Judge lets Seaside vote on U.S. Highway 101

Published 4:00 pm Thursday, January 20, 2005

Opponents celebrate win; no date set for resolving controversySEASIDE – Citizens in Seaside will vote on the agreement between the city and the Oregon Department of Transportation on U.S. Highway 101, Judge Paula Brownhill ruled in Clatsop County Circuit Court Thursday.

Seaside City Attorney Dan Van Thiel said the City Council can decide whether to appeal the ruling.

“I’m very pleased that the people won,” said Seaside Councilor Diana Schafer after the hearing.

“Thank God,” said Bruce Smith, who along with advocating the people’s right to vote is concerned with losing street access to his used-car business. “It’s back where it never should have left.”

Christopher Lloyd, an ex-ODOT employee, said he hopes the agency is more willing to negotiate with Seaside citizens. “The people of Seaside had zero bargaining power until today,” he said.

“The people have the right to vote,” Brownhill said when delivering her decision after an hour. Most of the time was taken up by arguments from Van Thiel and Jill Gelineau, the attorney hired by Seaside citizens to represent plaintiffs Joseph Schafer, Tita Montero and Lloyd. About 40 people attended the hearing in Astoria.

City officials and ODOT worked on the proposed project extensively before the council approved the agreement Nov. 22. The plan involves expanding the highway to four lanes, with a median or a center lane for left turns. South of Avenue N, the project divides the highway into two one-way roads. According to Gelineau, the changes would involve demolishing about 30 buildings, taking part of 140 properties and cutting off 78 public or private driveways.

“I don’t understand why they didn’t consider other options,” Kentucky Fried Chicken owner Jeff Gray said of ODOT before the hearing. He said when he asked city councilors, they didn’t know either.

“I don’t want to minimize the impact,” Van Thiel said. However, he said many in Seaside are in favor of a project, but have a problem with the current design. “‘We just don’t happen to like the couplet,'” or “‘It’s too wide here,'” he said, adding that those are peripheral issues.

Brownhill said the issue was whether the agreement was an administrative decision, as Van Thiel argued, or a legislative one, which is subject to referendum. She said if there is a framework in place for the decision, it should be considered administrative. Gelineau argued because the city was required to change its comprehensive plan as part of the agreement, the framework was not in place.

The Seaside comprehensive plan says the goal is a bypass, but temporary improvements would need to be made to the highway until a bypass could happen. A bypass is a popular idea in Seaside, though ODOT officials have continually said that is not feasible. ODOT is beginning talks to discuss an Astoria bypass.

“Every little town in America has a bypass,” said Monty Felton before the hearing.

“We have a clear admission by the city and ODOT that the agreement requires the passing of policy,” Gelineau said. Part of the agreement states “City shall adopt an Access Management Plan as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.”

Van Thiel said the city did not change policy to sign the agreement. When the comprehensive plan is actually altered, citizens will have the chance to vote changes down, he said. Gelineau said demolition may have already taken place by then.

Van Thiel argued the action was well within the city’s rights. He said this kind of agreement has never been referred to voters in the history of the state. “But it is the only remedy that is open to these petitioners,” Gelineau countered.

Van Thiel said the project will lose its funding if voters reject the agreement. ODOT and city and county officials have said the project would lose the $38 million set aside if the agreement was not signed. He also said Gelineau did not follow the proper procedure of putting all of her arguments in her writ.

“If I’d seen it, I could have responded to it,” Van Thiel said of Gelineau’s argument about the comprehensive plan. “I take the position in this city that when it signs agreements, it’s obligated to those agreements.”

“The city should not be able to avoid the fact that it was a policy decision by entering into a contract,” Gelineau said.

Brownhill said it was not a black-and-white decision. However, partly because the agreement affects so many people, she agreed that there was not a framework in place for the decision and approved the referendum.

“I only hope people know the facts before they vote,” Mayor Don Larson said after the hearing.

“This is not a highway change only for today, it is for the future. As our community grows, we must also improve our highway too.”