# City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner Review: Mill Reserve Development Sparks Safety Debate The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner chamber filled with residents on the evening of September 10th, 2025, for what would become a three-hour marathon session addressing three separate land use matters. While two routine right-of-way vacation requests proceeded without controversy, it was the third item—the Mill Reserve Cluster Preliminary Plat and Land Division Variance—that drew neighborhood concerns and impassioned testimony about pedestrian safety on Mill Avenue. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over the hybrid in-person and virtual hearing, with the Mill Reserve project commanding the most attention from Happy Valley neighborhood residents who traveled to City Hall to voice their concerns about a 16-unit townhouse development proposed for 2706 Mill Avenue. ## The Mill Reserve Development Proposal The Mill Reserve project represents a significant infill development on a 4.5-acre site in the Happy Valley neighborhood, one of Bellingham's densest residential areas. ABT Consulting's Ali Taishi, representing the applicant, presented the proposal for 16 individual lots—15 featuring new infill townhouse units and one retaining the existing single-family home in the property's northwest corner. The development leverages the city's cluster bonus provision, which allows up to 50% additional density when at least half the units qualify as infill housing. While the site's underlying zoning would typically permit only 11 units, the cluster bonus enables the proposed 16 units because 15 of them meet infill housing criteria. "The project is proposed on the western one-third of the property," Taishi explained, showing aerial imagery to the hearing examiner. "Townhouse units, which means they're attached on one or more walls in groups of 2, 3, and 4 units." The development features a one-way loop road providing fire and garbage access, with a central common open space area that includes underground stormwater detention infrastructure. The project's design reflects careful consideration of the site's environmental constraints. The eastern two-thirds of the property contains wetlands and buffers associated with the adjacent Conley Creek Nature Area, requiring the developer to navigate complex critical areas regulations. A 150-foot wetland buffer typically applies, but the project proposes a 25% buffer reduction to accommodate the development footprint, with extensive on-site mitigation including wetland and buffer enhancement plantings. Senior Planner Kathy Bell confirmed that the administrative design review and critical areas permits had already been approved through a consolidated permit process issued September 3rd. "The consolidated permits are Type 1 and Type 2 applications," Bell explained. "The applicant chose not to consolidate those with the hearing examiner decisions, so the matter before us this evening is the preliminary plat and the land division variance." ## The Controversial Variance Request The heart of the evening's debate centered on the applicant's request for a land division variance. City code requires all abutting rights-of-way to be improved to three-quarter standard, which would mean extending Mill Avenue eastward through wetlands to the property's eastern boundary within the Conley Creek preserve. Taishi argued this requirement makes no environmental or practical sense. "The code would require this road to be extended all the way through here, and as you can see, there's a very large wetland in this area," he said, pointing to aerial imagery. "The road, the right-of-way dead ends into a preserved area that the city has, and the right-of-way runs through a very large, valuable, critical area." The variance request seeks to terminate road improvements at the development entrance rather than extending through environmentally sensitive areas. Taishi outlined two key justifications: unique circumstances created by the wetlands, topography, and dead-end nature of the right-of-way, and public benefit arguments that preserving the Conley Creek area outweighs any advantage from road construction that "really serves no life safety or circulation purpose." "Building a road into that that really serves no life safety or circulation purpose, but contrarily fills wetlands, generates a ton of impacts, breaks up a habitat corridor, really is not in the public interest," Taishi testified. "It does not serve any public benefit whatsoever." City staff supported the variance request. Bell confirmed that "for the same reasons why we're not recommending the trail be constructed there, we don't believe that Mill Avenue should be constructed. It is a street to nowhere." ## Off-Site Infrastructure Improvements: The 27th Street Sidewalk As partial mitigation for not extending Mill Avenue, the applicant proposed constructing approximately 550 feet of new sidewalk infrastructure: 200 feet along Mill Avenue from the project entrance west to 27th Street, and 350 feet north along 27th Street to connect with existing sidewalk at Happy Valley Elementary School. This off-site improvement sparked considerable debate about whether resources would be better spent on Mill Avenue itself. Taishi characterized the 27th Street sidewalk as "voluntary," explaining that while code doesn't explicitly require such off-site improvements for a project of this size, one subdivision criteria requires "adequate provisions for... sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for pedestrians, including students who walk to and from school." The proposed sidewalk would include curb, gutter, storm drainage infrastructure, and a five-foot-wide concrete path set back from the curb with a planter strip. It would connect to the school's existing sidewalk network, though testimony revealed that students aren't encouraged to use the school's east entrance where the new sidewalk would terminate. ## Public Safety Concerns Dominate Testimony When Hearing Examiner Rice opened the public comment period, a clear theme emerged: Mill Avenue desperately needs pedestrian infrastructure, and the proposed 27th Street sidewalk wouldn't address the safety problems that will be exacerbated by adding 15 new households to the area. Sarah Longman, who lives between the proposed development and 24th Street, set the tone. "I live at Mill, in between the proposed development and 24th Street. Incidentally, the only section on Mill that has sidewalk, which we put in when we put in our development." Her cohousing community had been told their sidewalk "would connect in the future to future development." Longman argued that putting sidewalk on 27th Street rather than Mill Avenue made no safety sense. "The sidewalk added on 27th will benefit no one. The road is already safe, there are four homes at the end, and there will be no increased traffic. So if this is meant to improve public safety, wouldn't it make sense to put the sidewalk that would do the most good for public safety?" Jennifer Tennyson, a mother of three living at 2404 Mill Avenue, provided detailed context about the area's pedestrian challenges. "The Mill Reserve project has been proposed in Happy Valley, which, to my knowledge, is the densest neighborhood in the city. Additionally, there are several schools within a half mile of the project... Happy Valley Elementary, Blue Heron Montessori Preschool, Cascades Montessori Middle School, Blossom Daycare, Sehome High School, and Western Washington University." Tennyson explained that "kids ages 3 to 21 years old and their parents walk along Mill Avenue daily to get to any of these schools, or to get to the school buses and the city buses that pick up on 24th." She submitted video evidence of dangerous conditions during peak traffic times, when children "must walk in a street with ditches along much of either side." The school access issue proved particularly complex. While the proposed sidewalk would technically connect to Happy Valley Elementary, Tennyson pointed out that "students that walk to school are not allowed to enter the back of the school. Students are required to walk or bike to the front entrance of the school for drop-off and pickup, which is on 24th." ## Traffic Volume and Infrastructure Concerns Multiple speakers emphasized how the Mill Avenue corridor's unique configuration amplifies traffic impacts. Helen Merrill, who lives at the western border of the proposed development, provided historical context: "My family and I moved to Mill in 1996. At the time, there were 15 homes between 24th and the dead-end portion. Currently, there are 25 households, and with the new development, that will bump it up to 40." Tennyson explained the traffic doubling effect: "The particular stretch of Mill has no outlet, and all traffic must exit and enter at 24th and Mill. So for this reason, the increased traffic volume coming in and out effectively doubles, because all departures must drive Mill Avenue twice." The existing traffic challenges go beyond residential vehicles. Wendy Scherer, attending after a Happy Valley Neighborhood Association board meeting with the elementary school's new principal, described the complex mix of vehicles using Mill Avenue: "The storage area that's owned by the Upper Skagit Tribe is also used as a U-Haul rental area, and so you've got trucks, and also we have the school buses going down Mill every afternoon and every morning at 7:30, and we also have the food trucks that come from the school district, as well as all the trucks that service the storage area." Mary Jo Rakes, who lives across from Happy Valley Elementary, brought a trauma care nurse's perspective to the safety discussion. "Having worked in trauma care, I worked at Harborview, so I know what pedestrian injuries are when they're hit by trucks and buses and cars, and it's not pretty." She described witnessing "two buses on this 60-foot road, no sidewalks and ditches. Where do those little kids go?" ## Neighborhood Character and Trail Connectivity Beyond immediate safety concerns, speakers addressed broader questions about neighborhood connectivity and quality of life. Alex McLean, Happy Valley Neighborhood Association President, brought 30 years of local residence and extensive city committee experience to his testimony. "I understand the synergy between having a functional, walkable, livable neighborhood and the importance of connectivity for infrastructure, multimodal or otherwise," McLean said. "We have the highest percentage of missing sidewalks, missing crosswalks, missing trail connections, and we've confirmed that multiple times, because we've been heavily engaged with their update process." McLean emphasized the strategic importance of the adjacent Conley Creek Nature Area. "The only connectivity on that Conley Creek natural area is the McKenzie route that we are theoretically targeting for a connection. The reason the Neighborhood Association wanted to connect Mill was to get more permeability and get more access to this one main north-south trail corridor. It's the thumping artery of greenery and access for pedestrians." The project includes a proposed trail easement condition that would create a public connection from Mill Avenue through the development to Varsity Place, potentially linking to existing trail networks. However, this would require cooperation from neighboring property owners for the southern segment. Scherer, who noted her role in preserving the Conley Creek Nature Area in the 1980s, emphasized connectivity's importance for the area's growing and aging population. "When I came here 40 years ago, there were 3,000 people, now there's over 7,000 in our neighborhood. So, that connection for people to be able to go to the McKenzie Street entryway to the Connelly Creek Nature area" remains crucial for residents ranging from university students to longtime neighborhood elders. ## City and Applicant Responses: Nexus and Proportionality City Planning staff acknowledged Mill Avenue's infrastructure deficiencies while defending their recommendation. Bell explained the legal framework constraining the city's ability to require off-site improvements. "City staff discussed whether or not this project had the nexus and proportionality to require off-site improvements. And from a SEPA threshold perspective, we could not find any grounds to require those off-site improvements." The "nexus and proportionality" concept, Bell clarified in response to Hearing Examiner Rice's question, means "the percentage of impact for the low number of traffic trips and pedestrian trips is not proportionate, or doesn't have a nexus to the full length and the full amount of improvements that would be required to provide sidewalks along the full length of Mill." Bell also revealed that when Happy Valley Elementary was rebuilt, "the school district had SEPA authority. We did not have any authority or ability to ask them to do the mitigation, any mitigation. Had we, the mitigation would have looked at sidewalks on 24th Street, potentially." The applicant's response emphasized broader infrastructure planning context. Taishi presented City IQ mapping showing numerous planned transportation projects throughout Happy Valley, including a recently completed trail connection that would link to the proposed 27th Street sidewalk. "What we can expect is that over time, the city, with public resources, will build out this infrastructure to serve this neighborhood." Taishi outlined multiple mechanisms for future sidewalk completion: the city's six-year transportation improvement program, annual community streets funding, and the recently adopted middle housing ordinance requiring sidewalk improvements for any new development regardless of size. The project would also contribute $32,000 in traffic impact fees that could support area transportation improvements. ## The Outside-the-Box Question Near the hearing's end, Hearing Examiner Rice posed an unexpected question that cut to the heart of the community's concerns. Noting that "everybody agrees that sidewalk would be more useful on Mill than on 27th," she asked whether the applicant could "put the same distance of sidewalk on Mill that you're proposing to put on 27th?" Taishi acknowledged it was "physically possible" but would create code compliance issues since it wouldn't provide the direct school connection that subdivision criteria appear to require. "It would make the project less consistent with the BMC criteria in Title 23 that I referenced, because we wouldn't be providing a direct, safe route. There would be a gap." The exchange highlighted the tension between community needs and regulatory frameworks, with Rice noting that "code doesn't like outside the box very much." ## Decision Timeline and Next Steps Hearing Examiner Rice closed the record with exhibits including the staff report, application materials, public comments, transportation concurrency certificate, public notices, and applicant trail graphics. The record remains open through September 12th for post-hearing comments from anyone who experienced technology difficulties participating in the hybrid hearing. If no additional comments are received, Rice's decision on both the preliminary plat and land division variance will be due September 26th. Should post-hearing comments be submitted, staff and applicant responses would be due September 16th, with the final decision deadline extending to September 30th. The hearing exemplified the complex balance cities must strike between encouraging infill development and ensuring adequate infrastructure supports new residents. While the proposal appears to meet technical code requirements, the community testimony revealed significant concerns about whether regulatory frameworks adequately address real-world safety impacts in neighborhoods experiencing rapid densification. The Mill Reserve project sits at the intersection of multiple city priorities: environmental protection through wetland preservation, housing production through infill development, and neighborhood livability through pedestrian infrastructure. How Hearing Examiner Rice weighs these competing considerations in her written decision will likely influence future development patterns in one of Bellingham's most rapidly evolving neighborhoods. The evening concluded with residents having made their concerns clearly known, city staff defending their technical analysis, and the applicant demonstrating compliance with existing regulations while acknowledging the broader infrastructure challenges their project exists within. Rice's forthcoming decision will determine whether current regulatory frameworks adequately balance development approval criteria with community safety and livability concerns.

### Meeting Overview The Bellingham Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on September 10, 2025, to review the Mill Reserve Cluster Preliminary Plat and Land Division Variance applications. The proposed development would create 16 residential lots on a 2.75-acre property at 2706 Mill Avenue, utilizing density bonuses for infill housing while requesting a variance to avoid extending street improvements into sensitive wetland areas. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Cluster Development:** A subdivision design that groups homes on smaller lots while preserving larger areas of open space, allowing for density bonuses when certain criteria are met. **Infill Housing:** New residential units built within existing developed areas, designed to increase density while maintaining neighborhood character and utilizing existing infrastructure. **Land Division Variance:** A legal exception to standard subdivision requirements, in this case allowing the developer to avoid extending Mill Avenue improvements through wetland areas. **Buffer Reduction:** The legally permitted decrease in the standard protective distance between development and sensitive environmental areas like wetlands. **Density Bonus:** Additional housing units allowed beyond base zoning when projects include specific benefits like affordable housing or infill design. **Transportation Concurrency:** A requirement ensuring adequate transportation infrastructure exists to serve new development without creating safety hazards or unacceptable service levels. **SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act):** The environmental review process required for development projects to assess potential impacts on air, water, land, and wildlife. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | Hearing Examiner (Contract Attorney) | | Kathy Bell | Senior Planner, City of Bellingham | | Ali Taishi | Applicant Agent, ABT Consulting | | Sarah Longman | Mill Avenue Resident, Public Commentor | | Jennifer Tennyson | Mill Avenue Resident, Public Commentor | | Wendy Scherer | Neighborhood Advocate, Public Commentor | | Alex McLean | Happy Valley Neighborhood Association President | ### Background Context This hearing represents a complex balancing act between housing density goals and neighborhood safety concerns in Happy Valley, Bellingham's most densely populated area. The proposed development sits at the intersection of multiple community needs: addressing housing shortages through infill development, protecting critical wetland areas, and providing safe pedestrian infrastructure in a neighborhood that serves several schools and thousands of residents. The controversy centers on competing visions for infrastructure improvements. While the developer proposes building sidewalks on 27th Street to connect to Happy Valley Elementary School, neighbors argue that safety improvements are desperately needed on Mill Avenue itself, where the development would generate new traffic. The debate reflects broader citywide challenges about how to fund and prioritize pedestrian infrastructure as neighborhoods densify without adequate supporting amenities. The environmental dimension adds another layer of complexity, as the property contains significant wetlands that are part of the larger Conley Creek Nature Area. The requested variance would allow development to proceed without extending street improvements through these sensitive areas, but neighbors and city staff are simultaneously discussing alternative trail connections that could improve public access to the nature preserve. ### What Happened — The Short Version The hearing examined proposals for 16 residential units on Mill Avenue, including 15 new infill townhouses and retention of an existing home. City staff recommended approval of both the subdivision and the variance request, noting that critical areas and design review permits had already been issued through a separate administrative process. The applicant's presentation focused on project details: clustered townhouse units, stormwater management through an underground vault, off-site sidewalk improvements on 27th Street, and the variance justification for avoiding wetland impacts. Key infrastructure elements include gravity sewer service through an easement to a neighboring property and a proposed public trail connection through the development site. Public testimony was overwhelmingly focused on pedestrian safety concerns on Mill Avenue. Multiple residents described dangerous conditions where children, pets, and adults must walk in the roadway alongside school buses, delivery trucks, and other vehicles. They argued that new development generating additional traffic should improve Mill Avenue sidewalks rather than building sidewalks on the less-impacted 27th Street. The hearing examiner asked detailed questions about proposed improvements, trail connections, environmental mitigation, and the possibility of alternative sidewalk locations. Both city staff and the applicant reserved the right to respond to public comments after testimony concluded, acknowledging community safety concerns while defending the proposed approach based on code requirements and environmental constraints. ### What to Watch Next - **Decision Deadline:** September 26, 2025, if no additional public comment is received; September 30, 2025, if post-hearing comments require responses - **Record Closure:** September 12, 2025, for post-hearing written comments from people who experienced technology difficulties - **Implementation Timeline:** If approved, final plat approval would require compliance with all conditions, including trail easement arrangements and infrastructure improvements - **Broader Policy Implications:** This case may influence how the city balances infill development goals with neighborhood infrastructure needs in other Happy Valley projects ---

**Q:** How many total residential units would the Mill Reserve project create? **A:** 16 units total - 15 new infill townhouses plus retention of the existing home on the property. **Q:** What type of density bonus is being utilized for this project? **A:** A cluster bonus allowing up to 50% additional density when at least 50% of units are infill housing, providing 5 bonus units beyond the base zoning allowance of 11. **Q:** What is the main reason for requesting the land division variance? **A:** To avoid extending Mill Avenue street improvements through wetland areas and the Conley Creek Nature preserve, which would create environmental impacts and serve no circulation purpose. **Q:** Where would the proposed off-site sidewalk improvements be located? **A:** 200 feet of sidewalk along Mill Avenue to the project frontage, plus 350 feet of sidewalk along the west side of 27th Street connecting to Happy Valley Elementary School. **Q:** Who is Sharon Rice and what is her role in this process? **A:** A contract attorney serving as Bellingham's Hearing Examiner, responsible for reviewing evidence and issuing recommendations or decisions on land use applications. **Q:** What is the significance of the September 28, 2025, expiration of the transportation concurrency certificate? **A:** The certificate remains valid for the entire application process as long as a complete application was submitted before expiration, which occurred in this case. **Q:** How will stormwater be managed for this development? **A:** Through a buried stormwater vault beneath the central open space, with treated water discharged via dispersion trench into the wetland buffer areas. **Q:** What environmental mitigation is proposed for buffer impacts? **A:** Approximately 15,300 square feet of buffer enhancement and wetland restoration, plus two rows of Nootka rose plantings as natural barriers and a permanent conservation easement. **Q:** What was the main concern raised by public commentors? **A:** Pedestrian safety on Mill Avenue, where increased traffic from 16 households would worsen already dangerous conditions for children and residents walking without sidewalks. **Q:** How many people live in the Happy Valley neighborhood currently? **A:** According to testimony, the neighborhood has grown from 3,000 people 40 years ago to over 7,000 residents today. **Q:** What schools would serve residents of this development? **A:** Happy Valley Elementary School, Fairhaven Middle School, and Sehome High School, with additional private schools nearby including Blue Heron Montessori and Cascades Montessori. **Q:** Why won't the school district provide bus service to these students? **A:** Students live within the one-mile walk zone, so district policy does not require transportation services to elementary or high school. **Q:** What is unique about the sewer service arrangement for this project? **A:** Sewer lines extend south through an easement across neighboring property to reach existing public mains, allowing gravity flow due to topography. **Q:** How much will the developer contribute in traffic impact fees? **A:** $32,000, which should be spent on transportation improvements including multimodal infrastructure that benefits the project area. **Q:** What trail connection is being proposed as a condition of approval? **A:** A public easement through the development connecting Mill Avenue to Varsity Place, potentially providing access to the Conley Creek Nature Area trail system. **Q:** When would construction begin if the project is approved? **A:** The timeline for construction was not specified in the hearing, as final plat approval and compliance with all conditions would be required first. **Q:** What is the zoning designation for the Mill Reserve property? **A:** Residential Single-Family, Area 7 of the Happy Valley neighborhood, with a cluster density allowance of 15,000 square feet. **Q:** How many public comments were submitted before the hearing? **A:** 21 individual emails plus one handwritten letter, though some individuals submitted multiple comments. **Q:** What happens if the hearing examiner approves the variance and preliminary plat? **A:** The applicant can proceed with final plat approval, but must satisfy all conditions including infrastructure improvements, trail easements, and compliance with previously issued permits. **Q:** What was Alex McLean's main message about Happy Valley development? **A:** That the neighborhood supports increased density but needs supporting infrastructure improvements, particularly connectivity and pedestrian amenities, to be successful. ---