## Meeting Overview On September 2, 2025, City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a pre-hearing conference to organize the procedural framework for what promises to be one of the most substantial environmental appeals in recent city history. The case centers on Protect Mud Bay Cliffs' challenge to the city's July 25, 2025 determination of non-significance for the Woods at Viewcrest project—a proposed 38-lot subdivision on 38 acres in the Edgemore neighborhood, adjacent to and overlooking Chuckanut Creek Pocket Estuary. The conference brought together a formidable array of legal representation: appellants Protect Mud Bay Cliffs represented by attorneys Claudia Newman and Michael Ray of Bricklin & Newman; applicants the Jones family (Betsy, Susan, and Rogan Jones) represented by Jon Sitkin and Tim Schmetzler of CSD Law; and the City of Bellingham represented by Deputy City Attorney James Erb, along with Planning Director Blake Lyon, SEPA Responsible Official Curtin Abbefeld, and senior planners Kathy Bell and Steve Sundin. The appellants' 590-page filing and the city's creation of a dedicated project website signal the complex environmental and procedural issues at stake. What emerged from this 90-minute conference was both the careful choreography needed to manage such a substantial case and early glimpses of the fundamental disagreements that will drive the hearing itself—from the specificity of environmental impact allegations to the appropriate balance between thorough preparation and procedural efficiency. ## The Battle Over Issue Clarity The most contentious discussion centered on the applicants' request for more concise issue statements from the appellants. Jon Sitkin argued that the 29-page appeal, while voluminous, contained "generic statement" and "boilerplate" language that left his clients unable to prepare adequate responses. "We were left with always, how? It's just this generic statement," Sitkin explained. "Where is the traffic impacted? How is the traffic impacted?" He pressed for "headline-level issue statements" that would allow focused preparation for dispositive motions. Claudia Newman pushed back forcefully, arguing that the appeal already provided unprecedented clarity. "There's a distinction between an issue statement and our case in chief," she explained. "Our issue statement and our appeal is extremely clear. We have identify the elements of the environment that are at issue in this matter." Newman pointed out that each environmental element in the appeal follows the same three-part structure: significant adverse impacts will occur, the city failed to collect sufficient information, and the impacts are inadequately mitigated. She characterized the request as potentially "litigious," designed to force premature disclosure of the appellants' case strategy. Hearing Examiner Rice sided partially with the applicants, acknowledging her own difficulty in extracting specific issues from the appeal document. "29 pages is hard to respond to," Rice observed. "I feel like for each of the... areas, there's a large 30,000 level, allegation that inadequate information was reviewed, significant impacts were going to occur, and they are not adequately mitigated without giving specifics." Rice clarified that she was seeking "headline-level issue statements" that would become the organizational framework for her eventual decision, not a premature disclosure of evidence or strategy. Newman eventually agreed to provide clarified issue statements, though she maintained concerns about constraining her case presentation. "This is like an organic process where the issues kind of tend to change as the evidence comes in a bit, and so I don't want our hands to be tied too much," she explained. The examiner assured all parties that this clarification would not prevent appellants from arguing any properly raised issues, but would simply provide a clearer roadmap for the proceedings. ## The SEPA Record and Public Access A significant procedural innovation emerged around managing the extensive documentary record. The city revealed it had created a dedicated project website containing what Deputy City Attorney James Erb described as "more or less all of the documents that would comprise the SEPA record," organized by document title, author, and date. This represented an unusual level of public transparency, going beyond typical practice. However, Rice insisted on creating an official, numbered exhibit list rather than relying on the website. "I only wanted to interact with documents that were officially offered in evidence," she explained, referencing a recent case where she declined to use a city website for evidentiary purposes. "We need a list of documents that can be expressly identified... I need to be able to say, you know, a city record, exhibit 25, or Exhibit AAA, is this document that I'm signing to right here." Newman requested the opportunity to review the complete planning department file to ensure nothing was omitted from the official record. "There has been some issues with trying to get information that we think exists that's not being shared with the public," she explained. Erb noted that the planning department had already responded to extensive public records requests from the appellants over several years and had "gone above and beyond in terms of being transparent." The discussion revealed the challenging balance between public accessibility and legal precision in environmental appeals. While the city's website approach maximized public access to information, the hearing process required the formal structure that only numbered exhibits could provide. ## Hearing Format and Public Participation Rice announced her decision to conduct the hearing in person, accommodating the city's preference while allowing hybrid participation for parties and witnesses. "I personally am so well acclimated to hybrid hearings at this point... that appearing in person is awkward for me," Rice admitted, but she agreed to the city's request given the case's significance and expected public interest. The format decision reflected competing priorities. Newman strongly preferred remote proceedings for cost reasons, while Sitkin argued for in-person hearings, noting "there's no evidence professor said smell witnesses, see, smell, feel witnesses, and we think that's a value to a hearing." Rice dryly responded, "I just want to note for the record, I've never smelled a witness" in her 20 years of experience. The consolidated SEPA appeal and permit hearing will span five days in January 2026, with the SEPA appeal conducted during daytime hours and permit hearing testimony potentially extending into evening sessions to accommodate public participation. Rice indicated she would likely implement three-minute time limits for public comment given the anticipated large turnout, noting "in a case with this much interest and comments dating back to 2022" such limits would be necessary for practical management. ## Motions Practice and Legal Strategy Both sides signaled their intent to file dispositive motions, leading to detailed discussions about the appropriate procedural sequence. Sitkin indicated plans to challenge both the legal sufficiency of the appeal and the factual basis for various claims. "We have a right to bring dispositive motions," he stated. "If we think there's legal errors in the filing, if we think there's not sufficient facts to support a claim, there's no reason to... try to go through a full hearing on matters that just don't meet the prima facie case." Newman expressed concern about what she termed frivolous summary judgment motions "when it's obvious to everyone that there's a dispute of fact on those issues." However, she also acknowledged the value of early motion practice to narrow issues and avoid unnecessary hearing time on legally insufficient claims. The parties agreed to a three-week motion practice schedule: motions due October 3, responses October 15, replies October 22, with Rice's ruling by October 31. This compressed timeline reflects the challenge of fitting substantial motion practice into the window between Newman's return from overseas travel and the January hearing dates. ## Pre-Hearing Briefing Innovation An unusual briefing sequence emerged from the discussion. Rather than the typical simultaneous pre-hearing briefs, the parties agreed to sequential briefing that would give appellants the opportunity to present their case framework first, followed by responses from the city and applicants. "It is also my preference that they be in writing," Rice noted regarding closing arguments. "After 5 days of hearing, it's very hard for me to continue to focus on the details in an argument provided verbally." This sequential approach addresses Newman's concern about presenting her case "grasping in the dark" without knowing the city's positions. "We never get the city's responses to our comments," Newman explained. "And so, it is helpful to, before the hearing, to hear what the city's response is, so maybe we could drop issues." The briefing schedule accommodates the holiday season with appellant's brief due December 10 and responses due December 23, giving all parties completed briefing more than two weeks before the January 12 hearing start date. ## Open Record Hearing Procedures A significant discussion addressed the tension between advance disclosure requirements and the open record nature of the hearing. Rice maintained her standard practice allowing admission of relevant evidence not previously disclosed, provided there's good reason for the late disclosure. However, she added important clarifying language to address Newman's concerns about "hide the ball" tactics. Newman provided a specific example of her concern: "If we... one really critical thing that is in most typical land use applications is the calculations and stormwater modeling to support a stormwater site plan... if that's not included... and then we... our expert sits on the stand and says... there's no stormwater modeling, and then the applicant's expert comes up and says, oh, here you go, here's our stormwater modeling. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid." Rice assured all parties that any late-admitted evidence would trigger opportunities for opposing parties to supplement the record in response. "My whole purpose is to let absolutely everything that's relevant in," Rice explained. "So I will not be excluding things on technicalities, and I will not be preventing parties from responding to necessary, relevant, and admitted items." ## Site Visit and Geographic Context The hearing will include Rice's site visit to both the proposed development property and the public shoreline areas, emphasizing the environmental setting's importance to the case. The project's location adjacent to Chuckanut Creek Pocket Estuary and its visibility from public waters makes the geographic context crucial to understanding the environmental impacts at issue. Rice plans to conduct the site visit unaccompanied to avoid any ex parte communications, though she has permission to access private property if needed. "I prefer to have that happen on my time and unaccompanied, if at all possible," she explained, "just because that way we don't have to coordinate everybody being there at the same time." ## Scheduling Marathon and Holiday Challenges The final portion of the conference became an intricate scheduling exercise, working backwards from the January 12-16, 2026 hearing dates to establish deadlines for each procedural step. The complexity arose from Newman's three-week international travel starting September 9, the holiday season affecting attorney and witness availability, and the need to provide adequate time for each phase of preparation. The final schedule reflects careful consideration of competing constraints: issue statements and SEPA record publication by September 15; motions practice through October; witness and exhibit disclosure by November 14; pre-hearing briefing through December 23; supplemental disclosures by January 5; and post-hearing briefing extending through February 23, with Rice's decision due March 9, 2026. ## What's Ahead This pre-hearing conference established the framework for what promises to be one of the most comprehensive environmental appeals in recent Bellingham history. The five-day hearing will examine the environmental impacts of a 38-lot subdivision in one of the city's most environmentally sensitive areas, with extensive expert testimony expected on issues ranging from traffic and stormwater to critical areas and visual impacts. The procedural framework balances the appellants' right to a thorough hearing on their environmental concerns against the applicants' need for clarity about the specific issues they must address. The city faces the challenge of defending its SEPA determination while managing significant public interest in a project that has generated controversy since 2022. With a decision deadline of March 9, 2026, the case will likely set important precedents for environmental review of large residential developments in sensitive areas. The hearing's hybrid format and extensive public comment opportunities reflect the broader community interest in how Bellingham balances development pressures with environmental protection in areas like the Chuckanut Creek corridor. The stage is now set for what Rice acknowledged would be a "wonky" but necessary process to address the complex environmental and legal issues surrounding one of the most significant development proposals in recent city history.

### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner held a pre-hearing conference on September 2, 2025, to organize the appeal process for the Woods at Viewcrest development. Protect Mud Bay Cliffs has appealed the city's July 25, 2025 determination of non-significance (DNS) for this proposed 38-lot subdivision on 38 acres in the Edgemore neighborhood. ### Key Terms and Concepts **SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act):** Washington state law requiring environmental review of major projects before approval. A "determination of non-significance" (DNS) means the city found no significant environmental impacts. **Consolidated Hearing:** When a SEPA appeal and permit hearing are combined into one proceeding, allowing all environmental and land use issues to be addressed together. **Dispositive Motion:** A legal motion asking the examiner to dismiss all or part of an appeal before the full hearing, arguing there's insufficient evidence or legal basis to proceed. **Open Record Hearing:** A proceeding where new evidence can be submitted during the hearing, not just evidence submitted beforehand. **Issue Statement:** A concise description of the specific environmental errors alleged in an appeal, required to help focus the hearing on disputed matters. **Pre-hearing Brief:** Written arguments submitted before the hearing outlining each party's legal position and planned evidence. **Site Visit:** When the hearing examiner personally visits the project location to understand the physical context before making a decision. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner | | Larry Horowitz | Protect Mud Bay Cliffs (appellant organization) | | Claudia Newman | Attorney for appellants (Bricklin & Newman) | | Michael Rea | Attorney for appellants (Bricklin & Newman) | | Jon Sitkin | Attorney for applicants (CSD Law) | | Tim Schmetzler | Attorney for applicants (CSD Law) | | Betsy, Susan, and Rogan Jones | Property owners/applicants | | Ali Taysi | Applicant's representative/consultant | | James Erb | Deputy City Attorney | | Blake Lyon | Planning Director | | Christy Bowker | City Hearing Clerk | ### Background Context The Woods at Viewcrest is a controversial 38-lot subdivision proposed on 38 acres in Bellingham's Edgemore neighborhood, adjacent to Chuckanut Creek Pocket Estuary. The project has generated significant public interest and extensive comments dating back to 2022. The city completed its environmental review under SEPA and issued a determination of non-significance in July 2025, concluding the project would not have significant environmental impacts. Protect Mud Bay Cliffs disagrees and filed a 29-page appeal supported by 590 pages of technical comments, alleging the city failed to adequately analyze environmental impacts to areas like traffic, critical habitat, and shorelines. This case represents a significant land use controversy in Bellingham, where development pressure in environmentally sensitive areas creates tension between growth and environmental protection. The appeal will examine whether the city properly analyzed potential impacts under state environmental law before approving the project. ### What Happened — The Short Version Hearing Examiner Rice conducted a lengthy pre-hearing conference to organize what will be a complex, multi-day appeal hearing. The main outcomes were: (1) The hearing will be held in-person with hybrid participation allowed, (2) Appellants must provide more specific issue statements by September 15, (3) The city must compile and number all SEPA record documents by September 15, (4) A schedule was set for motions practice in October, evidence disclosure in November, pre-hearing briefs in December, and the full hearing January 12-16, 2026, (5) The permit hearing portion will include evening sessions to allow public participation, and (6) All parties waived the normal 90-day deadline for the examiner's decision. The conference revealed tensions between parties over how specific appellants must be about their environmental concerns versus keeping the process open for full examination of complex technical issues. The final hearing will be extensive, likely requiring five full days with both daytime appeal testimony and evening public comment periods. ### What to Watch Next - September 15: Appellants must file clarified issue statements and city must publish numbered SEPA record - October 3: Deadline for dispositive motions that could narrow or dismiss parts of the appeal - January 12-16, 2026: Five-day consolidated hearing with both appeal testimony and public comment periods - Site visit: Examiner Rice will visit the property and public shoreline areas before the hearing ---

**Q:** What type of project is the Woods at Viewcrest? **A:** A proposed 38-lot subdivision on 38 acres in Bellingham's Edgemore neighborhood. **Q:** Who filed the appeal and when? **A:** Protect Mud Bay Cliffs filed the appeal on August 7, 2025, through attorney Larry Horowitz. **Q:** What is the city decision being appealed? **A:** The July 25, 2025 determination of non-significance (DNS) issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). **Q:** How many pages of supporting materials did appellants submit? **A:** 590 pages of technical comments supporting their 29-page appeal. **Q:** Who are the property owners/applicants? **A:** The Jones family: Betsy, Susan, and Rogan Jones. **Q:** Will the hearing be conducted in person or virtually? **A:** In person with hybrid participation allowed - parties and witnesses can appear remotely if needed. **Q:** When is the hearing scheduled? **A:** January 12-16, 2026 (Monday through Friday). **Q:** What deadline did all parties agree to waive? **A:** The normal 90-day deadline for the hearing examiner to issue a decision. **Q:** What must appellants submit by September 15? **A:** More specific and concise issue statements clarifying exactly what environmental errors they're alleging. **Q:** What must the city provide by September 15? **A:** A numbered list of all documents in the SEPA record that formed the basis for their environmental determination. **Q:** When are dispositive motions due? **A:** October 3, 2025, with responses due October 15 and replies October 22. **Q:** Will there be a site visit? **A:** Yes, Examiner Rice will visit both the project site and public shoreline areas, likely in September. **Q:** What time limits might apply to public comment? **A:** Given the high public interest, the examiner may implement 3-minute time limits like those used by City Council. **Q:** When are pre-hearing briefs due? **A:** Appellants' briefs due December 10, responses due December 23. **Q:** What areas will the examiner visit during the site visit? **A:** The project property itself plus the public shoreline areas adjacent to Chuckanut Creek Pocket Estuary. **Q:** Can new evidence be submitted during the hearing? **A:** Yes, it's an "open record" hearing, but parties must have good reasons for not disclosing evidence earlier. **Q:** Will closing arguments be oral or written? **A:** Written post-hearing briefs, due January 30 for appellants and February 13 for responses. **Q:** When will the final decision be issued? **A:** Target date of March 9, 2026, after all post-hearing briefs are submitted. ---