The Segment 2B SSDP hearing was concluded on December 22nd. On that day King County and the City of Sammamish filed their closing arguments.
The final conclusion for each is quoted below:
“King County asks that the Examiner approve the SSDP with the footprint proposed by the applicant. We further ask that any conditions be limited to what is necessary to ensure SMA and SMP compliance as the project moves forward.”
Earlier in its 26-page document, the County argues that the City’s recommended conditions are unnecessary, vague, overbroad, and unreasonable.
CITY OF SAMMAMISH
“The City respectfully recommends approval of the SSDP, but subject to the Conditions detailed in Staff Report/Exhibit 1.”
Earlier in its 18-page document, the City argues on behalf of its Conditions. These conditions begin on page 17 of the following document:
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is due on Tuesday, January 9.
In other matters, there have been developments in the quiet title suit in federal court. The appeal of the ruling of judge Pechman to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to be heard sometime this spring. Plaintiffs in the case have uncovered new evidence that should reinforce the appeal. That new evidence shows that the plaintiffs have been paying taxes on the disputed property contrary to the County’s claim that the County has been “paying” the taxes. The matter of tax payment was one of the pivotal issues in the original case and we expect the new evidence to raise the probability of a successful appeal. The Court has accepted the new evidence.
In addition, the plaintiffs in the Federal suit have entered a motion to stay Pechman’s order until the appeal is decided, with the new evidence noted above as part the justification for the stay. They argue that there is a reasonable chance that they will prevail in their appeal and that permitting the County to proceed with construction would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and other property owners who are not party to the suit. As you know, the County is using Pechman’s ruling to subject other property owners to their claims of ownership and use rights, even though the legal situation with other properties is entirely different from those of the plaintiffs; Pechnman’s ruling only applies to the plaintiffs’ property.
The plaintiffs’ motion to stay Pechman’s order can be viewed under “Legal and Other Documents.”
The SHO Board wishes to thank all of you that have supported our efforts to construct an ELST that will be an asset to the community while respecting the property rights of the underlying fee owners over whose property the trail traverses. We expect 2018 to be an eventful and pivotal year in these efforts. We wish you all a Very Happy (and Successful!) New Year.