Editor’s note: This story was edited to add Ali Taysi from AVT Consulting’s comments. Last updated: Aug. 14 at 3:12 p.m.

BELLINGHAM, WA (MyBellinghamNow.com) – On July 25, Bellingham Planning and Community Development Department (PCDD) officials issued a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) for “The Woods at Viewcrest” development.

The development, which proposes to subdivide 37.7 acres of land into 38 detached, single-family lots and three open space tracts, was determined by the city’s PCDD to need no further environmental review.

According to the Washington State Department of Ecology, a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) in the SEPA process means an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared before the construction. A “mitigated” DNS has had more public process and greater scrutiny than a regular DNS because the proposal has likely significant adverse impacts that the lead agency assesses can be addressed through specific, enforceable mitigation.

Some community members have opposed the development of the site due to its ecological significance and status as a feeding ground for the Post Point great blue heron colony. Others have opposed the development because of the risk of landslides, should the development be built in its current plan.

The tidal flats and surrounding marshes provide habitat and shelter for several “focal species” as outlined by the 2021 Wildlife Corridor Analysis.

Local environmental group Protect Mud Bay Cliffs (PMBC) founding member Larry Horowitz said that when the development first allowed public comments, their group compiled several expert opinions to analyze the site for potential issues with development.

“The applicants’ own consultants specifically recommended that no blasting for the proposed development, and our expert concurred because, and here’s the reason, blasting [in] alternating sandstone layers with joints can have bedrock stability impacts over long distances,” he said. As a neighbor to the construction, Horowitz worries for the stability of his house and the surrounding neighborhood.

Director of Planning & Community Development Blake Lyon said that MDNS’s are not uncommon in our area, but could not give more information on specifics, as the determination can be applied to a variety of developments.

The consulting company planning the development, AVT Consulting, has worked on projects in Whatcom County since 2004. Founder Ali Taysi said that in his decades of experience working in construction in Washington, EIS statements generally don’t apply to projects this small in scale.

“The significance of the impacts has more to do with the extensive landslide hazard areas and the location abutting the ecologically sensitive Mud Bay estuary, mudflats, estuarine wetlands, and salt marsh. Common sense dictates that a small project can have an oversized adverse impact on public safety and the environment,” Horowitz said in an email to My Bellingham Now.

He added that the city has not issued an EIS statement for residential property in at least the last 25 years.

“In 2006, the city issued an MDNS for the Fairhaven Highlands project but later reversed and issued a [Determination of Significance]. The city’s SEPA process, which has never required an EIS, makes a mockery of environmental protection,” Horowitz said. 

Horowitz alleges that the information submitted to the city is erroneous and at least partially the reason that the local SEPA agent issued the MDNS. In their nearly 500-page public comment document, PMBC included several LIDAR images, a commonly used type of laser image used to map out environmental areas. Horowitz said that the building materials did not submit LIDAR in what he calls an issue.

Taysi said that LIDAR would be less accurate than the ground survey they performed because the site is heavily forested.

Taysi added that his consulting agency spent years in a back-and-forth replying to the city’s requests for information (RFIs) and felt that their bases had been covered by the time the MDNS was issued.

“I think the city felt that with the high detail that was in the reports and studies that we provided and the existing city regulations that are in place, that they would be able to incorporate mitigating conditions that addressed all the potential impacts,” he said. “There’s no need for an EIS [when] all of the impacts on the project can be mitigated through conditions, which is the case here.”

Lyon said the applicants met all of the requirements as outlined in their checklist, which can be viewed online on the city’s project website. He added that the SEPA agent reviews not only the project application materials but also the materials submitted during public comment.

Horowitz disputed that the group’s comments were taken into account.

“The SEPA process is concerned with identifying significant adverse impacts. A checklist can be complete (and even accurate), but that has no bearing on whether the project will cause significant adverse impacts.  The city failed in this regard,” Horowitz added in an email to My Bellingham Now.

PMBC claims that, of the 38 proposed lots, 33 lots fail to comply with City regulations to establish building envelopes outside of the landslide and erosion hazard areas and their 50-foot minimum buffers.

“If there’s a member of the community that feels like there was something that was not appropriately address the SEPA documentation, they have every right to make that comment, and then that comment will be evaluated,” Lyon said. The SEPA official will then have the opportunity to make amendments or corrections.

PMBC filed a formal appeal against the city’s SEPA MDNS on August 7 and submitted an additional addendum raising further concerns about stormwater discharges the following day.

According to the City’s website, a public hearing on the land use applications will be scheduled before the City’s Hearing Examiner after consideration of the SEPA public comment.

“I do not believe there’s merit to the appeal at all,” Taysi said. “I think that the project is been really thoughtfully designed, and has, I think, 19 mitigating conditions, plus the recommendations in all of the reports that are that our team made that are all incorporated into that and as long as we adhere to all of those conditions, that the project will not have any substantive impact.”

He said the project’s decision to incorporate enhanced stormwater treatment, when only basic treatment is required, is an example of their diligence in responding to the city’s concerns.

“All of the pollution-generating stormwater from the roads within the project will be routed to treatment modules that will provide this enhanced level of treatment,” Taysi said. “And so that step up to enhance treatment is an example of how we responded to the city concern about that.”

My Bellingham Now previously reported on concerns about the project during a public comment period last July.