The Woods at Viewcrest’s preliminary plat and associated permits will go forward after Protect Mud Bay Cliff’s appeal was denied by city council on August 21
by Tori Lehman
Whatcom County’s beauty is no surprise to those lucky enough to live here. The sprawling Cascades backdrop beautiful waters where residents enjoy the wonders living within our ecosystems. It is again no surprise that this beauty has attracted more people to the county — and, with more people, comes more housing development.
One of those developments is The Woods at Viewcrest (The Woods). The project was originally proposed in early 2021 and an application was officially submitted to the City of Bellingham in April 2022 by AVT Consulting LLC on behalf of the property owners, the Jones family.
Map from the City of Bellingham’s project page for The Woods at Viewcrest.
A satellite map of the proposed development site for The Woods at Viewcrest at Mud Bay Cliffs.
The development would sit atop Mud Bay Cliff s, the rocky and forested sandstone cliffs above “Bellingham’s richest and most biologically diverse estuary,” according to the City of Bellingham’s website. (1) The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife classifies Mud Bay as a Priority Habitat and Species area for hardshell clams and estuarine and marine wetland. (2)
Shortly after The Woods development was proposed, Protect Mud Bay Cliffs (PMBC) was formed as a local grassroots nonprofit to “minimize the adverse environmental and public safety impacts” of the project, according to PMCB’s website.
Since its formation, PMBC has organized volunteers and raised funds to file appeals and raise awareness about its concerns with the proposed development. Members of PMBC have reported on the potential consequences of The Woods development with Whatcom Watch in the October/November 2025 issue. (3)
On June 18, 2026, PMBC attempted to appeal the hearing examiner’s decision to approve the preliminary plat and associated permits for The Woods before the Bellingham City Council. In a unanimous decision on Aug. 21, 2026, the city council upheld the examiner’s decision to approve the plat.
“The council recognizes that the appellant brought this challenge in good faith, driven by a genuine care for the local environment and the future of our community,” City Council President Hannah Stone said at the Aug. 21 hearing. “The council does not take these concerns lightly, and today’s decision is in no way a reflection of indifference to them.”
This could have been appealed to the Whatcom County Superior Court within 21 days of the Aug. 21 hearing. PMBC decided to not appeal the decision due to “the enormous financial burden and potential liability for applicant legal fees involved with pursuing an appeal,” according to Larry Horowitz, a member of PMBC, despite PMBC’s disagreement with the decision.
The Hearing Examiner
In June 2026, Bellingham Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice approved the preliminary plat, subdivision variance, and critical areas permits with conditions for The Woods at Viewcrest, while simultaneously denying PMBC’s appeal of the city’s Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance under the State Environmental Policy Act. PMBC appealed the hearing examiner’s ruling to the Bellingham City Council.
In order to overturn the hearing examiner’s decision, the burden was on PMBC to prove that the decision was contrary to law, that it was not sufficiently supported by evidence, or the proceedings violated the appearance of fairness.
The hearing was closed, and thus did not allow either party to present new evidence to the council.
Janet Migaki, a member of PMBC speaking on its behalf, focused predominantly on two issues PMBC has with the plat: its stormwater management regulations, and geohazard buffers. Migaki argued that the preliminary plat does not meet city code regulations for stormwater management, and that the typical 50-foot buffer zone to protect from landslide hazard areas has erroneously been shrunk to 10 feet for 33 of the 38 proposed lots.
photo: Avery Robertson
The train tracks that cross Mud Bay reach land again on Clark’s Point.
“The decision to approve this plat was based on a lot of assumptions and promise that there will be future compliance later to justify the plat being approved now,” Migaki said.
Tim Shermetzler, an attorney representing the applicant and property owners, argued that numerous revisions have been made to the project with input from both city staff and community members since the project’s proposal. The City of Bellingham’s website shows that four Requests for Information (RFI) sent to the applicant between 2022 and 2024, included asking for further information on adequate buffers for geologically hazardous areas and alignment of stormwater conveyance pipes. (4)
“This type of ‘not in my backyard’ appeal is devoid from facts or law, relies only on distraction and displeasure to stop projects,” Shermetzler said. “While appellants disagree with the hearing examiner’s decision, appellants’ disapproval or displeasure cannot be the basis for a permit denial under the law.”
Exact technical details on code compliance are not provided within the preliminary plat. However, the applicant does not have to provide these details until further into the development and permitting process.
According to James Erb, interim city attorney for the City of Bellingham, future development is contingent on proof of code compliance. If the developers cannot prove they are in compliance with federal, state and city code, they will have to modify and resubmit their proposal or abandon the project.
“In no event will the applicant receive a public facilities contract or other permit approvals without first demonstrating code compliance,” Erb said.
There was also significant note at the hearing over PMBC’s mentions of environmental concerns.
Previously, in August 2025, PMBC filed an appeal against the City of Bellingham’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) decision for the development. (5) The appeal was denied on June 5, 2026.
SEPA reviews are used to analyze the environmental impacts of governmental decisions within Washington state. An MDNS ruling means that the governmental decisions have a nonsignificant impact on the environment due to additional mitigating conditions added to the decision. By complying with the MDNS ruling, The Woods development did not have to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which would have halted development but provided a more comprehensive assessment of the potential environmental dangers for the sensitive ecosystem.
“The decision regarding the SEPA appeal could only be appealed to Whatcom County Superior Court within 21 days of June 5. PMBC did not do that,” Erb said. “Instead, PMBC filed this appeal to council, purportedly challenging the preliminary plat and associated decisions. This is simply the wrong forum for PMBC arguments about environmental impacts from the proposal.”
Despite the less than desirable outcome by the hearing examiner, PMBC has continued to update supporters through their website and encourage concerned community members to stay engaged with the development as it continues through the permitting process on a state and federal level.
“Thank you for standing with us for the past five years. We will keep you informed as the state and federal review processes move forward,” PMBC said in its Sept. 2, 2026 update. (6)
The Development
The next stages of development for The Woods involve more city-level permits for street vacation, which gives city rights of the street to private development, and shoreline permit review from the Department of Ecology, which PMBC has said it will “continue working with” through the permitting process. “If and when those are approved, the infrastructure gets built,” Ali Taysi, the owner of AVT Consulting, said. “Then, once the infrastructure is built, the final subdivision can be applied for, which would create the actual lots.”
The Woods plans for 38 single-family homes and three open spaces on about 38 acres of land near Area 7 of the Edgemoor neighborhood. A publicly accessible trail connecting Clarkwood Plat and Viewcrest Road to Sea Pines Road is proposed. There are currently no plans to make Chuckanut Bay publicly accessible through the development.
Additionally, the 2025 SEPA report describes the project as “residences for medium to high income housing.” (7) PMBC has criticized the development’s high price tags as one of its flaws to the community. As of 2024, the median household income in Whatcom County was $85,471, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (8), and these high-income houses may be out of reach for many already within the county.
“Citizens have an interest in affordable housing; we also have an interest in the protection of public safety and public assets,” PMBC said in a statement.
Taysi argues that the development will benefit everyone in the county by improving the economy through new jobs and property taxes, and that even high-income earners need housing.
“While there has been some criticism around the project serving a higher income bracket, the reality is that we need to provide housing for all income brackets,” Taysi said.
As the development continues, another public notice will be sent out during the street vacation process, when community members can submit comments. To stay up to date on Th e Woods at Viewcrest, follow the City of Bellingham’s webpage dedicated to the project at cob.org/project/the-woods-at-viewcrest and PMBC’s update page at mudbaycliffs.org/updates.
_______________________________
Tori Lehman is a Western Washington University alum who studied journalism and environmental studies and has lived in Whatcom County since 2022. When she’s not reporting, she’s found bird-watching or strolling through downtown Bellingham.
References:
- https://cob.org/services/recreation/parks-trails/parks-guide/chuckanut-bay-shorelands
- https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/
- https://whatcomwatch.org/index.php/article/mud-bay-at-acrossroads-protecting-cliffs-wetlands-and-community/
- https://cob.org/wp-content/uploads/2022-04-28-rfi .pdf
- https://cob.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-07-25-mdns.pdf
- https://mudbaycliffs.org/updates/our-work-continues
- https://cob.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-07-25-sepa-report.pdf
Page 28, Section 9 Housing - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MHIWA53073A052NCEN
