Months after the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation decided to implement the Loyal Heights Playfield Improvement project, which will add synthetic turf in place of natural grass and additional lighting, some Ballard residents have formerly appealed the process through Seattle’s Office of Hearing Examiner.

The parks department asserts that synthetic turf and other changes to the playfield will increase the usability of the field as well as pose “insignificant adverse impacts upon the environment,” according to the parks department’s Determination of Non-Significance report.

The determination is based from a review of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the project. The SEPA examines any short-term and long-term adverse effects on the environment the project could pose. Parks found the project to have insignificant impacts and does not require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

But some Ballard residents disagree with this conclusion and have appealed the determination issued by the parks department in October. There is concern that the renovations and the new “year-round” access to the playfield could cause traffic problems and parking shortages. They also believe the three public meetings held to discuss the project were unfair.

One of the appellants Mark Ruebel, a civil engineer and a resident of Ballard, said his primary concern is that the city has not done an adequate job in filling out and researching the SEPA. He said they did not adequately investigate important aspects, such as traffic and parking impacts.

“I’m pretty confident that we have legitimate concerns about how the SEPA was conducted,” said Ruebel. ”And as a result, the parks department has not proposed any mitigation to offset the real impacts that this project will have.”

He wants the SEPA to go back to parks for adequate evaluation with a new parking and traffic study, or have an EIS conducted.

The scope of the project did require the city to conduct a traffic study.

“The parks department feels both the traffic study and SEPA were adequate and substantial,” said Cathy Tuttle, project planner for the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation. The study found there to be no adverse impact on parking or traffic in the area.

According to a parks department’s report, the parking study found that there are 500 available on-street parking spaces near the park, and at no time during the study did they find more than 200 of those spaces utilized.

But Ruebel said the parking study was inadequate in examining the real impacts. He said the study was a total of a few days during the summer and spring when the playfield is not at its heaviest use. It would have been better to conduct the study during the fall when it is in constant use with overlapping sports games, he said.

Plans to rebuild the two existing ball fields for “year-round, all weather use” with the addition of synthetic FieldTurf, similar to synthetic turf used at many major sports stadiums, is slated to begin July 2006. Fences will also be replaced, the bathrooms upgraded and light poles and security lighting installed.

Parks concluded that even though the playfield will experience more use since the synthetic turf will allow it stay open during winter months, the hours of operation will remain the same and the parking demand should also stay constant.

Jim Anderson, a physicians’ assistant and one of the appellants, believes that the SEPA is not only incomplete but is factually wrong.

“There are a lot of errors and factual misstatements,” he said. He is also worried there may be health risks involved with synthetic turf and said the study done by the county that determined it safe is based off of old information.

With the renovation, Loyal Heights Playfield will also receive 10 new light poles to replace the existing six. The addition of new light poles was not part of the original project plan, said Tuttle. The lights were actually added after the resistance over the synthetic turf and are not funded by Pro Parks Levy dollars, she said.

“Light spills into the neighborhood with the current lights,” said Tuttle. “The goal of these new lights is to eliminate any spillover light or glare that could effect surrounding residents .So we added them in as a sort of mitigation for the people who were upset about the synthetic turf.”

“Maybe (the appellants) are trying to send the city a message that if they try to put in synthetic turf somewhere else this is likely the kind of reaction they’ll get from the community, and that’s unfortunate,” said Doug Dunham, a member of the Pro Parks Levy Oversight Committee and a Ballard resident.

The likelihood of the appellants actually winning seems remote, he said.

Ruebel beleives the city could have found funds to pay for additional parking.

“It’s a $2.3 million project and they seemed to magically find another $500,000 for new lighting, but can’t spring another few $100,000 for additional and needed parking?” he said.

According to the SEPA, songbirds are the only listed bird or animal inhabitants of the park. But Ruebel said there are also hawks, Canadian geese, red-shafted flickers and other animals. He believes the city did not adequately investigate the kinds of animals that inhabit Loyal Heights Playfield.

But one of the most important concerns, said Ruebel, is that the city has not listened to the community’s wants. Ultimately, Tuebel and the other appellants hope that the appeal will send a message to the parks department and the city.

“The city needs to adequately solicit community input for projects effecting communities,” he said. “In my experience they don’t ask the local community members what they want to see happen in their neighborhoods. It’s extremely frustrating to not be heard. They need to ask what it is we want from the city for our communities, and I don’t feel we were given that.”

“I think most of us felt like the whole public process was sort of fake,” said Anderson. “(The parks department) didn’t seem to come into the public meetings with an open mind willing to really listen to our ideas. That’s what I want them to be held accountable for.”

“The community has had multiple times to respond to the project, starting with the multiple community meetings, through the public meetings, project advisory team meetings and the Park Board Public Hearing in 2005,” said Tuttle.

With no legal representation, the appellants will each independently represent their concerns regarding the SEPA to a city magistrate and attorney.

“If the appeal fails, it looks like we are out of luck,” said Ruebel. “We probably could bring on a lawsuit, but I am not financially prepared for that.”

The appeal hearing is scheduled for Dec. 19.