Foundation's written argument for variance

Rob Hill has requested relief from the City of Lake Forest Park’s Sensitive Area requirements in order to build 4 houses on what is platted as 4 single family lots in the environmentally sensitive area of the headwaters of Brookside Creek.  The variances, as requested, go far beyond granting Reasonable Use of the property, and allow Mr. Hill to develop the property into a tract of 4 homes which directly abut the wetland and extend far into the buffers designed to protect these wetlands.

It is well established that buffers are required to allow a wetland to perform its invaluable functions of water retention, water filtration, and habitat generation.  Ideally, the single family homes to which Reasonable Use entitles to the owner would be located well away from streams and wetlands, but this is utterly impossible on this property, as very steep slopes and extensive standing and flowing water cover the majority of the lots, rendering most of the acreage  not developable. Development attempts on this site over the last several decades have all met with failure in the face of the natural forces at play.

In 1967, an attempt was made to excavate the base of the hillside to provide fill along the roadside in an attempt to generate building sites.  The excavation rapidly hit ground water, generating a large oval pond at the base of the steep hill side.  Shifting sand and numerous slides have gradually filled in the eastern border of the pond, now nearly dividing it into a figure “8”, and one can easily step across the flowing water that connects the two areas of standing water.

NE 166th St. channels water along its impervious pavement to the northeastern corner of this lot.  Thirty years ago this runoff generated a small channel through the sandy soil as water flowed downhill. This channel has now eroded into a gaping crevasse, known locally as “the sand pit.”

Suffice to say that the lots are not easily amenable to development.  Nonetheless, the owner is entitled to Reasonable Use, and it is the final decision of this Board as to whether the current building proposal should be exempt from Sensitive Areas laws of the City of Lake Forest Park, thereby asserting that the proposal will have the minimal impact necessary to grant the property owner Reasonable Use of his land.  The development is being handled as a single unit, but the developer is asserting his right to build four homes on the four platted lots, but under a single permitting process.

After extensive study of the area in question and the specific building proposal under consideration, it is our strong opinion that these variances are not warranted for the development as planned.  Serious inaccuracies of the proposal will likely produce irreversible changes and unnecessary damage to this highly sensitive area.

Reasons to decline  the requested Variances:

A. Wetlands as water retention devices

As noted in the Lake Forest Park Customer Information Bulletin on wetlands, wetlands serve as storm water retention devices.  Local residents clearly remember the catastrophic flooding of Lake Forest Park Town Center in January 1997 (Please see McAleer Creek photo, Shoreline Week, January 8, 1997.)  The wetlands on this property constitute a significant part of the headwaters of Brookside Creek, a major tributary of McAleer Creek, which overflowed to cause that flooding.  We have observed the enhanced drainage culverts for McAleer Creek, installed around Towne Center, flowing at very near capacity since that storm. Twenty thousand square feet of soil will be covered with paved drives and rooftops to accommodate this development.   Fewer homes or homes with smaller footprints must be considered.  This alternative would still grant reasonable use, but decrease the likelihood of expensive flood cleanup in the future.

The current building proposal claims that only 7% of the total site will be replaced with impervious surface, but this number includes in its total site area  the large tract of steep slope west of the ponds, which is entirely unsuitable for homes or driveways. If one calculates this figure using only the land from the road to the border of the standing water, the impervious surface is over 20%, which will clearly impact the rate of flow into the wetlands. The extensive development in Shoreline along the ridge above this wetland had dramatically increased the general runoff into the wetland along 28th Ave, with new waterfalls noted springing from the steep slopes by many local residents, and it is likely that the wetland on Mr. Hill’s property is already functioning at or near maximal water retention capacity.  Any increased inflow off impermeable surfaces will transfer directly into increased flow volumes and speeds in Brookside Creek.

B. Wetlands as Biofilters

The Lake Forest Park Customer Information Bulletin on wetlands also states that wetlands are important for improving water quality by acting as biofilters. Buffers are of critical importance for wetlands to perform this function, and buffer exemption is the heart of this Variance application.

King County Department of Hazardous Waste has recently given Lyon Creek the dubious distinction of the highest Diazinon concentrations in the county. It is clear that residential fertilizer and pesticide runoff into streams is a local problem based on our experience with Lyon Creek. A recent study documented that “harmful Diazinon levels can be produced in urban streams from a handful of individual homes within any given watershed.”[1]  Even properly applied fertilizers can result in lawn runoff a million times greater than the EPA limits for those chemicals. [1]  Pesticides and fertilizers pose significant threats to plant and animal life, particularly the microbial life at the heart of a functioning wetland.  Nitrates and phosphates coming off of residential property are triple that from undeveloped lands.[2] According to King County Department of Hazardous Waste[3] heavy metals, oil and grease, silt, antifreeze, and salt produce chronic and significant contamination in road runoff. Buffers are the only way to protect fragile wetlands from these pollutants There is no reasonable way to require eventual home owners on these sites to refrain from fertilizing their gardens or de-mossing their roofs, or to wash their cars only in certain designated corners of their driveways. 

The buffer encroachment specified by this development plan[4] would reduce the buffer at the northwest corner of the delineated wetland to zero for home 1 (northernmost). The drainage plan developed by Tietze and Associates calls for sheet flow dispersion from the site drive.  The plan calls for grading of driveway one such that all flow drains to a center point into a ten foot vegetated buffer, just over ten feet from the delineated edge of the wetland, and approximately twenty-five feet from the stream flowing along 30^th Ave NE. Grading is not allowed in wetland buffers (to protect this fragile habitat from disruption, and to protect the stream and wetland from the siltation generated.)  Evidently Mr. Hill’s proposal requests exemption for extensive re-grading within the wetland buffers in addition to the Variance he is requesting to simply encroach on the buffers, in order to allow his drainage plan to work.  If he is granted the Variance to encroach, and is further allowed to extensively re-grade the buffer, and the drainage plan works perfectly, the ten foot buffer is unlikely to adequately protect the streams and wetlands from household pollutants.  If the drainage does not work perfectly, sheet flow drainage of driveway effluent can flow directly into the wetland itself where there is zero buffer, or into the flowing roadside stream where the drive crosses it.

The buffer along the western edge of building envelope one would be less than ten feet - not even the fifteen foot set-back required for all buildings. The Tietze and Associates drainage plan calls for roof runoff  to be controlled by splash blocks and dispersion with at least a 50 foot vegetated flow path between the splash block and any property line, structure, steep slope, stream, wetland, lake or other impervious surface. Note that the drainage plan shows a “50 foot vegetated buffer” the southernmost downspout of site one is shown draining directly into the standing water of the pond and extending entirely across the waterway. There is no way to accommodate a 50-foot vegetated buffer at this location without encountering water, an impervious surface, or a lot line. This is contrary to the BMP cited by Mr. Hill’s Drainage plan.   

The 50 foot vegetated buffers are difficult to accommodate elsewhere as well.  For example, the eastern downspout of site four is barely accommodated before discharging into the roadside stream.  This site (four) is problematic for another reason: the wetland delineation performed by B&A shows a stream channel extending under the footprint of the building site (indicated as “CLD”).  This stream channel has been afforded no buffer whatsoever.

These situations demonstrate the unacceptable chemical contamination likely from the proposed development.  An equally important source of stream contamination is biologic contamination from failing septic systems.  The septic system proposed by DR Strong Consulting Engineers would run pressurized effluent through the wetland buffer to a shared drainage field on lot 1 for lots 1,3 and 4. DR Strong’s mapping shows wetlands both north and east of the ponds, but no wetland delineation was performed by B&A in this area.  This would route 4 pressurized transport pipes through what DR Strong Consulting Engineers considers wetlands, to drainfields just west of the indicated wetland, yet the City has not even required delineation of wetland in this area.  Regardless of  the status of any septic permitting, the wetlands in this area must be fully delineated to protect them.  Additionally, there is clear evidence of earth movement in the area of this drainfield, and the entirety of all four lots are considered erosion hazard. The “sand pit” is just above this site.   What will happen if  these PVC pipes begin to crack or decouple as the forces of unstable sandy soil begin to shift?  The sewage will drain directly into the wetlands below.

The septic plans as submitted do not appear to show backup drainfields.  Where will these be located?

C. Wetlands as critical habitat

The Lake Forest Park Customer Information Bulletin on Wetlands states that wetlands are important for furnishing “habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for many species.”  According to the King County Wetlands Inventory, “Over half of the fish and wildlife species in Washington State have critical life needs that depend on wetlands or their buffers at some point during their life cycle.”[5]

Rob Hill states in his SEPA application that the only birds or animals observed or known to be on or near the site are “robins” and “crows”.  If allowed to go unchallenged, statements such as this  make a mockery of this Board and the entire Sensitive Areas process. The Hill property is a well-known nesting area for the pileated woodpecker. A pair of barred owls returns there every year.  The Audubon Society has made field trips to 28th and 30th Avenues to observe the diversity of birds there.  School children have collected polliwogs in the puddles not far from the roadside near the lot line between lots 3 and 4.[6]  A population of chorus frogs inhabit the ponds.  Coyote dens dot the hillside above the ponds.  Opossum and raccoon are common here. The diversity of plant and animal life is part of what has compelled so many citizens to work so hard to preserve this incredible wetland.

D.  The Salmon

The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) has clearly stated that this proposed development “will damage the aquatic system of Brookside Creek which flows through the site.” [7]  DFW has identified Brookside Creek as salmonid habitat.  In fact, there have been spawning coho salmon downstream from this site within the memory of many local citizens.

As noted in Biologist Hennick’s letter of September 15,1999, “Scour from winter storms is presently the worst habitat problem for salmonids in urban streams because eggs and juveniles get killed by the violence of storm flows.”  The increase in stream flow produced by the extensive impervious surface generated by this proposal has already been addressed in section A.

There are many reasons to protect the coho salmon habitat on the Hill site.  Primarily, it is of course simply the right thing to do.  This integral part of our heritage is one small step from the endangered species list, and we owe it to our children to try to keep it from taking that step.  On a purely pragmatic level, it is incumbent upon cities to aggressively manage such issues, since Federally mandated programs are uniformly more costly that preventative programs would have been.  In the wake of I-695, the City of Lake Forest Park cannot afford the vulnerability resulting from the appearance of not doing everything possible to protect endangered fish.  As the Bull Trout joins the Threatened ranks, pressure on habitat preservation will only increase. We can allow the Hills a series of unreasonable Variances in the name of Reasonable Use, or decline the existing proposal in favor of one that will do more to respect the buffers of this valuable headwaters and assert our respect for salmon habitat.  Studies have shown that the most cost-effective way to improve habitat quality down stream is to invest directly in the headwaters of these streams. 

E. Other Issues

The drainage plan developed by Tietze and Associates treats the lots as individual parcels to take advantage of the more generous BMP rules for lots less than two acres, whereas the mitigation proposal by B&A treats the proposal as a single unit to take advantage of  mitigation on one lot to compensate for more difficult (if not impossible) mitigation on other sites.  The septic design takes the four lots as a unit, as this is the only way to get drainfields for 4 houses.  Is this one parcel, or four?  If it needs to be treated as one for mitigation and sewer, would not Reasonable Use be simply one house?  If it is four parcels, shouldn’t the Variances, mitigation and septic design proposals be considered on a lot by lot basis?

There have been some troubling irregularities in the process of both the SEPA determination and the Variance process.  Citizens were advised not to enter letters into the public record for the SEPA determination, only to later find out that their input was therefore excluded from the closed record appeal. The SEPA appeal response states that other building options were considered between Ty Peterson and Mr. Hill, yet the public was allowed no input on other options.  Have true alternatives been considered?  Couldn’t shared driveways potentially leave the roadside stream daylighted for the benefit of fish? Could smaller foot prints for the houses still provide Reasonable Use, but cause much less buffer encroachment? If the parcel is considered as one unit, might fewer houses be completely adequate for Reasonable Use? Would the owner consider deeding public access to parts of the undevelopeable areas of these lots as part of the mitigation for encroachment?

Section 2.26.010.B.7 of the LFPMC states that “the Board of Adjustment shall consider the applicant’s record regarding meeting the terms, conditions, and limitations of other permits previously issued…”. Note that Mr. Hill performed excavation on his property in 1998 without the required permits; he was required by the Planning Commission to obtain the necessary permits before proceeding with the work he started improperly.

Mr. Hill has made blatantly false statements on his SEPA checklist. One, as cited above, referred to the presence of only robins and crows on the land, whereas the community at large knows that a multitude of other species are present. Another example is Mr. Hill’s claim that the steepest grade on his property is 45%. In fact, a later document – prepared by American Engineering Corporation -  presented by Mr. Hill regarding the stability of the slopes in the vicinity of the septic fields states (more accurately) that the slopes steeper than 100% exist on site. Yet another example is the preposterous claim that there is no evidence of unstable soils or landslides in the area, when any casual inspection of the sandpit area shows evidence of serious landslides in the recent past, and long-time residents have seen steady slope failure in this area, year in and year out, for decades.

Mr Hill is asking for an exemption from existing laws.  It is incumbent upon him to show that this is necessary in order to get reasonable use from the land. Is helping him turn this property from the $60K wetland he bought in 1993 into a half million dollar building site “reasonable”?  At what cost to the citizens? Note that shortly after Mr. Hill bought this land, he presented a proposal to the City, in July 1994, to build exactly one house. The variance he requested for that project was denied. Apparently, at that time, Mr. Hill believed that “reasonable use” for this parcel was one house. Perhaps that is still what might be reasonable.

In conclusion, it would be irresponsible of this Board to allow Mr. Hill the variances requested.  They would fail to protect the citizenry from the economic impact from lost storm water retention, from ground water decontamination of pollutants and colliforms and from possible eventual Federally mandated salmon habitat restoration.  They would fail to protect the prospective property owners from ill-conceived site plans.  And they would fail to ensure the minimum impact on our birds, fish, frogs, plants and other species.  They would generate a financial windfall for Mr. Hill, who would build these homes and leave.  But make no mistake - granting these variances will irrevocably alter the ability of Brookside and McAleer Creeks to support salmon.

This Board has opportunity, in fact the duty to do something very positive for our citizens and our natural resources.  We beseech you to decline these Variances.

Respectfully,

The Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation  

Footnotes