Latest Update - May 19, 2026
Tell your mayor and council you want transparency specifically on this issue. How can 7 years of investment in something that hurts the community be worth it?
Write to LFP Mayor and Council Members, they want to accommodate you the people.
citycouncil@ci.lake-forest-park.wa.us; tfrench@cityoflfp.gov
Stop the Leak: Your Tax Money is Being Drained
Dear Neighbors,
Imagine receiving a $29,867.00 repair bill for a broken sewer line you didn't damage. Then imagine finding out the City noticed a foul odor on the site months before telling you. This isn't a hypothetical situation; it happened right here in our community along Lyon Creek. Our public resources are quietly leaking into a broken process that drains taxpayer money while leaving residents to face the consequences.
What is a RUE?
When a piece of land is deemed unbuildable because it sits on protected wetlands, steep slopes, or critical creek buffers, a property owner can apply for a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE). There are strict qualifications that must be met before issuing an RUE. It is not supposed to become a taxpayer-funded endurance contest where private applicants keep pushing until they get their way.
A 7-Year Leak of Your Tax Dollars
For seven years, Lake Forest Park has allowed public staff time and taxpayer money to be consumed by a single building exception request. Since 2019, the Garey RUE application has clogged our local government system. The City has poured endless hours into this one vacant, unbuildable creek parcel valued at just $40,000. It has not produced a single home, but it has caused massive administrative gridlock and harm to residents.
The Massive Staff Drain
This process continues, your tax dollars are funding endless hours of coordination across levels of local government:
-
Internal City Staff: Personnel from the Planning Department, Public Works, stormwater engineering, and public records division.
-
Paid Specialists: Outside city attorneys, contracted environmental consultants, and geotechnical reviewers.
-
Leadership & Oversight: The Mayor, City Council, and the Hearing Examiner.
Instead of serving the broader community, these public assets are being utilized to process high-risk unqualified exceptions for non-resident applicant. A stronger law does not protect anyone unless the City enforces it. When mandatory protections are ignored, the City creates a clear pathway to litigation.
The Fiscal Double Standard
City Hall is now closed to the public on Fridays to cut administrative costs. We are told the budget is tight and that public access must be limited for fiscal discipline. Yet, the City continues to grant an open-ended supply of staff hours and legal attention to applicants who bought their land for a cheap price, understanding they can push past the laws—essentially gambling on a staff process that has shown to pay off for them. While residents lose a day of city services, taxpayer money continues to fund multi-year endurance contests that ultimately cause harm to our neighborhoods.
Real Harm to Local Properties
When environmental protections are treated as negotiable, local homeowners absorb the damage:
-
The Garey RUE: Excavation work struck a sewer line. The city observed liquid and an odor in October 2025 but delayed notifying neighbors until January 2026. A simple fix ballooned into a $29,867.00 crisis for two innocent uphill families.
-
The Johnson RUE: A fragile parcel received an exception, was later sold for $1.7 million, and ultimately left a neighboring property flooded—with no fines paid.
-
Active Files: The Ha and Yamaguchi applications are moving through the same system right now, carrying similar risks for nearby homes.
What We Are Asking From City Council
We need to pause this process before the next infrastructure failure occurs. We are demanding that City Council take immediate action:
-
Adopt an immediate pause (moratorium) on RUEs involving streams, wetlands, steep slopes, or utility systems.
-
Appoint an independent review team chosen by Council, completely free of any staff or consultants tied to these specific files.
-
Require a full public accounting of every dollar and staff hour spent on RUEs over the last seven years.
-
Issue a clear evaluation on whether our critical-area protections are mandatory or negotiable.
It is far cheaper to pause a broken administrative process today than to fund the cleanup of the next sewer strike, landslide, or public liability lawsuit tomorrow.
Want to See the Proof?
Everything stated here is backed up by official city records requests.
For more information, evidence, timeline, pictures, videos, more info will be on the website and podcast, and upcoming external media. GreenVoicesOfLakeForestPark.com
Learn More About Consequences That Can Hurt Our Community
Come connect, ask questions, and learn more at one of our upcoming informational sessions:
-
Friday, May 22nd from 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
-
Thursday, May 28th from 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM and 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM
Let's protect our neighborhood resources and stop the taxpayer leak.
Write to LFP Mayor and Council Members, they want to accommodate you the people.
citycouncil@ci.lake-forest-park.wa.us; tfrench@cityoflfp.gov
Hearing - Wednesday, March 19, 2025
This was a packed house with many experts in opposition of the RUE. Unfortunately, no one was able to speak except for the applicant.
-
Purpose of the project
-
He is a private individual, not a developer, seeking to build one ADA-friendly single-family home for himself.
-
The property is zoned for single-family residential use, and his intent has always been personal occupancy.
-
-
Property background
-
The lot was listed on MLS for about four years with no offers.
-
Neither the city nor neighbors attempted to purchase it.
-
He bought it specifically to live there and has a personal connection to the area, including proximity to bike trails and transit.
-
-
Long delays were not intentional
-
The permitting process began just before COVID, which significantly slowed city operations.
-
Over several years, city staff turnover led to repeated revisions and changing requirements.
-
Multiple permit versions (2019–2023) reflect shifting expectations, not applicant indecision.
-
-
Environmental stance
-
He states he is environmentally conscious, cares about salmon habitat, and supports mitigation.
-
The project would:
-
Remove only two trees
-
Plant many more native trees
-
Remove invasive species
-
-
He views this as a net environmental benefit.
-
-
Flexibility and willingness to revise
-
He is open to conditions, revisions, and further study.
-
Willing to:
-
Reduce the house size
-
Rework drainage, flood resilience, and mitigation
-
Coordinate further with Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
-
-
Strong preference for collaboration, not litigation.
-
-
Broader planning argument
-
Building modest housing closer to transit and jobs is environmentally preferable to sprawl.
-
Living locally reduces driving, emissions, and infrastructure strain.
-
-
Request to the Hearing Examiner
-
Asked for the hearing to be paused/continued so revised plans could be developed.
-
Agreed to submit revised materials within 180 days.
-
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