City may extend ban on building over water

Larry Rand feels singled out. For 15 years, he has owned a piece of property on the southwest shore of Lake Washington. Rand knew the plot, with a glimpse of the Cascades and access to the water, would be a good investment.

Someday he would build a house there.

"But they changed the ground rules," he said.

"They" is the city of Seattle. The rules were changed because salmon run through the lake.

Building a home on private property used to be easier: Hire an architect, find a builder and get the necessary permits. But when Puget Sound chinook and other salmon were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) last spring, everything changed.

Development will never be the same. Major roadway-construction projects are on hold while impact studies are performed. The city is prepared to spend $40 million to prevent sewer runoff from polluting streams and lakes.

And Larry Rand and five other people may not be allowed to build houses on their properties.

In order to prevent further damage to the chinook run through Lake Washington, the City Council might close a loophole in a 1986 law intended to put an end to over-water building. At the time, three areas were exempted: along the Ship Canal, near Rainier Beach and at the Lake City portion of Lake Washington.

The exemption was originally passed because the properties in those areas were considered too small to support homes unless they could be extended over the water. With only a handful of parcels benefiting from the exemption, there was no push to change the law.

"Now there's a risk that if we don't do something, we could have the federal government come in and tell us to do so," said Councilman Richard Conlin, who will lead a hearing on the ban tomorrow at 5 p.m. on the 11th floor of the Municipal Building at 600 Fourth Ave.

Last April, the City Council put building over-water houses along the Ship Canal on hold for five months while it considered closing the loophole. The move was in response to a request by Neil and Barbara Dahmen to build five luxury homes on the Salmon Bay section of the canal. Conlin has proposed making the ban permanent - and expanding it to include areas along Lake Washington.

Trent Matson, a housing analyst with the Building Industry Association, said Conlin's ordinance was one of the first of an expected flood of regulations in the name of salmon protection.

"The ESA will be the most significant piece of regulation industry and business in the Puget Sound will ever see," Matson said. "And it will add significantly to the cost of new and used housing for everyone."

Rand thinks the City Council shouldn't worry about his property in the Rainier Beach neighborhood. A retired engineer, he has become an amateur aquatic biologist in order to defend his right to build. He is quick to point out that there is no hard science saying a couple more houses built over Lake Washington will further hurt salmon.

Conlin agrees with this point and is having second thoughts about ending the Lake Washington exemption. But the lots along the Ship Canal, he said, must not be developed over the water because the area is considered too valuable for migrating salmon to risk the damage new homes might bring.

Even if the council decides to allow Rand to build on his property, the ESA still could prevent it. Mary Beth Binns, a senior planner with the city Design Construction and Land Use department, said Rand and others still would have to prove their houses wouldn't harm salmon. After that, she said, any project could be denied.

Bruce Sanford, a research manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the rules had changed so much that even a parking lot far from the water could be held up. He agrees with Rand that a couple more houses wouldn't have a serious effect on the ecosystem, especially along Lake Washington.

"But it is the cumulative effect that has hurt greatly," Sanford said. "Trying to mitigate that is the new priority."