HomeMy WebLinkAboutord2004-013IATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
diner
to the
(1) Proposed ordinance reflecting the Planning
which includes population projections.
NO.
V E kPla,n ing 4 mittee
SEP 02 2003 WHATCOM COUNTY �
COUNCIL b N
2003- 075A _
Commission's recommendations
Co endmions
(l) Planning Commission Findings of Fail &Reasons for Action, Conclusions, and Reeommendatimts
(31 Planning Commission minutes
zt NO
Note: Rack round materials are available or review at the Coun Council Should Clerk schedules hearing? ( Yes ( ) NO
SEPA review required'? ( s) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date:
I bearing ma, be heldiit, Cuunall changes the Planning Commission
sEPA review completed' ( x )Yes ( ) rerommmidarlon 6VCC 2o.lo.11o.
ntoribution Request
SUMMARY STATEMENT: Amending Chapter r tuuro....�•• -
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. This eheptaec s prof coons
County will utilize the low, medium or high 20 -y population
for growth management planning. It also provides background information
relating c
and eeonom cmprehensive plan, demographics, land use, water the of Whatcom County
Note: The subject proposal is one of a number of comprehensive plan considered
amendments e
concurrently initiated
y he County Council So that the cumulative effect of the
various proposals can be evaluated (RCW 36.70A.0 20 Additionally,
pursuant to the review schedule established in WCC 2or 10.
about 20, final
Council action on these amendments should occur on or about November
30.
2003 -75A 91912003'. Introduced
9123)03 Held in Planning and Development committee
10)7)2003 Held in Planning and Development Committee
12)9)2003 Hearing Schad I for January 27, 2004
1)1312004 -. Forrvarded to Concurui meeting 6 -1, Brenner
opposed
319)2004 Adopted 5 -1, Crawford opposed, Nelson absent
Cod #2004-013
fa
opy rearCrIoncilacinom
(ndfeute those n�ho should receives c
List gameia names to the right.
Ordinance or
(this item):
Related File Numbers: A82003 -075
meIULV omp Plan 2003VCMP2003 -00002 (Chapter I - Population) - AB doe
12 Planning DIN maeComp Plan Amend
8 -10 -03
SPONSORED BY: Consent
PROPOSED BY: Planning
INTRODUCTION DATE: 9/9/03
ORDINANCE # 2004 -013
AMENDING CHAPTER 1
OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
INCLUDING POPULATION PROJECTIONS
WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act requires counties and cities to review and, if
needed, revise comprehensive plans to ensure continued compliance with the GMA (RCW
36.70A.130); and
WHEREAS, Legal notice was published in the Bellingham Herald; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposal; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed amendments and made
certain modifications;
WHEREAS, The County Council has considered the Planning Commission's Findings of
Fact & Reasons for Action, Conclusions, and Recommendations.
The Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Notice of the Planning Commission hearings for the subject amendment was published in
the Bellingham Herald on March 13, 2003 and April 27, 2003.
2. The Planning Commission held public hearings and/or work sessions on the subject
amendments on March 27, April 24, May 8, May 22, and June 12, 2003.
3. A determination of non - significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) on August 18, 2003.
4. The Growth Management Act (GMA) states that comprehensive plans must contain
population projections (RCW 36.70A.070(1)).
5. The GMA requires that the County's population projection must be consistent with the
state Office of Financial Management Projections (RCW 36.70A.110(2)).
RI
6. County -Wide Planning Policy C3a indicates "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."
7. The GMA requires coordination and consistency between city and County
comprehensive Plans (RCW 36.70A.100).
8. County -Wide Planning Policy M -1 states: "To adequately plan for growth and implement
the policies of the Growth Management Act, the governmental jurisdictions in Whatcom
County, including the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe, and the Port of Bellingham
shall establish on -going mechanisms to improve communication, information sharing and
coordinated approaches to common problems."
9. ECONorthwest, the consultants hired by the County and cities to project population,
presented a total Whatcom County population of 231,928 as their "baseline forecast" for
2022 ( Whatcom County Population and Economic Forecasts, ECONorthwest, May 2002,
p. 2 -12). The ECONorthwest report indicates that " ... We expect Whatcom County to
grow from an estimated 173,000 residents in 2002 to 232,000 in 2022 .. " (p. 2 -9).
ECONorthwest also provides high and low growth scenarios that could occur depending
upon state growth rates, land supply, water availability, and business development (pp. 2-
10 through 2 -12).
10. State law requires the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) to prepare 20 -year
population projections for counties in Washington State, and indicates that OFM's
medium projection shall represent their estimate of the most likely population projection
for the county (RCW 43.62.035). OFM's medium projection for Whatcom County is
236,837 in the year 2022.
It. The cities and County have coordinated through the Growth Management Oversight
Committee. In August of 2002, the Growth Management Oversight Committee,
consisting of the County's Planning Division Manager and city planners, recommended
using ECONorthwest's high population projection (with several variations in allocation
of population to different areas of Whatcom County).
12. ECONorthwest's medium population projection is within the range of projections
provided by the State Office of Financial Management.
13. In order to accommodate an aging population that may want to seek low - maintenance
housing with easy access to shops, services, and medical care, to encourage high
densities in cities, and to preserve rural character, medium to high growth should be
projected in urban growth areas and low growth should be projected for rural areas, so
that overall County population growth is in accordance with the medium population
projection.
P. 2
CONCLUSIONS
The subject amendment is consistent with Growth Management Act, County Wide
Planning Policies, and Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
2. The subject amendment is based upon further study and evaluation of the projected
population growth in Whatcom County. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent
with the RCW 36.70.410, which requires that Comprehensive Plan amendments must be
based upon further study or changed conditions.
The subject amendment complies with the approval criteria for comprehensive plan
amendments of WCC 20.10.080.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that:
Section 1. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit
A.
Section 2. 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 9 day of March , 200b
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
ATTEST: ,0 • l: Q WHATC COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana $ rown- DamwzC®f*rCler& Dan McShane, Chairperson
'. •.,sHIN�.•
APPROVED AYWIfotM`.~ Approved O Denied
i
Civil Deputy Prosecutor Pete Kremen, Executive
Date: 5�1f-yrl
P. 3
Draft 2003 Update
inter - jurisdictional
cooperation, Whatcom
County has coordinated
planning and decision
making with
all levels of government
Chapter 1 - Introduction
goals and desires,
and has made this plan consistent with local
plans.
EXHIBIT
A —
County
Council Version
—Approved
to forward to
concurrent
review on 1 -13 -04
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
HOW THE PLAN WAS CREATED
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 onineeFperated urban growth
areas and in the county's rural areas. An object ve of ` hateem Geunty is to encourage
Rationale for proposed amendments: (1) The cities have developed
comprehensive plans, which are no longer "new' (although they will be updated)
and which articulate long -range growth plans. (2) The term "unincorporated urban
growth areas" is utilized in other places of the Comprehensive Plan to mean UGAs
not associated with a city (i.e. the Cherry Point UGA). However, the Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan also addresses UGAs associated with cities.
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 UGAs. Several factors
influenced the development of the adopted goals and policies „ plarm ng reeemmendat '^^^
contained in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
Rationale for proposed amendment: The Comprehensive Plan is policy document
that is adopted by the County Council to guide future development. As such, it
does not contain merely recommendations, but adopted policy.
First, this plan has been reviewed for consistency with the requirements of the Growth
Management Act (GMA), the thirteen (13) stated goals of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.020),
mandatory plan elements (RCW 36.70A.070), and the current County Wide Planning
Policies.
Rationale for proposed amendment: Providing the references will direct the reader
to appropriate sections of state law, if they wish to view them.
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,
video 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
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -1
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
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 adopted a set of County-
wide 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 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 county -wide 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
ttaGhe' ^^ an addendum to 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 four alternatives are the same
alternatives used for the Environmental Impact Statement for this comprehensive plan.
The four land use 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
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -2
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
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.
Other Growth Management Committees
Citizen committees were used extensively to develop this plan. 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.
Coordinating Committee
The final step in developing the plan was to bring together representatives from all the
committees to review each other's products in order to identify conflicts and
inconsistencies. Committees then attempted to respond to and correct conflicts.
Planning Commission and County Council Review
With the development of the draft plan completed, the County Council and Planning
Commission held four joint public hearings to receive public input. Following these
hearings, the Planning Commission held a series of 43 work sessions from March 1995
through June 1996, reviewing and editing each of the eleven chapters of the draft plan.
On June 26, 1996, the Planning Commission completed their review of the plan and
forwarded their recommendations to the Whatcom County Council. The Council then
conducted six final public hearings and numerous work sessions of their own, and
produced the final version contained herein.
Whatcom County Planning and Development Services
The actual drafting and production of the plan was completed by the Planning Division
staff. To a substantial degree, this plan is a refinement of the County's existing Subarea
plans. The subarea planning recognized the diversity of communities, life styles and
interests in Whatcom County. It afforded citizens a more direct influence in the planning
for their particular community. This outcome would seem to validate both the basic
wisdom of our subarea planning and the methodology and content of this new Plan.
This plan, and its attendant goals and policies and optimal land use patterns, represents a
balance of the views and opinions expressed by the many citizens who took time to
participate in surveys, workshops, hearings or wrote letters for the record.
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -3
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
The goals, policies, and implementation strategies developed through the regional
visioning and planning process were intended to be consistent with the goals of the GMA.
These will provide the foundation for policies intended to assist in the implementation of
the GMA by forming a framework for coordinating and integrating the regional goals of our
community. In August, 1996 a short video was produced introducing the plan to the
community. This video was made available in local libraries, to local groups, and to
individuals who wished to check it out from the Planning Office. Citizens were asked to
return a questionnaire after viewing the video.
Original Adoption and Amendments
Rationale for proposed amendment: This new section would simply recognize that
amendments have occurred to the Comprehensive Plan since original adoption in
1997.
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 fuFthest 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 2002 1995 population of 69260 57,830, 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
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -4
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
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 4990, and Table 2 shows the growth figures for each year of
the current decade. These tables indicate a steady increase in population overtime, with
varying rates of growth often driven by factors external to Whatcom County such as
international events or changes in technology and transportation. Analysis -weal - the
t
Approximately 73% of the population growth between since 1960
and 2000 was is 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 1950s.
Table 1. Population Growth in Whatcom County, 1910 -2000 4990
YEAR
TOTAL
COUNTY
POPULATION
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
RATE OF
GROWTH
UNINCORPORATED
POPULATION
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
RATE OF
GROWTH
COMBINED
POPULATION
OF CITIES'
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
RATE OF
GROWTH
1910
49,511
20,183
29,328
1920
50,600
0.2%
19,621
-0.3%
30,979
05%
1930
59,128
1.6%
23,112
1.7%
36,016
1.5%
1940
60,355
0.2%
25,860
1.1%
34,495
-0.4%
1950
66,733
1.0%
26,462
0.2%
40,271
1.6%
1960
70,317
0.5%
25,990
-0.2 °/
44,327
L0%
1970
81,983
1.5%
34,004
2.7%
47,979
0.8%
1980
106,701
2.7%
48,622
3.6%
58,079
1.9%
1990
127,780
1.8%
59,187
2.0%
68,593
1.7%
2000
166 814
2.7%
74 231
2.3 %
92583
3.0%
Source: US Census
'Cities include Bellingham, Blaine, Everson (since 1930), Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack (since 1920), and Somas.
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -5
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
Table 2. Estimated Population Growth in Whatcom County, 2000 - 2002 109111 -1095
YEAR
TOTAL
COUNTY
POPULATION
ANNUAL
RATE OF
GROWTH
UNINCORPORATED
POPULATION
ANNUAL
RATE OF
GROWTH
COMBINED
POPULATION
OF CITIES'
ANNUAL
RATE OF
GROWTH
3999
327380
59, -18
68;693
1994
132,209
2.610
62,973
4-."
70,327
24010
4992
137,300
37°/
64,3333
4A%
72,267
34%
3 993
149,990
2.31 -96
66,461
2-a`%
74,439
3-"
3 994
3 46,000
2-"
68,357
2,69%
76,843
3:2%
4993
348309
2.%
69,633
24=%
78,665
2.4%
2000
166814
74231
92583
2001
170 600
2.27%
75 682
1.95%
94918
2.52%
2002
172 200
.94 %
76718
1.37%
95 482
.59%
'Cities include Bellingham, Blaine, Everson, Femdale, Lyndon, Nooksack, and Sumas.
.•
AM
ROWNIM IN W-1 W-Mm
... FFFrF,FFrnfeq1 .. Ynneorporated areas. The total 2002 _ _
rate of • • wth in five years (1997-20
More than half of all Whatcom County residents live in BE nee: cities. Map 1 displays the
2000 1998 population density distributiea 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 1998 Census data showed 92 583 68 -,593 people,
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -6
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
or about 55.5% 54% of the county's total population, living inside the city limits of
Whatcom County's seven incorporated cities. Another 13920 13,000 people were living
near the cities, in the :secs that are proposed as city urban growth areas (derived from
Whatcom County Population and Economic Forecasts ECONorthwest May 2002 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 size are an essential component of land use planning. As
required by RCW 36.70A.110, in 2002 1990, the Washington State Office of Financial
Management developed a 20 -year population projection for Whatcom County. Its
projection feF the year 2012 wAs a Gnunty wide populat on of 174,399. Meanwhile,
Bellingham, in coordination with Whatcom County and °^��^�cvera' ^r. ^r ^' o the other cities, had
contracted with a private consulting firm (ECONorthwest) to develop population
projections for the next 20 years. The ECONorthwest and OFM proiections are provided
below: The neRs AtAntg ripveloped law, m a and h gh F e f...,.,.. sts The lowFange ^r
Rationale for proposed amendment: Inserts updated population projection
information and eliminates outdated language.
Table 3 ECONorthwest Population Projections for Whatcom County
ECONo
Average Annual
Average Annuat
Total
Population
Growth
2002 -2022
Growth Rate
2002-202
Population Growth
Popullation ation
Projections for
2002 -2022
2022
Low
215 850
1.14 %
2 183
43 650
3.
231928
1.50%
2986
59728
High
261084
2.10 %
4 444
88 884
Rationale for proposed amendment: Inserts updated population projection
information and eliminates outdated language.
Table 3 ECONorthwest Population Projections for Whatcom County
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -7
ECONo
Average Annual
Average Annuat
Total
Population
Growth
2002 -2022
Growth Rate
2002-202
Population Growth
Popullation ation
Projections for
2002 -2022
2022
Low
215 850
1.14 %
2 183
43 650
Medium
231928
1.50%
2986
59728
High
261084
2.10 %
4 444
88 884
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -7
Draft 2003 Update Chapter i - Introduction
Table 4. OFM Population Projections for Whatcom County
Source: State Office of Financial Management Population Projections (Jan 2002).
Population
Average Annual
Average Annual
Total
Population
Growth
2002 -2022
Growth Rate
2002 -2022
Population Growth
Pro jections for
Pro
2002 -2022
2022
Low
205991
90%
1 690
33791
Medium
236 837
1.61 0/0
3 232
64 637
High
281 122
2.48 %
5 446
108,922
Source: State Office of Financial Management Population Projections (Jan 2002).
Rationale for proposed amendment Inserts updated population projection
information and eliminates outdated language.
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 2022 281-5 OFM projection for Whatcom
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -8
1 oil
OMAN
Rationale for proposed amendment Inserts updated population projection
information and eliminates outdated language.
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 2022 281-5 OFM projection for Whatcom
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -8
1 oil
Rationale for proposed amendment Inserts updated population projection
information and eliminates outdated language.
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 2022 281-5 OFM projection for Whatcom
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -8
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
County ranges
from to a Low projection
of 205,991 193,,667
Pro action #figure of 234.917 220,A00 is within
people
to a Medium
projection of 236,837
208,242 people and a
High projection
of 281,122
224,904
people.
The
County's
2022 population
Pro action #figure of 234.917 220,A00 is within
CFM's range
and
therefore
requires
no further justification. The rationale for using this figure,
which is
Table 5 3 shows how the total projected 2022 29I6 population would be distributed
assuming: 1) that all of the UGAs have been annexed into existing cities and 2) that each
city receives a share of the county's overall growth apportioned according to each city's
comprehensive plan growth projections.
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -9
001100111 RIO, i 10 wlamwmy
Table 5 3 shows how the total projected 2022 29I6 population would be distributed
assuming: 1) that all of the UGAs have been annexed into existing cities and 2) that each
city receives a share of the county's overall growth apportioned according to each city's
comprehensive plan growth projections.
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -9
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
Tnhlo 53 Whatrnm rnuntv Population Proiections and Distribution
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -10
20001996
20001094
Projected 2022
2000 -2022
Estimated 201v015
Population
Population.
4994 -2814
(Based on 2000
(Cities include
Population
Net Growth
1994 City
UGAs Including
(Cities Include
Cities
Limits)
Urhae- Growth
Proposed
Include
Area )
UGAs
UGAs
Bellingham
67 171
78 040
113 055
35 015
47830
661543
95,1'140
29,997
Blaine
3 770
4779
ZSIQ
2MI
3,425
4,457
8300
4,233
Everson
2 635
2 256
331912
16.1
44W
2-1035
31850
4875
Ferndale
8758
9 934
1122
Z 389
6,530
7,745
19,900
42,155
Lynden
9 020
9 604
15�!
Z 2%
7315
71990
43,809
5;819
Nooksack
851
895
LM
9H
825
854
4,700
846
Sumas
978
995
684
014
940
966
4800
834
Subtotal
92 583
106,503
162 fi81fi81
58�1_Zfl
78,665
9&400
445,290
54,8W
Unincorporated
Whatcom
County
74231
60311
712 i
11.925
65,735
54800
68,476
4447-6
Lummi
Reservation
314"
3,800
6800
3900
166 814
166,814
234.917
8�1 ➢8
Total Whatcom
448
220.366
72.884
County
.148380
-399
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -10
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
Rationale for proposed amendment. (1) Updates the chart in accordance with the
Council's Planning & Development Committee recommendations of 1219103. (2)
The population figures for the Lummi Reservation were deleted because we do not
have updated projections for the Reservation. The Reservation was not separated
out in the ECONorthwest study. Additionally, staff sent an e-mail to the Lummi
Nation on 2 -20 -03 asking if they have an official projection for the reservation and
followed up with a phone message on 3 -3 -03, but received no response.
To avoid
tightening
urban land supply and
Fai6ing=housin9=GosW, the county and the
'ties agreed
to
the is using a projection
of 234.917 " 0,366 for land use and facility
use
planning
aeaemmadate
purposes,
a land
and to _l___i__ to
SUPPly a! 1886t 509;
_ ..:.,_
@FGatGF than MG Mt"GiP
Rationale: Housing costs are influenced by a great many factors. If land supply
was the only issue, Whatcom County housing costs should be low. The reference
to UGAs should be struck as committing to any population number should not
commit the County to need to expand the UGA areas. This is particular to cities
wanting to grow but unwilling to protect the urban land supply by creating low
density growth within UGAs.
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 de. 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 Paradise
Lakes /Peaceful Valley area near Kendall.
In the period between 1980 and 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
Forecasts ECONorthwest May 2002 pip. 2 -7 & 2 -8). This was y tF61e n the
'ated aFeas of the GOURty, where 75+ was the fastest grow ng age gFeup. In
2000 1-990, there were 19400 16,764 people age 65 and older in Whatcom County
(11.6% of the total population). Over 4500 2;000 of the 65+ group had self -care or
mobility limitations. Approximately 1,560 (80/6) Giese tc 1,490 (about O0%) had incomes
below the poverty level. By comparison, approximately 15% 46% of Whatcom County
residents under age 65 lived in poverty.
Rationale for proposed amendment. While the 75+ age group grew rapidly
between 1990 and 2000, the 45 -54 and 55 -59 age groups grew at a faster pace.
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -11
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
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.
Rationale for proposed amendment: The difference between the 15 -24 age group
and the post - college age group (25 -34) was more than moderate in 2000. In 2000,
there were 30,722 people in the 15 -24 age bracket and 21,429 in the 25 -34 age
group. Additionally, the ECONorthwest report suggests a net out - migration in the
30 -34 age group from 1990 -2000 (Whatcom County Population and Economic
Forecasts ECONorthwest, May 2002, pp. 2 -7 and 2 -8.)
In 2000 4 4490, Whatcom County residents between the ages of 15 and 64 numbered
114.185 85,507. There were 33229 26,512 children under 15.
The county's racial composition also changed between 1980 and 1990 and 2000.
Although in 2000 88% 5990 93 0; of all county residents were white, there had
nevertheless been an marked increase in populations of Native Americans, African
Americans, Asian - Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. The Hispanic population 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 5;500 farm workers employed
annually in the county (not including agricultural support services such as processing and
trucking), 2300 3,500 are seasonal or migrant workers ., rants; the ba.ancc are
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
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -12
Draft 2003 Update _ Chapter 1 - Introduction
farm size in Whatcom County is relatively small - -about 84 86 acres -- compared to the
statewide average of 523 468 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 1990, - 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
changes picked up speed during the 1960s and 1970s as Whatcom County experienced
a population boom. The total population for Whatcom County in 2000 1990 had grown to
166.814 427,780, an increase of approximately 137% aknest- O 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 1,125,499 acres, or 80% 8"k, 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 (877,000 874,045 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 29 063 28,5556 acres.
Land use patterns on non - federal lands in unincorporated Whatcom County (470.241
475,944 acres) can be summarized by looking at the distribution of the various uses.
Table 6 4 reflects the land use patterns. These data show that agriculture and forestry
land uses predominate today in Whatcom County with 116,120 123,277 and 231.352
251,453 acres respectively classified in each category. Forest lands in the lower foothills
which were initially harvested between 1900 and 1950 now support commercially mature
stands of timber. Some areas of original forest still remain on non - federal lands in
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -13
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
Whatcom County. Large tracts of un- managed forest are found primarily on federal lands
in the Mount Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest in the upper watershed of the Nooksack
Basin.
ad
Rationale for proposed amendment: Updated acreage figures are included in table
6. It is redundant to include these figures in the paragraph above if there is no
associated commentary.
Table 6 4. Land Use Distribution on Non - Federal Lands
in Unincorporated Whatcom County
Land Use
Total Acres
Percent of
County yTotal
Forestry
232✓_352 251,453
49.252-.9
Agriculture
116120423 -273
24.7269
Residential
53 008 43;079
11.39:3
Vacant -
29 323 32.&13
6.26 -9
Minin Fishin &Related Uses
2 177 2$14
0_5 0,6
Public & Utilities
10,729 464W
2.333
Industrial & Manufacturin
2,987 3060
0.609
Commercial & Services
8 856 2,469
1 995
Lummi Nation Trust Lands:
7 100
1.5
Property with no Assessor's
8 589
1_8
land use code (Roads. lands
along the Naoksack River, etc.)
TOTALS
470_241 475,944
Acres
100Awl
Source: Whatcom County Planning and Development Services, 2003 4994
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
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -14
1 - Introduction
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. This Fnap shows that -: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 ^^•' ""m�marmeortvvne ^�• ^^ ^eve industrial areas. There are a total of 14222 12,232
acres of industrially zoned land in Whatcom County, including 4 095 3,874 acres within
city limits and 7,045 acres 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 lands which at the time of the assessors 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 ao rcels units in
both nGorpeFated and unincorporated Whatcom County, as interpreted from the Whatcom
County Assessor's property information database. From this ^n^^ it is apparent that '
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
1990 over half ^r the "vacant" units were actually occupied part of the year for seasonal,
recreational or occasional use by peeple who lived outside the GOURt!'
Rationale for proposed amendment: The 2000 census contains figures for vacant
units used for seasonal, recreational and occasional use. However, it does not
appear to indicate whether the people who occupy these units have their primary
residence inside or outside of Whatcom County.
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
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -15
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, and Blaine. Within the unincorporated area of Whatcom
County, multi - family housing units are found near Birch Bay, Sudden Valley, and Glacier,
Point Roberts and in the area between Bellingham and Lvnden.
According to the 2000 1-990 Census, there were 34421 27,189 housing units within the
unincorporated portions of Whatcom County. This figure equates to a residential housing
density of 0.127 0 -.094 dwelling units per acre of land, or one residence per ei ht 49
acres, on land currently zoned to permit residences (Rural, Urban, Rural Residential,
Agricultural certain commercial zones the Point Roberts Transitional zone Eliza Island
and Rural Forestry).
34&-L^ rc ^^� ^^�° The density of cities in W hatcom County is as follows:
Table 7 Population Density of Cities in Whatcom County
Source Calculations derived from Population Land Area and Density for Cities and Towns April 1,
2002 State Office of Financial Management.
Note The above calculations are based upon the entire area within the city limits except water
areas.
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
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -16
Peo le er ACre of L
Bellin ham
3.94
Blaine
1.09
Everson
2.82
Ferndale
1.92
Lvnden
3.54
Nooksack
2.09
Sumas
1.19
Average
2.37,;`.^
Source Calculations derived from Population Land Area and Density for Cities and Towns April 1,
2002 State Office of Financial Management.
Note The above calculations are based upon the entire area within the city limits except water
areas.
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
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -16
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
2000 4PI A, displayed by Census Block. (See Chapter 3, "Housing," and the Housing
Background Document for more information.)
Future Land Use
Future land use patterns in Whatcom County will likely be influenced to a large degree by
County and city land use plans, existing development patterns, existing transportation
systems, local and international economics, and environmental and natural resource land
constraints. Agriculture and forest resource lands will likely continue to dominate the
landscape. Availability of potable water for residential, commercial, and industrial use will
almost certainly be a limiting factor to development in some areas of the county.
Establishing urban growth areas will likely encourage more growth in those areas
identified and result in less pressure on rural areas.
Water Resources
Water resources in Whatcom County include 16 major lakes and dozens of smaller ones,
3,012 miles of rivers and streams and their estuaries, over 37,000 acres of wetlands,
aquifers containing an undetermined amount of groundwater, and 134 miles of marine
shoreline. These resources must serve multiple uses. The beneficial uses they provide
are water for domestic, stock watering, industrial, commercial, agricultural, irrigation,
hydroelectric power production, mining, for fish and wildlife maintenance and
enhancement, recreational, and thermal power production purposes, and preservation of
environmental and aesthetic values, and all other uses compatible with the enjoyment of
the public waters of the state (RCW 90.54.020 (1)).
Many human uses tap into the water to use it elsewhere. For instance, individual
residents are supplied with potable water by approximately 375 eveF -300 public water
systems and FGughly 18,000 picivgtp wplig. According to a statistically valid phone survev
Table 8. Drinking Water Supplies
Drinking Water Source
Percentage of people in
Whatcom County Using this
Drinking Water Source
City or District
69.3%
Communft Waters stem
9.9%
Private Well
13.0%
Surface Water
1.2 %
Bottled Water
4.5%
Don't now
2.1%
Total
100.0%
Source Whatcom County Health 8 Human Services telephone survey completed in October 2002.
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -17
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
Households consume an average of 100 to 140 gallons per person per day, and more
than that during the summer. Water is also critical to Whatcom County agriculture;
irrigation is mandatory for all high -value crops. Irrigated crops use an average of 5,445
gallons per acre per day during spring and summer, and irrigated pasture averages 2,160
gallons per acre per day. Livestock must be watered year round, and dairy equipment
and facility cleanup also go on all year. Dairy operations, for example, call for about 50
gallons per cow per day year round.
Some industries are large -scale water users, and they may need both potable and non -
potable water. One of the largest, the Georgia Pacific paper mill, useds about -1 -50 -,000
67 000 gallons of potable water and 34,290,000 8.500.000 gallons of non - potable water
per day in 2002. This is a smaller volume than Georgia Pacific once used; closure of the
pulp operations and conservation measures have reduced its water use significantly in
recent years.
The three major water systems, Whatcom County PUD #1, City of Bellingham, and City of
Lynden, draw surface water from the Nooksack River and Lake Whatcom. Most of the
rest rely on groundwater as their source. This is not as distinct a difference as it seems,
since Whatcom County water resources are an interconnected system. While a few
major water suppliers appear to have the capacity to meet future demand, many of the
county's water suppliers are nearing their legal and physical capacity to supply water to
their customers.
Whatcom County's plan will be adjusted and will respond to emerging information on
water. The working assumption of the plan is that there will be adequate water supply.
Water supply for the county was most recently identified in the April 1993, Coordinated
Water System Plan (February 2000). The complexities related to water supply are further
discussed in the Utility chapter of this plan.
Economics
Whatcom County's economy has traditionally been based on agriculture, fishing, forestry,
and mining. Through the 1950s, these industries represented more than 25% of the total
county employment. Access to markets for sale of locally produced goods as well as for
purchase of products manufactured elsewhere was limited to rail, ship, and a two -lane
highway. Employment was seasonal for many types of work.
Since the 1960s, there has been a significant shift in Whatcom County's economy.
Increased activities in manufacturing, trade, services and government have joined the
traditional economic activities. Mobil Oil (now Conoco - Phillips Tesse- NerthwesE) initiated
major changes in the county's economy when it opened its oil refinery at Neptune Beach
in the mid- 1950s. The Intalco aluminum refinery at Cherry Point came on line in 1966,
and Atlantic Richfield built an oil refinery at Cherry Point in the 1970s (now BP West
Coast Products). Interstate -5, also completed in the early 1970s, provided ready access
to Whatcom County from both British Columbia and the central Puget Sound region.
Western Washington University expanded enrollment and became one of the county's
major employers.
County Comprehensive Plan
1 -18
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
1990s. Relating to agriculture the CEDS states:
The top five employment sectors in 2000 excluding the agriculture, forestry and fishing
sectors are listed below. Together, these sectors accounted for 85.4% of the non -farm
employment.
Table 9. Non -Farm Employment
Sector
Employment Share
Services
25.6%
Retail
Trade
21.3%
Construction &
Government &
Public Education
16.2%
Manufactunn
Wholesale
14.3%
Construction
Trans odation
8.0%
Total
85.40%
Source: CEDS (o. III -2)
The top paving sectors in 2000 excluding the agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors.
were:
Table 10. Average Wages
Sector
Annual Average..
Wage
Manufacturing
37 325
Construction &
$36,118
Minin
Wholesale
Trade
JK 420
Trans odation
122 570
Finance, Insurance,
$30,754
&
Real
Estate
Average Coun
WAe
$26,295
Source: CEDS (o. III -20)
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
t -19
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
dependent an the rr Of SX key REI rd:es H e49Od Processing,
these prim ry Rdl strips
Resource -based occupations and industries still give a distinctive flavor to Whatcom
County's economy, although in recent years they have come to account for only just
under 6% to 70/6 of county employment (Natural Resources Sector Profile Center for
Economic and Business Research Western Washington University Fall 2002 pp. 3 18
and 26 . The combination of good soils, favorable climate, abundant rainfall and access
to urban markets underlies the continued importance of intensive -type farming necessary
for successful operation of the small farms found in Whatcom County. According to the
County Assessor's records, in 2000 4990, 39 25% of non - federal lands in the county were
devoted to agriculture. As significant as agriculture is to the economy, these lands are
often considered for urban or rural uses, and the amount of land in farm production has
been steadily shrinking over time. This erosion of the farm land base has implications for
the county's wider economy. For example, the maintenance of a sufficiently large land
area devoted to farming is necessary to support associated farm processing operations
such as milk and berry processing facilities.
The fishing industry is facing a variety of restrictions on its activities. The populations of
many fish species have declined, and sewe are be ' id ea to deteFFRiRe if they should
be 1 seed as endangered speoies. Chinook salmon and bull trout have been listed under
the Endangered Species Act. Moratoria, quotas, and harvest management are already in
place for most of the species Whatcom County fishers currently harvest. In addition, the
available fishery is divided between Indian, US, and Canadian fishers. Nevertheless, the
fishing industry contributes substantially to the county's economy. Whatcom County's
fishing fleet is the ceceRd largest :R the state, °Rd fishes both Washington and Alaska
waters. The total catch landed at the ports of Bellingham and Blaine between 1985 and
1990 ranged from 50 to 65 million pounds annually but declined to 24.7 million pounds by
2000 (CEDS p. III -61.
Rationale for proposed amendment: The Washington State Department of Fish &
Wildlife could not provide information on the number of commercial fishing boats
licensed in Whatcom County and the other Counties around the state (per phone
conversation 3- 5 -03). The State Employment Security Department tracks jobs
related to Vshing, hunting, and trapping." In this category, Whatcom County
ranked 5`" among the Counties in the state in 2001.
The forest resources of Whatcom County have historically been one of the most important
natural resources in the region. Forests cover approximately ever half of the non - federal
lands in the county. In addition to trees for lumber, poles and paper, forest land products
include gravel, rock, medicinal products, and ornamental plants. Logging and processing
various types of forest products employ hundreds of county residents. Like fishing,
however, forestry is subject to limitations, because forest lands provide important
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -20
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
associated resources such as water, wildlife habitat, and fish habitat which need to be
conserved.
The extraction of minerals, in particular
sand and gravel, remains
important
in
areas
characterized by growth such as western
Washington. In Whatcom
County, high
quality
record levels ^ both tonnage and gross value, The material is an essential element in the
construction of roads, homes, schools, shopping centers and other structures. To a
degree this reflected growth in economic activity, much of it in the form of urbanization.
While urbanization creates demand for sand and gravel resources, it may also encroach
upon or build over those same resources, rendering them inaccessible. Strong
community opposition to mining near residential, agricultural or sensitive environmental
areas may also limit mining opportunities.
Rationale for proposed amendment: An informal survey of three sand & gravel
industry representatives indicates that sand and gravel usage is at or above levels
of the late 1980s. The new language references the recent DNR study, which also
acknowledges the high demand for sand and gravel resources.
Manufacturing is a vital GHFMRV I the s ^^'^ largest contributor to Whatcom County's
economy paving higher wages than any other sector of the economy, and employinges
14.3% 350/6 of the county's non -farm work force in 2000 (CEDS, pp. III -2 and III -201. The
county's primary manufacturing industries ranked by number of lobs in 2000 were: Food
& kindred products. lumber & wood products primary metal industries paper & allied
Within the last 20 years, the impact of Canadian manufacturers has bees increaseding in
Whatcom County. Beginning in 1989, Canadian manufacturing investment in Whatcom
County surged, with British Columbia manufacturers developing operations in the county
to take advantage of lower operating costs and easy access to US markets. The
investmeRt County has been estimated at GveF $86
mill OR, GFeat ng ever 1,300 d reGt jobs.
Rationale for proposed amendment: Staff contacted Western Washington
University (WWU), the Port of Bellingham, and the Economic Development
Council, but was unable to obtain updated figures for Canadian manufacturing
investment in Whatcom County. WWU indicated they might do a survey on this
issue, but it would not be available until later.
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -21
Draft 2003 Update Chapter 1 - Introduction
Even more than Canadian manufacturers, Canadian consumers have contributed to and
impacted the local Whatcom County economy. In fact, Canadian influences may be more
significant for the county's economy than any internal factor short of major new industrial
development. When the Bellis Fair Mall opened in 1988, it instantly became a regular
destination for thousands of Canadian shoppers seeking relief from higher taxes on
goods and services in British Columbia. Every major retailer from downtown Bellingham
moved to the new regional mall. Total Rretail sales in Whatcom County 'r
, , fastest
g•^ ^ ^oter of the economy, rose rapidly from $885 million in 1987 to $1.9 billion in
i992. gy 2000, total retail sales had increased to almost 2.2 billion (Trade Sector Profile
Center for Economic and Business Research Western Washington University Fall 2002
per. The level of sales to Canadian consumers can vary widely, however, since their
spending in Whatcom County is subject to both Canadian and US economic pressures.
Sluggish sales when the Canadians stay away have a disprepert onate negative effect on
the county economy. This negative effect is especially significant for destinations close to
the border.
Rationale for proposed amendment: Between 1995 and 2001, retail sales declined
by 10% in Blaine and 27% in Sumas. Point Roberts has also been significantly
impacted by the continuing weakness of the Canadian dollar (CEDS, p. III -12).
However, total retail sales in the County have grown since 1995 despite the weak
Canadian dollar and fewer auto border crossings (Trade Sector Profile, Center for
Economic and Business Research Western Washington University, Fall 2002, pp.
1, 5, and 15).
While the fast growth of the retail and service sectors has generally been good for
Whatcom County's economy, for individual residents it has been a mixed blessing.
Growth has tended to keep unemployment down, but underemployment is common.
Retail and service sector jobs increased between 1981 and 2000 4984 from 42.4 26% to
46.9 39% of the non -farm job market whereas manufacturing jobs fell from 20.8% to 14.3
T /u in the same period (CEDS, p. III -3). Retail sector jobs pay at a lesser rate than
manufacturing, and are often part-time and without benefits. As-- the — preper#ien o
WhatGOM County jobs attribi - -table to lower paying retail employment has iRGFeased,
Rationale for proposed amendment: According to the Census, median household
income has increased from $28,367 in 1989 to $40,005 in 1999 for Whatcom
County. Even when adjusted for inflation, this represents a slight increase in
median household income. Additionally, although the number of retail jobs surged
in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were slightly fewer retail jobs in 2000 than
in 1992. For the decade of 1990 -2000, retail jobs increased from 13,128 to 13,971
(Trade Sector Profile, Center for Economic and Business Research Western
Washington University, Fall 2002, p. 7).
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -22
Draft 2003
Tourism has developed
into a
significant $78— rnilliea
industry employng about 2,500
people. Visitors spend
$333
million annually
in Whatcom County and there are
and Tourism Development, October 20021. Whatcom County's natural scenic attractions
draw six to seven million visitors a year. Shopping draws millions more: •••" eR e,a� ^� ^nge
rates are favorable, 30,000 to 50,000 20.000 to 30,000 Canadians per week visit Bellis
Fair alone. County businesses provide both kinds of tourists a variety of services,
including lodging, food and beverages, organized recreational activities, tours, car rentals,
air charters, and cruises.
Rationale for proposed amendment: The modifications update tourism facts based
upon information provided by the Bellingham/Whatcom County Convention &
Visitors Bureau in an e-mail of 3110103.
Currently Whatcom County has many natural advantages for expanding economic
activity. Besides relatively low prices and labor costs, the county's assets include a high
quality educational system, including a major university; excellent access to markets in
British Columbia, Puget Sound, California, Alaska, and Asia; a productive and
dependable work force; and a mild climate. The transportation infrastructure is good, with
access to Interstate -5, a well - developed secondary road system, a deep -water port and
multiple docks at Cherry Point, additional port facilities in Bellingham, good rail
connections to US and Canadian destinations, and an international airport. The overall
quality of life in Whatcom County and recreational activities are is also c ^n^ `�^�rn�vcred to be `o ~`o be
major assets in retaining expanding and attracting new businesses.
Rationale for proposed amendment: WWU's Winter 2002 Business Retention and
Expansion Survey revealed that recreation, quality of life, and Western Washington
University were identified by local businesses as the top three strengths in
Whatcom County.
Staff note: Rationale statements are for explanatory purposes only and will not
appear in the text of the comprehensive plan once it is adopted.
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
1 -23