Search toggle
Say hello.
Focus Str. 5th Ave, 98/2 34746 Manhattan, New York
+1 222 44 55
Real Briefings

Hearing Examiner

BEL-HEX-2026-01-13 January 13, 2026 Public Hearing City of Bellingham
← Back to All Briefings
Jan
Month
13
Day
Min
Published
Status

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

**Evidentiary Ruling:** Hearing Examiner Rice admitted Appellant's Exhibit 147 (Google Maps showing neighborhood context) over timeliness objections, finding no prejudice from using maps to help orient testimony about traffic patterns and recreation impacts. **Scope Limitation Clarified:** The examiner reaffirmed that appeal issue 12 regarding density beyond 38 lots had been dismissed in pre-hearing motions, though parties could still argue the issue in closing arguments as a tangential matter. **Expert Testimony Parameters:** The hearing established clear boundaries for witness expertise, allowing …

About 50% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
**Stormwater Management in Critical Areas:** The most substantive policy discussion centered on whether the city's SEPA review adequately addressed stormwater management across geological hazard areas. McShane testified that putting a pipe across rockfall hazard zones requires specific engineered solutions, not just general recommendations. The city and applicant argued that detailed engineering could appropriately be deferred to final design phases, while appellants contended that SEPA review was premature without knowing feasible solutions. **Traffic Safety and Infrastructure Gaps:** Paul Brock's testimony highlighted a disconnect between proposed development intensity and existing infrastructure capacity. He described Viewcrest Road as narrow, hilly, and without sidewalks, where pedestrians currently coexist with low traffic volumes but would face safety challenges with 427 additional daily trips. The city's SEPA…
About 49% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
**Dan McShane (Expert Witness for Appellants):** Testified that the southeast bluff landslide hazard area has not been adequately evaluated, that rockfall hazards along the proposed pipe route require specific engineering solutions not yet developed, and that infiltration on lots 23-26 is infeasible, requiring additional pipe infrastructure not fully analyzed. Maintained that SEPA review was premature without understanding the full scope of required infrastructure. **James Erb (City Attorney):** Argued that Element Solutions provided adequate assessment of geological hazards with appropriate recommendations for mitigation, that detailed engineering can properly be deferred to final design phases, and that SEPA conditions require adherence to consultant recommendations. Emphasized that the city followed proper procedures for preliminary plat review under Growth Management Act requirements. **Tim Schermetzler (Applicant Attorney):** Established that outfall pipes in critical areas are allowed under city code with proper analysis, that HDPE pipe technology provides flexibility for difficult terrain, and that Element Solutions provided feasible recommendat…
About 50% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
**Dan McShane, on engineering requirements:** "I like to tell this joke, as geologists, we create the problems for the engineers, and they have to solve it." **Paul Brock, on pedestrian safety:** "If there's two cars and a pedestrian, you kind of have to... you fend for yourself, jump off the side of the road, or in the ditch, or in somebody's driveway, or something. Like, hopefully somebody slows down for you." **Dan McShane, on rockfall hazards:** "The city staff report said they wanted th…
About 50% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →

**Continued Expert Testimony:** Barry Wenger's testimony on stormwater impacts to estuarine systems will continue, as technical difficulties limited his testimony time. **Additional Appellant Witnesses:** The hearing will continue with remaining fact witnesses, with one potential additional expert witness mentioned. **Cross-Examination and Redirect:** Completed cross-examination phases will continue for remaining witnesses before moving to rebuttal phases. **Fina…

About 50% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
**Clarified Scope of Appeal:** The hearing examiner definitively ruled that density arguments beyond 38 lots are excluded from the hearing record, though parties may address the issue in closing arguments as a tangential matter. **Established Expert Witness Limitations:** The record now clearly shows that while geological experts can identify hazards and general approaches, specific engineering solutions for rockfall protection remain to be determined, creating a gap in the environmental review record. **Documented Infrastructure Concerns:** The hearing record now contains detailed testimony about existing traffic safety problems and inadequate pedestrian infrastructure that would be exacerbated by the …
About 49% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
# Real Briefings — Woods at Viewcrest Appeal Hearing Day 2 ## Meeting Overview Day 2 of the appeal hearing for the Woods at Viewcrest development proposal convened on January 13, 2026, before Hearing Examiner Rice. The session continued testimony from Day 1, focusing on cross-examination of appellant expert witness Dan McShane (joining remotely from overseas at 6 PM local time) and direct examination of additional appellant witnesses Paul Troutman, Paul Brock, Robert Dillman, and Barry Wenger. The hearing examined appeals of the City of Bellingham's Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for a 38-lot subdivision proposal. Key issues included stormwater management, geological hazards, traffic safety, and environmental impacts to Mud Bay. ## Cross-Examination of Dan McShane The session began with cross-examination by City Attorney James Erb, who systematically walked McShane through his review timeline and the multiple reports submitted by Element Solutions. McShane confirmed reviewing three documents: the October 2022 geotechnical report, and two November 2024 memos responding to his March 2024 comment letter and city requests. Erb highlighted SEPA condition number one, which incorporates mitigation measures requiring compliance with consultant recommendations. McShane characterized Element's suggestions as alternatives rather than definitive solutions, noting they would require additional engineering design. When asked about project feasibility, McShane agreed Element was "implying that the project is feasible" but maintained concerns about specific implementation details. The city's examination focused on establishing that additional information would be required before final plat approval — a typical phased approach. Erb walked through Element's conclusion that the "comb…
About 14% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
### Meeting Overview The Bellingham Hearing Examiner conducted an appeal hearing on January 13, 2026, concerning the Woods at Viewcrest subdivision project. This was Day 2 of testimony focusing on geotechnical concerns, stormwater management impacts, and potential effects on Mud Bay's recreational and ecological resources. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** An independent official who conducts quasi-judicial hearings on land use appeals and makes binding decisions on development proposals. **SEPA/MDNS:** State Environmental Policy Act and Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance - the environmental review process determining whether a project will have significant adverse environmental impacts. **Geohazard Areas:** Areas with steep slopes, landslide risks, or rockfall hazards that require special analysis and protection measures under city code. **Stormwater Outfall:** A pipe system that carries stormwater runoff from developed areas to discharge into receiving waters like Mud Bay. **Critical Areas:** Environmentally sensitive lands including wetlands, steep slopes, and landslide hazard areas that receive special protection under local regulations. **TDA (Treatment Discharge Area):** Designated areas in stormwater planning where runoff is collected, potentially treated, and discharged through engineered systems. **Element Solutions:** The geotechnical consulting firm that prepared geology and hazard assessments for the Woods at Viewcrest project. **Infiltration Feasibility:** The technical assessment of whether stormwater can be absorbed into soils on-site rather than being piped off-site. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kim Lund | Hearing Examiner | | Dan McShane | Appellant expert witness (geologist, Stratum Group) | | James Erb | Deputy City Attorney | | Tim Schermetzler | Attorney for applicant | | Paul Troutman | Appellant fact witness (former MRC me…
About 50% shown — premium members only Upgrade to premium →

Share This Briefing