Latest Update - May 19, 2026
PUBLIC HEARING — OCTOBER 27, 2026
10 A.M. | LAKE FOREST PARK CITY HALL & ZOOM
Mark Garey's Proposed Development on Lyon Creek
Attend in person: Lake Forest Park City Hall, Council Chambers, 17425 Ballinger Way NE.
Submit written comments: dgreetham@cityoflfp.gov
Subject Line: : File Number: 2021-RUE-0001 Mark Garey
PUBLIC HEARING — OCTOBER 27, 2026
10 A.M. | LAKE FOREST PARK CITY HALL & ZOOM
Mark Garey's Proposed Development on Lyon Creek
Attend in person: Lake Forest Park City Hall, Council Chambers, 17425 Ballinger Way NE.
Submit written comments: dgreetham@cityoflfp.gov
Subject Line: : File Number: 2021-RUE-0001Mark Garey
Attend and Comment
Submit written comments
Email dgreetham@cityoflfp.gov; tfrench@cityoflfp.gov before the hearing.
Subject: Garey RUE — 2021-RUE-0001
Consider sharing firsthand experiences with flooding, sewer damage, drainage conditions, construction activities, or neighborhood safety. Explain how they relate to the proposed development and applicable approval requirements.
Review the evidence
City's Garey Hearing Documents
Review the revised plans, expert reports, staff recommendation, and public comments.
Share this update
Tell your neighbors about the hearing. Prior comments remain in the official record, but new testimony can address the revised application and additional evidence.
Environmental protections exist for a reason. Exceptions should be supported by evidence, not by shifting the risks and costs onto neighbors.
Mark Garey RUE Files
https://www.cityoflfp.gov/690/Garey-Reasonable-Use-Exception-RUE
THE PROPERTY ALREADY FLOODS. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE BUILD ON IT?
This is not an ordinary building permit.
Mark Garey is requesting a Reasonable Use Exception, special permission to build a home on land restricted by environmental protections. The property contains Lyon Creek, a fish-bearing stream, steep slopes, and protected buffers.
These protections exist to prevent environmental damage and protect public health, safety, and neighboring properties.
The application was submitted in 2021, following City discussions dating to 2019. Seven years later, the project remains under review, consuming City resources and requiring extensive involvement from residents and technical experts.
Now, despite documented neighborhood concerns and a damaging sewer incident, City staff recommends conditional approval.
WHAT HAS CHANGED — AND WHAT HASN'T BEEN RESOLVED?
1. Sewer damage has already caused real financial harm.
Excavation associated with the property damaged an existing sewer line. Two neighboring households incurred nearly $30,000 in repair costs, along with weeks of disruption.
How will additional construction protect existing utilities? Who will be responsible if neighboring properties are damaged again?
2. The property and surrounding area continue to experience flooding.
Neighbors have documented significant flooding, including January 7, 2022, and ongoing runoff from the hillside, roads, and surrounding properties.
This water is already flowing through the area without a house or driveway on the proposed building site.
The neighborhood has also experienced sinkholes, erosion, and fallen trees.
What rainfall events and historic drainage conditions were evaluated? Do the technical reports account for the water arriving from upstream and adjacent properties? Has anyone independently reconciled the studies with residents' photographs and firsthand observations?
3. Serious questions remain about steep slopes and ground stability.
The property includes steep slopes descending toward Lyon Creek. Neighbors have identified inconsistencies in how slopes are represented across application documents, including descriptions of less than 5% in some locations and much steeper terrain nearby.
Before excavation and construction, the applicant should demonstrate that the proposed work will not create an unreasonable threat to neighboring properties through slope instability, erosion, or landslides.
Are the geotechnical investigations and slope assessments sufficiently detailed and current to establish that?
4. How reliable is the underlying information?
Residents have questioned the age of site surveys, reported flooding history, tree counts, and inconsistencies across the application materials.
Some underlying site information dates back years. Flooding, erosion, channel movement, fallen trees, and infrastructure changes can alter an environmentally sensitive property.
Have these changes been fully incorporated into the current assessments?
5. The City now recommends approval with 20 conditions.
The applicant has reduced the proposed building footprint and increased mitigation plantings. City staff now recommends conditional approval.But smaller construction and additional landscaping do not automatically resolve questions about flooding, slope stability, utility protection, and public safety.
Which conditions specifically protect neighboring properties before excavation begins? How will compliance be verified and enforced?
WHY THIS MATTERS TO EVERY LAKE FOREST PARK RESIDENT
Environmental laws exist to protect the entire community, not just the property under development.
Since 2019, this proposal has involved years of City staff attention and resources. Residents also deserve to know how much that review has cost, how much has been reimbursed through applicant fees, and what costs taxpayers have borne.
More importantly, why should neighbors have to spend years gathering evidence and defending their property against risks that the applicant is legally required to address?
The law requires the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed exception meets the approval standards.
The Hearing Examiner must determine whether the evidence is sufficient.
TAKE ACTION
Attend the October 27 hearing. Public testimony will be accepted in person and through Zoom.
Submit written comments before the hearing. Share firsthand observations, flooding photographs, property damage, and questions about whether the revised application meets the City's standards.
Explore the supporting evidence:
Share this hearing notice with your neighbors.
We are asking for the law to be followed, the environment to be protected, and the health, safety, and property of Lake Forest Park residents to come first.
Protecting the public should not depend on neighbors proving they will be harmed. The applicant must demonstrate that the development meets the law.
FROM RECOMMENDED DENIAL TO 20 CONDITIONS — WHO WILL ENFORCE THEM?
Construction, Flooding & Public Safety
The conditions require various permits, compliance with stormwater and construction standards, and adherence to approved plans.
The question: Who will verify that the documented flooding, hillside runoff, slope instability concerns, and underground utilities have been adequately evaluated before construction begins?
Lyon Creek & Environmental Protection
The conditions address stream buffers, tree removal, environmental mitigation, and protective fencing.
The question: With Lyon Creek capable of changing course over time, how will the City ensure these protections remain effective as conditions change?
Monitoring & Enforcement
The conditions require ten years of environmental mitigation monitoring, annual reports, and professional oversight.
The question: Who will independently verify compliance during construction and afterward? Will the City actively inspect the property, or must neighbors discover and report violations?
Financial Accountability
The applicant must provide financial guarantees for environmental mitigation and pay certain associated costs. Corrective action may also be required.
The question: If construction damages neighboring properties, who pays? Do these guarantees protect neighbors, or only fund environmental mitigation?
Future Owners & Long-Term Protection
The conditions require certain critical-area restrictions and documents to be recorded against the property.
The question: What happens when the property is sold, City employees leave, or the ten-year monitoring period ends? Who remains responsible for enforcement?
Why This Matters
The property already experiences flooding, and excavation associated with the site has already damaged a sewer line serving neighboring households. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has also warned that Lyon Creek's channel may move over time. If these protections are necessary for approval, shouldn't the City establish exactly who will enforce them, when inspections will occur, and what happens when conditions are violated?
Read the 20 Proposed Conditions and listed below
View the City's Official Staff Report — Exhibit 40, Pages 4–6
Make Your Voice Heard — October 27
Public Hearing: Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 10 a.m.
10 A.M. | LAKE FOREST PARK CITY HALL & ZOOM
Mark Garey's Proposed Development on Lyon Creek
Attend in person: Lake Forest Park City Hall, Council Chambers, 17425 Ballinger Way NE.
Submit written comments: dgreetham@cityoflfp.gov
Subject Line: : File Number: 2021-RUE-0001 Mark Garey
Mark Garey RUE Files
https://www.cityoflfp.gov/690/Garey-Reasonable-Use-Exception-RUE
In March 2025, Lake Forest Park City staff recommended denying Mark Garey's development application because it failed two important approval criteria, including protection of public health, safety, and welfare.Now, City staff recommends approval with 20 conditions.But conditions on paper don't necessarily mean protection on the ground.Lake Forest Park emphasizes voluntary compliance when addressing code violations. Although the City has enforcement powers, who will ensure the conditions are followed before damage occurs?
City Recommends Conditional Approval
The City of Lake Forest Park is recommending conditional approval of Mark Garey's development application, subject to 20 specific conditions. These appear in Exhibit 40, Staff Report Addendum, dated October 8, 2026, pages 4–6. Read the City's complete 20 conditions — Exhibit 40 (PDF)
The 20 proposed conditions
# Requirement
1 Development must substantially follow the revised site plan.
2 Stream buffer mitigation must exceed a 1:1 ratio.
3 Obtain all required building, grading, critical-area, and tree removal permits.
4 Comply with City standards for stormwater, erosion, zoning, and construction.
5 Submit the driveway connection to King County for review.
6 Establish a maximum 10-foot building setback from the outer buffer edge for maintenance.
7 Install protective fencing during construction and permanent split-rail fencing and signage afterward.
8 Stop work and notify authorities if cultural resources or human remains are discovered.
9 Complete the required buffer mitigation planting before final inspection.
10 Monitor and report on mitigation performance annually for 10 years after final inspection.
11 Provide a signed professional monitoring contract and updated bond amounts before occupancy.
12 Follow all recommendations in the revised critical-area report.
13 Record critical-area mitigation obligations on the property title and survey protected areas as tracts.
14 Provide a financial guarantee for mitigation and maintenance, including a 30% contingency.
15 Obtain applicable state and local permits, including any required WDFW authorization.
16 Limit tree removal according to construction needs, arborist risk assessments, and City regulations.
17 Correct significant unexpected environmental impacts or failed mitigation if directed by the City.
18 Applicant pays mitigation, monitoring, planning, and related City expenses.
19 Record the critical-area preservation tract with King County before occupancy.
20 Record the Hearing Examiner's decision and mitigation documents against the property.
Concerns
1. Existing underground utilities. The revised plans acknowledge a recently located side sewer line, but none of the 20 conditions explicitly requires independent verification and protection of all existing sewer lines before excavation.
2. Flooding and stormwater. Condition 4 requires compliance with adopted stormwater and erosion standards. However, it does not expressly require an independent assessment of cumulative downstream flooding impacts or existing drainage deficiencies.
3. Enforcement and financial responsibility. The conditions include 10 years of environmental monitoring, a financial guarantee, and corrective action. But they do not expressly establish financial protection for neighboring property owners if construction damages their infrastructure.
Given the documented sewer damage associated with prior excavation on this property, what specific enforceable conditions will protect existing underground utilities and neighboring properties before additional excavation is permitted?
Make Your Voice Heard — October 27
Public Hearing: Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 10 a.m.
10 A.M. | LAKE FOREST PARK CITY HALL & ZOOM
Mark Garey's Proposed Development on Lyon Creek
Attend in person: Lake Forest Park City Hall, Council Chambers, 17425 Ballinger Way NE.
Submit written comments: dgreetham@cityoflfp.gov
Subject Line: : File Number: 2021-RUE-0001 Mark Garey
Mark Garey RUE Files
https://www.cityoflfp.gov/690/Garey-Reasonable-Use-Exception-RUE
We encourage residents to share observations, ask questions, and request meaningful, enforceable protections before the Hearing Examiner makes a decision.
Yesterday's Danger. Today's Approval? What Changed?
Public Hearing: Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 10 a.m. — Lake Forest Park City Hall and Zoom
Lake Forest Park's environmental protections are being tested again. Residents have identified eight Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) applications over the past nine years, raising questions about the growing pressure to develop environmentally sensitive land.
RUE applications often are outside developers snapping up an unbuildable property and critical area gambling on pushing it through. The potential profits may go to developers, but who bears the risks when things go wrong?
Consider the proposed Mark Garey development at NE 205th Street and 37th Avenue NE, beside Lyon Creek.
In March 2025, City staff recommended denial because the proposal failed two legal requirements, including one concerning unreasonable threats to public health, safety, and welfare.
Now, City staff recommends approval with 20 conditions.
What changed to make this development acceptable? And will 20 conditions actually protect the neighbors?
The land already has problems
This is a property where water flows down the hillside toward Lyon Creek. Neighbors have documented flooding, substantial runoff, erosion concerns, and a sinkhole in the surrounding area. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has also warned that Lyon Creek's channel may move over time. Yet the applicant seeks permission to excavate and construct a residence on land entirely constrained by protected critical areas.
If the area already floods without a house, how will additional construction affect the people living uphill, downhill, and next door?
Have the City's technical reviewers adequately accounted for historic flooding, changing drainage patterns, unstable ground, and the cumulative effects of water coming down the hillside?
Neighbors have already paid a price
Unpermitted excavation associated with the Garey property damaged a sewer line serving neighboring homes. Two households faced nearly $30,000 in repair costs and weeks of disruption.
Questions remain about permitting, responsibility, and why innocent neighbors were left bearing those costs.
This isn't merely a hypothetical concern about future construction. Neighbors have already experienced costly infrastructure damage.
Twenty conditions. Who enforces them?
The City's proposed conditions address construction standards, stormwater, tree removal, environmental mitigation, financial guarantees, and ten years of environmental monitoring.
But who will actually ensure compliance?
Lake Forest Park emphasizes voluntary compliance in its code enforcement process. Although the City has additional enforcement powers, residents deserve to know when and how they will be used.
-
Who independently inspects construction before damage occurs?
-
Who verifies flooding and slope protections?
-
Who pays when neighboring property is damaged?
-
What happens when the house is sold?
-
When City employees retire or change jobs?
-
When ten years of monitoring end?
A list of conditions is not the same as a plan for enforcement.
Seven years of review. Who bears the burden?
Discussions with City staff reportedly began in 2019, two years before Garey submitted his application in 2021.
Years of planning, reports, revisions, City resources, and neighborhood involvement have followed. Residents deserve to know how much this process has cost taxpayers, after applicant fees and reimbursements. More importantly, why must neighbors spend years documenting risks to their homes? Lake Forest Park law places the burden of demonstrating that the application merits approval on the applicant.
The burden should not shift to neighbors to prove they might be harmed.
We are not asking for anything extraordinary. We want our environmental laws followed, public safety protected, and development decisions based on accurate, current information. Before recommending approval, the City should be able to demonstrate how this project will satisfy those requirements and how protections will be enforced.
Who is looking out for the people who already live here?
For more information, evidence, timeline, pictures, videos, more info will be on the website and podcast, and upcoming external media. GreenVoicesOfLakeForestPark.com
Public Hearing: Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 10 a.m.
10 A.M. | LAKE FOREST PARK CITY HALL & ZOOM
Mark Garey's Proposed Development on Lyon Creek
Attend in person: Lake Forest Park City Hall, Council Chambers, 17425 Ballinger Way NE.
Submit written comments: dgreetham@cityoflfp.gov; tfrench@cityoflfp.gov
Subject Line: : File Number: 2021-RUE-0001 Mark Garey
Mark Garey RUE Files
https://www.cityoflfp.gov/690/Garey-Reasonable-Use-Exception-RUE
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