Name: Bellingham City Council - Special Meeting meeting, Aug 10, 2026
Start: 2026-08-10
End: 2026-08-10
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Special Meeting

Mon, August 10, 2026

Agenda PDF Minutes PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

Bellingham City Council — Special Meeting, August 10, 2026

This was a rare special meeting convened for a single purpose: a quasi-judicial closed record hearing on an appeal of a land use decision. Council President Hannah Stone was excused; Council President Pro Tem Hollie Huthman presided. Six of seven council members were present.

Appearance of Fairness Disclosures

Before arguments began, council members disclosed any contacts they had received related to the appeal since June 18, 2026. Council Member Lisa Anderson reported that multiple people attempted to share information with her but that she declined all such contact and was not prejudiced. Council Member Michael Lilliquist disclosed that a constituent asked about the status of tidelands in the area and he responded with GIS information before realizing it might be relevant to the appeal; he said the exchange would not affect his ability to evaluate the record. Council Member Dan Hammill reported being contacted by the same constituent and said he did not reply. No other disclosures were made.

The Appeal: Woods at Viewcrest (Agenda Item 25005)

Background: On June 5, 2026, Bellingham Hearing Examiner Rice issued a 208-page decision approving a preliminary plat, subdivision variance, and critical areas permit for the Woods at Viewcrest project — a proposed 38-lot residential subdivision on approximately 38 acres at 352 View Crest Road, owned by the Jones family. On June 18, the community group Protect Mud Bay Cliffs (PMBC) filed an appeal of that approval. Today's closed record hearing gave each party — the appellant, the applicant, and the city — 15 minutes of oral argument, with the appellant reserving five minutes for rebuttal. The council will deliberate in closed session and issue a written decision at a later date.

Appellant's argument (Protect Mud Bay Cliffs): Janet McGake, speaking as a citizen volunteer on behalf of PMBC, argued that the preliminary plat should not have been approved because it defers too many compliance requirements to later stages of development rather than demonstrating compliance upfront. She cited at least 46 unresolved issues and deferrals listed in appendices to PMBC's brief. Two examples she highlighted: (1) *Stormwater modeling* — PMBC's expert, Dr. Richard Herr (a recognized state and federal stormwater authority who helped write state stormwater rules), found no evidence of required hydrologic modeling in the project's stormwater report, and the applicant's own engineer reportedly confirmed formal modeling was not done. (2) *Geohazard buffers* — the site is heavily encumbered by landslide hazard areas requiring 50-foot buffers, but the plat seeks to reduce those buffers to as little as 10 feet on approximately 33 of 38 lots — an roughly 80% reduction affecting nearly 90% of the subdivision. McGake also raised concerns about the project's stormwater being discharged through an above-ground pipe onto the Chuckanut Beach Trail and into Mud Bay, a protected public trust water body, without adequate analysis of downstream harm to neighbors and the bay.

In rebuttal, McGake emphasized that PMBC's experts are credentialed authorities (Dr. Herr and wetlands/marine expert Dr. Lyndon Lee), that the appeal is specifically about the plat — not a re-litigation of the SEPA decision — and that deferring mandatory plat design information to later stages deprives the public of meaningful review opportunity.

Applicant's argument (Jones family): Attorney Tim Shermetzler argued that the project represents responsible development of land the Jones family has owned for over 60 years. He noted the project underwent more than three years of city review, addressed over 500 public comments, responded to four requests for additional information, and was the subject of a five-day public hearing before Examiner Rice. The approved plat preserves 70–80% of the natural tree canopy, maintains a 200–400-foot forested buffer between any development and Mud Bay, and dedicates a public access trail through what is currently private property. Shermetzler argued that PMBC bears the burden of proving the hearing examiner's decision was contrary to law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or violated the appearance of fairness — a high bar given the legal presumption that the examiner's decision was sufficient and regular. He further contended that PMBC's arguments largely concern SEPA environmental impact issues that were already decided in a separate proceeding (which PMBC did not appeal to superior court within the required 21-day window) and are not properly before the council in a plat appeal.

City's argument (Interim City Attorney James V.): The city echoed the applicant's jurisdictional argument: the SEPA appeal was decided by Examiner Rice and is final; PMBC's proper recourse was to appeal to Whatcom County Superior Court within 21 days, which it did not do. The city argued that PMBC's brief is effectively a SEPA appeal "masquerading" as a plat appeal, citing 11 references to environmental impacts in PMBC's briefing. On the merits, the city noted that PMBC did not challenge a single one of the hearing examiner's 172 findings of fact, did not allege any appearance of fairness violation, and cited no specific law that Examiner Rice misinterpreted. The city also pointed out that PMBC's stormwater expert, by his own testimony, was not familiar with Bellingham's stormwater code (Chapter 15.42), had never read it, and had never heard of a public facilities contract — the mechanism by which detailed engineering compliance is demonstrated later in the development process. The city emphasized that under the Bellingham Municipal Code, preliminary plat approval is approval of the "general acceptability of the plat layout"; detailed engineering and full code compliance are required before a public facilities contract or final permits are issued. The applicant cannot proceed without demonstrating full compliance at that later stage.

Outcome: No decision was made today. The council adjourned into closed session to deliberate. Attorney Robert Carmichael (representing the council in this matter) advised that no action is expected at the conclusion of today's deliberations. A subsequent public meeting will be scheduled at which the council's written decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, will be announced.

Key Takeaways

No decision yet: The council heard oral arguments and will deliberate, but a written decision will come at a future meeting — this is the first time the council has conducted this type of quasi-judicial closed record hearing in approximately 20 years.

The central dispute: PMBC argues the plat was approved prematurely, with too many compliance items deferred to later stages and inadequate stormwater management and geohazard buffer protections. The applicant and city argue that deferral of engineering detail to the public facilities contract stage is exactly what the code contemplates, and that no final permits can issue without demonstrated compliance.

Jurisdictional question: Both the applicant and the city contend that PMBC's core environmental concerns — particularly about Mud Bay — were part of the SEPA appeal already decided by the hearing examiner, making them outside this council's jurisdiction. This may be decisive in how the council frames its decision.

High legal bar for appellant: To overturn the hearing examiner's decision, PMBC must show the decision was contrary to law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or tainted by an appearance of fairness violation — and the decision is presumed valid unless proven otherwise.

What happens next: The council's written decision, when issued, will determine whether the 38-lot subdivision approval stands or is sent back for further review. The project cannot move forward to construction-level permitting without that resolution.

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

A quasi-judicial closed record hearing to consider the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's decision for the project known as the Woods at Viewcrest

# Summary

This quasi-judicial closed record hearing considered Protect Mud Bay Cliffs' appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's June 5th, 2026 approval of a 38-lot subdivision preliminary plat, variances, and critical areas permit for the Jones family's Woods at Viewcrest project at 352 View Crest Road. Janet McGake, speaking for PMBC, argued the approval violated city plat criteria and stormwater regulations, citing 46 compliance issues including failure to use mandatory state Department of Ecology stormwater modeling, an impermissible reduction of required 50-foot geohazard buffers to as little as 10 feet on 33 of 38 lots, and inadequate analysis of polluted runoff impacts on Mud Bay; PMBC emphasized that assumption of future compliance cannot substitute for demonstrated current compliance. The applicant's attorney Tim Shermetzler countered that the Jones family responsibly owned the property for 60 years and retained expert teams conducting dozens of studies, and Staff argued that PMBC failed to prove the Hearing Examiner erred under applicable law, noting the project underwent three years of review with over 500 public comments and preserved 70-80% of tree canopy with a 200-400 foot forested buffer to Mud Bay. City Council will deliberate in closed session based solely on the hearing record, written briefs, and oral arguments, with a separate meeting scheduled to announce its decision supported by written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Agenda items (1)

Procedural (1)

25005ProceduralA quasi-judicial closed record hearing to consider the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's decision for the project known as the Woods at Viewcrest

Someone is appealing a decision made by the city's Hearing Examiner about the Woods at Viewcrest project, and the city council will hold a private hearing with a formal record to review whether the original decision was correct.

What happened

Verbatim transcript available

114 transcript segments indexed

All right, everybody. Welcome to a special meeting of the Bellingham City Council this August 10th uh 2026. We have one agenda item today. Actually, first, do we need to do a roll call? Yes. Okay. Roll call, please.

City of Bellingham City Council Special Meeting minutes August 10, 2026, 9:00 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 Pro Tempore Huthman called the meeting to order at 9 a.m.

Present: 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 Excused: Council President Hannah Stone, First Ward Committee Of The Whole 25005 1.

>> Dan Himl >> here. >> Skip Williams >> here. >> Lisa Anderson >> here. >> Michael Loquiz here. >> Jay Scottton here. Holly Huffman >> here. >> All right. Six council members are present with council president stone excused.

>> Okay. Thank you. And today I am uh sitting in for president stone uh as president prom. So we have agenda item 25005. This is a quasi judicial closed record hearing to consider the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's decision for the project known as the as the views as the Woods at Viewest.

A quasi-judicial closed record hearing to consider the appeal of the Bellingham Hearing Examiner's decision for the project known as the Woods at Viewcrest Summary: The City Council held a quasi-judicial closed record hearing with presentations by the appellant and City.

Council adjourned into Closed Session to deliberate at 9:40 a.m. A final written decision will be issued at a later date. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

On June 5th, 2026, the Bellingham Hearing Examiner issued a decision approving the preliminary plat sub2022-000011 subdivision variance V2022-00002 and critical areas permit CAP 2022-00005 for the project known as the Woods at Viewrest at 352 View Crest Road.

Protect Mud Bay Cliffs filed an appeal of the preliminary plat subdivision variance and critical area permit on June 18th, in accordance with BMC 2.56.080 and RCW36.070B10. The council will hear from all parties in a closed record hearing that is open to the public.

They may then adjourn into closed session to deliberate and a final written decision will be issued at a later date. The city council decision in this closed record appeal must be based on one the record established in the hearing examiner's proceedings.

Two, written argument submitted by the parties. And three, oral argument. The city council's decision must also be based on all applicable city codes governing the application. In this appeal, the oral argument is part of an applet review for the hearing examiner decision.

In this matter, council members are acting strictly in a quasi judicial capacity. audience and welcome to all of you. Thank you for for joining us for this. This is a very rare uh procedure. The last time it happened was 20 years ago.

So, you'll be getting a little bit of an education just as we all are. Uh so, first of all, uh please refrain from any show of support or opposition. Uh it's a that's a regular requirement of city council meetings.

We like to keep it a nice neutral space. Um for uh purpose complying with the appearance of fairness requirements, uh we we will ask council members to disclose any personal contact on this matter with any of the parties or member of a party between June 18th, 2026 and now.

So at this time, I I welcome any council members that uh need to disclose to do so. Council member Anderson. >> Thank you. Um I did not have direct contact with any parties, but there were several attempts to contact me to share information um about this.

I don't know what specific information was desired to be shared because I did keep um a wall up between me and those contacting or contacting others on their behalf. So I feel well I know that um no attempt to contact me has prejudiced me to be able to do my job uh that is in front of us today.

>> Thank you council member Anderson. Council member Liiloquist. Yeah, I had a constituent reach out to me about the status of the tidelands in the area and I responded uh with some GIS information before I realized that that might be relevant to this and that was the extent of the communication and I don't think it'll bias my ability to look at the record arguments before me.

>> Thank you, Council Member Liquist. Council member Hamill, >> I was contacted by the same uh constituent and I did not reply. >> Thank you. Anything further? Okay. So um the way this will work each party the appellent the applicant and the city all three have uh 15 minutes for oral argument and today the appellent will appellant excuse me appellent will go first and have 10 minutes having reserved its last five minutes for rebuttal.

So at this time I will go ahead and welcome [clears throat] the appellant to present. Uh and our timekeeper uh will have a clock testing. >> Keep the time good. >> Yeah, we can hear you. Thank you. >> All right.

Good morning. My name is Janet McGake. I'm a resident of Bellingham, a retired high school science teacher, and now a citizen volunteer. I'm speaking on behalf of Protect Mud Bay Cliffs and many community members and organizations who have expressed concern about this project.

Our numbers are large and there are very many important comment letters from all the neighboring neighborhood groups, the area's big environmental groups and a number of professionals. We are requesting the city council to reverse the hearing examiner's approval of the preliminary plot for this project.

The plat does not meet its obligations to comply with applicable city regulations. The plat should never have been approved in the place, excuse me, in the first place for two primary reasons. The plat does not satisfy the city's own plat approval criteria and the plat does not comply with applicable city codes such as the Bellingham storm water management regulations which for example they are not in compliance with providing flow control for most of the drainage off the property.

And yet the plat was approved. The decision to approve this plat was based on a lot of assumptions and promises that there will be future compliance later to justify the plat being approved. Now, the heart of the matter for this appeal comes down to whether or not the preliminary plat should have been approved despite there not being compliance with many regulations at the time it was approved.

The plat does not comply with important regulations and should not be approved. In our appeal brief, we have an appendix A and an appendix B. And these are large lists of various alarming deferrals and unresolved issues that remain and hung out in the open when this was approved.

We have at least 46 different issues and deferrals listed in those two appendix. An assumption of compliance coming is not a substitute for compliance being demonstrated. And I will repeat that to demonstrate compliance is not the same as saying it will be complied in the future.

I will just give you two examples from our list of deferrals and various ways the plat was not in compliance at approval time. The first one is the topic called storm water modeling. According to the state department of ecology, new development projects are required to use storm water modeling for the design of their storm water.

However, this project and the plat design choose either not to use or did not bother to use ecologies mandatory hydraologic modeling. Modeling was promised by them was said to have been reviewed by staff but it was not provided.

It's a very glaring emission in the project record. Our storm water expert thoroughly reviewed the storm water report and found no evidence of storm water modeling. The applicant's own storm water engineer confirmed that the storm water report did not contain formal modeling and that he does the sizing and the project documents state there has been no hydraologic modeling done for the project.

I I will give you another example of a topic in our list of deferrals and non-compliance. The topic is buffers. We have a graphic here that shows the property with purple buffers drawn in to show where required buffers should be at the edge of the landslide hazard areas.

And as you can see, the property is inundated primarily by landslide hazard areas. The purple area is the buffers that should be applied. The platt is requesting these buffers be allowed to be shrunk to basically nothing because as you can see, building envelopes don't fit in.

The 50-foot buffers are required to prevent slope failure and to protect property and public from debris falling down slopes and cliffs. The 50-foot buffer in regulation is the minimum distance needed to ensure safety.

This plat however wants these 50-foot buffers to be reduced to 10 ft in at least 33 of the 38 lots. This is equivalent to an 80% reduction in all the buffers affecting nearly 90% of the subdivision. [clears throat] The platt has been granted these pencil thin buffers with approval and they do not show that there will be adequate demonstration that public safety has been protected for complex severely sloped properties like this one.

expanding buffers, not diminishing them, is much more prudent and protectively practiced. And finally, we must tell you about some of the harms [clears throat] coming to neighboring properties from the project's poorly managed storm water runoff.

The impact on neighboring properties receiving the subdivision's polluted runoff should have been thoroughly assessed before the plat was approved. It was not. This is a graphic that shows how Mud Bay is encumbered by the railroad causeway preventing Mud Bay from functioning as a free flowing oceanic system.

Keep that in mind, please. There will be harm to Mud Bay from this plat. The project's polluted storm water will be discharged down and above ground pipe, dumping onto the shoreline trail and into mud bay waters.

This frontoff was not adequately addressed or analyzed before platt approval. Comment letters from neighbors living directly west, north, and east of the proper, excuse me, the property have expressed serious concerns about the harms coming from increased storm water runoff.

Storm water just discharged to the south will go to Mud Bay. It is also a significant community concern. By far the most public concern was about the project storm water being discharged through an above ground pipe onto the popular Chuckut Beach Trail and into the mud bore, excuse me, the mud bay shorelines and swimming and waters.

What is little known, I need to say, and highly important and largely skirted by the project documents is the fact that Mudbay, a public trust water, is protected by a powerful tier of longstanding federal, state, and city of Bellingham laws.

Keep that in mind. It's not just the lake down the road. Suffice it to say, Mud Bay is a rare, large, important, and protected aquatic resource special to the city of Bellingham, special to the surrounding community, and special to residents and visitors throughout the Salish Sea.

approving a plat that has not demonstrated compliance with regulations governing storm water discharges into Mud Bay must not be allowed. We ask council to require compliance with applicable code criteria requirements before affirming this plat.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. And next we can move on. Uh is the applicant uh ready to present? Good morning, council members. My name is Tim Shermetzler and I'm an attorney representing the applicant and property owners, the Jones family.

This project is responsible development. Jones family has owned this property for over 60 years. They grew up on this property, living in one of the homes adjacent to it. As children, they explored the site.

They planted trees and they played along the shoreline. And now as adults, the Jones family has undertaken this project to responsibly develop this nearly 38 acre property within the city limits so other families can enjoy living on this property as they did as children.

You might wonder what makes this project responsible development. For starters, the Jones family retained a team of experts who conducted dozens of studies, spending hundreds of hours analyzing the site and planning the 38 lot subdivision that was approved by the hearing examiner following a public hearing last January.

To get to that hearing examiner approval, the Jones family and their consultant team undertook an extensive and comprehensive review of the project, which was closely administered by city staff, including receiving and reviewing over 500 public comments and substantively responding to four requests for additional information from city staff.

And in response, the Jones family made several revisions to this project to address comments from the community and input from city staff over the course of more than three years reviewing this project leading up to the hearing examiner public hearing on the preliminary plat approval and zoning variances.

The resulting project after the extensive review by city staff, a five-day hearing before the hearing examiner with a 28page hearing examiner decision is a 38 lot subdivision that preserves 70 to 80% of the natural tree canopy.

Protects a 200 to 400 ft buffer of forested lands between mud bay and any proposed development. dedicates a public access trail through what is currently private property property improves street frontage and creates sidewalks and meets and exceeds all environmental standards including storm water management.

This project, even though it's located within city limits, has the density of a rural subdivision and yet it incorporates all of the public health, safety, and general welfare elements articulated in RCW7 581710 that one would expect from an urban subdivision.

It is responsible development. Turning to the decision before the city council in today's hearing. This is a closed record hearing and as I'm sure your legal counsel has advised, city council must base your decision on the record established by the hearing examiner proceedings along with the written and oral arguments of the parties.

to overturn the hearing examiner's decision. The appellants PMBC have the burden to prove that the hearing examiner's decision was contrary to law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or inconsistent with the appearance of fairness doctrine.

This is a significant burden for the appellant to overcome because the law requires you to presume the hearing examiner's decision was sufficient, legal, and regular. Set another way, you must give deference to the decision that was made by the hearing examiner following her review of an extensive record and presiding over a public hearing.

When considering the standard and the record before you, I'm confident that the city council will determine to affirm the hearing examiner Rice's thorough decision. Based on the appeal to council and PNBC's brief, the primary thrust of the appellent's argument focuses on issues related to the state environmental policy act SEPA decision that was made by the city and the hearing examiner's denial of PMBC's SEPA appeal.

But those issues are not properly before you. The hearing examiner's decision on the SEPA appeal is the final decision of the city on those issues. Only the preliminary plat approval variances and critical area permit are before council on this appeal.

Appellance materials fail to address the actual appealable issues before the council with any specificity or clarity. This is perhaps not surprising because the record clearly demonstrates that the Jones family has met or exceeded all applicable standards for those permits.

Appellet's briefing further presents inaccurate legal standards for vesting, calculation of lot size under the Bellingham Municipal Code, and the landslide hazard area buffers. As addressed in our briefing, all of these arguments fail, especially when considering the significant burden placed on the appellants.

While the exact membership of PMBC is unknown, many of the people who identified themselves as members during the remarks at the public hearing live in the subdivisions near the project site. These subdivisions are more densely developed than the project, are built much closer to the shorelines, lack public access trails, and provide far fewer environmental protective elements than the preliminary plat proposed by the Jones family.

The Jones family has welcomed community input throughout this project and as I stated earlier has modified the project in response to that input to design a subdivision that will provide for responsible development.

Given this, it's hard to re it's hard to view the continued appeals of a small subset of the community represented by PMBC as anything more than an effort to stop development of this property regardless of the proposal.

This type of not in my backyard appeal is devoid from facts or law. Relies only on distraction and displeasure to stop projects. While appellants disagree with the hearing examiner's decision, appellants disapproval or displeasure cannot be the basis for a permit denial under the law.

The Jones family is confident that the city council will see this appeal for what it is, an effort to stop responsible development. I'd like to close by expressing the Jones family's appreciation for city staff, the hearing examiner, and the broader community members who thoughtfully and thoroughly engaged in the permitting process.

The Jones family asked the city council to deny PMBC's appeal and affirm the hearing examiner's decision on the preliminary plat variances and critical area permit. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. And next up we will have a presentation from the city.

>> Good morning council. James V interim city attorney on behalf of the respondent city of Bellingham. Today I want to start by mentioning that the city council's jurisdiction in this matter is limited to a review of the preliminary plat the subdivision variances and the critical areas permit.

The council has no jurisdiction to review examiner rice's decision denying the sea appeal by PE protect mud bay cliffs as acknowledged by PMDC in their notice of appeal to the city council. The decision regarding the sepha appeal could only be appealed to Walen County Superior Court within 21 days of June 5th.

PMBC did not do that. Instead, PNBC filed this appeal to council, purportedly challenging the preliminary plat and associated decisions. This is simply the wrong forum for PMBC's arguments about environmental impacts from the proposal.

This is a SEIPA appeal that is masquerading as a preliminary plat appeal. Turning to the merits, PNBC has failed to meet its burden in this appeal. Examiner Rice's decision is presumed to be sufficient, legal, and regular under BMC 1.26.020D.

And PNBC has the burden of proving that Examiner Rice made an error under that same provision. PNBC has failed to show that Examiner Rice made an error. There are three different types of error under the the relevant section of the Bellham Municipal Code.

First is that the decision is contrary to law. Second is that the decision is not supported by evidence. And third is that proceedings violated the appearance of fairness. I'm going to take those in reverse order.

The NBC has not argued or alleged that the proceedings before Examiner Rice violated the appearance of fairness. That issue has been waved. Second, with respect to whether or not the decision is supported by evidence, PNBC has failed to challenge a single finding of fact that was made by the hearing examiner in her comprehensive 208 page decision.

I believe hearing examiner made 172 distinct findings of fact, many with subparagraphs as well, and not one single finding of fact was challenged by PNBC in its brief or here today. And third, PNBC has PMBC has cited no law that was violated or interpreted incorrectly by the hearing examiner in granting the preliminary platin associated decision permit decisions and approvals.

What we've heard in what we've read in the brief and we've heard today is simply misstatements of law and misstatements of fact. The code states or the approval of a preliminary plat the following. The approval of a preliminary plat by the hearing examiner is approval of the general acceptability of the plat layout and its relation to adjoining properties.

That is it. That is it for the code in terms of what a preliminary plat is. An engineering detail and fulfillment of conditions of preliminary plat approval remains subject to the approval of the city after final approval of the public facility construction agreements and approval uh and issuance of any other required permits identified within the preliminary approval.

Work on the subdivision improvements may be commenced. All such agreements and permits for later work shall be contingent upon compliance with the conditions specified in the preliminary plat approval, conformance with all applicable development standards, the payment of all fees, and submittal of financial shies as may be required under BMC C.

PNBC's argument on this appeal is essentially the same argument that it made in the SEIPA appeal that was denied by the hearing examiner. In that appeal, PNBC argued that the SEPA threshold decision of an MDNS was erroneous because the city did not have enough information to determine the environmental impact of the proposal related to things like storm water.

Examiner Rice expressly rejected that argument. Now, PNBC comes before council and says that the preliminary plat is erroneous because examiner Rice did not have enough information to determine the impacts, including the environmental impacts of the proposal.

The brief from PNBC includes 11 separate references to the environment or environmental impacts of the proposal. This argument fails for two reasons. Again, council does not have jurisdiction to review the SEAR decision.

And the Bellingham Municipal Code plainly states that the engineering detail that is sought and desired by PMBC will be provided later in the land use development process with a public facilities contract and other permit applications.

Curtain Abbefeld and Jason Porter provided unrebuted testimony on this issue below. PNBC has cited no legal authority for its argument that more detailed engineering information is needed before preliminary plat approval because there is no such legal authority.

The engineering detail and other technical information that they desire will and must be provided later in accordance with the municipal code. The development of this subdivision is contingent on the applicant demonstrating code compliance.

If the applicant cannot demonstrate compliance with all code requirements, then it will either need to modify its proposal to come into compliance or abandon its proposal and start over. In no event will the applicant receive a public facilities contract or other permanent appro approvals without first demonstrating code compliance.

I want to respond briefly to some of the things we heard this morning from Miss Magaki. She talked about the failure of the applicant to comply with city storm water requirements. And I assume that she's referring to chapter 1542 of the Bellingham municipal code.

The hearing examiner made expressed find bindings of fact and conclusions of law on this very issue. And I also want to point out that the stormwater expert referred to by Miss Magaki testified that he was not familiar with chapter 1542 of the Bellingham Municipal Code, our storm water regulations.

He had never read them. He also testified that he is generally unfamiliar with the city's land use development process and he had never heard of a public facilities contract. I also want to speak briefly to the uh geohhazard uh buffers.

It is um not accurate to describe uh the u the proposal as requiring or granting uh a blanket 80% reduction of geohhazard buffers. Uh this was also noted by the hearing examiner in her comprehensive decision.

I'm going to quote from that decision conclusion of law 1.2 2 sub paragraph A2 regarding the allegation in the appellants written materials of cumulative impacts that will result from allowing the GH buffer reductions within the developed portion of the site.

The appellants did not offer testimony or elicit information and cross-examination on this claim and thus are found to have abandoned it. Of note, however, the claim fails to acknowledge the multiple iterations of geotechnical reports and agenda submitted in response to the city's RFIs on this topic.

It's simply not accurate to say that uh those buffers were already granted because again, the applicant needs to demonstrate compliance with their code before receiving a public facilities contract. And also, Miss McGathki referred to the um potential impacts to Mud Bay, which was maybe the most important issue that was discussed during the SEIPA appeal.

Days of testimony were spent the potential impacts to Mud Bay from this proposal. Um the hearing examiner heard from experts uh from the uh from the appellants, from the applicants and the city about potential impacts to Mud Bay and determined that those um that the project as proposed and conditioned would not result in substantial or significant adverse environmental impacts to Mud Bay.

And again, um, I encourage the city council, if you have not already done so, to review the comprehensive decision by Examiner Rice in this matter because every argument that we've heard from PNBC this morning and in its briefing was made and responded to in the appeal below.

Um, I will repeat that the C uh, PMBC has failed to meet its burden in this appeal. The appeal should be denied on jurisdictional grounds because there's a de facto appeal of Examiner Rice's denial of PNBC's SEPA appeal.

But in any event, the council must affirm Examiner Rice's decision conditionally approving the preliminary plat, the subdivision variances, and the critical areas permit because PMBC has failed to demonstrate any error whatsoever by Examiner Rice.

Her decision is supported by the facts and it is consistent with all applicable law. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And then we will move back to the appellent for a fivem minute rebuttal. Thank you.

Couple of quick things to say in response. Protect Mud Bay Cliff's organization and the community members it is representing is is not some small subset. It's not a not in my backyard. I I have, as I said, information we've used from multiple sources.

All of the neighborhood close groups, the areas environmental groups, the a lot of professionals, a lot of people have contributed to the knowledge base that goes into protect mud bay cliffs. I would like you to question how many times have we been discussing sea here?

I don't think so. And we know we are not. The SEPA appeal was decided. This is about the plat. This is about the project alignment, layout and proposed infrastructure. And we are not trying to go backwards with SEPA information in regards to experts.

And again, our base of what we say, we stand up for what we say. A lot of it comes from our two primary experts. Our storm water expert is Dr. Richard her. He is a state and federally recognized expert in storm water management who has contributed to the writing of the state mandatory storm water management rules and regulations.

He is known slouch. He is recognized again and his resume is in our public comments. It's 32 pages long. That's our storm water expert who spent many hours going through all of the technical and reality realities of the proposed storm water.

Our expert you excuse me our expert used for the marine and wetland studies is a federally and state recognized wetlands expert Dr. Lynden Lee and he is used to teach and write wetland and marine manuals that are used in certification classes.

He is no slouch either. So, our knowledge base comes from the top of the experts. I wanted to say that. Okay. PMBC is not asking council to reconsider the hearing done in SEPHA. I wanted you to make sure you knew that.

Deferring mandatory plat designed information is what this is all about. Deferring mandatory plat design information until later in the development review process circumvents meaningful public review.

If the council affirms this public plat approval, the public will be deprived of the opportunity to evaluate and comment on the design changes necessary. The city's six preliminary plat approval criteria are the city's six preliminary plat approval criteria.

And I can recognize right now two of those that are in obvious non-compliance, but my time is too limited right now. Again, this is not a SEPA. It is a plat appeal. Keep that in mind. Thank >> one minute.

Okay. Um on a personal basis, I would like to just to be aware that the new development review process that the public is required to participate in is a difficult process for the public to collaborate with and you need to know that we have been spending five years now as a volunteer group with topshelf experts that we could afford to pursue this process and we are wellversed in the fact that the sea appeal was the sea appeal.

It has been determined and we are now into the plat appeal. >> 30 seconds. >> Okay. Anything else? I think we're good. Okay. We hope that you will review the plat and realize it needs more compliance before approved, not deferral with we will promise to do this.

>> Thank you. The >> public wants reassurance. Thank you. >> Thank you. I will now uh defer to our legal council, Mr. Carmichael. Is there anything that you'd like to add about this process before we uh adjourn to the closed hearing?

>> Uh thank you, um Chair Huffman, U. Robert Carmichael, attorney representing Bellingham City Council on this matter. uh the council will be uh adjourning um to consider the record, the briefs, the argument.

They will not be making a decision uh at the end of uh of this hearing today, but they will be deliberating uh and it will be a continuation of this public meeting. However, I do not expect and I I'm sure the council does not expect any action any further action to be taken at the conclusion of its deliberation this morning.

So, there will be another uh meeting scheduled um I would expect at which the decision will be announced and it will be supported by a written uh decision and uh findings of fact and conclusions of law from the council.

Um but for now the proceeding uh in terms of the the public input is is uh uh going to be adjourned um while the council deliberates and and then the meeting will be adjourned at the end of that deliberation with no action.

>> Thank you Mr. Carmichael. Uh I used the wrong words adjourned to the to the close session is what we will be doing. Um and again I I wanted to repeat because I know this all is is a bit complicated for all of us.

Um the council decision in this closed record appeal must be based on one the record established in the hearing examiner's proceedings, two written written argument submitted by the parties and three oral argument.

The city council decision must also be based on all applicable city codes governing the application in this appeal. Um and the council members are acting in strictly a quasi judicial capacity. So we have a a fairly narrow focus here um with this hearing in this decision.

Um and and again as as Mr. Carmichael mentioned, we are not likely to have a decision after this closed session. So um you don't need to wait in chambers. um we might be a long time uh deliberating um and so I appreciate that you all are here to watch this process certainly is an interesting one um and thank you for for staying informed about about what we are doing here so with that we'll go ahead and adjourn and move to our closed session thank you so much everybody Okay.