City clears hurdle to move ahead with ‘Missing Link’

Geeky Swedes Ballard

The Seattle Department of Transportation has determined that the completion of the “missing link” of the Burke Gilman Trail will “not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment.” The city released today its State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance for the “missing link” as required by a judge last April.

Ten months ago, King County Superior Court Judge Jim Rogers ruled that SDOT must do an environmental review on a 5-block section between 17th Ave NW and NW Vernon Pl, which was not originally studied under SEPA.

From the Revised SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (.pdf):

SDOT has determined that this proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.

Any interested person may appeal this DNS by submitting a Notice of Appeal and a $50.00 filing fee to the Office of the Hearing Examiner.

The appeal must be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. March 3, 2011.

The entire SEPA Checklist can be found here (.pdf.) Comments on the DNS and checklist may be submitted until 5:00 pm Thursday, February 24. According to the documents, construction on the project could begin as early as this fall.

“SDOT does expect that this DNS will be appealed,” Rick Sheridan with SDOT tells us. In the case of an appeal, it would delay the call out for bids and construction.

In July 2009, a coalition of Ballard industrial businesses, associations and the Ballard Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit with the Superior Court challenging the city’s plans to complete the Burke Gilman trail. Specifically, the lawsuit questions the city’s environmental review of the project. Among the concerns were safety and parking. (Disclosure: MyBallard is a member of the Ballard Chamber of Commerce.)

Earlier: Background on the debate surrounding the missing link

Geeky Swedes

The founders of My Ballard

96 thoughts to “City clears hurdle to move ahead with ‘Missing Link’”

  1. Happy days. My favorite part: in the revised checklist, the interim route up Ballard Ave (i.e. the compromise that SBSG and Ballard Oil agreed to before suing to block) has changed from a “will do” to a “may do” … to me, indicating that the adjacent-to-Shilshole routing is being accelerated.

    The SEPA Checklist is worth a read … includes updated estimates of lost parking, plans to mitigate, etc. No details yet on driveway crossing treatments, other than possible use of stop signs or vehicle-activated warning signals.

  2. Happy days. My favorite part: in the revised checklist, the interim route up Ballard Ave (i.e. the compromise that SBSG and Ballard Oil agreed to before suing to block) has changed from a “will do” to a “may do” … to me, indicating that the adjacent-to-Shilshole routing is being accelerated.

    The SEPA Checklist is worth a read … includes updated estimates of lost parking, plans to mitigate, etc. No details yet on driveway crossing treatments, other than possible use of stop signs or vehicle-activated warning signals.

  3. you just had to add the part about “anyone wanting to appeal only needs 50 bucks”

    I’m sure the ‘deep pockets of old ballard’ will needlessly slow things down further.

    yes, happy days

  5. Hey, you’re right. It’s not just one “will” -> “may” change, there’s a lot of language about the interim trail that’s been removed. This seems like a pretty aggressive posture on building the full trail at once. Sweet! If it works.

  6. hah … the more of the business’ and our (the city’s) money that gets wasted on lawyers and appeals and endless “whatever works” obstruction, the less sympathy I have for vague “this could bankrupt us somehow” complaints.

    to the minority of adjacent businesses that oppose the trail: save your money. and the city’s. if you really think the trail will affect your bottom line, save the money you’re currently wasting on lawyers to mitigate whatever you think the impact will be. and let our broke city spend the money elsewhere.

    parking? lease some space for your employees. plenty of it nearby.

    insurance? you didn’t become uninsurable when SBSG opened their lot right on the existing trail, but OK, save up for premium increases.

    my drivers are bound to kill somebody? better training, better mirrors or other visibility improvements at crossings, and slowing the f*&^ down and allowing a safe passing distance would be a good place to start.

    ballard isn’t ballard anymore? that lawyer money you’re wasting could buy a LOT of pints down at the wherever old ballard goes to complain about new ballard.

    as for the trail, it’s paid for. get out of the way, spend your money more wisely, and start participating in a constructive dialogue about how to build it safely on the public right of way near your businesses.

  9. At the risk of being labels a variety of things, I do think the elimination of parking is problem. First, if we really want to talk about sustainability in an urban environment, having a variety of light industries that actually make things that are used locally, is good. And those maritime, sand/gravel, Seattle Times distribution center and other businesses provide much needed middle income jobs. Then there are the restaurants/bars/ and retail in Old Ballard. Ever worked for a restaurant? Even the hip ones? It’s not a great profit margin (as seen by the ever revolving empty store fronts) so employees don’t make much. Not every employee can afford to live in Ballard, anymore. The gentrification has caused housing prices (much less rentals) to become unaffordable if your waiting tables or trying to sell someone hip shoes or gelato. And then there is the evening/Sunday Market parking. It’s amazing to me that the very folks who talk local local local sustainable, drive down the the Market and cruise around looking for parking. If 140 spots are eliminated, that is a lot of parking, frankly. Much less on a Saturday night, that street is packed with cars.

    While I love the BG, I continue to believe this anti-light industry attitude, build the BG missing link at all costs, has a lack of understanding of what makes urban living sustainable. It’s not the gentrification, but the vibrant mix of housing, industry, retail, recreation. Unless, of course, you want to import everything from overseas…

  10. Public transportation is also key to making urban living sustainable. And Ballard has pretty good bus options by Seattle standards.

    I actually think getting rid of parking is a great idea — there will be fewer cars and more bus riders, which will lead the public transport options will improve, creating a virtuous cycle.

  11. If you have to be at work at 6AM (Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel guys) or leave work at 2 AM (the hip restaurants and bars), have you ever tried the mass transit system at those hours? Or at least in Seattle. I’ll give you that in NYC it works (lived there, did that) but here? Or have you tried taking a bus from across town to get here? Time is money and when you don’t make much, or work two jobs, or go to school and work…One size does not fit all.

    Again, the irony here is that those parking spots are filled to the gills on the Sunday Ballard Market day. A day when locals, I repeat locals, should be walking to the Market. Rain or shine. Filled. Hmmmm, this tells me either locals don’t walk to the market or that market attracts folks from QA, Magnolia, West Seattle, etc. Who spend a lot longer walking through Ballard after they park, maybe go to a movie, maybe eat at a restaurant, maybe spend money to keep the local shops open. Is that a bad thing?

    I’m just being realistic here.

  12. The Green Urbanist latte sipping organos Vs. blue collar joes has been the best thing for those of us on the Right.

    All I can say is…..Keep it up!

  13. I totally agree with you that a thriving walkable healthy community needs a mix of businesses, retail, living space, etc. I just don’t think the trail will actually put these places out of business. I’m not anti-light industry … I’m just anti-selfish-BS-costly-obstructionism.

    As for parking on Sat night and Sundays … I think that problem (if it really is one) is solvable without killing the Missing Link so that people can have free storage of their private vehicles on the public right of way.

    There’s lots of parking north of Market (people will find it if they have incentive), and a huge, empty lot that is slated to be (don’t hold your breath) a hotel right on Shilshole. The Farmer’s Market/Ballard Chamber could work out a lease on this lot for weekends and charge a few bucks. Or not.

    And come on … you complain that locals drive to the Market but worry about what cutting back on some free parking spaces would do? Hmmmmm indeed. They’d be more likely to walk/bike/ride with the trail, minus some parking spaces. Leaving more room for non-locals.

  14. The temp route is really bad. How many people will be killed in front of Ballard Hardware and Ballard Sheet Metal. Both companys have many trucks in and out all day long.
    DHS

  15. Yes, I take the bus at all hours and from various locations in the city. I don’t own a car, so that’s how I get around. Yes, it is inconvenient at times, but that is a fact of life. My point is that more demand would cause the system to improve, lessening the inconvenience. Reducing free parking spots would create more demand for public transit. This actually sounds similar to your point about people driving unecessarily to the Sunday market…reduce the number of parking spots and they will be forced to walk / take transit.

    I really don’t get your point about peope with less money being better off driving than taking transit…it seems to me that the cost of a car, its maintanence, and gasoline is much greater than the cost of a bus pass.

  17. That’s why they’re now getting rid of that compromise route. SBSG/BallardOil/BallardChamber broke their end of the deal by suing and now the trail will be built on Shilshole as God intended.

  18. Dream on.

    Increased demand for transit does NOT result in m ore/better transit options. It only results in crowded buses and more pissed off people. Take a look at transit NOW. Metro is cutting back, not because of a lack of demand but because they’re in an increasingly dire budget crisis. If you think transit is going to get better, you’r delusional.

  19. I feel bad for retail and restaurants. What a huge blow to their business right when the Economy was starting to pick up. Bad blow to Ballard, huge get for Greenwood and Fremont businesses.

  20. esr, getting rid of parking doesn’t necessarily mean “more bus riders”; more often it means people choose to work/shop/eat elsewhere, creating a vicious cycle rather than a virtuous one. The way to get “more bus riders” is to make riding the bus less of a hassle; increasing bus frequency would help a lot with this, but since buses require big subsidies, we’d need lots more funding for that. The easiest source of such funding (as it’s already in the law) is increasing local business revenue, so sales tax receipts also increase. A good way to help that is more cheap/free parking in Ballard.

  21. I feel bad for straw men. What a huge blow to keep getting put up over and over again even though they just get knocked down. Bad blow to logic, reason, and intelligent thought.

  23. esr, not sure why you think that more demand for buses would cause the system to improve. There’s been more demand these past two years, and the system has done the opposite of improving!
    You also need to consider that people have options other than being “forced to walk / take transit”, the major one of which is just driving somewhere else where there is easy parking. Tough-to-find parking and heavy traffic don’t make me take the bus to go shopping downtown, they make me drive to Northgate or Alderwood for my big shopping.

  24. Do we really have to go through this every time someone mentions the trail?
    The trail is good for business because it brings people here.
    The trail is good for commuters on bikes because it’s safer and faster.
    The trail is good for commuters in cars because it keeps bikes separated from the road.
    The trail is good for cars because every bike isn’t a car taking a parking spot.

    The trail will mean a few spots on Shilshole will have to get rearranged and some will probably go away, but the 140 number is from Fremont to the Locks and also includes a bunch of currently illegal spots that aren’t supposed to be parking anyway. The real impact for the downtown retail core is about twenty spots on Shilshole.
    The other impact is that SBSG might have to give up use of some of the public land in front of their building that they’ve been using rent and tax free for years.

  26. Good God, just build the damn thing and stop all the whining!!!! Seriously, in the time Seattle has spent going back and forth on this issue other cities have managed to build whole light rail systems.

  27. It amazes me how many people fail to comprehend your last two points. When I hear motorists whine about public transit and cyclists I just want to ask them: “Do you think your commute would be faster if all those people were in individual cars??” 100 people on a bus take up a LOT less space than 100 cars. Why some motorists can’t seem to figure this out amazes me. I imagine these are the same Seattle motorists who don’t understand how to yield to right at 4 way intersections and also drive at night with their headlights off (behaviors that seem to be unique unto Seattle natives)

  32. “you complain that locals drive to the Market but worry about what cutting back on some free parking spaces would do?”

    Exactly, Shelterwood sounds like one of the people Shelterwood is complaining about!

  34. Of course transit would improve with more demand. More demand comes with more revenue. It’s a simple matter of supply and demand…the fact that metro is subsidized does not change the supply and demand model, other than to shift the supply curve outwards. The effect of increased demand will shift the equilibrium to a point where more service is provided.

  35. Those may be the choices you would make, but not everyone would follow suit. Many people are motivated by doing something more environmentally friendly, supporting independent local businesses, avoiding the extra cost of driving further, and avoiding the hassle of driving to those crowded areas. Sure, some people may make the same choices as you, but many would choose other alternatives, like public transit.

  37. If parking was really an issue that the Ballard business felt strongly about then the Ballard Chamber should get them all together and (as another poster already suggested) take up a collection from all the business and lease the lot at the old Yankee Diner and provide free parking for their customers. I’d be willing to bet that it’s not a big enough issue for the local merchants to really put their $$’s behind.

    BTW, this is what they do at the mall, it’s not like the parking lot just appeared for free, all the businesses in the mall pay for the lot and pass the cost on to the consumer.

  38. If parking was really an issue that the Ballard business felt strongly about then the Ballard Chamber should get them all together and (as another poster already suggested) take up a collection from all the business and lease the lot at the old Yankee Diner and provide free parking for their customers. I’d be willing to bet that it’s not a big enough issue for the local merchants to really put their $$’s behind.

    BTW, this is what they do at the mall, it’s not like the parking lot just appeared for free, all the businesses in the mall pay for the lot and pass the cost on to the consumer.

  39. Logic?
    140 spots gone. I bet on a Friday and Saturday evening that there is a 2 car rotation that uses those spots. 1 car parked there from 4-8pm and another car parked there from 8-12pm. I bet on average that everyone of those cars averages two people… sometimes someone drives themselves.. sometimes 3 or more drive down there.. but to make it logical we’ll say two people. I bet that logically every one of those people spends $22.. I suspect its probably more but lets just say $22. So now you don’t have 140 cars parking down there and each one of those spots has 2 cars parking there in an evening and 4 people a night or 8 people a weekend averaging $22 bucks in Ballard Businesses… Over a course of 52 weeks that is about 1 million dollars. I’m just throwing that out for 16 hours a week out of a possible 168 hours. Forget the Sunday Market..

    Have you ever went to Fremont or Greenwood because after looking for parking for 15 minutes? I have. Fremont and Greenwood are easier to deal with than Ballard now…. Imagine what it would be like then.

  42. Have you ever noticed how the same people who piss and moan when they can’t find a spot right in front of a main street business will crawl through traffic to park ten times as far away from the mall entrance?

  43. Metro wouldn’t need that much of a subsidy, if any at all, if they went to a true demand model. But that would also mean cutting most of the rural King County routes.

  47. Your logic would work if that was 140 spots in the retail core. It’s not. It’s maybe a couple dozen. That many spots are easily made up on the other side of Market st.
    BTW, maybe you need to get out of your car and walk a couple blocks instead of crying and driving away.

  48. Some of us on the left watch in horror and have to agree with you on this one, Burt.

    Yep. I admit, we have some idiots on our side (the mayor, for example). I think you have your share, too (I’ll leave it to you to pick your own).

    It ain’t a Left/Right thing.

  49. This is actually OK with me. I’m sick of the morons that roll in every night from Kirkland or Federal Way to cruise the bars – we have more than enough of that crowd. If these creeps head for Belltown instead and half the bars in Ballard go out of business, I think that would actually improve the neighborhood.

  50. What a pant load. Free storage on a public right away. What are they storing? Could it be like the street parking in front of your house/condo/apartment? Last I heard those businesses were part of the public.

  51. The cost is passed along as part of the rent for the stores, but you’re right that it’s not very much, since the parking lot land is not primo development land. I do like the idea of leasing the YD or other similar area for parking, but there could be an unintended side effect: if esr is really right about less parking forcing people into buses and thus making a wonderful bus system, having more parking would clearly do the opposite and lead to the complete collapse of the bus system!

  52. Creepy drunks are the same everywhere, whether they hail from Kirkland or right here in Ballard. They all smell the same after puking on the sidewalk outside the bar.

    Anyhoo, you really think that neighborhood businesses can thrive with only customers from inside the neighborhood? You’re a positive thinker (but not a realistic one).

  53. Oops, errata:

    You did state that you wanted half the bars to go OUT of business. Good call. It’s much better for the local economy to have a bunch of empty storefronts.

  54. SPG – fares only cover 20% of the cost of providing the buses, so more riders requiring more buses means more, not less, tax money is needed to provide the service. Remember the old saw about selling something at a loss, but planning on making it up on volume!

  55. I take the bus frequently (mostly to Fremont, U-district or Doowntown — even though I can drive there in half the time). But I NEVER ride the bus to go shopping, because it’s not possible to buy very much. I won’t hassle with the bus if I’m carrying a lot of packages, or heavy ones. Add to that the six block walk home from the bus. It just ain’t gonna happen.

    Meeting friends for lunch or a beer = Bus, no problem.
    Shopping = Me and my cute little car.

  56. SPG, its obvious that you ride your Bike everywhere rain or shine by commenting 150 times this evening. So I’m going to let you know something… I like to walk a couple of blocks in the sunshine, but like the 99% of the rest of the population, i dont like walking, biking, skiing or anything else in the rain… call me crazy?? Since it rains 9 months out of the year. Currently you almost have to park close to 15th or 28th on a weekend night… thats great when its sunny. But i dont want to do that in the rain, neither do most people. Now you are taking 140 spots on SHILSHOLE AVE away. I’m going to Greenwood or Fremont now..

  57. What part of “free storage” of “private vehicle” on “public right of way” was confusing for you, Sven? Do you understand the difference between private and public? Hint: I’m not referring to the load in your pants. Please keep that private in the future.

    Still confused? Last I checked, SBSG is *not* publicly owned. The land in front of their business that they’re suing to keep as their free, untaxed, parking lot and loading area *is* a public right of way. And the public has decided to put a multi-use trail there, after decades of process.

  59. Yep. If half the bars on Ballard closed, it would be fine with me. That’s a straw-man argument, of course – maybe a few other businesses that were not based on getting hammered might move back in. But even if it’s a choice between bars or empty storefronts, I’m OK with empty storefronts. It might lead to more empty condos, and who could argue with that?

  60. Of course you didn’t answer my question. What are they storing on a public right of way?

    I didn’t think you would understand such a simple concept. Your bias against the evil cement plant would never allow you to think rationally.

    Last I checked SBSG customers aka the public use those parking spots when doing business with SBSG. Pretty common occurrence isn’t it?

    Still confused? Thought so, the CBC dogma is getting old.

  62. Sir Page happens to be right on this one. As long as Metro’s route system remains as poorly devised as it is currently, and its funding mechanisms backasswardly regressive, service will continue to suck and will such worse with any significant increase in demand.

  63. CARS. Was it that hard to figure out, since we are talking about PARKING?

    Last I checked businesses AKA private companies that want to control the space used for the parking & loading needs of their customers and employees PAY for it, OWN it, or at least don’t pretend that the world is ending if some of it goes away.

    Do you really think the cement plant will go up in smoke if people can’t use the south gravel strip near it for free long-term parking? Honestly, what is your point, besides trolling for SBSG?

  64. “But even if it’s a choice between bars or empty storefronts, I’m OK with empty storefronts” or what your saying is jobs suck. Unemployment for 25 and under is nearly 25%. Good to see your part of the solution.

  65. I don’t think businesses will go bankrupt, they will just leave and take there jobs with them- It’s already happening. GM Nameplate, who happens to be the largest industrial employer in the region (Interbay) is leaving and taking their 400+ family wage jobs with them. The reason they site is the lack of cooperation with the city (Bikes, Road Diets instead of improving the business climate). It will happen to these busienss too.

  67. I don’t think businesses will go bankrupt, they will just leave and take there jobs with them- It’s already happening. GM Nameplate, who happens to be the largest industrial employer in the region (Interbay) is leaving and taking their 400+ family wage jobs with them. The reason they site is the lack of cooperation with the city (Bikes, Road Diets instead of improving the business climate). It will happen to these busienss too.

  71. Oh please. GM Nameplate had decided to leave when the Nickerson road diet was just a twinkle in the previous administration’s eye. They left for the reason other businesses leave the city – to save money out in the boonies. But they like to get attention in the Puget Sound Business Journal and take the heat off of their management by blaming bikes.

  74. But do they have to leave? They have been here forever. There isn’t any thought being put towards improving the business climate on a city level… at all. This isn’t new, but I’m sure if McShwinn made jobs a priority in the biggest financial crisis in 70 years instead of Bikes than I’m sure we will keep many of those businesses instead of them “going out to the boonies”. When you meet with CBC 14 times your first 6 months in office and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce a couple of times in that same time speaks pretty loudly on what your priorities are.

  75. Did they have to leave? Who knows? Reportedly they’ve felt that they were outgrowing current facilities and have been complaining about the high cost of industry within city limits for years. And outsourced to other states 30 years ago, and to China in 2005.

    So they’re moving to larger, ? cheaper facilities in Kent. Where, of course, they will have no traffic problems :) But at least they won’t be able to blame bikes for those.

    Brad Root, the GM Nameplate guy, is just invoking the conservative bogeymen of “bicycles!” “McSchwinn!” to take the heat off of a cost-cutting move, one which will impact those 400 families by forcing a move or a hellish commute.

    McGinn wasn’t even in office when this decision got made. But somehow you think meetings with CBC drove up the industrial rents in Interbay?

    And if SBSG decides to move to the exurbs, for expansion and/or cost-cutting measures, they’ll blame bikes too.

  77. The subsidies for Metro are because it’s a county wide system. Running the mandated routes with nearly empty buses out in rural KC is where that money goes. The urban routes make money.

  85. Every industrial business can go save money by going out to the “boondocks”. Your missing the point, the reason that businesses stay here is because the business environment is ideal to their business. But that is changing.. Missing Link, Bike Trails, Road Diets, Idealistic and unrealistic transportation agendas are now becoming what the city government is pushing. Business developement and jobs do not concern this city, which is a huge red flag for any business in the worst economy in 70 years.

  86. Actually, that’s a lie that’s been perpetuated thanks to a lot of blowhards. GM Nameplate outsourced to China 5 years ago and decided not to renew its lease long before the Nickerson project.

  90. GM Nameplate’s President has sited that very reason in the PSBJ. They are also a member of the North Seattle Industrial Association and have been an advocate for industrial business’s in Ballard for a long time. This isn’t something that they just woke up to. This has been going on before Mayor McShwinn, but when you enter the worst economic climate in 70 years and your agenda becomes bikes over family wage jobs than it’s just a kick to the face. McGinn met with CBC 16 times in the first 6 months and met with the Chamber a few times and never met with any of the industrial/maritime groups.

    If you think that GM Nameplate woke up one day and said were moving lets blame the mayor… you really don’t have any insite about whats being discussed in the business community of this city.

  91. And you believe every politician who suddenly quits that they did so to “spend more time with their family”? If so, I’ve got a sweeeeet deal on a slightly used bridge for you.

  92. The industrial / maritme industries in the city do not feel that they are being represented at all in City government, especially in the Mayor’s office. This shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who reads the paper or speaks to anyone from the industrial / maritime industry. I’m not sure what you’re implying.

    The business environment is not at all good (matters of fact it couldn’t be worse for these businesses and thousands of jobs).. are you actually implying that this is all make believe? You realize that these businesses are suing the city. They are not getting support from the city. That’s why GM Nameplate is leaving, they’re tired of their (and industrial issues) being ignored or being fought upon.

    That’s what this whole thing is about. Idealistic and Unrealistic Transportation Agenda with the consequences of completely ignoring the impact of Industrial Business and jobs. You can call it whatever you want, but that’s what it is plain and simple.

  93. I wasn’t implying it was make believe. I was stating it was make believe.
    As was mentioned already, GM Nameplate decided to move long before any of this was even mentioned. They’ve been sending work to China for years and now moving the rest to Kent is all for the bottom line. Land is cheaper in Kent. Never mind that the transportation issues are larger down there with 167, 405, I-5 all making for hellish commutes. It’s not about the city. It’s not about bike trails. It’s about cheap rent. This happens as a city develops. The land values go up and the industries move to cheaper locations outside it.

Leave a Reply