Judge weighs Ballard 'missing link' to Burke-Gilman Trail

Will Seattle's proposed route for the "missing link" of the Burke-Gilman Trail simply complete the 27-mile trail between Bothell and Ballard, or will it also destroy maritime businesses along its route in Ballard?

Did the city properly determine the new stretch of trail would not be environmentally significant, or should it be required to prepare a full environmental-impact statement (EIS)?

Those issues were before King County Superior Court Judge Jim Rogers on Friday as lawyers presented their cases in a lawsuit filed by maritime businesses along the missing link.

The proposed section of trail under dispute would go from 11th Avenue Northwest near the Ballard Fred Meyer to the Ballard Locks. It is the only section of the Burke-Gilman Trail that is undeveloped.

"Our clients are not opposed to the 'missing link' trail," said Richard Settle, an attorney representing Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel Co. and other maritime businesses in Ballard. "Completion of the trail through Ballard is good. The destruction of the Ballard maritime industry is not good."

Safety argument

Settle asserts the city didn't explore alternative routes away from those businesses and didn't look at safety concerns connected with the trail alignment.

"My clients are in favor of a safe trail," he said.

The city's hearing examiner has ruled that the trail extension would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that an EIS wasn't needed.

But opponents want a full environmental assessment done, or at least a declaration there is environmental significance to the project.

"There are feasible alternative routes that would be compatible with the health and survival of Ballard's maritime industries and their critically important family-wage jobs," the maritime businesses said in their lawsuit.

The lawsuit warns that with the proposed route, it is likely a trail user will be hurt or killed by a service vehicle in the maritime-industrial community.

The city maintains its mapping of the missing link was a very public process.

"There should be an EIS when there is probable significant environmental impacts," said Judy Barbour, an assistant city attorney. "There are none from this project. You're laying down a 10-12-foot strip of pavement. That does not have an impact on the environment."

Barbour also said the state Environmental Policy Act does not require the city to consider alternatives for the trail.

Warren Aakervik, owner of Ballard Oil, has previously spoken about a letter he'd received from his insurance company saying his business could be uninsurable if, after the trail is built, one of the company's truck drivers accidentally strikes a cyclist.

Planned for years

In 2003, the Seattle City Council adopted a resolution to extend the trail across that section.

It's a $14 million project, and the city says it is fully funded.

The city hopes to finish construction this year, but if an EIS is required, the completion date would be pushed back indefinitely.

Cascade Bicycle Club, a defendant in the lawsuit, has said hundreds of crashes occur every year in the area of the trail's missing link. Earlier, Cascade submitted legal arguments to a hearing examiner, supporting the city and the trail plan against the businesses' objections.

Rogers said he will issue an opinion in the case April 2.

Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or sgilmore@seattletimes.com