After concluding that an Aug. 8 federal court decision on the East Lake Sammamish Trail would place limits on the city’s ability to protect public safety, preserve the environment and properly manage its road network, the city is preparing to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This follows a decision by the United States District Court in Seattle to grant a “preliminary injunction” that forbids the city from regulating public street intersections where they cross the trail, or imposing any other regulatory authority that would impede King County’s construction of a paved trail through Sammamish.
The trail lies in a now inactive railroad corridor. Under federal law, the Surface Transportation Board has jurisdiction over these “rails to trails” corridors in case they are needed for active railroad uses in the future.
After consulting with city attorneys, City Manager Lyman Howard said the city is well-positioned to preserve its regulatory rights.
“Among other things, the judge accepted the county’s argument that their rights vis-à- vis this recreational trail are equivalent to the rights accorded to an ‘active railroad,’” Howard said in a press release from the city. “That doesn’t make sense to us. And neither does the fact that the court ignored well-established guidance from the federal Surface Transportation Board that supports the city’s position.
“The Surface Transportation Board has clearly and repeatedly stated that cities retain local authority to regulate safety and environmental concerns when former railroads are being used as recreational trails,” he continued.
Before anything else, the city will file a “motion to reconsider” with the District Court, a move the city hopes will clarify a court decision stunning in its breadth.
“Reading the decision, you could conclude that the county has the right to do whatever it wants,” Howard said. “But that doesn’t make any sense. A city has permitting authority, and the right to protect the safety of its citizens, the health of its environment, and the integrity of its intersections.
“It’s frustrating that it’s come to this. The city is trying to facilitate the construction of this trail by issuing sound permits, but the county has taken us to court over what appear to be simple matters. The city should regulate its streets, and the county should regulate its trail. As things stand now, a judge has said that the county can regulate city streets.”
King County sued the city, in part, over a city requirement that stop signs at two intersections face trail users rather than the motor vehicles crossing the trail.
Initially, the city said it was merely perplexed, noting that this was a relatively minor safety engineering judgment. Now, however, given that the judge’s decision effectively sweeps aside the city’s traditional regulatory authority over its own streets, Howard said the city’s sense of alarm is appropriately elevated.
“This isn’t about stop signs at a trail intersection,” Howard said. “And it’s not about impeding construction of a trail – a trail that the city and the vast majority of our residents support.
“But this is about something really important. This is about keeping our residents and trail users safe, preserving the environment, and ensuring that our jurisdictional rights are not being ignored by King County.”
