Name: Bellingham City Council - Special Meeting meeting, May 18, 2026
Start: 2026-05-18
End: 2026-05-18
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Special Meeting

Mon, May 18, 2026

Agenda PDF Minutes PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

City Council Special Meeting — May 18, 2026

This was a brief special meeting called to consider a single item: a street vacation ordinance. Council members Dan Hammill and Michael Lilliquist were excused, leaving five members present — sufficient for a quorum.

Street Vacation — Eastern Half of Fir Street (Agenda Bill 24940)

The Council held a closed record hearing on a petition to vacate the eastern half (15 feet) of Fir Street abutting the western 110 feet of Block 13, Silver Heights Addition, in Bellingham. A closed record hearing means the Council reviews only the existing record — no new public testimony is taken at this stage.

Background: The Hearing Examiner held a noticed public hearing on April 15, 2026, received public testimony, and recommended approval of the vacation. All five applicable criteria under the Bellingham Municipal Code were found to be satisfied: the vacation is in the public interest; the right-of-way is not currently needed for transportation or other purposes and is unlikely to be in the future; and no existing parcel will be denied access as a result. (Criteria four and five were deemed inapplicable to this case.) The petitioner — identified as Miriam Stone, noted to be of no known relation to Council President Hannah Stone — had already paid the full fair market appraised value of the right-of-way, which is $44,000, on March 13, 2026. The property is not within the Lake Whatcom watershed.

The one outstanding condition: A small stormwater cleanout is located roughly midway along the vacated right-of-way. Public Works initially thought it was a full manhole requiring vehicle access, but upon inspection confirmed it is simply a cleanout cap — roughly 3 feet by 5 feet — that requires only pedestrian access for maintenance (e.g., inserting a drill rod). Staff noted no large equipment or truck access would be needed. Because the city needs to retain perpetual access to this cleanout, the petitioner and the city must negotiate and agree on the language of an easement before the ordinance can receive its third and final reading. The petitioner has not yet submitted a building permit for the planned property addition, but is fully aware of the easement requirement and related setback considerations.

Deputy City Attorney James Erb presented the item, and Planning Department representative Steve Sandeeni was also available to answer questions. Council member Lisa Anderson asked about the practical nature of the maintenance access needed — specifically whether heavy equipment would be involved — and staff clarified it would not. Council President Stone noted she would flag the easement language requirement for the Council Clerk to ensure it is resolved before the third and final reading, expected at the next regular meeting.

The Council approved the ordinance on first and second reading. Third and final reading will follow once easement language is agreed upon.

Vote: Moved by Council Member Anderson, seconded by Council Member Williams (Skip Williams). Passed 5–0, with Hammill and Lilliquist excused.

Key Takeaways

The Council approved — on first and second reading — a street vacation that transfers 15 feet of Fir Street right-of-way to an abutting private property owner for $44,000, the full appraised fair market value.

The Hearing Examiner previously found all applicable criteria for the vacation were met and recommended approval.

Third and final reading is pending agreement on easement language to protect the city's perpetual access to a small stormwater cleanout within the vacated right-of-way — a routine but necessary step before the ordinance is complete.

The maintenance access needed is minimal: a 3-by-5-foot area, no vehicle or heavy equipment required.

Council Members Hammill and Lilliquist were excused; the remaining five members voted unanimously in favor.

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

# Summary

Deputy City Attorney James Erb presented an ordinance to vacate the eastern 1/2 (15 ft) of First Street abutting block 13 in Silver Heights. The hearing examiner held a public hearing on April 15, 2026, and recommended approval after finding all five BMC criteria were satisfied; the petitioner paid the fair market appraised value of $44,000 on March 13, 2026. Councilmember Anderson asked about the storm water cleanout access requirements, and staff clarified that only a 3 ft by 5 ft area is needed for human access—no vehicle access is required. Staff recommended approval on first and second reading, pending finalization of easement language for storm water cleanout access between the petitioner and public works. Councilmember Anderson moved to approve the ordinance, Councilmember Williams seconded, and it passed unanimously 5-0 with two members excused.

Agenda items (1)

Procedural (1)

24940ProceduralA closed record hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the vacation of the eastern one-half (15-feet) of Fir Street abutting the western 110-feet of block 13, Silver Heights add to Whatcom, in Bellingham, Whatcom County, Washington

The city is considering permanently closing off the eastern half of Fir Street (a 15-foot-wide section) in the Silver Heights neighborhood so that the adjacent property owners can use that land instead of having it remain as a public street.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

First and second reading of street vacation ordinance (Fir Street)

absent 2 · aye 5

Daniel Hammillabsent

Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye

Hannah Stoneaye

Hollie Huthmanaye

Jace Cottonaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistabsent

Verbatim transcript available

32 transcript segments indexed

City of Bellingham City Council Special Meeting minutes May 18, 2026, 1 PM 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 City Council committee meetings Standing committee members receive reports and information, ask questions, and vote on a recommended action for consideration by the full Council at the regular meeting.

Good afternoon, and welcome to Bellingham City Council meetings. Um, this afternoon we're actually going to start with a special meeting. So, I will call the special meeting to order and recognize that we do have a quorum of council members present.

There is no public comment period during committee sessions. Call to order and roll call Council President Stone called the meeting to order at 1 p.m. Present: Council President Hannah Stone, First Ward Council Member Hollie Huthman, Second Ward Council Member Edwin H.

Council members Hammel and Lilliquist are excused this afternoon. Um, but we do have five council members present. So, we have one item before us during this special meeting. This is agenda bill 24940.

"Skip" Williams, Fourth Ward Council Member Lisa Anderson, Fifth Ward Council Member Jace Cotton, At-Large Excused: Council Member Daniel Hammill, Third Ward Council Member Michael Lilliquist, Sixth Ward Committee Of The Whole 24940 1.

So, this is a closed record hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the vacation of the eastern 1/2, which is 15 ft of First Street abutting the western 110 ft of block 13, Silver Heights add to Whatcom in Bellingham, Whatcom County, Washington.

The hearing examiner held a hybrid public hearing on the street vacation petition on April 15th, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. in these City Council Chambers, where she received public testimony on the subject petition and recommended approval.

A closed record hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the vacation of the eastern one-half (15-feet) of Fir Street abutting the western 110-feet of block 13, Silver Heights add to Whatcom, in Bellingham, Whatcom County, Washington Summary: James Erb, Deputy City Attorney, and Steven Sundin, Senior Planner, presented the street vacation ordinance relating to the eastern one-half (15-feet) of Fir Street.

The complete record of the hearing examiner's proceedings can be found online at https://iframe.cob.org/iframes /pages/hearing-examiner-case-decisions. dot a s p x On March 13th, 2026, the petitioner remitted the full fair market appraised value for the subject right of way.

The Hearing Examiner held a hybrid public hearing on the street vacation petition on April 15, 2026. Council Members discussed the ordinance and asked questions. Action: Lisa Anderson / Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved for first and second reading.

Um, I noted that that fair fair market appraised value is noted also in the agenda bill as $44,000. The abutting property and right of way are not within Lake Whatcom watershed. Um, so for this item I am going to turn to Deputy City Attorney, um, James Erb.

at this time. Thank you. Good afternoon, Council. Um so uh we are here as uh Council President Stone said for a special meeting to consider this ordinance on first and second reading to vacate this portion of the First Street right-of-way.

Um all of the necessary procedural prerequisites have been satisfied in this case. The Technical Review Committee met and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner held the property noticed hearing on this uh request for a street vacation and found that all five criteria in the Bellingham Municipal Code are satisfied.

Uh the vacation is in the public interest. The subject right-of-way is not currently necessary for transportation or other right-of-way purposes, nor is it likely to be in the future. No existing parcel, lot of record, or tract will be denied access as a result of the vacation of the subject right-of-way.

Um criteria four uh is inapplicable. Uh and uh so is criteria five. Uh so based on those recommendations from the hearing examiner, uh city staff are going to recommend that the council vote to approve on first and second reading this ordinance vacating this particular right-of-way.

And then we will be holding a third and final reading until some language can be agreed to between the parties because there is a necessity of a a reservation of an easement uh for purposes of like a storm water cleanout in that right-of-way.

And so that's depicted or uh it's actually not depicted on this graphic, but uh this is the site plan that shows the property. The red area is the portion of the right-of-way that's going to be vacated.

And about halfway uh between the north and south end of that right-of-way, there is a a sewer storm water cleanout that public works will need to continue to access in perpetuity. And so, the parties are going to negotiate an easement for that, and that was the only recommendation that had been forwarded by the TRC to the hearing examiner, and it was included as a condition in the recommendation to approve this street vacation.

So, if anyone has any questions, I'll do my best to answer them. And if I can't, then Mr. Steve Sandeeni is here on behalf of the planning department to answer any questions that I can't answer about this.

Thank you very much. Um for this item, you already addressed My one question was going to be whether there's any update regarding that coordination between the petitioner and public works, but I understand that will be coming forward.

Um so, just a note to myself and I guess to the clerk to make sure that um we flag that prior to third third and final, which we expect would be at the next meeting if things go forward. Um but I'll open up to council members.

Any questions or comments? Councilmember Anderson. Not sure if um you'll be able to answer this, but just out of curiosity, cuz I know storm cleanout could be a variety of equipment. It could be a back truck.

It could be just taking a shovel and digging something out. Um I'm just wondering, do we know how much of the retention would be needed? Like, are we going to need to get a back truck in there? So. Yes, I can I can answer that.

>> at this. There's still some land there that's not in red. Is that where the utility area would be? I'll hop up to the dais and point to it. It's a small area that's needed. It's about 3 ft by 5 ft for humans to just open up a cap like your sewer cleanout at home, and open the thing up and be able to put a drill rig down or holes or whatever else, but they don't need access with any rigs or vehicles or anything like that.

Initially, we thought it was a manhole. Public Works went out. Nope, just a cleanout. Just need access around it to maintain it. And then it's right It's right about where my cursor is, right here. It's a little three You see that little guy up there?

It's a little 3 by 5. It's probably not much bigger than the table. And have you seen the plans for the the extension? There's not going to be any conflict with what they want to build and us having access to that.

They have not submitted a building permit yet cuz they want to make sure this was going to happen, but they are fully aware of the easement and the other setback things that are required for the addition.

Okay. Thank you. From council members or questions? I was just going to confirm, I know the petitioner in this matter, Miriam Stone, just that we are of no relation to my knowledge. Um And otherwise WSD attorney Herb referenced spoke to the questions that I just wanted to confirm regarding um the final proposal um which was approved by the hearing examiner and then with that one that one condition.

So. Seems straightforward. Council member Anderson. I You know, we always want the language. Um I move to approve um the ordinance 24940. Second. I have a motion by Council member Anderson and a second by Council member Williams.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say aye. Aye. Any opposed or abstentions? Okay, seeing none that passes 5-0 with two excused. Thank you very much. Thank you. So, with that we'll adjourn the special meeting.