HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works September 26 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
September 26, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
9
10
11
12
13
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Dan McShane
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
DISCUSSION
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING THE
FERRY SCHEDULE IN 2001 (AB2000-328)
Brenner stated this item was inadvertently scheduled on the agenda due to a
miscommunication, and it shouldn't have been scheduled. She questioned whether
there are going to be any changes in the ferry schedule.
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Operations, stated there wouldn't be any
changes. This is an item on the table in labor negotiations. They are currently
making 38 runs per day. They added four more runs from the previous year. They
are maximizing the use of the boat. There is latitude given to the captain on
whether or not he can make an extra run or two. Three runs per hour are all they
can get. They are trying to meet the school bus and city bus schedules.
Brenner stated she would schedule a meeting with the Lummi Island
committee regarding the ferry schedule.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION VACATING ALL OF THAT PORTION OF JAMES WAY
LYING WESTERLY OF BIRCH BAY DRIVE, FILED BY HANSEN (AB2000-
235)
Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated this was brought to
Council at the August meeting. A public hearing was held. Several concerns were
brought forward by the public. It was scheduled for this committee for further
discussion. Citizens feel that vacating this is vacating an access to the beach.
There may be private easements. Vacating a road does not preclude the private
easements.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
48
Brenner asked if this vacation would preclude access to the beach. Mills
stated the area to be vacated is 20 feet from the road, toward the beach, but
doesn’t go out to the beach.
Brenner asked if there are other areas that allow access to the beach. Mills
stated it is a private lot toward the water. The public has access to the shaded area
on the map. This is an exchange. Alderson Road is a 60-foot right of way. There
is a question about the ownership of the south 30 feet of that 60-foot right-of-way.
When the plat was put in for Birch Bay Park, the plat was overlaid over a good
portion of that south 30 feet. This would clear up that title. The owner is willing to
clear it up by quitclaiming any interest they have in that south 30 feet.
Dawson asked if the owner does have interest in it. Mills stated it would take
a court to decide. The owner has tidelands that extend from the low water mark to
the high water mark, and he is willing to grant the 30-foot projection, which he
does own.
Brenner asked if it provides more access. Mills stated there would be clear
access without going to court.
Dawson asked if the negotiation process would determine if he has any
interest. Mills stated there would be no more negotiation. If he has any interest,
he will quitclaim his interest and grant the County the tidelands.
Dawson asked who would have the interest.
Ty Whitcomb, Design Engineer, stated Mr. Hanson has color of title, which
means that a person's name is on the deed for an area encompassed by the end of
Alderson road. He owns lot one, block 27 of Birch Bay Park Addition, which
encroaches in the road end of Alderson by 27 feet. It encumbers the entire
southerly half of the road end. The county approved the plat in 1917. The plat
encroaches into the road end. Mr. Hanson has color of title to it. The department
has been dealing with the previous owner of The Palms Tavern and that entire
block. They have been in lawsuits in the block directly across Birch Bay Drive.
People have been bringing complaints in court about this property. There is an
interest. In this case, it may only be their name on a piece of paper because the
public's rights would preclude any claim. They definitely have a cloud on the
County’s title.
Dawson asked for clarification of County rights. Whitcomb stated Alderson
Road has a right to the beach. They assume it to mean the beach at Birch Bay.
That was done in 1890. A plat was approved, Birch Bay Park First Addition, that
encumbered part of that established County Road. Mr. Hanson's ownership interest
stems from the plat.
McShane stated the plat was approved in 1912, 22 years after the road was
established. Whitcomb stated that was correct.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Dawson stated the person who owns that James Way lot in front are limited
to anything they can put in there because of the easement. Mills stated that was
correct.
McShane questioned the width of the distance between this vacation at the
end of James Way and the other side of his lot. Mills stated the area being vacated
is 20 feet deep. The area water-ward is a beach reserve area, privately owned, and
then there are tidelands beyond that.
Dawson questioned the distance of the upland parcel. Whitcomb stated it is
50-feet deep. Tide lines have been incorporated to the upland lot, which would add
another 35 feet. To the vegetation line to the end of the right-of-way on James
Way is 50 feet.
Pat Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, stated a trade of two or three parking places
that are there now and that people can use is not worth tidelands that they can
already walk on and have access to. If the tidelands are worth something, he can
stake and defend it. The County could simply purchase it. Parking along Birch Bay
Drive is valuable. People can park there now.
Dawson asked if the Alderson Road property upland is public. She
questioned whether it is sealed off. Alesse stated it is not sealed off. There is
parking for three cars in the upland area.
Dawson asked who put the parking in. Alesse stated a developer for a
condominium project put the parking in. There are public restrooms on that 27
feet.
Dawson asked about the title.
Brenner stated the County owned it, but someone had a plat that encroached
on the County’s right of way.
Alesse stated there are lots of places like that in the county.
Dawson stated there are a lot of areas where the title is not clear. To benefit
everyone, it is important to clear title where there is a problem. The public is using
the access now.
Hoag asked about creating the parking by the condo developer. She
questioned whether the parking had to stay open for the condo if it was used for
mitigation. If has to be open for public anyway, the trade isn’t any good. If it
wasn’t a part of the deal, he could close it off. Alesse stated the County has a
claim. It may have to be settled in court.
Brenner questioned whether this could still go to court if they do not vacate.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Dawson stated this had to be opened for mitigation purposes, but it is still
owned by the developer. He's probably still paying taxes on it. By giving the
County the title, the County assumes the liability and maintenance on it.
Brenner stated the County already has the title. It is clouded by his name on
some of the paperwork. It doesn't let the County off the hook for liability.
Dawson stated that quitting the title shouldn’t be that expensive.
Patricia Alesse, 4875 Alderson, stated she did not want the vacation. James
Way is traditionally a public access point to the beach. When plats were drawn up
and sold, buyers were told they would always have access through the road ends
and beach reserves. One group of developers did that. As late as 1979 or 1980,
there was a footbridge connected to Terrill Creek. The footbridge is no longer
there. The person holding the westerly part of James Way was holding that land,
which was in his name, but it was one of the places that the developers said the
people would have access to. The previous owner of the westerly part of James
Way, next to the shoreline, sold the right-of-way to an adjoining property owner for
$1 and other considerations. The buyer then sold his right for $1 plus other
considerations, but many people had rights to that property. The first owner took
over that property. Other people still had their rights. The rights of the others
were still intact. When Mr. Hanson purchased the property, he tried to have the
public easement transferred to the adjoining property owner.
Brenner questioned whether this property gets people to the beach. Patricia
Alesse stated the people in the neighborhood say it gets them to the beach.
Brenner questioned whether it is traditionally used to get to the beach.
Patricia stated it was until Pete Hanson put up the fence. He fenced around the
piece of property that he is asking the County to vacate.
Brenner questioned whether Mr. Hanson owns these pieces of property.
Patricia Alesse stated he owns the other piece right now. He owns it, but it has an
easement for passage.
Dawson stated it is a beach reserve. A beach reserve is different than an
upland property.
Brenner stated it says the use shall be for the public and the owners of the
lots in the plat. She questioned how they could use it if they can't get there.
Dawson stated they could use the access at Alderson Road. Patricia Alesse
stated it was originally that beach reserve in connection with that road end.
Dawson stated that is Mrs. Alesse's understanding. It sounds like an
unfulfilled promise. It is not a legal document addressing that property. He has
every right to fence it off. It is not adverse possession because the public can't do
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
46
47
48
that. Alesse stated it was the people who bought the lots, not the public, who were
told that the beach reserve and road end were going to be for their access forever.
Dawson questioned whether there is anything like that in writing. Patricia
Alesse stated there is, but it is hard to find.
Whitcomb stated the excerpt from the title report that declares the beach
resort for the public is from Birch Bay Park, but not the Birch Bay Park First
Addition, which is the subdivision in which they are working.
Patricia Alesse stated that is what the people in both were told.
Whitcomb stated the issue of whether they customarily accessed or whether
they were told it would be there is a private right, not a public right. The County is
only addressing the public’s rights. At the end of every vacation it says that
vacations shall not prejudice the private rights. What the owners of the First
Addition have is not the County’s business. Whether or not the County grants the
vacation, it has already been determined through his lot line adjustment that there
is a residential lot.
Brenner questioned whether Mr. Hanson would be willing to acknowledge
that he will allow that easement in exchange for the vacation. Whitcomb stated
these lots were created through the Pete Hanson lot line adjustment. That
easement is described on there.
Brenner questioned whether the County could put wording in the vacation
resolution that says Mr. Hanson is not allowed to put a fence up to preclude
passage of the private people who have been historically using that access.
Whitcomb stated that would run afoul of the County representing private individuals
for a civil issue.
Brenner stated she was not willing to block people off.
Dawson stated it is Mr. Hanson's property right to not have the public going
through his property.
McShane stated there was a proposal to do building on those lots. He
questioned whether that had happened. Patricia Alesse stated not on that lot, but
on all the others.
Dawson asked if a park model would fit on the property at the end of James
Way. Pat Alesse stated a park model would fit there.
Dawson stated it would be more compatible to have something stick-built to
be compatible with the neighbors. Patricia stated there is a brand new, very
expensive house next door. She doubted the person would want a park model next
door.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
McShane stated that when they look at these vacations, most are
straightforward. When judging these, they need to judge them in terms of whether
there is a net benefit to the community at large. They don’t have that in this
situation. There is no guarantee of access at the end of James Way. The goal of
Birch Bay is public access. There are public access issues regarding private
property on shorelines that are addressed in the shoreline programs, but not
addressed very well. Access to the beach is important for everyone in the
community. Not vacating it makes a difference. Even if they lose the fight on
Alderson Road, there is still the northern 30 feet. There is a potential to create a
situation in which it would be easier to get access. He was not supportive of the
vacation. He didn’t see that it is particularly beneficial, and may have negative
consequences. If there is an issue at Alderson Road that a property owner wants to
settle, hopefully it could be settled.
Pat Alesse stated the developers guaranteed the rights of the people who
purchased the lots that they would always be able to cross the beach and use the
beach.
Brenner stated that in a court of law, a verbal agreement is just as legally
binding as a written one.
Dawson disagreed.
Patricia Alesse stated the plat was done in 1912.
Pat Alesse stated it is a part of property rights that is handed down to the
next person. When Mr. Hanson bought the property from the previous owner, the
right-of-way at James Street was shifted to the neighbor and previous owners'
property, south of Hanson’s property. That neighbor took him to court, and it was
shifted back to Mr. Hanson’s property. The easement must mean something, or
they would not have had all that action on it. The County takes an attitude that
this is a civil matter. The problem is that people who decide to press a civil action
may decide that the County is making the problem more difficult for them to deal
with.
Brenner stated that when in doubt, the County tends to favor usual and
customary use. She was not willing to vote to vacate this because there are too
many clouded questions.
Dawson stated there is a limit there, the line has been drawn there, and the
County acknowledged it doesn't go through the land. That is where the County's
limit is. The fact that the man put a fence up and none of the neighbors contested
it shows there is an interest there and it is private property.
Brenner asked when the fence went up. Patricia Alesse stated the fence
went up a year ago.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Brenner stated right now they have the potential extra public parking and
access at Alderson Road. She wanted to keep that as much as possible.
Patricia Alesse stated this is the end of the road, with a County sign on it and
a restroom that is open to the public. It is obviously a County road-end park.
Brenner stated it definitely looks like public property.
Dawson asked how the County could install County signs if the title is
colored. Whitcomb stated the north 30 feet is a different deal. The northerly 30
feet is clear. In the condo mitigation process, the developer was required to
approve that and put up bathrooms. The County assumed he would put bathrooms
on his 30 feet, but he didn’t. He put up the bathrooms on the southern 30 feet. In
this case, it is un-maintained County right-of-way. Mr. Alesse says he owns part of
Alderson Road, but that is because he is in Birch Bay Park First Addition. Mr. Alesse
is making that claim based on the same color of title that he is talking about that
exists on the Hanson property.
Brenner stated they need to decide what to do.
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Motion failed 1-2 with Dawson in favor.
Dawson stated she would bring this forward at the evening meeting.
Mills stated he wouldn't be able to attend the evening meeting for further
discussion on the vacation item.
McShane stated he did a good job of educating them on the issue.
Brenner stated there are four other councilmembers. If Councilmember
Dawson is going to bring it up, she would like to table it for when the staff could
attend.
Dawson stated they could table it if there are questions.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE ON CHIPPING RFP RECOMMENDED BY THE SOLID WASTE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2000-348)
Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated there was a letter that
the chair of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee wrote to the Council and to the
Executive Committee.
Brenner stated she hadn't received it.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/26/2000, Page 7
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 9/26/2000, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
McShane and Dawson stated they received it. It was in their boxes
yesterday.
Brenner questioned whether the RFP is not going to go out until the Organics
Committee has some meetings or before that. Mills stated the Organics Committee
wants to discuss this item. It is meeting on Thursday night. They will audiotape
that meeting.
ADJOURN 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The meeting adjourned at 2:17 p.m.
______________________________
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
______________________________ ___________________________
Dana Brown-Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair