cost 180 180 110 I Comprehensive Plan Update -1© Year UGA Review Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Connect Wildhaven Crest with Vineyard Road Cost 125 125 Install 8" Main along Toad Lake Road & Squalicum Mt. Rd. Construct new pump station. Cost 300 300 1 City of Lynden, City's Water System Plan rolls up years 2014 -2027. Projects found in 2014 -2027 timeframe are shown in total column only. 2 City of Nooksack's Water System Plan does not include projects within the timeframe of the Whatcom County CFP. This specific project actually going to bid in 2009. (Personal communication email Erin Osborn email to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.) 3 City of Sumas' Water System Plan does not include projects within the timeframe of the Whatcom County CFP. No projects are currently shown in the City's 6 -year or 20 -year planning periods (Personal communication email Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.) 4 PUD #1 Water System Plan does not include a specific year of improvement for capital projects. Projects are prioritized by near term (2004 -2010) and longterm (2011 -2023) projects (October 2004 Comprehensive Water Plan, Public Utility District #1, Donald C. Wright, Consulting Engineer, Chapter 9). For purposes of this CFP, all projects are only listed in the total column. ill November 2009 Schools Overview This section evaluates the seven public school districts that serve Whatcom County. Inventory of Current Facilities Inventories of the school districts' existing facilities located in Whatcom County are presented in this section. The inventories are summarized below. Each inventory lists the schools in alphabetical order for each level of school (i.e., elementary, middle /junior high) and high/senior high school). The inventory also includes the number of students that each school can accommodate (i.e., its enrollment capacity). Where detailed information is available, enrollment capacity has been broken down into permanent enrollment capacity and portable enrollment capacity (temporary or moveable facilities). Bellingham School District The Bellingham School District is the largest school district in the County. The current enrollment capacity of the Bellingham School District can be found in Table 53 below. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review Table 53. Bellingham School District Current Enrollment Capacity School Current Enrollment Portable Enrollment Total Enrollment Capacity Capacity Capacity Alderwood 338 45 383 Birchwood 203 113 315 Carl Cozier 360 0 360 Columbia 225 0 225 Geneva 450 45 495 Happy Valley 338 90 428 Larrabee 158 68 225 Lowell (temporarily closed) 293 0 293 Northern Heights 405 0 405 Parkview 338 23 360 Roosevelt 405 0 405 Silver Beach 405 0 405 Sunnyland 270 90 360 Wade King 450 0 450 Subtotal 42635 473 5,108 Fairhaven 650 0 650 Kulshan 650 25 675 Shuksan 525 0 525 Whatcom 450 100 550 Subtotal 2,275 125 2,400 Bellingham 11050 0 11050 Sehome 11000 25 1,025 Squalicum 11200 25 11225 Subtotal 31250 50 3,300 Total K -12 109160 648 109808 Source: Bellingham School District No. 501 Capital Facilities Plan 2009 -2015 (July 2009). AI 17 �� November 2009 Blaine School District The Blaine School District encompasses the City of Blaine and its UGA, as well as the Birch Bay UGA, and outlying rural areas. The school district inventory of facilities can be found in Table 54 below. Table 54. Blaine School District Current Enrollment Capacity School Permanent Portable Enrollment Total Enrollment Enrollment Capacity Capacity Capacity Blaine (P -2) 440 0 440 Blaine (3 -5) 580 0 580 Pt. Roberts (K -2) 60 0 60 Blaine (6 -8) 540 0 540 Blaine (9 -12) 740 0 740 Total K -12 2,360 Source: City of Blaine Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element (September 2006). 2,360 Ferndale School District The Ferndale School District encompasses the City of Ferndale, its UGA, and rural areas including the Lummi Reservation and Lummi Island. The Ferndale School District's current enrollment capacity is listed on Table 55 below. AI 14 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review �� 115 November 2009 Lynden School District The Lynden School District encompasses the City of Lynden and its UGA along with surrounding outlying rural areas. The school district's current enrollment capacity is listed on Table 56 below. Table 56. Lynden School District Current Enrollment Capacity Note: Lynden School District also provides instruction through the Parent Partnership Program (grades K -12). This program is housed in leased facilities and therefore not included in the District's inventory of permanent facilities. 1 Capacity figure includes 1 portable classroom at both Fisher and Isom Elementaries. 2 Enrollment capacity includes 4 portable classrooms. 3 Enrollment capacity includes 6 portable classrooms. Source: Lynden School District No. 504 Six Year Capital Facilities Plan (June 2006) 11 1R I Comprehensive Plan Update —1© Year UGA Review r� -@ f ic.x�.�iV dt I IN 11 py, @ M I I Note: Lynden School District also provides instruction through the Parent Partnership Program (grades K -12). This program is housed in leased facilities and therefore not included in the District's inventory of permanent facilities. 1 Capacity figure includes 1 portable classroom at both Fisher and Isom Elementaries. 2 Enrollment capacity includes 4 portable classrooms. 3 Enrollment capacity includes 6 portable classrooms. Source: Lynden School District No. 504 Six Year Capital Facilities Plan (June 2006) 11 1R I Comprehensive Plan Update —1© Year UGA Review Meridian School District The Meridian School District is mostly rural with only a portion of its southernmost boundaries contained within a portion of the Bellingham's UGA. The school district's inventory of current enrollment capacity can be found in Table 57 below. Table 57. Meridian School District Current Enrollment Capacity School Permanent Enrollment Portable Enrollment Total Enrollment Capacity Capacity Capacity Irene Reither Primary (grades K -3) 380 100 480 Ten Mile Creek (Grades 4 -5) 164 100 264 Subtotal 544 200 744 Meridian Middle School 494 0 494 .Subtotal 494 0 494 Meridian High School 460 50 510 Subtotal 460 50 510 Total K -12 1,498 250 1,748 Source: Meridian School District No. 505 Capital Facilities Plan 2009 -2015, Adopted June, 2009, and personal communication Timothy Yeomans, Meridian School District (July 30, 2009). AI 17 �� November 2009 Mount Baker School District The Mount Baker School District serves the Columbia Valley UGA and rural areas in eastern Whatcom County. The current enrollment capacity and inventory of facilities is shown in Table 58 below. Table 58. Mount Baker School District Current Enrollment Capacity School Permanent Enrollment Portable Enrollment Total Enrollment Capacity Capacity Capacity Acme 206 .. Harmony 11 44 344 Kendall :: Subtotal :. 1s204 Baker Mount / Subtotal Mount Baker 11175 1 Subtotal Total K-12 2Y368 286 29654 • - • - •• .• - (Feb 106 • •- • • - email •' . 01• 41 A4 I � ry Comprehensive Plan Update - 10 Year UGA Review Nooksack Valley School District The Nooksack Valley School District encompasses the cities of Everson, Nooksack, Sumas, and their associated UGAs, as well as surrounding rural areas. The school district's most recent inventory and enrollment capacity can be found in Table 59 below. Level of Service Capacity Analysis An LOS capacity analysis was applied to each County school district based on a student to household ratio that was developed by comparing 2008 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction enrollment numbers to 2008 estimates of households by school district. The results, expressed in the number of students a school is able to accommodate based on the enrollment capacity inventories noted above are shown in Table 60 and 61 below. Where numbers are shown as positive, a school district is projected to have a net reserve of school capacity in terms of the number of students it can accommodate in existing classroom space. Where numbers are shown in the negative, a school district is projected to have a deficit of school capacity in terms of the number of students it can accommodate in existing classroom space. Enrollment projections are affected by demographic trends (i.e., aging population in many areas, or larger college -age populations in others); and changing trends in alternative school methods including but not limited to home schooling, Running Start program, and online schooling. In order to provide a projection extending to the 2029 time frame, Whatcom County has utilized a straight -line method of projecting forward existing student to household ratios which are more 119 November 2009 likely to provide larger enrollment projections into the future since they do not take into account the factors mentioned above. For example, the 2015 LOS analysis in Table 60 below is predicated on an assumption of increased enrollment in all school districts shown. However, in comparison, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) six year projections to 2014 indicate that the Bellingham, Ferndale, and Mount Baker school districts should all expect some decrease in enrollment over that time period (OSPI website: http: / /www.kl2.wa.us/ SchFacilities/ Programs /EnrollmentProjections.aspx; accessed on July 29, 2009), The 2015 LOS analysis shows that Bellingham, Blaine and Lynden school districts experience net capacity deficits within the 2015 timeframe Although Bellingham School District shows a net student capacity deficit in 2015, it should be noted that OSPI projects Bellingham's student enrollment to actually decline between 2009 and 2014, rather than increase (OSPI website, July 2009). The Blaine School District shows a minor projected deficit in 2015 of three students. School Districts can address any deficiencies that they have by providing additional capacity projects, as noted in the next section, by adding temporary classroom spaces (e.g. portable classrooms), or by increasing the number of students accommodated in a classroom (adjusting LOS standards). Table 60, Whatcom County School District 2015 Level of Service Analysis: Student Capacity 1 School District Student/ Household Ratio 2015 School Facility LOS (Students) Bellingham 2 0.263 (134) Blaine3 0.372 (3) Ferndale 0.528 181 Lynden 4 0.466 (491) Meridian 5 0.565 515 Mount Baker 0.312 447 Nooksack Valley 0.567 888 1 LOS analysis compares the student capacity of school districts to projected enrollment. Where information is available, it includes portable facilities. 2 The LOS analysis for Bellingham School District accounts for the additional 450 student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6 -year capital facilities plan (Bellingham School District, 2009). 3 The LOS analysis for Blaine School District accounts for the addition of 180 student capacity resulting from upgrades to the high school building (personal communication, Jim Kenoyer, Blaine School District, August 5, 2009). 4 The LOS analysis for Lynden School District accounts for the additional 396 student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6 -year capital facilities plan (Lynden School District). 5 The LOS analysis for the Meridian School District accounts for the additional 324 permanent student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6 -year capital facilities plan (Meridian School District, 2009), as well as 400 student capacity in the form of portables (personal communication, Timothy Yeomans, Meridian School District, July 20, 2009). Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Table 61 below shows school district LOS capacity in 2029. As can be seen by this analysis, deficits are experienced in the same three school districts by 2029, only the deficits are larger. School districts can address deficiencies through additional capacity projects during the planning 120 I Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review period, by adding temporary classroom spaces (e.g. portable classrooms), or by increasing the number of students accommodated in a classroom (adjusting LOS standards). Table 61. Whatcom County School District 2029 Level of Service Analysis: Student Capacity 1 School District Student! Household Ratio 2029 School Facility LOS (Students) Bellingham 2 0.263 (21037) Blaine3 0.372 (282) Ferndale 4 0.528 407 Lynden 5 0.466 (853) Meridian 6 0.565 240 Mount Baker 0.312 252 Nooksack Valley 0.567 434 1 LOS analysis compares the student capacity of school districts to projected enrollment. Where information is available, it includes portable facilities. 2 The LOS analysis for Bellingham School District accounts for the additional 450 student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6 -year capital facilities plan (Bellingham School District, 2009). 3 The LOS analysis for Blaine School District accounts for the addition of 180 student capacity resulting from upgrades to the high school building occurring in the six -year planning period, as well as the addition of 600 more student capacity arising from a new elementary school planned for late in the 2029 planning period (personal communication, Jim Kenoyer, Blaine School District, August 5, 2009). 4 The LOS analysis for Ferndale School District accounts for the additional 1,750 student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the 7 -20 year period in the district's 2005 Capital Facilities Plan (Ferndale School District, 2005). There are no capacity projects identified in the 6 -year planning period. 5 The LOS analysis for Lynden School District accounts for the additional 396 student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6 -year capital facilities plan (Lynden School District). 6 The LOS analysis for the Meridian School District accounts for the additional 324 permanent student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6 -year capital facilities plan (Meridian School District, 2009), as well as 400 student capacity in the form of portables (personal communication, Timothy Yeomans, Meridian School District, July 20, 2009). Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Capital Projects and Funding Table 62 below outlines the County school district projects planned in the 2010 -2015 and the longer term 2016 -2029 timeframes. Several of the capital projects below add to individual school district enrollment capacities and are accommodated in the LOS analysis above. However, detail on the capacity increases available, particularly for the latter part of the planning period, is not available from all school districts at this time. Capital Project Funding School Districts in Washington State fund capital improvements with both State and local dollars. Local capital financing is usually achieved through two primary mechanisms. The first is an excess property tax levy, in which residents of the school district vote to finance a capital bond with an increase in property taxes. In this case, the annual bond cost is spread equally over the life of the bond. Therefore, if property values increase over time the levy rate necessarily declines to generate the same annual revenue. n I 121 November 2009 The second financing tool is a school impact fee, which is designed to recover costs from new development for the facility improvements necessary because of that development. This fee is usually charged to new residential development based on the average students generated per household. Additional comments on the School Districts' Comprehensive Plans are discussed below: ■ Meridian School District- The District relies heavily on issuing bonds and receiving state matches to fund capital projects. As of May 2006, the District total debt is $3.6 million, and it has $28.5 million in additional borrowing capacity. ■ Mt. Baker School District - The District relies almost entirely on voted bonds to fund capital improvements. As of January 2005, the District has $32.5 million in additional voted debt borrowing capacity, and $2.1 million in non -voted capacity. ■ Lynden School District - The District is relying heavily on voted bonds and corresponding state matches to fund its capital facilities. ■ Ferndale School District- The school relies on bonds and state matches to fund capital improvements, but would like to implement school impact fees. ■ Bellingham School District - Although the District mostly relies on secured local funding, it does sometimes rely on voted bonds to supplement local funding. Bellingham School District According to the Bellingham School District No. 5012009-2015 Capital Facilities Plan, new growth over the next six years will create the need to complete one new elementary school. The new elementary school is planned on Aldrich Road. This new elementary school is expected to add 450 students to the district's permanent capacity. A 2006 Bond measure approved by the district's voters provided funding for the new elementary school. An extensive review of existing facilities will be conducted as part of any future bond issue. During that process, the district will reevaluate enrollment projections and identify additional capacity enhancement projects (Bellingham School District CFP, July 2009). In addition, Bellingham School District staff reviewed preliminary population and student generation information developed during the planning process. To accommodate a student population in the range of 13,200 to 13 300, which is approximately the number of students associated with the Bellingham population projection, the district estimated that it would need a total of two new elementary schools in addition to the Aldrich Road elementary noted above; one new middle school, and one new high school. The District further estimated that these capital improvements would cost the district approximately $95 million in 2009 dollars (Personal communication, Ron Cowan to Matt Aamot, May 15, 2009). The District plans to rely less heavily on portable classrooms than it currently does. Therefore, the additional schools noted in the long -range planning period are expected to accommodate most of additional student capacity, although estimates of the amount of capacity provided by each facility are not currently available. The District will continue to actively monitor enrollment projections and respond by programming additional projects as needed. 122� Comprehensive Plan Update -1© Year UGA Review Blaine School District The Blaine School District's December 2007 Study and Survey indicates that the city has plans to purchase a school site in the Birch Bay area that will allow for future expansion of K -12 education facilities beyond the single 38 -acre campus that the district owns in Blaine (Kenoyer pers. comm.). The December 2007 Study and Survey also includes projects related to the modernization and expansion of the existing high school (expected to add 23 general classrooms), conversion of primary school playsheds to classrooms, elementary school additions, and gym conversion and modernization for the Middle School. The District expects that improvements to the high school will provide additional capacity of up to 180 students in the six -year planning period (Kenoyer pers. comm., August 5, 2009). In addition, the District also has longer -term plans for the construction of a new elementary school in the latter part of the District's 20 -year planning horizon that will provide capacity for an additional 600 students (Kenoyer pers. comm., August 5, 2009). The Study and Survey identifies projects and costs in the six year planning period. Ferndale School District The Ferndale School District does not have any capacity projects identified within the 6 -year planning period. However, with portable capacity, the district expects to accommodate its 2015 student population. The Ferndale School District has plans to construct one elementary and one high school during the 7 -20 year planning period. These projects are expected add approximately 1,750 classroom capacity spaces and result in the projected enrollment capacity surplus identified in Table 61. Lynden School District The Lynden School District has plans to construct one middle school during the planning period. This project, which occurs in the six -year planning period, will add space for approximately 300 students to the district's enrollment capacity. In addition, the district's Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan (June 2006) identifies an additional capacity of 60 students resulting from the Fisher Elementary modernization project, and an additional 36 students resulting from the Isom Elementary expansion project. Additional capacity for projects outside the six -year planning period are not identified in the district's adopted Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan. However, the district indicates that construction of a middle school to replace the current middle school, and construction of an additional elementary school that could accommodate up to 400 additional students are projects that the district is considering in the long -term (personal communication, Rick Thompson, Lynden School District. July 30, 2009). The district is not planning to rely on portable classroom capacity except for emergencies or to accommodate unexpected growth. The district did note that current student enrollment projections for the district are lower than shown in this Plan. However, the district will continue to monitor growth trends and respond to changes in projections accordingly. Meridian School District The Meridian School District plans to construct additions to two of its schools during the planning period. The district divides its improvements into Phase 1 (completion in 2 -7 years), November 2009 and Phase 2 (completion in 8 to 25 years). Planned additions in Phase 1 include construction of instruction space at Meridian High School, and acquisition of land for a new elementary school. Phase 1 also includes upgrades and modernizations to Meridian High School, Irene Reither Primary School, and Ten Mile Creek. Phase 1 improvements are expected to provide additional capacity for 144 elementary students and 180 additional high school students (Meridian School District No. 505 Capital Facilities Plan 2009 -2015, Adopted June 2009, page 7). The District also plans to address additional student capacity needs in the six -year period through acquisition of portables that could accommodate up to 400 additional students (personal communication, Timothy Yeomans, Meridian School District, July 30, 2009). Phase 2 improvements, beyond the six -year planning period include a remodel that includes additional classroom space at Meridian Middle School, as well as construction of a new elementary school. Phase 2 also includes upgrade and modernization projects. However, the district's 2009 -2015 Capital Facilities Plan does not identify the amount of capacity expected to be provided by these longer term projects. The District will continue to actively monitor enrollment projections and respond by programming additional projects as needed. Mount Baker School District The Mount Baker School District Six -Year Capital Facility Plan (February 2006) indicates that due growth potential over the six -year planning period the district may need to construct an additional elementary school. A 2006 Study and Survey prepared for the district indicates that the district also plans to construct an addition to one of its schools during the planning period. The district is not projected to have an enrollment deficit in 2015. However, the capacity projects noted above are expected to achieve the enrollment surplus noted in Table 61. The district may have longer term capacity projects which it has not yet identified during its current planning cycle. Nooksack Valley School District The Nooksack Valley School District is currently in the process of updating its 1998 Capital Facilities Plan. The district has no plans for new schools or additional facility capacity at this time. The district has not experienced increases in enrollment capacity in recent years, and the district is currently in process of updating its CFP facilities plan for the first time since 1998. The outcome of the current district planning effort may result in new capital projects which would most likely be improvements to existing facilities in the latter part of the district's 6 -year planning period. The Whatcom County 2029 CFP projections will help inform the district's future capital facility planning (Silvas pers. comm.). Table 62. School District Capital Projects Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) c Aldrich Elementary ��t �� Comprehensive Plan Update -1© Year UGA Review Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 11800 2029 11800 (thousands $) Cost 10,000 41300 13,500 14,300 Revenue 10,000 41300 I 13,500 143300 Bonds Portables Cost 300 300 Revenue 300 300 Bonds Impact fees Future Elementary Property Purchase :.I., Modernization and Primary/ Elementary Elementary School Modernization and Improvements and Pipeline Fields Restrooms and Fields Addition I:1 , T.1 i WIMIA10 Cost 11800 11800 Revenue 11800 11800 Elementary #9 Construction Cost 13,500 13,500 Revenue I 13,500 13,500 125 I �LJ November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) High School #2 New Construction Cost 41,500 417500 Revenue 41,500 41,500 New Middle School Construction (Capacity Costs only) Cost 91072 91072 Revenue 91072 91072 New Middle School Construction (without new capacity costs) Cost 23,898 23,898 Revenue 23,898 23,898 Elementary Classroom additional and related common area improvement at Irene Reither/Ten Mile Creek Cost 31980 31980 Revenue 3,980 3,980 State match, bonds, mitigation/ impact fees High School Addition Cost 20,000 20,000 Revenue 202000 20,000 State match, bonds, mitigation/ impact fees Various Portables Cost 75 75 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 126 1 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Revenue 75 75 Bonds, mitigation/ impact fees Expand and modernize Mt. Baker Junior High School — Phase 1 Expand and modernize Mt. Baker Junior High School — Phase 2 No Projects Currently Identified s 1 The Blaine School District does not have a CFP that identifies project costs and revenues. The district has a State Study and Survey which is described in the narrative above. The State Study and Survey identifies projects and their costs in _. summary fashion. For that reason, project dollars are only shown in the total column. The Mount Baker School District's CFP does not identify project costs and revenues. The district has a State Study and Survey which is described in the narrative above. Although the State Study and Survey identifies projects it does not identify costs and revenues for all projects. The Mount Baker School Board did not engage in a formal process of adopting the Study & Survey document, but it is used by the District as a planning guide. For these reasons, projects are shown in this table without costs. The Nooksack School District does not have a CFP. The district has hired someone to prepare a survey of facilities as of July 2009. The district does not have any projects planned, except maintenance, in the foreseeable future. (Personal communication email from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.) 127 1 November 2009 Solid Waste (County) Overview State law (RCW 70,95,0 10) requires counties to plan an integrated solid waste management system that emphasizes waste reduction and recycling. Management of solid waste that cannot be recycled or managed alternatively can be incinerated, placed in a landfill, or a combination of the two. Whatcom County Public Works Solid Waste Division is the lead planning agency for solid waste management in the County. The Solid Waste Division is responsible for several program areas encompassing waste prevention, economically efficient recycling and disposal systems, litter control, hazardous waste education and disposal opportunities, the monitoring of the county's closed landfills, and comprehensive planning, as well as providing support for the Whatcom County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The County prepared a Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan in 2007 which serves as the basis for the solid waste component of the Capital Facilities Plan. Inventory of Current Facilities The County's solid waste system is a combination of private and public entities. The County's hazardous waste disposal facility, Disposal of Toxics, is owned by the County, but operated by a private firm. The County relies upon privately operated disposal facilities for solid waste disposal service. Because of the absence of any County landfill, privately owned disposal facilities will continue to find it necessary to export waste. These facilities include two transfer stations and five drop -off sites, which are shown in Table 6' ) below. Certified solid waste haulers in the County are Sanitary Service Company (SSC), Blaine Bay Refuse, and Nooksack Valley Disposal (NVD) (Personal Communication from Penni Lemperes to Matt Aamot, July 28, 2009). There are numerous recycling collection sites located throughout the County. See Table 63 below for a current inventory of solid waste facilities in the County. 128 I Comprehensive Plan update — 10 Year UGA Review Table 63. Solid Waste Facility Inventory Name Owner Operator Location Hazardous Waste Disposal Disposal of Toxics Whatcom County Whatcom County 3505 Airport Drive Transfer Stations Regional Disposal Co Regional Disposal Co Regional Disposal Co 1524 Slater Rd, Ferndale Recycling & Disposal Svcs. (RDS) RDS RDS 4916 LaBounty Place, Ferndale Solid Waste Drop -Sites Birch Bay Whatcom County (lease to Sanitary Service Company) Sanitary Service Company 4297 Birch Bay - Lynden Rd, Blaine Cedarville Whatcom County (lease to Sanitary Service Company) Sanitary Service Company Cedarville Rd off of Mt. Baker Highway, Everson Sanitary Service Company (SSC) Sanitary Service Company Sanitary Service Company 1001 Roeder Ave., Bellingham Nooksack Valley Disposal Nooksack Valley Disposal Nooksack Valley Disposal 250 Birch Bay - Lynden = . Rd, Lynden Point Recycling and Refuse (PRR) Whatcom County (lease to Point Recycling and Refuse) Point Recycling and Refuse Off Johnson Road, Pt Roberts. Recycling Drop -Off Locations Alrite Recycling Center N/A N/A 1900 Racine Birch Bay Recycling N/A N/A 4297 Birch Bay - Lynden Rd. Cedarville Recycling N/A N/A Cedarville Road (off Mt. Baker Highway) City Organics N/A N/A Bellingham "Clean Green" Facility N/A N/A North of Lakeway Dr. on Woburn Disposal of Toxics Facility N/A N/A 3505 Airport Drive Green Earth Technology N/A N/A 774 Meadowlark Rd, Lynden Jiffy Lube N/A N/A Multiple locations Jim's Automotive Experts N/A N/A 102 E. Main, Everson Lynden Christian Paper Depot N/A N/A 503 Drayton, Lynden Master Lube N/A N/A 111 E. Maple Nooksack Valley Disposal N/A N/A 250 Birch Bay - Lynden Rd. n November 2009 Name Owner Operator Location Northwest Recycling N/A N/A 1419 C. Street Northwest Recycling Warehouse N/A N/A 1515 Kentucky Street Point Recycling and Refuse N/A N/A Off Johnson Rd., Point Roberts Recycling and Disposal Services N/A N/A 4916 LaBounty Place Regional Disposal Co. N/A N/A 1524 Slater Road Relectronics N/A N/A 1000 C Street Safe and Easy Recycling N/A N/A 2001 Iowa Street, Ste. F Sanitary Service Company N/A N/A 1001 Roeder Avenue Schuck's Automotive N/A N/A Multiple locations Z Recyclers N/A N/A 6129 Guide Meridian N/A = not available Sources: Whatcom County Solid Waste Plan (2007), Internet review of Whatcom County Public Works Solid Waste Division website information on location of disposal and recycling sites (accessed February 6, 2009), and personal communication from Penni Lemperes to Matt Aamot, July 28, 2009 and August 12, 2009. The entire County is served by private waste collection services. In unincorporated areas, solid waste service is provided to residents on a mandatory basis by four private companies operating under certificates issued by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). Level of Service Capacity Analysis The existing LOS for municipal solid waste is calculated based upon future solid waste generation rates derived from a table found in the 2007 Whatcom County Solid Waste Management Plan (Waste Disposal Projections, Whatcom County, 2007, page 23). Table 64 uses the same rates of waste disposal projections found in the 2007 Whatcom County Solid Waste Management Plan to project future waste disposal rates to 2015 and 2029 under updated population projections developed for those horizon years. Table 64. Solid Waste LOS Analysis Year Population Solid Waste Generation Rate Solid Waste Production (tons solid waste per capita per year) (tons /year) 2008 191,000 0.77 147,070 2015 207,922 0.77 160,100 2029 2462602 0.77 189,884 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes The County uses waste generation forecasting as a vital element of solid waste management planning. The County uses this data to help address waste prevention, recycling and special waste issues. The County updates its waste generation models periodically and uses them in conjunction with program and facility planning and evaluation. Comprehensive Plan update -10 Year UGA Review Capital Projects and Funding Capital Project Funding As noted above, solid waste collection throughout the County is mostly provided by privately owned and operated companies, except for the County's hazardous waste disposal facility. Municipalities and private firms have financed their programs through user revenues paid to the County, which are directed to a dedicated Solid Waste Fund, used to fund capital projects. This fund is also eligible to apply for state grand funds to assist solid waste financing. Capital Projects Currently, the Solid Waste Division has no capital projects (Personal Communication from Penni Lemperes to Matt Aamot, July 28, 2009), 131 M November p 20€19 Stormwater (County) Overview Storm drainage facilities within unincorporated Whatcom County include a diverse combination of natural and constructed conveyance systems and quantity and quality control facilities. Ownership, maintenance responsibility, and stewardship of drainage facilities take place through a variety of means. In 1999, the Whatcom County Comprehensive Water Resources Plan was developed in response to the County's new and expanding obligations around water issues, including stormwater. Developed by the County water team with input from the local community, the plan is the centerpiece of efforts to create an effective framework for coordinating the county's wide - ranging work in protecting water resources, including addressing stormwater. In response to increasing federal and state mandates to local governments to manage stormwater and to the County's desire to improve its own stewardship of sensitive watersheds, the County established a Stormwater Division within the Public Works Department in 2005. The Stormwater Division is responsible for the design, engineering, and construction of County -owned stormwater facilities, the vast majority of which are road - related stormwater conveyance systems (culverts and ditches, etc.). Inventory of Current Facilities Stormwater facilities include the natural and constructed stormwater conveyance systems (i.e., stormwater pipe, ditches, catch basins, and other structures), rate control facilities, and runoff quality enhancement facilities. Topography and flows govern the nature and function of the County's drainage infrastructure without consideration of property ownership, land use, or political boundaries. Conveyance systems include natural and constructed open channels, pipe systems and culverts. These systems may be located on private property or within County right -of -way. The division of ownership, function, and location determines the entity responsible for facilities maintenance. Rate control facilities include retention and detention ponds, tanks, and vaults. The common purpose of these facilities is to reduce the rate of stormwater flow from a specific site or area to reduce the potential for localized flooding, or downstream erosion problems. These facilities are designed to hold a volume of run -off based on the amount of impervious area and a particular storm event. These facilities may be located on public or private property depending upon the area being served. Runoff quality enhancement includes such facilities as water quality ponds and bio- filtration swales. The purpose of these facilities is to remove a certain type and /or amount of pollutant from the runoff before it is discharged into a water body or collection system or dispersed over X14' IJL Comprehensive Plan Update— 10 Year UGA Review the ground for infiltration. These facilities may be located on public or private property depending upon the area being served. The County has completed an inventory map of the County drainage system. The County will update and maintain a detailed inventory of stormwater facilities in compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit ( NPDES) Phase II Stormwater Management Program. A summary of the current stormwater facility inventory is included in Table 65 below. Table 65. Inventory of Public Stormwater Facilities Type of System Quantity (number of units) Cross Culverts 31253 Driveway Culverts 11,664 Other Culverts 45 Outfalls 644 Yard Drain 22 Total Facilities 15,568 Source: Whatcom County Stormwater Division data (2009). Level of Service Capacity Analysis Although the County does not have a formal and explicit capital facility LOS standard for stormwater facilities, the County has adopted a stormwater compliance program in accordance with the NPDES Phase II. This program applies to the following areas of the County: areas that are currently designated as UGAs, or urbanized areas in or near the cities of Bellingham and Ferndale. Urbanized areas are defined as areas with a population of more than 1,000 people. The specific watershed subbasins that are part of the NPDES Phase II program include: ■ Chuckanut Bay ■ Chuckanut/Padden Watershed ■ Lake Whatcom ■ Hillsdale /Emerald Lake ■ North Bellingham /King Mountain ■ Northwest Bellingham /Airport ■ Silver Creek and Barrett Lake Watershed Urbanized Area ■ Ferndale East and West UGA Goals of the program include detection and elimination of illicit discharges to surface waters, controlling runoff from new development, redevelopment, and new construction, pollution prevention and operation and maintenance for municipal operations, public education, stormwater monitoring and report requirements. .JJ November 2009 Capital Projects and Funding The County has placed an increasing emphasis on the protection of sensitive watersheds. This has resulted in the. adoption of a comprehensive stormwater plan for Lake Whatcom, as well as the request from the Lake Samish community for county assistance in the preparation of a stormwater plan for that watershed. In addition, the Birch Bay community has developed a stormwater plan which will be implemented primarily with funds from the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management subzone of the Flood Control Zone District. Capital Project Funding Stormwater facilities are generally funded through the creation of a stormwater utility /management fee based on the total impervious surface of an owned property. If such a fee is not imposed then these services may be funded with miscellaneous capital dollars, such as Real Estate Excise Tax revenues. Capital Projects Whatcom County has identified the following capital projects for stormwater (Table 66). Most existing projects that have been identified are found in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Whatcom County expects to identify new capital projects as the Stormwater Division completes additional stormwater plans. n Comprehensive Plan update — 10 Year UGA Review L Table 66, Whatcom County Stormwater Projects Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Silver Beach Creek Stream stabilization Cost 50 50 Revenue 50 50 REET II, grants Silver Beach Creek main channel velocity reductions Cost 150 150 Revenue 150 150 REET II, grants Silver Beach Creek upper channel velocity and volume Cost 230 230 Revenue 230 230 REET II, grants Hillsdale subbasin drainage retrofits Cost 210 210 Revenue 210 210 REET II, grants, FCZD interlocal Velocity reductions, Toad Lake at Academy Road Cost 200 200 Revenue 200 200 REET II, fees, grants Silver Beach Creek Culvert Replacement Cost 260 260 Revenue 260 260 REET II, fees, grants Tota 1 640 460 12100 Source: Whatcom County Six Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2009 -2014 November 2009 Transportation (Countywide) Overview Whatcom County's transportation network is principally made up of County roads as well as state highways, such as I -5 and SR -9, which provide intercity and interstate connections. In addition to the roadway network, Whatcom County also operates a daily ferry service between Gooseberry Point and Lummi Island. Inventory of Current Facilities The 2009 inventory of transportation facilities shows a total of 951 miles of County roads (approximately 362 miles are classified as an arterial or collector roadways). Additionally, there are approximately 217 miles of state highways in Whatcom County. State highways include I -5, SR -9, SR -542, SR -548, SR -539, SR -544, SR -546, SR -547, SR -11, and SR -543, all of which serve vital transportation network connections. The table below summarizes the existing miles of countywide arterial roadways by County functional classification. Table 67. Inventory of County Roadways by Functional Classification Functional Classification Total Miles of Roadway (centerline miles) Percent of Total Rural Major Collector 155 16% Rural Minor Collector 164 17% Urban Principal Arterial 0.3 0% Urban Minor Arterial 27 3% Urban Collector Arterial 16 2% Other Road Classifications 589 62% Subtotal 951.3 100% State Routes 217.2 19% County Roads 951.3 81% Total 11168.5 100% Source: Whatcom County Public Works GIS roads data layer, (2008); and email correspondence with Elizabeth Sjostrom of WSDOT for state routes (February 20, 2009). In addition to the roadway network discussed above, the County owns one ferry vessel which it uses to provide its Lummi Island ferry service. Level of Service Capacity Analysis County LOS Standards Whatcom County establishes a LOS standard for transportation facilities in Chapter 6 of its Comprehensive Plan, Whatcom County's existing transportation LOS standards are as follows: 136 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review Policy 6A -3 Establish the following levels of service (LOS) for purposes of maintaining transportation concurrency: ■ A volume -to- capacity ratio less than 0.75 during weekday p.m. peak hours for county arterials and collectors located outside of urban growth areas, except for specified primary routes as shown on Map 14A (of Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan), which shall have a volume -to- capacity ratio less than or equal to 0.90 (LOS D). ■ A volume -to- capacity ratio less than or equal to 0.90 (LOS D or better) during weekday p.m. peak hours for county arterials and collectors within urban growth areas not associated with cities, which may be reduced for concurrency evaluation purposes in accordance with Policy 6A -4. ■ A volume -to- capacity ratio less than or equal to 0.9 during weekday p.m. peak hours (equivalent to LOS D) for county arterials and collectors within city urban growth areas, which may be reduced for concurrency evaluation purposes in accordance with Policy 6A -4. ■ Coordinate with Whatcom Transit Authority to ensure adequate transit service in urban areas. ■ 513 ferry passenger trips annually per capita Lummi Island population. Policy 6A -4 For proposed developments in designated urban growth areas, increase the volume -to- capacity ratio standard for impacted transportation facilities by 0.05 if at least one of the following amenities is existing or is committed to being provided as part of the development: ■ Transit service and stops within one quarter mile walking distance accessible from the development using non - motorized facilities that meet or are functionally equivalent to Whatcom County Road Standards. ■ Non- motorized facilities that meet or are functionally equivalent to Whatcom County Road Standards along the impacted facility. LOS Analysis The Transportation LOS analysis is taken from an analysis prepared for the 10 -Year UGA Review Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). Details on the travel demand forecast methodology can be found in Chapter 3.9 of that document. Model of Future Traffic Conditions Using the Whatcom Council of Governments regional model, the projected population and employment growth was used to estimate the number of trips that will be generated in 20296. These trips are then distributed among transportation analysis zones and assigned to the street network. The result is a model of projected future traffic conditions under each future land use scenario. The future transportation network also reflects future improvement projects for which funding has been committed. For the future analysis reflected in the Final EIS, improvement to four lanes was assumed on the following state highways: 6 The analysis in the EIS was based on population and employment growth by the years 2029 -2031. The EIS does not discern any difference in the probable impacts or mitigation measures whether that population is reached in 2029, 2031, or any other year about that time. The EIS results were reported for the upper range of 2031, but are found applicable to the year 2029 as reported in this CFP. I- 137 November 2009 ■ SR 539 (Guide Meridian) from Horton Road to Bay Lyn Drive ■ SR 542 (Sunset Drive) from Woburn Street to McLeod Road LOS Analysis of Future Traffic Conditions After the future 2029 traffic volume on each analysis road segment was projected, it was divided by the road's capacity to calculate the volume to capacity (V /C) ratio. For any segments on which projected V/C would exceed the adopted LOS standard for that road a potential adverse impact was identified, and mitigation identified that would lower V/C to a level within adopted standards. Results of this analysis were compared to analysis completed for the County's impact fee calculation project (Transpo Group 2008). Potential differences in results can be explained by differences in some baseline assumptions. Namely, the analysis completed for the 10 -Year UGA Review reflects 2029 conditions, while the impact fee analysis was completed for 2027 conditions. In addition, the analysis presented for the 10 -Year UGA Review reflects adjustments that were made to land use assumptions, based upon updated information that indicated a higher level of growth was occurring in rural areas than was previously assumed. For these reasons, the 10 -Year UGA Review analysis could potentially identify deficiencies in addition to those identified for the impact fee analysis. LOS Impacts on County Roads This section describes impacts to County Roads. It is meant to provide an order of magnitude analysis of the regional growth alternatives studied in the EIS; the final County Council action was in the range of the analysis. The analysis focuses on the County's adopted LOS standard for roadway segments. The analysis supplements previous County transportation analyses by providing a cumulative traffic analysis for a new horizon year of 2029 testing new growth alternatives. Recent subarea planning processes have produced more local transportation analyses at a finer level of detail, including intersection analyses: ■ Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Foothills Subarea Plan. December 19, 2008. Prepared by Whatcom County Planning and Development Services (transportation analyses by Transpo Group, Inc.). ■ Birch Bay Transportation Planning Study. January 2009. Prepared by Transpo Group, Inc. for Whatcom County (adopted as Birch Bay Community Plan, Appendix A under Ordinance 2009 -036). As population and employment are projected to increase under all of the studied alternatives, the resulting increase in traffic is expected to degrade the LOS on the transportation system under all alternatives. Table 68 summarizes the county roads with projected 2029 V/C ratios that exceed LOS standards, under one or more alternatives. Table 69 summarizes the total projected lane - miles expected to be deficient under each of the alternatives. VV Comprehensive Plan Update - 10 Year UGA Review 0) 7 w R C L. 0) Q s co (a W 0 U 0 0 x Y N m a U) O O. 0) N O N .Q _U) C 0f N N C d d 0 t N A 3 .a lII O co to (D M `w r C } O LO O C (D a� Q N 7 c 0 V � O O O (E Q V 6 W d T Z j ce o C } O LO O C (D a� Q Q 3 c X Q00 m O T Co O Q Q 0 6 0 o.2 T Z j c o d Q t- v ca m co LO O C (D a� t=o Z U 3 O O) Q00 m O T Co v ca m co LO > cn -a a� LD (O � 01 O) J m a; C W 0) m C O m V O J 0) N Z 0 0 N N �+ 0 R — Q r r c} m co LO LO O V O O LD (O M M m O O) O) m O T Co O m r T o 0 6 0 o T T T T O o co M co N N CD O N LO T m CD co M co m O m m m O r r O O m T r O O O O O T r r r O O N N V M M LO LO O (D m CD (D n (") P7 m m m m m O T O O m m- T T O o 0 0 o T T T T O o LO LO r O m ICT V LD O (D O co O n co M m m O m m m O r T O m m T r o 6 6 0 o r T r r Q o T T n (0 t� T r LO O O LD LO LO M M 00 c0 00 m m m T O O m m T r O O O O O O r r T O O m m LO LO LO LO ti ^ m m m m m M CT LO m m N N N 0 0 0 0 0 o O o c) 0 0 0 0 V r� m O T O r r� V) T r T O O d• m O O O O O N O O O W O O O T N T T O O T T T O N r m m O O T co (1D 1� 00 m m O LO m m O O Cl O m m m m I� O O O T 4 LD O (D r N M V LD O V O m m O O T r (D r� 00 m O O O m m O O O r� m m m m O O O O T V LO CD T T N M 4 N W c a a W w co > O W O 0) N _ (0 O , (6 N 0 E C V y T O C E W Y _ m a a E ro (D 0 LO a J co L_ 0) U O Y L x N (6 Z ,� O = d Q' J , Q O 0 7 N E W � (a6 E c a) ? Oo �' N W a o ' U o U W W >(A l4 OD Y a o o a E a m Co Co (D (D N O N O �-' O L >. O U" > >r s Ea (L° �Y s c° Y Y O LO T E m C C a w 0 f�J J� Y w 2a' U CL m� > Y U) W Q c c c c c c c -D a m a a c .c c s s s O 0 O O O 0 m o 0 0 0 0 0 Of w 0 (D (7 0 (r) 0 c c c c c U) N c c c c c c 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 o O o o O a) ro 0 a) m a) a) Na Na 0a Ma Na Na c c c c c m m > o > o > 0 > 0 > o > Co m m m m m U U W w W 2 W of W w W w W W 2 2 2 m Z P� W (D P� 00 m O T r N M CT LO m m N N N N M M (D (D (D (fl (D T r T T T r T r T T T 0 0 (v L Q y O C c j � m iT to Ct V O t M a) M r J O > dN t� r� O _ U) y O W O V- r O O C i O O = V O O � o N o . (Si N N V ca W a) CO CO C I � w O O Q Q L co to W p C X as 0 = C N Y O 0,0 Z (D CL Q F — C CL Z04)E(° 0 OR: <00 c j � m C O a v O J w w Z R O N .N % R � C Q CO iT to Ct V O t M a) M r J O O (D V) m O t� r� O _ U) y O W O V- r O O CL O O d O V- � o y N N (Si N N m C O a v O J w w Z R O N .N % R � C Q CO 00 to Ct V O (3) M n M r tT O O (D V) m O t� r� O O O O O O V- r O O O O O 0 O V- (D 6) V 00 O D) m V 00 rAt co O O O t` (O O1 O 00 00 O O O O 0 C) .- r O o CD 0 0 0 o .- V c0 M r M M m m N CD N O O O O t� CO O CA f� f� W O W O 0 0 0 o C) CD 0 0 C) 0 V CD O M C) 00 O M 00 M co cn rn rn r` (D C) o ao ao a) Cl rn C) 0 0 0 O I 0 0 0 � o .m rn rn rn rn rn n ti � ti rn rn rn rn � 00 O C) co O m m CD � (o m m � r` w O o 0 0 0 O O o O o o O o rn rn rn rn rn n ti � ti rn rn rn rn � 00 O C) 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 6 0 0 N O N CD O O LO (D V O LD O LO It N M V Co N O co N O O O O O O O O O O r O LC) N M CD LO V O (p n r- O O P co q;r (D M CO O O N M V n 00 O O O O M M M M t0 t.- r Cl N O CD M V (D (D � (O O O O V O M 00 O Co N M V (6 C6 C) O O O O O M M M M @ w N M a) a) .U.. O O t M NM C U O .-Lo 7 @ O V a) rn U m E a) -= a) @ N c CO LO 0) @ _ O) cc (n it @ �_ J �- '� 7 O) m ` tom a) @ Z "' m > @ Y N'6w �J �-.. N mCn O N N O O -O i,—�O UCq OO'a O .`� � U O N 0) d O O� Z in o m� NNN CO NO @ a) -OO O 7 Q 3 O N@ N 0) O @ Q a) co N @ E (n .E 0) c E c a) c E a 0) � c o O) w `o a) N rn C 0) a) c @ o > — a) 3 a) E 'o O CO ,v_ C:.> a) -o a) a Z I- U) m J m Q J Q J m L L L L Z m N m 0 k O mom N m � @ @ @ 0 0 0 > > > > cu m co O 0) O @ @ 0 m m 0 m 0 m a) a) a) 3 3 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) C C C @ @ C C C C C C C C C C C Y Y @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co cu w m ca P� 00 O M � 00 O C) M V (n (D (D (D (D V V 00 00 CY) O O O O to N N N N N N (Si N N N w w C)_ O "m w r 0 t cJ xq t1 O c eit 0_ .N C s i2 O c O R V O J d E (O z 0 LL U) .N R — C Q M (D c (D O R Co "a r O Cl) 00 CC) M ... r o d d � O O > N y 3 E C V E O O o d) R d W d d m !Y r:+ (a C � w O % O V N W 0 p X aQ 0 Y O O = a 0.0 ° C R Z C) 3 O QUU.. c O R V O J d E (O z 0 LL U) .N R — C Q M (D c (D O R Co "a r O Cl) 00 CC) M ... r o o d � O O r M J V 47 ♦ U) W U O CL d) � d m c O R V O J d E (O z 0 LL U) .N R — C Q M (D r LO (D O O r O r r O 00 00 CC) M O r r o o O o r co o r N N � � W O O M O r r O O O O r co o r N N rn rn n cq O M C) o 0 0 0 M C() r (D r N N tD O r r O co O O (7 O r r O O O O r ao r (D N CV N M M r co r O W N co CO co O r r Co O O O r m (n rn 0) ti ti LO rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N O I�- O CO O (O N r� N 00 (D I� O O r r O O O O (0 M O O co U) M N M N tD (D O r (D co 00 O O V O f� (f) O M r r OD O (h O N r LD LD O > N " N � Y 7 > N O =3 OJ O`a m E (li ` O i f- m O r N Y w-- m> 0 7 O O O U U N Q O0 'O m 4 a_a E� w �_ I m m oa rn U O °o J 0 3 m E m� o c c s (n o �2 C) a> Za)w a) o c U N •f o m t N > a) a) O a - x o tr (� a o c �7t E� C a) m (D m elf he oU p co 0 LO rn° p F- o oY m m m M '` a) _ '` V m m 0 0 0> m Y top co Ep OJ U) _I LL Z fn of J () a) a) (1) > > > O > p p p a a a a) N y O O O Q a) 3 3 (D a) c r c r W (D m W (D ca a tf If m _m m Z Z Z CA U) Cn F- Z I� O ti OD O M Nr O O N N N r tD N M M M V 47 0 0 N ¢f s 7 O Z .. _. _._...., Table 69. Projected Roadway Segment Deficiencies by 2029 No Action Current No Comp. Action Action Action Executive Plan Trends Alt, X Alt, Y Recommendations Total Deficient Lane -Miles 45.3 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4 Percent of Deficient Lane- 6.2% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% Miles' 1 Percentage of total of modeled lane -miles of County road (727.9 miles). Capital Projects and Funding Table 70 identifies the County's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. Table 71 identifies the roadways locations that have been identified for improvement between 2016 and 2029. Some projects were identified in the Final EIS in order to meet adopted County roadway segment LOS standards; all action alternatives in the Final EIS were found to require the same improvements. Planning -level costs for recommended projects are also summarized in Table 71. Table 71 also identifies the recommended improvements that are identified under the County's current impact fee calculation project (Transpo Group 2008). The projected impacts and identified improvements on Hannegan Road and Slater Road as part of the 10 -Year UGA Review are consistent with the projections completed for the County impact fee analysis. These are in addition to those identified as part of the 10 -Year UGA Review. The analysis completed for this 10 -Year UGA Review reflects 2029 conditions, while the impact fee analysis was completed for 2027 conditions. In addition, the analysis presented for the 10 -Year UGA Review reflects adjustments that were made to land use assumptions, based upon updated information that indicated a higher level of growth was occurring in rural areas than was previously assumed. For these reasons, a longer planning horizon and an update of land use, this 10 -Year UGA Review analysis has identified impacts and mitigation on four additional roads, as compared to the impact fee analysis. The 2027 impact fee analysis (Transpo 2008) lists additional transportation projects that are based on more localized and refined analyses including the County's current Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), subarea plan studies, etc. The impact fee study is hereby incorporated by reference: ■ The Transpo Group, Inc. May 2008. Whatcom County Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report (Draft). Prepared for Whatcom County. The WCOG is presently in the midst of a Whatcom Transportation Plan Update scheduled for completion by June 30, 2012. The Plan update will include development of a new countywide travel demand forecasting model, which is scheduled for completion in early 2010. In addition, it n Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 142 is possible that as part of the update process, a coordinated functional classification and LOS measurement system will be developed between Whatcom County and cities. Due to the results of Whatcom County's 10 -Year UGA Review, including selection of a regional growth alternative, together with the pending WCOG countywide model update in 2010, it is expected that Whatcom County will review its Transportation Element, TIP, and make Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element amendments as needed in its next Comprehensive Plan Update scheduled for completion in 20111 143 November 2009 m tm O L a .r+ C E N O L om O cc O Q y C R L L ca a� X co p 9 d O O L`v :J; ro c i Q 0 U 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 V! 69 V9 6c1 V) VJ 63 69 V) V) V> V) V> V) di CD O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO O 6c3 V3 6c3 V> 69 6c3 V> 69 E!i 64 ffl V) EA 6c3 V) M r O N O O O O O O O O O O Co O O O O V! 63 V! 6e3 V> V3 V3 V! V! 03 V3 V> V3 fA 69 N r O O LO N ..� O O O O O O Cl O O r� O O O O Cl w 69 69 64 V) EA V> Vi 69 69 6% V> 6c3 V) 693 EA C R 7 O O O N t M M O O O O V O O Co N O O O O C V) V) 69 V> V) V} V) V) V) EA 6c3 V! 63 6c3 V) 69 v O LO to O N O r O O O O N O O O L!) LO O O t0 O Q LD N co l0 r r h N V co LO O LO V> 69 V3 V3 V) V3 di V} V3 69 V> V3 V> EA V� Ln N O O 0 N O n J= O� C) a) LO CD O O O IL O O O O N N LO V' O O LO O V V> V> EA Vy V) 63 V3 V�l 69 V! V) 6c3 V3 6e3 V) O r O N O LO LO O� Cl ^ O O O LOO O LOO O O O O M N CO LO .- O .- h r� � O LO LO NT N 69 V3 V3 V) (cil 63 V) 69 V3 69 EA VT VT V3 V) OD CL O O O O N O O C) O o O o C) Vo Z N 09 LO LO Oo V LD D) O O O O O O O m O O O O O O O W CD CD C T N O O a U C co cu N m 3 C LL Y N ? N V C C E m N O � co r. O Z `O a V C O N U N LO N ... Y N U f6 ..-� O �_ 4k �. U N L Z co L6 O N O 'o .� Y 2 N L L6 a O_ V C L N LL O ' C O) O "" N N — ( a E a m O O Y O -C3 .a .a o cu rz m n' co O 1O c @ N J p N -) O) Y a. T C T O 'O U O >f6 E T O O M LO >L6 N > �_ > C m U) — m m O C> m N -o N C �' `) o_ P x° C m rn m O ° cc L) 0 00 3 cLi *z -a °- 0) (D o? S � •C m a) 0 LO m w MLO } m aw v) cnm 2_ m Um a 2 a C) �_ LO V r N ( OD (� N a' U) c' >� > _ = a' # 410!ld dll --g o N N M Lo N M d' tO LD I� O O c a— .— u d O O L`v :J; ro c i Q 0 U LO T' O N O O O O O O LO O O O O O O O E9 64 69 69 69 64 Eli 64 69 Eli Vi Vi Vi V Vi 64 T O O O N LO N O O O O O O O O O O co M O O O Vi 69 69 Vi 64 Vi Vi 69 69 Vi 69 Vi Vi Vi 64 M CD O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ui Vi 69y 69 V3 <-f? di Eli Vi 69 Vi 69 Vi 64 Vi N r O O N L!') O O LO to to O O O O O O O O O U) Efl fA Vi Vi Vi Vi 69 Vi 64 64 Vi U-? Vi Vi Efl C R U) r O O t N F O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O 69 Vi 64 V-T El) 64 Vi Vi 69 69 Vi 64 69 E9 O O 00 LO O CD N O O Cl O O O LO LOO M O O � LO N 64 69 Vi Vi Vi 69 69 69 69 Vi Vi Vi VJ 6% 69- N r N O mo V N C LL O M LO 01) M M N Lo tO to LO LO LO Lo LOO M M LO Vi 64 69 Vi 69 64). 69 Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi 69 Vi Lo O cmr O c F' r' O O O O N LO f� V V O to r Lp LO LO Lo LO LO LO M C7 M C' LO N N 69 Vi Vi 64 Vi 64 Vi 6i 69 Vi 69 Vi Eli Vi 64 IL Z tom.) N O rn a> aL p d 60 m Qm 3 t C Y Y N Y Y N U O N N N N L 0 U U E p ?� 3 N U U ca a La a n L L n m Z v to a o o m m m O U m Q. _� CG L m U) y LO N _ Q Q p C Mn m N •� ' _ N J 3 m O N LL a) s 20 O N > ; CO N wo O 00 O N _ L6 N O O N N L O 0 O r p N N t6 Q' > fl. N N N a N _ N p Y OL t N p L C C O C C to O C O a CS1 : ❑" C fl. O t6 fi3 C3 f6 ^2 O tp N p O N N O O 7 O (6 Z (n J m m _ J Z Q m U m Z U co v r O to N O O r r r T T T LO N U U v 0 U U U) # 410lid dil Lp � co m O T N M v LO O r� 00 m Cl r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M 0 0 N L g! Ci Q Ln O O Co O O O O O rn °D_ O LOO O O N O O O O O O M co M LO CO O r N N V V r 49 413 49 to vl3 4A 63 69 60 4A 60 69 64 63 Vs 63 69 4A O r O O O O O O O LO O O O O O O O LO O Co O O N O O Cl O O O M M M U7 CO O r N N V mqr M 63 63 4A 63 63 69 4A 4% V). 6% 49 63 6A 6% fA 69 4A 40} r O O O O O O O O O ~ O LO LO LL) O O LO O O O O N O O O O O Co N N N N M O N N V V r to 6c> 69 69 69 6% 4A 64 6c* 4A 63 69 63 6c3 to 4R 64 fR cm to Co O N Li O LO O O O O O N .—. O O O O O O N O O N CO O O LO to N N r to 64 63 63 4A 49 6% 49 63 63 6% 6fi 63 613 6. V>. 63 69 40). C R O O N (D O O Cl O O N O O N M O O LOO O N N ep C H3 fe 44 64 69 fH 4A 4A tfi 63 Ki 63 fa 6% (1? 69 4A 03! tf3 N LO N n O O O O ~ C co O LO O O LO LO O O O O O O N N LO M 00 LO N O O N V U) O U7 O N N r 69 6S 69 69 63 63 63 63 6). 4H 63 Efl 49 69 69 69 69 to LO N r' N O V N = O O J 4m V O C) O O O CD O O O O O cc! LL O O O O LO U) 00 O LO Lo LO Lb 00 M O Ly r M O (0 r LO r 00 00 r r LO V T� CO r r r 6fl 603P 49 4Fi /f3 6. 63 40 4A fn 4R 4A 64 69 FR 69 63 4R LO CD ti N O O OI L 0 O N L� Co O O O O C:) O O O O O O Ln M O LO O O LO LO Ln 00 O LO U) LO 00 00 LO O LO M 00 (O r r v- 00 CO LO c} h to N N 63 69 63 63 69 6> 69. W3 69 4H Hi 63 tq 6% 6F3 4A 6F3 4A V V (O O O O O v Z o 0 0 rn rn rn COMM) w c rn c c Q m (0 E m 0 N N c E w a > @ N N O O N @ p O_ E U La E � @ .J :N a E E n Ln i Z o Cl) > N > Y L 6 m T 7 N '@ N @ U .0.. o H am a d O 0 N > !n N @ a E 1- o Y °� t O > > C7 CO °� co U a O > @ aai c m o J "O $4 O U •� 00 � N N .N L 7 E LL m m n o f v O O U 3 0> m C! N > � o � 0 90 m (O > m > o o v i c > E o U s CD L i '� Z '�. 3 t @ @ C Q t .O y@. E CD O C: 0 elf LL LL LL i (n to w (A Z U. �' Z H v N N N # AI!Io!Jd d!l r N M d• LO (O r� 00 O O r N M v LO (fl f� co M M co M M co co M V V V cr NT V V' V N Z O L N O N @ N 0 C CL m T 0 N U3 ti R9 C'1 -a CL O C <D 2 C 07 s c> Q. I z CO) C m rn c 'a U G Ui U 0 Q N .0.. U) a c m M 0 a a) LL a () a Q n a) s O a U a) CL ax) a) m N a c 0 `m a c r. a) C N N a) E r- < C O ,q n r EN �o N r N O m N E O N C � O ma U « O caa) U o a O N O O co a0 a) O CL (D c c a) @ aF > `m U a) c a) CO toZ� O C m O NU a E U co m L 0 O J N C m O a N m V d .O L �a+ i d E N .7 O L Cam. E ca R O CL N C R F- a C O U E O 0 w 7 r Fmti .ri R w d 'o L CL a) R E w N O W U c d N O G. E a) 0 O Q O OL. U) E J V () 'O a C O U O J a) E Z v d 'O d :II O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O N O O Cl O O_ O O O _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C) O O OD O O O O O aW) M �7 �7 N 0) t0 M M > Efl E9 EA fA Efl b4 EA V3 Z a) a N c =S _o a a U 0 0. U) N> , U O U U N 3 a) a Y °- ' 0 "L) o m 'm O c m C N O L) 0 ` a a E c c cN `-' E c U O co p c N m O w C 3 O a) m 0 m rz a) rn N 0 E Co E o .` '3 a (n aa)) N a) N m c 0U) 0 C (D ' OOa) ca3o :n > c >c U v.0 0 � o c 0tq m m U=-0 m ° m ° m Q._ (D CU me cE= aO.Soo -C o— o— m E` ma 0 c�' m� E E E E cb 0. ° CL 0 o 3 o a) �� c 0 cya wa o m m c m c O)o �m a) c a) c °m = °- m e E m o m N X OL Nom° m r. Cc 3 m °'c `L°EU) nE a3)c_a) (D :3 O :?0c °303 C m i Y 7 w C '�.' V •` (D 0 2 f0 ,C C� c DNa a +' N.0 ` Na mes Q Ot OL = u3 0 0) a) o �N �� 3 N! a)_0 c `- 3 S - 3 •� C C m c a) ,��,, m a) C N C m m _- i m N (D a)a O- Q)a"." rna c O C O Oa 0) Nam (na m 0a ate= c ca L) o m -0 ccc c c c O m U c U �% O CO c (D -Q O ,� O C 0 0 O D 0) U 3 w m W O E 0� 00 U 0 Fn U o "N 0 O -0 m a U cn 0 m ami �0 0 m _:3 m m c E c m r O L m d Q y O m -0 O a m . a U) m O C C O N 00 ._. (D Q ` O O U E "? � U 0 N a) — O 4" ym+ (D N N a) C Q U C 0) L am Z)2 m i� m c _ 0) 0) (D t�6 C c 0) O N c > ON -�G CO OD a a c (D v `t m m m O N (9 LO Q Q Q 5 N c..i 0 U C Q U) C c c (D (D m c a a) a) a) c X O N O C Y > Q J LO >. N T T .� �° E m >. Q' a) m z m m Q° c> ca > 0 U U U U U `Q •C p U m > CO 2 OD 00 Q] .j Q N M X X X N M V 00 L Q Q Q Q Q � � o tO C t6 p Q X 'C m R .O a. Q N M X X X N M V 00 L Q Q Q Q Q � � a) N �O n. la W U c a) a) O C Q) N CL O CL U) J U a) 'o a c O R 0 O J d (a Z V O d O O cs O p «. d 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 .(D d n° n �- O 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD O M O O O O O O N O C M to r� O Cl O O O O O O Co O (O O O O tO 'V' O O O O M O C6 00 00 V N V- ( v> vs vs E» 6c3 v> vs v> va v3 v> va m m i L i N a a.� aL m C C N C ..... a m a) m .. N cn E N m C O E O 0 o E O U U@ -� 0-0 O O U U N D (n O ca N 0� a) a) ca cu y. r- a r N W r- a L L U):am (Da 0-0 m m m m 3 N m 0� m 3 N 0 C O C m C 0 O O Ems Em00 Ems U U 3 uJ 3 w C 3 fn 3 3 a= m U a= m E m U in in CD 3: a) 3: a)3L c c 0 0 a >� a > m a >� U U m a) Qa E ¢a 3 Qa E Of a m a C m _) O =' O w a) 0 aai U N L �L O_ O m Q C O U C ` C) C N n c 3 0 U a) C m m a) _ a C) � p m 0 o m a M U O a) U c N LL Q 0 N N c E O C 0 C N N �) a) a)) -6 O `p m � O .N E V ` L L Q O [6 C~ U O > •� U Q O C O E N CD c p O m c E 0 (D O c m 0 c E 0' Ea�U c E a) rnm v c = aa� o c •N a !`) C r C O E C: C O L m X ,� m m .� 0 -0 O a) 'o En to Cc N m C U O C7 o co E E O C N N m E 3 3 C _ O X O U O N •am' C E C a) C •E C a)c 3E .-.O 3fny3a)a) .-+m U a N O L O Ln *f a F L •V L a L = m m 3 Co M ,r CU c°i c c a—) c °)a m ina w U O C a) �_- 0,6`0 -0 m wo O O' O m O R' m Ir 3 U U :2 Q Ln < U cnn U U > co C Y CO m a) C E w m C m 0 O U U J C 3 _ m m a Q rn CL C O f%i 3 E m 0 a d' m U p a m a) a) 0 o, E N m J Z Z C) C C13 0 0 (7 (� p 0 ' 7 U +N+ L E C Y C m 0 a W (1) cc U) c w a) > � o o m > > -o it U T U o C (O a a >. C C .O C) C) ) m a a 0 (n c m — m C O a a C C L .- Q' •E a) O m O 3 3 C a) m a) m a) m C m J m w i (� (A U W m 2 LL W in = a) U Z a o o m m U Q U a) a) rn c Y i N C Co a m 0 m S U > E °- >_ 0) 0 a N m m ° a a E m a O O O Z 0 E N Cn CO T M a) tOi_1 tO/_1 > a a m J cu m a) () > J J Op C j C) m C > C C C X LO () a) a) (O C a) () 3 m U m m m m 0 m m m 'a m m a, E S S S S J J J Xk U1 V5 >@ m x x x x Lo o v o rn o U) U) 0 C) N S W W W W cyi (`w1 O m r 0 E m a a _ ro CL a 'E to IU CD CD 'o a .E W N U) O W U C d E 0 `c. E a) N O Q O a T J V a) 'o IL c O R v 0 J d E Z V N 'O d N rn p O C) C) O O O O O O O O C1 C) C) 0 .O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Co C co N N O O O O y M N N �-- N N M C p a w a a a ) c Co m`) co a) a) N E= cc °c Lm U :3 N Q) O N N ,,3, (6 � m U) a � Y mL3 r� m •c am m a -p m Lm m aY cu 42 c c m 1 -0 o m a m @ -CU Cc: °) m O 3 U N N N N N co cc O c6 O t p L U) .0 m a) Co to c a) c° o= ° c— o L o a) °a m m c o 0 o cS E o a) 0 o ow U m a)i m o mL .m C 0 ,N C ,N U N U N .0+ p) N tm N N C c C N m I _ m I m a) N O C •N ++ w O O ,� a U O m a) O O () O a O N _U U C) a) Q N - a) N. O C E N O C C N U 7 U 7 L N > ` N ca o o m r_ c3 O1 @ 3 3 3 E 32 �� 0 (D o aai aNi @ u- m o vL o 0 0 O O O a U a C a U c "-' > "' > a U) a) N "' O C "'' m N C a C m C m O m.0 O o U m U m N C a C : a) U N" oL � a o� o c o ED o c ° ° �a " ma m o Co 0 3 c a rn a 0) Y LA Y cm c c rn o Y Y o m - > m > m > C > m > C C C C N > m > m C C N C O U a (6 O u1 Oa O a O-O O a Oa Owo O y O O oa 0 0 E C C Q o Q C Q 7 Q C Q 7 U O> U 7_ Q a) O_ a) U 3 Y U C a) O O) c m U m U a) U �a a) U U c c a) V O O C o•N'. E m E E c E N E c c; c: E m m E oc m a m 0 c a o a E E m C > O t O co T J @ a) J ?r a > O a) 0 ca O @ > } L a Y Y c o U m C C o m O t 'O ` �' Y a m f4 d C 0 YO C O O a YO .(D .. - N a) Y Y C N m _T • c m m � C/) U ' J o o a o N N m 0 E m a) L N N M a) a) a p � c m a) Oc ) - 0� Q Q [0 1- m Y 0� a C N d p E O j 0 p Q co 00 7 M�t 2 a a LO LO Q Q > o O > > a U) CO -6 N N m O Q' o m > L m Z m m o ?� c C m O O m m 0 a) O a) � p U U U r U C .fl c- X w m ca 00 S 2 OD 0n d z x x x x - �. (D oO M 60 CO U V) to U C t0 i a) L td _m } a° Q N rn p O C) C) O O O O O O O O C1 C) C) 0 .O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Co C co N N O O O O y M N N �-- N N M C p a w a a a ) c Co m`) co a) a) N E= cc °c Lm U :3 N Q) O N N ,,3, (6 � m U) a � Y mL3 r� m •c am m a -p m Lm m aY cu 42 c c m 1 -0 o m a m @ -CU Cc: °) m O 3 U N N N N N co cc O c6 O t p L U) .0 m a) Co to c a) c° o= ° c— o L o a) °a m m c o 0 o cS E o a) 0 o ow U m a)i m o mL .m C 0 ,N C ,N U N U N .0+ p) N tm N N C c C N m I _ m I m a) N O C •N ++ w O O ,� a U O m a) O O () O a O N _U U C) a) Q N - a) N. O C E N O C C N U 7 U 7 L N > ` N ca o o m r_ c3 O1 @ 3 3 3 E 32 �� 0 (D o aai aNi @ u- m o vL o 0 0 O O O a U a C a U c "-' > "' > a U) a) N "' O C "'' m N C a C m C m O m.0 O o U m U m N C a C : a) U N" oL � a o� o c o ED o c ° ° �a " ma m o Co 0 3 c a rn a 0) Y LA Y cm c c rn o Y Y o m - > m > m > C > m > C C C C N > m > m C C N C O U a (6 O u1 Oa O a O-O O a Oa Owo O y O O oa 0 0 E C C Q o Q C Q 7 Q C Q 7 U O> U 7_ Q a) O_ a) U 3 Y U C a) O O) c m U m U a) U �a a) U U c c a) V O O C o•N'. E m E E c E N E c c; c: E m m E oc m a m 0 c a o a E E m C > O t O co T J @ a) J ?r a > O a) 0 ca O @ > } L a Y Y c o U m C C o m O t 'O ` �' Y a m f4 d C 0 YO C O O a YO .(D .. - N a) Y Y C N m _T • c m m � C/) U ' J o o a o N N m 0 E m a) L N N M a) a) a p � c m a) Oc ) - 0� Q Q [0 1- m Y 0� a C N d p E O j 0 p Q co 00 7 M�t 2 a a LO LO Q Q > o O > > a U) CO -6 N N m O Q' o m > L m Z m m o ?� c C m O O m m 0 a) O a) � p U U U r U C .fl c- X w m ca 00 S 2 OD 0n d z x x x x - �. (D oO M 60 CO U V) to U w. "o L a o 0 C) C) C) 0 0 C) 0 Co 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w; o 0 Ct Ct C) 0 C) C) C) C) C C) 0 0 C) Co 0 0 C) 0 0 0 C) 0 0 C) C) 0 C) C) 0 C) Cl 0 w o o Oct o N C) 00 Lr) (D o o n v) O M N (O r N W M W Ci 6�9 Eli 69. ER EA fR (A Hi 6c3 EA Eli 6cJ t3) cn to C a) rn a a a a C �, O N N N N N N C U O N U a @ 3 a @ a m O a v) O a cn O CO) O a N O a cn 0 m O D O O O O O cu a m E m E m E m E m E m E a m to a) Co N Q ` cq N 'C 0 .N m> ` O m O m O m O m O m O co O O N a) a 0 O m Q) _ a m 'OC p V1 C y C w e U) C of C co C y N C C O U a 6 C O 0C a U p cc N U = CU C .L a O U 3 Y 3 °Y Y 3 N °= F ) � O Uo O a) T a) O m a) a) C C C O O r. U O E o C N p p U O U U U U U N N cc X 'O U C � �m U � a) O V m 0 O C O N 7 N CO O a JO V O e ` a) � m o: oar m o o o0 Oa) oa) oa) Oa) o E ( m cn r > > > > > > c Y >% > p O m m 3 O O (a U O C 3 O" 3 O. Q" O_ 3 Q 3 Q y cq V) a N 0) > Q) 0 C N C U) C N C N C cn C U) C cn r- -0 i o c m m c m p c c a_ c_ c_ c_ c_ c_ c CL 0 C: 0c; a)°`v ° c; 3c m a)c >°c; om ° a) CD QL a) ac a) 0)) ) ai)ca ()vm a)v a)0 c o CD a Iq LL LL Y LL Y 4. Y LL U a a � m m �O p m L LL p a 0 a 0 a N C _ O O L U U a) C\l .0 U t? 0 > ca m l0 O a) a N p a +� Y m > d w l`4 � Q U •� (> (n O O 0 p a) p L o m Q. O Y E a U` Y ? Y 0 L D_ Y Y O a _ co 0 -o Q >i V oo c E m m Z Z rn� Z L c o m a) a rn m 3 o m (D m a) �c in � c L m T U m �O J U) 2 2 2 U) OD OD J CO [D 00 W V — a a� m Y o -p 0) a m > y p o o p` aca a > E _ o O m co co O > a 3 c z tea. c a° ~ E 0 m c °-) co cc .. cn 'Q a) N N U p E C N T .a Y C ca cu M Q. CO U) O co J U U > CO Q 0o U o (O _c �a O+'0- .2 X CL "O M cN-• O V U') (O n 00 CY) N p r U ) w c) tit ii ca -a a 0 c m CL .N c A C? .r d 'o L CL o mo O O O O O O w O O O O O O N O_ O O O O N U O CD M M I� M O +- @ w v 04) c r LO E N O N •- h M t17 N 3 W U 63 ea es (» (fl 64 aci a"i w E > no ° ocU a o a) U L L L E@ @ O O m O a)�C N O F _O m — N L _ - - o a) U m w O m wE C 6 L O L L O O O O C O O @ a) E E m C (6 @ O_ n C E E E C E E v, € E Y r @ N (L6 N M m U ca C a 3 d 3 O m m N m m O O '�- a� m y m m ° cn 0 o a) r LO N 00) c c c c c mw a O. m c cu m m m m c c y c c a a c c c Q NT L L L L L of °ui °ai °vi 3vi �y �oaNi (D O -a i O ° i a u) C yo cm a) ca �m a)m �m (Dm ESE v —v a a a ma a) a Q c Q m Q (n Q co Q in Q in m CO a) C-4 C N @ 01 O @ a) E C C O N 0@ Q m a) Q a) Q S U > 3 °oL) W ¢ m w = �c o a a) N J t: O m E @. - N U) Z m C N r 0 V) 0-0 `0 —� E a) m E I E E c N V J .`J Q J �� U Es T U @ LO O Z a ov @vEc U c ca U o 20 cu E v CO r° w E @ 0 ur > c m L UU a= m L� acoCD p .0 j N _ i O t m e a) @. R C7 a) t E '6 U = O C w a a) �c � U) C 0 O N O I j 0 m N m Co > a) a) O. J m m Cl) J m m m J 2 c E Emo E (a) c O z E O a) N @ c .0 a 7 E C @ Y °o O > E N U a) N a :3 w >, U Y O N o O O O O L MO = M a) N N o cd ~ N a) 2: C E N a) r > cm @@ c •> O a) a) 0 0) C F >O '> '> N c E Y °" U LL Z > mU co O 3 mo a CD d) N C C t a) n a O c Y a) @ t: o E ca CU m m > O w .- @ > co d JU W Z U E` ° o T a) — a) N E U m > a) . OL D a C O L �j o O 3 U ° c7 p ..4. m o� o v aai @Ew m W O p @ @ CL >' O a) a) = 0 a) F- n` a E a) L O N F Cl N (O 1� 00 L N F @ (� a W W W W W O W M m 0 N L fa E 0 z Transit Overview Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) is the primary provider of public transportation services in Whatcom County. WTA provides fixed -route bus service in Bellingham and throughout Whatcom County. Complementary paratransit service is offered in conjunction with broader senior and disabled service under the Specialized Transportation program. WTA also offers vanpool leasing, ridematching and commuter van service from selected markets. Inventory of Current Facilities The WTA operates 26 fixed routes with 40 transit coaches (primarily 35- and 40 -foot Orion buses). Specialized Transportation paratransit service is provided by 34 mini -buses with a capacity to carry 16 passengers each. WTA owns and manages a fleet of 23 vans for its two commuter van services. Table 72 below summarizes the park & ride facilities that WTA serves along with routes that serve them. Table 72. Whatcom Transportation Authority Park & Ride Facilities Park & Ride Location Served by Routes Number of Parking Stalls Ferndale Station 1671 Main Street 27, 70X1 55 134 South Bellingham East 1 -5 and Old Fairhaven Parkway (Exit 250 East side) 105 29 South Bellingham West 1 -5 and Old Fairhaven Parkway (Exit 250 West side) 105 24 Lake Samish 1 -5 at Exit 246 - 19 Lynden Station 1945 Front Street 26 89 Northwest Avenue East of Northwest on McLeod Rd. 232 (Not listed) Birch Bay Square South side of mall 70X1 55 10 Blaine Library 3rd and G Street 70X, 55 10 Lincoln Creek Lincoln Street, north of 1 -5 on -ramp 80X1 90A &B, 190 (Not listed) Fairhaven Park & Ride Harris and 4th (Not listed) 237 Blaine Library 3rd and G Street (Not listed) 10 Source: Whatcom Transportation Authority website (accessed February 6, 2009), and WSDOT Choices website http: / /www.wsdot.wa.gov /Choices /ParkRide.cfm #Whatcom; accessed on March 4, 2009. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 104 Level of Service Capacity Analysis Public transit providers typically provide LOS standards difficult to relate to capital facility needs with respect to changes in population over time. For example, Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) provides one capital facility standard of a shelter at each transit stop that has 25 boardings or more (WTA Strategic Plan, page 2 -43, September 2004). Capital Projects and Funding Capital Project Funding According to WSDOT's 2007 Summary of Public Transportation, WTA is expected to receive $2 million in 2010 from Federal Section 5309 Grants, and between $1.5 million and $1.9 million annually from 2010 -2013 from Federal Section 5307 Grants. These are the only funds reserved for capital, as other revenue sources such as farebox revenues and sales tax may also be used for operating expenses. Capital Projects The WTA breaks down capital outlays under categories that include Vehicles, Public Facilities,_ Strategic Partnerships, Street Side Improvements, and Technology Projects. The WTA's September 2004 Strategic Plan identified the following projects that will occur during the County CFP planning period. The WTA currently does not have any capital projects except for ongoing fleet replacement (personal communication, Rick Nicholson email, August 11, 2009). Table 73. Transit Capital Projects' Project 2010 2011 2012 _[_2613 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Vehicle Purchase - 11 Fixed Route Buses, 5 Specialized Buses, 9 Pool Vans Cost ( 51394 1 j 1 ( ( 1 1 51394 Safety and Security Projects Cost 1100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1100 Source: WTA Strategic Plan, Six -year Strategic Business Plan, Chapter 5. (September, 2004) I os it November 2009 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 ■ City of Lynden ■ Fire District 8 ■ Fire District 1 ■ Fire District 11 ■ Fire District 4 ■ Fire District 14 ■ Fire District 5 ■ Fire District 16 ■ Fire District 17 ■ Fire District 18 ■ Glacier Fire District 19 ■ North Whatcom Fire and Rescue (Fire District 2 1 ) ■ 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 I 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.). 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. t�f Comprehensive Plan Update - 10 Year UGA Review /4 Table 74. Fire Facilities Inventory Fire Protection Number Fire Fire Units EMS Service Area Serves UGA Provider of Rating 1 2 Services Population (Y /N) Stations (Y /N) (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 & 104 N/A 32 Y 28,2465 Y Rescue (District 21) Fire District 1 2 8T 6 107 Y 82460 Y Fire District 4 3 6 13 Y 81600 3 Y Fire District 5 2 6 6 Y 11370 N Fire District 7 6 6/59 24 Y 19,530 Y Fire District 8 4 N/A N/A Y 61240 Y Fire District 11 1 8 5 Y 11610 N Fire District 14 3 8 15 Y 73262 10 Y Fire District 16 3 N/A N/A Y 11160 N Fire District 17 2 6 8 Y 11520 N Fire District 18 2 N/A N/A Y 21460 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 a 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 Osborn 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 Ferndale 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. 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. � i 100 I November 2009 Level of Service Capacity Analysis. Two methods that can be used to determine LOS for fire districts are square feet per emergency incident and response time. Since many districts operate using a LOS standard tied to response time, it is included in this discussion. However, for capital forecasting, a method that ties fire and EMS response incidents to projected population, employment, and/or land use provides a more quantifiable LOS that can be easily related to facility needs. Square Feet per Incident 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. Until the County defines a level of service as proposed in its Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 policies, this Capital Facilities Plan will rely on analysis based on a square feet per incident. 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 76 below indicates that all districts serving urban areas would have a fire facility deficit by 2029, if new facilities were not added. Comprehensive Plan Update - 10 Year UGA Review "b 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) s Fire District 1 172008 682.3 24.93 Fire District 4 25,314 531.3 47.64 Fire District 7 39.007 11761 22.15 Fire District 8 282460 11025.3 27.76 Fire District 14 18,400 747.0 24.63 North Whatcom Fire and 722422 21362.3 30.66' Rescue South Whatcom Fire 352418 734 48.25 Authority Fire District 81250 134.0 61.57 Fire District 11 4,200 60.67 69.23 Fire District 16 91100 121.3 75.0 Fire District 17 6,892 89.7 76.86 Fire District 18 55400 118.7 45.51 Fire District 19 31600 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 76 indicates that all fire districts serving urban areas 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. Response Time Response time can be defined as the amount of time that elapses between the initial call for ' assistance and arrival of the first emergency unit on site. Most fire service providers base their response time on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. NFPA 1710 provides minimum standards for fire suppression/emergency medical operations of an 157 November 2009 organization that is substantially career responders. NFPA 1720 provides minimum standards for fire suppression/ emergency medical operations for an organization that is substantially volunteer responders. Many fire service providers make a distinction along the lines of a shorter response time in urban areas, and longer response times in rural areas, with suburban environments receiving a response time between the urban and rural standard. In addition, RCW 52.33.030 requires fire districts and departments to establish response time performance standards, 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. An example of response time standards is Bellingham's for its city limits: 1 minute for turnout, 4 minutes for travel for the first engine to critical advanced life support (ALS) medical emergencies and structure fires, and 8 minutes for travel for all first alarm responses to structure fires, or the arrival of ALS paramedic unit. Whatcom County is not proposing to adopt a response time level of service standard for the purpose of capital facility planning under RCW 36.70A.070(3). A number of factors are relevant to meeting response time objectives, including buildings, apparatus, career staffing, volunteer staffing, and fire 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. Table 76. Fire District Level of Service Analysis 1 Annual Average Calls For Fire and Aid Total Facility Size Service Incidents per (2008) Fire District (2006 -2008) capita (2008) (Square Feet) Fire District 1 682.3 0.08 177008 Level of Service Square Feet Per Incident 24.93 2029 Projected Facility Reserve/(Deficit) Expressed in Square Feet of Facilities (4,952)( Fire District 4 4 531.3 0.05 259314 47.64 (2,428) Fire District 7 1)761 0.09 39.007 22.15 (19,505) Fire District 8 11025.3 0.17 28,460 27.76 (87421) Fire District 14 4 747.0 0.07 18,400 24.63 (41369) North Whatcom 22362.3 0.102 72,422 30.66 3 (37,498) Fire and Rescue South Whatcom 734 0.05 352418 48.25 (31308) Fire Authority 4 Fire District 5 134.0 0.07 81250 61.57 549 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 158 Fire District Fire District 11 Annual Average Calls For Fire and Aid Service (2006 -2008) 60.67 Incidents per capita (2008) 0.04 Total Facility Size (2008) (Square Feet) 4,200 Level of Service Square Feet Per Incident 69.23 2029 Projected Facility Reservel(Deficit) Expressed in Square Feet of Facilities (1,164) Fire District 16 121.3 0.12 91100 75.0 (13853) Fire District 17 89.7 0.06 61892 76.86 (21865) Fire District 18 118.7 0.05 53400 45.51 85 Fire District 19 84.0 0.05 3,600 42.86 (380) 1 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 f) 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 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). 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 159 November 2009 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. Fire impact fees are 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. Under RCW 82.02.050(4) and .090(7), fire districts cannot collect impact fees. 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 I% 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), 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), and ■ k Fire District 7 (serving the Ferndale and Cherry Point 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 CostslRevenue (thousands $) Boat House Cost 1 150 Revenue 1 150 REET (1st Quarter) 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 1 60 r 2015 2016- Total 2029 150 150 Project Costs /Revenue (thousands $) Classroom /Office Cost Revenue REET (1 n Quarter) Broadway Fire Station Upstairs Carpet Cost Revenue REET (1n Quarter) Cardiac Monitor/ Defibrilator Cost Revenue Medic 1 Fund Field Computers Cost Revenue Medic 1 Fund Medic Unit Cost Revenues Rechassis Medic Unit Cost Revenue Medic 1 Fund Thermal Imaging Camera Cost Total 1,000 1,000 161 November 2009 Project CostslRevenue (thousands $) Cost New Ambulance Cost New Pumper Truck Cost New Station A with engine and aid vehicle (location TBD, but likely northwest area of district) Cost New Station B with engine and aid vehicle (location TBD) Cost Station 62 Seismic Upgrade Cost Station 63 Seismic Upgrade Cost Station 63 Exhaust system Cost Station 64 Exterior Skin Replacement Cost C #Minn Rd Rcrnnf Station 64 Seismic I InnmHo Station 65 seismic I Innrarla Ctnttnn Kti Fvtmrtnr Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review e� ..................... Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost Station 68 Seismic Upgrade Cost Station 68 Site Paving Overlay Cost Station 69 Seismic Upgrade Cost Station 69 Site Paving Overlay Cost Station 70 Seismic Upgrade Cost Station 71 Seismic Upgrade Cost Station 71 Exhaust System Cost Station 72 Seismic Upgrade Cost 121.8 WGIF', AW M&s, 126.2 _.yz, IZ�7 285.7 Tender91 -02 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 240 Tender 93 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 240 Initial Attack 91 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost I I I I I I 1 ( 140 11,110 November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs /Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Tender92 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) Cost 155 Tender91 Replacement (Vehicle) Comprehensive Plan update -10 Year UGA Review 11114 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) 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). 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). 165 I November 2009 Capital Facilities Implementation Chapter 4 of the County's Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies that establish LOS standards, promote adequate facilities to serve growth, and ensure that land use is coordinated and consistent with the capital facilities element. The County adopts a Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for County facilities in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan (Appendix F), and updates it every other year. The Cities also have adopted capital facility elements in their own Comprehensive Plans. They adopt functional plans for various services, generally every six years. Special districts prepare capital plans typically on a regular basis. As part of the 10 -Year UGA Review and in accordance with GMA, the County has made some determinations of UGA sizing based on projected growth, land capacity, and availability of urban services. In terms of ensuring adequate capital facilities and services, the County may make the following adjustments to balance growth, needed capital facilities, and revenue over time: ■ Make a change in LOS standards; ■ Add facilities and funding to meet the anticipated demand by 2029; and /or ■ Alter growth allocations. Recognizing that land use and capital facility planning takes time and requires coordination, and that capital facility planning is best accomplished once growth allocations are made and UGA boundaries established as part of the 10 -Year UGA Review, the County has adopted policies regarding reconciliation of the Comprehensive Plan and public facility and service plans. The purpose of the reconciliation process is to provide adequate time and information to special districts and cities as they incorporate the growth allocations into their comprehensive plans, and update capital facility plans, during their detailed plan update processes. Comprehensive Plan Update- 10 Year UGA Review gnu References City of Blaine 2009 Lighthouse Point Reclamation Facility http: / /wa- blaine.civicplus.com/index.aspx Accessed: April 27, 2009 Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction website: http: / /www.kl2.wa.us /SchFacilities/ Programs /EnrollmentProjections.aspx Accessed July 29, 2009, Whatcom Transportation Authority website (accessed February 6, 2009). Washington State Department of Health website (accessed February 5, 2009 via Internet download) Washington State Department of Transportation Choices website: http:// www. wsdot. wa. gov /Choices/ParkRide.cfm #Whatcom; accessed on March 4, 2009. Bellingham School District No. 501. 2009. Capital Facilities Plan 2009 -2015. Bellingham, WA 2009, Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. 2009. Comprehensive Water System Plan. Birch Bay, . WA CHS Engineers, LLC March 2009. Prepared for Birch for Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. Bay Water and Sewer District. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. 2009. Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Birch Bay, WA CHS Engineers, LLC May 2009. Prepared for Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. Blaine School District. No Date (excerpt). Blaine School District State Study and Survey. (Blaine, WA) Steward + King Architects. No Date (excerpt). Prepared for Blaine School District City of Bellingham. 2009. City of Bellingham Draft Water System Plan. (Bellingham, WA) CH2MHill. June 2009. Prepared for City of Bellingham. City of Bellingham. 2009. City of Bellingham Comprehensive Sewer Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Carollo Engineers June 2009. Prepared for City of Bellingham City of Bellingham. 2008. City of Bellingham Capital Facilities Plan. (Bellingham, WA) 2008. City of Bellingham. 2006. City of Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. (Bellingham, WA) June, 2006. City of Blaine. 2008. City of Blaine Comprehensive Plan Amended May 2006. (Blaine, WA) amended through July 2008. City of Blaine. 2008. City of Blaine Water System Plan. (Blaine, WA) CHS Engineers, LLC July, 2008. Prepared for City of Blaine. City of Blaine. 2005. November 2005 Revision to City of Blaine General Sewer Plan. (Blaine, WA). November 2005. lui I November 2009 City of Blaine. 2004. City of Blaine General Sewer Plan. ( Blaine, WA) CH2MHi11 September, 2004. Prepared for City of Blaine. City of Everson. 2004. City of Everson Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2004 -2024. (Everson, WA) December, 2004. City of Everson. 2004. City of Everson Capital Facilities Element of Comprehensive Plan 2004 -2024. (Everson, WA) December, 2004. City of Everson. 2003. City of Everson Water System Comprehensive Plan. (Everson, WA) Wilson Engineering, LLC. July, 2003. Prepared for City of Everson. City of Ferndale. 2005. City of Ferndale Comprehensive Plan, 2005 Update to 1996 Plan. (Ferndale, WA) Planning and Building Department 2005. City of Ferndale. 1996. City of Ferndale Comprehensive Wastewater Facilities Plan. (Ferndale, WA) Vasey Engineering Company, Inc. 1996. Prepared for City of Ferndale. City of Ferndale. 2006. 2006 Water System Plan. (Ferndale, WA) 2006. City of Lynden. 2005. Comprehensive Plan 2004 Update Final Draft. (Lynden, WA) City of Lynden Planning Department. 2005. City of Lynden. 2008. 2008 -2014 Fire Department Capital Facilities Plan. (Lynden, WA) City of Lynden Fire Department 2008. City of Lynden. 2007. General Sewer Plan. (Lynden, WA) BHC Consultants December, 2007. Prepared for City of Lynden. City of Lynden. 2008. City of Lynden Water System Plan. (Lynden, WA) Gray & Osborne, Incorporated August, 2008. Prepared for City of Lynden. City of Lynden. 2008. 2009 -2014 City of Lynden Parks Department Capital Facilities Plan. (Lynden, WA) City of Lynden Parks Department. 2008. City of Nooksack. 2004. City of Nooksack Comprehensive Land Use Plan Capital Facilities Element. (Nooksack, WA) 2004. City of Nooksack. 2005. Comprehensive Water System Plan. (Nooksack, WA) Sehome Engineering, Inc. December, 2005. Prepared for City of Nooksack. City of Sumas. 2004. City of Sumas Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element. (Sumas, WA) November, 2004. City of Sumas. 2000. Water System Comprehensive Plan. (Sumas, WA) David Evans and Associates September, 2000. Prepared for City of Sumas. Evergreen Water -Sewer District. 2004. Comprehensive Water System Plan. (WA) June, 2004, Ferndale School District, #502. 2005. Ferndale Schools Capital Facilities Plan and School Impact Fee Ordinance. (Ferndale, WA) Kask Consulting, Inc. December, 2005. Prepared for Ferndale School District #502. Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. 2007. Comprehensive Sewer Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Wilson Engineering, LLC September, 2007. Prepared for Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 168 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. 2009. Water System Comprehensive Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Wilson Engineering, LLC. August, 2009. Prepared for the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, Lynden School District. 2006. Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan. ( Lynden, WA) June, 2006. Meridian School District #505. 2009. Meridian School District Capital Facilities Plan 2009- 2015. (Bellingham, WA) June 2009. Meridian School District #505. 2006. 2006 Study and Survey Plan 2009 -2015. (Bellingham, WA) ALSC Architects and Coffman Engineering. June, 2006. Prepared for the Meridian School District #505. Mount Baker School District #507. 2006. Mount Baker School District Study and Survey. (Deming, WA) Stewart + King Architects 2006. Prepared for Mount Baker School District #507. Mount Baker School District #507. 2006. Mount Baker School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan, February 2006. North Whatcom Fire and Rescue. 2009. Capital Facilities Plan. (Blaine, WA) Henderson, Young & Company August 15, 2009. Prepared for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue. North Whatcom Fire and Rescue. 2008. Facilities and Capital Needs Assessment. (Blaine, WA) Emergency Services Consulting, Inc. March 2008. Prepared for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue. Personal communication with Boyd, Bill. Chief. City of Bellingham Fire Department, Bellingham, WA April 27, 2009. Personal communication with Silvas, Jerry. Facilities Manager. Nooksack Valley School District, Everson, WA April 24, 2009. Personal communication with Kenoyer, Jim. Facilities Manager. Blaine School District, Blaine, WA April 27, 2009 Personal communication between Rollin Harper, Sehome Planning and Erin Osborn, Whatcom County as relayed in Email from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. Personal communication with Paul Fabiniak, Department of Ecology and Richard Rodriguez, Department of Health (letter), March 17, 2009. Personal communication (e- mail), Doug Dahl of Whatcom County Emergency Management Whatcom County Emergency Management, June 23, 2009. Personal communication, Tammy Adams, Wastewater Plant Manager and Dean Martin, Whatcom County Planning, July 10, 2009 Personal communication: Rodney Langer email to Matt Aamot on June 24, 2009 forwarding Kelly Wynn email. Boa November 2009 Personal communication email from Brent Baldwin, City of Bellingham to Matt Aamot, Whatcom County, June 29, 2009. Personal email communication, Erin Osborn, Whatcom County Planning to Matt Aamot, Whatcom County Planning, July 14, 2009. Personal communication between Timothy Yeomans and Gil Cerise (telephone), Meridian School District, July 30, 2009. Personal communication (telephone) with Kenoyer, Jim. Facilities Manager. Blaine School District, Blaine, WA August 5, 2009 Personal email communication, Ron Cowan, Bellingham School District to Matt Aamot, Whatcom County, May 15, 2009. Personal communication, Rick Thompson, Superintendent of Lynden School District, July 30, 2009. Personal email communication from Penni Lemperes, Whatcom County Solid Waste to Matt Aamot, Whatcom County Planning, July 28, 2009 Personal email communication from Penni Lemperes, Whatcom County Solid Waste to Matt Aamot, Whatcom County Planning, August 12, 2009 Boyd, Bill, Fire Chief, Bellingham Fire Department, personal communication, April 14, 2009 email. Personal communication, Email from Bill McLaughlin to Matt Aamot, on February 25, 2009. Personal communication between Gary Russell and Alex Cleanthous, July 1, 2009 Personal communication, Email from Denise Christensen to Matt Aamot, on February 19, 2009 Personal communication, Email from Bill Hewitt to Matt Aamot, on March 10, 2009. Personal communication, Email from Rick Nicholson to Matt Aamot, on August 11, 2009 Public Utility District #1 (PUD #1) of Whatcom County. 2004. PUD #1 Water System Plan. (Ferndale, WA) Donald E. Wright, PE Consulting Engineer October, 2004. Prepared for PUD #1 Whatcom County. 2008. Comprehensive Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Whatcom County Planning and Development Services. June 2008. Whatcom County. 2008. Foothills Subarea Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. (Bellingham, WA) Whatcom County Planning and Development Services. December 2008. Whatcom County. 2008. Six -Year Capital Improvement Program 2009 -2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). (Bellingham, WA) 2008. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review , io Whatcom County. 2000. Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. February, 2000. Prepared for Whatcom County Water Utility Coordinating Committee Whatcom County. 2008. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Chapter 6 Transportation. Ordinance 2009 -037. (Bellingham, WA) May, 2009. Whatcom County. 2008. Whatcom County Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (Draft). (Bellingham, WA) April 2008. Whatcom County. 1999. 1999 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. (Bellingham, WA) November 1999. Whatcom County. 2007, Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Whatcom County Public Works, Solid Waste Division. 2007. Whatcom County. No Date. Whatcom County NPDES Phase II Stormwater Management Program. (Bellingham, WA) No Date. Whatcom County Fire District #14. 2009. Fire District #14 Capital Facilities Plan. (WA) September 2009. Whatcom County Water District Q. 2009. Water System Plan. (Lynden, WA) Reichardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. 2009. Prepared for Whatcom County Water District #2 Whatcom County Water District #7. 2008. Draft Water System Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Reichardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. August, 2008. Prepared for Whatcom County Water District #7 Whatcom County Water District #13. 2005. Water System Plan for Whatcom County Water District #13. (WA) Reichardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. February, 2005. Prepared for Whatcom County Water District #13 Whatcom Transportation Authority. 2004. WTA Strategic Service Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates September, 2004. Prepared for Whatcom Transportation Authority I 71 I November 2009 Appendix 1 Growth Estimates by Special District This page intentionally blank Comprehensive Plan Update — 10 Year UGA Review 174 Whatcom 2031 Urban Growth Area Review Special District Population and Employment Allocations Prepared by: Berk & Associates in association with ICF Jones & Stokes Date: November 23, 2009 The following sheets are part of this package: 2008 Base Year 2029 Council Scenario (UGA allocation; UGA Reserves part of rural) Year 2008 Population and housing unit information is based on a review of Whatcom County assessor records, US Census bureau , and State Office of Financial Management information as well as targeted aerial review. Year 2008 Employment information is based on data from InfoUSA. The final County Council 10 -Year UGA Review scenario was developed by Whatcom County in November 2009. The EIS studied a range of years 2029 -2031 and used 2031 as a summary horizon year for analysis; the County Council 10 -Year UGA Review scenario is for the year 2029. Notes and Limitations: Numbers on scenario sheets are rounded and represent totals, unless stated otherwise. To obtain net change, .; subtract 2008 from the 2029 scenario. Population statistics include group quarter residents; household statistics do not include group quarters. 2008 employment is based on InfoUSA data allocated at the parcel level. The data appear to have some locational errors here and there though the information is the best available for analysis purposes. It is recommended that special districts focus on the net change in population, housing, and employment. Due to parcels that straddle urban growth areas and district boundaries, and the process of applying Countywide and UGA totals at a parcel level, the numbers at a local level may have some small errors but overall totals are consistent with overall growth levels of the scenario. It is recommended that special districts focus on the net change in population, housing, and employment. Manual adjustments were made to the Foothills Water and Sewer Districts - WCWD 13 was assumed to take a greater share of growth than Evergreen (Columbia Valley) due to sewer infrastructure. This data is provided for an overall order -of- magnitude comparison. Contents and Sources i November 23, 2009 .1114 wm.row Rw.} PyJativr, vd Fm�memty5pcS1C4ukf ba 0nwia W1e Pepumbn Fmpb/mN AWAIT NELL 1 3 - AWRWi]ENSYS. 2 6 - AC )E 04Y)PIR PARK 02 in - pIQENS1 O ) SO - Pl0ERG90vEYNlER0.35 Xt 89 2.02 0.`IDERSONCIM 0)110.53 2 6 1 MCO OAY K. REF 20'00 21000 64 AU)WNL YXP B p - BATFEV.BCRCAMP 1 3 5510 $FACLi0.LBOY.`DJ$ 13 $D 4 BF HnEJA R 4,46 1I'M S.IN BELCENpLAES 0)110.55 9 25 6 BELFERNWA)ERASS. 71 IN 2 BEL Ra%ES)WLRASS +3 41 )20 MLLBAYJAA S 231 565 11 BERINIREHRDNTR]SS IN N5 118 BIROIB4YVNTFA5EW 2))0 RUNS 1.105 BISNTS VATER 55,215 lam - InDallam 4 11 - 0110(AIiRhWI IM nl - 09p()I(ESfiWO/IEW ] 19 - BCbiOFLL ) 20 - BlNrwflJAONN)FA>SS 0101 11 -s GLWWNwiI]t ss]FY s 14 laws CAMP SNFAO9pVOMK 5405 9000 LU FNYJN U LIR SS£AO90eiywn 1.73 4,300 Mft URLhNl W1RASSCG L J B - W515CCFFFECUP rum 42510 - CASGLENESI J+ 05 - LEXIFUV ERSY$ 6 17 CEII)RAL LO 01110 0)110045 110 315 2 p 1 3 OVSIEEL 2 6 OILONHUTTRV)YRL M WIR U 131 5 Ott CFBIAP?E 4 34.91 05.57 !6.X4 Ott GFBWNE 1,914 l6]6 2RN OW EF EVEM50x &6 2L] 09 OTYEFFERMALF 3.900 +990$ 5.614 Ott6LYMEN 5.352 IT445 5.]00 O]Y6SLNAVN ( 81 I,w 105 CInc 463 1.11 N$ MiCo CCxs➢MWVEN%RER 53 - CpRRRY1NVEXWIR0.9 19 53 DJSTERM�R 213 950 218 CEEB EEK 3 ] CELT GiEER BA 3213 1.NO CELTAWf pEL)AW SSpC. 1# 653 NO DENG [ENINUAGM]ERATEROU 55. 9 13 Za DGftBAD 11$ In 109 EAST 9ACGFR VN)ER BADGER 5 5 15 - ELPAISLBFAESTMR 6] 163 EMER PRISE 33 9$ 3 EMEWP TERROU I p 76 TEFRRAtEw E SYSiEL s 14 - JLGJRWS)FA E RGVFEN ]] 105 EVERSORMTirvE ] 20 E R$COLWlSTCRIE b 1PJ - EVERYBWY5LLEPA FERINKN INCBLE PAR 92 93 - ILENLL FERTILE 91 FERTREIMRAAL VOR lo 5 25 n s FLEL4WINTfl s J %UI FORESTSPU144C $3 T] 3 FpiESiPMRYHL 3 GEpEW 0)000.15 Yrtg0.55 31 37 3 G NIEEHMT 55 ] 30 G IEFR LM 5.3 34 ZRGREEx R GUOEJRMIRU 03 2b 3 IF, 6UOEIi 015). 009 2175 112 N CIENINVEHMTE XI 1,611 - 9 p CC00SHNEWF)ER COOSCIE 5 JRYMIMIROI GOJSEBEPoiYPoIMNTfl 5.0 417 n C-2VAM 3 GMXpmEW f{MER C ASS 46 130 251 CMQQERMTEA WF)Egp55 6 16 - H ST RDq XSi.RO.NTRA55CC. 2 fi - W 12 7 a0oYW uE!NA WWUOw EIfuExIMV NEMMIftCWD 4 0 IEMMIPOpO WRIER 1$3 335 IJ2 HpENVRLLEROVA 12 39 2 MLL]WWA]FR OMOi A IN 37 1 ,ACFIES 3 IAOFICLL W4)ER 9 35 INF ISLE UNEOFACW0.S5 . U 1 3 x 5]OLLC£ 3 3 DE E LWIEVN1ER0.35. 87 ml 600 K4WJt INC ] 6 - R EE Atf woAIL RY - Y RSYS KCMREE"TS 6 17 TEE IZI.Ma IAURELFIELNTRASS to 78 3$ IALRELIOCGE WIR ] N lE£W WONM)NCAIE 13 - 1 - UNERCENwiR0.55DC. LI Y/IR/55CL 6 1) - IAW B n IKl ISA)EA LR50M15XLEC64 24 310 X LR]Eflfl001A 24 59 LK RESiRFAi RE THE - - 28 IOGSRWWR LCG4NESOfli S95ll 127 349 3 twoNPO 00) 05 80105 0)110.35. 16 - LYZHWINGEY/$$ 10 n n M AENWNG 3 0 1 39 - UAM14YS COVITRY MAKEFY n 9$ 1$4 LSd.MIRYYW 305 61 169 10 UAXTHE uabxENEWESiRIES 5 14 O R SON 10 PAOHT RY MOUMMVEMUTRAS 6 6 1fi 6) MWMPAVNEWVRRAS W lip so ML BAKER BO - - - RHkatt N) EWER JVSR NNiI M)OdQfl N1V U IN Mi 60gFRYM)ER/S$ 275 IN IN ES 6 1) lopyu sC lwff /S INPLUIES 67 IB9 2 ASS(X 10L3ENYRIUATER 9 x3OTHINNG 131 61 93 LF NJMN B)NM6CLLE 19 NJMXIQyE1MLLE RD RD 2 5 NJIRX SiM VRflh36 U 119 9 NJIilXFO1M - XJRLINiES1FtD EPIM 4$ 10) WILTHNESLPDVERP$$ X1-05ETTLE LW44TER . u9 40) OIf]O O] b 21 RDMT!Nw)ER $ 47 in 124 fi PR BXLIWANATER PARAMELKS 9 24 CTF (EVERGREEN Was1 CL PNUpaliple ION 3074 72 P WTH Sys 39 113 3 EAAEPPoLWINSfS PFimumaW rK 5 PEMURSW 5 13 I3 PEIKIEflO WRE 0.55 9 2 11 N %x10500155 WIR0.550C 4 If FIPMALON WLEY WIR )6 ) PIDWRO ERTS P0(&Fm G1 72 A39 MRL5W PCLEROORto 55. TI5 1N4 1514 b0 P2VAIE CANE 5 14 12 12 LY7 RARt /PoWETAT ] 19 ] RED WCO RED ULVMUx ESTATES 2 - RIOM70VglERA55 6 16 6 RIOGEVMLE R ] as MVEflRMOVN]Efl]SS n - RGODR WVN)ERASS 4 10 R0.550C 17 104 1 ROSEVULU 0.55 10 ts 2 ROSEVNLEYWIq R 45 110 VATIOACXMNI AMP SLLVA]ICJAJ ) SUAUSH D< SFJIDYVL IR 457 1,1]3 91 BNOY MOGCC {ASSOC ) n BLVER IAN£PK SNOLY(VMpUU(W(RA n$ O)I n 1 SMALLNCCO IS 7 - TAM SOUTHWOEFIAUE 0 SPRI X %EIM to 10 RSYS SPflING VPLLY 009015105 V 2 3 St 905195009010.55. 121 2 SNI Lou HILL 4 1 - U m SUMFUEE ITER W 56 nl IB SLW 6 16 CEE0004)81ASSDC. )ALLCEMR VFLERASS E6 4 TE FKTOHIwOO R 071105000 99 N 11 )W) MTERSi 2 2 6 MRVSIER IMX]IWIfl 5105 ] 3 EYIWA LER 41 114 1 MT0R NC)ORNN]ERASSOC 52 iR n WC W wC W DST. PII 191 07 WC WOST e10 3,975 all 10051 719 W 1001 2]9 000953 wCw0.n1 3n 1-1 91 ER X 1% 159 6 MLM NwLLNwTER 5105)£10 2 6 - VYRNCRVM]ERVARICS 2 6 IN I$1 fit MRR S 0 BRR WTCOUEACXDN CANV 65 19 WOIERSI -LW1 n X WLLEY54XEL K 10 N 3 WSERSIIpREUW]EA$$ I I 2 YSOWIKWNYRRA55 73 +96 % ] Y A]ER SYS)EN J 0 YMTTRE�FDS 3 B N YgMIR SYSTEM ] n 20.LERMTERSYSTEY 3 5.2 19 )01.1 cam 1e5]a1 u.n$ 30U96me Yew 0ISEVEAR 5dxxACYr0 M, PxWUbn Emp"mma BELLIXGIVW SG 0151 4AM 102.0)2 •F. 0 BWxE5L11 USIRw) 5.600 I140) 4950 FERFAALESC CXS1R3 9.96 27.10) IO.EW LYf SpwCtpSTACI Sam 15.710 7.40 IIERIpAN$C+KVLpSINIC 32O RAN 2.02 MTI]ANR�=7RIC 5NO 12,500 2.KO PROD .AVX Vµ SCIU] 20'00 21000 2200 Toed l on 5015 yrwL XX. PppYybS FmgolmT BBWSOTpJ END S.Pw tlw BRAND ENS 22&5 420 o Bkoe Baswaa: wlp 39 NO am im BBMOpmypl' Revised V1Q] E6'.51m1 3S.%0 8,90) 'Z0) 1.am 4,3at 254 Swam' E WIBOFV Iweo{aFRO 0) 25 545 FvNYe am 1 110) 5015 FvIWe A= lAm 11.85101 5510 FeMIe W51]e UCvt AL 1,140 510 LpnY 4,46 1I'M S.IN IbJmtA' 0916 1240 155 8mtl 95 tab 410 MCawglwo m ;WS 1070 )20 BKWY010 Uw 5& $iw Jts 105 3,05 5.39) 3to 33- NCV.O15^ 310 9N to 0.65 55,215 lam Mail 3n 1)(04 TOW also 5910 1.300 Pen OYM XX. paWWlm FmOuvnbN Ly1SVIRpveltf END ISM 7.901 MYPNOLI[I Stb 12000 4,500 Two ll.ow 27,600 MAN Revised V1Q] FlbpWkl WIe pwp dkn Emp"mwN OOfiloto ;SID 5000 3040 WIBOFV Iweo{aFRO ItN 3.00 1.585 0.908eigwn UG4 Lam 2.910 2.JX 091 3065 3.480 2300 0911 565 1.610 150 D914 SSw 9.67 1.70 0916 An LIED TL 01917 Ns 1,521 115 OY10 66 2AEO 0919 SW Ina 105 Ov31 Twill 55]0 Za"O two OP21 dIV 0YmFVVp 9290 n30 0.65 O lLN10m LW 85 NO 3n 1)(04 TOW also 5910 1.300 OAACNVIivm{wb1 1.813 6.070 IRS P9A8K'ywn VGA 1,62 lbw 600 0106 02 1.370 AN 0101 TITO 19530 0.)33 9 W191mmilnlu111 aWi laws I'm SNFAO9pVOMK 5405 9000 EO SS£AO90eiywn 1.73 4,300 560 lMa' IOH LLwIi 1393 11,380 no rum 42510 MAN 35.180 ieatt up x pgJU3mvnMYm9aelM Vlez 101.995 vgJOYVeiMlrc[vpm W3m Ywmmm Vale TaYI I91.000 L^^ef::'TioF.T...,_ ....T'^ 90'1 ^...T. ^.F^.'p^- {^FPT: _ wXmm.p.2aw NOt IbuNY4 (FYNA PoWYIV' �. aitl EmpbymenlSY SF� V I Lelkl Waft, 0,0041 IOFl PopWNbn EmPbFmxY AOMO)NEU 1 J AWRWAIFR SYS 2 6 KATE MY)RLR PARK O tro - eMpSPWD ) 20 - ALCERGRpJEVNIFAAS n 109 A>pERPoXCRRWR)AC 2 8 AXC0p(iYP].REF 1 32 911 NJIWNVNEMXP B 20 - E4TXEUSCH PllP 1 J BFALx0.L8N1M5 13 n A BFAC l Et-EuEMRY BEILEH /OgS WIRA55 9 25 6 BELFERNNN]FA 0.55. 71 IN 2 BELFERHK£sTMIZAN 15 BElLB0Y.N06W 282 503 11 BERIXIAENRGWIfl0.5: IN 295 51$ BIgp1 BAT WOlER5EW 4260 9.616 2.1E 81SIRI Fil R $ 6 BLLIXMLRPH]I 14 361 - BCp( DAEW ) 19 - pp01S11LL S- 111 ] A BRWx RyDWnIFA AS 4 11 fALMUIwniFA 595]60 3 14 S GGNPLIAHERAC wPLMXEFMACU fARL W . ] B 0.SC FEECUP UYADEMSYT 31 - CFN]EWJ.W1]FASYS 6 17 t4. CEMRXCT'Wffl ASS 317 No 3 6 3 O 1 J CINSTEENFANILT W(R 2 6 pLOFSEUNILYIFR W IF8 5 O]V CWB n!314L 3AM 107.648 R4T CITY OF BWHE 34]0 8.4) 4,894 CITY OF FVERSQV 1,160 3.b) 104 OTY OF LYGDOII 6H1 R,SW am PTV C£LVxDEN 6.160 15.JR 4.24 PTYCF VOKW.2t !•B $.W) on Ptt CF5VW5 )BS 2.096 BJ3 COUIRRYMIRNN)ER - WSTER NVEN WfflA 19 51 DEWLMA7S 381 ]fit 69 CEWLLEAPfS J ] OEERCT BA }.2.379 1.85 CEL]AGRJRD CERL' OEL]AWA$$CC, 2II 622 313 CEPIUM EEDNOY OEMINGVATERA6s. n IS NO WuBBACCER t£ ER 5 112 in E45T IS. VN LU 5 N 26 ELW ISLSEEST R n 165 ENTERPRISE EST MR A 27 J EIRTERFANIS EN Z) 76 1 VAGE)SE MIERVIR2510 5 14 - EVERGREFN n IBB EVERGRFENICCAWpA 1210 3.54 IN EVERCiiFENp2NE ] - EVEflSWNMTFRA55 IRS an FNWIELOMML0RE 1 FNRCIALE WILEPAR b W 15 FERNpE MEAXILEMLL 92 GO No FERLILE1MRAS, 91 M3 5 FkLIM/J4 WfRP55. 5 14 J FORESTPARK %KT]W(Rp 5 n 2 FOREST UNL B GFtlidl MPl%M WFRA$ 37 07 3 GEORd GREERO TER ] 34 - GIPI:IERGRFFNVA)FR 12 b GLACIERSFWNST. BY 24 J GIENMUS IAKES AN 2267 ITS GLENIWVENNREE 501 I.fitt - GLENNCGJEVWLER 12 ]0 6!60SxFPMD04Ml n - 5 GW.SWB PoIM WII in R9 27 GRPAIMY5LILLC 1 J GUMJEWCEMER GAIMERMTERNASS 51 116 2R IST RERWAlASSOC 6 16 - x PTD MTERSGC. 2 6 - INMWROWEtEUGHTA 12 b - xeR1tlXY EIENExipRY H VMEL A 5 EMIA ROAD UYATER 14) 385 13] UCXDE vt EYWP R 29 2 xILTOF'MLERDIM $ TOG P IUAGPCA 3 ES 1 - INFRAP FICLLC IEI 9 35 ISLEAJREEGACHC 302 ANSTOEBFACXP55. 1 133 } b LOWEYllA 1 ] 4 KANS. S.SI VMLER0.S5 95 254 64 FU4R RG ] 6 IfE1SP1LLREEKSaLMD XEHUSEE"TC£RY - -AUS TEEAPiSWTRSVE 8 17 IAURELAI GEMIR 55. b4 23 IAVRFt MOGEW(R 7 w . tEFMSENWRAVIC LNE RDWOMANSSOC. 1 1] LWERO90WLfl)SSLL I] 33 LMW 9 YULER 9 35 LKSASIVIVERFACEN RII 24 II] S LMLERPEOWRIE RTRE N 59 UnSRESCRT iflFA1 - - 28 LOSS RESG9i 10 LWMLSLAM RAS 116 319 9 LWM PoIM WIR )SS. 16 - LVXCEHVALLEYA55 10 2% 28 NAEHWM 3 0 WA1OY ROADUSATER 15 b NAPLEF S S VMRf NF W in ZN NMLEFAUS 65 14 59 vAMxENEWESTA]ES 5 14 NpU}.SryNE 4b 1.256 to uCNTGCMFR MIRAE1 1 42 0 MWMERWUSTCsUP 151 N$ 69 ML BARER 6VS HIGH MTEUXERLDSNNIOI - MLB00RMIV O NO its MT bWER MISS A55 2 . S 17 tfifi xygRE5WSHUffl 6 1] HEPLVI{BFFCX WIR A: 6] in 9 R m DYSUCIRA552 9 FGQ:HBIAGGLF 241 659 In NJRIX BFN "LURV1 19 MTHISTAEMIZARO 3 5 "ORTWORK W1R0.55 O 119 9 MMKOM MiI1M£Si010.4LEPPo N IN 4 FdNIM£SL RO WIRAS 2 NMSf7TaE SA AER 154 423 21 IXDSERLERSN4IER i5$ $1 ORDOICURMER0.55 1@ 24 fi PAxCBGE PRIK ER 9 N PA E E DCAUS 595 6 IN 2 PFACEMEIA 5 13 PENNRBW 5 13 PERDE 0.O WIRASS. 1F4 Z11 74 R.MATK UAuKGECC. - pLEASJM 4 LEY POMROGERTSA WIfl 47 IM Yv PgMRC6ER]s4 1.691 53 PRIVRDW TV FTER0.55. IJ6 ! 17 412 PRIVATE DINE 6 RAPI 1$ 19 }.662 RED UOUY ARIE TAT ] 19 ] RFOMCVMNNESLATES 2 6 - RIDGEMIE W41ERP5: 6 16 RMER W4EN ] 25 RIERRMMIEERASS 4 25 RrvER'AEWVUlERa55 10 RERUxDWIRA550C J) 141 ROSOSE VIILEY WIR 0.55 10 $B 3 FOYAL CO4CIlNGN 45 110 SASEYPTIgK 1 3 WIDY PLIMASS(x 530 1.420 91 SINDY USE 0.55OC ] ID SILVER VIfE PIt 258 ]34 IN $RAl[VMO6KRwfNA $MYLWJODSXWES f5 b SCV1x0(XERAL E 9 25 SGV1UVALIN RSYS 10 A YRFGVHLY WIR SYS 9 $J $3 SL4M1S 0.LNAL WIR/SS 125 313 ZO SUIRTY IS 43 - SUISEIEtph ] b SWSETWa]ERBMVM 1f6 316 is II CEEWATERA550L 6 IS TALLCEMP TEAPOT 5 4 to T IFMIWSEY IFIJVi f0 TXJTLEL,M LERAS9 TYI 96 UUoCX IANEWATER 3 6 - VXIIXWIflSYS J 8 41 114 1 MIEYNEWWITER vol"E NNlERP55CC 5 151 3 WC W WC WDS DST .o12 157 1.06 o WC Wp5T. a10 4.157 11.]60 940 WCYD DST 013E no I66 b] WCWOVIJDYA)Efl) o !IN SIG UMLWaTER b 159 6 Walt N0AA1URW0 2 6 VARNCKVA)EflNAILL $ 6 WERRE 100 2719 09 NEflfE S E05GRP0WIF J WYxniCS .Vial So 1'S GEYS LK PIAW T A 5] WLLEYE]dWEW 31 4 J WSFR5KnOMAMA55 11 31 2 Y UCESCO]MWIRASS IC3 mi ] YRYATREE TFRSYSLEV 3 0 YEWTREEMAES ] 0 54 YCU L ] A ZDERMTER SYSTEM 5 12 20 18. 1V. F9uL CON:CIL �K9D SLMd DSWUW Mle PepJObn ISSOMIlM BEILIWWM SCWJL CISTRX 50.550 mDJ nl'A PINNESCIA^CL0.5)RLI 9.20 21.600 7.950 FERVDLLESW:Q. psiR.R KING 3.50) I7.300 LYICpL$CNyLp$iRILT am 21.00 it.= MERpaN50fDCLpSfpC1 am 9,600 l%O MT &LNERSpUCLpSFPoCf ].)W 21.000 2&O F,WI.SAIXVNLEYSCXQX[ e.0.o Vlo 39 FeIMYe TdY TIN AN 1690 Sew1pM0 XNe Po0W0bn bnMnmen 9 "DTgW {t Sf 1!90 B6NSDPYTDSI AM SUO IL OBWSDBre JS 960 IN BBISDOmyR 3960 It]W AD BeAfwn Sam 1602]} 749)5 EWe am 9.M0 4.8W Evesl 125 Vlo L4A FeIMYe TdY TIN at.SO 1690 Female 7315 A,IA 9139I Fm'bbo1198e11W SO 1.140 vo Lrgm 6.E60 Tom 8.735 NeYaW on now 210 s0w5 no zmo m W SYNDTdY Am 11.160 940 8ef00 WGVAfO 1,00) zm 345 WdA10 3,090 Bsb 425 GAS ]95 1 35 TNOIWIJISEWERI TE55 num 0,,710 Park Claim XNU, PopuWbn FmelaFmeN LWNSIRIpMa fl3W 3130 1!90 "PVkp9' E 19 WJ 7460 on1 1B 41.1 142 AIMS A p }IYkn WDNYImpvYM Oaesagary 4.K 165.191 PmleYminlrvaw0a0vv 81 nt mm 248.W2 Abb: R(aNWON(pMr04{pjeYNp vpe4MLeYf 6LYAByW 0,q CWntlle Ve4y1lJ 202900,1 3 N CUSSIM W9 v wM CMTgY 4.1W &Ulu ONWVtl ebl 1.6W 4m 2095 . ps68emty LGi 1,510 Alto 5.091) pgt 3960 It]W also D911 GG 1.460 IW D014 4.45 123LI 2745 D016 44 1210 255 DLn Do 3.010 115 DRIB NO 2520 DAYS 635 1,744 PD 0021 T6W 117W 31.40 lam 0931 aaIe LOlmyleR] 12865 E.1711 R37D 0921 tgWn VGi WS 2.250 !IS DW]g0 4220 11.360 J.nS 004 V1v D01apvabl 2255 6.240 700 0,94 &6vgI0n VGA I.9S 5.120 3070 GAS ]95 I'm SS DID 10.505 num 0,,710 LYWIDN 5.75 4,560 TIES S WIWmnFlNAU1vN3 TOU 5,150 15.360 2535 p' 41YmpveW 3.610 IS010 ]W OXY4mmllfi 2604. 5260 ns Taus '3;10�iib A AIMS A p }IYkn WDNYImpvYM Oaesagary 4.K 165.191 PmleYminlrvaw0a0vv 81 nt mm 248.W2 Abb: R(aNWON(pMr04{pjeYNp vpe4MLeYf 6LYAByW 0,q CWntlle Ve4y1lJ 202900,1 3 N CUSSIM W9 Appendix 2 Birch Bay Draft Capital Facilities Funding Analysis Effects of Birch Bay's Potential Incorporation Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Update Capital Facilities Funding Analysis Effects of Birch Bay's Potential Incorporation Assumed January 1, 2012 Introduction Revenue projections in the Capital Facilities Plan are calculated on the assumption that Birch Bay does not incorporate, and therefore remains part of the tax, population, and land bases of Whatcom County through the 2029 planning horizon. This appendix compares the capital revenue projections for Whatcom County to the estimated revenues given a hypothetical Birch Bay incorporation on January 1, 2012. This comparison gives an estimate of how Birch Bay's incorporation would affect Whatcom County's capital revenues. Dedicated Capital Revenues Transportation Road Levy A Birch Bay incorporation would decrease road levy revenues received by Whatcom County, because property taxes paid on assessed value in Birch Bay would no longer accrue to the County. Currently Whatcom County has banked capacity of approximately $1.0 million. For this analysis we have assumed that the County will not increase the levy rate to collect this banked capacity, nor will they collect the allowed 1.0% increase, but will continue to collect funds at a level equal to the previous year's revenues, plus new construction. Because assessed value is increasing while the property tax revenues increase only with new construction, the levy rate necessarily declines each year. However, assuming a Birch Bay incorporation in 2012 leaves less assessed value in the unincorporated County to support current revenue levels. Collecting revenues equal to the previous year would therefore necessitate a levy rate increase. Because the County Council is generally conservative when it comes to increasing the levy rate, we have assumed in this case that the rate will remain the same as the previous year, resulting in a decrease in revenues. This scenario therefore increases the County's banked capacity from a total $5.2 million over the study period to $63 million. 'I °1 November 2009 Exhibit 1 Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 1988 =2029 six years, and the last is $ 2.0 M ----------------------------------------------------------------t'------------------------------------------------------------------- I $ 1.6 M _.._ ......................----- ....-------------_-..---.----- ...----------------------- t....__. -... I $ 1.2 M I I $ 0.4 M ------------------ --------- - -------------------------------- I ---------- ------------------------------- I `..,Birch Bay Incorporation � Without Incorporation M $ 0.0 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Exhibit 2 shows estimated total Road Levy in four summary time periods. The first three summary time periods are six years, and the last is two years. Exhibit 2 Projected .Future Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 2010 =2029 Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation $ 91565,786 $ 91889,790 $10,220,402 $ 314812452 $ 33,1579429 With Birch Bay Incorporation $ 9,174,411 $ 9,314,241 $ 91662,692 $ 3,300,349 $ 31,4519692 Change in Pevenue $ (391,375) $ (575,549) $ (557,709) $ (181,103) $ (1,7059737) Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax If Birch Bay incorporated, the County could expect fuel tax revenues to decline, based on the loss in rural centerline road miles. This loss would total about $40,000 over the planning period. Exhibit 3 Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 1988 -2029 $50 ,000 ........... ......... .......................... . . . .. __..._.._..---._....._......_......._..__-..__......__..... _.........._.._.._...........__ r $ 40,000 -- : -- ---------------------------------- I $ 30.000 ----------------- -------------•----- -- ---------- ------------------------------------------------- $ 20,000 I I $ 10.000 .................................................................. .................._..__......_. .. ........._ L................................. ..............__............_.. ��%Birch Bay Incorporation I Without Incorporation $0 . 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 . 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Exhibit 4 shows anticipated total Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenues available for capital in four summary time periods. Comprehensive Plan update -10 Year UGA Review 's� Exhibit 4 Projected Future Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 2010 -2029 Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation $ 2447877 $ 262,322 $ 280,986 $ 98,032 $ 886,218 With Birch Bay Incorporation $ 237,838 $ 249,770 $ 265,816 $ 92,347 $ 8452771 Change in Fevenue $ (71039) $ (12,552) $ (15,170) $ (51685) $ (409447) Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Transportation Grants State Transportation Grants Since state grant revenues have been estimated on a per capita basis, Birch Bay's incorporation is projected to result in fewer state grant dollars each year after 2011. The total estimated loss in grant revenue is approximately $650,000 through 2029. Exhibit 5 Whatcom County State Transportation Grant Revenues 1988 =2029 $ 2.5 M ----------------------------- ---- ------ ------------------ --- ----- ----- of population, may cause federal grant i i Birch Bay Incorporation $2.0M ......._..-----........ .._ ................_..___..__.. _..__..........---.._........_...._.._.._ _F....._.._ °....----- °- -......_ Without Incorporation $1.5M .----- .._.. --- ............ ... .....__.._.... ...... _...._.._.. i ......_......__..._......_........_..........__...._...._....._........................_................_............._..._....... i ..........................._.._ ' $ 1.0 M --------------- --�-------- T-------- ___ -- - -- --- ---------- �- --------------------------'— - --------- -------`----------------------- $ 0.5 M }___: ________________*\ f ___________ _ --- J ------- -------------- r_^ _ -.-_.-_.____.______ _______________________________ .............................. . $ 0.0 M 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Exhibit 6 shows estimated total state grant revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 6 Projected Future Whatcom County State Transportation Grant Revenues 2010= 2029 Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation $ 2,5671461 $ 215099891 $ 21450,205 $ 8031074 $ 8,330,631 With Birch Bay Incorporation $ 2,444,696 $ 2,302,608 $ 2,215,159 $ 718,556 $ 79681,019 Change in ievenue $ (122,765) $ (2071283) $ (235,046) $ (84,518) $ (6499612) Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Federal Transportation Grants Federal grant revenues, like state grants, have been estimated on a per capita basis. Birch Bay's incorporation, and the County's corresponding loss of population, may cause federal grant n 183 l November 2009 revenues to decrease by about $3.2 million over the planning period from the no- incorporation scenario, Exhibit 7 Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues 1988 4029 $ 5.O M i....._..------ - $ 4.0 M t--- ----------- ------ $ 3.0 M }------------------- $ 2.0 M } --- -- - -- -f -- `�-------I- --- $ 1.0 M 1....._.... ........_.._..........�::...... _............ $0.0M -- - - - - — - - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � -- - - - - — - i -- -------- �------_- i I «*Birch Bay Incorporation ^Without Incorporation 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Exhibit 8 shows anticipated total federal grant revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 8 Projected Future Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues 2010 -2029 Estimated Future Revenues 1Mthout Incorporation $12,837,306 $12,5497456 $12,251,023 $ 41015,371 $ 41,653,156 With Birch Bay Incorporation $12,223,481 $11,513,042 $11,075,794 $ 31592,780 $ 38,405,097 Change in Fbvenue $ (613,824) $ (1,036,415) $ (1,175,229) $ (422,591) $ (312489059) Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Exhibit 9 shows total projected dedicated transportation revenues for Whatcom County in four summary time periods. The Overall effect of a Birch Bay incorporation on transportation capital revenues would be a loss of approximately $5.6 million over the 2010 -2029 planning period. Exhibit 9 Projected Total Transportation Revenues 2010.2029 Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation $ 25,215,430 $ 25,211,459 $ 25,202,615 $ 83397,929 $ 84,027,434 With Birch Bay Incorporation $ 24,080,427 $ 23,379,660 $ 23,2197461 $ 71704,032 $ 78,3837579 Change in Pevenue $ (11135,003) $ (11831,799) $ (11983,155) $ (693,897) $ (59643,855) Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 184 General Capital Revenues Real Estate Excise Tax Because REET dollars are directly related to the sale of real estate, which is currently in a slow period, this analysis assumes a slower- than - average annual rate of turn-over of existing property in the unincorporated County at 2% in 2009, increasing incrementally to 7.0% by 2016, implying an eight -year recovery period from the current economic recession. The exception to this is turn- over in Birch Bay, which is assumed at 8.0% for the entire study period for residential property and 4.0% for commercial. Given these assumptions, a Birch Bay incorporation is estimated to reduce County REET revenues by about $280,000 in 2012. This difference increases each year, resulting in a total reduction in REET revenue over the planning period of about $13.4 million. Exhibit 10 Whatcom County Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 2004 -2029 $ 14 M -------------------------- i ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .,., f $ 12 M _.. I ....... .._..___................_.__.._..------------- ...........____.__...__.._..__.._.._......................_____.._.._..................... i ."""'_..__...... $10M $8M --------------- •----------- ----------- •__._•----------------------- _---------------- ______.......... i $qM � ...__ �......_...._ . ............__._....._.......�� ___.. ._.. _ ....................._.. , a. ....___.._.............._..__.. _................ _._.__.... Birch Bay Incorporation -� ' M - -- - -- -- � Without Incor oration i $OM 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Exhibit I 1 shows anticipated total Real Estate Excise Tax revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 11 Projected Future Whatcom County Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 2010= 2029 Estimated Future Revenues 1Mthout Incorporation $20,500,716 $40,209,412 $52,296,150 $ 20,7559910 $1339762,188 With Birch Bay Incorporation $18,991,403 $ 36,100,538 $ 46,745,526 $ 18,507,029 $1209344,496 Change in Fbvenue $ (1,509,313) $ (4,108,874) $ (5,550,624) $ (21248,881) $ (13,417,692) Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax The incorporation of Birch Bay would have no effect on the revenues from the Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax, because it is a countywide tax based on total County population. 185 November 2099 Exhibit 12 shows anticipated total Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 12 Projected Future Whatcom County Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax Revenues 2010 -2029 Without Incorporation $22,605,853 $ 92074,264 $ - $ - $ 31,680,117 With Birch Bay Incorporation $22,605,853 $ 91074,264 $ - $ - $ 3126809117 Change in Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Total General Capital Revenues Exhibit 13 summarizes total general capital revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 13 Projected Total General Capital Revenues Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation $ 43,106,570 $ 49,283,676 $ 52,296,150 $ 20,755,910 $165,442,306 IMth Birch Bay Incorporation $ 41,597,257 $ 45,174,802 $ 469745,526 $ 187507,029 $152,024,614 Change in Fbvenue $ (1,509,313) $ (4,108,874) $ (51550,624) $ (20248,881) $ (13,417,692) Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis Summary Given a hypothetical incorporation of Birch Bay in 2012, Whatcom County is estimated to see a reduction in total future capital revenues of approximately $19 million dollars over the study period. Exhibit 14 summarizes the total revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 14 Projected Total Capital Revenues Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation $ 68,321,999 $ 74,495,136 $ 77,4981765 $ 292153,840 $249,469,740 1Mth Birch Bay Incorporation $ 65,677,683 $ 68,554,462 $ 69,964,986 $ 26,2111061 $230,408,193 Change in Revenue $ (2,644,316) $ (519402674) $ (71533,779) $ (21942,778) $ (19,061,547) Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis �� Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 1 I Appendix 3 Whatcom County Rural Water Systems Rural Area Water Systems Table 3 -1 identifies the Group A water systems with 50 or more connections that serve rural areas of the County. The inventory data presented in Table 3 -1 is derived from State DOH information. qua November 2009 N C :t+ V d C 0 V 0 LO s U) d co L cc cc Q 0 'LM n V d t O 0 d c E m U) co L Q: t6 r M d N N N O Z0. CL N Q 0 ca v � R O 0 CO) R U to C 0 R F0 _ C O U _ R o _ O �L .+ d N � C 00 R :i+ C O N a �a L 0 o o n- Z R 0 O C Rd — a 3 N O IL Q 0 H CL N i C V 3 ayi 00 Q. d 3a 0 0 � U a> E R Z aE) N E N 0 N — T co N O O O O O r O O O O O rn N M n N U co CL(D N 00 W W O Z ¢ I- wOf o Q N s O O N O N O O O V O (D O O O N r C 0 t6 'v O N w W 0O cr)U WO cn ¢ ¢ O O N M O O O O O O M O N n •(D + f6 J H w F- z } Z U) =Q U� M O M r I O O V M M O V co v v .4: f6 w zY W Ne U¢ W_ C) W �z 0 m O M n n O O O M h I W N 43) R a ¢ W QZ z Q of Z5 LLO mQ O n M O O O N O O O O O r n r O O M C 0 �U O O U) z O U) ~Q UU 0 ¢ �U) CO J W J ~Q m� O O V O N O O O V V M N n r 0 Y l0 IL` w ¢ w Y 0¢0 a U) a} D U V O O Co O O O O O) O rn m O O N C 0 A �U O O ¢ z Q O WU z0 W U (n Q D� =w H� w ¢ m� O 00 O O I r O O O M M M O r r r O O (o a` z z D O Z> Y = UU z g< N N n O N r O O O O O V v r O O N C 0 (E U O N w �Z U0 J ¢ U U Q O O N r O M O Co O O O N N _N N O (D M W co LU a` ¢O Q w00 U) U UQ 0 O O r M V O O O Co O N N r NT O O V O CO r r C 0 f0 'U O O ¢ w Z W O UV It 0 OQ 00 d' co r r r O O N O O N W O 0 r O N V t6 a` �z w0 ¢ I— QO J (n OQ 0 O n OD m r 4 r- c> ra M c m D. w c m s ct E A U � H d y o Z Q U) O) M m N (O O) M (O V N O O N M 00 00 N LO OD � (O � r 1� N N � t,1 R � + R O O O O O O O O O O O O U) () O O O O O O O 00 O O O O (\ O O O O � O r O O O O M N O O O 00 V N (f) N 00 N N r M LO r (O N r 00 r Cf LO tl) C O 0 N O O F O O O N P� O r U (3) N O (O V C) O N 00 Cl 00 (O O 00 r (O LO LO r� co r (O to _ O C1 = V L U) C CD 0 U fO 00 (O (O l0 (O r M r ^ V R O N a.. m N CL = O O IL Z LO V co (f) M V N r V V O r (O O I � O O a) +o O O C N 00.. 000 M (O ' co LO ^ co W (cr) O N M r r 00 r M f2 = F O C C C O O O L L _ N U U O Y Y � lW. U AR U U m m m o m m m m o m o m p O > > > rn a) > > > > w > w > U) > m w c a a a ¢ 5 a a a a ¢ a` ¢ a I = m I (� U I S W Z z w J W W w O W E I CO o w m I o¢ c�� za a R w m �(n o �� Zw g a I QL) w �(n Qo z w� ro aU) z �o 0o 0o a o =� E { g Q w �W cnr w w� w� of E c OU m 0706 (nU OC7 mw W� = U W U Ow— a m N ZO I rn �Y �O Z ( aW Uw zm WO pw O �w0 (o, o �U) �� ww w0 wg U) - F- W> >ln �u> JZU) CL W >Q > fn Q J J � WflJ JJ J I a ga (q �a Wtq O OQ w w w¢ LL> 0 (9 C) JQ 0 2¢ 2oa LU I E m 0 (O r UO o u) o V o o v o + O rn (n m qRr CO LO V) r O (O m 0 N OD 00 r r OD (0 P� O O N M M 00 cn c' 00 N V' V' V' r� n 00 O) O N M LO r N N N N ( N N N N M M M M rn 0 0 N m .n 7 O d G .. r d N O a0 W I� N Q (O r LO OD M r LO M O (O N (O r r N O M N CD �V +O+ R O O O O O O O o o O O t/� U O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N O O O O O t0 O O O (O M N V N r r f� N LO r OD N N M co LO r N C O Ta' F 4) C U OO LO O 00 O N M r LO r O n (O r (O LO LO m (D r N 1� 00 00 N LO _ W = _ O V = V _) C 1� OD Co a 0 m O M M .N— O LO U O N U') LO � N N ti OD N L j iC C O d L IL "a R O Z I LO (r0 (( i V N M LO r I r.+ O (D d (D C O O O LO O O O O (4 O O O d N r r N O V O 00 O O V r r r (Q r r LO c} LO r N (3) r M C = o t o 0 0 0 0 V (a cu I a a a a) ° 0 � 0 i C ° (a p ai (L) i ai a > En Q _ ¢ U CO) ¢ ` = ` Q Q CL I 0 " I I �a a a a a I } z W z r z O Y. 0 ~ 0 0 �� w YQa a= U) �Q a z az 0 a� �� Iwo <0 W ¢vI� w i =a a UY Lu0 00 wz I O WO >0I � E m0 (na a m� Ya WU) YO >U) m� Y Y� a «� W� �W }pa. Q 2 m(A a� zU) W U) Uln F �a aV it W LL ga �a ma ! Qa za g as (n to QU U U)q IX =J w w0 um f-V z� �� cnw SU O W(� w I — �a w 0W zp w �w W Yw 1-p w(n w Yw m zm a0 >? t- �c Dt- CL Y OH Of U) I I aa)) 0 00 0 Cl o O o m O O o O V O O (D m 4T O O O r� LO O 1 0 LO O LO ` LO > N N LO co 0) r co N LO O 0) co 00 M co M v v v LO I LO LO LO LO ; LO LO LO LO O ce ce 0 r 0 cw' D. y 'v> c Oe s p > CL d Q N O O O M O LO O '91 O O r r N (O (O r W O M r N r 00 N � t,1 @ @ @ O O O O O O O O O O O O O U) () O O O O O O O O O O (0 O O O O O O O M O O O O M O O (O M 00 N O M O O N O M (O O N r r M I M U) C O 0 O N N V N 00 r M O 0) (O r O N � 00 N (O r r (f) (O r (O (0 (O O _ @ _ _ O V r V w @ d N_ C (L) U a0 O r O M (0 N N M r (O (O r O r r co (O ... r (O tO (0 O (0 c C = O R I aa) = o I j co o a Z (O N N a I O ! (D d R _ 4 00. O O M O O (00 O O V LO V V O Cl V LLD O U') � LO P� co n N V (O N N r N r r co 1 r r N O Q. FT O O O O O O O O O v @ (..t (a (6 N N N co N 0 AD 0) O (U U U 3' O O O O O (a N O (n O N O (a N 0 0 U) (n U) (A (1) > > U) (U CO) > to > > (1) U) U) U) U) '�. U) > U) U) Q Q Q Q s a Q Q a` Q a M I Q. a) C9 U j Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Z Z W a) Iw—U 0 Q W Y Q O YO Q } j Q �z U) E5 F— W W Q Q� �� J w z i z �Z it Q <F- oz �z a0 oz F-Z M Qz z �z E (n0 wU) a(n Qp op w(n zo z U(n w0 QO 20 w (D w F— LO o w >- p F— ¢ F= z� g t= O 2 w p F- Ur �Q �Q �U �Q OQ oQ �g aw �Q W Q F-< O_Q >, 2U w QU p� WU �U [0w wU }> Y� tAU w0 UU }U CO F-0 0W =0 Qw UO w0 M 00 U� Ow QO U)O z0 w0 w- C/) o� UU ��— �cn wtA F—� wcn Za O� �Un ZUn WU) wUn 0(n wQ wUn QQ w0 0w QQ 0Un ¢ YQ DU D —J U) ¢Un zQ 03. o¢ a as aQ of 3! wQ U) Una 0< 0< 0< >Q E N O to O (Of) (r0 N O O O (n I O O O N O LO CD LO C) A Cl I (M r r O f M N I� M co N � O (0 I O (D (O M i (D N � OOD 00 OD I O r N .n E Y O ri d N i Q. M (() Q 4) to (D co V) 00 C� � co O (() N (f) I� O O O N . O t C> O R O U) 0 CL VI O O N O O O O U Cl O C O O (O O O N (f) 0o (O OCT N (O N a O cc w o � F— O co c o C) 00 ° U co co co v o (o (D N (O (f) 00 f� co (d o U � � v w a) d N a C 00 N O O ('D U (o 00 i N r N r� W tC I w C a) _co U) 3 I L 0 = O O d Z N O N Lo i O r (D d 0 (o (h O (f) O N M 00 N N (D U CL 1� c . .... N O L 'V cl 0 0 > I :3 a) > (D . a > 0) U (n a s co I CIO m O O 0 U a i s ¢ a a j a a L) 0 j o F- w d U) Z O w ~ E U U) LLJ :3 Of Cc 0 a� w E w I m� Q o D �co N j �w .E H Z) c)(9 Q Z Q 2 fn a� �o �¢ o¢ i I � N O 0 (f) Lo 0o j 0 N U) r D) O) CO f to C0 W Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo (D 0 Q a N O 0 0 a a) N c m rn 0 0 N 0) 0 O co v R a Q ° .N c a 0 O W" Appendix 4 Maps u ! Y $ b f'•C 6 a 0 • � 6 S ice. • ! - � � I �� i ;. r 7-4�- rtiG a g c '- .i.-e s : —J�a` � 1.. r S ry ,7 w n. � � r II c V •: � �' � �pyS g m . VrS�'. -_ �;-. • , z 9I.-- _'3�:,- a p' a:da iiy1 g L 5�33$3�55 9 Ism •S G.l^ c!a + as 'i t/ 4 w% i� yy ads• { 3 e_ IN 411 L I nil Ilia,] 1 1 i i��_ l ��+ ��`�j,�� 3,_ lip �.�� j9f��9iaq�� e j • 7p t •x 1r�2, A;._ ji ?1 1 i9 91. % ,,.r M N � Q � % C m C A Y m co 00 Qppp N m 8 Z a > N LL E g� `� u I ti m � i z 2 � g U 3 N J p U o G t •' US- O y N M � w IS N U'o m m 2 r 0 0 0 0 0 o E € L) I a � f "1... _ . . 7...1...._. Cl age NO- ti j \ lye/ JY ;` \`t \ Z W ry 0 w� 1 IL;,1'r I `� e�it ~ 1,.:' a N �'• yOd ium 0 r L1 ,i rl �z } Li r• i AA N �'• yOd ium 0 r L1 ,i � ,. 1 November 24, 2009 Council Action I Appendix G — Tmodel Run Appendix G TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS State Law Requirements State law requires that, prior to collecting transportation impact fees, the Comprehensive Plan must identify deficiencies in public streets and roads that serve existing development and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time (RCW 82.02.050(4)(x)). Procedure Through a transportation impact fee program development study performed in 2007 -08, the County> has developed a list of planned system improvements that are reasonably related to the impacts of projected growth and are therefore eligible for funding through impact fees. The Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program shows all projects that are programmed for construction in 2009 through 2014. Results The analysis of V/C ratios performed by the Whatcom County Division of Engineering did not show any County roads that are currently deficient in meeting the level of service standards set forth in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. PROJECTED 2022 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS State Law Requirements State law requires that the County's Comprehensive Plan must identify additional demands placed on existing public streets and roads by new development (RCW 82.02.050(4)(b)). Procedure The Whatcom Council of Governments contracted with a consultant to develop a computer transportation model to project future traffic on County roads. The computer 11*10101 a M I L61 •• -• • • 1 • a•s a • • •aa a • 16a; 119mo Ma • a W&MMOL'.'a • • a w ��• au a • aua �• � • Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G -1 November 24, 2009 Council Action G — Tmodel Run The Whatcom Council of Governments computer transportation model assumed that the following major road improvements would be constructed by 2022: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G -2 • a u a u a a. ♦♦ • a • i s • u a a• u• a •a f f! ! ! a• • f a �a u a MIPM.72M. =M07MOMME1 aa♦ as law • •aa a• ua•� • �• as • a • a u 1 • au a • tea• �• it \ • l/ f f •• a•�u a a • qua �• �\ a• • • a •ate• • ♦ •a • •� The Whatcom Council of Governments computer transportation model assumed that the following major road improvements would be constructed by 2022: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G -2 November 24, 2009 Council Action Appendix G — Tmodel Run Road Blaine/Birch Bay Area SR 543 Lincoln Rd (Birch Point Connector) Lincoln Rd Bellingham Area West Illinois St San Juan Blvd Lakeway Dr Sunset Dr 1 -5 South Bound 1 -5 South Bound Mid County Area SR 539 (Guide Meridian) Lynden Drayton St Extension Ferndale Nordic Way Connector Main St/1 -5 Overpass Sumas Area SR 9 Garrison Rd Results Location Boblett to Border Shintaffer Rd to Birch Pt Rd Harborview Rd to Blaine Rd W Illinois to Marine Dr Elwood to San Juan Blvd Yew St to Electric Ave Woburn to City Limits Ohio on -ramp to Lakeway off Lakeway off -ramp Horton Rd to SR 546 (Badger) 2nd St to Depot Rd Nordic Way to LaBounty Dr South of Sumas North of SR 9 Improvement Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes New 2 -lane road Reconstruction and new 2 -lane road New 2 -lane road New 2 -lane road Add west bound lane Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Widen to 3 lanes Widen to 2 lanes Widen to 4 lanes New 2 -lane road New 2 -lane road Widen to 4 lanes Realign Close due to realignment The results of this computer model are displayed on three attached maps: Map # G1 Forecasted Total Daily Traffic for 2022 - Depicts total projected daily traffic on County and State roads for 2022, including the percentage of traffic generated by new development from 2000 -2022. Map # G2 Forecasted P.M. Peak Hour Traffic for 2022 — Depicts projected p.m. peak hour traffic on County roads for 2022, including the percentage of p.m. peak hour traffic generated by new development from 2000 -2022. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G -3 November 24, 2009 Council Action Appendix G — Tmodel Run Map # G3 Forecasted P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service for 2022 — Depicts projected p.m. peak hour level of service, in a volume /capacity ratio, for 2022. The Whatcom Council of Governments is developing an updated transportation model for its regional 2011 Whatcom Transportation Plan. Whatcom County will use that model to update future demands and system needs for the 2011 Comprehensive Plan update. It must be nc)te that +The City of Bellingham ' forecastsiRg traffic for the City and urban growth area using its own computer transportation model. The County will consider incorporating the results from this model in future Comprehensive Plan updates in order to refine the analysis for the Bellingham urban growth area. Identification of Transportation Projects to Serve New Development State Law Requirement State law requires that impact fees may be collected and spent only for the public facilities defined in RCW 82.02.090 (including roads) that are addressed by a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan (RCW 82.02.050(4)). State law also requires that the County's Comprehensive Plan must identify additional transportation facility improvements required to serve new development (RCW 82.02.050(4)(c)). Procedure Road projeGtS GOrnpleted in the last six years and related GGGtG were derived from VvhatGem GGUnty Pi jhlir, WArks Depa*neRt FGGGrrds. Road projects proposed in the next six years were derived from the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. Projects that weren't reasonably related to the impacts of new development (i.e. maintenance projects that would have to be completed even if there wasn't any new growth) were omitted from the list of projects for which impact fees could be collected. Results Whatcom County has identified transportation facility improvements necessary to serve new development as shown below. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G -4 November 24, 2009 Council Action Appendix G — Tmodel Run Projects Eligible for Impact Fees Project Name Project Limits Project Cost ($19000s) Estimated Birch Bay- Lynden Road / Portal Intersection $3,000 Way Birch Bay - Lynden Road / Intersection $3,000 Harborview Road Birch Bay - Lynden Road Portal Way to UGA limit just east of Blaine Road $1,500 Widening Birch Bay - Lynden Road UGA limit just east of Blaine Road to Harborview $1,800 Widening Birch Point Connector Road Birch Pt. Road. to Shintaffer Road. $2,000 Lincoln Road Extension and Shintaffer Road. to Blaine Road (SR 548) $9,000 Improvement Portal Way /Dakota Creek Bridge $5,000 Bridge #500 Birch Bay- Lynden Road / Intersection $37000 Blaine Road (SR 548) Grandview Road (SR 548) / Intersection $3,000 Vista Drive Intersection Hannegan Rd. Intersections (4 Intersections of Hannegan Rd with Kelly Rd., E $1,800 intersections) Laurel, Ten -Mile Rd., Van Dyk Rd. Hannegan Rd. /SR 544 (E Pole Intersection $3,000 Rd.) Intersection Haxton Way Non - motorized Gooseberry Point to Slater Rd. $3,000 Improvements- 2 phases Lake Louise Rd. Sudden Valley Gate 13 to Austin St. $8,000 Lake Louise Rd. Sudden Valley Gate 13 to Whatcom Blvd. $8,000 Lake Whatcom Blvd. High Entire bridge $5,500 Bridge #115 Marine Drive Bennett Drive to Locust St. $1,400 Slater Rd. Hannegan Rd to Northwest Dr $4,000 Slater Rd. intersections (3 Slater Rd with Imhof Rd., Ferndale Rd., and $3,000 intersections in project) Northwest Rd. Yew St. Rd.- Samish connector Yew St. (San Juan Blvd.) and Samish Way $12000 (amalgamation of several projects) Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G -5 November 24, 2009 Council Action G — Tmodel Run Ypw Strop+ Rd otias„ P sh Way to Kingsfnj4 $6-QG8 Ferry Dock Improvements Undefined $6,000 $876,000 i1- i- r�l -Yr is MAMA r: - ••,10s.w��•ss.••.i •�••sa•i�'sa a.i..t • -�sY Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan RS01 I IL US P WON WA loom For law No Mr w WS Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan RS01 November 00I Council Action X11' • Tmodel Run Ew.mmammm " = — warwim OR ME MORTERMTO.T.Rut ' WE VIVAN WE — i PRIME SON MEM111.1. - -- 2010m2015 Tran• • • • • vement Progra — — 30 30 — — 30 30 1 1-54 - 74 225 3.700 - - 11400 4;489 _ — — 5 5 Yew Street Road, Phase 2: Reconstruction — — 30 30 1.197 — — �� 21490', Illinois / Timson Way: New roadway_ 5 — — -5 5 — — -5 — —5 - - 5 5 - - 5 45 10 - - 5 5 795 Priori Pro'ect Identification Proiect Costs in Thousands of Dollars Federal Cost by Phase State Funds Local Funds Total Funds 1 Lincoln Road - I: Reconstruction and non - motorized 2 400 1 300 3.700 enhancements 2 Birch Bay Lvnden Road / Blaine Road SR 548: _ _ 20 20 Intersection Improvements 3 Yew Street Road, Phase 2: Reconstruction and non - 2.228 _ 1.197 3 425 motorized enhancements 4 West Illinois / Timson Way: New roadway_ 5 5 5 Birch Bay Drive Pedestrian Facility: Pedestrian and non - _ 10 10 motorized enhancements 6 Potter Road Bridge #148: Replacement 795 _ 105 900 7 Baker Lake Road, Sulphur Creek Bridge #422: Replacement 1225 _ 190 1415 8 Slater Road / Nooksack River Bride _ _ 750 750 9 Haxton Way Non - Motorized Improvements: Pedestrian _ _ 100 100 and bicycle off -road trail and safety improvements 10 Birch Bay Lvnden Road / Portal Way: Intersection _ 750 40 790 improvements 11 Mosquito Lake Road, Middle Fork Bridge #140: 450 _ _ 450 Rehabilitation 12 Clearbrook Road / Johnson Creek, Bridge #302: Bridge 800 800 Replacement Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G -7 November 24, 2009 Council Action Appendix G — Tmodel Run 13 Portal Way / Dakota Creek Bridge #500: Reconstruction _ _ 5 5 14 Docks 35 Haxton Way: Structural Staging overlay, paved shoulders, 10 36 flood _ 500 500 roofin 15 Point Roberts Transportation Improvement: Project location to be determined in 2010 400 400 16 North Shore 5 15 Road: feasibility Reconstruction, study non - motorized 37 Various 50 50 enhancements 17 Slater Road Intersections: Replacement: Install As _ turn lanes at Imhof _ _ 10 10 Road and Ferndale Road 850 18 39 Lincoln Road - II: Reconstruction locations and new road, non - 850 _ 5 5 motorized enhancements of Way Acquisition: Various locations 19 _ Si per Road: Reconstruction _ _ 5 5 Site Improvements: As prioritized _ 1 900 20 Marine Gravel Conversions: Drive: _ Reconstruction 50 and 43 bicycle Storm /pedestrian water Quality Improvements: As Prioritized _ _ 5 5 facilities 44 Non - motorized 21 Marine Drive Little Transportation S ualicum Brid a #1: Rehabilitation Various _ 5 5 22 Mountain Locations 45 View Road: Reconstruction Fish Passage Project: Various Locations _ _ 5 5 23 Hannegan Road, Scott Ditch Bridge #245: Reconstruction /re lacement 5 5 24 Legoe Bay Road Protection: Locations _ Seawall removal and beach hborhood 50 50 creation 25 Noon Road Ten Mile Creek Bridge #240 _ _ 300 300 26 Assink Road Fishtrap 7,287 Creek 13,810 Bridge # 256 320 320. 27 South Pass Road Saar Creek Bridge # 212 _ 350 350 28 Northwest Drive Bear Creek Culvert 420 58 478 29 South Pass Road Repair: Janua 2009 storm 453 92 545 30 MMAannley Road Culvert Replacement: January 2009 storm 210 _ _ 30 _ 240 31 Emerald Way Slide Repair: from Janua 2009 storm 428 _ 104 532 32 Rutsatz Road: Repair Janua 2009 storm dama e 268 _ 39 307 33 Refurbish/Upgrade of the Whatcom Chief 850 850 34 Ferry Dock Improvements: Improvements to Lummi _ _ 600 600 lslandEgLry Docks 35 Various Fegy Parking and Staging 10 10 36 Gooseberry Point Ferry Dock Relocation: Relocation 10 5 15 feasibility study 37 Various Bridges Rehabilitation / Replacement: As _ 1600 1600 orioritized 38 Subdivision overlays: Various locations 850 850 39 Structural Overlays: Various locations _ _ 850 850 40 Right of Way Acquisition: Various locations _ _ 180 180 41 Unanticipated Site Improvements: As prioritized _ 1 900 1.900 42 Gravel Conversions: Various locations _ _ 50 50 43 Storm water Quality Improvements: As Prioritized _ 450 450 44 Non - motorized Transportation Improvements: Various _ 750 750 Locations 45 Fish Passage Project: Various Locations _ 650 650 46 Railroad Crossing Improvements: Various Locations _ 180 180 47 Nei hborhood Traffic Calming, Various Locations _ _ 180 180 Totals 7,287 4.500 13,810 25,597 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G -8 Exhibit B Amend the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20) as shown below. WCC 20.20 Urban Residential (UR) District 20.20.252 Maximum density, minimum lot size and maximum lot size within an urban growth area. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Exhibit B Page 1 of 9 Maximum Minimum Lot Size Lot Size Min. Reserve Maximum Conventional Cluster Cluster Area (Cluster District Gross Density Lots Subdivisions) UR: all densities Maximum N /A* 8,000 22,000 sq. 80% without public sewer gross sq. ft. ft. and water ** density: 1 dwelling unit / -510 acres UR: In Lake Maximum 5 acres N/A N/A N/A Whatcom Watershed densi : 1 dwelling with public sewer and water, and unit /5 acres stormwater collection and detention facilities Maximum acisi}b .10 - � d 717" q dwelling ri T in T ell1HYlam's : unit/! sewer and wate+ UR: all densities Maximum N /A* 8,000 22,000 sq. 80% outside short-term gross sq. ft. ft. planning areas ** density: I dwelling unit /510 acres UR: all densities Maximum N /A* 8,000 22,000 sq. 80% with public sewer or gross sq. ft. ft. water* * density: 1 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Exhibit B Page 1 of 9 * dwelling lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional unit/510 size shall be acres UR -3: in short-term Maximum 12,000 sq. ft. 8,000 N/A 25% planning areas with gross sq. ft. public sewer and density: 3 water, and dwelling stormwater units /1 acre collection and detention facilities UR -4: in short-term Maximum 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 N/A 20% planning areas with gross sq. ft. public sewer and density: 4 water, and dwelling stormwater units /1 acre collection and detention facilities Minimum net density: 4 dwelling units /1 acre** UR -6: in short-term Maximum 5,500 sq. ft. 4,000 N/A 20% planning areas with gross sq. ft. public sewer and density: 6 water, and dwelling stormwater units /1 acre collection and detention facilities Minimum net density: 6 dwelling units /1 acre** * For the purpose of administering the lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional minimum lot size shall be -ten acres. ** Minimum density shall be calculated as net density, after deducting the areas restricted from development by critical area regulations and infrastructure requirements. --------------- — ------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- - Exhibit B Page 2 of 9 WCC 20.22 Urban Residential Medium (URM) District 20.22.250 Maximum /minimum density, minimum lot size and width. (Ord. 2004 -021 § 1, 2004), 20.22.251 Minimum lot size. For the purpose of creating new building lots within the Urban Residential Medium Density District, several land use densities are herein provided. The minimum lot size requirements for new construction vary according to whether or not public sewer and water serve the project site and whether or not transferable development rights are used. The minimum lot size shall be ten acres or, if public sewer and water are provided the minimum lot size shall be 7,200 square feet. (Ord. 2004 -021 § 1, 2004; Ord. 87 -12, 1987; Ord. 87 -11, 1987), 20.22.252 Maximum /minimum density and minimum lot size — General. 20.22.252 Maximum /minimum density and minimum lot size — General. (1) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Exhibit B Page 3 of 9 Maximum Minimum Lot Size Reserve Minimum Minimum Area Gross Lot Size — Lot Size Clustered (Cluster District Density Conventional — Cluster Lots Divisions) URM: all densities Maximum N /A* 7,200 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% without public sewer and density: 1 water dwelling unit / -510 acres URM: in T. >o Maximum TP7U7CfCffRTIT 10 22,000 �n "." ° ell;,,(rhani r, 7 � T G A without public den 1' {� #7 UwVll111111b u"it/I 0 was URM: all densities Maximum N /A* 7,200 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% outside short-term density: 1 ft. ft, planning areas dwelling unit / -510 acres URM: all densities with Maximum N /A* 7,200 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% public sewer or water density: 1 ft. ft. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Exhibit B Page 3 of 9 * dwelling lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional unit/ -510 size shall be acres URM -6: with public Maximum 7,200 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A sewer and water, and density: 6 stormwater collection and dwelling detention facilities units /acre URM -12: with public Maximum 7,200 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A sewer and water, and density: 12 stormwater collection and dwelling detention facilities units /acre URM -18: with public Maximum 7,200 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A sewer and water, and density: 18 stormwater collection and dwelling detention facilities units /acre URM -24: with public Minimum N/A N/A N/A N/A sewer and water, net density: stormwater collection and 10 dwelling detention facilities and, to units /acre obtain a net density greater than 10 dwelling units per acre, transferable development rights Maximum pursuant to the provisions density: 24 of Chapter 20.89 WCC dwelling and subsection (4) of this units /gross section acre * For the purpose of administering the lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional minimum lot size shall be 4w ten acres. Revise 20.22.252(4) as follows: (4) In the URM -24 zZones in the Bellingham Urban r,r^ „r h n reap minimum density shall be calculated as net density, after deducting the areas restricted from development by critical area regulations and infrastructure requirements. Revise 20.22.252(5) as follows: In the URM -24 zZones in the Bn” ^g"^m i TFban Grewih,kre transferable development rights (TDRs) T ^'.0 Wh t^ ^m watershed se, ding aw• must be used to achieve net densities higher than 10 dwelling units /acre, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.89 WCC, Density Transfer Procedure, in order to develop at the preseFibed densities. Each development right transferred from the Lake Wh teem .. ut,,t.-a ,, may be used to develop three dwelling units in the UGAURM -24 zone. c,,,. the p,,.-pose of using TPRs, -- ----------------------------------------------------------- — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Exhibit Page 4 of 9 MM Exhibi t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 5 of 9 .. . _ NUN TRIAT .. .. .. CUIll IMINFIL IRI�II�#Il� .. - _ Exhibi t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 5 of 9 WCC 20.24 Urban Residential Mix Use (URMX) 20.24.251 Minimum lot size. For the purpose of creating new building lots within the Urban Residential Mixed District, several land use densities are herein provided. The minimum lot size requirements for new construction vary according to whether or not public sewer, water, and, where identified by the appropriate Comprehensive Plan policies, stormwater collection and detention facilities serve the project site. Where public.sewer and water are not provided, the minimum lot size shall be ten acres. If public sewer and water, and, where specified by the Comprehensive Plan, stormwater drainage facilities are provided, the minimum lot size shall be as presented in WCC 20.24.252. (Ord. 2009 -024 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 2004 -021 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2001 -023 § 19 2001; Ord. 98 -083 Exh. A § 66, 1998; Ord. 97 -046 § 2, 1997), 20.24.252 Density and minimum lot size. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- - Exhibit B Page 6 of 9 Minimum t Size Reserve- Minimum Minimum [Maximum Area Lot Size — Lot Size ustered (Cluster District Gross Density Conventional — Cluster Lots Divisions) URMX: all densities Maximum N/A 4,000 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% without public sewer density: 1 and water dwelling unit/ -510 acres 11nN4X! in Maximum 10 aer-es 4,000 22,000 9"0 sq sq, Beiling-ham's T G A density.: 41-, ft - dArellifig ,,..it/ and watef URMX: all densities Maximum N/A 4,000 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% outside short-term density: 1 ft. ft, planning areas dwelling unit / -510 acres URMX: all densities Maximum N/A 4,000 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% with public sewer or density: 1 ft, ft, water dwelling unit/510 acres URMX: with public Maximum 4,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A sewer and water, and gross density: stormwater collection 10 dwelling and detention facilities units /1 acre -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- - Exhibit B Page 6 of 9 (1) Minimum density shall be calculated Minimum net deducting the areas restricted from development by critical areas regulations and infrastructure density: 6 dwelling units /1 acre URMX (6 — 10): with Maximum 4,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A public sewer and water, gross density: and stormwater 10 dwelling collection and units /1 acre detention facilities Minimum net density: 6 units /1 acre URMX (6 — 12): with Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A public sewer and water, gross density: and stormwater 12 dwelling collection and units /1 acre detention facilities Minimum net density: 6 units /1 acre URMX (10 — 24): with Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A public sewer and water, gross density: and stormwater 24 dwelling collection and units /1 acre detention facilities Minimum net density: 10 units /1 acre (1) Minimum density shall be calculated as net density, after deducting the areas restricted from development by critical areas regulations and infrastructure requirements. (2) For development with densities over a zone's minimum net density, transferable development rights (TDRs) from the Lake Whatcom watershed sending area must be used, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.89 WCC, Density Transfer Procedure. Each development right transferred from the Lake Whatcom watershed may be used to develop three dwelling units in the UGA. TDRs must be used to attain any density greater than the minimum net density of a zone. (Ord. 2009 -024 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 2004- 021 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2001 -023 § 1, 2001; Ord. 99 -087 § 1, 1999; Ord. 97 -046 § 2, 1997). -------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Exhibit B Page 7 of 9 Chapter 20. 74 CHERRY POINT INDUSTRIAL (CP) DISTRICT Sections: 20.74.010 Purpose. 20.74.020 Applicability. 20.74.030 Permitted uses. 20.74.040 Accessory uses. 20.74.050 Conditional uses. 20.74.060 Master site plan requirements. 20.74.070 Minimum lot size and parcelization. 20.74.080 Design standards. 20.74.090 Traffic Demand Management. 20.74.090 Traffic Demand Management RCW 36.70A.365 requires the implementation of Traffic Demand Management TDM) programs for designating a Major Industrial Urban Growth Area. Any employer in the Cherry Point Urban Growth Area that employs one hundred or more full -time employees at a single worksite who begin their regular work day between 6:00 am and 9:00 am on weekdays for at least twelve continuous months during heyear are required to meet the TDM requirements of WCC 16.24. (1) Employers located in Cherry Point who have not implemented a TDM program, shall implement a TDM program by December 1, 2011. (2) Employers in Cherry Point meeting the criteria for having to complete a plan after December 1_, 2011 shall meet the requirements of this section within one year having met the criteria. -- ------------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - -- - Exhibit B Page 8 of 9 WCC 20.40 Agriculture District 20.40.010 Purpose. The primary purposes of this district are to implement the agricultural designation of the Comprehensive Plan, established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170, preserve, enhance and support the production of food and fiber in Whatcom County to maintain a sufficiently large agricultural land base to ensure a viable agriculture industry and to maintain the economic feasibility of supporting services. Whatcom County supports agricultural activities as the highest priority use in the Agriculture District, with all other uses being subordinate to agricultural activities. Whatcom County seeks to minimize conflict with surrounding zoning districts, in conjunction with Chapter 14.02 WCC, Right to Farm. In order to limit the further fragmentation of the commercial agricultural land base, the Agriculture District includes smaller areas of land with poorer quality soils or nonagricultural uses, which do not meet the definition of agriculture lands of long -term commercial significance. A secondary purpose of this district is to serve as a holding district when located within the urban growth area comprehensive plan designation to allow agricultural uses in the near term while protecting the area from suburban sprawl and preserving the potential for future urban development consistent with the protection of the resource land. WCC 20.42 Rural Forestry District 20.42.010 Purpose. The primary purpose of this district is to implement the forestry designation of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170, by providing the opportunity for nonindustrial landowners to manage their land for long -term productivity and sustained use of forest resources. In addition, the district encourages the management of land for wildlife, aesthetics, and other noncommodity values. It also provides for uses that are compatible with these activities, while maintaining water quality and soil productivity. Lummi Island Scenic Estates shall be administered under the RR -I zone district regulations. A secondary purpose of this district is to serve as a holding district within the urban growth area comprehensive plan designations to allow forestry uses in the near term while protecting the area from suburban sprawl and preserving the potential for future urban development. -- ------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Exhibit B Page 9 of 9 Exhibit C Official Zoning Map - Map UGA 1 -a Bellingham UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations Existing Zoning Boundary Mkit, Proposed Urban Growth Area Proposed Zoning Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserve p 9 Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. The entire Urban Growth Area has been designated Short Term Planning Area. November 10, 2009 USE Of'4HACOM COUNTY'S CIS USIA IMPLIES THE USER'S pp� % nAt4Troy 4fiflEEMENi IV'IiN TrIF FOLLOWIp6 STATEMEHi: 004aPt %,spot w 3 7009 '< m al littaom Cehis map aw y kulsrdr of roermlen!alUUr er warrwq ; W Oteess of lkb map fonry paOkWarpurPaae, allAS aroma or � !mpUad. e no hmpreaammlocn arwarraWrA l data ccollages aan n this sap. An Uses of this M# arvmea all responsibility got ma IDs :eW. AW m WOhoapost. or om Whakam Caom0barleof iota aod�alntlmy i -. _'fir._ ddmeCa.IDfL Of liaQlHV ddaIVOLOm H.flW of lots mdD. �6 V A �FVELOPVT'� Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. Feet 0 1958 2980 5,808 8.788 11,688 Official Zoning Map - Map UGA 2 =a STATE Blaine UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations a• 1 •` Existing Zoning Boundary 1 Proposed Urban Growth Areas Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short-Term Planning Area. v b November 10, 2009 USE Of WHATCCM 6UN7Y'S GIS DATA IMPLIES THE USERS NF napUNa Ar AGREEMENT WITH INE FOLLUWIHG SyATEMEHI: oppc SpOwr CO Ay G*A * Whatsom County Alsdalms any wanady of manhamtlUity arxvraMy vet Z009 <A of lutes$ W lit map lm any particular palpate, eCher eaprzes nr Implltd. Ad SeprnemMltn or warremy Is mole Eaten Ulm he occur- t F M.tromnp. samPlUetkss at puellly of des depaekd to this map. An USE[ of this Earn assemq all respudIRIlly for we rheml ,and °¢' fudho Sprees to lwlm.31com COE[Ay harmless fren End suanall any . dam30a. 1091, of AANE Edaiat lnm Sny on 91 ISk Earn. QtrfVEtOPMEq : Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. Feel 0 1.100 1,400 4,800 7200 9,600 Official Zoning Map - Map UGA 3 -a j J J .._._.._.. ___.. .�( • .. ..._ W I '_ _ ......... J tl kney AG '._ _ rk•,3w„ � *� �- ._...: \\\ - .... -',� _.� � ;;.;., —I ._ .. • � _. I I �''u' �a l i x \ _ ��RV..s ' �� 1 . 4� � \�` =. ._— • • • • • r 5 E i ,� m i I d i t Y Fir ,F-- _ , l.� Y t, - j.a�^ I� �s-• ` �. i 3 T F r 1 r oleo... a 3 1 — a AG ... . •�_._:._..- - .._... i !; as 3 = ! ` ,: N G nI k — NC l _ , V G — } .. Ili( lip( C r . «.< .. ..... ..... Vill I f' — ................ 1 p , _.. 1_ - I _.a.... rte'' -- .._..._......... UR(4:) �l R(5) is -. ........ _.. _ z �� all - _ x \ �,, i s _ n� I .I i 1 •_ i- } f In j ( it. .............. '� •w• � .:: r it ' ... -.. ...... i' _r to ;l ; i ..`.. ,.. ....... .... ir. Hnnpi Everson UGA & Surrounding Area November 10, 2009 USE Of WNATCOM COUNTY'S GIS GA -A IMPLIES THE USER'S Gpp000FORMAy, Title 20 Zoning Designations AGHEEMENuntydITNEfO any warr STATEMENT: Wbkom twit map erc/wazmMy of mareMner aspr oauartaM'f w°"�a of Image at Hie roep far a'ry pwanyinrppmade alNer eryteeen Implied. NO. tome btlmnorreraamTh made pletemlry Hm aap. any, seer olthis apiNeresnaagnspannaalatlsplsisd on ehb nap. > .�••a •.i any dhes nmesshoWWhm3amUn*ante Nye IMMand against It. sA Q- Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area hdhnapmss. HhoMWM1atnaiv Cfrom Any an of trim and against any �y0. demane. loss. at EaGlltr adslnp from aay nae of this man. < °eveiovME Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserve Please Note: These maps do not reflect the Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short -Term Planning Area. Feet 0 500 100D 3.000 3,000 4,000 a/\ PP• • ■ 1 • = M = M ■ ■ A A I Ferndale UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations o'a'•:� a Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Areas Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing., in italics. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short-Term Planning Area. November 25, 2009 USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S GIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S ppNNo'MPORpAi�a AGREEMENT M711 THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: Q� oGDM OQprytsA W 1 2009 '< WT:aCam GOakT dleelalma airy waennry e'mncM. rtNiry or wartanry n ; implied. Nompm¢Ple an fWanal.e IN ade elWr g7h'e! t acy. cd. N¢mprmpleteen¢rfaa+mnyM data¢wxedanPDn aa. y h ary.¢ar 01 thin Men:ken¢n or quality elNYaldela deSletedeniM. W sy �. AUSOar of"Imsyauema. Mlrcdhi haniessIuu tid repro rvJ y 3 r In Iurtbaeto",or¢MYNaleem OaaNPdhamlleaa NemaadageinM any demme.l¢u. or lea9i11N adsina U¢m am use of Min nine. Ga s pis AEVELOPwE Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 90 108109. Feel 0 950 1,900 3.000 5,700 7.600 Lynden UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations MM .'�' =: ` Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area ME M Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserve Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short -Term Planning Area. November 25, 2009 USE OF WNATCOM CGVNTV'S GIB DATA IMPOES THE USER'S vvfenugrb p C As G'�M AGREEMENT VPTH THE FOUIIWING STATEMENT' o 't, - �s VPIMeem 3 zooe ^< NNelelary any artly, rtmdprpsem. lMmus v of Nlneea of lAb map for try paNtwkrparypse. either mamas eF of Ilde iffe either or ImyH ea. NO. - ary,ts;antp, WreealaHOVOrttmrltlyed Opium do map cpsp:ete0aaa O aeplHMhe Any O'Vees;!e respon7a8a all e.,map. eseeepenatralya0romaresM,ma ¢ ; f "� __Wq•. fuNAaa. gold Whs this to Aola WAalcam county agalsl any Z O IM. no's a of pea100e. IM. al IIDAiIAtl allelee lMm 0pY pee of this Flea. ae <OfV 69 NEN4e Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. Feel 0 800 1,600 3 ,NO 4.800 6,400 Official Zoning Map = Map UGA 6 =a i \. -- — �. : i :' i `�\ /' ,i jam-, i.. i i ' r I i � ` --- ....__...._ - -- '' 4r , - it (.f �I t I I� ...�__ I � 1 ..,�1 '.,t._: -.� .__........_..__�; ._- a __ : t 1J —..... - - -''n ��.._ ', 1...1 _ ; , i- / I - -1 F _..._. ......_.��_...1.__::::__:� i AG J r 4 7 Y ro Rd i _ .. -- _� _ _ -___.. ( ) _... -_ ! L� �; f R5 J; f: y) � � I � i I j..- �� =.� ...f.. + -� t I f I; ii t 1 (( 1 i ';xY'... ') � I t ' . - ' �� ^� _ die r" °� � -�. �I�} l - .[. __._...._._ ....... ....... '- }E a t 1.. t t•,•+• soy _/ I' f I \ f I i E 1 3 a ♦ t ♦ x I t , —...,. I+I f �� ; ',' L i i S ... UR(4 \. ..C'' t -- ... / �� -` s : y rd 1 J t l i. i r J �/±. • ♦+ i i — .,, i" i .� � �. y1: ,� I SS ._• R /Jr�riEt . . �� ...... � i i :•.:::......q t:....:: i...... G.. ..... ' i' 1 7 ! I .......:..:.:':.. 3 i {{ ( A .� , , t t r • • • +Oz. W a 9 •.+• +t +.+ ;111 Imo' 3+ z -� :`, I , [ ` , fir, ..L.... .j }� �{,,.� `; ;, ;t t�'I — 't—'—"-j— t ,�,.,( ' i j. I l �v :..�. {� yµ}�`+faF�t 7 ..T,.�� j l I 1 'r,M.. I_: �. _ ..a. ...,A.:_ .l�it•Ym. "law w + . ♦ _ ♦ --, .. ... I) y 1 I 1 — - ..L......._ - — _ _ i I i f.,, — .t . _.- t t j �T I v, - r i.' - - -- - — AG .., :; , I �. ,, i .... I .,,:,w. ..._._ y is 14 f �- _ . I� . -- L j� '; t} ! i - ...� _...._.. I , i �. ' �, , _ . .., jam, ._sue I ( ` i a' ....... ., i e e .T- Nooksack UGA & Surrounding Area NovemberARA0ll �,C INFpq{(gt,o USE�FwNTWlTH7ppNTy5WINO AIEME STIIEUSEN'S sy GUM �� ABNEEMENy WITN1HE FOLLOWING SfA`E14EN1: op ?�P< ry T Title 20 Zoning Designations zoo9 1iFNwm Coenry ap for as WICOamya'marcha:er saffronV ary �m3 La,; Impled. al lhmmaptonny WallWU is mae, ellger Ingthes f+'r Impllad. Mo mpreaantmlon or,arwmgis made wncemin this amr � `�,V y :w' ui, snnancy. wmpleteaeas sr quality al data depleted an Ibis map. > S\ .a •�. i Ma user of Ibis map aawmas ail raspordmility Jar use thanof,aM y F� 1'�x •doe r Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area NrtPS aoreato now wnmom coprynamiaaa+mm aadapeinsiany < dameca.[Mi.Or Neblllty adalnb from any use of the man. •Q p�/ EVElOp�i,. Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserve Please Note: These maps do not reflect the Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10/08/09. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short -Term Planning Area. Feet a 405 etp 16X1 1.430 7,340 Sumas UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations � O i 'fk' Existing Zoning Boundary s Proposed UGA Boundary ri�� Proposed Zoning Boundary Pro osed Urban Reserve ,..- .... ?...I p Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short-Term Planning Area. November 25, 2009 USE OF WHA TCOM COUNTY'S GIS UA °A IMPLIES THE USER'S G�4P10 MRMAr,, p AGREEMENT WRN THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: o Oa; 20oq �,Lm WAamom of that for 2a perneuraMTalrtrmMhar"Pl "Plate aty O ; AI OIEete Nl lAit mom for any OaNltalar Itman, 9llhar Aapmts a! Implla No maralMiloao!NUmmslt rmdaaltledon NO aeT.currency. ut aud; 0mum all resHYaldaly for tc themos ana i .yx,.„r.p AnyU leavesWheldYaemeseCrenty ha ml IOrom Ia9[eOLaaE °•:' �5 tamar.IOU. m held WNat9om County am of lmm aatl apelONa -.y 20 jq" 'ybe tlamaaa. foss. or 6atelib atlsinA from any am al U:'s maA. OEt'ELOVNE� Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. Feel 0 430 960 i 730 2 , 560 3,940 Official Zoning Map an Map UGA 8 -a oirun ody UUA a ourruunuing Area USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S GIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S NK.IHFORry,1T� Title 20 Zoning Designations •ry, Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Zoning Boundary �\\�� Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing„ in italics. AGREEMENT Nit THE FMOWING VTATEMENT! ore 10 tA' Coe, 0,j Proposed Urban Growth Area Matters OaunryElealasan7wsnaN (otmnshaoahUirywvarnmT 3 1044 r al Mness at hb map tar airy paN:eWn DarPOSe, Meer waprpas a Implied. RO rapmsale0on or w3rahty is made wesambip the seeur G •3r 4e- „ar awl, mrrome. mmpllaaawa or rceddy ad data depleladwn Ills map. dnyrmr " of Ibis map assumes all responsibility far axe toward, and ¢ Y?om�•��. Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserve IA agrees to Told Whalcom ConMy harmless fmm and apatnet any damns. Ma. or liah:lly Wasinw Hem say an of 1613 Mao. Oe t oEa'EtopVE� Subject to Ord. #2004 -049 Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAsr as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short-Term Planning Area. *This area only, in the UGAR, is subject to Ord. #2004 -049 upon future inclusion into the UGA. Feel 0 700 1,4CO 2,800 4,200 5,8W Columbia Valley UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations '�'••.'• Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Zoning Boundary Legend Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short-Term Planning Area. November 25, 2009 USE OF WHATSOM GOUNITS GIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S 9NX rpM n4CT�N AGNEENEHI W1tai FOLLOWING STAIEMENi: op �Pt�. "' o&+% Re WAateom EPYNy dliolulms any ramnly of mvrehanbhlliry maamety 2004 at Olean of Ibis map for any Particular paipum. either express or z .tW Impllod. No mpraanrdeliam or•arraaty is made cm ontim the Aster, '9 <� acy,aWmncy, eomplelemes or quality of data depicted an this map. i ar yj Any ant at this map assumes all responsiMgry'kf Yaa@eroal.W z further agrees to hold Whakam GOm$ harmless loom mid against Pay _ `m. & maps. Lom Or liability arlsin lmm M ma al Date map. �EVEtOPMEt` Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. w iswm m NI � m mAll 111L 111111 a A M I A Cherry Point UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations . ' Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. Proposed Urban Growth Areas November 10, 2009 USE OEWHATCOM COUNTY'S GISGATA IMPLIES THE USER'S AP y� AGREEMENT WITITTHE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: e�a P` ` rtat;om CwAY dlscblms any WarreMY al n orxaaMy oma 2004 of Otte" al loa map far an paHlwfsr Dpryaes, either Moves or Impllad. Np representation at Mummy Is Mass wnwmicp me ante �1's� kp� .m act. eumeney,wmpletwess or quallryel data dopMed anthls map. a h �yr3nF£`S; bray user of this map eewmes all responsibility for has thereof. shad yQ ludhm 20reee m 11OM WhatsoM CMI* IMMICe9 them tied apalnM eat Z demaee. foss. or RaOHlN adstno from a:Ty me of@ s Mao. a ; �Ef EIOPMf: Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109.