Developer Submits Response to City’s Fourth RFI
PMBC learned that the developer submitted their response to the city’s fourth RFI (Request for Information).
The city’s fourth RFI can be viewed here: https://cob.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-08-14-rfi.pdf
The developer’s response to the fourth RFI, including new and revised application materials, can be viewed at the city’s website for the project, here, in the “View Application Materials” section of the webpage (with multiple subsections): https://cob.org/project/the-woods-at-viewcrest
The developer made no changes to the Plan previously submitted. They did make changes to three Reports, submitted some changes to and some new Supporting Documents, and updated the SEPA Checklist.
Developer’s Response is Deficient
PMBC reviewed the voluminous changes and submissions, and were disappointed to find the application materials continue to be incomplete; continue to contain significant inaccuracies, errors, and mischaracterizations; and continue to lack meaningful additional information required for the city’s upcoming decisions. Across the board, the applicant has failed to fully respond to the numerous deficiencies in the application materials and has skirted addressing key concerns raised in both the city’s fourth RFI, and in the Public Comments.
PMBC yesterday submitted a letter to the city with a high-level review of the developer’s most recent materials. This letter can be viewed here: https://bit.ly/3DPDaru
The PMBC letter, in brief, states:
While the applicant’s most recent response is voluminous, it fails to adequately address the city’s request for information. Rather, it:
repeats inadequate and misleading information previously submitted;
incorporates vague and unsubstantiated statements which fail to provide the needed quantitative and qualitative data requested by the city and legally required by the planning process;
introduces new errors and troubling assertions.
Because the applicant has: (a) made no changes to the proposed project plans, (b) made no meaningful changes to the information they previously provided, and (c) chosen not to respond to the specific issues of law and non-compliance documented in the Public Comments, PMBC’s previous public comments stand.
As we did in PMBC’s previous public comments, we again point out in this letter that:
The application materials:
Are fundamentally flawed as they contain significant deficiencies, including errors, omissions and unsubstantiated and/or false claims.
Do not provide sufficient information necessary to identify and evaluate all significant adverse environmental impacts this project is likely to impose, as is required by state law under WAC 197-11-080[1].
Do not fully comply with Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) regulations.
Do not fully comply with state and federal guidelines and regulations.
Do not fully comply with Best Available Science and Best Management Practice (BMP) standards, especially as they apply to protecting the functions of shoreline ecological values and critical areas and the preservation of anadromous fisheries.
Although the application materials don’t provide sufficient information to fully identify and evaluate all potential significant adverse environmental impacts, it’s clear from these materials that the proposal is likely to impose significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated. Consequently, the city must issue a SEPA Threshold Determination of Significance (DS) and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Next Steps
It is clear the developer is proceeding and intends no changes to their plans (having submitted no changes to plans).
It is less clear what the city’s next steps will be; these will depend on the city’s review and assessment of the developer’s most recent response.
The city could again request information from the developer, or the city could choose to proceed with the information provided to date. Of course, PMBC has documented that the information provided to date is severely flawed, and hopes that the city next issues a SEPA Determination of Significance — so that an independent Environmental Impact Statement can then provide the information which the developer has repeatedly failed to.
Whatever the city decides to do next, we will respond appropriately.
Your generous support in the past has enabled us to retain key technical experts and land use attorneys, and it is possible we will require your support again in the near future.
It also may become necessary for as many of us as possible to provide testimony to a Hearing Examiner, should matters proceed to that point. If this happens, we will ask for volunteers to help provide efficient and effective statements to the Hearing Examiner.
We will be watching closely to see what happens next. As ever, you can rely on PMBC to update you as soon as we become aware of any actions taken by the city or the developer.