1:02 PM: King County Superior Court Judge Mariane Spearman has ruled that the environmental-coalition lawsuit challenging the Port of Seattle‘s interim lease for Terminal 5 can proceed, one week after hearing arguments on a motion in the case. We’re still reading the ruling, but for starters, here’s what the coalition says in a news release this afternoon:

Seattle-area groups are challenging the Port of Seattle’s lack of public process and failure to assess the environmental repercussions of becoming Shell’s Arctic drilling homeport.

On March 2, 2015, the environmental groups pushed for swift review of their legal challenge in King County Superior Court.

Today Judge Mariane Spearman ruled that the case can be heard and directed the parties to negotiate the record for her review. The coalition is asking that the court vacate the Port of Seattle’s lease based on violations of the State Environmental Policy Act and the Shoreline Management Act. The Earthjustice lawsuit explains that the Port violated its long-range sustainability plans and its shoreline permit, which designate Terminal 5 as a cargo terminal and not a homeport for a drilling fleet. Both Shell and the Port were not forthcoming in specifying when the oil giant’s drilling fleet is expected to arrive in Seattle’s waters.

IN RELATED NEWS: A new public records release shows an intensive industry and labor lobbying effort to urge the Port of Seattle to enter into the lease. The Port lease was made known to industry long before any public disclosure. See document here.

The first public disclosure of the lease was in the agenda released days before the January 13th Port Commission meeting at which it was first publicly discussed and at which three of five commissioners affirmed letting staff proceed with it. On February 11th, in a letter to the environmental coalition, Port CEO Ted Fick announced he had signed the lease on February 9th. At the commission’s March 10th meeting, the open-public-comment period spanned more than three hours, with most of the speakers expressing opposition to the lease (WSB as-it-happened coverage here). The commission’s next meeting is next Tuesday (March 24th), with a semi-related item on the agenda.

ADDED 1:21 PM: We’ve just read the ruling. Among key points related to what was argued in court last Friday, Judge Spearman says the “Washington State Constitution recognizes the right to seek discretionary review of an administrative agency decision under the court’s inherent constitutional power” – so the decision to enter into the lease without a separate environmental review is in her jurisdiction. While the port contends that Foss hosting vessels from the Shell Arctic-drilling fleet would not be a change from the long-permitted use of Terminal 5 as a “cargo terminal,” the judge noted the coalition’s quoting of “Vessel Berth Moorage and Provisioning” in the port briefing memo for the aforementioned January 13th commission meeting, and wrote in today’s ruling, “These activities appear to be qualitatively different than Eagle Marine Services’ previous use of Terminal 5 as a marine container terminal.” (That was the terminal’s tenant before T-5 was shut down last summer in anticipation of the modernization project.) So the judge has granted the coalition’s request for a “writ of review” – a type of legal procedure explained here.

ADDED 4:36 PM: We’ve received comments from the Port and from Foss. First, from the Port via spokesperson Peter McGraw:

The ruling today is only a preliminary step in this matter. The judge’s ruling does not prevent Foss Maritime from continuing to use the terminal as described in the lease. Nor does it conclude that the port or Foss have failed to comply with any law. It does direct the parties to prepare a record so that the court can review the port’s compliance with SEPA. We look forward to providing this information to the court. The port continues to be committed to fully comply with any and all requirements and regulations.

And from Foss via spokesperson Paul Queary:

We are confident that our use of Terminal 5 will be in compliance with its current permit, and we will show that in court.

According to Foss, 101 people are currently working “on various jobs” at T-5, and 63 more are doing related work at Vigor Shipyard. (We noted the latter in our coverage of last week’s Port Commission hearing.)

(From Port presentation last year regarding T-5 modernization)
While the Port of Seattle‘s interim lease for West Seattle’s Terminal 5 has been in the spotlight lately, a comment period quietly opened for your chance to have a say on a decision related to its future beyond that or any interim use. A nearby neighbor flagged us on this, wanting to make sure you know before it’s too late to comment.

Here’s what’s happening:

The Port says it has decided that its modernization plan for Terminal 5 (first covered here last June) does not need an environmental-impact statement, and for those who have something to say about that, it’s accepting comments until 4 pm Monday (March 23rd). Read the Determination of Non-Significance notice that neighbors received, here or below:

This 42-page Port document, the State Environmental Policy Act “checklist,” explains why they don’t believe a full environmental review is needed. It also says the work is expected to start early next year.

Some neighbors say they plan to comment about expected impacts including increased carbon emissions and noise, especially the long-running issue of train noise, which they expect will increase as “more trains will be needed to offload the super-container ships.”

As noted in the document embedded above, you can comment by e-mailing SEPA.p@portseattle.org by the Monday afternoon deadline – but be sure to include a postal-mail address. Again, this is separate from and not related to the “interim lease” for part of T-5, except that some of this work – which could cost up to a quarter-billion dollars, the port says – would overlap with that lease, which covers a third of T-5.