Name: Bellingham City Council - Special Meeting meeting, Aug 21, 2026
Start: 2026-08-21
End: 2026-08-21
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Special Meeting

Fri, August 21, 2026

Agenda PDF Minutes PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

City Council Special Meeting — August 21, 2026

This was a brief special meeting called for a single purpose: to formally issue the City Council's written decision on the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's approval of a development project known as The Woods at Viewcrest. All seven council members were present — Lilliquist, Williams, Anderson, and Council President Stone in chambers; Hammill, Huthman, and Cotton joined remotely.

Appeal Decision: The Woods at Viewcrest (352 Viewcrest Road)

Background: On June 5, 2026, Bellingham Hearing Examiner Rice approved a preliminary plat (SUB 2022-0011), subdivision variance (VAR 2022-0002), and critical areas permit (CAP 2022-0005) for a residential subdivision at 352 Viewcrest Road. A community group called Protect Mud Bay Cliffs filed an appeal on June 18, 2026, challenging the Hearing Examiner's decision. The Council held a quasi-judicial closed record hearing on August 10, 2026, at which Janet Magaki argued on behalf of the appellant, Tim Sheermetzler on behalf of the applicant/property owners, and James Erb on behalf of the City of Bellingham as respondent.

Council President Stone noted that she had been absent from the August 10 hearing due to travel for a memorial service, but stated she had reviewed all parties' briefs, watched the oral argument recording, and reviewed the Hearing Examiner's decision and the closed record. She thanked Council President Pro Tem Huthman for chairing the August 10 hearing.

The legal standard: Council members emphasized that their role in a closed record quasi-judicial appeal is strictly limited. The Council may not consider new evidence, substitute its own policy preferences, or redesign the project. It must affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision unless the appellant demonstrates it was either *contrary to law* or *unsupported by substantial evidence*. The Council retained outside legal counsel — Rob Carmichael and Ying Wu of Carmichael Clark — to advise throughout the process.

Council deliberation: Councilmember Lilliquist offered the most detailed comments, noting that the appellant's challenge largely pointed to competing expert opinions rather than demonstrating factual error. He explained that showing evidence existed on both sides is not sufficient to overturn a Hearing Examiner's finding — the appellant must prove the Hearing Examiner actually erred. On the legal question, Lilliquist noted that the appellant's strongest argument was that detailed engineering and environmental/hydrological analysis should have been required before preliminary plat approval. However, he observed that the appellant cited no law supporting that position, while both Bellingham Municipal Code and binding Washington State court precedent explicitly hold the opposite — preliminary plats are intended to provide an approximate picture of the final subdivision, and requiring complete engineering detail at that stage would contradict state law. He concluded he could find neither an error of fact nor an error of law, and would support affirming the decision.

Councilmember Anderson echoed this, thanking outside counsel for helping the Council work through all angles while staying within the narrow quasi-judicial scope. She acknowledged that individual council members may have personal environmental concerns, but stressed those concerns cannot factor into a quasi-judicial decision. She also supported affirmance.

Council President Stone acknowledged that Protect Mud Bay Cliffs brought the appeal in good faith and out of genuine concern for the local environment, and the Council's decision to affirm was not a sign of indifference to those concerns — it was simply the legally required outcome given that the appellant did not meet its burden of proof.

Outcome: The Council voted unanimously to affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision, deny the appeal, and authorize Council President Stone to sign the 30-page written findings, conclusions, and decision. Stone signed the document at the close of the meeting. Copies were provided directly to parties present; formal mailed notice to all parties will follow as required by procedure.

Vote: Moved by Councilmember Williams, seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Passed 7–0.

Key Takeaways

The Woods at Viewcrest development is approved to proceed. The City Council unanimously affirmed the Hearing Examiner's approval of the preliminary plat, subdivision variance, and critical areas permit for the residential project at 352 Viewcrest Road.

The appeal by Protect Mud Bay Cliffs was denied. The Council found the appellant did not meet its legal burden to show the Hearing Examiner's decision was factually unsupported or contrary to law.

Scope of review was strictly limited. This was not a policy vote on whether the development is desirable — under state and local law, the Council could only evaluate whether the Hearing Examiner made a legal or factual error.

A key legal point: Washington State courts have established that preliminary plat approval does not require complete engineering and environmental detail; that work comes at later stages. The appellant's argument that it should have been required upfront had no supporting legal authority.

Outside counsel played a significant role. The Council hired Carmichael Clark to guide them through this quasi-judicial process, which Council President Stone described as a steep learning curve for the body.

AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.

What happened at this meeting

Issuance of a decision on the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's decision for the project known as the Woods at Viewcrest

# Summary: Bellingham City Council Appeal Decision for The Woods at Viewcrest Project

The Bellingham City Council held a quasi-judicial hearing on August 10th, 2026, to decide on Protect Mud Bay Cliffs' appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision approving The Woods at Viewcrest project (SUB 2022-0011, VAR 2022-0002, CAP 2022-0005) at 352 Viewcrest Road. The Council emphasized their narrow role was limited to determining whether the appellant proved the Hearing Examiner's decision was contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence, and they could not consider new evidence, redesign the project, or vote based on personal preference. Council Member Lilliquist explained that the appellant failed to demonstrate factual or legal errors, noting that differing opinions on evidence do not constitute grounds for overturning the examiner's decision, and that state law and Bellingham Municipal Code support preliminary plat approval without requiring complete engineering details at that stage. The Council voted unanimously 7-0 to affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision and deny the appeal, with Council President Stone tasked with signing the written findings and conclusions to be distributed to all parties.

Agenda items (1)

Procedural (1)

25031ProceduralIssuance of a decision on the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's decision for the project known as the Woods at Viewcrest

The city will issue a final decision on whether to uphold or overturn the Hearing Examiner's earlier ruling on the Woods at Viewcrest development project, based on an appeal that was filed.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Affirm hearing examiner decision, deny appeal, and authorize Council President to sign findings

aye 1

voice voteaye

Verbatim transcript available

48 transcript segments indexed

[music] >> Good morning and welcome to this special meeting of the Bellingham City Council. Today is Friday, um August 21st, 2026. So, I'm going to first call the meeting to order and we will begin um just with attendance.

City of Bellingham City Council Special Meeting minutes August 21, 2026, 8:30 AM Chair: Hannah Stone Phone: 360-778-8200 Members: Hollie Huthman, Daniel Hammill, Email: ccmail@cob.org Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Lisa Anderson, Web: cob.org/council Michael Lilliquist, Jace Cotton Call to order and roll call Council President Stone called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.

Present: Council President Hannah Stone, First Ward Council Member Hollie Huthman, Second Ward Council Member Daniel Hammill, Third Ward Council Member Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Fourth Ward Council Member Lisa Anderson, Fifth Ward Council Member Michael Lilliquist, Sixth Ward Council Member Jace Cotton, At-Large 25031 1.

I wanted to note that Council members Lillyquist, Williams, and Anderson are with me here in chambers and Councilmember Hammel is joining us remotely online, which you're able to see um here in chambers from the video feed.

And so, we do have a quorum. So, we will begin this morning. Um So, this is a very limited special meeting. Subject of this meeting is issuance of a decision on the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's decision for the project known as The Woods at Viewcrest.

Issuance of a decision on the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's decision for the project known as the Woods at Viewcrest Summary: Council President Stone announced that the meeting was being called for the purpose of delivering the Council’s decision on the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner’s decision for the project known as the Woods at Viewcrest, following the quasi-judicial closed record hearing held on Monday, August 10, 2026.

This special meeting is called for the purpose of delivering the Council's decision on the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's decision for the project known as The Woods at Viewcrest following the quasi-judicial closed record hearing held on Monday, August 10th, 2026.

Council President Stone explained that the decision in this appeal must be based upon (1) the record established in the hearing examiner’s proceedings; (2) written argument submitted by the parties; and (3) oral argument.

On June 5th, 2026, the Bellingham Hearing Examiner issued a decision approving the preliminary plat SUB 2022-0011, subdivision variance VAR 2022-0002, and critical areas permit CAP 2022-0005. For the above-mentioned project at 352 Viewcrest Road.

The City Council decision must also be based on all applicable city codes governing the application and this appeal. This oral argument was part of an appellate review of the Hearing Examiner decision in this matter.

Council members are acting strictly in a quasi-judicial capacity. Council President Stone acknowledged that she was not present at the quasi-judicial hearing, but has reviewed all parties' briefs, watched the recording of the oral arguments presented at the hearing, and reviewed the Hearing Examiner's decision and record as necessary.

Project Mad Bay Cliffs filed an appeal of hearing examiner's decision on June 18th, 2026 in accordance with BMC 2.56.080 and RCW 36.70B.110. On August 10th, 2026, the city council held a quasi-judicial closed record hearing on the appeal.

Page 1 of 2 Council Member Stone made an appearnce of fairness disclosure, stating that she had received an email that referenced the matter, but the email was not reviewed or responded to. This was the same email that other Council Members previously disclosed they had received.

I want to note before I go further that council members Huffman and Cotton have also joined us remotely, so we have all council members present. Just a reminder from the hearing on August 10th, um I know that council um President Pro Tem Huffman acknowledged that the city council decision in this closed record appeal must be based on one, the record of record established in the hearing examiner's proceedings, two, written arguments submitted by the parties, and three, oral argument.

The city council decision must also be based on all applicable city codes governing the application and this appeal. So, the oral argument was part of the appellant review um of the hearing examiner decision in this matter.

Members of the public had also attempted to inquire about the matter, but she refused to engage in conversation. Council President Stone read the Decision portion of the Council's Findings, Conclusions, and Decisions.

Council Members discussed the decision. Action: Edwin H. "Skip" Williams / Lisa Anderson moved to affirm the decisions of the Hearing Examiner, deny the appeal, and authorize Council President Stone to sign the Council's written Findings, Conclusions, and Decisions on the matter.

And council members have been acting strictly in a quasi-judicial capacity. So, I want to acknowledge um some of you who've been following along, I was not present on August 10th, um 2026, but I have reviewed the parties' briefs, I've watched the oral arguments held on August 10th, and reviewed the hearing examiner's decisions and the closed record as necessary.

Just wanted to acknowledge my absence at the hearing. I was traveling for a memorial service um and extend my appreciation to Councilmember Huffman as President Pro Tem for chairing that meeting. Um, but I have participated in all other, um, discussions and deliberations and do feel confident participating and issuing the decision today.

Along those lines, um, there was also discussion, I know, at August 10th at the date of the hearing, um, just disclosures about appearance of fairness and wanting to acknowledge, similar to other council members, that there was, um, limited correspondence provided to us by email that was not reviewed or, um, responded to in any way.

And also in the community, some limited, um, engagement with members of the community just inquiring about this particular project, um, and, um, basically refusing to engage in any conversation on this on this topic, um, treating this quasi-judicial role very seriously and the appearance of fairness, as have my colleagues.

Um, just wanting to, um, speak to the fact that so on August 10th, during that hearing, um, acknowledging that Janet Magaki, who's here with us today, um, provided testimony on behalf of the appellant, Protect Mud Bay Cliffs, um, Tim Sheermetzler as well provided testimony on behalf of the applicant property owners, um, and the the family in this, um, in this appeal or in this, um, application project, and James Erb on behalf of the respondent, who is the city of Bellingham.

So, I'm going to ask that the audience again, um, refrain from any show of support or opposition to the decision as, um, as issued today by the council. Um, so at this time I'm just going to read a brief summary from the decision.

So, the the council is um reviewing today and considering you know, officially issuing the findings, conclusions, and decisions of the Bellingham City Council in the quasi-judicial appeal. Um So, there's a 30-page findings, conclusions, and decisions.

Um but, I'm just going to read briefly the decision that's on the final page. Um cuz obviously there's a lot of content within the the body of the um um of the findings. So, it's important to emphasize the narrow and purely quasi-judicial role that the City Council plays in this appeal.

This proceeding is not a vote on whether the council favors the development, nor is it an opportunity for the council to redesign the project, or to signal whether it agrees with the concerns the appellant has raised.

Under the Bellingham Municipal Code, the council cannot consider new evidence on this appeal, and is required to affirm the hearing examiner's decision so long as it is supported by substantial evidence and is not contrary to law.

The council recognizes that the appellant brought this challenge in good faith, driven by a genuine care for the local environment and the future of our community. The council does not take these concerns lightly, and today's decision is in no way a reflection of indifference to them.

However, the council's authority is strictly limited to a single legal question. Has the appellant met its burden of proof to demonstrate that hearing examiner Rice's decision was contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence?

Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth within um the packet that will be potentially signed today, the City Council concludes that the appellant has not met its burden to show that the hearing examiner Rice's decision is erroneous.

Accordingly, the decision of the hearing examiner would hereby be affirmed. So, this morning, I'm here to entertain a motion to affirm the decisions of the hearing examiner, deny the appeal, and authorize Council President Stone, myself, to sign the council's written findings, conclusions, and decisions on the matter.

>> So moved. >> Second. >> So, a motion's been made by Council member Williams, and a second by Council member Anderson. And I'd like to open it up prior to a vote for any comments or discussion from Council.

Council member Lilliquist. >> So, I I tried to read through the materials uh very carefully, and one of the things I noted is that the um appellant never really said that some of the factual determinations were wrong, so much as said that there were differing opinions on the matter.

Um and that makes it a judgment call as to where the evidence weighs most heavily. Given that it's a judgment call, and given that there's a presumption that the hearing examiner did in fact weigh all the evidence, and did reach a conclusion, showing that there was evidence on both sides is not evidence of an error, and we have to find an error in fact, not just simply a judgment call that someone else might have called differently.

So, on the factual basis, I can't find a reason to overturn it. The strongest legal argument, if if it can be said as such, is the assertion that all these important details of engineering and environmental and hydrological concerns needed to be worked out prior to preliminary plat approval.

However, the appellant cited no law which said that was true and instead there is clear law in both Bellingham Municipal Code and in state law which says the opposite. Uh the according to a ruling binding ruling in the state courts, a preliminary plat application is meant to give local governments and the public an approximate picture of how the final subdivision will look and the requiring complete engineering technical detail at the preliminary stage would run counter to Washington courts ruling.

So again, I can't find an error in law. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that it the the there was opposite of an error, it was done correctly and so again, no burden of proof, I can't find an error of law and I can't find an error of fact where the applicant appellant carried the the burden of proof.

So I I don't think there was much choice here. Putting on my judicial hat, that's where the evidence lay and that's what was required of us. So I will be supporting this decision. >> Councilmember Anderson.

>> Thank you. I want to give thanks to our legal team we hired to advise us. I think we really kind of put them through the grilling of looking at all angles but ensuring that we upheld the rule that the rule in front of us and regardless of how we feel and our underlying personal concerns, we really had to stick to the very narrow charge of what a quasi-judicial is allowed to look at and what we're allowed to consider and as Councilmember Lilliquist has stated, that very narrow scope didn't give us much option to to differ from the decision that's been made.

Um I appreciate um, the community members who have come forward and expressed their concerns. Um, they could be shared, but, um, we're not in a position, um, in this, uh, role to differ from the scope that was put in front of us.

So, I I do want to thank our, uh, council, legal council, for assisting us and, um, really kind of hearing us through and helping make sure that, um, the 29 pages were written to just kind of really focus out on, uh, the basis of our decision.

So, um, I am supporting this, uh, because that is the limited scope of what our options would be. >> Any other discussion or comments from council before a vote? Um, and I believe that this I don't know that we need a a formal vote of individual council members on the record or if we can do it just orally, but, um, typically the votes are just called as a a group, so unless there is, um, a division, we will, um, do it by voice.

So, um, again, the motion before the council is to move to affirm the decisions of the hearing examiner, deny the appeal, and authorize council president Stone to sign the council's written findings, conclusions, and decisions on this matter.

All in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Or abstentions? Okay. Saying I myself, um, that passes 7-0. And I have the decision that's been reviewed thoroughly by the entire council with, um, thorough edits and revisions, but I will sign the decision and then our office manager can either make hard copies for the parties were present today or we can scan a copy and send that electronically.

>> Also to note that it will be mailed out as required by the procedures. So copy will be mailed to all parties. >> And just making note that our mail internally goes out like on Tuesdays and Thursdays and recognizing this is Friday and with mail service being less than predictable sometimes we just thought it would be a great courtesy just to be able to provide those copies further in advance.

I also want upon closing this meeting just to acknowledge again outside counsel and Carmichael Clark. So Rob Carmichael and Ying Wu, thank you very much for your service as outside counsel. It's been a steep learning curve for us as a as a body to navigate this process.