NOTICE OF APPEAL OF MDNS

I. Decision Being Appealed

Beatriz D'Aquila and the Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation appeal the September 9, 1999 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance by the City of Lake Forest Park for the proposal to construct three single family residences at 16715 30th Ave. NE, Lake Forest Park, by proponents Rob and Debbie Hill. A copy of the MDNS is attached.

II. Name and Address of the Appellants and their interests in the matter

Beatriz D'Aquila

2714 NE 168th St.

Lake Forest Park, WA 98155

Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation

17171 Bothell Way NE PMB 175

Lake Forest Park

Beatriz D'Aquila has lived on property adjacent to the Hill property for over 31 years. This proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the water quality in her neighborhood and elsewhere in Lake Forest Park. It will be harmful to the wildlife population in the neighborhood due to alterations of habitat, including wetlands. It will destabilize the steep slopes adjacent to Mrs. D'Aquila's property due to the placement of septic drainfields on and near the steep slopes.

The mission of the Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation, a non-profit Corporation, is the to contribute to the well-being of our community by fostering awareness and appreciation of our natural resources, and by preserving and enhancing the parks, open space, and recreational opportunities in Lake Forest Park. The proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the natural resources and open space in Lake Forest Park.

III. Specific Reasons why the Appellants believe the decision to be wrong

1. The proposal will have a probable significant adverse environmental impact and an environmental impact statement must be prepared. The property in question contains wetlands which comprise the headwaters of Brookside Creek, a major tributary of McAleer Creek. The proposal will have an adverse effect on water quality of both Brookside Creek and McAleer Creek due to storm drainage and surface water runoff being channeled into the wetlands. The proposal will also be detrimental to the health of salmon spawning downstream.

2. The mitigation specified in the MDNS is insufficient to remedy the environmental impact of the proposed development. Additional measures are required to mitigate the effects of: negative impact on water quality downstream from the proposed development; impact on the health of salmon spawning downstream; impact on salmonid habitat on site; and destabilization of steep slopes in the vicinity of septic drain fields.

3. More information is needed to conduct a proper environmental review. The City of Lake Forest Park must, at the very least, study the effects of placing septic drain fields in the steep slopes to the west of the proposed housing sites, immediately above the wetlands. This was not addressed in the SEPA checklist or the proposed mitigation plan. Additionally the effects of the proposed development on all of the wetlands and creeks downstream of the development must be studied. No such assessment was performed by either the proponents or the City.

4. The City of LFP is required by section 16.06.080.B.2.C of the Lake Forest Park Municipal Code (LFPMC) to take into account the fact that the proposed development drains into a stream identified by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife as bearing anadromous fish. A letter from Doug Hennick of the Department of Fish and Wildlife was entered into the public record on this proposal on Sep, 15, 1999; a copy of this letter is attached. Mr. Hennick identifies the wetlands on the property in question as being salmonid habitat and recommends increasing the widths of the wetland buffers accordingly. Instead, the City of LFP intends to allow the developer to decrease the size of the wetland buffers for this project. This is contrary to both the LFPMC (as the City did not take into account the fact that the development drains into an anadromous fish habitat) and the recommendations of the State Fish and Wildlife Department.

5. The City of LFP is required by section 16.06.020.C of the LFPMC to consider alternatives to the proposal in a DNS. The City failed to consider alternatives.

6. It is required by section 16.06.170.B.1 of the LFPMC that "A high priority shall be given to the preservation and protection of special habitat types. Special habitat types include, but are not limited to wetlands and associated areas…". The proposed development is indeed in a wetland area, as amply documented in the proponent's wetland delineation. The City did not show any evidence of giving high priority to the preservation and protection of this wetland in this MDNS. Note that section 16.06.170.B.4.d of the LFPMC states that in order to preserve and protect a wetland, mitigation measures may include limiting the use allowed on the site.

7. Section 16.06.230.B.2 of the LFPMC states:

For any project proposal which poses a potential threat to water quality in Lake Forest Park, the decisionmaker shall assess the probable effect of the impact and the need for mitigating measures. The assessment shall be completed in consultation with appropriate agencies with expertise.

The probable effect of this development on water quality in LFP - in particular, the quality of water downstream from the site - has not been assessed. Since the site contains headwaters of a major tributary of McAleer Creek, and runoff from roofs and driveways will be channeled into those headwaters, there will certainly be some impact on water quality in the City. This must be assessed.

8. Section 16.06.050.A.1 of the LFPMC states:

A project or action which by itself does not create undue impacts on the environment may create undue impacts when combined with the cumulative effects of prior or simultaneous developments; further, it may directly induce other developments, due to a causal relationship, which will adversely affect the environment.

Additionally, the City is required to assess the cumulative effects and impacts of prior, simultaneous, or other future similar developments. For example, the Hill property is part of a large contiguous wetland area, larger than 10 acres, stretching from the Petrie property (just south of the Hill property) at the south end up to the Burns property (near the intersection of Meadow and 28th Ave. NE) at the north end. The majority of this area is currently undeveloped, but development efforts are under way on at least 5 parcels in this stretch of wetlands. Section 16.06.050 requires the assessment of the impact of the possibility of all of this property being developed as the Hill property will. The cumulative effect of all of these current and potential development efforts on the quality of the water downstream, impact of traffic in the area, impact on the aquifer, stormwater retention in the wetlands, and effect of that quantity of septic drainfields near a wetland must be assessed. This assessment has been performed by neither the proponents nor the City.

9. Section 16.24.270 of the LFPMC states:

It shall be prohibited and in violation of this chapter for any person to…Cause or permit liquid or water-carried pollutants to enter the drainage system of the city including but not limited to oils and petroleum products, paints and paint thinners, pesticides, fertilizers, soaps, detergents and washing wastes;...

Since the drainage plan of the proposed development proposes to channel all of the runoff from driveways via sheet flow into the wetland buffers, pollutants from the site such as oil drippings and soap and detergent used to wash cars will inevitably wind up in the City's drainage system downstream. This is in violation of the LFPMC and has not been addressed properly in the SEPA checklist or the mitigation plan.

IV. Procedural Objection

The appellants have an objection to the fact that the record on this SEPA Determination was closed prior to the deliverance of the Determination of the MDNS. (Public comment on the SEPA determination was closed on July 21, 1999; the determination was announced on September 9, 1999.) This discrepancy undermines the public's ability to raise all critical issues, in particular, with the SEPA determination itself.

For example, the objection raised in section III.7, above, could not have been made until after the MDNS was delivered. Most citizens will not be willing to spend the $500 appeal fee to comment on such matters.

V. Desired Outcome to the Decision

The appellants request that the City of LFP prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on this proposed development, and that regardless of the outcome of said Statement, additional mitigation measured be required for the development.

Dated this 29th day of September, 1999.

Respectfully Submitted.,

Beatriz D'Aquila

Douglas P. Mitchell

President, Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation