Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. WR-Sri 120th N. LLC
| Decision Date | 02 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 95148-9,consol. with No. 94406-7, No. 94530-6,No. 94255-2,94255-2 |
| Citation | 422 P.3d 891 |
| Parties | CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a regional transit authority, dba Sound Transit, Respondent, v. WR-SRI 120TH NORTH LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WR-SRI 120th LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Safeway, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Northwestern Improvement Company, a Delaware corporation; Centurylink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation fka Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, a Washington corporation; Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington corporation; PPF Amili 121st Avenue NE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Respondents, City of Seattle, Appellant, Seattle City Light, a Washington municipal corporation; City of Bellevue, a Washington municipal corporation; U.S. Bank National Association; Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington corporation; AF Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Amazon.com Inc., a Delaware corporation; Orca Bay Seafoods, Inc., a Washington corporation; King County, a Washington municipal corporation; and all Unknown Owners and Unknown Tenants, Respondents. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, a regional transit authority, dba Sound Transit, Respondent, v. Safeway Inc., a Delaware corporation, King County and all Unknown Owners and Unknown Tenants, Other Parties, City of Seattle, Appellant. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, a regional transit authority, dba Sound Transit, Respondent, v. Sternoff L.P., a Washington limited partnership; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., W. Sternoff LLC, a Washington limited liability company dba Bodyglide; King County, a Washington municipal corporation; and all Unknown Owners and Unknown Tenants, Other Parties, and City of Seattle, Appellant. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, a regional transit authority, dba Sound Transit, Respondent, v. Ann Seena Jacobsen, who also appears of record as Ann Seena Veracruz, individually and as trustee for the Ann Seena Jacobsen Living Trust Dated April 4, 2002; Assurity Life Insurance Company, a Nebraska company f/k/a Woodmen Accident and Life Company; Safeway, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Centurylink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation; Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington corporation, Respondents, City of Seattle, Appellant, Seattle City Light, a Washington municipal corporation; City of Bellevue, a Washington municipal corporation; King County, a Washington municipal corporation; and all Unknown Owners and Unknown Tenants, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Philip Albert Talmadge, Sidney Charlotte Tribe, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick/Tribe, 2775 Harbor Avenue SW, Third Floor, Suite C, Seattle, WA 98126-2138, Russell S. King, Engel E. Lee, Seattle City Attorney's Office, 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050, Seattle, WA 98104-7095, for Appellants.
Gwindolyn Denice Tokunaga, Summit Law Group PLLC, 315 5th Avenue S, Suite 1000, Seattle, WA 98104-2682, Cheryl Ann Zakrzewski, City of Bellevue, P.O. Box 90012, 450 110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98009-9012, Eric A. Lindberg, David Benjamin Edwards, Emily J Harris, Corr Cronin LLP, 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900, Seattle, WA 98154-1051, Jessica Anne Skelton, Pacifica Law Group LLP, 1191 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101-3404, Jenifer C. Merkel, King County Prosecutor's Office - Civil, 516 3rd Avenue, Room W400, Seattle, WA 98104-2388, Courtney L. Seim, Summit Law Group PLLC, 315 5th Avenue S, Suite 1000, Seattle, WA 98104-2682, P. Stephen DiJulio, Adrian Urquhart Winder, Foster Pepper PLLC, 1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 3000, Seattle, WA 98101-3292, Jeffrey August Beaver, Connor Michael O'Brien, Jacqualyne Jean Walker, Estera Felice Gordon, Emily Raymond Krisher, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn PC, 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 300, Pier 70, Seattle, WA98121-1128, Marisa L. Veiling, Larry John Smith, Desmond Leoron Brown, Sound Transit, 401 S. Jackson Street, Seattle, WA 98104-2826, John Paul Turner, Rodgers Deutsch & Turner, 3 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98005-2440, Jordan M. Hecker, Attomey at Law, 321 1st Avenue W, Seattle, WA 98119-4103, Abraham K. Lorber, Lane Powell PC, 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 4200, Seattle, WA 98101-2375, for Respondents.
Jenifer C. Merkel, King County Prosecutor's Office - Civil, 516 3rd Avenue, Room W400, Seattle, WA 98104-2388, for King County.
John J. Houlihan Jr., Andrew L. Zabel, Donya Williamson Bums, Houlihan Law, 100 N. 35th Street, Seattle, WA 98103-8606, for Stemoff L.P.
Erik K. Wahlquist, Chelan County PUD, P.O. Box 1231, Wenatehee, WA 98807-1231, for Amicus Curiae (Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County).
Anne Louise Spangler, Snohomish County Public Utility District, P.O. Box 1107, Everett, WA 98206-1107, for Amicus Curiae (Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County).
¶ 1 These four consolidated cases present the same question: May Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) condemn the city of Seattle’s electrical transmission line easements located in the city of Bellevue to extend Sound Transit’s regional light rail system? For the following reasons, we affirm the trial courts in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We hold that Sound Transit has statutory authority to condemn Seattle’s easements and that the condemnation meets public use and necessity requirements. However, we remand the cases to the trial court for consideration of the prior public use doctrine and a finding on whether the two public uses are compatible.
¶ 2 Sound Transit seeks to build a light rail line perpendicular to 124th Avenue NE in Bellevue as part of its East Link Extension. To do so, it has condemned several properties located along 124th Avenue NE.
¶ 3 The properties at issue here are owned by Seattle and consist of electrical transmission line easements. Seattle acquired these easements 86 years ago specifically for the purpose of building electrical transmission lines. Seattle’s easements run along the east and west sides of 124th Avenue NE, parallel to the road, which runs north to south. Two of the four cases, WR-SRI1 and Safeway ,2 involve property on the west side of the road, where Seattle operates high-voltage 230-kilovolt transmission lines. The other two cases, Jacobsen3 and Sternoff ,4 involve property on the east side of the road, where Seattle does not currently operate any transmission lines.5
¶ 4 The high-voltage 230-kilovolt transmission lines on the west side of 124th Avenue NE are part of a larger electrical transmission line corridor running 100 miles from electricity generating facilities on the Skagit River to an electrical substation in Maple Valley. This corridor is also part of a larger, regional electrical transmission line system that spans the West Coast.
¶ 5 Seattle does not currently operate or have definitive plans to build an electrical transmission line on the east side of 124th Avenue NE. But Seattle contends that the land will very likely be used to build a transmission line soon because of the growing demand for electrical transmission line capacity in the region and the scarcity of available corridors to locate such lines.
¶ 6 The parties dispute whether the condemnation will interfere with the existing electrical transmission lines or render the remaining easements unusable. Seattle claims that losing any of its west-side easements in the WR-SRI or Safeway cases would effectively render the transmission lines and the corridor useless. Specifically, Seattle argues that it would be unable to maintain mandatory clearances for its transmission lines because Sound Transit has condemned Seattle’s aerial easement rights.
¶ 7 In contrast, Sound Transit maintains that its light rail project will not preclude Seattle's future use of the easements. Specifically, Sound Transit alleges that Seattle would be able to use a particular design6 for transmission towers that would comply with necessary clearances and conform to the new spatial limitations. Seattle does not currently use this model for its transmission towers and strongly disagrees that it is a feasible solution.
¶ 8 After Sound Transit resolved to acquire the properties for its East Link Extension project, it collaborated with Bellevue regarding the final project alignment, design, and construction process. To that end, Sound Transit and Bellevue executed a memorandum of understanding and related agreements. Sound Transit agreed to accommodate Bellevue’s Bel-Red transportation improvement plan, which includes widening 124th Avenue NE. To do so, Sound Transit agreed to transfer much of the condemned property to Bellevue.
¶ 9 Seattle contested Sound Transit’s condemnations by filing suit. The four trial courts ruled in favor of Sound Transit. In each case, the trial court held that Sound Transit had statutory authority to condemn Seattle’s electrical transmission line easements and that the condemnations met public use and necessity requirements.
¶ 10 In WR-SRI, Safeway, and Sternoff, the trial courts entered public use and necessity (PU&N) judgments, finding that Sound Transit had statutory authority to condemn the properties for its East Link Extension project. Additionally, the trial courts found that the East Link Extension project was a public use and that the public interest required the building of a light rail extension. Although Seattle submitted expert testimony that Sound Transit’s condemnation was incompatible with the continued operation of the transmission lines, the trial courts failed to address the prior public use doctrine or the compatibility of the two agencies’ public uses of the land. In Safeway, Seattle filed a motion for reconsideration that the public uses were incompatible, but the court denied it without explanation.
¶ 11 In Jacobsen, the trial court also entered a PU&N judgment, finding that Sound Transit had statutory authority to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kittitas Cnty. v. Wash. State Dep't of Transp.
...are issues of statutory construction.¶18 We review issues of statutory construction de novo. Cent. Puget Sound Reg’l Transit Auth. v. WR-SRI 120th N. LLC , 191 Wash.2d 223, 233, 422 P.3d 891 (2018). We interpret statutes to give effect to the legislature’s intent. Cherry v. Municipality of ......
-
State v. Sweidan
...The law rarely, if ever, requires absolute or indispensable necessity in any setting. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. WR-SRI 120th North LLC , 191 Wash.2d 223, 245, 422 P.3d 891 (2018). Generally, the word "necessary" means reasonable necessity, under the circumstances of ......
-
Michel v. City of Seattle
...distribution lines is, as a matter of law, held for a public purpose. It relies upon a condemnation case, Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. WR-SRI 120th North LLC, for support.70 There, the Supreme Court stated, " ‘The generation and distribution of electric power has long b......
-
Blue Spirits Distilling, LLC v. Wash. State Liquor & Cannabis Bd.
...plain language and ordinary meaning. Spokane , 158 Wash.2d at 673, 146 P.3d 893 ; Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. WR-SRI 120th N. LLC , 191 Wash.2d 223, 233-34, 422 P.3d 891 (2018). Our inquiry ends where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. HomeStreet, Inc. v. Dep......