HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works July 8 20031
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
July 8, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 1:33 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
Sharon Roy
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION VACATING ALL OF THAT PORTION OF JAMES WAY
LYING WESTERLY OF BIRCH BAY DRIVE (AB2003 -237)
Roger Almskaar, land use consultant, stated he represented the applicant.
The County road right -of -way was dedicated in 1912. It was never used and
doesn't provide access to tidelands. He submitted a summary (on file). The main
reason for the vacation request is because the right -of -way cuts a gaping hole out
of the applicant's lot and reduces the market value of the property quite a bit. The
owner received the lot as settlement of a debt. He agreed with the Engineering
Division's estimate of value.
Regarding the public access issue, the old plat doesn't dedicate the beach
reserve to the public. It never did. All the lots that used to be the Palms Tavern
property were done away with when the Pete Hanson lot line adjustment was
approved in 1998. The public access issue is an emotional one. There is an
existing easement on the south side of Mrs. Christianson's lot, negotiated by
several people. There is a ten -foot easement across the southern side of lot F for
access by a small number of properties. An attorney says they can grant other
people the right to use the easement, which they did. Since then, they thought it
would satisfy the concerns of some people in the neighborhood, but it didn't. One
new idea is to open the easement to the general public if and when the public owns
the tidelands.
Brenner asked what happens if something is built so opening an easement
for the public becomes impossible. She was disappointed in the information the
councilmembers received. The memo from Joe Rutan did not include one thing
about why the Council denied it last time or why people were opposed. The memo
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
only says the Council was convinced a vacation was not appropriate. Some of the
councilmembers don't know anything about this because they are new. The
Council shouldn't have to go back through the records. That's the purpose of the
memos the Council receives. There should have been some detail about the
opposition.
Almskaar stated the road right -of -way is a different piece of property from
the easement. They can't do anything to get rid of the easement. They are not
trying to get rid of it. They could open up the easement to all property owners in
that area. They don't propose opening it to the public right now because the
tidelands are private. They don't want to encourage the public to walk onto private
property. All the people who own lots in Birch Bay First Addition would have
unrestricted access to this easement. If the public acquires the tidelands, the
easement would be written now to allow public access at that time.
If the petition is turned down, they have the right to gate that access. The
public doesn't have a right to use that easement right now. They are not trying to
be vengeful, but to look out for the owner's best interest.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the memo they received from Joe Rutan does state
that part of the reason staff recommends denying the vacation is because it's the
law that they have to protect historic public access to the beach.
Brenner stated there is nothing in the memo that says there is public access
to the beach.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she interpreted the memo to say that they do have
public access.
Roy stated the reason the initial petition was turned down is critical to this
discussion. That reason is not clearly stated in the memo. She recalls that the
petitioner was trying to trade something that didn't belong to him. That is why the
Council turned down the petition in the first place. That makes a difference. This
piece has again popped up. There were very good reasons for it to be denied.
Almskaar stated they are not making the same proposal.
Nelson asked if the proposal is to trade part of the right -of -way. Almskaar
stated they are asking to purchase a portion of the right -of -way and write an
amendment to the easement.
Nelson asked if Lot F belongs to Mr. Almskaar's client. Almskaar stated it
does. Lot G does not. The applicant proposes to pay for that property and then
quitclaim it to the owner to straighten up the boundary line.
would.
Nelson asked if the access would be to Birch Bay Drive. Almskaar stated it
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated it would be a good walking area that allows access for the
people there. Almskaar stated the only purpose of that ten -foot stretch is to walk
to the beach. They can't do anything else there.
Nelson stated the applicant said she would not allow access until public
beach access became available. Almskaar stated they've talked about this. They
have some uneasy feelings about opening it up to the general public because it
encourages the general public to walk on private tidelands that the applicant
doesn't own.
Roy stated she's heard that everyone has a right to walk across the
tidelands. That is a legal issue she would like an answer to. Everyone talks about
this beach reserve that went away. She would like background information on how
it went away. There was a beach reserve from 1912 to 1998. Dodd's beach
reserve went away. The Dodds were part of a group that had the original
ownership of the property across the creek. The whole reason for this was to give
access to the beach to the people who lived across Terrell Creek. Almskaar stated
that area was privately owned at the time of the land division. All the people who
could use James Way could get out there, but the beach reserve was not dedicated
to the public.
Brenner asked if this has public access to the beach.
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated it does not have public access to
the beach currently. It is an issue raised by opponents previously. Opponents said
it did have public access. He did not find record of public access.
Brenner stated she recalled that they were not sure whether there is public
access. She asked if this has any public access, or could in the future.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there was doubt created about
the existence or nonexistence of public access to both locations. He believes that
it is not clear in both locations. There is nothing for this location that suggests that
there is public access. There is no defined public access in the legal record. The
pattern of use is different. Testimony suggested that there was continuous public
use, so there was no need for the County to clear the issue up.
Roy stated the people across Terrell Creek were the ones who originally
were given public access forever. The other property, at Alderson Road, has a
County public access sign and a restroom that is never open. The sign says
parking is for the restroom only. There are issues in terms of public access in
those areas. Monsen stated that is a perfect example of whether access issues at
Birch Bay truly exist.
Charles VanGorder, attorney, stated he represents Kary Gobbato, who
resides on a lot opposite of the James Way vacation. This is a different proposition
from the previous request. Last time, they would have at least allegedly gotten
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
something for the trade. This time, they will get nothing. This will provide nothing
to the residents, and will create a huge windfall to the owner of property F. The
value of that lot will be increased by one - third. This is valued at $120,000,
according to Mr. Almskaar. Of course, they couldn't sell it for $120,000, so they
have to question whether that is what it is really worth. They are going to increase
the property by one -third at a cost of about $5,000 to $10,000. That's a great
deal. This is a windfall of about $40,000 for paying $5,000 to $10,000, which is
less than the last proposal.
There is still the issue of whether or not there is an easement today. There
was a provision in the shoreline variance from 1999 for a ten -foot easement. Staff
can't even say if there is a current ten -foot easement. There is a real question as
to whether or not that beach reserve was properly vacated. It was originally part
of Birch Bay Park. Certain people gave up their rights to it, but there is a question
as to whether or not the intended vacation of the reserve area is valid when only a
portion of the entire development agreed to vacate the property.
Brenner asked if the beach reserve was public or private. She also asked
about access to tidelands. Van Gorder stated the beach reserve might have been a
private reserve for the entire development. Only a portion of the development
owners gave up their rights to the reserve. He believes that the tidelands up to
the high water mark are public.
Between Alderson and Brooklyn, there is a 1,300 -foot stretch between the
acknowledged public accesses. It is the longest stretch without public access. It is
an area that has not been developed because of the right -of -way. If this area is
given to the applicant, a house will be built there and the view will be gone forever.
The applicant got ownership of the land knowing of the right -of -way and that the
lot was unbuildable. A vacation will divest his client from her view. There is a lot
of public detriment to vacating this right -of -way.
Doralee Booth, resident, stated she is concerned about the beach reserve
going away. There is not adequate parking for the condos. All beach accesses
should be preserved.
Claudia Hollod, 8240 Birch Bay Drive, stated it's okay for people to walk
across the tidelands in front of her beach area. The steering committee has
discussed the importance of retaining this right -of -way. It is important, especially
with the surrounding businesses. They've lost a great deal of their public access.
That isn't acceptable. It isn't the County's to give away.
Booth stated that if this access were given, a locked gate would go up
eventually.
Dave Lang, Windermere Real Estate, stated this property does not have
public access.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated that is not clear.
Bonnie Block, Windermere Real Estate, stated Roger Almskaar has
researched the entire public record for a year. He knows this property better than
anyone else. If the people are concerned with public access, they should
encourage vacating the road so that a gate is not put up there. A house can still
be built on that lot, but it would be built higher. As it is, there is no public access
to the beach. Of record, it is a private easement, not a public easement.
Brenner stated she's heard that if something is used long enough publicly, it
becomes a de facto allowed use. One attorney said there is, in fact, an allowed
public use.
Lang stated that legally, it is an exclusive private easement.
Block stated it makes sense for the Council to negotiate with the property
owner and work out an equitable situation where the public and Mrs. Christianson
could be satisfied.
Lang stated someone said there was no access within 1,300 feet. There is
public access to the north of the property within 500 feet.
Almskaar stated this is a buildable lot right now. The question is the kind of
house that will be built on the lot. A house will be built on it. They are not talking
about a value of tens of thousands of dollars. It is not one -third of the lot. That is
an exaggeration. There are not that many dollars involved. The owner is willing to
pay for it and grant an easement to open it up. They propose to forever fix the
problem of people not getting to the water. Mr. Rutan's memo says that there is
no public access to the beach. Staff agrees that this right -of -way does not provide
any legal public access.
Brenner stated the Director of Public Works says it's not clear.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the applicant agreed to accept the property as
payment. She knew the situation. She asked why the County is supposed to bail
out the applicant when the applicant agreed to accept the property as is as
payment.
Almkaar stated it is not a bail out. It is a way to use legal channels to
enhance the value. Any prudent person would try to do this. Subject to Mrs.
Christianson's attorney's approval, they are prepared to open the ten -foot
easement to the public.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
2. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX -YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2004
THROUGH 2009 (AB2003 -238)
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, submitted a map (on file). Project 26,
the Slater Road connector, is different from what the map shows. The County
Executive has requested that it be removed. He is seeking Council approval to
remove it. The project would serve the City of Bellingham. The benefit would be
the lessening of traffic in the city limits. That is not a project the County Executive
wants to spend County funds on.
The second change to the map is project 50, the corner of Pole Road and
East Pole Road. He looked into information with the State Department of
Transportation. That intersection is currently ranked 7t" out of 296 statewide for
the need of signalization. The Department of Transportation does not have funds
for the project, but they are willing to work with the County to pay a prorated
share of the cost. If the project were moved up and funded for preliminary
engineering, the Department of Transportation would have funds available in the
2004 -2005 biennium. The County could pay for the engineering now, and the
State could pay for its share to be used on construction.
Caskey- Schreiber thanked Mr. Rutan for bringing this intersection to the
Department of Transportation's attention. It is a major corridor for trucks from
Sumas. Rutan stated that if this project were funded to do engineering, they
would have to move engineering funds forward into years one and two. When
moving around money, they have to see how it works on the financial sheet. If the
Slater Road connector is removed from the list, it frees up some money.
Brenner suggested that the County use its own funds to pay for the
signalization, and let the State pay the County back through an interlocal
agreement. She asked the cost. Rutan stated the cost would be about $300,000
to $400,000. If that's something the Council chooses to do, they can go to
construction in 2005 or 2006.
Brenner stated she would like to move that item up on the list.
Nelson moved to recommend allocating funding for project 50 to be for the
first and second year.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner asked if anyone has looked into her concern about Alderwood Road.
Rutan stated the issue with Smith Road was not sidewalks, but level of surface and
pavement conditions. On Alderwood, there is a need for sidewalks, but it isn't
ranked high enough currently in terms of level of surface, accidents, or other
conditions. An objective in 2004 is to analyze safe walking routes in schools.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated there haven't been any accidents on West Smith Road. The
school issue was the reason given to the Council for the sidewalks. Alderwood
Road is a school issue. There is a lot of traffic there. It is in an urban growth area.
Rutan stated they did not do the West Smith Road because of the sidewalks, but
took into account the area as a whole when they looked at it.
Brenner stated she is not talking about widening Alderwood, just adding
sidewalks. Rutan stated there is not a need to fix the pavement or increase the
level of service. It may have a need for sidewalks, only. One of the things the
department is trying to do in 2004 is begin a program to look at school safe
walking routes. Schools are required to have designated safe walking routes
within one mile of the schools. Staff is going to gather all those plans or help
schools develop the plans, then look at the needs that come from that study, and
then prioritize and develop projects. Right now, he doesn't have a way to prioritize
that school against other schools.
Brenner stated it is the only school in an urban growth area that doesn't
have sidewalks. It should be ahead of the other schools in the county because the
other schools are not in urban growth areas. She's not talking about roadwork,
only sidewalk work. This has been brought to her attention several times by a
Bellingham City Council member. The County has an obligation because this is a
busy area with a lot of kids that walk. Most of the kids at the North Bellingham
School are bused. Rutan stated that the drainage associated with a sidewalk is a
major cost of installing sidewalks.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there is $400,000 allocated per
year for projects such as projects 57 and 59. There is opportunity for that to
happen, subject to the outcome of the safe walk study.
Brenner stated she doesn't want this to wait for six years. Rutan stated
they would do the study and prioritization. They may propose to do it a number of
ways sooner. They need to go through a prioritization process because every
school will say that theirs is the most important project.
Nelson asked if the estimates for the North Shore Project, number 24,
include bike lanes. Rutan stated they do.
Brenner asked what improvements they plan for project 27. Rutan stated
the specifics are in the annual program. The County Executive added that project
so they can start looking at issues related to an interchange at I -5. They don't
want to have an interchange without addressing the intersection at Smith Road
and Northwest Road.
Brenner stated she supports an interchange at that location, but the State
told her that interchange would never happen. Rutan stated they have to do an
access route study. Some of the preliminary engineering money would look at that
interchange. That allows them to start looking at those issues.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated she doesn't want to spend money until someone at the State
says an interchange is a possibility. She's heard that it isn't a possibility right now.
In addition, they've attempted to eliminate the interchange at Northwest, which
already exists. Rutan stated that is different from what he's heard. Generally, one
mile is the limit between accesses.
Brenner asked for something in writing from the State saying the State is
encouraging this. Rutan stated that even without the interchange, they expect the
level of service at that intersection to drop with the increased traffic. They have
some money in years four through six to analyze potential fixes.
Brenner stated there is a store right at the road at the northwest corner. At
the northeast corner of the intersection is an apartment complex. The County
offices are almost right to the road at the southeast corner. Rutan stated it is a
difficult intersection to look at, which is why they would like a little bit of money in
the plan to start addressing those issues.
Brenner stated she would like to see something that is in character with the
existing community. She asked if the turn lane project at Ferndale Road is right at
Slater Road. Rutan stated it is. It would improve Ferndale Road and work a little
on Slater Road to put in turn lanes.
Brenner stated she is opposed to any improvements on Ferndale Road
except for the turn lanes. It is a wonderful little County road. People drive slowly
because it is narrow. If the road is widened, the number of accidents will increase.
Rutan stated the pavement is in poor condition. They would look at appropriate
shoulders, modern standards, drainage issues, and the turn lanes.
Nelson asked about the Austin Creek Bridge. Rutan stated it would include
pedestrian access. They are working with the consultant on a bridge replacement
that includes wider shoulders for pedestrian and bicycle movement. Originally,
there was a project to combine it with the Rocky Ridge project. The Council
decided to pull the bridge out of the Rocky Ridge project and do it earlier than the
entire road project.
Brenner moved to remove the Slater Road connector, project 26.
Motion carried unanimously.
Claudia Hollod, 8240 Birch Bay Drive, stated she's been working on this for
over 20 years. Project 18 was project number 13 last year. In years 1992
through 1994, this project was number 6. There has been 86 percent growth in
the area. The road was to be resurfaced and widened, with partial funding from
the City of Blaine.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Rutan stated this is funded for construction in 2006. The priority number is
not as important as whether or not there is money designated for it to be built.
The new alignment of project 20 should be done before the connector road. That
connector road development is pending. There are projects higher on the list that
are not funded.
Hollod stated that in 1992, it was scheduled to be completed in 1994.
Monsen stated construction funding was dependent upon various development
proposals over the years. At this time, staff decided the County can't wait for a
development proposal to move ahead. Previous to today, the project was attached
to the belief of a development proposal paying for the project. Staff hopes right -
of -way will be dedicated as part of a development process, but they don't want to
wait and see if it will be.
Hollod stated she approves of Item 20, moved up from item 46. The
transportation issues from past developments have not been addressed, which is
why they are having problems today. It's good to have that connector. Selder
Road was dropped off the list, and replaced by this connector. The Fire Chief said
their first choice is the Selder Road connector. It is in their strategic plan. Blaine
had no dispute with it. With the Selder Road connector, they could save five to six
minutes in response time to Birch Bay Village, from where they get the most calls.
With this connector, they can only save one to two minutes.
3. DISCUSSION OF THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR THE
LUMMI ISLAND FERRY, INCLUDING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE
LUMMI ISLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (AB2003 -249)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the question is how they measure
the level of service. The Lummi Island Transportation Committee supports asking
the community where the County should focus its next major financial investment.
Ask the community if they should focus on how many cars they can move across or
on alternatives, or if they will want to live with the current capacity. He hoped the
Council and Executive would ask the community the question posed in the survey
he handed out. (Handout on file.)
Bill Lee, 2171 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated there are two issues. The
committee started a project to develop an advisory question for the November
ballot. The three questions provided by Mr. Monsen cannot go on the ballot
because of the language. The second issue is the definition of level of service. The
islanders have been concerned about it. They have lobbied to keep that number
from being changed. The committee has tried to come up with a new definition
rather than use the historic definition based on number of cars and census figures.
Come up with another way of measuring level of service.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Art Thomas, 2620 Island View, Lummi Island, stated one question for years
has been what the islanders want. He supports some type of advisory vote for the
islanders. Speaking as a member of the transportation committee on level of
service, the Planning Commission was approached by the Planning Department to
reduce the level of service so the Public Works Department could comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. At that meeting, Planning commissioners asked if the County
is meeting that level of service currently. They are not. The level of service
measurement defines a trip by vehicles and cars on the ferry. If they look at and
measure how people get from the island to the mainland, they are meeting that
level of service. In 1996, no one was parking cars on both the mainland and island.
Ferry service alone provided a means for access and mobility. Today, ferry service
is becoming more of an access tool for pedestrians traveling from one parking
space to another. The measurement they'd like to use as a definition is Whatcom
Transportation Authority (WTA) ridership levels and people who park a car on both
the island and mainland.
Brenner moved to recommend going forward with the advisory survey of
the residents to determine what level of service they want.
Nelson asked what result the staff wants from the survey. Monsen stated
they want to know how to spend the next major investment. Within the context of
the questions, they want to develop the information that describes what the
potential scenarios would look like in terms of finances and capacity.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County can contract out this survey service.
Monsen stated they can simply access the list of registered voters and mail out a
ballot.
Motion carried unanimously,
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 10
1
2
3
4
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 11