City Of Redmond v. Union Shares Llc, 75463-7

Union Shares owns a 39-acre parcel; in 2000 it granted the City of Redmond an easement for a recreational multiuse trail that is not immediately adjacent to Evans Creek.
The City proposed relocating Evans Creek from industrial properties to a portion of Union Shares’ land to restore habitat (Chinook salmon conservation) and place the creek closer to the existing trail.
A 2005 feasibility study and later City planning identified ecological benefits (shading, woody debris, riparian habitat) and also noted potential redevelopment benefits for nearby industrial landowners who would be able to fill the old channel.
The City selected an “owner participation” alternative in which it would coordinate permitting and assist industrial owners in filling the abandoned channel; the City held meetings with industrial owners but not with Union Shares.
The City filed and the trial court granted a condemnation petition for the easement area; Union Shares appealed, arguing (1) the taking was not a public use because it benefits private landowners and (2) the City lacked statutory authority to condemn outside city limits because the project is not a "public park."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the condemnation was for a public use	Condemnation primarily benefits private industrial owners (economic redevelopment); private benefits are inseparable from the taking	Project is driven by public environmental and recreational purposes (stream restoration, salmon habitat, and trail enhancement); private cooperation is ancillary	Court held the taking was for a public use; private benefits were separable/ancillary and did not defeat eminent domain (Convention Ctr. controlling)
Whether the City had statutory authority to condemn land outside city limits under RCW 8.12.030 (park use)	Relocating the stream to add passive habitat adjacent to an existing trail is not a "public park" and does not open new recreational area, so statute does not authorize out-of-city condemnation	Moving riparian habitat next to the trail creates park-like, aesthetic and recreational opportunities (wildlife/fish viewing, habitat access), fitting statutory "park" purpose	Court held the relocation qualifies as a park use under RCW 8.12.030; condemnation outside city limits authorized

State ex rel. Wash. State Convention & Trade Ctr. v. Evans, 136 Wn.2d 811 (1998) (articulates three-part public-use test for eminent domain and distinguishes permissible ancillary private development)
In re Petition of City of Seattle, 96 Wn.2d 616 (1981) (Westlake I) (condemnation invalid where private use is integral and inseparable from the project)
In re City of Seattle, 104 Wn.2d 621 (1985) (clarifies reformulation of Westlake project removing private components)
Manufactured Hous. Cmtys. of Wash. v. State, 142 Wn.2d 347 (2000) (statute held unconstitutional where result was solely private use)
In re Condemnation of Property for Improvement of Discovery Trail, 119 Wn. App. 628 (2004) (trail construction held a park use supporting out-of-city condemnation)
City of Blaine v. Feldstein, 129 Wn. App. 73 (2005) (boardwalk condemnation treated as park-like public use)