Pages

Showing posts with label Urban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Urban. Show all posts

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Ferndale UGA: Right Size Revisited

After posting the blog about whether Ferndale got their UGA proposal the Right Size, I was asked:

"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.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Ferndale UGA: Round 3

In response to our successful challenge of the Ferndale UGA expansion, Ferndale and Whatcom County are undertaking a process to address the recent Growth Management Hearings Board decision.  The Hearings Board set a compliance deadline of August 8, 2011.

UPDATE:  The City of Ferndale has put a page together on their UGA review.  Click here

What do you think it will take for them to consider placing the UGA where it does less harm to sensitive watersheds, agricultural land, or critical areas?
What do you think it will take for them to identify the most efficient and effective places to extend public facilities and services, without diminishing levels of service below established minimums?

What do you think it will take to size the UGA based on the adopted densities in the plan, and to adopt mechanisms that ensure those densities are achieved?

As you can guess, what I have read from the city (Bellingham Herald link) and the county (Ferndale page) fails to meet these expectations. 

I know that the city can do it right (not sure about the county council).  I'm hoping that concerns are addressed in the process, or we will be back in front of the Hearings Board again.    

The Environment Matters:
The first city staff report (Bellingham Herald link) shows alternatives UGA proposals, but fails to discuss any environmental factors that might influence the choices.  The area to the north (Vista Malloy) includes the upper parts of the Drayton Harbor Watershed, which due to water quality problems, has been declared a Shellfish Protection District.  The area to the west is within the Birch Bay Watershed, also declared a Shellfish Protection District.

·         If there are viable alternatives, should growth be directed away from impaired watersheds and water bodies?  If the desired densities are used based on real growth projections, how much less of an impact into these watersheds would be necessary?
·         Whatcom County has special stormwater standards and financing mechanisms for Birch Bay and Drayton Harbor.  What are the city standards, and are they equal or better? Show us those standards. 

Why doesn't the city and county show the mapped environmental resources on alternatives before decisions are made?  Here is a simple map that shows watersheds and the proposed Vista Malloy addition to the UGA. 
Capital Facilities:
Reportedly, the city has now completed updated public facility and service plans that cover the planning period and all urban facilities and services, including fire.  Unfortunately, the staff report or web page of the city and county don't identify where this information can be obtained.  The choice of urban growth boundaries should be dictated also by the efficient delivery of public facilities and services without service levels falling below locally established minimums.

Density Matters:
The Hearings Board found that the expansion of the Ferndale UGA was internally inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.  The size of the urban growth area is directly related to how many dwellings per net acre are planned.  The comprehensive plan expects that Ferndale plan at densities averaging five to ten units per net acre.  The current analysis continues to size the urban growth area at less than five units per acre. 

The comprehensive plan says "Ensure that cities have adopted mechanisms which will encourage densities at desired levels."  In a separate part of the Board's decision, they note that the term "ensure" is stronger than the term "should" or "encourage".  The question is whether at the time the County authorizes a UGA expansion it had "ensured" that the city has adopted mechanisms which will encourage densities at the desired levels.

To be fair, I think Ferndale is making great progress in this area.  The city rightfully boasted several measures that they have taken over the past several years to ensure that densities do occur at higher levels.  But, they have not extended those requirements to the lower density, single family zones -- exactly the sprawl creating zones that will cause further urban expansion if the city (and county) don't adopt measures to "ensure" that densities occur at desired levels. 

Ten or twenty years from now, when another round of expansions into our resource lands are proposed, these stands on density and choices of where to grow will matter. 

I trust that Ferndale will help Get Whatcom Planning by making this plan right this time.  Take the time to do it right so resources aren't wasted.  Check in with the City and County to see if they have any updated information as they go through this review process. 

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Urban Density -- Census 2010

The 2010 U.S. Census shows how many persons per square mile live within Whatcom County.  Using some 3-D modeling software, we were able to develop the following image that graphically displays density within Whatcom County.  The density for each UGA, in rank order, is presented below the image.


UGA
Population Density (Persons Per Square Mile)
Bellingham
2,557.98
Lynden
2,048.96
Whatcom County Foothills (Columbia Valley)
1,794.56
Nooksack
1,568.44
Everson
1,343.90
Birch Bay
1,303.04
Ferndale
1,282.01
Sumas
852.15
Blaine
788.62

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Great Questions

Some commenters on the Politics blog raised some great questions about growth.  I'm summarizing them and inviting discussion. 
  1. Is rural development ever economically feasible?
  2. Don't impact fees in a city work as a counter-productive penalty to urban development?
  3. Planning isn't precise, so shouldn't there be room for errors in assumptions?
  4. What part of this discussion is a regional planning issue, versus a local one?
  5. How can we make existing development in the suburbs more cost effective?
  6. How do we hold firm to zoning laws to protect our resource lands for generations to come?
  7. How do we establish laws that ensure an equitable sharing of development costs?