.jpg)
Lake Forest Park Resident and Owner of a business on SR522
Sound Transit has recently submitted four Major Critical Area Permit applications and a Tree Permit to the City of Lake Forest Park for the BT306 portion of the Stride S3 project.
Most Lake Forest Park residents don't live directly along SR 522. For those who do, however, this project will be happening outside their homes and businesses. It includes roadway widening, removal of a significant number of mature trees and other vegetation, retaining walls, excavation, drainage changes, and construction in areas containing steep slopes, streams, wetlands and known geologic hazards.
I support good public transit. I also believe we have an obligation to ask whether a project of this magnitude can be built while reducing its impact on our community as much as reasonably possible.
I recently spent considerable time reviewing these permit applications and submitted public comments to the City. What concerned me was not simply the volume of material, but some of the information contained in the newer technical reports.
Newer information deserves attention
Current geotechnical documents discuss steep and landslide-prone areas, groundwater, excavation and shoring requirements, slope monitoring and potential effects on neighboring properties.
At Bsche'tla Creek, for example, the project's geotechnical consultant identifies an area of concern for slope stability during construction and recommends monitoring slopes and nearby structures, establishing baseline measurements and setting predetermined action levels. The permit materials identify concerns and impacts involving other streams and critical areas along the corridor as well.
Elsewhere, the geotechnical report identifies liquefaction and lateral-spreading concerns associated with proposed pedestrian improvements and describes a potential failure condition that could present a life-safety concern unless mitigated.
These findings don't mean the project cannot be safely built. They do mean residents should be able to understand how these conditions will be addressed before permits are approved and construction begins. They also raise an important longer-term question: Who will be responsible for inspection, maintenance, drainage, monitoring and problems that may develop after construction is complete?
Does the earlier environmental review still fit today's project?
Sound Transit issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance in 2021 and later prepared additional environmental review, including a 2024 Addendum.
But the project design and technical information have continued to develop, and the design has changed since that environmental review was completed.
The permit applications now before the City contain detailed 2026 information about geologic hazards, drainage, retaining walls, tree and canopy removal, critical areas and construction requirements.
That raises a simple but important question:
Does the environmental review completed earlier adequately address the project that is actually being permitted today?
I am not saying an Environmental Impact Statement is automatically required, although I believe a project of this magnitude and complexity deserved that level of review. I am asking that the adequacy of the earlier environmental review be examined against the current project and current information.
If significant impacts were not adequately considered previously, they should be evaluated before permits are approved—not after construction begins.
Noise is already a serious issue
Those who don't live along SR 522 may not appreciate how loud the corridor already is for the people who live beside it, including residents on the west side above the highway.
I recently walked portions of SR 522 with a sound meter. My informal readings frequently exceeded 85 dB and at times approached 110 dB. These were not professional measurements, and I am not presenting them as an acoustical study. They do, however, raise a reasonable question about whether current professional measurements should be taken.
Those readings were taken under today's conditions, with existing trees, shrubs and other vegetation in place. The project proposes removing significant vegetation and screening, widening portions of the roadway and constructing large retaining walls. Whether those changes will alter measured or perceived noise—and to what degree—should be professionally evaluated rather than assumed.
For those who live and work along SR 522, noise isn't an abstract number in an engineering report. It is part of daily life.
Can we accomplish the same goal with less impact?
Sound Transit's Arborist Study contains extensive information about trees proposed for removal and replacement. It also states that a “lower tree impact design approach was not feasible within the constraints of the SR 522 corridor.”
That deserves examination.
CORE and the City previously presented alternatives intended to reduce the continuous northbound widening between approximately NE 153rd and NE 165th while retaining transit-priority measures at important intersections.
The question isn't whether we should have transit. The question is whether essentially the same transit benefit can be achieved with less impact.
How much additional travel time does the continuous northbound lane actually save? How many mature trees could be retained under a different design? Could retaining walls, excavation, critical-area disturbance and impacts on neighboring properties be reduced?
Those comparisons should be part of the conversation before irreversible decisions are made.
Stormwater matters too
The permit materials acknowledge that stormwater currently sheet-flows from SR 522 onto neighboring private properties and propose new systems for collecting and conveying roadway and retaining-wall runoff.
Residents along the corridor have also experienced and reported water flowing from the roadway and downhill toward Lake Washington. That makes it especially important to understand what happens when drainage patterns are changed.
At the same time, the project involves removing vegetation, altering paved areas, excavating near slopes and constructing retaining walls in a corridor where the geotechnical reports identify groundwater and geologic hazards.
Residents should be able to understand which stormwater standards apply, where collected water will go, who will maintain these systems in the future, and how neighboring properties, streams and slopes will be protected.
More than 3,000 pages — but residents still have a voice
Perhaps one of the biggest problems is simply understanding these permits.
Residents attempting to review the applications face more than 3,000 pages of engineering reports, drawings, arborist information, geotechnical studies and technical appendices. Even downloading, identifying and organizing some of the documents can be confusing.
Most people don't have the time or technical background to work through all of this.
But they shouldn't have to.
You don't have to understand 3,000 pages of engineering documents to have a voice in what happens to your community!
People who live beside this project know things that may not appear on engineering drawings. They know where water collects during heavy rain. They know where slopes have moved. They know where highway noise is worst. They know which trees provide screening between their homes and SR 522. And they know how their neighborhoods function every day.
That knowledge matters.
This is the time to pay attention! I believe Lake Forest Park should do everything reasonably possible during this permit process to reduce the project's impacts on the people who will live beside it during construction and long afterward.
We are within a 30-day public comment period, so this is the time for residents to look at the permits and ask questions about the issues that matter to them.
If the earlier environmental analysis remains adequate, residents deserve to understand why. If newer information or changes to the project warrant additional environmental review, that review should occur.
And if a practical alternative can provide nearly the same transit benefit while saving mature trees, reducing excavation and retaining walls, protecting critical areas and lessening impacts on residents, we should examine it before construction begins.
This isn't about stopping transit.
It is about building it responsibly and doing everything we reasonably can to protect the community that will live with the results. And we haven’t even seen the monetary cost yet!
Which permit affects your area?
Sound Transit's current BT306 applications divide the critical-area work into four groups, plus one corridor-wide Tree Permit:
20260098 — Critical Area Group 1
Covers work associated with Bsche'tla Creek, McAleer Creek and Lyon Creek, including areas near Town Center/Brookside Boulevard and Ballinger Way. It also includes a proposed mitigation area at Pfingst Animal Acres Park.
20260100 — Critical Area Group 2
Covers the west side of SR 522 from north of NE 165th Street to 41st Avenue NE. This area includes erosion, seismic, steep-slope and landslide hazards and construction of two soldier-pile retaining walls.
20260101 — Critical Area Group 3
Covers the west side of SR 522 between 39th Avenue NE and NE 165th Street, including 13 residential parcels sloping toward Lake Washington. Proposed work includes retaining walls associated with roadway widening.
20260102 — Critical Area Group 4
Covers the west side of SR 522 between 38th Avenue NE and 39th Avenue NE, including multiple single-family residences and City right-of-way.
20260099 — Tree Permit
This is the BT306 Tree Permit associated with the corridor project. Residents concerned about tree and vegetation removal, canopy loss, screening or replacement planting should review this permit in addition to the Critical Area permit covering their area.
How to comment:
You do not need to understand every permit or comment on all five. If you are concerned about something specific—trees, drainage, a slope, a stream, noise, construction near your property, retaining walls or another issue—you can focus on what affects you and identify the applicable permit number.
The City's notices state that written comments on the Critical Area applications may be submitted to the Lake Forest Park Community Development Department or emailed to Community Development Director Mark Hofman at mhofman@cityoflfp.gov. The notices provide a 30-calendar-day comment period following the October 1, 2026 publication date.
You don't have to understand 3,000 pages of engineering documents to have a voice in what happens to your community!
No comments:
Post a Comment
We encourage the thoughtful sharing of information and ideas. We expect comments to be civil and respectful, with no personal attacks or offensive language. We reserve the right to delete any comment.