Save the Wakarusa River Valley

WHY SHOULD WE CARE?

Developers know that the general public will not be watching every city meeting or proposed development. While most developments are uneventful and standard, developers seeking to make a quick buck off a community take advantage of the average citizen's indifference to city procedure. As citizens of our city, we should not only have a watchful eye on the details of development, we should have an active say in what we desire for our town without fear of being overruled by developers who seek to destroy our ecosystems and sensitive habitats in the name of profit.

Floodplains are a very delicate and precarious place to develop in. Climate change is rapidly changing our shared environments in a way that we have not been able to mitigate. We have had numerous historic floods: the 1951 flood which resulted in Clinton Reservoir being built, the 1993 flood which resulted in the City adopting our current floodplain regulations, and the most recent 2019 flood on the Wakarusa, which is being considered a 500-year flood event. Flooding will continue to be a hazard to Douglas County and we are seeing properties being flooded that are not near or within any designated floodplain or floodplain fringe. As we increase impervious surfaces in or around floodplains we increase the stormwater runoff into the streams/rivers increasing our flooding potential. Coupled with borderline historical precipitation fall in areas that are already prone to flooding, we have a major human and ecological disaster waiting to happen. For the City of Lawrence, the more we expand west, the more impervious surfaces will be contributing to stormwater runoff into the Wakarusa watershed, highlighting our severe need to keep southern floodplains free from development. Douglas County is implementing several studies and strategies to protect and preserve the Wakarusa watershed, citing development as the number one risk to irreversible alterations to the ecosystems resulting in increased flooding risks.

WHERES THE PROOF?

Above:The developer sent a letter to Jeff Crick (Planning Director) and Craig Owens (City Manager) asking for a revision of the original Written Interpretation. Cited was the developer's inability to adhere to our floodplain regulations and another explicit proclamation that they increase flood velocity due to the development.

Below: Developer admits rise again in last question/answer. According to the developer, City of Lawrence doesn't care what happens on-site of the project.

WHAT FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS DID THE CITY VIOLATE?

The City of Lawrence's Floodplain Regulations, known as Article 12 in the development code explicitly defines requirements for development permits and regulations regarding development in floodplain. Section 20-1204 (1)(a) states:

Development of land or subdivision of property (including lot splits) into a buildable lot(s) within the Floodplain Overlay District shall be permitted only where an approved Hydrologic and Hydraulic [H&H] Study demonstrates that there will be no rise in the base flood elevation and no increase in flood velocities at any point resulting from the proposed development.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

The developer has admitted both verbally and in writing that they are increasing the flood velocity, which violates the code above. This was explicitly sent to the City in the letter below. This renders the local floodplain development permit approved on 02/16/2024 and all subsequent rezonings illegitimate. The developer claims the velocity increases are "small" but refuses to disclose any actual calculations. Additionally, the code above is to be read literally, as affirmed by Crick's Written Interpretation, which states that no” as “not any”. Further for the developer to receive a CLOMR by FEMA (the federal approval to remove the land from the floodplain designation after filling the floodplain) the City had to sign and approve that the local permit was legitimate and followed the City's development code. This is in direct opposition to the City Commissioners claims that the permitting process will provide checks and balances. WE failed step one.

THE CRICK ISSUE

The Planning Director Jeff Crick single-handedly altered the text by illegitimately revising his Written Interpretation by demand of the developer. Initially, before the local permit was approved, the developer requested an interpretation of the above code. First, Jeff Crick wrote an representational that defined "no rise" as 0.00 inches and supported this interpretation with the findings of fact from the floodplain regulations and several portions of the Comprehensive Plan that prioritizes protecting floodplains. However, shortly after the developer appealed this interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and sent a letter to Jeff Crick and Craig Owens begging to change the interpretation because they could not meet our current regulations (including the above point of "no increase of flood velocity"). Crick caved within a week and revised his interpretation on Jan 10 changing the no rise from 0.00 inches to 0.00 feet to satisfy the developer. However, a BZA hearing was still scheduled and according to code 20-1331(c) Crick did not have the authority to revise the interpretation before the BZA held their hearing. Since the developer got the interpretation they wanted, they removed their BZA appeal and removed the ability of the BZA to act as an independent regulatory agency and also removed a chance for the public to offer input (all BZA appeals have relevant public comment). Crick's revised interpretation should be invalid as well, adding to the illegitimacy of the original local permit that was approved in February.

THE HAASE ISSUE

Former Planning Commissioner, John Haase, filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on March 03, 2024 regarding the administrative interpretation of Lawrence's floodplain regulations. His appeal was based on how the H&H study was carried out by the New Boston Crossing (NBC) developer and the City's acceptance of the non-compliant study which results in the City breaking its own floodplain regulation codes. Haase helped craft the current floodplain regulations during his time on the Planning Commission in 2002 as a direct response to the 1993 flood. However, the City removed the appeal (in our eyes illegitimately) and stifled pubic comment opportunities and a review of the process of the permit approval. In depth information can be found here.