EDMONDS, Wash. — On June 3, members of Edmonds City Council Committee A discussed a proposed update to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) chapter 20.7 governing street vacations and agreed to forward the draft for a full council presentation on July 1, with a potential public hearing July 22.

The proposal, presented by city staff, would move the street-vacation rules from Title 20 into Title 18 under the Department of Public Works, add definitions, revise the appraisal process so the city selects a third-party appraiser (reimbursed by the applicant), and align monetary-compensation options with state law (RCW 35.79.030 and RCW 35.79.040). "We intend to move this section into Title 18 under public works purview," said Jeanne, a city staff member presenting the draft. Jeff, a city staff member involved in the update, told committee members the mayor has asked staff and the city attorney's office to look for opportunities to "replenish the city's coffers," and noted that street vacations can generate payments to the general fund depending on the case.

Why it matters: street vacations remove a public interest in right-of-way and typically change underlying property rights and development potential for abutting owners. The draft addresses when the applicant pays for an appraisal and when the city may seek compensation. Jeanne said the draft delays requiring an applicant-paid appraisal until after staff review and the council's adoption of a resolution of intent to vacate; at that point the city would select a third-party appraiser and the applicant would reimburse the city. The code also adds a waiver path: if council initiates a vacation and finds that public benefit alone justifies the vacation, an appraisal would not be required.

Key provisions discussed

- Appraisal timing and selection: the proposed code requires city-selected, third-party appraisals after staff review and a council resolution of intent; the appraiser's cost would be reimbursable by the applicant. Jeanne said the change aims for greater "consistency" across cases.

- Monetary compensation: the draft follows RCW 35.79.030/040, so compensation could be one-half of appraised value or up to the full appraised value if the dedicated right-of-way has existed for 25 years or more. Committee members and staff emphasized the council would retain discretion and could set amounts lower than the statutory maximum in specific cases.

- Scope, process and timing: the draft clarifies applicability to streets, alleys and public easements (including pedestrian walkways and trails), preserves a 30-day appeal period following adoption of a resolution, and keeps a default 90-day deadline to satisfy conditions unless the resolution specifies a different timeline.

- Department responsibility: staff argued that public-works engineering is the appropriate home because street-vacation decisions turn on whether right-of-way is surplus and on technical considerations about utilities and future access. "The engineering division is a lot more familiar with the city's needs for right of way in a particular area," Jeff said.

Questions and concerns raised

Committee members pressed on several practical and equity issues: whether waterfront "street ends" could be preserved from vacation, how the law treats streets that abut water, the ability of abutting property owners to challenge or appeal appraisals, and the relationship between prior Planning Board work from 2019 and the current draft.

On waterfront streets, staff noted Washington law imposes a higher threshold; the city must study whether the street is suitable for uses such as boat launching, beach or water access, park or public view and then make a finding it is not suitable before vacating. "It's a high hurdle to clear when you're dealing with a waterfront street," Jeff said.

On appraisals, several councilmembers asked for a mechanism if an applicant or objector disagrees with a city-selected appraiser. Staff said they would consider an appeal path or further refinement; Vivian asked that prior public-hearing minutes and Planning Board materials from the 2019 process be included in the packet so the council can compare the earlier options with the current staff draft.

Utilities, title and recording

Staff confirmed an application must include a legal description and a site survey drawn to scale, plus a title report. The city will review its utility maps and coordinate with utility providers; public-utility facilities commonly will require easements if they must remain in place. If a vacation ordinance is adopted, the ordinance will be recorded so subsequent title searches reflect the change in the street dedication.

Next steps and committee direction

Committee A members asked staff to include relevant Planning Board records and prior council notes in the packet for the full-council presentation. The committee agreed by consensus to place the item on the full council agenda for July 1 and to keep the July 22 public hearing date as scheduled; no formal vote was recorded. Jeanne confirmed she will be available to present at the July 1 meeting and staff will prepare the requested comparative materials.

What the committee did not do

The committee did not adopt new code language at the June 3 meeting, nor did it take a formal vote on any ordinance. Several members requested additional clarifying materials — including prior Planning Board recommendations, a side-by-side comparison of prior and current drafts, and documentation on appraisal and appeals — before the full council acts.

The council members and staff who spoke at the June 3 Committee A meeting included Councilwoman Michelle Dodge, Councilwoman Susan Payne, Councilmember Will Chen, Council President Neil Tivett, Councilmember Levine Olson, Councilmember Vivian, Jeanne (city staff member), Jeff (city staff member) and Ana Bray (city staff member).