Hearing examiner presses city reviewers on parking, wetlands and Shoreline Master Program compliance in Lake Forest Park park permit appeal

At a continued permit hearing before the Lake Forest Park hearing examiner, witnesses and counsel disputed parking tallies, wetland boundaries and whether proposed park uses fit the city’s Shoreline Master Program.

Professor Fudge, a witness for the appellant, told the examiner that his testimony had been misread in cross-examination and clarified that the project’s park component, as he understands it, needs 52 parking spaces while a separate 44-space requirement for the community building comes from the city’s parking evaluation and the municipal code. “I believe that, yeah,” he said, referring to the city’s parking report and Exhibit 16. Counsel pressed him on an apparent 52-versus-96 discrepancy; Fudge said the 44 is an additional code-derived total for the building and that his on-screen impervious-surface calculations (an 80% increase) were prepared for comments and were not immediately available at the hearing.

The city’s temporary senior planner, Mr. Greetham, resumed his testimony and described the staff review lens used to judge the proposal. Greetham said reviewers examined whether the proposed "functional lift" met critical-area regulations and the SMP’s "no net loss" standards while noting the property is already heavily developed. Greetham read from the staff report and the SMP, citing the use table (SMP 7.1) and a shoreline modification table (8.1) to explain which accessory uses require conditional-use review. He said condition 24 in the staff report is intended to tie any operational plan for accessory activities back to the SMP’s limits and to prohibit primary commercial uses in the shoreline environment designations.

On the specific parking supply, Greetham deferred technical confirmation to the department director, saying the parking review is the director’s lead. He stated that the project’s submitted traffic and parking analysis recommended 22 spaces (10 on-site, 12 off-site) and that the proposal appears consistent with the report, but he could not confirm every detail without rereading the document. “Mister Hoffman is the best person to ask about parking review,” Greetham said, identifying the director as the shoreline program administrator responsible for final interpretations.

Witnesses and counsel also discussed wetland and mitigation documentation. Professor Fudge identified the five-year monitoring report for the Lions Creek flood mitigation project ("monitoring report — year 5, Lion Creek flood mitigation project — wetland and stream mitigation area") as Exhibit 13’s referenced material. Greetham said reviewers relied on professional critical-area studies, the mitigation plan and the wetland delineation (conducted in October 2023) as part of their analysis and acknowledged that substantial changes to wetland boundaries would require professional re-review.

The record shows the staff report lists the city as the applicant with Facet Northwest as the authorized agent; Greetham described Facet as the permit agent and the primary contact for reviewers. On procedural issues, Greetham and other staff said they had not been directed by elected officials to approve permits and that certain administrative cross-references in the code (an outdated WAC citation) should be updated in a future SMP revision.

No formal votes or permit decisions were taken at this session. The hearing examiner recessed the SEPA appeal hearing until 9:00 a.m. the following morning to continue testimony, noting that no further public notice is required for the continued session.

The next hearing session is scheduled to resume with additional witnesses and continuation of subject-matter testimony regarding conditional-use criteria, parking confirmation and wetland delineation.