2019-08-14 Planning Board PacketOp E D
o Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snlynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
AUGUST 14, 2019, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes: July 10 & 24, 2019
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing Regarding Amendments to Chapter 20.70 ECDC Street Vacations
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
August 14, 2019
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/14/2019
Approval of Draft Minutes: July 10 & 24, 2019
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft minutes
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached
Attachments:
PB190710d
PB190724d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
July 10, 2019
Vice Chair Robles called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Roger Pence
Nathan Monroe
Mike Rosen
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he was present to speak about the proposed street vacation code amendment. As a citizen whose
life was drastically impacted by a recent street vacation, he has a great interest in the proposed change. He said it is
important for the Board to understand that, with streets and alleyways, the City has easement rights, but the fee titles belong
to the adjacent property owners in most cases. The City's right is called the concomitant estate, which is the right to use the
easement for egress/ingress. The property owner's right is called the servient estate. Prior to the City opening a street or
alleyway, the servient estate gets to use the easement just as they use the rest of their property. This is a constitutional right
and the law is well settled. He is concerned that the proposed amendment does not differentiate between street vacations of
unopened and opened easements. If the City hasn't used the easement rights for along period of time, the street vacation
should be treated differently.
Mr. Reidy recommended that the process be slowed down so that the citizens have an opportunity to be more involved in the
rewrite of this specific code section. It is too important and they need to get it right. He said he has had very little time to
review the proposed amendments. He explained that, historically, the City has a provision that, when vacating a street or
alley easement, the City can either require a replacement easement for utilities or charge monetary compensation. The Code
is very clear that this is an either/or provision. However, the proposed amendment would allow the City to do both. He
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
expressed his belief that the citizens of Edmonds would prefer the either/or provision and not both. He provided copies of an
email he sent to the City Council, asking that the process be slowed down. Again, he asked the Board to read the email and
afford the citizens a chance to be involved in the process.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
There was no Director's Report.
UPDATE ON CLIMATE GOALS PROJECT
Mr. Lien provided a status report on each of the goals contained in Resolution 1389, which was adopted by the City Council
in 2017.
• Goal 1 -- The City Council fully supports the Mayor's endorsement of the Mayor's National Climate Action
Agenda. This goal has already been accomplished.
• Goal 2 -- The City Council has rededicated itself to partner with the City administration and Edmonds
citizens to identify benefits and costs of adopting policies and programs for long-term reduction of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Work on this goal is ongoing.
• Goal 3 — Planning Division and Climate Protection Committee will report annually to City Council on
municipal and community -wide GHG inventory, starting in 2018. A report on the GHC inventory was provided
to the City Council in 2018. Rather than focusing on the inventory, future reports will focus on different projects or
implementations to meet the GHG targets.
• Goal 4 — By July 1, 2018, the Planning Division and Climate Protection Committee will establish and
recommend GHG emissions reduction targets for both near and long-term. This work is ongoing. The work to
establish the targets and make a recommendation to the City Council is very complex. The Climate Protection
Committee has been meeting monthly with a consultant to discuss what the target should be and what it will take to
meet the target.
• Goal 5 — The Planning Division and Climate Protection Committee will update the City's Climate Action Plan
(CAP) and review specific strategies for meeting the GHG emissions reduction target while tying mitigation
with adopting measures where possible. This goal is currently ongoing. The current CAP and GHG emissions
reduction targets and strategies have been reviewed and more information will be provided later in the presentation.
• Goal 6a — The City accomplishes 100% renewal energy goal for electricity supply to municipal facilities by
2019. This goal has been accomplished via an energy credit pilot project with the Snohomish County Public Utility
District (PUD). All the energy the City purchases from the PUD in 2019 will come from renewable resources. The
plan is to continue this work next year, as well.
• Goal 6b — Community -wide goal of 100% renewable energy for electricity supply to be achieved by 2025.
This target will be difficult to meet, but recent action by the State Legislature (Senate Bill 5116) includes specific
and aggressive targets for being carbon neutral by 2030 and carbon free by 2045. PUD incentives and more public
awareness will also help the City accomplish this goal.
• Goal 7 — Planning Division and Climate Protection Committee will develop a work plan by November 2018 to
include options, methods and financial resources, along with a timeline and milestones to achieve the
renewable energy goals. Goal 6a has been accomplished through the PUD's energy credit pilot project and Goal
6b can be accomplished via State legislation, PUD incentives, and more public awareness.
Mr. Lien advised that the City completed the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory in 2009 and the Climate Action Plan was
adopted in 2010, along with policies in other City documents. He explained that GHGs are gases that trap heat in the
Planning Board Minutes
July 10, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated hydrocarbons. The GHG emissions that were
measured as part of the inventory include emissions from sources located within the City's boundary, emissions from grid -
supplied electricity consumed within the City limits, and emissions that occur outside City boundaries as a result of activities
within City boundaries. He explained that almost 50% of local emissions comes from electricity to buildings, and
transportation is also a significant source. When you look at the City's total GHG emissions, outside emissions (imported
emissions) from the production of imported food, goods and energy consumed by the Edmonds community are more than
what is actually consumed within the City. When comparing 2005 data to the 2017 data, there has been some improvement
in efficiency. However, passenger travel and gas use have increased.
Next, Mr. Lien provided a status report on the science -based climate targets/goals. He explained that science -based climate
target set a rate of climate action that is aligned with keeping average global temperature increases below a specified level of
increase compared to pre -industrial temperatures. The Paris Climate Agreement set the goal at 20C above pre -industrial
temperatures, which would allow the majority, but not all, of the global population to avoid the worst social and economic
effects of climate change. Currently, the average temperature of the earth is about 1.2°C.
Mr. Lien advised that the Climate Protection Committee has been carefully discussing different options. Their discussion has
included what is at stake, what will the public support, what is achievable, and how it can be accomplished. They are
currently leaning towards a 1.5°C goal. He provided a graph to illustrate anticipated climate change by 2100 based on a
number of scenarios. Following the current path, climate change is estimated to be 4.2°C, and following the national plans
will result in climate change of about 3.3°C. He summarized that dramatic GHG reductions must be achieved in order to
meet the goal of 1.5 or 2°C above preindustrial levels.
Mr. Lien provided a chart to illustrate the impacts of climate change. With an increase of 1.5°C above prehistoric conditions,
it is anticipated that the frequency of warm extremes over land will increase 131%, and the increase will be 350% at 2°C.
The population exposed to water scarcity worldwide will be 271 million at 1.5°C and 388 million at 2°C. He explained that
to achieve a 1 °C goal, the City would have to reduce carbon emissions by 70% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. To achieve a
1.5°C goal, carbon emissions would have to be reduced by 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. A goal of 2°C would require
that carbon emissions be reduced by 35% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.
Mr. Lien advised that the Climate Protection Committee has reviewed the City's planning and policy documents and found
over 300 polices that pertain to climate action. They also identified policies that could be added or improved upon as part of
the next update to the Climate Action Plan. However, the real test is prioritizing what needs to be done to reach the goals.
Some of the key strategies include: aim for a selected climate goal, account for the needed rate of GHG reduction, consider
what data is easily available on an ongoing basis, and prioritize where to get the biggest results.
Mr. Lien reviewed the draft strategies and science -based measures recommended in the consultant's model:
• Strategy TR-1 — Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through more sustainable land use patterns by
increasing the number of residential units in commercial and multifamily centers.
• Strategy TR-2 — Reduce VMT by improving transit systems.
• Strategy TR-3 — Reduce VMT by promoting active transportation by increasing the number of commuters
who walk or bike to work.
Total
• Strategy TR-4 — Promote carpooling and vehicle sharing by utilizing alternate work weeks and encouraging
commuters to carpool.
• Strategy TR-5 — Promote electric vehicles and other low -carbon vehicles.
• Strategy W-1— Reduce material consumption, waste generation and resource depletion.
• Strategy EY-1 — Replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources for energy that is supplied to the
community by encouraging more commercial and residential solar photovoltaic systems.
Planning Board Minutes
July 10, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
• Strategy EY-2 — Improve efficiency of existing buildings and infrastructure through upgrades.
• Strategy EY-3 — Improve efficiency of new buildings by promoting and/or requiring LIKED or other types of
green certification. Ost electric
• Strategy EY-4 — Increase carbon sequestration by planting additional trees in the City. The City's total
emissions (including imported emissions) is equivalent to just over 440,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. It would
require 500,000 acres (40 times the size of the City) of the average U.S. forest to sequester that amount of carbon.
Mr. Lien summarized that the next steps on the Climate Protection Project will include a presentation to the City Council on
the consultant's initial recommendations on August 51. Following the presentation, the City Council will discuss and
provide direction on the climate targets and key measures. A public open house was conducted after the GHG Inventory was
completed, and there will be additional opportunities for public involvement, as well. The intent is to update the Climate
Action Plan. Implementation and annual monitoring will continue.
Board Member Crank asked Mr. Lien to define "passenger travel." Mr. Lien said the ferries were not included as "passenger
travel" in the GHG Inventory. Therefore, they were not likely included in the recommended strategies and measures, either.
Board Member Crank asked if "passenger travel" refers to all transportation that isn't transit, including commercial. Mr.
Lien was unable to answer that question, but he agreed to ask the consultant and report back.
Board Member Crank asked if Strategy TR-3 presumes that residents of Edmonds would walk and bike to work locations
within the City. Mr. Lien said it projects the number of people who live in or near Edmonds that commute to jobs in
Edmonds via bicycle or walking.
Board Member Pence asked if the City has updated or is contemplating updating its building codes to require electric car
charging circuits. In his conversations with electric car owners in Edmonds, most charge their vehicles at work because they
don't have circuits at home. Mr. Lien responded that there have been some recent code updates that move in that direction.
For example, the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and General Commercial Zone updates now require electric vehicle charging
stations with new development, as well as the capacity to expand. The Westgate Mixed Use Zone also provides incentives
for electric vehicle charging stations, and the most recent development provides six. Charging stations will also be provided
as part of the Senior Center Project.
Board Member Monroe asked if the City would be able to reach its 1.5°C mark if they accomplish all of the strategies. Mr.
Lien answered that, even if the City accomplishes all ten strategies and associated targets, there would still be a gap to make
up someplace else. Board Member Monroe noted that the 10 strategies are aggressive but the City would still fall far short of
its goal. Mr. Lien said the strategies will get the City 14% of the way to the target for energy, 46% for transportation and
32% for waste.
Board Member Monroe observed that half of the GHG emissions come from outside of the City, yet none of the strategies
deal with imported emissions. Mr. Lien noted that most of the imported emissions are related to the production of
consumable materials, vehicle fuel production and air travel. Mr. Chave agreed that the strategies focus on things the City
can control. However, identifying imported emissions can inform future lobbying efforts or other opportunities to push
change. Board Member Monroe said the question is what the City can do to address real change that might be effective. Mr.
Chave commented that the Climate Protection Committee will continue to work on these issues, and tonight's presentation is
intended to be a progress report rather than a final report.
Board Member Monroe noted that the report did not provide any information about how the City of Edmonds compares to
other cities in the region. Mr. Lien said the report compares the City's current situation to a previous time but it does not
compare it to other jurisdictions.
Board Member Rosen said that in projects of this type that he has been involved in, the priorities have been based on an
evaluation of cost and likelihood in order to identify the strategies that will provide the best return. He asked how future
decisions would be made relative to priorities. Mr. Lien said that both cost and likelihood have been part of the Climate
Planning Board Minutes
July 10, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Protection Committee's discussions. Their goal is to identify what the City can actually do and what strategies will result in
the biggest bang for the buck.
Board Member Rosen pointed out that methane is significantly more powerful than carbon dioxide, and he questioned how
organic waste fits into the plan to reduce GHG emissions. Mr. Lien was unable to answer this question.
Board Member Rosen recognized that the ferry not considered part of "passenger travel," but the cars that wait in line for the
ferry can have a significant impact. He noted that Washington State has been a leader in shore power for many big ships, and
it would be worth exploring this option for ferries. He advised that Washington State Ferries is progressing towards a shift to
dual fuel. Mr. Lien said Washington State Ferries and the Snohomish County PUD have been in contact with the City over
the past year to discuss the option of electrifying the Edmonds/Clinton ferry route. They are currently working on funding.
Board Member Rosen suggested that this option should be included in the report as a strategy. Mr. Chave suggested it was
left out of the report because it is outside of the City's control.
Board Member Rosen observed that trip reduction was not included as a strategy in any of the goals related to reducing the
number of vehicle miles traveled. For example, time shifting, ride sharing and home -based work can reduce congestion and
emissions. Mr. Lien said these options are part of Strategy TR-4.
Board Member Cloutier referred to the goal of 100% renewable energy for City facilities and asked if the City is sticking
with the I-935 definition or would hydro be included, too. Mr. Lien answered that hydro is part of the mix being considered.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that the Climate Protection Committee did a study on home heating and cooling in 2009 or
2010. While it is not the largest contributor to GHG emissions, it is the easiest to reduce. Some volunteer homeowners
showed they could obtain a 30% reduction in equivalent carbon emitted for zero cost just by doing basic air sealing measures,
controlling the thermostat, etc. While the report talks about residential natural gas and electricity, it is important to recognize
that the largest users are home heating and cooling. Mr. Lien said the consultant has mentioned often that it would have a
significant impact if people were to convert from natural gas to electricity when updating their heating and cooling
equipment. Board Member Cloutier commented that insulation and better air seals would drop usage by 30% to 40%.
Board Member Cloutier questioned why increasing the number of solar installations would be a good metric for Strategy EY-
1. He suggested that kilowatt hours of production capacity would be a better way to measure. Mr. Lien commented that the
number of solar installations would be easy for the City to track. Board Member Cloutier commented that fewer installations
that are bigger would be better than a large number of small installations.
Board Member Cloutier questioned if it is really fair for cities in the United States to reduce emissions by the same fraction
as the entire rest of the world since the United States' emissions are far higher than the rest of the world. Using a per -person,
weighted average, they would need to reduce their emissions a lot more.
Board Member Cloutier observed that the Wastewater Treatment Facility is the City's largest energy consumer, but it is not
mentioned in the report. Measures that reduce the production of wastewater would save a large amount of energy that could
be used for other things. Mr. Lien said a number of improvements have been made at the Wastewater Treatment Plant in
recent years. A project is currently moving forward that will drastically reduce the facility's energy consumption. Board
Member Cloutier pointed out that reducing the amount of water going into the facility could be easily accomplished and have
a significant impact, too.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that more live/work spaces would be a boon for the City's effort to reduce vehicle miles
traveled so that fewer people have to travel elsewhere for work.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled a number of local groups that have taken on projects in recent years to reduce energy
consumption. She asked if members of these groups are participants on the Climate Protection Committee. If not, will they
be informed of the City's current efforts and be invited to provide input? Mr. Lien said he doesn't know the makeup of the
Climate Protection Committee, but the next steps will include more public involvement. He agreed that public engagement
and education will be an important element of the project. Board Member Rubenkonig asked staff to make sure these
individuals are specifically informed about what is currently taking place.
Planning Board Minutes
July 10, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled a volunteer service called Waste Warriors that worked the festivals around the area to
divert the organic waste from the food waste. Not only did they collect a sizeable amount of compostable waste, but they
were also able to educate people on how to sort out what is and is not recyclable. This is an easy strategy, yet it has lost
momentum. She suggested that an additional strategy should be added to promote local programs that educate and help
citizens make better decisions. She cautioned against making the Climate Action Plan so lofty that it does not accommodate
smaller, more realistic programs.
Vice Chair Robles said he is a strong advocate of seeding the record so that people searching the City's website can find the
terms that are being discussed by the Board. Regarding Board Member Cloutier's earlier comment related to reducing the
amount of energy used for heating and cooling the air, he suggested the City have a policy that the air conditioning does not
come on until the temperature reaches 80°.
Vice Chair Robles noted that methane, pentane, hexane and octane are all hydrocarbons, and it is difficult to find equivalency
unless a strictly carbon measurement is used. This approach would make it easier to manage the equivalencies. He also
suggested that there are other economic methods that could be applied to the trade of carbon, etc.
Regarding Board Member Rubenkonig's earlier question, Vice Chair Robles pointed out that activists are working hard to
address this subject. They need to all work together, but it seems like programs often fall away due to lack of funding.
However, there are opportunities for communities to exchange value in ways that are not dollars.
Vice Chair Robles commented that the data provided in the report is interesting. He recalled that the Board was recently
invited to develop its wish list of metrics for measuring a healthy city that could be injected into the Healthy City Report.
With regard to zoning, he pointed out that some commercial zones do not allow live -work spaces on the ground floor. The
zoning code also restricts retail uses in neighborhoods causing people to have to drive elsewhere to get what they need. He
pointed out that subterranean construction is also an opportunity to address temperature fluctuations. Also, he observed that
plastic does not decay for 10,000 years and is made out of carbon, which means that it is sequestering carbon extremely
effectively. He suggested the City consider shifting its war on plastic to actually embrace the carbon sequestering capacity of
plastics for uses such as plumbing. Polypropylene plumbing can replace copper all day long. The energy required to create
and recycle it is superior to copper, yet the City's current code prohibits its use. He summarized that there is a lot the City
can do from a code standpoint to address climate control. They need to embrace new technologies and encourage the experts
to stretch further.
INTRODUCTION TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 20.70 STREET VACATION
Ms. McConnell explained that the proposed amendment would move the street vacation amendments from Chapter 20 to
Chapter 18. Chapter 18 is the Public Works Section and already includes provisions related to right-of-way, the street map,
etc. The amendment clarifies, reorganizes and adds a definition section. The appraisal process and timing for when an
appraisal is required was revised, as what the applicability of the monetary compensation aspect of a street vacation. Lastly,
the amendment revises the timeframe required to satisfy conditions.
Ms. McConnell explained that a street vacation is a process used to release a public street, alley, pedestrian and/or vehicular
easement that is currently being used or established as something that could be used in the future for a street, alley or
easement if it is no longer needed for those purposes. A street vacation could happen through a petition of adjacent property
owners or initiated by the City Council. Street vacations do not come before the Planning Board for review.
Ms. McConnell said City staff often receives questions about the potential vacation of unopened alleys so they can be fully
used by adjacent property owners rather than being preserved as potential rights -of -way access to be used by the City. She
shared an example of an unopened alley and explained that a street vacation is the process that would be used for releasing
the right-of-way to a private property owner.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked the difference between an unopened alley and an unopened easement. Ms. McConnell
said an alley is classified as a right -of way, and easements are located on top of or encumber a private property. An easement
Planning Board Minutes
July 10, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
reserves a portion of private property for a specific use, where the City actually has rights to alley and street rights -of way. If
an adjacent property owner wants to use the right-of-way for private use, he/she would submit a street vacation request in
order to have it transfer back to the title for their own property.
Ms. McConnell explained that, while processing several street vacations within the last year, the staff and City Council found
that the lack of information in the code and the way the code is laid out has made the process inefficient and even unfair in
some cases. The proposed amendments are intended to improve the provisions for both the public and private property
owners.
Ms. McConnell advised that, as per the current code, if a street vacation is being proposed via a petition by an adjacent
property owner, two-thirds of the adjacent property owners abutting the right-of-way must sign the petition in order for the
City to accept the application. In addition, an appraisal is required as part of the application submittal, and the appraiser is
selected by the applicant. That means an appraisal must be done before staff has reviewed the application submittal, before it
has been determined whether or not an easement needs to be reserved, before it has been determined whether or not a right-
of-way would need to be set aside in a different area and before it has been determined if the City Council would even
consider the vacation. Because applicants select their own appraisers, each appraisal is different and there is no consistency.
Ms. McConnell said the proposed amendment would push the appraisal further out in the process, after staff has reviewed the
application and determined whether an easement needs to be reserved or a right-of-way needs to be set aside in a different
area. The appraisal would also be postponed until after the City Council has reviewed and approved the request through a
Resolution of Intent to Vacate. In order to make the appraisal process consistent across the board, the amendment would
require a Yd party consultant review. The applicant would deposit funds to the City to cover the cost of appraisal and the
City would send out for the appraisal to be completed. Unused funds that were set aside as a deposit would be refunded to
the applicant. If a more extensive appraisal is required, the applicant may be required to provide additional funding. She
summarized that any cost to the applicant would cover just the cost of the appraisal and nothing more. She summarized that
pushing the appraisal further out in the process would allow the appraiser to consider easements and anything else that might
be happening on the property or how else it might be used.
Board Member Monroe asked what the appraisal is used for, and Ms. McConnell answered that it is used to determine
whether or not there should be monetary compensation in order for the right-of-way to be transferred to adjacent properties.
Currently, the compensation would be equal to 'h of the appraised value. Ms. McConnell clarified that an unopened alley is
considered right -of way. It is not property an adjacent property owner can use because the City has jurisdiction over it.
However, a property owner would be expected to maintain any vegetation within the alley.
Board Member Pence questioned the policy behind requiring abutting property owners to pay the City compensation in the
case of an unopened alley that has no value to the City. For example, when the block at 71 and Alder was platted, the right-
of-way was gifted to the City for a potential future alley. The City did not purchase the land, and it was never developed as
an alley. It is now a burden to the abutting property owners to the extent that it must be maintained. Ms. McConnell said the
compensation requirement would depend on whether or not the land has value to the City. She explained that, even if the
topography does not allow for actual travel, oftentimes, current or future utilities will run through the alleyways. It is
important to keep in mind that the original intent was to have vehicular travel. However, as development occurred and other
main corridor streets improved, the alleys were not always developed. The value of the property is looked at through the
appraisal process. The regulations in the City's code mimic State law with regard to vacation of streets.
Board Member Pence commented that a property being vacated ought to have some functional value to the City in order to
justify charging a property owner for obtaining title to the land. In the case of an unopened alley, which has never provided
any utility to the City and is unlikely to do so in the future, he would say the value of the property to the City is zero. That
should be reflected by the appraiser. Ms. McConnell responded that if an appraiser did find value to a property, the City
would not be able to gift public land to an adjacent property owner. Therefore, monetary compensation is a necessary
component in many street vacations.
Ms. McConnell advised that the current code allows the City to either accept monetary compensation or reservation of an
easement to the City. For example, if the City needs to retain an easement for utilities running through the property, there is
no ability to require monetary compensation, too. She explained that through the review and appraisal process it may be
Planning Board Minutes
July 10, 2019 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
determined there are reasons for monetary compensation in addition to an easement, and the proposed amendment would
allow for both if determined necessary or appropriate.
Ms. McConnell explained that with a Resolution of Intent to Vacate there are often certain conditions that must be met. For
example, utilities may run through a right-of-way, in which case it would make sense to do a vacation with a reservation of
an easement. In this case, the easement would show up in the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. Currently, the code states that
any conditions must be met within 90 days after approval of the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. The proposed amendment
would retain the 90-day compliance requirement, but add "unless otherwise stated in the resolution." The amendment leaves
the compliance timeline open for more complicated street vacations that involve elements that take more time. The
resolution can establish a timeframe that is achievable.
Board Member Monroe asked if the applicant is responsible for determining the easements the City needs. Ms. McConnell
answered that they do not determine the easements, but conditions may be placed in the Resolution of Intent to Vacate that
require certain easements to be established. They are not always easements for the City; sometimes other utility districts
need access easements to neighboring properties. It can take time to secure the easements, and sometimes legwork is
required by the applicant to meet the conditions.
Board Member Crank asked if the proposed amendment would allow the timeline to be restated or is it established at the time
the resolution is adopted. Ms. McConnell said it is established by the resolution and cannot be restated later if the applicant
needs more time to meet the conditions.
Ms. McConnell said staff anticipates the Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendments on
August 141, followed by a Planning Board recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will also hold a public
hearing before taking final action.
Board Member Pence asked Ms. McConnell to respond to the concerns raised earlier in the meeting by Mr. Reidy. Ms.
McConnell said she hopes that his concerns and questions were answered during the presentation. There will be
opportunities for public comment at the public hearings before both the Board and the City Council.
Board Member Monroe asked if the City has selected a third -party appraiser. Ms. McConnell answered that a third -party
appraiser has not yet been selected. As per the current peer -review process, the City puts out a proposal for various
consultants. The proposals are then reviewed and a consultant is selected for an on -call contract. Board Member Monroe
observed that the consultant would work for the City. Ms. McConnell said the appraiser would work for both parties and
provide a consistent review for every application that the City receives. Board Member Monroe commented that the
appraiser would likely view the City as his/her client rather than the applicant. Ms. McConnell said the goal is consistency
and the ability to review every application in the same manner. Board Member Monroe asked about the typical cost of an
appraisal, and Ms. McConnell answered that the deposit amount is around $5,000, but the appraisal could be less or more,
depending on the variables.
Board Member Monroe commented that, typically when a property changes hands, both the buyer and the seller get an
appraisal. They compare the two appraisals and negotiate a deal. Based on the proposed amendment, the City would hire the
expert. He asked if the property owner would have any recourse if he/she disagrees with the appraisal done by the City's
consultant. Ms. McConnell said that is not currently addressed in the code, and Board Member Monroe suggested that a
provision be added.
Board Member Monroe said he is not comfortable with the City requiring compensation for a right-of-way it does not use.
The proposed amendment could require both easements and compensation. He asked how much compensation the City
received in 2018 for street vacations. Ms. McConnell agreed to provide that information to the Board prior to the public
hearing on August 14'.
Board Member Pence said when he interprets the term "3rd party appraiser" to mean the appraiser would not be a tool of
either the I't or the 2nd party. He/she would be a neutral person. He suggested the best way to achieve a 3rd party appraiser
would be to have one agreed to by both the applicant and the City. Otherwise, it's not a 3' party, but just the City's
appraiser.
Planning Board Minutes
July 10, 2019 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that the existing code allows the City to require either monetary compensation or the
reservation of easement to the City, and the proposed code would allow the City to require both. She suggested it would be
better to use "and/or" instead of "and." Ms. McConnell said the intent was to allow one or the other or both.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked Ms. McConnell to explain the difference between an open easement and an unopen
easement. Ms. McConnell said the City does not distinguish between open and unopen easements. Easements typically
encumber a private property and establish the area for use for a specific purpose such as a utility line. When they talk about
alleys and streets, they are talking about right-of-way versus easements. She provided an example of an alley right-of-way
that is not opened to vehicular traffic. Because there is no street that connects 71 Avenue to 8r' Avenue, the City would
consider it an unopened right-of-way because vehicles cannot pass from one end to the other.
To clarify further, Ms. McConnell said the street vacation process specifically deals with vacating right-of-way. It could deal
with vacating an easement if the easement was used specifically for pedestrian or vehicular travel, but these requests are
uncommon. Most street vacation requests are for actual right-of-way to be vacated.
Vice Chair Robles said he was impressed with Mr. Reidy's proactive approach. That is how he wishes notifications could
occur. He wants to avoid situations where multiple public meetings have been held, but citizens don't show up to provide
input until the last public hearing. Information needs to be provided to the community way in advance so citizens have a
clear understanding of how an issue might impact them. Perhaps they need a better notification process. Ms. McConnell
asked if he is referring to a better notification process for code amendments specifically or notification when a street vacation
application comes in. Vice Chair Robles said he was referring to the public review process for code changes. Mr. Lien
pointed out that ECDC 20.03 outlines the public notice requirements that apply to development projects and code updates.
For public hearings, notice is provided at least 14 days before the hearing. Notices are published in the newspaper of record
(The Everett Herald) and posted at City Hall, the Public Safety Building, the library, and on the City's website. Public notice
is also required for street vacations. The notices are posted in the places mentioned above. For project specific applications,
notices are posted on site and sent to property owners within 300 feet. Vice Chair Robles suggested that the notification
process should be modernized to include electronic notification. He encouraged the City to reach out a little deeper and find
other ways to notify the public.
Vice Chair Robles commented that technology allows for shared data bases that can be accessed securely by broad groups of
people. However, it will take some bold visioning on the part of the City to accommodate. The idea that they need one
appraiser to streamline the process could be challenged now where it wasn't in the past. Ms. McConnell said she is
unfamiliar with the appraisal database he is referring to and cannot speak to that. Vice Chair Robles agreed to provide
information about the technology he referenced.
Vice Chair Robles asked if current easements and rights -of -way will accommodate 5G equipment. If so, will utilities require
payment for the use of the 5G access. He asked if there are other ancillary revenue streams that would taint the revenue
model on the easements. Ms. McConnell said the 5G process is a completely different process, and anything related to it
would be handled under a completely different code chapter. The proposed amendments are specific to street vacations.
With any use of the right-of-way by a utility, the continued use of the right-of-way or area would be reviewed during a street
vacation process and easements would be established as needed.
Board Member Rosen said his understanding is that the City Council, in general, is going to take the publication engagement
process on a much more global scale. Council Members Teitzel and Mesaros have agreed to lead this effort. Perhaps the
Board's thoughts could be part of that discussion.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that once a street vacation agreement is approved, the City can tax the property owner
for the additional land they own.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Vice Chair Robles reminded the Board of their joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board on July 24t1i. The August
14t' meeting will include an update on the Ruckelshaus Center Report (RoadMap Project) and a public hearing on the street
Planning Board Minutes
July 10, 2019 Page 9
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
vacation code update (ECDC 20.70). The August 28' meeting will include updates on the Vision 2050 Multi -County
Planning Policies and the Urban Forest Management Plan. There is nothing on the September 111 agenda, but the Board will
meet jointly with the City Council on September 24't'.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rubenkonig said she watched the meeting where the Bothell Planning Board addressed the 5G situation.
Surprisingly, their approach included the alleys within their city as potential installation sites, whereas the City of Edmonds'
approach did not. She said she likes to seek how other planning boards handle issues within their jurisdictions.
Board Member Monroe announced that the Economic Development Commission Meeting was postponed to July 24', which
conflicts with the Planning Board's next meeting, so there will be no Planning Board representative in attendance. He also
said he enjoyed the Edmonds 4' of July Parade that was sponsored by the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce.
Board Member Pence reinforced the comments made earlier by Vice Chair Robles about the need to improve the City's
outreach and engagement on major projects. He advised that at the City Council's July 9' Parks and Public Works
Committee Meeting, Council Members Teitzel and Johnson both raised this issue with reference to the upcoming parking
study. Many of the potential solutions and/or outcomes of the study could have implications for the Planning Board.
Board Member Crank said she would miss Carrie Hite, the City's Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, who
resigned recently. The City's loss is definitely the City of Redmond's gain.
Board Member Crank implored those making the suggestion that the City use digital ways to reach out to residents and
constituents to make sure they utilize these opportunities themselves until the City gets to that point. Several are already on
social media. Just as it is easy for the City to share information via social media, the Board Members can, as well. They
should all be examples of what they are suggesting the City do.
Board Member Cloutier commented that it is up to the Board to change the notification rules. It is staffs job to follow the
rules, and they should not be held responsible to go beyond what the City's rules and requirements.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the Board never received direction back from staff on the rules for Board Members
posting on social media. Vice Chair Robles recalled that, using the Housing Strategy issue as an example, he had requested
some training on how to diffuse difficult situations. Some rules of engagement should be made available to the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 10, 2019 Page 10
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.b
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
July 24, 2019
Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Mike Rosen
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Alicia Crank (excused)
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Maureen Jeude
Cary Guenther
Joe Herr
Bruce Owensby
Kim Bayer
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Tom Walker
Lauri Strauss
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he was present to follow up on the comments he made at the July loth meeting. He observed
there seemed to be some confusion between a term he used (unopened easements) and a term the City used (unopened
alleys). As per Page 63 of the July loth Planning Board Packet, the term subject property means the "street, alley, easement
or portion thereof sought to be vacated." It is important for the Board to understand that the photograph staff displayed that
evening as an "unopened alley" is the same thing he was referring to as an "unopened easement."
Mr. Reidy reported that there have been three street vacations over the last 3 years. The I't easement started in 2016 and
involved the vacation of an easement that was used by the City to open a street. The City Council required the reservation of
multiple easements and maximum compensation of $92,610. One of the easements that was required was to Olympic View
Water and Sewer District despite the fact that the franchise contract had expired in 2014. The 2nd easement was a vacation of
another easement the City had used to open a street and involved no payment in compensation but multiple easements. The
31 easement was vacation of an easement the City had never used. In that case, the City Council required the property owner
to grant an easement to the Edmonds School District, who had put a pipe in the easement area with a permit. They also made
the property owner pay $28,800 in compensation.
Mr. Reidy pointed out that, in the great majority of cases, title to the property underlying a street or alley belongs to the
abutting property owner. The City has an easement right to use that property. While there are times when the City does own
the property that a street or alley is on, these instances are rare. It is even rarer for those types of streets to be vacated
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.b
because the City owns title to the property. The law in Washington State is well settled that the fee title to the streets and
alleys rests in the possession of the abutting property owners. City staff mentioned title transferring back to the abutting
property owners, but this is not what happens when an easement is vacated because the property owners already own the title.
A question was raised about what an appraisal was used for, and staff indicated the compensation was paid to have the right-
of-way transferred over to the adjacent private property owner. Again, there is no transfer, the City is simply releasing its
easement interest in the property. Staff also said that if an appraiser determined that the property had value, the City would
not be able to gift public land to an adjacent property owner. That is not an issue because the adjacent property owner already
owns the title and there is nothing to gift.
Mr. Reidy said City staff also represented that it is not the property owner's property if there is an unopened alley behind
your home. Staff stated this is not property you are able to use because it is under the City's jurisdiction. However, if the
City is not using its easement rights, the owner of the property can use the property. For example, the Washington State
Supreme Court stated in Nystrand vs. O'Malley that the use by the fee title owner in extending his garage into the area,
planting trees and hedge and constructing a bulkhead was not inconsistent with the public's easement since the right to open a
street for the public's use had not been asserted by the City of Seattle.
Mr. Reidy encouraged the Planning Board to ask staff to provide an overhead photograph at the August 14' public hearing of
the same unopened alleyway that they showed last time, but just one block to the east. The Board will see multiple uses of
that unopened easement, including buildings, in that photograph. In conclusion, he asked that the Board consider having staff
correct the information that was presented to them on July loth. This code section is very important, and the citizens should
have an opportunity to be involved in the rewrite.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were
no comments or questions from the Board.
JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB): DISCUSSION ON ADB ROLES
AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
Mr. Chave recalled that the Planning Board met with the ADB in December of 2017 to discuss design review and how the
ADB process works. As a result of this discussion, the ADB had a few discussions at subsequent meetings about design
review, what they saw their role being going forward, and how the design review process could be adjusted to reflect some of
their ideas. He referred to the materials provided in the packet, which included information that was presented during the
ADB's discussions.
Mr. Chave reviewed that design review has occurred in Edmonds for at least four decades. At one time, it was pretty open
ended. There were guidelines, but there were no standards in the code to guide design. At that time, the ADB felt it had a lot
of discretion on how to approach project approval. That changed in 1993 with the Washington State Court of Appeals Case
Anderson vs. Issaquah. Issaquah was using a design review process based on the Edmonds model and the problem the court
saw was that applicants really didn't know how their projects would be approved. They had no certainty or predictability,
and they often ended up going back and forth before a project could be approved because the language used in the codes was
quite vague and subject to multiple interpretations. The court saw that as arbitrary and capricious decision making, which
was not something a City was able to do.
Mr. Chave said that, once that case was decided, Edmonds realized it needed to change its approach to design review. Going
forward, the City first adopted a set of design guidance as a stop gap, but the ultimate solution was to put more specificity
into the codes, including clearer design standards and information about how a project would be measured and decided. Over
the years, design standards have been adopted for specific zones and/or areas. Before Anderson Vs. Issaquah, the ADB
design professionals talked to project proponents and there was a fair amount of give and take. The ADB felt it had some
control over the ultimate design that resulted. Because of Anderson vs. Issaquah, that control eroded for the reasons stated by
the court and came back in the form of standards in the code. The product of that, however, has been that when the ADB
sees a project proposal, the applicant has already done due diligence to review the codes and standards and arrived at a design
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.b
solution. When the design is presented to the ADB, the ADB ends up simply doing a checklist review and there is very little
give and take in the process at that point.
Mr. Chave advised that, based on ADB discussions, the ADB really wants to influence design in a few ways. First, they
would like to have input at the beginning of the process before the applicant has settled on a design, and the place to do that is
at the pre -application process before an applicant has applied for project approval. That's the point where an applicant is still
trying to figure out what codes and standards apply and their design hasn't been solidified yet. The City has two different
pre -application processes, and both are typically manned by staff from different departments. One idea is that perhaps a few
ADB members could sit in on the pre -application meetings, particularly the ones where design is significant enough to have
an impact on a block or location.
Mr. Chave said the ADB also talked about being the design standards board. The City needs to have more standards in the
code, particularly related to multifamily projects, and there are a few districts that do not have design guidelines, either.
Going along with that is the ADB's desire to have a post review of projects to test whether or not the design standards in
place result in good projects. This review would allow the ADB to gauge whether or not the design standards do what they
are intended to do. Perhaps the ADB could propose changes to make the standards better. It would be great to do an initial
review post development, but also five years out. When a project is first built, the landscaping is immature and the project
will look entirely different five years later after the landscaping has grown up and the site has matured. From staff s
perspective, there are a number of examples where a project looked stark when first developed, but blended into the
environment over time. It is helpful, at that point, to not only look at the building design, but also the site work to determine
if the landscaping was appropriate. Perhaps the landscaping standards need to be changed to improve the site setting of
buildings. This kind of review would be a very valuable role for the ADB to take on.
Mr. Chave advised that the Planning Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the City Council on September 241 to talk about
items they are working on. This would be the golden opportunity to seek Council feedback on the design review process and
the recommended improvements.
Mr. Chave explained that the City currently has two different design review processes, one for district -based review and
another that is general. The City implemented a 2-phase design approach as a way to improve its design review process and
move design review earlier in the project development phase. The 2-phase approach involves a 2-part hearing. Phase I is
supposed to occur when an applicant is scoping out a project, and Phase 2 is the final design review. However, this approach
hasn't really worked because the proponents usually have their designs settled during the Phase I review and design review
simply doesn't come early enough in the process. He advised that the City never intended to have two different design
processes long term. Once there were adequate standards in the code, everything was supposed to fold into the 2-phase
review, and that was supposed to become the standard process. However, the City has not yet established design review
standards for all of the City, notably, multifamily projects, Five Corners and other small commercial areas. A single design
review process would be less complicated and more consistent.
Mr. Chave reemphasized that staff does not believe the 2-part design review process works, and he believes the ADB
concurs. It doesn't do what it was intended to do and it doesn't make sense to continue.
Board Member Herr reviewed that the ADB discussed this issue a few meetings ago, and that is when it became clear that
projects are usually too far along by the time the Board gets involved in the review. While the ADB wants to offer
constructive criticism and feedback to a design, the current review process stymies this opportunity. Typically, a design is
already set by the time a project is presented to the ADB for design review. While the Board can offer comments, they are
not often able to change the outcome of a project that meets all of the code requirements and design standards. The ADB
would like the ability to offer design feedback earlier in the process when an applicant is still just thinking about a vision for
development. Usually, by the time a project comes before them for review, it is ready for approval and the ADB is simply
checking boxes.
Board Member Monroe commented that it seems that the ADB's skills and expertise are being misused with the current
process. He asked the ADB to share ideas for how to allow them more discretion and leeway. He questioned if the City
might have overreacted to the Anderson vs. Issaquah decision. He also asked what the consequence of the court ruling was
to the City. Mr. Chave emphasized that the City was unable to enforce its codes and had to make changes to be consistent
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 15
2.A.b
with the court ruling. The end result was the adoption of standards and codes that were significantly more specific. Board
Member Monroe asked if it would be possible for the City to find some middle ground between the vague codes that were in
place before the court decision and the very specific codes that are in place now. Mr. Chave said it extremely difficult to be
specific with language yet allow flexibility. However, there are ways to allow some discretion or degree of choice. For
example, the code could require an applicant to choose a certain number of design solutions from a list. Another option
would be to allow design departures. This would allow the ADB to approve alternative designs as long as they achieve the
intent of the standard. However, the code would have to provide guidance and criteria for evaluating the departures. The
design standards would be undermined if the departure provision was too open ended.
Board Member Monroe said he assumes that other jurisdictions are dealing with this same challenge. Mr. Chave said most
City's have chosen to put more standards in their codes, and the City of Edmonds has not gone to the degree of specificity
that some jurisdictions have done. The City has tried to create specificity for the things that are most important rather than
specify everything about a building. Board Member Monroe said that makes sense. The City doesn't want to become a
Redmond or Ballard where every building looks the same. Mr. Chave said the trick is to figure out which things the City
wants to regulate and which things it wants to leave to the discretion of the professional.
Board Member Monroe invited the ADB members to share their thoughts on what defines the character of Edmonds that
needs to be protected and where the codes can allow for more creativity. Board Member Guenther responded that it is
difficult to describe the character of Edmonds because it is a hodgepodge of different styles. It is hard for the ADB to assign
a specific type of architecture to a project that comes before them. Creating design standards requires a balance between
making them real specific so that anyone can follow them and making them more vague to allow flexibility in design.
Experience has shown that the standards cannot be too vague. Some specificity is needed for consistency and predictability.
The more specific the standards, the less likely the City's decisions will be disputed. The City has good design standards in
place and when projects come before them, the Board simply checks off the boxes. Staff could do this same thing as an
administrative approval.
Board Member Herr recalled a recent project that came before the Board and voiced concern that there was no chance for
creative thinking. While the standards were clear, they didn't really work for the intended new purpose of the building. One
simple idea to move a door to make the project work better could have been approved if the ADB was allowed some
discretion, but that option was not available. The hands of both the developer and the ADB were tied, and the applicant now
has to come up with a solution that will not benefit anyone in the end. He summarized that, although the design standards are
good, there needs to be a way by which the ADB can utilize the expertise of its members and compromise with an applicant
to get a better design. Currently, there is no departure provision built into the design review process.
Board Member Monroe asked if the ADB supports amending the code to allow for variations or code departures.
Board Member Becker said she is new on the ADB and attended her first meeting in July. She was surprised that by the time
the ADB had a chance to provide input, the project was too far along.
Board Member Owensby commented that the proposal that came before the ADB at their last meeting was a really good one,
and the applicant was trying to do some nice things that you don't normally see in little communities like Edmonds.
However, the applicant was being tied down by certain restrictions he couldn't get past. For example, his engineers indicated
that more than 30% of the wall must be sheer in order for the building to stand up, but the City's code requires that 70% of
the fagade must be transparent (window). A lot of urban design standards in place now are too specific. Just because a
project provides a base, middle and top doesn't mean it is a good building design. A building might be well designed even if
it doesn't have those elements. There needs to be a certain amount of leeway.
Board Member Owensby suggested it would be good for the ADB to become involved in design review in the diagrammatic
phase of a project where an architect could come in with little more than a general plan for massing, etc. Edmonds is defined
by building facades along the street, and what goes on behind is less important. The character of Edmonds is basically a
consistency of inconsistencies. Allowing for this inconsistency is important. What they need to focus on is how the building
addresses the street and sidewalk. Some of the rules and regulations related to modulation have resulted in step backs that
create too much push/pull going down the street. This takes away from the street feel that you have when store windows are
placed along the sidewalks. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that he can date buildings based on modulation.
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 16
2.A.b
Again, Board Member Owensby suggested that the ADB should have two opportunities to meet with applicants. Once before
they get into their working drawings and again when they are preparing schematic designs to see that they are incorporating
the ADB's recommendations from the first meeting. When design review happens early, it is much easier and less costly for
developers to change their designs, if needed. The first meeting could be a brainstorming meeting between the applicant,
staff and ADB.
Board Member Owensby said it would also be good for the ADB to review all of the code requirements and design standards.
Some seem to be blanket requirements that limit the ability for creative design. Blanket standards do not work for every
situation. For example, a restaurant will need a different storefront than a museum. There must be some leeway that allows
for flexibility so that good projects are not hamstrung by the standards. He voiced concern that the City can end up with
lesser projects when the standards are too specific.
Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that she served on the ADB after the color police and after the Anderson vs. Issaquah
decision and at a time when many wanted to remove the Board from quasi-judicial decisions. She said she was not happy
with this change because it lessened the ability of the professionals on the ADB to have input into a project. She felt it was
important for the ADB to ask questions of the applicant relative to a proposed project and how it fits into the neighborhood
design. She also asked applicants to explain how various components of design were used to make the building fit into the
fabric of Edmonds. She said she has not seen a predictive design program that embraces an approach that allows for
flexibility and discretion on behalf of the Board. You don't want to try to regulate the design mind. When she served on the
ADB, the Board had the discretion to waive certain standards as long as the proposed project met the intent of the regulation.
It sounds like that is no longer possible. They no longer have that authority, which is upsetting to her. She voiced concern
that the excitement of good design has been lost with the current process.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands the concept of allowing a few ADB members to participate in pre -
application meetings, but many of them take place during daytime hours when a lot of the members are at work. In addition,
they will need to be careful not to have too many members in attendance. If a quorum is present, then the meeting must be
advertised and open to the public. She voiced concern that if the ADB goes into a more informal setting (pre -application
meeting) where they are just part of a larger group that reviews an application, they will be giving up their quasi-judicial
authority. While the Board Members can provide good comments relative to the proposal, the applicant will not be required
to incorporate their recommendations. It will all come down to what the City requires that gives the muscle that drives the
design. She cautioned against the ADB giving away their muscle.
Mr. Chave responded that the court already took away much of the ADB's authority via Anderson vs. Issaquah. Board
Member Rubenkonig commented that the ADB operated for several years after the court decision, making sure that their
decisions were consistent with the Development Regulations. They made effective decisions during that time period and the
Board built a good reputation. The current ADB is now dealing with regulations that have been cut down. Further
minimizing the ADB's authority concerns her. She understands wanting to get involved in design review earlier in the
process, but she is not sure the ADB will get what they want out of it because they won't have any authority.
Board Member Rubenkonig remarked that she likes the transparent process that the ADB provided while she served. The
discussions that take place during an administrative decision are not part of the public record. She understands that the
checklist will be part of the public record, but the public record should also provide information about why certain decisions
were made. It is also important to allow citizens and the design professionals on the ADB to express their concerns related to
proposed projects. She summarized that she wants the ADB to have some control over the ultimate design of a project, and
she wants certainty that their recommendations will have some teeth and be incorporated into the project.
Board Member Owensby voiced support for Board Member Rubenkonig's recommendation. The checklist needs to be
specific for each project. Rather than generic and vague comments for the ADB to check off, the checklist could outline all
of the comments and recommendations the ADB provided at the preliminary design stage. Projects can only be approved by
the Board if all of their recommendations have been incorporated.
Chair Cheung asked how the City would screen to make sure that people who are bringing projects forward for pre -
application review are serious and not just wasting the ADB and staff s time. He voiced concern that a developer will request
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 17
a pre -application meeting to obtain free advice from a professional without any intention of moving forward with the project.
Mr. Chave explained that there is a fee for the formal pre -application process and applicants are required to provide certain
submissions. This shows that applicants are interested in moving their projects forward and have done some thought process.
However, the City cannot require an applicant to pursue a project following a pre -application meeting. The intent is to
require enough information to work with, but they don't want applicants to sink so much time and money into the project that
they have already reached conclusions as to design. The City simply needs enough information to understand the parameters
of the project and the characteristics of the site.
Board Member Owensby said he does not believe that the ADB and staff would be wasting their time in a preapplication
meeting if the applicant chooses not to move a project forward. While the current owner may decide not to move the project
forward, the lot will still be there and the information from the pre -application meeting can be given to a future owner as a
heads up. Mr. Chave noted that the information from the pre -application meeting would be public information.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that most applicants have paid money as part of a formal application before a project
comes forward for a pre -application meeting. Mr. Chave clarified that there are two different types of pre -application
meetings, one requires a fee and the other does not. Formal pre -application meetings require a fee, but the informal pre -
application discussions do not. An applicant doesn't have to supply a lot of information for an informal pre -application
discussion. Rather than someone coming to the counter to ask questions about a project and not having the appropriate staff
present to respond, the City tries to set up a specific time where three or four staff members are available at the same time to
answer their questions. There is no written record of these discussions and they are free of charge. Most of the larger
projects do formal pre -application meetings and there is a cost. However, some of the cost can be put toward later permit
applications.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that there would be no ADB presence at gatherings where City planners speak casually
at the counter with developers and/or architects. Mr. Chave said it is very rare that someone will come before the ADB for a
pre -application meeting. When projects are presented to the ADB for a Phase 1 review, they are usually too far along.
Because there is already a pre -application process in place, he suggested that perhaps a few members of the ADB could be
incorporated into that process.
Mr. Chave said the City Attorney has indicated that the City can make the pre -application meeting mandatory for certain
projects based on the location, size, etc. The pre -application meeting would come before any formal public input, but at least
the ADB would have an opportunity to work face-to-face with the applicant and City staff to talk about the project.
Board Member Herr remarked that the ADB members can make all the recommendations they want, but they have no
authority. Applicants can choose whether or not to accept and incorporate the changes. As long as a project meets the design
standards, the Board has no authority to deny it. He can understand how the ADB wants to have a greater role, but without
the accompanying authority, he doesn't believe that is possible. He likes the idea of the ADB at least participating in the pre -
application meetings to get their ideas out there in the beginning. Many applicants will accept these ideas in an initial
meeting if they know that down the line their project won't get as much push back. While the ADB can push back, they
cannot deny a project because they don't like it.
Board Member Guenther pointed out that the ADB rarely denies a project, and their decisions are usually unanimous.
Regarding Chair Cheung's concern that developers will request pre -application meetings just to get free advice, he said he
can think of two or three projects that were approved by the ADB, but haven't been built yet.
Board Member Monroe asked if the ADB would support a provision that allows for a departure process or a process that
allows a developer to choose a certain number of design solutions from a list. He suggested that projects that simply meet all
of the design standards could be approved through an administrative decision. However, if a departure is requested, the ADB
could be the decision maker through a public hearing process.
Board Member Guenther recalled that the last project that came before the ADB was an exceptional building for an
exceptional site. The applicant was looking for a departure route, which the Board could not provide. Board Member
Monroe voiced surprised that there is no appeal or departure process. Board Member Guenther explained that the ADB
wanted to offer the applicant a departure, but it was not allowed by the code. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 18
2.A.b
departure option was not included on the ADB's list of potential amendments. Board Member Herr responded that the list
was formulated before their last meeting and before they realized how valuable a departure provision would be in some
situations.
Board Member Owensby expressed his belief that the ADB should have the ability to approve deviations from the design
standards. In the most recent case, a departure would have made the project better. Forcing applicants into a one -size -fits -all
design standard can end up hurting projects.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that allowing the ADB to approve code departures would be similar to the discretion
the ADB used to have to approve design departures if they met the intent of the regulation. Guenther said there is a risk for
the owner and/or architect who would be at the mercy of the ADB as to whether a code departure would be allowed. Mr.
Chave cautioned that the code cannot be so vague that the Board is allowed to come up with two different solutions for two
different projects. If this approach is used, it will be important to describe the parameters under which a deviation or
departure could be granted.
Board Member Monroe asked if the ADB would feel comfortable working with staff to come up with potential parameters to
implement a departure provision. Board Member Guenther felt the ADB and staff could come up with a process to provide
for deviation with specificity. They cannot open the door for the ADB to allow departures for whatever reason. There must
be some guidelines in place.
Mr. Chave suggested they suggested that there could be two different processes. The standard design review process could
be used for projects that meet all of the design standards and code requirements. These situations could be a staff decision.
However, applications that include code departure requests could be go before the ADB for review and approval.
Mr. Chave agreed that staff could work with the ADB to come up with draft code language. However, before they go too far
down that road of creating a firm proposal, he suggested that the Board seek feedback from the City Council at their joint
meeting in September. If the City Council's response is positive, a draft proposal could be finalized and brought to the Board
for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, he agreed to work with the ADB on a
preliminary proposal that could be reviewed by the Planning Board at their September I I' meeting prior to presenting the
concept to the City Council on September 24t1i
Board Member Rubenkonig said she is hearing that the ADB would like to have more standards in place when reviewing
projects. They also expressed concern that they haven't formally reviewed the built projects to determine how well the
standards work. She is also hearing interest in having two ways to approach the ADB. An applicant could go before the
ADB with the checklist that shows how the project meets all of the standards, or they could use a different process that
allows the ADB to consider departures to the design standards.
Board Member Monroe observed that the standards are evolving and changes are needed as new codes are developed. The
checklist should evolve, as well. The checklist sometimes fails to address unusual site conditions and other times there are
opportunities to improve design through a deviation. There should be a separate path for applicants who want to depart from
the design standards. This would require changes to give the ADB the appropriate level of control and involvement to
leverage their professionalism to make decisions. He voiced concern that without these changes, the experts may lose
interest in serving on the ADB.
Mr. Chave summarized that most of the Board Members are unhappy with the current design review process. It would be
great to have ADB influence as early in the process as possible in the pre -application phase. If an applicant goes through the
pre -application process and receives guidance and then chooses to do a standard building that meets all of the code and
design standards, there is not much the ADB can do at that point to influence the project. There is no point in having a public
hearing since the ADB will have to approve the project. However, in some cases an applicant will want a departure because
the site is unique, the standards do not work, etc. In these cases, the ADB could weigh in on the final decision and there
would be some discretion in determining whether or not a departure request is appropriate and meets the intent of the code.
He summarized that requiring a different process for projects that are different than the standard would be appropriate. If
developers repeatedly request departures from a specific standard, the ADB would be a great body to consider whether or not
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 7
Packet Pg. 19
2.A.b
a code change is needed. It is extremely important to have a body doing post construction review to determine which
standards are working and which are not.
Board Member Herr explained that, for the most part, the standards have worked for new projects. However, the most recent
case was an adaptive reuse of an existing building. Applying modern standards to an existing building doesn't always work,
and that is where the City is more likely to receive departure requests so that discretionary decisions can be made by the
ADB. He said he would like a process to be in place that allows developers to get past requirements that are impossible to
meet in the design for a variety of reasons.
Mr. Chave agreed and said it will be important to describe situations where the letter of the law, in terms of design standards,
runs up against other standards like engineering and building standards. When standards start to conflict, which is common
with existing buildings, a departure process would be an appropriate solution.
Board Member Owensby said it would also be helpful if the ADB could grant departures when an applicant is trying to do
something that benefits the public but runs up against conflicting design standards. In the most recent case, the applicant was
trying to give something back to the community, but he was hamstrung by the current standards and there was no process in
place by which the ADB could negotiate a departure.
Board Member Rosen said he supports the changes that have been discussed. However, if the Board is going to present a
recommendation to the City Council, they should outline the problems that would be solved by the proposed changes. These
problems might include: 1) ensuring excellence of design, both for function as well as for the community, 2) protecting the
integrity and character of the community and the neighborhoods, 3) protecting residents by making better use of experts, and
4) identifying the standards that make absolutely no sense and correcting them. He it is important to position their
recommendation to the City Council by pointing out the things that can be done better. The second part will to identify areas
where the proposed changes could be vulnerable. For example, what are the worst things people might say about the
proposed changes. People already complain that the City's processes take too long. Will the proposed changes add more
time, resulting in push back? Will inserting the ADB in multiple steps make it harder for a developer to project the potential
costs of a project? It will be good to hear the problems that the proposed changes might create so they can be anticipated and
a process can be created to mitigate or overcome these problems.
Board Member Owenby observed that most projects do not come to the ADB until they are very far along in the design
process. It upsets developers and it is costly when changes are requested late in the process. As an architect, he said he
would not be upset if the ADB reviewed his project early to identify the items that are important to the City and what he
needed to address as part of his design. He would like an opportunity to present his design again to the Board when it is
further along to confirm that it addresses what they are looking for. The ADB needs to participate a lot earlier in the process
in order to have an impact.
Vice Chair Robles asked if it would be possible for the City to offer an accelerated design review process for applicants who
consult with the ADB during the early phase of design. Board Member Owensby said he likes the idea of providing an
incentive to developers to encourage them to participate in pre -application meetings. Vice Chair Robles expressed his belief
that creating an incentive would promote proactive design. Mr. Chave cautioned against offering an accelerated design
review process to applicants who participate in a pre -application meeting. Allowing an opportunity for departures would
provide incentive and give developers options to achieve better design, which in turn can save money.
Board Member Rosen summarized that the recommendation to the City Council should include a provision for departures, as
well as a mandated pre -application meeting.
Board Member Guenther commented that the current checklist process works well for multifamily projects for the most part.
It is a matter of how may units will fit per acre, what is the height limit, etc. However, the checklist doesn't work well for
commercial projects where the City wants to require more design elements. He would anticipate more departure requests for
commercial development.
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 8
Packet Pg. 20
2.A.b
Chair Cheung asked how the City's design standards and review process compares to other cities. Board Member Herr
responded that the City of Redmond's design standards are so strict that they are very cumbersome. He said he does not want
Edmonds to go to that extreme because it will stymy development.
Vice Chair Robles asked if reducing the risk that a project will get hung up in the design review process could be quantified.
He suggested it is important to understand the consequences of the proposed changes. For example, they need to identify the
risk of exposure and understand the likelihood of whether or not the proposed changes will cause a distraction.
Mr. Chave explained that, over time, the number of projects that go before the ADB have decreased substantially. This was a
natural outgrowth of the move towards standards and a conscious decision that small projects really don't need design
review. The ADB's agendas used to include a few dozen items, and now there are just one or two significant projects. He
suggested that they are heading in the right direction, with fewer but more important projects. Going forward, defining the
projects that need to go to the ADB, such as departures, makes a lot of sense. But projects that comply with all of the code
requirements and produce the result the City wants do not need to come before the ADB. The trick will be coming up with
the right standards, the right mix, and providing a departure path.
Board Member Monroe agreed there is a risk that Edmonds loses itself and part of its identify, but there is also a risk of
losing good projects. The proposed changes offer an opportunity to address both risks. He asked the staff and the ADB to
work together to prepare potential amendments for the Board to present to the City Council at their joint meeting. His
understanding is that the ADB would like to have early involvement via a pre -application meeting requirement. They would
also like to have a process for considering departures from the design standards. Again, Mr. Chave agreed to prepare some
potential language for the ADB to consider. These ideas could be presented to the Planning Board on September 111 prior to
their joint meeting with the City Council on September 241.
Vice Chair Robles advised that the Planning Board will soon be considering potential amendments to the Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations as a component of affordable housing. He pointed out that there are both good and bad
examples of ADUs, and the Planning Board could use the ADB's help to create design standards for both detached and
attached ADUs. He explained that allowing ADUs will grant citizens the same opportunity for economic gain as developers
so property owners won't be forced to sell to developers to build tract development. ADU's provide opportunities for
reunification of families, as well as opportunities for citizens to age in place as long as possible. He felt it would be helpful
to consult with the ADB as the discussion moves forward.
Board Member Herr pointed out that a code amendment would be needed to change the ADU regulations and asked if the
Planning Board influences zoning. Vice Chair Robles answered that zoning code amendments come before the Planning
Board for review, a public hearing and a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Herr commented that there are
a lot of components to consider when reviewing the ADU provisions, and the ADB would like to be part of the conversation.
Board Member Owensby cautioned that the success of the proposed amendments will depend on how well they are sold to
the public as a benefit. ADU's could potentially result in more traffic, but in many situations, the children have moved away
and only one or two people are living in the main home. ADU's can provided an opportunity for extra income so that these
individuals can stay in their homes as they age. Quite often, ADU's do not even require any additional services such as
water, sewer or parking.
Board Member Rubenkonig acknowledge that the ADB does not do design review for single-family development. However,
it would be helpful for them to provide information about design elements that might be appropriate for ADU's. The
remainder of the Planning Board Members agreed that future discussions with the ADB relative to ADUs would benefit the
process.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that when she served on the ADB in 2002 and 2003, they had a great desire to be part of
the pre -application process, but that hasn't happened yet. One question to consider moving forward is at what point the ADB
would give up its authority to participate in quasi-judicial decisions if Board members attend pre -application meetings. She
questioned who and how many ADB members would attend the daytime preapplication meetings, and how many could be
present with out it constituting a quorum. She cautioned against the ADB giving up its quasi-judicial authority. Mr. Chave
said this may selectively occur upon further discussion with the ADB.
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 9
Packet Pg. 21
2.A.b
Board Member Pence said he is new on the Planning Board, and he knows very little about the topic at hand. He came from
Seattle where he participated as a citizen in a few design review projects at the neighborhood level. He recalled that, with the
most recent project, the first unveiling to the community was a set of massing options early in the design process. The
citizens were invited to express their opinions, along with the design board. He is very supportive of early involvement of
design consideration, whether from a board of professionals or at a public hearing involving citizens. Seattle did, and
probably still does, have a design departure process where they are able to fine tune a project to make it better for the
proponent and the surrounding neighborhood. It sounds like the discussion tonight is moving in that direction for the City of
Edmonds, which would be great.
Board Member Pence said that, in terms of having a standard path for getting a cookie cutter building versus a more complex
path involving departures and the like, he suggested that perhaps the City could offer developers some incentives to enhance
the project an encourage them to go the more difficult route rather than the standard cookie cutter project.
Board Member Pence observed that, as a newcomer to Edmonds, he sees a great variety of building aesthetics. He would not
like to see some of the buildings replicated, beginning with City Hall. He has a concern that someone will want to duplicate
this building someplace else in Edmonds, and the ADB apparently would have no ability to deny the project if it meets the
code and design standards. He said he hopes these potential unfortunate outcomes can be avoided with whatever tweaking of
the code they do as a result of this conversation. Mr. Chave pointed out that City Hall does not meet code.
Board Member Becker agreed with Board Member Pence, and that is one reason she joined the ADB. They have the same
purpose and mission in regards to this issue.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung reviewed that the August 14' meeting agenda will include an update on the RoadMap Project (Ruckelshaus
Center Report) and a public hearing on the Street Vacation Code amendments (ECDC 20.70). The August 28t' Meeting
agenda will include an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies and an update on the Urban Forest
Management Plan. The Board's September I I' meeting will include a review of potential amendments related to the ADB's
role in design review in preparation for the joint meeting with the City Council on September 25t1i
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rosen asked staff to provide the Board a written response to each of the questions raised by Mr. Reidy earlier
in the meeting regarding street vacations. He asked that the response be provided prior to the public hearing on August 14'
Board Member Monroe reported that he attended a recent City Council meeting where they discussed how to pay for future
operations and maintenance costs. There is a reaction to some rising utility rates, and the Council is looking at everything
from deferring maintenance to bonding maintenance, which is the same thing as putting a mortgage on a credit card. He
cautioned that the City needs to be very careful with this approach.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 10
Packet Pg. 22
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/14/2019
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Development Services Director will give an update on the Housing Commission.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Director Report 08.14.19
Packet Pg. 23
5.A.a
of F 0,V
MEMORANDUM
August 9, 2019
vac.
To: Planning Board
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
"In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity."
— Albert Einstein
Next Planning Board Meeting
The next regular Planning Board meeting is August 14. It will feature a public hearing on a
proposed update of City regulations for Street Vacations.
STATE & REGIONAL NEWS
VISION 2050 (Puget Sound Regional Council)
PSRC has been seeking input on the Draft VISION 2050 plan, which provides guidance for
growth and livability in our region out to the year 2050. Information on this will be
provided at a future Planning Board meeting. However, it's fine to learn more and
provide individual input sooner. An online open house is a good way to do that.
Our four -county region gained about 368,000 people in the last five years. That's half of
the current population of Seattle!
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
Snohomish County Tomorrow has been considering comments to make on the draft VISION
2050. A letter to PSRC may be ready by the end of the month.
Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA)
AHA (the multi -jurisdiction organization of which Edmonds is a member) last met on July 24 and
discussed:
L HB 1406, the new legislation that allows cities and counties to use a small portion of the
current state sales tax for certain housing purposes
Li Review of the AHA housing trust fund process
F1 Updates to the AHA interlocal Agreement.
Packet Pg. 24
5.A.a
2019 Governor's Smart Communities Awards
Governor Inslee has announced the winners of the 2019 Smart Communities Awards. Winners
include: Bellingham for rapid implementation of its Bicycle Master Plan; both Tacoma and Island
County for a Smart Housing Strategies Award; and Prosser for Smart Vision in rewriting its
comprehensive plan.
Road Map Report
The statewide "Road Map Report" was issued on June 30 in four volumes. The report is based on
a two-year study commissioned by the state legislature to review laws related to environment,
growth, annexations, transportation, and other development and land use issues. Highlights will
be presented at a future Planning Board meeting.
LOCAL PROJECTS
Urban Forest Management Plan
The final revised Urban Forest Management Plan was adopted by the City Council on July 16.
More information about it will be provided to the Planning Board at an upcoming meeting. The
City's website has a link to the draft plan.
OTHER LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
The ADB met on August 7 to continue the public hearing for the new Graphite Arts Studios
proposal. Graphite #1, at 202 Main Street, would be an 11,000 sq. ft. one-story wood frame art
studio with a gallery, cafe and parking. Graphite #2, at 117 2nd Ave. S, would be a 17,000 sq. ft.
two-story wood frame building with eight apartments over flex space and parking.
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission met on August 7. Discussions included:
❑ Updates from the city
❑ 1 am Edmonds project
❑ 2019/2020 Film series
Youth Commission Partnership
Government Alliance for Racial
Equity (GARE).
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The EDC meets next on August 21. An agenda will be posted online when available.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner meets next on September 12. An agenda will be posted online when
available.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The HPC met on August 8. Items discussed included:
❑ Certificate of Appropriateness for the Profitt/Astell house at 825 Main St.
❑ 2020 Historic Calendar.
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 25
5.A.a
Mayors Climate Protection Committee
The Climate Protection Committee met on August 1. Discussion included:
❑ Update on the city's wastewater treatment plant
❑ Update on the Climate Goals Project.
Tree Board
The Tree Board met on August 1. Items of discussion included:
❑ Urban Forest Management Plan
❑ Update on table for Farmers Market
❑ Garden Tour
❑ Arbor Day Plans
❑ Civic Field Tree Plan
❑ Tree Tags Progress Report
❑ Contract for Tree City USA Certification
❑ Snohomish County "Healthy Forest" Initiative
❑ Wenatchee Tree Pruning Seminar.
Youth Commission
The Youth Commission met on August 7. Climate action has been selected by the Commission as
a key subject for more information and discussion.
City Council
The August 5 City Council meeting included:
❑ Climate Goals Project and next steps
❑ Authorization for contracts related to the Waterfront Redevelopment (Community/Senior
Center project) and the Dayton Street Pump Station
❑ Crumb Rubber Moratorium extension
❑ Confirmation of the City's new Human Resources Director (Jessica Hoyson)
❑ Presentation of a new "Financial Intelligence Tool" to assist local governments.
[0]&ILrA010111W&Ye114L117-11.1
• August 9 — 10: Wenatchee Youth Circus, Civic Center playfields (check for times)
• August 15: Edmonds Art Walk, Downtown Edmonds, 5 pm
• August 16 - 18: Taste of Edmonds, Civic Center playfields
• August 29: Low Tide Beach Walk, Olympic Beach Visitor station, 10 am
• September 8: Classic Car & Motorcycle Show 2019, Downtown Edmonds, 10 am
31
Packet Pg. 26
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/14/2019
Public Hearing Regarding Amendments to Chapter 20.70 ECDC Street Vacations
Staff Lead: Jeanie McConnell
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The proposed amendments were introduced to the City Council through the Planning, Public Safety and
Personnel committee on July 9, 2019. The Planning Board's initial review was on July 10, 2019.
Staff Recommendation
Forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed amendments to the street
vacation code.
Narrative
Chapter 20.70 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Street Vacations establishes procedures
and criteria that the city uses to make decisions regarding vacations of streets, alleys, and public
easements. Amendments to the street vacation code are proposed to address the following:
Move street vacation code into new Chapter 18.55 ECDC under Title 18 - Public Works
Requirements
Reorganization and clarification of various code sections to make the process and requirements
more clear
Clarification that this code section applies to the vacation of streets, alleys, and public
easements relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes
Requirement for an appraisal to be completed by a city selected appraiser, at the expense of the
applicant and only after a resolution of intent has been approved by the council.
Allowance for the conditions placed on the street vacation to be met within a timeframe set by
resolution or within 90-days as stated in the code.
At the July 10, 2019 Planning Board meeting, there were questions regarding the ownership of rights -of -
way and the City of Edmonds receiving compensation for the vacation of rights -of -way. The City
Attorney has provided a memo in Attachment 4 with answers to a few questions. The City Attorney will
also be present at the meeting to help address these and other questions for the Planning Board.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Chapter 20.70 (NEW 18.55) ECDC DRAFT - Track Changes
Attachment 2: Chapter 20.70 (NEW 18.55) ECDC-DRAFT - Clean
Attachment 3 - Chapter 20.70 ECDC - Existing
Attachment 4: City Attorney Memo regarding street vacation payments 2019-08-09
Packet Pg. 27
6.A.a
Edmonds
Chapter 29 418.5519 55 &T VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Chapter 20.7018.5518 XX55
ST-REE'RVACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Sections:
20.7018.55.000 - Purpose.
18.55.005 Definitions.
20.4018.55.010 -A-Applicability-and effect.
20 7018.55.03015 Initiation of proceedings and application.
20.7018.55.020 Criteria for vacation
20.7018.55.040
20.70XXX A «««.awls
Limitations on vacations.
and appraisal- fee.
20.7 1°33060
20.7018 55.070
Ap«plioatio n WgUiWa,eR .
Date of Ppublic hearing Date- g.
20.7018.55.080
Staff report preparation
20.7018.55.090
Public notification - Contents and distribution.
20.7018 55.100
Vacation file content and availability.
20 A18.55.110
20.7779.33�l2�9
Public hearing procedures- Required.
Publ e hearing Continuation.
20..�f01018.55.130
18.55.030 Citv
n..hl:e he....:«,. Prese«t..t:on b «h.««:«,...... pager
easement riehts for public utilities and services.
18.55.XXX Appraisals and appraisal fee.
20 7018.55.140 Resolution of intent and Ffinal decision
Page 1/8
20.7018_55.000 Purpose.
This chapter establishes the procedures and criteria that the city will use to decide upon vacations of streets, alleys,
and 914��ttblir, easements, or portions thereofrelati« to stFeet. pedestrian or tFavel ptifooses. [Ord. 2933 §
1, 1993].
18.55.005 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be understood in accord with the definitions, below:
A. "applicant" shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) ofproperty abutting upon the subject property.
B. "subject property" means the street, alley, easement, or portion thereof sought to be vacated.
C. "abutting" means having a lineal boundary in common with a portion of the boundary of the subject property. A
property that touches the subject property at a single point is not "abutting" under this definition.
D. "easement" means an easement for public right-of-way or similar easement for pedestrian and/or vehicular travel.
Publicly owned easements that serve underground or overhead utilities but serve no travel function do not fall
within the definition of "easement" for the purposes of this chapter.
E. "portion thereof' means a portion of any street, alley, or easement sought to be vacated.
F. "director" means the Public Works Director or their designee.
G. "necessary" or "necessity" means reasonable necessity in the foreseeable future. It does not mean absolute, or
in4seei3sibleindispensable, or immediate need.
H. "travel" means vehicular or pedestrian travel by the public.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
H
LL
C
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.2"
<.i
W
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
20.7018_55.010 Applicability and effect.
A. General. This chapter applies to each request for vacation of streets, alleys, egad-pubho-easements, or portions
P PP 9 '" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.2"
thereof relatine to street, vedes4iaa or travel offmases. This chapter shall not apply to vaeatienthe release or
termination of other types of public easements like utility easements. -As ...,e,l in this Chapee« the te...,, "subject
i3mi3efW means the stfeet. ..11e ubl:e easeraea4, or peftions the«ee f sau l# to he v..,...te'dd. AAAS'-re the term
"ai3plieant" is used, i f the e:t y did not initiate they eation—rtT i3lie ,«t» shall ref to the «etit�c tiom-n of
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
a+
a
Packet Pg. 28
6.A.a
0
0
N
L
Q.
cc
t
U
Edmonds Page 2/8
0
Chapter 29 418.5519 55 &TIIEFq-VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
y
the .st_eet or ••lamthereof sabjeet to thee yaeat:�equest. [Ord. 3910 § 2, 2013;
ro��,
r+
�
Ord. 2933 & 1, 19931 b Note: if the street to bevacatedsubject property is shown on
E
the Offs official street map (Chapter 49 9018.50 ECDC), dw-an ordinance appr-e ed, street vacation the
-p
subiect property also ehangesihall be deemed to have amended the official street map to remove the vaeated-
streetsubject property (See Chapter 20.65 ECDC). The director shall be authorized to update the official street
CD
map in accord with each approved street vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
Q
3Q18.55 4`�15 Initiation of n_ roceedin¢s and application,
A. A vacation may be initiated bv:
1. A -City council: or
L
R
2. R3 Petition ofthe owners of^�. ore -a«' two-thirds ofpronerty abutting the po#jan
N
„r«.... ...............« «,. ,.,..,..,...«,.asubject mpert,.
initiatp,
id not the I,
L
,. Q.e ....,.,.«:,. « [Ord anon c 2, 2013. 0..a 2933 a l 19931
rpauws
_
ti
B. Council resolution for vacation. The City Council may initiate, by resolution, vacation procedures. T4e es hAiep
When a vacation is initiated by resolution, staff shall
7
prepare an application that conforms to D, below, except that applications for such vacations shall be exempt
d
from D.1, D.3, and D.A.
..
y
tU
s�
C. Petition for vacation brought by abutting property owners. The owners of an interest in any real estate abutting
to
upon any ^«feet or alle.. or unde_i any ubli , easement e._ va 1... a.:.. ,.w.... subject property, may
t
petition the city council for vacation of the subject property. The petition shallmust be signed by 4gaed4)3-the
U
owners of nieFe4he'w two-thirds of the property abutting on the sgeet-�subiect property. The two-thirds
V
ownership shall be calculated (based on f nlinear frontage abutting the subject property',
H
D. _ or a A'a .ation ,.......1.mi#inp tAR c Ilay.: application for a street vacation initiated by
Petition shall contain the followin items:
tems:
1. A -A valid vacation petition n forms provided by the
glap enizineerin ivi i n
2. B-A legal description of the subject property_&'-�o o pent _ l W.R f to be ....,,..tea
This legal description shall be prepared by a surveyor registered in the state of Washington
3. A completed application and fee as established by efdinatseeresolution of the city council;
4. A signed agreement to pay the cost of an appraisal as provided for in Section 18.-XX55.XXX;
5. C > iftpp, ...aner P's_ao ° A site surveyrnae showing theg«root alley o 0 0
a subject property and shewing-all properties with subdivision. block. lots. and
specifying open and unopened rights -of -way for a radius of 400 feet from any boundary of the
stfpetl ..11p-1 ,. ..« tl.,.. po f «,. 1.,. ..-,Ratpdsubject property. The site survey ^� s
must be e-at-ato scales€'-�-
guidelines -
established bN' t e nl... : - r, Address labels for the owners of real property within 300
feet of the boundaries of the subject property. Addresses shall be obtained from the Snohomish
County's real property tax records. The adjacent property owners list must be current to within six
months of the date of initial application...;
7. 1' A coov of the Snohomish Countv assessor's man identifvina the nronerties specified in
subsection 6E of this section
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
LL
a+
a
Packet Pg. 29
6.A.a
Edmonds
Chapter 29 418.5519 55 STREYiT-VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 3/8
8. Identification of which of the abutting property owners (or predecessors -in -interest) originally
dedicated the subject property; and
2—Any additional information or material that the Public Works Director or hisAl%their
aqpein�eedesignee determines is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the
requested vacation. rOrd. 2933 § 1, 19931.
T Tfth" «renew-. wnq .,,.11., ,le.l:AAte.l hl. ere And e«l., e..e efthp, ,41.«t4ing, n«e..e«t thp, de..ignAtie« of
thA «..e.. e.+., f-FF) - Mih:..7, thR 44 9-
.t 8f ....... ....... dRdJ Qate,l.....,1
T A«. ndditiennl i4i rmntie« ofmAtAfi.,1 that thA «.e«....e,. efthp nlan«i«.. divi ion of higzher ,.
e e e is e nnhl., «e,.e.,,,ap, r thp, sit.,,.,.,,«,.:1 to ,.ansiae_ thp, _e, upstea .,.sage« rOrd ;Enaa 8 1
20.7018.55.020 Criteria for vacation.
The city council may vacate the public's real property rights in a street, alley, or public, enqeMent r-elnti
i3edest6an or subject propertyeasen+e:n only if it finds that
A Tthe vacation and the conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate collectively is -are in the
public interest. This decision is left to the legislative discretion of the city council.;; -ate
B. e ..Meet elle e« publie «t is not «tl , ...eves. , fe f tFavel or other street „mere.. likely to be
in the filtur-A and th
at :Ftl,e public easement'1 For i3edestrian aceess, it is not1'1 el. to l.e ef..l for
NE) «_e«eF.y will be denied dirset ..,.,.e..s as .. result eftl.e . aeatie«. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
alley,20.70.030 Right to r-eser�ve easementsCity easement rights for- publie utilities and seFviees;
In vaea4ing a street,
easements or the right texereise andeasements for the f lle
20.7018.55.040 Limitations on vacations.
A. Areas that May Not Be Vacated. The city may not vacate any street, alley, pu r, ease-.-e«t relating to stfeet
pedestrian or- tfavel —purposes, or part thefeefsubject property that abuts any body of water unless all elements of
RCW 35.79.035 are
publie e«tit., to vequire and to use for e publie «....pwesatisfied.
B. Objection by Property Owner. The city shall not proceed with the a city council initiated vacation if the owners of
50 percent or more of the lineal footage of property abutting the st feet or alley or paA thereof or- „«aerl)4Rg the
pates-easestentereel;moo-✓ueatoasubject property file a written objection in the planning
divisienwith the city clerk prior to the time of the hearing. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
0
0
N
L
Q.
cc
t
U
O
N
r.+
C
N
E
C
N
E
a
L
N�
cc
d
0
7
a
N
d
C
to
t
U
i
ci
L
H
1L
NQ
V
U
W
LO
LO
06
W
Z
O
ti
O
N
L
N
C.
M
t
<.i
T
E
t�
M
Q
r
C
d
E
t
t�
M
++
a+
a
Packet Pg. 30
6.A.a
Edmonds Page 4/8
Chapter 29 418.5519 55 &T VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Tile Nblis 1AIR44q dirpstaf is Buthefigte 4 to ebtain appraisals ffem qualified, independent appraisef-
staff re... gq o vagati ,. Dawnent to the City of an a sal fee :«
500 \ Which F e ,.1.,.11 l.e ed t Atain an aivraisah or-evare.1 1. el[e e,. avoraiser establishiae4air-Let
value e f the street ,.11e ubl:e easement relating to stfeet edest..:e« er t..,.. el .. ese., or aA ♦h ffee f to l.e
« C i-r nn,...l.At ..,.1..A a a.* ..,:tl. tL.....,., eq-:vat: on ,.F a
20.7018.55.070 Date of 1'public hearing--DateTixing.
Upon receiving a complete to the completion of an application for vacation, or upon passage of a
resolution 'ni�lrby the city council seeking vacation, the city council shall by resolution fix a time when the city
council will hold a public hearing on the proposed vacation. The hearing will be not more than 60 days nor less than
20 days after the date of passage of the resolution scheduling the public hearing. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
U-
NaN
LPL
V
U
W
0
LO
06
W
Z
0
ti
0
N
L
0.
M
t
<.i
T
C
O
E
t
C�
M
Q
r
C
d
E
t
t�
M
++
a+
a
Packet Pg. 31
6.A.a
Edmonds Page 5/8
Chapter 29 418.5519 55 STREYiTVACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
20.7018_55.080 Staff report -preparation.
A. Contents. The planning Public Works Director or his/her designee shall consult with the City's planning
manager on the proposal and prepare a staffreport containing the following information:
1. All pertinent application materials submitted by the applicant;
2. All comments regarding the vacation received in the planning engineering division prior to distribution of
the staff report;
3. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provisions of this chapter and the applicable
provisions of the comprehensive plan; and
4. A recommendation on the vacation.
B. Distribution. Prior to the hearing, the planning managefPubjic_Works Director -shall distribute *is -the staff
report to:
1. Each member of the city council; and
2. Each applicant (if applicable). [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7918.55.090 Public notification - Contents and distribution.
A. Content. The city clerk shall prepare a public notice containing the following information:
1. A statement that a request to vacate the sect propertyt-^^' ^"^ ^^ ^-^^Fwill be
considered by the city council;
2. A locational description in nonlegal language along with a vicinity map that identifies the sne^',
" subject property
3. A statement of the time and place of the public hearing before the city council;
4. A statement that the afthe ^.,^:,^Mint.. , f4he vacation file is available for viewing at Edmonds City Hall;
5. A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the city council prior to or at the public
hearing and to appear before the city council at the hearing to give comments orally; and
6. A description of any easement under consideration to be retained by the city. In the event an easement is
desired, but was not included in the notice, the public hearing will be continued to allow time for notice of
the easement to be provided.
B. Distribution. At least 20 calendar days before the public hearing the planning city clerk shall distribute
the public notice as follows:
1. A copy will be sent to the owner of each piece of property within 300 feet of any boundary of the stFeet,
alley, easement, of-..« thereof to 1.......,.ate subject property;
2. A copy will be sent to eaeh-the residents fiving innnediately adjaeent toofproperties abutting the street
subject
roe ,
3. A copy will be published in the official newspaper of the city, except no vicinity map shall be required;
4. At least three copies will be posted in conspicuous public places in the city; and
5. At least three one copyies will be posted on the subject property^«_ ^n^.. _ , ^_^ cto be
vacated. [Ord. 3901 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018_55.100 Vacation file content and availability.
A. _Content. The planning managerpPublic wWorks dDirector shall compile a vacation file which contains all
information pertinent to the proposed vacation.
B. -Availability. This file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the planning engineering
division during regular business hours. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018_55.110 Public hearing procedures d.
A. Public Hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on each requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
B. Continuation of public hearing. The citv council may continue the hearing if. for anv reason. it is unable to hear
all of the public comments on the proposed vacation_ or if the city council determines that it needs more
information on the proposed vacation. If during the hearing. the city council announces the time and place 444e
nex4to continue the hearing on the vacation. no further notice of the hearing need be given. lOrd. 2933 $ 1.
19m
make a brief presentation of:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
t—
LL
c.�
U
W
0
LO
06
W
Z
0
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman,
N
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level:
Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Align
Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman,
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman,
L
N
C.
t
0
T
C
O
t
t�
M
Q
a+
a
Packet Pg. 32
6.A.a
Edmonds Page 6/8
Chapter 20.7018.5519 55 $TPWi�VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
1. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provision of this chapter and the applicable
provisions of the comprehensive plan; and
2 A recommendation on the requested vacation. ford. 2933 § 1, 19931.
D. Public Participation. Any interested person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the
following wad
1. By submitting written comments to the city council eitk—by delivering the comments to the
engineering division prior to the hearing or by giving the comments directly to the city council at the
hearing; and
2. By Wpearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments directly
to the city council. The city council may -easena ereasonably -limit the extent of these oral
comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing.
18.55.030 Right to reserve easements.
In vacating anv subiect nronertv. the citv council may reserve for the citv anv easements or the right to exercise and
grant any easements for the following purposes:
ses:
A. Construction, repair and maintenance ofpublic utilities and services. fOrd. 3910 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1,
1993 .
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.
18.55.XXX Appraisals and appraisal fee
A.-Annraisal fee. If the Citv Council adopts a resolution of intent to vacate the subiect Dronertv. the petitioner
shall deposit sufficient funds to cover the City's estimated cost of a full appraisal of the subject property. In the
event that the City's actual appraisal cost is less than the amount deposited, the vacation compensation paid by
the petitioner to the City shall be reduced by the difference between the deposit and the actual cost, or, in the
alternative, such difference shall be refunded. In the event that the City's actual appraisal cost is more than
the amount deposited, the vacation compensation payable to the City v the petitioner shall be increased by the
difference between the deposit and the actual appraisal cost.
B. -If the City Council adopts a resolution of intent to vacate the subject property, the director shall be authorized
to obtain an appraisal of the fair market value of the subject property from a qualified appraiser, taking into
account any reduction in fair market value associated with the conditions imposed in the resolution of intent,
including but not limited to a condition requiring the dedication of an alternative right-of-way.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 33
6.A.a
Edmonds Page 7/8
Chapter 29 418.5519 55 &T VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
C. -After the appraisal has been completed, the director shall notify the petitioner of the amount of compensation
required, adjustingfor or any difference between estimated and actual appraisal costs. The payment shall be
delivered by the property owner(s) to the City's Finance and Administrative Services Director.
20.7018.55.140 Resolution of Intent and Final decision.
A_ Generally. Following the public hearing, the city council skallmay, by motion approved by a majority of the
entire membership in a roll call vote to -ither
3-Aadopt a resolution of intent to vacate. If there are insufficient votes to adopt a resolution of intent, the street
vacation will be deemed denied.
B. Resolution of intent to vacate. The city council may adopt a resolution of intent to vacate -stating that -the city
council wi-llintends, by ordinance, "ant the vacation if the applicant om%er(s) o fprope fty abutting upon the
-
street or alley, or > e e r ea meets specifiede conditions within 90 days, unless , thep.. ea
different time period is specified within the resolution. The city may require the following as conditions of the
resolution ofintentto vacate:
1. Easement -Conditions. The city council may condition approval of a street vacation upon satisfaction of
any or all of the following easement -related conditions:
a ' .Reservation of an easement as outlined in section ECDC 24.7-918.55.030: and/or
a. Acceptance of a grant of substitute public right-of-way mtieh has value as right of way
at least ea" to the subjeet prooeAy.
b. Convenants intended to protect critical areas or otherwise limit future development on
the subiect property.
2i-Monetary compensation. The city council shall condition approval of a street vacation upon
satisfaction of the following monetary conditions:
agent of appraisal fees as outlined in section ECDC 18.55.XXX; and
b. Payment td-to the cityprior to the €nal-desisieneffective date of the ordinance,
in in thean amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the subj ect property street;
,...t. Ries fte he .., gated 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 then -full appraised -fair market value shall be paid, -or
than one half f the fair market value of the street, alley, o part thereof to be vacated
OR
3. Any challenge to one or more conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate must be
brought in Snohomish County Superior Court no later than 30 days following the adoption of the
resolution of intent. If such a challenge is successful, the city council shall determine whether to amend
the resolution of intent by adopting a different set of conditions or to deny the street vacation in its
entirety.
C. Final decision. If the abutting property owner(s) complies with conditions imposed in the resolution of
intent to vacate within the timeframe specified within the resolution98-days, the city council shall adopt an
ordinance granting the vacation, provided that the city council shall not be required to adopt the vacation
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
H
IL
Q
U
U
W
0
LO
06
LU
Z
0
0
N
L
N
0.
M
t
<.i
T
C
O
E
t
t�
M
Q
r
C
d
E
t
t�
M
++
a
Packet Pg. 34
6.A.a
Edmonds
Chapter 29 418.5519 55 &T VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 8/8
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 ofthe street alley, public easement relating ^^ pedestrian
tT-ave' immoses or imft the-oof that weuld4)e Neat^ subject property. The effective date clause of the ordinance
shall be drafted to make the ordinance effective upon recordin¢, and only if the ordinance contains proof of
payment received, with the City receipt number indicated on the ordinance. If the city council ultimately_
determines that the amount of compensation is not adequate to complete the vacation, the City shall reimburse
the applicants for the appraisal costs.
D_E Distribution. Within five working days of the city council decision, the public works plannipg director
manager shall mail a copy of the notice of decision to the applicant and all persons who submit a written or oral
testimony at the city council's hearing. [Ord. 3910 § 3, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993; Ord. 2493, 1985].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 35
Edmonds
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Chapter 18.55
VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Sections:
18.55.000
Purpose.
18.55.005
Definitions.
18.55.010
Applicability and effect.
18.55.015
Initiation of proceedings and application.
18.55.020
Criteria for vacation.
18.55.040
Limitations on vacations.
18.55.070
Date of public hearing.
18.55.080
Staff report preparation
18.55.090
Public notification — Contents and distribution.
18.55.100
Vacation file content and availability.
18.55.110
Public hearing procedures
18.55.030
City easement rights for public utilities and services.
18.55.XXX
Appraisals and appraisal fee.
18.55.140
Resolution of intent and final decision.
Page 115
18.55.000 Purpose.
This chapter establishes the procedures and criteria that the city will use to decide upon vacations of streets, alleys,
easements, or portions thereof. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.005 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be understood in accord with the definitions, below:
A. "applicant" shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) of property abutting upon the subject property.
B. "subject property" means the street, alley, easement, or portion thereof sought to be vacated.
C. "abutting" means having a lineal boundary in common with a portion of the boundary of the subject property. A
property that touches the subject property at a single point is not "abutting" under this definition.
D. "easement" means an easement for public right-of-way or similar easement for pedestrian and/or vehicular travel.
Publicly owned easements that serve underground or overhead utilities but serve no travel function do not fall
within the definition of "easement" for the purposes of this chapter.
E. "portion thereof' means a portion of any street, alley, or easement sought to be vacated.
F. "director" means the Public Works Director or their designee.
G. "necessary" or "necessity" means reasonable necessity in the foreseeable future. It does not mean absolute, or
indispensable, or immediate need.
H. "travel" means vehicular or pedestrian travel by the public.
18.55.010 Applicability and effect.
A. General. This chapter applies to each request for vacation of streets, alleys, easements, or portions thereof. This
chapter shall not apply to the release or termination of other types of public easements like utility easements.
[Ord. 3910 § 2, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].Note: if the subject property is shown on the City's official street
map (Chapter 18.50 ECDC), an ordinance vacating the subject property shall be deemed to have amended the
official street map to remove the subject property (See Chapter 20.65 ECDC). The director shall be authorized to
update the official street map in accord with each approved street vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.015 Initiation of proceedings and application
A. A vacation may be initiated by:
1. City council; or
2. Petition of the owners of two-thirds of property abutting the subject property.
c
M
m
V
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 36
Edmonds
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 2/5
B. Council resolution for vacation. The City Council may initiate, by resolution, vacation procedures. When a
vacation is initiated by resolution, staff shall prepare an application that conforms to D, below, except that
applications for such vacations shall be exempt from D. 1, D.3, and DA.
C. Petition for vacation brought by abutting property owners. The owners of an interest in any real estate abutting
upon any subject property, may petition the city council for vacation of the subject property. The petition must n
be signed by the owners of two-thirds of the property abutting on the subject property. The two-thirds ownership M
shall be calculated based on linear frontage abutting the subject property. c�
0
D. An application for a street vacation initiated by Petition shall contain the following items: r
1. A valid vacation petition on forms provided by the engineering division;
2. A legal description of the subject property. This legal description shall be prepared by a surveyor E
registered in the state of Washington; c
3. A completed application and fee as established by resolution of the city council;
E
4. A signed agreement to pay the cost of an appraisal as provided for in Section 18.55.XXX; Q
5. A site survey showing the subject property and all properties with subdivision, block, lots, and
specifying open and unopened rights -of -way for a radius of 400 feet from any boundary of the
subject property. The site survey must be to scale;
6. Address labels for the owners of real property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject
property. Addresses shall be obtained from the Snohomish County's real property tax records. The a
adjacent property owners list must be current to within six months of the date of initial
application; m
7. A copy of the Snohomish County assessor's map identifying the properties specified in subsection x
6 of this section; _
8. Identification of which of the abutting property owners (or predecessors -in -interest) originally
dedicated the subject property; and a
9. Any additional information or material that the Public Works Director or their designee r_
determines is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the requested vacation. [Ord. m
2933 § 1, 1993]. t�
18.55.020 Criteria for vacation.
The city council may vacate the public's real property rights in a subject property only if it finds that the vacation
and the conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate collectively are in the public interest. This
decision is left to the legislative discretion of the city council. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.040 Limitations on vacations.
A. Areas that May Not Be Vacated. The city may not vacate any subject property that abuts any body of water
unless all elements of RCW 35.79.035 are satisfied.
B. Objection by Property Owner. 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 with the
city clerk prior to the time of the hearing. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.070 Date of public hearing.
Upon receiving a complete application for vacation, or upon passage of a resolution by the city council seeking
vacation, the city council shall by resolution fix a time when the city council will hold a public hearing on the
proposed vacation. The hearing will be not more than 60 days nor less than 20 days after the date of passage of the
resolution scheduling the public hearing. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
18.55.080 Staff report.
A. Contents. The Public Works Director or his/her designee shall consult with the City's planning manager on the
proposal and prepare a staff report containing the following information:
1. All pertinent application materials submitted by the applicant;
2. All comments regarding the vacation received in the engineering division prior to distribution of the staff
report;
3. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provisions of this chapter and the applicable
provisions of the comprehensive plan; and
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 37
6.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
4. A recommendation on the vacation.
B. Distribution. Prior to the hearing, the Public Works Director shall distribute the staff report to:
1. Each member of the city council; and
2. Each applicant (if applicable). [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
Page 3/5
18.55.090 Public notification — Contents and distribution.
A. Content. The city clerk shall prepare a public notice containing the following information:
1. A statement that a request to vacate the subject property will be considered by the city council;
2. A location description in non -legal language along with a vicinity map that identifies the subject property;
3. A statement of the time and place of the public hearing before the city council;
4. A statement that the vacation file is available for viewing at Edmonds City Hall;
5. A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the city council prior to or at the public
hearing and to appear before the city council at the hearing to give comments orally; and
6. A description of any easement under consideration to be retained by the city. In the event an easement is
desired, but was not included in the notice, the public hearing will be continued to allow time for notice of
the easement to be provided.
B. Distribution. At least 20 calendar days before the public hearing the city clerk shall distribute the public notice as
follows:
1. A copy will be sent to the owner of each piece of property within 300 feet of any boundary of the subject
property;
2. A copy will be sent to the residents of properties abutting the subject property;
3. A copy will be published in the official newspaper of the city, except no vicinity map shall be required;
4. At least three copies will be posted in conspicuous public places in the city; and
5. At least one copy will be posted on the subject property to be vacated. [Ord. 3901 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2933 § 1,
1993].
18.55.100 Vacation file content and availability. c
A. Content. The public works director shall compile a vacation file which contains all information pertinent to the m
proposed vacation. V
B. Availability. This file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the engineering division
during regular business hours. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. Q
18.55.110 Public hearing procedures.
A. Public Hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on each requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
B. Continuation of public hearing. The city council may continue the hearing if, for any reason, it is unable to hear
all of the public comments on the proposed vacation, or if the city council determines that it needs more
information on the proposed vacation. If during the hearing, the city council announces the time and place to
continue the hearing on the vacation, no further notice of the hearing need be given. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
C. Presentation. At the outset of the hearing, the public works director or his/her designee shall make a brief
presentation of.
1. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provision of this chapter and the applicable
provisions of the comprehensive plan; and
2. A recommendation on the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
D. Public Participation. Any interested person may participate in the public hearing in either or both of the
following ways:
1. By submitting written comments to the city council by delivering the comments to the engineering
division prior to the hearing or by giving the comments directly to the city council at the hearing; and
2. By appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and making oral comments directly
to the city council. The city council may reasonably limit the extent of these oral comments to facilitate
the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 38
6.A.b
Edmonds Page 4/5
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
18.55.030 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. [Ord. 3910 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1,
1993].
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.
18.55.XXX Appraisals and appraisal fee
A. Appraisal fee. If the City Council adopts a resolution of intent to vacate the subject property, the petitioner
shall deposit sufficient funds to cover the City's estimated cost of a full appraisal of the subject property. In the
event that the City's actual appraisal cost is less than the amount deposited, the vacation compensation paid by
the petitioner to the City shall be reduced by the difference between the deposit and the actual cost, or, in the
alternative, such difference shall be refunded. In the event that the City's actual appraisal cost is more than
the amount deposited, the vacation compensation payable to the City by the petitioner shall be increased by the
difference between the deposit and the actual appraisal cost.
B. If the City Council adopts a resolution of intent to vacate the subject property, the director shall be authorized to
obtain an appraisal of the fair market value of the subject property from a qualified appraiser, taking into
account any reduction in fair market value associated with the conditions imposed in the resolution of intent,
including but not limited to a condition requiring the dedication of an alternative right-of-way.
C. After the appraisal has been completed, the director shall notify the petitioner of the amount of compensation
required, adjusting for any difference between estimated and actual appraisal costs. The payment shall be
delivered by the property owner(s) to the City's Finance and Administrative Services Director.
18.55.140 Resolution of Intent and Final decision. a
A. General. Following the public hearing, the city council may, by motion approved by a majority of the entire r-
membership in a roll call vote to adopt a resolution of intent to vacate. If there are insufficient votes to adopt a m
resolution of intent, the street vacation will be deemed denied. t�
B. Resolution of intent to vacate. The city council may adopt a resolution of intent to vacate stating the city council
intends, by ordinance, to grant the vacation if the applicant meets specified conditions within 90 days, unless a LL
different time period is specified within the resolution. The city may require the following as conditions of the
resolution of intent to vacate:
1. Conditions. The city council may condition approval of a street vacation upon satisfaction of any or all p
of the following related conditions: w
a. Reservation of an easement as outlined in section ECDC 18.55.030; and/or Acceptance
LO
of a grant of substitute public right-of-way. Lq
b. Convenants intended to protect critical areas or otherwise limit future development on O0
the subject property. ?�
2. Monetary compensation. The city council shall condition approval of a street vacation upon w
satisfaction of the following monetary conditions: Z
a. Payment of appraisal fees as outlined in section ECDC 18.55.XXX; and ti
b. Payment to the city, prior to the effective date of the ordinance, in an amount of up to N
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 0
years or more, in which case full fair market value shall be paid. z
3. Any challenge to one or more conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate must be V
brought in Snohomish County Superior Court no later than 30 days following the adoption of the N
resolution of intent. If such a challenge is successful, the city council shall determine whether to amend
the resolution of intent by adopting a different set of conditions or to deny the street vacation in its z
entirety. U
C. Final decision. If the abutting property owner(s) complies with conditions imposed in the resolution of intent to Q
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, afterCD
c
reviewing the appraisal, that the monetary compensation to be paid to the city is not sufficient to compensate for E
E
the public's loss of the subject property. The effective date clause of the ordinance shall be drafted to make the
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 39
6.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 515
ordinance effective upon recording, and only if the ordinance contains proof of payment received, with the City
receipt number indicated on the ordinance. If the city council ultimately determines that the amount of
compensation is not adequate to complete the vacation, the City shall reimburse the applicants for the appraisal
costs.
D. Distribution. Within five working days of the city council decision, the public works director shall mail a copy
of the notice of decision to the applicant and all persons who submit a written or oral testimony at the city
council's hearing. [Ord. 3910 § 3, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993; Ord. 2493, 1985].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 40
6.A.c
Edmonds
Chapter 20.70 STREET VACATIONS
Chapter 20.70
STREET VACATIONS
Sections:
20.70.000
Purpose.
20.70.010
Applicability.
20.70.020
Criteria for vacation.
20.70.030
City easement rights for public utilities and services.
20.70.040
Limitations on vacations.
20.70.050
Initiation of proceedings.
20.70.060
Application requirements.
20.70.070
Public hearing — Date fixing.
20.70.080
Staff report preparation
20.70.090
Public notification — Contents and distribution.
20.70.100
Vacation file content and availability.
20.70.110
Public hearing — Required.
20.70.120
Public hearing — Continuation.
20.70.130
Public hearing — Presentation by planning manager.
20.70.140
Final decision.
Page 1/4
20.70.000 Purpose.
This chapter establishes the procedure and criteria that the city will use to decide upon vacations of streets, alleys,
and public easements. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.010 Applicability.
This chapter applies to each request for vacation by city council or by petition. Note: if the street to be vacated is
shown on the official street map (Chapter 19.80 ECDC), the approved street vacation also changes the official street
map to remove the vacated street (See Chapter 20.65 ECDC). [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.020 Criteria for vacation.
The city council may vacate a street, alley, or easement only if it finds that:
A. The vacation is in the public interest; and
B. No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.030 City easement rights for public utilities and services.
In vacating a street, alley, or easement, the city council may reserve for the city any easements or the right to
exercise and grant any easements for construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. [Ord.
3910 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.040 Limitations on vacations.
A. Areas that May Not Be Vacated. The city may not vacate any street, alley, easement, or part thereof that abuts
any body of water unless all elements of RCW 35.79.035 are complied with, and the vacated area will thereby
become available for the city or other public entity to acquire and to use for a public purpose.
B. Objection by Property Owner. The city shall not proceed with the vacation if the owners of 50 percent or more of
the property abutting the street or alley or part thereof, or underlying the easement or part thereof, to be vacated file
a written objection in the planning division prior to the time of the hearing. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.050 Initiation of proceedings.
A vacation may be initiated by:
A. City council; or
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 41
6.A.c
Edmonds Page 2/4
Chapter 20.70 STREET VACATIONS
B. Petition of the owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley to be vacated
or, in the case of an easement, two-thirds of property underlying the portion of the easement to be vacated.
C. Hereafter within this chapter, where the term "applicant" is used, if the city did not initiate the vacation,
"applicant" shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof,
subject to the vacation request. [Ord. 3910 § 2, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.060 Application requirements.
An applicant may apply for a vacation by submitting the following:
A. A vacation petition with supporting affidavits on forms provided by the planning division;
B. A legal description of the street, alley, easement, or part thereof to be vacated. This legal description shall be
prepared by a surveyor registered in the state of Washington;
C. Fifteen paper copies of a site map showing the street, alley, easement or part thereof to be vacated and showing
all properties with subdivision, block, lots, and specifying open and unopened rights -of -way for a radius of 400 feet
from the street, alley, easement, or part thereof, to be vacated. These site maps must be at a scale of V = 50;
D. An 8-1/2-by-Il-inch clear plastic transparency of the site map;
E. Address labels obtained from the Snohomish County comptroller's office containing the names and addresses of
the owners of all property within 300 feet of any boundary of the street, alley, easement, or part thereof, to be
vacated;
F. A copy of the Snohomish County assessor's map identifying the properties specified in subsection E of this
section;
G. Two copies of an appraisal prepared by a qualified land appraiser with an M.A.I. designation, establishing the fair
market value of the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated. An appraisal is not required if a utility easement only
is proposed to be vacated;
H. A completed application and fee as established by ordinance;
I. If the property was originally dedicated by one and only one of the abutting properties, the designation of the
property from which the right-of-way was dedicated; and
J. Any additional information or material that the manager of the planning division or his/her appointee determines
is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.070 Public hearing — Date fixing.
Subsequent to the completion of an application, or initiation by city council, the city council shall by resolution fix a
time when the city council will hold a public hearing on the proposed vacation. The hearing will be not more than 60
days nor less than 20 days after the date of passage of the resolution. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.080 Staff report preparation.
A. Contents. The planning manager or his/her designee shall prepare a staff report containing the following
information:
1. All pertinent application materials submitted by the applicant;
2. All comments regarding the vacation received in the planning division prior to distribution of the staff report;
3. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provisions of this chapter and the applicable
provisions of the comprehensive plan; and
4. A recommendation on the vacation.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 42
6.A.c
Edmonds
Chapter 20.70 STREET VACATIONS
B. Distribution. Prior to the hearing, the planning manager shall distribute this report to:
1. Each member of the city council; and
2. Each applicant (if applicable). [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.090 Public notification — Contents and distribution.
A. Content. The city clerk shall prepare a public notice containing the following information:
Page 3/4
1. A statement that a request to vacate the street, alley, easement, or part thereof will be considered by the city
council;
2. A locational description in nonlegal language along with a vicinity map that identifies the street, alley,
easement, or part thereof,
3. A statement of the time and place of the public hearing before the city council;
4. A statement of the availability of the vacation file;
5. A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the city council prior to or at the public
hearing and to appear before the city council at the hearing to give comments orally; and
6. A description of any easement under consideration to be retained by the city. In the event an easement is
desired, but was not included in the notice, the public hearing will be continued to allow time for notice of the
easement to be provided.
B. Distribution. At least 20 calendar days before the public hearing the planning manager shall distribute the public
notice as follows:
1. A copy will be sent to the owner of each piece of property within 300 feet of any boundary of the street,
alley, easement, or part thereof to be vacated;
2. A copy will be sent to each resident living immediately adjacent to the street, alley, easement, or part thereof
to be vacated;
3. A copy will be published in the official newspaper of the city;
4. At least three copies will be posted in conspicuous public places in the city; and
5. At least three copies will be posted on the street, alley, easement, or part thereof to be vacated. [Ord. 3901 §
1, 2012; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.100 Vacation file content and availability.
A. Content. The planning manager shall compile a vacation file which contains all information pertinent to the
proposed vacation.
B. Availability. This file is a public record. It is available for inspection and copying in the planning division during
regular business hours. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.110 Public hearing — Required.
The city council shall hold a public hearing on each requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.120 Public hearing — Continuation.
The city council may continue the hearing if, for any reason, it is unable to hear all of the public comments on the
vacation, or if the city council determines that it needs more information on the vacation. If during the hearing, the
city council announces the time and place of the next hearing on the vacation, no further notice of the hearing need
be given. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 43
6.A.c
Edmonds
Chapter 20.70 STREET VACATIONS
Page 4/4
20.70.130 Public hearing — Presentation by planning manager.
At the outset of the hearing, the planning manager or his/her designee shall make a brief presentation of:
A. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provision of this chapter and the applicable provisions of
the comprehensive plan; and
B. A recommendation on the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.140 Final decision.
A. Generally. Following the public hearing, the city council shall, by motion approved by a majority of the entire
membership in a roll call vote, either:
1. Adopt an ordinance granting the vacation; or
2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or
3. Adopt a resolution of intent to vacate stating that the city council will, by ordinance, grant the vacation if the
owner(s) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, meet specific conditions
within 90 days. The city may require the following as conditions:
a. Either:
i. Monetary compensation to be paid to the city in the amount of up to one-half the fair market value
for the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated unless acquired at "public expense," then full
appraised value shall be paid; or
ii. The grant of a substitute public right-of-way which has value as an access way at least equal to the
vacated street, alley, or part thereof, or
iii. Any combination of subsections (A)(3)(a)(i) and (A)(3)(a)(ii) of this section totaling but not more
than one-half the fair market value of the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated.
OR
b. A grant of an easement to the city in exchange for the easement vacated.
If the abutting property owner(s) complies with conditions imposed in the resolution of intent to vacate within 90
days, the city council shall adopt an ordinance granting the vacation.
B. Findings Required. As part of each ordinance granting a vacation, motion denying a vacation, or resolution of
intent to vacate, the city council shall adopt findings and conclusions to support its decision.
C. Distribution. Within five working days of the city council decision, the planning manager shall mail a copy of the
notice of decision to the applicant and all persons who submit a written or oral testimony at the city council's
hearing. [Ord. 3910 § 3, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993; Ord. 2493, 1985].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 44
6.A.d
Date: August 9, 2019
To: Planning Board Members
From: Jeff Taraday
Re: Requiring Street Vacation Petitioners to Pay Compensation
The following memo is provided to respond to
questions and concerns as to whether it is
appropriate to condition a street vacation upon the
payment of compensation to the City. I have placed
in quotation marks what I understand to have been
the gist of the Planning Board's questions. Then I
have tried to answer those questions.
"Can the City require abutting owners to pay the City money as a condition
of a street vacation?"
Yes.
The legal authority to require such a payment is found in RCW 35.79.030, which
provides, in relevant part, as follows:
If the legislative authority determines to grant the petition or any
part thereof, such city or town shall be authorized and have
authority by ordinance to vacate such street, or alley, or any part
thereof, and the ordinance may provide that it shall not become
effective until the owners of property abutting upon the street or
alley, or part thereof so vacated, shall compensate such city or
town in an amount which does not exceed one-half the appraised
value of the area so vacated. If the street or alley has been part of a
dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more, or if
the subject property or portions thereof were acquired at public
expense, the city or town may require the owners of the property
abutting the street or alley to compensate the city or town in an
amount that does not exceed the full appraised value of the area
vacated.
RCW 35.79.030 (emphasis added). This statute provides clear authority for the
City to require compensation. But the City is not required to require
N600 Stewart Street, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98101 I P 206.273.7440 I F 206.273.7401 I www.lighthouselawgroup.com
Packet Pg. 45
6.A.d
compensation, which brings us to the next question.
"Should the City require abutting owners to pay the City money as a
condition of a street vacation?"
This is a policy question to be decided ultimately by the City Council. The
Planning Board can make a recommendation to the City Council on this policy
question. The City Attorney's recommendation is that the City should require
abutting owners to pay for street vacations for various reasons including the
following:
1. In most cases, the fair market value of the abutting owner's property
would increase as a result of the street vacation;
2. If no payment is required, abutting owners would receive a windfall
relative to other property owners who do not abut a street being vacated;
3. Streets are for the benefit of the general public, and payment to the City
for a street vacation would also benefit the general public;
4. If the City does not receive money for a street vacation, in many cases, it
would be difficult to articulate the public benefit that would justify the
street vacation.
"Doesn't the street already belong to the Petitioner? If so, why should they
have to pay to have the street vacated?"
The general rule is that the abutting landowner will be held to own the fee in the
public way in front of his or her property to the center of it, subject to the public
easement. § 30:35. Ownership of streets, l0A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 3 0:3 5 (3d
ed.). But the title to streets and public ways, whether in the people or a
municipality, or in fee or in easement, is held in trust for the public use, both for
the purpose of public travel and as a means of access to and egress from abutting
property. § 30:37. Title of municipality is that of trustee, 10A McQuillin Mun.
Corp. § 30:37 (3d ed.). Thus, the public highways and streets are acquired and
held in trust for the use of all the people. For ordinary and general transportation
and traffic they are free and common to all citizens. Thus, much is conclusively
implied in their acquisition and maintenance, regardless of the estate or title by
which they are held. Streets primarily are for the use of the people as a whole, and
cannot be diverted for merely local, or private use, or the rights of the public in
them unreasonably curtailed or abridged. § 30:39. Paramount state powers, l0A
McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 30:39 (3d ed.).
The right to possession, use and control of the street by the municipal corporation
is regarded as a legal, and not a mere equitable right, even where the adjoining
proprietor retains the fee. But whatever rights or title the city or town may have
over its streets, its powers are those of a trustee for the benefit of the public to be
N600 Stewart Street, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98101 I P 206.273.7440 I F 206.273.7401 I www.lighthouselawgroup.com
Packet Pg. 46
6.A.d
liberally construed for its benefit, strictly construed to its detriment. Whatever the
nature of the title of the municipality in streets and alleys, whether a fee simple or
only a qualified or conditional fee or a perpetual easement, it is such as to enable
the public authorities to devote them to public purposes. The power to maintain
and regulate the use of the streets is a trust for the benefit of the general public, of
which the city cannot divest itself, nor can it so exercise its power over the streets
as to defeat or seriously interfere with the enjoyment of the streets by the public.
In other words, as noticed above, in supervising the uses of its streets, a municipal
corporation is engaged in a function essentially public and governmental. §
30:41.Municipal powers, 10A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 30:41 (3d ed.). Hence,
whenever a street is vacated, the public loses something of value. Even if that
value does not manifest itself in present day use by the public, the rights of the
public to use that street in the future are being withdrawn from the public trust. In
our opinion, the loss to the public and the gain in the value of the abutting
owner's property, can only be justified by a payment of fair market value to the
City. This opinion is consistent with the statute which requires that "[o]ne-half of
the revenue received by the city or town as compensation for the area vacated
must be dedicated to the acquisition, improvement, development, and related
maintenance of public open space or transportation capital projects within the city
or town." RCW 35.79.030.
N600 Stewart Street, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98101 I P 206.273.7440 I F 206.273.7401 I www.lighthouselawgroup.com
Packet Pg. 47
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/14/2019
Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The extended agenda will be reviewed at the meeting.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 48
,t- F1).ti
f
pLAKIMFW� BOARD
Extended Agenda
August 14, 2019
Meeting Item
AUGUST, 2019
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
August 1. Public Hearing Street Vacation Code Update Chapter 20.70 ECDC
14
August 1. VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies Update (next steps in
28 PSRC process)
2. RoadMap Project (update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)
SEPTEMBER, 2019
September 1. Joint Meeting with ADB: Design Review discussion
11 2. Update on Urban Forest Management Plan
September pB/Council Joint Meeting
24
September 1.
25
OCTOBER, 2019
October 1. Housing Commission Update
9
October 1.
23
NOVEMBER, 2019
November 1.
13
November 1.
27
Q
Packet Pg. 49
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2019 2. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
✓ Parking standards
3. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable
development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (1st meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
Packet Pg. 50