Will the city be complicit in future downstream flooding?

Are you growing weary of homes being stuffed into any remaining pockets that have been around for decades or longer?

Urge the City to Uphold the City Code: Protect Our Lands

Lake Forest Park is at risk as developers are poised to exploit historically protected areas, endangering natural habitats and increasing flood and landslide risks. A recent case exemplifies this threat: a developer purchased a wetland for $144k, obtained a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE), built a house, and sold it for $1.7 million, which led to the flooding of neighboring properties. This situation sets a dangerous precedent.

The Threat of Unchecked Development

Specific parcels in Lake Forest Park are designated unbuildable due to city code protections for community safety. A pristine property with Lyon Creek is threatened by potential construction just 15 feet from the creek, violating city codes that mandate a 115-foot buffer zone.

Consequences of Ignoring City Codes

The developer’s report inaccurately documented only 13 trees on the property, omitting many others, and there is no official record except for photographic evidence. Additionally, the SEPA application for the RUE inaccurately claimed no evergreen trees existed. The SEPA Checklist was incomplete, with 50 out of 105 questions marked "No" without explanation. Despite these discrepancies, the city moved forward with the approval process.

The Dangers of Incomplete and Inaccurate Reporting

The property already suffers from flooding, and further tree removal and construction will worsen the situation. Water displacement and erosion will increase, posing significant safety risks to nearby homes.

Importance of Accurate Environmental Assessments

The SEPA Checklist must be thoroughly and accurately completed to ensure proper environmental assessments. Approving the RUE based on incomplete and inaccurate information undermines this process and jeopardizes community safety.

Taking Action

If the RUE (Reasonable Use Exception) is approved, Lake Forest Park risks losing its treasured trees and natural areas. Immediate action is required to protect the environment and community safety. Residents should contact the city to oppose granting the RUE without comprehensive and accurate environmental studies.

How to Help

Residents should email Mark Hofman at MHofman@cityoflfp.gov or call (206) 957-2824, using the subject line “Public Comment - RUE 2021_RUE-0001 Garey,” before August 5, 2024, to protect the trees, environment, and community safety.

Mr. Hofman hasn't replied to LFP Town Crier's request for comment.

Full article: 

Urge the City to Uphold City Code: Protect our Lands

Our beloved Lake Forest Park is facing a critical threat. The city is on the verge of allowing developers to exploit historically protected sensitive areas, risking the destruction of our precious natural habitats and increasing the dangers of flooding and landslides. Recently, a developer purchased a wetland for $144k, received a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE), built a house, and sold it for $1.7 million—only to flood the neighboring property. This sets a dangerous precedent that could impact us all. See information

The Threat of Unchecked Development

In Lake Forest Park, certain parcels are unbuildable for a reason: city code protects these lands and the safety of our community. The current case involves a pristine property with Lyon Creek running through it. This area has been safeguarded for years, with a required 115-foot buffer zone to preserve the creek's natural state. Despite this, the city has approved an RUE for an external developer, potentially allowing construction just 15 feet from Lyon Creek, in direct violation of multiple city codes. See scenario and diagram

The Consequences of Ignoring City Codes

The developer's initial report inaccurately listed only 13 trees on the property, failing to account for many more. What happens if they cut down additional trees? It's not documented, so there's no official record—except that we have photographic evidence.

The Dangers of Incomplete and Inaccurate Reporting

Moreover, 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.

Despite the tree discrepancy, and incompleteness of the checklist the city moved forward with the approval process. This property already suffers from flooding, and with recent tree falls due to floods, further tree removal and construction will only worsen the situation. The increased water displacement from removing trees will elevate the creek's water level, eroding the steep bank on which my house sits. This is not only an environmental issue but a significant safety concern for me and my neighbors.

Why This Matters: Flooding and Erosion Risks

The SEPA Checklist should be required to be filled out completely, thoroughly with explanations and accurately. This RUE should not be approved due to its incomplete and inaccurate information. Why have a checklist if it's not enforced?

The Importance of Accurate Environmental Assessments

If this RUE is approved, we might as well rename our city to "Lake Park" as we lose our treasured trees. We need to act now to protect our environment and our neighbors.

Take Action Now: Before August 5, 2024

Contact the city and let them know that you oppose granting this RUE without concrete, accurate, thorough experts submitting comprehensive studies showing the neighbors and environment won't be harmed. We must protect our trees, our environment, and the safety of our community.

Write an email to Lake Forest Park, Mark Hofman MHofman@cityoflfp.gov; (206) 957-2824

Email Subject Line: Public Comment - RUE 2021_RUE-0001 Garey

• See GreenVoicesOfLakeForestPark.com for visuals, maps, comments
• Listen to podcast Green Voices of Lake Forest Park to get updates and listen to public comments.

Jolene Jang (she/her) – Asian American Ambassador

Here is a letter I sent to City of LFP Mark Hofman and with the attachment of my questions and he approved the RUE application anyway.

SEPA (State Environmental Protection Agency) Application Review Notes

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: The application leaves 33 out of 107 questions either unanswered or marked N/A, which means 69% of the application lacks proper completion. 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.