HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022 05 02 Appellants Opposition to Motion to Exclude
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE- 1
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
123 NW 36th Street, Suite 205
Seattle, WA 98107
Tel. (206) 264-8600
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
In Re Appeal of OAK BAY
CONCERNED CITIZENS,
Appellants,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Respondent.
NO. MLA21-00066
APPELLANT’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO EXCLUDE
Respondents’ motion to exclude Mr. Nam Siu’s testimony should be denied. Respondent
argues that Mr. Siu’s testimony, which will relate to wetlands and wetland buffers on the subject
property, is not relevant to any of the issues on appeal. This is incorrect. Mr. Siu’s testimony about
wetlands and their buffers will relate to ¶ 22 of the notice of appeal, wildlife habitat. (A typo in
Appellant’s witness list inadvertently said ¶ 21, which would be aesthetics. Mr. Siu will not testify
about aesthetics.)
Respondents are correct that wetlands are not called as a separate issue in the notice of appeal.
But habitat is one of the appeal issues, and wetlands and wetland buffers are components of wildlife
habitat. As the Examiner is no doubt aware, Washington State’s wetland rating form asks, among
other things, about the quality of wildlife habitat within each wetland and its surroundings. Therefore,
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE- 2
Bricklin & Newman, LLP
Attorneys at Law
123 NW 36th Street, Suite 205
Seattle, WA 98107
Tel. (206) 264-8600
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. Siu’s expert testimony is germane to an appeal issue, and he should not be excluded from
testifying.
Appellants also note that there is a public hearing associated with this project. Mr. Siu, like
any member of the public, cannot be excluded from testifying at that hearing so long as he has
something relevant to say about the project, which he does. Therefore, the only things that would result
from excluding Mr. Siu from the DNS hearing would be to reduce his speaking time, shield him from
cross-examination, and deprive Respondents of an opportunity to rebuttal his testimony, none of which
will benefit the Hearing Examiner in making the decision on this project.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to exclude will be denied.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2022.
Respectfully submitted,
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
By:
Claudia Newman, WSBA No. 24928
Alex Sidles, WSBA No. 52832
123 NW 36th St., Suite 205
Seattle, WA 98107
newman@bnd-law.com
sidles@bnd-law.com
Attorneys for Oak Bay Concerned
Citizens