![[HOME]](/netaicon/homeicon.gif)
![[SEARCH]](/netaicon/srchpage.gif)
![[CURR_LIST]](/netaicon/curlist.gif)
![[BOTTOM]](/netaicon/bottom.gif)
![[HELP]](/netaicon/help.gif)
City of Seattle Hearing Examiner Decision
Information retrieved April 16, 2024 3:05 PMFINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE
In the Matter of the Appeal of BALLARD BUSINESS APPELLANTS from a Determination of Non-significance issued by the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation
Hearing Examiner File: W-11-002
Associated File Numbers:
Department Reference Numbers:
Date: July 1, 2011
Type: SEPA
Examiner: Anne Watanabe
The appeal hearing was held on May 23, 24, 25 and June 2, 2011, before the undersigned Deputy Hearing Examiner. Parties represented at the proceeding were: the Appellants, Ballard Business Appellants (and intervenor Ballard Chamber of Commerce), by Joshua Brower and Patrick Schneider, attorneys at law; the Director, Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), by Erin Ferguson, Assistant City Attorney; and the intervenor Cascade Bicycle Club, by Jeffrey Eustis, attorney at law. The record was held open through June 17, 2011, for the Examiner"s site visit and for submission of written closing statements by the parties.
For purposes of this decision, all section numbers refer to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC or Code) unless otherwise indicated. After considering the evidence in the record and viewing the site, the Examiner enters the following findings of fact, conclusions and decision on this appeal.
1. On February 1, 2011, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) issued a Revised Determination of Non-significance (Revised DNS) for SDOT"s proposed Burke-Gilman Trail Extension Project.
2. The proposal is a trail project which will complete the "missing link" of approximately 1.5 miles between the existing segments of the Burke-Gilman Trail between 11th Avenue NW and the Ballard Locks on the Ship Canal. The proposed trail would follow the preferred route that was adopted by the City Council through Resolution 30583 in 2003. The preferred route included an "interim" route and a "permanent" route.
3. In November of 2008, SDOT issued a DNS ("original DNS") for the project. Although construction of the trail entirely within the street right-of-way would have been categorically exempt from SEPA review, the project included acquisition of easement over private property between 26th Avenue NW and 28th Avenue NW for a wider trail. Thus, the project was not exempt, and SEPA review was required. (The record for the earlier appeal, and the Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision, W-08-007, describe the project as analyzed in the 2008 SDOT"s original SEPA checklist and original DNS, and describe the planning and legislative history for the trail project.)
4. In performing its initial SEPA review, SDOT reviewed only the "interim" route along Ballard Avenue, and did not review the impacts of that portion of the "permanent" route, a 0.3 mile stretch along Shilshole Avenue between 17th Avenue NW and NW Vernon Place.
5. The Appellants appealed the 2008 DNS to the Hearing Examiner, who affirmed the DNS in a decision dated June 9, 2009. The Appellants appealed the Examiner"s decision to King County Superior Court. The Court entered an Order on June 7, 2010 which affirmed certain conclusions of the Examiner, but ruled that SDOT had improperly "piecemealed" its review of the project. The Court remanded the matter to SDOT for environmental review of the "permanent route" along Shilshole Avenue NW between 17th and NW Vernon Place (hereinafter Shilshole Segment). The Order stated that the Court would retain jurisdiction over the matter. Order of Remand, June 7, 2010.
6. In response to the remand order, SDOT prepared a Revised SEPA checklist on February 1, 2011 for the trail project, which included an analysis of the Shilshole Segment. SDOT issued its Revised DNS on February 4, 2011.
7. The 0.3-mile Shilshole Segment would be located along Shilshole Avenue NW between 17th Avenue NW and NW Vernon Place. Construction would take place within the existing street ROW and when necessary, temporary easement areas. Like the other portions of the project, construction activities for this segment would remove existing concrete, asphalt and compact gravel to construct a multi-use pathway. The width of the trail within the Shilshole Segment will be at least 10 feet wide, although the remainder of the trail will have widths ranging from 8-12 feet.
8. The proposal would include improvements such as railroad crossings, and stormwater drainage controls; relocation of underground utilities and reconstruction of existing driveways; and installation of traffic controls, warning signs and signals to direct traffic by vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Motor vehicle lanes may be widened along Shilshole Avenue NW between 17th NW and NW Vernon Place. Parking spaces would be demarcated at 24th Avenue NW and along Shilshole Avenue NW.
9. The Shilshole Segment, like the rest of the trail project, would provide a marked, dedicated route for pedestrians and cyclists to connect to the existing portions of the Burke-Gilman trail. Trail users currently utilize streets within the Ballardneighborhood, including Shilshole Avenue, in order to connect with the Burke-Gilman Trail.
10. At the time the Revised Checklist and DNS were prepared, the Shilshole Segment was at ten percent design. At the time of the original checklist and DNS, the studied trail segments were at approximately 60 percent design. A ten percent design is not unusual for SDOT SEPA review of both private and public projects.
11. The Revised Checklist notes that King County is planning a sewer pipe replacement project, the Ballard Siphon project, which will commence in 2011 and last for two and half to three years. The existing sewer pipes cross the canal between the end of 20th Avenue NW in Ballard and the former Marco Shipyard in Magnolia.
12. The original SEPA checklist predicted that up to 140 of 480 on-street parking spaces could be lost on account of the project, not including the Shilshole Segment. As part of its review for the original DNS, SDOT estimated that approximately 2,000on-street parking spaces would be available within a two-block area along the trail alignment.
13. For its review of the Shilshole Segment, SDOT had its consultants prepare a parking study (Exhibits 102 and C-12) for the Shilshole Segment. Similar to the parking which is available elsewhere along the proposed project ROW, parking spaces on the Shilshole segment are informal, and the exact capacity varies depending on how vehicles are parked. The 2011 study determined the existing parking capacity and occupancy counts along the segment, and used those determinations to estimate the loss of parking capacity that could be expected along the Shilshole Segment. The methodology and assumptions utilized by the authors are explained in the study.
14. Up to 91 of 169 free on-street parking spaces could be lost along this segment of the trail. A parking capacity of 78 spaces would remain, which is less than the mid-day count of 71 parked vehicles observed by the study authors. There are approximately 850 parking spaces within a two-block area along the Shilshole Segment.
15. Some of the spaces along the Shilshole Segment are utilized by employees of nearby businesses, although exact numbers are not known. According to the Revised Checklist, the ROW along Shilshole Avenue NW is heavily parked by patrons of businesses along NW Market Street and Ballard Avenue NW, particularly during evening hours and weekends.
16. According to Beth Miller, Executive Director of the Ballard Chamber of Commerce, businesses in Ballard are extremely concerned about the loss of parking capacity along the Shilshole Segment and the rest of the proposed trail project. The supply of parking in Ballard is already constrained because the Code exempts some new businesses (e.g., on account of location within a historic district or within the Pedestrian Overlay zone) from providing parking. New businesses, e.g., restaurants, continue to open in Ballard without having to provide parking to accommodate all patrons or employees.
17. Two private parking lots associated with the "Yankee Diner" restaurant and "Hattie"s Hat" restaurant, are referenced in SDOT"s 2011 parking study. The study notes that the lots are not affected by the construction of the trail along the Shilshole Segment, and that the lots have a capacity of nearly 150 spaces with low utilization rates.
18. The Yankee Diner restaurant is in receivership, and has closed pending redevelopment as a hotel. The existing parking lot cannot be used as commercial parking. The Hattie"s Hat lot is now available for use by the restaurant patrons in the evenings and weekends. The parking study notes that even if the two parking lots are excluded from consideration, the parking occupancy in the area is generally less than available existing capacity.
19. SDOT considers free on-street parking to be the lowest priority use of City right-of-way. Mr. Widstrand, the City"s Traffic Engineer, has authority to prohibit the parking of vehicles on the streets. Similarly, the Director of SDOT has authority to close any street, thus effectively preventing vehicles from parking on that street.
20. The original checklist and a 2008 transportation memorandum discussed the project"s impact on level-of-service (LOS) at nearby locations, noting that LOS was expected to improve with the project.
21. SDOT"s transportation consultant prepared a transportation memorandum, dated January 31, 2011, for the Shilshole segment, analyzing the traffic impacts of the segment. The memorandum studied the traffic movements and operational conditions at several driveways along the Shilshole segment, and the intersections of Shilshole Avenue NW/Dock Street and Shilshole Avenue NW/20th Avenue NW. The study compared the 2010 existing conditions of delay with 2030 conditions, both with and without the Shilshole Segment. The study assumed peak hour non-motorized volume of 100 bicyclists per hour at driveway locations in the Shilshole Segment. Although SDOT does not apply LOS standards to driveways, the study applied the LOS standards for unsignalized intersections to the driveways. Table 3 on page 3 of the report incorrectly shows Salmon Bay Sand & Gravel"s 2030 am peak hour exiting volume as 20, identical to its 2010 am peak hour exit volume. However, Mr. Lo, the transportation consultant for the study, noted that this error would not affect the conclusions in the study.
22. Driveways along the Shilshole Segment, as is the case along the rest of the trail project area, are utilized by a wide variety of vehicles, including very large trucks and trailers involved with the industrial operations. These operations require that vehicles cross the trail alignment many times during the course of a working day. Some of these large vehicles, e.g., 75- foot tanker trucks, will utilize turning movements in or out of their driveways so as to use portions of the Shilshole Avenue right-of-way to complete their movements. Some of these movements are not permitted uses of the street right-of-way.
23. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Manual contains guidelines which recommend a 20 MPH design speed for bicycle trails, and a minimum paved width of 10 feet (12 feet is desirable); Chapter 15.15.03. The Manual also references a 127-foot sight-stopping distance (sight distance) for recreational trails. The AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities also references a 127-foot sight distance.
24. SDOT does not apply the sight distance guidelines for intersections to driveways. Instead, SDOT looks to the Code provisions which specifically identify the driver"s responsibilities when entering or exiting via a private driveway. The CityTraffic Engineer can also require property owners to post signage at driveways, e.g., prohibiting left turns, or other warning devices.
25. SDOT reviewed the driveways along the Shilshole Segment and evaluated the turning movements prior to issuing the Revised DNS. SDOT has had discussions with property owners along the alignment, and intends to have further discussions with propertyowners about the project, including about improvements which SDOT can fund, e.g., fencing at certain locations or removal of obstructions.
26. In the past 10 years, there have been three bicycle-vehicle collisions within the Shilshole Segment. The record includes several reports concerning traffic accidents involving bicycles. The Montreal study, Exhibit CBC-4, and the Allen report, Exhibit A-89, e.g., are studies evaluating bicycle path design. SDOT"s 2009 Traffic Report, Exhibit C-6-a, includes data on reported bicycle collisions in 2009, the location of the collisions, injuries, contributing circumstances and other factors. The CBC also collects self- reported data concerning bicycle accidents; Exhibits CBC 5 and 6.
27. The two-way path design proposed here is known as a "sidepath." Appellants" expert, Mr. Bishop, expressed his opinion at both the hearing on the original DNS and the Revised DNS, that bicycle sidepaths are inherently unsafe. According to Mr.Bishop, the drivers of vehicles exiting driveways would not expect a bicycle to be coming from the right, increasing the chance of a collision. The lay witnesses who operate businesses along the Shilshole Segment likewise expressed great concern about possible collisions or difficulties on account of two-way bicycle traffic crossing their driveways.
28. At both hearings on the original and Revised DNS, SDOT"s witnesses expressed opinions disagreeing with Mr. Bishop"s assessment of sidepaths. Mr. Widstrand noted that continuity of the trail on either side of the "missing link" was important and enhanced safety. Mr. Widstrand noted that he can require signage, striping, and other warning devices to alert drivers to look both ways, and to alert cyclists. Mr. Widstrand noted that bicyclists currently use Shilshole, sharing that road with trucks and other vehicles. Mr. Widstrand noted that bicyclists may be uncomfortable riding on shared streets and may ride very slowly among faster vehicles, or may cross the street or ride in between parked vehicles, all behaviors which can create conflicts with motor vehicles.
29. Mr. Rogers is a consulting engineer who has been retained by SDOT as a program manager for the missing link project. He also disagreed with Mr. Bishop"s assessment that sidepaths are inherently unsafe. Mr. Rogers noted that connectivity andpredictability of the trail (including its consistency with the existing Burke-Gilman trail) were more important factors than the two-way nature of the project. Mr. Rogers expressed the opinion that a two- way path was less risky, as it would organize the traffic and create more predictability as to where the bicycles would be located.
30. There was also testimony from Appellants" expert and from SDOT"s expert concerning the LOS reported in the 2011 transportation memorandum. Mr. Bishop asserted that the increased 10-second delay at one of the driveways, even though the driveway LOS would not change, could create a traffic hazard because it would lead to driver impatience and resultant bad driving. But Mr. Lo was of the opinion that a 10-second delay at a driveway would not lead to traffic hazards, and that the difference of 10 seconds was considered too small to be counted in the context of a LOS analysis.
31. The project site is zoned Industrial General 1 Unlimited-65 (IG1 U-65), IG2 U-65, and Industrial Commercial 65. Signed portions of the trail along Ballard Avenue NW are located within Neighborhood Commercial 2-65 and NC3-65, and Commercial 1-65. The Comprehensive Plan designates the preferred route for the missing link as a section of the City"s Urban Trail System. The project includes areas within the boundaries of the Ballard/Interbay/North End Manufacturing and Industrial Center (BINMIC) element of the Plan.
32. The Environmental Services Group is a division within SDOT charged with performing SEPA environmental review. Mark Mazzola, a Senior Environmental Analyst with the ESG, reviewed the trail project, including the Shilshole Segment, for compliance with SEPA. Mr. Mazzola developed the original checklist and the revised checklist. The Revised Checklist was signed by Ron Sharf, the project manager; having the project manager sign a DNS is the usual procedure at SDOT. Mr. Scharf provided information about the project to Mr. Mazzola, and reviewed the Revised Checklist before signing it.
33. Mr. Mazzola testified at hearing about the information he reviewed, the issues he considered, and why he arrived at the conclusion that a DNS should be issued. Mr. Mazzola also identified the plans, documents and studies he considered.
34. Mr. Mazzola recommended to SDOT Director Peter Hahn that the Revised DNS be issued. Mr. Hahn agreed with this recommendation, and signed the Revised DNS. Mr. Hahn was not with SDOT at the time the original DNS was issued.
35. Appellants" counsel submitted a letter dated February 24, 2011, on behalf of the Appellants, regarding the Revised Checklist and DNS. The letter was addressed to SDOT Director Hahn and to Mr. Scharf. The letter identified reasons why the authors believed SDOT"s analysis was incomplete and inadequate, and asked that the DNS be withdrawn, and that an EIS be prepared. Mr. Hahn did not see this letter.
36. By prehearing orders dated April 15, 2011 and April 29, 2011, certain issues raised in the Notice of Appeal of the Revised DNS were dismissed. The issues remaining in the present appeal before the Examiner are: whether SDOT in reviewing the
Shilshole Segment, properly considered impacts on parking, traffic, and traffic hazards, and properly considered the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and whether the trail project as a whole would likely have probable significant adverse
impacts, such that an EIS should have been required. By prehearing order, the Examiner also granted SDOT"s motion to limit new evidence to that concerning the Shilshole Segment, although the record developed in the appeal of the original DNS would
be considered by the Hearing Examiner in determining whether the project would have probable significant adverse environmental impacts. SEPA 37. SMC 25.05.330 describes the threshold determination process, and states in part: “An EIS is
required for proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The lead agency decides whether an EIS is required in the threshold determination process, as described below.
A. In making a threshold determination, the responsible official shall: 1. Review the environmental checklist, if used: a. Independently evaluating the responses of any applicant and indicating the result of its evaluation in the DS, in the DNS, or on
the checklist, and b. Conducting its initial review of the environmental checklist and any supporting documents without requiring additional information from the applicant; 2. Determine if the proposal is likely to have a probable significant adverse
environmental impact, based on the proposed action, the information in the checklist (Section 25.05.960), and any additional information furnished under Section 25.05.335 (Additional information) and Section 25.05.350 (Mitigated DNS); and 3. Consider
mitigation measures which an agency or the applicant will implement as part of the proposal, including any mitigation measures required by the City"s development regulations or other existing environmental rules or laws.
”
39. SMC 25.05.926 provides that: "When an agency initiates a proposal, it is the lead agency for that proposal. Whenever possible, agency people carrying out SEPA procedures should be different from agency people making the proposal."
2. The Appellants argue that that SDOT did not comply with SEPA"s procedural requirements in several respects in its review of the Shilshole Segment. The Appellants allege that SDOT failed to document the project"s lack of compliance with WSDOT and AASHTO design guidelines and WSDOT sight distance standards; proposed mitigation measures; the dangers of sidepaths near the industrial driveways; the loss of parking in Ballard; and failed to review and analyze how the project was consistent with the City"s Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. The Appellants also assert that SDOT"s Responsible SEPA official failed to independently and objectively review the checklist before signing the DNS, and that Mr. Hahn was obligated to reconsider the Revised DNS in light of Appellants" s February 24, 2011 letter.
3. The Revised Checklist and Revised DNS do not mention the WSDOT or AASHTO guidelines. The Appellants assert that state law requires the trail to comply with WSDOT guidelines on account of the state funding for the project. These design guidelines allow for flexibility in design, and provide for project-by-project solutions to design problems, so it appears incorrect to say that the numerical formulas are intended to be standards. But in any case, it has not been shown that the guidelines must be identified and examined as part of the project"s SEPA review. SDOT"s reviewers were aware of the guidelines, but more importantly, they considered the design of the trail, and the potential impacts related to its design. The Revised Checklist identified impacts and measures that could be taken to address those impacts, e.g. Section B.14.g, regarding delays at driveways, and signage and warning signals at driveways. SDOT was not required to evaluate the project against the WSDOT and AASHTO guidelines as part of its SEPA review.
4. The Appellants also asserted that SDOT failed to document inadequate sight distances, inadequate width, and the dangers of this sidepath. The project"s design as a two-way-path, its width, and its location relative to existing driveways, wereall identified as part of SDOT"s review, and SDOT actually considered the potential impacts of the proposal. The Appellants have not shown that SDOT was required by SEPA to include in the Revised Checklist or the Revised DNS a written analysis of the potential impacts of sight distances, width or the two-way design.
5. The appeal asserts that the SEPA process was flawed because SDOT failed to review and analyze the project in light of some 30 goals and policies in the City"s Comprehensive Plan.
6. The evidence here does not show that SDOT committed a clear error in its analysis of, or conclusions about, the project"s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mazzola considered that the proposed use, the trail, is a transportation facility which is permitted in commercial and industrial zones. He considered that the trail itself is designated by the Plan as a route within the Urban Trails Network, and the designation of the planned route was the result of earlier studies and Council direction. It can be argued that language in individual goals or policies, e.g., BI-P16, could be interpreted to encourage or discourage the location of the trail in its proposed location. But the evidence shows that Mr. Mazzola considered that policy along with other relevant goals and policies in his analysis of the project, and balanced potentially conflicting policies in a manner and to a degree sufficient to satisfy SEPA.
7. The appeal asserts that SDOT lacked information or relied on inaccurate information concerning the project"s impact on parking supply. The Appellants alleged various shortcomings in the parking study and argue that Director Hahn should have been advised of these alleged shortcomings before signing the Revised DNS. But SDOT obtained reasonably reliable information about parking capacity, and the proposal"s impact on that capacity. SDOT had sufficient information about the project"s potential impact on parking at the time it issued the Revised DNS, and it was not necessary for Director Hahn to have reviewed the studies before signing the Revised DNS.
8. The appeal also asserts there was insufficient information concerning traffic hazards and traffic impacts upon which to base the decision. But the record shows SDOT had sufficient information from its traffic consultants and its own staff with expertise, regarding the potential transportation, traffic hazards, and parking impacts of the proposal.
9. The appeal also asserts that the project description is incomplete. It is true that SDOT has not specified or committed to specific safety measures or design tools that will be used on the project, and Appellants" unease with this lack of specificity is understandable. But SEPA also requires that the environmental review be done at the earliest time, and SDOT routinely utilizes a 10 percent design level, as in this case, for purposes of conducting environmental review. The evidence shows that SDOT regularly uses the kind of mitigation measures described at hearing, e.g., signage, warning devices, consolidation of driveways, and other measures. These measures are within SDOT"s authority to require and would address the impacts that have been identified for this project. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for SDOT to wait to identify which mitigation measures it will employ at a specific location. The project was adequately described for purposes of SEPA review.
10. The appeal claims that SDOT failed to perform an independent review of the project. Appellants note that not only is SDOT the project proponent and SEPA decisionmaker, but that the same SDOT staff person, Mr. Mazzola, wrote the Revised Checklist and the Revised DNS. Under SMC 25.05.926, SDOT is the designated lead agency under SEPA for this SDOT project. SMC 25.05.926 also directs that "whenever possible, agency people carrying out SEPA procedures should be different from agency people making the proposal." Mr. Mazzola is employed within a separate division of SDOT which is charged with performing environmental review, and is not responsible for designing or implementing the project. The project manager, Mr. Scharf, did not make recommendations to Mr. Mazzola about the environmental review. While agencies may assign different individuals to perform the preparation of the checklist and the threshold determination, no authority has been cited that would require this to be done, and SDOT"s procedure was consistent with SMC 25.05.926. No actual bias on Mr. Mazzola"s part was shown in his SEPA review.
11. The Appellants also argued that the procedure was flawed because SDOT"s Director, Mr. Hahn, did not conduct his own independent review of the proposal before he signed the Revised DNS. SDOT has delegated its SEPA review responsibilities to its Environmental Services group, which performed the review in this case and then recommended that Director Hahn approve the Revised DNS. It is not disputed that Mr. Hahn did not conduct his own analysis of the impacts, and that he relied on the Environmental Services group to carry out the review. The Appellants argue that, especially in a case where SDOT is the project proponent, the Director should conduct an independent review to ensure objectivity of the review. While such a procedure might be desirable, it is not required by SEPA. Instead, SEPA permits a lead agency to designate a person or section of the agency to undertake its SEPA procedural responsibilities. The Appellants also assert that the Revised DNS should have been withdrawn after they submitted their February 2011 comment letter, but no clear error by SDOT was shown on account of the letter.
12. The Appellants assert that the project will likely have probable significant adverse impacts requiring preparation of an EIS. The appeal alleges significant impacts will occur as a result of the proposal"s inadequate sight distance, inadequate width, the sidepath design, and creation of driveway delays.
13. The Appellants cite the 127-foot sight stopping distance figure used in the WSDOT and AASHTO guidelines, which is not met by the proposal. The failure to meet the 127-foot figure was not shown to result in a significant traffic hazard. Instead, the evidence showed that not only could sight distances be increased to meet the guidelines by reconfiguring or consolidating driveways, but that other tools, such as signage or warnings devices, could be employed by SDOT in order to reduce the same risks that would be addressed by a particular sight distance. As to the project"s width, the Shilshole Segment would meet the 10-foot minimum of the WSDOT manual and the evidence did not show there would be probable significant adverse impacts on account of the trail"s 8-12 width along the rest of the alignment. The evidence as a whole for the entire trail project did not show that there would be probable significant adverse impacts on account of sight distances or the trail"s proposed width.
14. The Appellants argue that the proposed two-way "sidepath" is inherently unsafe and will therefore have significant adverse impacts. There are many factors which can influence whether a bicycle trail poses traffic hazards, but the evidence here does not show that the two-way multi-user configuration of the project would be "inherently unsafe" and therefore cause significant adverse impacts. .
15. Following the appeal of the original DNS, the Hearing Examiner concluded that the project would not have significant adverse traffic impacts or impacts on public services on account of traffic hazards. The evidence shows that the Shilshole Segment would not have adverse impacts on through traffic, and would have little impact on overall average peak hour delays at driveways. Left turn movements at driveways would experience delays ranging from 0 to 20 seconds, but overall driveway delays would be unchanged by the Shilshole Segment. The Appellants point out that an impact must be evaluated in relation to its context and intensity, but relative to the existing and future projected conditions of delay that will occur without the project, and considering the relatively low numbers of left movements as a portion of overall movements, the delays that would be caused by the project would not be significantly adverse under SEPA. The trail proposal"s impacts, including the impacts of the Shilshole Segment, would not cause probable significant adverse impacts related to traffic or on account of traffic hazards.
16. Following the appeal of the original DNS, the Hearing Examiner concluded that even if the trail project (not including the Shilshole Segment) resulted in the loss of 190 parking spaces of some 480 spaces in the project area, that loss did not constitute a significant adverse impact.
17. As identified in the Revised DNS, up to an additional 91 parking spaces out of 169 spaces along the Shilshole Segment may be lost on account of the project. Businesses in the vicinity are understandably concerned about the loss of on-street parking for employees and customers. But the predicted loss of parking spaces, including the additional potential losses from the Shilshole Segment, was not shown to constitute a significant adverse impact. Even utilizing Appellants" figures for lost parking, the removal of 281 free informal parking spaces on account of the entire trail project, in light of the remaining parking capacity in the vicinity of the trail, would not cause a significant adverse impact.
18. Appellants also contend that the trail would be incompatible with other land uses to such a degree as to create significant impacts. The Appellants argue that the Comprehensive Plan requires protection of the maritime and industrial businesses atthis location. As noted above, the project"s impacts related to parking, traffic, and traffic hazards, were not shown to be significant adverse impacts. The Appellants include long-established Ballard maritime and industrial businesses who predict they will be driven out of business because of conflicts with the trail. But the record does not show that these concerns are based on impacts which are recognized by SEPA. The Appellants have not shown that any incompatibilities between existing or zoned uses could create a significant adverse impact within the meaning of SEPA.
19. SDOT"s environmental review complied with SEPA"s procedural requirements. The entire trail project was not shown to have probable significant adverse impacts, even though the trail will have some impacts, particularly on businesses adjacent to the trail. The Appellants" theme throughout the proceedings has been that "bikes and trucks don"t mix." But as was noted in the Examiner"s previous decision, the policy choice to mix the two is not before the Examiner. The question here is whether SDOT"s Revised DNS decision was clearly erroneous. The evidence does not show that the SDOT"s decision was clearly erroneous, and it should be affirmed.
Decision
The Director"s Revised Determination of Nonsignificance is hereby AFFIRMED.
![[TOP]](/netaicon/toppg.gif)