## Meeting Overview On September 15, 2025, the Bellingham City Council convened a special closed-record hearing at 1:00 PM to consider a street vacation that has been more than two decades in the making. The sole agenda item was an ordinance to vacate Rimland Drive between Woburn Street and Barkley Boulevard — a decision that would transfer ownership of a fully-developed urban street from the city to Talbot Real Estate, LLC, as part of the massive Barkley Urban Village development project. What made this meeting particularly unusual was that the Council was asked to approve a street vacation based on a 2012 Hearing Examiner recommendation that had never been acted upon, applying criteria that no longer exist in the city's current code. All seven council members were present for the 17-minute hearing, which concluded with unanimous approval of both the vacation and a compensation package involving the dedication of new streets elsewhere in the Barkley area. The meeting highlighted the complex interplay between long-term development agreements, evolving city policies, and the practical realities of urban planning — all centered on a street that the city had originally required to be vacated 25 years ago. ## The Rimland Drive Vacation: A Quarter-Century Journey City Attorney Alan Marriner opened the presentation by acknowledging the unique circumstances surrounding the petition. "Normally under our current criteria, we wouldn't consider a right-of-way that's functioning as a fully developed right away for vacation," Marriner explained. "But this is somewhat like the street vacation matter that you considered at your last meeting. It has very unusual facts and based on those facts, staff is recommending approval of the vacation." The unusual facts stem from a labyrinthine history dating back to the year 2000. In September of that year, the city made vacation of Rimland Drive a condition in a general binding site plan contract with Talbot Real Estate — essentially requiring the developer to eventually request removal of the street from public ownership. "So back in year 2000 the city was saying you need to vacate this street," Marriner noted. Talbot dutifully submitted their first vacation petition in 2011. The following year, on April 11, 2012, Hearing Examiner held a public hearing and issued findings, conclusions, and a recommendation to approve the vacation with conditions. But before city staff could bring the matter to council for a final decision, Talbot withdrew their petition in June 2012. Thirteen years passed before Talbot submitted a new petition in March 2025, reigniting the process. Lead planner Steve Sundin, who joined Marriner for the presentation, noted that staff had "thought about this a lot" given the binding site plan condition from 2000, the 2012 public hearing, and the hearing examiner's findings. The recommendation to approve came with several important conditions. Unlike a typical street vacation where the city might retain a public access easement, this would be "a pure private privately-owned maintained operated street." Talbot would assume "all future improvements to and maintenance of Rimland Drive" including responsibility for street lighting, while the city would retain utility easements but not public access rights. ## Compensation: Trading Streets in the Barkley Village The most complex aspect of the discussion centered on compensation for the vacated right-of-way. Rather than requiring cash payment, staff recommended accepting Talbot's proposal to dedicate and construct significantly more street area than they were receiving. The math was intricate. Rimland Drive encompasses 86,120 square feet, while an unimproved section of Burns Street that Talbot also seeks to vacate (in a separate pending petition) covers approximately 66,630 square feet — a combined total of about 152,750 square feet being vacated. In exchange, Talbot proposed to dedicate and construct approximately 205,000 square feet (4.7 acres) of new public right-of-way: a rerouted Burns Street and a new St. Clair Street, both designed to facilitate development of the Barkley Urban Village. "The square footage exceeds pretty substantially the square footage that they're seeking to have vacated," Marriner explained. The arrangement would result in the city receiving about 1.2 acres more right-of-way than it was giving up. Council Member Lilliquist immediately zeroed in on a procedural complexity. "We're being asked to consider the green area as proper compensation for half of the pink area, the Rimland half, but in the future, what will be the compensation for the Burns half?" he asked, noting that the Burns Street vacation hadn't yet been heard by the hearing examiner. Marriner acknowledged the awkward timing: "In a way, you are making some preliminary decisions with regards to compensation for Burn Street if you approve it." However, he assured council that the ordinance language was written to protect the city's interests. The compensation would ultimately be calculated as a combination of both vacations, and third and final reading wouldn't occur until dedication documents were prepared and "the accounting and math will work out essentially." ## Timing and Urgency Questions Council Member Stone questioned why the two related street vacations weren't being considered together. The Burns Street petition was scheduled for a hearing examiner hearing on September 24th, with a council closed-record hearing planned for November 3rd. "I'm just wondering if there's a reason why this one's coming forward first and if there's a reason why we wouldn't just wait and consider both after Burns has gone before the hearing examiner." Sundin explained that scheduling constraints had forced the staggered approach: "Currently, planning is processing several street vacations and the Burns one didn't have room to fit in per the timing. So, we had to stagger it." When Stone pressed further about whether there was urgency to move the Rimland vacation forward, Marriner indicated that "Talbot was want some sense of urgency given all the planning that they've been doing for the urban village to move this forward." ## Public Access and Circulation Concerns The most substantive policy discussion came from Council Member Lilliquist, who raised concerns about maintaining public circulation through the area. "We still have an interest in good circulation through the middle of this property, right?" he asked. "Rimland Street and the connection over to Barkley on Manning, that's still an important public interest." Lilliquist noted that while the city was giving up the street as public right-of-way, there was "still a public interest in it remaining a private road open to public traffic." His concern was that without retaining a public access easement, "we can't require that it remain open for the public to use." However, he found some comfort in the utility easements the city would retain. "I assume those utility easements de facto mean that you can't build anything except a street on top of the utility easements," he observed. "So it seems like the utility easement is our backdoor way of making sure that nothing is ever built on top of it." Marriner confirmed this logic, noting that "you can't build over the utility easements" and that all the planning documents for Barkley Village "contemplated Rimland staying as it is for circulation." Sundin added that the planning work "contemplated and requires it that it still be open for circulation." When Lilliquist sought assurance that planning documents provided enforceable requirements, Marriner acknowledged that "planning documents aren't actually like enforceable requirements, but the easement is an enforceable requirement." ## Policy Evolution and Current Standards Council Member Stone raised a pointed question about how current city standards would apply to the petition. She noted that the staff memo referenced approval based on "the approval criteria in effect at the time" in 2012, and asked whether criteria had changed since then. "Yes, when we updated our street vacation ordinance, we actually adopted criteria that are in our Bellingham municipal code," Marriner replied. "Previous to that, there were criteria that were followed, but they were not adopted anywhere. There was just a memo with some criteria." Stone's follow-up cut to the heart of the matter: "Is there concern about whether under the current criteria that's been sort of formally codified whether this would meet that?" "Yes. Yes, there would be," Marriner replied candidly, confirming that the vacation likely would not be approved under current standards. This exchange highlighted the fundamental tension in the decision: the city was being asked to honor commitments and processes from an earlier era when different policies governed street vacations, even though those same standards would not support approval today. ## Additional Infrastructure Context Council Member Hammill sought clarification about St. Clair Street, the other major piece of new infrastructure that would be provided as compensation. Sundin explained that St. Clair, like the rerouted Burns Street, "were both designed to facilitate the buildout of the project over time." The alignment was "kind of squiggly" because planners were "trying to avoid impacts to critical areas and wetlands and retain some forested areas on the site." Marriner noted that under the planning documents, "St. Claire has to be constructed as a primary traffic distributor with two travel lanes, a combined multimodal path and sidewalks" — infrastructure that would serve broader circulation needs in the developing Barkley area. ## Swift Approval After the discussion period, Council Member Lilliquist made a motion to "approve the first and second readings of the street vacation ordinance and also to approve the vacation and to approve the dedication as adequate compensation." Council Member Hammill seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The approval allows for first and second reading of the ordinance, with third and final reading held until Talbot completes the required dedications of new street right-of-way. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting concluded at 1:17 PM after just 17 minutes of discussion. While brief, the hearing resolved a street vacation process that had been in limbo for over a decade and cleared the way for continued development of the Barkley Urban Village. The decision represents a pragmatic resolution to a complex situation created by evolving city policies and long-term development commitments. By approving the vacation based on 2012 criteria while securing substantial compensation in new street infrastructure, the council balanced honoring past agreements with protecting current public interests. The Burns Street vacation will proceed to hearing examiner review on September 24th, with the related council hearing scheduled for November 3rd. Once both processes are complete and the new street dedications are finalized, Talbot will own and maintain Rimland Drive as a private street serving the Barkley Urban Village development.