## Meeting Overview The June 5th Bellingham Planning Commission meeting was a pivotal moment in the years-long evolution of Berkeley Urban Village — a 250-acre development that has slowly transformed from an industrial and commercial hub into one of Bellingham's most ambitious mixed-use communities. What began as an early evening session in City Council Chambers became an examination of how government adapts regulations to match reality on the ground, and how private development vision can align with public planning goals. Chair Mike Estes called the 6:00 PM meeting to order with five commissioners present: Daniel Bloemker, Jed Ballew, Jerry Richmond, Rose Lathrop, and Russell Whidbee. The agenda was straightforward — a public hearing on Berkeley Village's proposed urban village subarea plan, development regulations, and planned action ordinance. But the substance represented something far more complex: the culmination of more than 30 years of incremental development and five years of intensive collaboration between the city and the Talbot Group, Berkeley's primary landowner. ## The Berkeley Vision: From Cold Storage to Urban Village Darby Galligan, senior planner with the city's Planning and Community Development Department, opened her presentation with a historical perspective that illuminated why the evening's proposals mattered. Berkeley had been recognized in the city's 2016 Comprehensive Plan as an urban village — one of several areas designated to accommodate Bellingham's growth over the next 20 years. But the regulatory framework hadn't caught up with the vision or the reality. "When Berkeley was established back in the 90s, the regulatory environment, we weren't really using the word urban village at that time," Galligan explained. "It was kind of a first early attempt at mixed use zoning. And this is the current regulatory environment. So you can see it's split up into many different sub areas. They are all governed by individual contracts that get amended over time." She pulled up a complex zoning map showing Berkeley divided into numerous subareas, each operating under separate planned development contracts — a regulatory patchwork that had evolved organically over three decades. "If you go to your zoning table like page 139 in your packet, you will see charts that are full of redundant and convoluted requirements. So it is a little bit of a mess." The irony was stark. While Berkeley's regulations remained fragmented and outdated, the development itself was evolving into exactly what the city envisioned for its urban villages. "For those of you who've been out there, it is really being built out as an urban village model," Galligan noted. "There's increasingly more housing, there are amenities, there's public spaces, there's programming, there's services. So all the things that we want to see from our urban villages have been manifesting in Berkeley." The evening's three-part proposal — a subarea plan providing policy guidance, development regulations establishing the rules, and a planned action ordinance streamlining environmental review — represented an effort to bring regulatory clarity to Berkeley's future development. ## A Comprehensive Environmental Approach One of the most significant aspects of Berkeley's planning process was its proactive approach to environmental review. Rather than conducting separate environmental assessments for each future project, Berkeley had undertaken an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement — a comprehensive analysis that examined potential impacts across the entire 250-acre site and established mitigation measures upfront. "Berkeley decided early on to go ahead and do an environmental review on an area wide basis," Galligan explained. "The only time that I'm aware of that we've done that before is down at the waterfront." The process involved detailed studies of wetlands, landmark trees, and topography, with the goal of "let[ting] the land speak first" in determining development thresholds. The resulting Planned Action Ordinance would create a streamlined review process for future projects. "If projects go under that umbrella, they don't have to go through a separate environmental review later," Galligan said. This approach promised to reduce both the time and uncertainty that often derail development projects, while ensuring environmental protections through pre-established mitigation measures. ## Talbot's Long-Term Vision Ben Besley, representing the Talbot Group, brought a personal perspective to the technical planning discussion. A Bellingham resident himself, living in the Alabama Hill neighborhood, Besley emphasized the generational vision behind Berkeley Village's development. The story, he explained, began with Jim Talbot in the 1980s, when he was running Bellingham Cold Storage. "Jim traveled around the world and enjoyed walking through compact, mixed use neighborhoods that we see in the oldest cities in our country and around the world," Besley recounted. This international perspective shaped a local vision that was decades ahead of its time. To illustrate Berkeley's consistency of purpose, Besley shared a newspaper article he'd recently discovered from May 2006. The headline read "Cities Urban Village Pioneers Add residential," and featured a photo of Stowe Talbot, Jim's son. "There's a quote in this first column towards the end that I think really captures a lot," Besley noted, reading from the article: "'It's very important for us to set the right standard for future projects' and 'having people live in the area is crucial to the success of Berkeley District.'" The numbers told the story of Berkeley's evolution. Since that 2006 article, the Talbot Group had constructed eight commercial buildings, a movie theater, and 320 homes or residential units. But Besley acknowledged the pace needed to accelerate. "In terms of residential construction, we know that we have to move faster and that's what these approvals will allow us to do." ## Land Use and Design Framework The proposed regulations would reorganize Berkeley into four distinct land use areas. At the heart would be the Central Core Mixed-Use area, with building heights up to 250 feet and ground-floor commercial requirements to create a true downtown feel. Surrounding this would be Mixed-Use areas with 85-foot height limits, except along Illinois Street where buildings would be capped at 35 feet to provide transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The remaining areas focused on conservation. Conserved Open Space — roughly 40 acres on Berkeley's eastern edge known as the "North 40" — would be permanently protected through conservation easements. Preserved Open Space would provide buffers and enhanced wetland areas as mitigation for future development. The development regulations eliminated minimum parking requirements, following a citywide trend toward market-driven parking provision. "There's no proposed required on site parking, as you've been aware, that's been a broader citywide discussion as well," Galligan noted. ## Public Questions and Concerns During the public comment period, the commission heard from two residents with very different concerns. An anonymous caller identifying himself only as the property owner whose land would be surrounded by Berkeley development asked pointed questions about how the urban village would benefit him. "I don't want to relocate at the current time, and how is it going to benefit me with bringing in a whole bunch of urban like city development around my property?" The question highlighted one of the central tensions in urban development — how to balance growth and densification with the concerns of existing residents who may find their neighborhood dramatically transformed. Elizabeth Paley raised practical concerns about the elimination of parking requirements. "I just had a question about the no parking on site and where the cars will be parked, mostly because I'm a senior citizen and the whole no parking thing is probably not going to work too well for people like me." During the later discussion, Gita Brock, who identified herself as "the one property that Talbot has not been able to purchase," elaborated on concerns about the development's impact on existing residents. While expressing support for growth as a former contractor and developer herself, she questioned what benefits the urban village would bring to property owners who chose not to participate in the broader development. ## Commissioner Discussion: Height, Parking, and Transportation The commissioners' questions revealed both excitement about Berkeley's potential and careful attention to practical details. Commissioner queries focused on several key areas, starting with the proposed 250-foot height limit in the Central Core. "It's quite high and we haven't seen anything... even kind of within the 85 foot range," one commissioner observed, questioning why such tall buildings would be permitted when nothing approaching that height had been built in Berkeley. Staff explained this as future planning. "The development agreement that we're proposing to enter in is valid for 20 years. A lot can change in 20 years," noted Kurt Nabbefeld, the city's Development Services Manager. "We're starting to see that if you look at the buildings that are being built now, you know, you're getting taller buildings. We're getting six, seven stories where before it was pretty much capped at 3 or 4. So the economics are starting to make sense for those taller buildings." The elimination of parking requirements generated significant discussion. Commissioners sought to understand how this would work practically, especially given concerns raised by public commenters. Staff clarified that while minimum parking wouldn't be required, developers would still provide parking based on market demands and financing requirements. "Most developers will not build large scale developments without parking because at this point in our time, people still have cars," Nabbefeld explained. "We can strive to have no parking and alternative modes of transportation... but parking is a necessary need." Transportation infrastructure drew detailed questioning, particularly regarding a proposed restriping of Woburn Street to add southbound lanes between Newmarket and Alabama streets. Commissioners worried about the multimodal implications of dedicating additional right-of-way to cars rather than bikes or pedestrians. Transportation consultant Amalia Layton Cody, participating virtually, assured commissioners that extensive coordination had occurred with Whatcom Transportation Authority and city departments to ensure multimodal considerations remained prioritized. ## Housing Production and Affordability The housing implications of Berkeley's transformation generated both excitement and questions. Staff revealed that under current projections, Berkeley was expected to accommodate about 1,000 housing units over the 20-year planning horizon. Under the new urban village plan, that number would triple to more than 3,000 units. "So it's tripling the anticipated residential growth projection for this urban village," Galligan noted, highlighting how the regulatory changes could significantly boost housing production in a region struggling with housing shortages. The affordable housing discussion proved more complex. Commissioner Rose Lathrop noted that while the subarea plan's guiding principles included "equitable housing," the document contained little detail about affordable housing requirements or commitments. Besley acknowledged that currently 47% of Berkeley's residential units were affordable income-restricted housing, though this resulted from Talbot's voluntary choices rather than regulatory requirements. The company had decided against proposing specific affordability percentages in favor of maintaining flexibility. "We decided against proposing a particular percentage because again, we are looking for flexibility to be able to implement this on the time frame and in the locations where it seems most appropriate," Besley explained. ## Environmental Protection and Open Space Berkeley's environmental approach represented a significant commitment to balancing development with conservation. The North 40 — a 40-acre area north of Berkeley Boulevard that the Talbot family "holds dear," according to Besley — would be permanently preserved as conserved open space. The Scrambled Nature Play Park, which opened two years earlier, exemplified Berkeley's approach to providing public amenities. Built and maintained by Talbot but open to the public, the park represented a private investment in community infrastructure. "This is a privately developed, privately maintained public park built by Talbot and supported by the other 14 owners in the Berkeley Owners Association," Besley explained. The weekend after the meeting would feature Berkeley's annual safety fair, sponsored by Talbot and the South Whatcom Fire Authority, complete with fire engines, police vehicles, rescue boats, and helicopters. ## The Question of Character One of the evening's most thoughtful exchanges emerged when a commissioner raised questions about Berkeley's distinctive character compared to other parts of Bellingham. The commissioner noted hearing people describe Berkeley as different from downtown or other urban villages — cleaner, safer, more polished. "I've heard people kind of make that comment, which I find a little bit odd, especially considering that, like, it's like the town's so connected. It's not like people can't walk from one place to the other. So you'd think it would be kind of more of a homogenous type of urban environment." Staff acknowledged that Berkeley's single-owner control had enabled a level of design coordination and maintenance that differed from areas with multiple property owners. "A lot of it is because it is under the control of one property owner. They have a design standard beyond what's in our code that they review as part of their own process, and they also are putting their own resources into maintenance, security, cleaning and all those things." Besley revealed that maintaining this standard while growing and partnering with other developers represented an ongoing challenge for Talbot. "Culturally, to have other people come into the village and start to do things and plug into our maintenance and our facilities and our contracts like it's tricky, but it's actually something we're trying really hard to do because we realize, like, we need partnership." ## Technical Amendments and Final Approval Before voting on the proposal, the commission needed to address a technical error in the findings of fact document. Galligan pointed out that the development agreement description incorrectly listed affordable housing as an element, when it wasn't actually included in that document. Commissioner Bloemker moved to strike the reference to affordable housing from the findings of fact, with Commissioner Lathrop seconding. The motion passed 6-0, with commissioners noting the awkwardness of striking "affordable housing" while emphasizing their support for such housing — they were simply correcting the document's accuracy. The main motion followed smoothly. Bloemker moved to approve the comprehensive plan amendment, subarea plan, development regulations, and planned action ordinance, along with the amended findings of fact. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0, sending the Berkeley Urban Village package to the City Council for final consideration. ## Looking Forward As the public hearing concluded, the scope of Berkeley's transformation became clear. What started as an industrial cold storage facility in the 1980s had evolved through decades of incremental development into a model for urban village development. The evening's approval represented not just regulatory housekeeping, but a recognition of how private vision and public planning could align to create something greater than either could achieve alone. The Berkeley Urban Village plan promised to triple housing production, streamline development approvals, protect significant environmental areas, and provide a framework for the next 20 years of growth. But perhaps most significantly, it demonstrated how municipal government could adapt its regulatory frameworks to support rather than hinder community-building initiatives. Commissioner Ballew captured the optimism many felt about the proposal: "I just have a quick comment. I'm just very excited about all this. The multimodal, the shared streets, the coordination with WTA, more housing, mixed use. I think this is a great opportunity for the city and for Talbot. Let's go." The commission adjourned with Berkeley's future secure, at least for the next phase of its long evolution from industrial site to urban village. The City Council would have the final word, but the Planning Commission had provided a strong endorsement of Berkeley's vision for the future.

### Meeting Overview Bellingham's Planning Commission met on June 5, 2025 to conduct a public hearing on the Barkley Urban Village plan - a comprehensive proposal to transform a 250-acre mixed-use area owned primarily by Talbot Group into an official urban village with new development regulations, environmental protections, and long-term growth planning. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Urban Village:** Compact, mixed-use neighborhoods designed to accommodate growth while providing walkable access to housing, shopping, employment, and services - Bellingham's primary strategy for managing future development. **Subarea Plan:** A policy document that becomes part of the Comprehensive Plan, providing the vision and guiding principles for how an area should develop over time. **Planned Action Ordinance (PAO):** A SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) tool that allows area-wide environmental review upfront, streamlining future project approvals by pre-identifying impacts and mitigation measures. **Development Agreement:** A 20-year contract between the city and Talbot Group specifying special conditions for development, including vesting rights, impact fees, and public benefit requirements. **Vesting:** Legal protection that allows developers to build under the regulations in place when they start a project, providing certainty for long-term development planning. **Transportation Impact Fees (TIF):** Fees developers pay to fund transportation improvements needed to serve new development; Talbot has existing credits from previous improvements they built. **Green Area Factor:** A landscaping requirement that awards points for different types of vegetation and green infrastructure to ensure developments include adequate greenery. **Floor Area Ratio (FAR):** A zoning tool that limits building size relative to lot size; notably absent from this plan because staff found it created redundancies with height and parking limits. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Mike Estes | Planning Commission Chair | | Darby Galligan | City Senior Planner, lead staff on project | | Ben Besley | Talbot Group representative, Alabama Hill resident | | John Sitkin | Land use attorney for Talbot Group | | Amalia Layton Cody | Transportation consultant (via video) | | Jeter Brock | Property owner within urban village boundary | | Elizabeth Paley | Community member concerned about parking | ### Background Context Barkley began developing in the 1980s under outdated "planned commercial" zoning with individual development contracts that created a regulatory mess. Despite this, it has organically evolved into something resembling an urban village with housing, commercial spaces, and amenities. The current proposal seeks to align the regulations with what's actually happening on the ground while providing a clear framework for future development. The city identified Barkley as an urban village in its 2016 Comprehensive Plan as part of its strategy to accommodate growth in compact, walkable areas rather than suburban sprawl. However, without proper urban village regulations, development has been slowed by complex, overlapping requirements. This plan could enable up to 3,000 housing units compared to about 1,000 under current regulations. ### What Happened — The Short Version Staff presented three main components: a subarea plan (the vision), development regulations (the rules), and a planned action ordinance (environmental framework). The plan divides the area into four zones with height limits ranging from 35 feet near residential areas to 250 feet in the core. Notably, it eliminates parking requirements, allowing market forces to determine how much parking is built. Public comment was limited but revealed key concerns about how urban development affects existing residents and where people will park without requirements. Commissioners asked detailed questions about height limits, transportation infrastructure, and parking policies. Two motions passed unanimously: first to correct an error in the findings document, then to approve the plan and forward it to City Council. ### What to Watch Next - City Council will hold its own public hearing and make the final adoption decision - Mayor will announce decision on filling the Planning Commission vacancy on June 9 - Planning Commission returns June 26 for comprehensive plan updates and shelter code changes - If adopted, this framework will guide Barkley's development over the next 20 years ---

**Q:** How many housing units could the new Barkley plan accommodate compared to current regulations? **A:** About 3,000 units under the new plan versus roughly 1,000 under current regulations. **Q:** What are the three main components of the Barkley proposal? **A:** Subarea plan (vision/policies), development regulations (zoning rules), and planned action ordinance (environmental framework). **Q:** What is the maximum building height allowed in Barkley's Central Core area? **A:** 250 feet, though economics may not support buildings that tall currently. **Q:** What is the maximum height allowed in mixed-use areas adjacent to Illinois Street? **A:** 35 feet, designed to transition to existing residential neighborhoods. **Q:** Are minimum parking requirements proposed for new Barkley developments? **A:** No, parking will be determined by market needs rather than city requirements. **Q:** Who is the primary landowner driving this planning process? **A:** Talbot Group, which owns most of the 250-acre area. **Q:** How long would the development agreement between the city and Talbot last? **A:** 20 years from adoption. **Q:** What percentage of current housing units in Barkley are income-restricted affordable housing? **A:** 47% of existing units are affordable/income-restricted. **Q:** What was removed from the findings document during the meeting? **A:** Reference to "affordable housing" in the development agreement description, since it's not actually included in that agreement. **Q:** When did Planning Commission planning for Barkley begin? **A:** The formal process started in 2019, though there were earlier conversations beginning in 2018. **Q:** What environmental review tool allows streamlined approval for future projects? **A:** Planned Action Ordinance, which pre-studies impacts and mitigation measures. **Q:** What major transportation improvement would be triggered at higher development levels? **A:** Restriping Woburn Street to two southbound lanes between Newmarket and Alabama. **Q:** How many acres of open space would be preserved under the plan? **A:** About 40 acres in the "North 40" area plus additional conserved open space. **Q:** What existing zoning concept was intentionally not included in this plan? **A:** Floor Area Ratio (FAR), because it created redundancies with height and parking limits. **Q:** What happens to property owners who don't want to join the new regulations? **A:** They can continue operating under existing planned development contracts until they choose to opt in. **Q:** What major road connection would be built as development proceeds? **A:** Burns Street extension connecting east-west through the development to St. Clair Street. **Q:** What public amenity did Talbot build that provides impact fee credits? **A:** Scramble Nature Play Park, privately built but publicly accessible. **Q:** How did commissioners vote on the final approval motion? **A:** Unanimously, 6-0 in favor of recommending approval to City Council. **Q:** What design standards will apply to new Barkley buildings? **A:** Urban Village Design Standards under BMC 20.25, plus additional requirements for ground-floor commercial in the core. **Q:** What was the total size of the Barkley planning area? **A:** Approximately 250-260 acres in northeast Bellingham. ---