Updates, and Comments on Developers’ 12/8/22 letter
Edgemoor and Chuckanut residents recently received a bulk-mail letter dated 12/8/22 from The Woods at Viewcrest developers. In their letter, the developers imply that their proposed 38-acre project will impose little, if any, adverse impacts on the environment and on Bellingham residents.
Members of Protect Mud Bay Cliffs (PMBC) have been evaluating various proposals submitted by the developers since the pre-application neighborhood meeting held on 2/24/21. Working with technical experts, we have uncovered a variety of significant adverse impacts this large-scale development will impose that are not addressed in the developers’ 12/8/22 letter. We are in the process of preparing a public comment letter detailing these adverse impacts, which will require (a) the city to issue a Determination of Significance under the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) and (b) the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by an objective environmental firm.
Here is our commitment to you, our Bellingham neighbors:
PMBC will continue to closely monitor the developers’ responses to the city’s Requests for Information (RFI) and identify ways in which the proposal may fail to meet city, state, and/or federal requirements.
We will continue to keep you aware of key developments as they arise.
We will employ legal and technical experts to ensure that biases which may be present in the application materials are identified and addressed.
We will refrain from exaggerations and ensure our communications to you are grounded in demonstrable facts.
The developers' letter has caused some confusion about the development proposal, and we have received questions about it. Here are a few comments from Protect Mud Bay Cliffs, which we hope will clarify matters.
Project Webpage: The proposal to subdivide Mud Bay Cliffs is under review by the Bellingham Planning Department. Information about the current proposal can be viewed on the city’s website at: https://cob.org/project/the-woods-at-viewcrest
Requests for Information: After the developers submitted their initial applications on 3/8/22, city staff determined that required information was missing and issued an RFI on 4/28/22. The developers submitted their response seven months later, on 11/23/22. On 12/21/22, after concluding that further information is still needed, city staff issued a second RFI. The developers have until 4/20/23 to respond.
Geohazards: To evaluate the potential impacts of this project, it’s important to consider the geologically hazardous areas that exist within the 38-acre parcel. Below are direct quotes (with emphasis added) from the 12/31/09 Geologic Feasibility Investigation. Given these geologically hazardous areas, it is difficult to imagine how the proposed subdivision would not impose significant impacts on the environment:
The site was observed to consist of ridge or cliff forming units of Chuckanut Formation Sandstone.
In addition to steep topography, several vertical or near vertical bedrock cliffs were observed across the site.
Portions of the site have been identified as having High Landslide Potential in that they have slopes greater than 30%, slopes exceeding 80%, and slopes greater than 15% that may be potentially unstable because of other factors.
Seismic induced slope failure and rock fall are possible at this site.
Field observations suggest that the soils on the project site have a relatively low susceptibility to erosion in an undisturbed state because of dense vegetation, but that alteration of these conditions could significantly increase the erosion potential.
Future development of the site could impact the current hydrologic condition… Changes in hydrology can alter the probability, frequency and magnitude of mass wasting (landslide) activity.
Development on or above steep slopes could impact slope stability by changing surface or groundwater flow on the slopes. In addition, the risk of landslides could be impacted by construction near or on steep slopes because of grading disturbance or additional load application from structures such as buildings, road fill embankments, topographic alterations or retaining walls.
Because of the steep slopes and existing groundwater conditions, modifications of groundwater or surface water flow may impact the potential size and frequency of mass wasting (landslide) events . The fine-grained soils found on site are susceptible to soil erosion resulting from the movement of heavy equipment or site grading.
Density: The 38-lot site plans submitted by the developer illustrate that, due to critical area constraints, no additional homesites could be added. The submitted site plans are clearly designed to maximize the number of lots.
Critical Areas: Although the developers state they wish to avoid the wetlands, the shoreline, and the mandatory wetland and shoreline buffers, doing so is required by city and state law.
Setbacks: The majority of the “additional setbacks” are comprised of geologically hazardous critical areas that cannot be built upon under city law.
Stormwater Treatment: The "enhanced standard” for stormwater treatment referenced in the letter is a legal requirement by the Department of Ecology. The developers must use this standard; it is not voluntary.
Current Law: In their letter, the developers compare their project with neighboring subdivisions that were approved under environmental laws adopted more than 30 years ago. This comparison ignores the progress made in environmental law over the past three decades. New developments must comply with current regulations.
Stormwater Runoff: The developers’ claims about stormwater management cannot be verified because their stormwater management report is missing the required calculations for their proposed Modular Wetland Systems (MWS). What we do know is that discharges from modular wetland systems are anything but clean. The most commonly used devices have been tested for their efficacy on removing pollutants. These systems only remove 45% of nitrogen and 64% of total phosphorus. Nitrogen and phosphorus are directly linked to low dissolved oxygen levels in receiving waters, and these are the primary pollutants associated with nearby Chuckanut Creek and the Chuckanut Bay estuary. One of the major stormwater pipes proposed in the current plan will discharge large amounts of runoff directly into Mud Bay. The other stormwater pipe will discharge runoff into a wetland buffer.
Variances: The developers have requested variances to the city’s regulations. PMBC believes these variances are not in the public interest. PMBC does not support the city granting special permissions and variances simply to enrich property owners. For example:
The developer has requested an exception/exemption to not follow shoreline jurisdiction law: the developer wishes to excavate shoreline area to erect a large above-ground pipe with rock-filled metal cages for discharging much of the site’s runoff.
The “new, minimal impact design features” for roads and utilities discussed in the letter do not comply with city regulations and require the developers to apply for variances of the law as part of their application. The long, narrow private roads and driveways the developers are proposing will make access by firefighting equipment extremely difficult.
If you would like further information, we encourage you to contact Bellingham Senior Planner Kathy Bell by phone (360-778-8347) or via email (kbell@cob.org).
You can also email us at Info@MudBayCliffs.org. We are an all-volunteer community group whose mission is to minimize adverse impacts of the proposed subdivision on Mud Bay Cliffs. Please visit our website at www.MudBayCliffs.org.
We thank you for your ongoing support to protect this rare and unique Bellingham gem, comprised of shoreline, steep cliffs, mature woodland, and wetlands.