The city of Sammamish officially filed its appeal against last month’s ruling on the East Lake Sammamish Trail permit, which would have given King County the go-ahead to continue its plan to widen and pave the southern Sammamish portion of the regional trail system.

In its petition to the Shorelines Hearing Board filed Tuesday, the city claims the Feb. 8 hearing examiner’s ruling to strike three conditions from the city-issued permit is “not supported by a preponderance of the evidence” and conflicts with the Shoreline Management Act, the Washington Administrative Code, the city’s Shoreline Master Program and the Sammamish Municipal Code.

The Sammamish City Council voted 6-0 last week to appeal the drainage-related issues, two of three conditions the city wants reinstated in the permit.

The City Council also voted 5-1 last week to appeal the placement of a stop sign at the 206th Avenue Southeast-East Lake Sammamish Parkway Southeast intersection.

The first condition struck from the city’s July 2015 permit, which the city would see reinstated, concerns managing runoff from nearby driveways.

The county argued in its July 28 appeal to the hearing examiner that, while trail construction would require a change of grade to the two driveways, the “average grade of each driveway will be unchanged” and that “[e]xisting impervious surface area of each driveway will not be increased,” according to the appeal documents.

The city disagrees, asserting the “increased slope on certain portions of” the two driveways will “change the overall profile of the driveway[s]” as a result of the project, according to the city’s petition.

“The county did not demonstrate that the Project would not increase the volume or velocity of runoff flowing toward or over driveway #1 and #2 (sic),” the petition reads. “The city’s purpose in imposing [this condition] was to avoid exacerbation of the drainage problems in this area resulting from the Project (sic).”

In the second condition, the city asks the county to analyze a culvert for stormwater capacity and to “coordinate with the [c]ity and neighboring property owners,” according to court documents.

“Homeowners near the [East Lake Sammamish Trail] have previously reported sustaining damage to mitigation planting areas that were flooded when the undersized culvert was overwhelmed by stormwater runoff,” according the the city’s appeal.

The city included this condition in the July 2015 permit “to ensure that the County’s Project did not exacerbate a pre-existing drainage issue with additional water flow generated by the addition of impervious surface on the improved [trail],” according to court documents.

The hearing examiner ruled the “record contains no legitimate justification” for this condition.

“The evidence does convincingly show that un- or under-controlled storm water runoff exists in the vicinity of [the culvert],” the hearing examiner wrote in his Feb. 8 report. “But the evidence equally convincingly shows that the source of that existing problem … points east, not the [East Lake Sammamish Trail]. King County cannot be required to solve that problem since it neither created it nor will exacerbate it.”

According to King County flow rates, the 16-inch culvert’s capacity is 17.02 cubic feet per second. The county states the 1-foot-deep channel would only overflow during the 100-year storm event.

The city states the hearing examiner’s decision was “improperly based” on the county’s data, indicating the trail would add less than 0.1 cubic feet per second to the 100-year storm flow rate.

“A preponderance of the evidence shows that King County fail to provide analysis for a conveyance system nuisance problem that the City required,” according to the city’s appeal.

Lastly, the city argues the placement of a stop sign where the trail intersects 206th Avenue Southeast should stop trail users.

The city alleges the hearing examiner, “in disregard of the burden of proof lying with King County, improperly analyzed and made erroneous conclusions regarding the stopping sight distance for motor vehicles, driver expectations, and accident history,” documents read. Additionally, the city asserts the hearing examiner “improperly analyzed and made erroneous conclusions regarding the variable nature of the trail traffic and the departure sight distance for bicyclists.”

The hearing examiner’s Feb. 8 ruling sided with the county’s original plan to stop motorized traffic, giving trail users the right-of-way.

“[T]hat relative volume and speed always dictate where crossing priority will lie is equally not true,” the hearing examiner wrote. “The primary factor in this decision is the lack of departure sight distance for bicyclists stopped at the crossing. Without adequate departure sight distance, bicyclists will be very vulnerable to being hit in the intersection by vehicles.”

The 206th Avenue-trail crossing is “essentially a right angle,” according to the hearing examiner’s report. There are 15 single-family residences located west of the trail on 206th, a cul-de-sac with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

Construction on the southern portion of the trail, which stretches from the 4300 block of East Lake Sammamish Parkway Southeast to Southeast 33rd Street, was set to begin mid-October 2015. The county had hoped to begin construction in late June, King County Parks and Recreation Director Kevin Brown told the Reporter last month, prior to the city filing its appeal.

The county originally purchased the railbanked corridor in 1998 and installed an interim soft-surface trail, which opened to the public in 2006.

The Sammamish trail, once completed, will be part of a 44-mile-long regional urban trail corridor from Seattle’s Ballard neighborhood to Issaquah.