Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Street vacation at 80 Fourth Ave. W. proposed in two phases; WSDOT reversion clause and utilities complicate path forward
Summary
Edmonds staff asked Aug. 12 for council direction to proceed with a two‑phase street vacation of a cul‑de‑sac segment at 80 Fourth Avenue West; a 1979 dedication carries a reversion clause that would send part of the vacated right-of-way back to WSDOT and complicate the disposition process.
City staff asked the Edmonds City Council on Aug. 12 for direction to continue processing a petition to vacate a segment of 80 Fourth Avenue West near Highway 99. The application — submitted by an adjacent property owner — would include two geographic phases and requires coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation because a portion of the right-of-way was previously dedicated and contains a reversionary clause.
Staff said the original applicant-proposed vacation area includes a roughly 23,684-square-foot parcel within the cul‑de‑sac and a larger area the applicant asked WSDOT to declare surplus. The unique complication: one portion of the right-of-way (the phase‑1 piece) was dedicated by WSDOT to Snohomish County in 1979 subject to a clause that returns title to WSDOT if the land is no longer used for public road purposes. City staff said that if Edmonds moves forward and vacates that area, title would revert to WSDOT, which told staff it would dispose of surplus parcels collectively and does not guarantee that the applicant would acquire the surplus strip.
Utilities and easements: Staff noted multiple utilities run through the corridor — Edmonds storm pipes, Olympic View Water & Sewer District facilities and a Puget Sound Energy gas transmission line — and each utility’s easement and relocation costs could materially affect value and feasibility. PSE’s gas transmission line in particular could require expensive relocation.
Staff proposal and public-benefit trade-offs: Because WSDOT’s surplus process is independent, staff proposed handling the street vacation in two phases. Phase 1 (the area covered by the WSDOT reversion) would be subject to WSDOT surplus disposition; phase 2 — the remaining right-of-way the applicant seeks — could be vacated only if the applicant ends up acquiring the phase‑1 piece from WSDOT. Staff said council could add conditions in a resolution of intent to vacate — for example, requiring a development plan or rezone application and retaining necessary city utility easements — before allowing phase‑2 vacation to proceed.
Timing and next steps: Staff asked whether the council wanted to move to a public hearing; the item is scheduled for public hearing on Sept. 23 if the council directs staff to proceed. Staff also said the applicant has not yet completed potential rezone steps and that staff will update the existing appraisal (the draft appraisal must be revised to reflect retained easements or utility needs if the project proceeds).
Council discussion: Members expressed mixed views. Some said the area is a longstanding nuisance and conversion to productive use would benefit the neighborhood; others cautioned that WSDOT’s surplus process and potential land‑banking mean the city could end up with little control. Several members asked staff to explore conditions that would protect city interests (retained easements for stormwater, utility access, timeline requirements, or developer obligations) before final vacation.
What it means: The two-phase approach gives the city flexibility to preserve public‑interest outcomes where WSDOT retains disposition authority, but it also leaves uncertainty about whether the applicant will obtain the WSDOT surplus parcel. Staff recommended a public hearing and further work to determine monetary compensation, retained easements and potential development conditions before council would pass an ordinance vacating the property.
