Hearing Examiner

Day 2 of the Woods at Viewcrest SEPA appeal hearing focused heavily on cross-examination of expert witness Dan McShane and testimony from fact witnesses about local impacts. The most significant development was the extensive cross-examination that revealed both the scope and limitations of geological assessments for the proposed stormwater outfall system, particularly regarding rockfall hazards along the southeast bluff. McShane, testifying remotely from another country, faced nearly two hours of cross-examination from both the city and applicant attorneys. The questioning established that while Element Solutions had identified rockfall hazards and provided general recommendations, no final engineered solution had been selected for protecting the proposed stormwater pipe. This emerged as a central point of contention — whether the city's SEPA review was adequate without specific mitigation measures designed by licensed engineers. The hearing also featured testimony from three fact witnesses: Paul Troutman discussed failed oyster restoration efforts in Mud Bay and ongoing water quality problems from septic systems; Paul Brock provided detailed observations about traffic safety concerns on Viewcrest Road, describing narrow, hilly roads without sidewalks where pedestrians must "fend for themselves" when cars approach; and Robert Dillman testified about heavy recreational use of Mud Bay, particularly for bioluminescence viewing with "north of 50" people on busy nights. A significant procedural issue arose over whether appellants could present evidence about full build-out potential of the subdivision beyond the proposed 38 lots. Hearing Examiner Rice clarified that density arguments beyond the 38-lot proposal had been excluded in pre-hearing summary judgment rulings, limiting the scope of traffic impact testimony. The day concluded with expert witness Barry Wenger beginning his testimony about stormwater impacts to estuarine systems, though technical difficulties li