Bellingham Greenways Advisory Committee

Staff presented an aggressive timeline to meet state Growth Management Act requirements, with a May 15th Planning Commission hearing for the parks chapter of the comprehensive plan update. Committee members raised concerns about the effectiveness of past planning efforts, noting that of multiple trail projects identified in the 2020 PROS Plan, only one (the Wildflower Bridge replacement) had been completed in the intervening years. The meeting highlighted several emerging priorities for the committee: incorporating new state mandates around urban forest designation into city planning, addressing climate change impacts on park management, and improving coordination with regional trail initiatives like the Bellingham-Mount Baker Trail. Committee Chair Neil volunteered to work directly with staff on drafting updates to the Greenways Strategic Plan, streamlining what could have been a more cumbersome collaborative editing process.

- **Process Decision:** Chair Neil will collaborate with staff to create initial draft of Greenways Strategic Plan updates, which will then be reviewed by the full committee - **Survey Input:** Committee agreed to provide input on upcoming community survey questions, with emphasis on identifying informal community trails and water access needs - **Standing Updates:** Committee agreed to add regular stewardship program updates to future meetings, potentially every other meeting - **Climate Focus:** Committee identified climate resilience and urban forest designation as priority areas for both PROS Plan and Strategic Plan updates No formal votes were taken during this meeting.

"So the only thing that's actually done, as far as like the construction tape has been packed away because it is finished, is the Wildflower Bridge?" **Staff response on implementation challenges:** "These are hard. These are complex things involving a lot of players, and some of them require a willing landowner." **David, on community needs assessment timing:** "Everyone was engaging with recreation very differently at that time they took the survey, and sure only that's once in a lifetime event, and never shall this survey line up with the pandemic again." **Chair Neil, on water access planning:** "How far are people willing to go to get to water? And I think that, you know, there's good use water for different things, just looking at it, touching it, or putting a boat in it." **David, on regional trail coordination:** "Those are the ones that tend to get just kicked down the road because they're hard. And so having some kind of objective where no, you have to always be focusing on at least one of them."

# Greenways Advisory Committee Navigates Dual Planning Updates The Bellingham Greenways Advisory Committee convened on January 2, 2025, for their first meeting of the year, with all seven members present for a packed agenda covering two major planning processes running in parallel through 2025. The committee faced the complex task of updating both the city's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) plan to meet Growth Management Act requirements and their own Greenways Strategic Plan to reflect new levy priorities. ## Meeting Overview The gathering took place in what appeared to be a conference room with hybrid attendance capability, reflecting the committee's post-pandemic meeting format. Committee members included veterans like David and Neil alongside newer voices, creating a dynamic that mixed institutional knowledge with fresh perspectives. The evening's agenda promised to be ambitious but stayed focused on the foundational work of reviewing existing goals and establishing a framework for the updates ahead. Staff members Peter and Lane Potter presented the bulk of the meeting's content, walking the committee through the intricate relationship between state-mandated comprehensive planning requirements and the locally-driven Greenways strategic planning process. The meeting demonstrated the careful coordination required when federal, state, and local planning cycles intersect. ## Existing PROS Plan Goals Under Review Peter opened the substantial discussion by reviewing the seven core goals from the 2020 PROS plan, emphasizing that these would form the foundation for both planning processes moving forward. The goals span equity and inclusion, system enhancement, health and wellness, natural systems integration, innovation, connectivity through trails, and effective operations management. David immediately raised concerns about significant gaps, particularly around climate adaptation requirements newly mandated by the Growth Management Act. "There's probably two things that kind of come to my mind," he began, explaining that recent changes require assessment of forest canopy in all parks and designation of urban and community forests within urban growth areas. "This is a little bit of the coordination that Peter and all the other folks have to do to figure out how these mesh together," David noted. "But in my mind, many of our parts are urban and community forests, and so how the forest component of all of our parks relate to this issue. And it's really all about climate change." David pushed for explicit climate-focused goals: "There's an environmental goal in here, but we need to really be kind of — I was hoping that the folks that did the climate stuff would work on some goals that kind of tie the community forests into it, and then work on some objectives of how we actually designate the forested areas of our parks where we want to remain forested." The discussion revealed the complexity of state mandates trickling down to local planning. Peter acknowledged the coordination challenges: "Planning is working on getting some clarity from department of commerce on what that really means in a municipal setting, because there's some confusion about what it applies in municipal versus agricultural or counties." Regional connectivity emerged as another theme. David emphasized that existing goals focus on internal city connections but miss opportunities for broader regional trail networks: "It really doesn't talk about us getting outside of our community and doing the regional connections. So having something in there about the regional connections." Neil built on this theme, advocating for what he termed "grand connections" — the challenging multi-jurisdictional trail projects that require coordination across multiple agencies and master plans. "Because those are the ones that tend to get just kicked down the road because they're hard. And so having some kind of objective where no, you have to always be focusing on at least one of them, or pushing towards getting them a master plan." ## The Recreation Assessment Timing Challenge A significant discussion emerged around the timing of community needs assessments. The current PROS plan called for a recreational needs assessment in 2020, but it was actually conducted in 2022 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. David raised concerns about the survey's validity: "Everyone was engaging with recreation very differently at that time they took the survey, and sure, it's once in a lifetime event, and never shall this survey line up with the pandemic again. But we're basing some of what we do in this PROS plan and the green strategic plan on the results of that survey, which I have to imagine the results are skewed." He advocated for both timing adjustments and a Greenways-specific assessment: "And I'd also love to have a Greenway specific needs assessment because the recreational needs assessment covers a lot of things, and it kind of covers what Greenways is about, but not really enough." Peter reassured the committee that new survey work was planned: "Just to be clear, we are doing another survey really shortly, probably more than one depending on how the results go." The new surveys would cover facilities preferences, travel distances, and usage patterns — "all those things that help us inform what's developed and how it's developed in the future." ## Water Access: A Missing Element Neil identified another significant gap: "Is there something specific to water, access and connections, and assessing that as a need in the existing goals?" His review of current objectives found only minimal references to water-based recreation. "I just went through all the objectives, and the only references to water and paddle sports... So, you know, I think it's pretty surprising how limited it is. So saltwater, shorelines like that, and all of our greats," Neil observed. Peter acknowledged the gap while noting that water access appeared in the Greenways Strategic Plan under "blue ways." This highlighted the complementary nature of the two planning documents and the need for better coordination between them. The discussion touched on different types of water access — viewing, touching, and active recreation — suggesting that goals should address the full spectrum of water-based experiences available in Bellingham's unique setting between bay and mountains. ## Trail Recommendations: Progress and Challenges The committee dove deep into the PROS plan's trail recommendations, specifically examining Table 5.5.2, which listed priority trail connections to be achieved over the six-year plan period. Jacob Stewart raised a pointed question that would define much of the subsequent discussion: "Have any of those been finished? Like to completion, a single one?" Lane Potter's response revealed the challenging reality of trail development: "We replaced the Wildflower bridge. That's done." Beyond that single completed project, the status was mixed — designs completed but projects stalled by infrastructure challenges, willing landowner issues, or funding constraints. Jacob pressed the point: "So the only thing that's actually done, as far as like the construction tape has been packed away because it is finished, is the Wildflower Bridge?" When Lane confirmed this assessment, Jacob's frustration was evident: "But also, that's kind of sad that we had like all of the goals in a six-year period like none actually got finished except for one bridge." Peter provided context for the slow progress: "These are hard. These are complex things involving a lot of players, and some of them require a willing landowner. So we've certainly made progress, I think, on each of these." But he acknowledged the challenge: "I get that it's kind of unsatisfying to not be able to check the box and not put it on the next one." The discussion revealed the disconnect between planning ambitions and implementation realities. Trail projects involve multiple property owners, environmental reviews, funding coordination, and often depend on development activity that may or may not materialize within the plan period. ## King Mountain Connectivity Daniel, representing the King Mountain Neighborhood Association trail subcommittee, provided an update on their ongoing work to address what they've termed "the trail desert in the north central part of the city." He explained their coordination efforts: "We actually just — our King Mountain Neighborhood Association trail subcommittee just met this afternoon, and just for me to keep them abreast on this whole planning process." The neighborhood group had previously presented to the committee in March, showing "the basic trail desert in the north central part of the city and the lack of connectivity. And you know it's hard to get from North Bellingham across Interstate 5 and to enjoy the rest of the resources." Peter outlined the timeline for incorporating neighborhood input: "The actual getting into the facilities trail plan won't start until like the spring. But yeah, and then we'll be working through a lot of these details through the summer into the fall. The goal is to have this adopted by November." The King Mountain work exemplified the grassroots planning that complements city-wide efforts, with residents identifying specific connectivity needs that might not emerge from broader planning processes. ## The Interstate 5 Bottleneck Multiple speakers identified Interstate 5 as the fundamental barrier to trail connectivity in Bellingham. Peter acknowledged this reality: "That is really the bottleneck — interstate all the way around from the northwest down through meridian." The discussion revealed significant city investment in working around this barrier: "That's why we put a bunch of money, Greenways money and staff time into making that connection along Squalicum Creek and then north from Sunset Pond all the way to Telegraph." Peter noted that Paul was "updating the design to make that connection all the way to Telegraph Road right now." This investment represents a strategic approach to connectivity — rather than waiting for interstate improvements that may never come, the city is developing parallel routes that can serve the same connectivity function while providing recreational value. ## Right-of-Way Vacation Concerns David raised concerns about the process for reviewing right-of-way vacations, citing a case where potential trail connections were nearly missed during the review process. "There's been examples of right-of-way vacations down I think Happy Valley where they proposed a vacation and went through the first round of hearings and the trail connection was missed in the internal review of it." The discussion became detailed as committee members tried to pin down the specific case David referenced, with Lane Potter seeking clarification: "I just feel like during public meetings, it's kind of important that we're speaking in facts, and I just don't want misinformation spread." After some back-and-forth, Jacob Stewart identified the case as "Douglas between 20th and 21st," and Lane provided clarification: "That particular vacation of Douglas between 21st and 22nd requires a 30-foot public trail easement with development of a trail when those units are built." The discussion highlighted both the complexity of the vacation review process and the importance of early identification of trail connections before property changes hands. David also noted that state law requires half the proceeds from right-of-way sales to go into parks and open space funds, which the city has not been following. ## Data-Driven Planning Tools The committee explored various data sources that could inform trail planning decisions. Peter mentioned heat map data from recreational apps: "We had heat maps of people that are active recreationalists and where they go, and they often don't stay on like well-established trails — go on like the neighborhood trails, the deer trails that are local." This data proved valuable in recent projects: "Dina and David and all the work they did at Samish Crest, we did look at that Strava heat map data to try to see where people were going most of the time to figure out which trails we would decommission which ones we want to keep." Neil suggested leveraging existing community input: "With the public works pet bike plan map that everyone got to draw on through Engage Bellingham, could that potentially have data that we can buy?" Peter confirmed that crosswalk requests and other infrastructure needs identified through that process could inform trail planning. ## Future Development and Trail Requirements A significant portion of the discussion focused on how trail requirements apply to future development. Peter explained the dual function of trail planning: "This largely helps inform who has to build trails when they develop their properties... But it's also a function of this is to make sure that those connections happen, whether it's through the city, actually their own effort, or a developer that's building or subdividing a property." David raised concerns about predicting development patterns in an era of changing zoning: "It's obviously hard to predict some of what might happen, depending on what densification happens within the city, based on new laws in terms of zoning... if single family home zoning goes away, more lots in existing developed areas might up their density." This led to a philosophical question about trail planning comprehensiveness. David wondered: "Should we just have a — to change the process for this — on some of these just put a trail on every single unimproved right of way in the city to make sure that it works? Or is that too much?" Peter pushed back on this approach: "We couldn't put a trail in every unopened right up... There's all kinds of environmental benefits for those unopened right-of-ways that we wouldn't want to put a trail right through the middle of, and most of those have an alley on one side and a road with the sidewalk on the other." The discussion revealed the tension between comprehensive planning and practical implementation, with committee members seeking to balance thorough preparation with realistic expectations. ## Greenways Strategic Plan Update Process The meeting's second major topic focused on updating the Greenways Strategic Plan in parallel with the PROS plan update. Peter outlined the different timelines: the PROS plan must meet Growth Management Act deadlines by May for goals and policies, while the strategic plan update could happen on a different timeline. Peter identified several factors driving strategic plan updates: "There's a number of old references, well, existing references in the strategic plan that will need to be updated specifically to the goals and policies that are in the PROS plan... You all have a new levy funding category climate, and you also had a number of priorities and goals associated with the subcommittee work that you all did last year." The current strategic plan contains three main goals: property acquisition connecting parks and neighborhoods, development and restoration of public facilities, and maintenance of greenways and open space. These would need updating to reflect new levy language and priorities. Neil noted a potential discrepancy: "The last PROS plan under 5.5.1, or 5.5 generally does include some specific proposals for acquisitions. So I don't know if that's entirely true." Peter clarified he was referring specifically to the goals and objectives section rather than the recommendations. ## Committee Work Process The meeting concluded with an extended discussion about how the committee would contribute to both planning processes. Several approaches were debated, from line-by-line review to staff-drafted proposals for committee comment. David expressed his preference clearly: "My way to absorb information is definitely not looking for a needle in a haystack of what needs to change in this plan right now. It's more your team coming in saying, this is what we were looking to change, and how does everyone feel about that?" Neil offered a different perspective, suggesting a focused single-agenda meeting: "Have a one-point agenda meeting and that's it to talk about that and nothing else at that point, because then it would be focused — people would have had it ahead of time and be able to discuss it hopefully intelligently." The discussion revealed different working styles within the committee, with some members preferring comprehensive review and others wanting to focus on key changes. Peter remained flexible: "I'm open to editing it myself and Lane can take a crack at it and send it to you all for feedback." After considerable back-and-forth, David volunteered to work with staff on creating initial drafts: "I will volunteer to do that... to work with Peter or anybody, yes, what a great idea and present like here's what's changed." This approach would provide a single point of coordination while ensuring committee input. ## Timeline Pressures and Coordination Throughout the discussion, the complexity of coordinating multiple planning processes became evident. Peter emphasized the Growth Management Act deadline pressure: "If we want to weave some Greenway stuff into the PROS plan, we need to get on top of that fear in the next two months, basically." The May deadline for PROS plan goals and policies created urgency, while the strategic plan update could happen afterward. Peter clarified the May hearing scope: "May is goals and objectives, focus on goals and objectives and the inventory. We'll have a nice inventory at that point." This staggered approach would allow the committee to first establish policy foundations in the PROS plan, then update the strategic plan to align with those policies while incorporating new levy priorities and subcommittee recommendations. ## Bellingham Mount Baker Trail Update Daniel provided a significant announcement during public comment about progress on the Bellingham Mount Baker Trail. The Whatcom County Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee had sent a letter to both County Council and County Executive regarding the trail as all three jurisdictions update their planning documents. More significantly, Daniel announced a major acquisition milestone: "The county is now purchased in December, so that was completed in December. That's 40 acres out along the Jones Creek berm in Acme. So that'll connect Stewart Mountain State Park up there through DNR land down to the Nooksack." This acquisition represents substantial progress toward the trail vision: "That means that this trail corridor all the way to Baker — all but 200 yards is all in public ownership right now... over 50 miles of trail corridor. So we have about 30 miles of trail built, but the corridor is almost completely in public ownership." The announcement demonstrated the regional trail development that committee members had advocated for earlier in the meeting, showing how multi-jurisdictional coordination can achieve significant connectivity goals. ## Committee Operations and Future Engagement Lane Potter raised a question about ongoing engagement with Greenways-funded operations: "I was curious if you all would be interested in having some kind of standing stewardship... update or check-in maybe every other meeting... to continue having that as kind of a standing update or topic at any of our meetings going forward." Committee members responded positively, with the recognition that they needed better visibility into the full scope of Greenways-funded activities beyond just capital projects. As one member noted: "It's hard for us to recommend anything if we don't know what's going on." The meeting also included an announcement about changes to committee appointment processes citywide, with the mayor seeking more consistency in how people are appointed and reappointed to advisory committees. This change would require all members to reapply when terms expire, with staff providing recommendations after interviews. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting concluded at 8:19 PM, with committee members noting their efficiency in covering substantial ground. The discussion had established a framework for moving forward on both planning processes while identifying key themes that would need attention: climate adaptation, regional connectivity, water access, and data-driven decision making. The committee committed to working with staff on drafting updates, with David taking the lead on coordinating input. The next steps would involve incorporating committee feedback into PROS plan goals while beginning the parallel work of updating the Greenways Strategic Plan to reflect new priorities and community input. Peter's timeline remained ambitious but achievable: public engagement through February, draft chapters by April, planning commission hearings in May, and adoption by November. The success of this timeline would depend on the careful coordination demonstrated in this meeting, balancing state requirements with local priorities and committee input with staff capacity. The meeting exemplified the detailed work required when citizen advisory committees engage meaningfully with complex planning processes, demonstrating both the value and the challenges of participatory local government.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** BEL-GRN-2025-01-02 ### Meeting Overview The Bellingham Greenways Advisory Committee met on January 2, 2025, to review the existing PROS (Parks, Recreation, Open Space) plan goals and objectives, and to discuss the upcoming update process for both the PROS plan and the Greenways Strategic Plan. The meeting focused on incorporating new state requirements, addressing community needs assessments, and establishing a process for updating key planning documents. ### Key Terms and Concepts **PROS Plan:** Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan - a required 6-year planning document that guides the development of parks, recreation, open space as the community grows, with a mandatory update deadline of February 2026. **Growth Management Act (GMA):** State legislation that includes new requirements for parks elements, including forest canopy assessments and designation of urban and community forests within urban growth areas. **Urban and Community Forests:** New GMA requirement for municipalities to designate forested areas within urban growth areas, with assessment and mapping requirements tied to climate change mitigation efforts. **Level of Service Analysis:** A measurement system to evaluate how well the park system serves community needs, typically using metrics like distance to parks and accessibility standards. **Right-of-Way Vacation:** The legal process where the city sells or transfers unused public right-of-way to private property owners, with state law requiring half the proceeds go to parks and open space funds. **Blue Ways:** Trail connections along waterways, referenced in the Greenways Strategic Plan but not extensively covered in current PROS plan goals. **Strava Heat Map Data:** Digital tracking data from recreational users that shows where people actually travel, used to inform trail planning and prioritization decisions. **RCW (Revised Code of Washington):** State laws, specifically RCW 36.70A.070 regarding parks elements and forest requirements, and RCW 35 regarding right-of-way vacation proceeds. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Peter Ruffatto | Parks & Recreation Planning Staff | | Lane Potter | Parks & Recreation Staff | | David | Committee Member | | Neil | Committee Member | | Jacob Stewart | Committee Member | | Sarah | Committee Member (referenced for reappointment) | | Daniel | Public Commenter, Bellingham Mount Baker Trail Project Lead | | John | Committee Member | ### Background Context The city is undertaking a comprehensive update to its parks planning documents, driven by both state mandates and local needs. The Growth Management Act now requires new assessments of forest canopy and designation of community forests, reflecting increased focus on climate resilience. Meanwhile, the city's recreational needs assessment was conducted in 2022 during the pandemic, potentially skewing results about how residents use parks and recreation facilities. The Greenways levy provides dedicated funding for parks, trails, and open space projects, but the committee expressed concern that many trail projects from the current 6-year plan remain incomplete after several years. Only one project (Wildflower Bridge replacement) has been fully completed, while others face challenges with land acquisition, permits, or coordination with other agencies. The planning process must balance state regulatory requirements with community input and funding realities. New state requirements around climate resilience and forest preservation add complexity, while growing density and changing demographics create evolving recreation needs that may not be captured in pandemic-era survey data. ### What Happened — The Short Version The committee reviewed the seven main goals in the current PROS plan, which cover equity, system enhancement, health and wellness, nature integration, innovation, connectivity, and effective operations. Members raised concerns about gaps in the goals, particularly around water access, climate resilience, and regional trail connections that cross city boundaries. Staff explained the timeline for updates: public outreach through February, draft goals and inventory by April, Planning Commission hearing in May, and final adoption by July. The Greenways Strategic Plan will be updated in parallel, incorporating recommendations from committee subgroups and the new "climate" funding category in the levy. Committee members discussed the slow progress on trail projects, with only one of many planned connections completed in recent years. They also raised concerns about right-of-way vacations potentially eliminating future trail opportunities, and questioned whether survey data collected during the pandemic accurately reflects community recreation needs. The meeting concluded with Chair volunteering to work with staff on drafting updates to the strategic plan, which will then be reviewed by the full committee in a focused meeting dedicated solely to that topic. ### What to Watch Next • Public meetings on the PROS plan update scheduled for February 2025 • Planning Commission public hearing on May 15, 2025, for community input on draft goals • Committee review of park system inventory and level of service analysis at upcoming meetings ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** BEL-GRN-2025-01-02 **Q:** What is the mandatory deadline for updating the PROS plan? **A:** February 2026, as required by the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). **Q:** How many main goals are in the current PROS plan? **A:** Seven goals covering equity, enhancement, health/wellness, nature integration, innovation, connectivity, and effective operations. **Q:** What new state requirement affects parks planning under the Growth Management Act? **A:** Assessment of forest canopy in parks and designation of urban and community forests within urban growth areas. **Q:** When was the recreational needs assessment conducted and why is this timing concerning? **A:** 2022, during the COVID pandemic, potentially skewing results about how people use recreation facilities. **Q:** What is the only trail project from the current plan that has been completed? **A:** The Wildflower Bridge replacement. **Q:** What percentage of right-of-way vacation proceeds should go to parks according to state law? **A:** Half the proceeds should go into a dedicated parks and open space fund under RCW 35. **Q:** What new funding category was added to the Greenways levy? **A:** Climate - focusing on climate resilience and adaptation projects. **Q:** What is "Strava heat map data" used for in trail planning? **A:** Digital tracking data from recreational users that shows where people actually travel, helping prioritize which trails to build. **Q:** What are "blue ways" in the context of the Greenways Strategic Plan? **A:** Trail connections along waterways, which are mentioned in the strategic plan but not extensively covered in PROS plan goals. **Q:** When is the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for the PROS plan update? **A:** May 15, 2025. **Q:** What is the typical distance standard used in the "10-minute walk model"? **A:** Almost half a mile, used to analyze how long it takes people to reach parks and facilities. **Q:** Who will work with staff to draft updates to the Greenways Strategic Plan? **A:** The committee chair volunteered to collaborate with staff on creating the initial draft. **Q:** What coordination challenge affects regional trail connections? **A:** They require multiple jurisdictions to agree and often need inclusion in several different master plans before funding can be secured. **Q:** What is the difference between the PROS plan and Greenways Strategic Plan? **A:** PROS plan has state mandates and regulatory requirements; Strategic Plan is a funding/implementation document for levy funds. **Q:** What data sources help identify community trail usage patterns? **A:** Heat maps from recreational apps, public input through Engage Bellingham bike plan maps, and movement data between city areas. **Q:** What is the main bottleneck for trail connections in the Cordata area? **A:** Interstate 5, which creates barriers from northwest Bellingham down through Meridian. **Q:** Why do trail projects often remain incomplete for years? **A:** They are complex, involve multiple players, require willing landowners, and face permitting and coordination challenges. **Q:** What happens when a developer builds on property with planned trail connections? **A:** They are required to build the public trail facility as part of their development under the Growth Management Act. ---