1. Ownership of the property abutting on the street or portion sought to be vacated. Proof of ownership of abutting property by the title insurance or certificates may be required, such proof to be furnished by, and at the expense of, the petitioners;

2. Whether and in what respect the public may be benefited or harmed by the vacation;

3. Whether the public benefit of the area’s use is insufficient to justify the cost of maintenance;

4. Which property or properties will be directly benefited or adversely affected by the vacation, and in what way;

5. What effect the vacation will or may have upon property served or which might be served by said vacated street, and whether said street has been opened or constructed, and if so, to what standard;

6. How said street relates to other streets and highways, and whether other portions of the subject street or alley have already been vacated;

7. Whether the substitution of an alternate way would be more useful to the public;

8. Whether future changes in conditions may increase public use or need;

9. How and when the street or alley sought to be vacated became a public right-of-way;

10. Whether any utilities now exist in said street, or whether such street may be reasonably necessary for future utility uses;

11. The necessity or desirability of the City retaining an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements for emergency vehicle access and construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities and services over the land sought to be vacated;

12. Whether any abutting owner would become landlocked or its access substantially impaired; i.e., whether there is an alternative motive ingress and egress, even if less convenient;

13. If the right-of-way abuts a body of water, how the proposed vacation would or would not comply with the requirements set forth in RCW 35.79.035; and

14. Any other matters relevant to the vacation of the street or alley.