The Edmonds City Council on Aug. 4 adopted an ordinance revising the city's street-vacation code, voting unanimously after staff presentations, public comment and multiple amendments to the draft language. The code changes set procedural criteria for approving vacations and adjust timelines and noticing requirements that will apply to future requests to vacate public right-of-way.

The update, presented by City staff during the meeting, includes a requirement that applicants choose an appraiser from a city-approved list containing at least four appraisers; extends the appeal period from 30 to 60 days; revises noticing from 300 feet to 400 feet; and clarifies that survey data requirements will apply within 50 feet of the subject property. The ordinance retains language that requires applicants to post notice on the property and makes clear applicants, not the city, are responsible for tenant notification.

The council discussed several specific procedures during debate. Staff described a draft set of approval criteria intended to help determine whether a vacation is in the public interest, including that the vacation will "not adversely affect transportation circulation, access, emergency services, utility facilities, or other similar right of way purposes" and will not be a necessary part of long-range circulation or pedestrian/bicycle plans. Staff emphasized the legislative discretion of the council: conditions may be attached to any resolution of intent to vacate.

Public comment raised property-rights concerns and the role of compensation. Ken Reedy of Edmonds told the council the draft misstates the effect of a vacation on property rights and said "state law makes compensation optional, and we established the either or law back in 1996." Reedy urged the council not to adopt changes that, in his view, ignored prior Planning Board work.

Councilmembers debated whether the city should require mailed notice to residents, not just property owners, within the 400-foot zone. Councilmember Payne led an amendment to remove the word "residents" from the mailing requirement, arguing property owners hold the property interest and that mailing to residents would be "burdensome." The amendment failed. Council members who opposed removing residents said adjacent residents sometimes rely on a right of way that, if vacated, could materially affect their daily life.

Council also clarified language about where written objections must be filed and changed a phrase to allow for submission to, rather than only "in," the engineering division so that electronic filings would be valid. The council approved a motion to replace an earlier reference to an "employment agreement" with "professional services agreement" where appropriate in a related resolution.

The ordinance preserves a provision allowing City Council to waive an appraisal and monetary compensation if the Council finds that the public benefit from the vacation alone justifies the action. Staff said the appraisal process will account for existing utility easements, which can reduce compensation where utilities retain rights under the property.

Councilmember Olson moved to approve the ordinance as revised; the motion passed unanimously.

The changes will apply to future street-vacation applications. Staff said they will prepare a city handout describing applicant posting and noticing responsibilities and timelines; the handout will state that failure to mail notice where the owner's current address is not on public record "shall not invalidate" proceedings. Staff also noted the potential burden of manually mailing notices to all residents within 400 feet and explained the policy is intended to balance public notice with administrative feasibility.

The final ordinance and accompanying guidance were adopted by the council on Aug. 4.