EVERETT — In a motion hearing Friday, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Karen Moore heard arguments on a petition filed in September against Snohomish County over shoreline access at Hillman Place — a public right-of-way created in 1909 near Soundview Drive Northwest in Stanwood.
On Sept. 26, plaintiff K’allen Specht filed a petition in Snohomish County Superior Court alleging the county’s use of “ghost signs,” concrete barriers and removal of the only parking stall has erased access to the shoreline located on the public right-of-way.
The petition alleges the false appearance of official enforcement via “By Order of the Sheriff” tow-away signs, which were installed under the direction of the county’s traffic operations staff with no apparent authorization, removal of the site’s only parking stall in 2017 and concrete pillars at the shoreline, despite a Fire Marshal’s recommendation for removal in 2015, deters public access to the right-of-way and prioritizes resident complaints.
On Friday, Specht asked the court to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus and a declaratory judgment, which would require the county to ensure public shoreline access at Hillman Place by installing permanent public access signage, restoring public parking, conducting a professional land survey, removing unlawful or misleading signage and removing concrete obstructions.
“I made every effort to resolve this matter through ordinary channels,” Specht said Friday. “I followed each administrative path available, yet no compelling reason was demonstrated for removing protected beach access. There continues to be no adequate remedy.”
Under the Shoreline Management Act, local governments must develop and implement their own Shoreline Master Program, including a public access element. The Snohomish County Shoreline Master Program requires public access on shoreline street ends, right-of-ways and public utilities to be “preserved, maintained and enhanced.”
Specht argued before Judge Moore that the original plat was 50 feet, but a private house, debris and concrete obstructions are sitting where the public should have access.
“The missing width is almost enough for two fire lanes,” Specht said.
Attorneys Laura Kisielius and Christina Richmond from the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office asked the court to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus and the request for declaratory judgment, stating the actions Specht requested are not tied to any clear legal duty and that there is no justiciable controversy — classified as a matter capable of being decided in court — that warrants declaratory judgment.
“Some issues don’t get to go before the court,” Kisielius said. “And I believe this is one of those issues.”
Four elements must be met for a court to grant a declaratory judgment. Kisielius argued before Judge Moore that Specht had not met all four elements, which require an actual, present and existing dispute between parties having genuine and opposing interests that are direct and substantial and a final and conclusive judicial determination.
The motion to dismiss, filed Nov. 6, argued that since the county agrees with Mr. Specht that the right-of-way is public and unvacated, there is no actual dispute.
“There is clearly some confusion about where on the ground the physical boundary of the right of way exists,” Kisielius said Friday. “The court could not issue a final judicial determination regarding the boundaries of the right of way because the adjacent property owners are not named in this action.”
Specht argued that the public access duties he requested come from RCW 90.58.100, which requires a public access element that makes provisions for access to publicly owned areas.
“It could be argued that that is a planning mandate,” Specht said. “But a planning mandate that does not follow through with implementation is toothless.”
Specht said the county has not performed or provided an accurate survey of the boundaries of the right-of-way.
“To make these kinds of determinations without knowing where the boundaries exist, I believe, is factual, material disagreement,” Specht said.
After hearing oral arguments Friday, Judge Moore said she would take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision.
In an interview with The Daily Herald after the hearing, Specht said he was feeling “cautiously optimistic.” If the petition was dismissed, Specht said he would continue to fight for shoreline access.
Jenna Millikan: 425-339-3035; jenna.millikan@heraldnet.com; X: @JennaMillikan
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
