August 29, 2024

The city has a lot to think about. The City Council and the Planning Commission are concerned about the RUE process and are aware they are problems that are detrimental to the city and its citizens.  The decision power currently is in the hands of one person, Mark Hofman. The next step is to set a date with the hearing examiner. However, with so many problems with this application, I understand Hofman could change his mind - That's what I understand that he told me. 

​

July 22, 2024 Notice from the city of LFP Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance - MDNS

Read the document here - The city has determined that this proposal, as designed, revised and conditioned, will not have a probable significant impact on the environment.  This was managed by the Mark Hofman, Community Development Director 

 

March 13, 2024 Notice from the city of LFP Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance - MDNS and SEPA Checklist - This was managed by Senior Planner Nick Holland who no longer works at LFP.

Read the SEPA Checklist  with my comments 

​​

SEPA (State Environmental Protection Agency) Application My Notes of the response

 

Look at the checklist with my comments.

• The typed comments in black are the build applicants' responses

• The red ink is city of LFP's senior planner who no longer works at LFP.

• The green marks, yellow highlights and red circles are mine to highlight questions and problems. The pdf comments share the notes in the margin.

• Notice the lack of answers and proof or reasoning for each answers

• Without a complete checklist that has accurate answers and back up, is it fair to approve the passage to the hearing examiner?

 

The SEPA application submitted by Mark Garey for a construction project in Lake Forest Park raises several concerns regarding its completeness and the accuracy of the information provided. This application is particularly sensitive as it involves steep slopes, Lyon Creek, and the necessary environmental buffers. Projects of this nature require meticulous attention to detail and full transparency to meet the rigorous environmental regulations in place.

 

Upon review, the application contains several discrepancies and omissions, particularly in addressing critical areas such as the presence of evergreen trees and other vegetation which, despite their obvious presence, have not been adequately documented or considered. This oversight, coupled with other inaccuracies, significantly undermines the credibility of the application.

 

Key Observations and Concerns

 

1. Incomplete and Inconsistent Responses: On the SEPA application for the RUE, the developer claimed there were no evergreen trees, contradicting their own report. Out of the 105 questions on the SEPA Checklist, 50/105 are "No" with no explanation or data, blank or "Not applicable". If this were a test 52% is failing or an incomplete, which means 52% of the application was completed. The absence of essential data and well-substantiated responses casts doubt on the reliability of the application.

 

2. Discrepancies in Critical Area Reporting: While the application acknowledges the existence of steep slopes and a stream, it fails to sufficiently address associated erosion and flood hazards. This is contrary to what is required by the Lake Forest Park Municipal Code. Specifically, LFPMC Chapter 16.16 identifies areas with slope gradients of 40 percent or greater as steep slope hazard areas, necessitating strict development standards and buffer requirements to prevent erosion and protect against flood hazards.

 

3. Vague Environmental Impact Assessments: The application provides insufficient detail on erosion, soil stability, and water runoff, with no comprehensive erosion control plan documented. Look at the section "B. Environmental Elements" When the question asks about soil- his reply was  “Unknown”. If he is serious about this process, should he be required to fill out the form with accuracy. There is soil on the ground. Why is it unknown? Experts do soil evaluations. Isn't this part of the checklist process?

 

4. Inadequate Addressing of Critical Vegetation and Wildlife: The application provides limited information on the treatment of significant trees, their Critical Root Zones, and the impact on local fauna.

 

5. Lack of Specificity in Mitigation and Construction Impact: The proposed stormwater system's response to increased runoff is inadequately detailed, especially in light of recent weather patterns and expected environmental stressors.

 

6. Potential Underestimation of Environmental Risks: Without thorough reports and analyses, the project’s compliance with environmental codes and its impact on the community remain highly questionable.

 

Conclusion

 

The SEPA application by Mark Garey shows significant gaps and inconsistencies that undermine its thoroughness and credibility. The high number of unanswered questions and the application’s failure to comprehensively assess and address environmental impacts reflect a disregard for the associated risks. This application, in its current state, fails to provide the necessary assurances that the development will be carried out responsibly with due regard for its environmental and community impacts. A thorough revision and detailed re-evaluation of the application are crucial to address these deficiencies.

​

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Link to the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION