2019-09-25 Planning Board Packetti3 f!}:qr
Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
'�t j4y�x COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
SEPTEMBER 25, 2019, 7:00 PM
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and
their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and
taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we
honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes: September 11, 2019
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Amendments to Chapter 20.70 (NEW 18.55) ECDC Street Vacations
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
September 25, 2019
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/25/2019
Approval of Draft Minutes: September 11, 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:
PB190911d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
September 11, 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.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Nathan Monroe
Roger Pence
Mike Rosen
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Alicia Crank (excused)
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Manager
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented that the Street Vacation Code Amendments will come back before the Board on
September 25'. He recalled that City Attorney has stated that the starting point in analyzing conditions is that the City can
never be compelled to approve a street vacation but can deny the request at any time for any reason. However, if a proposed
street vacation is in the public interest and no property will be denied direct access, he questioned if the City can really deny a
request at any time for any reason. He pointed out that City code allows property owners to apply for street vacations, and a
fee is required. When an application is made and paid for, he felt it should be processed per the City's code. He said the
City's General Code of Conduct states that "the City's primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds."
The City's Code of Ethics says that "elected officials shall emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each
other and seek to improve the quality of public service and confidence of citizens. " He said his hope is that any and all
updates to the street vacation code will lead to improvements in the quality of service provide by the City. He questioned if
the- City Council can condition a street vacation on the granting of an easement to a third party.
Packet Pg. 3
Mr. Reidy recalled that at the Board's August 14' meeting, the City Attorney stated that, as a home rule city, the City has
broad powers. He further stated that "the City doesn't need to point to something that's expressly stated in State Law to
authorize its actions; it just can't contradict State Law. " In other words, as long as the City isn't violating the statute, it's
good. Mr. Reidy pointed out that State Law clearly says that the ordinance may provide that the City retain an easement or
rights, and the definition of retain is clear and simple. He expressed his belief that the City is violating State Law when it
does something other than retain. Mr. Reidy agreed that the City has broad powers. However, once the City exercises its
broad powers, the code adopted by the City Council must be followed by the City Attorney and City staff. The adopted code
must also be faithfully enforced by the mayor.
Mr. Reid recalled that, at the last meeting, he mentioned that the 2012 Planning Board was involved in an amendment that
added language regarding the types of easements that may be retained during a street vacation. Ordinance 3910 clearly states
that easements or rights may be reserved for the City. It doesn't say for third parties. The City Attorney is required to
approval all ordinances as to form, and Mr. Taraday signed Ordinance 3910. The 2012 Planning Board was also involved in
another amendment to the street vacation code. Ordinance 3901 required a description of any easement under consideration
to be retained by the City. This ordinance uses the same word (retain) that the State Law uses. He summarized that
Ordinance 3901 does not require a description of any easement that the City wants to grant to a third party. If such was legal
and if the City Council wanted to do so, Ordinance 3901 would have required a description of those easement, as well. This
was not an oversight by either the 2012 Planning Board or the 2012 City Council, and Mr. Taraday also signed Ordinance
3910. Both of the ordinances show that the Edmonds City Council has adopted City laws that do not involve property
owners granting easements to third parties. He questioned why the City's laws would allow such. Wouldn't requiring rights
to be granted to a third party be a gift to that third party? Do third parties and/or the general public even have legal standing
to contest a street vacation? He said he has never seen dedication language that says if the City doesn't use the easement for
a public use, it can convey rights to a third party instead.
Mr. Reidy commented that both the City Attorney and City staff are able to point to something that is expressly stated in the
City's own code to see what actions are authorized. It's simple, the City can retain rights for the City. Previously -elected
City Council Members decided that when the City retains an easement, it will not require compensation. It is either/or. He
expressed his belief that the either/or law improves citizen confidence in City government and stating that the City can never
be compelled to approve a street vacation does the opposite. Title 21 of the City's code defines a dedication as a gift, and
charging compensation to vacate an easement that was gifted doesn't make sense to him and such conduct is arbitrary.
Regarding rights to be granted to third -party utilities, Mr. Reid said it is best to do what the code allows, reserve for the City
any easements or rights needed. The City used to do it this way, as evidenced by Ordinances 3188 and 3202. He expressed
his belief that an easement is superior to rights that utility companies have under a franchise contract. For example, franchise
contracts often require a franchise fee, have terms and can expire. Requiring easements to be granted to utilities may be
another gift. Mr. Reidy concluded his comments by asking the Board to remind City staff to bring the aerial photo the Board
requested during its July 241 meeting to the September 25'.
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.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB) ROLES AND SCOPE
Mr. Chave reported that the ADB had a lengthy review of a project at their last meeting, and they didn't have time to discuss
their role in design review and finalize their recommendation to the Planning Board. Hopefully, they will be able to do so at
their October 2nd meeting. He suggested that, when the Board meets jointly with the City Council, it would be appropriate to
mention that they are working with the ADB on this item.
DISCUSSION ON JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Chair Cheung advised that the Planning Board will meet jointly with the City Council on September 24', at which time the
Board will advise the City Council of their work with the ADB regarding their role in design review and potential changes.
Planning Board Minutes
September 11, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
In addition, the Board wants to have discussions about housing and improving communications. Mr. Chave said they could
also report on what the Board has been working on recently. Mr. Chave advised that the joint meeting is scheduled to last
about 45 minutes.
Chair Cheung recalled that the Board was interested in feedback from the City Council regarding certain housing types, such
as accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Vice Chair Robles commented that in addition to feedback relative to attached and
detached ADUs, he would like to discuss potential regulations for short-term rentals to address security, parking, etc. The
current code does not adequately address this use, and there needs to be rules in place before problems arise and blanket
legislation ends up throwing the whole concept out the window. Board Member Rosen responded that, given the amount of
change that will happen on the City Council and the Board's strong opinions, it might be better to wait until those who are in
a position to take action are seated.
Board Member Rosen recalled that the Board was interested in hearing from the City Council about the newly -formed
Housing Commission's charge. Mr. Chave suggested that the Board could ask the Council if there are specific concepts,
such as ADU's, that they would like the Board to work on while the Housing Commission proceeds with its work. Vice
Chair Robles recalled that, at their joint meeting with the ADB, the ADB expressed interest in providing input regarding the
design -related elements of the ADU code. He suggested the Board could advise the City Council of its desire to continue
collaborations with the ADB and the Housing Commission regarding ADUs. Board Member Rosen suggested that the
Economic Development Commission should also be involved in discussions related to housing, since there are economic
development impacts associated with ADUs, short-term rentals, etc.
Chair Cheung asked when the Housing Commission would commence its work. Mr. Chave answered that the City is
currently working to get consultants on board to assist the Commission, and the goal is for them to start meeting in October.
No meeting date has been confirmed yet.
Board Member Pence observed that the Housing Commission and Planning Board interests overlap substantially, and he
would like to have a discussion with the City Council about the role liaisons could plan in relaying information amongst the
two groups. Mr. Chave advised that the Housing Commission meetings will be open to the public, and a Planning Board
representative could certainly attend. However, the City Council would have to approve a Planning Board Member's formal
participation on the Commission. Otherwise, a Board Member could be assigned to attend their meetings and report back.
Mr. Chave explained that the Housing Commission will report directly to the City Council, and any code amendment
referrals would come to the Board via the City Council. Board Member Pence said he was simply interested in the Board
being kept in the loop regarding the Commission's activities.
Based on his experience watching the Economic Development Commission and other commissions and boards, Board
Member Cloutier cautioned against the Board being directly involved with the Housing Commission's process. He suggested
it would be best for the Board to wait until the Housing Commission has come to some conclusions and forwarded a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council can then assign the Board specific tasks.
Board Member Monroe summarized that the joint meeting will include a brief report on Planning Board activities, followed
by a discussion on housing and the Board's interest in continuing the ADU discussion with ADB collaboration. The Board
would like to talk about possible collaboration with the Housing Commission, and a potential liaison assignment, as well.
Lastly, the Board would like discuss the most appropriate and effective way for the various Boards, Commissions and the
City Council to communicate with each other.
In addition to the Planning Board report and the discussion about housing, Chair Cheung recalled the Board's desire to
discuss ideas for how they can better communicate their recommendations to the City Council. Specifically, are the Planning
Board's minutes effective, or would it be helpful for the Board to submit a more formal recommendation to them in writing.
Board Member Rosen commented that the Board serves the City Council, and it would be helpful to know how they can best
give the City Council the benefit of their work. Board Member Monroe suggested the Board could describe their current
process for making recommendations to the City Council. He pointed out that staff does a good job of conveying the
Planning Board's discussions and recommendations to the City Council.
Planning Board Minutes
September 11, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Chair Cheung and Vice Chair Robles agreed to prepare a summary report of the Board's recent activities, as well as an
agenda and opening statements regarding each topic of discussion.
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS
Mr. Chave reported that, on August 27', the City Council chose to use a statement recommended by the Tulalip Tribe to
acknowledge that the land that is now part of the City of Edmonds is also the land of the Salish people, who have inhabited it
since long before the 19'-century settlers arrived. The statement will be read early in their meetings and printed on their
written agendas. The Council agreed that it would be up to each board and commission to decide whether they wanted to use
the statement, and if so, whether to simply have it printed on agendas or read out loud at their meetings. However, they must
use the statement that was provided by the Tulalip Tribe and adopted by the City Council.
As adopted by the City Council, the statement reads:
"We acknowledge the original inhabitants of his place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE STATEMENT BE READ OUT LOUD AT THE BEGINNING
OF EACH PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
Board Member Cloutier reviewed that the options include: do nothing, add the statement to the Board's written agenda,
make an oral statement at the beginning of each meeting, or do both a written and oral statement at each meeting. He said he
would prefer to include the statement in writing on each agenda, but he felt that reading the statement orally at each meeting
would actually diminish its value by making it a recitation.
Board Member Rosen observed that the Edmonds Center for the Arts reads the statement before each performance, and it is
always very well received. He commented that the City Council would not have made this decision if there wasn't sufficient
community support.
Board Member Cloutier said it is important to remember who occupied the land before them and what they have done,
particularly since the Board's job is land related. However, he is concerned that if the statement is read over and over again,
people will start to tune it out and it will lose its value. Including the statement on the agenda will be a constant reminder,
but won't be seen as something that "holds up the clock."
Board Member Rosen suggested that perhaps they could read the statement periodically, such as once each month or once
each quarter. Mr. Chave suggested the statement could be added at the bottom of each Planning Board agenda, and then the
Board could choose to read it periodically.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADD THE STATEMENT, AS WRITTEN AND
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, TO EACH OF THEIR AGENDAS. THE STATEMENT MAY ALSO BE
READ OUT LOUD PERIODICALLY. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chair Cheung said he wouldn't be opposed to reading the statement at every meeting.
CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION SO THAT THE STATEMENT IS READ OUT LOUD AT
MEETINGS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION
TO AMEND.
Student Representative Bryan commented that it is good to be educated about the City's history, but he agreed with Board
Member Cloutier that reading the statement at every meeting might diminish its value because it is not pertinent to anything
the Board actually discusses at its meetings.
Planning Board Minutes
September 11, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Board Member Cloutier summarized Student Representative Bryan's point that the Board does not deal with land and water
issues in a manner that is affecting a local native population. He noted that the statement does not capture the concept that
the City should deal with land and water with the respect it is due in connection with its past. Vice Chair Robles agreed that
respect for the land and water and those who came before is something the City should definitely aspire to. Board Member
Cloutier observed that most of the concepts captured in the approved statement are Federal Law issues and have nothing to
do with the City.
THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung once again reminded the Board of the joint meeting with the City Council on September 24'. The Board's
September 251 meeting will be continued deliberation on the proposed street vacation code update. The October 9' meeting
will be a joint meeting with the ADB and a presentation on the 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies Update. Mr. Chave
advised that the planning policy update may be postponed to the October 23' meeting. Chair Cheung advised that the Board
will receive an update on the Housing Commission on October 23ra
Board Member Cloutier asked when the Board would start working on neighborhood center plans and implementation, which
is identified on the extended agenda as a current priority. Mr. Chave advised that neighborhood center plans are not a City
Council priority for 2019.
Chair Cheung asked if the Board will be having any discussion about parking in the near future. Mr. Chave said it will
depend on the recommendations that come out of the parking study, if the City Council decides to proceed. Currently, the
study is on hold.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that, at the their retreat, the Board requested some charts to show the City's progress on
code review and other major topics. Mr. Chave advised that the Board would have to talk to the Development Services
Director about whether or not staff could prepare this information.
Chair Cheung asked when the next Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services update would be presented to the Board. Mr.
Chave responded that the City just hired a new director. He agreed to contact her to find out when the next update might be
scheduled.
Vice Chair Robles asked if the City has a Social Media or Communications Policy that could provide guidance to the Board.
Mr. Chave said he would look into the matter and report back.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rosen recognized the September 111 date and reminded his fellow Board Members that freedom is not free.
As much as he believes the country can do better, he is incredibly grateful for the opportunities it provides and that everyone
can participate in the public process. He remembered and honored those who have sacrificed so that community discussions
can occur.
Board Member Monroe asked staff to provide the aerial photograph that the Board requested at their July 24" meeting and
referenced earlier in the meeting by Mr. Reidy. Mr. Chave agreed to remind Ms. McConnell of the request.
Vice Chair Robles read the City Council -approved statement acknowledging indigenous peoples into the record.
Planning Board Minutes
September 11, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
"We acknowledge the original inhabitants of his place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
September 11, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/25/2019
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:
Director. Report.09.20.19
Packet Pg. 9
5.A.a
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 20, 2019
To: Planning Board
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
"I alone cannot change the world,
but I can cast a stone across the water to create many ripples."
-Mother Teresa
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the City Council on September 24. Hope
you can be there!
After that, the next regular Planning Board meeting follows quickly —on September 25. This
meeting will feature further discussion of proposed amendments to the Street Vacation Code
STATE & REGIONAL NEWS
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
❑ PSRC's Transportation Board met September 12 with an agenda that included:
o Selection Process for Rural Town Centers and Corridors Program
o Regional Intelligent Transportation System Inventory
❑ PSRC's Regional Staff Committee met September 19 regarding:
o Puget Sound Partnership activities for ecosystem recovery
o Comments to date for VISION 2050 Plan
o Draft Regional Growth Strategy —Targets and Consistency
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
❑ Various SCT committees have been meeting with a focus on the Draft VISION 2050 Plan.
❑ SCT will hold its general assembly, an annual event, on September 25.
1IPage
Packet Pg. 10
5.A.a
Snohomish County HART Project
❑ The Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART) was organized
by The Snohomish County Executive to bring local government representatives together
to develop a five-year action plan to improve the region's ability to meet affordable
housing needs. Over the summer, HART has been exploring resources, challenges, and
opportunities.
❑ HART's last meeting, on September 12, included discussion of several draft regional goals.
Further discussion will continue at follow-up meetings this fall.
LOCAL PROJECTS
Housing Commission
The Housing Commission's first meeting will be on September 26 at the Council Chambers, 250
51" Ave. N. The meeting, which is open to the public, will be introductory in nature and include
discussion of a schedule for future meetings. Besides monthly Commission meetings, other
events and public engagement opportunities will be held to provide information and get
community input on housing.
The Commission is charged with recommending policy options, by the end of 2020, to expand
the range of housing in Edmonds. For general information about the project, see:
https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/.
OTHER LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
The ADB meets next on Oct. 2. Items of discussion include:
❑ Continuation of the September 4 public hearing regarding the Main Street Commons
project. The continuation provides the applicant additional time to prepare materials for
resubmittal.
Cemetery Board
The Cemetery Board met on Sept. 19. Items of discussed included:
❑ Letter of Resignation from Betty Gaeng
❑ Sales, burials and financial report
❑ Adverting budget
❑ Themes for Memorial Day and Walk Back in Time 2020
Citizens Housing Commission
The Citizens' Housing Commission will meet for the first time on Sept. 26. An agenda will be
posted online when available.
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission will meet next on Oct. 2. An agenda will be posted online when
available.
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 11
5.A.a
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The EDC met on September 18. Items discussed included:
❑ SAP memo update
❑ Work group updates
❑ Business Attraction
Economic Downtown Alliance (ED)
The ED will meeting on October 10. An agenda will be posted online when available.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner meets next on Oct. 10. An agenda will be posted online when available.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The HPC meets next on Oct. 10. An agenda will be available online when available.
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee held a Special Meeting on September 5. Topics of
discussion included:
❑ Funding requests for 2020
Mayors Climate Protection Committee
The Climate Protection Committee meets next on Oct. 3. An agenda will be available online
Tree Board
The Tree Board meets next on Oct. 3. An agenda will be available online.
Youth Commission
The Youth Commission met on September 18. Items of discussion included:
❑ Council meetings
❑ What's happing in Edmonds
❑ Quarterly Youth Forum
City Council
The September 17 City Council meeting included:
❑ Award to City for Outstanding Wastewater Treatment Plant
❑ Salary Commission Letter on Elected Officials' Compensation
❑ Authorization for Supplemental Agreement regarding the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation
Project
❑ Authorization for Supplemental Agreement regarding the 841" Avenue Overlay Project
❑ Award of Contract for Modernizing City Hall Elevators
❑ City Website Update
❑ Introduction to the Comparative Study on City Attorney Services
3 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• September 21: Paws in the Pool, Yost pool, dogs 50 Ibs & under 10 am — noon; dogs
51lbs & over 1— 3pm
• September 30: Marsh Study Open House, 6 - 8 pm, Brackett Room
• October 1-15: Registration for 7th Annual Scarecrow Festival (Edmonds Historical
Museum)
• October 5: Summer Market (last day for 2019)
• October 7: Candidates Forum, City Council Chambers, begins at 7 pm
• October 16 — November 1: Voting on 7th Annual Scarecrows
What happened on this day in History (September 25)?
1957 - 300 U.S. Army troops stood guard as nine black students were escorted to class at Central
High School in Little Rock, AR. The children had been forced to withdraw 2 days earlier because
of unruly white mobs.
1965 - Willie Mays, at the age of 34, became the oldest man to hit 50 home runs in a single
season. He had also set the record for the youngest to hit 50 ten years earlier.
4 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 13
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/25/2019
Amendments to Chapter 20.70 (NEW 18.55) 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 proposed code amendments were introduced to the
Planning Board on July 10, 2019 and a public hearing was held on August 14, 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.
Much of the code update is primarily related to reorganization and adding clarification to the process.
The Planning Board's discussion has focused on monetary compensation for the vacations, the appraisal
process, and the ability of applicants to challenge conditions related to the vacation. In these
discussions the board questioned whether the City could accept monetary compensation with the
vacation of a street. Attachment 4 is a memorandum that was prepared by the City Attorney, Jeff
Taraday, to address these concerns. Following the public hearing on August 14t", staff indicated options
for some of the specific code sections would be brought back for the Planning Board's consideration.
Attachment 1 contains a redline/strikeout version of the code amendments that represents staff's
recommendation. A clean version of the staff's recommended amendments is also provided in
Packet Pg. 14
7.A
Attachment 2. Options to the code amendments for the Planning Board's consideration are provided in
Attachment 3. Attachment 3 contains a table with the existing code, a summary of the issue around the
specific code section, staff's recommended language, and optional code language for Planning Board's
consideration. Within the code provided in Attachments 1 and 2, there are references to the options
table identifying where the alternative code language would be inserted into the code.
For background information, staff reviewed street vacations approved by the City Council since 1998. A
summary of these vacations is provided in Attachment 5.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Draft Chapter 20.70 (NEW 18.55) ECDC - Track Changes
Attachment 2: Draft Chapter 20.70 (NEW 18.55) ECDC - Clean
Attachment 3: Planning Board Options Table
Attachment 4: City Attorney memorandum regarding street vacation payments
Attachment 5: Past Street Vacations Summary
Attachment 6: July 10, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (PB Intro)
Attachment 7: July 24, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Comment)
Attachment 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing)
Attachment 9: September 11, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Comment)
Packet Pg. 15
7.A.a
Edmonds
Chapter 29 7918.5518 55 S'FVACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Chapter 20.7018.5549 XX555
ST4U&E'RVACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Sections:
20.7018.55.000 - Purpose.
18.55.005 Definitions.
20.7018.55.010 A7Applicability and effect.
28918.55 03815 Initiation of proceedings and application,
20.7018.55.020 Criteria for vacation
20.7018.55.040
Limitations on vacations.
20.7018_55.070
Date of Fpublic hearing�ie-fix-Date
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.
20.7018.55.110
Public hearing procedures
18.55.030 Citv
easement rights 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
20.7818_55.000 Purpose.
This chapter establishes the procedures and criteria that the city will use to decide upon vacations of streets, alleys,
and easements, or portions thereof rel t: to stFeet, edest_ian or tra-vel u ems. [Ord. 2933 §
1, 1993].
18.55.005 Definitions.
For the pumoses of this chapter, the following terms shall be understood in accord with the definitions, below:
A. "applicant' shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) 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 nortion 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 pumoses 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
ittispeneil in&pensable, or immediate need.
H. "travel" means vehicular or pedestrian travel by the public.
20 7018_55.010 Applicability and effect.
A. General. This chapter applies to each request for vacation of streets, alleys, and-puhlie-easements, or portions
thereof rela4iag to street, p edestfiaff or This chapter shall not apply to vaealieHthe release or
termination of other types of public easements like utility easements. As used in this ehapter. the tefm-�-'s�
h4 to be vaeate,, Where the to fm
. did not initiate the va lieant" ..hall refer to toei3etitienine\ ..0
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
m
m
L
V
V
W
Ln
Ln
O
T
W
Z
O
O
N
L
N
C.
M
M
U
O
r�
to
r
C
d
E
C
d
E
Q
N
N
C
M
M
V
Y
t�
M
H
t�
C)
W
LO
Ui
O
W
Z
O
ti
O
N
L
O
to
M
V
M
C
T
t)
M
W
r�
Q
r
C
d
E
M
0
M
r.-
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 16
7.A.a
Edmonds
Chapter 29 7918.5518 55 S'FVACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 2/8
ofei3efti . rOrd. 3910 & 2, 2013;
Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993 . ^' ^^ «^' ^-' ^«. Note: if the s'-^^"^ be vaeat^asubject property is shown on
the Ci 's official street map (Chapter 19..8018.50 ECDC),
subject property a4se ehaag_sshall 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
map in accord with each approved street vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
2$InI R-55MSAI5 Initiation of proceedings and application,
A. A vacation may be initiated bv:
1 City council or
2 B. Petition of the owners of more -than -two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street
to hp *RentAd of in 4hA AMA
„FN.e Paso p.pt t^ be. aeateasubiect property.
B. Council resolution for vacation. The City Council may initiate, by resolution, vacation procedures. T'•^ ese t ^ff
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 D.-4.
C. Petition for vacation brought by abutting property owners. The owners of an interest in any real estate abutting
upon any ^'«�^« alley, subject property, may
petition the city council for vacation of the subject property. The petition shallmust be signed bysj�the
owners of ^•^...mat' ^- two-thirds of the property abutting on the ^t«^tea^« ^"subject property. The two-thirds
ownership shall be calculated (based on 4enl�— �Iinear frontage abutting the subject propert
the e easement (based on square F ^t^,.^
D. An application for a street vacation initiated b
Petition shall contain the following items
1. t . valid vacation petition on forms provided by the
men ing eering division:
2. B-.A legal description of the subject propert
This legal description shall be prepared by a surveyor registered in the state of Washington:
3. A completed application and fee as established by erdinaneeresolution of the city council;
4. A signed agreement to pay the cost of an appraisal as provided for in Section 18.X-X55.XXX;
5. G. Fifteen «..«^« F n site surveyrxae showing the st« ^„^.. ^«^ F t
^� �ea�^t^a subject property and sheaving 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 roe Th site surve
traist bee-a4r-ato
6. P, - lAlAbAlS AbtAifflAd--A -N14A Sn4AFAJ4—
established by the 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. IiA cony of the Snohomish County assessor's man identifying the properties specified in
subsection 6E of this section•
8. Identification of which of the abutting nronertv owners (or predecessors -in -interest) originally
dedicated the subject property; and
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
m
m
L
V
V
W
Ln
O
T
W
Z
O
O
N
L
d
Q.
M
t
U
O
r�
to
r
C
d
E
C
a)
E
Q
N
N
O
C
M
s
V
Y
C�
M
H
V
C)
W
LO
W
06
W
Z
O
ti
O
N
L
O
Q.
O
s
V
M
L
C
T
C
d
E
t
t)
M
W
r�
Q
r
C
d
E
z
0
M
r--
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 17
7.A.a
Edmonds Page 3/8
Chapter 29 7918.5518 55 S'LVACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
9. Any additional information or material that the Public Works Director or hisfhertheir
A = designee determines is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the
requested vacation. fOrd. 2933 § 1, 19931.
S5. _:..:.:i�ii�.••+.�:..f...u...fl7�'�F�Sl7�f R7�l�7�T7��fl7f1774f[5!7ZfRR!SITR!17.R7S!lR.f577'R!/S!ESS/!!749
20.7018.55.020 Criteria for vacation.
The city council may vacate the public's real property rights in a street, alley, of publie easement relatin
pede..t ian or tFffi,eLpwposessubject propertyeasemefn 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. --,end
B. The street, alley, or p4lie easement is not currentlynecessafv other street pumoses,«1:Le1 ,. l.e
wl,..._,...eFty it be denied ,a:reet ..,.,.,.,,., as . _esult ,.ra.e vaeation.[Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.70.030 Riffht to FeseFve easeme!!bCity easement Fights for- publie utilities and seFi4eesw
easements or the right to exersise and gFaf# any easements for the following pwpeses�
• • _ •
......... . . .......
20:7018.55.040 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 elemplied with, and thevaeated afea: will therel beeeme available for the eity or other
, ubli,, entity to aeEl..:_e and to use f _ ....ubli,......... esesatisfied.
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_ee. or alley or ..aA thereof-, or ...ao_lying the
publ: ,.,...... ent or _a4 thereelf to be vaea asubject property file a written objection in the planning-
divisienwith the city clerk prior to the time of the hearing. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
m
m
L
V
V
iL
Ln
Ln
O
T
W
Z
O
6
N
L
d
CL
M
♦t
V
O
�y+
d
E
C
d
E
Q
N
N
C
M
s
V
t�
M
L
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 18
7.A.a
Edmonds
Chapter 20 7918.5519 55 S T-VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 4/8
20 vim, o eao 55.070 Date of 1'public hearing.
Upon receiving _a complete application for vacation, or umpon passage of a
resolution initiatien 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].
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
V
V
W
LO
W
06
r
W
Z
v
0
0
N
L
Q.
cc
s
C)
L
T
c�
G
t
t)
M
W
r�
Q
r
C
d
E
z
0
M
r--
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 19
7.A.a
Edmonds Page 5/8
Chapter 29 7918.55I8 55 S'RVACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
20.7018_55.080 Staff report -preparation.
A. Contents. The planning wiaaageFRAblic 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 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 managerPublic Works Director -shall distribute thisthe staff
report to:
1. Each member of the city council; and
2. Each applicant (if applicable). [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018.55.090 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 . « _ twill be
considered by the city council;
2. A locational description in nonlegal language along with a vicinity map that identifies the stFeet, alley,
subjectprope proposed te be vaeated,
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 planning manageFeityclerk 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,part the-eefte be ...watedsubject property;
2. A copy will be sent to eaeh-the residents living iriffnediatety adjaeent toofproperties abutting the street
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 three one copyies will be posted on the subject po be
vacated. [Ord. 3901 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
20.7018_55.100 Vacation file content and availability.
A. _Content. The planning manageTPublic 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—P-eq::i -ed.
A. Public Hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on each requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
B. Continuation of p0blic hearing. Tht cityit may continueh hearing if, for am reason, it iamable 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 "lace 446
nextto continue the hearing on the vacation. no further notice of the hearing need be given. fOrd. 2933 6 1.
19931.
C. Presentation. At the outset ofthe h arm th ublic works director r hi r i hall
make a brief presentation of:
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
m
m
L
V
V
W
L0
Ln
O
T
W
Z
O
O
N
N
C.
M
t
U
O
to
r
C
d
E
C
d
E
Q
N
N
O
C
M
s
V
Y
C�
M
L
H
V
ci
W
LO
rA
00
W
Z
O
ti
O
N
O
Q.
O
s
C)
M
C
T
C
d
E
t
t)
M
W
r�
Q
r
C
d
E
z
c�
M
r.-
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 20
7.A.a
Edmonds Page 6/8
Chapter 29 7918.5518 55 ST#EE-'FVACATIONS 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. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 19931,
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 either -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 fe&&ea ,__reasonably -limit the extent of these oral
comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing.
18.55.030 [tight to reserve easements Commented [MJ1]: See PB Options Table - Item 1
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 followingpumoses:
A. Construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. [Ord. 3910 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1,
19931.
B. Pedestrian walkway or trail purnosm and/or
C. Construction, repair and maintenance of utilities by a third -party utility company, municipal corporation, or
special purnose district that has a vested interest in the subject property.
18.55.XXX [Appraisals and appraisal fee
A. -Applicability. Where the resolution of intent to vacate includes a compensation requirement, an independent
appraisal shall be required.
B. 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. For street vacations initiated by City Council, the
City shall be responsible for any associated appraisal fees.
C8. I 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,
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
Commented [MJ2]: See PB Options Table - Item 3
m
m
L
V
V
W
LO
LO
0
T
W
Z
O
O
N
N
CL
M
t
U
O
r�
to
r
C
d
E
C
d
E
Q
N
0
O
C
M
s
V
M
L
V
C)
W
Commented [MJ3]: See PB Options Table - Item 4 r
C
d
E
t
t)
M
.r
r�
Q
r
C
d
E
z
t�
M
r--
r�
a
Packet Pg. 21
7.A.a
Edmonds Page 7/8
Chapter 29 7918.5518 55 S'RVACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Making into account any reduction in fair market value associated with the conditions imposed in the resolution Commented [MJ4]: See PB Options Table - Item 1
of intent, including but not limited to a condition requiring the dedication of an alternative right-of-way.
DE. —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.
E. Waiver. The requirement for an appraisal and subsequent monetary compensation will be waived if a street
vacation initiated by City Council, by resolution, includes a finding that the public benefit accruing from the
vacation alone is sufficient to justify the vacation without any monetary compensation to the City.
20.7918.55.140 Resolution of Intent and Final decision.
A. --Generally. Following the public hearing, the city council shallmay, by motion approved by a majority of the
entire membership in a roll call vote to , ease-:
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 willintends, by ordinance, "ant the vacation if the applicant
street or alley, or pat t thear Pan- f seyaeat. ea meets specifiede conditions within 90 days, unless ,,.loa.sisea
different time period is specified within the resolution. The city may require the following as conditions of the
resolution of intent to vacate:
1. , ,..tee t Conditions. The city council may condition approval of a street vacation upon satisfaction of
anny or all of the following eawmeat-related conditions:
a e" :Reservation of an easement as outlined in section ECDC 24-7018.55.030: and/or
a. Acceptance of a grant of substitute Public right-of-way which has "tie as
t least a .el to the subj
b. Convenants intended to protect critical areas or otherwise limit future development on
the subject property.
Li-vlonetary[com�ensation. The city council shall condition approval of a street vacation upon_
satisfaction of the following monetary conditions:
a. Payment of appraisal fees as outlined in section ECDC 18.55.XXX: and
b. a en-_4&4e-gaid-to the city�Prior to the €x�al4leeisieaeffective date of the ordinance,
in-in-thean amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the subject property sheet
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 Mull appraised fair market value shall be paid,
iii. Any combination of subsections (A)(3)(a)(i) and (A)(3)(a)(ii) ofthis section totaling but not mofe�-
thane one half the fait « ai4et ...l..e e f the stfeet, alley, of A thefee f to be , aeeted
OR
m
m
L
V
V
W
LO
IO
O
T
W
Z
O
O
N
N
CL
M
t
U
O
r�
to
C
d
C
d
E
Q
N
N
s�
C
M
s
V
Y
t)
M
H
V
C)
W
LO
Ln
O
W
Z
O
ti
O
N
L
Q.
4c
s
V
M
L
3. IAnvi challenge to one or more conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate must be Commented [MJ7]: See PB Options Table -Item 5
brought in Snohomish County Superior Court no later than 30 days following the adoption of the r
resolution of intent. If such a challenge is successful, the city council shall determine whether to amend
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
Commented [MJS]: See PB Options Table - Item 1
Commented [MJ6]: See PB Options Table - Item 2
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 22
7.A.a
Edmonds
Chapter 29 7918.5519 55 S '-VACATIONS OF
STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 8/8
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 resolution90-dwj-,, the city council shall adopt an
ordinance granting the vacation, provided that the city council shall not be required to adopt the vacation
ordinance if it finds, after reviewing the appraisal, that the monetary compensation to be paid to the city is not
sufficient to compensate for the public's loss of the st-Fe t all.., ,...w,ie easement _,a,.«:..,. to ,.«. get ..,.a,.,,«a..n of
tFaVel OF _ aA the eE) fthat .. OU41 be ....,...«oasubject property. The effective date clause of the ordinance
shall be drafted to make the ordinance effective upon recording, and only if the ordinance contains proof of
payment received, with the City receipt number indicated on the ordinance. 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.
D42�Distribution. Within five working days of the city council decision, the public works ph
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].
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
V
V
W
LO
W
06
r
W
Z
v
O
O
N
L
Q.
cc
s
V
M
L
T
c�
G
t
V
M
W
r�
Q
r
C
d
E
z
0
M
r--
r�
a
Packet Pg. 23
7.A.b
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.
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
rn
c
O
m
m
L
U
C
V
W
Ln
W
Z
O
O
N
L
d
r
Q.
t
U
O
N
C
N
E
C
d
E
Q
C
M
d
-
V
C
V
W
Ln
an
T
W
Z
0
C
N
L
N
tZ
M
t
V
w
M
N
r
C
d
E
t
t�
O
r�
r
a
E
0
M
Packet Pg. 24
a
7.A.b
Edmonds Page 2/5
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
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
be signed by the owners of two-thirds of the property abutting on the subject property. The two-thirds ownership
shall be calculated based on linear frontage abutting the subject property.
D. An application for a street vacation initiated by Petition shall contain the following items:
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
registered in the state of Washington;
3. A completed application and fee as established by resolution of the city council;
4. A signed agreement to pay the cost of an appraisal as provided for in Section 18.55.XXX;
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
adjacent property owners list must be current to within six months of the date of initial
application;
7. A copy of the Snohomish County assessor's map identifying the properties specified in subsection
6 of this section;
8. Identification of which of the abutting property owners (or predecessors -in -interest) originally
dedicated the subject property; and
9. Any additional information or material that the Public Works Director or their designee
determines is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the requested vacation. [Ord.
2933 § 1, 19931.
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
4. A recommendation on the vacation.
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
-
V
C
V
W
Ln
Ln
T
W
Z
O
r-
O
N
L
N
]Z
M
t
V
w
M
N
r
C
d
E
t
t�
O
r�
r
a
E
0
M
Packet Pg. 25
a
7.A.b
Edmonds Page 3/5
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
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].
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.
A. Content. The public works director 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 engineering division
during regular business hours. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
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.
18.55.030 [Right to reserve easements.L
2019092S Planning Board DRAFT
to
c
O
m
m
L
U
C
V
W
00
W
Z
0
O
tV
L
d
r
IZ
t
U
O
r
(n
C
N
E
C
d
E
Q
C
M
d
-
iv
O
O
N
L
N
4+
IZ
M
t
V
w
M
L
N
r
Commented [MJ1]: See PB Options Table — Item 1 d
E
t
t�
O
r
a
Packet Pg. 26
a
7.A.b
Edmonds Page 4/5
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS 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,
19931.
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 Appraisal and appraisal fee
A. Applicability. Where the resolution of intent to vacate includes a compensation requirement, an independent
appraisal shall be required.
B. 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. For street vacations initiated by City Council, the
City shall be responsible for any associated appraisal fees.
C. $the City Council adopts a resolution of intent to vacate the subject prqEerty, the director shall be authorized to
obtain an appraisal of the fair market value of the subject property from a qualified appraiser, Itaking 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.
D. 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.
E. Waiver. The requirement for an appraisal and subsequent monetary compensation will be waived if a street
vacation initiated by City Council, by resolution, includes a finding that the public benefit accruing from the
vacation alone is sufficient to justify the vacation without any monetary compensation to the City.
18.55.140 Resolution of Intent and Final decision.
A. General. Following the public hearing, the city council may, by motion approved by a majority of the entire
membership in a roll call vote to adopt a resolution of intent to vacate. If there are insufficient votes to adopt a
resolution of intent, the street vacation will be deemed denied.
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
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
of the following related conditions:
a. Reservation of an easement as outlined in section ECDC 18.55.030; and/or Acceptance
of a grant of substitute public right-of-way.
b. Convenants intended to protect critical areas or otherwise limit future development on
the subject property.
2. Monetary compensation. The citescouncil shall condition approval of a street vacation upon
satisfaction of the following monetary conditions:
a. Payment of appraisal fees as outlined in section ECDC 18.55.XXX; and
b. IPaymen� to the ci"rior to the effective date of the ordinance, in an amount ofupto
one-half the fair market value for the subject property unless the subject property was
acquired at "public expense" or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25
years or more, in which case full fair market value shall be paid.
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.
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
W)
11.0
O
W
Commented [MJ2]: See PB Options Table — Item 3 Z
Commented [MJ3]: See PB Options Table — Item 4
Commented [MJ4]: See PB Options Table — Item 1
Commented [MJS]' See PB Options Table — Item 1
Commented [MJ6]: See PB Options Table — Item 2
Commented [MJ7]: See PB Options Table — Item 5
Al
V
C
V
W
to
Ln
a0
T
W
Z
O
r-
O J cmJ
L
N
CL
M
t
V
L
N
C
d
E
t
t�
R
r
Q
r-�
C
O
t
t�
r
.r
Q
Packet Pg. 27
7.A.b
C.
fBI
Edmonds
Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
Page 515
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 resolution, the city council shall adopt an ordinance granting
the vacation, provided that the city council shall not be required to adopt the vacation ordinance if it finds, after
reviewing the appraisal, that the monetary compensation to be paid to the city is not sufficient to compensate for
the public's loss of the subject property. The effective date clause of the ordinance shall be drafted to make the
ordinance effective upon recording, and only if the ordinance contains proof of payment received, with the City
receipt number indicated on the ordinance. 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.
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].
20190925 Planning Board DRAFT
Packet Pg. 28
Street Vacation Code Update — Chapter 20.70 ECDC --> NEW Chapter 18.55 ECDC
7.A.c
Following the public hearing on August 14, 2019, staff indicated options for some of the specific code sections would be brought back for the Planning Board's consideration. Much of the code update is primarily related to reorganization. Those sections that have
been of special interest to the Planning Board are presented below along with a summary of the code section and staff's recommendation. Optional code language has been provided for Planning Board consideration, should the board decide to go with an
alternative to the staff recommendation.
Existing Code Language Summary of Issue Staff Recommendation Planning Board Option #1 Planning Board Option #2
Monetary Compensation and/or Easement
1
ECDC 20.70.140.A.3
RCW 35.79.030 allows the City to receive
ECDC 18.55.030
Consistent with existing code, limit conditions to
Consistent with existing code, limit conditions to
3. Adopt a resolution of intent to vacate
compensation for the street vacation
Right to reserve easements for the
stating that the city council will, by
AND retain an easement or the right to
following purposes:
Either:
Either:
ordinance, grant the vacation if the
exercise and grant easements in respect
A. Public utilities;
Monetary compensation ...
Monetary compensation ...
owner(s) of property abutting upon the
to the vacated land for the construction,
B. Pedestrian walkway or trail; and/or
street or alley, or part thereof so vacated,
repair, and maintenance of public utilities
C. Third -party utility companies
OR
OR
meet specific conditions within 90 days.
and services.
A grant of an easement to the city in
A grant of easement to the city or a third
The city may require the following as
AND
exchange for the easement vacated.
party in exchange for the easement vacated
conditions:
The way the existing code reads, the City
PROVIDED THAT any grant of an easement to
a. Either:
may EITHER receive monetary
ECDC 18.55.140.E
any third party must be for access or utility
compensation OR be granted an
2. Monetary compensation.
i. Monetary compensation ...
easement.
purposes
OR
Staff is proposing to amend the code
Added consideration:
b. A grant of an easement to the city
consistent with the state statute to allow
in exchange for the easement
both monetary compensation and the
ECDC 18.55.XXX
vacated.
reservation or granting of easements.
C. ... appraisal shall take into account
any reduction in fair market value
A review of other jurisdictions has found
associated with the conditions
that the City of Edmonds is the only
imposed in the resolution of intent
jurisdiction (of those reviewed) who have
the EITHER/OR language with regard to
monetary compensation and the
reservation of easements.
Page 1 of 3
N
c
0
c�
r
a�
m
L
U
a
U
w
Packet Pg. 29
Street Vacation Code Update — Chapter 20.70 ECDC --> NEW Chapter 18.55 ECDC
7.A.c
Existing Code Language Summary of Issue Staff Recommendation Planning Board Option #1 Planning Board Option #2
Monetary Compensation
2
ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.a
The proposed code language is consistent
ECDC 18.55.140.B.2
The Planning Board did not specifically request
i. Monetary compensation to be paid to the
with RCW 35.79.030.
b. Payment to the city, prior to the
options related to this language.
city in the amount of up to one-half the fair
effective date of the ordinance, in an
market value for the street, alley, or part
amount of up to one-half the fair
thereof to be vacated unless acquired at
market value for the subject property
"public Expense" then full appraised value
unless the subject property was
shall be paid
acquired at "public expense" or has
been part of a dedicated public right-
of-way for 25 years or more, in which
case full fair market value shall be paid.
Appraisals — Applicability and Waiver
3
ECDC 20.70.060.G
The staff recommended draft code was
ECDC 18.55.XXX
If the Planning Board determines the granting of an
G. Two copies of an appraisal prepared by
updated as shown here, based on
A. Applicability. Where the resolution of
easement and/or substitute right-of-way negates
a qualified land appraiser with an M.A.I.
discussions with the Planning Board.
intent to vacate includes a
the ability to collect monetary compensation and
designation, establishing the fair market
compensation requirement, an
therefore the appraisal becomes unnecessary, then
value of the street, alley, or part thereof to
Additional language will be needed as
independent appraisal shall be
the following language should be included under
be vacated. An appraisal is not required if a
provided in PB Option 1, should the
required.
the Waiver section of 18.55.XXX:
utility easement only is proposed to be
board decide to limit the vacation
B. Appraisal Fee.
vacated;
conditions to either monetary
(Only the language added for clarity is
E. Waiver. A waiver from the requirement to
compensation OR reservation of an
shown here):
obtain an appraisal and provide monetary
easement.
For street vacations initiated by City
compensation will be granted if one of the
Council, the City shall be responsible
following apply:
for any associated appraisal fees.
a. The resolution for a City Council initiated
C. No change proposed
street vacation includes a finding that the
D. No change proposed
public benefit accruing from the vacation
E. Waiver. The requirement for an
alone is sufficient to justify the vacation
appraisal and subsequent monetary
without any monetary compensation to
compensation will be waived if a street
the City;
vacation initiated by City Council, by
b. The resolution conditions the street
resolution, includes a finding that the
vacation upon the reservation and/or
public benefit accruing from the
granting of a public easement or
vacation alone is sufficient to justify the
substitute public right-of-way to the City
vacation without any monetary
of Edmonds [or a third party].
compensation to the City.
N
c
0
:r
c�
a�
m
U
0
U
w
Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 30
Street Vacation Code Update — Chapter 20.70 ECDC --> NEW Chapter 18.55 ECDC
7.A.c
Existing Code Language I Summary of Issue I Staff Recommendation I Planning Board Option #1 1 Planning Board Option #2 1
Appraisals — Selection
ECDC 20.70.060.G
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,
Condition Chal
There currently is no code language that
details how an applicant may appeal a
condition imposed by the City Council in the
resolution of intent to vacate.
Some board members were looking for
alternative options to the City selecting a
qualified appraisal. PB Option 1 provides
the applicant to select an appraiser from
a City approved list.
Four of the six surrounding jurisdictions
that were compared allow for appraisals
selected by the city and at the applicant's
expense.
There is no requirement is state code, nor
have other jurisdictions explicitly detailed
an appeal process for a jurisdiction's
decision on street vacation conditions.
The language regard challenges to
conditions imposed in the resolution of
intent to vacate will provide applicant
clarity on an appeal process where none
is provided in state code. This will also
provide certainty to the City of Edmonds
that the ordinance passed by the City
Council will not be challenged and the
vacation is completed once the ordinance
becomes effective.
The staff recommended language
provides a 30-day appeal period, which is
longer than usual 21-day appeal for land
use decisions (RCW 36.70C.040). The
Planning Board discussed having a long
appeal period which are included Option
1and 2.
Additional language is also provided for
Planning Boards consideration further
detailing the effects of a challenge to a
condition in the resolution of intent to
vacate.
ECDC 18.55.XXX
C. 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.
ECDC 18.55.140.13
3. Any challenge to one or more
conditions imposed pursuant to a
resolution of intent to vacate must be
filed in Snohomish County Superior
Court and served upon the City no later
than 30 days following the adoption of
the resolution of intent. [optional
language would be inserted here if PB
recommends it] 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. 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
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 appraiser will be
selected by the applicant from a City approved
list.
60 day appeal period
If the City is served with such process before
the City Council takes action on the street
vacation ordinance, then any street vacation
ordinance adopted prior to the condition
being deemed valid shall be null and void. If
the City has not been served with such process
by the date the City Council adopts the street
vacation ordinance, then the right to challenge
the condition shall be deemed waived even if
time remains in the appeal period, PROVIDED
THAT any ordinance adopted prior to the
running of the appeal period must be
preceded by the City's receipt of the written
consent of the petitioner(s).
90 day appeal period
Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 31
7.A.d
v
C
v
w
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. 32
7.A.d
v
C
v
w
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. 33
7.A.d
v
C
v
w
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. 34
7.A.e
Year
Ordinance No.
Street/Alley
Iniatiator
Easements Resrved?
Compensation
Comments
1998
3188
237th Place SW
City of Edmonds
Utility (to the City and its
$0
The City Council found that public benefit will be derived from the
lawful franchisees)
vacation to better utilize the easement for drainage easements and future
utility use and determined that the public purposes outweight the need
for requiring compensation.
1998
3189
15th Street SW & 100th
City of Edmonds
$0
The vacated right-of-way was adjacent to the Edmonds Cemetery and was
Avenue S
vacated in part to support the construction of the columbarium at the
cemetery.
1998
3197
Lunds Gulch Rd
City of Edmonds
$0
The street vacation for ordinances 3197 - 3208 were initiated by the City
of Edmonds. All of the vacated right-of-way were located in the
Meadowdale area and most contained slopes in excess of 40%. No
compensation was required for any of the vacations because the Council
found that, "Due to the public benefits to be derived, the abutting
property owners are not required to compensate the City for the vacation
of the right-of-way." The public benefit noted in the ordinance included,
"...returning the propoerty to the tax roll and relieving the City of the
obligation to maintain a right-of-way easement which has no reasonable
likelihood of development as a public street thereby creating a public
interest which outweighs the necessity to require compensation for the
vacation to the City."
1998
3198
Unnamed
City of Edmonds
$0
1998
3199
72nd Ave W
City of Edmonds
$0
1998
3200
72nd Ave W
City of Edmonds
Pedestrian/Utility
$0
1998
3201
73rd Ave W
City of Edmonds
$0
1998
3202
74th Place W
City of Edmonds
Utility
$0
1998
3203
75th Ave W
City of Edmonds
$0
1998
3204
156th Street SW
City of Edmonds
$0
1998
3205
156th Street SW
City of Edmonds
$0
1998
3206
158th Street SW
City of Edmonds
$0
1998
3207
164th Street SW
City of Edmonds
Utility
$0
1998
3208
172nd Street
City of Edmonds
Utility
$0
1999
3255
180th Street SW
Citizen
$3,562
Vacation would have allowed one additional building lot whose value
could range from $30,000 to $65,000. The abutting property owners
agreed to waive subdivsion rights created by the vacation right-of-way via
a covenant recorded with the vacation ordinance.
1999
3260
218th Place SW
Citizen
$5,300
Appraised value of $10,600. Originally dediciated for hammerhead turn-
around and the street is now a through street.
2003
3463
7th Avenue S
Citizen/City of
Pedestrian/Utility
$5,454
Clean up of a vacation request and subdivision from 1987. Council
Edmonds
considered three compensation options, (1) using the current (2003) land
valuation for a total of $31,050, (2) use of 1993 assessed valuation (when
the then current property owner purchased the property) for a total of
$18,468, or (3) use the original 1987 calculation for a total of $5,454.
Since it appeared to be a City oversight that the vacation did not occur in
1987, the City Council chose the 1987 valuation.
i
Iq
00
3.1
z
0
0
N
as
Q.
0
M
V
0
r
c
a�
E
c
m
E
a
c�
E
0
Cn
N
C
0
Ca
c�
r
m
m
L
co
N
0
a
c
m
E
t
U
c�
a
c
m
E
ca
Q
Packet Pg. 35
7.A.e
Year
Ordinance No.
Street/Alley
Iniatiator
Easements Resrved?
Compensation
Comments
2003
3470
Bowdoin Way
City of Edmonds
$0
Vacated 3 feet of Bowdoin Way adjacent to 8505 Bowdoin Way. The City
of Edmonds had sold 8505 Bowdoin Way as surplus property (former site
of Five Corners Fire Station). As part of the sale, the City of Edmonds
indicated it would vacate the right-of-way. The City Council determined
adequate compensation was received from the sale of the property
(included in the sales price) and did not require any additional
compensation for the right-of-way. Price of the sale unknown, but value
was based on the ability to construct 7 units on the property.
2004
3520
174th Street SW
City of Edmonds
$1,500
This vacation appeared to be clean up of some license agreement from
1973. One-half of the appraised value would have been $8,000. City
Council accepted the reduced payments because, (1) the subject property
was burdened by access rights, (2) the prior property owners refused to
purchase the site, (3) returning the property to the tax roles would
compensate the City through additional tax revenue, and (4) the owners
will incur additional costs to survey and assign the site by lot line
adjustment.
2005
3543
Sierra Place
Citizen
Utility
$3,750
$3,750 was one-half of the appraised value of right-of-way to be vacated.
Covenant recorded restricting use of the adjacent property to one single
family residence due to presence of critical areas including stream,
wetland, and slope.
2005
3551
Daley Street
Citizen
$62,500
$62,500 was half of appraised value. A single-family residence has been
constructed on this former right-of-way.
2005
3565
219th Street SW
Citizen
utility
$67,731
$67,731 was half the value of the encumbered right-of-way. The appraisal
considered the unencumbered value of the right-of-way to be $267,000
and the value of the right-of-way with the reserved utility easement to be
$135,461.
i
Iq
00
3.1
z
0
0
N
as
Q.
0
M
0
0
r
c
a�
E
c
m
E
a
c�
E
E
0
Cn
N
c
0
a
c�
m
co
N
0
a
c
m
E
t
U
c�
r
Q
c
m
E
t
ca
Q
Packet Pg. 36
7.A.e
Year
Ordinance No.
Street/Alley
Iniatiator
Easements Resrved?
Compensation
Comments
2007
3647
8th Avenue N
Citizen
Creek Maintenance
$7,500
The fair market value of the property was appraised to be $22,500. The
Easement
City Council reduced compensation below 50% to relect the costs
associated with obtaining an appraisal and the other associated costs of
the vacation process, as well as required lot line adjustment and the cost
of tree removal, yielding in the City Council's estimation a reasonable
compensation to the public of $7,500.
2007
3662
77th Place W
Citizen
$1,400
The $1,400 was more than one-half appraised value. Two appraisels (both
paid by the applicant) assumed a total appraised value of $1,350 and
$1,620. The appraisals were based on the differential values of similarly
sized and valued properties, calculated the appraised value based on the
incremental difference in property valuations. During the public hearing,
the City Council did not feel the appraisals appropriately reflected the
value of the property. The applicant had offered to pay the City $1,400 for
the vacated right-of-way. After much discussion on the value of the
similarly situated property, the City Council chose to accept the applicants
offer of $1,400 for the right-of-way as adequate compensation.
2008
3729
Alley between 8th and 9th
City Council
Temporary Construction
$0
A temporary construction easement was reserved for the construction of
Easement
a retaining wall north of the vacated easement to be constructed in
association with improvements for a 3-lot short plat north of the vacated
right-of-way. The City Council found it to be in the public interest to
vacate the property without compensation, given its small size (7 1/2 feet
in width), its lack of value and utility to the City, the fact that it, except as
provided herein (presumbably referring to the tempoary construction
easement), serves no public purpose, and that returning the property to
the tax rolls provides a benefit to the City.
a
Packet Pg. 37
7.A.e
Year
Ordinance No.
Street/Alley
Iniatiator
Easements Resrved?
Compensation
Comments
2016
4028
right-of-way in Civic Field
City Council
$0
After the City of Edmonds acquired Civic Field from the school district, the
City Council iniated street vacations to vacate portions of Edmonds Street,
Sprague Street and an unnamed alley that extended through civic field.
Utilities are located in Civic Field, but since the City of Edmonds is the
property owner, no easements were required with the vacations.
2017
4061
92nd Avenue W
Citizen
Easements for third party
$92,610
$92,610 was one-half of the appraised value. The property owners were
utilities
required to assume ownership of the stormwater facilities located within
the right-of-way and grant easements to Olympic View Water and Sewer
District, Snohomish County PUD, and PSE. The property owner also had to
acknowledge improvements related to fire protection should the property
be redeveloped.
2018
4114
Unnamed right-of-way near
Citizen
Easement for third party
$28,800
$28,800 was one-half of the appraised value. An easement was required
231st Street SW
utility
for an Edmonds School District stormwater line located within the right-of-
way.
2019
4143
Excelsior Place
Citizen
Utility and Access
$0
No compensation was required because the City of Edmonds retained
Easement
easements. Conditions of vacation included (1) retention of public utility
easement, (2) constuction of a utility access and emergency vehicle turn-
around, (3) private access easement for all properties with frontage on the
vacated portion of Excelsior Place, and (4) a utility and emergency vehicle
access easement and covenant requiring construction of additional access
road width to meet South County Fire Lane standards with future single-
family development.
i
uq
Go
3.1
z
0
0
N
L
Q.
0
M
0
0
r
c
a�
E
c
m
E
a
c�
E
E
3
Cn
N
C
0
�a
c�
r
m
co
N
R
d
LO
C
d
E
t
V
r
Q
C
d
E
t
V
Q
Packet Pg. 38
7.A.f
APPROVED
AUGUST 14th
;3-
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD W
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 dramatically 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 dominant 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 a long 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. 39
7.A.f
m
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 CO
afford the citizens a chance to be involved in the process. p
U
W
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Ui
There was no Director's Report. 00
UPDATE ON CLIMATE GOALS PROJECT w
z
Mr. Lien provided a status report on each of the goals contained in Resolution 1389, which was adopted by the City Council ti
in 2017. c
• 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. 40
7.A.f
m
d
L
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled a volunteer service called Waste Warriors that worked the festivals around the area to CO
divert the organic waste from the food waste. Not only did they collect a sizeable amount of compostable waste, but they p
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 w
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 ,`O
smaller, more realistic programs. 00
Vice Chair Robles said he is a strong advocate of seeding the record so that people searching the City's website can find the w
terms that are being discussed by the Board. Regarding Board Member Cloutier's earlier comment related to reducing the z
amount of energy used for heating and cooling the air, he suggested the City have a policy that the air conditioning does not ti
come on until the temperature reaches 80°. c
N
L
Vice Chair Robles noted that methane, pentane, hexane and octane are all hydrocarbons, and it is difficult to find equivalency a
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. V
0
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. E
However, there are opportunities for communities to exchange value in ways that are not dollars. E
c
m
Vice Chair Robles commented that the data provided in the report is interesting. He recalled that the Board was recently Q
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 o
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 m
plastic does not decay for 10,000 years and is made out of carbon, which means that it is sequestering carbon extremely a
effectively. He suggested the City consider shifting its war on plastic to actually embrace the carbon sequestering capacity of n
plastics for uses such as plumbing. Polypropylene plumbing can replace copper all day long. The energy required to create L
m
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 w
to stretch further. d
r
c
INTRODUCTION TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 20.70 STREET VACATION s
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. 41
7.A.f
m
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 CO
order to have it transfer back to the title for their own property. p
U
W
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 ,`O
some cases. The proposed amendments are intended to improve the provisions for both the public and private property 00
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. 42
7.A.f
m
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. y
V
Ms. McConnell explained that with a Resolution of Intent to Vacate there are often certain conditions that must be met. For w
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 LO
any conditions must be met within 90 days after approval of the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. The proposed amendment 00
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 w
resolution can establish a timeframe that is achievable. Z
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. 43
7.A.f
m
d
L
Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that the existing code allows the City to require either monetary compensation or the CO
reservation of easement to the City, and the proposed code would allow the City to require both. She suggested it would be p
better to use "and/or" instead of "and." Ms. McConnell said the intent was to allow one or the other or both. U
w
Board Member Rubenkonig asked Ms. McConnell to explain the difference between an open easement and an unopen LO
G
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 w
that is not opened to vehicular traffic. Because there is no street that connects 71 Avenue to 8r' Avenue, the City would Z
consider it an unopened right-of-way because vehicles cannot pass from one end to the other. 0
0
N
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 a
uncommon. Most street vacation requests are for actual right-of-way to be vacated.
U
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 E
clear understanding of how an issue might impact them. Perhaps they need a better notification process. Ms. McConnell E
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 E
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 c
(The Everett Herald) and posted at City Hall, the Public Safety Building, the library, and on the City's website. Public notice c
is also required for street vacations. The notices are posted in the places mentioned above. For project specific applications, m
notices are posted on site and sent to property owners within 300 feet. Vice Chair Robles suggested that the notification a
process should be modernized to include electronic notification. He encouraged the City to reach out a little deeper and find n
other ways to notify the public.
x
Vice Chair Robles commented that technology allows for shared data bases that can be accessed securely by broad groups of w
people. However, it will take some bold visioning on the part of the City to accommodate. The idea that they need one
r
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.
L
M
Vice Chair Robles asked if current easements and rights -of -way will accommodate 5G equipment. If so, will utilities require pip
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 a
vacation process and easements would be established as needed.
0
N
Board Member Rosen said his understanding is that the City Council, in general, is going to take the publication engagement c
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.
E
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
c�
Vice Chair Robles reminded the Board of their joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board on July 24t1i. The August Q
14' 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. 44
7.A.g
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. 45
7.A.g
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. 46
7.A.h
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
August 14, 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.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Mike Rosen
Roger Pence
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2019 AND JULY 24, 2019 BE
APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments during this portion of the meeting.
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.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
(ECDC) 20.70 — STREET VACATIONS
Ms. McConnell explained that the street vacation provisions currently reside in ECDC Title 20.70, and the proposed
amendment would relocate them to ECDC Title 18, which is the Public Works section. The amendment also clarifies and
reorganizes the provisions and adds a definitions section. The appraisal process and timing provisions were revised, as were
Packet Pg. 47
7.A.h
the provisions related to applicability of monetary compensation. Lastly, the timeframe was modified to satisfy conditions.
Specifically, the proposed amendments:
• Move Title 20 to Title 18 (Public Works Section).
• Change the review lead from Planning Division to Public Works Division.
• Add a new definition section (ECDC 18.55.005) to provide additional clarity.
• Revise Section 18.55.015.D to reflect the types of plans and other documents needed for the application.
• Add a new Section 18.55.030, which gives the City the right to reserve easements for pedestrian walkways and
trails.
• Add a new appraisal section (18.55.XXX) to address timing of appraisal and collection of fees for 31 party
appraisal.
• Add Section 18.55.140 to clarify the processing of street vacations, allowing the ordinance to address timing by
which the conditions need to be met, establishing compensation of the area to be vacated based on the appraisal, and
giving the City Council the ability to not adopt a vacation ordinance based on review of the appraisal should they
choose.
Mr. McConnell explained that a "street vacation" means that the public is letting go of, or vacating, the public interest in a
property. After a street, alley or easement (pedestrian and/or vehicular) is vacated, the public no longer has a right to use the
property for access. Street vacations can be initiated by private property owners or the City Council. As per Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 35.79.040, `If any street or alley in any city or town is vacated by the city or town council, the property
within the limits so vacated shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each. "
City Attorney Taraday shared a tool he learned at law school called a "Fee Simple Bundle of Rights," which is uses sticks to
illustrate the concept of real estate ownership He explained that real estate ownership, in actuality, is the ownership of a
number of potential rights of land, and the largest bundle of rights (sticks) available for private ownership is called the "Fee
Simple Bundle of Rights." Fee simple ownership means that that the property owner owns every possible right that pertains
to the real estate. If someone has the underlying fee, it might mean that they own just one tiny right or stick and the rest have
been transferred via dedication. It is important to understand this concept in the context of street vacations.
City Attorney Taraday explained that in the vast majority of instances an abutting owner owns the underlying fee. Therefore,
if the public's interest in a street ever goes away, the City doesn't deed the property back to the abutting property owner
because they already have a reversionary interest. Instead, the City vacates the dedication that had been on the property. He
explained that a dedication, which is what creates a street, is defined in the subdivision statute as, "the deliberate
appropriation of land by an owner for any general and public uses, reserving to himself or herself no other rights than such
as are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the property has been devoted. " Thinking
of that definition in the context of the `Bundle of Rights" concept, it is important to understand that an owner cannot take
advantage of many of those rights by having the underlying fee in the street. Property owners cannot exclude people from
the street, sell the street, occupy and/or use the street without the City permission, or get a bank loan using the street as
collateral. He summarized that when a dedication creates a street, many of the sticks in the bundle are being taken out of the
bundle and given to the public. While there are some sticks left in the bundle that is owned by the abutting property owner,
the majority of the sticks are now owned by the public.
Regarding the Board's earlier question about whether the City can or should require monetary compensation for street
vacations, City Attorney Taraday referred to two court cases that clarify the issue. The first is Nystrand vs. O'Malley, a 1962
Washington Supreme Court decision, which was referenced in Mr. Reidy's comments at a previous meeting. He read the
following quote from the case, "The use by the plaintiffs in extending their garage onto the area, planting the trees and
hedge and constructing the bulkhead was not inconsistent with the public's easement since the right to open the street for the
public's use had not been asserted by the City. " In this case, the dispute was between two neighbors and did not involve a
city. One neighbor felt he had the right to use the street in a particular way, and the other was saying he didn't have the right.
The city did not take a position and was not party to the case in any way. Because the City did not participate or assert its
own rights, the case makes it sound like the abutting property owner has more rights than he/she actually has. The second
case is Baxter Wycoff vs. the City of Seattle, a 1965 Washington Supreme Court decision. He read the following quote from
the case, "The lack of rights of the abutting owner to so use the street in front of his property does not depend on his
interference with an actual or proposed public use of the street. The abutting owner simply has no legal right to make this
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 48
7.A.h
kind of use of the dedicated public street unless an ordinance expressly authorizes permits for such use to be issued by the
City even though no member of the public is inconvenienced by the private use. " In the latter case, a city is asserting its right
to hold the property in trust for the public. When you consider the context of how they came before the court (one involved a
city and the other did not), it explains why the law was articulated so differently. He shared another quote from the 1965
case, "The abutting owner has no right to build permanent structures in the street nor to set up storage yards therein for
private business purposes. Assuming that such power exists, the granting of permission to a private person to so use the
streets is totally within the discretion of the city. " Going back to the bundle of sticks. City Attorney Taraday summarized
that there are not a lot of legal rights left to the underlying owner once a street has been dedicated to the public. For that
reason, streets are not counted as part of the lot size when a property is appraised.
City Attorney Taraday referred to a 1989 Washington Court of Appeals case, City of Seattle vs. ?? Land Company. The
older streets in Seattle have glass tiles with space underneath that are frequently attached to basements of buildings abutting
the street. Property owners pay the City of Seattle to use that space. In this case, a property owner claimed that, as the
abutting owner, he had the right to use that space as long as it wasn't interfering with the public. He argued that that "other
jurisdictions have held that where the fee is in the abutting owner, the City may not charge the abutting landowner rent for
the use of such space. " The court, however, determined that, "To the extent that these authorities so hold, that is not the law
in Washington. "
City Attorney Taraday summarized that case law makes clear the extreme limitations placed on abutting owners within the
context of a street dedication. On the other hand, a street vacation has a lot of value to an abutting property owner because all
of the rights that applied to the street dedication would be given back to the property owner. All of the rights (or sticks) have
value. Anytime they go back and forth between parties, there should be some transaction to compensate for the transfer of
property.
City Attorney Taraday read from Washington State Constitution Article 8 Section 7, `No county, city, town or other
municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money or property or loan its money or credit to or in aid of any individual,
association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm or become directly or indirectly
the owner in stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation. " He said that while there is not a case that
directly addresses this constitutional provision in the context of a street vacation, it is his opinion that City should require
compensation for a street vacation because it would be considered a gift of public funds or property not to. The rights (sticks)
are owned by the public. If the City gives them back to the property owner without compensating the public for the loss of
those sticks, it would be a gift of public property, which violates Article 8 Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.
The State uses a two -prong analysis to determine if a "gifting" has occurred. The first is, are you trying to carry out a
fundamental purpose of government, and he can't see any argument that giving property rights back to a private citizen
would be classified as a fundamental purpose of government. Secondly, the court focuses on the consideration received by
the public for the expenditure of public funds and the intent of the appropriating body. The court would look at what
consideration the City received for giving the rights (sticks) back, and he believes having the rights appraised is appropriate.
Appraisers are trained to measure the differences in fair market value between a before and after situation.
Board Member Pence pointed out that the City does not pay compensation when it acquires "bundle of sticks" when plots are
dedicated. At the time of a subdivision, developers are required to gift street dedications to the City to provide access to the
lots. He understands City Attorney Taraday's viewpoint that street dedications are owned by the City and have value and
that abutting property owners who have reversionary interest in the properties should provide compensation if the streets are
vacated by the City. However, it is important to note that the City didn't pay to acquire the street dedications in the first
place. City Attorney Taraday responded that consideration doesn't have to be identical in terms of flowing both directions.
The consideration the original owner gets is an approved plat. While it is true that the City doesn't pay cash for the streets
that are dedicated, it approves the plats and the owners profit from the approval. The only way you can get a subdivision
approved is to transfer those sticks (rights) to the City. Once they are owned by the public, it is not relevant any more how
they got to be in the public's hands. What is relevant is, should they be given back, and if so, why?
Board Member Pence summarized that the City acquires sticks within the public right-of-way, and its payment is the
administerial act of approving the subdivision. City Attorney Taraday agreed that is one way to look at it. It is pretty clear
that a developer dedicates property for streets in order to get a subdivision approved.
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 49
7.A.h
Board Member Monroe observed that the City sets the value of those rights at zero when they enter into negotiations with a
developer of a subdivision, but then they want to sell them back for fair market value. City Attorney Taraday responded that
the City does not establish a value when the property is being dedicated for streets as part of a subdivision application. No
money changes hands at that point. Not all consideration is in the form of cash.
Board Member Monroe commented that when a street vacation is granted, it expands a property and property owners are then
required to pay taxes on the additional land. He asked if that would be enough compensation to the City to warrant approval
of a vacation request. City Attorney Taraday said his opinion is that every property owner pays taxes, but not every property
owner gets to have the street in front of their property back. He cautioned that if the City were to vacate every potential
property without requiring any compensation, some residents in the City would get a windfall and others wouldn't. It
wouldn't be fair to distribute public property unevenly so it goes to some people but not to all. His view is that the fair
approach would be to compensate the public for the loss of those rights. The current code allows the City to obtain
compensation, but State Law allows the City to require higher levels of compensation than the code currently provides for. It
also doesn't force the City to make an either/or choice between an alternative easement or cash compensation.
Board Member Monroe summarized that City Attorney Taraday's position is that paying taxes on the newly acquired
property would not address the concern about the gifting of public funds. He asked if there are other states that do not require
money to change hands. City Attorney Taraday was unable to answer the question but explained that it is a Washington State
constitutional provision.
Board Member Rosen commented that a street vacation could result in a property owner acquiring land that he/she does not
want and is not equipped to pay taxes on, and this could cause a hardship or financial burden. City Attorney Taraday
emphasized that no one would ever be forced to seek a street vacation. Most street vacations are initiated by a petitioner,
who is the abutting owner who happens to want the property. Even if the City Council initiates a street vacation, it would not
take affect until compensation is received. If the appraisal comes back higher than a property owner anticipates, he/she can
pull the plug on the street vacation. No one would ever be forced to follow through. Board Member Rosen asked what
would happen if one of the 10 property owners along an alley doesn't support the vacation. City Attorney Taraday said it
would depend on the location. Highly motivated neighbors might be willing to pick up someone else's tab. Another scenario
is that just half of the block could be vacated. However, he does not foresee the City would ever allow a checkerboard
pattern of street vacations. Continuity would be required.
Chair Cheung asked if the appraisal would be based on value to the City or the abutting property owner. There must not be a
whole lot of value to the City if they are willing to give it away. All the City would lose is the public right-of-way. City
Attorney Taraday recommended the Board seek feedback from an appraiser to provide specifics on how an appraisal would
be done. He knows that when the City acquires right-of-way from an abutting property owner in order to widen a street, the
property is appraised in the before and after conditions, and any damages the dedication might cause to the property are taken
into account when determining how much the City must pay the abutting property owner. He suspects that a similar process
would be used in street vacation situations, too.
Board Member Monroe referred to proposed Section 18.55.040.13, which states that "The city shall not proceed with a city -
council initiated vacation if the owners of 50% or more of the lineal footage of property abutting the subject property file a
written objection. " He asked if this provision implies that the City could force property owners to assume ownership of the
land. City Attorney Taraday said that, as proposed, the decision to not proceed with a vacation would occur earlier in the
process and before there is a Resolution of Intent. If 40% of the abutting property owners object, his experience tells him the
City Council would not approve the street vacation. If the Council does approve a street vacation in this situation, a certain
dollar amount would have to be paid to the City in order to finalize the transaction. The 40% who object would not be
required to pay the compensation amount, in which case, the 60% in favor could either withdraw their request or pay the
entire compensation and the property owners in opposition would get a windfall. Board Member Monroe asked who would
own the properties, and City Attorney Taraday explained that it doesn't matter where the money comes from. The properties
would revert back to the apparent abutting property owners. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the 40% who object
could end up with a higher tax bill for property they didn't want. City Attorney Taraday agreed that is possible, but the
likelihood of that being a significant amount of money is small. Vice Chair Robles thanked City Attorney Taraday for
clarifying that a property owner would not be forced to purchase a street vacation. As far as unjustly receiving a windfall,
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 50
7.A.h
citizens are already subjected to windfalls and judgment through the course of rezones, code changes, etc. He is not sure that
argument would be strong in this case.
Vice Chair Robles asked if fair market value assumes that anyone could bid on a 10-foot strip of right-of-way. City Attorney
Taraday answered that an appraiser would define fair market value as the price at which a reasonable, willing and able buyer
and a reasonable, willing and able seller are likely to enter into a transaction. This is typically determined by looking at
comparable sales in the area. The properties are analyzed and a judgment is made to come up with a price per square foot for
the land. Vice Chair Robles questioned how the fair market value would be established for a 100 square foot area in the
middle of property abutted by two unwilling owners. It's attached to someone's property, which gives it value. A 100
square foot peace of land does not have any value on its own. City Attorney Taraday said it would have some inherent value,
but Vice Chair Robles' question is more about whether an appraiser in this context would look at an assemblage premium.
For example, an owner of a lot that is 9,500 square feet in size might request a street vacation because he/she needs an
additional 500 square feet in order to subdivide the property into two, 5,000 square foot lots. The City would expect an
appraiser to take into consideration that the street vacation would enable the property owner to get another lot worth of value.
On a per -square -foot basis, 501 square feet might not be a lot of money. However, a vacant, buildable lot in Edmonds is
worth quite a lot.
Vice Chair Robles asked if an abutting property owner could list the street vacation as an amenity to the property when it is
sold in a real estate transaction even if he/she has not exercised that right. City Attorney Taraday explained that the City
Council has complete and total discretion to approve or deny a street vacation, and there are no criteria. The City Council
does not have to provide a reason for the denials, either. He does not think anyone would want to stake a real estate purchase
on this potential opportunity. Vice Chair Robles commented that the appraiser would also be making a speculative argument
that the 80 square feet of land has value. City Attorney Taraday responded that, once an appraisal comes back, a property
owner can decide to pay the compensation to have the extra land added to his/her lot or leave the land as is.
Vice Chair Robles acknowledged that a property owner would not be forced to pay the compensation, and he asked if having
a third -party appraiser to identify a transaction's value, who it is valuable for, and how the money is assigned would be a
positive thing or confuse the matter more. City Attorney Taraday said he views the independent appraiser as being a key part
of ensuring fairness. When appraisals come in for street vacations, City staff has noted there is too much variation in terms
of what the City will receive. It is unfair that some people are submitting junk appraisals and paying hardly anything, and
other people are doing it right and paying a fair amount of compensation. That disparity should not exist. The City can
create a system where everyone is playing by the same rules and the appraisals are being done the same way. This provides
confidence that a disparity in price is not because a completely different methodology was used. This is preferable to letting
property owners choose whoever they want to do the appraisal. He said he and Ms. McConnell have given some thought to a
process that would allow a property owner to have a second appraisal if they don't like the initial one.
Ms. McConnell continued her presentation by pointing out that most of the street vacations that come before the City are
initiated by private citizens versus the City Council. Petitioners understand that an appraisal is required and that
compensation could potentially be necessary for the vacation to be completed. State Law requires compensation to the City
in an amount equal to one-half or the full amount of the appraised value, which means that an appraisal needs to be done. In
the existing code, an appraisal is the minimum application requirement and the appraiser is selected by the petitioner. As
discussed at the last meeting, having that be a minimum application requirement means that the appraisal is being done
before the City Council has determined it would even consider the property for vacation and before any easement
requirements have been identified that would devalue the property. The proposed code moves the appraisal requirement to
later in the process after staff has completed review and the City Council has approved a Resolution of Intent to Vacate. A
requirement for a third -party appraiser was incorporated into the code, and the petitioner would be responsible for covering
that cost. She noted that the current code also requires the petitioner to cover the cost of the appraisal.
Ms. McConnell shared some ideas for how to address situations when a petitioner does not agree with the independent
appraisal. The ideas include:
• The petitioner could select an alternative appraiser from a list provided by the City. The list would have at least
three names on the list.
• The petitioner would pay for the alternative appraisal, as well as the initial independent third -party appraisal.
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 51
7.A.h
• Both appraisals would be included in the City Council packet, along with the street vacation ordinance and the City
Attorney's analysis of the differences between the two appraisals.
• The City Council would decide the compensation amount using the two appraisals as brackets for their discretion.
Ms. McConnell explained that RCW 35.79.030 states that compensation to the city or town shall be in an amount equal to
one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated or at an amount not to exceed the full appraised value, which applies 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's existing code states that the City can accept monetary
compensation or reservation of an easement to the City. The proposed code would state that monetary compensation and
allowance for reservation of easements are both possibilities. The current code limits the compensation amount to one-half
the appraised value, and State Law allows the City to accept the full appraised value.
Ms. McConnell said that, as per the existing code, certain conditions can be placed on the City Council's approval of a
Resolution of Intent to Vacate such as reservation of certain easements. The code requires that the conditions must be met
within 90 days of approval of the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. The proposed amendment still has a 90-day requirement for
compliance, but adds a provision that allows some flexibility if otherwise stated in the resolution. If there are extenuating
circumstances, it might take more time for a petitioner to comply with the conditions, and the proposed amendment would
allow the City discretion to grant an extension.
As requested by the Board, Ms. McConnell briefly reviewed the 2018 compensation history, noting that one street vacation
was initiated in 2018 by an abutting property owner. The owner paid half of the appraised value, which was $28,800. The
property owner approached the request knowing about the compensation requirement. They fell under the existing code,
which meant an appraisal had to be done before an application was made. This is indicative of the types of street vacation
requests the City receives.
Ms. McConnell reviewed that the proposed amendments were introduced to the City Council Planning, Public Safety and
Personnel Committee on July 9t1i and the Planning Board on July loth. The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing
tonight and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing and final
decision by the City Council on September 17'.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented that the discussion about the "Fee Simple Bundle of Rights" did not included a
discussion about opened and unopened easements. When an easement is not being used by the City to open up a street or
alleyway, the fee title owner of the property has rights to use the property. Mr. Taraday read about those rights in court case
Nystrand vs. O'Malley. He said there are numerous examples all over the City where property owners use the right-of-way
when the City hasn't put in a street or alley yet. He specifically referred to a situation where someone sold their servient
estate ownership interest to a neighbor, which is another bundle of sticks. He summarized that the rights of the two are not
absolute. The servient estate also has rights, and that's really important to appreciate.
Mr. Reidy recalled that when the proposed code amendment was introduced to the Board on July loth, City staff did not
mention that the 2012 Planning Board was tasked by the City Council on two occasions to review this same item.
Amendments were needed to clarify certain parts of ECDC 20.70 and make the wording consistent with State Law. He spoke
at both of those public hearings (May 9, 2012 and November 14, 2012). The end result of this effort was that the City
Council adopted Ordinance 3910, which made the City's laws more consistent with State Law (RCW 35.79.030). He
questioned why the Planning Board is now being asked to consider a major rewrite of this code section. He said he is
unaware of any changes to State law that makes this necessary. He asked who is pushing this effort that changes laws adopted
by a previous City Council. For example, the either/or provision is legal under State Law, and the City Council made a
legislative choice to establish that law. Why is staff now proposing that the either/or law be eliminated. It is good law that
the citizens support. He asked that the Board recommend that the either/or provision be left intact.
Mr. Reidy asked why the proposed code amendment has been in the works since at least May 3, 2018 without an opportunity
for property owners or citizens to be involved in the process. He noted that Ordinance 3910 clarifies the type of easements
the City may retain when deciding to vacate a street or alley easement. The City Council may reserve rights for the City for
construction repair and maintenance of public utilities and services, which is consistent with State Law. Ordinance 3910
does not say that the City Council may require property owners to grant rights to third parties, yet the Edmonds City Council
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 52
7.A.h
has required property owners to grant easements to third parties during the last three street vacations. Instead of correcting
their historical acts, he fears the City is attempting to change the code to promote similar acts in the future. He said he is not
aware that any property owner has asked for this change. He pointed out that Ms. McConnell's reference to a recent street
vacation that required a $28,800 compensation failed to mention that the property owner was also required to grant an
easement to the Edmonds School District for an unpermitted pipe they had put in years ago. He cautioned against the City
elevating third -party rights above those of the property owner.
Mr. Reidy referred to the proposed language in ECDC 18.55.140.B.3, which states that, `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. " He said RCW 35.79.030 does not say anything about a 30-day challenge period. It simply says that "such
ordinance may provide that the City retain an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated
land for the construction, repair and maintenance ofpublic utilities and services. " Mr. Reidy stated that it is not the property
owner's job to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced; that is the Mayor's job. Shifting the burden to others
by giving them 30 days to challenge the City Council's required conditions is very wrong and unfair. It should be kept
simple to comply with State and City Laws. The City Council can retain an easement or rights. Retain means to keep
possession of, but it does not mean that the City can require property owners to grant easements to third parties.
Mr. Reidy pointed out that street vacations are legislative acts. He asked what would be the next legislative act that someone
tries to make subject to a 30-day appeal period to Snohomish County Superior court if the proposed amendments are adopted.
He commented that the courts do not want to be involved in the legislative process. Legislative acts are the City Council's
responsibility and the City Council should be able to act within the law without involving the Superior Court.
Mr. Reidy recalled that at the Board's July 10' meeting, City staff explained that if there was thought to be value to the land
and an appraiser found value to the property, the City would not be able to just gift public land to an adjacent property owner.
However, Ordinance 4143, effective February 20, 2019 did not require compensation even though the related appraisal
showed the property had value. This was perfectly legal, as requiring compensation is permissive. The statement about
gifting of public land is alarming for several reasons. It shows that City staff tasked with updating the code section may not
have a complete understanding of this area of law. History shows that the City has not required compensation on many
occasions. If gifting public land was not something the City was able to do, why would it have done so earlier this year? He
suggested that gifting is not an issue because the property owner almost always owns the title. If the street or alley has been
part of a dedicated public right-of-way for less than 25 years, State Law allows the City the option of requiring compensation
in an amount which does not exceed one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated. He questioned why the other half
wouldn't be considered a gift of public funds or a windfall? Resolution Number 1145 documents that the City Council voted
to credit back costs, including the cost of the appraisal, to the abutting property owner by reducing the required compensation
by $3,750. Should this be considered a gift or a windfall? He asked the Board to appreciate that compensation is permissive.
He asked why City Attorney Taraday is talking about a potential windfall if payment is not required. The City Council has
great legislative discretion, and they don't have to require compensation ever. In fact, since 1998, the City Council has not
required compensation for most street vacations. For example, there were 15 street vacations in 1998 and none required
compensation. History proves that it can be a public benefit to vacate streets without the need to require compensation.
Mr. Reidy referred to City Attorney Taraday's memorandum, which also states that payment for a street vacation would
benefit the general public. He questioned if the general public would have legal standing to contest a street vacation if the
City Council did not require compensation? He referred to Grays Harbor 2000 vs. the City of Seattle, in which the City of
Seattle vacated 15.2 acres of streets and did not charge compensation. Citizens appealed the decision, saying they were
harmed as part of the public because the City did not charge compensation, but the judge ruled that they didn't have standing
to contest the decision. He emphasized that the City and property owner have higher rights than the general public. Mr.
Reidy commented that State Law is clear that the respective rights of the City and property owner are not absolute, and case
law is clear that the property owner, and not the general public, has the right to use unopened streets and alleyways.
In conclusions, Mr. Reidy expressed his belief that staff's comment that the City would not be able to just gift public land to
an adjacent property owner indicates that they do not have a keen understanding of the las. If such a major code rewrite was
needed, he asked why the citizens were not made aware of it? He recalled that in late 2016, he pointed out in a public hearing
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 7
Packet Pg. 53
7.A.h
on a street vacation that acquiring an appraisal so early in the process was wrong. He is glad the proposed amendment will
address this issue, but in general, the existing code is good. It was just reviewed in 2012 and it remains solid. He suggested
the best approach would be to leave the recently updated code as is, with just the one change to move the appraisal
requirement to later in the process. He asked the Board not to move away from the legislative intent of the City Council that
adopted the either/or law and compensation law that didn't go for the full appraisal value. There is no need to change the
choices that were made in 2012.
At the request of Board Member Pence, Mr. Reidy submitted his statement in writing.
Fennis Tupper, Edmonds, said he has been a resident of Edmonds for 39 years and his property was part of George
Brackett's original plat. His northern boundary line was the northern boundary of the City, and there is a 7.5-foot
undedicated alley easement in his backyard. He noted that the street code requires 15 feet, but when the City annexed the
Holy Rosary property to the north of his property, it did not require them to dedicate the other 7.5 feet. If you view the
property on Google Maps or the City's GSA maps, you will see that almost every property owner has put up a fence and
incorporated the 7.5 feet into their lots. In the 39 years he has lived in the City, he has witnessed many street vacations,
especially in his neighborhood. For example, some of 8' Avenue that was never going to be opened because of a stream was
vacated. A 7.5-foot easement between 8' and 9r' Avenues was also vacated with no compensation required.
Mr. Tupper referred to Mr. Reidy's earlier question about why it would be okay to give away half of the public's funds by
not charging the full amount. It is just not a valid legal argument. He said he watched the July 10' Planning Board Meeting
on Channel 21 and was flabbergasted at some of the testimony that was provided by staff. He visited the Municipal Research
Service Center's (MSRC) website (www.msrc.or ) for additional clarification. The MSRC is a non-profit organization that
helps local governments across Washington State to better serve the citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any
topic. He learned that a public right-of-way is generally an easement, and when the right-of-way is vacated, the fee title to
the property underlying the right-of-way held by the abutting property owner becomes unencumbered by the easement. What
the vacation accomplishes is extinguishment of the right-of-way easement. Ms. McConnell said that abutting property
owners cannot use the easement because the City has jurisdiction over it. However, per the MSRC, if the right-of-way has
not been opened and is not improved, the obstruction of public travel is not an issue and the property owner is not subject to
the same restrictions as when it is opened and improved. Typically, property owners can use the unopened, unimproved
right-of-way as they can the rest of their property, but it is subject to the possibility of it being opened and improved at some
point in the future.
Mr. Tupper also referenced Ms. McConnell's statement that if there was thought to be value to land and an appraiser did find
value to the property, the City could not just gift it to an abutting property owner. However, it is important to note that the
City does not have title to the property. It only has an easement right, which is just one stick (right) in the bundle.
Mr. Tupper said that about six years ago he discovered that the Lighthouse Law Group's corporate registration with the State
had lapsed and hadn't been paid for or renewed. After discovering that, he went to the City of Seattle's website and found
that the law firm, which had been formed about five years earlier, had never applied for a City of Seattle business license or
paid City of Seattle taxes. He asked Mr. Taraday for a copy of his business license, and he told him it had lapsed. However,
the following day he was down at the City of Seattle applying for the license. There is something about integrity and truth,
and telling him that the license had lapsed was very untruthful.
Michelle Dotsch, said she was present at the last meeting and heard Mr. Reidy address the Board. She was born and raised
in Edmonds and knows there are a lot of alleys that people walk and bike through. She recalled that City staff displayed a
map at the last meeting that showed an alley in just one area, but a short Google search located a variety of Google Map
photographs of local streets with unopened easements. In many of these situations there is landscaping, buildings, fencing,
etc. She submitted maps showing where all of the easements are located, noting that some have access to driveways to actual
parking garages on the backside with no access for vehicles on the front side. The owners of these properties would be
significantly impacted by the proposed amendments, yet there are only two public hearings during the summer when people
are out of town. It is easy to do a Google Map search to find the property owners. She expressed her belief that the process
needs more time and attention. The City needs to reach out to the public by mailing notices to affected property owners.
Chair Cheung closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 8
Packet Pg. 54
7.A.h
Board Member Monroe advised that Board Member Rubenkonig was unable to attend the meeting but submitted a written
comment asking about the impetus of staff s proposal to update the street vacation provisions. City Attorney Taraday
explained that as staff has worked through street vacations over the past few years, it noted provisions that were either not as
clear as they needed to be or not as helpful to the City as allowed by State Law. He disclosed that he represents the City of
Edmonds and his responsibility is to advance the interest of the City of Edmonds and not individual property owners. If he
sees that State Law allows the City of Edmonds to collect more money for a street vacation than it is currently collecting, it is
his job, as the City Attorney, to make that option available to the policymakers and let them decide whether or not they want
to amend the code. The City is leaving money on the table right now. He feels an obligation to bring that forward and let the
policymakers make a decision about whether that is a good thing or not.
Board Member Monroe noted that, as proposed, the city attorney would provide an analysis of an appraisal. City Attorney
Taraday said that is one option. He spent a lot of his career doing imminent domain work and deposing appraisers. Board
Member Monroe pointed out that the proposed amendment does not say that Jeff Taraday will provide an analysis, it simply
says that whoever is the city attorney would do the analysis. City Attorney Taraday expressed his belief that most city
attorneys would be able to do that work. Board Member Monroe observed that, as per his earlier statement, City Attorney
Taraday is charged with advancing the City's interest and not that of private property owners. City Attorney Taraday said he
would provide an analysis to the City Council, and the City Council Members are also tasked with representing the City of
Edmonds and looking out for the City's interest. He asked who better to advise the City Council than the person who has the
fiduciary duty to look out for the interest of the City of Edmonds.
Ms. McConnell explained that the proposed amendments are intended to clarify and address issues that have come up over
the past few years as staff worked through street vacation applications. As proposed, the restructured process would be
smoother to follow and easier for the staff and public to understand the requirements. Moving the appraisal to a later point in
the process after the Resolution of Intent to Vacate has been approved will benefit petitioners so they don't spend money up
front on something that may have no traction. The provisions were looked at holistically and are intended to address issues
that kept coming up as staff dealt with residents coming to the front counter.
In an effort to be transparent, City Attorney Taraday said the intent behind the current either/or provision is unclear to him.
They could review the legislative history and try to identify the intent, but there is not always a clear answer for why a
provision was adopted into the code. However, it is completely arbitrary to try and equate the reserving of a simple easement
to the City on one hand and fair market value payment for the street vacation on the other. For example, you could have a
huge street vacation worth a lot of money, but if the City happens to have a small water line there that requires the
preservation of a small easement, the existence of the water line could create a completely arbitrary condition where the City
either needs to vacate the street cost free, reserve the easement or deny the street vacation. Denying the street vacation
request is not in the property owner's best interest. It is important to create conditions that allow street vacations to come
forward, and the either/or provision forces the City to make a difficult choice between three options that are not good.
Eliminating the either/or provision could create a situation where a reserved easement could end up reducing the amount of
compensation that a property owner is required to pay. On the other hand, retaining the either/or provision would prohibit the
City from requiring compensation if any portion of the easement is reserved.
Board Member Crank said her initial understanding was that the proposed amendments were intended to catch the City's
code up with the State Law, but it appears that has already been done. She asked if the true intent is to collect the money that
is being left off the table and put it into the City coffers. If that is the case, itis important that the intent is clear so that the
Board doesn't continue its conversation thinking they are trying to catch up with something that they have already caught up
to. Secondly, she asked if there is a timing issue that requires that the Board's recommendation be forwarded to the City
Council for a September public hearing.
City Attorney Taraday reviewed that the focus of the 2012 update was fairly narrow and not intended to be a full rewrite of
the street vacation code. One reason it has taken so long to bring the proposed update forward is that, frequently in City
government, there is too much to do and not enough time and resources. Projects end up getting re -prioritized. It took a
while for staff to realize that the full appraised value provision was not in the code. Rather than doing piecemeal
amendments to the code, staff felt it was better to wait until they could do a complete rewrite of the entire chapter.
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 9
Packet Pg. 55
7.A.h
Ms. McConnell said that once staff starts a project, they try to keep it moving. They are pulled to a variety of different
projects, and staff availability to work on projects is limited. The larger the gap is in between, the more time it takes staff to
sync back into the project and bring it forward again. The tentative public hearing before the City Council on September
17' is purely an effort to keep the amendment moving forward while the issue is fresh on everyone's mind.
Regarding the issue of retained easements by either the City or another agency, Board Member Pence commented that
petitioners are asking the City to give the bundle of sticks back to the abutting property owners. The retention of an easement
is the City merely saying that one of those sticks will have to be retained in the public interest. The petitioner would still
have all the rights to use the land subject to the easements that are retained, and this will have an impact on the appraised
value of the parcel. He doesn't see retained easements as an issue at all since they are part of the reality of the process.
Board Member Pence questioned the use of the term "third -party appraiser," since it has not been referenced in the
conversation. Currently, the appraiser is chosen by and becomes a client of the petitioner. Under the proposed amendment,
the City would select the appraiser and that appraiser would be a servant of the City. There would be no third -party
involvement in the proposed process. However, there may be some merit in having third -party appraiser who is truly
independent of both the City and the petitioner. He said he has been involved in public property acquisition issues through
condemnation, and the agency has its appraiser and if the unwilling seller doesn't like the appraisal, he/she hires a different
appraiser. The issue goes to court and the differences are adjudicated. He suggested that for smaller -scale issues, it would be
more appropriate to have just one appraiser that both sides select from a list of qualified appraisers. This would save
expense, if nothing else. Again, he said the use of a third -party appraiser is not properly chosen in the proposed amendments.
Board Member Rosen asked if he understood correctly that, as proposed, the petitioner would be required to pay for the
appraisal. If the petitioner disagrees with the appraisal, he/she would be required to pay for the second appraisal, too. City
Attorney Taraday said that is one of the options for addressing the Board's initial concern about the appraisal process. From
his perspective, it would not make sense for the City to pay for an appraisal unless the street vacation was initiated by the
City Council. Board Member Rosen suggested that the better distinction would be for whoever initiates the street vacation to
pay for the appraisal.
Board Member Rosen voiced concern that the proposed amendments might set the City up for some unintended
consequences. He asked how the City could reduce that risk. City Attorney Taraday responded that the proposed
amendment would not have any impact on rights that abutting owners have to use streets, whether opened or unopened.
From his perspective, it has always been the case that if you want to build something in a street, you have to get an
encroachment permit from the City. They are not making any changes regarding City policy on that issue.
Board Member Monroe asked if the conditions attached to a street vacation approval could require a petitioner to obtain an
agreement from a third -party utility. City Attorney Taraday explained that the City can never be compelled to approve a
street vacation. It can deny the request at any time for any reason. In addition, the City is a code city organized under Title
35.A, which is different than other types of cities that exist in the state. Code cities have the broadest possible powers under
the Washington State Constitution. Code cities are home ruled cities in that they don't need to point to something that is
expressly stated in State Law to authorize their actions. They just can't contradict State Law. As long as they aren't violating
the statute, they are good. He cannot point to a specific State Law that requires petitioners to obtain agreement from third -
party utilities, other than Title 35.A, which grants code city home rule authority. Board Member Monroe summarized that
the answer to his question is yes, the City can require a petitioner to obtain agreement from a third -party utility.
Board Member Monroe asked why the timeline for challenging a street vacation is 30 days and not a longer time period. City
Attorney Taraday referred to the case, King County vs. Federal Way, where a street vacation was challenged. The issue in
that case was whether or not the challenge was timely. The court determined that when challenging a street vacation under a
declaratory judgment action, the action must be brought within a reasonable period of time. The court ultimately held that 30
days was the appropriate time period. He expressed his belief that it is not fair to citizens to make them guess about how
much time they have to file a challenge. It is a lot more transparent to put the timeline in the code. Because a timeline is not
set forth in the RCW, the City has the authority to decide what the reasonable time period is, but it must be a reasonable
period of time to get something before the court and before a street vacation has been finalized and the ordinance adopted.
Board Member Monroe voiced concern that it might be difficult for a property owner to get everything in order in that short
amount of time.
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 10
Packet Pg. 56
7.A.h
Board Member Monroe reiterated that the City takes all but one of the sticks when a property is subdivided. If a property
owner asks for them back, the City will determine what they are worth and require the property owner to provide
compensation. In addition, the City may decide to give only some of the sticks back and hold onto others sticks for some
type of public use. The petitioner would have 30 days to challenge the City's decision. Again, he asked if the City would
require a petitioner to obtain an agreement with a third -party utility if an easement is to be retained. Ms. McConnell
answered that the petitioner would be responsible for contacting the utility and working out the easement agreement and this
would be spelled out as part of the condition process. That is why 90 days might not be enough time, and the ordinance
might establish a longer time period as appropriate.
Board Member Monroe commented that City Attorney Taraday and Ms. McConnell are doing a great job of maximizing City
revenue wherever possible, and that's what the amendments are about. However, that is not something the Planning Board is
has to do. City Attorney Taraday cautioned that this is not a type of taxation. In the case of a street vacation, the City is
transferring valuable property rights at a price that has been agreed upon by a professional appraiser. It is not an unfair
transaction. Board Member Monroe observed that the City has a lot of power and discretion in these transactions. City
Attorney Taraday agreed, but in all of his years doing imminent domain and other types of appraisal work, he has never seen
a situation where a city tries to low or high -ball an appraisal. In the grand scheme of the budget, the City won't be motivated
to game the appraisal process to get an extra amount of money. Money matters a lot more to the smaller guy. Board Member
Monroe referred to City Attorney Taraday's earlier comment that sometimes the City receives a low -ball appraisal, and he
would provide an analysis to the City as to what appraisal is the most accurate. City Attorney Taraday said his analysis
would be informed by many years of working with appraisals.
Board Member Monroe commented that as long as necessary easements are retained, the City would not be impacted by a
street vacation. The land belongs to the property owner and not the City, and the City needs to show a reason to use it. If the
City isn't using it, the rights, by default, should be given back to the property owner. As long as the City would not be
damaged by the transaction, it is incumbent on the City to make it easy and cheap. He said he likes the current either/or
language, which protects the City from damages, and he also likes the proposal to move the appraisal to later in the process.
All of the other amendments are unnecessary, especially if the primary intent is to get more revenue for the City. In
particular, he does not like the 30-day timeline for challenging a street vacation, and he does not like the proposed appraisal
process.
City Attorney Taraday said he understands that the appraisal language is controversial, and a policy decision will need to be
made. The Board's task is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the policy question, and the City Council will
make the ultimate decision. However, aside from this policy question, the other proposed amendments are needed to clarify
the process and should be considered on their merit. Regarding the 30-day timeline for challenging a street vacation, City
Attorney Taraday suggested that it is better for the City Council's constituents to know what the timeline is rather than
having to guess. He recommended that a timeline be clearly established in the code, and he suggested the Board discuss what
might be a better period of time. Board Member Monroe expressed his belief that the timeline should be longer to allow
sufficient time for a petitioner to gather the needed information to issue a challenge.
Vice Chair Robles said he really appreciates City Attorney Taraday's transparency that his job is to represent the City.
However, the Board's job is to represent the citizens. He also appreciates the working relationship that exists between the
staff and the Board. However, if the Board advised the citizens that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to raise
revenue for the City, he suspects that people who aren't land owners would support the change, but those who own land
would not. There are too many questions at this time for him to formulate a recommendation to the City Council. It will take
more work to get enough information to get to the right solution. The City's broad powers need to be carefully checked to
figure out how they impact the citizens. He voiced concern that the proposed amendments are based upon the Fee Simple
Bundle of Rights analogy, which cannot be codified. There needs to be a basis of logic for the code, and if they need to have
a valid analogy to explain a proposed code amendment, it needs to be reconsidered.
Board Member Rosen summarized that the City Council is looking to the Board for guidance. It appears that the Board
agrees with the following:
• Retain the current either/or provision.
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 11
Packet Pg. 57
7.A.h
• Change who pays for the original appraisal based on who initiates the request.
• Move the appraisal to later in the process.
• Increase the timeline for challenging a street vacation to something greater than 30 days.
Board Member Monroe asked if the Board had reached a consensus on who would choose the appraiser, the petitioner or the
City. Vice Chair Robles responded that the City cannot expect to clean the process up with a third -party appraisal. It will be
a messy process and negotiations will be required. If there is an appeal, Board Member Rosen asked if it would be possible
to give the petitioner the option of either finding his/her own appraiser or using another appraiser from the City's list. Board
Member Crank asked if there are other cities in Washington State that have addressed the appraisal issue. It might be helpful
to find out what processes other cities are using as opposed to grasping for their own ideas. City Attorney Taraday agreed
that staff could research the processes employed by other cities and report back.
Chair Cheung commented that the person who is asking for the street vacation will obviously be interested in a lower
appraisal. On the flip side, the City will pick an appraiser that will identify the highest value for the property. Because the
authority is already with the City, if the applicant had an unreasonably low appraisal, the City could simply deny the petition.
He said he doesn't see why the City needs to require a petitioner to choose an appraiser on the City's list. If they come in
with an appraisal that is incorrect, the City can simply deny the petition, and the petitioner could then appeal the decision and
select a different appraiser from the City's list. Vice Chair Robles pointed out that appraisers are all licensed and should be
unbiased. City Attorney Taraday responded that appraisers are trained in different specialties, and the proposal is for the City
to have a list of qualified appraisers who are trained to do street vacation work.
Board Member Rosen suggested the Board could forward the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation of
approval with the following exceptions:
• Retain the either/or provision.
• Change who pays for the initial appraisal based on who initiates the request.
• Change the timeline for challenging a street vacation from 30 days to 60 days.
• Request that staff come up with a recommendation for alternatives to the appraisal process rather than requiring a
petitioner to choose from the City's list of qualified appraisers.
• Encourage the City Council to specifically reach out to any resident who borders a project that might be impacted,
notifying them of the upcoming public hearing.
Vice Chair Robles suggested that the Board's recommendation to the City Council should also make it clear that the
objective of the proposed amendments is to raise additional funds for the City. Board Member Crank agreed that additional
revenue is an underlying element the proposal, but not necessarily the intent.
Board Member Monroe suggested that the timeline for challenging a street vacation should be increased from 30 days to 90
days. City Attorney Taraday commented that, whatever the timeline is set at, the City won't be able to adopt street vacation
until 30 days after the timeline has expired. Some constituents will want a street vacation to happen more quickly. Board
Member Rosen asked if a petitioner could waive his/her right to appeal, which would then shorten the process. City Attorney
Taraday agreed this is an interesting concept. He can imagine certain street vacations where it would be clean and easy for a
petitioner to waive the right to appeal, but if several property owners are involved in the petition, it could be more difficult.
The Board agreed they would like to add an option to waive the right to appeal if possible.
The Board discussed retaining the current code language that would allow the City to accept either monetary compensation or
reservation of an easement. The proposed new language would allow the City to require both. Board Member Monroe
commented that a street vacation would not damage the City in anyway, as long as the necessary easements are maintained.
City Attorney Taraday clarified that the current code only prevents the City from collecting compensation if the easement is
for the City, but if the City directs a petitioner to work out an easement with a utility, the City can collect compensation, too.
Board Member Monroe suggested this provision needs to be changed. From the petitioner's point of view, it shouldn't make
any difference whether the easement is for the City or a utility. City Attorney Taraday agreed it doesn't make sense, but
rather than treat all easements equally, the intent of the amendment is to evaluate the effect of the easement on value and
subtract that amount from the required compensation. He cautioned against a provision that would result in the City's
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 12
Packet Pg. 58
7.A.h
inability to collect compensation if there is any condition involving retention of an easement for any party. Currently, only
an easement to the City would ban other compensation. He explained that, currently, it is difficult for appraisers to take
easements into account because appraisals are done before easement conditions are imposed. The proposed amendment
would move the appraisal to later in the process so that easements can be taken into account when determining the correct
compensation.
Board Member Pence summarized that, if a petitioner does not get all of the sticks (rights) back and some are being reserved
for a public purpose, it really shouldn't matter whether that public purpose is the city or some other public entity. The sticks
(rights) that don't get turned back to the petitioner can all be accounted for in the appraisal. City Attorney Taraday explained
that the City needs some motivation to approve a street vacation. He explained that it is not possible for the Board to know
what the City's future needs will be with respect to all of the streets and easements. He said he considers easements to be
valuable rights, and simply giving them away could result in significant public cost in the future. Chair Cheung commented
that if the City wasn't able to collect compensation for street vacations, perhaps it would be more cautious about giving up
easements.
Board Member Crank commented that recognizing the monetary aspect of street vacations is neither good nor bad, it just is.
You always need to know what something is valued at whether you end up giving it away for free or not. She recommended
against spending too much more time talking about this aspect of the proposal. She suggested they move forward with
discussions on the other elements of the proposal and then make a recommendation to the City Council. Vice Chair Robles
expressed his belief that the City Attorney's position regarding the monetary aspect of the proposal should be articulated to
the public.
Board Member Pence said he would like staff to provide feedback in writing, responding to the public comments and the
Board's conversations. The proposed amendments could be tweaked to represent more of a consensus and the Board could
discuss the updated proposal at their next meeting. He said he is not comfortable sending a recommendation to the City
Council now. Chair Cheung agreed and noted that the Board is particularly interested in increasing the timeline for
challenging a street vacation from 30 days to 60 days and perhaps adding a provision that would allow a petitioner to waive
the appeal period. There are also some outstanding questions regarding the provision that would allow the City to collect
compensation and require that an easement be reserved.
City Attorney Taraday agreed to work with staff to prepare an updated version of the proposed amendment that incorporates
the thoughts expressed by the Board. However, it will take more time for staff to update the document. He summarized that
there are some items that appear to have majority support. Where there are still issues, he agreed to provide alternative
language for the Board's consideration. The Board could continue their deliberation in October based on an updated draft.
Chair Cheung closed the public hearing.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung advised that the August 28r' agenda will include an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies
and a presentation on the RoadMap Project (Ruckelshaus Center Report). The September 11' meeting is scheduled as a joint
meeting with the Architectural Design Board and an update on the Urban Forest Management Plan. The Board will continue
its deliberations on the Street Vacation Code Amendments on October 91
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung announced that some parking issues will be coming before the Board, so it is important for them to keep
apprised of what is happening with the parking study, etc.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Monroe reported that he attended the kickoff meeting for the parking study, which was well attended and
informative. At this time, they are working to identify a framework for the study.
Planning Board Minutes
August 14, 2019 Page 13
Packet Pg. 59
7.A.i
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
September 11, 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.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Nathan Monroe
Roger Pence
Mike Rosen
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Alicia Crank (excused)
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Manager
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented that the Street Vacation Code Amendments will come back before the Board on
September 25'. He recalled that City Attorney has stated that the starting point in analyzing conditions is that the City can
never be compelled to approve a street vacation but can deny the request at any time for any reason. However, if a proposed
street vacation is in the public interest and no property will be denied direct access, he questioned if the City can really deny a
request at any time for any reason. He pointed out that City code allows property owners to apply for street vacations, and a
fee is required. When an application is made and paid for, he felt it should be processed per the City's code. He said the
City's General Code of Conduct states that "the City's primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds."
The City's Code of Ethics says that "elected officials shall emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each
other and seek to improve the quality of public service and confidence of citizens. " He said his hope is that any and all
updates to the street vacation code will lead to improvements in the quality of service provide by the City. He questioned if
the- City Council can condition a street vacation on the granting of an easement to a third party.
Packet Pg. 60
7.A.i
Mr. Reidy recalled that at the Board's August 14' meeting, the City Attorney stated that, as a home rule city, the City has
broad powers. He further stated that "the City doesn't need to point to something that's expressly stated in State Law to
authorize its actions; it just can't contradict State Law. " In other words, as long as the City isn't violating the statute, it's
good. Mr. Reidy pointed out that State Law clearly says that the ordinance may provide that the City retain an easement or
rights, and the definition of retain is clear and simple. He expressed his belief that the City is violating State Law when it
does something other than retain. Mr. Reidy agreed that the City has broad powers. However, once the City exercises its
broad powers, the code adopted by the City Council must be followed by the City Attorney and City staff. The adopted code
must also be faithfully enforced by the mayor.
Mr. Reid recalled that, at the last meeting, he mentioned that the 2012 Planning Board was involved in an amendment that
added language regarding the types of easements that may be retained during a street vacation. Ordinance 3910 clearly states
that easements or rights may be reserved for the City. It doesn't say for third parties. The City Attorney is required to
approval all ordinances as to form, and Mr. Taraday signed Ordinance 3910. The 2012 Planning Board was also involved in
another amendment to the street vacation code. Ordinance 3901 required a description of any easement under consideration
to be retained by the City. This ordinance uses the same word (retain) that the State Law uses. He summarized that
Ordinance 3901 does not require a description of any easement that the City wants to grant to a third party. If such was legal
and if the City Council wanted to do so, Ordinance 3901 would have required a description of those easement, as well. This
was not an oversight by either the 2012 Planning Board or the 2012 City Council, and Mr. Taraday also signed Ordinance
3910. Both of the ordinances show that the Edmonds City Council has adopted City laws that do not involve property
owners granting easements to third parties. He questioned why the City's laws would allow such. Wouldn't requiring rights
to be granted to a third party be a gift to that third party? Do third parties and/or the general public even have legal standing
to contest a street vacation? He said he has never seen dedication language that says if the City doesn't use the easement for
a public use, it can convey rights to a third party instead.
Mr. Reidy commented that both the City Attorney and City staff are able to point to something that is expressly stated in the
City's own code to see what actions are authorized. It's simple, the City can retain rights for the City. Previously -elected
City Council Members decided that when the City retains an easement, it will not require compensation. It is either/or. He
expressed his belief that the either/or law improves citizen confidence in City government and stating that the City can never
be compelled to approve a street vacation does the opposite. Title 21 of the City's code defines a dedication as a gift, and
charging compensation to vacate an easement that was gifted doesn't make sense to him and such conduct is arbitrary.
Regarding rights to be granted to third -party utilities, Mr. Reid said it is best to do what the code allows, reserve for the City
any easements or rights needed. The City used to do it this way, as evidenced by Ordinances 3188 and 3202. He expressed
his belief that an easement is superior to rights that utility companies have under a franchise contract. For example, franchise
contracts often require a franchise fee, have terms and can expire. Requiring easements to be granted to utilities may be
another gift. Mr. Reidy concluded his comments by asking the Board to remind City staff to bring the aerial photo the Board
requested during its July 241 meeting to the September 25'.
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.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB) ROLES AND SCOPE
Mr. Chave reported that the ADB had a lengthy review of a project at their last meeting, and they didn't have time to discuss
their role in design review and finalize their recommendation to the Planning Board. Hopefully, they will be able to do so at
their October 2nd meeting. He suggested that, when the Board meets jointly with the City Council, it would be appropriate to
mention that they are working with the ADB on this item.
DISCUSSION ON JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Chair Cheung advised that the Planning Board will meet jointly with the City Council on September 24', at which time the
Board will advise the City Council of their work with the ADB regarding their role in design review and potential changes.
Planning Board Minutes "R.
September 11, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 61
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/25/2019
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:
09-25-2019 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 62
f
f.
Extended Agenda
September 25, 2019
Meeting Item
SEPTEMBER, 2019
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
September pB/Council Joint Meeting
24
September 1. Continued deliberations on proposed Street Vacation Code Update
25 Chapter 20.70 ECDC
OCTOBER, 2019
October 1. Joint Meeting with ADB: Design Review discussion
9 2. VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies Update (next steps in
PSRC process)
3. Presentation on CIP/CFP 2020 — 2025
October 1. Housing Commission Update
23 2. Public Hearing on CIP/CFP 2020 - 2025
NOVEMBER, 2019
November 1.
13
November 1. HOLIDAY
27
DECEMBER, 2019
December 1.
11
December 1. HOLIDAY
25
a
Packet Pg. 63
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. 64