"If the County's Comprehensive Plan says that the Ferndale UGA should accommodate 5 to 10 units per acre, why isn't there an analysis done that is within that range? Wouldn't that require even less land?In the table below, I compare two alternatives to the revised UGA boundary using 5.3 to 7.1 units per net acre, to the county and city proposals that use densities below the minimum.
Alternative Densities to 2011 City-County Proposal | County-City Proposals | |||
County Plan Moderate Density Alt. | County Plan Minimum Density Alt. | 2011 County-City Proposal | 2010 County-City Proposal | |
Assumed Net Densities | 7.1 | 5.3 | 4.7 | 4.5 |
Dwelling Unit Capacity | 4,040 | 3,022 | 2,692 | 3,742 |
- Existing DUs in partially/under-utilized | 629 | 629 | 629 | 720 |
+ Pending Project Dwelling Units | 1,220 | 1,220 | 1,220 | 1,220 |
Dwelling Unit Capacity with Pending | 4,631 | 3,613 | 3,283 | 4,242 |
x Occupancy Rate | 97.2% | 97.2% | 92.9% | 92.9% |
x Average Household Size | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
Population Growth Capacity | 12,603 | 9,694 | 8,662 | 11,254 |
Growth Allocation | 8,688 | 8,688 | 8,688 | 8,688 |
Population Surplus (Deficit) | 3,915 | 1,006 | (26) | 2,566 |
Gross Developable Acres Available: | 1,660 | 1,660 | 1,660 | 2,224 |
Reductions (infrastructure, critical areas, market supply) | (1,091) | (1,091) | (1,091) | (1,394) |
Net Developable Acres Available: | 569 | 569 | 569 | 830 |
Net Developable Acres Needed: | 373 | 499 | 571 | 615 |
Acres Surplus (Deficit): | 196 | 70 | (2) | 215 |
This clearly shows that if we size our UGAs based on planned densities, that even the latest proposal from Ferndale, which is based on an inflated growth allocation, could be accommodated on far less land as well.
Maybe they didn't get it right sized after all? Time to look at what they did include in the UGA proposal that might be agricultural lands, sensitive lands, floodplain or other areas that should be removed from the UGA.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it a 'goal' and the word used is 'encourage'? So if they choose to develop their community at a different density, they may do so?
ReplyDeleteGoal 2P: Encourage Bellingham to establish new residential developments at
densities averaging six to twenty four units per net residential acre;
encourage Ferndale to establish new residential developments at
densities averaging five to ten units per net residential acre;
encourage Lynden to establish new residential developments at
densities averaging five to 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.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but what is the purpose of a plan when you can't even meet the lower end of a density goal? Maybe the plan should be scrapped and a statement inserted that "we will do what we want, when we want."
ReplyDeleteGrowth management intended that plans get followed up and implemented through capital investments and development regulations. I don't think the city is there yet, but I do see an encouraging trend towards doing it right.
There are other provisions in the plan that say "ensure" minimum urban densities that also need to be followed.
Didn't you set minimum urban density at 4?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous --
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "you", to whom are you referring to?
For some time, people and planners referred to the "bright lines" (of which Jean will point out were never really bright lines if you actually read the cases) of urban density and rural density. Urban was 4 units per acre and Rural was 1 unit per 5 acres.
The Supreme Court has thrown those supposed bright lines out on both urban and rural, and says that instead, you need to work through the issues of GMA to define urban and rural so that it is efficient, protects resource lands and critical areas, and does not sprawl.
So, we turn to our local plan, which says urban in Ferndale is 5 to 10 units per acre. Thus, we have defined urban for Ferndale in that range -- not below. That is simply the law, and the development regulations and actions must implement the law.
By the way, the plan up until the 2009 amendments was 6 units as a minimum, but it was known that Ferndale could not meet that minimum so the threshold (at the county's initiative) was lowered.
By "you", I mean David Stalheim Planning Director for Whatcom County. According to those that I spoke to in Ferndale Planning, you set the minimum urban density at 4 units per acre in the density calculus whether or not communities wanted to use it.
ReplyDeleteThe local plan doesn't say urban is 5 to 10. It merely says "encourage" 5 to 10, meaning we arne't there and the County doesn't want to FORCE it. I like Ferndale density how it is and don't really want a Bellingham resident/planner/Futurewise acolyte trying to modify our community character. Bellingham can be dense if they want to (like how that means two things at once?)
Anon --
ReplyDeleteContinuing to be rude and disrespectful is something that doesn't have to be tolerated on our blog. Honest debate is great, but either clean it up, or we will clean it out.
How a community, such as Ferndale, chooses to allocate its densities across the city is a local choice. I would never get involved in their decision to say one area should be 3 units per acre -- as long as (here is the catch), that the overall densities of the community meet the density targets set forth in the plan.
In looking at the city/county latest calculations, I found 38% of the "net developable acres" to meet the 5 units per net acre threshold. By increasing the amount of that higher density, but not 100%, the city could achieve its density goals.
As for goals, you keep on coming back to that issue without seeing the full argument. The plan has more specificity:
• Policy 2P-1 (page 2-21) of the Comprehensive Plan says "Ensure that cities have adopted mechanisms which will encourage densities at desired levels.
• The land use element, at page 2-18 states "Cities should absorb additional population at appropriate urban densities before expanding into areas where growth would adversely impact critical areas or resource lands."
And appropriate urban densities for Ferndale are: "5 to 10 units per acre".
Respectfully, would it make you happy if Ferndale took a single downtown lot and upzoned it to, say, 1000 units per acre with a 2000' height limit to get the average to 5? It would be as effective and realistic as many other options.
ReplyDeleteNo, it would not. Don't get me wrong. Ferndale is not far off in their plan. In fact, their plan and regulations might only need the tool of enforcing minimum densities in all their zones in order to be compliant. They do have minimum densities adopted for a few of their multi-family zones.
ReplyDeleteIn my post above with the table, the column with 5.3 units per acre has no changes to either the city or county plans for density.
And, the reason for these details is that the assumption of how much residential growth will actually take place in Ferndale is grossly exaggerated. I, and others, accept that exaggeration because we believe Ferndale is an overall appropriate place for the county to grow. But, it has to grow right. But, the details of the overblown growth allocation is for another post or letter.
Good night, Anon.