Signs along the Lake Forest Park portion of the Burke-Gilman Trail that were put up by King County could be taken down by the county following a Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board decision to overturn a city ordinance.

In a decision announced Wednesday, July 25, the board concluded that the city’s adoption of the ordinance “is clearly erroneous and fails to comply” with the state Growth Management Act (GMA). The board’s decision remands action back to the city to establish an ordinance that will comply with the state GMA.

Ordinance 951 was adopted on Nov. 9, 2006, with the intent of providing development criteria for the Burke-Gilman Trail that required a conditional use process for multi-use and multi-purpose trails. In January 2007, the board received Petitions for Review from the Cascade Bicycle Club and King County. Both parties submitted the petitions challenging Lake Forest Park city ordinance 951, claiming it was not in compliance with the GMA and impeded reconstruction of a worn down 2-mile stretch of the trail that winds through the city.

On one side, the board’s decision pleased King County officials, the Cascade Bicycle Club and Lake Forest Park residents.

“(The decision) means something to every one who uses the trail,” Cascade Bicycle Club advocacy director David Hiller said. “It means the city can’t adopt ordinances restricting trail development and the county can get back to work on making the trail safer.”

Kevin Brown, King County parks director, said the county wants to fix the trail and make improvements such as increasing the 10-foot width of the paved trail to 12 feet and adding soft shoulders to create a softer surface to walk or run on. He said further changes may include updating signage to make sure it is consistent with regional trail park standards, or adding amenities such as benches or trash cans. But the largest improvement, according to Brown, will be repaving the trail surface. The board’s decision to recognize the Burke-Gilman as “an essential public facility” or a regional transportation and recreation corridor means the city cannot interfere with construction or redevelopment.

“Our recommendations are consistent with guidelines for federal transportation corridors,” Brown said. “The decision that (the trail) is an essential public facility is very important to us and it’s recognition that these trails can be used for transportation as well as public recreation.”

Resident Stuart Strand lives near the trail and bikes to the University of Washington daily. He said he “applauds the Growth Management Board’s decision” and “deplores the city’s excessive expenditure” used to have engineering reports completed and defend ordinance 951.

“Every time he backs up he’s at risk of hitting a cyclist because of the way he built his house,” Strand said about a neighbor. “They all want to be relieved of any liability. I find their attitudes to be extremely dissentious and I’m a little tired of it.”

But not everyone is happy with the board’s decision.

Dean Peterson, a resident of Lake Forest Park for 41 years, lives east of the trail and crosses it multiple times in a day, sometimes in his vehicle. A stop sign placed outside his fence is largely ignored by bicyclists but he said it protects him from liability.

“We’re the ones who are trying so hard not to hit anyone,” he said. “Traffic control signs mean nothing to most bikers.”

Peterson says he doesn’t have anything against bicyclists or biking. He’s been known to break out a tool kit and fix a flat tire, provide a ride or place to gather oneself after a spill on the pavement. What he says he’s concerned about is keeping everyone who lives near and/or utilizes the trail safe. He said if the speed limit is enforced along the trail, other problems, such as potential accidents including hit and runs by bicyclists of pedestrians will decrease.

“There’s no enforcement and there hasn’t been for 30 years,” said John Clayton, who also lives east of the trail. “I ride my bike with my granddaughter and it’s just so intimidating out here, bikers with their head down, tail up and going for a record.”

Clayton and Peterson can recall several times a bicyclist has gotten hurt or caused harm but said most incidents aren’t reported because bicyclists won’t stop or report an accident. In 1999 and again in 2004, they joined officers from the Lake Forest Park Police Department to record speeds of bicyclists and type of trail user. There was a 2 percent increase in the number of bicyclists and a 76 percent increase in the number of walkers, according to Peterson.

“They really don’t need the trail to be any wider,” Clayton said. “They just need some enforcement. Everything being proposed is making it so bikers can go faster but it doesn’t help walkers who had a bigger increase.”

Another person who lives near the trail and uses it almost every day is Tom French. He said he doesn’t expect trail redevelopment by the county to occur in the next two years.

“I think this is a way for the county to deflect blame away from themselves for the things they haven’t done,” he said. “We’ve never felt the county was a very good neighbor … it’s really about the county stepping up and maintaining the trail.”

Lake Forest Park city officials have not said yet whether they plan to appeal the board’s decision. If the decision to file an appeal is not decided by mid-August, city officials will look at revising the ordinance. The city has until January 2008 to comply with the GMA.

“The main thing is that we agree on the plan to develop the trail,” Lake Forest Park Mayor Dave Hutchinson said. “The issue is more making it safe.”

In a city news release July 31, Mayor Hutchinson again expressed a need for a safe redevelopment of the Burke-Gilman Trail and said that the interests of Lake Forest Park residents will be top priority as options are reviewed.

“Every single council member and the mayor wants that trail to be redeveloped,” city administrator David Cline said.