Judge dismisses merchants’ Aurora case
Published 11:30 am Friday, February 22, 2008
King County Superior Court Judge Jim Doerty dismissed the Shoreline Merchants Association’s claims against the city’s plan to widen and renovate the first mile of Aurora Avenue North in Shoreline in a written finding Sept. 23.
SMA spokesman Rick Stephens said the group plans to appeal the decision in state Court of Appeals.
“We are strongly disappointed with his decision,” Stephens said. “We think our arguments were viable and that we presented an extremely strong case. We will be appealing the judge’s decision.”
Shoreline Mayor Scott Jepsen said, “I’m quite happy with the fact the judge has ruled on every issue in the city’s favor. I am now looking forward to moving this project forward.”
The SMA challenged the city’s plan for the widening of Aurora Avenue North from 145th to 165th streets. The project is a part of a regional effort to widen state Highway 99 from Seattle to Everett. The Shoreline design for this first mile widens the highway from five to seven lanes and installs a planted median interspersed with u-turn and left-turn pockets. A four-foot planted strip would separate the street from 7-foot sidewalks.
Disappointed that the city did not consider an SMA proposal to eliminate the median, planting strip and cut the width of the sidewalk, the SMA took the city’s design to court.
SMA officials argued the city’s design would cause some businesses to lose parking and access, and if continued further north, may force some businesses to relocate. They claimed the environmental review was incomplete because it failed to look at these economic impacts on the businesses. The SMA claimed the process was flawed because there wasn’t ample public comment time, that the city segmented the project inappropriately and that all three miles should have been analyzed, rather than only the first mile.
Doerty rejected all of the SMA claims.
The judge found that the city can take the first mile as a separate project that can be specially designed to improve the traffic congestion, safety, storm water treatment and appearance. Subsequent segments can be specially designed, too, and that “the Project does not foreclose the opportunity to consider other alternatives” for the remainder of Aurora Avenue through Shoreline.
Doerty pointed to the city’s comprehensive plan to “Redirect changes in the Aurora Corridor from a commercial strip to distinct centers” and said “the city has identified other areas along the Aurora Corridor for distinct and separate planning.”
Doerty rejected the SMA’s claim that the city failed to analyze economic issues in its environmental review.
State Environmental Protection Act law does not require the environmental review “to address the potential impacts of the project on business profits and property values” the judge stated. “These are not appropriate subjects for an Environmental Impact Statement.”
Doerty found that the city completed the environmental review process correctly and with adequate public hearing time. He pointed to the Aug. 6 public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Dec. 9, 2002 City Council meeting. He also cited that written comment was taken on the project, and that the city provided 85 pages of detailed responses to the comments.
“Not only were petitioners provided ample opportunity to testify at the Aug. 6 public hearing on the project DEIS, but they have been afforded the opportunity to discuss their views in at least 50 different public and City Council meetings regarding their opinions on the project,” the judge stated.
