City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner

The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on a controversial 33-unit housing development proposed for 331 Chuckanut Drive North. The project, known as SUB20240037, seeks approval for a cluster subdivision that would place townhomes and cottages on a 3.9-acre former fill site adjacent to Fairhaven Park and a mobile home park. The proposal has generated significant community concern, particularly around stormwater management and flooding risks. The site sits in a frequently flooded area and contains wetlands and streams that would require complex drainage rerouting. The applicant's plan would intercept an existing culvert system and redirect it to connect with the Chuck Drive North storm main rather than continuing its current path through private property to the north. Public testimony revealed deep skepticism about the adequacy of stormwater infrastructure, with residents citing climate change concerns and pointing to existing drainage problems in the area. Several commenters challenged the technical calculations presented by the applicant, particularly the narrow margin between projected flood volumes and existing pipe capacity. Others raised concerns about construction impacts, traffic congestion near Fairhaven Middle School, and the lack of affordable housing in the development. City staff defended the preliminary approval process, emphasizing that detailed engineering review would occur later during construction permitting. They noted that the project met preliminary plat criteria and included wetland restoration that would improve current degraded conditions on the former fill site. The applicant team provided detailed hydrological analysis showing compliance with 100-year and 500-year flood standards, though public commenters questioned whether historical precipitation models adequately account for future climate impacts. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice will issue a written decision within 15 business days, with the record remaining open for two additional business days to accommodate potential technology-related public comment submissions.

The hearing was for public input only - no formal votes were taken. The matter under consideration was: - **SUB20240037 Preliminary Plat Application** - A cluster subdivision for 33 residential units (21 townhomes, 12 cottages) with 10-unit density bonus - **Staff Recommendation:** Approval with conditions - **Decision Pending:** Hearing Examiner will issue written decision by December 16, 2025 (or December 18 if post-hearing comments are received) - **Related Approvals Already Issued:** Type 2 Consolidated Permit for critical areas and design review (issued October 1, 2025, no appeals filed) - **Key Technical Requirement:** All recommendations from Geotechnical Engineering Report (reference correction needed from Attachment D2 to Attachment B, Exhibit J)

**Sharon Rice (Hearing Examiner), on due process:** "I have not prejudged the facts of this case. So I've come here to hear all the evidence." **Kathy Bell (City Staff), on project history:** "This site really does have a unique at least it borders a unique history, and unfortunately, it went from... well, I guess it's maybe it's not unfortunately, but it went from Uncle Tom's Cabins to now what is often referred to in Bellingham as the Lumpy Dumps." **Nick Palowicz (Applicant), on drainage solution:** "You can't keep sending water downstream to a drainage system that's not documented, that's draining water from multiple properties onto private property, not any easement. You don't know who's maintaining it, you don't know if it's in good condition." **Colin Van Slyke (Wetland Biologist), on site restoration:** "Left in its current state, I don't expect much natural succession to occur there. I think just will continue to exist in its degraded state, which is limited in species diversity and habitat quality." **Christopher Grannis (Resident), on drainage capacity:** "There's not a lot of difference between 110 and 105, and when they went to the 500-year flood, it still didn't change. And if it's any more than 110, the culvert is overwhelmed." **Linda Lee (Resident), on climate adaptation:** "The City of Bellingham erred back in 1991, burying little Larrabee Creek and stuffing it into a culvert. It was a move that would be illegal today." **Dick Farnell (Resident), on engineering concerns:** "The flows calculated for a 100-year flood were like the previous testifiers said 105 CFS cubic feet per second, 105 CFS versus 110 CFS capacity of the Chuckanut existing Chuckanut stormwater drain. That's not much of a safety factor." **Joe Boyd (Resident), on flooding concerns:** "According to Redfin and Zillow, our area will be underwater in 30 years, that whole area. Gonna be a lake."

## Meeting Overview The Bellingham Hearing Examiner convened at 7:00 PM on November 19, 2025, to consider file number SUB20240037, known as the Plat of 331 Chukanut Drive. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over the hybrid public hearing, with participants both in person and via Zoom. The hearing addressed a preliminary plat application for a 33-unit cluster subdivision on a 3.9-acre site that had previously served as a permitted fill site in the 1990s. Present were city staff including Senior Planner Kathy Bell, Development Services Manager Kurt Nabbefeld, Planner Ryan Nelson, and Project Engineer Paul Randall-Grutter from Public Works. The applicant team included civil engineer Nick Palowicz and wetland biologist Colin Van Slyke. Several residents from the surrounding neighborhood, particularly the Robin Lane Mobile Home Park, testified about concerns regarding stormwater drainage and flooding impacts. This hearing was notable for the extensive technical discussion of stormwater management and the passionate community engagement around flooding concerns in an area with known drainage challenges and a high water table. ## The 331 Chukanut Drive Development Proposal The project involves developing a vacant 3.9-acre site at 331 Chukanut Drive North with 33 residential units through the city's cluster subdivision process. The proposal includes 21 townhouse units in five buildings and 12 cottage units, representing infill development with a 10-unit density bonus permitted under city code. City Senior Planner Kathy Bell explained the regulatory pathway: "This proposal requires three separate land use applications, two of which have already been issued through a consolidated permit, and those were the critical areas permit and the design review permit." The consolidated permit was issued on October 1, 2025, with no appeals received. The preliminary plat application requires hearing examiner approval through this public hearing process. The site's unique history as a permitted fill site from the 1990s creates both challenges and opportunities. Bell noted: "We don't have a lot of fill sites in the city. This is one of only a few that I can think of, so they're a challenge when we look at redevelopment opportunities, but they are also an opportunity." The existing house and detached accessory building would be demolished to make way for the new development. Access would be provided through a single driveway off Chukanut Drive North, connecting to a private lane system serving all units. Each unit would have two parking spaces, with additional guest parking provided over a proposed stormwater vault. ## Critical Areas and Environmental Restoration Wetland biologist Colin Van Slyke provided detailed testimony about the site's critical areas, which include two wetlands and three seasonal streams. Wetland A along the southern boundary is a Category 4 wetland requiring a 50-foot buffer, while Wetland B on the eastern boundary is a Category 3 wetland with a 150-foot buffer requirement. "There are 3 streams in the vicinity of the project property," Van Slyke explained. "We've noted them as streams 1 through 3. All 3 have been determined to be type NS, or non-fish-bearing seasonal streams that require 50-foot buffers per COB code." The property also abuts Fairhaven Park, which qualifies as a biodiversity area and priority habitat under state definitions. The project proposes significant habitat restoration to offset critical area impacts. Van Slyke described the current degraded conditions: "The site is predominantly dominated by young red alders and cottonwoods. A total of 140 of those are proposed to be removed, and the restoration Planting Plan proposes 320 trees, primarily native... all native, but primarily conifers, longer-lived species." The restoration plan involves removing fill material, regrading to natural slopes, importing compost-amended topsoil, and establishing native vegetation. "We are proposing 55,442 square feet of temporary wetland buffer impact," Van Slyke testified, explaining that current conditions dominated by invasive species require extensive regrading to create suitable growing conditions for native plants. All critical areas and enhanced buffers would be protected under a conservation easement held by the city, with five years of monitoring and maintenance required to ensure project success. ## The Central Stormwater Controversy The most contentious aspect of the hearing centered on the project's approach to managing an existing culverted stream that currently drains through the property from south to north. This 24-inch culvert carries stormwater from Robin Lane and other upstream areas across the development site to private property to the north, eventually reaching Padden Creek. Civil engineer Nick Palowicz explained the engineering challenge: "If you think about this from an engineering perspective, if you're working on this plat, you can't keep sending water downstream to a drainage system that's not documented, that's draining water from multiple properties onto private property, not any easement. You don't know who's maintaining it, you don't know if it's in good condition." The proposed solution involves intercepting the existing culvert and redirecting it to connect with the 48-inch storm main in Chukanut Drive North. Palowicz emphasized the elevation advantages: "The storm main elevation, Chukanut Drive North, is at elevation 80, approximately... The elevation of the mobile home park to the south at 425 Chukanut Drive North is about elevation 90... And then the stream, as it's passing through our property, is even lower, about elevation 83." The applicant conducted extensive downstream analysis, modeling both 100-year and 500-year flood scenarios. "I've done a pretty detailed... a very detailed analysis of the downstream drainage capacities," Palowicz testified, referencing a comprehensive report in the record that analyzes every pipe segment in the connected system. City Project Engineer Paul Randall-Grutter endorsed the approach, stating that the analysis shows adequate capacity and that moving from an informal, unmaintained system to a documented, city-maintained system represents a significant improvement. ## Community Flooding Concerns Residents from the Robin Lane Mobile Home Park and surrounding area expressed deep concerns about flooding risks, drawing on lived experience with the area's drainage challenges. The mobile home park sits at a lower elevation than the proposed development, making residents particularly vulnerable to any changes in drainage patterns. Joe Boyd, a longtime Bellingham resident, testified: "I've lived in Bellingham since 1973... I stated my concerns when they had the development up there by Galbraith Mountain, with Chris Pence, and I was pretty much just said, yeah, we'll look into it. And then, unfortunately, my concerns became real, and my neighbor had about a $15,000 bill from water damage." Boyd highlighted current traffic and flooding issues: "My main concern right now is traffic... At 3, 3.15, whenever school gets out, there is a complete line of cars, going out from 12th Street to Old Fairhaven Parkway." He also noted persistent water issues: "I laughingly call our parking strip, Lake Chukanut, because it's wet all the time." Elsa King, a 29-year resident of Iris Lane, provided detailed technical criticism of the drainage analysis. She challenged basic assumptions about the drainage basin, arguing that the project surveys underestimate the water volumes involved. "Project surveys assume that Basin 1A flows into the Chukanut storm drain as planned. However, I can attest to the fact that lack of maintenance of the ditches that parallel Chukanut Drive from Viewcrest South... all these actual scenarios caused the rainwater to flow into the historic creek and not the Chukanut storm drain." King questioned the accuracy of the engineering data, noting: "Multiple times, they reference the culvert that drains it as 24 inches, when in fact, it's 36 inches. They make projections about the water that they'll be dealing with in the development as being from Basin 2, a mere 23 acres, when the majority of the volume that they haven't even put in their calculations is coming from Basin 1A." ## Technical Disputes and Engineering Responses Several residents raised specific technical challenges to the applicant's drainage calculations. Christopher Grannis, who had submitted detailed written comments, focused on flow capacity margins: "The flows calculated for a 100-year flood, were like the previous testifiers said 105 CFS cubic feet per second, 105 CFS versus 110 CFS capacity of the existing Chukanut stormwater drain. That's not much of a safety factor." Dick Farnell, a retired environmental engineer living in the mobile home park, supported these concerns: "What was disturbing, however, was that the flows calculated for a 100-year flood, were like the previous testifiers said 105 CFS... versus 110 CFS capacity... That's not much of a safety factor. I did a quick back of the envelope. That's 4% difference. That wasn't giving me a real high comfort factor." The applicant team responded by emphasizing the additional 500-year modeling they conducted beyond code requirements. Palowicz explained: "When the city staff sent their RFI, it was obvious this is a critical issue, so I did a much more detailed analysis... That goes... that's as detailed as an analysis that you can possibly do... And that's the point where I actually went from doing a 100-year flow rate capacity analysis to also doing the 500." Regarding elevation disputes, Palowicz clarified: "The elevation of the storm drain... CityIQ is a very helpful resource, but in terms of looking at the exact elevations of pipes, an actual site survey from a licensed surveyor is much more accurate and reliable than CityIQ GIS." ## Climate Change and Future Planning Multiple speakers raised concerns about climate change impacts on precipitation patterns and the adequacy of current engineering standards. Linda Lee testified: "I've been watching over the years as climate-driven extreme weather wreaks havoc around the globe. How cities and states and countries struggle to survive the extreme rainfall that's becoming more common." Lee advocated for natural solutions: "What's becoming more and more clear is that the only way to slow and manage too much water at one time is with land. The earth soaks up and disperses the water slowly." She criticized the historical decision to culvert the creek: "The City of Bellingham erred back in 1991. Burying little Larrabee Creek and stuffing it into a culvert. It was a move that would be illegal today." Grannis referenced extreme weather events elsewhere: "I looked up rainfall records in Bellingham. The most rainfall that ever happened in Bellingham in one day was 3.3 inches. November 14th, there was 2.8 inches. Six weeks ago, in the state of Veracruz, Mexico, it was 21 inches of rain." City staff acknowledged climate concerns while defending current standards. Planner Ryan Nelson explained: "We have an adopted 100-year storm event that we effectively apply to our applicants and ensure that they are meeting that standard. The 500-year model, in my mind, is really that kind of larger climate change, increased precipitation events." Project Engineer Randall-Grutter affirmed confidence in existing standards: "We have increased projections from what our rainfall is now and what it will be in the future, and we feel that... I feel that that is adequate to predict what it will be in the future." ## Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts While drainage dominated the discussion, several residents raised concerns about traffic impacts from the 33-unit development. The area already experiences significant congestion during school hours due to nearby Fairhaven Middle School. City staff explained that the project falls below the threshold requiring a traffic impact analysis. Senior Planner Bell testified: "The City of Bellingham has a threshold for when requiring a traffic impact analysis of when a project generates 50 or more PM peak trips... And in this particular case, there would not be enough PM peak trips in order to require traffic impact analysis." Residents questioned whether existing congestion should trigger additional analysis. Bell clarified: "We do have the discretion to do that if there are known issues, and that was not required from the Public Works Department to request that study." Steve Wilson raised concerns about construction impacts: "I'm concerned about the impacts of moving... It looks like about 3 acres of that is gonna have to be removed down to 10 feet. That's a massive amount of land... Where are those trucks gonna go? I have a feeling they're not gonna go through Fairhaven... And I have a feeling that they're gonna be routed on Old Samish Road and 30th Street in order to get to I-5. That would be unacceptable." ## City Staff Analysis and Recommendations City staff provided a comprehensive analysis supporting approval of the preliminary plat. Senior Planner Bell walked through the decision criteria, emphasizing that the project meets all applicable standards for cluster subdivisions and density bonuses. "City staff believes the applicant has met the burden, and they do meet the decision criteria for a cluster preliminary plat, including the density bonus," Bell concluded. She noted one minor correction to a condition reference regarding which geotechnical report should be cited. The staff analysis emphasized that many detailed engineering questions would be resolved during later permitting phases. Bell explained: "The proceedings tonight are for a preliminary plat approval, and the word preliminary is intentional... those reports, those studies, all of that analysis has been reviewed for general compliance, but not for code compliance." Planner Nelson highlighted the environmental benefits: "We've got a highly degraded site that was filled... Under the proposal, they'll be taking this highly degraded site, and they'll be restoring significant critical areas and associated buffers to performing a higher level function." ## Regulatory Review and Permits The project has undergone extensive regulatory review beyond city processes. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife issued a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit allowing the stream rerouting work after initially determining the culverted drainage qualified as a regulated stream. Van Slyke explained the regulatory coordination: "Initially, we didn't think that that culverted drainage was a stream. Public comment said they thought it was, so we contacted WDFW, came out to the site, they determined it was a stream. So that's how we moved forward with the project." The project avoids direct wetland impacts, meaning no state or federal wetland permits are required. Nelson clarified: "The project doesn't involve any direct wetland impacts. Therefore, we're not anticipating that either the Department of Ecology or the Army Corps of Engineers will essentially have a permit associated with the project." Environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act resulted in a determination of non-significance issued on June 24, 2025, with no mitigating conditions required. ## Foundation and Geotechnical Issues The site's history as a fill location requires special attention to foundation design. Three geotechnical reports have been completed, providing options for building on the filled material without requiring complete excavation and replacement. Bell explained the city's approach: "We wanted to understand if that fill material was actually able to be built upon... there was enough information provided that the site is buildable... So, we feel confident that there is an ability to actually develop the existing site without having to remove everything that was brought on and bring something brand new on site." The geotechnical analysis identified three foundation options, with the final selection to be made during building permit review. Palowicz clarified: "The geotech study was done on-site. They actually did on-site testing to determine how strong is the soil to make their foundation recommendations, so they recommended 3 options... And the option will be selected by the structural engineer and the architect at the time of building permit." Wilson had raised concerns about monitoring and oversight, particularly wanting assurance that an independent party would oversee foundation work rather than the developer's consultants. ## Public Participation and Process Issues The hearing demonstrated robust public participation, with extensive pre-hearing written comments and detailed testimony from multiple residents. Hearing Examiner Rice noted the quality of community engagement throughout the process. One procedural issue arose when a participant questioned whether incorrect testimony could invalidate the hearing. Rice clarified the process: "Members of the public have the ability to call out what they think was incorrect statements" during their comment time, and that factual disputes would be resolved through the record and potential appeal processes. The hearing was rescheduled from an earlier October date to allow the appeal period for the consolidated Type 2 permits to expire. Bell explained: "We realized that after issuing the notice of decision for the consolidated permit, that the appeal period would expire after the proceedings or the public hearing for the preliminary plat." ## Decision Timeline and Next Steps Rice announced she would take an additional five business days beyond the standard timeline to issue her written decision, given the technical complexity of the case and extensive public comment. The applicant team agreed to this extension. The record remains open for two business days (until November 21) for written comments from anyone who experienced technology problems participating in the hybrid hearing. If such comments are received, city staff and the applicant have until November 25 to respond. The written decision is due December 16 if no post-hearing comments are received, or December 18 if additional comments require responses. The decision will be in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law, analyzing whether the evidence demonstrates compliance with preliminary plat approval criteria and applicable development standards. ## Closing and Community Impact Rice concluded the hearing by acknowledging the significance of community participation: "Really the best part of the work that I do is being present when communities contribute. And I honor the contributions of the folks who participated in this process." The hearing highlighted the complex balance between infill development goals and neighborhood concerns about infrastructure capacity and environmental impacts. While the technical evidence supports the project's engineering solutions, residents' lived experience with flooding and drainage problems adds urgency to their concerns about any changes to the area's hydrology. The case represents a microcosm of broader challenges facing growing cities: how to accommodate needed housing while protecting existing residents from negative impacts, how to balance engineering standards with community concerns about climate change, and how to ensure that environmental restoration truly improves conditions rather than simply meeting regulatory requirements. The hearing examiner's decision will determine whether this former fill site can successfully transition to residential use while enhancing the surrounding critical areas and managing stormwater in a way that protects downstream neighbors from flooding risks.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** BEL-HEX-2025-11-19 ### Meeting Overview The Bellingham Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on November 19, 2025, to consider a preliminary plat application for the Platte of 331 Chukanut Drive. The hearing focused on a proposal to subdivide a 3.93-acre filled site into 33 residential lots using the city's cluster subdivision process, including townhomes and cottages with a 10-unit density bonus. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** An independent attorney contracted by the City of Bellingham to hear and decide certain land use applications. Sharon Rice serves in this capacity for Bellingham and nine other jurisdictions. **Cluster Subdivision:** A development technique that allows density to be concentrated in clusters while preserving open space and avoiding sensitive environmental features like wetlands and steep slopes. **Type 2 vs. Type 3 Permits:** Type 2 permits (like design review and critical areas) are administrative decisions made by staff. Type 3 permits (like preliminary plats) require a public hearing before the hearing examiner. **Critical Areas:** Environmentally sensitive lands including wetlands, streams, and habitat conservation areas that receive special protection under city code. **Infill Housing:** Development that fills in vacant or underutilized parcels within existing neighborhoods rather than expanding into undeveloped areas. **HPA (Hydraulic Project Approval):** A permit required from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for any work that affects fish-bearing waters or streams. **SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act):** Washington's environmental review process that evaluates potential impacts of development projects. **100-year vs. 500-year Flood:** Engineering terms for storm events with a 1% (100-year) or 0.2% (500-year) chance of occurring in any given year, used for stormwater system design. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | Hearing Examiner (contract attorney) | | Kathy Bell | Senior Planner, City of Bellingham | | Ryan Nelson | Planner 2, City of Bellingham | | Paul Randall-Grutter | Project Engineer, Public Works Department | | Nick Palowicz | Civil Engineer and Applicant's Agent | | Colin Van Slyke | Senior Wetland Biologist, Northwest Ecological Services | | Steve Wilson | Public Commenter (1733 Old Samish Road) | | Joe Boyd | Public Commenter (425 Chukanut Drive North #8) | | Elsa King | Public Commenter (1407 Iris Lane) | | Christopher Grannis | Public Commenter | | Linda Lee | Public Commenter | | Dick Farnell | Public Commenter (Robin Lane Mobile Home Park) | | George Haynes | Public Commenter (425 Chukanut North) | ### Background Context The 3.93-acre site at 331 Chukanut Drive was used as a fill site in the 1990s, leaving it elevated above surrounding properties. The property contains wetlands, streams, and is adjacent to Fairhaven Park (also called 100 Acre Wood). An existing culverted stream crosses the property, draining stormwater from upstream properties including the Robin Lane Mobile Home Park. This hearing was actually the second scheduled hearing—the first was canceled to allow the appeal period for related Type 2 permits to expire. The project requires three separate permits: critical areas review, design review (both already approved), and this preliminary plat approval. Community concerns center on stormwater drainage and flooding risks, particularly for downstream neighbors in the mobile home park and along Iris Lane. The area has a high water table and experiences seasonal flooding, leading to questions about whether the development will worsen these conditions. ### What Happened — The Short Version The applicants presented their plan for 33 housing units (21 townhomes and 12 cottages) with extensive wetland restoration and a new stormwater system. They propose redirecting an existing stream from its current route through private property to a connection with the main storm drain in Chukanut Drive, which they argue will improve drainage for the area. City staff recommended approval, finding the application meets all decision criteria for a cluster preliminary plat. They emphasized this is a preliminary review—detailed engineering review will occur later during construction permitting. Seven community members testified, raising concerns about flooding risks, traffic impacts from nearby Fairhaven Middle School, construction truck routes, and whether current stormwater standards adequately account for climate change. Some questioned the technical calculations presented by the applicants. The hearing examiner will issue a written decision within 15 business days, with the record held open briefly for any post-hearing comments from those who experienced technical difficulties. ### What to Watch Next - **Decision deadline:** December 16, 2025 (or December 18 if post-hearing comments are received) - **Appeals:** Any party may appeal the hearing examiner's decision to the City Council - **Final engineering review:** If approved, detailed construction drawings will undergo separate city review before building permits can be issued - **Construction monitoring:** Geotechnical monitoring will be required during construction due to the site's fill history ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** BEL-HEX-2025-11-19 **Q:** What is the total size of the property at 331 Chukanut Drive? **A:** 3.93 acres, which is larger than the 3.77 acres initially listed based on assessor records. **Q:** How many housing units are proposed for this development? **A:** 33 units total—21 townhomes in 5 buildings and 12 cottages, including a 10-unit density bonus. **Q:** What makes this a "cluster subdivision"? **A:** It concentrates density in clusters while preserving critical areas like wetlands and streams, allowing smaller lot sizes than typical subdivisions. **Q:** Why was the original October 8 hearing canceled? **A:** The city wanted the appeal period for related Type 2 permits to expire before holding the Type 3 hearing, in case appeals were filed. **Q:** What are the three foundation options identified in the geotechnical report? **A:** Two different pier systems and mass excavation with backfill—the choice will be made by structural engineers during building permit review. **Q:** What is the capacity of the existing storm drain in Chukanut Drive North? **A:** 110 cubic feet per second (CFS), compared to the calculated 105 CFS for a 100-year flood event. **Q:** Who issued the Hydraulic Project Approval for stream work? **A:** The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) approved the HPA to reroute the culverted stream. **Q:** What critical areas are present on the site? **A:** Two wetlands (Category 3 and Category 4), three non-fish-bearing seasonal streams, and habitat conservation areas adjacent to 100 Acre Wood. **Q:** How many trees will be removed versus planted? **A:** 140 trees (primarily young alders and cottonwoods) removed, 320 native trees planted, creating a net 20% increase in tree canopy. **Q:** What is the minimum parking requirement for the development? **A:** Two parking spaces per unit (both townhomes and cottages) plus guest parking spaces. **Q:** Why are neighbors concerned about flooding? **A:** The area has a high water table, seasonal flooding occurs, and downstream properties (mobile home park, Iris Lane) are at lower elevations. **Q:** What environmental review was completed for this project? **A:** A SEPA threshold determination of non-significance was issued on June 24, 2025, finding no significant environmental impacts. **Q:** How long will the restored critical areas be monitored? **A:** Five years of monitoring and maintenance by a qualified biologist, with financial assurance held by the city. **Q:** What is the city's threshold for requiring traffic impact analysis? **A:** 50 PM peak hour trips—this project generates fewer trips so no traffic study was required. **Q:** When will the hearing examiner issue a decision? **A:** Within 15 business days of the record closing—either December 16 or 18, 2025, depending on post-hearing comments. **Q:** What happens to the existing house on the property? **A:** The existing house and detached accessory building will be demolished to make way for the new development. **Q:** Who will own and maintain the private lane serving the development? **A:** A community association formed by the residents will own and maintain the private lane. **Q:** What protection will the restored wetland areas have? **A:** Conservation easements held by the city, protective fencing, and monitoring to prevent intrusion or damage. **Q:** How deep is the storm main in Chukanut Drive North? **A:** 20 feet deep, which allows gravity drainage from the development's 10-foot-deep stormwater vault. **Q:** What was the site's previous use that affects current development? **A:** It was used as a fill site in the 1990s, creating the elevated conditions and soil challenges that require special foundation designs. ---