City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner

**Hearing Examiner Rice, on decision criteria:** "Land use permits are not decided on the basis of how popular they are. I am charged with reviewing the record as a whole and determining whether the evidence succeeds in demonstrating compliance with the permit criteria for approval." **Ali Taishi, on project evolution:** "We acknowledge that the conditions are necessary to create compliance. Without those conditions, compliance with the regulations is not possible." **Steve Sundin, on no net loss:** "No net loss cannot be guaranteed, but the way we ensure that is that the development permits that come in, and the conditions that we apply to projects are followed, and no net loss is enforceable." **Mike McKay, speaking for salmon:** "I actually feel like I'm speaking for the salmon. Mud Bay is used by many species of salmon, including Chinook, chum, coho, pink, and trout species. It is a critical estuary that is forage habitat for these species." **Patrice Clark, on habitat corridor

# Land Use Drama at Mud Bay: When Development Meets Preservation On a cold January evening in Bellingham, over 100 citizens packed into the city's hearing room for what would become a marathon session of civic engagement. The occasion: a consolidated hearing examining one of the most controversial development proposals in recent memory — the Woods at Viewcrest subdivision on the shores of Mud Bay. ## Meeting Overview Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over this extraordinary proceeding on January 14, 2026, which combined both a land use permit hearing and an ongoing SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) appeal. The consolidated nature meant everything would be decided together — five separate permits for a 38-lot subdivision, plus the appeal of the city's environmental determination. The stakes were high. The Ansi Jones Family LP wanted to develop their 37.7-acre property that had been in their family for 70 years. Opponents, organized as Protect Mud Bay Cliffs, saw this as a threat to one of Bellingham's last pristine pocket estuaries. The tension in the room was palpable. Rice, an independent hearing examiner who contracts with multiple jurisdictions, made clear from the outset that her decision would be based solely on whether the project met legal permit criteria — not on its popularity. "Land use permits are not decided on the basis of how popular they are," she emphasized to the packed room. ## The Proposal: 38 Lots on Sacred Ground The project represents a significant scaling back from what was originally envisioned. Ali Taishi, the applicant's representative from ABT Consulting, explained that the family could legally build up to 82 lots under current zoning, but was proposing only 38 — a reduction from their initial 44-lot design after four years of city review. The development would cluster homes on the flatter, northern portion of the property while setting aside the entire 200-foot shoreline buffer as permanent open space. The lots would be large — averaging 30,000 square feet for waterfront parcels — and served by new infrastructure including roads, utilities, and a controversial stormwater system. But it was that stormwater system that dominated much of the technical discussion. Because the steep topography makes traditional drainage impossible, the project proposes routing runoff through a 12-inch pipe mounted on the surface of the cliff down to a discharge point at Mud Bay. The pipe would snake between lots, around existing trees, and terminate with a "dispersion tee" designed to spread the water and minimize erosion. Taishi emphasized the project's environmental considerations: "The project has been designed with avoidance in mind. It considers site conditions, critical areas, and code regulations." He noted that only 4.5 acres of development would actually drain to the outfall, representing less than half of one percent of the shoreline jurisdiction area. The project also includes public amenities — a trail system connecting the greater Edgemoor neighborhood to existing beach access at Sea Pines, and sidewalks along Viewcrest Road that would be the first in the area. ## City Staff: Cautious Approval Senior Planner Kathy Bell and Environmental Program Manager Steve Sundin presented the city's analysis after four years of review. The staff report — at 100 pages, the longest Bell had ever produced for Bellingham — recommended approval with extensive conditions. Sundin explained the regulatory framework, noting that different permits address different aspects of the project. The critical areas permit covers the lots and infrastructure. The shoreline conditional use permit authorizes the stormwater discharge — necessary because it's a conditional use in the natural shoreline designation. The shoreline substantial development permit covers the physical installation of the pipe. "We're at a point where we feel very confident that the project complies, but there's still one additional step," Sundin explained. Even if approved locally, any shoreline conditional use permit must be reviewed and approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology before construction can begin. The city's analysis concluded the project would achieve "no net loss" of environmental functions — a legal standard required for shoreline development. But Sundin was careful to explain what that means: "No net loss cannot be guaranteed, but no net loss is enforceable. If mitigation is not being provided, if screening plants are not installed, if conservation easements are not recorded, the project stops until those things are taken care of." Bell addressed the variances requested by the applicant, noting that staff recommended denial of one (reduced street width) but supported others designed to minimize environmental impacts by reducing cuts and fills on steep slopes. ## The Opposition: Scientists, Neighbors, and Advocates After a brief break, the public comment period began — and it would stretch for hours. Speaker after speaker rose to challenge the project, bringing expertise from marine biology to architecture, personal observations from decades of living near Mud Bay, and passionate pleas for environmental protection. Mike McKay, a retired fisheries biologist who worked for the Lummi Nation for 40 years, delivered perhaps the most technical critique. His research from 2003-2013 involved capturing over 50,000 juvenile salmon at 180 locations from the Canadian border to Larrabee State Park. Of Bellingham's four streams flowing into the bay, he testified, Chuckanut Creek — which empties into Mud Bay — "has the richest variety of bugs of any of the other four streams studied, indicating a very healthy macroinvertebrate community." "High-quality shallow forage estuary habitat is found in Mud Bay, and it is very, very rare," McKay said. "Much of the intertidal shorelines of Bellingham have long since been permanently altered by filling and dredging... As a result, Mud Bay provides one of the most important forage habitats remaining for juvenile salmon within the city of Bellingham." Lori Rubens, an Edgemoor resident and sea kayaker, brought a birder's perspective: "During my approximately weekly visits of Mud Bay this fall and winter, on any given day, I have watched up to 100 surf scoters, dozens of buffleheads, and an assortment of greater scaup, green-winged teals, golden eyes, red-breasted mergansers, as well as widgeons, mallards, gulls, and great blue herons." She worried about the effects of heavy metals from roofing materials, pesticides, and tire toxins on the aquatic invertebrates that form the base of the food chain. Patrice Clark offered a different model of stewardship. Thirty-six years ago, her family placed the adjacent Clark's Point peninsula — 70 of 76 acres — in a conservation easement rather than develop it. "We had options to develop as many as 110 home sites," she said. "Perhaps living amongst the forests helped us instead become stewards to the land and preserve it." Clark cited the city's own 2003 Wildlife Habitat Assessment, which identified the area as a critical wildlife corridor. The development, she argued, would break that corridor and turn Clark's Point into a "habitat sink" — an ecological dead end. Several speakers challenged the technical adequacy of the stormwater system. Jill Campioni, identifying herself as a concerned citizen, methodically listed seven deficiencies in the proposed outfall design, from its reliance on trees for anchoring (prohibited by state manuals) to the lack of outlet velocity calculations and erosion monitoring plans. Barbara and Michael Ingram, who live on Fairhaven Avenue with views of the Chuckanut Village Marsh, described regular flooding episodes they've witnessed. "In the last three months alone, Mud Bay has experienced tides over nine feet on at least 50 days," Michael Ingram testified. "Each episode lasts four to six hours." The worst flooding they observed was in 2022, when snowmelt combined with heavy rain and king tides brought water to within yards of their home. ## Legal Arguments and Variance Challenges Several speakers focused on the legal standards for granting variances — extraordinary relief that requires specific findings. Dr. Troy Campioni, speaking for "the animals of Mud Bay who don't have a seat at the table tonight," argued that four buildable lots exist without variances, giving the property reasonable use under current regulations. "The asserted hardship is self-created," Campioni said. "The property can reasonably be used under current standards. The difficulty arises from the applicant's decision to pursue a 38-lot configuration." He argued the variances would transfer environmental burdens off-site to Mud Bay rather than requiring code-compliant design that contains impacts within project limits. Matthew Larson, an attorney living a quarter-mile from the site, challenged the shoreline permits specifically. He noted that new outfalls in shoreline buffers are allowed only if there's no feasible alternative — a standard requiring more than cost or convenience. "No feasible alternative can also mean not developing," he said, asking the examiner to deny the shoreline permits until environmental questions are fully resolved. Paul Brock reinforced the legal arguments about self-created hardship: "This property currently consists of four large buildable lots with reasonable use of property established. Any hardship beyond that for variances and buffer reductions is driven by a desired maximized lot yield, not by any unique site constraints." ## Technical Expertise and Local Knowledge The evening featured a remarkable blend of technical expertise and local knowledge. Dean Longwell, a retired architect, focused on water quality issues, noting that the enhanced stormwater treatment system proposed doesn't have EPA or state ecology approval for removing 6PPD, a tire chemical identified as a threat to salmon. He also pointed out that shellfish beds in Mud Bay are protected under city codes more stringent than state requirements. Nancy Elliott, a retired veterinarian new to Bellingham, expressed disappointment at the lack of an environmental impact study for a project near such sensitive habitat. Coming from California, she had expected Bellingham to take a more comprehensive approach to ecosystem protection. But perhaps the most poignant testimony came from residents who had watched the bay for decades. Donna Buehler, who has lived across from Mud Bay for 47 years, acknowledged the quality of work that went into the proposal but worried about what happens when mitigation measures fail during extreme events like atmospheric rivers, earthquakes, or landslides. "Once these events occur and the prior mitigation is unacceptable, who will be responsible for reestablishing acceptable mitigation?" ## A Lone Voice of Support Among the evening's speakers, only one voiced support for the development. Chris Murray, living on Broad Street, framed the project as addressing Bellingham's housing crisis. He cited statistics showing 37% rent increases and 56% home price increases over five years, and Mayor Kim Lund's executive order to address the housing shortage. "Growth is inevitable, and this project represents responsible planning, not reckless expansion," Murray said. He argued that opponents' concerns were "largely overstated and inconsistent given their own development history," noting that many opposing homeowners "purchased homes in developments with similar environmental impacts in the development stage, yet now resist further growth." ## The Property Owners' Perspective The evening included emotional testimony from Rogan Jones, one of the property owners. "I was born on the woods at Viewcrest," he said. "We've owned it our whole lives... The property is very, very important to our family." Jones emphasized they weren't developers by profession but a family trying to responsibly develop land they'd owned for 70 years. The transcript cuts off during his testimony, but his presence humanized what had become an intensely technical and adversarial proceeding. ## What's Next As the evening wound toward its close — with dozens of Zoom participants still waiting to speak — the scope of community engagement was clear. Hearing Examiner Rice had warned that her decision wouldn't come until late March at the earliest, given the complexity of the consolidated record. The proceeding highlighted fundamental tensions in growth management: How do communities balance housing needs with environmental protection? When do mitigation measures provide adequate protection, and when do they simply push impacts elsewhere? How do legal standards for development approvals align with community values about preservation? For Mud Bay, these aren't abstract questions. The pocket estuary has survived railroad construction, urban development, and climate change impacts. Whether it can also survive 38 new houses draining into its waters — even with state-of-the-art treatment and extensive mitigation — remains to be seen. The technical record is voluminous, the legal standards complex, and the community passions intense. But ultimately, one hearing examiner must weigh it all and decide whether this particular piece of Bellingham's shoreline can accommodate both development and the ecological functions that have made it special for generations. In a community that prides itself on environmental stewardship, the Woods at Viewcrest has become a test case for how those values translate into land use decisions. The answer, coming sometime before the end of March, will reverberate far beyond the shores of Mud Bay.

### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Land Use Hearing Examiner conducted a consolidated public hearing on January 14, 2026, reviewing the "Woods at Viewcrest" project — a proposed 38-lot residential subdivision on a 37.7-acre property at 352 Viewcrest Road. The hearing addressed five interconnected permits including subdivision approval, critical areas permit, shoreline permits, and variances, while also considering an ongoing SEPA appeal. ### Key Terms and Concepts **SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act):** Washington state law requiring environmental review of proposed projects. The city issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS), which has been appealed. **Critical Areas:** Environmentally sensitive lands including wetlands, steep slopes, habitat conservation areas, and geohazards that receive special protection under city regulations. **Shoreline Conditional Use Permit:** Required approval for certain uses in shoreline jurisdiction that meet specific criteria, including stormwater outfalls in natural shoreline designations. **Variance:** Permission to deviate from standard code requirements when unique circumstances exist and public benefit can be demonstrated. **No Net Loss:** Shoreline management principle requiring that development not result in degradation of ecological functions and values over time. **Building Envelope:** A defined area on each lot where structures can be built while avoiding critical areas and meeting required setbacks. **Mitigation Sequencing:** Required approach of first avoiding impacts, then minimizing unavoidable impacts, then mitigating remaining impacts. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | Hearing Examiner (contract attorney) | | Kathy Bell | Senior Planner, Planning Community Development | | Steve Sundin | City staff member (development review) | | Ali Taishi | Applicant representative, ABT Consulting | | Tim Schmidzler | Project attorney | | Adam Morrow | Project surveyor | | Jones Family | Property owners (Rogan, Susan, and Betsy Jones) | ### Background Context The Jones family has owned this 37.7-acre forested property in the Edgemoor neighborhood for approximately 70 years. Located adjacent to Clarks Point and overlooking Chuckanut Creek Pocket Estuary (known as "Mud Bay"), the site contains critical areas including wetlands, steep slopes, and shoreline jurisdiction. A 2018 fire on the property prompted renewed development efforts. The proposal represents a compromise from the maximum allowed density of 82 lots down to 38 lots, clustering development in the flatter northern portion while preserving the entire 200-foot shoreline buffer. The most controversial element is a proposed stormwater outfall pipe that would discharge treated stormwater to the beach, requiring both shoreline permits due to the natural designation of this sensitive estuary habitat. Community opposition has organized under "Protect Mud Bay Cliffs," raising concerns about environmental impacts to this rare pocket estuary that serves as critical habitat for salmon, waterfowl, and other marine life. ### What Happened — The Short Version The hearing examiner received detailed presentations from both the applicant team and city staff, who recommended approval of all permits with extensive conditions. The applicant agreed to most staff recommendations but contested one trail connection requirement. Over 100 community members attended, with dozens providing public testimony primarily opposing the project. Citizens raised concerns about stormwater impacts, wildlife habitat disruption, flooding risks, and the adequacy of environmental review. Several speakers called for an independent Environmental Impact Statement before any approvals. Key technical issues debated included the design and safety of the proposed stormwater outfall system, compliance with various municipal codes, and whether the "no net loss" standard can be achieved. ### What to Watch Next - Decision expected by March 31, 2026 (delayed from original March 9 target) - Any approved shoreline conditional use permit must receive additional approval from Washington State Department of Ecology before construction - Street vacation process must be completed for certain lots to be developable - Individual building permits would require additional review for compliance with all conditions ---

**Q:** What is the total size of the Jones family property and how long have they owned it? **A:** 37.7 acres, owned by the Jones family for approximately 70 years. **Q:** How many residential lots are proposed in the Woods at Viewcrest project? **A:** 38 lots, reduced from an allowable maximum of 82 lots under current zoning. **Q:** What five permits are being reviewed in this consolidated hearing? **A:** Subdivision, critical areas permit, several consolidated variances, shoreline substantial development permit, and shoreline conditional use permit. **Q:** Who is the hearing examiner and what is her role? **A:** Sharon Rice, an independent contract attorney who decides land use permits for Bellingham and other jurisdictions. **Q:** What is the main environmental concern about the stormwater system? **A:** A proposed outfall pipe would discharge treated stormwater directly to the beach at Mud Bay, a sensitive pocket estuary habitat. **Q:** What does "no net loss" mean in shoreline management? **A:** Development must not result in degradation of ecological functions and values in the shoreline environment over time. **Q:** How much of the site vegetation would be preserved under the proposal? **A:** Approximately 80% of the existing forest canopy would be retained. **Q:** What is the shoreline buffer width for this natural designation area? **A:** 200 feet from the shoreline, which would be permanently preserved in an open space tract. **Q:** What zoning designation applies to this property? **A:** Single-family residential with 20,000 square foot density (Area 7 of Edgemoor neighborhood). **Q:** When is the decision expected? **A:** By March 31, 2026, delayed from the original March 9 target due to the complexity of the consolidated record. **Q:** What happened to prompt renewed development interest in 2018? **A:** A significant fire on the property that required state-level DNR response and threatened neighboring properties. **Q:** How many wetlands are located on the property? **A:** Four wetlands, all clustered in the northeast portion of the site, which would be entirely avoided. **Q:** What additional approval is required if shoreline permits are granted? **A:** The Washington State Department of Ecology must affirm any shoreline conditional use permit before construction can begin. **Q:** How many people provided public testimony opposing the project? **A:** Dozens of speakers from over 100 attendees, with most testimony opposing the development. **Q:** What is the main access point for the subdivision? **A:** Viewcrest Road, which would serve 35 of the 38 proposed lots. **Q:** What type of stormwater treatment is proposed? **A:** Enhanced level treatment using modular wetland systems, meeting the highest Department of Ecology standards. **Q:** How many existing stormwater outfalls already discharge to this area? **A:** Four other outfalls from nearby developments, though none provide treatment or use dispersion mechanisms. **Q:** What is unique about this property's density calculation? **A:** The zoning allows overall density averaging without minimum lot size requirements, enabling clustered development. **Q:** What wildlife uses Mud Bay according to public testimony? **A:** Salmon species, diving ducks, herons, eagles, and various marine invertebrates that form the base of the food web. **Q:** What trail connections are proposed as part of the project? **A:** Public trails connecting to existing Sea Pines beach access and potentially to the Clarkwood neighborhood. ---