ORAL MOTION In the Matter of the Eastview Village Closed Record Appeal, Vice-Chair Dunn made a motion as follows: 1. The Council does not have jurisdiction over professional conflict of interest issues regarding legal counsel for the applicant and will not consider conflict issues. 2. Deborah Wetzel may speak as a representative of appellants as a group. 3. As representative of appellants as a group, Deborah Wetzel is not limited to arguing issues raised in her motion for reconsideration. 4. Issues T and U are unique to Marshland Flood Control District and appellants lack standing to raise them. Therefore, Issues T and U are summarily dismissed. 5. The Council does not have jurisdiction over SEPA exemption determinations. Therefore, Issue B is dismissed. 6. Any Party of Record that does not argue during the Appellants’ case in chief may argue for 3 minutes each at the closed record hearing. However, Parties of Record that are also Appellants should avoid repeating arguments made during Appellants’ argument in chief. Parties of Record are reminded that the closed record appeal is an opportunity to provide argument based on evidence already in the record. New testimony and evidence will not be considered by the Council. Councilmember Mead seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

Committee

Administrative Session

Requested by

Council Office

Introduced

July 2, 2025

Where it was heard

Administrative Session Jul 1, 2025 Approved Pass