# City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner: The Case of the Wrong Date on the No Parking Sign ## Meeting Overview On a Monday morning in late July, the City of Bellingham's virtual hearing room became the stage for an unusual tale of municipal miscommunication, pride parade preparations gone awry, and the fundamental question of what happens when the government's own signage contradicts itself. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice, an attorney contracted to provide impartial adjudication services to Bellingham and nine other local jurisdictions, presided over what she herself described as a "first time" situation in her experience with vehicle impound appeals. The case before her was HE 25-VI 021, an appeal filed by Brody Sakazaki challenging the impound of his vehicle during the July 13, 2025 Pride Parade. What made this hearing remarkable wasn't just the circumstances—though those were compelling enough—but the procedural complications that emerged during testimony, including damaged signage, potential video evidence that hadn't yet materialized, and the thorny legal question of how citizens are expected to interpret conflicting municipal notifications. The virtual hearing, conducted via Zoom with the audio portion forming the official legal record, brought together city parking code compliance officer Greg Coulter, his supervisor Raul Murillo, and appellant Brody Sakazaki for what would become an examination of how even well-intentioned city processes can go sideways when the human element—including an unhoused individual with wire cutters who needed zip ties—intersects with the machinery of municipal governance. ## The Pride Parade Impound Incident The story began with the City of Bellingham's preparation for its July 13 Pride Parade, an event requiring the closure of multiple blocks along Cornwall Avenue. As Greg Coulter, a parking code compliance officer, explained to Hearing Examiner Rice, the coordination process started in June with Lieutenant Dante Alexander of the Bellingham Police Department, who oversees parade route closures and special events. "We were contacted by Lieutenant Dante Alexander, part of the city of Bellingham Police Department, who's in charge of these types of closures and events to see whether we would be able to assist with the clearing of the parade route," Coulter testified. The city's standard procedure involves placing temporary no parking signs well in advance of such events, both to provide adequate notice to the public and to create the legal foundation for any necessary vehicle impounds. The signs were initially placed on July 9, four days before the parade. Following standard protocol, a parking compliance officer photographed select signs on July 10 to document their proper placement—images that would later become crucial evidence in the appeal hearing. These photographs, taken at Cornwall Avenue, showed properly dated signs reading "No Parking July 13th," providing the timestamp documentation the city requires for its impound procedures. But between the initial placement and the day of the parade, something went wrong. As Coulter explained with a mixture of frustration and bemusement, "The northeast side of Cornwall Avenue signs were taken down by a citizen on Thursday, after they were initially placed up. Some of those were ripped off. Some of them had the Zip tie clipped." The culprit, according to Coulter's investigation, was "an unhoused gentleman, went through with a pair of wire cutters and decided that they needed the zip ties." However, in what Coulter described as an act of unexpected civic consideration, "This particular citizen was kind enough to place all of the signs very neatly next to the posts where they were removed." Event staff discovered the vandalism on Friday and replaced the signs, checking each one to ensure the date stickers were still intact. Yet somehow, in this process of sign replacement and verification, something went awry with at least one sign—the one directly in front of where Brody Sakazaki had parked his vehicle. ## The Wrong Date Discovery On the morning of July 13, as Pride Parade preparations reached their peak and the parade route needed to be cleared, Coulter and Officer Aldridge conducted their sweep of Cornwall Avenue. They found Sakazaki's vehicle parked in what appeared to be a properly posted no parking zone and proceeded with the impound, following standard city procedures. It was only later, during the preparation of evidence for this appeal hearing, that the discrepancy came to light. The sign directly in front of Sakazaki's vehicle—the very sign that would have provided him notice of the parking restriction—bore a sticker reading "July 7th," not "July 13th." When Hearing Examiner Rice pressed Coulter on this critical point, asking how this error impacts the department's professional judgment regarding the impound, Coulter's response revealed both the human complexity of municipal enforcement and the practical challenges facing city workers. "Generally, so that is a very good question. If given that the sign was damaged ahead of time," Coulter replied, clearly grappling with the implications. "Just personally, if I were parking in a block that had July 13th signage. No parking close tow away zones. And one sign did not have that date on that. I wouldn't risk it. But that is just personally. Me. That's the decision that I would make. I can't really ascribe decision making to somebody else, or try to render their judgment." This response illuminated one of the central tensions in municipal governance: the gap between how city employees, intimately familiar with the intended enforcement action, might interpret signage, and how a member of the public, lacking that insider knowledge, might reasonably read the same information. The technical explanation for the wrong date involved the city's practice of reusing signage from previous events. As Coulter noted, "unfortunately, it seems that in an effort to be as green as possible and reuse those signage, it resulted in a miscommunication with Citizen." The sticker bearing the correct date had apparently been damaged or removed during the sign vandalism and replacement process. ## The Appellant's Perspective Brody Sakazaki's testimony provided a stark contrast to the city's complex narrative of sign placement, vandalism, and replacement. His account was straightforward and focused on what any reasonable driver would have done when looking for parking in an unfamiliar area. "I'm from out of town, and I parked my vehicle along Cornwall Avenue," Sakazaki testified, speaking clearly into his computer microphone from his bakery workplace. "And the vehicle was there the morning of Sunday, July 13th when it was spotted by the I guess Officer Eldridge and also, I guess, Mr. Coulter and I was parked in front of a sign that said, July 7th no parking on July 7th. My vehicle was there on July 13th so I thought. But it was a that the sign, although it said no parking, because the date did not apply to July 13th it would be okay for me to park there." The simplicity of this reasoning—that a sign prohibiting parking on July 7th would not apply to parking on July 13th—highlighted the fundamental legal principle at stake. Municipal signage serves as the official communication between government and citizen, and if that communication is incorrect or misleading, what responsibility does the citizen bear for interpreting the government's actual intent versus its written notification? Sakazaki's testimony revealed the practical challenges facing any driver in a busy urban area: "At the time at which I parked the whole city block was full of cars, and that spot in which I parked was the only spot that was available. and I checked the sign. Only the sign that was directly in front of my vehicle." This detail proved significant. With other vehicles already parked along the block, Sakazaki had limited visibility of other signs and did what most drivers would consider reasonable—checking the signage immediately adjacent to his parking spot. The question of whether drivers are expected to survey entire blocks for potentially contradictory signage would become a central issue in the hearing. Demonstrating the kind of documentation many urban parkers have learned to maintain, Sakazaki had photographed the sign from his driver's seat—a practice he described as routine "when I park in an unfamiliar area, I often take a picture of the sign in case something like this happens. and I document many things in my life, and this was just one of them." This photograph, submitted as evidence, would prove crucial to the case, showing clearly from the driver's perspective the "July 7th" date on the sign directly in front of his vehicle. ## The Procedural Complications As the hearing progressed, it became clear that this case was breaking new ground in several ways. Hearing Examiner Rice, with years of experience in municipal appeals, noted multiple times that she was encountering "first time" situations. The most significant procedural development came when Coulter revealed that additional evidence might be available: "I have one more piece of information coming in due to the constricting nature of the timeline of this hearing. We have another party that we're trying to get some video or photo evidence of the sign from just to see whether we can come up with an explanation of how that sticker was removed." This revelation—that security camera footage might exist showing the sign in question—added another layer of complexity to the case. Rice, acknowledging the unusual nature of the situation, agreed to hold the record open to allow for the submission of this potential evidence. "So this would be, you believe there's video that shows this sign in particular," Rice clarified, her interest evident even through the formal hearing procedures. "Yes, so there is a. It's it's not a the city entity, but there is coverage of that science placement by a camera. I'm just waiting to get back from that organization to get access to that video. And I'm sorry that I didn't have it ready for the meeting today," Coulter responded, apologizing for the timing complications. This development necessitated extending the usual hearing timeline, with Rice establishing a framework for the submission of the video evidence, city commentary on its significance, and appellant response—all while maintaining the legal integrity of the appeal process. ## The Question of Parking Sign Interpretation One of the most illuminating exchanges in the hearing occurred when Sakazaki asked what might seem like a simple question about parking enforcement expectations: "the only sign I checked at the time of parking was the sign in front of my vehicle. That's the only sign I could see from my vehicle in the driver's seat. with all the cars parked around. I'm just wondering if it is expected, if it is safe to make the assumption that the signs on one street would be written the same way, or if it is expected to check each and every sign down the whole block. When I park my vehicle in the future." This question touched on a fundamental aspect of municipal governance that most citizens never consider: How much investigation is a person expected to conduct when interpreting city signage? Greg Coulter's response acknowledged the complexity: "I think that this hearing is about both of us approaching that question from opposite sides. It just, you know, from the city's perspective. Every sign on that street, said the 13th Except for obviously that one from your perspective. You tried to be a diligent citizen. Look at the signage and parked appropriately for the signage that was there." Raul Murillo, Coulter's supervisor who joined the hearing to provide technical expertise about signage practices, offered additional context about the city's general approach to sign placement: "Typically signs, they're installed with arrows. That means that that whole section is no parking. We try to put as many signs as possible, so it's visible to most of for every single person who parks there. The reason why every meter has a sign, because there is a place to put signs." However, Murillo acknowledged that the visual indicators on the signs in question weren't entirely clear: "unfortunately, I don't know if you notice the cute little hands going like this, and they should should have been arrows and some of the signs you can see on the other signs. There is. There is arrows. So technically, the sign technically next to you will apply to all the spaces until there is an alley, or there is another block." This technical explanation revealed another layer of the communication challenge: even when signs are properly dated, their scope of application may not be immediately obvious to the general public. ## The Financial Impact and Relief Sought The financial implications of the impound extended well beyond the basic towing and storage fees. Sakazaki, visiting from out of town, had to arrange transportation to retrieve his vehicle from not one but two of Heston Towing's locations, paying for ride-share services in an unfamiliar city. "I had to take a a lift up to the not one, but 2 of Heston Towing's locations. I have a receipt for that. If those could be refunded as well. That would be great, but I have not yet submitted that as evidence," Sakazaki testified, highlighting how the ripple effects of a vehicle impound can compound the financial burden on citizens. His total requested relief included the $710.14 in towing and storage fees already paid to Heston Towing, the $83 hearing fee for the appeal, and the additional transportation costs incurred in retrieving his vehicle. For someone who works at a bakery, these unexpected expenses represented a significant financial hardship. Sakazaki also noted the broader time and stress costs: "And in September I do need to go back up to Bellingham. I know you have nothing to do with that, so I won't mention that. And it's it has been somewhat of a frustrating process. because all of this. It's I've it's my first time going through a process like this, and it's taken a lot of time." This comment underscored how municipal enforcement actions can create cascading obligations for citizens—not just immediate costs, but future court dates, lost work time, and the stress of navigating unfamiliar legal procedures. ## The City's Operational Challenges The hearing revealed significant challenges in the city's current approach to special event signage. Coulter's testimony made clear that the Pride Parade impound represented only the city's second time conducting vehicle impounds for a parade, with previous experience limited to the "ski to see parade" and pride parade events. "It's not something that we do on a super regular basis. Typically, I think, prior to this, we've done the pride parade once, and aside from that, it's just the ski to see parade are the only events that we tow. For as a part of this closure," Coulter explained, acknowledging the department's limited experience with this type of enforcement. The reliance on event organizers to properly place and maintain signage created additional vulnerabilities in the system. As Coulter noted, "unfortunately, as a result because these signs are being placed by event organizers that are not city staff. We don't have a lot of control over that. We we do the best that we can to ensure that processes are in place to maintain our liability. I guess." The incident prompted internal discussions about improving procedures. Coulter mentioned that "we're working with the permits process to see whether those need to be adjusted" and that "we're working with the Premise department to see whether we can find another solution for the signage." Even the event organizer had recognized the problems with the current system. As Coulter noted, "the event organizer mentioned in her email that they're moving to laminated signs. They're still planning on utilizing a sticker which can work as long as it doesn't rain or potentially obfuscate it." ## The Hearing Process and Civic Transparency Throughout the hearing, Hearing Examiner Rice demonstrated the kind of patient, thorough approach that characterizes effective administrative adjudication. Her willingness to hold the record open for additional evidence, despite the procedural complications it created, showed a commitment to reaching a decision based on complete information rather than artificial deadlines. Rice's explanation of her role and authority provided a useful civics lesson for participants and observers: "I am not a city of Bellingham employee. I work on contract for this government and 9 other local governments. Therefore I believe I'm not biased in favor of the city's position in this matter, and I am going to be the author of the city's final decision in this appeal." This independence, and Rice's clear explanation of it, is crucial to the legitimacy of administrative proceedings. Citizens challenging government actions need to understand that their appeals will be heard by someone without an institutional stake in defending the government's position. The hearing also demonstrated the accessibility that modern technology can provide to administrative proceedings. Conducted entirely via Zoom due to the virtual format, the hearing allowed Sakazaki to participate from his workplace rather than taking additional time off to appear in person at city hall. This accessibility is particularly important for working people facing enforcement actions. ## The Broader Questions of Municipal Governance Beyond the specific facts of Sakazaki's case, the hearing illuminated broader questions about the relationship between citizens and local government. When municipal signage is incorrect or misleading, where does responsibility lie? How much investigation should citizens be expected to conduct when interpreting city communications? What happens when the government's environmental goals (reusing signage) conflict with clear communication? The case also highlighted the human dimension of municipal enforcement. Coulter's obvious frustration at discovering the dating error reflected the reality that city employees are often caught between policies they must enforce and circumstances they don't control. His acknowledgment that "if had I seen the 7th on that signage, obviously I would not have impounded the vehicle. Just because, despite all of that, we need legal signage in order to appropriately impound" showed a recognition that enforcement requires proper legal foundation. Similarly, the story of the unhoused individual who removed the signs for their zip ties revealed how complex urban social issues can intersect with municipal operations in unexpected ways. The fact that this person carefully placed the removed signs next to their posts suggested someone who understood they were causing a problem but felt compelled by immediate need—a small but telling detail about life in contemporary cities. ## Looking Ahead As the hearing concluded, several threads remained to be resolved. The mysterious video footage that might explain the sign's condition represented a technological wild card in what was otherwise a straightforward case about municipal communication. Whether that footage would provide clarity or simply add another layer of complexity remained to be seen. The city's commitment to reviewing and improving its special event signage procedures suggested that Sakazaki's case, regardless of its ultimate outcome, had already served an important function in identifying systemic weaknesses. As Coulter noted, "we're working on working with the permits department to try to adjust that process to ensure that this doesn't happen." For Sakazaki, the resolution of his appeal would determine not just financial reimbursement but also his faith in the fairness of municipal processes. His September court date for the citation would remain regardless of the appeal outcome, but the hearing examiner's decision would signal whether the city recognizes citizens' reasonable reliance on official signage. ## Closing and What's Ahead The hearing adjourned with the unusual circumstance of an open record, waiting for video evidence that might never materialize or might provide crucial insight into the sign damage. Hearing Examiner Rice established a careful timeline: video and city comments by end of day Tuesday, appellant response within 24 hours of receiving them, and Sakazaki's lift receipts to be submitted by Wednesday. "I will take this testimony and the packet under advisement, and I am now also waiting for video from the city, with comments from the city," Rice summarized, before establishing the extended decision timeline of approximately August 11-13. The virtual hearing room emptied with polite thanks all around, but the questions it raised about municipal governance, citizen responsibility, and the practical challenges of local government communication would resonate well beyond the final decision date. In a city striving to balance efficiency, environmental responsibility, and clear public communication, the case of the wrong date on the no parking sign had become an unexpected test of how well those values could be reconciled in practice. Whether the mysterious video would provide answers or simply add more questions to an already complex case remained to be seen. But the hearing had already demonstrated something valuable: that even in routine municipal enforcement actions, the principles of due process, citizen participation, and governmental accountability remain both essential and challenging to implement fairly. *This hearing was conducted virtually via Zoom with the audio recording serving as the official legal record. The decision is expected to be issued by August 13, 2025, and will be distributed to all parties via email.*

### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner met on July 28, 2025, to hear an appeal of a vehicle impound filed by Brody Sakazaki. The hearing concerned a vehicle towed during the July 13th Pride Parade route clearing, where the vehicle was parked next to a sign displaying the wrong date (July 7th instead of July 13th). ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** An independent attorney contracted by the city to make administrative decisions on appeals, serving multiple jurisdictions but maintaining neutrality from city staff positions. **Vehicle Impound Appeal:** A formal challenge to the city's decision to tow a vehicle, where the vehicle owner contests whether the impound was legally justified. **Tow-Away Zone:** A designated area where vehicles will be removed if parked during prohibited times, typically marked with specific signage indicating dates and times of enforcement. **Burden of Proof:** The legal requirement that the person filing an appeal (appellant) must provide evidence to support their challenge to the city's action. **Administrative Record:** The official collection of documents, testimony, and evidence that will be used to make the final decision in the case. **Event Signage Protocol:** The city's process for placing temporary no-parking signs for special events, involving coordination between police, parking enforcement, and event organizers. **Code Compliance Officer:** City staff responsible for enforcing parking regulations and conducting vehicle impounds according to municipal code. **Parade Route Clearing:** The process of removing parked vehicles from streets designated for special events like parades, requiring advance notice through posted signage. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | Hearing Examiner (contract attorney) | | Brody Sakazaki | Appellant (vehicle owner) | | Greg Coulter | Parking Code Compliance Officer | | Raul Murillo Delgado | Parking Operations Supervisor | | Kristina Bowker | Hearing Clerk | ### Background Context This case represents an unusual situation in Bellingham's vehicle impound system. The city routinely clears parade routes by posting advance notice signs and towing vehicles that remain parked during events. However, this case involves a sign that displayed the wrong date due to apparent damage and replacement during the sign posting process. The signs were originally placed July 9th, removed by a homeless individual who needed zip ties, then replaced July 11th by event staff. During this process, the date sticker on one sign apparently became damaged or detached, showing July 7th instead of July 13th. The case highlights tensions between the city's need to clear parade routes efficiently and property owners' rights to clear notice before their vehicles are impounded. It also reveals procedural gaps in how the city verifies signage accuracy when event organizers, rather than city staff, are responsible for placing temporary parking restrictions. ### What Happened — The Short Version Brody Sakazaki parked his vehicle Saturday evening on Cornwall Avenue next to a sign that read "No Parking July 7th." His vehicle was towed Sunday morning, July 13th, during Pride Parade route clearing. The city acknowledged the sign displayed the wrong date but argued other signs on the block showed the correct date. Sakazaki took a photo from his driver's seat showing only the incorrect sign was visible from his parking position. The hearing examiner held the record open for potential video evidence of how the sign became damaged and agreed to consider Sakazaki's transportation costs to retrieve his vehicle. ### What to Watch Next - Decision due approximately August 11-13, 2025, depending on when additional video evidence arrives - Potential changes to city procedures for verifying temporary event signage accuracy - Separate traffic citation hearing scheduled for September at municipal court ---

**Q:** Who serves as Bellingham's Hearing Examiner? **A:** Sharon Rice, an attorney who works on contract for Bellingham and 9 other local governments to maintain independence from city positions. **Q:** What was the main issue in this vehicle impound appeal? **A:** The sign next to where Brody Sakazaki parked showed "July 7th" but his vehicle was towed on July 13th for the Pride Parade route clearing. **Q:** How much did Sakazaki pay to retrieve his impounded vehicle? **A:** $710.14 to Heston Towing for towing and storage charges, plus $83 hearing fee and Lyft costs to retrieve the vehicle. **Q:** When were the original parade signs first placed? **A:** July 9th, 2025, providing 4 days advance notice before the July 13th Pride Parade. **Q:** Why were some signs taken down and replaced? **A:** An unhoused individual with wire cutters removed signs on the northeast side of Cornwall Avenue to use the zip ties, requiring replacement on July 11th. **Q:** Who took the verification photos of the parade signs? **A:** A parking code compliance officer photographed signs on July 10th to document proper placement, shown on pages 26-27 of the hearing packet. **Q:** What authority does the Hearing Examiner have in this case? **A:** Authority to determine if the vehicle impound was proper, but no authority over the separate $60 traffic citation. **Q:** Why did Sakazaki take a photo of the parking sign? **A:** He routinely photographs parking signs in unfamiliar areas to document compliance, which proved crucial evidence in this case. **Q:** When will the final decision be issued? **A:** Within 10 business days after the record closes, approximately August 11-13, 2025, depending on additional evidence. **Q:** What additional evidence might be submitted? **A:** Video footage from an unspecified organization that may show how the date sticker became damaged on the sign in question. **Q:** Who is responsible for placing temporary event signs? **A:** Event organizers place the signs, while city staff verify placement and take documentation photos for enforcement purposes. **Q:** What does Sakazaki want as the outcome of his appeal? **A:** Refund of all costs including the $710.14 towing/storage fee, $83 hearing fee, and Lyft transportation costs to retrieve his vehicle. **Q:** How does temporary event signage typically work? **A:** Signs with arrows cover whole block sections until an alley or intersection, with multiple signs placed for maximum visibility. **Q:** What procedural changes might result from this case? **A:** The city is working with the permits department to improve sign verification processes and considering laminated signs instead of stickers. **Q:** Who actually conducted the vehicle impound? **A:** Greg Coulter initiated the impound and completed paperwork while Officer Aldridge took photographs and wrote the traffic citation. ---