Loading...
2026-03-10 Council PacketEdmonds City Council Agenda March 10, 2026 Page 1 Agenda Edmonds City Council Regular Meeting Council Chambers 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 ZOOM: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261 PHONE: +1 253 215 8782 MEETING ID: 957 9848 4261 MARCH 10, 2026, 6:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 5. PRESENTATION 1. Mayor's Finance Update – Mayor’s Office (5 minutes) 2. Proclamation of Frank DeMiero Day Only One Reading Required – Mayor's Office (5 minutes) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS This is an opportunity to comment regarding any matter not listed on the agenda as closed record review or as a public hearing. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state clearly your name and city of residence. If attending via Zoom, raise a virtual hand to be recognized. If using a phone to dial in, press *9 to raise a hand. When prompted, press *6 to unmute. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. Written Public Comments 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Only One Reading Required 2. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Only One Edmonds City Council Agenda March 10, 2026 Page 2 Reading Required 3. Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Only One Reading Required 4. Resolution including findings of fact to support the adoption of Ordinance 4430, which imposed six-month on moratorium on the acceptance of certain development permits in the Deer Creek Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) Fourth Reading 9. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing Continuation for 84th Ave Street Vacation Fifth Reading and Beyond – Public Works and Utilities (30 minutes) 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION Executive Session Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) to Discuss with Legal Counsel Representing the Agency Litigation or Potential Litigation – City Council Office (30 minutes) 11. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Potential Action Following Executive Session Only One Reading Required – City Council (20 minutes) 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT For disability accommodations, materials in alternate formats, accessibility information, or language interpretation/ translation needs, please contact the City Clerk at 425-775-2525 at your earliest opportunity. Providing at least 72-hour notice will help ensure availability. City Council Agenda Item 5.2 March 10, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Proclamation of Frank DeMiero Day (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:Mayor's Office PRESENTER:Mayor Rosen NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational RECOMMENDATION:Mayor Rosen will read a proclamation declaring March 14, 2026 Frank DeMiero Day. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: N/A CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Mayor Rosen will read a proclamation declaring March 14, 2026 Frank DeMiero Day. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A ITEM HISTORY: N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Proclamation for Frank DeMiero Day, March 14, 2026   Item 5.2       Packet pg. 3/237   Item 5.2       Packet pg. 4/237   Item 5.2       Packet pg. 5/237 City Council Agenda Item 7.1 March 10, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Written Public Comments (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:City Council Office PRESENTER:Teresa Simanton NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational RECOMMENDATION:Acknowledge receipt of written public comments submitted through the comment portal. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: Public comments submitted through the public comment portal via the City website. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: All community comments submitted through the comment portal will be published in the agenda packet in the following Regular Meeting. Attached are the public comments submitted through the portal from February 4th – March 4th, 2026. RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge receipt of written public comments submitted through the comment portal. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ITEM HISTORY: Public comments received will be included in the agenda packet in the following regular meeting. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Public comments from February 4th – March 4th, 2026   Item 7.1       Packet pg. 6/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – March 10, 2026 Meeting Online Form 2026-03-03 06:03 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 3/3/2026 8:03:09 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Florin LastName Bucur Email florinbas@yahoo.com CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Deer Creek CARA moratorium Comments Hello, My name is FIorin Bucur and am one of the people directly impacted by this moratorium. You have no idea how much stress and the financial burden it puts on me and my family. I would like to know whether it is possible that the moratorium be lifted earlier than 6 months and what happens after the 6 months period if the study shows a negative outcome. Sincerely, Florin Bucur To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21200625&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions   Item 7.1       Packet pg. 7/237 5 5 2 City Council Agenda Item 8.1 March 10, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:City Clerk's Office PRESENTER:Luke Lonie, City Clerk NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:Approve the minutes of the March 3, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting and the March 5, 2026 City Council Special Meeting. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:N/A ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: N/A CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the March 3, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting and the March 5, 2026 City Council Special Meeting. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2026-03-03 Council Meeting Minutes Draft 2. 2026-03-05 Special Meeting Minutes Draft   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 8/237 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting March 03, 2026 Page 1 Edmonds City Council Regular Meeting Action Minutes March 03, 2026 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Michelle Dotsch, Council President Will Chen, Councilmember Erika Barnett, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Chris Eck, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Planning and Development Director Andy Rheaume, Public Works Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Luke Lonie, City Clerk EXTERNAL PRESENTERS Jared Bond, Lynnwood Public Works Director Ehsan Shirkani, Lynnwood Public Works Manager Tanner Boyle, Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor Phil Olbrechts, Edmonds Hearing Examiner 1.CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2.LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT Councilmember Eck read the City Council Land Acknowledgment. 3.ROLL CALL City Clerk Lonie called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5.PRESENTATIONS   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 9/237 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting March 03, 2026 Page 2 1.Mayor's Finance Update – Mayor’s Office Mayor Rosen provided Council with a financial update. 2.Hearing Examiner Annual Report Only One Reading Required – Planning and Development Services Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner, provided an annual update regarding the hearings held throughout the year and answered Council’s questions. 6.AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Tim Aman – Expressed concern with the plans for the Lynnwood wastewater treatment plant and thanked Lynnwood staff for coming to the meeting. Asked whether the City of Lynnwood anticipates purchasing or annexing any additional Edmonds properties. 2. Jeff Flowers – Concurred with the questions about additional properties asked by the previous speaker. Expressed concern with the trucks going in and out of the Lynnwood wastewater treatment plant. 3. Rachel Potts – Expressed concern with contact from a candidate for state office. 4. Mandana Baniani – Expressed concern with the environmental impact of Lynnwood’s work on the wastewater treatment plant, the quality of the work, and the safety impacts of the trucks moving in and out of the plant. 5. John Quast – Concerned with the expansion of Lynnwood’s wastewater treatment plant, specifically the odor from the plant. 6. Bob Burnette – Expressed concern with the communication from the City of Lynnwood regarding the wastewater treatment plant, Lynnwood’s purchase of homes around the plant, and the disruptions caused by the construction project. 7. Steve Fisher – Shared a discussion that was had between himself and a homeowner adjacent to the Lynnwood wastewater treatment plant. 8. Steve Conroy – Expressed concern with promises made by elected officials regarding protection of City of Edmonds residents regarding the Lynnwood wastewater treatment plant. 9. Jim McManus – Expressed concern with the impacts of the Lynnwood wastewater treatment plant, including the odor and property values. 10. Bruce Buchanan – Expressed concern with the Lynnwood wastewater treatment plant, its odor, and the noise from construction. 11. Peter Kienan – Expressed concern with the impacts of the Lynnwood wastewater treatment plant’s construction in the area adjacent to his property. 12. Laurie Dressler – Expressed concern with the impression given by the community, but that Lynnwood’s wastewater treatment plant is in the wrong location. 13. Stephanie MacLachlan – Expressed concern with the health of community members who live near the Lynnwood wastewater treatment plant. 14. James Weis – Expressed concern with the odor emitted by the Lynnwood wastewater treatment plant and the condition of the facility.   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 10/237 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting March 03, 2026 Page 3 15. Ken Reidy – Asked that Council look into the validity of the Hearing Examiner’s process. 7.RECEIVED FOR FILING 1.Claim for Damages for filing First Reading 8.APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Only One Reading Required 2.Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Only One Reading Required 3.Ordinance Amending Authorized Employee Positions Second Reading 9.PUBLIC HEARING 1.Public Hearing on moratorium on development in the Deer Creek Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) Third Reading – Planning and Development Services Mayor Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:10 pm. Mike Clugston, Planning and Development Director, provided an overview of previously presented information and the future plans regarding the Deer Creek Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). No community members provided public testimony. Mayor Rosen closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 pm. Councilmembers asked questions of Director Clugston. 10.COUNCIL BUSINESS 1.Update on the City of Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Only One Reading Required – Public Works and Utilities Jared Bond, City of Lynnwood Public Works Director; Tanner Boyle, City of Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor; Ehsan Shirkani, City of Lynnwood Public Works Manager; and Andy Rheaume, City of Edmonds Public Works Director, presented on the history of the Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment plant, the need for the replacement of the plant, and the state of the plant   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 11/237 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting March 03, 2026 Page 4 project. The group then took questions from the Council. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 9:30. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council took a break from 9:00 – 9:10 pm. 2.Award Construction Contract to build an Odor Control Enclosure and Air Scrubber Second Reading – Public Works and Utilities Andy Rheaume, Public Works Director, provided an overview of the contracts to purchase and build an enclosure and air scrubber for the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH BOTH ENGINEERING SERVICES AND PRODUCTS COMPANY AND NEWTERRA CORP INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $186,648.49 AND $69,470.89 RESPECTIVELY. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO READ: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH BOTH ENGINEERING SERVICES AND PRODUCTS COMPANY AND NEWTERRA CORP INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $211,503.12 AND $75,849.43 RESPECTIVELY. THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. 11.COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers commented on various topics. 12.MAYOR’S COMMENTS 13.EXECUTIVE SESSION 1.Executive Session Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) to Discuss with Legal Counsel Representing the Agency Litigation or Potential Litigation Council went into executive session at 9:26 pm for a period of 45 minutes. The executive session was extended until 10:25 pm.   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 12/237 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting March 03, 2026 Page 5 14.…….RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION Council reconvened in open session at 10:25 pm. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 pm.   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 13/237 Edmonds City Council Minutes Special Meeting March 05, 2026 Page 1 Edmonds City Council Special Meeting Action Minutes March 05, 2026 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Michelle Dotsch, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Erika Barnett, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Luke Lonie, City Clerk 1.CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2.PRESENTATION 1 Presentation of The Mountlake Terrace Fiscal Sustainability Taskforce Results Matt Bubness, Michael Perkins, and Steve Toler of Baker Tilly provided an overview of the work they performed for the City of Mountlake Terrace and the results of their work in that specific case and fielded questions from Council. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 6:10 PM. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:09 pm.   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 14/237 City Council Agenda Item 8.2 March 10, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:Finance PRESENTER:Richard Gould NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:1,489,392.72 ☒ Approved in Budget Fund(s):Various ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☐ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of payments. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: Approval of direct deposit for $821,473.94, benefit checks #66395 through #66400 and wire payments of $667,918.78 for the pay period of February 16, 2026 through February 28, 2026. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments BUDGET IMPACTS: $1,489,392.72 ITEM HISTORY: N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1 – 02-16-2026 to 02-28-2026 Payroll Earnings Summary Report Attachment #2 – 02-16-2026 to 02-28-2026 Benefit Summary Report   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 15/237 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,200 (02/16/2026 to 02/28/2026) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 18.00 0.00 UNPAID L & IABSENT118 53.00 0.00 SICK LEAVE - L & ISICK120 7.00 287.23 SICK LEAVESICK121 700.50 43,781.27 VACATIONVACATION122 544.75 35,656.62 HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 156.50 11,535.13 FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 193.00 11,351.06 COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 201.75 11,491.59 Holiday Bank WWTPHOLIDAY128 57.50 3,387.95 WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEAVESICK135 2.00 72.82 COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS137 10.00 1,106.97 BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 38.00 3,398.95 Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 168.00 12,307.52 COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 100.38 7,124.21 MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 157.00 14,906.50 COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 700.00 12,294.24 COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 351.26 COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS175 0.00 5,465.06 REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 13,482.55 853,799.92 FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 2.00 2,542.91 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 40.00 2,627.25 OVERTIME .5OVERTIME HOURS205 10.00 230.24 OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 98.00 6,441.88 WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 36.00 2,798.03 STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 12.00 1,772.94 OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 269.50 27,197.05 OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 16.50 1,681.74 MISC PAYMISCELLANEOUS400 0.00 154.35 WORKING OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS410 0.00 1,878.23 SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 1,537.90 RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 348.28 ACCRUED COMP 1.0COMP HOURS602 75.50 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5COMP HOURS604 168.25 0.00 ACCRUED COMP 2.0COMP HOURS606 5.00 0.00 ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 200.69 ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 234.62 Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc 0.00 231.25 Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc2 0.00 1,835.54 Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc3 0.00 1,419.50 BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 125.70 TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 241.76 CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 125.70 Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 1,145.74 EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 735.84 EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 714.64 EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 11,604.47 FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKfmls 151.00 11,496.48 03/04/2026   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 16/237 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,200 (02/16/2026 to 02/28/2026) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 1,201.20 73,459.06 K-9 AssignmentMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 253.84 LANGUAGE PAYMISCELLANEOUSlan 0.00 950.00 LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,197.46 LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%LONGEVITYlg11 0.00 852.93 Longevity 9%LONGEVITYlg12 0.00 2,696.50 Longevity 7%LONGEVITYlg13 0.00 1,765.52 Longevity 5%LONGEVITYlg14 0.00 1,789.56 Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg16 0.00 59.86 LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 571.44 Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 1,201.34 Longevity 3%LONGEVITYlg5 0.00 4,116.43 Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 902.79 Paid Family Medical Hol BankHOLIDAYpfhb 28.00 2,037.20 Paid Family Medical Unpaid/SupABSENTpfmp 146.25 0.00 Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKpfms 52.75 3,745.37 Paid Family Medical VacationVACATIONpfmv -7.00 -509.30 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 3,466.30 SICK LEAVE BUY BACKSICKslb 109.72 3,000.00 Special Ops SergeantMISCELLANEOUSsop 0.00 262.70 PSET SergeantMISCELLANEOUSstr 0.00 262.70 TAC OfficerMISCELLANEOUStac 0.00 231.82 Traffic Officer - CarMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 662.28 Vacation exceptionVACATIONvex 24.00 2,656.74 Total Net Pay:$821,473.94 $1,213,273.57 19,028.60 03/04/2026   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 17/237 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,200 - 02/16/2026 to 02/28/2026 Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 66397 03/05/2026 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 7,303.03 0.00 66396 03/05/2026 icma MISSIONSQUARE PLAN SERVICES 5,332.74 0.00 66400 03/05/2026 afscme WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO 3,139.33 0.00 66395 03/05/2026 bpas BPAS 7,527.98 0.00 66399 03/05/2026 rwt WASHINGTON TEAMSTERS 189.70 0.00 66398 03/05/2026 tx TEXAS CHILD SUPPORT SDU 634.50 0.00 24,127.28 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 3982 03/05/2026 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 780.00 0.00 3980 03/05/2026 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 9,607.31 0.00 3978 03/05/2026 us US BANK 158,680.47 0.00 3972 03/05/2026 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 283,149.03 0.00 3977 03/05/2026 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 40,844.22 0.00 3979 03/05/2026 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 147,392.98 0.00 3974 03/05/2026 aflac AFLAC 3,337.49 0.00 643,791.50 0.00 667,918.78 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 13/4/2026   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 18/237 City Council Agenda Item 8.3 March 10, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Approval of claim checks and wire payments. (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:Finance PRESENTER:Richard Gould NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:Approval of claim checks and wire payments. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:$850,240.38 ☒ Approved in Budget Fund(s):various ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☐ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: Approval of claim checks #280769 – #280823 dated March 4, 2026 for $844,928.94 (re-issued check #280801 $240.21) and wire payments of $4,658.35 & $893.30. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: The Council President shall be designated as the auditing committee for the city council. The council president shall review the documentation supporting claims paid and review for approval by the city council at its next regular public meeting all checks or warrants issued in payment of any claim, demand or voucher. A list of each claim, demand or voucher approved and each check or warrant issued indicating the check or warrant number, the amount paid and the vendor or payee shall be filed in the city council office for review by individual councilmembers prior to each regularly scheduled public meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of claim checks and wire payments. BUDGET IMPACTS: $850,240.38 ITEM HISTORY: N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1 – Claim checks dated March 4, 2026   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 19/237   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 20/237   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 21/237   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 22/237   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 23/237   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 24/237   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 25/237   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 26/237   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 27/237 City Council Agenda Item 8.4 March 10, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Resolution including findings of fact to support the adoption of Ordinance 4430, which imposed six-month on moratorium on the acceptance of certain development permits in the Deer Creek Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) (Fourth Reading) DEPARTMENT:Planning and Development Services PRESENTER:Mike Clugston NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:I move to adopt the attached resolution adopting findings of fact to support the adoption of Ordinance 4430, which imposed six-month on moratorium on the acceptance of certain development permits in the Deer Creek Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):0 ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: On February 10, 2026, City Council adopted Ordinance 4430, which established a six-month moratorium on the acceptance of permit applications that would trigger stormwater management requirements within the Deer Creek Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). Consistent with Section 4 of the ordinance, a public hearing on the moratorium was held on March 3, 2026. No public comments were received. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: CONTEXT The amendments to the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) adopted by City Council on January 6, 2026 included new CARA provisions that effectively prohibit stormwater infiltration within the Deer Creek CARA. Because infiltration is currently the only feasible method of stormwater management in this basin, staff determined there is no clear pathway for approval of certain types of development applications under the current regulatory framework. The moratorium provides interim regulatory clarity while the City completes technical analysis and considers longer-term policy solutions. The Deer Creek CARA is a closed hydrologic basin where stormwater either infiltrates into the ground or evaporates. Infiltration has historically been required and, in fact, relied upon to maintain aquifer recharge. At the same time, emerging concerns regarding PFAS and groundwater protection have prompted the City to initiate a focused PFAS study to inform future regulatory decisions using best available science. Prior to adoption of the updated CAO, staff identified that the proposed CARA language would effectively prohibit all forms of stormwater infiltration within the Deer Creek CARA, including systems that meet state underground injection control (UIC) and non-endangerment standards. Given the absence of identified alternative stormwater management methods for this area,   Item 8.4       Packet pg. 28/237 staff does not currently see a viable approval pathway for development proposals that trigger stormwater requirements. PURPOSE Effective February 18, 2026, the moratorium has temporarily suspended acceptance of permit applications that would trigger stormwater management requirements within the Deer Creek CARA. The six-month pause will provide time to: • Complete the Deer Creek PFAS study; • Evaluate whether feasible stormwater management alternatives exist for this area; • Consider potential amendments to CARA and/or stormwater regulations informed by completed scientific analysis; and • Avoid the futile processing of applications. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 – Retain the Moratorium (Recommended Action) • Pros: Provides regulatory clarity over the short term; prevents owners from paying permit fees when there is no feasible approval pathway; allows future decisions to be informed by completed scientific study; consistent with precautionary approach that motivated the adoption of the CARA regulations, while avoiding premature permanent regulation. • Cons: Moratoria can be controversial and carry inherent, albeit modest, legal and policy risks. Alternative 2 – Cancel the Moratorium • Pros: Avoids controversy and other modest risks associated with moratoria. • Cons: Leaves applicants and staff without a clear approval pathway for projects triggering stormwater requirements, while still incurring permit fee costs; increases legal and procedural risk associated with permit denial; wastes staff time processing futile applications. RECOMMENDATION: I move to adopt the attached resolution adopting findings of fact to support the adoption of Ordinance 4430, which imposed six-month on moratorium on the acceptance of certain development permits in the Deer Creek Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). BUDGET IMPACTS: No immediate budget reallocation is required. However, adoption of the moratorium will result in a temporary loss of revenue associated with development activity within the Deer Creek CARA, including permit fees, plan review fees, impact fees, and other development-related charges that would otherwise be collected during the moratorium period. That said, the adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance with the CARA amendments has already affected the feasibility of development proposals within the Deer Creek CARA. As a result, revenue impacts related to project infeasibility would occur regardless of whether a moratorium is adopted. In this context, the moratorium serves to clarify for applicants, the public, and staff the practical effect   Item 8.4       Packet pg. 29/237 of the adopted CARA amendments while the PFAS study is underway. In addition, a moratorium improves administrative efficiency because it reduces time spent processing futile applications. ITEM HISTORY: This topic was first discussed on February 3 and the moratorium adopted on February 10, 2026. The required public hearing was held on March 3, 2026. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: On March 3, 2026, the city executed a professional services agreement with EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY, INC., PBC to procure a study related to PFAS in the Deer Creek CARA. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution Ordinance 4430   Item 8.4       Packet pg. 30/237 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4430, WHICH IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN APPLICATIONS IN THE DEER CREEK CARA. WHEREAS, the city council on February 10, 2026 imposed a moratorium on certain applications in the Deer Creek CARA through the adoption of Ordinance 4430 pursuant to authority granted by RCW 36.70A.390; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 requires cities that adopt a moratorium without holding first a public hearing to hold a public hearing within sixty days of adoption; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 goes on to state: “If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing;” and WHEREAS, Washington courts “have had occasion to construe the meaning of the word ‘immediately’ in various kinds of written instruments, including insurance policies, and have held that it does not necessarily mean ‘upon the instant,’ ‘forthwith,’ or ‘without any intervening lapse of time,’ but that there is a certain latitude to be given the significance of the word, and that it may mean ‘proximately,’ ‘directly,’ ‘close to,’ ‘within a reasonable time.’” Foley v. New World Life Ins. Co., 185 Wash. 89, 94, 52 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1936); and WHEREAS, Section 4 of Ordinance 4430 states that “[n]o later than the next regular city council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium;” and WHEREAS, the statute, by allowing the adoption of findings to be deferred until after the public hearing, appears to contemplate that the findings would actually take that public testimony into account; and WHEREAS, any findings drafted prior to the public hearing would necessarily not be able to reflect public testimony that is offered after that drafting; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that it is more respectful of the public’s testimony and more in keeping with the purpose of the statute to have findings drafted after the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on Ordinance 4430 on March 3, 2026 to determine whether the moratorium adopted by that ordinance was justified and should continue or be allowed to expire; and   Item 8.4       Packet pg. 31/237 WHEREAS, no one spoke at the above-referenced public hearing; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending the continued imposition of the moratorium, particularly in light of the fact that no one spoke against it during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2026, the city executed a professional services agreement with EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY, INC., PBC to procure a study related to PFAS in the Deer Creek CARA; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the study will be completed during the term of the moratorium; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS. The city council hereby adopts as its findings of fact to support the adoption of Ordinance 4430 the Whereas clauses contained in this Resolution and also in Ordinance 4430. RESOLVED this 10th day of March, 2026. CITY OF EDMONDS _______________________ MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN ATTEST: CITY CLERK, LUKE LONIE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. ____   Item 8.4       Packet pg. 32/237 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.4430 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PERMIT APPLICATIONS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE DEER CREEK CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA WHEREAS, on January 6, 2026, the Edmonds City Council adopted the periodic update to the City's critical area ordinance (CAO); and WHEREAS, the CAO included new regulations for the Deer Creek critical aquifer recharge area (CARA), which read as follows: "The use of stormwater infiltration best management practices (BMPs), including those that qualify as a Class V underground injection control well UIC), are prohibited for all land uses within all wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) associated with Olympic View Water and Sewer District's (OVWSD) 228th Street Wellhead and the Deer Creek Springs Wellhead area, including their buffers."; and WHEREAS, the effect of this language is to prohibit all forms of infiltration in the Deer Creek CARA; and WHEREAS, infiltration is presently the only feasible means of managing stormwater within the Deer Creek CARA; and WHEREAS, the city is obtaining a study that will inform recommendations based upon the best available science for managing PFAS -contaminated stormwater within a CARA; and WHEREAS, the city is evaluating whether there are any other feasible means of managing stormwater within the Deer Creek CARA; and WHEREAS, the city does not see an approval pathway for permit applicants under the regulations that are currently in effect for the Deer Creek CARA; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 authorizes the city council to adopt an immediate moratorium for a period of up to six months without holding a public hearing on the proposal provided that a public hearing is held within at least sixty days of its adoption; and WHEREAS, the city council desires to impose a six-month moratorium on the acceptance of applications for any permit or authorization to alter land, water, vegetation, or to construct or modify any structure or improvement, and which would trigger stormwater management requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:   Item 8.4       Packet pg. 33/237 Section 1. Purhosr. The purpose of this moratorium is to allow the city adequate time to complete the PFAS study relating to the Deer Creek CARA, evaluate other feasible means of managing stormwater, and, if appropriate, to draft and consider changes to the Deer Creek CARA and/or stormwater regulation in response to the findings of that study. Section 2. Moratorium lmposed. The city council hereby imposes a six-month moratorium on the acceptance of applications for any permit or authorization to alter land, water, vegetation, or to construct or modify any structure or improvement, and which would trigger stormwater management requirements. The geographic scope ofthe moratorium is limited to the Deer Creek CARA and its buffer. Section 3. Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on the moratorium and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as contemplated by Section 4 herein), the moratorium shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner. Section 4. Public Hearing on Moratorium. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on a moratorium within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on March 3, 2026, unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular city council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such   Item 8.4       Packet pg. 34/237 invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: i. MAYOR MIKE ROSEN ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : 11701 A . CITY CLERK, LUKE LONIE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADA FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 2/3/2026 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 2/10/2026 PUBLISHED: 2/13/2026 EFFECTIVE DATE: 2/18/2026 ORDINANCE NO. 4430   Item 8.4       Packet pg. 35/237 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4430 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the loth day of February, 2026, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4430. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PERMIT APPLICATIONS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE DEER CREEK CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 10th day of February, 2026. CITY CLERK, LUKE LONIE   Item 8.4       Packet pg. 36/237 City Council Agenda Item 9.1 March 10, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Public Hearing Continuation for 84th Ave Street Vacation (Fifth Reading and Beyond) DEPARTMENT:Public Works and Utilities PRESENTER:Mike De Lilla/Jennifer Lambert NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational RECOMMENDATION:The staff’s recommendation is to proceed as follows: 1) hear a short presentation from staff; 2) open the public hearing; 3) take testimony from anyone who would like to speak to the matter; 4) propose the Resolution of Intent to Vacate for Council’s review and discussion. City staff is asking for feedback on the Resolution of Intent to Vacate; such that a proposed final version may be presented at an upcoming council meeting. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: N/A CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: The City received a Street Vacation application (PLN2024-0086) to vacate a portion of 84th Ave W adjacent to 24024 and 24110 84th Ave W. In accordance with RCW 35.79.010 and ECDC Chapter 18.55 a street vacation process can be initiated by the petition of the owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley to be vacated. The City of Edmonds has received a petition from all the property owners abutting that portion of 84th Ave W proposed for vacation. RECOMMENDATION: The staff’s recommendation is to proceed as follows: 1) hear a short presentation from staff; 2) open the public hearing; 3) take testimony from anyone who would like to speak to the matter; 4) propose the Resolution of Intent to Vacate for Council’s review and discussion. City staff is asking for feedback on the Resolution of Intent to Vacate; such that a proposed final version may be presented at an upcoming council meeting. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A ITEM HISTORY:   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 37/237 The subject street vacation was presented to Council Committee on July 1, 2025, introduced to the full council on August 12, 2025, and brought to Council on December 16, 2025 for a resolution to set the public hearing. A Public Hearing was held on January 22, 2026 and continued to March 10, 2026. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map Attachment 2 – Application and Petition for Vacation Attachment 3 - Appraisal Attachment 4 – Official Street Map Attachment 5 – Vacation Area and Hammerhead Attachment 6 – City and WSDOT Vacation Areas Attachment 7 – Original Quit Claim Deed Attachment 8 – Legal Description and Map of entire Vacation Area Attachment 9 – Legal Description and Lot Closure State Attachment 10 – Legal Description City Attachment 11 – Resolution 1580 Setting Public Hearing Date Attachment 12 – Public Hearing Notices Attachment 13 – South County Fire Memo of Compliance Attachment 14 – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes Jan 27 2026 Attachment 15 – Public Comments Attachment 16 – Public Hearing Presentation Jan 27 2026 Attachment 17 – Resolution of Intent to Vacate a Portion of 84th Ave W Attachment 18 – Staff Report Attachment 19 – Public Hearing Presentation March 10, 2026   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 38/237 <all other values> 1 2 5; 4 9; 71; 7; 8 <all other values> Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial; Collector Local Street <all other values> 0 1 2 Applicant's Parcels Approximate Location of Proposed Vacation ATTACHMENT 1  Item 9.1       Packet pg. 39/237 City of Edmonds Land Use Application Revised on 8/22/12 B - Land Use Application Page 1 of 1  ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT  CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT  HOME OCCUPATION  FORMAL SUBDIVISION  SHORT SUBDIVISION  LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT  PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT  OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT  STREET VACATION  REZONE  SHORELINE PERMIT  VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION  OTHER: ● PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD ● PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL______________________________________________ FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # _________________________________________ SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY)______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ____________________________________________________ FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ____________________________________________________ FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE Property Owner’s Authorization I, _____________________________________________, certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. FILE # ZONE DATE REC’D BY FEE RECEIPT # HEARING DATE  HE  STAFF  PB  ADB  CC FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY X South end of 84th Ave, adjacent to 24110 & 24024 84th Ave. W. 84th Vacation Shaun C. Leiser (206) 229-6038 PO Box 60216, Shoreline, WA 98177 shaun@sclenterprises.net 532941069 31 27 N 4 E Shaun C. Leiser PO Box 60216, Shoreline, WA 98177 shaun@sclenterprises.net (206) 229-6038 Shaun C. Leiser PO Box 60216, Shoreline, WA 98177 shaun@sclenterprises.net (206) 229-6038 10/23/2024 Shaun C. Leiser 10/23/2024 Proposed purchase of the south end of 84th Avenue West (dead end cul-de-sac), south of 240th St. SW adjacent to addresses 24110 & 24024, for private use. Proposed purchase of the south end of 84th Avenue West (dead end cul-de-sac), south of 240th St. SW adjacent to addresses 24110 & 24024, for private use. ATTACHMENT 2   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 40/237 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ROAD VACATION: 84TH AVENUE W. EDMONDS, WA. THAT PORTION OF 84TH AVENUE W. LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SAID PORTION MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 3, BLOCK 17, HANBURY’S SOUND VIEW TRACTS, RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 00° 43’ 00” EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF 84TH AVENUE W A DISTANCE OF 153.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 12’ 40” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 11.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89° 12’ 39” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05° 55’ 41” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 45.26 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 84° 51’ 39” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23° 54’ 23” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 182.55 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 64° 01’ 58” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 38.64 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 37° 51’ 46” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13.48 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 33° 21’ 25” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 53.95 FEET TO A POINT 90 FEET NORTHEASTERLY, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO ENGINEER’S STATION L-184+90 OF STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 104, 236TH STREET SW TO MERDIAN AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 56° 38’ 35” EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 89.78 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 84TH AVENUE W. AND A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN AND AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 49° 07’ 40” WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 511.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35° 00’ 24” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 312.21 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 200 FEET, AS MEASURED ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1, MCALEER FIVE ACRES TRACTS AS RECORDED UNDER VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 89° 51’ 41” EAST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 3.37 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 43’ 00” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13.28 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 89° 49’ 26” EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89° 49’ 26” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 74.17 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 23,684 SQ. FEET MORE OR LESS. 10/21/24 ATTACHMENT 2   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 41/237 ATTACHMENT 2   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 42/237 1 2 RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 12/19/2024 ATTACHMENT 2  Item 9.1       Packet pg. 43/237 2 2 RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 12/19/2024 ATTACHMENT 2  Item 9.1       Packet pg. 44/237 A portion of 84th Ave. W.: from approx. 215-feet south of the brass hub found at the intersection of 240th St. SW and 84th Ave. W. to the south end of the road (dead end cul-de-sac), roadway adjacent to addresses 24110 & 24024 84th Ave W. Chris Damitio WSDOT NWR Asst. Reg. Admin. 1019 Andis Road Burlington WA 98233 10/30/25  Item 9.1       Packet pg. 45/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 46/237 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 S. Murray Brackett, MAI Tim Lovell T 206-292-6122 F 206-292-1601 www.cbre.com/valuation Date of Report: October 23, 2024 Mr. Shaun Leiser SCL ENTERPRISES LLC 24110 84th Ave W. Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Appraisal of: Leiser Street Vacation 84th Avenue W. Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington CBRE File No.: CB24US082614-2A Dear Mr. Leiser: At your request and authorization, CBRE, Inc. has prepared an appraisal of the market value of the referenced property. Our analysis is presented in the following Appraisal Report. The subject property consists of portions of right-of-way totaling 23,684 square feet, according to the survey provided by the client. The to-be-vacated area consists of portions of 84th Avenue W. The subject abuts WSDOT-owned right-of-way to the east and south (which the client is proposing to also vacate as a separate action with WSDOT), and at the west, the subject abuts APNs 004633-017-001-00, 004633- 024-001-02, and 004633-024-002-03. Upon vacation, the subject property would be assembled with abutting property, and would be split-zoned, per our discussions with city of Edmonds planning personnel: the area to the east of the centerline of 84th Avenue W. would be zoned CG (General Commercial), estimated to be 11,684 square feet; the area to the west of the centerline of 84th Avenue W. would be zoned R-2.4 (Multiple Residential), estimated to be 12,000 square feet. As we understand it, upon vacation, several easements will be reserved for existing utilities within the right-of-way, heavily encumbering the subject property. Based on the analysis contained in the following report, the market value of the subject is concluded as follows: SUMMARY OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS CG-Zoned Portion $146,050 RM-2.4-Zoned Portion $105,000 Total (Rounded)$250,000 Compiled by CBRE ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 47/237 The report, in its entirety, including all assumptions and limiting conditions, is an integral part of, and inseparable from, this letter. The following appraisal sets forth the most pertinent data gathered, the techniques employed, and the reasoning leading to the opinion of value. The analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed based on, and this report has been prepared in conformance with, the guidelines and recommendations set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The intended use and user of our report are specifically identified in our report as agreed upon in our contract for services and/or reliance language found in the report. As a condition to being granted the status of an intended user, any intended user who has not entered into a written agreement with CBRE in connection with its use of our report agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement between CBRE and the client who ordered the report. No other use or user of the report is permitted by any other party for any other purpose. Dissemination of this report by any party to any non-intended users does not extend reliance to any such party, and CBRE will not be responsible for any unauthorized use of or reliance upon the report, its conclusions or contents (or any portion thereof). It has been a pleasure to assist you in this assignment. If you have any questions concerning the analysis, or if CBRE can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, CBRE - VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES Tim Lovell S. Murray Brackett, MAI Senior Valuation Associate Director of Right of Way, Aviation and Public Projects, Northwest Region Phone: (206) 292-6122 Phone: (206) 292-6121 Email: tim.lovell@cbre.com Email: murray.brackett@cbre.com Washington State License No. 20101066 Washington State License No. 1100853 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 48/237 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. Tim Lovell and S. Murray Bracektt have not provided any services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding the agreement to perform this assignment. 5. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 6. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 8. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. Tim Lovell and S. Murray Brackett have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 10. provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this certification. 11. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 12. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 13. As of the date of this report, S. Murray Brackett has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute. 14. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the State of Washington. Tim Lovell Washington State License No. 20101066 S. Murray Brackett, MAI Washington State License No. 1100853 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 49/237 (Northern boundary of proposed vacation is roughly 13 feet north of boundary as shown above. See survey in Addenda.) N ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 50/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 51/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 52/237 Property Name Location Client Highest and Best Use As If Vacant As Improved Property Rights Appraised Date of Report Date of Inspection Date of Value October 5, 2024 Estimated Exposure Time Estimated Marketing Time Land Area (Improved)23,684 SF Zoning Less than 12 Months Less than 12 Months CG (General Commercial) RM-2.4 (Multiple Residential) Leiser Street Vacation October 5, 2024 Fee Simple Estate, subject to existing and retained easements N/A - Unimproved Assemblage 84th Avenue W., Edmonds, Snohomish County, WA 98026 October 23, 2024 SCL Enterprises LLC SUMMARY OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS CG-Zoned Portion $146,050 RM-2.4-Zoned Portion $105,000 Total (Rounded)$250,000 Compiled by CBRE We draw your attention to a combination of inflationary pressures (leading to higher interest rates) and recent failures/stress in banking systems which have significantly increased the potential for constrained credit markets, negative capital value movements and enhanced volatility in property markets over the short-to-medium term. Beginning in September of 2024, the Fed began lowering the federal funds rate by 50 basis points, with two more cuts expected in 2024. While this may help bolster future commercial real estate investment activity, the risk of near-term market volatility remains. Experience has shown that consumer and investor behavior can quickly change during periods of such heightened volatility. Lending or investment decisions should reflect this heightened level of volatility and the potential for deteriorating market conditions. It is important to note that the conclusions set out in this report are valid as of the valuation date only. Where appropriate, we recommend that the valuation is closely monitored, as we continue to track how markets respond to evolving events. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 53/237 An extraordinary assumption is defined as “an assignment-specific assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.” 1 • The appraisers have not been provided with a title report for the subject, and we are unaware of existing easements. Per communication various utility providers and the client, this report assumes that 15-foot-wide easements will be reserved for existing water and sewer facilities located within the subject property and a 10-foot-wide easement will be retained for the existing natural gas line. The easements are assumed to include surface and subsurface rights, precluding building within the easement, allowing primarily right-of-way use, circulation, surface parking, and landscaping. This description of property rights is an assumed condition of our conclusions. • The use of this extraordinary assumption may have affected the assignment results. A hypothetical condition is defined as “a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results but is used for the purposes of analysis.” 2 • None noted 1 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2024 Edition (Effective January 1, 2024) 2 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2024 Edition (Effective January 1, 2024) ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 54/237 The subject property consists of portions of right-of-way totaling 23,684 square feet, according to the survey provided by the client. The to-be-vacated area consists of portions of 84th Avenue W. The subject abuts WSDOT-owned right-of-way to the east and south (which the client is proposing to also vacate as a separate action with WSDOT), and at the west, the subject abuts APNs 004633-017-001-00, 004633- 024-001-02, and 004633-024-002-03. Upon vacation, the subject property would be assembled with abutting property, and would be split-zoned, per our discussions with city of Edmonds planning personnel: the area to the east of the centerline of 84th Avenue W. would be zoned CG (General Commercial), estimated to be 11,684 square feet; the area to the west of the centerline of 84th Avenue W. would be zoned R-2.4 (Multiple Residential), estimated to be 12,000 square feet. As we understand it, upon vacation, several easements will be reserved for existing utilities within the right-of-way, heavily encumbering the subject property. The subject property is an improved street right-of-way, and the right- of-way improvements are not considered in this analysis. The larger parcel is that portion of a property that has unity of ownership, contiguity, and unity of use, the three conditions that establish the larger parcel for the consideration of severance damages. This is also known as the “parent parcel.” The subject consists of a contiguous portion of right-of-way, owned by the city of Edmonds. The subject property, as described, is considered the larger parcel. The subject is a public right-of-way, owned by the city of Edmonds. We are unaware of any market transactions involving the subject. Though we have not been provided with a title report, Snohomish County aerial imagery shows the subject as right-of-way dating back to the 1990s. WSDOT has also provided right-of-way mapping indicating that the subject has been right-of-way dating back to the 1970s. The subject is not known to be listed or under contract for sale or option. The appraisers have had several conversations with city of Edmonds public works and planning personnel, who were well aware of the proposed right-of-way vacation. Tim Lovell of CBRE inspected the subject on October 5, 2024, and Murray Brackett of CBRE previously inspected the subject, both effectively unaccompanied, though it is noted that Mr. Leiser was onsite during Tim Lovell’s inspection. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 55/237 Appraisal reports may be presented in an Appraisal Report or Restricted Appraisal Report option, per USPAP Standard Rule 2-2. This is an Appraisal Report. The scope of the assignment relates to the extent and manner in which research is conducted, data is gathered, and analysis is applied. The client is SCL Enterprises LLC. This appraisal is to be used by the client, SCL Enterprises LLC and the city of Edmonds. No other user may rely on our report unless as specifically indicated in the report. Intended users are those who an appraiser intends will use the appraisal or review report. In other words, appraisers acknowledge at the outset of the assignment that they are developing their expert opinions for the use of the intended users they identify. Although the client provides information about the parties who may be intended users, ultimately it is the appraiser who decides who they are. This is an important point to be clear about: The client does not tell the appraiser who the intended users will be. Rather, the client tells the appraiser who the client needs the report to be speaking to, and given that information, the appraiser identifies the intended user or users. It is important to identify intended users because an appraiser’s primary responsibility regarding the use of the report’s opinions and conclusions is to those users. Intended users are those parties to whom an appraiser is responsible for communicating the findings in a clear and understandable manner. They are the audience. 3 Reliance on any reports produced by CBRE under this Agreement is extended solely to parties and entities expressly acknowledged in a signed writing by CBRE as Intended Users of the respective reports, provided that any conditions to such acknowledgement required by CBRE or hereunder have been satisfied. Parties or entities other than Intended Users who obtain a copy of the report or any portion thereof (including Client if it is not named as an Intended User), whether as a result of its direct dissemination or by any other means, may not rely upon any opinions or conclusions contained in the report or such portions thereof, and CBRE will not be responsible for any unpermitted use of the report, its conclusions or contents or have any liability in connection therewith. This appraisal is to be used for real property acquisition for the proposed vacation of a portion of the 84th Avenue W. right-of-way, based on the rights being acquired, and no other use is permitted. The appraisal of the same property for a different use may result in a value divergent from the appraisal conclusions in 3 Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 15th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2020), 40. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 56/237 this report due to differences such as the rights or interests appraised and matters of law such as project influence. The report is not the appraisal but is the reporting of the appraisal to the named client or named intended user. Anyone else who attempts to rely on an appraisal report that is not a named user may be misled by the report. If you are not the client, you have no way of knowing if a later appraisal was done that replaces this report. Any changes will result in a different report date. Accordingly, this document may no longer contain the appraisers’ opinions. Any subsequent reports, with a later report date, voids this document even to the client or intended user. The purpose of this appraisal is to establish fair market value of the proposed street vacations through the application of ATF methodology. The purpose of this appraisal is to develop an opinion of the fair market value of the subject property. “Fair market value means the amount in cash that a well-informed buyer, willing but not obligated to buy the property, would pay, and that a well-informed seller, willing but not obligated to sell it, would accept, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted or may be reasonably adaptable.” (Washington Pattern Instruction 150.08). The value conclusions apply to the value of the subject property under the market conditions presumed on the effective date of value. The value estimated represents the Fee Simple Estate as defined below, subject to existing and retained easements: Fee Simple Estate - Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power and escheat. 4 Leased Fee Interest - The ownership interest held by the lessor, which includes the right to receive the contract rent specified in the lease plus the reversionary right when the lease expires. 5 Leasehold Estate - The right held by the lessee to use and occupy real estate for a stated term and under the conditions specified in the lease. 6 Going Concern – An established and operating business having an indefinite future life. 7 4 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 7th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2022), 73. 5 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 7th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2022), 105. 6 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 7th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2022), 105. 7 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 7th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2022), 83. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 57/237 The property is identified through the following sources: • street names • WSDOT mapping • survey and legal description provided by the client • onsite inspection Tim Lovell inspected the subject, as well as its surrounding environs on the effective date of appraisal. Murray Brackett previously inspected the subject. These inspections are considered adequate and are the basis for our findings. CBRE reviewed the following: • applicable tax data • zoning requirements • flood zone status • demographics • comparable data • Snohomish County and City of Edmonds GIS mapping CBRE, Inc. analyzed the data gathered through the use of appropriate and accepted appraisal methodology to arrive at a probable value indication via each applicable approach to value. For vacant land, the sales comparison approach has been employed for this assignment. The appraisers have the appropriate knowledge, education, and experience to complete this assignment competently. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 58/237 DATA SOURCES Item:Source(s): Site Data Whole Property and Acquisition Size Land Survey/Legal Description Floodplain FEMA Zoning City of Edmonds Mapping and Planning Personnel Site Improvement Sizes N/A Easements (Retained)City of Edmonds Mapping, Edmonds Public Works engineering personnel, Olympic View Water & Sewer District personnel Excess/Surplus N/A Data Not Provided Item 1 Title report Compiled by CBRE In appraisal practice, an approach to value is included or omitted based on its applicability to the property type being valued and the quality and quantity of information available. Depending on a specific appraisal assignment, any of the following four methods may be used to determine the market value of the fee simple interest of land: • Sales Comparison Approach; • Income Capitalization Procedures; • Allocation; and • Extraction. The following summaries of each method are paraphrased from The Appraisal of Real Estate, Fifteenth Edition8. The first is the sales comparison approach. This is a process of analyzing sales of similar, recently sold parcels in order to derive an indication of the most probable sales price (or value) of the property being appraised. The reliability of this approach is dependent upon (a) the availability of comparable sales data, (b) the verification of the sales data regarding size, price, terms of sale, etc., (c) the degree of comparability or extent of adjustment necessary for differences between the subject and the comparables, and (d) the absence of nontypical conditions affecting the sales price. This is the primary and most reliable method used to value land (if adequate data exists). The income capitalization procedures include three methods: land residual technique, ground rent capitalization, and Subdivision Development Analysis. A discussion of each of these three techniques is presented in the following paragraphs. The land residual method may be used to estimate land value when sales data on similar parcels of vacant land are lacking. This technique is based on the principle of balance and the related concept of contribution, which are concerned with equilibrium among the agents of production--i.e. labor, capital, coordination, and land. The land residual technique can be used to estimate land value when: 1) building value is known or can be accurately estimated, 2) stabilized, annual net operating income to the property is known or estimable, and 3) both 8 Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 15th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2020), Chapter 19 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 59/237 building and land capitalization rates can be extracted from the market. Building value can be estimated for new or proposed buildings that represent the highest and best use of the property and have not yet incurred physical deterioration or functional obsolescence. The subdivision development method is used to value land when subdivision and development represent the highest and best use of the appraised parcel. In this method, an appraiser determines the number and size of lots that can be created from the appraised land physically, legally, and economically. The value of the underlying land is then estimated through a discounted cash flow analysis with revenues based on the achievable sale price of the finished product and expenses based on all costs required to complete and sell the finished product. The ground rent capitalization procedure is predicated upon the assumption that ground rents can be capitalized at an appropriate rate to indicate the market value of a site. Ground rent is paid for the right to use and occupy the land according to the terms of the ground lease; it corresponds to the value of the landowner's interest in the land. Market-derived capitalization rates are used to convert ground rent into market value. This procedure is useful when an analysis of comparable sales of leased land indicates a range of rents and reasonable support for capitalization rates can be obtained. The allocation method is typically used when sales are so rare that the value cannot be estimated by direct comparison. This method is based on the principle of balance and the related concept of contribution, which affirm that there is a normal or typical ratio of land value to property value for specific categories of real estate in specific locations. This ratio is generally more reliable when the subject property includes relatively new improvements. The allocation method does not produce conclusive value indications, but it can be used to establish land value when the number of vacant land sales is inadequate. The extraction method is a variant of the allocation method in which land value is extracted from the sale price of an improved property by deducting the contribution of the improvements, which is estimated from their depreciated costs. The remaining value represents the value of the land. Value indications derived in this way are generally unpersuasive because the assessment ratios may be unreliable and the extraction method does not reflect market considerations. For the purposes of this analysis, we have utilized the sales comparison approach to land value. The other methodologies are used primarily when comparable land sales data is non-existent. Therefore, these approaches have not been used. The Real Estate community has long recognized the ATF methodology for valuing corridors and street vacations. The methodology evaluates the abutting properties, essentially as a proxy for the subject, since direct comparables are not available (streets are not typically sold on the open market). The concept of ATF attempts to recognize the value of a corridor property that was ostensibly assembled from abutting properties to create an economic unit that benefits from a unique size, shape and the element of connectivity between two points. The premium for such assemblage is often the subject of debate (as it may be tied to business value); however, the underlying premise that the abutting lands are suitable as the valuation foundation is generally acknowledged by appraisers. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 60/237 POPULATION Compiled by CBRE; Source: Esri The subject is located in Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue,WA Metropolitan Statistical Area.Key information about the area is provided in the following tables. The area has a population of 4,176,271 and a median age of 38,with the largest population group in the 30-39 age range and the smallest population in the 80+ age range. Population has increased by 736,464 since 2020,reflecting an increase of 4.0%. Population is projected to increase by an additional 152,316 by 2029,reflecting 0.7% population growth. 3,439,807 4,176,271 4,328,587 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 2020 2024 2029 POPULATION BY YEAR 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+ AREA POPULATION BY AGE ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 61/237 INCOME EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT Compiled by CBRE; Source: Esri The area includes a total of 2,254,233 employees and has a 4.3%unemployment rate.The top three industries within the area are Prof/Scientific/Tech Services,Health Care/Social Assistance and Retail Trade, which represent a combined total of 38% of the population. The area features an average household income of $160,268 and a median household income of $113,257.Over the next five years, median household income is expected to increase by 18.9%, or $4,270 per annum. A total of 48.0%of individuals over the age of 24 have a college degree,with 28.6%holding a bachelor's degree and 19.4%holding a graduate degree. $113,257 $134,608 $100,000 $105,000 $110,000 $115,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 $135,000 $140,000 2024 2029 MEDIAN INCOME BY YEAR 28.6% 19.4% 52.0% POPULATION BY DEGREE Bachelor's Degree Graduate Degree Other 0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16% Public Administration Other Services (excl Publ Adm) Transportation/Warehousing Accommodation/Food Services Construction Educational Services Manufacturing Retail Trade Health Care/Social Assistance Prof/Scientific/Tech Services In summary, the subject is forecasted to experience an increase in population, an increase in household income, and an increase in household values. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 62/237 The subject is located within the city of Edmonds and is a suburban location. The city of Edmonds is situated in southwest Snohomish County, about 12 miles north of the Seattle Central Business District. The subject is just north of the King and Snohomish County border. The immediate area surrounding the subject is largely residential with a mix of commercial and multifamily uses along the arterial roadways such as Aurora Avenue N. (Highway 99) and Edmonds Way. Commercial waterfront uses such as retail, parks and marina uses lie to the west of the subject. To the northwest is downtown Edmonds with a grid of storefront retail interspersed with multifamily and single- family residential. Additionally, there are some newer mixed-use buildings with commercial ground floors and residential condominiums on the upper floors. Neighborhood shopping centers are located along Aurora Avenue N (Highway 99). Notable retailers such as Costco, Safeway and Home Depot are all located in the subject neighborhood. Highway 99 is a major ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 63/237 north/south arterial through the neighborhood and includes considerable commercial retail development and corporate offices as well as service stations, strip centers, restaurants, fast-food restaurants, shopping centers and hotels. Growth patterns have occurred primarily along primary commercial thoroughfares such as Aurora Avenue N (Highway 99), Edmonds Way and 212th Street SW. Local grocery retailer, PCC opened a location on Edmonds Way, about a mile west of the subject, in 2013. Other retail development along Edmonds way, close in proximity to the subject, has consisted of Starbucks, Bartell Drugs, and Goodwill. Single-family and multifamily residential surround the neighborhood’s retail area, with the newest growth consisting of infill development. The subject neighborhood is best characterized as a suburban community that has good linkage to transportation thoroughfares as well as major employers both north and south along Interstate 5. Overall, general and direct access to the neighborhood and the subject is good due to the location along a major traffic artery with direct access (Highway 99). The subject is considered to be very well located as it is just minutes away from transportation systems, shopping, education facilities, and employment centers. Primary access to the subject neighborhood is provided by Interstate 5, Highway 99, and State Route 104 (Edmonds Way). Interstate 5 is the main corridor that connects the west coast of the United States from California to Canada. This thoroughfare connects the subject neighborhood with downtown Seattle to the south and Everett to the north. Highway 104 which becomes Edmonds Way is the main thoroughfare that connects the subject neighborhood to Interstate Highway 5. Another main method of transportation to and from the subject’s neighborhood is provided by the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry. The Edmonds-Kingston Ferry is located approximately 2.75 miles from the subject and connects the city of Edmonds to the city of Kingston to the west and Kitsap County. Sound Transit commenced service on the Lynnwood Link light rail extension in August of 2024, expanding the system through Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace, currently terminating in the Lynnwood City Center. Stations near the subject neighborhood include the Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline North/185th stations, with the Mountlake Terrace station located roughly 1.5 miles northeast of the subject (about two miles by car). Overall, the subject is considered to be well located, as it is just minutes away from transportation systems, shopping, education facilities, and employment centers. Access to the subject neighborhood is considered good. Selected neighborhood demographics in 1-, 3- and 5-mile radii from the subject, as well as the county and state, are shown in the following table: ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 64/237 84th Avenue W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Population 2029 Total Population 16,256 105,666 251,623 900,575 4,328,587 8,312,929 2024 Total Population 16,030 102,060 238,847 866,164 4,176,271 8,023,688 2010 Total Population 15,085 90,478 206,438 713,334 3,439,807 6,724,542 2000 Total Population 15,193 89,398 194,888 606,035 3,043,878 5,894,121 Annual Growth 2024 - 2029 0.28%0.70%1.05%0.78%0.72%0.71% Annual Growth 2010 - 2024 0.43%0.86%1.05%1.40%1.40%1.27% Annual Growth 2000 - 2010 -0.07%0.12%0.58%1.64%1.23%1.33% Households 2029 Total Households 6,671 44,025 99,938 335,053 1,682,513 3,227,456 2024 Total Households 6,565 42,337 94,802 321,740 1,625,915 3,107,079 2010 Total Households 6,163 37,719 82,639 268,324 1,357,475 2,620,077 2000 Total Households 6,165 36,596 76,337 224,855 1,196,568 2,271,398 Annual Growth 2024 - 2029 0.32%0.78%1.06%0.81%0.69%0.76% Annual Growth 2010 - 2024 0.45%0.83%0.99%1.31%1.30%1.23% Annual Growth 2000 - 2010 0.00%0.30%0.80%1.78%1.27%1.44% Income 2024 Median Household Income $111,597 $99,051 $107,881 $107,222 $113,257 $97,013 2024 Average Household Income $169,877 $142,147 $151,174 $144,770 $160,268 $136,115 2024 Per Capita Income $69,831 $58,791 $59,941 $53,797 $62,497 $52,812 2024 Pop 25+ College Graduates 5,958 34,997 84,436 230,431 1,420,882 2,279,160 Age 25+ Percent College Graduates - 2024 49.8%46.0%48.0%38.0%48.0%40.5% Source: ESRI SELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOGRAPHICS Snohomish County Seattle-Tacoma- Bellevue, WA Washington1 Mile Radius 3 Mile Radius 5 Mile Radius As shown above, the population within the subject neighborhood has modest shown growth over the past 14 years, with annual growth between 0.43% and 1.05%, generally in line with the region overall. Anticipated growth is strongest within a five-mile radius, with 1.05% anticipated growth between 2024 and 2029. The neighborhood has a 2024 median household income of $111,597 within a one-mile radius, which is in line with the MSA as a whole ($113,257). Overall, the subject neighborhood is an established area that has shown moderate growth and is expected to experience continued growth over the next five years. The neighborhood has a solid residential base with both single and multifamily uses, with commercial along the main arterials. The general outlook for the neighborhood is good over the longer term. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 65/237 The following chart summarizes the salient characteristics of the subject site. SITE SUMMARY Physical Description Gross Land Area 23,684 Sq. Ft. Primary Road Frontage Highway 99 349 Feet Secondary Road Frontage Edmonds Way 278 Feet Assumed Zoning District CG Land Area 11,684 Sq. Ft. R-2.4 Land Area 12,000 Sq. Ft. Flood Map Panel No. & Date 53061C1305F June 19, 2020 Flood Zone Zone X (Unshaded) Flood Notes Earthquake Zone Utilities Availability Water Yes Sewer Yes Natural Gas Yes Electricity Yes Telecommunications Yes Source: Various sources compiled by CBRE CG (General Commercial) RM-2.4 (Multiple Residential) NEHRP Site Class C Area of minimal flood hazard The subject property consists of portions of right-of-way totaling 23,684 square feet, according to the survey provided by the client. The to-be-vacated area consists of portions of 84th Avenue W. The subject abuts WSDOT-owned right-of-way to the east and south (which the client is proposing to also vacate as a separate action with WSDOT), and at the west, the subject abuts APNs 004633-017-001-00, 004633- 024-001-02, and 004633-024-002-03. Upon vacation, the subject property would be assembled with abutting property, and would be split-zoned, per our discussions with city of Edmonds planning personnel: the area to the east of the centerline of 84th Avenue W. would be zoned CG (General Commercial), estimated to be 11,684 square feet; the area to the west of the centerline of 84th Avenue W. would be zoned R-2.4 (Multiple Residential), estimated to be 12,000 square feet. As we understand it, upon vacation, several easements will be reserved for existing utilities within the right-of-way, heavily encumbering the subject property. We are not experts in determining flood zone elevations and we were not provided with a flood zone certificate for the subject. The reader is encouraged to consult with a professional engineer to determine ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 66/237 the subject's actual flood zone status. Based on our review of FEMA Flood Panel No. 53061C1305F, the property appears to be in Zone X (Unshaded), which is an area of minimal flood hazard. No title report for the proposed vacation area was provided; therefore, we are unaware of any easements or encroachments. Per city of Edmonds GIS mapping and discussions with the client, we are aware of various utilities within the rights-of-way and have assumed retained easements as follows: RETAINED EASEMENTS Utility/Item General Location 1 Assumed Retained Esmt. Width (Ft.) 2 Water Main Eastern portion in north, crossing to the west in south 15 Sewer Main Western portion 15 Natural Gas Line Eastern portion 10 1 Water and sewer location per Edmonds GIS mapping, gas line estimated per image of utility locate sketch Compiled by CBRE 2 Easement width for storm drain per Edmonds Public Works personnel; easement width for sewer per Olympic View Water & Sewer District personnel; easement width for gas line per client conversation with PSE Our estimate of the natural gas line is based on a sketch provided by the client via an onsite utility locate. We note that the gas line location per this sketch appears to differ from on-the-ground signage. We have utilized our approximation of the provided sketch in our analysis. Based on our conversations with the various utility companies and experience with such utility easements, it is the appraisers’ understanding that no structures would be permitted within the retained easement areas, and only modest surface uses such as right-of-way, parking, circulation, and landscaping would be allowed. According to city of Edmonds Public Works personnel, the city intends to vacate existing storm drain utilities within the 84th Avenue W. right-of-way, and these are not included in our analysis. Overall, retained easements will heavily encumber the subject property, which is considered in our analysis. We have included an aerial mapping exhibit of our estimate of the to-be-retained easements at the end of this section. There are no known covenants, conditions or restrictions impacting the site that are considered to affect the marketability or highest and best use. It is recommended that the client/reader obtain a copy of the current covenants, conditions and restrictions, if any, prior to making a business decision. Although CBRE was not provided an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), a tour of the site did not reveal any obvious issues regarding environmental contamination or adverse conditions. The appraiser is not qualified to detect the existence of potentially hazardous material or underground storage tanks which may be present on or near the site. The existence of hazardous materials or underground storage tanks may affect the value of the property. For this appraisal, CBRE, Inc. has specifically assumed that the underlying land is not affected by any hazardous materials that may be present on or near the property. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 67/237 No wetlands or unusual site conditions were noted at the time of inspection. South of the southern boundary of the proposed vacation area (offsite), topography is steep leading down to the developed Edmonds Way (SR-104) roadway and is identified as potential erosion hazard area on city of Edmonds GIS mapping and within a Critical Areas Determination dated January 2, 2024 (CRA2023-0181). However, topography is considered the primary reason for the Critical Areas Determination, and topography is not considered in ATF methodology. As such, we have not considered topography or related potential critical areas (erosion hazard) in our analysis. We have not been provided with a soils report. According to the USDA Web Soil Survey, the subject’s soils consist of Urban Land-Alderwood Complex and Urban Land. According to the USDA, a “complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.” Alderwood soils are considered moderately well drained with a depth to water table of about 18 to 36 inches. The adjacent land uses are summarized as follows: North: 84th Avenue W. right-of-way South: Edmonds Way (SR-104) right-of-way East: Highway 99 right-of-way West: Residential and commercial The subject property consists of city of Edmonds-owned right of way and is not currently zoned. Property immediately to the northeast of the subject, along Highway 99, is zoned CG (General Commercial); property abutting subject to the west is zoned RM-2.4; and property abutting the subject to the east and south is WSDOT-owned right-of-way (Highway 99 and Edmonds Way/SR-104), which is not zoned. It is noted that the client is also in the process of pursuing vacation of abutting WSDOT-owned right-of-way. According to our discussions with Edmonds planning personnel, per the city’s comprehensive plan and policies, upon vacation and assemblage with abutting property, portions of the subject situated east of the centerline of 84th Avenue W. would be zoned CG (General Commercial), and the portions west of the centerline of 84th Avenue W. (extended) would be zoned RM-2.4. We have estimated that approximately 12,000 square feet of the subject would be zoned RM-2.4, with the balance (11,684 square feet) zoned CG. According to EMC 16.60.005, the purposes of the CG zone are to: A. Encourage economic vitality through business, investment, redevelopment, and efficient use of land; B. Encourage safe and comfortable access for pedestrians, transit, and motorists; C. Encourage attractive mixed-use development, affordable housing, and a variety of commercial uses; and D. Recognized the district’s evolving identity and sense of place, including distinctions between different parts of the district, and to be sensitive to adjacent residential zones. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 68/237 Per EMC 16.30.000, the purposes of the RM zones are to: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zones, while still maintaining a residential environment; B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. The following chart summarizes the subject’s zoning requirements. ZONING SUMMARY Current Zoning CG (General Commercial)RM-2.4 (Multiple Residential) Uses Permitted All except mobile home parks, storage facilities Multifamily and single-family residential, senior housing, assisted living, institutional Zoning Change Primary Surrounding Land Use Category Zoning Requirement CG (General Commercial)RM-2.4 (Multiple Residential) Minimum Lot Size None - Minimum Lot Area per DU -2,400 Sq. Ft. Minimum Lot Width None - Maximum Height 75 Feet 25 Feet 4 Minimum Setbacks Street 1 10 Feet 15 Feet Side 0 Feet 2 10 Feet Rear 0 Feet 2 15 Feet Maximum Floor Area None - Maximum Lot Coverage -45% Parking Requirements Varies 3 Studio 1.2 per Unit 1 Bedroom 1.5 per Unit 2 Bedrooms 1.8 per Unit 3+ Bedrroms 2.0 per Unit Source: EMC Title 16 See Comments Below 3 See EMC 16.60.030(B) 4 Can increase to 35' for buildings fronting Edmonds Way with bonuses 1 Five feet for permitted outdoor auto sales use 2 15 feet from lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property Commercial/retail, residential In 2018, land abutting the subject to the west was included in a Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal, which resulted in the area being designated as Corridor Development – Highway 99 Corridor, which city planning personnel noted could potentially influence applications to rezone the property. Additionally, city of Edmonds is in the process of updating its comprehensive plan. The most recent public draft is dated October 2024 and includes mapping of proposed growth alternatives. In both included scenarios, the draft Comprehensive Plan update designates the land west of the subject as Moderate Density Residential, with property along Highway 99 generally designated as Highway 99 Mixed-Use. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 69/237 Our analysis is based on the current zoning designations and our discussions with Edmonds planning personnel regarding the zoning of the subject upon vacation. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 70/237 SUBJECT ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 71/237 N SUBJECT ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 72/237 Blue is water main (15’ wide), red is sewer (15’ wide), orange is natural gas (10’ wide), green is storm drain (15’ wide) (Northern boundary of proposed vacation is roughly 13 feet north of boundary as shown above. See survey in Addenda.) N ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 73/237 SUBJECT ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 74/237 N SUBJECT ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 75/237 Washington State requires that all real property be taxed at 100% fair market value; however, the subject is publicly owned and is, therefore, not assessed or taxed. Based upon the opinion of market value provided in this report, as well as the levy rate applied nearby taxable property, we estimate property taxes for the subject property would be approximately $1,800 per year without consideration of shape. It should be noted, however, that based upon the highest and best use conclusion of assemblage, value of the subject property would be absorbed by abutting property owners and taxed as such. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 76/237 The market analysis forms a basis for assessing market area boundaries, supply and demand factors, and indications of financial feasibility. The following data were collected from CoStar Group, www.costar.com. These data pertain to the subject’s market area as defined CoStar. We have included market data and analysis relative to the potential uses of the subject site per the underlying zoning. The Lynnwood multifamily submarket, as defined by CoStar, encompasses the cities of Lynnwood, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Brier. According to CoStar, “With 2,200 units delivered over the past three years and 650 units still under construction, the Lynnwood multifamily submarket is one of the fastest growing in the region.” Much of the recent, ongoing, and planned development is located near future light rail stations in Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace—with the bulk of the development taking place in the Lynnwood City Center. Notable projects under construction include the Koz on Alderwood, a 200-unit mid-rise project across from the future light rail station, expected to be completed in 2025. Ember Apartments, a 359-unit project located on the corner of 40th Avenue W. and 198th Street SW, was completed in early 2024. The subject is situated just north of the Shoreline multifamily submarket as defined by CoStar, which has also seen significant transit-oriented development in recent years, as well as recent and ongoing multifamily and mixed-use development along the Highway 99 corridor. Vacancy in the Lynnwood submarket is currently 6.9%, which is slightly below the 7.1% showing for the Seattle metro area. Vacancy can be somewhat volatile, however, due to the delivery of new product. Per CoStar, “Despite the inventory increasing by nearly 20% since 2020, absorption has nearly matched the number of new units, and the vacancy rate has been relatively stable, given the pace of construction.” CoStar notes that 571 units have been delivered over the past 12 months compared to 541 units absorbed over that time. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 77/237 (Source: CoStar) Market asking rent in the Lynnwood submarket is reported to be $1,999 per unit per month, roughly 2.2% higher than a year ago and somewhat below the Seattle metro average of $2,041. While strong demand pushed yearly rent growth to a high of 11.3% in the first quarter of 2022, rents in the Lynnwood submarket effectively plateaued in 2023, following a region-wide trend, and have resumed modest increase in 2024. Within the submarket, CoStar anticipates increasing year-over-year rent growth through 2025. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 78/237 (Source: CoStar) According to CoStar, sales volume within the submarket is down in the current environment, with transactions totaling roughly $21.7 million over the past 12 months, compared to the five-year average of $183 million. However, “Lynwood's recent growth and the prospect of a further influx of residents with the arrival of light rail have attracted the attention of private equity and institutional investors, in contrast to much of the Seattle region.” The average market price, which is based on the estimated price movement of all properties in the market, is $342,000 per unit compared with $360,000 per unit for the overall metro area. Average market prices per unit in both the submarket and metro area have dipped by roughly 15% to 20% since the peak in the second quarter of 2022. (Source: CoStar) ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 79/237 The decrease in per-unit market price is reflected in increasing capitalization rates, recognizing the increased cost of capital and elevated perceived risk, as year-over-year rents remained relatively stable within the submarket. Cap rates remain low relative to much of the previous ten years, but as the graph below illustrates, cap rate have risen for all multifamily asset classes since the trough of late 2021 and early 2022. CoStar expects cap rates to peak in mid-2025. (Source: CoStar) Increasing interest rates and capitalization rates have impacted asset values over the past roughly two years. Additionally, elevated borrowing and development costs appear to have slowed the pace of new development projects and multifamily land sales. Nonetheless, development continues within the submarket and region, signaling long-term optimism. Overall, the multifamily housing market in most of the Seattle metro area is expected to remain relatively strong, and demand for multifamily product is expected to continue near term. Home to the nearly 170-store Alderwood Mall, the Edmonds/Lynnwood retail submarket contains 730 buildings totaling 11.2 million square feet, per CoStar. Over the last 12 months, inventory in the submarket has increased by a about 20,400 square feet, which represents just 0.2% of current inventory. CoStar reports no additional retail projects currently under construction. While the retail submarket remains relatively strong, in early 2024, CoStar noted changes to the retail submarket in recent years, stating: “Properties transitioning to other asset types … change the competitive landscape, reducing the total inventory of pure retail assets. This is particularly the case in areas near light rail stations and in the area of Lynnwood between the new light rail station and Alderwood Mall, much of which is zoned for denser use than the current inventory.” The vacancy rate for retail properties within the Edmonds/Lynnwood submarket sits at 4.5%, down from 4.9% a year ago but an increase from the recent low of 2.3% in the first quarter of 2022. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 80/237 (Source: CoStar) Market asking rents average $30.06 per square foot per year (NNN), which is slightly above the averages for the Seattle metro area ($29.38). Year-over-year rent growth in the submarket is reported at 1.6%. Rents are anticipated to continue steady increases in the coming years. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 81/237 (Source: CoStar) CoStar reports sales volume of $114 million over the last 12 months, generally in line with the five-year average of $118 million. The market sale price per square foot, which is based on the estimated price movement of all properties in the market, is $359 per square foot, which is somewhat above the metro average of $335. Pricing has dipped of late, with the market sale price per square foot declining by a modest 1.8% within the Edmonds/Lynnwood submarket since the peak in the second quarter of 2024, and CoStar anticipates additional decreases into mid-2025. Overall, capitalization rates remained relatively steady in 2022 and 2023 after primarily declining in prior years. Cap rates began to rise in the second half of 2024, and CoStar predicts further increases in cap rates in 2025, influenced by increased interest rates. While rents are expected to continue steady ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 82/237 increases in the near-term, the decrease in forecasted per-unit market price into 2025 (graph above) is largely reflected in the expectation of increasing capitalization rates (graph below). At this point, cap rates remain low relative to the previous ten years, but as the graph below illustrates, cap rate are expected to rise sharply for all retail asset classes beginning through the first half of 2025, before moderating and peaking in 2026. (Source: CoStar) The impacts of increased interest rates are beginning to be seen within the Edmonds/Lynnwood retail submarket shortly, with declining asset values, rising cap rates, and modest rent increases into 2026. With the peak of increasing cap rates anticipated in 2026, retail property values are forecasted to begin recovering. The Edmonds/Lynnwood submarket contains 359 buildings with about 5.2 million square feet of inventory. There have been no deliveries in the past 12 months, and there are no projects currently under construction, according to CoStar. Overall, the office submarket has seen positive net absorption of roughly 54,900 square feet over the last 12 months, with a vacancy rate of 7.9% currently, down from 9.0% a year ago. The average vacancy rate for the Seattle metro area is currently 16.0%, which shows impacts from the Covid-19 pandemic and enduring work-from-home and hybrid work policies. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 83/237 (Source: CoStar) Office asking rents in this submarket are about 17% less expensive than the overall metro area average and sit at $30.49 per square foot gross, compared to $36.72 for the region overall. Rents have remained steady over the last 12 months, with no reported year-over-year rent growth. While the long-term future of the office market remains somewhat unclear at this time as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and significant changes to many companies’ remote work policies, most forecasts anticipate a reshaping of the office sector in coming years. Within the submarket and region as a whole, CoStar expects rents to decline somewhat into 2026. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 84/237 (Source: CoStar) According to CoStar, sales volume totaled $21.8 million over the past 12 months, below the five-year average of $37.8 million. Market sales price per square foot within the submarket is reported at $251, well below the region overall ($398). Market prices in the submarket have declined by 4.8% over the last 12 months. Prices are expected to continue to decline significantly in coming years, bottoming out in 2026, with 23% to 28% decreases from the peak in late 2021. (Source: CoStar) The significant experienced and expected decline in per-square-foot values is the result of flat and predicted decreasing rents, with increasing capitalization rates reflecting interest-rate hikes and elevated perceived risk. Cap rates remained relatively steady from 2018 to 2020, then declined into the second ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 85/237 half of 2021. Since that time, cap rates have risen, with a notable acceleration occurring in mid-2022, as interest-rate increases commenced in an effort to tame persistent inflation. Overall, cap rates are forecasted to continue to climb at into 2025, with moderation and reductions expected thereafter. (Source: CoStar) The effects of continued work-from-home policies and increasing interest rates are beginning to be manifested in the office market, both locally and regionally, resulting in downward pressure on pricing and increasing cap rates as rents remain relatively flat. With forecasted continuation of these trends, office values are expected to experience further declines in the coming years, straining the sector. According to CoStar, Edmonds/Lynnwood submarket contains 192 buildings totaling 3.2 million square feet, making it among the smaller industrial submarkets in the region. Per CoStar, “The submarket has approximately 2.0 million SF of logistics inventory, 550,000 SF of flex inventory, and 620,000 SF of specialized inventory.” Only 9,400 square feet has been delivered to the market in the last 10 years (in 2018), and demolitions have totaled roughly 132,400 square feet over that timeframe. No projects are currently under construction. Vacancy in the Edmonds/Lynnwood submarket is currently 2.7%, below the rate of the Seattle metro area overall (8.0%). Over the past 12 months, the vacancy rate in the submarket has increased from 2.1%, reflecting negative net absorption of -19,400 square feet over this period. CoStar anticipates overall vacancy in the submarket to increase somewhat in the near term, peaking in 2026. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 86/237 (Source: CoStar) Market asking rents average $17.58 per square foot per year, triple-net, which is above the average for the Seattle metro area of $14.39. Year-over-year rent growth in the submarket is report at 1.33%, higher than the region overall (0.8%). CoStar anticipates steady increases for the foreseeable future. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 87/237 (Source: CoStar) Twelve-month sales volume within the submarket totaled $28.6 million, slightly above the five-year average of $23.1 million. The average market price, which is based on the estimated price movement of all properties in the submarket, is $300 per square foot, compared with $238 per square foot for the overall metro area. Average market prices per square foot in both the submarket and metro area have remained relatively steady since 2022, with increases expected to resume in the second half of 2025. (Source: CoStar) As year-over-year rents have mostly risen, the generally stagnant market sale price per square foot is reflected in increasing capitalization rates, recognizing the increased cost of capital and elevated perceived risk. Cap rates remain generally in line with much of the previous ten years, but as the graph ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 88/237 below illustrates, cap rate have risen for all industrial asset types since the trough of late 2021 and early 2022. CoStar expects cap rates to peak in mid-2025 and decline thereafter. (Source: CoStar) Overall, the industrial market in most of the Seattle metro area is expected to remain relatively strong. Rents and pricing within the Edmonds/Lynnwood submarket remain above the region overall; however, the relatively small and generally declining industrial inventory and lack of recent development indicate industrial developers’ preference for other submarkets in the region, while the Edmonds/Lynnwood submarket trends toward multifamily, commercial, and mixed uses. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 89/237 In appraisal practice, the concept of highest and best use represents the premise upon which value is based. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are: • legally permissible; • physically possible; • financially feasible; and • maximally productive. The highest and best use analysis of the subject is discussed below. The subject is a portion of surplus right-of-way and is not functional for independent development. Right-of-way use is a public use with limited alternative utility (see ATF methodology discussion). As discussed in the zoning subsection of the Site Analysis above, according to city of Edmonds planning personnel, upon vacation and assemblage with abutting property, the portions of the subject situated to the east of the 84th Avenue W. right-of-way centerline would be zoned CG (General Commercial), and the portions to the west of the 84th Avenue W. right-of-way centerline would be zoned RM-2.4 (Multiple Residential). The CG zone is a mixed-use zone permitting a wide range of uses, with building heights up 75 feet. The RM-2.4 zone is a primarily residential zone permitting one dwelling unit per 2,400 site square feet and base building heights of 25 feet. As discussed in the in the Site Analysis section above, upon vacation, the subject will be heavily encumbered by retained easements for existing utilities. Our analysis first evaluates the subject property as unencumbered, followed by a diminution reflecting the effects of retained easements on the utility of the property. Elements such as availability of utilities, known hazards (flood, wetland, environmental, etc.), and other potential influences are described in the Site Analysis and have been considered. It should be noted, however, that per standard ATF methodology, the unique size and shape are not considered, nor is topography. As previously discussed, the subject is a relatively narrow 23,684-square-foot portion of right-of-way with little utility other than for assemblage. In the case of the subject, the areas to the east and south of the property are public rights-of-way (Highway 99 to the east and Edmonds Way/SR-104 to the south). It is noted that the client, who owns property west of 84th Avenue W. is also pursuing the vacation of portions of the WSDOT-owned right-of- way to the east and south. These factors effectively create a dual monopoly, which we have not considered in our ATF analysis. Among the financially feasible uses, the use that results in the highest value (the maximally productive use) is the highest and best use. Considering these factors, the maximally productive use as though vacant is for assemblage. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 90/237 The conclusion of the highest and best use as if vacant is for assemblage. Our analysis of the subject and its respective market characteristics indicate the most likely buyer, as if vacant, would be an abutting property owner looking for development opportunities through assemblage. The subject property is effectively unimproved. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 91/237 In appraisal practice, an approach to value is included or omitted based on its applicability to the property type being valued and the quality and quantity of information available. The cost approach is based on the proposition that the informed purchaser would pay no more for the subject than the cost to produce a substitute property with equivalent utility. The Sales Comparison Approach utilizes sales of comparable properties, adjusted for differences, to indicate a value for the subject, usually based on a typical unit of comparison. The Income Capitalization Approach considers the market rent the subject would be capable of producing, less expenses, and capitalized into a value indication. The Real Estate community has long recognized the ATF methodology for valuing corridors and street vacations. The methodology evaluates the abutting properties, essentially as a proxy for the subject, since direct comparables are not available (streets are not typically sold on the open market). The concept of ATF attempts to recognize the value of a corridor property that was ostensibly assembled from abutting properties to create an economic unit that benefits from a unique size, shape and the element of connectivity between two points. The premium for such assemblage is often the subject of debate (as it may be tied to business value); however, the underlying premise that the abutting lands are suitable as the valuation foundation is generally acknowledged by appraisers. As discussed above, per our conversations with city of Edmonds planning personnel, upon assemblage, the subject would be split- zoned, with approximately 11,684 CG (General Commercial) and 12,000 zoned RM-2.4. This is the value upon which a typical seller would base an offering price. It is logical to expect that the abutting owner would recognize the similar utility afforded to his/her property if assembled. The sales comparison approach for land is utilized to develop an opinion of land value, because market participants rely on this method. The subject is valued as vacant land, so the cost approach is not applicable. The subject is valued as vacant land, so the sales comparison approach for improved property is not applicable. Being valued as vacant land, the income approach for improved property is not applicable. The unit of comparison depends on land use economics and how buyers and sellers use the property. According to our research and discussions with market participants, commercial and mixed-use land is typically bought and sold based on price per square foot, which is the unit of comparison in the analysis of the (to-be) CG-zoned portion of the property. With respect to the RM-2.4-zoned portion, market participants typically buy and sell multifamily land on the basis of price per potential unit. However, as this analysis utilizes ATF methodology to value the corridor, price per square foot is appropriate, and the unit ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 92/237 of comparison in this analysis price per square foot, with a check of reasonableness based on price per potential unit. Elements of comparison are the characteristics or attributes of properties and transactions that cause the prices of real estate to vary. The primary elements of comparison considered in sales comparison analysis are as follows: (1) property rights conveyed, (2) financing terms, (3) conditions of sale, (4) expenditures made immediately after purchase, (5) market conditions, (6) location, and (7) physical characteristics. To obtain and verify comparable sales of improved retail properties, we conducted searches of CBA, CoStar, and NWMLS databases; public records; field surveys; interviews with knowledgeable real estate professionals in the area; and a review of our internal database. We included several mixed-use and multifamily land sales in our analysis, judged to be the most comparable, to develop an indication of market value for the subject property. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 93/237 The following map and table summarize the comparable data used in the valuation of the subject CG- zoned portion of the subject. A detailed description of each transaction is included in the addenda. SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES - CG ZONED PORTION Actual Sale Adjusted Sale Size Size Adj. Price Adj. Price No.Property Location Date Price Price 1 (SF) (Acres) Per Acre Per SF Zoning 1 19110 Highway 99 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Mar-24 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 67,082 1.54 $2,110,390 $48.45 CG Lynnwood 2 2826 164th Street SW Lynnwood, WA 98087 Dec-23 $10,500,000 $10,500,000 253,084 5.81 $1,807,229 $41.49 UC SnoCo 3 3225 164th Street SW Lynnwood, WA 98087 Nov-22 $11,840,000 $11,840,000 213,444 4.90 $2,416,327 $55.47 UC SnoCo 4 18002-18019 Aurora Ave N. Shoreline, WA 98133 Oct-22 $13,350,000 $13,350,000 158,195 3.63 $3,675,964 $84.39 TC-2 Shoreline 5 23930 Highway 99 Edmonds, WA 98026 Feb-22 $1,425,000 $1,425,000 19,166 0.44 $3,238,636 $74.35 CG Edmonds 6 22908 Highway 99 Edmonds, WA 98026 May-21 $3,050,000 $3,050,000 60,984 1.40 $2,178,571 $50.01 CG Edmonds Subject Portion of 84th Avenue W. ROW ---------11,684 0.27 ------CG Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds 1 Adjusted sale price for cash equivalency and/or development costs (where applicable) Compiled by CBRE Transaction ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 94/237 This comparable is the sale of a 1.54-acre site located at 19110 Highway 99 in Lynnwood, Washington. The property is irregular in shape, with roughly 185 feet of frontage on Highway 99 at the east and pipestem access from 60th Avenue W. at the west. It is zoned CG (general commercial) by the city of Lynnwood, which allows for maximum lot coverage of 35% and a wide range of commercial uses, office, lodging, and light industrial. The property is also within the Highway 99 corridor on the the city's future land-use maps, which allows for multifamily residential and mixed-use development with building heights up to 90 feet and FAR of 3.0 if developed with a density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre (50-foot height limit and maximum FAR of 1.0 of developed at a lower density). The site was previously improved with an auto shop building which burned down last year. The property is cleared and generally level. According to the listing broker, the buyer is the proprietor of Aurora Rents, an equipment and party rental company, and plans to develop the property with a rental location/store. The property sold in March 2024 for $3,250,000, or $48.45 per square foot. "This is the December 2023 sale of a vacant 5.81-acre tax parcel located at the corner of 164th Street SW and Manor Way in unincorporated Snohomish County, near Lynnwood. The property is somewhat irregular in shape and is generally level overall. It is zoned UC (Urban Center) by Snohomish County, a mixed-use zone permitting base building heights of 90 feet, with increases up to 125 feet if located within 1/8-mile of certain transit options. All utilities are available. The property went on the market in early June 2023, unpriced, and the listing broker stated that there was strong interest. It went under contract in late August of 2023 with a typical feasibility period and closing expected by the end of the year. Per the broker, the buyer intends to develop the property with primarily multifamily residential use. The property sold on December 19, 2023, for $10.500.000, or $41.49 per square foot. According to a preliminary application submitted just after closing (23-119796-000-00-PA), the buyer planned to develop the property with 130 townhome units. A subsequent preliminary application submitted in January 2024 (24-101602-000-00-PA) indicates revised plans for a 125-unit Townhouse Unit Lot Subdivision. The sale price equates to $80,769 per unit at 130 units (planned as of closing) and $84,000 per unit at 125 units (most recent information)." This is the November 2022 sale of a 4.90-acre (213,444-square-foot) redevelopment site located at 3225 164th Street SW in unincorporated Snohomish County, near Lynnwood. The property is rectangular in shape and has generally level topography. It is zoned UC (Urban Center) by Snohomish County, a mixed- use zone permitting base building heights of 90 feet, with increases up to 125 feet if located within 1/8- mile of certain transit options. According to the buyer, the seller had obtained "schematic approvals" including approved unit counts and offsite obligations, which the buyer characterized as a strong selling point but did not quantify. The buyer noted that offsite requirements included extending Admiralty Way from its terminus northeast of the property to 164th Street SW and estimated the cost to be $1.5 million, which is not included in the analysis price utilized here. The property went under contract in July of 2021, and the buyer worked to complete construction permits. As of August 2023, construction of a two- building, 326-unit apartment complex is underway, with the first building expected to be complete in October of 2024 and the second in April or May of 2025. The transaction closed on November 1, 2022, for $11,840,000, or $55.47 per square foot ($36,319 per unit). ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 95/237 This comparable represents an assemblage of five parcels totaling 3.63-acres or 158,195 square feet. The site is partially improved with three buildings (ice skating rink, single-family residence, and warehouse). The property is irregular in shape, is generally level, has frontage on N 182nd St, Linden Ave N and Aurora Ave N and is zoned TC-2, Town Center 2 which allows for residential and commercial development up to 70 feet. The following addresses are associated with the site: 18002 Aurora Ave N, 18005 Aurora Ave N, 18019 Aurora Ave N, and 907 N 182nd St, in Shoreline, Washington. The assemblage sold for a total price of $13,350,000. There were two purchase and sale agreements associated with the purchase, one for $850,000 representing a single parcel and the second for $12,500,000 representing four parcels. The Highland Sports Center property was brought to market June 2020 by Marty Rood from Mr. 99 and Associates. The property was originally listed for $15,095,000 (based upon improvement value), and received four offers, three of which were from developers. The offers received were over and under the asking price. The buyer's offer was selected due to the buyer's reputation, and the certainty of closing. The Chih Pu Tsai property was not openly marketed, however the seller was represented by Todd Young of Windermere Midtown. According to the seller's agent, the seller had learned that the Highland Sports Center was under contract and asked their agent to contact the developer to sell their property. The price was negotiated between both parties. Our discussions with the buyer, and seller's representatives indicate that this is an arms-length transaction and neither party is under distress. The buyer intends to demolish the existing improvements in January 2023 and redevelop the site with two 6-story mid-rise apartment buildings which include on level of above-grade parking garage and one-level of below-grade parking and a total of 385-units. The larger site closed on October 21, 2022 for $12,500,000 while the remaining (smaller) site closed in January 2023. The total purchase price is $13,350,000 or $84.39 per square foot of land area, or $34,675 per unit. This comparable represents the sale of a 0.44-acre (19,166-square-foot) site located at 23930 Highway 99 in Edmonds, WA. The site has corner frontage along Highway 99 and 240th Street SW and is irregular in shape. The site is zoned CG (general commercial) by the city of Lynnwood, which allows for maximum lot coverage of 35% and a wide range of commercial uses, office, lodging, and light industrial. The property is also within the Highway 99 corridor on the city's future land-use maps, which allows for multifamily residential and mixed-use development with building heights up to 90 feet and FAR of 3.0 if developed with a density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre (50-foot height limit and maximum FAR of 1.0 of developed at a lower density). At the time of sale, the property was improved with a 2,140 square- foot office building. The site sold to the existing tenant as a direct deal between the buyer and seller. The buyer plans to continue to operate their business at this location, however the value was in the land and no additional value was given to the office building. Although this was a direct deal with the former tenant, the sale was arm's length and generally at market pricing. This comparable is the sale of a 1.4-acre site located at the corner of Highway 99 and 330th Street SW in Edmonds, Washington. The property was improved with a 9,978-SF retail center, car lot, and billboard at the time of sale. The site is zoned GC, General Commercial, and was marketed as a redevelopment site. The building was 100% occupied at the time of sale. The property sold in May 2021 for $3,050,000, or $50.01/SF of land. The buyer indicated that the seller inherited this property and wanted a quick closing and may have received a discounted price for this reason. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 96/237 We have considered the Dates of Sale in our analysis of all of the comparable sales, though per standard ATF methodology, we have not considered size or shape of the comparable sales. When necessary, adjustments were made for differences in various elements of comparison, including property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, expenditures made immediately after purchase, market conditions, location, and other physical characteristics. If the element in comparison is considered superior to that of the subject, we applied a negative adjustment. Conversely, a positive adjustment was applied if inferior. A summary of the elements of comparison follows. Transaction adjustments include (1) real property rights conveyed, (2) financing terms, (3) conditions of sale, and (4) expenditures made immediately after purchase. These items, which are applied prior to the market conditions and property adjustments, are discussed as follows. Real property rights conveyed influence sale prices and must be considered when analyzing a sale comparable. The comparables are considered to be reflective of fee simple interests. A downward adjustment is applied to Sale 3, as it reportedly sold with some entitlements in place. No adjustments are made to the remaining sales. As discussed above, several utilities exist within the subject, and it is our understanding that the majority will require retained easements upon vacation of the right-of-way. Our analysis first evaluates the subject property as unencumbered, followed by a diminution reflecting the effects of retained easements on the utility of the property. The transaction price of one property may differ from that of an identical property due to different financial arrangements. Sales involving financing terms that are not at or near market terms require adjustments for cash equivalency to reflect typical market terms. A cash equivalency procedure discounts the atypical mortgage terms to provide an indication of value at cash equivalent terms. The selected sales were reflective of cash transactions. Sales which occurred under unusual or atypical conditions require adjustments for conditions of sale. This category is different from the adjustment for time, which will be dealt with subsequently. An upward adjustment is made to Sale 6, because the seller reportedly wanted a quick closing, which may have affected the sale price, per the buyer. Market conditions change over time because of inflation, deflation, fluctuations in supply and demand, or other factors. Changing market conditions may create a need for adjustment to comparable sale transactions completed during periods of dissimilar market conditions. The comparable sales represent transactions from mid-2021 to early 2024. A review of market data (see market analysis section) indicates that rents have generally been increasing for improved multifamily residential and retail properties, and demand is anticipated to remain relatively strong overall. However, increased interest rates through the second half of 2022 into 2023 in response persistent inflation have affected pricing for improved properties, per CoStar. Our review of the subject’s market area made clear that paired sales activity is extremely limited for mixed-use land. Our discussions with brokers, developers, as well as observations of ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 97/237 market activity, lead us to conclude that the pace of sales for properties similar to the subject is characterized by relatively few sales each year. Further discussions indicate that while land values generally increased into 2022, interest-rate increases and market uncertainty have led to decreases since the height of the market in mid-2022, with many developers and investors refraining from new acquisitions in the current market. As such, we have applied a modest downward adjustment to Sale 5, which occurred in early 2022, near the peak of the market and prior to the commencement of interest-rate increases. An upward adjustment is made to Sale 6, which took place in May of 2021. No adjustments are made to the remaining sales, all of which closed after interest-rate increases began. Property adjustments can be expressed quantitatively – as percentages or dollar amounts that reflect the differences in value attributable to the various characteristics of the property – or qualitatively, depending upon the availability of data in a particular submarket. Our analysis applies the latter, based on locational and physical characteristics and are applied after transactional and market conditions adjustments. Our reasoning for the property adjustments made to each sale comparable follows. The discussion analyzes each adjustment category deemed applicable to the subject property. Location adjustments may be required when the locational characteristics of a comparable are different from those of the subject. These characteristics can include market area, general neighborhood characteristics, neighboring properties, and other factors. To support adjustments for location, we have relied on demographic data, CoStar rent and pricing metrics, discussions with market participants, development trends, and our experience appraising mixed-use and multifamily land within the market area. The following chart shows selected demographics within three miles of the subject and comparable sales. LAND SALES LOCATION ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS Comparable Number Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 Address 84th Avenue W.19110 Highway 99 2826 164th Street SW 3225 164th Street SW 18005 Aurora Ave N 23930 Highway 99 22908 Highway 99 Radius for Demographic Analysis 3 Mile Radius 3 Mile Radius 3 Mile Radius 3 Mile Radius 3 Mile Radius 3 Mile Radius 3 Mile Radius 2024 Households 53,657 51,530 58,618 57,900 51,013 54,158 57,405 2024 Average Household Income $152,499 $137,881 $133,482 $133,402 $155,016 $152,634 $149,536 AHI Relative to Subject ----9.6%-12.5%-12.5%1.7%0.1%-1.9% 2024 Median Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units $828,811 $785,956 $767,101 $771,727 $834,129 $828,077 $831,128 2024 % Renter Occupied Housing Units 35.2%37.5%41.7%41.8%37.3%35.2%35.5% 2024 % College/Graduate Degree Age 25+51.5%43.4%41.3%41.4%54.2%51.3%49.6% 2024 Median Age 42.3 40.3 37.5 37.6 41.7 42.3 42.3 Indicated Qualitative Adjustment ---Inferior Inferior Inferior No Adj.No Adj.No Adj. Compiled by CBRE The chart above supports upward adjustments to Sales 1 through 3, which are located further north in Lynnwood and unincorporated Snohomish County (near Lynnwood), areas with inferior demographic characteristics, notably household income. The chart above indicates no adjustments are required for Sales 4 through 6; however, a downward adjustment is made to Sale 4, as it is located in Shoreline in an area with substantial mixed-use and multifamily redevelopment taking place. Located near the subject in Edmonds, no adjustments are applied to Sales 5 and 6. Site quality adjustments are also somewhat subjective and can include, but are not limited to overall appeal, visibility and exposure, impact by critical areas, encumbering easements, and physical characteristics suitable for development. The subject abuts the Highway 99 corridor (albeit somewhat set ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 98/237 back from the developed roadway) and somewhat benefits from frontage on Highway 99, a highly traveled commercial corridor with average visibility and exposure. (We note that no access from Highway 99 would be permitted according to information provided by WSDOT, addressed in Access/Utilities adjustments below.) All of the sales have frontage on major roadways. Sales 2, 3, 5, and 6 are corner sites, warranting downward adjustments. No adjustments are warranted for the remaining sales. As noted, several easements for existing utilities will be reserved upon vacation, according to our discussions with the various utility providers. Our analysis first evaluates the subject property as unencumbered, followed by a diminution reflecting the effects of retained easements on the utility of the property. All of the comparables are located in zones in which mixed-use development is permitted. Density varies by zone and governing jurisdiction. The market is not sufficiently precise to account for minor differences in permitted density; however, our discussions with local brokers indicate developers will pay more for land with higher allowable density, or with no density limitations. We have also considered the practicality of maximizing density based upon other limitations including building coverage ratios, density limitations and height restrictions, to name a few. The following chart outlines the various zoning requirements of the subject and the comparables. ZONING MATRIX CG CG UC TC Edmonds Lynnwood SnoCo Lynnwood Comp Sbj., 5, 6 1 2, 3 4 Maximum Height (Ft.)75 None 1 90-125 70 Maximum Density (DU/Ac.)None None None None Minimum Setbacks Front/Street (Ft.)10 0-15 -0 Side (Ft.)---0 2 Rear (Ft.)---0 3 Maximum Lot Coverage (%)-35-100 -95% 4 Maximum FAR -3.0:1 3.75:1 - Permitted Uses Multifamily residential, mixed-use, comm./ retial, office, industrial, lodging Mixed-use, comm./ retail, office, limited light industrial, lodging Multifamily residential, mixed-use, comm./ retail, office, lodging Multifamily residential, mixed-use, comm./ retail, office, lodging 1 No height limit per CG zoning. 90' height limit (six stories) for multifamily mixed-use 2 25' from RS zone, 15' from RM zone 2 50' from RS zone, 25' from RM zone 3 Hardscape Compiled by CBRE The market is not sufficiently precise to account for minor differences development criteria; however, our discussions with local brokers indicate developers will pay more for land fewer restrictions related to height, parking, uses, etc. The aforementioned premium is difficult to quantify with the data available, thus qualitative adjustments have been made as appropriate, to address inferior/superior zoning relative to the subject. The zoning jurisdictions of Sales 1 through 3 allow for greater building heights than the subject’s zoning; however, Sales 1 through 3 have zoning in which floor area ratio (FAR) is limited by code, unlike the subject. Overall, modest upward adjustments are made to Sales 1 through 3. No adjustments are applied to the remaining sales. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 99/237 As discussed previously, the subject has frontage on Highway 99, but access from Highway 99 (and Edmonds Way) would be prohibited by WSDOT, with access to the subject site relegated to 84th Avenue W. Although sufficient access to the subject exists, the access is considered inferior to several of the comparable sales, particularly as it relates to commercial and mixed-use appeal. Sales 1, 3, 4, and 6 benefit from direct access to/from their major fronting roadways, and downward adjustments are made. Access to the remaining sales is via secondary streets, and no adjustments are applied. Based on our comparative analysis, the following chart summarizes the adjustments warranted to each comparable. As noted earlier, these qualitative adjustments were based on our market research, best judgment, and experience in the appraisal of similar properties. LAND SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID - CG ZONED PORTION Comparable Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Transaction Date Mar-24 Dec-23 Nov-22 Oct-22 Feb-22 May-21 Actual Sale Price $3,250,000 $10,500,000 $11,840,000 $13,350,000 $1,425,000 $3,050,000 Adjusted Sale Price 1 $3,250,000 $10,500,000 $11,840,000 $13,350,000 $1,425,000 $3,050,000 Size (SF)67,082 253,084 213,444 158,195 19,166 60,984 Adj. Price Per SF $48.45 $41.49 $55.47 $84.39 $74.35 $50.01 Property Rights Conveyed 0 0 Sup(-)0 0 0 Financing Terms 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conditions of Sale 0 0 0 0 0 Inf(+) Market Conditions (Time)0 0 0 0 Sup(-)Inf(+) Interim Indication $48.45 $41.49 <$55.47 $84.39 <$74.35 >$50.01 Location Inf(+)Inf(+)Inf(+)Sup(-)No Adj.No Adj. Site Quality No Adj.Sup(-)Sup(-)No Adj.Sup(-)Sup(-) Land Use/Zoning Inf(+)Inf(+)Inf(+)No Adj.No Adj.No Adj. Access/Utilities Sup(-)No Adj.Sup(-)Sup(-)No Adj.Sup(-) Cumulative Indication Inferior Inferior Superior Superior Superior Similar $48.45 >$41.49 $55.47 <$84.39 <$74.35 $50.01 Compiled by CBRE 1 Adjusted sale price for cash equivalency and/or development costs (where applicable) Prior to adjustments, the comparable sales indicate a wide range of value for the subject from roughly $41 to $84 per site square foot. After adjustments, the range narrows, with Sale 1 establishing the low end of the range at $48.45 per square foot and Sale 3 setting the upper end of the range at $55.47 per square foot. Sale 6 ($50) is considered similar to the subject overall, suggesting a value for the subject nearer the lower end of the indicated range. In consideration of all of the above, as of October 5, 2024, a value of $50.00 per square foot for the to-be CG-zoned portion of subject property is considered reasonable and supported prior to consideration of the effect of retained utility easements, discussed below. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 100/237 The following map and table summarize the comparable data used in the valuation of the subject RM-2.4- zoned portion of the subject. A detailed description of each transaction is included in the addenda. SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES - CG ZONED PORTION Planned/ Actual Sale Adjusted Sale Size Size Potential Density Adj. Price Adj. Price Adj. Price No. 1 Property Location Date Price Price 2 (SF) (Acres) Units (DU/Ac.)Per Acre Per SF Per Unit Zoning 7 2826 164th Street SW Lynnwood, WA 98087 Dec-23 $10,500,000 $10,500,000 253,084 5.81 125 21.51 $1,807,229 $41.49 $84,000 UC SnoCo 8 15732 40th Ave W Lynnwood, WA 98087 Nov-23 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 51,840 1.19 28 23.53 $2,688,850 $61.73 $114,286 UC SnoCo 9 1700 NE 145th Street Shoreline, WA 98155 Aug-23 $548,000 $548,000 8,798 0.20 5 24.75 $2,712,871 $62.29 $109,600 R-48 Shoreline 10 75XX 212th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Jun-23 $300,000 $300,000 10,019 0.23 4 17.39 $1,304,348 $29.94 $75,000 RM-2.4 Edmonds 11 15501 Midvale Avenue N. Shoreline, WA 98133 Jun-22 $524,700 $524,700 10,204 0.23 25 106.70 $2,239,437 $51.42 $20,988 MB/R-48 Shoreline Subject Portion of 84th Avenue W. ROW ---------11,684 0.27 N/A 18.15 ---------RM-2.4 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds 1 Sale 7 is the same transaction as Sale 2 from the CG-zoned analysis. It has been renumbered here for sequencing and ease of reading 2 Adjusted sale price for cash equivalency and/or development costs (where applicable) Compiled by CBRE Transaction ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 101/237 "This is the December 2023 sale of a vacant 5.81-acre tax parcel located at the corner of 164th Street SW and Manor Way in unincorporated Snohomish County, near Lynnwood. The property is somewhat irregular in shape and is generally level overall. It is zoned UC (Urban Center) by Snohomish County, a mixed-use zone permitting base building heights of 90 feet, with increases up to 125 feet if located within 1/8-mile of certain transit options. All utilities are available. The property went on the market in early June 2023, unpriced, and the listing broker stated that there was strong interest. It went under contract in late August of 2023 with a typical feasibility period and closing expected by the end of the year. Per the broker, the buyer intends to develop the property with primarily multifamily residential use. The property sold on December 19, 2023, for $10.500.000, or $41.49 per square foot. According to a preliminary application submitted just after closing (23-119796-000-00-PA), the buyer planned to develop the property with 130 townhome units. A subsequent preliminary application submitted in January 2024 (24-101602-000-00-PA) indicates revised plans for a 125-unit Townhouse Unit Lot Subdivision. The sale price equates to $80,769 per unit at 130 units (planned as of closing) and $84,000 per unit at 125 units (most recent information)." This comparable represents the November 2023 sale of the 1.19-acre development parcel located at 15732 40th Ave W in unincorporated Snohomish County but with a mailing address in Lynnwood, Washington. The rectangular, unimproved lot is mostly level with a maximum 7% grade in some parts and was essentially landlocked at the southern end of 40th Avenue, with multifamily developments to the south and east, and a mobile home park to the west fronting Highway 99/Aurora Ave. The seller spent the last couple years obtaining environmental approvals and entitlements for a 28-unit townhome development. It was not openly marketed but sold for $3,200,000, or $61.73 per square foot to a multifamily developer. This is the August 2023 transaction of an 8,798-square-foot redevelopment site located at the corner of NE 145th Street and 17th Avenue NE in Shoreline. It is rectangularly shaped with generally moderately sloping topography, and the property sits several feet above the NE 145th Street frontage. It is zoned R- 48 by the city of Shoreline, a multifamily residential zone permitting a maximum density of 48 dwelling units per acre and base building heights of 35 feet. The property is improved with an older, boarded-up single-family residence that is not considered contributory to value. According to the listing broker, due to site and access constraints, the property is expected to yield five to six townhome units--a density of 25 units per acre at five units. The broker stated that the property was previously under contract, but the transaction fell through due to an overseas seller and issues with title which have since been resolved. The asking price was reduced to $550,000 in late May of 2023. The property went under contract pending feasibility on June 24, 2023, with a 30-day feasibility period and closing expected thereafter. The listing broker stated that the buyer intends to pursue development of five townhomes. The sale closed in August 2023 for $548,000, or about $110,000 per unit at five units ($62 per square foot). This is the June 2023 sale of a 10,019-square-foot (0.23-acre) vacant lot located off of 212th Street SW in north Edmonds. The property is rectangular in shape, with mostly level topography and an area of sloping topography at the east. It is zoned RM2.4 by the City of Edmonds, a multifamily residential zone ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 102/237 permitting a density of one dwelling unit per 2,400 site square feet (about 18 units per acre) and building heights of 25 feet. The property is part of the Arbor Villa condo development and is subject to CC&Rs. It is accessed through the condo development via an access and utilities easement. The listing broker stated that development would likely require release from the CC&Rs and stated that pushback from the condo association is expected (and had occurred in past attempts to develop). Nonetheless, the buyer reportedly intends to pursue development of four units on the property (either townhomes or a fourplex), and the sale price is said to reflect the challenges ahead. The property sold on June 20, 2023, for $300,000, or $75,000 per potential unit and $29.94 per square foot. This is the June 2022 sale of a 10,204-square-foot (0.23-acre) vacant lot located at the corner of Midvale Avenue N and N 155th Street in Shoreline, one parcel removed from SR-99. The property is somewhat narrowly (60-foot-deep) rectangular in shape and has moderately sloping topography from north to south. It is split-zone, with the northern roughly 35% zoned R-48 and the remainder zoned MB (mixed business). The R-48 is a multifamily residential zone permitting 48 dwelling units per acre and building heights of 30 feet; the MB zone is a mixed-use use zone permitting heights up 70 feet with no expressed density limits. However, per SMC 20.50.020.D.1, the boundary line between the zone is treated as a lot line, and setbacks are enforced from the boundary. According to discussions with Shoreline planning personnel, after the sale, the buyer conducted pre-application meetings regarding the development of a 25-unit mixed-use structure on the MB-zoned portion and a duplex on the R-48-zoned area--with the required setbacks from the zone boundary line impacting potential development. The property sold on June 1, 2022, for $524,700, or $51.42 per square foot ($20,988 per unit at the proposed 25 units). ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 103/237 We have considered the Dates of Sale in our analysis of all of the comparable sales, though per standard ATF methodology, we have not considered size or shape of the comparable sales. When necessary, adjustments were made for differences in various elements of comparison, including property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, expenditures made immediately after purchase, market conditions, location, and other physical characteristics. If the element in comparison is considered superior to that of the subject, we applied a negative adjustment. Conversely, a positive adjustment was applied if inferior. A summary of the elements of comparison follows. Additional discussion regarding the elements of comparison below can be found in the analysis of the CG-zoned portion above. The comparables are considered to be reflective of fee simple interests. Sale 8 transacted with entitlements for a 28-unit townhome development, and a significant downward adjustment is made. An upward adjustment is applied to Sale 10, which would reportedly need to be released from CC&Rs prior to development. No adjustments are made to the remaining sales. Retained easements are addressed subsequent to our conclusion of the fee value of the subject. The selected sales were reflective of cash transactions. No adjustments are applied. No adjustments are warranted for conditions of sale. We have applied a modest downward adjustment to Sale 5, which occurred in mid-2022, near the peak of the market and prior to the impact of interest-rate increases. No adjustments are applied to the remaining sales. Sales 1 and 2 are located further north in unincorporated Snohomish County, near Lynnwood, and upward adjustments are made. Downward adjustments are applied to Sales 9 and 11, which are located in Shoreline. No adjustment is made to Sale 10, which is situated in north Edmonds. As it relates to medium-density multifamily residential development, frontage and visibility/exposure along major roadways is considered to be largely offset by the elevated traffic noise and overall activity. All of the sales are considered suitable for medium-density multifamily residential development, and no adjustments are made. Retained easements are addressed subsequent to our conclusion of the fee value of the subject. All of the comparables are located in zones in which multifamily development is permitted. As discussed in the Zoning subsection of the Site Analysis above, the subject’s RM-2.4 zoning permits a density of one ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 104/237 dwelling unit per 2,400 site square feet (roughly 18 dwelling units per acre) and base building heights of 25 feet. The Snohomish County UC zoning of Sale 7 and 8 allows for much greater building heights with no expressed density limitations. Significant downward adjustments are warranted, though the fact the each of these properties was purchased for townhome development tempers the adjustment somewhat. Sale 9 is zoned R-48 by the city of Shoreline, which allows for 48 dwelling units per acre and buildings up to 35 feet, warranting a downward adjustment similar to those made to Sales 1 and 2. A more modest downward adjustment is applied to Sale 11, which is split-zoned MB (Mixed Business) and R-48 by the city of Shoreline. The adjustment is tempered because under Shoreline zoning code, the zoning line is treated as a lot line for setback purposes, which reportedly impacts the development potential of the site. No adjustment is made to Sale 10, which like the subject, is zoned RM-2.4 by the city of Edmonds. The subject and all of the comparable sales have adequate access and access to all utilities. No adjustments are applied. Based on our comparative analysis, the following chart summarizes the adjustments warranted to each comparable. As noted earlier, these qualitative adjustments were based on our market research, best judgment, and experience in the appraisal of similar properties. LAND SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID - RM-2.4 ZONED PORTION Comparable Number 7 8 9 10 11 Transaction Date Dec-23 Nov-23 Aug-23 Jun-23 Jun-22 Actual Sale Price $10,500,000 $3,200,000 $548,000 $300,000 $524,700 Adjusted Sale Price 1 $10,500,000 $3,200,000 $548,000 $300,000 $524,700 Size (SF)253,084 51,840 8,798 10,019 10,204 Adj. Price Per SF $41.49 $61.73 $62.29 $29.94 $51.42 Property Rights Conveyed 0 Sup(--)0 Inf(+)0 Financing Terms 0 0 0 0 0 Conditions of Sale 0 0 0 0 0 Market Conditions (Time)0 0 0 0 Sup(-) Interim Indication $41.49 $61.73 <$62.29 $29.94 <$51.42 Location Inf(+)Inf(+)Sup(-)No Adj.Sup(-) Site Quality No Adj.No Adj.No Adj.No Adj.No Adj. Land Use/Zoning Sup(--)Sup(--)Sup(--)No Adj.Sup(-) Access/Utilities No Adj.No Adj.No Adj.No Adj.No Adj. Cumulative Indication Superior Superior Superior Inferior Superior <$41.49 <$61.73 <$62.29 >$29.94 <$51.42 Compiled by CBRE 1 Adjusted sale price for cash equivalency and/or development costs (where applicable) Prior to adjustments, the comparable sales indicate a wide range of value for the subject from roughly $30 to $62 per site square foot. After adjustments, the range narrows, with Sale 10 establishing the low end of the range at $30 per square foot and Sale 7 setting the upper end of the range at $$41 per square foot. Sale 10 is considered most similar to the subject overall, suggesting a value for the subject somewhat nearer the lower end of the indicated range, though development of Sale 10 would ostensibly require release from CC&Rs (which the buyer believed could be obtained). Furthermore, the far superior zoning of Sale 7, allowing for much greater building heights and intensity of use, is somewhat offset by its inferior location and planned townhome development of the property. Overall, a value for the subject near ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 105/237 the middle of the indicated range is appropriate. In consideration of all of the above, as of October 5, 2024, a value of $35.00 per square foot for the to-be RM-2.4-zoned portion of subject property is considered reasonable and supported prior to consideration of the effect of retained utility easements, discussed below. As a test of reasonableness, we have also evaluated the subject based on price per potential dwelling unit. In this analysis, we recognize that the subject is not suitable for independent development and have considered a representative parcel while still omitting size considerations. For the purposes of this analysis, the subject is analyzed as if assembled to create a 48,000-square-foot parcel which can support 20 dwelling units per the underlying RM-2.4 zoning. Prior to adjustments, the comparables indicate a range of $20,988 to $114,286 per unit. Sales 7 through 10 were purchased with potential townhome development in mind, which we believe to be representative use of city of Edmonds RM-2.4-zoned land given the development criteria. These sales range from $75,000 to $114,286, with the upper end of the range being the entitled Sale 8. The previously concluded per-square-foot value of $35.00 applied to a 48,000-square-foot representative lot equates to $84,000 per potential dwelling unit, which is bracketed by the comparable sales, supporting our per-square-foot value conclusion. As noted in the Easements and Encumbrances subsection of the Site Analysis there are multiple utilities located within and adjacent to the subject. These utilities include a subsurface water main and sewer main (Olympic View Water and Sewer District), and a natural gas main (PSE). The utilities generally run north-south. According to city of Olympic View Water and Sewer District personnel, easements would be reserved for the existing water and sewer utilities within the subject. A representative for Olympic View Water and Sewer District stated that typical easement widths for water and sewer utilities are 15 feet and prohibit structures within easement areas but allow for modest surface uses such as right-of-way, circulation, parking, and landscaping. While we have not had direct contact with PSE regarding its gas line, the client has relayed that PSE would require an easement with a width of five feet on either side of the centerline of the facilities (10 feet total), with no structures allowed within the easement area. This is in line with the many PSE underground utility easements we have reviewed and is considered reliable. The following chart and map illustrate the to-be-retained easements as we understand them. RETAINED EASEMENTS Utility/Item General Location 1 Assumed Retained Esmt. Width (Ft.) 2 Water Main Eastern portion in north, crossing to the west in south 15 Sewer Main Western portion 15 Natural Gas Line Eastern portion 10 1 Water and sewer location per Edmonds GIS mapping, gas line estimated per image of utility locate sketch Compiled by CBRE 2 Easement width for storm drain per Edmonds Public Works personnel; easement width for sewer per Olympic View Water & Sewer District personnel; easement width for gas line per client conversation with PSE ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 106/237 (Northern boundary of proposed vacation is roughly 13 feet north of boundary as shown above. See survey in Addenda.) In the map above, estimated retained waterline easement is outlined and shaded in blue, sewer is in red, natural gas is in orange, and storm drain is in green. Water, sewer, and storm utility locations are per city of Edmonds GIS mapping, and the natural gas line is an approximation of imagery provided by the client (from a utility locate technician). An easement involves a discount to the value of a property to account for the loss of property rights associated with the easement. In accordance with the “bundle of rights” theory of property, real property can be analyzed as a bundle of rights or a bundle of sticks with the fee interest representing the complete bundle. An easement under this analogy represents the loss or the taking of some of these rights, or sticks, in the bundle. Typically, the property is then of less value due to the owner’s loss of some rights associated with fee ownership. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 107/237 Impacts due to easements are based upon actual sales, transactions by public and private entities, case studies, and literature published by the Appraisal Institute and the American Right of Way Association. Our easement experience includes numerous Appraisals of actual acquired easements including the following: - Powerlines - Sewer lines - Natural gas lines - Water lines - Sidewalk, slope, and construction easements - Wall and wall maintenance easements - Road rights-of-way - Avigation easements - Conservation easements - Flowage easements Our experience reflects the full range of loss depending on utility for future use. Easement acquisition impacts are derived, in part, from ongoing surveys performed by our firm. The surveys involve interviews with numerous parties that either own significant corridors or rights-of-way and/or are active in obtaining and granting easements, licenses, permits, and other similar instruments. We have interviewed representatives of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Puget Sound Energy (PSE), Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), and Snohomish County PUD, as well as employees at various cities and utility districts in the Puget Sound region. The surveys revealed that the calculation of easement damages for subterranean easements may range generally from 10% to 50% with the lower end of the range for easements along the periphery of property boundaries, or within areas that are otherwise not buildable due to setbacks required by zoning. Aerial and surface easements tend to reflect increased discounts above 50%, and in some cases, close to 100%. This higher discount reflects the increased reduction in potential uses afforded to the underlying fee simple property owner by such easements. The following are specific examples based on our surveys from various agencies for easements: ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 108/237 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)Surface &High Voltage 25% to 100%*See Note 1 Aerial Power Transmission Lines * Low end of range paid by BPA for esmts. in rural and agricultural areas; Higher end (75-100%) of range is in urban areas Note 1) Typically released to owners at no cost. Theory being BPA has reached full benefit of that easement. In cases where acquired, but surplused & never used, can be amt. BPA paid, or FMV times a discount. No specific examples were available. City of Kenmore Surface Slope Easements 30% As part of the SR-522 Highway Improvement project, City of Kenmore acquired various surface and subsurface easements for the project. Puget Sound Energy (PSE)Surface, Subsurface Road & Utility 50%*No specific cases & Aerial Crossings Subsurface Linear Pipe 25% to 50% (37.5% avg)** 25% to 75%*** *Discount applied by PSE for minor esmt. crossings in urban areas. For remote locations, a min. fee of $500 is charged. **Granted by PSE to SPU for Tolt 2-water pipeline encumbering 30' of the 150' corridor *** Disc. Applied to the esmt area only for PSE acquired easements. Low end for esmts in required setbacks. Snohomish County PUD (SnoPUD)Surface & Subsurface Utility Crossings 50-100%*No specific cases 10-20%** *Discount applied by SnoPUD for significant encumbrance. **Discount applied for less signficant encumbrance, with low-end of discount pertaining to w/in setback areas. Sammamish Water & Sewer Surface & Subsurface Utility Crossings 15-50%*No specific cases *Discount applied by Samm Water based on either Appraisal or Assessed Value. Seattle City Light Surface & Subsurface Utility Crossings 25-100%*No specific cases See Note 1 *Discount applied by Seattle City: 25-50% for less significant encumbrances; 75-100% for Transmission Lines. Note 1) No specific case for reversionary interests; however, would likely perform in reverse of easement acquisition (i.e. sell back @ same discount). Woodinville Water District Subsurface Utility Crossings 15-25%*No specific cases *Discount applied by Woodinville Water: 15-25% for easement encumbrances; based on either Appraisal or Assessed Value. Alderwood Water District Subsurface Utility Crossings 30-40%*No specific cases *Discount applied by Alderwood Water: 30-40% depending on level of easement encumbrance. King County DOT Surface & Subsurface Road & Utility 50-100%*No specific cases Crossings *Discount applied by King County DOT with 1 of 3 classes: A Class Road (DOT Paid for it & maintain it): Discount applied at 100% of Appraised or Assessed Value. B Class Road (DOT didn't pay for it but maintain it): Discount applied at 75% of Appraised or Assessed Value. C Class Road (DOT didn't pay for it & don't maintain it): Discount applied at 50% of Appraised or Assessed Value. Northshore Utility District (NUD)Subsurface Water & Sewer 25% to 50%* Mains/Crossings *Low end of range paid by NUD using Assessed Value for esmt. in a yard setback; higher end reflecting site area outside of a required setback. Source: CBRE VAS Group SUMMARY OF EASEMENT SUPPORT INFORMATION The relative impacts from the easement are still analyzed pursuant to highest and best use of the subject. In addition to our survey and research, the following published information provides guidance for support of diminution in value for various easements: ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 109/237 Appraisal of Easements under the State Rule, Appraisal Journal Negligible Restrictions None, ephemeral or occasional Nominal to 10% Variable Restrictions Physical joint use of surface 50% more or less Exclusive Restrictions Exclusion of owners private use 90% to 100% Compiled by CBRE No change to HBU or Larger Parcel Variable change to HBU and/or Larger Parcel Substantial change in HBU; Severance from Larger Parcel EASEMENT RIGHTS BALANCE SHEET The above chart was written by Donald Sherwood, SR/WA for the May/June 2006 Right of Way Journal. The following chart was published in the November/December 2014 edition of the Right of Way Magazine: EASEMENT VALUATION MATRIX Percentage of Fee Potential Types of Easements 90% - 100% Overhead electric, flowage easements, railroad right of way, irrigation canals, exclusive access easements 75% - 89% Overhead electric, pipelines, drainage easements, railroad right of way, flowage easements 51% - 74%Pipelines, scenic easements 50%Water or sewer lines, cable lines, telecommunications 26% - 49%Water or sewer lines, cable lines 11% - 25%Air rights, water or sewer line 0% - 10%Small subsurface easement Compiled by CBRE -Location along a property line -Location across non-usable land area -Subsurface or air rights with minimal effect on use and utility -Location within a setback -Nominal effect on use and utility Comments -Some impact on surface use -Conveyance of ingress/egress rights -Balanced use by both owner and easement holder -Severe impact on surface use -Conveyance of future uses -Major impact on surface use -Conveyance of future uses These charts have been included here as a general guide in examining the effect an easement may have on the total bundle of rights when considering the level of severity/impact of the easement, and whether or not there is a potential for change of the highest and best use of the site. Exclusive Surface Use 75%100% Joint Surface Use/Access 25%75% Air Rights (Gudeways, Powerlines)25%75% Subsurface 15%50% Compiled by CBRE TYPICAL EASEMENT DISCOUNTS ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 110/237 Given that the retained easements would prohibit structures within the easement areas, they are considered to significantly impact the utility of the subject property, effectively limiting potential uses to modest surface use only. While portions of the subject are situated outside easement areas as shown above, these areas are largely limited in utility as well due to retained easements resulting in effective severance from other buildable land. Accordingly, we have applied a diminution of 75% to the subject property overall, reflecting the lack of utility of the site in light of retained easements, summarized below. ACROSS-THE-FENCE LAND VALUE CONCLUSIONS Area Base Land Value Diminution Existing Value Total Exist. Value CG-Zoned Portion 11,684 SF $50.00/SF 75%$12.50/SF $146,050 RM-2.4-Zoned Portion 12,000 SF $35.00/SF 75%$8.75/SF $105,000 Total:23,684 SF Total (Rounded):$250,000 Compiled by CBRE ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 111/237 The following chart summarizes our conclusions as of October 5, 2024: SUMMARY OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS CG-Zoned Portion $146,050 RM-2.4-Zoned Portion $105,000 Total (Rounded)$250,000 Compiled by CBRE Our conclusions reflect the subject property as encumbered by retained easements as we understand them per our discussions with the various utility providers. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 112/237 CBRE, Inc. through its appraiser (collectively, “CBRE”) has inspected through reasonable observation the subject property. However, it is not possible or reasonably practicable to personally inspect conditions beneath the soil and the entire interior and exterior of the improvements on the subject property. Therefore, no representation is made as to such matters. 1. The report, including its conclusions and any portion of such report (the “Report”), is as of the date set forth in the letter of transmittal and based upon the information, market, economic, and property conditions and projected levels of operation existing as of such date. The dollar amount of any conclusion as to value in the Report is based upon the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar on such date. The Report is subject to change as a result of fluctuations in any of the foregoing. CBRE has no obligation to revise the Report to reflect any such fluctuations or other events or conditions which occur subsequent to such date. 2. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, CBRE has assumed that: (i) Title to the subject property is clear and marketable and that there are no recorded or unrecorded matters or exceptions to title that would adversely affect marketability or value. CBRE has not examined title records (including without limitation liens, encumbrances, easements, deed restrictions, and other conditions that may affect the title or use of the subject property) and makes no representations regarding title or its limitations on the use of the subject property. Insurance against financial loss that may arise out of defects in title should be sought from a qualified title insurance company. (ii) Existing improvements on the subject property conform to applicable local, state, and federal building codes and ordinances, are structurally sound and seismically safe, and have been built and repaired in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices; all building systems (mechanical/electrical, HVAC, elevator, plumbing, etc.) are in good working order with no major deferred maintenance or repair required; and the roof and exterior are in good condition and free from intrusion by the elements. CBRE has not retained independent structural, mechanical, electrical, or civil engineers in connection with this appraisal and, therefore, makes no representations relative to the condition of improvements. CBRE appraisers are not engineers and are not qualified to judge matters of an engineering nature, and furthermore structural problems or building system problems may not be visible. It is expressly assumed that any purchaser would, as a precondition to closing a sale, obtain a satisfactory engineering report relative to the structural integrity of the property and the integrity of building systems. (iii) Any proposed improvements, on or off-site, as well as any alterations or repairs considered will be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. (iv) Hazardous materials are not present on the subject property. CBRE is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, contaminated groundwater, mold, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. (v) No mineral deposit or subsurface rights of value exist with respect to the subject property, whether gas, liquid, or solid, and no air or development rights of value may be transferred. CBRE has not considered any rights associated with extraction or exploration of any resources, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. (vi) There are no contemplated public initiatives, governmental development controls, rent controls, or changes in the present zoning ordinances or regulations governing use, density, or shape that would significantly affect the value of the subject property. (vii) All required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be readily obtained or renewed for any use on which the Report is based. (viii) The subject property is managed and operated in a prudent and competent manner, neither inefficiently, nor super-efficiently. (ix) The subject property and its use, management, and operation are in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, laws, and restrictions, including without limitation environmental laws, seismic hazards, flight patterns, decibel levels/noise envelopes, fire hazards, hillside ordinances, density, allowable uses, building codes, permits, and licenses. (x) The subject property is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CBRE is not qualified to assess the subject property’s compliance with the ADA, notwithstanding any discussion of possible readily achievable barrier removal construction items in the Report. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 113/237 (xi) All information regarding the areas and dimensions of the subject property furnished to CBRE are correct, and no encroachments exist. CBRE has neither undertaken any survey of the boundaries of the subject property, nor reviewed or confirmed the accuracy of any legal description of the subject property. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, no issues regarding the foregoing were brought to CBRE’s attention, and CBRE has no knowledge of any such facts affecting the subject property. If any information inconsistent with any of the foregoing assumptions is discovered, such information could have a substantial negative impact on the Report and any conclusions stated therein. Accordingly, if any such information is subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any conditions regarding the foregoing, or for any expertise or knowledge required to discover them. Any user of the Report is urged to retain an expert in the applicable field(s) for information regarding such conditions. 3. CBRE has assumed that all documents, data and information furnished by or on behalf of the client, property owner or owner’s representative are accurate and correct, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. Such data and information include, without limitation, numerical street addresses, lot and block numbers, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers, land dimensions, square footage area of the land, dimensions of the improvements, gross building areas, net rentable areas, usable areas, unit count, room count, rent schedules, income data, historical operating expenses, budgets, and related data. Any error in any of the above could have a substantial impact on the Report and any conclusions stated therein. Accordingly, if any such errors are subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. The client and intended user should carefully review all assumptions, data, relevant calculations, and conclusions of the Report and should immediately notify CBRE of any questions or errors within 30 days after the date of delivery of the Report. 4. CBRE assumes no responsibility (including any obligation to procure the same) for any documents, data or information not provided to CBRE, including, without limitation, any termite inspection, survey or occupancy permit. 5. All furnishings, equipment and business operations have been disregarded with only real property being considered in the Report, except as otherwise expressly stated and typically considered part of real property. 6. Any cash flows included in the analysis are forecasts of estimated future operating characteristics based upon the information and assumptions contained within the Report. Any projections of income, expenses and economic conditions utilized in the Report, including such cash flows, should be considered as only estimates of the expectations of future income and expenses as of the date of the Report and not predictions of the future. This Report has been prepared in good faith, based on CBRE's current anecdotal and evidence-based views of the commercial real estate market. Although CBRE believes its views reflect market conditions on the date of this Report, they are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond CBRE's control. In addition, many of CBRE's views are opinion and/or projections based on CBRE's subjective analyses of current market circumstances. Actual results are affected by a number of factors outside the control of CBRE, including without limitation fluctuating economic, market, and property conditions. Actual results may ultimately differ from these projections, and CBRE does not warrant any such projections. Further, other firms may have different opinions, projections and analyses, and actual market conditions in the future may cause CBRE's current views to later change or be incorrect. CBRE has no obligation to update its views herein if its opinions, projections, analyses or market circumstances later change. 7. The Report contains professional opinions and is expressly not intended to serve as any warranty, assurance or guarantee of any particular value of the subject property. Other appraisers may reach different conclusions as to the value of the subject property. Furthermore, market value is highly related to exposure time, promotion effort, terms, motivation, and conclusions surrounding the offering of the subject property. The Report is for the sole purpose of providing the intended user with CBRE’s independent professional opinion of the value of the subject property as of the date of the Report. Accordingly, CBRE shall not be liable for any losses that arise from any investment or lending decisions based upon the Report that the client, intended user, or any buyer, seller, investor, or lending institution may undertake related to the subject property, and CBRE has not been compensated to assume any of these risks. Nothing contained in the Report shall be construed as any direct or indirect recommendation of CBRE to buy, sell, hold, or finance the subject property. 8. No opinion is expressed on matters which may require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge including, but not limited to, environmental, social, and governance principles (“ESG”), beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers. Any user of the Report is advised to retain experts in areas that fall outside the scope of the real estate appraisal profession for such matters. 9. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need, for flood hazard insurance. An agent for the Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 114/237 10. Acceptance or use of the Report constitutes full acceptance of these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and any special assumptions set forth in the Report. It is the responsibility of the user of the Report to read in full, comprehend and thus become aware of all such assumptions and limiting conditions. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any situation arising out of the user’s failure to become familiar with and understand the same. 11. The Report applies to the property as a whole only, and any pro ration or division of the title into fractional interests will invalidate such conclusions, unless the Report expressly assumes such pro ration or division of interests. 12. The allocations of the total value estimate in the Report between land and improvements apply only to the existing use of the subject property. The allocations of values for each of the land and improvements are not intended to be used with any other property or appraisal and are not valid for any such use. 13. The maps, plats, sketches, graphs, photographs, and exhibits included in this Report are for illustration purposes only and shall be utilized only to assist in visualizing matters discussed in the Report. No such items shall be removed, reproduced, or used apart from the Report. 14. The Report shall not be duplicated or provided to any unintended users in whole or in part without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Exempt from this restriction is duplication for the internal use of the intended user and its attorneys, accountants, or advisors for the sole benefit of the intended user. Also exempt from this restriction is transmission of the Report pursuant to any requirement of any court, governmental authority, or regulatory agency having jurisdiction over the intended user, provided that the Report and its contents shall not be published, in whole or in part, in any public document without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Finally, the Report shall not be made available to the public or otherwise used in any offering of the property or any security, as defined by applicable law. Any unintended user who may possess the Report is advised that it shall not rely upon the Report or its conclusions and that it should rely on its own appraisers, advisors and other consultants for any decision in connection with the subject property. CBRE shall have no liability or responsibility to any such unintended user. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 115/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 116/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 117/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 1 Property Name 19110 Hwy 99 Land Address 19110 Highway 99 Lynnwood, WA 98036 United States Government Tax Agency Snohomish Govt./Tax ID 27041600302400 Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 1.540 67,082 Land Area Gross 1.540 67,082 Site Development Status Finished Shape Irregular Topography Generally Level Utilities All available Maximum FAR N/A Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density N/A Frontage Distance/Street 185 ft Highway 99 Frontage Distance/Street N/A 60th Avenue W General Plan N/A Specific Plan N/A Zoning CG, General Commercial Entitlement Status None Sale Summary Recorded Buyer 19110 LLC Marketing Time 6 Month(s) True Buyer Larry Steele Buyer Type End User Recorded Seller Hyung S. Lee & Sue O. Lee Seller Type N/A True Seller Hyung S. Lee & Sue O. Lee Primary Verification Listing Broker, CBA, Public Records Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type Sale Current Use N/A Date 3/14/2024 Proposed Use Aurora Rents Sale Price $3,250,000 Listing Broker Marty Rood - 206-713-1304 Financing Cash to Seller Selling Broker N/A Cash Equivalent $3,250,000 Doc #202403150120 Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $3,250,000 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 03/2024 Sale 19110 LLC Hyung S. Lee & Sue O. Lee $3,250,000 $2,110,390 / $48.45 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 118/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 1 Units of Comparison $48.45 / sf N/A / Unit $2,110,389.61 / ac N/A / Allowable Bldg. Units N/A / Building Area Financial No information recorded Map & Comments This comparable is the sale of a 1.54-acre site located at 19110 Highway 99 in Lynnwood, Washington. The property is irregular in shape, with roughly 185 feet of frontage on Highway 99 at the east and pipestem access from 60th Avenue W. at the west. It is zoned CG (general commercial) by the city of Lynnwood, which allows for maximum lot coverage of 35% and a wide range of commercial uses, office, lodging, and light industrial. The property is also within the Highway 99 corridor on the the city's future land-use maps, which allows for multifamily residential and mixed-use development with building heights up to 90 feet and FAR of 3.0 if developed with a density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre (50-foot height limit and maximum FAR of 1.0 of developed at a lower density). The site was previously improved with an auto shop building which burned down last year. The property is cleared and generally level. According to the listing broker, the buyer is the proprietor of Aurora Rents, an equipment and party rental company, and plans to develop the property with a rental location/store. The property sold in March 2024 for $3,250,000, or $48.45 per square foot. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 119/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 2 Property Name Lynnwood Mixed-Use Site Address 2826 164th Street SW Lynnwood, WA 98087 United States Government Tax Agency Snohomish County Govt./Tax ID 003729-004-012-01 Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 5.810 253,084 Land Area Gross 5.810 253,084 Site Development Status Raw Shape Irregular Topography Generally Level Utilities All available Maximum FAR N/A Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density N/A General Plan N/A Specific Plan N/A Zoning UC (Urban Center) Entitlement Status None Sale Summary Recorded Buyer 1LR Properties Marketing Time 2 Month(s) True Buyer same Buyer Type Private Investor Recorded Seller HealthCare Partners RE, LLC Seller Type Private Investor True Seller N/A Primary Verification Listing Broker, CBA, Public Records Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type Sale Current Use N/A Date 12/19/2023 Proposed Use N/A Sale Price $10,500,000 Listing Broker Gregg Riva - 206-595-1525 Financing Not Available Selling Broker N/A Cash Equivalent $10,500,000 Doc #202312217001 Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $10,500,000 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 12/2023 Sale 1LR Properties HealthCare Partners RE, LLC $10,500,000 $1,807,229 / $41.49 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 120/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 2 Units of Comparison $41.49 / sf $84,000 / Unit $1,807,228.92 / ac N/A / Allowable Bldg. Units N/A / Building Area Financial No information recorded Map & Comments This is the December 2023 sale of a vacant 5.81-acre tax parcel located at the corner of 164th Street SW and Manor Way in unincorporated Snohomish County, near Lynnwood. The property is somewhat irregular in shape and is generally level overall. It is zoned UC (Urban Center) by Snohomish County, a mixed-use zone permitting base building heights of 90 feet, with increases up to 125 feet if located within 1/8-mile of certain transit options. All utilities are available. The property went on the market in early June 2023, unpriced, and the listing broker stated that there was strong interest. It went under contract in late August of 2023 with a typical feasibility period and closing expected by the end of the year. Per the broker, the buyer intends to develop the property with primarily multifamily residential use. The property sold on December 19, 2023, for $10.500.000, or $41.49 per square foot. According to a preliminary application submitted just after closing (23-119796-000-00-PA), the buyer planned to develop the property with 130 townhome units. A subsequent preliminary application submitted in January 2024 (24-101602-000-00-PA) indicates revised plans for a 125-unit Townhouse Unit Lot Subdivision. The sale price equates to $80,769 per unit at 130 units (planned as of closing) and $84,000 per unit at 125 units (most recent information). ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 121/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 3 Property Name Lynnwood Mixed-Use Land Address 3225 164th Street SW Lynnwood, WA 98087 United States Government Tax Agency Snohomish County Govt./Tax ID 003729-004-006-01 Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 4.900 213,444 Land Area Gross 4.900 213,444 Site Development Status N/A Shape Rectangular Topography Generally Level Utilities All available Maximum FAR N/A Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density 66.53 per ac Frontage Distance/Street 200 ft 164th Street SW General Plan N/A Specific Plan N/A Zoning UC (Urban Center) Entitlement Status Other (See Comments) Sale Summary Recorded Buyer Lynnwood 164 APT, LLC Marketing Time N/A True Buyer Grand Peaks Buyer Type Developer Recorded Seller Wilburn/Connell/Nelson Seller Type N/A True Seller N/A Primary Verification Buyer (Spencer Welton), Public Records Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type Sale Current Use N/A Date 11/1/2022 Proposed Use N/A Sale Price $11,840,000 Listing Broker N/A Financing Cash to Seller Selling Broker N/A Cash Equivalent $11,840,000 Doc #202211030266 Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $11,840,000 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 11/2022 Sale Lynnwood 164 APT, LLC Wilburn/Connell/Nelson $11,840,000 $2,416,327 / $55.47 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 122/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 3 Units of Comparison $55.47 / sf $36,319 / Unit $2,416,326.53 / ac $36,319 / Allowable Bldg. Units N/A / Building Area Financial No information recorded Map & Comments This is the November 2022 sale of a 4.90-acre (213,444-square-foot) redevelopment site located at 3225 164th Street SW in unincorporated Snohomish County, near Lynnwood. The property is rectangular in shape and has generally level topography. It is zoned UC (Urban Center) by Snohomish County, a mixed-use zone permitting base building heights of 90 feet, with increases up to 125 feet if located within 1/8-mile of certain transit options. According to the buyer, the seller had obtained "schematic approvals" including approved unit counts and offsite obligations, which the buyer characterized as a strong selling point but did not quantify. The buyer noted that offsite requirements included extending Admiralty Way from its terminus northeast of the property to 164th Street SW and estimated the cost to be $1.5 million, which is not included in the analysis price utilized here. The property went under contract in July of 2021, and the buyer worked to complete construction permits. As of August 2023, construction of a two-building, 326-unit apartment complex is underway, with the first building expected to be complete in October of 2024 and the second in April or May of 2025. The transaction closed on November 1, 2022, for $11,840,000, or $55.47 per square foot ($36,319 per unit). ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 123/237 Sale Land - Multi Unit Residential No. 4 Property Name 152 Brea Apartments Address 18005 Aurora Ave N 18002 Aurora Ave N 18019 Aurora Ave N Shoreline, WA 98133 United States Government Tax Agency King Govt./Tax ID Multiple Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 3.632 158,195 Land Area Gross 3.632 158,195 Site Development Status Finished Shape L Shaped Topography Generally Level Utilities All to site Maximum FAR N/A Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density 106.01 per ac Frontage Distance/Street N/A Aurora Ave N Frontage Distance/Street N/A N 182nd Street Frontage Distance/Street N/A Linden Ave N General Plan N/A Specific Plan N/A Zoning TC-2, Town Center Entitlement Status N/A Sale Summary Recorded Buyer PENDING & Luxe Apts LLC Marketing Time N/A True Buyer N/A Buyer Type Developer Recorded Seller Chih Pu Tsai, Highland Sports Center Seller Type End User True Seller N/A Primary Verification Selling Broker, PSA Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type Sale Current Use Sports Center, SFR Date 10/25/2022 Proposed Use 385-Unit Multifamily Sale Price $13,350,000 Listing Broker N/A Financing Market Rate Financing Selling Broker Todd Young Windermere Midtown Cash Equivalent $13,350,000 Doc #PENDING & 20221025000134 Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $13,350,000 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 10/2022 Sale PENDING & Luxe Apts LLC Chih Pu Tsai, Highland Sports Center $13,350,000 $3,675,964 / $84.39 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 124/237 Sale Land - Multi Unit Residential No. 4 Units of Comparison $84.39 / sf $34,675 / Unit $3,675,964.42 / ac $34,675 / Allowable Bldg. Units N/A / Building Area Financial No information recorded Map & Comments This comparable represents an assemblage of five parcels totaling 3.63-acres or 158,195 square feet. The site is partially improved with three buildings (ice skating rink, single-family residence, and warehouse). The property is irregular in shape, is generally level, has frontage on N 182nd St, Linden Ave N and Aurora Ave N and is zoned TC-2, Town Center 2 which allows for residential and commercial development up to 70 feet. The following addresses are associated with the site: 18002 Aurora Ave N, 18005 Aurora Ave N, 18019 Aurora Ave N, and 907 N 182nd St, in Shoreline, Washington. The assemblage sold for a total price of $13,350,000. There were two purchase and sale agreements associated with the purchase, one for $850,000 representing a single parcel and the second for $12,500,000 representing four parcels. The Highland Sports Center property was brought to market June 2020 by Marty Rood from Mr. 99 and Associates. The property was originally listed for $15,095,000 (based upon improvement value), and received four offers, three of which were from developers. The offers received were over and under the asking price. The buyer's offer was selected due to the buyer's reputation, and the certainty of closing. The Chih Pu Tsai property was not openly marketed, however the seller was represented by Todd Young of Windermere Midtown. According to the seller's agent, the seller had learned that the Highland Sports Center was under contract and asked their agent to contact the developer to sell their property. The price was negotiated between both parties. Our discussions with the buyer, and seller's representatives indicate that this is an arms-length transaction and neither party is under distress. The buyer intends to demolish the existing improvements in January 2023 and redevelop the site with two 6-story mid-rise apartment buildings which include on level of above-grade parking garage and one-level of below-grade parking and a total of 385-units. The larger site closed on October 21, 2022 for $12,500,000 while the remaining (smaller) site closed in January 2023. The total purchase price is $13,350,000 or $84.39 per square foot of land area, or $34,675 per unit. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 125/237 Sale Land - Retail / Commercial No. 5 Property Name Gregerson Homes Site Address 23930 Highway 99 Edmonds, WA 98026 United States Government Tax Agency Snohomish Govt./Tax ID 00451900201400 Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 0.440 19,166 Land Area Gross 0.440 19,166 Site Development Status Finished Shape Rectangular Topography Generally Level Utilities All to Site Maximum FAR 0.12 Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density N/A Frontage Distance/Street N/A Highway 99 General Plan N/A Specific Plan N/A Zoning CG, General Commercial Entitlement Status None Sale Summary Recorded Buyer Goria G Petelle Marketing Time 0 Month(s) True Buyer Sewer Friendly Buyer Type N/A Recorded Seller Touareg Properties LLC Seller Type N/A True Seller Craig Campbell Primary Verification Seller Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type Sale Current Use N/A Date 2/20/2022 Proposed Use N/A Sale Price $1,425,000 Listing Broker N/A Financing Not Available Selling Broker N/A Cash Equivalent $1,425,000 Doc #N/A Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $1,425,000 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 02/2022 Sale Goria G Petelle Touareg Properties LLC $1,425,000 $3,238,636 / $74.35 06/2019 Sale Touareg Properties LLC Barbara Brunsvold/Gregerson Trust $900,000 $2,045,455 / $46.96 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 126/237 Sale Land - Retail / Commercial No. 5 Units of Comparison $74.35 / sf N/A / Unit $3,238,636.36 / ac N/A / Allowable Bldg. Units $665.89 / Building Area Financial No information recorded Map & Comments This comparable represents the sale of a 0.44 acre (19,166 square foot) site located at 23930 Highway 99 in Edmonds, WA. The site has corner frontage along Highway 99 and 240th Street SW, and is irregular in shape. The site is zoned CG, Commercial General that allows for retail commercial uses. At the time of sale, the property was improved with a 2,140 square-foot office building. The site sold to the existing tenant as a direct deal between the buyer and seller. The buyer plans to continue to operate their business at this location, however the value was in the land and no additional value was given to the office building. Although this was a direct deal with the former tenant, the sale was arm's length and generally at market pricing. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 127/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 6 Property Name Shelly Retail Center Address 22908 Highway 99 Edmonds, WA 98026 United States Government Tax Agency Snohomish Govt./Tax ID 00576700000308 Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 1.400 60,984 Land Area Gross 1.400 60,984 Site Development Status Finished Shape Irregular Topography Generally Level Utilities N/A Maximum FAR N/A Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density N/A Frontage Distance/Street 370 ft Highway 99 Frontage Distance/Street N/A 230th Street SW General Plan N/A Specific Plan N/A Zoning GC, General Commercial Entitlement Status None Sale Summary Recorded Buyer Major Holdings LLC Marketing Time 6 Month(s) True Buyer Spencer Pemberton Buyer Type N/A Recorded Seller Shelly 230th LLC Seller Type N/A True Seller Matthew Wright Primary Verification Buyer Interest Transferred Leased Fee Type Sale Current Use Retail Center Date 5/3/2021 Proposed Use Redevelopment Sale Price $3,050,000 Listing Broker Key Choice Commercial, Natalie Foskey Financing Not Available Selling Broker N/A Cash Equivalent $3,050,000 Doc #N/A Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $3,050,000 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 05/2021 Sale Major Holdings LLC Shelly 230th LLC $3,050,000 $2,178,571 / $50.01 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 128/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 6 Units of Comparison $50.01 / sf N/A / Unit $2,178,571.43 / ac N/A / Allowable Bldg. Units N/A / Building Area Financial Revenue Type Trailing Actuals Period Ending N/A Source N/A Price $3,050,000 Potential Gross Income N/A Economic Occupancy N/A Economic Loss N/A Effective Gross Income N/A Expenses N/A Net Operating Income $138,200 NOI / sf N/A NOI / Unit N/A EGIM N/A OER N/A Net Initial Yield/Cap. Rate 4.53% Map & Comments This comparable is the sale of a 1.4-acre site located at the corner of Highway 99 and 330th Street SW in Edmonds, Washington. The property was improved with a 9,978-SF retail center, car lot, and billboard at the time of sale. The site is zoned GC, General Commercial, and was marketed as a redevelopment site. The building was 100% occupied at the time of sale. The property sold in May 2021 for $3,050,000 or $50.01/SF of land. The buyer indicated that the seller inherited this property and wanted a quick closing, and may have received a discounted price for this reason. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 129/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 130/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 7 Property Name Lynnwood Mixed-Use Site Address 2826 164th Street SW Lynnwood, WA 98087 United States Government Tax Agency Snohomish County Govt./Tax ID 003729-004-012-01 Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 5.810 253,084 Land Area Gross 5.810 253,084 Site Development Status Raw Shape Irregular Topography Generally Level Utilities All available Maximum FAR N/A Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density N/A General Plan N/A Specific Plan N/A Zoning UC (Urban Center) Entitlement Status None Sale Summary Recorded Buyer 1LR Properties Marketing Time 2 Month(s) True Buyer same Buyer Type Private Investor Recorded Seller HealthCare Partners RE, LLC Seller Type Private Investor True Seller N/A Primary Verification Listing Broker, CBA, Public Records Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type Sale Current Use N/A Date 12/19/2023 Proposed Use N/A Sale Price $10,500,000 Listing Broker Gregg Riva - 206-595-1525 Financing Not Available Selling Broker N/A Cash Equivalent $10,500,000 Doc #202312217001 Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $10,500,000 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 12/2023 Sale 1LR Properties HealthCare Partners RE, LLC $10,500,000 $1,807,229 / $41.49 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 131/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 7 Units of Comparison $41.49 / sf $84,000 / Unit $1,807,228.92 / ac N/A / Allowable Bldg. Units N/A / Building Area Financial No information recorded Map & Comments This is the December 2023 sale of a vacant 5.81-acre tax parcel located at the corner of 164th Street SW and Manor Way in unincorporated Snohomish County, near Lynnwood. The property is somewhat irregular in shape and is generally level overall. It is zoned UC (Urban Center) by Snohomish County, a mixed-use zone permitting base building heights of 90 feet, with increases up to 125 feet if located within 1/8-mile of certain transit options. All utilities are available. The property went on the market in early June 2023, unpriced, and the listing broker stated that there was strong interest. It went under contract in late August of 2023 with a typical feasibility period and closing expected by the end of the year. Per the broker, the buyer intends to develop the property with primarily multifamily residential use. The property sold on December 19, 2023, for $10.500.000, or $41.49 per square foot. According to a preliminary application submitted just after closing (23-119796-000-00-PA), the buyer planned to develop the property with 130 townhome units. A subsequent preliminary application submitted in January 2024 (24-101602-000-00-PA) indicates revised plans for a 125-unit Townhouse Unit Lot Subdivision. The sale price equates to $80,769 per unit at 130 units (planned as of closing) and $84,000 per unit at 125 units (most recent information). ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 132/237 Sale Land - Multi Unit Residential No. 8 Property Name 28 Unit Townhome Site Address 15732 40th Ave W Lynnwood, WA 98087 United States Government Tax Agency Snohomish Govt./Tax ID 003729-002-018-06 Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 1.190 51,840 Land Area Gross 1.190 51,840 Site Development Status Raw Shape Rectangular Topography Generally Level Utilities All Available Maximum FAR N/A Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density 23.53 per ac Frontage Distance/Street 30 ft 40th Ave W General Plan N/A Specific Plan N/A Zoning Urban Center Entitlement Status Master/Specific Plan Sale Summary Recorded Buyer Keystone Land LLC Marketing Time 0 Month(s) True Buyer Michael Impola Buyer Type Developer Recorded Seller Point 47N LLC Seller Type Private Investor True Seller Lisa Hallmon Primary Verification Buyer, Costar, Public Records Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type Sale Current Use Vacant Land Date 11/3/2023 Proposed Use 28 Townhomes Sale Price $3,200,000 Listing Broker None Financing Not Available Selling Broker None Cash Equivalent $3,200,000 Doc #202311030141 Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $3,200,000 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 11/2023 Sale Keystone Land LLC Point 47N LLC $3,200,000 $2,688,850 / $61.73 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 133/237 Sale Land - Multi Unit Residential No. 8 Units of Comparison $61.73 / sf $114,286 / Unit $2,688,849.68 / ac $114,286 / Allowable Bldg. Units N/A / Building Area Financial No information recorded Map & Comments This comparable represents the November 2023 sale of the 1.19-acre development parcel located at 15732 40th Ave W in unincorporated Snohomish County but with a mailing address in Lynnwood, Washington. The rectangular, unimproved lot is mostly level with a maximum 7% grade in some parts and was essentially landlocked at the southern end of 40th Avenue, with multifamily developments to the south and east, and a mobile home park to the west fronting Highway 99/Aurora Ave. The seller spent the last couple years obtaining environmental approvals and entitlements for a 28-unit townhome development. It was not openly marketed but sold for $3,200,000, or $61.73 per square foot to a multifamily developer. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 134/237 Sale Land - Multi Unit Residential No. 9 Property Name Shoreline R-48 Redevelopment Land Address 1700 NE 145th Street Shoreline, WA 98155 United States Government Tax Agency King County Govt./Tax ID 367050-0529 Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 0.202 8,798 Land Area Gross 0.202 8,798 Site Development Status N/A Shape Rectangular Topography Moderate Slope Utilities All available Maximum FAR N/A Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density 24.75 per ac Frontage Distance/Street 65 ft NE 145th Street Frontage Distance/Street 136 ft 17th Avenue NE General Plan N/A Specific Plan 5 townhome units Zoning R-48 Entitlement Status None Sale Summary Recorded Buyer 1700 LLC Marketing Time N/A True Buyer N/A Buyer Type Developer Recorded Seller Ann Bergeron Seller Type End User True Seller N/A Primary Verification Listing Broker, NWMLS, Public Records Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type Sale Current Use N/A Date 8/8/2023 Proposed Use 5 townhome units Sale Price $548,000 Listing Broker Debra Hamilton - 425-890-7932 Financing N/A Selling Broker N/A Cash Equivalent $548,000 Doc #20230808000113 / E3248961 Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $548,000 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 08/2023 Sale 1700 LLC Ann Bergeron $548,000 $2,712,871 / $62.29 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 135/237 Sale Land - Multi Unit Residential No. 9 Units of Comparison $62.29 / sf $109,600 / Unit $2,712,871.29 / ac $109,600 / Allowable Bldg. Units N/A / Building Area Financial No information recorded Map & Comments This is the August 2023 transaction of a 8,798-square-foot redevelopment site located at the corner of NE 145th Street and 17th Avenue NE in Shoreline. It is rectangularly shaped with generally moderately sloping topography, and the property sits several feet above the NE 145th Street frontage. It is zoned R- 48 by the city of Shoreline, a multifamily residential zone permitting a maximum density of 48 dwelling units per acre and base building heights of 35 feet. The property is improved with an older, boarded-up single-family residence that is not considered contributory to value. According to the listing broker, due to site and access constraints, the property is expected to yield five to six townhome units--a density of 25 units per acre at five units. The broker stated that the property was previously under contract, but the transaction fell through due to an overseas seller and issues with title which have since been resolved. The asking price was reduced to $550,000 in late May of 2023. The property went under contract pending feasibility on June 24, 2023, with a 30-day feasibility period and closing expected thereafter. The listing broker stated that the buyer intends to pursue development of five townhomes. The sale closed in August 2023 for $548,000, or about $110,000 per unit at five units ($62 per square foot). ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 136/237 Sale Land - Multi Unit Residential No. 10 Property Name North Edmonds RM2.4 Lot Address 75XX 212th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 United States Government Tax Agency Snohomish County Govt./Tax ID 005669-004-002-04 Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 0.230 10,019 Land Area Gross 0.230 10,019 Site Development Status Raw Shape Rectangular Topography Generally Level Utilities All available Maximum FAR N/A Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density 17.39 per ac General Plan N/A Specific Plan N/A Zoning RM2.4 Entitlement Status None Sale Summary Recorded Buyer Phantom Lines Inc.Marketing Time 2 Month(s) True Buyer N/A Buyer Type Developer Recorded Seller SWANSON ERNEST E/LYNNEL M Seller Type Private Investor True Seller N/A Primary Verification Confirmed by Tim Lovell at CBRE w/Listing Broker, Selling Broker, NWMLS, Public Records Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type Sale Current Use N/A Date 6/20/2023 Proposed Use 4-unit townhome or fourplex Sale Price $300,000 Listing Broker Ian McDonald - 206-650-5731 Financing All Cash Selling Broker Daniel Kolomiyets - 425-344-8691 Cash Equivalent $300,000 Doc #202306230116 /E203306 Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $300,000 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 06/2023 Sale Phantom Lines Inc.SWANSON ERNEST E/LYNNEL M $300,000 $1,304,348 / $29.94 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 137/237 Sale Land - Multi Unit Residential No. 10 Units of Comparison $29.94 / sf $75,000 / Unit $1,304,347.83 / ac $75,000 / Allowable Bldg. Units N/A / Building Area Financial No information recorded Map & Comments This is the June 2023 sale of a 10,019-square-foot (0.23-acre) vacant lot located off of 212th Street SW in north Edmonds. The property is rectangular in shape, with mostly level topography and an area of sloping topography at the east. It is zoned RM2.4 by the City of Edmonds, a multifamily residential zone permitting a density of one dwelling unit per 2,400 site square feet (about 18 units per acre) and building heights of 25 feet. The property is part of the Arbor Villa condo development and is subject to CC&Rs. It is accessed through the condo development via an access and utilities easement. The listing broker stated that development would likely require release from the CC&Rs and stated that pushback from the condo association is expected (and had occurred in past attempts to develop). Nonetheless, the buyer reportedly intends to pursue development of four units on the property (either townhomes or a fourplex), and the sale price is said to reflect the challenges ahead. The property sold on June 20, 2023, for $300,000, or $75,000 per potential unit and $29.94 per square foot. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 138/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 11 Property Name Shoreline MB/R-48 Land Address 15501 Midvale Avenue N. Shoreline, WA 98133 United States Government Tax Agency King Govt./Tax ID 688590-0055 Site/Government Regulations Acres Square feet Land Area Net 0.234 10,204 Land Area Gross 0.234 10,204 Site Development Status Raw Shape Rectangular Topography Moderate Slope Utilities All available Maximum FAR N/A Min Land to Bldg Ratio N/A Maximum Density 106.70 per ac Frontage Distance/Street 170 ft Midvale Avenue N. Frontage Distance/Street 60 ft N. 155th Street General Plan N/A Specific Plan N/A Zoning MB & R-48 Entitlement Status None Sale Summary Recorded Buyer L&J International Investment LLC Marketing Time 2 Month(s) True Buyer N/A Buyer Type N/A Recorded Seller KCAP Holdings, Inc.Seller Type N/A True Seller N/A Primary Verification Listing Office, NWMLS, Public Records Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type Sale Current Use N/A Date 6/1/2022 Proposed Use Preapp for 25-unit apartment plus duplex Sale Price $524,700 Listing Broker David Knight - 253-631-9545 Financing All Cash Selling Broker Bradley Liu Cash Equivalent $524,700 Doc #20220610001118 Capital Adjustment $0 Adjusted Price $524,700 Transaction Summary plus Five-Year CBRE View History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and /sf 06/2022 Sale L&J International Investment LLC KCAP Holdings, Inc.$524,700 $2,239,437 / $51.42 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 139/237 Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 11 Units of Comparison $51.42 / sf $20,988 / Unit $2,239,436.62 / ac $20,988 / Allowable Bldg. Units N/A / Building Area Financial No information recorded Map & Comments This is the June 2022 sale of a 10,204-square-foot (0.23-acre) vacant lot located at the corner of Midvale Avenue N and N 155th Street in Shoreline, one parcel removed from SR-99. The property is somewhat narrowly (60-foot-deep) rectangular in shape and has moderately sloping topography from north to south. It is split-zone, with the northern roughly 35% zoned R-48 and the remainder zoned MB (mixed business). The R-48 is a multifamily residential zone permitting 48 dwelling units per acre and building heights of 30 feet; the MB zone is a mixed-use use zone permitting heights up 70 feet with no expressed density limits. However, per SMC 20.50.020.D.1, the boundary line between the zone is treated as a lot line, and setbacks are enforced from the boundary. According to discussions with Shoreline planning personnel, after the sale, the buyer conducted pre-application meetings regarding the development of a 25-unit mixed-use structure on the MB-zoned portion and a duplex on the R-48-zoned area--with the required setbacks from the zone boundary line impacting potential development. The property sold on June 1, 2022, for $524,700, or $51.42 per square foot ($20,988 per unit at the proposed 25 units). ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 140/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 141/237 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ROAD VACATION: 84TH AVENUE W. EDMONDS, WA. THAT PORTION OF 84TH AVENUE W. LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SAID PORTION MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 3, BLOCK 17, HANBURY’S SOUND VIEW TRACTS, RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 00° 43’ 00” EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF 84TH AVENUE W A DISTANCE OF 153.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 12’ 40” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 11.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89° 12’ 39” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05° 55’ 41” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 45.26 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 84° 51’ 39” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23° 54’ 23” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 182.55 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 64° 01’ 58” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 38.64 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 37° 51’ 46” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13.48 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 33° 21’ 25” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 53.95 FEET TO A POINT 90 FEET NORTHEASTERLY, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO ENGINEER’S STATION L-184+90 OF STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 104, 236TH STREET SW TO MERDIAN AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 56° 38’ 35” EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 89.78 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 84TH AVENUE W. AND A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN AND AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 49° 07’ 40” WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 511.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35° 00’ 24” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 312.21 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 200 FEET, AS MEASURED ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1, MCALEER FIVE ACRES TRACTS AS RECORDED UNDER VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 89° 51’ 41” EAST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 3.37 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 43’ 00” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13.28 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 89° 49’ 26” EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89° 49’ 26” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 74.17 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 23,684 SQ. FEET MORE OR LESS. 10/21/24 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 142/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 143/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 144/237 1 ©2022 CBRE, INC. PROFILE S. Murray Brackett, MAI Director of Right of Way, Aviation and Public Projects, Northwest Region M +1 206 595 1068 E murray.brackett@cbre.com WA. Lic. 1100853 Professional Experience Mr. Brackett has been Appraising Real Property since 1985 and is currently a Director with CBRE in the Valuation Advisory Services division. He was formerly a partner with ABS Valuation for over 20 years. Professional responsibilities include the full range of commercial, industrial, residential product, including complex land valuations up to 100,000 acres in size. A considerable portion of his work involves partial acquisitions relating to eminent domain and conservation easements. In addition, a wide variety of Aviation related appraisals have been completed, including Ground lease revaluation efforts, Appraisals of leasehold positions in Hangars and other buildings, avigation easements and property for airport expansion. Improved and unimproved valuations have been performed for acquisitions in fee, leased fee and leasehold interests, and various partial interest assignments such as conservation easements, utility easements, subsurface, air rights and minority interest acquisitions. UASFLA-compliant Appraisals have been prepared for a wide variety of agencies on a wide range of property types. Mr. Brackett has qualified as an expert witness in King, Kitsap, Pierce County Superior Courts, US District Court and Federal Bankruptcy Court. Geographic experience includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, Alaska and British Columbia. Clients Represented Government Cities: Counties: Airports: Anacortes, Arlingt A on, uburn, Bellevue, Bothell, Burien, Everett, Kenmore, Kent, Kirkland, Leavenworth, Lk Forest Park, Lynnwood, Maple Valley, Mount Vernon, North Bend, Olympia, Port Angeles, Puyallup, Renton, Seattle, Snoqualmie, Tacoma, Woodinville. Island, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Skagit, Thurston, Snohomish, Whatcom Sea-Tac, Boeing Field, Paine Field, Renton Municipal, Auburn, Arlington, Bellingham, Olympia, William Fairchild, Sanderson Field, Felts Field, Centralia/Chehalis, Bremerton, Pullman, Orcas Island, Friday Harbor. Client Summary ‒ Various Cities ‒ Counties ‒ Airports ‒ Port Districts ‒ Financial Institutions ‒ Corporations/Non-Profits ‒ Conservation Entities ‒ Attorneys Education ‒ Bachelor degree in Business Administration from Western Washington University ‒ All courses requisite for the MAI designation by the Appraisal Institute. ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 145/237 2 ©2022 CBRE, INC. PROFILE Other: Ports of Everett, Grays Harbor, Anacortes, Seattle, Shelton, Olympia, Bremerton, Port Angeles, Friday Harbor. Washington State DNR, Wa.St. Parks, WSDOT (approved appraiser), U.S. IRS, FAA, Sound Transit, USACE, US Navy. Numerous School Districts. Financial Institutions Bank of America, US Bancorp, KeyBank, Wells Fargo Trust, Commerce Bank, Homestreet, Umpqua, Charter Bank, Union Bank. Corporations/NonProfits Weyerhaeuser, WRECO, Tramco, Plum Creek, McDonalds Corp., PSE, Development Services of America, Lowe Enterprises, PACCAR, Hancock Natural Resources Group, The Trust for Public Land, Forterra, HDR, Sierra Pacific, Quadrant, Port Blakely, CH2M-Hill, Parsons Brinckerhoff, New Ventures Group, Williams Pipeline, Manke lumber, Fletcher General, Costco, Nucor Steel. Attorneys Prosecuting Attorneys of numerous Cities and Counties, as well as Miller Nash, Williams & Williams, Karr Tuttle, Chmelik, Sitkin & Davis, PRK Livengood, Hillis Clark, Kenyon Disend, Perkins Coie, K&L Gates, Inslee Best, Tousley Brain Stephens, Davis Wright Tremaine, Pacifica Law Group, Betts Patterson Mines, Williams Kastner, Foster Garvey. Other Experience Instructor - Runstad Real Estate Certification Program, University of Washington – Current - IRWA – Previously Qualified as Level 3 Facilitator - Former Income Property Appraisal Course Instructor, LWVT, Kirkland, Wa. Presentations - November 2019: Anatomy of an Appraisal Trial, The Seminar Group - December 2014: Appraising Airports and Airplane Hangars, AI - September 2009: Valuation of Airport Properties, WAMA - October 2003: The Valuation of Non-Water Dependent Properties, WPMA Professional Affiliations - Appraisal Institute. Received MAI Designation May 2, 1997 (member # 11,258) -Past President, Seattle Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, 2003 -IRWA. Current Chapter Treasurer -Washington Airport Manager’s Association (WAMA) – Associate Member -Approved WSDOT Appraiser ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 146/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 147/237 ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 148/237 − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − ATTACHMENT 3   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 149/237 <all other values> 1 2 5; 4 9; 71; 7; 8 <all other values> Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial; Collector Local Street <all other values> 0 1 2 Applicant's Parcels Approximate Location of Proposed Vacation ATTACHMENT 4  Item 9.1       Packet pg. 150/237 25'-0" 25'-0 " 15'- 0 " 20'- 0 " 9'-6 " APPR O X . APPROX. APP R O X . APP R O X . APP R O X . 27'-6"APPROX. 10'-0" 17 ' - 1 0 " 9'-8" 10 ' - 0 " 20' slide gate with South County SnoFire knox box and strobe reader Hammerhead per CoE Std. Dtl. TR-514 Hammerhead per South County SnoFire Req. Fig-D1, with "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING" signs in lieu of pavement markings, locations to be determined by fire code official. (see notes this page). Area of South County SnoFire access easement, with pavement to be painted according to fire code official requirements (see notes this page). 32 ' - 0 " 23'-6" Proposed WSDOT land purchase agreement. Proposed Street Vacation of 84th Ave. W. (applied to CoE) ATTACHMENT 5  Item 9.1       Packet pg. 151/237 ATTACHMENT 5  Item 9.1       Packet pg. 152/237   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 153/237 ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 154/237 ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 155/237 ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 156/237 ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 157/237 ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 158/237 ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 159/237 ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 160/237 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ROAD VACATION: 84TH AVENUE W. EDMONDS, WA. THAT PORTION OF 84TH AVENUE W. LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SAID PORTION MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 3, BLOCK 17, HANBURY’S SOUND VIEW TRACTS, RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 00° 43’ 00” EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF 84TH AVENUE W A DISTANCE OF 153.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 12’ 40” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 11.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89° 12’ 40” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07° 37’ 21” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 58.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 83° 09’ 59” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22° 12’ 43” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 169.61 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 64° 01’ 58” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 38.64 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 37° 51’ 46” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13.48 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 33° 21’ 25” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 53.95 FEET TO A POINT 90 FEET NORTHEASTERLY, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO ENGINEER’S STATION L-184+90 OF STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 104, 236TH STREET SW TO MERDIAN AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 56° 38’ 35” EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 89.78 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 84TH AVENUE W. AND A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN AND AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 49° 07’ 40” WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 511.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35° 00’ 24” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 312.21 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89° 51’ 41” EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89° 51’ 41” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 72.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 7/15/24   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 161/237   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 162/237 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ROAD VACATION: 84TH AVENUE W. EDMONDS, WA. (STATE) THAT PORTION OF 84TH AVENUE W. LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SAID PORTION MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 3, BLOCK 17, HANBURY’S SOUND VIEW TRACTS, RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 00° 43’ 00” EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF 84TH AVENUE W A DISTANCE OF 153.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 12’ 40” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 11.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89° 12’ 40” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29° 50’ 04” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 227.81 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 64⁰ 01’ 58” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 38.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37⁰ 51’ 46” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13.48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 33⁰ 21’ 25” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 53.95 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF EDMONDS WAY (SR 104); THENCE SOUTH 56⁰ 38’ 35” EAST ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 89.78 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 84TH AVENUE W. AND A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID MARGIN AND A CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 49⁰ 07’ 40” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 511.00 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22⁰ 11’ 13” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 197.88 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 64⁰ 01’ 58” EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 64⁰ 01’ 58” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 111.19 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 12,600 SQ. FEET MORE OR LESS. 1/21/26 ATTACHMENT 9   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 163/237 RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT JAN 21 2026 ATTACHMENT 9   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 164/237 page 1 Project: 84TH CUL-DE-SAC Tue Feb 11 13:13:33 2025 Lot Map Check --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lot name: CUL-DE-SAC North: 4649.7070 East: 5005.5404 Line Course: S 64-01-58 W Length: 149.84 North: 4584.0985 East: 4870.8275 Line Course: S 37-51-46 W Length: 13.48 North: 4573.4563 East: 4862.5539 Line Course: S 33-21-25 W Length: 53.95 North: 4528.3939 East: 4832.8893 Line Course: S 56-38-35 E Length: 89.78 North: 4479.0281 East: 4907.8790 Curve Length: 197.88 Radius: 511.00 Delta: 22-11-13 Tangent: 100.19 Chord: 196.64 Course: N 29-46-43 E Course In: N 49-07-40 W Course Out: S 71-18-53 E RP North: 4813.4134 East: 4521.4757 End North: 4649.7045 East: 5005.5423 Perimeter: 504.93 Area: 12,600 S.F. 0.29 acres Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.0031 Course: S 37-46-09 E Error North: -0.00248 East: 0.00192 Precision 1: 161,091.85 ATTACHMENT 9   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 165/237 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ROAD VACATION: 84TH AVENUE W. EDMONDS, WA. (CITY) THAT PORTION OF 84TH AVENUE W. LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SAID PORTION MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 3, BLOCK 17, HANBURY’S SOUND VIEW TRACTS, RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 00° 43’ 00” EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF 84TH AVENUE W A DISTANCE OF 153.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 12’ 40” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 11.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89° 12’ 40” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07° 37’ 21” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 58.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 83° 09’ 59” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22° 12’ 43” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 169.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 64⁰ 01’ 58” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 111.19 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 84TH AVENUE W. AND A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN AND A CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 71⁰ 18’ 53” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 511.00 AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12⁰ 49’ 12” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 114.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89⁰ 51’ 41” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 72.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 10,105 SQ. FEET MORE OR LESS. 1/21/26 ATTACHMENT 10   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 166/237 RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT JAN 21 2026 ATTACHMENT 10   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 167/237 RESOLUTION NO. 1580 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 84th AVE W STREET VACATION WHEREAS, the city has received an application for a street vacation from Shaun Leiser which is further described in file PLN2024-0086; and WHEREAS, the city council would like to set the date of the public hearing on the 84th Ave W street vacation application pursuant to ECDC 18.55.070; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to ECDC 18.55.070, the city council shall hold a public hearing on the 84th Ave W street vacation application on January 27, 2026. RESOLVED this 16th day of December, 2025. CITY OF EDMONDS aAh MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN ATTEST:aay DEPUTY CITY CLERK, EMILY VILLAТА FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. December 11, 2025 December 16, 2025 1580 ATTACHMENT 11   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 168/237 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-2525 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL On January 27, 2026, the Edmonds City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the following issue: 84th Ave Street Vacation The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of Edmonds Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington. All interested persons are encouraged to attend and provide oral and/or written comments. Remote participation is also available via the Zoom. Citizens may connect using a computer or smart phone at: https://zoom.us/j/95798484261 or join the meeting by phone at: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 957 9848 4261. Written comments are welcome prior 4:00 p.m. on the date of the public hearing: https://www.edmondswa.gov/publiccomment. A request to vacate the subject property will be considered by the council. The subject street vacation is located on 84th Ave W, south of 240th St SW, and bounded on the east and south by the Highway 99 and Edmonds Way right-of-way. A public storm utility easement will be required with the current proposal. Other utility easements are also under consideration for utilities not owned and operated by the City of Edmonds. The vacation file is available for viewing at Edmonds City Hall, Public Works Engineering Division, Telephone: 425-771-0220. ____________________________ Emily Villata Edmonds Deputy City Clerk Published: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 Posted: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER 1/27/2026 WARNING! THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE MEETING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 169/237 {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } PROJECT LOCATION: 84th Ave Right-of-Way adjacent to 24024 & 24110 84th Ave W (Tax ID #’s 00463301700100 and 00463302400102) NAME OF APPLICANT: Shaun Leiser FILE NO.: PLN2024-0086: 84th Ave Street Vacation DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 2nd day of January 2026, the attached Notice of Application and Comment Period was mailed to the City of Edmonds property owners within 400 feet of the property that is the subject of the above-referenced application. I, Emiko Rodarte, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 27th Day of February, 2026, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed:   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 170/237 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-2525 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL On January 27, 2026, the Edmonds City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the following issue: 84th Ave Street Vacation The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of Edmonds Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington. All interested persons are encouraged to attend and provide oral and/or written comments. Remote participation is also available via the Zoom. Citizens may connect using a computer or smart phone at: https://zoom.us/j/95798484261 or join the meeting by phone at: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 957 9848 4261. Written comments are welcome prior 4:00 p.m. on the date of the public hearing: https://www.edmondswa.gov/publiccomment. A request to vacate the subject property will be considered by the council. The subject street vacation is located on 84th Ave W, south of 240th St SW, and bounded on the east and south by the Highway 99 and Edmonds Way right-of-way. A public storm utility easement will be required with the current proposal. Other utility easements are also under consideration for utilities not owned and operated by the City of Edmonds. The vacation file is available for viewing at Edmonds City Hall, Public Works Engineering Division, Telephone: 425-771-0220. ____________________________ Emily Villata Edmonds Deputy City Clerk Published: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 Posted: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER 1/27/2026 WARNING! THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE MEETING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 171/237 PROJECT LOCATION: 84th Ave Right-of-Way adjacent to 24024 & 24110 84th Ave W (Tax ID #'s 00463301700100 and 00463302400102) NAME OF APPLICANT: Shaun Leiser FILE NO.: PLN2024-0086: 84th Ave Street Vacation DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 4th day of February, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property. I, James Ward Jr., hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 2 th of February 2026, t Edmonds, Washington.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 172/237 CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL On March 10, 2026, the Edmonds City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the following issue: 84th Ave Street Vacation The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of Edmonds Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington. All interested persons are encouraged to attend and provide oral and/or written comments. Remote participation is also available via the Zoom. Citizens may connect using a computer or smart phone at: https://zoom.us/j/95798484261 or join the meeting by phone at: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 957 9848 4261. Written comments are welcome prior 4:00 p.m. on the date of the public hearing: https://www.edmondswa.gov/publiccomment. A request to vacate the subject property will be considered by the city council. The subject street vacation is located on 84th Ave W, south of 240th St SW, and bounded on the east and south by the Highway 99 and Edmonds Way right-of-way. The vacation file is available for viewing at Edmonds City Hall, Public Works Engineering Division, Telephone: 425-771- 0220. WARNING! THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE MEETING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER 3/10/2026   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 173/237 Fire Marshal Date: 11-15-2024 To: Carmen Smith From: Chris Burt, Edmonds Fire Marshal Permit #: PLN2024-0086 The fire marshal office has reviewed the preliminary short plat application for the 84th Street Vacation 24024 84th Ave W. The information provided indicates general fire code feasibility. As part of the preliminary review, requirements regarding development of the property and adjacent public infrastructure were determined. Please review the list of Fire Marshal Office requirements for the subject proposal. The applicant will be required to satisfy these requirements as a condition of approval. In advance of obtaining final approval from the Planning Division, the applicant will be required to submit civil construction plans addressing all short plat conditions. 1. A fire apparatus turn around is required. See approved turn around options as noted in ECDC 503 Figure D.1. 2. Vehicle access gate shall be an automatic gate adhering to ECDC 503.7.1 provisions. MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDMONDS FIRE MARSHAL OFFICE MEMO OF COMPLIANCE   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 174/237 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting January 27, 2026 Page 1 Edmonds City Council Regular Meeting Action Minutes January 27, 2026 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Michelle Dotsch, Council President Will Chen, Councilmember Erika Barnett, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Chris Eck, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Luke Lonie, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT Nand read the City Council Land Acknowledgment. read the City Council Land Acknowledgment. 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Lonie called the roll. All elected officials were present except for Councilmember . COUNCILMEMBER name MOVED TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER . MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Moved by CM Olson to remove item 10.3 from the agenda. The motion failed with Councilmembers Eck, Olson, and Paine in support. MOVED APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PRESENTATION 1. Mayor's Finance Update – Mayor’s Office 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. Written Public Comments   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 175/237 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting January 27, 2026 Page 2 2. Council Affirmation of Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. Approval of Special Meeting Minutes January 13, 2026 2. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes January 13, 2026 3. Approval of Special Meeting Minutes January 15, 2026 4. Approval of Committee B Meeting Minutes January 20, 2026 5. Approval of Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes January 20, 2026 6. Approval of claim checks. 7. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments 8. Approval of Amendment to ILA Agreement between WSDOT and the City of Edmonds for Highway 99 Stage 3 Project 9. Approval of Revision to ECC 8.16.040: speed limit reduction 10. Employment Agreement - Executive Assistant to City Council 11. Lynnwood Jail Contract 12. 2026 First Responder Flex Fund Agreement 13. Council Authorization to Call for Bids - Wastewater Treatment Plant Truck Enclosure and Air Scrubber 9. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 84th Ave Street Vacation – Public Hearing – Engineering Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer, and Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician, presented information relevant to the proposal of the 84th Ave W street vacation. Shaun Leiser, Applicant for Street Vacation, provided additional information regarding his application for vacation of 84th Ave W. Public Testimony was provided by the following community members: Prefrag Bojic – Owns property in Edmonds and supports the vacation of the street to increase public safety. Paul Svenkernd– Owns property in Edmonds and supports the vacation of the street to increase public safety and allow the area to be cleaned. Kirk Campbell – Is not supportive of the vacation as his business depends on acces to the street.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 176/237 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting January 27, 2026 Page 3 Jesse Durham – Supportive of the vacation of the street to increase public safety and financially benefit the City. Gary Haberbush – Owns property in Edmonds. Is concerned that the proposed vacation would cause the area to be rezoned. Councilmember Nand moved to continue the hearing to March 10, 2026, when additional information will be presented, and additional testimony will be taken. The motion carried unanimously. Council discussed the proposal to vacate 84th Ave. W, and asked clarifying questions of staff. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Jacobs On Call Services Contract – Public Works and Utilities Andy Rheaume, Public Works Director, briefed Council on the need for the professional services contract with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. 2. Satisfied and Sunset Resolution 1543 – City Council Office Sheila Cloney, Edmonds Business Improvement District (BID) President, briefed Council on the satisfaction of the BID Agreement set forth in Edmonds City Council Resolution 1543. Councilmember Eck moved to approve the Business Improvement District’s recommendations that the expectations set forth in Resolution 1543 (R-1543) have been satisfied and direct staff to take the necessary steps to formally sunset the resolution. The motion carried unanimously. 3. Ordinance amending ECC 1.04 Council Meetings – City Council Office Council President Dotsch moved to adopt Ordinance number 4429, an ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, amending the City Code provisions for council meetings, council committee meetings, and study sessions. Council President Dotsch moved to amend section 1.04.010(C), striking the word ‘Thursday’ and replacing it with the word ‘Wednesday.’ The amendment carried with Councilmembers Eck and Paine dissenting. Councilmember Paine moved to strike the entirety of section C, starting with the word ‘study session’ and ending with the words ‘made and posted online’. The amendment failed with Councilmembers Eck, Olson, and Paine in support. The main motion carries with Councilmembers Olson and Paine dissenting.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 177/237 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting January 27, 2026 Page 4 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers commented on various topics. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Rosen provided comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 pm.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 178/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting Online Form 2026-01-23 05:22 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/23/2026 7:22:29 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Ken LastName Reidy Email kenreidy@hotmail.com CityOfResidence Edmonds, WA AgendaTopic Public Comments for 84th Ave. W. Street Vacation Public Hearing Comments I am submitting these written comments to respectfully request that the City of Edmonds pause the pending street-vacation process until the recently adopted language in ECDC 18.55 is amended to comply with Washington State law and constitutional limitations on government takings. The core issue is the new language in ECDC 18.55.120, which states: “Additionally and/or alternatively, the city council may condition the street vacation on the conveyance of an easement between third parties.” This provision is not authorized under RCW 35.79, which governs street vacations. RCW 35.79 allows a city to impose conditions related to the public right-of-way itself (RCW 35.79.010, .020) and to require monetary compensation within statutory limits (RCW 35.79.030, .040). Nowhere does the statute grant a city authority to compel the conveyance of an easement between third parties as a condition of vacation. Beyond violating RCW 35.79, this provision may constitute an unconstitutional taking under long-established U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), the Court held that governments may not condition approval of land-use requests on property concessions unless there is an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the condition and the public impact of the proposed action. More recently, in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. (2013), the Court confirmed that even demands for off-site or monetary concessions can violate the Fifth Amendment when used as leverage against an applicant. The requirement in ECDC 18.55.120 appears to fail all three tests: No essential nexus exists between vacating a public right-of-way and the conveyance of an easement between third parties. No rough proportionality exists because the conveyance of an easement between third parties is unrelated to any public burden created by the vacation request. Koontz makes clear that such coercive conditions—even if the applicant can theoretically decline—constitute an unconstitutional taking. Additionally, no other city in Washington imposes such authority in its municipal code. The provision is unprecedented statewide and exposes the City to substantial legal risk, including potential invalidation of any vacation approved under this defective language. For the protection of the City, the public, and affected property owners, I respectfully request that the Council place this street-vacation request on hold until ECDC 18.55.120 is repealed or amended   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 179/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting to comply with RCW 35.79 and constitutional takings law. It would be best to repeal Ordinance 4400 and adopt laws desired by the Planning Board and your constituents. Thank you for your consideration. To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21157510&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-25 06:08 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/25/2026 8:08:05 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Ljiljana, Lilly LastName Bojic Email lillyphysicaltherapy@gmail.com CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic 84th Ave Street Vacation Comments I support the proposed street vacation on 84th Ave W, south of 240th St SW, bounded by Highway 99 and Edmonds Way. This segment is isolated and no longer functions as a meaningful public roadway. Vacating it would improve safety by reducing conflict points, lower public maintenance costs, and allow the land to be used more effectively. For these reasons, I support approval of the street vacation. Thank you Lilly Bojic To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21157793&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-26 03:18 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/26/2026 5:18:00 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Kathy LastName Gregory Email kagregory49@gmail.com CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic 84th Ave Steet Vacation Comments I am opposed to the proposal to vacate 84th Ave as we don't know what the proposal is and already the message parlor creates a nuisance and disturbances in the area. Thank you,   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 180/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21159014&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-26 05:40 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/26/2026 7:40:07 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Jason LastName Penningtion Email pennyunderpar@gmail.com CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic 84th Street Vacation, 6/27/26 Agenda Item 9.1 Comments This street vacation appears to be a great option for the City to generate funds that is NOT another, or increased, tax to it's residents. This proposal would generate present-day funds for the City and would have future beneflts if/when the property is developed. In addition to the funds gained by the City, the street vacation to private ownership would reduce the City's maintenance costs and allow for improved safety to this dead end cul-de-sac. As a resident of Edmonds, I am in support of, and would encourage, the City Counsel to vote in favor of this street vacation. To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21159161&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-26 05:49 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/26/2026 7:49:41 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Jen LastName Penningtion Email jlcaparas@gmail.com   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 181/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic 6/27/26 Meeting Agenda Item 9.1, Street Vacation on 84th Ave Comments The vacation of the dead end cul de sac of 84th Ave W is a great way for the City to get additional funds that aren't a tax increase. This would also reduce maintenance and cost for the City. The future development would also bring future beneflts to the City. As an Edmonds resident, I support this street vacation and encourage the City Counsel to vote in favor. To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21159179&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-26 08:54 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/26/2026 10:54:57 PM (GMT-07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Chris LastName Lyon Email Chris@westerlyre.com CityOfResidence Edmond’s AgendaTopic 84th Ave Street Vacation Comments To the Edmonds City Council, I am writing to formally express my support for the proposed street vacation application currently under review by the City. As an Edmonds resident and local developer, I believe this vacation is appropriate, meets the applicable criteria outlined in Edmonds Municipal Code 18.55.020, and represents a positive addition to the surrounding area and the broader Edmonds corridor. After reviewing the proposal and understanding the intent of the application, it is clear that the requested vacation does not negatively impact public access, circulation, or utility needs, and that all required easements and conditions can be adequately addressed. From both a planning and practical standpoint, the vacation appears to be consistent with the City’s long-term goals for thoughtful redevelopment, efficient land use, and enhancement of underutilized rights-of-way. Projects like this play an important role in strengthening the Edmonds corridor by encouraging responsible development that aligns with existing infrastructure and neighborhood context. In this case, the vacation allows for a more cohesive and functional use of the property while maintaining public safety   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 182/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting and utility continuity. I view this as an opportunity to improve the built environment rather than leave fragmented or unused space that offers limited public beneflt. As someone who lives and works in Edmonds, I am particularly supportive of projects that reinvest in our city, activate underutilized areas, and contribute to a more connected and intentional streetscape. This proposal appears to do exactly that while complying with city code and established review standards. For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the City Council to approve the street vacation application. I appreciate the Council’s time and consideration, as well as the City staff’s work in reviewing and guiding projects through a thorough and transparent process. Thank you for your service to the Edmonds community and for the opportunity to provide public comment. To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21159244&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-26 09:00 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/26/2026 11:00:10 PM (GMT-07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Ben LastName Davis Email Bcharles.davis@gmail.com CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Proposed street vacation Comments Dear city council, My name is Ben Davis and I’m a current resident of Edmonds. It’s come to my attention a person I respect tremendously is attempting to purchase a city road which dead ends at his property. I am in favor of the proposed street vacation for 2 main reasons. The flrst of which is that it is of no use to the city and its residents. Selling this road will provide much needed income for the city and eliminate any further expenses maintaining the road. Plans to generate city funds by selling off parks or community building are shocking to me. Please use opportunities like this to flnd those flnances. Secondly, I know flrst hand what a craftsman Shaun is. Any changes from this road sale will only upgrade the surrounding areas. Local residents will beneflt longterm from improved streetscape and surroundings. I appreciate the opportunity to view my opinion, and encourage the council to vote in favor of the proposal.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 183/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21159246&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-27 12:54 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/27/2026 2:54:33 AM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Mark LastName Aker Email Markandjenn@comcast.net CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Sale of ROW (84th street vacation) hearing tomorrow Comments To whom it may concern: My name is Mark Aker I grew up in Shoreline, Washington and am a 14 year resident of Edmonds. I am writing today to support and encourage the city council to vote in favor of the street vacation (ROW) as I believe it to be in the best interest of both the residents and the city. My family and I purchased our home 14 years ago in the neighborhood directly across Edmonds Way from the property of interest (ROW). This area of Edmonds has been the home of many illegal activities over the years which include garbage dumping, burglaries, theft, prostitution and abandon vehicles. Allowing the sale of the ROW to the private owner applicant would allow the owner to enclose and monitor the property. In turn, reducing strain on police resources which can be better directed elsewhere saving the city money. In addition, the selling of ROW to the private owner applicant allows for a community involved, reputable small business to expand its footprint which will beneflt the city with property taxes and permit fees as well as increase the city’s land tax base - again saving the city money and contributing to the city. Finally, I believe the selling of ROW to the private owner applicant would beneflt the city, as the city would no longer need to maintain the “right of way road.” It would no longer be up to the city to clear vegetation, clean up illegal dumping, street sweeping, as well as normal road repairs. The private owner applicant would be in charge of maintaining the land saving the city well need funds. In summary, as a Edmonds resident I encourage the city council to vote in favor and support the vacation as I feel it is in the best interest of both the residents and the city. Thank you for your time, Mark Aker   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 184/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21159263&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-27 11:34 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/27/2026 1:34:41 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Mike LastName Doherty Email miked.11@icloud.com CityOfResidence EDMONDS AgendaTopic The vacation of the property common to 84th Ave W, south of 240th St SW, and bounded by the Highway 99 and Edmonds way right of way. Comments MIKE DOHERTY 10302 242nd PL SW Edmonds WA 98020 | 425-232-2658 | miked.11@icloud.com 1-27-2026 Members of Edmonds City Council 84th Ave Street Vacation Members of Edmonds City Council: My name is Mike Doherty, I live at 10302 242nd PL SW Edmonds WA 98020. I have been an Edmonds resident for 40 of my 50 years. I apologize for not being present, as I had a confiicting engagement. I support the cities vacation of this property common to 84th Ave W, south of 240th St SW, and bounded by the Highway 99 and Edmonds way right of way. This piece of property serves only as a hinderance to the city, with no sizable use for the city it is only a flnancial burden for upkeep, and police engagement. I drive by this property multiple times daily, over the years on I have witnessed Mr. Leiser out maintaining the overgrown grass and picking up liter on this the cities property himself. Mr. Leiser and his construction business have improved the appearance of Highway 99 in both King and Snohomish counties on multiple occasions with the construction of new clean attractive buildings. Most recently the SCL office building common to this property. The city of Edmonds does an above average job at keeping its city visually appealing, and vacating this property would help to further this, along with generating income that the city needs in a dire way. As a resident of the City of Edmonds, I encourage the council to vote in favor of this proposal as it will be a beneflt to the city and its residents. Sincerely, Mike Doherty To view this form submission online, please follow the link below:   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 185/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21159888&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-27 11:58 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/27/2026 1:58:27 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Gary LastName Haberbush Email Collkillgar@gmail.com CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Objection to proposed street vacation — 84th Avenue West (south of 240th Street SW) Comments My name is Gary Haberbush. I am a condominium owner at Edmonds Greenery, 8414 240th Street SW, and a member of our homeowners’ association. I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed vacation of 84th Avenue West south of 240th Street SW, bounded by SR-99 and Edmonds Way. This issue is deeply personal to me. I am a single homeowner, and my condominium is not simply an investment—it is my home, my stability, and central to my well-being. Quality of life impacts are already being felt. The adjacent property owner, SCL Enterprises, operates a general contracting business. We have already seen trees removed that provided noise buffering and shade, and a fence erected that blocks pedestrian access to Highway 99 and nearby businesses. I do not own a car, and this change has made daily life more difficult and isolating. Vacating the street raises serious concerns about increased truck traffic, idling, noise, vibration, diesel exhaust, and safety confiicts immediately adjacent to our homes. The primary beneflt of this street vacation appears to be for one property owner seeking expanded control. That is not sufficient justiflcation when many nearby residents bear the permanent impacts and risks. I respectfully ask the Council to: 1. Deny the proposed vacation of 84th Avenue West; or, at minimum, 2. Require a full public review of all utility and stormwater infrastructure and easements, 3. Retain permanent, recorded, non-exclusive easements with clear access rights and no obstructions, 4. Conduct a traffic, safety, and noise analysis speciflc to commercial vehicle activity near residences, 5. Prohibit intensifled commercial staging or truck use adjacent to homes, and 6. Make written flndings demonstrating a clear public beneflt that outweighs the permanent loss of public right-of-way. Thank you for your service and for considering the real,   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 186/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting lived impacts on residents who call this neighborhood home. Sincerely, Gary Haberbush To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21159948&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-27 12:34 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/27/2026 2:34:14 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Kurt LastName Campbell Email kurtc@campbellautogroup.com CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic 84th Ave. Street Vacation Comments On behalf of Campbell VW - Nissan our concern regarding the vacating of 84th St. would be how it impacts our property on at 24015 84th Ave W, Edmonds. We need to keep our access ability off of 84th street on SW part of our property. This past summer we started a new business on the above property called ‘EV Driven’, which sole purpose was to sell electric vehicles. Unfortunately, when EV government subsidies ended on September 30th we were forced to suspend operations because of lack of demand. We have now seen electric vehicles rebound to the point where we hope to reopen this facility soon. To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21160101&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-27 02:55 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/27/2026 4:55:45 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Mary LastName Zandona   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 187/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting Email maryzandona@comcast.net CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Public Hearing on January 27, 2026 at 6:00 pm regarding 85th Ave Street Vacation Comments I live in the Edmonds Greenery Condo Association that is next to the property that is the subject of this meeting. I have a number of questions and concerns regarding this proposal for the vacation of 84th Avenue W. They are: - How will the vacation of 84th affect the Edmonds Greenery 84th Avenue W entrance? - What is the proposed use of the property? - Where will the turnaround for 84th be located? My concern is that drivers will come to the end of 84th and turn into our (Edmonds Greenery) property to try and turn around, or just use our driveway as a way to turn around. -Is it possible to see a diagram of what they plan to do with the property? And where the turnaround would be? - Will the utilities underground pipes and water lines be done by the appropriate organizations, and not the property owner? - Will the fence that the property owner built on the north side of their property, next to Edmonds Greenery south side, be brought up to code? Thank you for listening to my concerns. I appreciate it. Mary Zandona Edmonds Greenery Condo Association Unit B102 8414 240th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21160384&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions Online Form 2026-01-27 08:11 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/27/2026 10:11:29 PM (GMT-07:00) US/Arizona Name Value FirstName Matt LastName Scherer Email mscherer@email.com CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic 84th Ave Street Vacation Comments Hello, i was dialed in remotely on the public hearing today but was unable to get through to make my comment. I live in the Edmonds Greenery building north of the property in question. I have a major concern over the logistics of making it privately owned and operated. The applicant had mentioned the street serves a single owner, himself. That said, 84th ave W does not a serve single owner. Our Edmonds Greenery condo has a west entrance off 84th ave W just north of the massage (in addition to the main entrance off 240th st), just   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 188/237 Edmonds City Council Public Comments – February 3, 2026 Meeting before the cul de sac start (before the massage parlor). Access restriction would affect our communities access to our own building. Also mentioned was the belief that this would not impede circulation of traffic. However, as was mentioned in the public comments, there is a 4 way stop on 84th ave south and 240th street that a signiflcant number of drivers use to access Aurora ave south, and while there is a "dead end" sign, drivers that are looking to re-merge with aurora often miss (anecdotally, dozens of drivers miss this and have to use the cul de sac to fiip around to go back to 240th and then merge on Aurora). My question/ concern is if there is a vacation and privately owned, how will these drivers be able to fiip around? A major concern would be they will will simply use our condo communities East entrance to fiip around instead. How will private ownership it be enforced? To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://edmondswa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=21160646&contextId=18452053&returnto=sub missions   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 189/237 1 Lambert, Jennifer From:Billy Ward <billyw@ovwater.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 12:30 PM To:Lambert, Jennifer Cc:Bob Danson Subject:RE: Street Vacation - Utility Easement – Developer Properties at 24024 & 24110 84th Ave W Hi Jennifer, Thank you again for taking the time to speak with me today—I really appreciate it. Following up on our conversation, I wanted to provide clarification regarding the easement widths the district typically requires for water and sewer utilities. Olympic View Water & Sewer District generally uses a standard 15- foot-wide easement for all utilities. In this specific case, based on our maps showing a 1-inch water supply line in the street vacation area that serves only a couple of meters, we would only require a 10-foot water easement rather than the full 15 feet. I hope this helps answer your questions, and please feel free to reach out if you need any additional information. Have a great day, Billy From: Billy Ward Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 9:37 AM To: 'jennifer.lambert@edmondswa.gov' <jennifer.lambert@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Bob Danson <bobd@ovwater.com> Subject: RE: Street Vacation - Utility Easement – Developer Properties at 24024 & 24110 84th Ave W Jennifer, Just to clarify, Olympic View Water and Sewer District has existing utilities within the right-of-way in the area proposed for vacation, and a corresponding easement will need to be established or preserved moving forward. Apologies for missing this earlier—I didn’t want to cause any confusion. Have a great weekend, Billy You don't often get email from billyw@ovwater.com. Learn why this is important   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 190/237 2 From: Billy Ward Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 6:58 AM To: 'jennifer.lambert@edmondswa.gov' <jennifer.lambert@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Bob Danson <bobd@ovwater.com> Subject: Street Vacation - Utility Easement – Developer Properties at 24024 & 24110 84th Ave W Hi Jennifer, In regard to the developer, Shaun Leiser, and the properties located at 24024 and 24110 84th Ave W (off 240th), Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently has a recorded water and sewer easement that runs through the area proposed for vacation by the City of Edmonds. Our General Manager was notified of the proposed property vacation and was approached with some questions regarding how the Code addresses utilities in the right-of-way. We understand your team is actively addressing the associated issues and we’re just looking for clarification. I wanted to follow up to ensure that, as this process moves forward and prior to any City of Edmonds Council action, all existing utilities and easements are fully identified and resolved. Within our existing easement, Olympic View has the following infrastructure: · A small water main · Blow-off assembly · Two water meters · Manholes · A sewer main Based on our understanding of Edmonds City Code 18.55.120, the street vacation process notes existing utilities and easements should be addressed to avoid unintended outcomes, but also includes the possibility that the “utility’s authority from the city to have its facilities within such right-of-way is extinguished” if an easement is not established beforehand. We want to ensure that Olympic View’s underlying facilities are identified and addressed through this review before any final City Council action. It looks like the Code addresses this, “Additionally and/or alternatively, the city council may condition the street vacation on the conveyance of an easement between third parties.” Is this being discussed? Please let me know if you need any additional information from our end or if a coordination meeting would be helpful. Thank you, Billy Billy Ward , Operations Manager   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 191/237 3 Olympic View Water and Sewer District 8128 228th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026-8449 billyw@ovwater.com p : 425-876-5490 cell : 206-225-1435   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 192/237 CIT Y O F EDM O N D S Inc.189 0 84TH Ave WStreet Vacation January 27, 2026 Public Hearing   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 193/237 CITY O F EDMO N D S Inc.18 9 0 Street Vacation Location •Street Vacation Application received Oct 2024 •84th Ave ROW •South of 240th St SW •Adjacent to 24110 & 24024 84th Ave W   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 194/237 CITY O F EDMO N D S Inc.18 9 0 Street View – 84th Ave W •Dead End Street •WSDOT ROW to east •Applicant property to west WSDOT ROW Applicant Property Right-of-Way   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 195/237 Initiation of Proceedings ECDC 18.55.015 •By City council or by property owners abutting the portion of ROW to be vacated. •Vacation request has been initiated by abutting owners o A Petition of owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of street or alley to be vacated is included as an attachment in the staff report. •According to ECDC 18.55.070 a future public hearing must be set by resolution •On December 16, 2025, Resolution No. 1580 was passed by Council setting the public hearing for tonight   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 196/237 CITY O F EDMO N D S Inc.18 9 0 Area of Vacation – Initial Application 23,684 sf   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 197/237 CITY O F EDMO N D S Inc.18 9 0 WSDOT Area – Initial Application   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 198/237 CITY O F EDMO N D S Inc.18 9 0 WSDOT Quit Claim Deed •1979 Dedication, 12,600sf •Grantor: WSDOT •Grantee: Snohomish County •Reversionary Clause: … should any portion of said property be no longer used for public road purposes or such related purposes, all rights in and to said portion as herin conveyed shall become null and void and title to said portion shall immediately revert to and revest in the grantor herein.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 199/237 CITY O F EDMO N D S Inc.18 9 0 Utilities •Edmonds Storm •OVWSD Water •OVWSD Sewer •PSE: Gas Transmission Main •Other   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 200/237 CITY O F EDMO N D S Inc.18 9 0 Phased Street Vacation Process Phase I •City Vacates ROW with Reversion to WSDOT •WSDOT processes sale of surplus property Phase II •Dependent upon applicants' procurement of WSDOT ROW ***Phase I and II may occur simultaneously.*** Resolution of Intent to Vacate – Conditions to consider, for example: •Monetary Compensation •Easements - public storm main, etc. •Rezone from MF to CG •Construction of Turn-around   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 201/237 CITY O F EDMO N D S Inc.18 9 0 •Application to be Processed under ECDC 18.55 •Application – Oct 2024 •Petition Received •Appraisal Received – needs to be updated following Res. of Intent •Legislative Decision - City Council •Continuation of public hearing •Staff recommendation •Resolution of Intent to Vacate, with conditions of approval •Ordinance Approving Vacation – after conditions met Edmonds CommunityDevelopment Code   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 202/237 ECDC 18.55.020 – Criteria for Vacation •City council may vacate a ROW if found that: 1. The vacation and any conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate, collectively, are in the public interest; and 2.The vacation of the subject property will not adversely affect transporation circulation, access, emergency services, utility facilities, or other similar right-of-way pruposed; and 3.The subject property is not necessary part of a long- range circulation plan or pedestrian/bicycle plan; and 4.The Vacation will not result in irregular right-of-way alignment hindering future use of the right-of-way.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 203/237 Utilities and Easements •Obtain easements for the public stormwater system. •Water and sewer are owned and operated by Olympic View and Water Sewer District. There is likely additional utilities located in this area. Easements may need to be retained as required by the respective utility owners. No need for easements to City   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 204/237 ➢July 1, 2025 – Council Committee ‘A’ ➢August 12, 2025 – Introduction at City Council ➢December 16, 2025– Resolution to set Public Hearing ✓January 27, 2026 – Public Hearing ➢March 10, 2026 – Public Hearing Continuation Next Steps …   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 205/237 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, STATING ITS INTENT TO VACATE A PORTION OF 84TH AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 240TH ST SW AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTIES ADDRESSED 24024 AND 24110 84TH AVENUE WEST UPON THE FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONTIONS. WHEREAS, on December 16, 2025, the Edmonds City Council adopted resolution No. 1580 establishing a public hearing on a proposed street vacation, File No. PLN2024- 0086; and WHERES, a public hearing on the proposed street vacation was held on January 22, 2026 and continued to March 10, 2026; and WHEREAS, the existing public right-of-way gives the appearance of being a through street when it is not; and WHEREAS, the subject public right-of-way to be vacated has a documented use of camping, illegal dumping, and criminal activity; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the vacation is in the public interest, and that no property will be denied access as a result of the vacation; and WHEREAS, a City-owned stormwater utility is located within the proposed street vacation area; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to retain an easement allowing the continuing use, repair and maintenance of the City’s stormwater facility; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way contains third party utilities which will have an opportunity to independently obtain easements from the fee owner; and WHEREAS, the subject right-of-way was originally acquired, in part, pursuant to dedication and has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more; and   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 206/237 2 WHEREAS, the part that was not acquired through dedication was obtained through a deed from the State of Washington, which contains reversionary language in the event that the property ceases to be used as a street; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ECDC 18.55.140.B.2 and RCW 35.79.030 the City may be compensated in an amount equal to the full fair market value of the right-of-way prior to vacation by ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby states its intent to vacate by ordinance that portion of 84th Avenue West that lies adjacent to and east of the properties addressed 24024 and 24110 84th Avenue West as shown on the attached Exhibit A (hereinafter the “Vacation Area”) and further described in File No. PLN2024-0086, which is incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth as long as the following conditions are met within one hundred eighty (180) days: 1. The applicant shall use a utility locate service to survey the location and identify the operator of all utilities in the Vacation Area. A copy of that survey shall be filed with the City. 2. Upon receipt of the survey described in Section 1.1, the City shall use its best efforts to notify the utility operators disclosed by the survey of the pending street vacation so that they can obtain necessary easements from the applicant as contemplated by ECDC 18.55.120. Each utility company shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary easements, compensating the fee owner accordingly. The City does not intend to delay the street vacation as a result of a utility’s failure to obtain a necessary easement. 3. In the forthcoming street vacation ordinance, a public utility easement shall be reserved to the City of Edmonds for the installation, construction, operation,   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 207/237 3 maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of the stormwater system and necessary appurtenances, over, across, through, and below the subject 84th Avenue West vacation. This easement shall be limited to ten feet in width, centered on the location of the existing stormwater facilities. The value of the easement shall be determined by the appraisal referenced below. The easement shall allow the fee owner to relocate the City’s facilities at the fee owner’s expense and pursuant to applicable City standards, permitting, and inspection. The City’s stormwater utility shall transfer the value of the easement to the City’s general fund upon adoption of the ordinance. 4. In the forthcoming street vacation ordinance, a public access easement shall be reserved to the City of Edmonds for the installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of a vehicle turnaround in the portion of the Vacation Area depicted on Exhibit B. The value of the easement shall be determined by the appraisal referenced below. 5. The fee owner of the property depicted on Exhibit C shall execute and deliver to the City of Edmonds a public access easement for the installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of a vehicle turnaround. In the event that an alternative vehicle turnaround configuration has been approved by South County Fire and the City Engineer, any necessary easements for that configuration must be executed and delivered to the City of Edmonds by the fee owner of that property. 6. After adoption of the street vacation ordinance and before it takes effect, a general public and emergency vehicle turn-around shall be constructed to City of Edmonds and South County Fire standards as depicted on Exhibit D or pursuant to an alternative configuration that has been approved by South County Fire and the City Engineer and for which necessary easements have been obtained. 7. The street vacation ordinance shall be drafted to take effect upon the City’s recording of the ordinance with Snohomish County, which recording shall not   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 208/237 4 occur until all conditions in this resolution and the forthcoming ordinance have been satisfied. 8. Payment to the City for any outstanding appraisal fees as outlined in ECDC 18.55.130, and monetary compensation, prior to the effective date of the ordinance, in an amount equal to full fair market value as determined by the appraisal. For the purposes of this resolution, the appraisal shall make the following extraordinary assumptions or hypothetical conditions: 1) the as-is / before vacation larger parcel shall include all the property currently owned by the applicant ([insert parcel numbers]) and the property that is being surplused by WSDOT on the west, south, and east of the right-of-way being vacated, including the right-of-way that is subject to WSDOT’s reversionary interest; 2) the as if vacated / after vacation larger parcel would be the larger parcel under the hypothetical where the street vacation ordinance has already been adopted and taken effect; 3) the property shall be considered free of all utilities and related easements in the before condition; and 4) all easement conditions herein shall be factored into the after condition, PROVIDED THAT the value of utility easements that are being obtained from the owner independently pursuant to Section 1.2 shall not be factored into the after condition. 9. The City Council shall review the amount to be paid as compensation for the street vacation and shall use its legislative discretion in determining whether the amount is sufficient to justify adoption of the street vacation ordinance. 10. The City of Edmonds intends for the State of Washington to be able to commence its surplus process upon adoption of this ordinance as long as the actual transfer of title is deferred until and conditioned upon the City’s recording of the street vacation ordinance. Section 2. If the applicant fails to provide the survey referenced in subsection 1.1 or the easement referenced in subsection 1.5, above, within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date of adoption of this resolution the Council’s approval shall become null   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 209/237 5 and void, PROVIDED THAT the applicant, for good cause, may request an extension of this resolution, which extension shall be granted or not pursuant to the legislative discretion of the City Council. RESOLVED THIS ___ DAY OF March, 2026: MAYOR MIKE ROSEN ATTEST: CITY CLERK, LUKE LONIE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. ___   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 210/237 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ROAD VACATION: 84TH AVENUE W. EDMONDS, WA. THAT PORTION OF 84TH AVENUE W. LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SAID PORTION MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 3, BLOCK 17, HANBURY’S SOUND VIEW TRACTS, RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 00° 43’ 00” EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF 84TH AVENUE W A DISTANCE OF 153.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 12’ 40” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 11.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89° 12’ 40” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07° 37’ 21” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 58.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 83° 09’ 59” WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 437.50 FEET AND THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22° 12’ 43” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 169.61 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 64° 01’ 58” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 38.64 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 37° 51’ 46” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13.48 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 33° 21’ 25” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 53.95 FEET TO A POINT 90 FEET NORTHEASTERLY, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO ENGINEER’S STATION L-184+90 OF STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 104, 236TH STREET SW TO MERDIAN AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 56° 38’ 35” EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 89.78 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 84TH AVENUE W. AND A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN AND AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 49° 07’ 40” WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 511.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35° 00’ 24” AND HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 312.21 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89° 51’ 41” EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89° 51’ 41” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 72.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 7/15/24   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 211/237   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 212/237   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 213/237   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 214/237   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 215/237 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • ENGINEERING DIVISION PLN2024-0086 – Leiser Street Vacation Page 1 of 10 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL Project: Vacation of a portion of 84th Ave. W right-of-way adjacent to the properties addressed 24024 and 24110 84th Ave. W. Requested Permits: PLN2024-0086 Date of Report: March 5, 2026 Staff Contacts: Mike De Lilla, City Engineer Jennifer Lambert, Acting Engineering Program Manager Public Hearing: March 10, 2026 Council Chambers 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND PROCESS An application and petition have been filed by Shaun Leiser to vacate that portion of 84th Ave. W right-of-way (ROW) directly east of the properties addressed 24024 and 24110 84th Ave. W. (Attachments 1-3 and 8-10). This stretch of right-of-way ranges between approximately 74 feet and 90 feet in width and approximately 312 feet in length, with a total area of approximately 23,684 square feet (Attachments 8-10). The initial application to the City of Edmonds was received on October 23, 2024. Additional materials and information were required, and the application was determined to be complete in July 2025. Due to the complexity of the project in relation to the Washington State Department of Transportation reversion clause described below, the application did not move forward until December 2025. In accordance with Section 18.55.070 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), the City Council passed Resolution No. 1580 which set the public hearing for the proposed vacation for January 27, 2026 (Attachment 11). At the January 27, 2026 hearing, a continuation of the public hearing was set for March 10, 2026 (Attachment 14). Following is staff’s evaluation of the street vacation criteria in accordance with the requirements for a staff report as provided in ECDC 18.55.080.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 216/237 PLN2024-0086 – Leiser Street Vacation Page 2 of 10 II. PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice requirements for street vacations are detailed in ECDC 18.55.090. A public hearing notice for the council’s consideration of a street vacation was published in the Herald Newspaper on January 6, 2026. In addition, notice was mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the site. In accordance with ECDC 18.55.090, the public notice stated that a public storm easement will be retained during the vacation process and other utility easements are under consideration for utilities not owned and operated by the City of Edmonds (Attachment 12). A notice of public hearing was posted at the subject site (Attachment 12) on February 4, 2026, which is a minimum of 20 days before the continued hearing date of March 10, 2026. As such, the noticing provisions of ECDC 18.55.090 have been met. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Written comments were received expressing support of, as well as concerns, related to the street vacation (Attachment 15). Verbal comments were also provided at the public hearing on January 27, 2026 (Attachment 14). Some of the concerns expressed relate to how easements are obtained, maintaining existing access, and adequate turnaround area. With regards to how easements will be obtained, as a condition of vacation, the City will reserve easements for the public stormwater main and vehicle turnaround. Per ECDC 18.55.120, the City will also use its best efforts to notify any known utility operators that may have facilities within the street vacation area to allow for necessary easements to be obtained from the applicant. The proposed street vacation does not remove or alter existing access points to properties adjacent to and north of the street vacation area. A vehicle turnaround will be constructed consistent with Engineering Division and South County Fire standards (Attachment 5). The turnaround will be located almost entirely within existing right-of-way, with a small portion located within WSDOT property to the east. As noted, all existing access points will be maintained; however, a portion of the proposed hammerhead will be in alignment with the existing driveway approach for Edmonds Greenery Condominium. Again, this portion of the hammerhead will be located within the right-of-way and the location of the existing access for Edmonds Greenery Condominium will not change. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE REQUESTED VACATION In processing the proposed street vacation, the City became aware of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) reversion rights to a portion of the subject right- of-way. The original quit claim deed (Attachment 7) states that should the property no longer be used for public road purposes or related purposes then the title shall immediately revert to the grantor (WSDOT). Because of the reversionary interest to WSDOT, the   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 217/237 PLN2024-0086 – Leiser Street Vacation Page 3 of 10 applicant must pursue the street vacation with the city as well as a follow through with a separate real estate transaction with the State. The City has conferred with WSDOT and the Attorney General’s Office about the possibility of sharing the compensation that would result from a vacation of the reversionary area and WSDOT has declined. Concurrently, the applicant, Mr. Leiser, has engaged in a process with WSDOT to purchase surplus WSDOT right-of-way surrounding the 84th Ave W street vacation area. Should Council choose to approve the subject street vacation, resulting in a portion of the right-of- way reverting to WSDOT, the State would likely combine this reversionary area with its abutting surplus parcels and sell the combined parcels at the same time. WSDOT staff have indicated to city staff that the sale of the surplus property would be offered to the two abutting property owners, Mr. Leiser and CamNel Properties, owner of the nearby property used for the Campbell Nissan and Volkswagen car dealerships. If an agreement is not reached between the two parties, City staff understands the WSDOT surplus property would be auctioned to the public. While there may be uncertainties associated with ultimate ownership of that portion of right-of-way that will revert to WSDOT, staff is recommending a decision be made on the entirety of the street vacation area without pursuing a phased approach that had previously been considered. In doing so, the consideration of easements, construction of required public turnaround and monetary compensation will be wholly and efficiently addressed by staff and Council. Regardless, there are still two jurisdictions involved in the ultimate ROW relinquishment process. While Edmonds initially maintains control of the entire proposed street vacation area, as noted, the fee title of a portion of the vacation area would revert back to WSDOT should the vacation be approved, which is what allows WSDOT to sell that portion. These two distinct vacation areas are depicted in Attachment 6. In addition, Attachment 9 provides a legal description and map of the street vacation area subject to the WSDOT reversionary clause and Attachment 10 provides a legal description and map of the remaining street vacation area. Vacation of the area depicted in Attachment 9 is a prerequisite to the state being able to sell that area regardless of whether it is sold in combination with WSDOT’s other surplus parcels in the area. We do not expect the state’s surplus land sale to have any impact upon the underlying fee ownership of the right-of-way depicted in Attachment 10. Additional information about the underlying title would be needed to know for certain, but the applicant’s due diligence has convinced him that he is the owner of the underlying fee. The City has a public stormwater system located within the proposed street vacation area. Water and sewer are owned and operated by Olympic View and Water Sewer District. PSE has a gas main in the right-of-way and Snohomish County PUD has existing power facilities. As a condition of vacation, the City will reserve easements for the existing stormwater main. Best efforts will be used to notify any utility provider with facilities in the vacation area so they can obtain necessary easements from the applicant as contemplated by ECDC 18.55.120. Refer to Attachment 5 for survey location of various utilities.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 218/237 PLN2024-0086 – Leiser Street Vacation Page 4 of 10 A public turnaround (cul-de-sac) exists at the south end of the existing 84th Ave W ROW. Should this section of ROW be vacated, a new public turnaround will need to be constructed within and adjacent to the north end of the vacation area. This requirement has been reviewed for compliance by both the City of Edmonds Engineering Division and South County Fire and is depicted and described in Attachments 5 and 13. As a condition of vacation, the City will reserve an access easement for that portion of the turnaround located within existing public right-of-way. The applicant will be required to execute and deliver to the City an easement from WSDOT for any portion of the access easement located on WSDOT property. The construction of the new turnaround would be a condition preceding the adoption of any street vacation ordinance. V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by South County Fire and City of Edmonds Public Works Operations & Maintenance and Engineering Divisions and Planning Division. South County Fire: South County Fire is requiring a turnaround that meets Fire and Engineering standards (Attachment 13). Refer to Attachment 5 for a depiction of the vacation area and location of proposed public hammerhead turnaround. City of Edmonds Engineering and Maintenance & Operations Divisions of Public Works: There is an existing City stormwater main located within the subject right-of-way. An easement will need to be reserved for this public utility system. VII. ECDC 18.55 – STREET VACATIONS A. ECDC 18.55.015 Initiation of Proceedings and application Pursuant to ECDC 18.55.015.C, a vacation may be initiated by petition of the vested title owners of at least two-thirds of the real property abutting the portion of the street to be vacated. The portion of right-of-way proposed for vacation directly abuts the properties addressed 24024 and 24110 84th Ave W, along with WSDOT’s surplus right-of-way to the east. The properties adjacent to the western side of the proposed street vacation area are privately owned by the applicant (and shown by the red dots on the map below). The rest of the property surrounding 84th Avenue West is surplus right-of-way owned by the State of Washington.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 219/237 PLN2024-0086 – Leiser Street Vacation Page 5 of 10 With signatures from all owners abutting the portion of the right-of-way to be vacated, the initiation of vacation proceedings is compliant with ECDC 18.55.015. B. ECDC 18.55.020 Criteria for Vacation The City Council may vacate the public’s right in a subject property only if it finds that the following criteria have been met. 1. The vacation and any conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate, collectively, are in the public interest; and 2. The vacation of the subject property will not adversely affect transportation circulation, access, emergency services, utility facilities, or other similar right-of- way purposes; and 3. The subject property is not a necessary part of a long-range circulation plan or pedestrian/bicycle plan; and 4. The vacation will not result in irregular right-of-way alignment hindering future use of the right-of-way. The above findings need to be made before the city adopts a resolution of intent to vacate. The Transportation Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan does not identify any future circulation, pedestrian or bicycle projects in the area of 84th Ave. W south of 240th Street. The subject portion of 84th Ave. W has long been a dead end and there is no ability to create a through street going south due to the adjacent State highway   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 220/237 PLN2024-0086 – Leiser Street Vacation Page 6 of 10 ROW (see Attachment 1). As noted previously, water and sewer in the area are provided by Olympic View Water and Sewer District while a stormwater main owned by the City of Edmonds runs through 84th Ave. W and connects to stormwater main line in the SR-104 ROW. With appropriate easements being conditioned for the utilities in the right-of-way and with another condition requiring the construction of a new public turnaround, staff is confident that the street vacation can meet criteria 2 through 4. The first criteria addressing whether the vacation is in the public interest, is much more subjective and relies upon the city council’s legislative discretion. Think of this as: “What public value do we lose by giving up right-of-way, and what public value do we gain (or protect) by vacating it?” In exercising its legislative discretion, the city council can consider various factors, including, but not limited to, the following: • Whether the appraisal has been prepared in a manner that assures the city will receive a fair market value for the property being vacated; • Whether the public would be helped or harmed in any way by the street vacation; • Whether the public is being helped or harmed in any way by the property remaining in right-of-way use; and • Whether the property is likely to be put to productive use, if vacated, and the degree of that likelihood on the spectrum between certain and speculative. C. ECDC 18.55.040 Limitations on Vacations 1. Pursuant to ECDC 18.55.040A, “The city may not vacate any subject property that abuts a body of water unless all elements of RCW 35.79.035 are satisfied.” The proposed vacation area does not abut any bodies of water. 2. Pursuant to ECDC 18.55.040B, “The city shall not proceed with a city council initiated vacation if the owners of 50 percent or more of the lineal footage of property abutting the subject property file a written objection to the engineering division no later than noon on the date of hearing.” As of the writing of this staff report, the City has not received any written objections from owners of property abutting the subject right-of-way. D. 18.55.120 Right to Reserve Easements In vacating any subject property, the city council may reserve for the city any easements or the right to exercise and grant any easements for the following purposes: A. Construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services;   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 221/237 PLN2024-0086 – Leiser Street Vacation Page 7 of 10 B. Pedestrian walkway or trail purposes; and/or C. Construction, repair and maintenance of utilities by a third-party utility company, municipal corporation, or special purpose district that has a vested interest in the subject property. Additionally and/or alternatively, the city council may condition the street vacation on the conveyance of an easement between third parties. Utilities do not have a right to remain in vacated right-of-way without an easement. Nor will the city be liable for any damages or loss to a utility by reason of such vacation. When a right-of-way is vacated the utility’s authority from the city to have its facilities within such right-of-way is extinguished. The city will use its best efforts to notify any utility that may have facilities within the right-of- way to be vacated to allow the utility an opportunity to negotiate an easement for its facilities. Where a city reserves an easement for a utility, it may also require compensation from that utility for the easement right, even when the utility is city owned. [Ord. 4400 § 2 (Exh. A), 2025]. As discussed in the Analysis above, the street vacation will be conditioned on the reservation of easements for both the existing city stormwater main and for a new public vehicular turnround. Best efforts will be used to notify any utility provider with facilities in the vacation area so they have an opportunity to obtain necessary easements from the applicant as contemplated by ECDC 18.55.120. E. ECDC 18.55.140 Resolution of Intent and Final Decision A resolution of intent with conditions will be provided to council for review and approval prior to a decision on the street vacation being requested. 1. ECDC 18.55.140.A provides the following: Following the public hearing, the city council may, by motion approved by a majority of the entire membership in a roll call vote, adopt a resolution of intent to vacate. If there are insufficient votes to adopt a resolution of intent, the street vacation will be deemed denied. While a draft resolution of intent to vacate has been included in the March 10, 2026 public hearing council packet, staff is not requesting a vote at this time. Following the public hearing and any discussion by city council, staff will return to council at a later date with a proposed resolution of intent to vacate unless the council directs otherwise. 2. ECDC 18.55.140.B provides the following: The city council may adopt a resolution of intent to vacate stating the city council intends, by ordinance, to vacate the subject property if the applicant meets specified   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 222/237 PLN2024-0086 – Leiser Street Vacation Page 8 of 10 conditions within 90 days, unless a different time period is specified within the resolution. The city may require the following as conditions of the resolution of intent to vacate: a. Conditions: i. Reservation and/or conveyance of an easement as outlined in ECDC 18.55.120; ii. Acceptance of a grant of substitute public right-of-way; iii. Covenants intended to protect critical areas or otherwise limit future development on the subject property; and/or iv. Other nonmonetary conditions that would, in the city council’s discretion, be in the public interest. b. Monetary compensation. The city council shall condition approval of a street vacation upon satisfaction of the following monetary conditions: i. Payment of any outstanding appraisal fees as outlined in ECDC 18.55.130; and ii. Payment to the city, prior to the effective date of the ordinance, in an amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the subject property unless the subject property was acquired at “public expense” or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more, in which case full fair market value shall be paid. The draft resolution of intent to vacate contemplates easement conditions, the construction of a public vehicular turnaround and monetary compensation. Monetary compensation is to be determined through review of an updated appraisal that accounts for the highest and best use of the property and reservation of easements. 3. ECDC 18.55.140.C provides the following: If the abutting property owner(s) complies with conditions imposed in the resolution of intent to vacate within the timeframe specified within the resolution, the city council shall adopt an ordinance granting the vacation; provided, that the city council shall not be required to adopt the vacation ordinance if it finds, after reviewing the appraisal, that the monetary compensation to be paid to the city is not sufficient to compensate for the public’s loss of the subject property. The effective date clause of the ordinance shall be drafted to make the ordinance effective upon recording, and only if the ordinance contains proof of payment received, with the city receipt number indicated on the ordinance.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 223/237 PLN2024-0086 – Leiser Street Vacation Page 9 of 10 IX. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis in and the attachments to this report, staff finds the requested vacation to be in accordance with the criteria in ECDC Chapter 18.55. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution of intent to vacate with conditions. A draft resolution with conditions has been included for review by city council (Attachment 17). A final resolution will be brought back to council for approval at a future council meeting. X. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application and Petition for Vacation 3. Appraisal Information 4. Official Street Map 5. Vacation Area and Hammerhead 6. City and WSDOT Vacation Areas 7. Original Quit Claim Deed 8. Legal Description and Map of Entire Vacation Area 9. Legal Description and Lot Closures State 10. Legal Description City 11. Resolution No. 1580 Setting Public Hearing Date 12. Public Hearing Notices 13. South County Fire Memo of Compliance 14. Public Hearing Meeting Minutes Jan 27, 2026 15. Public Comments 16. Public Hearing Presentation Jan 27, 2026 17. Draft Resolution of Intent to Vacate 18. Staff Report 19. Public Hearing Presentation March 10, 2026 X. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 – 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Ken Reidy kenreidy@hotmail.com Lilly Ljiljana Bojic Shaun Leiser P.O. Box 60216 Shoreline, WA 98177 lillyphysicaltherapy@gmail.com Kathy Gregory Kagregory49@gmail.com South County Fire c/o Chris Burt 124525 Meridian Ave S Everett, WA 98208 Jason Penningtion pennyunderpar@gmail.com   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 224/237 PLN2024-0086 – Leiser Street Vacation Page 10 of 10 Jen Penningtion jlcaparas@gmail.com Ben Davis Bcharles.davis@gmail.com Mike Doherty Miked.11@icloud.com Kurt Campbell kurtc@campbellautogroup.com Matt Scherer mscherer@email.com Chris Lyon Chris@westerlyre.com Mark Aker Markandjenn@comcast.net Gary Haberbush collkillgar@gmail.com Mary Zandona maryzandona@comcast.net OVWSD billyw@ovwater.com   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 225/237 84 TH Av e W St r e e t V a c a t i o n Ma r c h 1 0 , 2 0 2 6 Pu b l i c H e a r i n g ( c o n t i n u e d f r o m J a n u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 2 6 )   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 226/237 St r e e t V a c a t i o n L o c a t i o n • St r e e t V a c a t i o n Ap p l i c a t i o n r e c e i v e d Oc t 2 0 2 4 • 84 th Av e R O W • So u t h o f 2 4 0 th St S W • Ad j a c e n t t o 2 4 1 1 0 & 24 0 2 4 8 4 th Av e W   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 227/237 St r e e t V i e w – 8 4 th Av e W • Lo o k i n g S o u t h • De a d E n d S t r e e t • WS D O T R O W t o e a s t • Ap p l i c a n t p r o p e r t y t o we s t WS D O T RO W Ap p l i c a n t Pr o p e r t y Ri g h t - o f - W a y   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 228/237 EC D C C h a p t e r 1 8 . 5 5 R e g u l a t e s V a c a t i o n s o f S t r e e t s a n d P u b l i c Ac c e s s E a s e m e n t s • Le g i s l a t i v e D e c i s i o n – C i t y C o u n c i l • Va c a t i o n r e q u e s t i n i t i a t e d b y a b u t t i n g p r o p e r t y o w n er • Pu b l i c H e a r i n g – J a n u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 2 6 , c o n t i n u e d t o M a r c h 1 0 , 2 0 2 6 • St a f f R e p o r t w i t h r e c o m m e n d a t i o n • Cr i t e r i a f o r v a c a t i o n • Re s o l u t i o n o f I n t e n t t o V a c a t e w i t h c o n d i t i o n s o f a pp r o v a l • Or d i n a n c e a p p r o v i n g v a c a t i o n a f t e r c o n d i t i o n s m e t Ed m o n d s C o m m u n i t y De v e l o p m e n t C o d e   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 229/237 Ar e a o f V a c a t i o n – I n i t i a l A p p l i c a t i o n 23 , 6 8 4 s f   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 230/237 St r e e t V a c a t i o n A r e a s On e A p p l i c a t i o n - T w o A r e a s 1) N o r t h e r n p o r t i o n f o l l o w s ty p i c a l s t r e e t v a c a t i o n pr o c e s s e s a n d i s s u b j e c t t o mo n e t a r y c o m p e n s a t i o n a s a c o n d i t i o n o f v a c a t i o n 2) S o u t h e r n p o r t i o n r e v e r t s t o WS D O T u p o n s t r e e t va c a t i o n a p p r o v a l   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 231/237 Ut i l i t i e s • Ed m o n d s S t o r m • OV W S D W a t e r • OV W S D S e w e r • PS E : G a s T r a n s m i s s i o n M a i n • PU D • Ot h e r   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 232/237 Tu r n A r o u n d   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 233/237 NO T E : T h i s g r a p h i c i s i n t e n d e d a s a v i s u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o n l y an d d o e s n o t a c c u r a t e l y d e p i c t f u t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s In t e r s e c t i o n 8 4 th an d 2 4 0 t h   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 234/237 NO T E : T h i s g r a p h i c i s i n t e n d e d t o r e p r e s e n t a c c e s s l o c a t i o n s o n l y an d i s n o t a n a c c u r a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f f u t u r e s i t e c o n d i t i o n s St r e e t a n d D r i v e w a y A c c e s s   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 235/237  Ju l y 1 , 2 0 2 5 – C o u n c i l C o m m i t t e e ‘ A ’  Au g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 2 5 – I n t r o d u c t i o n a t C i t y C o u n c i l  De c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 2 5 – R e s o l u t i o n t o s e t P u b l i c He a r i n g  Ja n u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 2 6 – P u b l i c H e a r i n g  Ma r c h 1 0 , 2 0 2 6 – P u b l i c H e a r i n g C o n t i n u a t i o n  Fu t u r e D a t e – A p p r o v a l o f R e s o l u t i o n o f I n t e n t  Fu t u r e D a t e – A p p r o v a l o f O r d i n a n c e Ne x t S t e p s …   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 236/237 5 5 2 City Council Agenda Item 11.1 March 10, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Potential Action Following Executive Session (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:City Council PRESENTER:Michelle Ditsch, City Council President NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:Potentially take action following the Executive Session. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:N/A ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: N/A CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Potentially take action following the Executive Session. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS:   Item 11.1       Packet pg. 237/237