The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-10-01 City Council - Full Agenda-2453Agenda Edmonds City Council COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 OCTOBER 1, 2019, 7:00 PM Edmonds City Council Agenda October 1, 2019 Page 1 "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. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation on the Edmonds Historical Museum Annual Scarecrow Festival (10 min) 2. National Arts & Humanities Month Proclamation (5 min) 3. 2019 ESCC Student Exchange Presentation (15 min) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2019 2. Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks. 3. Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages 4. Wassall Pedestrian Easement at the NE corner of 639 2nd Ave 5. Larsen Short Plat - 10-ft Street ROW Dedication along 75th Pl W and Retaining Wall Maintenance Easement along 72nd Ave W 8. REPORTS 1. Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report (60 min) 9. STUDY ITEMS 1. Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update (30 min) 2. Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington (15 min) 3. City Attorney Evaluation Summary Review (30 min) 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Agenda October 1, 2019 Page 2 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I). 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 Presentation on the Edmonds Historical Museum Annual Scarecrow Festival Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History The Edmonds Historical Museum sponsors the Scarecrow Festival in downtown Edmonds each year. Staff Recommendation N/A. For information only. Narrative Dave Buelow of the Edmonds Historical Museum will provide a presentation regarding the 2019 Scarecrow Festival. 5.1 Packet Pg. 3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 National Arts & Humanities Month Proclamation Staff Lead: Frances Chapin Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History National Arts & Humanities Month was established in 1993 and is celebrated every October in the United States. It was initiated to encourage Americans to explore new facets of the arts and humanities in their lives, and to begin a lifelong habit of participation in the arts and humanities. It has become the nation's largest collective annual celebration. Staff Recommendation Narrative Accepting the proclamation on behalf of the Edmonds Arts Commission is Vice-Chair Rhonda Soikowski. Attachments: 20190924143351 5.2 Packet Pg. 4 5.2.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 20190924143351 (National Arts & Humanities Month Proclamation) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 2019 ESCC Student Exchange Presentation Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History The Sister City Commission has been organizing both student and adult exchanges with our Sister City of Hekinan, Japan since the beginning of our relationship in 1988. Since that time, over 1,000 people have traveled between the two cities. Every summer the Commission organizes and send a delegation of students from Edmonds to Hekinan for a two-week home stay and in return, the Hekinan Sister City Association organizes and sends a delegation of students from Hekinan to Edmonds for a two-week home stay. Staff Recommendation Narrative During the summer of 2019 Edmonds School District teachers Catherine Mathias and Katy Renz chaperoned 10 students to Hekinan, Japan. The students and chaperones stayed with host families while in Japan. Chaperones Catherine Mathias and Katy Renz, along with student delegates Kaden Pothisuntorn, Julia Lee, Aly Osborne, and Ashlyn Rucker, will share highlights of their trip to Japan. 5.3 Packet Pg. 6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2019 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes 7.1 Packet Pg. 7 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES September 24, 2019 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember (via phone) Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Zach Bauder, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Teitzel read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: “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.” 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER WITH THE ADDITION OF “CLARIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT REGARDING COUNCIL LIAISONS TO THE CITIZENS HOUSING COMMISSION” AS AGENDA ITEM 8.2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. JOINT DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION WITH THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD 7.1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 2 Planning Board Members introduced themselves: Roger Pence (Alternate), Nathan Monroe, Matt Cheung (Chair), Daniel Robles (Vice Chair), Alicia Crank, Mike Rosen and Conner Bryan (Student Representative). (Planning Board Members Todd Cloutier and Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig were not present.) Chair Cheung listed topics the Planning Board has been working on since the last update:  Non-Conforming Building Code amendments  Street Map amendments  Update from the Parks & Recreation Department  Vision 2050  Development activities  Comprehensive Plan  Climate Goals  Sustainability  Ruckelshaus Center RoadMap project  Urban Forest Management Plan  ECDC 20.70 Street Vacation amendment  Joint discussions with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) about their role in the design review process  Indigenous Peoples Land Acknowledgement Statement Vice Chair Robles reported the Planning Board enjoyed meeting with the ADB which is comprised of incredibly talented people. Meeting with them was very productive and the Board welcomes future collaboration with the ADB. Chair Cheung identified two topics they wanted to discuss with Council, 1) housing, including housing concepts the Planning Board can work on when the Housing Commission begins their work, and 2) communication between the City Council and boards and commission. With regard to housing, Chair Cheung said the Planning Board was interested in exploring detached accessory dwelling units (ADU) and has enjoyed collaborating with the ADB and Economic Development Commission (EDC) and was interested in future collaboration with them as well as with the Housing Commission. Board Member Monroe expressed interest in the Council’s input regarding detached AUDs with regard to code requirements, setbacks, parking, etc. and things the Board can do to allow organic growth to occur in the community on a parallel path with the Housing Commission. Councilmember Johnson recalled past Planning Board presentations have included discussions about the Board’s extended agenda and she requested an update on the extended agenda. For example, she recalled code amendments for the Five Corners area were referred to the Planning Board years ago and when the City Council indicated it was a lower priority, it was put on the extended agenda and nothing has happened. She asked when the Planning Board intended to consider that topic. Development Services Director Shane Hope said Planning Manager Rob Chave and she have discussed that; it is on the extended agenda, but will not be considered this year. Councilmember Johnson asked if the process would begin next year. Ms. Hope answered it will depend, she will report back to the Council. Councilmember Mesaros thanked the Planning Board for the work they do on behalf of the City, commenting most citizens would find it difficult to explain what the Planning Board does. With regard to the opportunity for detached tiny houses, he attends worship in a small church in the Madrona neighborhood of Seattle that put in a tiny house and have one resident living there who was previously homeless and who the church anticipates will live there 12-18 months. The church community has helped this person get settled, consistency in their work and help them feel part of a community with no obligation to attend church services. The church acknowledges they cannot solve homelessness but can help this one individual. He 7.1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 3 discussed this with a couple of Seattle City Councilmembers, pointing out there are 300 houses of worship in Seattle and the possibility of each one building one tiny house on their property and providing support to that individual or family. It would reduce the issues the government is dealing with because there would be a network of people helping their fellow citizens. Councilmember Mesaros suggested the Planning Board look at how many houses of worship there are in Edmonds and whether there was an opportunity to encourage them to offer this opportunity on their property with infrastructure provided by the religious community. Board Member Monroe agreed that was an appropriate use of a detached ADU. Where he sees his friends using detached ADUs is they purchased their parent’s home, and the parents downsize to a smaller unit behind which provides multiple benefits such as built-in babysitter, parents remaining in the same community, etc. Board Member Crank expressed appreciation for Councilmember Mesaros’ idea, particularly as she works in downtown Seattle for an organization trying to eliminate homelessness. The challenge she sees is Edmonds is a smaller community, and does not have the space to accommodate that type of thing. She was hopeful when discussion begin about detached ADUs that the City looks at Santa Cruz’s model, similar to Board Member Monroe’s example, additional housing for existing family. Santa Cruz only allows one attached or detached ADU on a property and it must be occupied by a family member. She was also concerned that Councilmember Mesaros’ example puts pressure on houses of worship’s resources and suggested that would require consideration of what resources the City was willing to provide houses of worship. Councilmember Tibbott said he was very interested in variations of detached ADUs that are seen around the country. One of the variations is a family member which is becoming more difficult to define and whether to require owner occupied or allow non-owner occupied. Other considerations are how much of the property could be occupied, impervious surfaces, architectural design, what size lots could accommodate a detached ADU, etc. He suggested that would be a valuable discussion for the Planning Board to have to pave the way for the Housing Commission’s discussion. He reported on an ADU he saw this weekend that was attached by a breezeway and had a beautiful view of the backyard landscaping and was a very nice living arrangement for the property owner’s mother. He noted some tiny houses are built so poorly that they become disposable over 15-20 year and questioned whether that would be acceptable in Edmonds. Councilmember Teitzel thanked the Planning Board for their work and echoed Councilmember Mesaros’ comments, finding the Planning Board a very insightful, well informed group whose work helps the City Council make better decisions. He referred to the comment about the Planning Board doing work in parallel with the Housing Commission on detached ADUs and expressed his preference to allow the Housing Commission to get some traction and the Planning Board work in an advisory capacity. When interviewing candidates for the Housing Commission, he heard concerns from several applicants about detached ADUs including additional parking in residential areas, the height of structures, additional density, etc. He preferred to let the community air those concerns before going too far in the discussion about codes. Vice Chair Robles commented the ADB is a hidden gem; individuals with extraordinary intellect and creativity. There are many variations of ADUs, detached, attached, split levels with two units, etc. The issues associated with ADUs are things that the ADB can address including impervious surface, security issues, parking, codes, etc. that need to be addressed before going forward with a viable strategy for aging in in place, family reunification, and affordable housing. The ADB will be an important part of that discussion. He would like the Planning Board to work closely with the ADB and the Housing Commission. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 4 Board Member Crank said the Planning Board was seeking clear direction from the City Council regarding the Planning Board’s role in housing and who should be doing what and when so there is no stepping on toes. Vice Chair Robles suggested the Planning Board could help coordinate oversight. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested after the Housing Commission received training, developing a subcommittee with representatives from the Housing Commission, Planning Board, ADB, City Council and staff to vet some of these issues. She relayed attached ADUs are allowed in Edmonds and there are approximately 7-9 permitted per year. In her conversations with community members about detached ADUs, issues include providing onsite parking, ensuring the owner lives on property, and determining how many ADUs are allowed on a property. She did not feel it was time to talk about housing the homeless in detached ADUs in Edmonds because clear direction with regard to the homeless has not be established. That may be a future discussion and she wanted to ensure there was adequate citizen input. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented on the Planning Board and the ADB coordinating their efforts, noting there have not been any ADB-related code changes in many years. She relayed citizens’ concern with the box building look and suggested that was something the Planning Board could consider in coordination with the ADB, maintaining the look and feel of Edmonds while allowing for new and unique design. Chair Cheung said the primary reason for the focus on detached ADUs is aging in place. Recent housing data shows there are a lot of 1-2 person households in Edmonds, many living in 4-5 bedroom houses. Detached ADUs would increase the diversity of housing options available and allow an o wner to live in the detached ADU and rent the house. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has heard from citizens interested in doing that, building a detached ADU, moving into it and renting their house. The bigger concern is everything on the property being a rental and how that can impact the neighborhood. Chair Cheung said the Planning Board is interested in hearing residents’ concerns such as parking, safety, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas summarized it is doable, it is just a matter of planning and who is involved in the planning to ensure it is successful. Vice Chair Robles said definition is important so that citizens have the same opportunities as developers such as the ability to finance construction of a detached ADU or divide their house to create an attached ADU. The code needs to be clear so that the bank will loan money, the insurance company will insure it and the asset can be capitalized. Councilmember Mesaros clarified his comments were not advocating only for housing for the homeless. To Board Member Crank’s comment about the City’s obligation to help support houses of worship, in the instance of his church, they have no expectation that the City of Seattle will provide any support. With regard to separate water and electricity, his church decided that was part of their ministry to provide that for the tiny house. He summarized the tiny house his church provided is just one option of many. His small church which has 77 members with 35 regular donors made a thoughtful commitment to do this. It was not always easy, the building was red-tagged by the City. Interestingly, the neighbors who do not attend the church rallied around this idea and became advocates. The church building is 100 years old and located on three city lots; one small parcel is occupied by the tiny house. He summarized it can be done although he knew of only one other church in Seattle doing it. Councilmember Nelson expressed his appreciation for all the Planning Board does and the question about detached ADUs and which board/commission is doing what. He said it was helpful to read the Housing Commission’s mission, “To develop for Council consideration diverse housing policy options designed to expand the range of housing available in Edmonds.” The question was not whether or not detached or attached ADUs or opportunities to age in place were needed, everyone would argue there is a need, but he did not want to step on the toes of newly formed Citizens Housing Commission whose job is to provide 7.1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 5 policy recommendations to Council. He cautioned the Planning Board about delving into that before the Housing Commission has had first meeting and suggested waiting to see where it makes sense. He agreed with the Planning Board partnering with the ADB but was hesitant about them taking up ADUs. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the Planning Board’s work, commenting she thoroughly enjoys reading their minutes and watching the video of their meetings. She thanked City Clerk Passey posting the videos. She echoed Councilmembers Teitzel and Nelson's comments about not jumping into the ADU arena. She recalled Board Member Cloutier cautioned the Planning Board about being directly involved with Housing Commission because it was just starting and their role was assigned by the City Council. She expressed interest in code updates, specifically new code related to the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). She referred to the Planning Board’s August 2019 minutes, and agreed there needed to be incentives to prevent clear cutting. She suggested the Planning Board could also concentrate on the Roadmap to Washington’s Future. She summarized people do not realize how much work the Planning Board does, they are very thoughtful and thorough and make the City Council’s job easier. Councilmember Tibbott commented there is a lot of work still to be done on the code update especially related to low impact development which can help maintain open space. The Board could also look at sustainable construction codes, handling of stormwater, nonconforming development on property that was previously in Snohomish County including where those transition zones exist and whether there conflicts between areas zoned for multi-family that are developed with single family or nonconforming uses. Those areas would be profitable for the City and lend to future discussion regarding housing strategies. Councilmember Johnson also appreciated the hard work the Planning Board does, commenting Councilmembers Tibbott, Nelson and she previously served on the Planning Board. She was concerned about the extended agenda, commenting some things have been discussed but never get done such as the subdivision code review. She recommended getting the code update on the schedule, noting it has been a sore subject for Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Buckshnis who have been on the Council for nine years. Chair Cheung asked what was the most effective way for boards, commissions and City Council to communicate and for the Planning Board to provide feedback to the City Council whether it should be a formal written motion with recommendation or comments in the minutes. Board Member Rosen thanked the City Council for their service. He commented the Planning Board serves at the City Council’s pleasure; it is the Planning Board’s understanding their role is to share their opinions and that can be done either independently or as group. Sometimes board members have strong opinions and sometimes they have a lot of opinions; comments in the minutes make it difficult for the reader to judge the weight or consensus. The Planning Board wants to ensure they are providing information to the Council in a format they can use. Councilmember Mesaros anticipated there would be seven different answers to that question. There are multiple ways to communicate; part of the issue is what message the Planning Board is trying to deliver. The Planning Board minutes are one opportunity to communicate; the Planning Board has an obligation to produce minutes and the City Council has an obligation to read them. Staff is another method for communication. Planning Board members can also ask to be on the agenda or to speak at a Council meeting. He summarized intentionality was always a good thing. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented the Council used to have stronger communication with the Planning Board including periodic reports. She agreed the City Council has an obligation to read the Planning Board minutes, but it may be worthwhile to discuss how to have more frequent dialogue between the Planning Board and the City Council. She suggested perhaps a monthly or quarterly report, and suggested discussing with staff what had been done in the past. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 6 Councilmember Tibbott appreciated that the Planning Board minutes reflect the deliberations and multiple points of view which helps broaden his thoughts when making decisions. If there is a heated topic, it is helpful for the Council to hear from Planning Board even if it is during Audience Comments. Councilmember Nelson recalled when he was on the Planning Board, forwarding a recommendation to City Council and the City Council changed it. He suggested an informal quarterly meeting between the Planning Board Chair and the Council President to discuss topics and reasons for recommendations and to maintain regular open lines of communication. He agreed with having an additional way of communicating besides the minutes. Councilmember Johnson explained when a recommendation is forwarded by the Planning Board, it is usually a written formal recommendation and includes all the minutes regarding the topic. That gives the City Council an opportunity for review prior to discussion at the City Council. She suggested more time for review would be helpful and invited the Planning Board to make a presentation to the Council on their recommendations. Councilmember Buckshnis said adding the Planning Board videos to the website was very helpful. She recalled items on which the Planning Board did a lot of work and it did not go anywhere or the City Council did not follow the Planning Board’s recommendation. She concluded the Planning Board minutes are very thorough and capture commissioners’ input. Board Member Crank appreciated the City Council’s appreciation of the diversity of thought and ideas on the Planning Board. She recognized Board Member Rosen for recapping everything that was discussed. Vice Chair Robles said ADB members are licensed professionals. There are safety and other considerations related to ADUs. Once the technical issues are settled, it opens door for the Housing Commission to do their work. He asked about boundaries for what board members say, social media policy, and the science on crumb rubber and 5G and vaping that has not come to the surface. Chair Cheung advised the Planning Board planned to have a follow-up discussion with the ADB. The ADB expressed concern that their contribution occurs at the end of projects and they would like to be more involved at the beginning and to contribute to the design standards. The Planning Board will be discussing an amendment to the ECDC to allow lodging uses in the CW zone. Mayor Earling thanked the Planning Board for their work. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ken Reidy, Edmonds, thanked the Planning Board for their public service; he has attended several meetings and they do a fantastic job. He relayed the City of Edmonds government knows it has operated with a flawed code for at least 19 years, both the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). On October 25, 2005, former Development Services Director Duane Bowman said he had been describing the need to update the zoning code since he was hired in 2000. A comment was made that the City’s code dated to the 1980s and piecemeal amendments made it difficult to use and administer. In September 2007, a former Hearing Examiner stated that several code revisions failed to provide adequate guidance because of the use of the phrase, “and so forth” which creates ambiguities within various criteria for approval. Twelve years later, use of the phrase “and so forth” is still found in the City’s code, ECDC 20.75.085 for example. Mr. Reidy relayed former City Attorney Scott Snyder stated in his November 2007 annual report that the biggest issue at the start of 2007 was the code rewrite. Mr. Snyder stated the intent was to begin the rewrite 7.1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 7 last year and finish it in 2007. Mr. Snyder summarized that the code rewrite was approximately a year behind schedule as of November 2007. The 2009-2010 budget included the following: major 2009-2010 budget issues: completion of the City’s Shoreline Master Plan update and the ECDC rewrite will occur in 2009-2010. Completion of the code rewrite did not occur. In late 2012 during a public hearing on the 2013 budget, he stated that five years had passed since Mr. Snyder stated the intent and he questioned why t he code rewrite had still not been completed. He urged the Council to include the proper amount in the 2013 budget to complete the long overdue code rewrite. Over the years hundreds of thousands of dollars have been budgeted, yet the City’s code is still flawed and has been so for at least 19 years. He questioned why this budgeted priority has not been executed. Mr. Reidy relayed an open house in March 2015 trumpeted the City’s just -launched code rewrite process, a process advertised as a major update of the City’s development code. He attended the open house in hopes that finally the code rewrite would be finished. The City’s website has a page for the update but no updates have been posted for 3½ years; the last update was March 2016. He urged the Council to finish the code rewrite, including the ECC which is also flawed. The code rewrite was supposed to be the top priority over a decade ago. 7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. AUTHORIZATION OF PARTICIPATION IN APPEAL OF FCC ORDER 4. ACCEPT A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON 215TH PL 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. CITY ATTORNEY EVALUATION SUMMARY REVIEW Councilmember Mesaros distributed a City of Edmonds Performance Evaluation Summary for City Attorney Services September 24, 2019. He provided the following observations, first, this is a difficult process; it is the one position for which an evaluation is done in a public forum due to the vendor relationship. Second, this evaluation tends to be done when there is a renewal of the contract; other evaluations are done annually and there is good interaction, feedback, and interplay. Third, the City Attorney reports to the City Council and unlike other reporting relationships, does not report to one person. Some might say the Council President should be the supervisor or that the Mayor has a role in representing the directors, but that is not formalized. If someone has an issue with the working relationship with City Attorney, there is no one to go to arbitrate or discuss it. Another observations when reading the comments and reviewing the evaluations was there was a difference between reviewers’ expectations. Councilmember Mesaros explained this is a multi-phased process and he has shared a majority of the information with City Attorney Jeff Taraday. Respondents were asked to respond to the questions with a rating of 1-7. The summary includes two columns with scores. Three of the respondents did not follow the instructions and, for the most part, did not utilize a numerical rating. The first column represents an attempt to apply a numerical rating to their answers on the questionnaire. The second column represents the elimination of their answers except when a numerical number was used or N/A was indicated. The summary 7.1.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 8 reflects the number of respondents, number of N/A, highest score, lowest score, average score for each question. His general observation was typically the scores were 5 and above, a few 4 and 1-2 below 4; in general the responses were positive. The evaluation sheets included an opportunity for respondents to include their name; approximately half included their names. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the back page, a written response sent separately that was not included with an evaluation. The response is written in a plural format indicating it was reflected a group of people although there is no indication where it came from. There were a number of written comments in the evaluations and those will be available in a notebook in the Council office. He summarized there were many positive comments submitted in addition to the comment that was included with the summary. Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified the back page was submitted as one comment. She thanked Councilmember Mesaros for his work, commenting it will take time to review. Councilmember Mesaros said his intent was not to reach a conclusion tonight, just to introduce it. He emphasized the unusualness of this process for an item of a personnel nature, recognizing Lighthouse for their sense of courage. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if some evaluations rated every question 7 or 1. Councilmember Mesaros said there were none with either all 7s or all 1s, they were all mixed. He noted respondents who rated a question with a 1 would rarely rate another with a 7 and vice versa. Council President Fraley- Monillas commented it was probably statistically accurate then. Councilmember Teitzel thanked everyone who responded to the questionnaire. He remarked this is an important process because the Council is on the threshold of making important decisions about legal representation and it is important to understand where things are going well and where improvement might be needed. He commented the responses are potentially skewed because responses were not provided by two department heads who left the City within the last year and had worked closely with Mr. Taraday. Councilmember Mesaros referred to question 4b and 5a on page 7 and provided the following statistical observation: elimination of the three respondents results in a higher score and in 5b, there were 9 N/A leaving only two respondents and a high score of 6 and low score of 6. For one question there was only one respondent due to N/A and the high and low score was 7. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked why the three respondents were excluded. Councilmember Mesaros referred to question 1a, the three respondents answered “yes” rather than with a rating. On question 1b, the three respondents answered with a rating because the question specifically asked for a rating. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if Councilmember Mesaros knew how many of the 13 respondents were electeds or staff. Councilmember Mesaros said no because not everyone provided a name. The questionnaire was provided to Council, Mayor and seven directors. Total possible respondents was 15 (8 elected and 7 directors) and directors were offered the opportunity to give the questionnaire to direct reports who work closely with the City Attorney. If the questionnaires from the three respondents who did not answer correctly included a name, Councilmember Buckshnis asked Councilmember Mesaros whether he reached out to them. Councilmember Mesaros answered two of the three did include names but he was compiling the information on Sunday and did not have an opportunity to contact them. He attempted to apply a number to their answer; if the respondent answered “yes” he gave that a 7, if there was hold back he gave a 5 or 4 and if the answer was no, he gave it a rating of 1. He acknowledged there was some judgment on his part which could be faulty which was the reason he included the second column. Council President Fraley-Monillas said perhaps the second column should not be included. She asked if he would be willing to contact the two. Councilmember Mesaros said he could do that by next week. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 9 Councilmember Mesaros suggested Mr. Taraday be offered an opportunity to respond. Mr. Taraday said this is an interesting and somewhat frustrating process for him. An evaluation was last done five years ago and he has not had any official review/evaluation since then. If the purpose of the review was to improve service, he recommended a different way of providing feedback to the attorney and a different level of frequency. He was interested in improving services to the extent that feedback indicates improvement is needed. He reiterated that Ms. Hite and Ms. Hardie were not among the respondents. That was particularly significant from his perspective because Lighthouse worked closely with those two directors. Ms. Hite worked with him monitoring the Ebbtide litigation which in 2017 was the third most timely matter Lighthouse worked on and the single most time consuming in 2018. He summarized the single biggest project in their firm and the person who supervised it did not provide feedback to the Council. He had strong reason to believe that if Ms. Hite were able to provide feedback, her scores would have increased the average score and similarly if Ms. Hardie were able to provide feedback. Ms. Cate worked closely with Ms. Hardie; in 2017 Human Resources was the second most time consuming matter that Lighthouse worked on and the third most time consuming in 2018. Ms. Hardie’s absence from the respondent class is significant. Because of the level of work Lighthouse provided to Human Resources and the high level of service Ms. Cate provided, had Ms. Hardie submitted an evaluation it would have been positive. Mr. Taraday remarked it is an interesting relationship when the City has a contract City Attorney. While he agrees there is no one single person who is his or his firm’s direct report, the structure of the City is such that directors or staff who are unsatisfied with their work should be able to take that issue to the Mayor and if the Mayor feel it is appropriate, bring it to the City Attorney and ask them to address it. It could be as simple as a quick check-in while he is in the City during office hours twice a week, a telephone call or a formal meeting. The fact that there has not been that kind of negative feedback from the Mayor at least recently suggests they were doing a good job. It was disappointing to see what he believed were comments from a particular department. He did not want to name the department publicly but said he would be happy to give Councilmembers his impression privately. Further, it was disappointing those concerns were not taken to the Mayor and then to him. He acknowledged perhaps they were taken to the Mayor and he felt they were not significant enough to pass on which is the Mayor’s prerogative. Mr. Taraday said one area where scores were not as high as other areas was timeliness. He commented timeliness is essentially a function of three things, first, competing prioritization; every department has priorities that compete with one another. He reprioritizes his work on a nearly daily basis and can reprioritize projects if he knows about it. Second, there is obviously a relationship between response time and resources. As with any service, response time can be increased by adding resources and vice versa. That was not to suggest that more resources needed to be added but timeliness needed to be viewed through the lens of resources. He referred to their annual report, the total hours worked on behalf of the City, divided by the total cost, the hourly rate was $141 which by any legal standard is a screaming deal for the City. He did not intend for that to sound like a complaint but they are working really, really hard for the City of Edmonds. If they are not turning things around fast enough, there needs to be a conversation about resources. Third is efficiency, how efficiently are they working. He did not mean to suggest Lighthouse cannot improve on their end; there are ways to restructure the workflow with an eye toward improving turnaround time. Mr. Taraday said he did not know how the Council would use the Performance Evaluation Summary and he hoped the Council found it more helpful than he did. It did not give him enough direction to know where or how they needed to improve. Obviously he would love for the evaluation summary to have all 7s. In the areas that do not have all 7s, all he knows is someone somewhere is dissatisfied and with the exception of the author of the comments on back, he did not know who those people were. He expressed interest in a distribution of the scores, suggesting if 1 of the 13 respondents submitted 1 and 2 ratings, that would drive down the averages. Having one outlier who was unhappy was a different issue than Lighthouse’s 7.1.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 10 performance. He offered to talk to Councilmembers privately in more detail about his performance and invited the Mayor to let him know where they can improve and reprioritize. Councilmember Mesaros thanked Mr. Taraday for comments, noting it was good for the Council to hear them. With regard to his comment about distribution of scores, he offered to prepare a spreadsheet with questions and responses. Councilmembers agreed that would be helpful. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmember Mesaros reached out to Ms. Hite and Ms. Hardie. Councilmember Mesaros said he left a message once and neither responded; he will reach out to them again. Councilmember Johnson said she was one of respondents that did identify herself and offered to identify her responses. She said it would be extremely helpful to separate the Council and Mayor/Director responses. Councilmember Mesaros said that was not possible because a number of the respondents did not include their names. Councilmember Johnson suggested asking Councilmembers to identify themselves. Councilmember Teitzel read question 6a, “Are requested legal work and assignments completed within a clearly established time frame?” noting the average was 3.9 and 3.7, lower than many of the other categories. In thinking about his interactions with Mr. Taraday when he reaches out to him on an issue he thinks is important, it was his hope he would get a prompt response. His failing was he typically did not identify a timeframe. Without clearly communicating a timeframe to Mr. Taraday, he was unsure he knew what response was expected. The expectation should be to communicate a clear timeframe to Lighthouse and in exchange he can communicate what can be expected by way of response. He suggested having more rigor in the future with regard to communicating timeframes would provide an improved result. Council President Fraley-Monillas disagreed with Councilmember Johnson on anonymity. The original idea for getting a good evaluation was based on anonymity. The last time an evaluation was done, there were not a lot of responses because names were required on the evaluations. Councilmember Mesaros said this time half provided names and half did not. Council President Fraley-Monillas said to figure out who is who would require doing the survey over and people might put different answers if they were identified. Councilmember Mesaros interpreted Councilmember Johnson’s request to be separating Council responses and administrative responses, not identifying the individuals. If he knows which questionnaires were completed by Councilmembers, the rest are administrative. Council President Fraley-Monillas preferred to retain anonymity. Councilmember Mesaros asked what Council wanted. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not see the purpose in identifying Council and Administration; the purpose was a blend of Directors and perhaps director’s staff and Council. This should have been discussed in the beginning, whether the responses were anonymous or identified as Council or Administration. Councilmember Johnson said Mr. Taraday spoke eloquently about Directors he has worked closely with, but the Council was not aware of that. The reason she wanted the Directors and Mayor separated from Council was they have different experiences. It would be helpful to separate those groups and would provide more information to Mr. Taraday. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was a disservice to the respondents because this was identified as an anonymous survey and bifurcating the responses between Council and Staff erodes that anonymity. He did not support separating Council and Staff. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 11 Councilmember Buckshnis supported having the responses remain anonymous and attempt get an evaluation from Ms. Hite and Ms. Hardie. She agreed Council is not aware of the level of work Lighthouse does for staff. Councilmember Johnson said she was not aware when this started that she would like this information; after seeing the results, it does not provide the direction she needs as a Councilmember. She asked about the number of respondents that needed to be identified. Councilmember Mesaros clarified 13 responses were received, only half identified themselves. Mayor Earling commented this discussion was taking the Council temperature, but not Staff’s. Changing the rules at this point was the wrong thing to do. He characterized his and Mr. Taraday relationship as uneven at least in the beginning, but over the years he has grown to respect his work, recognizes he carries a big load and is stretched thin and in the last few years has spoken highly of his work. Councilmember Mesaros said he will prepare a distribution of scores, try to include Ms. Hite and Ms. Hardie and reach out to the individuals who filled out the survey incorrectly. 9. CLARIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT REGARDING COUNCIL LIAISONS TO THE CITIZENS HOUSING COMMISSION Councilmember Teitzel relayed the first meeting of the Citizens Housing Commission (CHC) is this Thursday. Councilmembers have done a tremendous amount of work to identify commissioners and alternatives and are pleased with the quality of people who were selected. When Resolution 1427 was adopted establishing the CHC, Section 1.F.2 Liaisons states, “Two Councilmembers shall be assigned to the commission as Council liaisons in an advisory (non-voting) role.” The intent when the resolution was adopted was that there would be two permanent Council liaisons assigned to the CHC. It is important to identify those Councilmembers so they can attend meetings. Having consistent Council representation at meetings is very important as the commission is formed and beginning strategize. He acknowledged due to the election new Councilmembers will be seated but that should not be a showstopper for appointing liaisons. The Council has a regular process at the beginning of the year for appointing for Councilmembers to boards and commissions; this appointment is no different. In his opinion, the legislative intent was to establish two permanent Council liaisons when the CHC is seated. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled talking to the Council about this previously and reaching agreement. For the next three months, the CHC will meet once a month to receive specific training on topics such as what affordable housing means, existing codes, etc. She wanted consistent Council participation and the only two Councilmembers who will for sure be on the Council next year are she and Councilmember Johnson. She and Development Services Director Hope discussed allowing different Councilmembers to attend the next three meetings. She previously asked the Council for volunteers and only Councilmember Tibbott responded. She assumed Councilmember Tibbott and she could attend the first CHC meeting and perhaps other Councilmembers would be willing. The resolution states two Councilmembers shall be assigned, it does not say how that will be done. A number of the candidates for Council are interested in housing so she did not want to limit the liaisons to she and Councilmember Johnson for the next year. Ms. Hope acknowledged there are various options for appointing Council liaisons. During the early months, the commission will be learning and getting to know each other. This commission is comprised of 15 people who have not previously served as board/commissioners before; they will need to learn about open public meetings, etc. as well as learning what is important to them. She summarized that process will take a while. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was willing to appoint Councilmember Johnson and herself but thought all Councilmembers might enjoy being part of the CHC between now and the first of the year. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 12 Councilmember Mesaros liked Council President Fraley-Monillas’ direction. It is unusual to have this much turnover on the City Council. The CHC will meet for 18-24 months and it will be a good idea to have the Council liaisons to serve for the entire time. It also provides an opportunity for more Councilmembers in this transitionary period to have the experience with the CHC. If Councilmember Tibbott and she attend the first CHC meeting, other Councilmembers can attend October and November meetings. Councilmember Teitzel said he was trying to ensure he understood Council’s intent when the resolution was approved and that was not his intent. He suggested having a vote to ensure there was a clear understanding. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with Councilmember Mesaros. He did not see that the wording of the resolution prohibited appointments on a monthly basis rather than permanent. He suggested this was an opportunity for two Councilmembers to participate in each meeting while the commission was forming. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmember Teitzel attend Thursday’s meeting. Councilmember Johnson volunteered for the November or December meetings. 9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Johnson reported on the selection of the housing consultant; a selection committee comprised of Shane Hope, Brad Shipley, Rob Chave and she met with five consultants. She reported the City did not agree to sign a letter in support of Snohomish County’s proposal to change the Urban Growth Area. Cities on the urban edges are supportive of Snohomish County’s proposal. She recommended whoever attends the Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting explain the City’s reasoning. Councilmember Tibbott reported the Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting included discussion regarding the top five sales tax categories. Most years the highest revenue producer is retail automotive; however, construction was the highest in 2018 and both are near all-time highs. It will be interesting to watch those revenues sources in 2019. The other three categories also continue to increase, for example eating and drinking is on a steady incline leading to the question whether that is such a part of life in Edmonds that it can be expected to continue to grow. Council President Fraley-Monillas reported Snohomish County Transportation Coalition (SNOTRAC) has been taken over by the Worksource agency in Everett and will be meeting quarterly. SNOTRAC received an award from WSDOT for a link between Carnation and Duvall to Monroe. She has attended multipole Health District meetings as she serves on their executive, budget and building committee s. The district is in the process of hiring a new physician and then will hire an administrator. The district is facing a budget crisis and is considering layoffs and program cuts due to inadequate funding provided by the state. Council President Fraley-Monillas reported the Diversity Commission’s film series begins in October, posters are on display through the city with details. She encouraged the public to attend the free movies shown at the Edmonds Theater on one Saturday a month at noon. Councilmember Mesaros reported the SeaShore Transportation Forum discussed the deterioration of I-5 and the billion dollar cost to make repairs from Olympia to Mt. Vernon. There was also a presentation by Stephanie Stebbins, the director of maritime services for the Port of Seattle, formerly the environmental compliance officer, who outlined specific investments to improve the Port of Seattle’s environmental impact on Puget Sound. He reported the SNO911 Board meeting included discussion regarding minor changes to the bylaws due to the merger with SERS and developing a purchasing plan to purchase a new radio system, as well as approval the new assessment formula by a super majority (13-1). The assessment saves Edmonds $90,000 in 2020. Last month’s PFD Board meeting was primarily routine items. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 13 Councilmember Nelson reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee reviewed funding requests. The operator of the holiday trolley is getting out of that business; there was discussion about the future of the trolley including interest in a permanent trolley. There are outreach efforts to businesses, the Chamber and other entities and potentially a budget request. The Youth Commission plans to hold a forum on October 10th from 4 – 6 p.m. in the Plaza Room; topics include diversity, hate crimes, climate change and other environmental issues, sexual harassment and mental illness. The Youth Commission met with the Diversity Commission Chair and looks forward to working with the Diversity Commission in the future. Councilmember Teitzel reported the Port of Edmonds’ financials continue to be strong; tenancy at the marina and Harbor Square is close to capacity. Their balance sheet is strong and will improve further when they retire debt in mid-2020 associated with bonds issued to purchase Harbor Square. The Port’s long range capital plan includes replacement of all the docks in approximately 25 years. The docks are in a very harsh marine environment and all are approximately the same age. The Port is working on a long term plan to fund that replacement, estimated to cost $200M. The wood planking in the center of the mid-marina breakwater has been rotting for some time; the cost of repairs is estimated at $700,000. The goal is to have repairs completed before winter storms because if the rotted planks were to fail, a storm surge could damage the interior of the marina. Monthly rates for dry boat storage have been relatively flat; because a few tenants are very heavy users, going in and out almost daily, the Port is introducing a new rate structure. Effective January 1, 2020, there will be a flat rate for up to 21 forklift moves per month , additional moves will cost $25 each. Councilmember Teitzel reported he met with the Museum Board to discuss the City placing an informational sign near the old Edmonds High School portico which is installed at the southeast corner of the Salish Crossing parking lot. The board supported that concept as the portico is an important historic object to the City and important for passersby to know its history. Francis Chapin has agreed to lead the effort to develop a sign. The cost will be about $5,000 for design, fabrication and installation. He plans to present a funding request at the next Council Finance Committee meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee is working on the greenhouse gas reduction tool that was presented to the Council and ways to engage the public. The committee is also talking with the Interface Climate Action group. The Tree Board had a successful Saturday market, answering questions about right tree right place and the Urban Forest Management Plan. The Arbor Day celebration is October 5 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 discussed Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) funding. After 10 years, River Bend, a $36M project in King County, has finally been funded and construction will begin next year. Snohomish County ended their participation in WRIA 8 last year, but Snohomish County staff have indicated their plans to rejoin. She reported on the Creative District Advisory Committee which has several subcommittees including a logo subcommittee and 4th Avenue Corridor subcommittee that is discussing the formation of a BD5 arts corridor zone. There are now two more Creative Districts in Washington. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he signed a letter in opposition to expanding the Snohomish County Urban Growth Areas. Everett and Bothell are also opposed. He will make a comment at Snohomish County Tomorrow this week but it is clear the opposition will be voted down. Mayor Earling reported this weekend’s Oktoberfest, sponsored by Noon Rotary, was a very successful event and he anticipated it will continue next year. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 24, 2019 Page 14 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Student Representative Bauder reported several of his friends walked out of school to attend last Friday’s Climate Strike in downtown Seattle. He did not attend but it was a great event for climate awareness. Council President Fraley-Monillas reported Peoples Bank is having a grand re-opening tomorrow from 4 to 7 p.m. in their new location in the former post office. She reported on her experience taking Sounder to/from the Seahawks game; after the game, she walked to the train and was home in 20 minutes. Councilmember Mesaros relayed seeing a group of orca whales by the fishing pier this evening. The ferry was stopped to allow passengers to view them. He commented it was spectacular to see nature at one’s doorstep. Councilmember Nelson regretfully announced the unexpected passing of Steve Lyon, the general manager at Harbor Inn and a member of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. He enjoyed working with Mr. Lyon on LTAC and wished his family all the best during this difficult time. Services will be held Wednesday, October 2 at 1 p.m. at St. Brendan’s in Bothell. Councilmember Teitzel reported Councilmember Mesaros and he met with staff yesterday to discuss the draft summary of the downtown parking survey. A significant amount of work went into the draft to summarize hundreds of responses. The intent is to release the draft as well as the raw data in the near future. Councilmember Buckshnis announced Windward’s open house on Monday from 6 to 8 p.m. in City Hall Brackett Room. She thanked Kim Anderson for the successful Paws in the Pool event. 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 09-24-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #238768 through #238872 dated September 26, 2019 for $2,273,666.42 and wire payments of $21,994.81 and $417.67. Approval of payroll checks #63928 for $112.86 and replacement check #63929. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 09-26-19 wire 09-20-19 wire 09-26-19 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-26-19 payroll summary 7.2 Packet Pg. 22 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238768 9/26/2019076040 911 SUPPLY INC 78964INV 78964 - EDMONDS PD- L.DANIELSNAME TAPE EMBROIDERED001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.002 VELCRO001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.00HEAT PRESS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.00BIANCHI DBL MAG ATTACHMENT001.000.41.521.22.24.00 35.75BIANCHI MOLLEE CUFF ATTACHEMENT001.000.41.521.22.24.00 34.00TOURNIQUET POUCH001.000.41.521.22.24.00 29.99OUTER VEST CARRIER001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 34.57Total :380.31238769 9/26/2019065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 25473PW - REGULAR SERVICEPW - REGULAR SERVICE001.000.66.518.30.41.00 150.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.41.00 15.60PM: WASP NEST TREATMENT - ACCOUNT #4581225485PM: WASP NEST TREATMENT - ACCOUNT #45812001.000.64.576.80.41.00 195.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.41.00 20.28PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUST 1-1688825530PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST001.000.64.576.80.41.00 125.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.41.00 13.001Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 23Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :518.88238769 9/26/2019 065052 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL238770 9/26/2019 072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 7667279SHREDDING SERVICESshredding services001.000.25.514.30.41.00 122.13Total :122.13238771 9/26/2019063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 24611E7AB.APS MATERIALSE7AB.APS Materials125.000.68.595.33.65.41 38,922.0010.4% Sales Tax125.000.68.595.33.65.41 4,047.89E9AD.MATERIALS FOR SIGNALS UPGRADES24633E9AD.Materials for Signals Upgrades126.000.68.542.64.41.00 30,391.0010.4% Sales Tax126.000.68.542.64.41.00 3,160.67TRAFFIC - LED LIGHTS FOR 238-100 SIGNAL24793TRAFFIC - LED LIGHTS FOR 238-100 SIGNAL111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1,718.4010.4% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 178.72Total :78,418.68238772 9/26/2019064246 ALS LABORATORY GROUP 32-EV19090018-0E7FG.LAB TESTING SEPTEMBER 2019E7FG.Lab Testing September 2019001.000.11.511.60.49.10 5,534.00Total :5,534.00238773 9/26/2019070976 AMERESCO INC 3WWTP: THRU 9/1/19 FINAL DESIGN SERV-C511THRU 9/1/19 FINAL DESIGN SERV-C511 PH 6423.100.76.594.39.65.41 486,234.20Total :486,234.20238774 9/26/2019 001429 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC 840129RICHARDSON.APWA RENEWAL 12/1/19-11/30/20Richardson.APWA Renewal 12/1/19-11/30/20001.000.67.518.21.49.00 227.002Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 24Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :227.00238774 9/26/2019 001429001429 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC238775 9/26/2019 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 5964725RETIREE PREMIUMS - OCTOBERLEOFF PREMIUMS - OCT009.000.39.517.20.23.10 8,030.95FIRE PREMIUMS - OCT617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,193.10Total :9,224.05238776 9/26/2019001529 ANDERSON, DONALD F ANDERSON EX CL 9/19ANDERSON EXPENSE CLAIM WAPELRA CONFPER DIEM 9/18-9/20/19001.000.41.521.40.43.00 61.25Total :61.25238777 9/26/2019069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1991421989PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICEPARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 57.7410.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.00FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1991421990FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 29.1210.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.03PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1991427585PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS3Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 25Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238777 9/26/2019(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.4% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1710.4% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6410.4% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6410.4% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6410.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.6110.4% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.64FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1991427586FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.29FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.9710.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.98Total :162.70238778 9/26/2019 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 110900OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLSUB Outsourcing area Printing 714422.000.72.531.90.49.00 45.95UB Outsourcing area Printing 714421.000.74.534.80.49.00 45.95UB Outsourcing area Printing 714423.000.75.535.80.49.00 47.33UB Outsourcing area Postage 714421.000.74.534.80.42.00 137.18UB Outsourcing area Postage 7144Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 26Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238778 9/26/2019(Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER423.000.75.535.80.42.00 137.1710.1 % Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.49.00 4.6410.1 % Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 4.6410.1 % Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.49.00 4.78Total :427.64238779 9/26/2019001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 59879ROUGH BOX - BOSROUGH BOX - BOS130.000.64.536.20.34.00 543.00ROUGH BOX - SORBY60697ROUGH BOX - SORBY130.000.64.536.20.34.00 543.00ROUGH BOX - NILSEN61420ROUGH BOX - NILSEN130.000.64.536.20.34.00 543.00ROUGH BOX - STENBERG62183ROUGH BOX - STENBERG130.000.64.536.20.34.00 543.00Total :2,172.00238780 9/26/2019064706 AWC76465INV 76465 WAPELRA CONF REGISTRATION - ANWAPELRA FALL CONF REG.ANDERSON001.000.41.521.40.49.00 389.00Total :389.00238781 9/26/2019076923 BALINO, GIEANI 9/17-9/24 MONITOR9/17-9/24/19 VOLLEYBALL GYM MONITOR9/17-9/24/19 VOLLEYBALL GYM MONITOR001.000.64.571.25.41.00 48.009/19-9/26/19 VOLLEYBALL GYM MONITOR9/19-9/26 MONITOR9/19-9/26/19 VOLLEYBALL GYM MONITOR001.000.64.571.25.41.00 36.005Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 27Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :84.00238781 9/26/2019 076923 076923 BALINO, GIEANI238782 9/26/2019 075941 BELL, LAURIE 7947 ZENTANGLE7947 ZENTANGLE CLASS INSTRUCTION7947 ZENTANGLE CLASS INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 90.75Total :90.75238783 9/26/2019074307 BLUE STAR GAS 1124439-INFLEET AUTO PROPANE 764.6 GALLONSFLEET AUTO PROPANE 764.6 GALLONS511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,244.56FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 593.7 GALLONS1125730-INFLEET - AUTO PROPANE 593.7 GALLONS511.000.77.548.68.34.12 975.26Total :2,219.82238784 9/26/2019069638 BREWSTER, DAVID BREWSTER2019WOTS POETRY WRITING CONTEST JUDGEWOTS POETRY WRITING CONTEST JUDGE117.100.64.573.20.41.00 128.00Total :128.00238785 9/26/2019077226 BRIAN & JERI CLEVELAND 3-58525#40232769-807-CR4 UTILITY REFUND#40232769-807-CR4 Utility refund -411.000.233.000 215.90Total :215.90238786 9/26/2019076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 1689321STREET - SUPPLIESSTREET - SUPPLIES111.000.68.542.61.31.00 419.857.8% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.61.31.00 32.75ROADWAY - ASPHALT5632074ROADWAY - ASPHALT111.000.68.542.31.31.00 127.9610.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 12.80Total :593.366Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 28Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238787 9/26/2019073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 20546997INV 20546997 - EDMONDS PDCONTRACT CHARGE 9/01 - IR6255001.000.41.521.10.45.00 151.87CONTRACT CHARGE 9/01 - IRC3325I001.000.41.521.10.45.00 60.70CONTRACT CHARGE 9/01- IRC5240A001.000.41.521.10.45.00 160.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.45.00 38.75CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USAGE20547000contract charge/meter usage001.000.31.514.23.45.00 340.3910.4% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.45.00 35.41BLDG DEPT COPIER LEASE/METER USAGE20547005Bldg Dept Copier Lease/Meter Usage001.000.62.524.10.45.00 35.70PLANNING DIV COPIER LEASE/METER USAGE20547006Planning Division Copier Lease/meter001.000.62.524.10.45.00 35.70FLEET COPIER20547009Fleet Copier511.000.77.548.68.45.00 32.3410.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.36CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USAGE20547010contract charge/meter usage001.000.31.514.23.45.00 13.3210.4% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.45.00 1.39INV 20547012 - EDMONDS PD205470129/1 CONTRACT CHARGE -C5550001.000.41.521.10.45.00 185.7410.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.45.00 19.317Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 29Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238787 9/26/2019(Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICESWATER SEWER COPIER20547013Water Sewer Copier421.000.74.534.80.45.00 54.74Water Sewer Copier423.000.75.535.80.45.00 54.7310.4% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.45.00 5.7010.4% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.45.00 5.69PW ADMIN COPIER20547014PW Office Copier for001.000.65.518.20.45.00 66.16PW Office Copier for111.000.68.542.90.45.00 37.49PW Office Copier for422.000.72.531.90.45.00 37.49PW Office Copier for421.000.74.534.80.45.00 26.46PW Office Copier for423.000.75.535.80.45.00 26.46PW Office Copier for511.000.77.548.68.45.00 26.4610.4% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.45.00 6.8810.4% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.9010.4% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.9010.4% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.7510.4% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.7510.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.758Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 30Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238787 9/26/2019(Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICESINV 20547015205470159/1 CONTRACT CHARGE - FAXBOARD001.000.41.521.10.45.00 36.0210.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.45.00 3.75DEV SVCS DEPT COPIER LEASE/METER USAGE20550964Development Svcs Copier - Lease/Metered001.000.62.524.10.45.00 345.88Total :1,863.94238788 9/26/2019071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 7948 DRAWING7948 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTION7948 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 162.80Total :162.80238789 9/26/2019075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS94COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT AConsulting: Communications and001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00Total :2,500.00238790 9/26/2019069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC TTL3274SERVER FOR VIDEO EQUIPMENTReplacement Server for video equipment512.000.31.518.88.48.00 4,250.5010.4% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.48.00 442.04SERVER FOR VIDEO EQUIPMENTTTV1925Replacement server for video equipment512.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,909.4410.4% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.48.00 198.58Total :6,800.56238791 9/26/2019069457 CITY OF EDMONDS 2002347.009REFUND YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: L ZAKHARY: TRAREFUND YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: L ZAKHARY:001.000.239.200 75.009Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 31Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :75.00238791 9/26/2019 069457 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS238792 9/26/2019 076247 COLLEY, CASEY 9/18 REIMBURSEMENT9/18/19 YOUTH COMMISSION VEST ALTERATION9/18/19 YOUTH COMMISSION VEST001.000.64.571.21.31.00 72.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.21.31.00 7.49Total :79.49238793 9/26/2019061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 496517INV 495617 - EDMONDS PDGHD-14989 - RADAR REPAIR / PARTS001.000.41.521.22.48.00 293.40TECH SERVICE001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00Freight001.000.41.521.22.48.00 39.729.8% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.48.00 39.50Total :442.62238794 9/26/2019006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2020-WAR308356E7MA.SERVICES FROM 7/1/9-6/30/20E7MA.Services from 7/1/19-6/30/20332.000.64.594.76.65.41 283.25E7MA.Services from 7/1/19-6/30/20126.000.64.594.76.65.41 134.09E7MA.Services from 7/1/19-6/30/20125.000.64.594.76.65.41 180.74Total :598.08238795 9/26/2019064531 DINES, JEANNIE 19-3958CITY COUNCIL MTG. MINUTES AND TRANSCRIPTcity council meeting minutes,001.000.25.514.30.41.00 210.00Total :210.00238796 9/26/2019072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC LIBRARY DEPOSITLIBRARY - 1/2 OF QUOTE FOR OVERHEADLIBRARY - 1/2 OF QUOTE FOR OVERHEAD10Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 32Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238796 9/26/2019(Continued)072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10,459.2810.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,087.76Total :11,547.04238797 9/26/2019014430 DMH INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC INC 489151PUBLIC SAFETY - FANPUBLIC SAFETY - FAN001.000.66.518.30.31.00 951.009.8% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 93.20Total :1,044.20238798 9/26/2019077225 DONALD & VICKI WOODSIDE 2-07400#4222-3249475 UTILITY REFUND#4222-3249475 Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 250.32Total :250.32238799 9/26/2019007253 DUNN LUMBER 6655038MCH - SUPPLIESMCH - SUPPLIES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.8210.5% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.87Total :19.69238800 9/26/2019076772 EBI, KEVIN 092019-BF-EBIBIRD FEST PRESENTATION KEVIN EBIBird Fest presentation Kevin Ebi001.000.61.558.70.41.00 50.00Total :50.00238801 9/26/2019 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS LTAC-09232019-ECALTAC AWARD TO ECA FOR TOURISM AD IN 2019LTAC award to ECA for tourism ad in120.000.31.575.42.41.40 13,000.00Total :13,000.00238802 9/26/2019076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 1460SEWER - PARTS TV TRUCKSEWER - PARTS TV TRUCK11Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 33Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238802 9/26/2019(Continued)076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE423.000.75.535.80.31.00 33.9810.4% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.53PM SUPPLIES: BATTERIES9/12/2019PM SUPPLIES: BATTERIES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 58.9510.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.13Total :102.59238803 9/26/2019008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLERMARINA BEACH PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,525.77FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS6-00200FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,738.03BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER6-00410BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,081.89ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS6-00475ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,356.05CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER6-01250CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,443.83CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275CITY PARK PARKING LOT001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,345.28CITY PARK SPRAY PARK6-01280CITY PARK SPRAY PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 4,611.90PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER6-02125PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 724.59BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER6-0272712Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 34Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238803 9/26/2019(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISIONBOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 333.70CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK SPRINK6-02730CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 470.53PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / ME6-02735PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,352.47FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / ME6-02736FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.07FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 76-02737FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 426.58PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 5TH6-02738PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,159.07VETERANS PLAZA6-02745VETERANS PLAZA001.000.64.576.80.47.00 346.94SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 7096-02825SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 7,061.64FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN ST6-02875FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN001.000.66.518.30.47.00 24.62DOWNTOWN RESTROOM6-02885DOWNTOWN RESTROOM001.000.64.576.80.47.00 606.48FAC SPRINKLER6-02900FAC SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,803.47FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME6-02925FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,446.1013Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 35Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238803 9/26/2019(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISIONCIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 629.87HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER6-03275HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 470.89MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER6-03575MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 342.07FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE6-04127FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,688.31FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW /6-04128FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.07SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,386.09SEAVIEW PARK6-04425SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 667.38SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER6-04450SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,165.73PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE6-05155PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 684.21PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 684.21PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 684.21PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 684.21PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 684.1914Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 36Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238803 9/26/2019(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISIONPUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 180.05PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW /6-05156PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.68PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.68PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.68PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.66PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.685 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION6-060405 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION001.000.64.576.80.47.00 190.53MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER6-07775MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 826.05YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500YOST PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,884.65YOST POOL6-08525YOST POOL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 299.44Total :48,074.31238804 9/26/2019067945 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 19-041588-RDU-D5INV 19-041588-RDU-D5 - EDMONDS PDREPORT - BRASHLER, MATTHEW001.000.41.521.11.41.00 9.50Total :9.50238805 9/26/2019008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES 7715 7716 DANCE 7715 7716 DANCE INSTRUCTION15Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 37Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238805 9/26/2019(Continued)008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES7715 FRIDAY NIGHT EAST COAST DANCE001.000.64.571.22.41.00 225.067716 FRIDAY NIGHT TWO STEP DANCE001.000.64.571.22.41.00 361.46Total :586.52238806 9/26/2019077143 ENVIROISSUES INC 165-007-000-4 E5JB.SERVICES THRU 8/31/19E5JB.Services thru 8/31/19421.000.74.594.34.65.41 1,131.17E5JB.Services thru 8/31/19423.000.75.594.35.65.41 1,131.17E5JB.Services thru 8/31/19422.000.72.594.31.65.41 1,131.16Total :3,393.50238807 9/26/2019075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 148983PROF SVCS - CLIMATE GOALSConsulting Svcs - Climate Goals &001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,718.75Total :1,718.75238808 9/26/2019009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0797482WATER - END CAPS/ BLOW OFF 17015 65THWATER - END CAPS/ BLOW OFF 17015 65TH421.000.74.534.80.31.00 302.4010.4% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 31.45Total :333.85238809 9/26/2019011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINESEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.12TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES421.000.74.534.80.42.00 162.71TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES423.000.75.535.80.42.00 302.1716Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 38Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238809 9/26/2019(Continued)011900 FRONTIERTELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.87TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.90TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 47.04TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 87.35CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250001.000.66.518.30.42.00 73.96CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM001.000.66.518.30.42.00 69.07FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND001.000.66.518.30.42.00 140.33Total :970.52238810 9/26/2019 075846 FRONTIER PRECISION INC 201786201786 - EDMONDS PDTRIMBLE SOFTWARE MAINT.2019-20001.000.41.521.71.48.00 1,313.1010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.71.48.00 136.56Total :1,449.66238811 9/26/2019077220 GLORY ACUPUNCTURE CLINIC Bus License RefundBUSINESS LICENSE REFUND FOR CANCELLATIONBusiness License refund for cancellation001.000.257.310 100.00Total :100.00238812 9/26/2019063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 154751UNIT 10 - TIREUNIT 10 - TIRE17Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 39Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238812 9/26/2019(Continued)063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER511.000.77.548.68.34.30 124.34STATE TIRE FEE511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1.0010.5% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 13.06UNIT 40 - WRONG PARTS ORDERED154794UNIT 40 - WRONG PARTS ORDERED511.000.77.548.68.34.30 -37.1610.5% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 -3.90Total :97.34238813 9/26/2019 075517 GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM INC INV-11134NEOGOV SUBSCRIPTION FEESREMAINING 2019 SUBSCRIPTION FEES001.000.22.518.10.49.00 444.78Total :444.78238814 9/26/2019012199 GRAINGER 9282572966LIBRARY - SUPPLIESLIBRARY - SUPPLIES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 900.689.8% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 88.26LIBRARY - SUPPLIES9284152296LIBRARY - SUPPLIES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 63.5010.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.61LIBRARY - PARTS9288907570LIBRARY - PARTS001.000.66.518.30.31.00 37.6610.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.92Total :1,100.63238815 9/26/2019074804 HARLES, JANINE 527279PHOTOGRAPHY - SEPTEMBER AND BIRD FEST 2018Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 40Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238815 9/26/2019(Continued)074804 HARLES, JANINEPhotography for September 2019001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00Photography and posting to Facebook for001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00Total :400.00238816 9/26/2019076047 HEDREEN, ANN HEDREEN2019WOTS NONFICTION WRITING CONTEST JUDGEWOTS NONFICTION WRITING CONTEST JUDGE117.100.64.573.20.41.00 128.00Total :128.00238817 9/26/2019 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2019-182TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKETING, WEBSITETourism promotion and marketing for120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,666.00Tourism website maintenance for120.000.31.575.42.41.00 200.00Total :1,866.00238818 9/26/2019067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1010702PM SUPPLIES: REBARPM SUPPLIES: REBAR001.000.64.576.80.31.00 149.4010.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.24PM SUPPLIES: CARBIDE BIT, CUT OFF DISC,1072815PM SUPPLIES: CARBIDE BIT, CUT OFF DISC,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 89.2010.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.10PM SUPPLIES: PLASTIC SHEETING, STAPLES,10856PM SUPPLIES: PLASTIC SHEETING, STAPLES,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.9110.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.25PM SUPPLIES: DECK AND HOME SPRAYER10929PM SUPPLIES: DECK AND HOME SPRAYER19Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 41Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238818 9/26/2019(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.9710.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.14PM SUPPLIES: COUPLING, COPPER TUBE STRPS4625681PM SUPPLIES: COUPLING, COPPER TUBE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.8710.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.33PM SUPPLIES: LOCK WASHERS5514008PM SUPPLIES: LOCK WASHERS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.6010.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.12CEMETERY SUPPLIES: KNEE PADS, WASP SPRAY62863CEMETERY SUPPLIES: KNEE PADS, WASP130.000.64.536.50.31.00 690.0710.2% Sales Tax130.000.64.536.50.31.00 70.39PM SUPPLIES: TRASH CANS, STEP STONE7012099PM SUPPLIES: TRASH CANS, STEP STONE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 63.3410.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.46PM SUPPLIES: DUCT TAPE, IRRIGATION TIMER8511139PM SUPPLIES: DUCT TAPE, IRRIGATION001.000.64.576.80.31.00 115.9210.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.82Total :1,338.13238819 9/26/2019073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3288025DEV SVCS - COPIER PAPERDev Svcs - copy paper001.000.62.524.10.31.00 198.68DEV SVCS PAPER FOR COPIER3288756Dev Svcs - Paper for copier20Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 42Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238819 9/26/2019(Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED001.000.62.524.10.31.00 49.67Total :248.35238820 9/26/2019075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 051STATE LOBBYIST FOR SEPTEMBER 2019State lobbyist for September 2019001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,358.00Total :3,358.00238821 9/26/2019067330 KAR-VEL CONSTRUCTION INC E5GA/E5FE.Ret Releas E5GA/E5FE.RETAINAGE RELEASEE5GA.Retainage Release423.000.223.400 57,342.24E5FE.Retainage Release422.000.223.400 13,214.96Total :70,557.20238822 9/26/2019067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 80500278196 UNIT 98 - 4- TIRE REPLACEMENTUNIT 98 - 4- TIRE REPLACEMENT511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1,981.48WA STATE TIRE TAX511.000.77.548.68.34.30 4.0010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 206.07Total :2,191.55238823 9/26/2019075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER Oct 2019 Cigna OCTOBER 2019 CIGNA PREMIUMSOctober 2019 Cigna Premiums811.000.231.550 12,930.23Total :12,930.23238824 9/26/2019 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 20421 expenses08-2019 REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES08-19 reimbursement for expenses - Ebb001.000.36.515.31.41.00 853.8508-19 reimbursement for expenses -001.000.36.515.31.41.00 39.95Total :893.8021Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 43Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238825 9/26/2019071140 MAD SCIENCE OF SNO-KING 7838 MAD SCIENCE7838 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INSTRUCTION7838 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,287.007839 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INSTRUCTION7839 MAD SCIENCE7839 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,144.007840 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INSTRUCTION7840 MAD SCIENCE7840 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,060.00Total :3,491.00238826 9/26/2019072263 MID PAC CONSTRUCTION 1516ASEAVIEW PARK TENNIS COURT PAINTINGSEAVIEW PARK TENNIS COURT PAINTING125.000.64.576.80.41.00 9,750.0010.4% Sales Tax125.000.64.576.80.41.00 1,014.00SEAVIEW PARK TENNIS COURT SURFACING1516BSEAVIEW PARK TENNIS COURT SURFACING125.000.64.576.80.41.00 1,654.60SEAVIEW PARK TENNIS COURT SURFACING125.000.64.594.76.65.41 11,145.4010.4% Sales Tax125.000.64.576.80.41.00 172.0810.4% Sales Tax125.000.64.594.76.65.41 1,159.12Total :24,895.20238827 9/26/2019 072223 MILLER, DOUG 9/10-9/24 ATTENDANT9/10-9/24/19 PICKLEBALL GYM ATTENDANT9/10-9/24/19 PICKLEBALL GYM ATTENDANT001.000.64.571.25.41.00 90.00Total :90.00238828 9/26/2019020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 309484WATER - PARTSWATER - PARTS421.000.74.534.80.31.00 103.5010.4% Sales Tax22Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 44Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238828 9/26/2019(Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.76CEMETERY - LIFT RENTAL309795CEMETERY - LIFT RENTAL001.000.66.518.30.45.00 1,312.4510.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.45.00 136.49STREET - SPRAYER & POLE PRUNER312289STREET - SPRAYER & POLE PRUNER111.000.68.542.71.35.00 691.9010.4% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.35.00 71.96STREET - CHAIN312838STREET - CHAIN111.000.68.542.71.35.00 20.5010.4% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.35.00 2.13PM: MSA 161 T KIT312844PM: MSA 161 T KIT001.000.64.576.80.31.00 814.8310.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 84.74STREET - FUEL TANK & RECOIL ASSEMBLY312962STREET - FUEL TANK & RECOIL ASSEMBLY111.000.68.542.71.35.00 68.8410.4% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.35.00 7.16Total :3,325.26238829 9/26/2019072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 15-1715-46E5KA.SERVICES THRU 8/31/19E5KA.Services thru 8/31/19421.000.74.594.34.65.41 1,990.00Total :1,990.00238830 9/26/2019072833 MVP9/12/19 DEPT PHOTOS9/12/19 DEPT. PHOTOS - EDMONDS PDDEPARTMENT PHOTOS 9/12/1923Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 45Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238830 9/26/2019(Continued)072833 MVP001.000.41.521.10.41.00 550.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.41.00 57.20Total :607.20238831 9/26/2019018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS 3276-844408 PS17 - FILTERPS17 - FILTER511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.2910.5% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.56UNIT 947 - FILTER3276-844461UNIT 947 - FILTER511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.3010.5% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.77UNIT 40 - PARTS3276-844469UNIT 40 - PARTS511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.9310.5% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.83Total :22.68238832 9/26/2019064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0554124-INTRAFFIC - SIGNAGETRAFFIC - SIGNAGE111.000.68.542.64.31.00 258.6010.4% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 26.90Total :285.50238833 9/26/2019075822 NEOPOST USA 15842666SURE SEAL FOR POSTAGE MACHINEsure seal for postage machine001.000.25.514.30.31.00 21.3610.4% Sales Tax001.000.25.514.30.31.00 2.2224Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 46Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :23.58238833 9/26/2019 075822 075822 NEOPOST USA238834 9/26/2019 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 941PLANNING BOARD MINUTESPlanning Board Minutes (9.11.19 Mtg)001.000.62.558.60.41.00 148.00Total :148.00238835 9/26/2019065720 OFFICE DEPOT 373749355001INV 373747355001 ACCT 90520437 - EDMONDSBOX OF DVD SLEEVES001.000.41.521.80.31.00 59.10CD-R PACK001.000.41.521.80.31.00 63.75DVD- R PACKS -TIERED DISCOUNT001.000.41.521.80.31.00 87.7510.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.80.31.00 21.90INV 375664047001 - EDMONDS PD375664047001LARGE BINDER CLIPS 10 BOXES001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.10FINE TIP SHARPIES 4 BOXES001.000.41.521.10.31.00 35.16FILE BOXES + TIERED DISCOUNT001.000.41.521.10.31.00 136.1010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 19.49Total :439.35238836 9/26/2019077191 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK 90000258INV 90000258 CLIENT MATTER 077201.000001INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION001.000.41.521.10.41.00 2,043.50MILEAGE FOR IA INVESTIGATION001.000.41.521.10.41.00 9.93Total :2,053.43238837 9/26/2019075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT ARBR 362INV ARBR 362 - EDMONDS PD (SWAT)CLASSROOM 7027 3 @ $45. EA25Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 47Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238837 9/26/2019(Continued)075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT628.000.41.521.23.31.00 135.00O'CLUB 4 NIGHTS @ $150. EA628.000.41.521.23.31.00 600.00LODGING 8/25-8/30628.000.41.521.23.31.00 7,000.00LFX SHOOT HOUSE 8/26-8/30628.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,950.00MOUT SITE 8/26-8/30628.000.41.521.23.31.00 975.00Total :10,660.00238838 9/26/2019075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT ARD19036INV ARD19036 - EDMONDS PD (SWAT)200 BREAKFASTS AUG 26-30628.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,950.00160 LUNCHES AUG 26-30628.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,560.00Total :3,510.00238839 9/26/2019002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00094872UNIT 66 - PARTSUNIT 66 - PARTS511.000.77.548.68.31.10 225.00Freight511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.5310.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.43Total :269.96238840 9/26/2019060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 19012424LIFT STATION 8 - PARTSLIFT STATION 8 - PARTS423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.6410.4% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.63Total :17.27238841 9/26/2019065051 PARAMETRIX INC 12884E5DB.SERVICES THRU 8/31/1926Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 48Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238841 9/26/2019(Continued)065051 PARAMETRIX INCE5DB.Services thru 8/31/19112.000.68.595.33.65.41 9,781.70Total :9,781.70238842 9/26/2019077222 PATELLA, ZACHARY 9/21/19 LIFEGUARD9/21/19 LIFEGUARD FOR PAWS IN THE POOL A9/21/19 LIFEGUARD FOR PAWS IN THE POOL001.000.64.571.22.41.00 85.00Total :85.00238843 9/26/2019065787 PATRIOT DIAMOND INC A10370WATER - CONCRETE BLADEWATER - CONCRETE BLADE421.000.74.534.80.31.00 290.00Total :290.00238844 9/26/2019070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 120297INV 120297 - EDMONDS PDTOW GRAY SCION - CASE 19-23060001.000.41.521.22.41.00 189.0010.5% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.41.00 19.85Total :208.85238845 9/26/2019027450 PAWSAUGUST 2019 AUGUST 2019 - EDMONDS PD14 ANIMALS@$200 PER-$220 RCLM FEE001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,580.00Total :2,580.00238846 9/26/2019064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON CENTERALARM MONITORING FRANCES ANDERSON001.000.66.518.30.42.00 287.81FIRE INSPECTION - FRANCES ANDERSON CENTE1988948Fire Inspection - FRANCES ANDERSON001.000.66.518.30.41.00 277.95FIRE INSPECTION - HISTORICAL MUSEUM291104FIRE INSPECTION - Historical Museum001.000.66.518.30.41.00 35.02ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIBRARY29110427Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 49Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238846 9/26/2019(Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONEALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIBRARY001.000.66.518.30.42.00 185.31Total :786.09238847 9/26/2019062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 53028STORM STREET SWEEPING DUMP FEESSTORM STREET SWEEPING DUMP FEES422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,324.00Total :1,324.00238848 9/26/2019038413 RMT EQUIPMENT P09962PM SUPPLIESPM SUPPLIES: OUTER TUBE, CROSS ASSEMB001.000.64.576.80.31.00 105.549.8% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.34Total :115.88238849 9/26/2019033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2455320STREET - GRAY DURACRETESTREET - GRAY DURACRETE111.000.68.542.61.31.00 187.6810.1 % Sales Tax111.000.68.542.61.31.00 18.96Total :206.64238850 9/26/2019065001 SCHIRMAN, RON 64REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.23.00 163.09Total :163.09238851 9/26/2019066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S3-4762168UNIT 310 - PARTSUNIT 310 - PARTS511.000.77.548.68.31.10 32.9510.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.43Total :36.38238852 9/26/2019077224 SEATTLE HEIGHTS APARTMENTS 4-48050REIMBURSEMENT FOR WATER CON28Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 50Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238852 9/26/2019(Continued)077224 SEATTLE HEIGHTS APARTMENTSReimbursement - water consumption411.000.233.000 12,426.07Total :12,426.07238853 9/26/2019063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 0931-9/2059-6CREDIT FOR INVOICE 2059-6 ISSUED WITHOUTCREDIT FOR INVOICE 2059-6 ISSUED001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -48.77PM PAINT SUPPLIES0932-7PM PAINT SUPPLIES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 48.7710.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.07PM PAINT SUPPLIES2059-6PM PAINT SUPPLIES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 48.77Total :53.84238854 9/26/2019068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO E5JB.Pmt 4E5JB.PMT 4 THRU 8/31/19E5JB.Pmt 4 thru 8/31/19421.000.74.594.34.65.10 356,777.94E5JB.Pmt 4 thru 8/31/19422.000.72.594.31.65.20 91,448.23E5JB.Pmt 4 thru 8/31/19423.000.75.594.35.65.30 199,058.53Total :647,284.70238855 9/26/2019077223 SMITH, ELLIE 9/21/19 MONITOR9/21/19 MONITOR FOR PAWS IN THE POOL AT9/21/19 MONITOR FOR PAWS IN THE POOL AT001.000.64.571.22.41.00 75.00Total :75.00238856 9/26/2019075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 2839AUG PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACTAUGUST PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT COSTS001.000.39.512.52.41.00 28,448.99Total :28,448.9929Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 51Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds30 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238857 9/26/2019037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.74YOST POOL200260271YOST POOL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,162.83TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 1200348233TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 40.86FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE200398956FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,116.84MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER200493146MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.32LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / METER200496834LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 72.66LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / METER200611317LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 125.92SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET200739845SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 21.88LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME200865202LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 59.59PINE ST PARK201327111PINE ST PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.74PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW D201431236PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW111.000.68.542.64.47.00 20.03PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / MET201431244PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR /111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.6030Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 52Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds31 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238857 9/26/2019(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 10004201441755TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 199.70CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS201453057CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 121.32SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 100201551744SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,545.73TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 1201751476TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 46.65PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE201942489PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 89.55PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 340.30PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 340.30PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 340.30PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 340.30PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 340.299TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED2022506279TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED001.000.64.576.80.47.00 20.03TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 10004202289450TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 82.51CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH202291662CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,494.17CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 1000126120243924631Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 53Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds32 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238857 9/26/2019(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,444.07TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)202807632TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE001.000.66.518.30.47.00 19.44WWTP: 8/16-9/16/19 METER 1000135381: 2002030977878/16-9/16/19 200 2ND AVE S / METER423.000.76.535.80.47.61 24,836.48FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY203652151FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY421.000.74.534.80.47.00 150.93LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 10204425847LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 49.09PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /220216386PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /111.000.68.542.64.47.00 70.82VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597278221732084VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597278001.000.64.576.80.47.00 129.57Total :39,692.56238858 9/26/2019063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2019-5442INV 2019-5442 - EDMONDS PD415.33 BASE HOUSING @ $101.69 EA001.000.39.523.60.41.50 42,234.9164.17 BOOKINGS @ $125.06 EA001.000.39.523.60.41.50 8,025.1057.33 MEDICAL HOUSING @$58.44 EA001.000.39.523.60.41.50 3,350.3755 MENTAL HOUSING @ $141.10 EA001.000.39.523.60.41.50 7,760.5014 VIDEO CT HRS @ $196.29 EA001.000.39.523.60.41.50 2,944.35INV 2019-5463 EDMONDS PD JAIL MEDS - AUG2019-5463INMATE HOSPITALIZATION 5/8/1932Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 54Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds33 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238858 9/26/2019(Continued)063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE001.000.39.523.60.41.00 632.58INMATE CLINIC VISIT 7/16/19001.000.39.523.60.41.00 127.00INMATE MEDS - AUG 2019001.000.39.523.60.31.00 503.892019-5463 CM - CREDIT FOR 07/19 MEDS - E2019-5463 CMCREDIT FOR INMATE MEDS - 07/19001.000.39.523.60.31.00 -3.34Total :65,575.36238859 9/26/2019063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000510448INV I000510448 - EDMONDS PDRANGE 8/19 10 HOURS-$58 PER HR001.000.41.521.40.41.00 580.00RANGE 8/20 10 HRS -$58 PER HR001.000.41.521.40.41.00 580.00RANGE 8/21 9.5 HOURS - $58 PER HR001.000.41.521.40.41.00 551.00RANGE 8/27 9.5 HOURS - $58 PER HR001.000.41.521.40.41.00 551.00Total :2,262.00238860 9/26/2019 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE EDMS 2019-10OCT-2019 FIRE SERVICES CONTRACTOct-2019 Fire Services Contract Payment001.000.39.522.20.41.50 614,893.17Total :614,893.17238861 9/26/2019077221 STOJKOVIC, NICHOLAS E6GC.Stojkovic Settl E6GC.STOJKOVIC SETTLEMENTE6GC.Stojkovic Settlement423.000.75.594.35.65.41 10,000.00Total :10,000.00238862 9/26/2019040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S102866936.001 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIESFAC MAINT - SUPPLIES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 557.1210.5% Sales Tax33Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 55Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds34 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238862 9/26/2019(Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY001.000.66.518.30.31.00 58.50FAC MAINT - SUPPLIESS102866948.001FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 313.4110.5% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 32.91PS - SUPPLIESS102869846.001PS - SUPPLIES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 185.0910.5% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.43PS - SUPPLIESS102874148.001PS - SUPPLIES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,070.9710.5% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 112.45Total :2,349.88238863 9/26/2019071608 STOP STICK LTD 0015581-ININV 0015581-IN - EDMONDS PDCORD REEL - 2001.000.41.521.22.31.00 58.00Freight001.000.41.521.22.31.00 17.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.31.00 7.80Total :82.80238864 9/26/2019074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 6449SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR SEPTEMBER 2019Social media services for September 2019001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00Total :300.00238865 9/26/2019040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18253589ROADWAY - SUPPLIESROADWAY - SUPPLIES111.000.68.542.31.31.00 776.1734Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 56Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds35 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238865 9/26/2019(Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC10.4% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 80.72Total :856.89238866 9/26/2019077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER 84858STORM - DUMP FEESSTORM - DUMP FEES422.000.72.531.10.49.00 475.70Total :475.70238867 9/26/2019067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9837996411C/A 671247844-00001Cell Service-Eng001.000.67.518.21.42.00 19.90Cell Service Fac-Maint001.000.66.518.30.42.00 101.49Cell Service-PD001.000.41.521.22.42.00 271.07Cell Service-PW Street/Storm111.000.68.542.90.42.00 19.91Cell Service-PW Street/Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 19.91Cell Service-PW Water421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.90Cell Service-PW Sewer423.000.75.535.80.42.00 59.70Cell Service-WWTP423.000.76.535.80.42.00 19.90Total :531.78238868 9/26/2019073832 WA ST DEPT OF ENTERPRISE SVCS 9511924PROJECT MGMT FEES - 8/1/19 - 8/31/19PROJECT MGMT FEES - 8/1/19 - 8/31/19001.000.66.518.30.41.00 2,000.00Total :2,000.00238869 9/26/2019045912 WASPCDUES 2019-00569EDMONDS PD - LAWLESS ASSOCIATE DUES2019 ASSOCIATE DUES - LAWLESS35Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 57Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds36 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount238869 9/26/2019(Continued)045912 WASPC001.000.41.521.10.49.00 75.00Total :75.00238870 9/26/2019075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 11385639PARK MAINT: SUPPLIESPARK MAINT: SUPPLIES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 57.7910.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.01Total :63.80238871 9/26/2019 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7698INV 7698 - EDMONDS PDPRINT B/C SMITH & MCINTYRE001.000.41.521.10.31.00 65.562 NEW B/C SET UP-SMITH &MCINTYRE001.000.41.521.10.31.00 30.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.94ENGINEERING ENVELOPES7701Engineering Envelopes001.000.67.518.21.49.00 210.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.67.518.21.49.00 21.84Total :337.34238872 9/26/2019063008 WSDOT RE 41 JZ0249 L009E7JA.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 2019E7JA.Services thru August 2019421.000.74.594.34.65.41 334.86Total :334.86Bank total : 2,273,666.42105 Vouchers for bank code :usbank2,273,666.42Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report10536Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 58Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds37 7:23:11AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount37Page:7.2.aPacket Pg. 59Attachment: claims 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/20/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 4:05:51PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9202019 9/20/2019062693 US BANK 0091US BANK - EW - AUGUSTPHONE CASE FOR SAFETY COORD001.000.22.518.10.31.00 19.55RECURRING CHARGE - CANVA001.000.22.518.10.49.00 12.95WAPELRA CONF FOR HR DIRECTOR001.000.22.518.10.43.00 359.00PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR BREAKFAST001.000.22.518.10.49.00 23.66BAREFOOT STUDENT - MONTHLY001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR CANDIDATE001.000.22.518.10.49.00 37.05PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR CANDIDATE001.000.64.571.25.49.00 37.05APWA CAP PROJECT MGR JOB POSTING001.000.67.518.21.49.00 325.00COFFEE FOR PARKS DIRECTOR CANDIDATES -001.000.22.518.10.49.00 19.82COFFEE FOR PARKS DIRECTOR CANDIDATES -001.000.64.571.25.49.00 19.81PARKS DIRECTOR LUNCH - QDOBA - SPLIT001.000.22.518.10.49.00 237.67PARKS DIRECTOR LUNCH - QDOBA - SPLIT001.000.64.571.25.49.00 237.66SURFACE PRO PROTECTOR SLEEVE FOR HR001.000.22.518.10.31.00 20.96BACKPACK, MOUSE, AND IPHONE CASE FOR001.000.22.518.10.31.00 66.21FAN FOR HR DIRECTOR'S OFFICE001.000.22.518.10.31.00 63.51HR DIRECTOR OFFICE SUPPLIES001.000.22.518.10.31.00 150.20NOTEPADS1Page:7.2.bPacket Pg. 60Attachment: wire 09-20-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/20/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 4:05:51PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9202019 9/20/2019(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.22.518.10.31.00 11.78APA JOB POSTING - PLANNER001.000.22.518.10.41.40 100.00PARKS DIRECTOR JOB POSTING - NRPA001.000.64.571.25.41.00 299.00PD 2 CC -1885 9/6/191885FUEL TO/FM AIRPORT - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 51.53NARROWS BRIDGE TOLL - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 6.008/11 DINNER - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 17.068/12 DINNER - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 20.868/13/19 DINNER - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 13.648/13/19 LUNCH - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 12.008/12/19 BREAKFAST - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 17.098/12/19 LUNCH - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 7.798/14/19 LUNCH - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 12.008/13/19 BREAKFAST - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 6.208/14/19 BREAKFAST - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 8.758/14/19 DINNER - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 26.738/16/19 LUNCH - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 9.678/15/19 BREAKFAST - TRYKAR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 10.962Page:7.2.bPacket Pg. 61Attachment: wire 09-20-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/20/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 4:05:51PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9202019 9/20/2019(Continued)062693 US BANK5 NIGHTS HOTEL - DALLAS001.000.41.521.40.43.00 858.70FLEET CC 9/6/191937PRO VISION - UNIT 46 MONITOR511.000.77.548.68.31.10 414.10TOLL BILL - UNIT 144511.000.77.548.68.48.00 3.75AMAZON - FLEET SUPPLIES BATTERIES511.000.77.548.68.31.20 28.53UPS STORE - E163EQ SHIPPING511.100.77.594.48.64.00 57.43AMAZON - M-16 PARTS511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.34HARBOR FREIGHT - UNIT#159 PARTS511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.65AMAZON - FLEET SUPPLIES511.000.77.548.68.31.10 43.04TRUCK STOP - UNIT# 98 PARTS511.000.77.548.68.31.10 458.69NEW EGG - UNIT#438 PARTS511.000.77.548.68.31.10 789.36CANOPY WORLD - E171PO TONNEAU COVER511.100.77.594.48.64.00 617.14FISHERIES SUPPLY - UNIT# 31 SUPPLIES511.000.77.548.68.31.10 113.27PD 1 CC -2519 9/6/192519RIFLE MOUNTS (SEE CREDIT MEMO)001.000.41.521.23.35.00 3,038.50FUEL FOR SWAT TRAINING001.000.41.521.40.43.00 72.96SHIP DNA TO SORENSON 19-1387001.000.41.521.10.42.00 77.70FUEL FOR SWAT TRAINING001.000.41.521.40.43.00 36.003Page:7.2.bPacket Pg. 62Attachment: wire 09-20-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/20/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 4:05:51PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9202019 9/20/2019(Continued)062693 US BANKSHIP TO WSP LATENT PRINT LAB~001.000.41.521.10.42.00 20.30PD 1 CC -2519 9/6/19 CREDIT MEMO2519CREDIT - OVERCHARGE RIFLE MOUNTS001.000.41.521.23.35.00 -1,519.25WWTP: 8/22/19 RETURN 1 CTN TOILET PAPER2985Return 1 carton Toilet Paper Rolls:423.000.76.535.80.31.00 -42.01WWTP: 2020 OPERATOR DIARY/COAT RACK/KEYB2985Amazon for: c-fold towels, soap, toilet423.000.76.535.80.31.00 640.38Amazon for: benchtop converter & cooler423.000.76.535.80.48.00 141.67Amazon for: coat rack & keybd & mouse +423.000.76.535.80.35.00 96.03Amazon for: Chest Wader for Eric Duenas423.000.76.535.80.24.00 89.19Hilton Vancouver - for Les Krestel423.000.76.535.80.43.00 532.62For Michael Derrick: WW Treatment Exam423.000.76.535.80.49.71 149.99THOMPSON CC -3048 9/6/193048BOOTS FOR OFFICER SWARTZ001.000.41.521.71.24.00 253.37FLOOR MATS - PATROL REPORT RM001.000.41.521.22.31.00 101.55PORTFOLIO FOR DEPT PHOTOS001.000.41.521.10.31.00 29.82SLINGS, LIGHTS FOR SWAT RIFLES001.000.41.521.23.35.00 680.45PACK OF 10 2GB THUMB DRIVES001.000.41.521.10.31.00 28.695 PACK OF 16GB THUMB DRIVES001.000.41.521.11.31.00 19.824Page:7.2.bPacket Pg. 63Attachment: wire 09-20-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/20/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 4:05:51PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9202019 9/20/2019(Continued)062693 US BANKREPLACEMENT PARTS VERTICAL REFERENCE001.000.41.521.80.31.00 55.1814 SLEEVES - 50 COMPOSTABLE CUPS001.000.41.521.10.31.00 47.03WAPRO CONFERENCE - BROMAN001.000.41.521.40.49.00 175.002-12 PACKS RED PENS001.000.41.521.10.31.00 37.64CAR OPENING KIT001.000.41.521.22.31.00 123.863 CAR OPENING KITS001.000.41.521.22.31.00 307.69BOOTS FOR DAMIAN SMITH001.000.41.521.22.24.00 140.72ARMORY SUPPLIES001.000.41.521.40.31.00 127.95STREAMLIGHT PEN LIGHTS001.000.41.521.40.31.00 23.53PURELL AND PENS001.000.41.521.10.31.00 107.22LEAD REMOVING WIPES001.000.41.521.22.31.00 171.90WORD/EXCEL TRAINING - PECK001.000.41.521.40.49.00 199.00KLEENEX, ADVIL, OFFICE SUPPLIES001.000.41.521.10.31.00 42.39LAWLESS CC -3314 9/6/19331412V BATTERIES FOR DETECTIVES001.000.41.521.21.31.00 19.83TRAIL CAM MONTHLY DATA PLAN001.000.41.521.22.42.00 9.99RICHARDSON CC -4080 9/6/194080FUEL FOR EXPLORER VAN001.000.41.521.40.43.00 28.255Page:7.2.bPacket Pg. 64Attachment: wire 09-20-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/20/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 4:05:51PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9202019 9/20/2019(Continued)062693 US BANKMCCLURE CC -4171 9/6/194171COMMAND LEADERSHIP INST-MACHADO001.000.41.521.40.49.00 695.00MONTHLY GRAPHICS SUBSCRIPTION001.000.41.521.40.41.00 12.95COUNCIL US BANK VISA4474Office Depot supplies001.000.11.511.60.31.00 27.87Office Depot - 2nd shipment of office001.000.11.511.60.31.00 25.61Snohomish County Cities Dinner for CM001.000.11.511.60.49.00 45.004540 PARKS CREDIT CARD4540AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: INSECTICIDE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 71.70AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: PATIO UMBRELLAS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 91.38AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: PATIO UMBRELLA BASE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 44.15SWANK MOTION PICTURES: OUTDOOR MOVIE001.000.64.571.22.49.00 375.00SWANK MOTION PICTURES: OUTDOOR MOVIE A001.000.64.571.22.49.00 375.00AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: LAMINATING SHEETS001.000.64.571.22.31.00 75.06AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: PAPER001.000.64.571.22.31.00 20.10PCNAMETAG: WOTS SUPPLIES117.100.64.573.20.31.00 210.13AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: ICE PACKS001.000.64.571.22.31.00 55.02AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: INSECTICIDE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 71.70AMAZON: DISCOVERY SUPPLIES: BANDAIDS6Page:7.2.bPacket Pg. 65Attachment: wire 09-20-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/20/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 4:05:51PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9202019 9/20/2019(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.64.571.23.31.00 7.69AMAZON: WOTS SUPPLIES117.100.64.573.20.31.00 52.58AMAZON: GYMNASTICS CAMP SUPPLIES001.000.64.571.28.31.00 69.61AMAZON: WOTS SUPPLIES117.100.64.573.20.31.00 87.26USAGYMNASTICS: GYMNASTICS CLUB001.000.64.571.28.49.00 225.00AMAZON: YOUTH COMMISSION VESTS001.000.64.571.21.31.00 280.80AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: ERASERS001.000.64.571.29.31.00 4.74AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: TOY SHOVELS001.000.64.571.29.31.00 17.65AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SCHOOL SUPPLIES001.000.64.571.29.31.00 129.59PICKLEBALL CENTRAL: ATHLETIC SUPPLIES:001.000.64.571.25.31.00 145.67LAKESHORE LEARNING: PRESCHOOL APRONS001.000.64.571.29.31.00 51.28AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: ZIPLOC BAGS001.000.64.571.29.31.00 8.82DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: MEADOWDALE001.000.64.571.29.31.00 135.97AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: CRAYONS001.000.64.571.29.31.00 44.14FACEBOOK: OUTDOOR MOVIE NIGHT AD001.000.64.571.22.41.40 20.00AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: GLUE,001.000.64.571.29.31.00 39.72AMAZON: DISCOVERY SUPPLIES: NAMETAGS001.000.64.571.23.31.00 16.25ISSUU: DIGITAL CRAZE7Page:7.2.bPacket Pg. 66Attachment: wire 09-20-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/20/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 4:05:51PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9202019 9/20/2019(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.64.571.22.49.00 39.03AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: TONER001.000.64.571.29.31.00 26.04BIG TIME CLOCK: YOST POOL DIGITAL CLOCK127.000.64.575.50.31.00 187.00DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: MEADOWDALE001.000.64.571.29.31.00 12.41AMAZON: WOTS SUPPLIES: WATER CAPS117.100.64.573.20.31.00 16.55AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: BANNER001.000.64.571.29.31.00 13.10AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: PAINT STICKS001.000.64.571.29.31.00 20.73AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: GRAFFITI REMOVER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 54.65ALASKA AIRLINES: NRPA ANNUAL001.000.64.571.22.43.00 41.00ALASKA AIRLINESl NRPA ANNUAL001.000.64.571.22.43.00 125.00AMAZON: DISCOVERY SUPPLIES: BRUSH SET001.000.64.571.23.31.00 5.51ENG CREDIT CARD AUGUST 20198017APWA 2019 Conference - Richardson,001.000.67.518.21.49.00 1,142.37E9AC.Survey Monkey001.000.67.518.21.41.00 40.85E8CC.Seattle Korean Weekly Advertisement112.000.68.542.30.41.00 117.25E8CC.Seattle Korean Weekly Advertisement126.000.68.542.30.41.00 29.25E8CC.Seattle Korean Weekly Advertisement422.000.72.542.30.41.00 103.50FAC MAINT CC 9/6/198574ALLIED BUILDING PRODUCTS - CEMETERY8Page:7.2.bPacket Pg. 67Attachment: wire 09-20-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/20/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 4:05:51PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9202019 9/20/2019(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.66.518.30.31.00 345.93AMAZON - FAC MAINT SUPPLIES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.13GENSCO - PW SUPPLIES ~001.000.66.518.30.31.00 84.45GENSCO - PW SUPPLIES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 40.14HOME DEPOT- WATER/ SEWER/ STREET/ STORM422.000.72.531.90.31.00 34.66HOME DEPOT- WATER/ SEWER/ STREET/ STORM111.000.68.542.90.31.00 34.66HOME DEPOT- WATER/ SEWER/ STREET/ STORM421.000.74.534.80.31.00 34.66HOME DEPOT- WATER/ SEWER/ STREET/ STORM423.000.75.535.80.31.00 34.67GREENMUN CC -9821 9/6/199821GANG PREVENTION - DANIELS001.000.41.521.40.49.00 100.00FLIGHT TO/FM RENO - POFF001.000.41.521.40.43.00 338.00CENTENNIAL HOTEL - SMITH001.000.41.521.40.43.00 7.95HOTEL DEPOSIT - RENO - POFF001.000.41.521.40.43.00 148.03AIRLINE CHANGE FEE - POFF001.000.41.521.40.43.00 125.00COMBAT TOURNIQUETS001.000.41.521.40.31.00 228.536 SETS KNEE PADS RANGE TRAINING001.000.41.521.40.31.00 172.02NACHO TRAINING - SHOEMAKE, GILGINAS001.000.41.521.40.49.00 1,190.0012 16GB CAMERA MEMORY CARDS001.000.41.521.22.35.00 79.369Page:7.2.bPacket Pg. 68Attachment: wire 09-20-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/20/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 4:05:51PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9202019 9/20/2019(Continued)062693 US BANK4 CAMERAS, 6 PELICAN CASES001.000.41.521.22.35.00 1,050.682 DIGITAL CAMERAS001.000.41.521.22.35.00 393.02TLO MONTHLY CHARGES001.000.41.521.22.35.00 57.08GREENMUN CC -9821 9/6/19 CREDIT MEMO9821CREDIT FOR "NO SHOW" FEE001.000.41.521.40.43.00 -158.15BID/ED! WEB HOSTING, FACEBOOK ADVERTISINBID-1687/0907BID/Ed! Web hosting140.000.61.558.70.49.00 240.00BID/Ed! Facebook advertising140.000.61.558.70.41.40 103.19Total :21,994.81Bank total : 21,994.811 Vouchers for bank code :usbank21,994.81Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report110Page:7.2.bPacket Pg. 69Attachment: wire 09-20-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 09/26/2019Voucher ListCity of Edmonds110:35:08AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount9262019 9/26/2019076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO Oct 2019ACCT #00397358 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - Oct 2019001.000.39.542.64.45.00 417.67Total :417.67Bank total : 417.671 Vouchers for bank code :usbank417.67Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report11Page:7.2.cPacket Pg. 70Attachment: wire 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC STR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC STR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E8JB WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA STR 2020 Overlay Program i042 E0CA STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 E8DC STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB Revised 9/26/2019 7.2.d Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design s022 E9FA STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 E5DB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK Frances Anderson Center Bandshell Replacement c477 E6MB STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c540 E9MA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STR Walnut St. Walkway (6th-7th)i044 E9DC PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)m103 E7MA STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 9/26/2019 7.2.d Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0CA i042 2020 Overlay Program STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project STR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza Revised 9/26/2019 7.2.d Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title PRK E6MB c477 Frances Anderson Center Bandshell Replacement STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STR E9AB i039 2019 Guardrail Install STR E9AC s021 2019 Downtown Parking Study STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR E9DB i041 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (6th-7th) STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design FAC E9MA c540 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South Revised 9/26/2019 7.2.d Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project PRK E6MB c477 Frances Anderson Center Bandshell Replacement STR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project FAC E9MA c540 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Revised 9/26/2019 7.2.d Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays STR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STR E9AB i039 2019 Guardrail Install STR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR E9DB i041 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program STR E0CA i042 2020 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (6th-7th) STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update STR E9AC s021 2019 Downtown Parking Study STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design Revised 9/26/2019 7.2.d Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c540 E9MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK Frances Anderson Center Bandshell Replacement c477 E6MB PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)m103 E7MA STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design s022 E9FA STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA STR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC STR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD STR 2020 Overlay Program i042 E0CA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 E8DC STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA Revised 9/26/2019 7.2.d Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 E5DB STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Walnut St. Walkway (6th-7th)i044 E9DC STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E8JB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 9/26/2019 7.2.d Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-26-19 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) Payroll Earnings Summary ReportCity of EdmondsPay Period: 986 (09/20/2019 to 09/20/2019)Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class DescriptionSHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL4110.00 125.57Total Net Pay: $112.86$125.570.0009/26/2019Page 1 of 17.2.ePacket Pg. 79Attachment: payroll summary (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages Staff Lead: WCIA Claims Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Nicholas Falk Background/History n/a Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages by minute entry. Narrative Marlene Schneider submitted a claim for damages for an undetermined amount. Patrick Larking submitted a claim for damages in the amount of $5,312.32. Rita Sanger submitted a claim for damages for an undetermined amount. Renu Kaushal submitted a claim for damages for an undetermined amount. Willie Russell submitted a claim for damages in the amount of $1,500,000.00. Attachments: CFD Marlene Schneider CFD Patrick Larkin CFD Rita Sanger CFD Renu Kaushal CFD Willie Russell 7.3 Packet Pg. 80 7.3.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: CFD Marlene Schneider (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: CFD Marlene Schneider (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: CFD Patrick Larkin (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: CFD Patrick Larkin (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.c Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: CFD Rita Sanger (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.c Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: CFD Rita Sanger (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.c Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: CFD Rita Sanger (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.c Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: CFD Rita Sanger (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.d Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: CFD Renu Kaushal (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.d Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: CFD Renu Kaushal (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.d Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: CFD Renu Kaushal (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.e Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: CFD Willie Russell (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) 7.3.e Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: CFD Willie Russell (Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 Wassall Pedestrian Easement at the NE corner of 639 2nd Ave Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On June 11, 2019, staff presented this item to the Parks & Public Works Committee and it was forwarded to a future consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the Pedestrian Easement. Narrative The City of Edmonds is currently reviewing a proposed development project, the Wassall Single Family Residence. The project consists of demolition of the existing single family home and constructing a new single family home at the southwest corner of 2nd and Caspers St. Concrete sidewalks will be constructed on both 2nd Ave and on Caspers St. Existing conditions, including a catch basin, a storm manhole, and a large asphalt island (to prevent traffic from entering 2nd) all contribute to making a traditional corner sidewalk ADA ramp impossible. To address this, the sidewalk on 2nd Ave will curve slightly across private property and meet up with the Caspers St sidewalk at a point behind the ADA ramp (refer to Attachment 2). As noted, a portion of the sidewalk will be located on private property and therefore, a public pedestrian easement shall be provided to the City. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Wassall Pedestrian Easement Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map 7.4 Packet Pg. 94 Wassall Pedestrian Easement (002) (with SEC edits) 7.15.19.doc Return Address: City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Property Address: 639 2nd Ave N Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 27032400201300 IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors herein, the undersigned, JIM AND SALLY WASSALL, (“GRANTORS”) hereby grant to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington Municipal Corporation (“GRANTEE”), a permanent public pedestrian easement for the location and operation of a sidewalk and necessary appurtenances, over, across, through, and below the following described property, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement hereby granted is located in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and is more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. GRANTORS understand and agree for themselves and their successors and assigns not to cause or allow the construction or maintenance of any building or other structure in or upon the area conveyed without the prior written consent of GRANTEE, which may be granted or allowed in GRANTEE’S sole discretion. GRANTORS understand and agree that GRANTEE may cause the summary removal of any such building or structure so placed without GRANTEE’S consent and that GRANTORS shall make no claim for and shall hold GRANTEE harmless from any claim by a third person for damage to or destruction of the property so removed. GRANTEE agrees to indemnify, defend and hold GRANTORS harmless from any and all liability or damage, including attorneys’ fees and costs, incurred or arising directly from GRANTEE’s use of the easement as stated above, except those arising from any of GRANTORS’ acts, omissions or negligence. GRANTORS expressly reserve all rights not inconsistent with those granted to GRANTEE herein. DATED THIS DAY OF 2019. Jim Wassall Sally Wassall STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF , 20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Accepted by the City Council dated __________day of __________________ 2019. 7.4.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Wassall Pedestrian Easement (Wassall Pedestrian Easement at the NE corner of 639 2nd Ave) Wassall Pedestrian Easement (002) (with SEC edits) 7.15.19.doc CITY OF EDMONDS ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: _____________________________________ _________________________________ David O. Earling, Mayor Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Office of the City Attorney 7.4.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Wassall Pedestrian Easement (Wassall Pedestrian Easement at the NE corner of 639 2nd Ave) EXHIBIT A SIDEWALK EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY; COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST W.M., AND THE WEST LINE OF THIRD STREET, OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, A DISTANCE OF 396.7 FEET TO THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE JOHN BACKSTROM TRACT; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID JOHN BACKSTROM TRACT AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 FOR A DISTANCE OF 59 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2 A DISTANCE OF 59 FEET TO THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING, LESS COUNTY ROAD. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE SOUTH 89°39’00” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL A DISTANCE OF 40.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89°39’00” EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 18.02 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE SOUTH 00°09’30” WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL A DISTANCE OF 20.13 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIAL CENTER WHICH BEARS SOUTH 68°42’42” WEST, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40°36’22” AND A RADIUS OF 39.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT AN ARC DISTANCE OF 27.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 137 SQUARE FEET. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT 7.4.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Wassall Pedestrian Easement (Wassall Pedestrian Easement at the NE corner of 639 2nd Ave) 7.4.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Wassall Pedestrian Easement (Wassall Pedestrian Easement at the NE corner of 639 2nd Ave) 7.4.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map (Wassall Pedestrian Easement at the NE corner of 639 2nd Ave) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 Larsen Short Plat - 10-ft Street ROW Dedication along 75th Pl W and Retaining Wall Maintenance Easement along 72nd Ave W Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On June 11, 2019, staff presented this item to the Parks & Public Works Committee and it was forwarded to a future consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the Dedication and accept the easement. Narrative The City of Edmonds is currently reviewing a proposed 3-lot subdivision, at 15729 - 75th Pl W. In accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.75.085 (Subdivision - Review Criteria), the city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use. In accordance with ECDC 18.50.020 (Official Street Map - Dedication presumption and requirement), applicants for a subdivision shall be presumed to create development impacts upon the street and transportation system of the city and such presumed impacts shall be mitigated by the dedication of such right-of-way to the city and to public use. The City’s Official Street Map indicates a 10-foot right-of- way dedication is required along the 75th Pl W property frontage of the subject development. As a condition of development, the 10-foot right-of-way shall be deeded to the City. In addition, the subject development is required to extend a currently undeveloped section of 72nd Ave W to provide access to the subject development. Due to existing topography, the extension of the public road will require the construction of retaining walls at the west edge of the 72nd Ave W right-of- way. An easement shall be provided to the City across the adjacent private properties to allow for future maintenance, repair, and reconstruction of the retaining wall. Subsequent to Council approval of the street dedication and public easement, these items will be recorded against the subject property with the final plat documents for the subdivision. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Preliminary Short Plat Attachment 3 - Dedication Attachment 4 - Wall Maintenance Easement 7.5 Packet Pg. 100 Figure: Vicinity map (image from Google Maps). PUGET SOUND Attachment 1 7.5.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map (Larsen Short Plat - Retaining Wall Easement & Street Dedication) 7.5.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Preliminary Short Plat (Larsen Short Plat - Retaining Wall Easement & Street Dedication) SCALE: 1" = 20' 7.5.c Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Dedication (Larsen Short Plat - Retaining Wall Easement & Street Dedication) 7.5.d Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment 4 - Wall Maintenance Easement (Larsen Short Plat - Retaining Wall Easement & Street Dedication) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History The Edmonds Marsh is of considerable pride to the community and is an ecologically unique saltwater marsh, hydrologically connected to the uplands and Puget Sound and is part of many of the City’s planning documents, Shoreline Master Program and Critical Area Ordinance. In 2017, Council approved the process of obtaining an independent contractor to provide a scientific study of the Edmonds Marsh; the purpose of the study was to evaluate the ecological functions of the marsh and its buffers. Windward Environmental, LLC was selected and they began an 18-month scientific study in April 2018. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative After completion of an 18-month Baseline Monitoring Study of the Edmonds Marsh, Windward Environmental will be making their final presentation to City Council on their findings; this follows a public Open House scheduled for Monday 9/30 at 6pm in the Brackett Room at City Hall where the public may leave comments about the findings of the report. Attachments: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 8.1 Packet Pg. 105 Prepared for Edmonds City Council 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA September 13, 2019 Prepared by: 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 401  Seattle, Washington  98119 FINAL EDMONDS MARSH BASELINE MONITORING STUDY 8.1.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 i Table of Contents Table of Contents i Tables iii Figures iv Maps iv Acronyms v 1 Executive Summary 1 2 Introduction 5 3 Methods 9 3.1 MONITORING FOR PHYSICAL PARAMETERS 9 3.1.1 Water quality monitoring 9 3.1.2 Soil and sediment observations and measurements 17 3.2 MONITORING FOR BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS 19 3.2.1 Vegetation surveys 19 3.2.2 Invertebrate surveys 24 3.2.3 Bird surveys 24 3.2.4 Other wildlife observations 25 3.3 PHOTO POINT MONITORING 26 3.4 DATA MANAGEMENT 29 4 Results 31 4.1 DISCRETE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 31 4.2 CONTINUOUS WATER DEPTH AND SALINITY MONITORING 39 4.3 UPLAND SOIL OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS 46 4.3.1 Bulk density 48 4.3.2 Organic matter and pH 48 4.4 MARSH SEDIMENT OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS 53 4.4.1 pH and organic matter 55 4.5 MARSH VEGETATION SURVEYS 57 4.6 BUFFER ZONE VEGETATION SURVEYS 64 4.6.1 Tree canopy stratum 65 4.6.2 Scrub/shrub and herbaceous strata 67 4.7 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS SURVEYS 74 4.8 INVERTEBRATE SURVEYS 75 4.9 BIRD SURVEYS 81 4.10 OTHER WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS 101 4.11 PHOTO POINT MONITORING 103 8.1.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 ii 5 Studies by Other Parties 105 5.1 EDMONDS STREAM TEAM 105 5.2 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING STUDY 107 5.2.1 Water quality 108 5.2.2 Sediment chemistry 108 5.2.3 Aquatic invertebrates 109 5.3 PILCHUCK AUDUBON SOCIETY AVIAN USE STUDY 111 6 Observations and Information Collected by the Community 113 7 Discussion 115 7.1 WATER QUALITY, SALINITY, DEPTH AND CIRCULATION 115 7.2 CONTINUOUS WATER DEPTH AND SALINITY MONITORING 116 7.3 SOIL, SEDIMENT, VEGETATION, AND LWD WITHIN THE MARSH AND BUFFER ZONES 128 7.3.1 Buffer zone soils 128 7.3.2 North buffer zone vegetation and LWD 130 7.3.3 Southeast buffer zone vegetation and LWD 131 7.3.4 South buffer zone vegetation and LWD 132 7.3.5 Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone vegetation and LWD 133 7.3.6 Sediments, vegetation and LWD of the Marsh interior 133 7.4 INVERTEBRATE AND WILDLIFE USE OF MARSH AND BUFFER HABITATS 136 7.4.1 Invertebrates 137 7.4.2 Fish, amphibians, and reptiles 139 7.4.3 Birds 142 7.4.4 Mammals 145 8 Conclusions 149 9 References 151 Appendix A. Field Forms Appendix B. Field Logbooks Appendix C. Soil and Sediment Laboratory Report Appendix D. Additional Data Tables and Maps Appendix E. Wildlife Camera Photographs Appendix F. Photo Point Photolog Appendix G. Benthic Invertebrates Taxa Report Appendix H. Pilchuck Audubon Society Study Appendix I. Community Observations and Photographs 8.1.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 iii Tables Table 3-1. Discrete water quality monitoring station descriptions 10 Table 3-2. Water quality monitoring event information 13 Table 3-3. CTD data logger deployment dates by station 14 Table 3-4. Tide gate opening/closing dates 17 Table 3-5. Upland soil characterization stations 18 Table 3-6. BPC station descriptions and survey dates 25 Table 3-7. Photo point monitoring station locations 26 Table 4-1. Water quality monitoring results: Stations 1–4 33 Table 4-2. Water quality monitoring results: Stations 5–8 34 Table 4-3. Marsh water level and salinity summary statistics from CTD deployment 42 Table 4-4. Laboratory results for upland soil samples 47 Table 4-5. Field observations for upland soil samples – fall 2018 and spring 2019 51 Table 4-6. Laboratory results for Marsh sediment samples 54 Table 4-7. Fall 2018 field observations for Marsh sediment samples 56 Table 4-8. Plant species identified in the western portion of the Marsh 62 Table 4-9. Average overstory density and canopy trees species observed within the buffer zones 66 Table 4-10. Herbaceous and shrub/sapling vegetation of the north buffer zone 67 Table 4-11. Herbaceous and shrub/sapling vegetation of the southeast buffer zone 69 Table 4-12. Herbaceous and shrub/sapling vegetation of the south buffer zone 71 Table 4-13. Herbaceous and shrub/sapling vegetation of the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh 73 Table 4-14. Inventory of LWD pieces identified within the vegetation transects 75 Table 4-15. Orders of invertebrates identified within baseline study fallout trap samples 75 Table 4-16. Summary of fallout trap invertebrate data for the north buffer zone 76 Table 4-17. Summary of fallout trap invertebrate data for the southeast buffer zone 77 Table 4-18. Summary of fallout trap invertebrate data for the south buffer zone 79 Table 4-19. Summary of fallout trap invertebrate data for the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone 80 Table 4-20. Survey results for BPC-1 (Harbor Square boardwalk lookout) 83 Table 4-21. Survey results for BPC-2 (Marsh interior adjacent to Willow Creek) 87 Table 4-22. Survey results for BPC-3 (northwest of Hatchery within Marsh) 91 Table 4-23. Survey results for BPC-4 (Hatchery riparian habitat) 95 Table 4-24. Survey results for BPC-5 (off 2nd Avenue South near Shellabarger Marsh) 99 Table 7-1. Ecological function of plant species identified within the Marsh 135 Table 7-2. Habitat requirements, diet, and foraging information for coho salmon, three- spine stickleback, and garter snakes 141 Table 7-3. Habitat requirements, diet and foraging information for a subset of the bird species that use the Marsh 143 8.1.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 iv Table 7-4. Habitat requirements, diet and foraging information for coyote and black- tailed deer 147 Figures Figure 4-1. Graphical presentation of pH measurements 36 Figure 4-2. Graphical presentation of turbidity measurements 36 Figure 4-3. Graphical presentation of temperature measurements 37 Figure 4-4. Graphical presentation of DO measurements 38 Figure 4-5. Graphical presentation of salinity results 39 Figure 4-6. Relationships among salinity, water level, rainfall, and gate status in the lower Marsh 40 Figure 4-7. Water level in relation to rainfall and gate status 43 Figure 4-8. Salinity in relation to rainfall and gate status 45 Figure 4-9. Laboratory results of buffer soils 48 Figure 4-10. Laboratory results for Marsh sediment 55 Figure 7-1. Water level responses to rainfall in the upper Marsh 118 Figure 7-2a. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 1 signal 120 Figure 7-2b. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 2 signal 121 Figure 7-2c. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 3 signal 122 Figure 7-2d. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 4 signal 123 Figure 7-2e. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 5 signal 124 Figure 7-2f. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 6 signal 125 Figure 7-3. Examples of water level changes in response to rainfall events 127 Maps Map 1. Edmonds and Shellabarger Marshes vicinity map Map 2. Edmonds Marsh baseline study physical monitoring parameter stations Map 3. Edmonds Marsh baseline study CTD logger stations Map 4. Edmonds Marsh baseline study biological monitoring parameter stations Map 5. Edmonds Marsh baseline study photo point monitoring stations Map 6. Edmonds Marsh baseline study marsh interior vegetation survey 8.1.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 v Acronyms Audubon Pilchuck Audubon Society B-IBI Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity bgs below ground surface BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BPC bird point count BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene constituents CFU colony forming unit City City of Edmonds City Council cPAH carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon CTD conductivity, temperature, and depth DO dissolved oxygen Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EPA US Environmental Protection Agency FAC facultative FACU facultative upland FACW facultative wetland FS feasibility study Hatchery Willow Creek fish hatchery ID identification ISGP Industrial Stormwater General Permit LWD large woody debris Marsh Edmonds Marsh msl mean sea level NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NTU nephelometric turbidity unit OBL obligate PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl ppt parts per thousand 8.1.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 vi psu practical salinity unit PVC polyvinyl chloride QC quality control SD secure digital SR State Route SU standard unit SVOC semivolatile organic compound TOC total organic carbon TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons UPL upland USDA US Department of Agriculture VOC volatile organic compound WAC Washington Administrative Code Windward Windward Environmental LLC WOC weed of concern WQC water quality criteria WRIA Water Resources Inventory Area WSS web soil survey WU Weather Underground 8.1.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 1 1 Executive Summary The Edmonds Marsh (Marsh) is the only remaining salt marsh within the nearshore habitat zone of Watershed Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 (the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed) (SRFB 2014, 2018). Despite its location in the center of an urban area, the Marsh provides habitat for a number of different plant and animal species, as well as other ecological functions. In order to better understand and document the baseline conditions of the Marsh and its buffer areas, as well as the ecological functions being provided by those habitats, the City of Edmonds City Council (City) engaged Windward Environmental LLC (Windward) to conduct a year-long baseline study. The study was conducted between July 2018 and June 2019, and data collection events were performed once per season during the year. The study included monitoring of both physical and biological parameters. The physical parameters monitored were water quality and water levels within the Marsh and its tributary creeks (Willow and Shellabarger Creeks), and characteristics of Marsh sediment and soil from the Marsh’s buffer zones. The biological parameters monitored were vegetation and large woody debris (LWD)1 within the Marsh and its buffer zones, and the presence of invertebrates, birds, and other wildlife. In addition, the baseline study included an overview of data and other information collected within the Marsh and its buffer areas by other parties, including members of the community. The Marsh provides a refuge for wildlife, and many different species were documented within the Marsh and its buffer areas throughout the baseline monitoring year. Several types of birds, including songbirds, shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors, were identified. Some species, such as red-winged blackbirds, common yellowthroats, marsh wrens, and killdeers, were regularly observed strictly within the Marsh interior; others, such as song sparrows and chickadees, were common in both the Marsh and its buffer areas. Several species of birds were documented as breeding within the Marsh and its adjacent buffer habitats. The mammal species most commonly observed throughout the baseline monitoring year were coyote and black-tailed deer, both of which frequent the forested habitat on the south side of the Marsh; coyote also use the Marsh interior. Deer with fawns were observed in the south buffer zone in the summers of both 2018 and 2019. The Marsh also supports a number of different invertebrate species that provide a variety of ecological functions, including plant pollination; the breakdown of decaying organic material; and food sources for other invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals. The types of invertebrates sampled within the Marsh and its buffer areas included flies, springtails, and beetles, all of which have been shown to be important prey items for juvenile salmon. 1 LWD is large pieces of dead wood, either standing or fallen on the ground. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 2 The western portion of the Marsh is dominated by emergent, salt-tolerant native vegetation, which is intermixed with mudflat habitat. The eastern portion of the Marsh is dominated by freshwater species, predominantly cattail (Typha spp.). There are patches of invasive plant species within the Marsh, most notably a large infestation of bittersweet nightshade in the southern portion of the Marsh (adjacent to the south and southeast buffer zones), and two patches of common reed in the western portion of the Marsh. Control of these species and other invasive plants should be a goal of future habitat restoration work. The Marsh buffer zones, where vegetated, contain dense stands of woody vegetation and provide a visual screen between the Marsh interior and the surrounding developed areas and roadways. The understory vegetation (i.e., the layer of growth beneath the tree canopy) is dominated by invasive species in the southeast buffer zone of the Marsh and the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh. The ability of these buffer zones to provide ecological functions—primarily habitat functions—would be improved by controlling the invasive species and planting native trees, shrubs, and groundcover plants. Active habitat restoration efforts to control invasive vegetation and install native plants are already underway in the north and south buffer zones. The south buffer zone contains the most diverse native plant community of all the buffer areas surveyed, providing a local example of a relatively intact, diverse native riparian forest that could be mimicked in other buffer areas through active restoration efforts. In general, there is a lack of LWD both within the Marsh and its buffer areas. LWD within these habitat types provides a number of habitat functions: It is a source of organic material released slowly over time to the underlying soil or sediment; it provides a cooling effect by shading the immediate area surrounding it, helping to create different microclimates; and perhaps most importantly, it provides habitat for numerous invertebrate, reptile, amphibian, bird, and mammal species. The placement of LWD within the Marsh and its buffer areas, which could perhaps be achieved as part of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project, would help boost these ecological functions. The Marsh and its tributary creeks generally have good water quality in terms of cool water temperatures and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) to support salmon and other fish species. However, water quality in some areas has been impacted by typical urban pollutants, including fecal coliform bacteria, petroleum hydrocarbons, and related chemicals. During the warmer times of the year, water temperatures also rise above water quality criteria (WQC) in many areas of the Marsh; however, water temperatures are typically cooler in the southern portion of the Marsh where Willow Creek enters, indicating that shading by riparian vegetation in the south buffer zone is provided a water quality benefit. Low DO levels have been detected along the northern edge of the Marsh on several occasions, possibly indicating poor water circulation in this area. One of the primary 8.1.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 3 actions to be performed as part of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project is the daylighting of Willow Creek where it flows out of the Marsh into Puget Sound. Daylighting the creek, in concert with other habitat improvements to be made in the Marsh interior, will hopefully improve water circulation within the Marsh and help maintain sufficient DO levels in all areas. The hydraulics and salinity of the Marsh are controlled by downstream drainage infrastructure, which includes long pipe runs, culverts, and a one-way tide gate. Channelization of Willow Creek along the southern edge of the Marsh limits any mixing of fresh and salt water. The system is characterized by wide swings in salinity, from full-strength Puget Sound water (ca. 32 parts per thousand [ppt]) to nearly fresh water (< 1 ppt). Tidal exchange is also constrained by inadequately sized stormwater conveyances and the tide gate. However, holding the tide gate open during low rainfall seasons has allowed some of the characteristics of the salt marsh to begin to recover (e.g., mean salinity increases to 11.4 ppt have been recorded). The Marsh represents a rare nearshore estuarine pocket marsh. In its current condition, it provides a number of ecological functions, as described. After implementation of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project, the ecological functions provided by the Marsh will be enhanced, and the Marsh will once again have the opportunity to provide habitat for juvenile salmonids and other migratory fish. In addition to providing enhanced habitat functions beneficial to fish and wildlife, a restored Marsh system would provide the City of Edmonds, as well as the larger community, with the opportunity to observe and appreciate the roles that nearshore estuarine marshes, tidal streams, and adjacent riparian forests play in fostering the native flora and fauna of the Pacific Northwest, and how they can do so even within an urban area. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 5 2 Introduction The City engaged Windward to conduct a year-long study of the Marsh in order to help establish baseline conditions in the Marsh and its adjacent buffer areas, and to help evaluate the ecological functions being provided by those habitats. The Marsh is a tidally influenced2 wetland occupying approximately 29 acres in the heart of Edmonds, Washington (Map 1); it is the remnant of a much larger estuarine wetland that was once located along the shores of Puget Sound (Murkin et al., as cited in Sea- Run Consulting et al. 2007). Historically, the Marsh was a pocket estuary more than 100 acres in size and protected by a barrier sand spit (Shannon & Wilson 2015). It extended from Point Edmonds (located at the southern end of Marina Beach Park) north to Brackett’s Landing near the Washington State Department of Transportation ferry terminal. 2 The Marsh is tidally influenced when the tide gate downstream of the Marsh is open, typically in the spring and summer months. Since 2018, the City has opened the tide gate for periods of time throughout the fall and winter months, tides and storm flows permitting, to allow tidal influx into the Marsh during these months as well. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) Edmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFishHatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayMarinaBeachParkR e s ide n ti a lDayton St.2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarshMap 1. Edmonds and Shellabarger Marshesvicinity mapPrepared by mikey, 7/16/2019; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Buffer_Zone_Evaluation\Map 1_6862_Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Vicinity Map.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 400 800FeetParcel[¬«104Sources: Snohomish County, City of Edmonds, Google Earth, National Geographic, ESRI8.1.aPacket Pg. 119Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 7 The western portion of the Marsh contains mudflat habitat and tidal channels and supports salt marsh plants. The eastern portion of the Marsh is a predominantly freshwater system fed by two tributary creeks: Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek (Map 1). The drainage basin of Willow Creek is approximately 393 acres in size and encompasses residential land to the south and east of the Marsh (Shannon & Wilson 2015). The drainage basin of Shellabarger Creek is approximately 378 acres in size and encompasses residential and commercial land to the north, east, and south of the Marsh. Shellabarger Marsh is a small freshwater marsh located to the east of the Marsh. Shellabarger Marsh was once part of the Marsh, but the two were separated when State Route (SR)-104 was constructed. The two marshes are still hydraulically connected via a pair of culverts running under SR-104. Both the Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh provide valuable habitat to birds and other wildlife, in addition to conveying large quantities of stormwater and surface water. This document describes the results of the year-long baseline monitoring study (hereafter referred to as the baseline study) of the Marsh, Shellabarger Marsh, and the buffer zones of the two marshes. The development of the baseline study and the monitoring methods employed were described in the Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Plan (hereafter referred to as the monitoring plan) (Windward 2018a). The overarching goals of the baseline study were 1) to quantify and describe current conditions within both marshes and their adjacent buffer zones, in order to establish a baseline against which future changes can be measured, and 2) to provide information about the ecological functions currently being performed by the marshes and their buffer zones. The baseline study was conducted over the course of one year, from July 2018 through June 2019, with data collection events being performed once per season during the year. Both physical and biological parameters were monitored in order to provide a baseline against which future changes within the Marsh—generated by projects such as the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project, the Dayton Street pump station, vegetation enhancement, and other future land use changes within the Marsh’s drainage basin—can be evaluated. In addition to data gathered as part of this study, this report provides an overview of data/information collection efforts conducted within the Marsh and its buffer areas by other parties and by members of the community. Section 3 of this document builds upon the survey methods described in the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) to illustrate how the monitoring study was implemented. Section 4 provides the results of the monitoring study, Section 5 provides information about the Marsh based upon studies conducted by other parties, and Section 6 describes information gathered by members of the community. Section 7 includes a discussion of the baseline conditions and ecological functions of the Marsh and its buffer areas, based upon the information compiled from the baseline study and other sources. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 9 3 Methods The baseline study included monitoring of both physical and biological parameters over the course of one year. The rationale for the parameters selected for inclusion in the baseline study was explained in the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a), which also provided the methods to be followed for each monitoring parameter. The following subsections provide additional detail about the methods implemented throughout the monitoring year, as well as descriptions of any deviations from the methods as described in the monitoring plan. Monitoring was performed once per season: Summer monitoring was conducted over several dates in July 2018; fall monitoring was conducted over several dates in October 2018; winter monitoring was conducted over several dates in January 2019; and spring monitoring was conducted over several dates in April 2019.3 Monitoring locations were mapped using hand-held GPS units. Most of the monitoring stations established during the summer 2018 event were mapped using a DR-Geo7x-s unit. The discrete water quality monitoring stations were mapped using a Magellan eXplorist 210 GPS unit. Baseline data were recorded on the data sheets presented in the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) and/or within field logbooks. Copies of completed data sheets are provided in Appendix A, and copies of all logbook pages are included in Appendix B. 3.1 MONITORING FOR PHYSICAL PARAMETERS Monitoring the physical parameters of a wetland system—including its hydrology (water levels), water quality, and sediment and soil characteristics—helps provide information about how that wetland functions and provides water storage, water quality improvements, substrates suitable to support plant growth, and habitat structure. In addition, a baseline dataset documenting these parameters can be useful in identifying and quantifying future changes to wetland systems. As part of the baseline study, water quality monitoring was performed, as was characterization of soil from the buffer areas and sediment from the Marsh. 3.1.1 Water quality monitoring As part of the baseline study, water quality monitoring was conducted manually once per season using hand-held water quality meters (i.e., discrete water quality monitoring). Monitoring was also conducted continuously throughout the year using automated water conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) data loggers. Discrete water quality monitoring methods are described in Section 3.1.1.1, and the continuous monitoring with CTD loggers is discussed in Section 3.1.1.2. 3 Spring bird surveys were performed on May 7, 2019. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 10 3.1.1.1 Discrete water quality monitoring Pursuant to the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a), measurements of select water quality parameters were collected at nine locations4 within the Marsh’s primary tidal channels and near areas where surface water or stormwater enters the Marsh. Measurements were collected each season over the course of one year using a YSI© ProDSS® water quality meter (borrowed from the Edmonds Stream Team). Water temperature, pH, conductivity, DO, and turbidity data were collected each season at all nine monitoring locations. Water level data were also collected at each location, using a ruler attached to a wide, flat base (in order to prevent the ruler from sinking below the surface of the substrate). The discrete water quality monitoring stations are described in Table 3-1 and shown on Map 2. Table 3-1. Discrete water quality monitoring station descriptions Water Quality Monitoring Location No. Water Quality Monitoring Location Description 1 Willow Creek within the Hatchery property, just upstream of the bridge, where two logs cross the creek 2 Hatchery property at the edge of the riparian forest canopy, just downstream of where the two branches of Willow Creek come together 3 area of shallow sheet-flow within cattail/nightshade vegetation, north of wooded portion of Hatchery property 3b north of Location 3, near red alder tree covered in bittersweet nightshade 4 tidal/drainage channel at northwest corner of marsh, under large Pacific willow and patch of hardstem bulrush 5 southeast Harbor Square outfall 6 northwest Harbor Square outfall, under first landing of westernmost boardwalk 7 fenced outlet basin, near Edmonds Marina 8 Shellabarger/SR-104 culvert (west side of roadway) Hatchery – Willow Creek fish hatchery SR – State Route 4 Location 3b was added during the winter monitoring event; measurements were collected at this location during the winter and spring monitoring events only. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFDCDCDCPuget SoundEdmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFishHatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayMarinaBeachParkR e s i d e nti a lDayton St.2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarshShellabargerCreekWillowCreekW illowCreekCity of EdmondsVault and Tide GateWillow CreekOutfall InletWillow CreekOutfallWSDOTEdmonds WayOutfall¬«104SED-2SED-3SED-4SED-1N1SBSE3S1123123468753bPrepared by mikey, 9/12/2019; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Monitoring plan\Actual locations\Map 2_6884a_Actual Physical Monitoring Parameter Stations.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 250 500FeetMap 2. Edmonds Marsh baseline studyphysical monitoring parameter stationsStorm structureStorm culvertStorm lineStorm ditch/creekShellabarger Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferEdmonds Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferParcelCity of Edmonds boundarySediment coreDCLarge woody debrisGFDiscrete water quality monitoring stationSediment transect lineVegetation transect selected for soil characterizationSources: Snohomish County, City of Edmonds, Google Earth, ESRI8.1.aPacket Pg. 124Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 13 Water quality measurements were collected during each season; dates are provided in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 also provides information about tidal stages and the amount of rainfall that occurred during the 48 hours preceding each monitoring event, as these factors influence salinity and other water quality parameters, as discussed further in Section 4.1. Table 3-2. Water quality monitoring event information Monitoring Event Date(s) Times Tidal Stagea Approximate Precipitation Previous 48 Hoursb Summer 07/17/2018 12:20–16:25 low tide 0 cm (0 in.) Fall 10/18/2018 09:05–12:30 rising tide 0.25 cm (0.1 in.) Winter 01/17/2019 14:08–16:34 falling tide (started near high tide) 0.29 cm (0.09 in.) Spring 04/15/2019 10:53–12:10 rising tide 0.41 cm (0.16 in.) 04/16/2019 09:47–11:14 rising tide (started near high tide) 0.18 cm (0.07 in.) a Source: NOAA (2019) b Source: WU (2019) NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration WU – Weather Underground Two deviations from the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) occurred during the discrete water quality monitoring. First, the water quality field forms presented in Appendix A of monitoring plan were not filled out in the field. Instead, notes and water quality measurements were recorded in the field log book (Appendix B of this document), as this was a more convenient way to record all of the necessary information in one place. Second, in addition to measurements collected using the YSI© ProDSS® water quality meter, pH measurements were collected using a Hach sensION1 pH meter during the summer, fall, and spring monitoring events, and a HF Scientific, Inc.© MircoTPW turbidimeter was used to collected turbidity measurements during all four monitoring events. These other meters were useful at locations where it was difficult to fully submerge the YSI© ProDSS® water quality meter probe due to shallow water or other space restrictions. The water quality measurements collected during the four events are presented in Section 4.1. 3.1.1.2 Continuous water quality monitoring To support this study, the City purchased seven CTD data loggers and two barometric pressure loggers, all of which were deployed throughout the baseline monitoring year at a total of nine different locations (some of the loggers were used for only part of the year at certain locations and then moved to new locations). The conductivity and temperature data gathered by the data loggers allowed for the calculation of salinity; 8.1.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 14 therefore, the CTD data loggers were used to examine the ranges of water levels and salinity within the Marsh under varying tidal stages and different seasonal conditions. Water elevation was corrected for atmospheric pressure variations recorded by the barometric loggers. The logger stations are shown on Map 3, and the deployment dates for the CTD logger stations are listed in Table 3-3. Table 3-3. CTD data logger deployment dates by station Logger ID No. Deployment Date Deactivation Date Description of Location 1 7/17/2018 7/1/2019 in tidal channel in southern portion of Marsh 2 7/17/2018 3/7/2019 where main tidal channel connects to Willow Creek 3 7/17/2018 7/1/2019 within central Marsh mudflat area 4 7/17/2018 7/1/2019 in tidal channel in northern portion of Marsh 5 7/17/2018 7/1/2019 within Willow Creek where creek turns southwest immediately downstream from Marsh 6 8/23/2018 1/8/2019 within fenced Marsh outlet basin 7 1/8/2019 7/1/2019 in cattail Marsh just north of Hatchery 8 1/8/2019 7/1/2019 on west side of SR-104 culvert 9 3/7/2019 7/1/2019 on east side of SR-104 culvert CTD – conductivity, temperature, and depth Hatchery – Willow Creek fish hatchery ID – identification Marsh – Edmonds Marsh 8.1.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) Puget SoundEdmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFishHatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayMarinaBeachParkR e s i d e nti a lDayton St.2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarshShellabargerCreekWillowCreekW illowCreekCity of EdmondsVault and Tide GateWillow CreekOutfall InletWillow CreekOutfallWSDOTEdmonds WayOutfall¬«104123456789Prepared by mikey, 9/12/2019; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Monitoring plan\Actual locations\Map 3_7075 Actual CTD Logger Stations.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 250 500FeetMap 3. Edmonds Marsh baseline study CTDlogger stationsStorm structureStorm culvertStorm lineStorm ditch/creekShellabarger Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferEdmonds Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferParcelCity of Edmonds boundaryCTD data logger stationSources: Snohomish County, City of Edmonds, Google Earth, ESRI8.1.aPacket Pg. 127Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 17 One of the goals of the baseline study was to examine water salinity and depth within the Marsh when the downstream tide “flap gate “was chained open compared to when it was allowed to flap open and closed with the tide. Table 3-4 lists the tide gate state for the baseline monitoring year. The CTD logger data are also discussed within the context of the tide gate status in Section 7.1. Table 3-4. Tide gate opening/closing dates Tide Gate Status Start Date End Date Comments Closed 7/17/2018 8/27/2018 Chain on tide gate had broken and gate was closed. Opened 8/27/2018 10/5/2018 Gate was repaired by City of Edmonds Public Works staff on 8/27/2018 and opened. Closed 10/5/2018 10/16/2018 seasonal closure Opened 10/16/2018 10/24/2018 - Closed 10/24/2018 12/3/2018 seasonal closure Opened 12/3/2018 12/7/2018 - Closed 12/7/2018 2/25/2019 seasonal closure Opened 2/25/2019 7/1/2019 - Deviations from the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) relating to installation and operation of the CTD loggers were as follows:  The monitoring plan called for deploying five of the seven CTD loggers and reserving two as spares. However, ultimately all seven loggers were deployed in order to gather as much information as possible from different areas of the Marsh.  The loggers were anchored in place using ¾-in. polyvinyl (PVC) pipe casings instead of copper pipe, and each pipe casing was professionally surveyed to provide precise geographic coordinates and elevation data for the logger stations. Surveying was performed by DHA Surveyors.  Once the loggers were confirmed to be operating reliably, they were maintained and their data downloaded once every two to three months. The long battery life, absence of biofouling of the sensors, and high data storage capacity of these loggers allowed for such a maintenance schedule. 3.1.2 Soil and sediment observations and measurements As part of the baseline study, upland soils from the buffer zones of the Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh were characterized, as were mudflat sediments from within the Marsh. Both upland soil and mudflat sediment were characterized using field techniques like texture and hydric soil feature evaluations, and both were analyzed for conventional parameters following the methods described in the monitoring plan 8.1.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 18 (Windward 2018a). Deviations from these methods, as well as the specific monitoring station locations, are described in further detail in the following subsections. 3.1.2.1 Upland soil characterization in buffer zones Upland soil characterization field surveys were conducted at four locations: One soil characterization station was established within each of the three buffer zones of the Marsh (north, south, and southeast), and one was established within the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone (Map 2 and Table 3-5). Field techniques were used to assess soils during both the fall and spring monitoring events in order to capture variability present during drier and wetter times of the year. Soil samples were collected during the fall monitoring event and submitted for laboratory analyses. The soil monitoring stations were placed randomly within one of the vegetation monitoring plots established along the vegetation monitoring transect lines in the buffer zones. Vegetation monitoring plots and transects are described further in Section 3.2.1, and the transect lines along which the soil characterization stations were established are shown on Map 2. Table 3-5. Upland soil characterization stations Location Location Description North Buffer Zone North Buffer Zone, Transect N1 (N1) Southeast Buffer Zone Southeast Buffer Zone, Transect 3 (SE3) South Buffer Zone South Buffer Zone (Hatchery), Transect 1 (S1) Shellabarger Marsh Shellabarger Marsh, north buffer zone transect (SB) Hatchery – Willow Creek fish hatchery ID – identification 3.1.2.2 Mudflat sediment characterizations within the Marsh Marsh sediments were evaluated during the fall monitoring event using both field techniques and laboratory analyses. Four sediment monitoring stations were established along a northwest-to-southeast-oriented transect line within the mudflat portion of the Marsh (Map 2). The transect line was oriented to follow a salinity gradient from estuarine to freshwater conditions within the Marsh. Sediment samples were collected using a clear 3-in.-diameter Lexan™ core tube, manually driven into the substrate with a rubber mallet. Although the monitoring plan called for collecting sediment samples to a depth of about 15-in, characterization of interior marsh sediment profiles could only be done to a maximum depth of 9-in due to the loose, unconsolidated nature of the sediment, and inundation of the sampling pits with water, which prevented a deeper profile from being characterized. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 19 After the core tube had been extracted, its outer surface was cleaned to allow for visual observation of the sediment within. The depth of any distinct sediment layer was measured, and other physical characteristics were recorded on the sediment collection form (in Appendix A). Sediment samples were then collected from the top 4 in.5 of the core, homogenized in a stainless steel bowl, transferred into clean jars, and submitted to a laboratory for pH, total organic carbon (TOC), and grain size analysis. There were no deviations from the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) during the mudflat sediment characterization and sampling. 3.2 MONITORING FOR BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS The biological parameters surveyed as part of the baseline study were vegetation and LWD, invertebrates, birds, and other wildlife. These parameters were monitored to provide information about the habitat functions currently being provided by the Marsh and its buffer zones. The established vegetation communities were monitored in order to more thoroughly describe the plant composition of those habitat areas, and to identify invasive species that may require control. The presence and quantity of LWD within the Marsh and its buffer zones was monitored to provide an understanding of the overall quantity of large wood, which is an important habitat feature for many wildlife species, and which can also help provide other functions like shading/water cooling and sediment/soil retention. Information on invertebrates present within the buffer zones was gathered for use as an indicator of available food sources for predators such as birds and fish. Monitoring for birds and wildlife was conducted to provide information about the species currently using the Marsh. 3.2.1 Vegetation surveys Vegetation surveys were conducted within the Marsh and its buffer zones to document community composition and vegetation structure. The baseline vegetation monitoring provided a snapshot of current conditions in the Marsh and its buffer zones. This information can be compared to data collected in the future to document changes that have occurred as a result of natural plant growth, decline, and species composition changes, or as a result of human activities such as active habitat restoration efforts. An additional goal of the vegetation monitoring was to help identify and document any patches of invasive species in need of management.6 3.2.1.1 Marsh vegetation surveys Qualitative vegetation surveys were performed to document the dominant7 plant species present within the Marsh interior, and to identify the transition zone between 5 The top 10 cm (4 in.) of the sediment is considered to the biologically active zone (EPA 2015). 6 The City’s Parks Department is also planning for invasive species management within the Marsh and buffer areas. As part of the planning process, the City conducted an aerial drone survey of the Marsh to help identify patches of invasive species. 7 Dominant species are those that are most abundant in the community or patch. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 20 salt-tolerant species and species more indicative of freshwater conditions (e.g., cattail). Vegetation patches were mapped by walking around distinct patches while holding the DR-Geo7x-s GPS unit, when possible. When vegetation growth was dense enough to preclude walking around the patch perimeter, a high-resolution aerial photograph was used to help delineate patches, and the species composition of the patches was surveyed from surrounding areas, to the extent possible. This method was used to record the locations of invasive plant species as well as patches of different native plant communities. The Marsh vegetation surveys were conducted during the summer 2018 monitoring event, when the sedges, grasses, rushes, and other vegetation within the Marsh were at peak growth, and when many species were in flower (thus aiding plant identification). Additional follow-up survey work was performed during the fall and spring monitoring events to help confirm findings from the summer survey. 3.2.1.2 Buffer zone vegetation surveys Vegetation within the buffer zones was quantitatively evaluated by establishing vegetation sampling transect lines in the north, south, and southeast8 buffer zones of the Marsh (Map 4). These buffer zones were selected for sampling because they are owned by either the City or other landowners who granted access for this study. The majority of the Shellabarger Marsh buffer is located on privately owned residential property; therefore, surveys of the Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones were limited to the north buffer zone, which lies on property owned by the City. The transect end points were marked using the DR-Geo7x-s GPS unit. 8 The northern portion of the eastern buffer zone of the Marsh is very narrow and consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius). The vegetation sampling transect for the eastern buffer zone was therefore located in the southern portion of the zone, where the vegetated portion of the buffer zone widens and becomes more diverse in terms of plant species present. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) "T"T"T"T[b![![[b[b![[b[bPuget SoundEdmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFish HatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayMarinaBeachParkR e s i d e nti a lDayton St.2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarshShellabargerCreekWillowCreekW illowCkCity of EdmondsVault and Tide GateWillow CreekOutfall InletWillow CreekOutfallWSDOTEdmonds WayOutfall1234BPC-1WC2WC3BPC-2BPC-3WC1BPC-4BPC-5S2FTSB1FTSE2FTN4FTN1N2SE3N3S2SE1S1SE2SBN4Prepared by mikey, 9/12/2019; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Monitoring plan\Actual locations\Map 4_6885a_Actual Biological Monitoring Parameter Stations.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 250 500FeetMap 4. Edmonds Marsh baseline studybiological monitoring parameter stationsStorm structureStorm culvertStorm lineStorm ditch/creekShellabarger Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferEdmonds Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferParcelCity of Edmonds boundary[bBird point count station![Wildlife camera station"TInvertebrate fallout trap stationVegetation transect selected for soil characterizationQuantitative vegetation survey areaNorthShellabarger MarshSouthSoutheastSources: Snohomish County, City of Edmonds, Google Earth, ESRI8.1.aPacket Pg. 132Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 23 Quantitative vegetation data were collected from the buffer zones during the summer and spring monitoring events. Quantitative vegetation samples were divided into three vertical stratum classes: tree, sapling/shrub, and herbaceous. Tree and shrub species were inventoried as part of the herbaceous stratum when they were present as seedlings or as new, low-growing growth. Densitometer readings were also taken to estimate canopy closure within the buffer zone transects. The densitometer used consisted of a spherical, concave mirror engraved with a grid of squares to delineate an overhead plot. The monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) called for establishing three vegetation transect lines in the north buffer zone: one in the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone, one in the south buffer zone, and two in the southeast buffer zone. Ultimately, four transects were established in the north buffer zone, two were established in the south buffer zone, and three were established in the southeast buffer zone.9 The additional transects were added because the random placement of the initial transects caused some to be placed in relatively narrow locations where the transects could not extend the full 40 m (125 ft) intended, due to physical obstructions or site boundary limitations. Therefore, additional transects were added to provide more coverage within these zones. There were no other deviations from the sampling methods listed in the monitoring plan. The vegetation data sheets are provided in Appendix A. Deviations from (and additional sampling details beyond those provided in) the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) relating to vegetation surveys were as follows:  Vegetation in the herbaceous strata were defined if they were below knee height (~2-ft).  Vegetation in the scrub-shrub strata were quantitatively assessed if they were above knee height (~2-ft), but below shoulder height (~5-ft).  Only the herbaceous stratum was sampled twice (during the summer and spring monitoring events). The herbaceous stratum was sampled during both seasons because herbaceous vegetation cover was expected to be different during different parts of the growing season. The tree and shrub/sapling strata were sampled during the summer monitoring event only as the species composition in these vegetation layers was not expected to change between seasons. 3.2.1.3 Large woody debris surveys All pieces of LWD encountered within the Marsh interior during vegetation or other surveys were recorded in the field logbook, and GPS coordinates were recorded (using the Magellan eXplorist 210) for those locations. Within the buffer zones, all pieces of 9 Only one transect was established in the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone, as planned. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 24 LWD encountered within the vegetation belt transects were inventoried; data for these LWD pieces were recorded on the vegetation data sheets (Appendix A). 3.2.2 Invertebrate surveys During both the summer and spring monitoring events, invertebrate fallout traps were set to collect insects from the air and buffer zone vegetation. One vegetation transect from each of the buffer zones was randomly selected for fallout trap placement (Map 4). Three replicate fallout traps were placed along each selected transect, near the transition between the buffer zones and the Marsh edge. Invertebrates captured within the traps after a 24-hour deployment period were removed and preserved in 85% ethanol. They were later examined under a dissecting microscope (AmScope 7X-45X Dissecting Circuit Stereo Microscope) and identified to the taxonomic Order level.10 Field data collection sheets and the taxonomic identification forms for the invertebrate samples are provided in Appendix A. There were no deviations from the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) for the fallout trap sampling. Additionally, the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) described collecting and processing sediment core samples from the mudflat habitat of the Marsh interior in order to collect both benthic and water column invertebrates. Organisms in the sediment samples were to be examined and identified to the Order level. While the sediment core samples were collected and processed, the organism identification step did not occur. Attempts were made to sort and identify invertebrates within the samples; however, the process was very difficult given the high proportion of fine organic material within the samples. Also, aquatic invertebrate data from the Marsh, Willow Creek, and Shellabarger Creek that had been collected as part of the Willow Creek Daylighting project11 studies became available. These data were provided by a certified taxonomic lab and were therefore relied upon for information pertaining to the baseline condition of the aquatic invertebrate community. The invertebrate data from the Willow Creek Daylighting study are discussed in Section 5.2. 3.2.3 Bird surveys Bird point count (BPC) surveys were conducted once per season (during periods of relatively calm, clear weather) at five locations throughout the Marsh and its buffer zones, as described in Table 3-6 and shown on Map 4. The survey stations were located within or adjacent to the buffer zones of the Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh in 10 While some invertebrates could be identified to a lower taxonomic level (as indicated in the “notes” portion of the invertebrate data tables), the official identification was limited to the Order level, as identification was not performed by certified taxonomists. 11 The Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project was formerly referred to as the Willow Creek Daylighting project. The older name is used when discussing previous studies that referenced it as such. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 25 order to survey areas of varying buffer habitat type12 and quality, as well as areas with differing degrees of nearby human use. The survey stations were mapped using the DR-Geo7x-s GPS unit, and rebar stakes with bright orange caps were used as field markers to ensure that the same point count stations were used each season.13 Table 3-6. BPC station descriptions and survey dates Location ID Location Description Survey Dates BPC-1 Harbor Square boardwalk lookout 7/19/2018 10/23/2018 1/28/2019 5/7/2019 BPC--2 Marsh interior adjacent to Willow Creek BPC3 northwest of Hatchery in Marsh BPC-4 Hatchery riparian habitat BPC-5 off 2nd Avenue South near Shellabarger Marsh BPC – bird point count Hatchery – Willow Creek fish hatchery Marsh – Edmonds Marsh Monitoring began around sunrise and lasted five minutes at each point count station. Birds were counted if seen or heard, either in the air or on the ground/water, within a 50-m (164-ft) radius of the point count location. Bird counts were classified as seen (interacting with habitat within 50 m), heard (believed to be vocalizing within 50 m), or fly over (seen flying over habitat but not interacting with the habitat within 50 m). As much as possible, notes were also made regarding the behaviors being displayed by the individual birds recorded during the point count survey. The point count data sheets are provided in Appendix A. There were no deviations from the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) with respect to the bird surveys. 3.2.4 Other wildlife observations Three wildlife cameras were deployed throughout the baseline monitoring year in order to generate a better inventory of wildlife using the area. Two cameras were placed within the Marsh: one at the north end of the large mudflat area in the western portion of the Marsh, and one at the south end of the mudflat area (Map 4).14 The third camera was placed within the wooded habitat of the south buffer zone. The two cameras used within the Marsh interior were Stealth Cam© Dual Sensor STC-DS4K wildlife cameras, which do not generate any flashing or glowing lights, even when taking night photos. The camera placed within the south buffer zone was a Bushnell© 12 Due to the lengths of the point count station radii (50 m), the stations also extended into the Marsh and, in the case of the Shellabarger Marsh station, into the surrounding neighborhood. 13 The rebar stake marking the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone BPC station went missing a fter the summer monitoring event; a nearby street sign was used in its place, as the sign was located in nearly the same spot as the rebar stake had been. 14 The south mudflat camera and the south buffer zone camera were both repositioned at least once during the monitoring year; however, the distances between the initial locations and the subsequent locations were small enough (generally 10 to 15 ft) that the new locations were not mapped. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 26 20MP Trophy Cam Low Glow, HD Aggressor, which generates a low-level glow when taking night photos. The south buffer zone trail camera was positioned near the terminus of one of the Willow Creek fish hatchery (Hatchery) trails and was mounted to a tree. The two cameras in the Marsh were mounted on large metal stakes driven into the substrate. All cameras were locked to their mounts and their locations mapped using the DR-Geo7x-s GPS unit. The wildlife cameras were maintained and their secure digital (SD) cards downloaded at least once per season. All batteries were replaced during the winter 2019 monitoring event. The cameras performed well throughout the monitoring year. In addition to wildlife captured by the trail cameras, wildlife (i.e., birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals) incidentally observed during the seasonal monitoring events were identified to the species level whenever possible and recorded in the field notebook (see Appendix B). 3.3 PHOTO POINT MONITORING Although 12 photo point monitoring locations were proposed in the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a), 13 locations were ultimately established throughout the Marsh and buffer zones to visually document baseline habitat conditions and capture seasonal variability within these areas. Table 3-7 and Map 5 present the photo point monitoring stations. Photo point photos were taken once per season in multiple cardinal directions to document current conditions and supplement the quantitative data collected over the course of the baseline monitoring year. Photo point monitoring forms are provided in Appendix A. Table 3-7. Photo point monitoring station locations Photo Point Station Photo Point Station Description Photo Direction(s) A northern marsh interior, intertidal mudflat area 0–360° view B western edge of Marsh E, SE, S C boardwalk lookout at west end of Marsh trail E, S, SW D main Marsh trail boardwalk lookout at northernmost corner of Marsh SE, S, SW E Marsh trail boardwalk lookout west of Harbor Square Athletic Club NW, SW F Marsh trail boardwalk lookout south of Harbor Square Athletic Club SE, SW G along SR-104 east of Harbor Square Athletic Club SW H along SR-104 on west side of Shellabarger Marsh NE I along SR-104 at Milepost 25 NW, W, S J southern Marsh interior, north of Hatchery 0–360° view K Willow Creek, near Hatchery W, N, NE L Point Edwards overlook off Pine Drive E, NE M Point Edwards overlook stormwater detention pond W Hatchery – Willow Creek fish hatchery Marsh – Edmonds Marsh SR – State Route 8.1.a Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) kkkkkkkkkkkkkEdmonds MarshShellabargerMarshKJLMBACDEFGHIPrepared by mikey, 9/12/2019; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Monitoring plan\Actual locations\Map 5_6881a_Actual Photo Point Monitoring Stations.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 250 500FeetMap 5. Edmonds Marsh baseline study photopoint monitoring stationsCity of Edmonds boundarySources: Snohomish County, City of Edmonds, Google Earth, ESRIkPhoto point monitoring station8.1.aPacket Pg. 137Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 29 3.4 DATA MANAGEMENT All field activities were recorded on field forms, which the field coordinator checked for missing information at the end of each field day and amended as necessary. A quality control (QC) check was done to ensure that all data were transferred accurately from the field forms to the project database. Field forms are included in Appendix A and have been archived in the Windward library. Each time the CTD loggers were serviced, a station data file was downloaded in the field to a secure laptop using Diver-Office 2018.2 software. The CTD logger data were then QC checked by the technical lead for the project. Once reviewed, the data were uploaded to the project’s Microsoft® Access database. A combination of automated scripts and manual checks were then performed to verify the accuracy of the import process. Any revisions identified as part of the validation process were applied to the database prior to exporting data for project team use. Data were exported for distribution to the project team as Microsoft® Excel files. The project’s complete Access database will be provided as a deliverable to the client. As is typical, the raw data downloaded from the field-deployed CTDs contained some dubious values. For example, water heights were reported as ≤ 0 cm, indicating that the sensors were above the water surface. Graphical techniques and visual inspection were used to identify the questionable data points, which were subsequently edited from the time series and excluded from calculated salinity statistics. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 31 4 Results The results for the physical monitoring parameters are presented in Section 4.1 (Discrete Water Quality Monitoring), Section 4.2 (Continuous Water Depth and Salinity Monitoring), Section 4.3 (Soil Observations and Analysis), and Section 4.4 (Sediment Observations and Analysis). The results for the biological monitoring parameters are presented in Section 4.5 (Vegetation Surveys), Section 4.6 (LWD Surveys), Section 4.7 (Invertebrate Surveys), Section 4.8 (Bird Surveys), and Section 4.9 (Other Wildlife Observations). Section 4.10 discusses the photo point monitoring. 4.1 DISCRETE WATER QUALITY MONITORING Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present the results of the discrete water quality monitoring for Stations 1 through 4 and 5 through 8 (Map 2), respectively. As applicable, the water quality monitoring results were compared to Washington State Department of Ecology’s (Ecology’s) marine and freshwater surface WQC, as presented in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173 201A 200 and WAC 173 201A 210. Results from samples with salinity less than 0.5 ppt15 were compared to the freshwater WQC for salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration. Results from samples with salinity greater than 0.5 ppt were compared to “good quality” marine WQC. 15 In 1978, the Practical Salinity Scale, which uses a ratio of measured conductivity to the conductivity of a standard potassium chlorine solution to determine salinity, was adopted by oceanographers (Thermo Scientific 2011). This scale is referred to as PSS-78 and has no units, as it measures ratios, but it does report salinity in practical salinity units (psu); 1 psu is equivalent to 1 ppt. The salinity measurements being taken in the Marsh were calculated as psu from conductivity and temperature but reported herein as ppt for comparison with regulatory standards. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 33 Table 4-1. Water quality monitoring results: Stations 1–4 Parameter Units WQC 1 2 3 3ba 4 Marine Freshwater Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Winter Spring Summerb Fall Winter Springc Temperature °F 66.2 63.5 59.6 51.3 48.5 49.2 59.9 52.5 48.4 49.6 60.4 51.4 48.2 49.7 48.8 50.4 70.7b 59.4 46.1 51.4 DO % - - 99.2 98.8 96.8 98.7 98.8 99.6 95.9 99.2 89.6 94.0 85.7 90.8 90.0 73.3 ncb 91.5 82.2 104.9 DO mg/L 5.0 8.0 9.93 10.96 11.14 11.26 9.85 10.87 11.04 11.26 8.88 10.42 9.90 10.31 10.31 8.20 ncb 8.94 9.76 10.18 Conductivity µS/cm - - 194.7 169.6 155.1 78.7 195.7 171.6 155.1 163.9 196.8 169.5 153.5 163.8 155.8 162.4 ncb 5200 276.7 27103 Salinity ppt - - 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 ncb 3.38 0.20 23.46 pH SU 7-8.5d 6.5-8.5e 7.67 7.89 7.02 6.90 8.01 8.35 7.13 7.39 7.78 8.14 7.12 7.88 7.02 7.44 6.50 6.42 6.80 6.71 Turbidity NTU +10f +5g 2.5 1.1 2.2 2.0 3.4 1.3 2.3 5.6 3.8 3.2 17.6 2.3 13.5 4.0 14.4 12 5.7 139 Water depth in. - - 6.75 6.0 5.5 4 6 5.7 9.1 5.5 5.5 4 1.8 1 3.3 1.5 2.25 3.75h 14.2 6.5 Results greater than (for temperature), less than (for DO), or outside the range (for pH) of the WQC are bold and underlined. a Monitoring location 3b was added during the winter monitoring event. b Only pH, turbidity, water depth, and temperature were recorded at Location 4 in the summer. There was no flow (water was stagnant) and the values measured by the YSI ProDSS meter fluctuated significantly, so additional measurements were not collected from that meter. The temperature reading of 70.7°F represents just one of several fluctuating readings. c Water was stagnant during the spring monitoring event at Location 4. A bacterial sheen was observed on the water surface. d The pH WQC for “good quality” marine water is: pH must be within the range of 7.0 to 8.5, with a human-caused variation within this range of less than 0.5 units. e The pH WQC for salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration in freshwater is: pH must be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5, with a human-caused variation within this range of less than 0.2 units. f The turbidity WQC for “good quality” water is: Turbidity must not exceed 10 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less , or a 20% increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU. Background turbidity is not well established; turbidity results were compared to a threshold of 25 NTU. g The turbidity WQC for salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration in freshwater is: Turbidity must not exceed 5 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU of less , or a 10% increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU. Background turbidity is not well established; turbidity results were compared to a threshold of 25 NTU. h Water depth was recorded as approximately 3.5 to 4 in. DO – dissolved oxygen nc – not collected NTU – nephelometric turbidity unit ppt – parts per thousand SU – standard unit WQC – water quality criteria 8.1.a Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 34 Table 4-2. Water quality monitoring results: Stations 5–8 Parameter Units WQC 5 6 7 8 Marine Freshwater Summera Falla Winter Springa Summer Falla Wintera Springa Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Falla Winter Spring Temperature °F 66.2 63.5 68.0 60.1 46.9 52.1 72.1 60.7 45.8 52.6 74.9 54.3 46.7 49.0 63.7 53.9 48.8 51.5 DO % - - 5.2 3.4 42.4 5.4 9.3 6.7 46.8 26.5 131.7 79.0 87.4 81.0 87.7 92.9 85.4 91.3 DO mg/L 5.0 8.0 0.47 0.34 4.97 0.59 0.81 0.62 5.57 2.89 11.11 6.94 10.28 8.26 8.38 9.97 9.78 10.09 Conductivity µS/cm - - 542 560 464.8 459.8 266.1 424.5 319.5 275.1 878 36242 239.8 20350 243.4 217.6 185.6 202.0 Salinity ppt - - 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.13 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.44 31.05 0.17 17.85 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 pH SU 7-8.5b 6.5-8.5c 6.68 6.84 6.55 7.25 7.04 7.28 6.76 7.26 8.20 7.54 7.06 6.19 8.28 7.85 7.32 7.83 Turbidity NTU +10d +5e 8.2 4.9 13.8 12.9 20.3 21 6.6 8.4 3.8 12 9.3 2.3 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.3 Water depth in. - - 19 >12 24.4 20 9.5 >12 16.1 13 4.5 >24 17.3 12 13 12 12.2 14 Results greater than (for temperature), less than (for dissolved oxygen), or outside the range (for pH) of the WQC are bold and underlined. a No flow was observed (i.e., water was stagnant) at this location during this monitoring event. b The pH WQC for “good quality” marine water is: pH must be within the range of 7.0 to 8.5, with a human-caused variation within this range of less than 0.5 units. c The pH WQC for salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration in freshwater is: pH must be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5, with a human-caused variation within this range of less than 0.2 units. d The turbidity WQC for “good quality” water is: Turbidity must not exceed 10 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less, or a 20% increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU. Background turbidity is not well established; turbidity results were compared to a threshold of 25 NTU. e The turbidity WQC for salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration in freshwater is: Turbidity must not exceed, 5 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU of less; or a 10% increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU. Background turbidity is not well established; turbidity results were compared to a threshold of 25 NTU. DO – dissolved oxygen NTU – nephelometric turbidity unit ppt – parts per thousand WQC – water quality criteria SU – standard unit WQC – water quality criteria 8.1.a Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 35 In general, Washington State WQC were met at most of the water quality monitoring stations throughout the baseline monitoring year; however, the comparisons to criteria were not clear-cut for pH and turbidity. Both the marine and freshwater criteria for these parameters involve comparison to background values. WAC 173-201A-020 defines “background” as a condition of a water body “outside the area of influence of the discharge under consideration.” Background conditions are generally measured upgradient of or outside the area of influence, which in the case of the Marsh, could be where water flows into the Marsh uninfluenced by stormwater or wastewater inputs. The pH WQC for “good quality” marine water requires that the pH be between 7.0 and 8.5, with a human-caused variation of less than 0.5 units within that range (WAC 173-201A-210). For salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration in freshwater, the WQC is that pH be between 6.5 and 8.5, with a human-caused variation of less than 0.2 units within that range (WAC 173-201A-200). The turbidity WQC for “good quality” marine water requires that turbidity not exceed 10 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) over background when the background turbidity level is 50 NTU or less, or that there be no more than a 20% increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU (WAC 173-201A-210). The turbidity WQC for salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration in freshwater requires that turbidity not exceed 5 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less, or that there be no more than a 10% increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU (WAC 173-201A-200). Background pH and turbidity values for the single-point monitoring locations at the Marsh are not well established. Therefore, pH results were simply compared to the ranges provided in the criteria; human-caused variation was not considered. pH at the baseline monitoring stations ranged from 6.19 to 8.35 and was generally stable at each station throughout the four monitoring events (Figure 4-1). Greater pH variation among seasons was observed at Station 7 (the fenced outlet basin downstream from the Marsh), where pH varied by more than 2 standard units (SU) over the four monitoring periods. At all other stations, pH varied less than 1 SU among the four monitoring periods. pH measurements were outside of (below) the criteria range for three readings: two readings collected at Station 4 (fall and spring events) and one reading collected at Station 7 (spring event) (Tables 4-1 and 4-2). The tide gate was open during the fall and spring events; water was flowing into the Marsh from Station 7. Stations 4 and 7 are tidally influenced. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 36 Figure 4-1. Graphical presentation of pH measurements Turbidity measurements were generally low (Figure 4-2); however, because background turbidity values have not been established for the Marsh, it is not clear whether or not the measured turbidity values would meet WQC. As an additional form of comparison, all results were below the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISGP) turbidity benchmark of 25 NTU, with the exception of the spring event turbidity reading for Station 4 (i.e., 139 NTU) (Table 4-2). The water at Station 4 during the spring monitoring event was stagnant and a bacterial sheen was observed on the water surface, which may have contributed to the relatively high turbidity reading. Figure 4-2. Graphical presentation of turbidity measurements 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 3b 4 5 6 7 8pH (standard units)Water Quality Monitoring Station pH Summer Fall Winter Spring 139 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 3b 4 5 6 7 8Turbidity (NTU)Water Quality Monitoring Station Turbidity Summer Fall Winter Spring 8.1.a Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 37 Temperature measurements followed the expected pattern: The highest water temperature measurements were collected during the summer monitoring event, and the lowest measurements were collected during the winter monitoring event (Figure 4-3). Water temperature measurements were relatively similar during the winter and spring monitoring events at each location. Water temperature measurements collected at Stations 1, 2, and 3 were almost identical to each other during all four monitoring events, and were typically lower than at the other monitoring stations in the summer and fall. Stations 1 and 2 are located within Willow Creek in the riparian habitat of the south buffer zone, and Station 3 is located just to the north of the riparian habitat within the freshwater, cattail-dominated portion of the Marsh (Table 3-2). The WQC for temperature was exceeded in four instances: at Stations 5, 6, 7, and 8, all during the summer monitoring event (Table 4-2). This is not surprising, given the high air temperature of 78°F recorded during the monitoring event. Figure 4-3. Graphical presentation of temperature measurements DO was generally stable throughout the year and similar among monitoring stations (Figure 4-4). It was much lower at Stations 5 and 6 than at the other monitoring locations; water at Stations 5 and 6 was often observed to be stagnant during monitoring events. There was also variability at Station 7 (the fenced Marsh outlet basin), where lower DO measurements corresponded to the high-salinity events. The DO WQC are one-day minimums. These minimums were met at all water quality monitoring stations except Stations 5 and 6 (the outfalls from Harbor Square). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1 2 3 3b 4 5 6 7 8Temperature (degrees F)Water Quality Monitoring Station Temperature Summer Fall Winter Spring 8.1.a Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 38 Figure 4-4. Graphical presentation of DO measurements The effects of tidal influence are noticeable at Stations 4 and 7 (Figure 4-5). Station 4 is located near Harbor Square but within a natural tidal channel of the Marsh (Map 2). Station 7 is located within the fenced Marsh outlet basin near the marina. These locations were tidally influenced during the fall and spring monitoring events, when the tide gate was open (Table 3-4). The influence is evident in the conductivity and salinity measurements (Figure 4-5), which were higher at these monitoring locations during the fall and spring (when the tide gate was open, Table 3-4) than during the summer and winter (when the tide gate was closed, Table 3-5). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1 2 3 3b 4 5 6 7 8Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)Water Quality Monitoring Station Dissolved Oxygen Summer Fall Winter Spring 8.1.a Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 39 Figure 4-5. Graphical presentation of salinity results 4.2 CONTINUOUS WATER DEPTH AND SALINITY MONITORING As described in Section 3.1.1.2, salinity, water temperature, and water depth in the Marsh were recorded with CTD data loggers between July 2018 and July 2019 (Map 3). The Marsh’s water depth and salinity are tightly linked, with the greatest salinity occurring at high tide with an open tide gate (Figure 4-6). 3.38 31.0523.46 17.85 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 1 2 3 3b 4 5 6 7 8Salinity (ppt)Water Quality Monitoring Station Salinity Summer Fall Winter Spring 8.1.a Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 40 Figure 4-6. Relationships among salinity, water level, rainfall, and gate status in the lower Marsh 8.1.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 41 The Marsh tidal regime is largely controlled by the state of the one-way tide gate located at the landward end of the pipe under Admiral Way (Figure 4-7). Under standard operation, the tide gate allows water in the Marsh to drain when the pressure of the water that has accumulated within the marsh exceeds that of the tide, thus opening the flap (“open” tide gate status in Table 4-3); backflow is precluded when the tide pressure exceeds the internal pressure in the marsh and the flap closes (‘closed” tide gate status in Table 4-3). However, the tide gate does not always completely seal and leaks, sometimes significantly (“open?” tide gate status in Table 4-3). At the request of the Edmonds Marsh Task Force, City Public Works chains the tide gate open during periods of little rainfall, permitting two-way flow and allowing the tide to move saltwater from the Puget Sound into the Marsh (“open” tide gate status in Table 4-3). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 42 Table 4-3. Marsh water level and salinity summary statistics from CTD deployment Location Tide Gate Status Station Elevation (ft above msl) Water Elevation (ft relative to msl) Salinity (ppt), Excluding "Dry" Conditions N Minimum Maximum Mean N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation Station 1 closed 1.8 12,175 1.78 3.12 1.93 8,283 0.01 30.88 0.63 1.67 Station 1 open? 1.8 10,149 1.78 4.32 2.24 8,354 0.04 30.06 3.65 6.47 Station 1 opened 1.8 6,770 1.78 3.68 2.23 5,004 0.01 32.58 11.89 7.93 Station 2 closed 1.4 12,175 1.43 3.02 1.77 12,174 0.10 22.13 2.71 4.12 Station 2 open? 1.4 14,574 1.43 3.59 2.11 14,572 0.10 29.56 3.71 4.99 Station 2 opened 1.4 6,759 1.50 3.59 2.08 6,759 0.18 22.37 14.15 5.02 Station 3 closed 2.1 12,175 2.12 3.09 2.18 6,838 0.00 32.36 0.40 1.76 Station 3 open? 2.1 30,504 2.12 4.74 2.46 29,301 0.00 32.68 7.78 9.23 Station 3 opened 2.1 6,760 2.12 3.65 2.36 4,735 0.00 32.89 12.09 7.97 Station 4 closed 2.0 12,160 1.98 4.59 2.06 6,670 0.01 22.07 0.83 1.75 Station 4 open? 2.0 31,275 1.98 3.72 2.34 27,286 0.13 33.57 11.23 8.71 Station 4 opened 2.0 6,758 1.98 3.67 2.30 4,351 0.01 28.36 10.30 5.20 Station 5 closed 1.6 12,176 1.61 3.08 1.86 10,544 0.05 29.42 0.36 1.57 Station 5 open? 1.6 31,285 1.61 3.76 2.26 30,100 0.03 31.11 8.47 10.22 Station 5 opened 1.6 6,757 1.61 3.67 2.18 6,251 0.10 29.36 8.81 6.83 CTD – conductivity, temperature, and depth msl – mean sea level N – number of records ppt – parts per thousand 8.1.a Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 43 Figure 4-7. Water level in relation to rainfall and gate status 8.1.a Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 44 When the baseline study began in mid-July 2018, it was thought that the one-way tide gate was chained open; however, recorded conductivity (salinity) was low or negligible at all locations and the tide signal was very muted (varying by only a few inches). After a review of these data and a site visit with City staff to inspect the tide gate, it was discovered that the chain holding the flap open had failed and the tide gate had inadvertently closed. The chain was replaced and the tide gate reopened toward the end of August 2018. Once the flap gate was chained open, strong water level fluctuation and salinity variation were recorded at Stations 1 through 6 (Map 3) (Figures 4-7 and 4-8). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 45 Figure 4-8. Salinity in relation to rainfall and gate status 8.1.a Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 46 4.3 UPLAND SOIL OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS Buffer zone soils were sampled and analyzed to better understand characteristics related to the functions of the wetland buffer zones. Laboratory analyses of the organic matter content, grain size/texture distribution, bulk density, and pH of buffer soil samples were performed, and the results of these analyses are provided in Appendix C. These metrics provide useful information about soil suitability for supporting native plants and invertebrates, as well as information on hydraulic conductivity and water infiltration rates, both of which are important components in determining how well buffer zones can provide stormwater flow control and water quality improvements (Castelle et al. 1992). The US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) has characterized and mapped soil units within Edmonds and Shellabarger Marshes, as well as their surrounding upland areas (see the soil series map provided in Appendix D). According to the WSS, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (identified as Area 3 on the map in Appendix D), Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams (Area 5 on the map), and Everett very gravelly sandy loam (Area 17 on the map) are all found in and at the margins of the uplands surrounding Edmonds and Shellabarger Marshes. These soil types are found on terraces and outwash plains formed by glacial outwash; they drain moderately well, and their surface layer is gravelly sandy loam. Kitsap silt loam (Areas 27 and 28 on the map), which is located further upland as terraced deposits, is a moderately well-draining soil. The WSSs also identified much of the area adjacent to the Marsh as “urban land;” a designation that typically includes areas where soils have been disturbed and where structures are now present. Table 4-4 and Figure 4-9 show the laboratory results for the upland buffer zone soil samples. Results varied among buffer locations, yet overall they followed the same general pattern, with sand and gravel comprising a large proportion of the samples. These results are consistent with the descriptions of the Alderwood, Alderwood-Everett, and Everett soil series. Total sand content ranged from 48.2% in the north buffer zone to 68.9% in the south buffer zone at the Hatchery property. Total gravel content ranged from 12.2% in the south buffer zone to 36.8% in the north buffer zone. There were smaller proportions of finer-grained silt and clay particles than of sand and gravel content in all samples. Percent total fines (silt and clay grain size fractions) ranged from 9.2% in the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone to 18.9% in the south buffer zone. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 47 Table 4-4. Laboratory results for upland soil samples Location Grain Size Distribution (%)a Wet Chemistry Gravel Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Coarse Silt Medium Silt Fine Silt Clay Total Finesb Bulk Densityc (g/cm3) pH TOC (%) North Buffer Zone (N1) 36.8 34 7.8 6.4 10.7 0.30 2.0 1.9 14.9 0.66 6.57 35.6 Southeast Buffer Zone (SE3) 19.6 27.6 25.3 14.4 3.7 2.6 4.1 2.7 13.2 1.05 4.57 2.40 South Buffer Zone (S1) 12.2 10.6 24.4 33.9 5.5 4.1 5.9 3.5 18.9 1.37 5.86 3.41 Shellabarger Marshd (SB) 25.5 30.0 28.6 6.7 4.1 0.90 2.9 1.3 9.2 0.91 6.21 18.0 a Grain size distribution categories are based on sieve sizes, as follows: Gravel: > 2,000 µm Coarse Sand: 2,000–500 µm Medium Sand: 500–250 µm Fine Sand: 250–62.5 µm Coarse Silt: 62.5–31.0 µm Medium Silt: 15.6–31.0 µm Fine Silt: 15.6–3.9 µm Clay: < 1.0–3.9 µm b Total fines is the sum of the clay and silt grain size fractions (technically, it is defined as the grain sizes > 62 µm in size). c This is the dry bulk density, which is the weight of undried soil per given unit of volume; it was reported by the laboratory in pounds per cubic foot and converted to grams per cubic centimeter. d The result reported for the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone (identified as Soil-2 in the laboratory report) is the average of three results reported by the laboratory, as this sample was chosen for triplicate analysis, which is part of QC analyses. QC – quality control TOC – total organic carbon 8.1.a Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 48 Figure 4-9. Laboratory results of buffer soils 4.3.1 Bulk density Bulk density is a measure of the mass of soil within a given volume; it provides information about the soil’s level of compaction and capacity to transmit water. These characteristics are important in determining the ability of the soil to allow water to infiltrate and support plant growth. Bulk density varies depending on soil texture, percent moisture of the soil, and the amount of organic matter in the soil, as well as the packing arrangement/aggregation of soil particles (USDA 2008). The greater the bulk density, the more space within a given below-ground unit of volume is taken up by soil particles, leaving less space for air and water. Soil porosity decreases as bulk density increases. Bulk density measurements within the range of 1.40 to 1.65 g/cm3 have been found to restrict the growth of woody plants, with variation depending upon soil type (Schueler 2000; Alberty et al. 1984). All of the soil samples from the buffer zones had dry bulk density measurements of less than 1.40 g/cm3. 4.3.2 Organic matter and pH The organic matter content of soils and sediments is often interrelated to the pH of these substrates. Decomposition of organic matter can contribute to acidification of the substrate (i.e., organic acids are released during the breakdown of vegetation in some wetlands systems) (Horner and Raedeke 1989). The organic matter content and pH of buffer zone soils were measured to provide information about soil processes and the bioavailability of nutrients and other ions in these substrates. The quantity of organic 37% 20% 12% 26% 34% 28% 11% 30% 7.8% 25% 24% 29% 6.4%14% 34% 6.7% 11%3.7% 5.5% 4.1%0.30%2.6% 4.1% 0.90% 2.0% 4.1%5.9% 2.9%1.9% 2.7%3.5% 1.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% North Buffer Zone Southeast Buffer Zone South Buffer Zone Shellabarger Marsh Clay Fine Silt Medium Silt Coarse Silt Fine Sand Medium Sand Coarse Sand Gravel 8.1.a Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 49 matter in soil or sediment influences how well the substrate can absorb, incorporate, and otherwise retain a range of ions, some of which are important plant nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), but others of which are potentially harmful pollutants (e.g., heavy metals) (Horner and Raedeke 1989). Organic matter content in upland soil also contributes to the water-holding capacity of the soil and to its ability to develop soil structure, which aids in aeration of the soil and its ability to infiltrate water. Therefore, a sufficient quantity of organic matter is important for healthy plant growth. Soil pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of soil and is generally determined by climate—specifically temperature and amount of rainfall, as these factors affect the weathering and leaching of minerals in soil (USDA 1999). Wetland organic soils tend to be slightly acidic, while mineral soils (such as the buffer zone soils) are generally more neutral (Mitsch and Gosselink 2015), although upland soils in Western Washington tend to be slightly acidic (i.e., have a pH less than 7) due to heavy precipitation, which contributes to soil leaching (Hart et al. 2013; McCauley et al. 2017). A pH value between 6 and 7.5 is considered optimal for the growth of crops and many landscape plants; however, many native plants of the Pacific Northwest are adapted to more acidic soil conditions. The pH values of the buffer soils ranged from 4.57 (in the southeast buffer zone) to 6.57 (in the north buffer zone) (Table 4-4). The pH of the southeast buffer zone soil (4.57) is considered very strongly acidic, the pH of the south buffer zone soil is considered moderately acidic, and the pHs of the north buffer zone and Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone soils are considered slightly acidic (Debose and Klungland 2002). Alderwood soils have been documented as strongly acidic in the top soil horizons, while Everett soils are slightly to moderately acidic (SCS 1973) In addition, Mukilteo muck, which is also present within portions of the buffer zones, is a very strongly acid soil (see additional discussion of Mukilteo muck in Section 4.4). Therefore, the low pH values observed in the southeast and south buffer zones likely represent naturally acidic soil conditions. The more neutral pH values observed in the north and Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones may be due to the presence of fill soils in these areas, or they may simply be part of the natural variation in soil acidity (particularly as the buffer zones are located in transitional areas between different soil types). Soil TOC content ranged from 2.4 to 35.6% in the buffer soils, with the lowest percentages in the southeast and south buffer zones (2.40 and 3.41%, respectively), and higher percentages in the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh (18.0%) and the north buffer zone of the Marsh (35.6%). Mineral soils typically have an organic matter content of less than approximately 20 to 35% (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007); in natural (i.e., undisturbed) mineral soils in Washington State, an organic matter content of approximately 5% is typical (Hipple 2019). The organic matter content of the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh and the north buffer zone of the Marsh were both much higher than 5%. Samples from these two buffer zones also had the lowest bulk 8.1.a Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 50 density measurements (Table 4-4). Bulk density tends to decrease as soil organic matter content increases (USDA 2008). The top 3 in. of the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone soil profile were observed to be sapric and mucky, and a relatively high water table was also observed (Table 4-5). Sapric and mucky soils indicate the presence of decaying organic matter, and a high water table/soil saturation allows for the development of anoxic conditions wherein organic matter can be preserved, resulting in a higher soil TOC content. Similarly, a high water table and signs of anoxic soil conditions were observed within the north buffer zone of the Marsh (Table 4-5), possibly helping to explain the relatively high TOC content of the soil sample from this area. Finally, the soils of both the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh and the north buffer zone of the Marsh may have higher TOC percentages due to their proximity to the lower-elevation/depressional areas of the adjacent marsh habitat, which contains peaty Mukilteo muck soils with high organic matter content. It is possible that the adjacent organic soils have become intermixed to some degree with the mineral loam soils at the northern Marsh edges, or that the buffer zones simply represent a transition from Mukilteo muck to Everett-Alderwood soil types. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 51 Table 4-5. Field observations for upland soil samples – fall 2018 and spring 2019 Location Depth (in) Matrix Redox Features Soil Texture Additional Observations of Soil Profile Observations of Hydrology Color % Color % Type/Location Fall 2018 North Buffer Zone (Transect N1a) 0–10 10 YR 2/2 90 not present - - silt loam dense root mat; 10% root mat no surface water present; water table present (at 7 in. bgs after 30 minutes); capillary fringe present (at 6 in. bgs); sulfur smell (indicating anoxic conditions) present 10–20 2.5 Y 4/1 50 not present - - sandy loam 2.5 Y 3/1 50 not present - - sandy loam Southeast Buffer Zone (Transect SE3b) 0–5 7.5 YR 2.5/1 95 not present - - sandy loam invertebrates, woody debris no surface water present; no water table or capillary fringe (i.e., no wetland hydrology) 5–11 7.5 YR 3/1 100 not present - - sandy loam no gravel, woody debris present 11–20 7.5 YR 3/3 65 not present - - loamy sand 10 YR 3/4 35 not present - - loamy sand South Buffer Zone (Transect S1c) 0–3 2.5 Y 2.5/1 85 not present - - clay loam woody debris, roots, invertebrates present no surface water present; water table present (at 10 in. bgs after 30 minutes); capillary fringe present (at 9 in. bgs) 3–9 2.5 Y 4/1 98 2.5 Y 2.5/1 2 depletion in pore lining loam roots present 9–20 5 Y 5/1 65 5 Y 3/1 35 reduced matrix sandy loam trace small gravel present Shellabarger Marsh (Transect SBd) 0–3 5 Y 2.5/2 100 not present - - silty clay loam woody debris, sapric (somewhat slippery), mucky mineral soil no surface water present; water table present (at 4 in. bgs after 30 minutes); capillary fringe present (at 4 in. bgs) 3–5 10 YR 2/1 100 not present - - clay loam gravel present, small gravel to cobble size 5–20 2.5 Y 4/1 70 not present - - loamy sand 30% unconsolidated gravel 8.1.a Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 52 Location Depth (in) Matrix Redox Features Soil Texture Additional Observations of Soil Profile Observations of Hydrology Color % Color % Type/Location Spring 2019 North Buffer Zone (Transect N1a) 0–3 10 YR 3/1 65 not present - - silty clay root mat approximately 35%, slippery organic matter present no surface water present; water table present (at 27 in. bgs after 30 minutes); capillary fringe present (at 9 in. bgs) 3–6 5 YR 2.5/1 65 not present - - silty clay loam root mat approximately 35% 6–9 10 YR 3/1 75 not present - - clay loam root mat approximately 25%, no pore linings 9–12 5 YR 3/1 90 7.5 YR 4/6 10 pore linings sandy loam 12–13 Gley 2 4/10B 75 7.5 YR 4/4 25 pore linings sandy loam Southeast Buffer Zone (Transect SE3b) 0–3 2.5 Y 3/1 100 not present - - sandy clay loam roots and rootlets present no surface water present; no water table present; capillary fringe present (at 13 in. bgs) 3-4 2.5 Y 3/2 100 not present - - loamy sand pebbles approximately 1 cm in size 4–6 10 YR 4/4 60 not present - - loamy sand more pebbles than in higher level, ranging in size from approximately 2–2.5 cm 10 YR 4/6 40 not present - - South Buffer Zone (Transect S1c) 0–3 5 Y 4/1 60 not present - - clay loam 40% root mass surface water present; water table present (at 5 in. bgs); capillary fringe present (at 3.5 in. bgs) 3–15 5 Y 3/1 85 not present - - sandy loam 15% root mass; earthworms 0–5 in. long present Shellabarger Marsh (Transect SBd) 0–6 5 Y 2.5/2 100 not present - - clay loam roots present, no rocks, worms, no pore linings or concretions no surface water present; water table present (at 6.25 in. bgs); capillary fringe present (at 5.5 in. bgs) 6–12 5 Y 4/1 100 not present - - sandy loam variety of gravel and sand, approximately 30% gravel and small pebbles, jagged/angular a Location ID is N1b on field data sheets in Appendix A. b Location ID is SE3b on field data sheets in Appendix A. c Location ID is S1b on field data sheets in Appendix A. d Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone. bgs – below ground surface ID – identification 8.1.a Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 53 Upland soil profiles were observed and described during both the fall and spring monitoring events (Table 4-5). These profiles were used to determine if the soils met the hydric soil indicators described by USDA and NRCS (2010). Soils within the Marsh’s buffer zones met the loamy gleyed matrix (F2) (north buffer zone of the Marsh), depleted matrix (F3) (southeast buffer zone of the Marsh and north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh), and sandy redox (S5) (south buffer zone of the Marsh) hydric soil indicators (USACE 2010). Buffer soils were examined for the presence or absence of hydric soil indicators in order to demonstrate the transitional nature of the buffers from wetland to upland habitat types. In addition, the presence of hydric soils indicates that several natural geochemical cycles—involving nitrogen, sulfur, carbon, and phosphorous—are occurring simultaneously within the soil matrix (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). The cycles allow the wetlands to serve as sinks, sources, and transformers of these nutrients. For example, the presence of gleyed soils is typically an indicator of reduced iron and manganese and an overall anoxic (i.e., oxygen-poor) environment. Iron and manganese are more soluble and more easily available to organisms in these reduced forms (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Information about the hydrology of the upland buffer zones was also gathered by observing the soil test pits for the presence or absence of (and depth to) surface water, presence of absence of (and depth to) the water table and/or capillary fringe (soil saturation), and the presence or absence of reduced minerals in the soil matrix (related to soil colors). Wetland hydrology indicators observed included a high water table (A2), soil saturation (A3), and a hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) (indicative of saturated, anoxic soil conditions) (USACE 2010). 4.4 MARSH SEDIMENT OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS Marsh sediments were sampled and analyzed to better understand characteristics related to the function of these substrates; the results of the analyses are provided in Appendix C. The USDA’s NRCS WSS has characterized and mapped soil units within Edmonds and Shellabarger Marshes. The Marsh interior is composed of Mukilteo muck (see the map in Appendix D, Area 34), which is typical of depressional formations. The parent material of Mukilteo muck is herbaceous organic material derived primarily from sedge vegetation (Debose and Klungland 2002). It is a very poorly drained, hydric soil, and the water table is usually at or near the surface between October and May. Table 4-6 and Figure 4-10 show the laboratory analysis results for the Marsh sediment samples. In general, grain size distributions were similar at locations Sed-2 and Sed-4 and at locations Sed-1 and Sed-3 (Map 2). At locations Sed-2 and Sed-4, samples contained high percentages of total fines (69.7 and 62.5%, respectively) and small percentages of gravel (6.5 and 8.2%, respectively). Locations Sed-2 and Sed-4 also had higher percentages of total silt than did the other two locations. Locations Sed-1 and 8.1.a Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 54 Sed-3 had smaller percentages of total fines (20 and 35%, respectively) and larger percentages of gravel (36.3 and 41.3%, respectively) compared to Locations Sed-2 and Sed-4. The similarity in sediment grain size distribution between locations Sed-1 and Sed-3 and locations Sed-2 and Sed-4 can likely be attributed to the elevations of the sampling locations. Samples from locations Sed-2 and Sed-4 were collected from areas of the Marsh that are regularly inundated and do not contain marsh vegetation, while samples from locations Sed-1 and Sed-3 were collected from sediments at a slightly higher elevation that are not inundated as often and that contain some vegetation patches. Total sand content made up between 20 and 30% of the grain size distribution of all sediment samples except the sample from location Sed-1, which had a total sand content of 43.9%. The sample from location Sed-1 also had a relatively smaller percentage of clay (7.2%) compared to the other samples (16% or higher) (Table 4-6). Table 4-6. Laboratory results for Marsh sediment samples Location Grain Size Distribution (%)a Wet Chemistry Gravel Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Coarse Silt Medium Silt Fine Silt Clay Total Finesb pH TOC Sed-1 36.3 29.2 6.7 8.0 1.8 8.0 2.9 7.2 19.8 6.32 13.1 Sed-2 6.5 9.3 4.6 9.9 18.8 18.9 15.5 16.5 69.7 6.43 7.07 Sed-3 41.6 14.8 4.1 5.0 3.0 6.6 7.7 17.1 34.5 4.32 9.56 Sed-4 8.2 14.4 7.9 7.0 6.1 16.8 20.6 19.1 62.5 5.18 8.16 a Grain size distribution categories are based on sieve sizes as follows: Gravel: > 2,000 µm Coarse Sand: 2,000–500 µm Medium Sand: 500–250 µm Fine Sand: 250–62.5 µm Coarse Silt: 62.5–31.0 µm Medium Silt: 15.6–31.0 µm Fine Silt: 15.6–3.9 µm Clay: < 1.0–3.9 µm b Total fines is the sum of the clay and silt grain size fractions (technically, it is defined as the grain sizes < 62 µm in size). Marsh – Edmonds Marsh TOC – total organic carbon 8.1.a Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 55 Figure 4-10. Laboratory results for Marsh sediment 4.4.1 pH and organic matter Organic soils are generally acidic and have an organic content of greater than 20 to 35% (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Mukilteo muck has been identified as a very strongly acid soil to a depth of 54 in. below ground surface (bgs), and as containing a large proportion of plant fibers (between 40 and 78% in the top 35 in. of the soil profile) and root material (Debose and Klungland 2002). Consistent with the description of this soil type, the sediment samples collected as part of the baseline study had acidic pH values ranging from 4.32 to 6.43 (Table 4-6). TOC content of marsh sediment was relatively consistent, ranging from 7.07 to 13.1% by weight. Consistent with the description of Mukilteo muck, large quantities of organic matter/detritus and root mass were also observed visually in the baseline sediment samples from the Marsh (Table 4-7). 36% 6.5% 42% 8.2% 29% 9.3% 15% 14% 6.7% 4.6% 4.1% 7.9% 8.0% 10% 5.0% 7.0% 1.8% 19% 3.0% 6.1% 8.0% 19% 6.6% 17% 2.9% 16% 7.7% 21% 7.2% 17%17%19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Sed-1 Sed-2 Sed-3 Sed-4 Clay Fine Silt Medium Silt Coarse Silt Fine Sand Medium Sand Coarse Sand Gravel 8.1.a Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 56 Table 4-7. Fall 2018 field observations for Marsh sediment samples Location Depth (in) Matrix Redox Features Field Observations of Sediment Profile Characteristics Color % Color % Type/Location Sed-1 0 –2 5 Y 2.5/1 100 not present - - fine top layer unconsolidated silt 2 – 9 2.5 Y 4/3 75 not present - - 25% root mass, organic matter, clayey Sed-2 0 – 0.5 10 YR 2/1 100 not present - - fluffy organic layer, unconsolidated, organic/slippery, trace silt 0.5 – 2 10 YR 3/2 75 not present - - 25% root mass, silt, no pore linings 2 – 6 5 Y 4/1 95 not present - - 5% root mass, silt Sed-3 0 – 3.5 10 YR 3/3 75 not present - - 25% root mass, slippery texture, histic, no pore lining features 3.5 – 7 2.5 Y 3/1 90 5 Y 2.5/1 10 pore linings 10% root mass, silt Sed-4 0 – 1 2.5 YR 3/2 100 not present - - organic, dense root mat, slippery, macro pores 1 – 8 5Y 4/1 100 not present - - silty clay, organic matter Marsh – Edmonds Marsh 8.1.a Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 57 Marsh interior sediment profiles were observed and described during the fall monitoring event (Table 4-7). Profile observations were generally limited to between 6 and 9 in. bgs due to the loose, unconsolidated nature of the sediments as well as a high water table, which in turn limited the ability to fully examine the sediments for hydric soil field indicators. However, previous studies conducted by Shannon & Wilson (2017) found that soils within the Marsh interior met the histic epipedon16 (A2) hydric soil indicator. Observations made during the baseline study also found that sediments primarily consisted of organic soils with a chroma of two or less, confirming prior findings. The organic material present in the sediment profiles was in varying levels of decay, and the presence of visible organic fibers indicated that the sediment would be designated as saprist histosols17. 4.5 MARSH VEGETATION SURVEYS The vegetation of the Marsh interior was dominated by salt-tolerant species throughout most of the western side and freshwater species on the eastern side, with a fairly clear boundary between the two areas (Map 6). Vegetation on the eastern side of the Marsh consisted predominantly of cattail stands, with interspersed islands of willow (Salix spp.) and red alder (Alnus rubra). There were also large quantities of bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) growing along and within the cattail stands, all of which are invasive species. The growth of these species was concentrated near the boundary between the riparian forests of the south and southeast buffer zones and the more open, cattail-dominated portion of the Marsh. 16 Histic epipedon is a hydric soil field indicator that meets the criteria of an organic soil underlain by a mineral soil with a chroma of two or less according to USACE (2010). 17 Typically, saprist histosol is “muck” defined as an organic-derived soil having two-thirds or more of the material decomposed and less than one-third of plant fibers identifiable. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) Harbor SquareBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayMud-flatMudflatMudflatCattail-dominated marshWillowandalder15951332612266258731152422232110465555519515162051714418205Prepared by mikey, 7/16/2019; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Data Report\Map 6_6979_Marsh interior vegetation survey.mxd±0 0.01 0.02Miles0 50 100FeetMap 6. Edmonds Marsh baseline study marshinterior vegetation surveyUnique vegetation patchesMajor vegetation transition linePatch ID No. Species Present Within Patch1 seaside arrowgrass and cosmopolitan bulrush2 brass buttons growing along mudflat perimeter3 Lyngbye’s sedge4cattail and hardstem bulrush; cosmopolitan bulrush growing along mudflat perimeter5 hardstem bulrush6 hardstem bulrush7 common reed8 saltgrass, Pacific silverweed9 saltgrass10 cosmopolitan bulrush11 cosmopolitan bulrush, seaside arrowgrass12 baltic rush, saltgrass, Pacific silverweed, meadow barley 13 Pacific silverweed14narrow band of reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry along wooden boardwalk15 cattail and bittersweet nightshade16native shrub buffer (e.g., snowberry, roses, red-flowering currant) - planted17Japanese knotweed, hops, reed canarygrass, small-fruited bulrush growing adjacent to boardwalk18 cosmopolitan bulrush, Pacific silverweed, saltgrass19 saltgrass20cattail and common reed (common reed in western portion of patch)21saltgrass, Pacific silverweed, baltic rush, Lyngbye’s sedge, small patch cosmopolitan bulrush, brass buttons, spear saltbush and pickleweed along mudflat perimeter22 spear saltbush, saltgrass23 spear saltbush, saltgrass, meadow barley24 spear saltbush, saltgrass, meadow barley25 hardstem bulrush, creeping bentgrass26 cattailSources: Snohomish County, City of Edmonds, Google Earth (photo date: May 2018), ESRI8.1.aPacket Pg. 168Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 61 The western portion of the Marsh contained a mix of several different (mostly native) salt-tolerant plant species (Table 4-8), which grew in patches around and interspersed within the mudflat areas (Map 6). In many cases, each patch was dominated by just a few species. Cattail species, which are typically found in freshwater environments but can tolerate saltier conditions when mature, were observed in patches in the western portion of the Marsh as well, particularly along the northern boundary (Patches 4, 14, 15, and 20 on Map 6). Invasive species observed within the western portion of the Marsh included a large patch of common reed (Phragmites australis) (Patch No. 7 on Map 6); a narrow band of reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry growing adjacent to the wooden boardwalk (Patch No. 14 on Map 6); a patch of bittersweet nightshade growing near the base of the wooden boardwalk (Patch No. 15 on Map 6); and an additional patch of common reed, Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), and reed canarygrass growing along the northwest portion of the Marsh just beyond the terminus of the wooden boardwalk (Patch Nos. 17 and 20 on Map 6). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 62 Table 4-8. Plant species identified in the western portion of the Marsh Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Ecological Setting/Native vs. Non-native Status Baltic rush Juncus arcticus or Juncus balticus native; obligate wetland plant; moderately salt tolerant (Stevens and Hoag 2003) Cattail Typha spp. Both native and introduced types are present (WA NWCB 2019b); seeds and seedlings have low salinity tolerance while older plants bearing rhizomes are salt tolerant (Beare and Zedler 1987). Cattails tend to become invasive in wetlands when the wetlands are disturbed by changes in hydrology, nutrient levels, and/or salinity, often resulting in dense, monotypic cattail stands (Stevens and Hoag 2006); for example, cattail has been known to replace hardstem bulrush when water levels in a wetland are lowered for an extended time period (Tilley 2012). Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara non-native and invasive weed; facultative Common brassbuttons Cotula coronopifolia introduced but not considered to be invasive; obligate wetland plant; highly salt tolerant Common reed Phragmites australis introduced, invasive weed rated Class B by the Snohomish County Noxious Weed Board; highly salt tolerant but reportedly controllable via multiple (at least 3) years of flooding with water at least 3 ft deep (Tilley and St. John 2012a) Cosmopolitan bulrush Bolboschoenus maritimus native; obligate wetland plant; forms large, dense stands in salt marshes; can also occur in freshwater marshes but is usually a pioneering species eventually replaced by others in these habitats; tolerates a range of soil/sediment textures from fine clay to sand (Tilley and St. John 2012b) Creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera introduced but non-invasive; facultative; high salinity tolerance; adapted to medium- and fine-textured soils Hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus native; obligate wetland plant; usually grows in standing water between 4 in. and 5 ft deep; tolerant of brackish conditions; grows on a range of substrate types (from coarse-grained soils to peat); can grow up to 10 ft tall (Tilley 2012; Gleason et al. 2009) Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus non-native, invasive weed; facultative Common hops Humulus lupulus Both native and introduced populations, FACU rating Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Introduced, invasive weed rated Class B by the Snohomish County Noxious Weed Board; FACU rating; Lyngbye’s sedge Carex lyngbyei Native; obligate wetland plant; moderate salinity tolerance Meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum Native; FACW rating; moderate salinity tolerance; adapted to all textures of soil; grows on a range of soil types, from coarse sand to clay (Darris 2008) 8.1.a Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 63 Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Ecological Setting/Native vs. Non-native Status Narrowleaf cattail Typha angustifolia An introduced species according to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WA NWCB 2019b); the species is an obligate wetland plant with moderate tolerance for salinity. Seeds and seedlings have low salinity tolerance while older plants bearing rhizomes are salt tolerant (Beare and Zedler 1987); cattails tend to become invasive in wetlands when they are disturbed by changes in hydrology, nutrient levels, and/or salinity, often resulting in dense, monotypic cattail stands (Stevens and Hoag 2006); for example, cattail has been known to replace hardstem bulrush when water levels in a wetland are lowered for an extended time period (Tilley 2012); T. angustifolia generally grows in deeper water than does T. latifolia (Stevens and Hoag 2006). Pacific silverweed Argentina egedii native; tolerant of brackish conditions and typically grows in high tidal marshes (at or above mean higher high water), but can also be found in freshwater meadows and wetlands; spreads vigorously (Stevens 2007) Pickleweed Salicornia depressa native; obligate wetland plant; highly salt tolerant; common in salt marshes (in the low marsh zone) Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea introduced, invasive weed; adapted to medium- and fine-textured soils Saltgrass Distichlis spicata native, FACW rating; adapted to medium- and fine-textured soils; high salt and drought tolerance; common in estuaries, salt marshes (in the high marsh zone), salt flats, and back dune shoreline areas; killed by prolonged inundation (Skaradek and Miller 2010) Seaside arrowgrass Triglochin maritima native; obligate wetland plant; mudflat colonizer common in salt marshes (in the low marsh zone) (Cooke 1997) Spear saltbush Atriplex patula introduced; FACW rating; highly salt tolerant Primary reference: USDA Plants Database (2019). FACU – facultative upland FACW – facultative wetland Marsh – Edmonds Marsh USDA – US Department of Agriculture 8.1.a Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 64 Other invasive species observed within the Marsh in smaller (i.e., non-dominant) quantities included purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), which was scattered in small quantities throughout the Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh; field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), which was observed along the wooden boardwalk and in the transition between the riparian/forested vegetation and cattail vegetation along the north buffer zone; and bittersweet nightshade, which was growing along much of the northern boundary of the Marsh.18 Scotch broom shrubs and English ivy (Hedera helix) were scattered along the south side of Willow Creek, where the creek runs in a relatively straight channel along the south side of the Marsh. Native vegetation observed in this area included pine trees,19 black twinberry (Lonicera involucrate), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and willow. 4.6 BUFFER ZONE VEGETATION SURVEYS Vegetation within the buffer zones was quantitatively evaluated by establishing four transect lines in the north buffer zone, three in the southeast buffer zone, two in the south buffer zone, and one in the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh (Map 4). Data from the individual transects were averaged by buffer zone to generate the results presented in this section. Additionally, densitometer readings were taken within every herbaceous stratum monitoring plot and were averaged first by transect and then by zone. Section 4.6.1 presents the sampling results for the tree canopy stratum, and Section 4.6.2 presents the results for the scrub/shrub and herbaceous vegetation strata. The Western Mountains, Valleys & Coast 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List is an inventory of wetland plants and their assigned wetland indicator statuses. An indicator status reflects the likelihood that a particular species will occur in a wetland or upland area (Lichvar et al. 2016). There are five indicator statuses:  Obligate (OBL) – Almost always occur in wetlands  Facultative wet (FACW) – Usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands  Facultative (FAC) – Occur in wetlands and non-wetlands  Facultative upland (FACU) – Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands  Upland (UPL) – Almost never occur in wetlands 18 For reference, the bittersweet nightshade extends from approximately Photo Point F west to Photo Point D (Map 5). 19 One of the pine trees has died, leaving a standing snag that is used by many different bird species for perching/roosting. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 65 These designations were used to quantitatively characterize vegetation present as wetland dominant species, allowing buffer zone vegetation to be qualitatively assessed. 4.6.1 Tree canopy stratum The tree canopy stratum was assessed through measurements of overstory percent cover using a spherical densitometer, and also by inventorying and measuring all overstory trees present within the belt transects (Table 4-9). Densiometer data were collected in both the summer and spring monitoring events in order to capture seasonal differences in canopy closure. The tree data collected within the belt transects allowed for the calculation of basal area – a measure of the cross-section of trees’ trunks generally at “breast height” (a height of 4 to 5 ft above the ground). Together the densitometer and transect measurements provide information about the density of the tree canopy within the different buffer zones, as well as the species that comprise that canopy. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 66 Table 4-9. Average overstory density and canopy trees species observed within the buffer zones Buffer Zone Overstory Percent Cover (Summer 2018)a Overstory Percent Cover (Spring 2019)a Tree Species Sampled Basal Areab Wetland Indicator Statusc Native Statusd Species Common Name Species Scientific Name North buffer zone 82% 85% Scouler’s willow Salix scouleriana 0.092 m2 FAC native red alder Alnus rubra 0.23 m2 FAC native Southeast buffer zone 95% 80% common hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 0.030 m2 FAC introducede South buffer zone 94% 77% red alder Alnus rubra 0.31 m2 FAC native Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone 95% 81% red alder Alnus rubra 0.021 m2 FAC native a Measured using a densitometer. b Basal area is the area of the cross-section of a tree’s trunk generally at “breast height:” 4 to 5 ft above the ground (or in this case, the cross-section area of all tree trunks of the same species within a vegetation sampling transect ). c Wetland indicator status according to Lichvar et al. (2016). d Native status according to NRCS (USDA 2019). e Common hawthorn is a Class C invasive species according to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WA NWCB 2019a). FAC – facultative NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service 8.1.a Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 67 The overstory percent cover measurements were all above 77%, indicating that the vegetated portions20 of all the buffer zones were relatively well-covered by tree canopy. The differences in overstory percent cover between the summer and spring monitoring events can be attributed to seasonal factors; not all trees had fully leafed out during the spring monitoring event. In the north buffer zone, red alder comprised the majority of the overstory tree basal area within the sampling transects, followed by Scouler’s willow (Salix scouleriana). In the southeast buffer zone, common hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) was the only overstory tree species within the transects, and in the south buffer zone and the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh, red alder was the only overstory tree species within the transects. 4.6.2 Scrub/shrub and herbaceous strata Beneath the canopy stratum are the scrub/shrub (understory) and herbaceous (groundcover) strata of vegetation. Section 4.6.2.1 presents the scrub/shrub and herbaceous strata sampling results for the north buffer zone, Section 4.6.2.2 presents the results for the southeast buffer zone, Section 4.6.2.3 presents the results for the south buffer zone, and Section 4.6.2.4 presents the results for the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh. 4.6.2.1 North buffer zone Water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) and broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) were the dominant21 species in the herbaceous stratum of the north buffer zone; giant horsetail, sword fern (Polystichum munitum), fireweed, sticky willy, and Canada bluegrass were also common (Table 4-10). Scouler's willow (45%) had the highest percent cover in the shrub/sapling stratum, followed by Himalayan blackberry (23%). In addition to Himalayan blackberry, other invasive species identified in the north buffer zone were bittersweet nightshade, English ivy, and field bindweed. Vegetation in the north buffer zone passed the hydrophytic dominance test according to (USACE 2010) at 75% designation of OBL, FACW, or FAC species. Table 4-10. Herbaceous and shrub/sapling vegetation of the north buffer zone Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Wetland Indicator Statusa Native Statusb Washington Noxious Weed Classificationc Relative Cover (%)d Herbaceous Stratum Summer 2018 Water parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa OBL native na 33%e 20 The vegetation transects were placed within the portions of the buffer zones that contained vegetation, as opposed to developed upland areas or areas containing lawns, roadways, etc. 21 Species with 20% or greater relative percent cover are considered to be dominant for the purposes of the transect data. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 68 Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Wetland Indicator Statusa Native Statusb Washington Noxious Weed Classificationc Relative Cover (%)d Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia FACW native na 14%e Fireweed Chamaenerion angustifolium FACU native na 13%e Canada bluegrass Poa compressa FACU introduced na 13% Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara FAC introduced WOC 9.2% Stickywilly Galium aparine FACU native na 6.5% Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina FAC native na 2.8% English ivy Hedera helix FACU introduced na 2.8% Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis FACU introduced C 2.0% Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 2.0% Field horsetail Equisetum arvense FAC native na 1.0% White-top aster Aster cultus FACU introduced na 0.18% Sword fern Polystichum munitum FACU native na 0.18% Pin oak Quercus palustris FACW introduced na 0.18% Sitka willow Salix sitchensis FACW native na 0.18% Spring 2019 Water parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa OBL native na 22%e Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia OBL native na 21%e Sword fern Polystichum munitum FACU native na 19%e Stickywilly Galium aparine FACU native na 12% Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia FACW native na 11% Field horsetail Equisetum arvense FAC native na 3.6% Twinberry honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata FAC native na 3.6% Fireweed Chamaenerion angustifolium FACU native na 2.1% Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina FAC native na 1.1% Canada bluegrass Poa compressa FACU introduced na 1.1% English ivy Hedra helix FACU introduced na 1.1% Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis FACU introduced C 0.64% Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 0.64% Sitka willow Salix sitchensis FACW native na 0.21% Shrub/Sapling Stratum Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana FAC native na 45%e Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 23%e Sword fern Polystichum munitum FACU native na 6.4% Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia FACW native na 5.3% Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia OBL native na 5.2% White-top aster Aster cultus 0 introduced na 3.0% Water parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa OBL native na 2.8% Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina FAC na na 2.6% Evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum FACU native na 2.0% 8.1.a Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 69 Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Wetland Indicator Statusa Native Statusb Washington Noxious Weed Classificationc Relative Cover (%)d Vine maple Acer circinatum FAC native na 1.2% Red alder Alnus rubra FAC na na 1.1% Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara FAC introduced WOC 1.1% Twinberry honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata FAC native na 0.90% Field horsetail Equisetum arvense FAC native na 0.20% a Wetland indicator status according to Lichvar et al. (2016). b Native status according to NRCS (USDA 2019). c Designation according to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WA NWCB 2019a). Weeds designated as Class C are “noxious weeds (that) are widespread in Washington or are of special interest to the agricultural industry.” d Relative percent cover is a measure of the percent of vegetated area within a given stratum that is covered by a specific species. e Dominant species using the 50/20 rule (Lichvar et al. 2016). OBL – obligate FAC – facultative FACU – facultative upland FACW – facultative wetland na – not applicable NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service UPL – upland WOC – weed of concern 4.6.2.2 Southeast buffer zone Himalayan blackberry dominated both the herbaceous and shrub strata in the southeast buffer zone (Table 4-11), indicating that Himalayan blackberry is well-established and continuing to seed in and spread in this zone. Native trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and salmonberry seedlings were also common in the herbaceous stratum, and salmonberry covered approximately 17% of the shrub/sapling stratum. In addition to Himalayan blackberry, other invasive species identified in the southeast buffer zone were reed canarygrass and common hawthorn. Common hawthorn seedlings were observed in the herbaceous stratum and saplings were observed in the shrub/sapling stratum. These are no doubt being produced by the overstory common hawthorn trees present within the southeast buffer zone (Table 4-11). Vegetation in this zone passed the hydrophytic dominance test according to (USACE 2010) at 75% designation of OBL, FACW, or FAC species. Table 4-11. Herbaceous and shrub/sapling vegetation of the southeast buffer zone Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Indicator Statusa Native Statusb Washington Noxious Weed Classificationc Relative Cover (%)d Herbaceous Stratume Summer 2018 Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 34%e Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus FACU native na 32%e Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC native na 13% 8.1.a Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 70 Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Indicator Statusa Native Statusb Washington Noxious Weed Classificationc Relative Cover (%)d Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW introducedf C 11% Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia FACW native na 5.0% Stinging nettle Urtica dioica FAC native na 4.8% Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis FACU native na 1.0% Spring 2019 Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 59%e Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC native na 15% Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis FACU native na 8.5% Stinging nettle Urtica dioica FAC native na 7.1% Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus FACU native na 6.0% Common hawthorn Crataegus monogyna FAC introduced C 2.7% Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW introducedf C 0.80% Field horsetail Equisetum arvense FAC native na 0.50% Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia FACW native na 0.30% Shrub/Sapling Stratum Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 58%e Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC native na 17% Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW introducedf C 9.0% Stinging nettle Urtica dioica FAC native na 5.1% Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia FACW native na 4.1% Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis FACU native na 3.0% Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina FAC native na 1.6% Sword fern Polystichum munitum FACU native na 1.1% Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus FACU native na 0.96% Common hawthorn Crataegus monogyna FAC introduced C 0.20% a Wetland indicator status according to Lichvar et al. (2016). b Native status according to NRCS (USDA 2019). c Designation according to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WA NWCB 2019a). d Relative percent cover is a measure of the percent of vegetated area within a given stratum that is covered by a specific species. e Dominant species using the 50/20 rule (Lichvar et al. 2016). f Some cultivars of reed canarygrass may be native to North America (WA NWCB 1995); however, European cultivars were introduced for forage and hay, and given the invasive nature of the species in the Pacific Northwest, it is considered to be an introduced species for the purposes of this inventory. OBL – obligate FAC – facultative FACU – facultative upland FACW – facultative wetland na – not applicable NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service UPL – upland WOC – weed of concern 4.6.2.3 South buffer zone The south buffer zone had the most diverse native plant community within the herbaceous and shrub/sapling strata of all the buffer zones, with 22 native species 8.1.a Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 71 identified in the herbaceous stratum, and 15 native species identified in the shrub/sapling stratum (Table 4-12). American skunkcabbage (Lysichiton americanus) was the dominant species in the herbaceous layer in the summer (46% cover), and youth-on-age (Tolmiea menziesii) was the dominant species in the spring (27% cover), demonstrating seasonal variation in the herbaceous stratum composition. The shrub stratum was dominated by salmonberry (35%). Invasive species in the south buffer zone included: Himalayan blackberry (with approximately 10% cover in the shrub/sapling stratum); reed canargygrass (present at approximately 9% cover in the shrub/sapling stratum and lower percentages in the herbaceous stratum); cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), English ivy, lesser herb Robert (Geranium robertianum), and English holly (Ilex aquifolium) (present in very small quantities). Vegetation in this zone passed the hydrophytic dominance test according to (USACE 2010) at 78% designation of OBL, FACW, or FAC species. Table 4-12. Herbaceous and shrub/sapling vegetation of the south buffer zone Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Indicator Statusa Native Statusb Washington Noxious Weed Classificationc Relative Cover (%)d Herbaceous Stratume Summer 2018 American skunkcabbage Lysichiton americanus OBL native na 46%e Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina FAC native na 8.6%e Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus FACU native na 8.6% Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC native na 7.4% Slough sedge Carex obnupta OBL native na 5.3% Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia FACW native na 5.1% Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW introducedf C 3.6% Northern bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum FACU native na 3.2% Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens FAC introduced WOC 3.2% Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 2.3% Pacific willow Salix lasiandra FACW native na 2.1% Stinging nettle Urtica dioica FAC native na 2.1% Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis FACU native na 1.1% Sword fern Polystichum munitum FACU native na 1.1% Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus FACU native na 1.1% Spring 2019 Youth-on-age Tolmiea menziesii FAC native na 27%e American skunkcabbage Lysichiton americanus OBL native na 11%e Cherry laurel Prunus laurocerasus FACU introduced WOC 11%e Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens FAC introduced WOC 10%e 8.1.a Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 72 Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Indicator Statusa Native Statusb Washington Noxious Weed Classificationc Relative Cover (%)d Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina FAC native na 7.5% Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 6.1% Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC native na 6.1% Slough sedge Carex obnupta OBL native na 6.0% Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW introducedf C 4.4% English holly Ilex aquifolium FACU introduced WOC 2.0% Shotweed Cardamine oligosperma FACU native na 1.5% Vine maple Acer circinatum FAC native na 1.3% Lesser herb Robert Geranium robertianum FACU introduced B 1.3% Pacific willow Salix lasiandra FACW native na 1.3% Stink currant Ribes bracteosum FAC native na 0.80% English ivy Hedera helix FACU introduced na 0.67% Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus FACU native na 0.67% Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia FACW native na 0.53% Field horsetail Equisetum arvense FAC native na 0.27% Deer fern Blechnum spicant FAC native na 0.13% Black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii FAC native na 0.13% Stickywilly Galium aparine FACU native na 0.13% Shrub / Sapling Stratum Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC native na 35%e Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 11%e Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW introducedf C 9.0%e Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus FACU native na 7.7% Clustered rose Rosa pisocarpa FAC native na 6.4% Stink currant Ribes bracteosum FAC native na 6.3% Pacific willow Salix lasiandra FACW native na 4.4% Western red-cedar Thuja plicata FAC native na 3.8% Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis FACU native na 3.4% Northern bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum FACU native na 3.1% English holly Ilex aquifolium FACU introduced WOC 1.8% Cherry laurel Prunus laurocerasus FACU introduced WOC 1.8% Slough sedge Carex obnupta OBL native na 1.8% Oregon crab apple Malus fusca FACW native na 1.7% Red osier dogwood Cornus alba FACW native na 1.4% Nootka rose Rosa nutkana FAC native na 0.48% Mannagrass Glyceria sp. OBL native na 0.38% 8.1.a Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 73 Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Indicator Statusa Native Statusb Washington Noxious Weed Classificationc Relative Cover (%)d Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia FACW native na 0.32% Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina FAC native na 0.25% a Wetland indicator status according to Lichvar et al. (2016). b Native status according to NRCS (USDA 2019). c Designation according to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WA NWCB 2019a). d Relative percent cover is a measure of the percent of vegetated area within a given stratum that is covered by a specific species. e Dominant species using the 50/20 rule (Lichvar et al. 2016). f Some cultivars of reed canarygrass may be native to North America (WA NWCB 1995); however, European cultivars were introduced for forage and hay, and given the invasive nature of the species in the Pacific Northwest, it is considered to be an introduced species for the purposes of this inventory. OBL – obligate FAC – facultative FACU – facultative upland FACW – facultative wetland na – not applicable NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service UPL – upland WOC – weed of concern 4.6.2.4 Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone Invasive and other weedy vegetation dominates the herbaceous and shrub/sapling strata of the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh. Purple loosestrife and bittersweet nightshade were found to be dominant in the herbaceous stratum in the summer; bittersweet nightshade and field bindweed were dominant in this stratum in the spring (Table 4-13). Himalayan blackberry comprised more than 50% of the vegetative cover in the shrub/sapling stratum, with reed canarygrass comprising another nearly 10%. Native species identified in the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh were red alder and broadleaf cattail. Vegetation in this zone passed the hydrophytic dominance test according to (USACE 2010) at 100% designation of OBL, FACW, or FAC species. Table 4-13. Herbaceous and shrub/sapling vegetation of the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Indicator Statusa Native Statusb Washington Noxious Weed Classificationc Relative Cover (%)d Herbaceous Stratume Summer 2018 Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria OBL introduced B 37%e Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara FAC introduced WOC 32%e Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina FAC native na 13% Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis FACU introduced C 11% Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW introducedf C 5.3% Red alder Alnus rubra FAC native na 2.6% 8.1.a Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 74 Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Indicator Statusa Native Statusb Washington Noxious Weed Classificationc Relative Cover (%)d Spring 2019 Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara FAC introduced WOC 65%e Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis FACU introduced C 22% Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 8.7% Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia OBL native na 4.3% Shrub/Sapling Stratum Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC introduced C 57%e Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis FACU introduced C 16% Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria OBL introduced B 13% Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW introducedf C 9.4% Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia OBL native na 3.9% a Wetland indicator status according to Lichvar et al. (2016). b Native status according to NRCS (USDA 2019). c Designation according to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WA NWCB 2019a). d Relative percent cover is a measure of the percent of vegetated area within a given stratum that is covered by a specific species. e Dominant species using the 50/20 rule (Lichvar et al. 2016). f Some cultivars of reed canarygrass may be native to North America (WA NWCB 1995); however, European cultivars were introduced for forage and hay, and given the invasive nature of the species in the Pacific Northwest, it is considered to be an introduced species for the purposes of this inventory. OBL – obligate FAC – facultative FACU – facultative upland FACW – facultative wetland na – not applicable NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service UPL – upland WOC – weed of concern 4.7 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS SURVEYS Surveys for LWD were conducted simultaneously with vegetation surveys. Very few pieces of LWD were found in the western portion of the Marsh interior; pieces that were encountered are shown on Map 2. There appeared to be more pieces of LWD in the eastern portion of the Marsh, particularly around the edge of the Marsh where emergent vegetation meets the surrounding riparian/buffer habitat. These pieces of LWD were very difficult to inventory, however, given the density of the vegetation growing around and covering them. Pieces of LWD encountered in the vegetation transects in the buffer zones were inventoried during the quantitative vegetation surveys (Table 4-14). One log was identified within each of the transects (S1 and S2) in the south buffer zone, two pieces of LWD (one stump and one log) were encountered in the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh (SB1), three pieces of LWD were identified within the second transect in the southeast buffer zone (SE2), and one piece of LWD was encountered in the north buffer zone (Transect N3). No LWD pieces were encountered in Transects SE1, SE3, N1, N2, or N4. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 75 Table 4-14. Inventory of LWD pieces identified within the vegetation transects Transect No. Location Type Length (m) Diameter at Midpoint (cm) Decay Class Wood Type Species S1 S1 transect @ 10.45 m loga 10.54 12.0 4 D red alder (likely) S2 S2 transect loga 35 27.5 1 D red alder SB1 SB1 transect@ 13.7 m stump 3 na 1 D red alder SB1 SB1 transect @ 10.0 m log 8.75 13.7 1 D red alder SE2 SE2 transect @ 17.1 m log 7.5 8.3b 3 D not determined SE2 SE2 transect @ 10 m log 12 11.7 2 D not determined SE2 SE2 transect @ 10.4 m log 6 9.7b 2 D not determined N3 N3 transect @ 6.0 m log 2.9 13.7 4 D not determined a Log was located within the creek channel and had many woodpecker holes in it. b Diameter at midpoint was slightly less than the 10-cm minimum typically used as the definition of LWD. D – deciduous LWD – large woody debris 4.8 INVERTEBRATE SURVEYS The baseline study invertebrate fallout trap stations were located at the Marsh-ward ends of select vegetation transects (one transect from each buffer zone) (Map 4). Three replicate samples were collected from each station during two seasons: summer and spring. This section contains summary tables of the invertebrate fallout trap data; complete data tables (wherein each specimen captured is presented separately) are included in Appendix D. Table 4-15 lists the full suite of invertebrate Orders identified in either season using the fallout traps, as well as the common name of examples of invertebrates that are included within that Order for ease of reference. Table 4-15. Orders of invertebrates identified within baseline study fallout trap samples Order Examples/Common Names Acaria mites and ticks Araneae spiders Blattodea cockroaches and termites Coleoptera beetles Collembola springtails Dermaptera earwigs Diptera flies Gastropoda slugs and snails Hemiptera “true bugs:” cicadas, aphids, etc. Hymenoptera bees, ants, and wasps Isopoda woodlice 8.1.a Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 76 Order Examples/Common Names Lepidoptera moths and butterflies Odonata dragonflies Opiliones harvestmen Orthoptera grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets Plecoptera stoneflies Pseudoscorpiones book scorpions Psocoptera booklice and barklice Trichoptera caddisflies a Acari is a Subclass; Orders of observed mites are uncertain. The north buffer zone fallout trap was situated along vegetation Transect N4 (Map 4). A total of 23 invertebrate specimens were captured within the three replicate fallout traps in the north buffer zone in the summer, and a total of 36 specimens were captured in spring (Table 4-16). Overall, the diversity of invertebrate samples was greater in the summer than in spring, with approximately twice the number of Orders present in summer. Between eight and nine different Orders were identified in the summer (including Araneae, Collembola, Dipetera, Hemiptera, Isopoda, Orthoptera, Psocoptera, and Trichoptera), and four to five different Orders were identified in the spring (Araneae, Dipetera, Hymenoptera, and Odonata). A single specimen of an unidentified Order was collected in each season. Flies (Order Diptera) comprised the largest proportion (83%) of the spring sample but only 22% of the summer sample. Table 4-16. Summary of fallout trap invertebrate data for the north buffer zone Replicate Order No. of Specimens Size Range Notes Summer Samples 1 Araneae 1 5–6 mm spider 1 Collembola 4 2.5–3 mm springtails 1 Hemiptera 3 0.5–4 mm one nymph 1 Isopoda 1 8 mm woodlouse 1 unidentified grub 1 8 mm likely Lepidoptera 2 Collembola 1 2 mm springtail 2 Diptera 4 3–7 mm likely non-biting midges and Anthomyiidaea 2 Orthoptera 1 4 mm immature, wingless 3 Collembola 2 0.5–2 mm springtails 3 Diptera 1 1.5 mm midge 3 Isopoda 1 10 mm woodlouse 3 Psocoptera 2 2 mm barklice, winged 8.1.a Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 77 Replicate Order No. of Specimens Size Range Notes 3 Trichoptera 1 1.5 mm caddisfly Total No. of Specimens: 23 Total No. of Orders: 8–9 Spring Samples 1 Araneae 2 2 mm spiders 1 Diptera 14 2–4 mm variety of flies including non-biting midges and black flies 1 Hymenoptera 1 1 mm 1 Unidentified 1 <1 mm looks like a springtail or bristletail 2 Diptera 12 2–10 mm variety of flies including crane flies and black flies 3 Diptera 4 2–4 mm variety of flies including black flies 3 Hymenoptera 1 2 mm 3 Odonata 1 nr specimen broken Total No. of Specimens: 36 Total No. of Orders: 4–5 a Preliminary identification made with assistance from Dr. Merril Peterson, who indicated that further examination of the specimen would be needed to confirm this identification. nr – not recorded The southeast buffer zone fallout trap was situated along vegetation transect SE2 (Map 4). Overall tallies of invertebrates captured in the sample replicates were similar between seasons, with a total of 34 specimens captured in the summer and a total of 32 captured in spring (Table 4-17). The diversity of invertebrate samples was also similar between seasons, with between 8 and 12 different Orders identified in the summer (including Araneae, Coleoptera, Collembola, Diptera, Gastropoda, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, and Plecoptera, as well as a few specimens of unidentified Order) and 10 different Orders identified in spring sampling (Araneae, Coleoptera, Collembola, Dermaptera, Diptera, Gastropoda, Isopoda, Opiliones, Pseudoscorpiones, and Psocoptera). Flies (Order Diptera) comprised the majority of the spring sample (63%) but only 26% of the summer sample. Table 4-17. Summary of fallout trap invertebrate data for the southeast buffer zone Replicate Order No. of Specimens Size Range Notes Summer Samples 1 Araneae 3 3–6 mm spiders 1 Collembola 3 <1–1 mm springtails 1 Diptera 2 2–3 mm flies 1 Gastropoda 1 12 mm slug 1 Hemiptera 1 Nr damsel bug 8.1.a Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 78 Replicate Order No. of Specimens Size Range Notes 2 Araneae 4 1–4 mm 2 Coleoptera 1 5 mm beetle 2 Diptera 3 0.5–1 mm various flies, two hunchback 2 Hymenoptera 1 1 mm ant 2 Unidentified 3 1–4 mm one grub, one instar 3 Araneae 2 nr spiders 3 Coleoptera 1 nr beetle 3 Collembola 1 1–2 mm springtail 3 Diptera 4 3–5 mm various flies, one crane fly 3 Gastropoda 1 15 mm 3 Plecoptera 1 Nr stonefly 3 unidentified larvae 2 Nr Total No. of Specimens: 34 Total No. of Orders: 8–12 Spring Samples 1 Diptera 5 3–4 mm various flies including midges 1 Gastropoda 1 15 mm slug 1 Isopoda 2 8 mm European sowbugs 2 Araneae 1 7 mm spider 2 Collembola 1 2 mm 2 Dermaptera 1 15 mm pseudoscorpion clinging to antenna 2 Diptera 10 5–10 mm variety of flies, likely including crane flies, non-biting midges, and Anthomyiidaea 2 Gastropoda 1 20 mm slug 2 Opiliones 1 5 mm harvestman 2 Pseudoscorpiones 1 2 mm house pseudoscorpion, clinging to antenna of Dermaptera specimen 2 Psocoptera 1 1 mm booklouse or barklouse 3 Coleoptera 1 3 mm beetle 3 Diptera 5 2–10 mm variety of flies, likely including midges and Anthomyiidaea 3 Gastropoda 1 15 mm slug Total No. of Specimens: 32 Total No. of Orders: 10 a Preliminary identification made with assistance from Dr. Merril Peterson, who indicated that further examination of the specimen would be needed to confirm this identification. nr – not recorded The south buffer zone fallout trap was situated along vegetation transect S2 (Map 4). Approximately twice as many invertebrates were captured during summer sampling 8.1.a Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 79 compared to spring sampling. Overall tallies of invertebrates captured were 59 in summer and 27 in spring (Table 4-18). Approximately twice the number of invertebrate Orders were identified in summer compared to spring as well; between 9 and 10 Orders were observed in the summer samples (including Acari, Araneae, Coleoptera, Collembola, Diptera, Gastropoda, Hemiptera, Opiliones, and Plecoptera, as well as a larva of unidentified Order), and 4 Orders were observed in the spring samples (Araneae, Coleoptera, Diptera, and Psocoptera). Flies (Order Diptera) comprised the majority of the samples during both seasons, with 76% of the summer sample containing flies and 78% of the spring sample containing flies. Table 4-18. Summary of fallout trap invertebrate data for the south buffer zone Replicate Order No. of Specimens Size Range Notes Summer Samples 1 Coleoptera 1 2–3 mm possibly Meloidae (blister beetle) 1 Collembola 1 nr globular springtail 1 Diptera 9 1–10 mm variety of flies 1 Gastropoda 1 nr slug 1 Hemiptera 1 7 mm most likely Philaenus spumarius (meadow spittlebug)a 1 Opiliones 2 nr harvestmen 1 Plecoptera 1 nr stonefly 2 Diptera 20 1–6 mm variety of flies, including gnats and midges 2 Hemiptera 1 nr aphid 2 Plecoptera 1 nr stonefly 2 Unidentified larva 1 nr 3 Acari 1 nr miteb 3 Araneae 1 0.5 mm spider 3 Collembola 1 nr springtail 3 Diptera 16 1–5 mm variety of flies, including mosquitos, non-biting midges, and crane flies 3 Gastropoda 1 17 mm slug Total No. of Specimens: 59 Total No. of Orders: 9–10 Spring Samples 1 Araneae 3 1–4 mm spiders 1 Diptera 7 1–3 mm variety of flies, including midges and black flies 1 Psocoptera 1 1 mm booklouse or barklouse 2 Coleoptera 1 12 mm beetle 2 Diptera 5 3–8 mm variety of flies, likely including midges and Anthomyiidaea 8.1.a Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 80 Replicate Order No. of Specimens Size Range Notes 3 Araneae 1 7 mm spider 3 Diptera 9 2–4 mm variety of flies, including midges Total No. of Specimens: 27 Total No. of Orders: 4 a Preliminary identification made with assistance from Dr. Merril Peterson, who indicated that further examination of the specimen would be needed to confirm this identification. b Acari is a Subclass; Order of observed mite is uncertain. nr – not recorded The Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone fallout trap was situated along vegetation transect SB (Map 4). The summer tally of invertebrates captured at this fallout trap station was by far the highest of all stations and seasons: 435 specimens from between 11 and 13 Orders (Table 4-19). In the spring samples, 57 specimens from between 4 and 5 Orders (including Araneae, Collembola, Diptera, and Hymenoptera) were captured. Flies (Order Diptera) comprised the majority of the samples in both the summer (88%) and spring (86%). Table 4-19. Summary of fallout trap invertebrate data for the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone Replicate Order No. of Specimens Size Range Notes Summer Samples 1 Acaria 1 < 1 mm mite 1 Araneae 2 3–6 mm spiders 1 Coleoptera 1 4 mm beetle 1 Collembola 4 < 1–2.5 mm springtails 1 Diptera 142 < 1–8 mm variety of flies, including several non-biting midges 1 Gastropoda 2 4–5 mm 1 Hemiptera 2 1 mm aphids 1 Lepidoptera 1 5 mm 1 Trichoptera 1 < 1 mm caddisfly 1 Unidentified 2 < 1 mm–nr one unidentified adult insect, one larva 2 Araneae 1 6 mm spider 2 Blattodea 2 3–4 mm termites, one winged 2 Coleoptera 1 2 mm beetle 2 Collembola 6 < 1–2 mm springtails 2 Diptera 139 1–25 mm variety of flies, including midges, crane flies, mosquitos, and likely Anthomyiidaeb 2 Gastropoda 2 5–15 mm snails 2 Hemiptera 3 2–7 mm one aphid, one likely Philaenus spumarius (meadow spittlebug)b 8.1.a Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 81 Replicate Order No. of Specimens Size Range Notes 2 Hymenoptera 1 5 mm 3 Araneae 3 2–5 mm spiders 3 Coleoptera 7 1.5–4.5 mm beetles 3 Collembola 2 1 mm springtails 3 Diptera 103 1.5–25 mm variety of flies, including midges, crane flies, and mosquitos 3 Gastropoda 1 7 mm 3 Hemiptera 4 1–5 mm aphids 3 Unidentified 2 1.5 mm–nr one adult insect, one larva Total No. of Specimens: 435 Total No. of Orders: 11–13 Spring Samples 1 Araneae 1 2 mm spider 1 Collembola 1 2 mm springtail 1 Diptera 13 2–25 mm variety of flies, including crane flies and non-biting midges 1 Hymenoptera 2 7–12 mm bees 1 Unidentified 1 3 mm 2 pairs of wings 2 Collembola 1 2–3 mm springtail 2 Diptera 22 1–20 mm variety of flies, including crane flies and midges 3 Araneae 2 7–8 mm spiders 3 Diptera 14 3–15 mm variety of flies, including crane flies Total No. of Specimens: 57 Total No. of Orders: 4–5 a Acari is a Subclass; Order of observed mite is uncertain. b Preliminary identification made with assistance from Dr. Merril Peterson, who indicated that further examination of the specimen would be needed to confirm this identification. nr – not recorded 4.9 BIRD SURVEYS The baseline study bird survey stations were located within or adjacent to buffer areas of the Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh (Map 4). BPC Station 1 (BPC-1) was located within the north buffer zone, at one of the Harbor Square boardwalk lookouts. Each season, between five and nine different species of birds were recorded at this location during the five-minute point count survey period (Table 4-20). Overall season tallies of individual birds ranged from 7 to 11, with the most species and the highest count of individual birds occurring during the spring survey. Birds surveyed at this location included sparrows (song sparrow [Melospiza melodia], golden-crowned sparrow [Zonotrichia atricapilla], and spotted towhee [Pipilo maculatus]), wrens (marsh wren [Cistothorus palustris], Bewick’s wren [Thryomanes bewickii]), Anna’s hummingbird 8.1.a Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 82 (Calypte anna), warblers (common yellowthroat [Geothlypis trichas], yellow-rumped warbler [Setophaga coronate]), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Additional species observed from BPC-1 outside of the formal five-minute survey times/radius included spotted towhees and a golden- crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), both during the winter survey (Table 4-20). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 83 Table 4-20. Survey results for BPC-1 (Harbor Square boardwalk lookout) Survey Date Sunrise Time Survey Begin Time Survey End Time Weather Conditions Human Activity Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Notes 7/19/2018 5:30 5:40 5:45 mostly clear, high overcast clouds, no precipitation, light wind, 58°F people coming and going from athletic club at Harbor Square but little activity along boardwalk common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 2 heard marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 1 heard song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 heard American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 seen; 1 heard Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna 1 fly-over, east to west Total Species Count: 5 Total Individual Count: 7 10/23/2018 7:41 9:03 9:08 foggy but no precipitation (sun breaks later in survey time period), very slight breeze, 46°F no activity on trail; airplane flying over song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 heard calling from cattails; 2 more seen foraging in alder trees in buffer black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 2 heard American robin Turdus migratorius 2 heard gull (unidentified) Family Laridae 1 heard golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla 1 heard Total Species Count: 5 Total Individual Count: 9 1/28/2019 7:42 8:05 8:10 high cloud cover, slight fog lifting (but visibility >50 m), no precipitation, no wind, 39°F ferry horn blasted a few times throughout survey period Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna 1 heard song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 heard American robin Turdus migratorius 2 heard marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 1 seen and heard red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1 heard golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla 1 heard yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata 1 seen and heard (female) Total Species Count: 7 Total Individual Count: 8 Other observationsa: saw 2 spotted towhees (Pipilo maculatus) and 1 golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) just before starting survey 8.1.a Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 84 Survey Date Sunrise Time Survey Begin Time Survey End Time Weather Conditions Human Activity Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Notes 5/7/2019 5:41 6:08 6:13 clear, no precipitation, no wind, 50°F train passed blowing horn during survey common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 1 heard black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 1 seen and heard; entered small snag nesting cavity (willow dead branch) within buffer American robin Turdus migratorius 1 heard red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1 heard marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 2–3 heard Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii seen in same willow as black-capped chickadee nesting cavity spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus 1 heard in buffer zone, close to buildings of Harbor Square Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna 1 heard golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla 1 heard Total Species Count: 9 Total Individual Count: 10–11 a Other observations were those that were made either right before or right after the formal survey period, or while traversing the Marsh or buffer areas in between point count stations. BPC – bird point count Marsh – Edmonds Marsh 8.1.a Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 85 BPC-2 was located along the southwest border of the Marsh adjacent to Willow Creek and the Unocal Site (Map 4). Each season, between four and eight different species of birds were recorded at this location during the five-minute point count survey period; the most species were observed during the summer and spring surveys (Table 4-21). Overall season tallies of individual birds ranged from 5 to between 14 and 16, with the highest count of individual birds occurring during the spring survey. Birds surveyed at this location included wrens (marsh wren, Bewick’s wren), sparrows (song sparrow, and golden-crowned sparrow, and spotted towhee), Anna’s hummingbird, common yellowthroat, American goldfinch (Spinus tristis), American crow, tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), black-capped chickadee, red-winged blackbird, belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos), and a northern harrier (Circus hudsonius). Additional species observed from BPC-2 outside of the formal five-minute survey times/radius included red-winged blackbirds and great blue herons during the winter survey and mallard ducks and a red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) during the spring survey (Table 4-21). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 87 Table 4-21. Survey results for BPC-2 (Marsh interior adjacent to Willow Creek) Survey Date Sunrise Time Survey Begin Time Survey End Time Weather Conditions Human Activity Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Notes 7/19/2018 5:30 5:51 5:56 mostly clear, high overcast clouds, no precipitation, light wind, 58°F none within point count radius/area marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 1 seen; 1 heard in hardstem bulrush patch American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 seen in snag above creek; 2 fly-overs tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor 3 seen belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon 1 heard from Unocal Site common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 1 heard in hardstem bulrush patch black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 1 heard mallard Anas platyrhynchos 2 seen in creek song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 heard Canada goose Branta canadensis 2 fly-overs Total Species Count: 8a Total Individual Count: 12a 10/23/2018 7:41 9:21 9:26 foggy but no precipitation (sun breaks later in survey time period), very slight breeze, 46°F dog barking in distance, train passed just before survey started song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 heard Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna 1 seen foraging high in pine tree along creek; 1 heard northern harrier Circus hudsonius 1 seen perched in snag along creek, near west end of survey station; juvenile (orangish breast) American goldfinch Spinus tristis 3 heard gull (unidentified) Family Laridae 5 fly-overs Total Species Count: 4a Total Individual Count: 7a Other observations:b great blue heron heard just before survey started; red-winged blackbird heard just after survey ended 8.1.a Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 88 Survey Date Sunrise Time Survey Begin Time Survey End Time Weather Conditions Human Activity Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Notes 1/28/2019 7:42 8:30 8:35 high cloud cover, slight fog lifting (but visibility >50 m), no precipitation, no wind, 39°F dog barking in distance, noisy work on railroad tracks, audible traffic on SR-104 song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 heard great blue heron Ardea herodias 1 seen in pine tree adjacent to creek Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii 2 heard from Unocal side of creek golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla 1 heard American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 fly-over Total Species Count: 4a Total Individual Count: 5a Other observations:b Heard red-winged blackbird singing from Unocal Site side of creek just before starting survey; two additional great blue herons observed after survey ended (pair flew in from the southwest to perch in pine tree growing along Willow Creek) 5/7/2019 5:41 6:25 6:30 clear, no precipitation, no wind, 50°F none American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 seen and heard in pine tree along Willow Creek; scolding common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 1 heard marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 2–3 heard red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1 seen and heard in pine tree along Willow Creek and then flying up to Unocal Site, scolding; then another 3–4 birds observed tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor 3 seen flying over Marsh song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 seen hopping along wood in creek spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus 1 perched in pine snag along creek Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna 1 seen perched in same pine tree where towhee had been bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 fly-over Total Species Count: 8c Total Individual Count: 14-16c Other observations:b Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) seen and heard while traversing Marsh to point count station; hawk being chased by crow near/toward Hatchery; also observed several mallards within Marsh and one in Willow Creek a Tally does not include fly-overs. b Other observations were those made either right before or right after the formal survey period, or while traversing the Marsh or buffer areas in between point count stations. c Tally does not include fly-overs except for tree swallows that were interacting with the Marsh (foraging). BPC – bird point count Hatchery – Willow Creek fish hatchery Marsh – Edmonds Marsh SR – State Route 8.1.a Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 89 BPC-3 was located northwest of the Hatchery within the cattail-dominated portion of the Marsh, near Willow Creek (Map 4). Three different species of birds were observed at this location during the five-minute point count survey period in the summer, and six species were observed within the survey period during each of the other seasons (Table 4-22). Overall season tallies of individual birds ranged from 4 to between 17 and 18, with the highest count of individual birds occurring during the winter survey (when a flock of several golden-crowned sparrows contributed to the high count). Birds surveyed at this location included wrens (marsh wren, Bewick’s wren), sparrows (song sparrow and golden-crowned sparrow), Anna’s hummingbird, American robin, American crow, black-capped chickadee, red-winged blackbird, ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), and woodpeckers (downy woodpecker [Dryobates pubescens] and northern flicker [Colaptes auratus]). Additional species observed from BPC-3 outside of the formal five-minute survey times/radius included a flock of 8 to 10 pine siskin (Spinus pinus) observed in the riparian vegetation along Willow Creek during the winter survey, a Virginia rail (Rallus limicola) observed during the winter survey, and a red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) and a common yellowthroat observed during the spring survey (Table 4-22). An old bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) nest was also observed during the winter survey, hanging from bittersweet nightshade vines that were growing on a scrubby alder tree near the survey station marker. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 91 Table 4-22. Survey results for BPC-3 (northwest of Hatchery within Marsh) Survey Date Sunrise Time Survey Begin Time Survey End Time Weather Conditions Human Activity Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Notes 7/19/2018 5:30 7:03 7:08 mostly clear, high overcast clouds, no precipitation, light wind, 58° F none within point count radius/area marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 2 heard Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii 1 heard American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 3 fly-overs, northeast to southwest Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna 1 fly-over Total Species Count: 3a Total Individual Count: 4a 10/23/2018 7:41 8:07 8:12 foggy but no precipitation (sun breaks later in survey time period), very slight breeze, 46° F none marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 1 heard American robin Turdus migratorius 1 heard; 1 fly-over song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 heard Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna 1 heard northern flicker Colaptes auratus 2 seen in riparian tree northeast of survey station duck (unidentified) Family Anatidae 2 fly-overs, northeast to southwest downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens 1 heard Total Species Count: 6a Total Individual Count: 7a 1/28/2019 7:42 9:25 9:30 high cloud cover, slight fog lifting (but visibility >50 m), no precipitation, no wind, 39° F SR-104 traffic noise; boat horn blasts in distance golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla 8 seen perching in alder covered in bittersweet nightshade, eating nightshade berries marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 2 heard song sparrow Melospiza melodia 2 heard red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1 heard black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 3 to 4 heard ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula 1 seen; male flashing red crown Total Species Count: 6 Total Individual Count: 17–18 Other observations:b old bushtit nest hanging on bittersweet nightshade vines climbing scrubby alder tree near survey station marker; small flock of 8–10 pine siskin (Spinus pinus) observed in riparian vegetation along Willow Creek just after survey ended; heard Virginia rail (Rallus limicola) grunt calls in cattail after formal survey ended 8.1.a Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 92 Survey Date Sunrise Time Survey Begin Time Survey End Time Weather Conditions Human Activity Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Notes 5/7/2019 5:41 7:10 7:15 clear, no precipitation, no wind, 50° F traffic noise from SR-104, train whistle marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 3 heard song sparrow Melospiza melodia 2 heard American robin Turdus migratorius 1 heard red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1 heard black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 2 heard American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 3 seen and heard Total Species Count: 6 Total Individual Count: 12 Other observations:b just after survey ended, red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) heard from riparian habitat and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) seen in willow to west of survey station marker a Tally does not include fly-overs. b Other observations were those made either right before or right after the formal survey period, o r while traversing the Marsh or buffer areas in between point count stations. BPC – bird point count Hatchery – Willow Creek fish hatchery Marsh – Edmonds Marsh SR – State Route 8.1.a Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 93 BPC-4 was located within the wooded riparian habitat of the Hatchery, near Willow Creek (Map 4). Each season, between four and six different species of birds were recorded at this location during the five-minute point count survey period (Table 4-23). Overall season tallies of individual birds ranged from five to eight. Birds surveyed at this location included black-capped chickadee, sparrows (song sparrow and spotted towhee), Bewick’s wren, Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), American robin, American crow, golden-crowned kinglet, and woodpeckers (downy woodpecker and northern flicker). Additional species observed from BPC-4 outside of the formal five-minute survey times/radius included a varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius) (observed along the forest floor of the Willow Creek floodplain during the winter survey) and a red-tailed hawk (audible cry) during the spring survey (Table 4-23). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 95 Table 4-23. Survey results for BPC-4 (Hatchery riparian habitat) Survey Date Sunrise Time Survey Begin Time Survey End Time Weather Conditions Human Activity Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Notes 7/19/2018 5:30 6:50 6:55 mostly clear, high overcast clouds, no precipitation, light wind, 58°F none other than traffic noise from SR-104 spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus 1 seen; 2 heard (3 birds total) Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis 1 heard black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 1 heard song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 heard golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 1 heard American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 heard Total Species Count: 6 Total Individual Count: 8 10/23/2018 7:41 7:54 7:59 foggy but no precipitation (sun breaks later in survey time period), very slight breeze, 46°F dog barking from highway; traffic noise from SR-104 American robin Turdus migratorius 1 heard black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 2 heard northern flicker Colaptes auratus 1 heard song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 seen and heard Total Species Count: 4 Total Individual Count: 5 1/28/2019 7:42 9:07 9:12 high cloud cover, slight fog lifting (but visibility >50 m), no precipitation, no wind, 39°F SR-104 traffic noise; outflow from Hatchery holding pond loud black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 1 heard song sparrow Melospiza melodia 2 heard American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 3 fly-overs American robin Turdus migratorius 1 heard golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 1 heard Total Species Count: 4a Total Individual Count: 5a Other observations:b varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius) hopping along riparian forest floor adjacent to Willow Creek just after completing survey 5/7/2019 5:41 6:55 7:00 clear, no precipitation, no wind, 50° F Traffic noise from SR- 104; Hatchery holding pond discharging; no other people present song sparrow Melospiza melodia 3 heard American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 heard downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens 1 heard Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii 1 heard Total Species Count: 4 Total Individual Count: 6 Other observations:b red-tailed hawk cry just before survey started a Tally does not include fly-overs. b Other observations were those made either right before or right after the formal survey period, o r while traversing the Marsh or buffer areas in between point count stations. BPC – bird point count Hatchery – Willow Creek fish hatchery Marsh – Edmonds Marsh SR – State Route 8.1.a Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 97 BPC-5 was located adjacent to the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh along 2nd Avenue South (Map 4). Each season, between three and nine different species of birds were recorded at this location during the five-minute point count survey period (Table 4-24). Overall season tallies of individual birds ranged from 4 to 17, with the fewest species and individuals being observed during the fall survey, and the most species and individuals being observed during the winter and spring surveys. Birds surveyed at this location included wrens (marsh wren, Bewick’s wren), sparrows (song sparrow, white-crowned sparrow [Zonotrichia leucophrys], dark-eyed junco [Junco hyemalis] and spotted towhee), Wilson’s warbler (Cardellina pusilla), Anna’s hummingbird, finches (American goldfinch and house finch [Haemorhous mexicanus]), red-winged blackbird, American robin, American crow, and a gull. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 99 Table 4-24. Survey results for BPC-5 (off 2nd Avenue South near Shellabarger Marsh) Survey Date Sunrise Time Survey Begin Time Survey End Time Weather Conditions Human Activity Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Notes 7/19/2018 5:30 6:35 6:40 mostly clear, high overcast clouds, no precipitation, light wind, 58°F none within point count radius/area red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1 heard marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 3 heard from interior of Shellabarger Marsh Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii 1 heard Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna 1 fly-over American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 seen perched in alder in Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone great blue heron Ardea herodias 1 fly-over, northeast to southwest American goldfinch Spinus tristis 2 fly-overs, vocalizing Total Species Count: 4a Total Individual Count: 6a 10/23/2018 7:41 7:33 7:38 foggy but no precipitation (sun breaks later in survey time period), very slight breeze, 46°F traffic noise from SR- 104, no vehicle or pedestrian traffic on 2nd Avenue South during survey song sparrow Melospiza melodia 2 heard American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 7 fly-overs, east to west gull (unidentified) Family Laridae 1 heard calling; unsure of species house finch Haemorhous mexicanus 1 heard Total Species Count: 3a Total Individual Count: 4a 1/28/2019 7:42 7:47 7:51 high cloud cover, slight fog lifting (but visibility >50 m), no precipitation, no wind, 39°F none Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna 2 seen and heard in yard of neighboring home American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 heard dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 1 heard red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 2 heard from Shellabarger Marsh American robin Turdus migratorius 2–3 heard song sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 heard spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus 1 heard white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys flock of 6 seen in berry-bearing shrub in neighboring yard Total Species Count: 8 Total Individual Count: 16–17 8.1.a Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 100 Survey Date Sunrise Time Survey Begin Time Survey End Time Weather Conditions Human Activity Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Notes 5/7/2019 5:41 5:50 5:55 clear, no precipitation, no wind, 50°F traffic noise from SR- 104 marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 3–4 heard from Shellabarger Marsh interior white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 1 heard from Shellabarger Marsh red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus approximately 2 heard from Shellabarger Marsh American robin Turdus migratorius 3 flying from northeast toward Shellabarger Marsh spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus 1 heard from neighboring yard house finch Haemorhous mexicanus 1 heard from Pine Street end vegetation Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna 1 heard Wilson's warbler Cardellina pusilla 1 heard from Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 flying over buffer into Shellabarger Marsh Total Species Count: 9 Total Individual Count: 14–15 Other observationsb: spotted towhee observed in buffer vegetation just before starting survey a Tally does not include fly-overs. b Other observations were those made either right before or right after the formal survey period, o r while traversing the Marsh or buffer areas in between point count stations. BPC – bird point count Hatchery – Willow Creek fish hatchery Marsh – Edmonds Marsh SR – State Route 8.1.a Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 101 4.10 OTHER WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS Hundreds of photos were taken by the three wildlife cameras (WC1, WC2, and WC3 on Map 4) over the course of the baseline monitoring year; the photos that best display wildlife use of the Marsh and south buffer zone are included in Appendix E. Some overall observations from the wildlife camera photos were:  Wildlife camera WC1 captured heavy use of the south buffer zone by Columbian black-tailed deer, (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus),22 coyote (Canis latrans), and other mammals such as rabbits and raccoons. Columbian black-tailed deer and coyote were photographed using the forested habitat of the south buffer zone during every season. Adult deer with fawns were photographed in August 2018 and June 2019, and bucks with antlers were photographed in October and November 2018 and June 2019.  Birds were also captured on wildlife camera WC1 (in the south buffer zone). Kinglets, black-capped chickadees, and song sparrows (as well as other birds that could not be easily identified) were all photographed.  A variety of shorebirds were photographed using the mudflat habitat of the Marsh to forage during low tide; however, the exact species generally could not be identified from the wildlife camera photos.  Wildlife camera photos from cameras WC2 and WC3 showed great blue heron to be common in the mudflat areas of the Marsh at all times of the year. They forage in the portion of Willow Creek flowing along the southern boundary of the Marsh.  Flocks of Canada geese and other waterfowl were also commonly photographed in the Marsh. Waterfowl use the mudflat areas during high tide and/or periods of high freshwater flow, when the Marsh is filled with water. Incidental wildlife observations made while field work was being conducted for the baseline study were recorded in the field logbooks (Appendix B) as much as possible. Some highlights of the incidental wildlife observations were:  Coyote tracks were commonly observed in the Marsh, and a group of coyotes was heard yipping from the Marsh interior during the October 2018 fall bird surveys. During the winter bird surveys in January 2019, a coyote was observed lying on a patch of saltgrass and Pacific silverweed (Argentina egedii) growing in the Marsh. The coyote ran into the cattails growing along Willow Creek and headed into the western portion of the Marsh when approached.  Deer tracks were observed in the south buffer zone on numerous occasions and in the Marsh in July 2018. 22 This is a subspecies of mule deer. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 102  A juvenile raccoon was observed sleeping on a leaning snag located just within the Marsh interior adjacent to the south buffer zone in October 2018.  Large piles of waterfowl feathers were commonly observed in the Marsh, suggesting that one or more predator species is preying upon birds in the Marsh.  Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) were observed to be numerous and common in the mudflat areas of the Marsh, where they rest and forage throughout the year. Great blue heron and mallards were also commonly observed in the Marsh.  Several different species of swallow—including barn swallows (Hirundo rustica), tree swallows, violet-green swallows (Tachycineta thalassina), and purple martin (Progne subis) were observed flying over and foraging within the Marsh and perched on the nest boxes that have been placed in the Marsh.  The south buffer zone was observed to be heavily used by a variety of bird species, and several different species of woodpecker (i.e., pileated woodpecker [Dryocopus pileatus], downy woodpecker, northern flicker, and red-breasted sapsucker [Sphyrapicus ruber]) were observed either directly (i.e., seen or heard) or indirectly (e.g., sapsucker holes observed on standing snags). Numerous other species were identified in this area, most of which are represented in the bird point count survey data provided in Section 4.8. Additional species of birds that were observed incidentally in the south buffer zone, but not surveyed during the formal point count surveys, included varied thrush, Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), and brown creeper (Certhia Americana). Two brown creepers were observed foraging on a standing snag within the south buffer zone adjacent to Willow Creek in July 2018. One of the birds captured and ate a moth that had been resting on the snag.  Several bird species were observed, either directly or indirectly, to be breeding in the Marsh or buffer areas:  A song sparrow was observed carrying nesting material in the south buffer zone in April 2018.  The shell of an American robin egg was observed in the south buffer zone in May 2018.  A female mallard with four ducklings was observed in Willow Creek within the south buffer zone in July 2019.  An adult spotted sandpiper and spotted sandpiper chick (Actitis macularius) were observed near the north mudflat wildlife camera in July 2019.  An Anna’s hummingbird was observed gathering nesting material from a cattail head in January 2019. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 103  An occupied marsh wren nest was observed in the cattails in the eastern portion of the Marsh in April 2019.  A black-capped chickadee was observed entering a cavity nest (hollow, dead branch of a willow) in May 2019.  A rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) was heard flying above the southeast buffer zone in April 2019.  Garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.) were observed in the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh in July 2018, and two red-tailed hawks, one of which had a garter snake in its talons, were observed flying above the southeast buffer zone in April 2019.  A mass of large amphibian eggs was observed within Shellabarger Creek, immediately upstream (east) of the SR-104 culvert in April 2019.  Butterflies and dragonflies were observed landing on the exposed mudflat areas of the Marsh. In October 2018, numerous large orb-weaver spiders (Araneidae) and slugs were observed in the western portion of the Marsh. 4.11 PHOTO POINT MONITORING The seasonal photo point photos taken over the course of the baseline monitoring year are presented in Appendix F. They serve as a visual record of existing baseline conditions within the Marsh, Shellabarger Marsh, and their buffer areas. These photos also provide documentation of short-term, temporary (i.e., seasonal) changes in vegetation community and structure, as well as mudflat conditions. During the baseline monitoring year, the photos show that the Marsh and buffer vegetation is at peak productivity during spring and summer, in transition to dormancy in autumn, and dormant in winter. The extent of mudflat exposure and water levels within the Marsh are also documented in these photos, revealing more exposure not only during low-tide periods, but also during summer and autumn, as well as periods of little or no precipitation or freshwater input. Continued photo point monitoring would provide a record of longer-term changes in the area. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 105 5 Studies by Other Parties The monitoring plan (Windward 2018a) summarized data and other information gathered within or near the Marsh by parties other than Windward, such as the Edmonds Stream Team water quality monitoring, and water quality monitoring that had been conducted to date by Shannon & Wilson as part of the Willow Creek Daylighting feasibility studies. During the baseline monitoring year, additional studies were conducted, and studies summarized in the monitoring plan continued to collect additional information. The following subsections provide an overview of available additional data and information collected by other parties throughout the baseline monitoring year (from approximately June 2018 to June 2019). For an overview of data and information collected prior to June 2018, review the summaries in the monitoring plan. 5.1 EDMONDS STREAM TEAM Since the fall of 2015, members of the Edmonds Stream Team have been collecting monthly water quality data from the Marsh and Willow and Shellabarger Creeks.23 The Edmonds Stream Team consists of students from Edmonds-Woodway High School who are participating in the Students Saving Salmon club, as well as citizen scientists from the City community (Edmonds Stream Team 2016). One of the team’s goals is to gather baseline water monitoring data from the Marsh, Willow Creek, and Shellabarger Creek prior to the daylighting of Willow Creek. Much of the data collected by the Edmonds Stream Team prior to 2017, which are summarized in the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a), met Washington State WQC and indicated good water quality. However, a few water quality data points did not meet these criteria. Water temperatures exceeded the maximum temperature threshold at the Marsh outlet basin in the spring and summer of 2016. DO concentrations measured in samples collected from the northern and eastern portions of the Marsh interior were below the minimum threshold during all seasons, except for in the eastern portion of the Marsh where Shellabarger Creek enters at the SR-104 culvert. Measured pH was below the acceptable range in samples collected from the northern portion of the Marsh interior on numerous occasions. Petroleum hydrocarbons and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene constituents (BTEX) were detected in some samples, and individual carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs) were detected at concentrations higher than water quality standards based on human health criteria. Most of these exceedances were detected in samples collected along the northern portion of the Marsh interior. Fecal coliform counts were generally higher after rain events. Fecal coliforms were detected at concentrations greater than 100 colonies/100 mL in samples collected from the Marsh’s fenced outlet basin, the 23 Data have also been collected from Shell Creek but are not discussed herein, as Shell Creek is within a separate drainage basin from the Marsh. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 106 Shellabarger Marsh outlet, lower Shellabarger Creek, and the portion of Shellabarger Creek that flows under SR-104. The Edmonds Stream Team collected additional water quality data quarterly and during storm events in 2017 and 2018 (Edmonds Stream Team 2018). Water temperature, DO, pH, conductivity, nitrates, salinity, fecal coliform bacteria, polycyclic aromatic hydrcarobs (PAHs), and metals data were compiled from samples collected from select water quality monitoring locations in and near the Marsh. Recorded temperatures in water collected from Shellabarger and Willow Creeks were below the maximum temperature threshold of 63.5°F for salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration from WAC 173-201A-200, indicating good water quality in terms of temperature (Edmonds Stream Team 2018). Water temperatures in the creeks (including Hindley and Shell Creeks)24 averaged 51.0°F in the fall, 47.0°F in the winter, 52.6°F in the spring, and 56.8°F in the summer. The average water temperatures of the samples collected in the Marsh were higher than those in the creeks: 52.7°F in the fall, 45.8°F in the winter, 55.2°F in the spring, and 62.4°F in the summer. The temperatures from samples collected over the summer months from the east and west Harbor Square culverts (near the baseline study water quality monitoring Stations 4, 5, and 6) and the Marsh outlet exceeded the 63.5° F temperature threshold. Samples collected from the Marsh outlet exceeded the threshold in the spring and summer months. Average DO concentrations were greater than the minimum threshold of 8.0 mg/L for salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration in samples collected from Shellabarger and Willow Creeks (Edmonds Stream Team 2018), indicating good water quality in terms of DO. DO concentrations in samples collected from the Marsh were generally below the 8.0 mg/L threshold, except in samples collected at the Marsh outlet and the eastern edge of the Marsh at the Highway 104 culvert (where Shellabarger Creek enters the Marsh). All pH measurements collected in the creeks were within the acceptable range of 6.5 to 8.5 (Edmonds Stream Team 2018). Water samples collected from the Marsh had an average pH of 7.0 (neutral) and were generally within the acceptable pH range, with the exception of several samples collected along the north end of the Marsh near Harbor Square, which had pH readings of less than 6.5. According to the Edmonds Stream Team report (Edmonds Stream Team 2018), conductivity measurements stayed relatively constant in samples collected from the creeks, except in samples collected during rain events, which had lower conductivity levels. Conductivity measurements in samples collected from the Marsh increased, as expected, when the tide gate was open and salinity levels were higher. 24 Water temperature averages were provided for Willow, Shellabarger, Hindley, and Shell Creeks together. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 107 Nitrate concentrations in samples collected from the creeks were generally lower than 2.0 mg/L in 2015 – 2017, and have been increasing since about spring 2017 (Edmonds Stream Team 2018). Nitrate concentrations in samples collected from the Marsh increased when the tide gate was open. Potassium nitrate can occur naturally in seawater (Edmonds Stream Team 2016). Salinity in samples collected from the Marsh outlet basin averaged 0.15 ppt while the tide gate was closed (i.e., mid-October through mid-March) (Edmonds Stream Team 2018). Salinity was higher in samples collected from the Marsh outlet while the tide gate was open. Salinity in samples collected along the northern end of the Marsh and from the Highway 104 culvert did not increase when the tide gate was open. Fecal coliform bacteria were detected at concentrations greater than 100 colonies/100 mL (i.e., the Washington State primary contact recreation bacteria threshold for freshwater; see WAC 173-201A-200) in samples collected from lower Willow Creek and lower Shellabarger Creek (Edmonds Stream Team 2018). Fecal coliform concentrations were higher after rain events. Samples with fecal coliform concentrations exceeding 8,000 colonies/100 mL of water were collected from Willow Creek in the fall of 2017 and spring of 2018. Select water samples collected from the Marsh, Willow Creek, and Shellabarger Creek were analyzed for PAHs, metals, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and BTEX constituents (Edmonds Stream Team 2018). Of the 59 samples analyzed for PAHs, 39 (66%) had concentrations that exceeded the Washington State WQC for human health of at least 1 of the 5 cPAHs. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected at concentrations greater than the WQC in 34 of the 39 samples. Some samples were analyzed for metals; zinc and copper were the metals most frequently detected. TPH and BTEX were detected in some, but not all, of the water samples submitted for analysis. The Edmonds Stream Team continues to monitor water quality in the Marsh and its tributary creeks. 5.2 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING STUDY Shannon & Wilson performed testing of the water quality, sediment chemistry, and aquatic invertebrate community within the Marsh and its tributary creeks in 2016 and 2017 as part of planning for the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration/Willow Creek daylighting project (Shannon & Wilson 2019). The methods and results of these studies are summarized in the following subsections. Water level, temperature, and conductivity data collected from the Marsh between 2012 and 2015 by Shannon & Wilson as part of the feasibility study (FS) for the daylighting project (Shannon & Wilson 2015) were summarized in the monitoring plan (Windward 2018a). Samples collected between 2012 and 2017 were collected from the following seven locations (Shannon & Wilson 2017, 2019):  WC-01 at Marina Beach Park  WC-02 just upstream of the Willow Creek outfall inlet 8.1.a Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 108  WC-03 near the northernmost point of the Marsh  WC-04 in the northern branch of Shellabarger Creek, west of SR-104  WC-05 in the Marsh, near the intersection of Shellabarger and Willow Creeks  WC-06 near the Hatchery  WC-07 in Shellabarger Creek, east of SR-104 5.2.1 Water quality Water quality samples were collected once per season (for a total of four sampling events) from December 2016 through September 2017. Samples were collected within Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, and the Marsh, as well as along the shoreline of Marina Beach Park (Map 1). Samples were analyzed in the field for temperature, DO, conductivity, total dissolved solids, salinity, pH and oxidation reduction potential. Laboratory tests were performed for a suite of metals, fecal coliform, chloride, total hardness, and total suspended solids. Water quality sample results were compared to Washington State surface WQC. Results were generally compared to Washington State fresh and marine WQC for the protection of aquatic life.25 In general, water quality was found to be acceptable with the exceptions of DO and fecal coliform. Fecal coliform exceedances26 were noted at least once at every location to varying degrees (in some cases, at concentrations twice the criteria); at WC-02 (just upstream of the Willow Creek outfall inlet and the Marsh outlet basin), fecal coliform concentrations exceeded criteria during three of the four sampling events. DO was found to be less than criteria27 in December 2016 at station WC-03 (near the northernmost point of the Marsh and the Harbor Square outfalls), and pH was less than criteria28 at WC-02 and WC-03 during two independent sampling events (Shannon & Wilson 2019). 5.2.2 Sediment chemistry Sediment samples were collected in June 2017 at the same stations where water quality was monitored (Shannon & Wilson 2019). These samples were submitted for laboratory analyses of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), butyltins, diesel-range organics, pesticides, polychlorinated 25 The “core summer salmonid habitat” category of criteria was used for freshwater criteria that vary based on salmonid habitat use. 26 Fecal coliform concentrations were compared to the “extraordinary primary contact recreation” WQC for freshwater (50 colony forming units [CFU]/100 mL) and to the “primary contact recreation” WQC for marine water (14 CFU/100 mL). 27 DO concentrations were compared to the “core summer salmonid habitat” WQC for freshwater (9.5 mg/L) and to the “extraordinary” aquatic life use WQC for marine water (7.0 mg/L). 28 For freshwater, pH results were compared to an acceptability range of 6.5 to 8.5, with a human-caused variation of less than 0.2 units. For marine water, pH results were compared to an acceptability range of 7.0 to 8.5, with a human-caused variation of less than 0.2 units. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 109 biphenyl (PCBs), metals, and wet chemistry (ammonia, nitrates, sulfides, total solids, and TOC). Sediment chemistry results were compared to Ecology sediment management standards. Nickel was detected at concentrations greater than criteria at several stations: WC-03, WC-04, WC-05, and WC-06. Carbon disulfide (a VOC) concentrations exceeded criteria (US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Region II freshwater sediment criteria) at all sampling locations. Several different SVOCs, including PAHs,29 were detected at concentrations greater than criteria, and at least one SVOC exceedance occurred at every sampling station. Station WC-03 had the highest and most frequent exceedances, including the only exceedances of tributyltin, diesel- and gas-range organics, and sulfide. 5.2.3 Aquatic invertebrates Macroinvertebrate samples were collected at the same stations as water quality and sediment chemistry samples in September 2017 and sent to Rhithron Laboratories for taxonomic analysis. The full taxonomic evaluation report is included in Appendix G. In general, samples had either “poor” or “very poor” Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI30) scores, both of which are indicative of poor water quality (Shannon & Wilson 2019). Specifically, “poor” B-IBI scores indicate depressed macroinvertebrate species diversity, with most species being tolerant of poor water quality; however, such samples still contain a small number of species that are intolerant of poor water quality. “Very poor” B-IBI scores indicate very low diversity and a predominance of species that are highly tolerant to poor water quality. The taxonomic evaluation results provide additional detail about the invertebrate species present within the Marsh, Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, and Puget Sound immediately downstream from the Marsh. The sample from Station WC-01, located in Puget Sound close to Marina Beach Park, contained a total of 225 individual invertebrate specimens. The sample contained nematode, polychaete, and oligochaete worms; bivalves; cockles (Cardiidae); clams (Veneridae); gastropods; amphipods; shrimp (Caprella sp.); decapods; isopods; and crustaceans (Cumacea, Copepoda and Ostracoda). No insects were found in the Puget Sound sample. 29 PAHs detected in at least one sample at concentrations greater than the criteria include: naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, dibenzofuran, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, total benzofluoranthenes, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and acenaphthylene. 30 The B-IBI rating is a measurement system created to evaluate stream health based on the invertebrate populations present. The Puget Sound Lowlands B-IBI—which consists of metrics (such as total taxa richness, and percent tolerant taxa etc.) that are given a score that can then be calculated into a B -IBI rating—was used in this study. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 110 The sample from Station WC-02, located in the Willow Creek channel downstream from the Marsh, contained a total of 616 specimens.31 The sample contained oligochaete worms, decapods, amphipods (Anisogammaridae), isopods (Gnorimosphaeroma sp.), copepods, ostracod crustaceans, and both biting and non-biting midge fly larva (Dasyhelea sp. and Chironomus sp.). The sample from Station WC-03, located at the north end of the Marsh near Harbor Square, contained a total of 187 specimens. The sample contained oligochaete worms; snails (Physidae and Planorbidae); water fleas (Cladocera); crustaceans (Copepoda and Crangonyx sp.); and mosquito (Culicidae), biting midge (Ceratopogoninae), non-biting midge (Chironomus sp., Polypedilum sp., and Procladius sp.), and aquatic nematoceran fly (Dixella sp.) larvae. The sample from Station WC-04, located in Shellabarger Creek within the eastern portion of the Marsh, contained only two specimens: one water sowbug (Caecidotea sp.) and one biting midge (Ceratopogoninae) larva. The sample from Station WC-05, located within the central portion of the eastern side of the Marsh, contained a total of 31 specimens. Four species of non-biting midge larvae were identified (i.e., Polypedilum sp., Rheotanytarsus sp., Parametriocnemus sp., and Prodiamesa sp.), as well as a stonefly larva (Malenka sp.), several leeches (Erpobdellidae), an oligochaete worm, and freshwater fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae). The sample from Station WC-06, located in Willow Creek within the Hatchery, contained a total of 538 specimens.22 Larvae of mayflies (i.e., Baetis tricaudatus complex and Cinygma sp.), stoneflies (i.e., Sweltsa sp., Malenka sp., and Zapada cinctipes), caddisfly (Parapsyche sp.), non-biting midges (i.e., Micropsectra sp., Brillia sp., Parametriocnemus sp., and Tvetenia Bavarica Gr.), a crane fly (Dicranota sp.), black flies (Simulium spp.), drain flies (Psychodidae), and meniscus midge flies (Dixa sp.) were found in the sample, as well as flatworms (Trepaxonemata), nematode and oligochaete worms, freshwater fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae), crustaceans (Crangonyx sp.), and a mite or tick (Acari). The sample from Station WC-07, located in upper Shellabarger Creek slightly southeast of Shellabarger Marsh, contained a total of 401 specimens. The species assemblage was similar to that of the Station WC-06 sample and contained larvae of mayflies (i.e., Baetis tricaudatus complex and Tricorythodes sp.), stoneflies (Malenka sp.), caddisfly (Parapsyche sp.), non-biting midges (i.e., Eukiefferiella Claripennis Gr. and Tvetenia Bavarica Gr.), black flies (Simulium spp.), and drain flies (Psychodidae), as well as flatworms (Trepaxonemata), nematode and oligochaete worms, a leech (Erpobdellidae), freshwater fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae), crustaceans (Crangonyx sp.), and mites or ticks (Acari). 31 There may have been more individuals in the sample; typically, the taxonomic laboratory will count approximately 500 individuals per sample. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 111 5.3 PILCHUCK AUDUBON SOCIETY AVIAN USE STUDY The Pilchuck Audubon Society (Audubon) has started a 10-year study of how birds use and interact with the variety of microhabitats provided by the Marsh and its buffer areas (Pilchuck Audubon Society 2019). One of the goals of the study is to be able to make informed recommendations on how best to manage the Marsh and its surrounding habitats for birds. The study began in December 2018 and is scheduled to continue until December 2028. Point count surveys are conducted twice per month at seven different locations by a group of volunteer surveyors. Interim reports on the study’s findings will be published in the future; this section provides a very high-level overview of the bird use observations made to date. The raw data provided to date for the study, as well as a map of the survey locations and the study data sheet (which provides definitions of the codes used in the data file), are included in Appendix H. The Audubon study includes two survey locations within and adjacent to the Hatchery (survey IDs ED.004 and ED.005).32 Species that have been observed at the Hatchery locations to date include: woodpeckers (northern flicker, red-breasted sapsucker, downy woodpecker, and pileated woodpecker); bushtits and chickadees (black-capped and chestnut-backed chickadees [Poecile rufescens]); kinglets (golden-crowned and ruby-crowned); sparrows (golden-crowned sparrow, savannah sparrow [Passerculus sandwichensis], song sparrow, dark-eyed junco, and spotted towhee); warblers (common yellowthroat, orange-crowned warbler [Oreothlypis celata], yellow-rumped warbler, and Townsend’s warbler [Setophaga townsendi]); wrens (Bewick’s wren, marsh wren, and Pacific wren [Troglodytes pacificus]); finches (American goldfinch and purple finch [Haemorhous purpureus]); Anna’s hummingbird; brown creeper; Pacific-slope flycatcher; red-breasted nuthatch; tree swallow; American crow; Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri); red-winged blackbird; red-tailed hawk; great blue heron; Virginia rail; Canada goose (Branta canadensis); ducks (gadwall [Mareca strepera] and mallard); and gulls (glaucous-winged gull [Larus glaucescens] and western × glaucous-winged gull hybrids). Two of the Audubon survey locations are situated within or adjacent to the Unocal Site (survey IDs ED.002 and ED.003). Both are located within areas of forested or scrub-shrub vegetation. Species that have been observed at these locations to date include: Northern flicker; bushtits and chickadees (black-capped and chestnut-backed chickadees); kinglets (golden-crowned and ruby-crowned kinglets); sparrows (white-crowned sparrow, golden-crowned sparrow, savannah sparrow [Passerculus sandwichensis], song sparrow, dark-eyed junco, and spotted towhee); warblers (yellow-rumped warbler and common yellowthroat); wrens (Bewick’s wren and marsh wren); finches (American goldfinch, house finch, and purple finch); Anna’s hummingbird; brown creeper; Pacific-slope flycatcher; American crow; Steller’s jay; 32 One of these locations (survey ID ED.004) is the same as location BPC-3 from the baseline study. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 112 red-winged blackbird; hawks (Cooper’s hawk [Accipiter cooperii] and red-tailed hawk); bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); great blue heron; Canada goose; and Virginia rail. Two of the Audubon survey locations are situated along the eastern half of the north buffer zone, adjacent to the Harbor Square property (survey IDs ED.006 and ED.007). Species that have been observed at these locations to date include: northern flicker; black-capped chickadee; kinglets (ruby-crowned and golden-crowned kinglets); sparrows (white-crowned sparrow, golden-crowned sparrow, song sparrow, dark-eyed junco, and spotted towhee); warblers (common yellowthroat and yellow-rumped warbler); wrens (Bewick’s wren and marsh wren); finches (American goldfinch and house finch); Anna’s hummingbird; Pacific-slope flycatcher; swallows (barn swallow, tree swallow, and violet-green swallow); American crow; red-winged blackbird; European starling (Sturnus vulgaris); rock pigeon (Columba livia); red-tailed hawk; great blue heron; Virginia rail; killdeer, geese (Canada goose and greater white-fronted goose [Anser albifrons]); ducks (American wigeon [Mareca Americana], gadwall, green-winged teal [Anas crecca], and mallard); and western × glaucous-winged gull hybrids. One of the Audubon survey locations is situated along the wooden boardwalk at the north end of the Marsh (survey ID ED.001). Species that have been observed at this location to date include: black-capped chickadee; sparrows (white-crowned sparrow, song sparrow, dark-eyed junco, and spotted towhee); common yellowthroat; marsh wren; finches (American goldfinch and house finch); Anna’s hummingbird; swallows (barn swallow, northern rough-winged swallow [Stelgidopteryx serripennis], tree swallow, and violet-green swallow); American crow; red-winged blackbird; European starling; bald eagle; great blue heron; killdeer, Canada goose; ducks (American wigeon, gadwall, green-winged teal, and mallard); and gulls (herring gull [Larus argentatus], mew gull [Larus canus], glaucous-winged gull, and western × glaucous-winged gull hybrids. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 113 6 Observations and Information Collected by the Community One of the goals of the baseline study was to create a forum whereby community members could contribute information to the study and help document the Marsh’s baseline conditions. This goal was intended to allow the public to apply its curiosity and contribute its talents to the study, and to allow citizen scientists to provide information that would not otherwise be available due to time, geographic, or resource constraints. Community input was achieved through the use of a City-created Flickr page (https://www.flickr.com/groups/edmondsmarshmadness/) where community members could post photos of wildlife and scenery taken within the Marsh and buffer areas. At select photo point stations, laminated placards were posted with instructions for community members on how to contribute photos to the monitoring program at any time throughout the monitoring period. The photo point photos taken by community members were posted to the Flickr page along with their wildlife and scenery photos. Photos posted to Flickr are presented in Appendix I. In addition to the photos posted on Flickr, certain individuals provided their observations to the baseline study through other forums/formats. Dr. David Richman provided A Report on the Insects and Arachnids of Edmonds Marsh, along with an accompanying set of photographs; both are presented in Appendix I. Edmonds, Washington, photographer Bill Anderson provided a number of bird and other wildlife photos, as well as photos showing scenery from the Marsh in years prior to the baseline monitoring year (Appendix I). Appendix I also provides a list of 190 species of birds observed in the Marsh over the past 30 years and compiled by Edmonds-area residents Carol Riddell and Ted Peterson. The wildlife and other kinds of observations provided by the community are drawn upon in the discussion provided in Section 7.3. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 115 7 Discussion The following sections further discuss the baseline conditions of the Marsh and its buffer areas, based on the data collected as part of this study and data and observations collected by other parties and the community, as discussed in Sections 5 and 6. The ecological functions currently being performed by the Marsh and buffer habitats are also discussed. 7.1 WATER QUALITY, SALINITY, DEPTH AND CIRCULATION Water quality within the Marsh and its tributary creeks is generally good, with some exceptions. Within lower Willow Creek and in the southern portion of the Marsh (water quality stations 1, 2, 3, and 3b on Map 2), none of the WQC were exceeded for any of the parameters monitored during the baseline study. These water quality stations were located within the forested habitat at the south end of the Marsh and in the Marsh interior just north of the forested buffer edge. In seasons when water temperatures exceeded WQC at other stations (i.e., summer and fall), water temperatures remained cooler and met WQC at Stations 1 through 3b (Tables 4 -1 and 4-2). These results indicate that the forested riparian habitat surrounding Willow Creek and the south side of the Marsh helps to preserve water quality, particularly by providing shade essential to maintaining low water temperatures during warm weather. Water quality data collected by other parties (the Edmonds Stream Team and Shannon & Wilson) also indicate relatively good water quality in lower Willow Creek (within the south buffer zone). The only exception was fecal coliform bacteria, which were detected at concentrations exceeding WQC during some monitoring events by the Edmonds Stream Team. Fecal coliform counts tended to be higher after rain events, indicating that the bacteria are likely flushed into the creek from the surrounding drainage basin. The droppings of wildlife that use the Marsh and its buffer areas, such as waterfowl and coyotes, may also contribute to fecal coliform loads. Water quality monitoring conducted as part of the baseline study identified several WQC exceedances along the northern edge of the Marsh, adjacent to Harbor Square and the Harbor Square outfalls: Summer water temperatures were above WQC, DO concentrations were below WQC throughout the year, pH values were acidic in the spring and fall, and there was a turbidity exceedance at Station 4 in the spring (Section 4.1). Water quality monitoring conducted by other parties confirms the existence of water qualities issues in the northern portion of the Marsh. Low DO concentrations were detected during all seasons by the Edmonds Stream Team, and low pH readings were measured in this area (Section 5.1). Fecal coliform bacteria, as well as chemicals including petroleum hydrocarbons, cPAHs, and BTEX constituents, were also detected 8.1.a Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 116 at concentrations exceeding WQC in water samples collected along the northern edge of the Marsh (Sections 5.1 and 5.2.1). The stormwater outfalls from Harbor Square enter the north edge of the Marsh via unlined channels that flow into the patches of Marsh vegetation. The water in these channels was generally observed to be stagnant, and bacterial sheens were sometimes observed on the water surface. It appears that these channels are not well-connected to the Marsh interior in terms of water circulation. One reason for this may be a topographic high spot within the Marsh interior (see LiDAR map provided in Appendix D), which appears to hinder water from Willow Creek and the southwestern portion of the Marsh from flowing into this area (Section 4.2). Another factor reducing circulation may be that these channels are located beneath trees and shrubs, which may contribute to a reduction in the “breeziness” of the air-water interface, resulting in reduced oxygen exchange. Water within the outfall channels may flow and circulate only during stormwater discharge events. Lack of water circulation in the outfall channels likely contributes to low DO in this area. Other factors may include the large loads of plant detritus at Stations 5 and 6, which cause high oxygen demand, and the shaded water, which reduces the ability of algae to produce oxygen. The reason for the low pH values of water in the northern portion of the Marsh may be related to the acidity of the underlying Mukilteo muck soils. Water quality in Shellabarger Creek where it enters the east side of the Marsh (on the west end of the SR-104 culvert) was monitored as part of the baseline study (Station 8 on Map 2). The only water quality exceedance identified at this station as part of the baseline study was water temperature during the summer monitoring event (Table 4-2). In addition, low DO levels were detected in some areas along the eastern boundary of the Marsh by the Edmonds Stream Team (Section 5.1), and fecal coliform bacteria were detected at concentrations exceeding WQC in Shellabarger Creek (where it flows through the eastern portion of the Marsh) by Shannon & Wilson (Section 5.2.1). Water quality monitoring was also conducted within the fenced Marsh outlet basin downstream from the Marsh as part of the baseline study (Station 7 on Map 2), by the Edmonds Stream Team, and by Shannon & Wilson. Water quality exceedances observed at this location included spring and summer water temperatures (documented by baseline study monitoring in summer and by the Edmonds Stream Team in spring and summer) and low pH (documented during the spring baseline study monitoring event [Table 4-2] and during all four seasons by Shannon & Wilson [Section 5.2.1]). Fecal coliform bacteria were also detected at concentrations exceeding WQC at this location by the Edmonds Stream Team (Section 5.1) and by Shannon & Wilson. 7.2 CONTINUOUS WATER DEPTH AND SALINITY MONITORING When the tide gate was closed, mean salinity was less than 1 ppt (i.e., freshwater ), but when the tide gate was open, mean salinity was 11.4 ppt, approximately 10 ppt higher 8.1.a Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 117 (Table 4-3). This change in salinity likely significantly affects plant communities in the Marsh. For example, when the tide gate was inadvertently closed during the 2018 growing season (prior to August 27, 2018; Table 3-4), visitors to the Marsh observed denser than normal growth of cattails, bulrushes, and other vegetation along the northern and western edges of the Marsh. These conditions are shown on Photographs 123 and 124 (2018 conditions) and 125 and 126 (2019 conditions) in Appendix I.1. When the tide gate is allowed to close but is apparently leaking, a range of intermediate conditions occur (Appendix D). Salinities were always very low (i.e., freshwater) at Stations 7, 8, and 9 in the eastern portion of the Marsh and within Shellabarger Creek (Map 3) and the tidal signal was almost non-existent, so it is unlikely that these areas are impacted by tidal inflow (Figure 7-1). Precipitation in the Willow and Shellabarger Creek watersheds appears to influence water levels at these stations, which are upslope of the extensive cattail monoculture on the east side of the tidal flats in the lower wetland (Figure 4-8) (Map 3). No influence of precipitation on water level at other stations was apparent. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 118 Figure 7-1. Water level responses to rainfall in the upper Marsh 8.1.a Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 119 Tides primarily drive salinity changes in the Marsh (Figure 4-6): When high tides push high-salinity water into the Marsh, inflow from Willow and Shellabarger Creeks is temporarily impeded. When the tide recedes, the freshwater piled up in the creeks is released and flows west into the lower part of the Marsh. Salinity is highly variable over time at Stations 1 through 6 (Map 3), generally ranging from near freshwater to close to Puget Sound salinity (approximately 30 ppt) over the course of a tide cycle (Figure 4-7). Stations 3 and 4 show a smaller salinity range, because these stations are in a small sub-basin separated by a slight ridge in local topography (see the LiDAR map provided in Appendix D). Figures 7-2a, c, and d show the effect of the ridge as a tide minimum “flat line” at about 250 to 260 cm above mean lower low water (MLLW). These stations tend to have relatively stable, higher salinities (on average over time). Additionally, because lower Willow Creek is channelized (straight), freshwater released upon tidal retreat is efficiently transported downstream and does not encroach on Stations 3 and 4, which are peripheral to the longitudinal axis of the Marsh. Saline waters, therefore, have longer residence times in the areas of Stations 3 and 4, resulting in greater infiltration into wetland soil/sediment (and/or greater contact time with CTD data loggers). The vegetation of the open flats, which is dominated by more salt-tolerant species (saltgrass [Distichlis spicata] and pickleweed [Salicornia depressa]), likely reflects this higher salinity. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 120 Figure 7-2a. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 1 signal 8.1.a Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 121 Figure 7-2b. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 2 signal 8.1.a Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 122 Figure 7-2c. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 3 signal 8.1.a Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 123 Figure 7-2d. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 4 signal 8.1.a Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 124 Figure 7-2e. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 5 signal 8.1.a Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 125 Figure 7-2f. Relationship between Elliott Bay tide signal and Edmonds Marsh Station 6 signal 8.1.a Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 126 Stations 8 and 9 appear to be quite similar to one another; they follow near-identical trends in water elevation, although during rain events, Station 9 water elevations rise temporarily compared to those of Station 8 (Figure 7-1). This difference appears to demonstrate a flow restriction during high-precipitation rain events that can be attributed to the culverts under Highway 104, which hinders rainfall water from passing under the road to Station 8. These pipes can transport a limited amount of water per unit time (e.g., cubic feet per second). Extraordinary rapid rainfall events produce a rain at a rate greater than what the pipes can transport causing water to accumulate on the east side of Highway 104. Our field efforts captured only a few higher-precipitation rainfall events. The greatest difference between Station 8 and 9 water elevations was observed on March 12, 2019 (ca. 02:30), with 1.27 in. of rain; lesser differences occurred with less rain (see Figure 7-3 for details). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 127 Figure 7-3. Examples of water level changes in response to rainfall events 8.1.a Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 128 During field efforts, a tide phase differences were observed between the Marsh and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Elliot Bay elevation data (Figure 7-2a through 7-2f). This difference has not been fully explained, but is likely related to inadequacy of the downstream piping to transport flows in and out of the Marsh rapidly enough to fully transmit the tide signal. Casual field observation noted that the lowest water levels in the Marsh did not occur until well after the predicted low tide level. 7.3 SOIL, SEDIMENT, VEGETATION, AND LWD WITHIN THE MARSH AND BUFFER ZONES The following subsections discuss the current condition of the soil, sediment, vegetation, and LWD within the Marsh and its buffer areas. The subsections also provide information on the functions that these features provide, recommendations for enhancing native vegetation and LWD quantities, and a discussion related to the expected effect of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project on Marsh vegetation. Section 7.3.6 includes additional discussion related to the habitat value provided by the Marsh’s vegetation and other habitat features. 7.3.1 Buffer zone soils Buffer zone soils are considered of suitable quality to support native plant growth, invertebrate populations, and water infiltration. Bulk density measurements ranging from 1.40 to 1.65 g/cm3 have been found to restrict the growth of woody plant roots, with variation depending upon soil type (Schueler 2000; Alberty et al. 1984). For sandy loam soils, a bulk density of 1.7 g/cm3 or greater is considered to limit root growth (Schueler 2000). All of the soil samples from the buffer zones had dry bulk density measurements less than 1.40 g/cm3, indicating that they are not restrictive to woody plant root growth. Buffer zone soils also provide habitat for worms and other invertebrates that were observed in the top several inches of soil in the southeast and south buffer zones, as well as the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh (Table 4-5). Urban soils, which are generally more compacted than soils in undisturbed, natural areas, have reduced soil porosity and therefore a diminished ability to allow water to infiltrate the soil and hold water (Schueler 2000). As a result, compacted urban soils can contribute to urban stormwater runoff. Often, urban lawns have bulk densities ranging from 1.5 to 1.9 g/cm3, urban fill soils have bulk densities ranging from 1.8 to 2.0 g/cm3, and rights-of-way and building pads have bulk densities ranging from 1.5 to 1.8 g/cm3. The highest bulk density measurement of 1.37 g/cm3 was in the south buffer zone. As this value is well below the 1.5 g/cm3 threshold, it is expected that the vegetated portions of the Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones are allowing water infiltration. Buffer zone soils typically had silty/sandy loam textures and large proportions of sand and gravel (Table 4-5 and Figure 4-9), as well as high TOC contents along the north 8.1.a Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 129 buffer zones of the Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh. The buffer zones are located within or near transitional areas between the depressional Mukilteo muck soil unit and the more upland Alderwood-Everett and Everett units, as well as areas of urban land, which may explain the trend of sandy/gravelly soils with high organic matter content. Soils containing approximately 5% organic matter are considered ideal in terms of fertility for woody plant growth in permanent landscapes (i.e., landscapes not regularly harvested like agricultural fields) (Chalker-Scott 2019). Although the TOC content of the south and southeast buffer zones was a bit below 5% (3.41% and 2.40%, respectively), plants were growing well in these zones and did not show obvious signs of nutrient deficiency. If habitat restoration efforts are implemented in these zones (such as the removal of invasive plants and planting of native plants), top-dressing the planting area with a thick layer of wood chips would provide a source of organic matter that would be broken down and incorporated into the soil over time.33 Wood chip mulch also helps retain soil moisture and prevent the growth of weeds. This practice is already being implemented at the Hatchery property within the south buffer zone. The TOC content of both the north buffer zone and the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone was much higher than 5% (35.6% and 18.0%, respectively). Soils within the north buffer zone consist of Mukilteo muck and urban land; however, the portion of the buffer zone from which the baseline study soil samples were collected was within the Mukilteo muck unit (see soil map in Appendix D). The Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone is also mapped in the Mukilteo muck soil unit. The naturally high organic matter content of Mukilteo muck likely contributed to the high TOC values in these buffer zones. Buffer zone soils ranged from slightly to very strongly acidic (Table 4-4). The two lowest (i.e., most acidic) pH values were for soils from the south and southeast buffer zones. Soils within the south buffer zone consist of both Everett gravelly sandy loam (in the southern portion of the zone) and Mukilteo muck (in the northern portion of the zone), while soil within the southeast buffer zone consists of Mukilteo muck (see the soil map in Appendix D). The low pH values of the south and southeast buffer zones are therefore likely attributable to the presence of Mukilteo muck, which has been identified as very strongly acid. Regardless of the nuances of the different factors that influence the TOC content and pH of soils in the different buffer areas, all buffer zones (where vegetated) support dense plant growth. Many Pacific Northwest native plants are well adapted to acidic soils, and soil pH does not appear to be hindering native plant growth within the buffer zones; however, the acidity of the soils in the south and southeast buffer zones should be considered when planning native plant installation as part of any habitat restoration efforts. If additional native species (beyond those already growing within these zones) 33 Wood chip mulch should be used in upland areas only, not wetlands. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 130 are to be added to planting plans, the tolerance of those species to acidic soils should be considered. 7.3.2 North buffer zone vegetation and LWD Vegetation in the north buffer zone consists of both native and non-native species, and a relatively dense tree canopy rings the eastern two-thirds of this buffer zone. The understory includes a variety of native shrubs, many of which have been planted as part of recent habitat restoration efforts. The dominant plant species sampled in the north buffer zone as part of the baseline study34 were red alder and Scouler’s willow in the tree canopy, Scouler’s willow and Himalayan blackberry in the understory, and water parsley and broadleaf cattail in the herbaceous stratum (Tables 4-9 and 4-10). In addition to Himalayan blackberry, invasive species identified in the north buffer zone were bittersweet nightshade, English ivy, and field bindweed. Recommendations related to vegetation in the north buffer zone are to continue removing invasive species (particularly Himalayan blackberry) and installing a diverse mix of native species within the understory. Understory plantings should include native shade-tolerant trees (such as western red cedar [Thuja plicata], Oregon ash [Fraxinus latifolia], bigleaf maple [Acer macrophyllum], and western hemlock [Tsuga heterophylla]) that will eventually be able to replace the alder and willow overstory as it naturally ages and declines. The north buffer zone vegetation provides a visual screen between human activity and the Marsh interior. This screen would be enhanced by continuing to plant native species in the understory; however, planting should be done in a manner that maintains wildlife-viewing corridors from the pedestrian pathway, wooden boardwalk, and established lookout points, in order to allow wildlife viewing and photography without requiring observers to enter the Marsh interior. Only one piece of LWD was identified within the north buffer zone vegetation transects (Table 4-14); based on additional qualitative evaluations, very little LWD was observed in other portions of the zone, with the exception of the very edge of the Marsh, where there appeared to be some pieces from the adjacent buffer trees that had accumulated within the cattail stands. LWD provides valuable habitat for a variety of different species, a source of organic matter input to sediment and soil, and other functions (Windward 2018b). It may be possible to increase the quantity of LWD in the forested portion of the north buffer zone through the manual placement of LWD. Such work could possibly occur concurrently with the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project, if LWD were already being transported to the area and distributed with heavy machinery as part of the effort. The forested buffer and edge of the Marsh are relatively 34 Additional, qualitative description of the north buffer zone is available in the Evaluation of Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones report (Windward 2018c). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 131 accessible in this zone, given the proximity of the Harbor Square parking lot and the paved pedestrian walkway. 7.3.3 Southeast buffer zone vegetation and LWD Vegetation in the southeast buffer zone sampled as part of the baseline study consisted of common hawthorn in the overstory and a predominance of Himalayan blackberry in both the shrub and herbaceous vegetation strata (Table 4-11). Trailing blackberry and salmonberry, both native species, were also common in the shrub and herbaceous strata; however, no native tree species were recorded in the sampling transects of the southeast buffer zone, indicating the importance of active restoration efforts to remove invasive species (which also include reed canarygrass and common hawthorn) and install native plants. Qualitative observations of the southeast buffer zone were made in April 2018 (Windward 2018c). These observations noted a mix of native tree species, including red alder, water birch (Betula occidentalis), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), bigleaf maple, and western hemlock, present in the southeast buffer zone, all of which would be appropriate species to consider for any future planting efforts in this zone, as well as additional native trees like western red cedar and Oregon ash (which prefers wetter areas). Native trees in the understory will eventually be able to extend into and help diversify the tree canopy. LWD is present within the southeast buffer zone (Table 4-14), and some of the red alder trees in this zone are dying, providing standing snag habitat for birds, insects, and other wildlife. The northern and central portions of the Marsh’s east buffer zone were also qualitatively evaluated in April 2018, but due to their narrow nature, they were not selected for vegetation transect placement during the baseline study. In April 2018, this area was noted to contain a relatively narrow but dense band of woody vegetation that included red alder and Douglas fir in the overstory and Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) in the understory (Windward 2018c). Near the location where Shellabarger Creek passes under SR-104 via the double culverts (Map 2), cattails were observed extending from the Marsh all the way to the sidewalk along the highway. Bittersweet nightshade, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass (all invasive species) were also observed in this area, as were native black gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum) and salmonberry. Habitat restoration efforts could be conducted in the northern and central portions of the east buffer zone, with a focus on removing invasive species and planting native species; however, this area would likely be more difficult to work within, given its narrowness and proximity to a busy highway. It is recommended that any habitat restoration efforts in this area be conducted by qualified personnel. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 132 7.3.4 South buffer zone vegetation and LWD Of all the buffer zones, the south buffer zone had the most diverse native plant community within the herbaceous and shrub/sapling strata, with 22 native species identified in the herbaceous stratum and 15 native species identified in the shrub/sapling stratum (Table 4-12). Vegetation sampled as part of the baseline study consisted of red alder in the canopy, a predominance of salmonberry in the shrub stratum, and a predominance of American skunkcabbage and youth-on-age in the herbaceous stratum. Many other native species were inventoried within the vegetation transects as well, and red alder, bigleaf maple, Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock were observed in the tree canopy during qualitative observations conducted in the south buffer zone in April 2018 (Windward 2018c). Invasive species in the south buffer zone included Himalayan blackberry, reed canargygrass, cherry laurel, English ivy, lesser herb Robert, and English holly; however, all of these were present at approximately 10% cover or less. The relatively large size of this buffer zone, along with the intact forest cover, has likely helped protect the south buffer zone from invasion by weedy plant species. Active vegetation management efforts performed at the Hatchery have also no doubt contributed to the low invasive species percent cover. In addition to a diverse mix of native plants, the south buffer zone contains a relatively large amount of LWD, particularly standing snags. Although only two pieces of LWD (both logs on the ground) were identified within the vegetation transects (Table 4-14), many standing snags were observed at the edge of the forested habitat, where the forest transitions into emergent Marsh habitat. Most of these standing snags appeared to have once been red alder or bigleaf maple trees. It is unclear why many of these trees have declined in this area; it may be due to a change in flooding regime or the trees reaching the end of their natural lifespans. Regardless, the snags and other LWD provide habitat for woodpeckers and other wildlife. The primary recommendations related to the south buffer zone are to control invasive species in the understory, and to prevent bittersweet nightshade and reed canarygrass, which are present in the Marsh adjacent to the south buffer zone, from invading the high-quality forested habitat of this area. Efforts are already underway to control invasive plants and install native plants at the Hatchery, and new native plantings were installed during the baseline monitoring year. Given the density and diversity of native plants in the south buffer zone, invasive species control alone would likely be sufficient to fully restore the native forest community (as native species would seed in and spread naturally). However, active planting of native species will speed up the natural regeneration process and further enhance plant diversity. Pieces of LWD should be left in place as much as possible. The diversity of native plants present in the south buffer zone appears to be largely “natural,” meaning that for the most part, the plants here appear to reflect a remaining intact forest still dominated by native plants. As such, this community may prov ide a good example on which to base planting schemes for restoration efforts elsewhere in 8.1.a Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 133 the buffer zones of the Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh. This area might also be able to provide native, local planting stock for such restoration efforts, if seeds or cuttings could be harvested conservatively and propagated for out-planting. The southwest buffer zone of the Marsh, which is located on the Unocal Site, was not included in the baseline study, as the property was not accessible for this purpose. However, the area was qualitatively evaluated in April 2018, as possible, from surrounding, publicly accessible land (Windward 2018c). The forested portion of the southeast buffer zone appears to have a composition similar to that of the south buffer zone: tree species observed included bigleaf maple, red alder, Douglas fir, and western red cedar. 7.3.5 Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone vegetation and LWD Invasive and other weedy vegetation dominated the herbaceous and shrub strata of the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh.35 Invasive species identified within the vegetation transect included purple loosestrife, field bindweed, bittersweet nightshade, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass (Table 4-13). Native species identified were red alder (the only tree species within the vegetation transect) and broadleaf cattail. Other native species (i.e., Scouler’s willow, Pacific willow, osoberry [Oemleria cerasiformis], evergreen huckleberry [Vaccinium ovatum], and sword fern) were observed in the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh during a qualitative evaluation of the zone made in April 2018 (Windward 2018c). Additional non-native/invasive species observed included cherry laurel, English holly, and English ivy, the last growing not only on the ground but also climbing some of the trees. Vegetation enhancements in this buffer zone could include the removal of non-native species and installation of native shrubs, groundcover plants, and shade-tolerant trees. As some of the red alder trees in this area are in decline, providing a source of understory tree seedlings that will ultimately grow to replace the red alders would be important to ensure forest succession. There is some LWD in the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh (two pieces derived from red alder trees were identified along the single vegetation transect through this zone [Table 4-14]); however, any additional LWD that could be placed as part of other habitat restoration efforts would be beneficial. 7.3.6 Sediments, vegetation and LWD of the Marsh interior Marsh sediments were observed to be consistent with the description of Mukilteo muck: acidic pH values, relatively high TOC content, and large quantities of visible organic matter/detritus and root mass (Tables 4-6 and 4-7). Organic-rich wetland soils provide carbon sequestration (Batzer and Sharitz 2006); the high TOC content and visible 35 A qualitative description of the other buffer zones of Shellabarger Marsh is available in the Evaluation of Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones report (Windward 2018c). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 134 organic matter within the Marsh’s sediments show that they are providing this function. The sediments support dense stands of native marsh plants interspersed with open mudflat areas (Map 6). Salt-tolerant vegetation is dominant in the western portion of the Marsh, while cattail is dominant in the eastern portion (Section 4.5). Restrictions on the growth of native salt marsh plants within the Marsh are understood to be related to changes in the salinity gradient (influenced by operation of the downstream tide gate [see Sections 4.2 and 7.1], as well as to competition from invasive species such as common reed. In general, the lower limits of salt marsh vegetation zones are created by the physical stress of tidal inundation, while the upper limits are created by competition for nutrients, sunlight, and space (Hood 2007). Changes in the hydrology and salinity regime of the Marsh are anticipated to occur as a result of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project and daylighting of Willow Creek (particularly if the existing tide gate is removed and either not replaced or replaced with a configuration that allows more tidal water flow into the Marsh). The vegetation community is also expected to shift in response to changes in hydrology and salinity post-restoration, particularly in the western lobe of the Marsh, which is most influenced by tidal flows. For example, salt marsh vegetation is expected to expand, while freshwater-associated species such as cattail are expected to decline in some areas, as cattails have been shown to have greatly reduced growth rates at salinities of 10 ppt and above (Beare and Zedler 1987). However, given mature cattail’s ability to tolerate saline water, active removal may be necessary in order to create open space where salt-tolerant Marsh vegetation can colonize and expand. Recommendations related to the control of cattail were provided in the Evaluation of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project report (Windward 2019).The baseline conditions of the Marsh vegetation (as documented on Map 6) will allow for a future evaluation of changes to the plant community. The existing Marsh vegetation provides a number of ecological functions, including habitat for birds and other wildlife, sediment erosion control, and water quality improvement (Table 7-1). Most of the plant species within the Marsh are native; however, some invasive species, such as common reed and Japanese knotweed, are also present (Map 6 and Table 4-8). Japanese knotweed and one of the two patches of common reed are located near the terminus of the wooden boardwalk and adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way. The railway may represent a source of weed seeds; this area may need close monitoring for and control of invasive plant species. Recommendations related to the control of common reed were provided in the Evaluation of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project report (Windward 2019). Section 7.4 includes additional discussion related to the habitat value provided by the Marsh’s vegetation and other habitat features. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 135 Table 7-1. Ecological function of plant species identified within the Marsh Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Ecological Role/Function Baltic rush Juncus arcticus or Juncus balticus sediment retention, erosion control, possibly nitrogen fixation (Cooke 1997) Broadleaf cattail and narrowleaf cattail Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia (Tilley and St. John 2012a) seeds generally not eaten by wildlife but geese and muskrats will eat stems and roots; used for shelter and nesting sites by red-winged blackbirds, yellow-headed blackbirds, and marsh wrens (Stevens and Hoag 2006); Marsh photo-documentation shows that birds such as chickadees eat insect larvae dwelling inside the flower spikes (Appendix I); provides water quality functions, removing pollutants through filtering (Guard 1995) Common brassbuttons Cotula coronopifolia seeds a food source for waterfowl (Mall and Rollins 1972) Common reed Phragmites australis despite being an invasive weed, provides nesting cover for shorebirds and waterfowl; waterfowl eat its seeds (Tilley and St. John 2012a) Cosmopolitan bulrush Bolboschoenus maritimus provides erosion control; rhizomes associated with bacteria beneficial in regards to water treatment; seeds a food source for water fowl; above-ground growth nesting cover for birds; young shoots and rootstock eaten and used as building material by beaver and muskrats (Tilley and St. John 2012b) Creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera moderate palatability for graze animals Hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus poor palatability for graze animals; waterfowl eat seeds; dense growth provides high-quality nesting habitat for waterfowl and other wetland birds; root stock eaten by beaver and muskrat; muskrat use stems for building; dense root mat stabilizes soils and provides erosion control; rhizomes provide habitat for bacteria beneficial for water quality; aphids known to feed on stems (Tilley 2012) Lyngbye’s sedge Carex lyngbyei provides food for insects, birds, and some mammals; provides nesting material for birds and erosion and sediment control Meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum valuable forage for deer in spring but low palatability for browsing and grazing animals when mature; potential to help impede spread of reed canarygrass; easy to establish and often included in wetland and salt marsh restoration seed mixes (Darris 2008) Pacific silverweed Argentina egedii provides erosion control; songbirds eat seeds; small mammals eat seeds and foliage (Stevens 2007) Pickleweed Salicornia depressa usually a pioneering colonizer in bare areas within salt marshes (Bakker 2017) Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea despite being an invasive species, provides moderate palatability for graze animals; provides cover and nesting habitat for some bird species; seeds eaten by many bird species (NRCS 2006); can provide nutrient uptake to help treat wastewater but needs to be routinely cut (with biomass removed) in order to maintain nutrient uptake performance (NRCS 2006) Saltgrass Distichlis spicata fair to good forage value; eaten by geese and other waterfowl; provides nesting cover for birds, as well as cover for marine invertebrates and fish; resistant to trampling; provides erosion control (Skaradek and Miller 2010) 8.1.a Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 136 Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Ecological Role/Function Seaside arrowgrass Triglochin maritima toxic (containing cyanogenic glycosides) and should not be eaten by humans or livestock (Fretwell and Starzomski 2014) Spear saltbush Atriplex patula songbirds such as sparrows likely eat seeds; leaves eaten by a variety of insects (Hilty 2017) Very few pieces of LWD were identified in the western portion of the Marsh interior; pieces that were encountered are shown on Map 2. While the eastern portion of the Marsh interior was difficult to survey (due to dense vegetation cover), there appeared to be more pieces of LWD in that portion of the Marsh, particularly around the Marsh edge. LWD provides many ecological functions within estuarine marshes, including inputs of detritus that help support the estuarine food web, shelter (from both high-velocity currents and predators), egg attachment sites for fish, roosting and hunting platforms for birds, and habitat islands that can be colonized by vegetation (Hood 2007; Eissinger 2007). It may be possible to place additional pieces of LWD within the Marsh during implementation of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project. It would be preferable to place LWD within the Marsh using equipment that is either staged in upland areas or already accessing the Marsh for other construction purposes, in order to prevent compaction of Marsh sediments beyond the extent necessary to complete the other earthwork associated with the project. 7.4 INVERTEBRATE AND WILDLIFE USE OF MARSH AND BUFFER HABITATS Despite its location in the center of a highly urbanized area, the Marsh, along with its buffer zones, provides habitat for a large number of wildlife species, as was documented throughout the course of the baseline monitoring year. In general, the species that use the Marsh appear to be relatively well adapted to the human activities conducted around the Marsh and the noises they generate. Some species use the Marsh year-round, while others are seasonal visitors. The Marsh is used as breeding, foraging, and resting habitat for a suite of bird and mammal species. It also supports many different types of insects and other invertebrates. In addition, Willow and Shellabarger Creeks provide habitat for fish and amphibians.36 The specific habitat requirements of the species that use the Marsh and its buffer areas, as well as direct observations of how wildlife interacts with these habitats, help provide valuable information about the habitat functions that the Marsh provides, as well as guidance for how habitat functions could be improved through habitat enhancements and restoration. The discussion that follows draws upon the data and observations collected as part of the baseline study, collected by other parties (Section 5 and Appendices H and I), and collected by members of the community (Section 6 and Appendix I). 36 While the presence of fish was not directly monitored as part of the baseline study, juvenile salmonids were observed in Willow Creek in the south buffer zone (at the Hatchery) on several occasions and in Willow Creek where it runs along the southern portion of the Marsh during summer data collection, and use of Willow Creek by fish has been documented in reference material. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 137 7.4.1 Invertebrates There was a noticeable trend in the aquatic invertebrate community composition moving from sampling stations more influenced by tidal flow to stations more influenced by freshwater flows (Section 5.2.3 and Appendix G). Ostracod crustaceans (81%) and amphipods (13%) made up the largest components of the sample collected from the portion of Willow Creek downstream from the Marsh (Station WC-02); there were very few insects in the sample (a few biting and non-biting midge fly larva). Along the northern boundary of the Marsh, adjacent to Harbor Square (Station WC-03), crustaceans (36%) and mosquitos (38%) made up the majority of the sample. Leeches (32%), freshwater fingernail clams (26%), and non-biting midge fly larva (35%) composed the majority of the sample from the eastern portion of the Marsh where Willow Creek traverses the Marsh (Station WC-05). Crustaceans (38%), non-biting midges and other types of flies (20%), mayfly larvae (14%), oligochaete worms (13%), and stonefly larvae (11%) all made up large components of the sample from Willow Creek within the Hatchery (Station WC-06). Black flies (60%), crustaceans (11%), and mayflies (11%) composed the largest portions of the sample from upper Shellabarger Creek (Station WC-07). Flies were the most common invertebrates identified in the fallout trap samples collected as part of the baseline study during most seasons, with the exceptions of the summer samples from the north and southeast buffer zones (Section 4.9). Other Orders commonly identified included Araneae (spiders), Collembola (springtails), and Gastropoda (slugs and snails). The number of invertebrates captured, as well as the invertebrate Orders represented in the fallout trap samples, was no doubt influenced by the timing of the sampling (the season, and even the precise timing within each season). For example, the summer samples from the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh contained a very large number of flies (384 out of a total sample size of 435), many of which appeared to be the same species of non-biting midges and a species of Anthomyiidae. Additionally, many of the flies were almost the exact same size (see tables in Appendix D). It is possible that the summer fallout traps captured large batches of these flies not long after they emerged from their pupal stage. Dr. David Richman provided a report on the insects and other invertebrates that he observed in the buffer areas around Edmonds Marsh, along with photographs; these are included in Appendix I. Over a period of three years, 8 species of dragonflies (Order Odonata), 1 grasshopper species and 1 katydid species (Order Orthoptera), 2 species of true bugs (Order Hemiptera), 4 species of beetles (Order Coleoptera), 8 species of moths and butterflies (Order Lepidoptera), at least 7 species of the flies (Order Diptera), 12 species of bees, wasps, and ants (Order Hymenoptera), 4 species of spiders (Order Araneae), and 2 species of the harvestmen (Order Opiliones) were identified. In addition, there are many other species of invertebrates present within the Marsh, Shellabarger Marsh, and their buffer areas than have been documented to date. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 138 Insects and other invertebrates provide numerous ecological functions. They help promote plant diversity through pollination, as well as through herbivory control (which prevents individual plant species from becoming over abundant and out competing other species) (Peterson 2018). In addition, invertebrates provide important functions in breaking down plant material and other detritus, allowing it to be consumed and used within the food chain. For example, midge larvae eat small food items and algae from marsh and mudflat surfaces, and fingernail clams and mosquito larvae filter algae, detritus, and microorganisms, including bacteria, from water (Batzer and Sharitz 2006). Species such as Trichoptera (caddisflies) help by shredding detrital material into smaller pieces that can then be more easily broken down by fungi and bacteria (Batzer and Sharitz 2006; Peterson 2018). Invertebrates also provide a critical trophic link between primary producers (e.g., macrophytes and algae) and other animal species, as invertebrates are important prey items for a variety of fish, bird, and other wildlife species. Invertebrate prey preferred by Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) salmon in freshwater tributaries include larval and terrestrial midges (Chironomidae), stonefly nymphs (Plecoptera), mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera), black flies (Simuliidae), springtails (Collembola), other flies (Empididae), aphids (Aphidae), and beetles (Coleoptera) (Plotnikoff 2006; as cited in Windward 2007). Representatives from all of these groups have been identified within the Marsh and its buffer areas. In studies of salmonid diets conducted in the Lower Duwamish River (Cordell et al. 2001; Cordell et al. 2011), important prey items for juvenile Chinook salmon included annelid polychaete worms, amphipods (Americorophium spp.), insect larvae, crustaceans of the Order Cumacean, adult flies, insects of the Order Hymenoptera, collembolans (springtails, Order Collembola), psyllids (Order Hemiptera), and water fleas (Order Cladocera). Important prey items for juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) included fly larvae and adult flies, aphids, benthic crustaceans (including amphipods and tanaids), psyllids, harpacticoid copedpods, collembolans (springtails, Order Collembola), water fleas (Order Cladocera), and zooplankton. Chironomid (non-biting midge) flies (as larvae, pupae, and adults) were important to dietary items for both salmon species. Again, many of these groups were identified in the Marsh, either in fallout trap samples, as part of the aquatic invertebrate sampling (Appendix G), or both. While B-IBI scores indicate that the aquatic invertebrate community is stressed by poor water quality, the invertebrate samples collected from Willow Creek downstream from the Marsh, Willow Creek within the Hatchery, and Shellabarger Creek upstream from SR-104 contained large numbers of invertebrates (400 individuals or more). Samples collected from the Marsh interior contained fewer individuals, with 187 invertebrates in the sample from the northern boundary of the Marsh (Station WC-03), 31 in the sample from Willow Creek within the eastern portion of the Marsh (Station WC-05), and only 2 in the sample collected from Shellabarger Creek within the eastern portion of the Marsh (Station WC-04). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 139 One possible factor contributing to the low density of aquatic invertebrates within the Marsh is operation of the tide gate. As the composition and abundance of the benthic invertebrate community are linked to salinity (Sapiens 2014), it is very possible that dramatic fluctuations in sediment porewater salinities37 in the estuarine portion of the Marsh are stressing the benthic invertebrate community. It is also possible that the dense growth of cattails in the eastern portion of the Marsh is contributing to a depressed aquatic invertebrate community. Studies have shown that invertebrate populations increase when cattail stands are thinned (Murkin et al. 1982, as cited in Batzer and Sharitz 2006), and that many aquatic invertebrates rely more on microphytes (like algae) than on macrophytes (like cattails) as food sources in wetlands (Batzer and Sharitz 2006). On the other hand, photos of the Marsh have shown birds pulling insect larvae from cattail flower heads (Appendix I), and the highest numbers of invertebrates from the fallout trap samples came from the Shellabarger Marsh north buffer zone, where riparian vegetation meets cattail vegetation. Undoubtedly, wetland food webs are complex and influenced by innumerable site-specific factors. 7.4.2 Fish, amphibians, and reptiles Monitoring for fish, amphibians, and reptiles was not directly addressed in the baseline study. However, incidental observations made during the baseline monitoring year, as well as information from reference documents, provide data about the presence of these groups of animals in the Marsh and its buffer zones and Willow and Shellabarger Creeks. Willow Creek historically supported coho salmon, chum salmon, resident and sea-run cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), sculpins, and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007; Shannon & Wilson 2015).38 Since the early 2000s (when the Willow Creek outfall pipe was lengthened and submerged deeper into the Puget Sound), reportedly very small numbers of adult salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout have been able to find the submerged pipe and migrate up into Willow Creek, and none have been observed for the past several years (Shannon & Wilson 2015). However, in 2008, thousands of threespine stickleback, a pair of prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), and a single starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) were captured in the lower portion of Willow Creek adjacent to the Unocal Site and the BNSF railway line (Arcadis 2010).39 In addition, coho salmon are reared at the Hatchery, and small numbers are incidentally released to Willow Creek, which could provide suitable rearing habitat, as coho spend at least one year rearing in streams (Fresh 2006). 37 As the salinity of water in the western portion of the Marsh fluctuates between approximately 0 and 33 ppt (mean 11.4) when the tide gate is open, and between 0 and 32 (mean 0.99) when it is closed, it is assumed that porewater salinities fluctuate similarly (see Table 4-1). 38 Fish were observed within Willow Creek; it is not clear whether they were also observed in the Marsh’s tidal channels or in Shellabarger Creek. 39 The fish were captured and removed from this portion of Willow Creek because it was undergoing remediation by Chevron Corp. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 140 Garter snakes were observed on a number of occasions within the Marsh’s buffer areas (particularly the south and southeast buffer zones), and on one occasion a red-tailed hawk was observed flying with a garter snake in its talons, illustrating another food web connection of the Marsh. In addition, a mass of amphibian eggs was observed in Shellabarger Creek just upstream from the SR-104 culvert; these could have been frog, toad, or salamander eggs. Table 7-2 provides information about the general habitat requirements and diets of coho salmon, three-spine stickleback, and garter snakes. The Marsh and its buffer zones, in conjunction with Willow and Shellabarger Creeks, are able to provide these habitat requirements. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 141 Table 7-2. Habitat requirements, diet, and foraging information for coho salmon, three-spine stickleback, and garter snakes Species Ecological Role General Habitat Requirements Diet/Foraging Behavior Coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch) migratory juvenile fish Coho generally use the deepest water in pools and LWD for cover; for juveniles, cover seems to be more important in winter than in summer (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). At a DO level of < 5 mg/L, the hatching success of fry is impacted; reduced swimming speeds have been noted at DO levels of < 7 mg/L at 10 to 20°C (Hassler 1987). Coho in streams feed primarily on insects (Diptera larvae, pupae, and adults; mayflies; and stoneflies), worms, fish eggs, spiders, and fish (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). In estuarine habitats, flies, aphids, mysid shrimp, and gammarid amphipods have been shown to comprise a large proportion of juvenile coho diets (Miller and Simenstad 1997). Three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) small, schooling forage fish Three-spined sticklebacks are weak swimmers displaced by high flow, generally associated with aquatic vegetation, and found close to the bottoms of streams. They are abundant in the slow, brackish water of shallow sloughs and estuaries (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). The species tolerates a range of salinities, and there are marine, anadromous, and freshwater populations (Love 2011). In a study of fish use of pocket estuaries conducted in north Skagit County and the Whidbey Basin, three-spined stickleback were 1 of the 6 most commonly captured fish species (Beamer et al. 2006). A generalist feeder (visual predator), the three-spined stickleback has a diet primarily of small crustaceans (e.g., amphipods, mysid shrimps, and copepods), insect larvae, snails, worms, terrestrial insects, and fish eggs (Wydoski and Whitney 2003; Love 2011). Garter snake (Thamnophis spp.) low-level predator Garter snakes prefer moist, grassy environments that are close to water such as marshes, meadows, or woodlands. They require cover in the form of debris, logs, or rocks for protection from predators and to ambush prey (Zimmerman 2013; Gleaton 2019). Garter snakes feed on smaller organisms including earthworms, amphibians, insects, small fish, or small mammals or birds (Zimmerman 2013; Gleaton 2019). DO – dissolved oxygen LWD – large woody debris 8.1.a Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 142 7.4.3 Birds Birds are the most prominent and well-documented of the wildlife that uses the Marsh. Their presence was surveyed as part of the baseline study and is being studied by Audubon and community members. Numerous species from a number of different groups—including invertivorous, piscivorous, predatory, and scavenging birds—were observed in the Marsh and buffer zones. Some of these are year-round residents and others are seasonal visitors. Birds use the Marsh and buffer zones for resting, foraging, and breeding. Birds common throughout the Marsh and buffer areas during all seasons of the year include American crow, American robin, Anna’s hummingbird, Bewick’s wren, black-capped chickadee, golden-crowned sparrow, and spotted towhee (Section 4.8). Red-winged blackbirds and marsh wren are common in the Marsh interior year -round, and common yellowthroats are common in the interior in the spring and summer. A number of different shorebird species also use the mudflat and emergent habitats of the Marsh. While some of these species are only seasonal visitors, others—such as killdeer and Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicate)—remain year-round (Riddell and Peterson 2016). Between January 2018 and May 2019, killdeer, semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), Wilson’s snipe, Virginia rail, Wilson’s phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos), spotted sandpiper, long-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus), greater yellowlegs (sandpiper) (Tringa melanoleuca), and Baird’s sandpiper (Calidris bairdii) were photographed in the Marsh (Appendix I). Shorebirds are generally invertivorous, indicating that the invertebrate community of the Marsh and mudflat areas is sufficient to help fulfill their dietary requirements, at least seasonally. Table 7-3 provides information about the habitat requirements, diet, and foraging behaviors of some of the bird species observed, demonstrating food chain linkages among the invertebrates, fish, reptiles, and birds of the Marsh. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 143 Table 7-3. Habitat requirements, diet and foraging information for a subset of the bird species that use the Marsh Species Ecological Role General Habitat Requirements Diet/Foraging Behavior Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) top predator Bald eagles prefer large, open trees near water. Eagles need perch trees that are stout enough to support their weight and are isolated from human disturbance (Stinson et al. 2001). Bald eagles are opportunistic feeders that obtain prey through active hunting, carrion feeding, or piracy (i.e., stealing prey from other animals). Their diet varies based on local prey sources available. The bald eagle will capture live fish swimming near the water surface or in shallow water; in the winter, waterfowl and shorebirds are important food sources (EPA 1993). It also eats mammals such as rabbits and squirrels. Great blue heron (Ardea Herodias) top predator Great blue herons rely on nearshore habitats, and saltwater and freshwater marshes are important foraging grounds throughout the year (Eissinger 2007). Inland marshes, streams, and riparian forests also provide shelter and roosting areas. The species uses estuarine habitats year-round for foraging, loafing, staging, and dispersal of young. Breeding colonies are located within mature nearshore forests, where trees are large and stout enough to support the nests herons build from large sticks. Breeding sites are also selected for their proximity to foraging grounds, preferably eelgrass meadows, and protection from human disturbance. The great blue heron’s diet consists of fish, invertebrates, small mammals, and occasionally amphibians and reptiles (Eissinger 2007). Small mammals such as voles are particularly important prey items in the winter and for juvenile herons (which are not yet efficient at fishing). Three-spined stickleback is a targeted prey item, particularly during the breeding season. Great blue herons will forage from pieces of LWD and boulders during high tide. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) invertivorous bird Killdeer use open areas, such as mudflats, short-grass meadows, wetland lagoons, and reservoirs. They are also found in human-modified habitat such as agricultural and athletic fields, golf courses, or graveled lots/rooftops (Jackson and Jackson 2000). Nests are placed in open, mostly unvegetated areas with soft substrates (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Killdeer eat terrestrial invertebrates, worms, grasshoppers, beetles, and snails and forage in open flats with no cover or in shallow water (Jackson and Jackson 2000). Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) omnivorous forage bird Mallards use marshes, forested wetlands, grain fields, ponds, rivers, lakes, bays, and city parks. They may occur in any kind of aquatic habitat but favor freshwater in all seasons; they are only sparingly found on coastal waters, mainly in winter and in sheltered bays and estuaries (Kaufman 2019). Mallards forage in nearshore environments and graze on land. They are omnivorous, with a diet composed of mostly plant material (seeds, stems, roots of sedges, grasses, pondweeds, waste grain); they also consume insects, crustaceans, mollusks, earthworms, and small fish. Young mallard ducklings consume mostly aquatic insects (Kaufman 2019). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 144 Species Ecological Role General Habitat Requirements Diet/Foraging Behavior Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) invertivorous bird The marsh wren uses cover and nesting habitat provided by wetland plants such as cattails, bulrushes, cordgrasses, sedges, etc., and avoids abundant woody vegetation (Gutzwiller and Anderson 1987). The marsh wren preys upon insects and spiders taken from vegetation and the marsh floor and also catches flies. Common insect prey include the Orders Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), Hemipteran (true bugs), and Odanta (grasshoppers and crickets). Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) invertivorous bird that creates cavities in standing dead wood Pileated woodpeckers are found in a variety of forest types including coniferous, deciduous, and old growth forests (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2017a). They specifically require dead, rotting wood (snags or dead branches) to excavate for roosts and nesting sites. Larger trees are necessary to accommodate the size of nests (Audubon 2019). The pileated woodpecker’s diet consists primarily of insects found in dead wood, such as carpenter ants and beetle larvae; its diet is supplemented by other insects as well as various forest berries and nuts (Aubry and Raley 2002). Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) invertivorous bird Habitat types used by song sparrows vary greatly, but most subspecies occupy and nest in areas consisting of shrubs growing on moist ground along streams, sloughs, marshes, or coastlines (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Arcese et al. 2002). The species is often found within edge habitat (e.g., edges of forests, lakes, streams, etc.) (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2017b). The song sparrow diet changes seasonally, from primarily seeds, fruits, and invertebrates in the non-breeding season to primarily insects and small invertebrates during breeding season. Feeding occurs through a variety of capture techniques (Arcese et al. 2002). Spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius) invertivorous bird Spotted sandpiper feed along the sandy or muddy edges of water bodies and require semi-open vegetation with high invertebrate biomass (Oring et al. 1983). They breed in open habitats along the margins of water bodies (Oring and Lank 1986) but also amongst grasses, mosses, shrubs, and even logs within forested habitat (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Adult flying insects are the main component of the spotted sandpiper diet; smaller proportions include crustaceans, leeches, mollusks, small fish, and carrion (Oring et al. 1983). LWD – large woody debris 8.1.a Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 145 Piscivorous birds observed in the Marsh during the baseline monitoring year included belted kingfisher (heard at the Unocal Site from BPC-2) and great blue heron. Great blue heron were photographed foraging in Willow Creek and were frequent visitors to the Marsh interior (Appendices E and I). In the winter, this species roosts in groups in the Marsh and likely searches for prey such as rodents, which are important food sources in the winter (Table 7-3). Predatory species observed in the Marsh included red-tailed hawk, Cooper’s hawk, bald eagle, northern harrier, and merlin (Falco columbarius). Bald eagles visit the Marsh to hunt/scavenge and drink water (Appendix I). Bird species that have been documented breeding and/or rearing young in the Marsh or its buffer areas include American robin, mallard, Canada geese, great blue heron, spotted sandpiper, marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, violet-green swallow, tree swallow, black-capped chickadee, bushtit, and American crow (Sections 4.8 and 4.9, Appendix I). Additionally, Anna’s hummingbird, bushtit, and marsh wren were observed gathering fluff from cattail heads or other nesting materials from buffer areas during the baseline monitoring year (Appendix I). The narrow band of riparian habitat adjacent to the south side of Willow Creek where the creek runs along the south side of the Marsh (near BPC-2) was used during the baseline monitoring year by a number of different bird species for perching, resting, surveying, and foraging (Section 4.8). In particular, a dead pine tree snag in this area was used for perching by a variety of species, from Anna’s hummingbirds to great blue heron. The level of bird activity in this area was no doubt influenced by the presence of the fish-bearing creek, riparian vegetation, Marsh habitat, and the Unocal pond, all in close proximity to one another, and underscores the importance of this area as habitat for a variety of bird species. The south buffer zone is heavily used by woodpeckers, and in general, this was the only area where woodpeckers were observed during the baseline monitoring year; pileated woodpecker, downy woodpecker, northern flicker, and red-breasted sapsucker were observed in this area (Sections 4.8 and 4.10 and Appendix I). The south buffer zone contains a high density of standing snags and other LWD, particularly at the Marsh edge, which is undoubtedly the primary factor contributing to the greater abundance of woodpeckers in this area. The pileated woodpecker, for example, depends upon large standing snags/dead branches in which to excavate nesting cavities and roots (Table 7-3). The presence of standing snags and woodpeckers in the south buffer zone indicates that woodpeckers are likely providing additional important habitat features in this zone by excavating cavities that can later be used by other cavity-nesting birds and mammals (which themselves have limited abilities to excavate wood). 7.4.4 Mammals The mammals most commonly observed throughout the baseline monitoring year were coyotes and black-tailed deer, species that use the Marsh and its buffer habitats year-round (Section 4.9, Appendices B, E, and I). The dietary and habitat requirements 8.1.a Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 146 of these two species are listed in Table 7-4. The deer generally seem to stay within the forested buffer habitat, although deer tracks were observed within the Marsh on one occasion. The south and southeast buffer zones appear to be heavily used travel corridors, and black-tailed deer breed within or near these habitat areas, as evidenced by the presence of fawns within the south buffer zone in the summers of both 2018 and 2019. The south buffer zone meets the habitat requirements of an ideal fawning area for black-tailed deer and provides browse year-round (Table 7-4). It also provides the type of second – growth forested/riparian habitat typically relied upon by urban coyotes. Other mammal species observed during the baseline study were rabbits (observed within the Marsh and the north and south buffer zones), squirrels (observed in the north and south buffer zones), and raccoons (observed in the forested habitat of the south buffer zone). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 147 Table 7-4. Habitat requirements, diet and foraging information for coyote and black-tailed deer Species Ecological Role General Habitat Requirements Diet/Foraging Behavior Columbian black- tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) – subspecies of mule deer browsing/grazing mammal Columbian black-tailed deer use wooded areas for browsing and cover/shelter; they also use edge habitats and feed in more open areas at night. A diversity of habitats/seral forest stages in close association with one another is important to provide the cover and foraging habitat necessary for Columbian black-tailed deer (Innes 2013; Larrison 1976; Quinn 1997). Habitat areas that are 1 to 5 acres in size; contain low shrubs and small trees 0.6 to 1.8 m (2 to 6 ft) high, gradual slopes, and approximately 50% canopy cover; and are in close proximity to water provide ideal fawning areas (Innes 2013). Columbian black-tailed deer browse year-round upon a variety of woody plants, including western red cedar, salmonberry, willows, and thimbleberry; they also graze upon ferns, mosses, forbs, and grasses during the growing season. They eat some species of lichens and mushrooms (Innes 2013; USDA 1971). Coyote (Canis latrans) carnivorous and carrion-eating mammal; highly adaptable In urbanized areas, coyotes are closely associated with patches of secondary growth forest that remain in riparian areas and parks (Quinn 1997); they establish dens under rock outcroppings or large boulders, or as burrows in earthen banks (Larrison 1976). A coyote’s diet consists of a variety of prey items, including small rodents (e.g., moles, voles), squirrels, rabbits, birds, and deer; they also eat fruit (primarily apples and cherries in Western Washington) (Quinn 1997; Urban Coyote Research Project 2019; Gehrt 2007). 8.1.a Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 148 The wildlife that uses the Marsh generally seems to have adapted to the surrounding human activities and noises, including the BNSF railroad tracks, ferry horn blasts, and SR-104 traffic. Birds and other animals do not appear to be flushed or obviously stressed by these activities. However, the animals are distressed by people entering and traversing the Marsh. For example, during baseline monitoring activities, a coyote was flushed from its resting place, a juvenile bald eagle perched above Willow Creek gave agitated cries, flocks of killdeer exhibited stress (as evidenced by more frequent, rapid calls), and red-winged blackbirds scolded surveyors (during the breeding season) (Sections 4.8 and 4.9). Currently, it seems that visitors to the Marsh are respectful of this wildlife sanctuary and generally stay on the designated walking paths and out of the Marsh interior. These practices should continue to be encouraged and reinforced, if necessary, with additional signage or other forms of outreach. Buffer zone plantings could also be enhanced to help protect the Marsh interior from disturbance; however, sufficient view corridors should be maintained so that wildlife viewers/photographers and other visitors can still see the Marsh from the sidelines without having to enter it directly. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 149 8 Conclusions The Marsh represents a rare nearshore estuarine pocket marsh. In its current condition, it provides a number of ecological functions, as described in this document. After implementation of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project, the ecological functions provided by the Marsh will be enhanced, and the Marsh will once again have the opportunity to provide habitat for juvenile salmonids and other migratory fish. In addition to providing enhanced habitat functions beneficial to fish and wildlife, a restored Marsh system would provide the City of Edmonds, as well as the larger community, with the opportunity to observe and appreciate the roles that nearshore estuarine marshes, tidal streams, and adjacent riparian forests play in fostering the native flora and fauna of the Pacific Northwest, and how they can do so even within an urban area. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) This page intentionally left blank. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 151 9 References Alberty CA, Pellett HM, Taylor DH. 1984. Characterization of soil compaction at construction sites and woody plant response. J Environ Hort 2(2):48-53. Arcadis. 2010. Final - Phase II remedial implementation as-built report. Appendix E. Fish relocation, Willow Creek, former Unocal/Chevron Edmonds terminal site. ARCADIS, Seattle, WA. Arcese P, Sogge MK, Marr AB, Patten MA. 2002. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), version 2.0. In: Poole AF, Gill FB, eds, The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, Available from: https://birdsna.org/Species- Account/bna/species/sonspa/introduction. Aubry KB, Raley CM. 2002. The pileated woodpecker as a keystone habitat modifier in the Pacific Northwest. In: USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. pp 257-274. Audubon. 2019. Pileated woodpecker. Dryocopus pileatus [online]. National Audubon Society. Available from: https://www.audubon.org/field- guide/bird/pileated-woodpecker. Bakker J. 2017. Plant propagation protocol for Salicornia depressa. University of Washington. Batzer DP, Sharitz RR. 2006. Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands. University of California Press. Beamer EM, McBride A, Henderson R, Griffith J, Fresh K, Zackey T, Barsh R, Wyllie- Echeverria T, Wolf K. 2006. Habitat and fish use of pocket estuaries in the Whidbey Basin and north Skagit County bays, 2004 and 2005. Skagit River System Cooperative, Stillaguamish Tribe, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Tulalip Tribes, Coast Salish Institute, and Wyllie-Echeverria Associates. Beare PA, Zedler JB. 1987. Cattail invasion and persistence in a coastal salt marsh: the role of salinity reduction. Estuaries 10(2):165-170. Castelle AJ, Conolly C, Emers M, Metz ED, Meyer S, Witter M, Mauermann S, Erickson T, Cooke SS. 1992. Wetland buffers: use and effectiveness. Pub. No. 92- 10. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Chalker-Scott L. 2019. The myth of soil amendments, Part III. Healthy soil has high organic content. Puyallup Research and Extension Center, Washington State University. Cooke SS. 1997. A field guide to the common wetland plants of Western Washington and Northwest Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 152 Cordell JR, Tear LM, Jensen K. 2001. Biological monitoring at Duwamish River coastal America restoration and reference sites: A seven-year retrospective. SAFS-UW- 0108. Wetlands Ecosystem Team, School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Cordell JR, Toft JD, Gray A, Ruggerone GT, Cooksey M. 2011. Functions of restored wetlands for juvenile salmon in an industrialized estuary. Ecol Engin 37:343- 353. Darris D. 2008. Plant fact sheet for meadow barley, Hordeum brachyantherum Nevski. US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. Debose A, Klungland MW. 2002. Soil survey of Snohomish County area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture. Edmonds Stream Team. 2016. Edmonds water quality monitoring project. Preliminary report, October 2015 to May 2016. Edmonds, WA. Edmonds Stream Team. 2018. Update on water quality monitoring and salmon stewardship in Edmonds. Edmonds, WA. Ehrlich PR, Dobkin DS, Wheye D. 1988. The birder's handbook. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Eissinger A. 2007. Great blue herons in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership report no. 2007-06. Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. EPA. 1993. Wildlife exposure factors handbook. EPA/600/R-93/187a. Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA. 2015. Determination of the biologically relevant sampling depth for terrestrial and aquatic ecological risk assessments. EPA/600/R-15/176. US Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center, Cincinnati, OH. Fresh K. 2006. Juvenile Pacific salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership report no. 2006-06. Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. Fretwell K, Starzomski. 2014. Seaside arrowgrass, sea arrow-grass - Triglochin maritima [online]. Biodiversity of the Central Coast. Available from: https://www.centralcoastbiodiversity.org/seaside-arrowgrass-bull-triglochin- maritima.html. Gehrt SD. 2007. Ecology of coyotes in urban landscapes. Wildlife Damage Management Conferences. pp 303-311. Gleason RA, Tangen BA, Laubhan MK, Finocchiaro RG, Stamm JF. 2009. Literature review and database of relations between salinity and aquatic biota: 8.1.a Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 153 applications to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Gleaton A. 2019. Easter garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) [online]. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia. Available from: https://srelherp.uga.edu/snakes/thasir.htm. Guard BJ. 1995. Wetland plants of Oregon and Washington. Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, WA. Gutzwiller K, Anderson S. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: marsh wren. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washingon, D.C. Hart JM, Sullivan DM, Anderson NP, Hulting AG, Horneck DA, Christensen NW. 2013. Soil acidity in Oregon: understanding and using concepts for crop production. OSU Extension EM 9061:1-22. Hassler TH. 1987. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest). Coho salmon. USFW biological report 82(11.70). Coastal Ecology Group, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS and National Wetlands Research Center, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Hilty J. 2017. Common orach. Atriplex patula [online]. Illinois Wildflowers. Available from: http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/weeds/plants/cm_orach.htm. Hipple KW. 2019. Washington soil atlas. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Hood WG. 2007. Large woody debris influences vegetation zonation in an oligohaline tidal marsh. Estuar Coasts 30(3):441-450. Horner RR, Raedeke KJ. 1989. Guide for wetland mitigation project monitoring. Prepared for Washington State Transportation Committee. Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Innes RJ. 2013. Odocoileus hemionus. In: Fire Effects Information System [online]. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available from: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/odhe/all.html. Jackson B, Jackson JA. 2000. Killdeer (charadrius vociferus), version 2.0 [online]. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. [Cited March 11, 2019.] Available from: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.517. Kaufman K. 2019. Audubon guide to North American birds. Mallard, Anas platyrhynchos [online]. National Audubon Society. Available from: https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/mallard. Larrison EJ. 1976. Mammals of the Northwest: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. Durham & Downey, Inc., Portland, Oregon. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 154 Lichvar RW, Banks DL, Kirchner WN, Melvin NC. 2016. The national wetland plant list: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30:1-17. Love M. 2011. Certainly More Than You Want to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific Coast. First ed. Really Big Press. Mall R, Rollins G. 1972. Chapter VIII. Wildlife resource requirements waterfowl and the Suisun Marsh. In: Skinner JE, ed, Ecological Studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. California Department of Fish and Game, pp 60-68. Available from: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=wrlMAQAAMAAJ&rdid=bo ok-wrlMAQAAMAAJ&rdot=1. McCauley A, Jones C, Olson-Rutz K. 2017. Soil pH and organic matter. Nutr Manag 8:1-16. Miller JA, Simenstad CA. 1997. A comparative assessment of a natural and created estuarine slough as rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook and coho salmon. Estuaries 20(4):792-806. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG. 2007. Wetlands. Fourth ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG. 2015. Wetlands. Fifth ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. NOAA. 2019. Tide predictions at 9447427, Edmonds, WA [online]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available from: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/noaatidepredictions.html?id=9447427&lega cy=1. NRCS. 2006. Plant fact sheet for reed canarygrass, Phalaris arundinacea L. US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. Oring LW, Lank DB. 1986. Polyandry in spotted sandpipers: the impact of environment and experience. In: Rubenstein DO, Wrangham RW, eds, Ecological aspects of social evolution - birds and mammals. pp 21-42. Oring LW, Lank DB, Maxson SJ. 1983. Population studies of the polyandrous spotted sandpiper. Auk 100:272-285. Peterson MA. 2018. Pacific Northwest Insects. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. Pilchuck Audubon Society. 2019. A ten-year survey of the habitat use of avian visitors at Edmonds Marsh. Profile: Champion for the Environment 46(2):4. Plotnikoff RW. 2006. Personal communication (email correspondance with Angelita Rodriquez, Windward Environmental LLC, regarding food preferences for chinook and coho salmon in fresh water on April 27, 2006). Environmental Assessment Program Unit Supervisor, Washington Department of Ecology, Lacey, WA. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 155 Quinn T. 1997. Coyote (Canis latrans) food habits in three urban habitat types of Western Washington. NW Science 71(1):1-5. Riddell C, Peterson T. 2016. 190 bird species of Edmonds Marsh. Edmonds, WA. Sapiens M. 2014. Linking shorebird and marsh bird habitat use to water management in anthropogenic and natural wetlands in the Colorado River Delta. Doctor of Philosophy. Soil, Water, and Environmental Science, University of Arizona, 153 pp. Schueler T. 2000. The compaction of urban soils: Technical Note No. 107. Watershed Protec Techniq 3(2):661-665. SCS. 1973. Soil survey, King County, WA, Number 15. Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture, Puyallup, WA. Sea-Run Consulting, Tetra Tech Inc., Reid Middleton Inc., Pentec. 2007. Shoreline master program update. Shoreline inventory & characterization. Prepared for City of Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson. 2015. Final feasibility study, Willow Creek daylighting, Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. Shannon & Wilson. 2017. Water quality sampling results in support of the Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. Shannon & Wilson. 2019. Water quality sampling results in support of the Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. Skaradek W, Miller C. 2010. Plant fact sheet for saltgrass Distichlis spicata (L.) Greene. US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. SRFB. 2014. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) project subcommittee report. 2014 grant round - salmon recovery funding board (SRFB) & Puget Sound acquisition and restoration (PSAR). WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, Salmon Recovery Funding Board. SRFB. 2018. Approved 2018 WRIA 8 four-year work plan - capital project and program priorities. Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Stevens M, Hoag C. 2006. Plant guide for narrowleaf cattail, Typha angustifolia L. US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. Stevens M. 2007. Plant guide for Pacific silverweed, Argentina egedii (Wormsk.) Rydb. US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. Stevens M, Hoag C. 2003. Plant guide for Baltic rush, Juncus balticus Willd. US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 156 Stinson DW, Watson JW, McAllister KR. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2017a. All about birds: pileated woodpecker [online]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Available from: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Pileated_Woodpecker/id. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2017b. All about birds: song sparrow [online]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Available from: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Song_Sparrow/overview. Thermo Scientific. 2011. Applications tip of the week. Conductivity and salinity. Thermo Scientific. Tilley D, St. John L. 2012a. Plant guide for common reed, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Aberdeen, ID. Tilley D, St. John L. 2012b. Plant guide for cosmopolitan bulrush (Schoenoplectus maritimus). US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Idaho Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, ID. Tilley D. 2012. Plant guide for hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus). US Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service, Idaho Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, ID. Urban Coyote Research Project. 2019. General information about coyotes [online]. Cook County of Illinois, Forest Preserves of Cook County, Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, and The Ohio State University. Available from: https://urbancoyoteresearch.com/coyote-info/general-information-about- coyotes. USACE. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: western mountains, valleys, and coast region (version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-10-3. US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. USDA. 1971. Habitat management for black-tailed deer. US Department of Agriculture, Portland, OR. USDA. 1999. Soil quality test kit guide. US Department of Agriculture USDA. 2008. Soil quality indicators. Bulk density. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. USDA, NRCS. 2010. Field indicators of hydric soils in the united states. A guide for identifying and delineating hydric soils, Version 7.0, 2010. US Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service, . 8.1.a Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study September 13, 2019 157 USDA. 2019. Plants database [online]. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Updated March 11, 2019. Available from: https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/. WA NWCB. 1995. Written findings of the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. Reed canarygrass. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. WA NWCB. 2019a. 2019 Washington State noxious weed list. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, Olympia, WA. WA NWCB. 2019b. Nonnative cattails [online]. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, Olympia, WA. Available from: https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weeds/nonnative-cattails. Windward. 2007. Karileen Restoration Project: Post-construction monitoring program and work plan - Revised. Prepared for the Commencement Bay Natural Resource Trustees. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Windward. 2018a. Edmonds Marsh baseline monitoring plan. Final. Prepared for Edmonds City Council. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Windward. 2018b. Evaluation of buffer widths and ecological functions: a review to support the Edmonds Marsh study. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Windward. 2018c. Evaluation of Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Windward. 2019. Evaluation of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. WU. 2019. Edmonds - KWAEDMON22 (Port of Edmonds) [online]. Weather Underground. Available from: https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/KWAEDMON22#history /s20180129/e20180228/mmonth Wydoski RS, Whitney RR. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington. 2nd ed. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Zimmerman R. 2013. Thamnophis sirtalis: common garter snake [online]. Animal Diversity Web. Available from: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Thamnophis_sirtalis/. 8.1.a Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Final_Baseline_Study_Data_Report_09-13-19 (Windward Marsh Study Presentation - Final Report) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update Staff Lead: Jeanie McConnell Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Nicholas Falk 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 Hold public hearing on proposed amendments on October 15, 2019. 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 · Revise the appraisal process and timing · Revise applicability of monetary compensation · Revise the timeframe to satisfy conditions established in a resolution of intent to vacate Much of the code update is primarily related to reorganization and adding clarification to the process. Changes to the code were also proposed to align the City's street vacation code with state law regarding street vacations as contained in Chapter 35.79 RCW. The Planning Board’s discussions largely 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 Planning Board questioned whether the City could accept monetary compensation with the vacation of a street. Exhibit 4 is a memorandum that was prepared by the City Attorney to address these concerns. Following the public hearing on August 14th, staff indicated options for some of the specific code sections would be brought back for the Planning Board’s consideration. Options for the Planning Board's consideration were presented on the September 25th Planning Board's meeting. The Planning Board's recommendations regarding these options are provided in the table in Exhibit 3 and highlighted in the draft code in Exhibits 1 and 2. As discussed at the Planning Board meetings, the decision 9.1 Packet Pg. 265 regarding these options are largely monetary policy calls. Given that such decisions are the purview of the City Council, we have retained the staff recommendations and are presenting the staff recommended code along with the Planning Board’s recommendations for the City Council’s consideration. For background information, staff reviewed street vacations approved by the City Council since 1998. A summary of these vacations is provided in Exhibit 5. Planning Board minute excerpts are provided in Exhibits 6 - 9. The September 25th Planning Board minutes were not available as of the writing of this agenda item. The draft September 25, 2019 Planning Board minutes will be forwarded when they become available. Attachments: Exhibit 4: City Attorney memorandum regarding street vacation payments Exhibit 5: Past Street Vacations Summary Exhibit 6: July 10, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (PB Intro) Exhibit 7: July 24, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Comment) Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) Exhibit 9: September 11, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Comment) Exhibit 3-OptionsTable with Planning Board Recommendation Exhibit 2-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-Planning Board Recommendations Exhibit 1-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-DRAFT-Track Changes 9.1 Packet Pg. 266 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 9.1.a Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Exhibit 4: City Attorney memorandum regarding street vacation payments (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) 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, 10A McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 30:35 (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, 10A 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 9.1.a Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Exhibit 4: City Attorney memorandum regarding street vacation payments (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) 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. 9.1.a Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Exhibit 4: City Attorney memorandum regarding street vacation payments (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Year Ordinance No.Street/Alley Iniatiator Easements Resrved?Compensation Comments 1998 3188 237th Place SW City of Edmonds Utility (to the City and its lawful franchisees) $0 The City Council found that public benefit will be derived from the 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 Avenue S City of Edmonds $0 The vacated right-of-way was adjacent to the Edmonds Cemetery and was vacated in part to support the construction of the columbarium at the cemetery. 1998 3197 Lunds Gulch Rd City of Edmonds $0 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 Edmonds Pedestrian/Utility $5,454 Clean up of a vacation request and subdivision from 1987. Council 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. 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." 1 of 4 9.1.b Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Past Street Vacations Summary (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) 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. 2 of 4 9.1.b Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Past Street Vacations Summary (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Year Ordinance No.Street/Alley Iniatiator Easements Resrved?Compensation Comments 2007 3647 8th Avenue N Citizen Creek Maintenance Easement $7,500 The fair market value of the property was appraised to be $22,500. The 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 Easement $0 A temporary construction easement was reserved for the construction of 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. 3 of 4 9.1.b Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Past Street Vacations Summary (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) 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 utilities $92,610 $92,610 was one-half of the appraised value. The property owners were 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 231st Street SW Citizen Easement for third party utility $28,800 $28,800 was one-half of the appraised value. An easement was required for an Edmonds School District stormwater line located within the right-of- way. 2019 4143 Excelsior Place Citizen Utility and Access Easement $0 No compensation was required because the City of Edmonds retained 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. 4 of 4 9.1.b Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Exhibit 5: Past Street Vacations Summary (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED AUGUST 14th CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD 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 – 5th 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) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES 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 9.1.c Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Exhibit 6: July 10, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (PB Intro) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 2 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 afford the citizens a chance to be involved in the process. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There was no Director’s Report. UPDATE ON CLIMATE GOALS PROJECT Mr. Lien provided a status report on each of the goals contained in Resolution 1389, which was adopted by the City Council in 2017. • 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 9.1.c Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Exhibit 6: July 10, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (PB Intro) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 6 Board Member Rubenkonig recalled a volunteer service called Waste Warriors that worked the festivals around the area to divert the organic waste from the food waste. Not only did they collect a sizeable amount of compostable waste, but they 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 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 smaller, more realistic programs. Vice Chair Robles said he is a strong advocate of seeding the record so that people searching the City’s website can find the terms that are being discussed by the Board. Regarding Board Member Cloutier’s earlier comment related to reducing the amount of energy used for heating and cooling the air, he suggested the City have a policy that the air conditioning does not come on until the temperature reaches 80°. Vice Chair Robles noted that methane, pentane, hexane and octane are all hydrocarbons, and it is difficult to find equivalency 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. 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. However, there are opportunities for communities to exchange value in ways that are not dollars. Vice Chair Robles commented that the data provided in the report is interesting. He recalled that the Board was recently 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 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 plastic does not decay for 10,000 years and is made out of carbon, which means that it is sequestering carbon extremely effectively. He suggested the City consider shifting its war on plastic to actually embrace the carbon sequestering capacity of plastics for uses such as plumbing. Polypropylene plumbing can replace copper all day long. The energy required to create 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 to stretch further. INTRODUCTION TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 20.70 STREET VACATION AMENDMENTS 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 9.1.c Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Exhibit 6: July 10, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (PB Intro) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 7 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 order to have it transfer back to the title for their own property. 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 some cases. The proposed amendments are intended to improve the provisions for both the public and private property 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 3rd 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 ½ 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 7th 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 9.1.c Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Exhibit 6: July 10, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (PB Intro) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 8 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. Ms. McConnell explained that with a Resolution of Intent to Vacate there are often certain conditions that must be met. For 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 any conditions must be met within 90 days after approval of the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. The proposed amendment 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 resolution can establish a timeframe that is achievable. 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 14th, 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 14th. Board Member Pence said when he interprets the term “3rd party appraiser” to mean the appraiser would not be a tool of either the 1st 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 3rd party, but just the City’s appraiser. 9.1.c Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Exhibit 6: July 10, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (PB Intro) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 9 Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that the existing code allows the City to require either monetary compensation or the reservation of easement to the City, and the proposed code would allow the City to require both. She suggested it would be better to use “and/or” instead of “and.” Ms. McConnell said the intent was to allow one or the other or both. Board Member Rubenkonig asked Ms. McConnell to explain the difference between an open easement and an unopen 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 that is not opened to vehicular traffic. Because there is no street that connects 7th Avenue to 8th Avenue, the City would consider it an unopened right-of-way because vehicles cannot pass from one end to the other. 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 uncommon. Most street vacation requests are for actual right-of-way to be vacated. 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 clear understanding of how an issue might impact them. Perhaps they need a better notification process. Ms. McConnell 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 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 (The Everett Herald) and posted at City Hall, the Public Safety Building, the library, and on the City’s website. Public notice is also required for street vacations. The notices are posted in the places mentioned above. For project specific applications, notices are posted on site and sent to property owners within 300 feet. Vice Chair Robles suggested that the notification process should be modernized to include electronic notification. He encouraged the City to reach out a little deeper and find other ways to notify the public. Vice Chair Robles commented that technology allows for shared data bases that can be accessed securely by broad groups of people. However, it will take some bold visioning on the part of the City to accommodate. The idea that they need one 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. Vice Chair Robles asked if current easements and rights-of-way will accommodate 5G equipment. If so, will utilities require 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 vacation process and easements would be established as needed. Board Member Rosen said his understanding is that the City Council, in general, is going to take the publication engagement 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. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Robles reminded the Board of their joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board on July 24th. The August 14th meeting will include an update on the Ruckelshaus Center Report (RoadMap Project) and a public hearing on the street 9.1.c Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Exhibit 6: July 10, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (PB Intro) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED AUGUST 14TH 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 – 5th 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) 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 ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he was present to follow up on the comments he made at the July 10th 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 10th 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 1st 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 3rd 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 9.1.d Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Exhibit 7: July 24, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Comment) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 24, 2019 Page 2 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 14th 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 10th. 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 9.1.d Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Exhibit 7: July 24, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Comment) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED SUBJECT TO AUGUST 28TH 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 – 5th 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) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES 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 9.1.e Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 2 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 3rd 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 9.1.e Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 3 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. 9.1.e Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 4 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.B, 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, 9.1.e Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 5 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. 9.1.e Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 6 • 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 9th and the Planning Board on July 10th. 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 17th. 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 10th, 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 9.1.e Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 7 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 of public 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 10th 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 9.1.e Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 8 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 8th Avenue that was never going to be opened because of a stream was vacated. A 7.5-foot easement between 8th and 9th 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 10th 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.org) 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. 9.1.e Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 9 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. 9.1.e Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 10 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 17th 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. 9.1.e Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 11 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 wo uld 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. 9.1.e Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 12 • 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 9.1.e Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 13 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 28th agenda will include an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies and a presentation on the RoadMap Project (Ruckelshaus Center Report). The September 11th 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 9th. 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. 9.1.e Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Exhibit 8: August 14, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) SUBJECT TO SEPTEMBER 25TH APPROVAL 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 – 5th 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) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Manager READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES 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 25th. 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. 9.1.f Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Exhibit 9: September 11, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Comment) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2019 Page 2 Mr. Reidy recalled that at the Board’s August 14th 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 24th meeting to the September 25th. 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 24th, 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. 9.1.f Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Exhibit 9: September 11, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Public Comment) (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Street Vacation Code Update – Chapter 20.70 ECDC --> NEW Chapter 18.55 ECDC Page 1 of 3 The Planning Board was looking for options to review with certain aspects of the code update. The following table outlines the code sections and includes the Planning Board Recommendation. Refer to separate draft code document to see the proposed code in its entirety, including the Planning Board recommendation. Monetary Compensation Item No. Existing Code Language Summary of Issue Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation 1 ECDC 20.70.140.A.3 3. Adopt a resolution of intent to vacate stating that the city council will, by ordinance, grant the vacation if the owner(s) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, meet specific conditions within 90 days. The city may require the following as conditions: a. Either: i. Monetary compensation … OR b. A grant of an easement to the city in exchange for the easement vacated. RCW 35.79.030 allows the City to receive compensation for the street vacation AND retain an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated land for the construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities and services. The way the existing code reads, the City may EITHER receive monetary compensation OR be granted an easement. Staff is proposing to amend the code consistent with the state statute to allow both monetary compensation and the reservation or granting of easements. A review of other jurisdictions has found that the City of Edmonds is the only jurisdiction (of those reviewed) who have the EITHER/OR language with regard to monetary compensation and the reservation of easements. ECDC 18.55.030 Right to reserve easements for the following purposes: A. Public utilities; B. Pedestrian walkway or trail; and/or C. Third-party utility companies AND ECDC 18.55.140.B 2. Monetary compensation. Added consideration: ECDC 18.55.XXX C. … appraisal shall take into account any reduction in fair market value associated with the conditions imposed in the resolution of intent Consistent with existing code, limit conditions to Either: Monetary compensation … OR A grant of an easement to the city in exchange for the easement vacated. 9.1.g Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Exhibit 3-OptionsTable with Planning Board Recommendation (Introduction to Street Street Vacation Code Update – Chapter 20.70 ECDC --> NEW Chapter 18.55 ECDC Page 2 of 3 Item No. Existing Code Language Summary of Issue Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation Monetary Compensation 2 ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.a i. Monetary compensation to be paid to the city in the amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated unless acquired at "public Expense" then full appraised value shall be paid The proposed code language is consistent with RCW 35.79.030. ECDC 18.55.140.B.2 b. Payment to the city, prior to the effective date of the ordinance, in an amount of up to 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. b. Payment to the city, prior to the effective date of the ordinance, in an amount of up to 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. Appraisals – Applicability and Waiver 3 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; The staff recommended draft code was updated as shown here, based on discussions with the Planning Board. Additional language will be needed as provided in PB Option 1, should the board decide to limit the vacation conditions to either monetary compensation OR reservation of an easement. ECDC 18.55.XXX A. Applicability. Where the resolution of intent to vacate includes a compensation requirement, an independent appraisal shall be required. B. Appraisal Fee. (additional language added to this section): For street vacations initiated by City Council, the City shall be responsible for any associated appraisal fees. C. No change proposed D. No change proposed 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. If the Planning Board determines the granting of an easement and/or substitute right-of-way negates the ability to collect monetary compensation and therefore the appraisal becomes unnecessary, then the following language should be included under the Waiver section of 18.55.XXX: E. Waiver. A waiver from the requirement to obtain an appraisal and provide monetary compensation will be granted if one of the following apply: a. The resolution for a City Council initiated street vacation 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; b. The resolution conditions the street vacation upon the reservation and/or granting of a public easement or substitute public right- of-way to the City of Edmonds [or a third party]. 9.1.g Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Exhibit 3-OptionsTable with Planning Board Recommendation (Introduction to Street Street Vacation Code Update – Chapter 20.70 ECDC --> NEW Chapter 18.55 ECDC Page 3 of 3 Existing Code Language Summary of Issue Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation Appraisals – Selection 4 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; 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. 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. 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. The appraiser will be selected by the applicant from a City approved list that will contain no fewer than six appraisers. Condition Challenges 5 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. 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 regarding 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). ECDC 18.55.140.B 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. [insert additional code language appeal period is revised to 60 days] 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. 60 day appeal period In revising the appeal period to 60 days, the following language shall be inserted in the code: 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). 9.1.g Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Exhibit 3-OptionsTable with Planning Board Recommendation (Introduction to Street Edmonds Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 1/5 20190927 DRAFT code with Planning Board Recommendations 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. 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. DRAFT CODE INCLUDING PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION 9.1.h Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Exhibit 2-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-Planning Board Recommendations (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 2/5 20190927 DRAFT code with Planning Board Recommendations 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 D.4. 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, 1993]. 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. DRAFT CODE INCLUDING PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION 9.1.h Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Exhibit 2-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-Planning Board Recommendations (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 3/5 20190927 DRAFT code with Planning Board Recommendations 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. 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, 1993]. B. Pedestrian walkway or trail purposes; and/or DRAFT CODE INCLUDING PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION 9.1.h Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Exhibit 2-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-Planning Board Recommendations (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 4/5 20190927 DRAFT code with Planning Board Recommendations 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 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. 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. 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. The appraiser will be selected by the applicant from a City approved list that will contain no fewer than six appraisers. 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. E. Waiver. A waiver from the requirement to obtain an appraisal and provide monetary compensation will be granted if one of the following apply: a.The resolution for a City Council initiated street vacation 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; b.The resolution conditions the street vacation upon the reservation and/or granting of a public easement or substitute public right-of-way to the City of Edmonds [or a third party]. 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.Covenants intended to protect critical areas or otherwise limit future development on the subject property. DRAFT CODE INCLUDING PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION Code Language Options: Item No. 4: Blue = Staff Recommendation Code Language Options: Item No. 4: Red = Planning Board Recommendation Code Language Options: Item No. 3: Blue = Staff Recommendation Code Language Options: Item No. 3: Red = Planning Board Recommendation This language shall be used only if the Planning Board Recommended language is used with Item No. 1 9.1.h Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Exhibit 2-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-Planning Board Recommendations (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 18.55 VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 5/5 20190927 DRAFT code with Planning Board Recommendations 2.Monetary compensation. 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. Payment to the city, prior to the effective date of the ordinance, in an amount of up to 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. Monetary compensation. The city council shall condition approval of a street vacation upon satisfaction of the following monetary conditions, unless an easement has been reserved and/or a substitute public right-of-way has been granted to the City of Edmonds [or a third party]. a. Payment of appraisal fees as outlined in section ECDC 18.55.XXX; and b. Payment to the city, prior to the effective date of the ordinance, in an amount of up to 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. 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 60 days following the adoption of the resolution of intent. 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). 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. 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. D. 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]. DRAFT CODE INCLUDING PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION Code Language Options: Item No. 1: Red = Planning Board Recommendation Code Language Options: Item No. 2: Blue = Staff Recommendation Code Language Options: Item No. 1: Red = Planning Board Recommendation Code Language Options: Item No. 2: Red = Planning Board Recommendation Code Language Options: Item No. 5: Blue = Staff Recommendation Code Language Options: Item No. 5: Red = Planning Board Recommendation 9.1.h Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Exhibit 2-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-Planning Board Recommendations (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 1/8 20190925 Planning Board DRAFT Chapter 20.7018.5518 XX55 STREET VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Sections: 20.7018.55.000 Purpose. 18.55.005 Definitions. 20.7018.55.010 A Applicability and effect. 20.7018.55.05015 Initiation of proceedings and application. 20.7018.55.020 Criteria for vacation. 20.70.030 City easement rights for public utilities and services. 20.7018.55.040 Limitations on vacations. 20.70.XXX Appraisals and appraisal fee. 20.7018.55.050 Initiation of proceedings. 20.7018.55.060 Application requirements. 20.7018.55.070 Date of Ppublic hearing – Date fixing. 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– Required. 20.7018.55.120 Public hearing – Continuation. 20.7018.55.130 Public hearing – Presentation by planning manager. 18.55.030 City easement rights for public utilities and services. 18.55.XXX Appraisals and appraisal fee. 20.7018.55.140 Resolution of intent and Ffinal decision. 20.7018.55.000 Purpose. This chapter establishes the procedures and criteria that the city will use to decide upon vacations of streets, alleys, and other types of public easements, or portions thereof relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes. [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 indispensibleindispensable, 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 public easements, or portions thereof relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes. This chapter shall not apply to vacationthe release or termination of other types of public easements like utility easements. As used in this chapter, the term “subject property” means the street, alley or public easement, or portions thereof sought to be vacated. Where the term “applicant” is used, if the city did not initiate the vacation, “applicant” shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) of 9.1.i Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Exhibit 1-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-DRAFT-Track Changes (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 2/8 20190925 Planning Board DRAFT property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof, subject to the vacation request. [Ord. 3910 § 2, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].by city council or by petition. Note: if the street to be vacatedsubject property is shown on the City’s official street map (Chapter 19.8018.50 ECDC), the an ordinance approved street vacationvacating the subject property also changesshall be deemed to have amended the official street map to remove the vacated 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]. 20.7018.55.05015 Initiation of proceedings and application. A. A vacation may be initiated by: 1. A. City council; or 2. B. Petition of the owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley to be vacated or, in the case of an easement,owners of two-thirds of property underlying the portion of the easement to be vacatedsubject property. C. Hereafter within this chapter, where the term “applicant” is used, if the city did not initiate the vacation, “applicant” shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof, subject to the vacation request. [Ord. 3910 § 2, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. B. Council resolution for vacation. The City Council may initiate, by resolution, vacation procedures. The resolution shall contain a legal description of the subject property. 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 street or alley, or underlying any public easement governed by this chaptersubject property, may petition the city council for vacation of the subject property. The petition shallmust be signed by signed by the owners of more than two-thirds of the property abutting on the street or alleysubject property. The two-thirds ownership shall be calculated (based on front footagelinear frontage abutting the subject property), or underlying the public easement (based on square footage). D. An applicant may apply for a vacation by submitting the followingapplication for a street vacation initiated by Petition shall contain the following items: 1. A. A valid vacation petition with supporting affidavits on forms provided by the planningengineering division; 2. B. A legal description of the subject propertystreet, alley, easement, or part thereof to be vacated. This legal description shall be prepared by a surveyor registered in the state of Washington; 3. A completed application and fee as established by ordinanceresolution of the city council; 4. A signed agreement to pay the cost of an appraisal as provided for in Section 18.XX55.XXX; 5. C. Fifteen paper copies of aA site surveymap showing the street, alley, easement or part thereof to be vacated subject property and showing 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 street, alley, easement, or part thereof, to be vacatedsubject property. The site survey se site maps must be e at ato scale of 1" = 50'; D. An 8-1/2-by-11-inch clear plastic transparency of the site map; 6. E. Address labels obtained from the Snohomish County comptroller’s office containing the names and addresses of the owners of all property within 300 feet of any boundary of the street, alley, easement, or part thereof, to be vacatedAdjacent Property Owners List following guidelines established by the Planning Division; 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. F. A copy of the Snohomish County assessor’s map identifying the properties specified in subsection 6E of this section; 8. Identification of which of the abutting property owners (or predecessors-in-interest) originally dedicated the subject property; and 9.1.i Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Exhibit 1-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-DRAFT-Track Changes (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 3/8 20190925 Planning Board DRAFT 9. Any additional information or material that the Public Works Director or his/hertheir appointeedesignee determines is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. 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; H. A completed application and fee as established by ordinance; I. If the property was originally dedicated by one and only one of the abutting properties, the designation of the property from which the right-of-way was dedicated; and J. Any additional information or material that the manager of the planning division or his/her appointee determines is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. 20.7018.55.020 Criteria for vacation. The city council may vacate the public’s real property rights in a street, alley, or public easement relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposessubject propertyeasement 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.; and B. The street, alley, or public easement is not currently necessary for travel or other street purposes, nor likely to be in the future and that if the public easement is primarily for pedestrian access, it is not likely to be useful for pedestrian access now or in the future; and; No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. 20.70.030 Right to reserve easementsCity easement rights for public utilities and services. In vacating a street, alley, or public easement governed by this chapter, the city council may reserve for the city any easements or the right to exercise and grant any easements for the following purposes: cConstruction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. [Ord. 3910 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. Pedestrian walkway or trail purposes; Construction, repair and maintenance of a third party utility company or municipal corporation or special purpose district whothat has a vested interest in the subject property; and Any other type of easement relating to the city’s right to control, use and manage rights-of-way. 20.7018.55.040 Limitations on vacations. A. Areas that May Not Be Vacated. The city may not vacate any street, alley, public easement relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes, or part thereofsubject property that abuts any body of water unless all elements of RCW 35.79.035 are complied with, and the vacated area will thereby become available for the city or other public entity to acquire and to use for a public purposesatisfied. 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 street or alley or part thereof, or underlying the public easement or part thereof, to be vacatedsubject property file a written objection in the planning divisionwith the city clerk prior to the time of the hearing. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. 20.70.XXX Appraisals and appraisal fee The Public Works director is authorized to obtain appraisals from qualified, independent appraisers as part of preparing staff reports on vacations. Payment to the City of an appraisal fee in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5000), which fee shall be used to obtain an appraisal, prepared by a city-selected appraiser establishing fair market 9.1.i Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Exhibit 1-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-DRAFT-Track Changes (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 4/8 20190925 Planning Board DRAFT value of the street, alley, public easement relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes, or part thereof to be vacated, taking into account any reduction in fair market value associated with the reservation of any easements. 20.7018.55.050 Initiation of proceedings. A vacation may be initiated by: A. City council; or B. Petition of the owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley to be vacated or, in the case of an easement, two-thirds of property underlying the portion of the easement to be vacated. C. Hereafter within this chapter, where the term “applicant” is used, if the city did not initiate the vacation, “applicant” shall refer to the petitioning owner(s) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof, subject to the vacation request. [Ord. 3910 § 2, 2013; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. 20.7018.55.060 Application requirements. An applicant may apply for a vacation by submitting the following: A. A vacation petition with supporting affidavits on forms provided by the planning division; B. A legal description of the street, alley, easement, or part thereof to be vacated. This legal description shall be prepared by a surveyor registered in the state of Washington; C. Fifteen paper copies of a site map showing the street, alley, easement or part thereof to be vacated and showing all properties with subdivision, block, lots, and specifying open and unopened rights-of-way for a radius of 400 feet from the street, alley, easement, or part thereof, to be vacated. These site maps must be at a scale of 1" = 50'; D. An 8-1/2-by-11-inch clear plastic transparency of the site map; E. Address labels obtained from the Snohomish County comptroller’s office containing the names and addresses of the owners of all property within 300 feet of any boundary of the street, alley, easement, or part thereof, to be vacated; F. A copy of the Snohomish County assessor’s map identifying the properties specified in subsection E of this section; 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; H. A completed application and fee as established by ordinance; I. If the property was originally dedicated by one and only one of the abutting properties, the designation of the property from which the right-of-way was dedicated; and J. Any additional information or material that the manager of the planning division or his/her appointee determines is reasonably necessary for the city council to consider the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. 20.7018.55.070 Date of Ppublic hearing – Date fixing. Upon receiving a complete Subsequent to the completion of an application for vacation, or upon passage of a resolution initiation 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]. 9.1.i Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Exhibit 1-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-DRAFT-Track Changes (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 5/8 20190925 Planning Board DRAFT 20.7018.55.080 Staff report preparation. A. Contents. The planning managerPublic 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 this the 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 treet, alley, easement, or part thereof will be considered by the city council; 2. A locational description in non-legal language along with a vicinity map that identifies the street, alley, easement, or part thereofsubject property proposed to be vacated; 3. A statement of the time and place of the public hearing before the city council; 4. A statement that the of the availability of 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 managercity 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 street, alley, easement, or part thereof to be vacatedsubject property; 2. A copy will be sent to each the residents living immediately adjacent toof properties abutting the street, alley, public easement relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes, or part thereof to be vacatedsubject 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 property street, alley, easement, or part thereof to be vacated. [Ord. 3901 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. 20.7018.55.100 Vacation file content and availability. A. Content. The planning managerpPublic 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 – Required. 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 of the nextto 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 planning managerdirector or his/her designee shall make a brief presentation of: 9.1.i Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Exhibit 1-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-DRAFT-Track Changes (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 6/8 20190925 Planning Board DRAFT 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 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 reasonablereasonably limit the extent of these oral comments to facilitate the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing. 20.7018.55.120 Public hearing – Continuation. The city council may continue the hearing if, for any reason, it is unable to hear all of the public comments on the vacation, or if the city council determines that it needs more information on the vacation. If during the hearing, the city council announces the time and place of the next hearing on the vacation, no further notice of the hearing need be given. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. 20.7018.55.130 Public hearing – Presentation by planning manager. At the outset of the hearing, the planning manager or his/her designee shall make a brief presentation of: A. An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provision of this chapter and the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; and B. A recommendation on the requested vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993]. 18.55.030 Right to reserve 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, 1993]. 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 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. CB. 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, Commented [MJ1]: See PB Options Table – Item 1 Commented [MJ2]: See PB Options Table – Item 3 Commented [MJ3]: See PB Options Table – Item 4 9.1.i Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Exhibit 1-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-DRAFT-Track Changes (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 7/8 20190925 Planning Board DRAFT 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. DC. 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. 20.7018.55.140 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 , either: 1. Adopt an ordinance granting the vacation; or 2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or 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, to grant the vacation if the applicant owner(s) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, meets specifiedc conditions within 90 days, unless otherwisea different time period is specified within the resolution. The city may require the following as conditions of the resolution of intent to vacate: 1. Easement Conditions. The city council may condition approval of a street vacation upon satisfaction of any or all of the following easement related conditions: a. Either:Reservation of an easement as outlined in section ECDC 20.7018.55.030; and/or a. Acceptance of a grant of substitute public right-of-way which has value as right-of-way at least equal to the subject property. b. Convenants intended to protect critical areas or otherwise limit future development on the subject property. 2. i. Monetary compensation. 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. Payment to be paid to the city, prior to the final decisioneffective date of the ordinance, in in thean amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the subject property street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated 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 then full appraised fair market value shall be paid.; or ii. The grant of a substitute public right-of-way which has value as an access way at least equal to the vacated street, alley, or part thereof; or iii. Any combination of subsections (A)(3)(a)(i) and (A)(3)(a)(ii) of this section totaling but not more than one-half the fair market value of the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated. OR b. A grant of an easement to the city in exchange for the easement vacated. 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 Commented [MJ4]: See PB Options Table – Item 1 Commented [MJ5]: See PB Options Table – Item 1 Commented [MJ6]: See PB Options Table – Item 2 Commented [MJ7]: See PB Options Table – Item 5 9.1.i Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Exhibit 1-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-DRAFT-Track Changes (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) Edmonds Chapter 20.7018.5518.55 STREET VACATIONS OF STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS Page 8/8 20190925 Planning Board DRAFT 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 days, 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 street, alley, public easement relating to street, pedestrian or travel purposes or part thereof that would be vacatedsubject 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. B. Findings Required. As part of each ordinance granting a vacation, motion denying a vacation, or resolution of intent to vacate, the city council shall adopt findings and conclusions to support its decision. D. C. Distribution. Within five working days of the city council decision, the public works planning 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]. 9.1.i Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Exhibit 1-Chapter 20.70 ECDC-DRAFT-Track Changes (Introduction to Street Vacation Code Update) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington Staff Lead: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Department: City Attorney's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History The City Council studied the lease option and ground lease with the Edmonds Senior Center on November 20, 2019 (minutes attached) and approved the lease option and ground lease on November 27, 2019 (minutes attached). The new ground lease has since been fully executed by the parties and took effect on April 15, 2019. Staff Recommendation That the City Council be advised about the securitization requirement from the State of Washington and take action at a future meeting. Narrative In the 2018 supplemental capital budget, the Legislature made appropriations totaling $4,000,000 in grant funding to the Edmonds Senior Center. Chapter 2, Laws of 2018 (SSB 6090) appropriated $2,250,000 in Section 1015. Chapter 298, Laws of 2018 (ESSB 6095) appropriated $500,000 in Section 1012 and $1,250,000 in Section 1016. These appropriations were made subject to RCW 43.63A.125(6), which states as follows: In contracts for grants authorized under this section the department shall include provisions which require that capital improvements shall be held by the grantee for a specified period of time appropriate to the amount of the grant and that facilities shall be used for the express purpose of the grant. If the grantee is found to be out of compliance with provisions of the contract, the grantee shall repay to the state general fund the principal amount of the grant plus interest calculated at the rate of interest on state of Washington general obligation bonds issued most closely to the date of authorization of the grant. RCW 43.63A.125(6). Hence, due to the above requirement, the Department of Commerce will require the Edmonds Senior Center to execute certain documents as a prerequisite to obtaining the appropriated grant funds: namely, a promissory note and leasehold deed of trust (collectively referred to as the “Securitization Documents”). These Securitization Documents are designed to ensure that the grant funds are used for their intended purposes and to avoid certain types of fraud from being perpetrated upon the state. We have attached the Department of Commerce’s Competitive Grant Program Guidelines, which provide additional information regarding prerequisites for the Edmonds Senior Center to receive its funds. Note that Step 2 in these guidelines states: “Grantees must provide 9.2 Packet Pg. 313 Commerce with a deed of trust or leasehold deed of trust as security for the grant for projects performed by nonprofits over $500,000 in state funds.” In the case of the Edmonds Senior Center, because it does not own the property, it would only be able to provide a leasehold deed of trust. This issue is being brought before the City Council because a leasehold deed of trust would be considered an encumbrance upon the property. Section 4.3 of the ground lease between the City and the Senior Center states that: “Senior Center shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval of the City.” So, the City Council will need to take action, at a future meeting, to consent to the Senior Center’s execution of the leasehold deed of trust. The following definitions may be helpful to the City Council in considering this matter: Deed of trust - a three-party transaction or instrument in which land is conveyed by a borrower (the grantor of the deed of trust), to a trustee, who holds title in trust for a lender (the beneficiary), as security for credit or a loan the lender has given the borrower. Leasehold - a tenant’s or lessee’s possessory estate in land or premises. Leasehold deed of trust - a deed of trust secured by a lessee’s leasehold interest. The following are some questions and answers that might be of interest to the City Council: I thought the $4,000,000 from the state to the Senior Center was a grant. Why does this look more like a loan? Notwithstanding the use of a leasehold deed of trust as security, the state still does consider this a grant. As long as the Senior Center uses the funds as they are intended to be used and does so for the required period of time, the funds will not need to be repaid in the way that a loan would. The promissory note template provided by the Department of Commerce contains the following language: “Grantor has no expectation of repayment of the Award so long as the award funds are used according to the conditions set out in the Contract. If the Award is not used as required by the Contract for a period of ten (10) years as required in the Contract, Grantor shall be entitled to the unpaid principal balance of this Note with interest at a rate of 5%, compounded annually.” Would the Department of Commerce be able to foreclose on the leasehold deed of trust in the unlikely event that the Edmonds Senior Center were to violate the conditions of the grant? Yes. Has the Department of Commerce ever foreclosed on a leasehold deed of trust that secured one of its grants? In our conversation with Rebecca Spencer of the Department of Commerce, we were told that Commerce has never had to foreclose on a leasehold deed of trust and that it would be unlikely to do so. Rather, in the event of a default or breach of the grant agreement, Commerce would anticipate entering into a collaborative process with the Senior Center to see what could be done to fulfill the purposes of the grant. Could the City of Edmonds lose its ownership in property if the Department of Commerce were to foreclose on the leasehold deed of trust? No. Because this transaction involves a leasehold deed of trust, not a regular deed of trust, it is only the Senior Center’s leasehold interest in the property that would be pledged as security, not the City’s ownership interest. Would a foreclosure of the leasehold deed of trust change the terms of the ground lease? No. While, hypothetically, foreclosure could change the identity of the ground tenant, any successor tenant would still be subject to all of the terms of the ground lease, including but not limited to the use limitations in Section 1.2 that the property be used “for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating a 9.2 Packet Pg. 314 non-profit community resource center to be known as the "Edmonds Waterfront Center" serving the needs of the local population, in particular, poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors and other members of the community.” Would the leasehold deed of trust be recorded against the title? Yes. Is the proposed leasehold deed of trust in its final form? No. The Department of Commerce provided the Senior Center with templates to begin the drafting process. The City Attorney has proposed some revisions to the template. The City Attorney’s office is still working with the Senior Center and the Department of Commerce to finalize the leasehold deed of trust and promissory note forms. We will alert the City Council to any material changes to the forms that might occur after the date that this packet was published. Attachments: 2018-11-20 City Council minutes 2018-11-27 City Council minutes Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease Securitization Letter to City 09 26 2019 17_19 Competitive Capital Guidelines FINAL[3] 2019-09-25 Deed of Trust - Leasehold - Comm Cap Facilities Promissory Note (Leasehold DOT) - BLANK SAMPLE 9.2 Packet Pg. 315 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES November 20, 2018 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Michael Nelson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Nicholas Falk, Deputy City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL Deputy City Clerk Nicholas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2018 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS, WIRE PAYMENT AND PAYROLL CHECKS 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR AN UNDETERMINED AMOUNT 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2018 Page I 9.2.a Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: 2018-11-20 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, recalled last week she and three other Edmonds residents spoke and submitted a proposed revised plan for the Housing Strategy adoption process along with a problem list. They were hopeful it would provide direction to begin more detailed, open and collaborative process for drafting· and adopting this critical policy direction. This is a passionate topic among residents because it affects everyone. Neighboring cities have huge development projects underway that will impact Edmonds residents' quality of life. She was encouraged last week when Councilmembers weighed in on the strategy; they clearly they care about Edmonds. While she did not appreciate the verbal attacks and not taking personal responsibility for how the process reached this point, many suggestions and opinions were voiced, including removing it from the Comprehensive Plan and waiting for things to calm down before trying to create another Housing Strategy. While this may seem a good solution in the short term, it will not solve what is currently happening in the City. Construction has not stopped while the Housing Strategy is being created; permits are still being issued, short platting continues, high density zero lot line projects are being constructed. Without a vision for the City in addition to the Housing Strategy framework, Edmonds will end up looking like it has been thrown together. She spoke in favor of a well-thought-out strategy with a better process that includes public input so the housing needs of Edmonds can be address together. She encouraged the Council to do the hard work and not to give up. Ferrell Fleming, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, complimented City staff particularly Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and City Attorney Jeff Taraday on the work they did to reach this point. Mr. He also complimented the City's Finance Committee, Councilmembers Teitzel and Buckshnis, for their diligent work during the process. Two recent meetings have been held with key staff involved in the permitting process and he appreciated their wholehearted commitment to enable the center to remain on schedule. The Edmonds Wat~rfront Center will be the culmination of the 50-year partnership between the City and the Senior Center. A hallmark of the partnership has been that both parties continue to keep the big picture in mind: creating and maintaining an innovative senior center for the many older citizens of Edmonds and the region, making a waterfront facility available for community use, and creating a waterfront regional park with convenient beach access and parking. The partnership has been effective because the strengths of the municipal corporation and the 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation have has been allowed to take center stage when appropriate. All the county senior centers and many cities respect and even envy the partnership that has accomplished so much. In the 1960s and 1970s, the partnership enabled the City to acquire the property and upgrade it to its present configuration. More recently, the City had $1 OM in its Capital Improvement Plan for many years to replace the Senior Center; that item has been removed. The City recognized in its 2013 Strategic Action Plan that the Senior Center would be much better at raising the money to build the Waterfront Center and recognized the desperate need for a new building and to move quickly. The Senior Center looks forward to strengthening and enhancing the partnership with the City for the benefit of everyone and believes the proposed amendments to the ground lease are a step in that direction. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PROPOSED 2019-2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Rob English reviewed: Transporta tion Capita l Program • DP 97 -1,500,000: 2019 Pavement Preservation Program o Overlay 3. 7 lane miles o 20 curb ramp upgrades o $900,000 REET 125/126 o $500,000 General Fund o $100,000 Street Fund 112 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2018 Page2 9.2.a Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: 2018-11-20 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) ! Impacts to Fund 125 Ending Cash ($2so,0002 1 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested Mr. James email the presentation to Council. Council President Nelson explained ten of the proposed amendments are about a hiring freeze. The City has been hiring over the years and with indications of a an economic slowdown ahead, he was trying to put on the brakes. Except for public safety, he recommended delaying hiring of employees and ten of the amendments reflect that. With regard to the downtown parking study, he wanted to reduce the cost, finding $75,000 too high. Similarly, he found $35,000 too much for the gateway sign. He was happy to hear an ADA accessible playground was planned for Civic Park; he has heard some children are not able to access some of the assessible equipment on existing playgrounds. Councilmember Mesaros commented the duplicate amendment to remove the National Citizen Survey would reduce the impact to the General Fund Ending Cash from Council amendments to $376,759. Councilmember Buckshnis invited any citizen interested in the rationale for her amendments to contact her. She inquired about the amendment she submitted to reduce DP 111, Waterfront Connector, by $IM and add a new decision package for $IM for Edmonds Marsh restoration. Mr. James explained when the grant application was submitted to the State, it was for the Waterfront Connector, and it was not easily transferable to the marsh. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested $IM come from the General Fund for the Edmonds Marsh restoration because she anticipated some action next year and she wanted to illustrate her priority to get it done. Councilmember Teitzel withdrew Item 16, reducing the City's SnoCo Health District Contribution to $1, in view of Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' amendment to reduce the contribution to $0.50. He referred to the list of Staff Recommended Budget Changes, Item 8, Move $250,000 Transitional Housing Budget to REET Fund 125, advising there is a research effort underway to identify homelessness issues in Edmonds and this was the $250,000 the Council set aside to address that. He was unsure Council was comfortable with moving those funds to Fund 125 until the research has been completed, public comment has been provided, etc . Mr. James said the proposed budget book had $250,000 coming out of the homelessness fund that was allocated in the 2018 budget, which was an error. This item backs that expense out and moves it into the REET fund. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Mayor Earling said staff will prepare a response outlining how the amendments impact their budgets. 7. STUDY ITEMS (con't) 1. SENIOR CENTER LEASE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite advised the packet contains the current lease and the option to lease and a redline version of the proposed changes as well as several other documents. She reviewed: • History o Current arrangement 1. Operational support: $75,000/year 2. No fee lease for current building 3. City maintains grounds and parking lot 4. Senior Center maintains daily needs 5. City helps with capital needs o January 2105: City entered into an option for a 40-year ground lease with Senior Center. • Terms include: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 15 9.2.a Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: 2018-11-20 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) 1. Senior Center right to demolish building and build new 2. Senior Center would pay for complete cost of new building 3. Senior Center would pay 50% cost to construct parking lot, and maintain parking lot 4. City would use from 4-10 PM Monday-Thursday, and other mutually agreeable times 5. Term for 40 years with renewal option for 15 more • Senior Center Proposal o Updates financial goal to exercise option to 75% of total cost o Parking Lot and Street Frontage Improvements, for design, construction and maintenance become 100% responsibility of the City o Adds Easements for parking lot and utilities o New legal description defines the footprint of the building o Adds language to section 4.1.1 to allow City Council to approve demolition and construction based on financial viability o Adds some minor cleanup language • Waterfront Center schematic • Waterfront Park Redevelopment o Remove creosote pier and reintroduce beach habitat o Reconnect promenade and walkway to provide continuous walkway o Reconfigure parking lot to add storm treatment, bioswales and rain gardens (water is currently not treated) • Drawing of footprint of Waterfront Center building on property • Drawing of full project including Ebbtide walkway in second phase • F 11 u pro1ect cost Component Costs Design Waterfront Park $248 ,987 Design Parking Lot $116,040 Design Street Frontage $106,131 Design Ebbtide $203,510 Construction Park $2,129,118 Construction Parking Lot $1,354,013 Construction Street Frontage $291,554 Construction Ebbtide Walkway $1,371,033 Permitting , Eng., Environmental $325,000 Total $6,145,386 • P k' L ar mg ot an dF rontage I mprovements Cost 50% Senior Center Parking Lot design $116,040 $58,020 Parking Lot Construction $1,354,013 $677,006 Frontage Improvements Design $106,131 $53,054 Frontage construction $291 ,554 $145,777 Total $1,867,736 $933,868 • Senior Center Due diligence o Building Replacement Feasibility Study o Campaign Feasibility Study o Waterfront Center Campaign Update o Waterfront Center Operational Pro Forma Councilmember Johnson referred to the full project cost. Ms. Hite advised that cost includes approximately $1.5M for the Ebbtide walkway; design of that project is on hold pending litigation. Councilmember Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 16 9.2.a Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: 2018-11-20 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) Johnson asked the value of the land the City owns. Ms. Hite said because park/city property is exempt, the assessor does not update the value. She estimated an acre of waterfront property was valued at $8-$1 OM. Councilmember Johnson pointed out while there has been discussion of a $12M project, considering the City's land contribution and park improvements, the City is actually contributing more than the Senior Center. Councilmember Johnson recalled the original contract addressed maintenance and asked if the new contract addressed maintenance of the parking lot. Ms. Hite explained maintenance of the parking lot would be the City's responsibility in the new proposed lease. Councilmember Johnson asked the City's total responsibility in the new lease. Ms. Hite answered maintenance would be very low in the beginning for a new facility; after 5-6 winters, she anticipated potholes, cracking, and repaving of portions of the parking lot and replacement of the entire lot in 12-14 years. Once the rain gardens and bioswales are established, they require minimal maintenance. Councilmember Teitzel commented there is nothing in the proforma about debt service or operating reserve other than an indication of TBD. Those numbers are needed before a final decision is made. The financing package focuses on design and construction of the Waterfront Center and does not address ongoing operational cost. If funding was not sufficient to cover ongoing operational cost, he asked if it was anticipated the Senior Center would borrow from the City to cover those costs. That has occurred with the ECA and the intent was to avoid a similar situation with the Senior Center. Ms. Hite answered non-profits' ability to be versatile is much greater than a city's versatility. Nonprofits are used to operating on a shoestring and creating efficiencies. She did not expect the Senior Center would ask the City for operational funds. They will have a beautiful facility, will be able to generate revenue from rentals and will be on more solid footing than the current building. Councilmember Teitzel referred to places in the Ground Lease where Senior Center and Waterfront Center are used interchangeably. For example, in Section 3.1, "The parties mutually agree and acknowledge that the Senior Center's operation of the Senior Center upon the Property effectuates a fundamental government purpose and ... " pointing out the second "Senior Center" should be "Waterfront Center. Mr. Taraday said where the language refers to the non-profit entity, the phrase "Senior Center" should be used and where the language refers to the building, the phrase "Waterfront Center" should be used. He identified several places where a change should be made and offered to make those changes in the document. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled during a Finance Committee discussion with the Senior Center, the committee requested an update to the feasibility study; however, an updated feasibility study was not included in the packet. The feasibility study dated April 2016 states the Senior Center receives $60,000/year from the City when in fact the City provides $75,000/year, and the maximum cost of the building is $10- 12M and that cost is now $16M. The committee also requested an updated proforma that replaced TBD with numbers, as well as addressed questions about rental income and wages. If the Council decides to fully fund the parking lot, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the source of the funds. Ms. Hite answered likely from the REET balances; there is currently $800,000 in one and $600,000 in the other. She recommended leaving at least $400,000-500,000 in each. With the $250,000 already included in the budget, an additional $683,000 is needed. Councilmember Mesaros asked if the full project cost of $6.lM included the additional amount proposed in the new lease of $933,000. Ms. Hite answered it included the full cost of the parking lot and frontage improvements. Councilmember Johnson suggested obtaining a report from permitting staff regarding the project timeline due to the fish window, etc. Ms. Hite said land use permits have been submitted for the waterfront Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 17 9.2.a Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: 2018-11-20 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) redevelopment project and the building and are being reviewed. A joint permit has been submitted to the State's joint aquatic agency for the Waterfront Center, Ebbtide walkway and the park redevelopment. The review has been completed by two of the agencies and the National Marine Services Center will be writing a biological evaluation. She expected more mitigation will be required for the overwater walkway. Once that process is complete, it will go to the Architectural Design Board and the Hearing Examiner if necessary in March/April. She anticipated both projects, the park redevelopment and Waterfront Center, will submit building permits in mid-December and hopefully break ground on both projects mid-April to early May. The fish window for in-water work for the waterfront restoration project (remove the creosote pier and reintroduce beach habitat) is mid-July to mid-October. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the balance in Park Impact Fees is $3,309,494 and asked if those funds could be used for this project. Ms. Hite answered some are being used for the City's portion. Park Impact Fees are programed through Fund 332 in the CIP, some for this project and some in the out years for Civic. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, TO APPROVE THE OPTION AND LEASE AND FUND THE $933,868 FOR PARKING LOT AND FRONTAGj IMPROVEMENTS. Councilmember Johnson pointed out this was on the agenda as a study item and she preferred a decision be made at the next meeting. Ms. Hite suggested bringing back the agreement with the language changes Councilmember Teitzel requested, numbers in the proforma, updated feasibility study, include the funding in the budget and schedule approval on consent. Councilmembers Buckshnis, Teitzel, and Fraley-Monillas were agreeable with scheduling approval on the Consent Agenda. Council President Nelson said he was amenable to voting tonight or wait until next week. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Ms. Hite clarified Council direction was to fund the full amount and schedule approval on the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested moving Agenda Items 4 and 5 before Item 2. 4. PRESENTATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MURRAYSMITH FOR THE FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained additional work has been encountered which requires additional services from MurraySmith. The proposed fee is $59,810 and includes $6,000 in management reserve. Tasks include additional submittal reviews, request for information and clarification, change order support, on-site inspections, structural engineering support, corrosion repairs and additional project management. Staff recommends approve on the Consent Agenda. The additional services will be paid from the Water Utility Fund. It was the consensus of Council to forward this item to the Consent Agenda. 5. DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 1015 BELL STREET Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 18 9.2.a Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: 2018-11-20 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m . Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 24 9.2.a Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: 2018-11-20 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES November 27, 2018 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Michael Nelson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Manillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Can-ie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir . Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director JeffTaraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Earling advised Item 5, Snohomish Health District Presentation, was removed from the agenda as the presenter was not available. 4. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNClLMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Johnson requested Item 4.4 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: I. SEPTEMBER 2018 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2018 Page 1 9.2.b Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: 2018-11-27 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) 3. ONE-YEAR RENEWAL OF THE LIGHTHOUSE, PLLC CONTRACT (LIGHTHOUSE) 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MURRA YSMITH FOR THE FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOA TING PROJECT 6, DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 1015 BELL STREET 5. JTEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT I. SENIOR CENTER LEASE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL (previously Consent Agenda Item 4.4) Councilmember Johnson recalled she had reservations when the ground lease was presented to City Council three years ago, primarily of an environmental nature and her concerns have not been completely satisfied. She was aware there were plans to build the building 12 inches about the flood area; however, with global warming, king tides and flooding, she was not convinced this was the best decision for the City with regard to the location of the senior center. She will not vote in favor of the lease amendment. In the event the breakwater was not sufficient or was damaged during construction, Councilmember Johnson was unclear who would be financially responsible, whether the cost would be shared 50/50 or if it would be 100% the City's responsibility. She pointed out there is inadequate parking in that area and there needs to be a plan for parking such as utilizing adjacent parking lots or a parking system for larger events. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she and other Councilmembers have received several comments from citizens regarding the Senior Center. She asked who would be responsible if the Senior Center defaults on the loan they are considering for the remainder of the building funds. She was told by the executive director that whoever loans them the money will be out the money, that the City will not be responsible to pay back the loans. For clarification, she explained the Senior Center will own the new building, but the City owns the land. City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to Paragraph 4.3 in the proposed ground lease which addresses many related topics including the specific question Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised with regard to loans. He read from the paragraph, "Senior Center shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval of the City." That sentence prevents the Senior Center from using the City's property or their building on the City's property as collateral for a loan. He used the example of a mortgage where the land secures the loan; the Senior Center cannot do that in this situation. Any loans the Senior Center gets would most 1 ike ly be unsecured al though he did not have information related to their financial plan and suggested those questions be directed to the Senior Center. Based on this sentence, he assumed most of their loans would be unsecured. To the extend there is a default on an unsecured loan, that is between the Senior Center and the lender and the City should not have any liability to make up any default. Councilmember Teitzel read from Section 4.3 of the Ground Lease, "Failure to remove the lien or furnish the cash or bond acceptable to the City within thirty (30) days shall constitute an Event of Default under this Lease and the City shall automatically have the right, but not the obligation, to pay the lien in full with no notice to Senior Center and Senior Center shall immediately reimburse the City for any sums so paid to remove any such lien." He inquired about the word "immediately" in this clause; immediately to him meant without delay and he asked if that could mean the same day. He said "immediately" was a term of art and he was troubled by a term of art in a legal document. Mr. Taraday did not agree it was a term of art; a general legal principle in interpreting legal documents is that unless there is a specific reason to interpret a word in a way that's different than its regular, plain dictionary meaning, the regular, plain dictionary definition is used. He did not see a reason to interpret "immediately" differently than it would be used in ordinary speech. Edmonds City Council Approved Minuks November 27, 2018 Page 2 9.2.b Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: 2018-11-27 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) Mr. Taraday provided context for this sentence, noting if the Senior Center can't encumber the property, how could there be liens. Under state law, when a contractor or subcontractor works on prope,ty and doesn't get paid for the work, they are entitled to file a lien on the real property to ensure they will ultimately get paid. That is theoretically how these liens could arise. The Senior Center is not authorized to not pay its contractors and furthermore, it provides that the Senior Center would obtain a performance bond to ensure if they aren't able to pay their contactors, a third party would pay the contractors. He concluded the City was well protected in that regard. With regard to "immediately," Mr. Taraday explained if the lien was not removed immediately, Senior Center would be in default under the lease and the lease provides various different ways of correcting defaults, one of which, in the most extreme cases of default where there is no other viable remedy, the City could terminate the lease in which case all improvements located on the property would become the City's property. He did not anticipate that would ever be necessary given the protection provided by the performance bond. Councilmember Johnson recognized the seawall was outside the footprint of the build, but its sole intent was to protect the building. She asked if the lease agreement addressed responsibility for the seawaJI. Mr. Taraday said it does not directly address replacement of the seawall; the seawall is be outside the footprint that the Senior Center is leasing from City. Councilmember Johnson asked if the City would be responsible for maintaining or replacing the seawall even if its sole function was to protect building. Mr. Taraday said the seawall protects not just building but also the parking lot which provides parking for the building and City's adjacent park as well as protects the City's trail system located on the waterfront side of building. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite said the seawall is currently the City's responsibility to maintain. If the seawall were damaged due to construction of building, which is not covered in lease, she believed it would be the Senior Center's responsibility. If there was any damage to the adjoining Ebbtide building, the sidewalk or sections of the parking lot that are planned to be reconstructed, it would the Senior Center's responsibility as part of the construction project. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Johnson commented the property is a former site of a sawmill, so what under the surface is unknow. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled in September the Finance Committee asked for an updated proforma that replaced TBD with numbers as well as an updated feasibility study the reflected the $16M estimated cost, but those have not been provided. She observed the Senior Center may borrow $1.5M. She asked if the City could loan money to the Senior Center, similar to the loan to the Edmonds Public Facilities District, if the Center was unable to sustain its profitability. Mr. Taraday answered there was nothing preventing the City from choosing to lend money to the Senior Center, but there was also nothing that obligated the City to lend them money. The lease expressly contemplates the City Council will have a forthcoming opportunity to revisit their financial circumstances. Mr. Taraday referenced Section 4.1.1 of the proposed lease which states "Senior Center shall undertake no demolition, construction, remodeling, alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior written consent of the City, which shall be within the discretion of the City Council to withhold or deny. In applying its discretion, the City Council shall consider, among other factors deemed relevant by the City Council, the extent to which the Senior Center has secured sufficient capital and/or financing to complete the construction of the Building, the construction of other improvements to the Property, and related financial obligations (including having an adequate contingency fund for the contemplated Work ) ... ,, Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the City could choose not to authorize the Senior Center to break ground if their financials are not sufficient to support the project. Mr. Taraday agreed , when the Senior Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2018 Page 3 9.2.b Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: 2018-11-27 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) Center comes to the Council in a few months seeking that authority, the City Council will have another opportunity to review their financial status and the extent to which they have the capital secured and decide whether the Council is comfortable moving forward. Council President Nelson commented on the importance of continuing the long-term partnership for this vital community asset. COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE OPTION TO LEASE BETWEEN THE SENIOR CENTER AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS. MOTJON CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. 6. PRESENTATIONS 1. SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT PRESENTATION This item was removed from the agenda. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dave Cooper, Edmonds, referred to the Housing Strategy Task Force, commenting he has been following this issue for a long time. He urged the Council to listen to the people who are opposed to Housing Strategy and have very deep concerns about it. In the meetings he has attended, 75-80% of the people are opposed; many others who do not have time to attend meetings are very concerned about the Housing Strategy. The original task force represented special interests and did not reflect the citizens of Edmonds which is the reason for the opposition. It would be more cost effective in the long run to involve the people who are opposed to the draft Housing Strategy, get their input and develop a strategy everyone can agree on instead of doing it multiple times. There has been talk of litigation if the Housing Strategy is passed. He supports the concept of more density in Edmonds, but his other concerns have been ignored. He was impressed with how hard the City Council works and suggested it may be time to move to a paid City Council because a Council paid for by the taxpayers would provide better representation and, as a taxpayer, he would be willing to pay for that. Jay Hoag, Edmonds, said he first learned of the Housing Strategy Review agenda item yesterday. He and others understand the thinking behind it and many like the reset date of the 2020 but the way the Citizen Housing Commission is chosen is one of the biggest concerns as there does not appear to be an open application process and Councilmembers who vote one way will appoint accordingly. The current administration seems to be controlling a good portion of the process. Most citizens weren't fooled by the charade this summer and fall regarding the Housing Strategy and the trust factor is almost non-existent. Mayor Earling having two information meetings in the heart of the holiday season, December 3 and 13, makes it appear there is once again a rush to complete the Housing Strategy. He requested the City Council remove the Housing Strategy from of the Comprehensive Plan and develop a new plan with citizen input and transparency. He will trust in the process until he doesn't; government doesn't always get it wrong, such as with the Housing Strategy, and when enough citizens speak up, the Council needs to listen. Some of the ideas may be helpful in starting a new open and inclusive process in 2019 that will truly reflect what the residents of Edmonds want. Citizens do not want Edmonds to be another cookie-cutter town which the original strategy intended to do. He urged the Council to reach out to the citizens; hundreds have come to meetings, open houses, town halls, workshops, to speak honestly about what they want the Council to do. Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, was encouraged by the efforts being made regarding the Housing Strategy process, specifically how to include more input and participation from residents which will result in a better outcome that will benefit residents of Edmonds. Rushing through another draft of the Housing Strategy would likely result in more skepticism from residents. She was encouraged to see some Councilmembers Edmonds City Council Appmved Minutes November 27, 2018 Page4 9.2.b Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: 2018-11-27 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) Councilmember Teitzel said speaking for all Cougars, we'll get 'em next year. Councilmember Tibbott said he enjoyed watching the snowstorm in Pullman and was celebrating the Huskies' win. Councilmember Mesaros was pleased that 37 years ago today he married the love of his life. 14. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30 .llO(l)(i) This item was not needed . 15. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING TN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 16. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2018 Page 27 9.2.b Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: 2018-11-27 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) 9.2.b Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: 2018-11-27 City Council minutes (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Washington) GROUND LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 9.2.c Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF EXHIBITS ...............................................................................ii GROUNDLEASE............................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY......................................................... 1 SECTION 2. TERM ........................... .................... .....2 SECTION3. RENT..................................................................................................................3 SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER'S OTHER OBLIGATIONS ........................................... 3 SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITYAND OBLIGATIONS ....................................................... 6 SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE................................................................................ 8 SECTION 7. DEFAULT-- ................ .............................. 0.-. . ...... : 11 SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS......................................................................................12 SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS.................................................................................. 13 1 9.2.c Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of LIST OF EXIBITS EXHIBIT A Property Description EXHIBIT B Access and Parking Easement EXHIBITC Utility Easement 9.2.c Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of GROUND LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER THIS GROUND LEASE (this "Lease"), effective the 15th day of April, 2019 Effective Date") is between THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the "City") and THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Washington (the "Senior Center"). WHEREAS, the City and the Senior Center entered into a Lease dated December 1, 2008 (the "2008 Lease"), the Term of which was scheduled to expire in 2020 unless extended by one or both of the two five-year extensions in the 2008 Lease. WHEREAS, the 2008 Lease encompasses a portion of the real property that is subject to this Lease and the parties intend that this Lease supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound by the terms and conditions of this Lease, agree as follows: SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY 1.1 Agreement to Legge -and Description of Prop=. The City hereby leases to the Senior Center and the Senior Center leases from the City that certain real property described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto together with all improvements located thereon or to be located thereon (the "Property"). The Property is the square foot area upon which the Senior Center is to construct its Edmonds Waterfront Center Building (the 'Building"). 1.1.1 Access and Parking Easement. During the term of this Lease, Senior Center shall have a non-exclusive easement for a term of years over and across the real property legally described in and on the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit B (the "Access and Parking Easement") for ingress, egress and parking for the Property. Nothing herein or in the Access and Parking Easement shall prevent the City from signing and regulating the parking lot to make it time -limited, to reserve certain spots for electric vehicles, or to make other similar modifications to the way the parking lot is used. Senior Center shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that its rental activities do not overburden the parking lot, particularly during daylight hours. Such reasonable efforts may include the use of valet parking, the use shuttle buses from an off -site parking location, and/or other means, PROVIDED THAT the determination as to whether such means are necessary, and, if so, which to employ, shall be mutually agreeable and subject to the dispute resolution process in Section 9.18, in the event that the parties cannot agree. 1.1.2 Utility Easement. During the term of this Lease, Senior Center shall have 9.2.c Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of a non-exclusive easement for a term of years over, under and across the real property legally described in and on the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C (the "Utility Easement") to allow utility comiections to and from the Property. 1.2 Use of the Prod, rety. 1.2.1 Alloyed [[J,les of the Proper[y by the Senior. Center. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Senior Center shall use the Property for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating a non-profit community resource center to be known as the "Edmonds Waterfront Center" serving the needs of the local population, in particular, poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors and other members of the community. 1.2.1.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Senior Center may from time to time utilize portions of the Property for revenue -generating activities including, but not limited to, rentals, events and the operation of a thrift store and cafe, provided that all revenues generated therefrom shall be utilized by the Senior Center exclusively for the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.1, above. 1.2.2 Allowed U.es of the Property by the City. The City of Edmonds shall be given access to the Building so it may offer recreational and other programs to the public. Except for the thrift shop and cafe areas, the City will be allowed first -priority use of the Building Monday through Thursday, 4:00 pm - close. The Senior Center shall have first -priority use of the Building at all other times. The City and Senior Center agree to meet on a regular on -going basis (at least quarterly) to review their respective program schedules and determine whether there is any unprogrammed surplus) time after accounting for each party's program needs during that party's first -priority time periods. At these meetings each party shall offer its remaining unprogrammed first -priority time slots to the other party for use by the other party. Senior Center acknowledges that the grounds surrounding the Property are a public park and shall remain open to the public subject to the City's reasonable regulations relate to uses, hours, etc. 1.2.3 The City is not responsible for repair and/or maintenance of the Building; provided, however, as part of the City's allowed use of the Building, the City may be charged for mutually agreed upon costs directly associated with its use of the Building (i.e. utilities, site monitor, cleaning, etc.). SECTION 2. TERM 2.1 Initial Term. The term of this Lease ("Lease Term") shall extend for a period of Forty 40) years commencing on April 15, 2019, and terminating on April 14, 2059, subject to the right of the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term as provided herein. 2.2 Extension Term. The Lease Term may be extended by the Senior Center for an additional period of Fifteen (15) years. 2.2.1 CQnditioji q f Extension. In order for the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term, it shall: (i) not be in material default at the time of providing Notice of its Lease Extension and thereafter; (ii) provide written Notice of its Lease Extension at least one hundred eighty (180) V1 9.2.c Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of days prior to the Termination of the Lease Term. 9.2.c Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of 2.2.2 Prozo for Extensiog. No sooner than three hundred sixty-five (365) days and no later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, Senior Center shall provide written notice of its intention to exercise the Extension Term. The City and Senior Center shall meet no later than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term to confine the Extension Term, discuss any matters pertaining thereto and sign a Lease Addendum incorporating the Extension Term and any mutually acceptable matters pertaining to the Extension Term. SECTION 3. RENT 3.1 Rent. In consideration for the use of the Property as specified in this Lease, the Senior Center shall pay to the City a total payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per year, and such sum shall be paid within ten (10) days from the date of execution of this Lease and within ten (10) days following January 1 st of each calendar year of each year during the Term of this Lease. The parties mutually agree and acknowledge that the Senior Center's operation of the Building upon the Property effectuates a fundamental government purpose and public benefit such as to obviate the necessity of additional rental payment compensation. Furthermore, because the Senior Center's mission is to enrich the social, physical, and intellectual wellbeing of seniors, the City is able to lease this property to the Senior Center for less than fair market value under the poor and infirm exception to the constitutional (Article 8, Section 7) prohibition on gifting or loaning of public funds. SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER'S OTHER OBLIGATIONS 4.1 Lrrstruction ott' Improvements;, The Senior Center and City are, through this Lease, undertaking respective obligations to design, construct and maintain various improvements, which improvements will be jointly used as described in this Lease and its attached exhibits. Unless expressly stated otherwise, the Senior Center shall be obligated to design, construct, and maintain, at its sole expense, the Building and all other improvements that are to be located on the Property. Unless expressly stated otherwise, as, for example, in Section 4.4, the City shall be obligated to design, construct, and maintain, at its sole expense, the parking lot, frontage improvements, and all other improvements contemplated herein that are not to be located on the Property. These respective obligations are described in more detail below. 4.1.1 City El royal anciOwnership. Senior Center shall undertake no demolition, construction, remodeling, alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior written consent of the City, which shall be within the discretion of the City Council to withhold or deny. In applying its discretion, the City Council shall consider, among other factors deemed relevant by the City Council, the extent to which the Senior Center has secured sufficient capital and/or financing to complete the construction of the Building, the construction of other improvements to the Property, and related financial obligations (including having an adequate contingency fiend for the contemplated Work), the intended uses of the Property as described in Section 1.2, as well as the Property's impacts upon the adjacent park. The consent contemplated in this subsection 4.1.1 is separate and apart from the City's regulatory authority and the discretion to withhold or deny approval under this subsection 4.1.1 is not limited in the same way that the City's regulatory discretion is limited. M 9.2.c Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of 4.1.1.1 In addition to the need to obtain the consent required above, no later than 21 days prior to commencing any Work on the Property, Senior Center shall also obtain a temporary construction easement from the City to the extent that any portion of the City's other property (outside the boundaries of the Property) will need to be used for construction purposes related to the Work. The City shall cooperate with the Senior Center in the negotiation and execution of the temporary construction easement and shall not unreasonably withhold its issuance. The temporary construction easement shall address, among other factors, the means, methods, and timing for coordinating the Senior Center's Work with the City's Work, if the City has a contemporaneous construction project, as it will during the construction of the Building. Any deviation from approved plans must also be approved, in writing, by the City. 4.1.1.2 Improvements constructed by the Senior Center during the term of this Lease shall be considered the Senior Center's property until the date this Lease is tenninated. Upon termination of the Lease Tenn, together with Extension, if applicable, all improvements located on the Property shall become the property of the City, excepting trade fixtures, which may be removed by Senior Center at its option. 4.1.1.3 The Senior Center will bring forth the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, to the City Council for approval. The City Council will consider and may opt to hold one or more public hearings on the schematic design prior to taking action. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the design development phase of the design process until the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, is approved by the City Council. The Senior Center will also bring forth the design development phase drawings of the facility to the City Council for approval. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the construction document phase of the design process until the drawings from the design development phase have been approved by the City Council. Any proposed substantive design changes that are inconsistent with a previous design approval (schematic or design development), including proposed changes to the facility's footprint on the Property, shall also be subject of City Council approval and shall be returned to the City Council as soon as practicable and not be deferred until the approval of the next phase. 4.1.1.4 In the event there are any disputes that arise concerning decisions made by the City under this Section 4.1.1, those disputes shall be subject to the dispute resolution provisions in Section 9.18. 4.1.2 Permits. Once approvals have been given by the City under 4.1.1, above, no Work may commence until Senior Center obtains and delivers to the City copies of all necessary governmental permits. Senior Center must also supply the City with a copy of any occupancy permit required and any certification required by the fire marshal, prior to Senior Center's occupancy of the Property. 4.1.3 Construction Schedule. Construction Work must be completed within the earlier of two (2) years of the receipt of consent to perform the Work obtained under Section 4.1.1 or three (3) years of the Commencement Date of this Lease. if construction is begun within one 1) year of the receipt of consent and diligently performed thereafter, the City will grant Senior Center a one (1) year extension to complete construction, if needed, so long as Senior Center 5 9.2.c Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of notifies the City of its need for additional time at least thirty (30) days in advance of the completion deadline. Failure to complete construction within the specified time shall be an event of Default under Section 7.1 unless any delay in construction occurred as a result of failure by the City to allow Senior Center's construction to commence in a timely manner in which case, the Senior Center shall be given a commensurate amount of time for completion of construction. All Work done on the Property at any time during the term of this Lease must be done in a good workman- like manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and all building, land use, and other permit requirements. All Work shall be done with reasonable dispatch. If requested by the City, within thirty (30) days after the completion of any Work, Senior Center shall deliver to the City complete and fully detailed as -built drawings of the completed Work, in both electronic and paper forms, prepared by an architect licensed by the State of Washington. All landscaping shall be designed by a landscape architect licensed in the State of Washington. 4.2 Maintenaryoc. At all times during the Lease Tenn and any Extension Tenn, Senior Center shall reasonably keep and maintain the Building and other improvements located on the Property in good repair and operating condition and shall make all necessary and appropriate preventive maintenance, repairs, and replacements. On each fifth amriversary of this Lease meaning every five years), the City and Senior Center shall conduct a thorough inspection of the Building and other improvements on the Property and City shall inform Senior Center of any needed repairs, maintenance or clean-up to be done in order to maintain the quality of any Building and other improvements to the Property, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Such repairs, maintenance and clean-up shall be done with reasonable dispatch at the sole cost of the Senior Center. Prior to entering into any Extension Term of this Lease such an inspection will also be required and all reasonable repairs and maintenance needed to be done must be done to the Building and other improvements before an Extension Tenn of the Lease commences. 4.3 No Liens. Senior Center agrees to pay, when due, all sums for labor, services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery, or equipment which have been provided to the Property. If any lien is fled against the Work which Senior Center wishes to protest, then Senior Center shall immediately deposit cash with the City, or procure a bond acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of removing the lien from the Work. Failure to remove the lien or furnish the cash or bond acceptable to the City within thirty (30) days shall constitute an Event of Default under this Lease and the City shall automatically have the right, but not the obligation, to pay the lien in full with no notice to Senior Center and Senior Center shall immediately reimburse the City for any sums so paid to remove any such lien. Senior Center shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval of the City. Senior Center shall obtain a performance bond in the full amount of the contract it has signed with its contractor to complete the facility and provide such performance bond to the city prior to demolition of the existing facility. The performance bond shall ensure that the construction of the facility is completed and that all workers, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers will be paid. 4.4 Utilities and Services. Senior Center must make arrangements for all utilities and shall promptly pay all utility charges before they become delinquent. Senior Center is solely responsible for verifying the existence, location, capacity and availability of all utilities it may need for Senior Center's planned use of the Property. Notwithstanding Section 4.1, Senior Center shall be solely responsible for the cost of designing, constructing and extending any necessary utility lines from the right of way or adjacent properties into the Property even though much of 6 9.2.c Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of this work will occur outside of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely responsible for meeting and securing all pen -nits and for meeting all requirements necessary to achieve all of the above, including the payment of any required permit fees and/or connection fees. If the parties cannot agree upon terms for the means, methods, and timing related to the construction of the utilities described above, or if any conflict arises during construction, the City shall have the right to have its contractor construct the Building's utilities, or any portion thereof If the City elects to undertake such construction, it will still be done at the Senior Center's sole cost and invoices for such construction shall be paid within no later than 30 days of receipt. 4.5 Signs. Any signs erected by Senior Center must comply with all local sign ordinances. To the extent that any signs for the Edmonds Waterfront Center will be located outside of the Property, e.g., on the parking lot property, Senior Center must obtain permission from the City as to the location of such signs. Senior Center shall remove all signs and sign hardware upon termination of this Lease and restore the sign location(s) to its (their) fonner state(s), unless the City elects to retain all or any portion(s) of the signage. Signage requirements may reasonably change during the tern and, to maintain unifonnity and continuity, Senior Center will comply with any new sign code requirements within a reasonable time after the adoption of such new requirements. SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS 5.1 Delivery of Pro vert . Senior Center shall have the right to possession of the Property as of the Commencement Date. In the event the City shall permit Senior Center to occupy the Property prior to the Commencement Date, such occupancy shall be subject to all provisions of this Lease. Early or delayed possession shall not advance or defer the Expiration Date of this Lease. 5.2 Quiet Enjoyment. Subject to Senior Center performing all of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease and subject to the City's rights under this Lease and its rights of condemnation under Washington law, Senior Center's possession of the Property wilt otherwise not be disturbed by the City. Any sublease shall be subject to prior approval by the City and if approval is granted this quiet enjoyment provision shall apply to Senior Center's sub lessees. 5.3 Condition of ProMi-ty. The City makes no warranties or representations regarding the condition of the Property, including, without limitation, the suitability of the Property for Senior Center's intended uses or, the availability of accessible utilities or roadways needed for Senior Center's intended purposes. Senior Center has inspected the Property, conducted its own feasibility and due diligence analysis, and, as of the date its environmental audit is completed and the report provided to Senior Center or Senior Center's commencement of constriction, whichever occurs first, Senior Center accepts the Property in "AS IS" condition, upon taking possession. 5.4 Parkiap, 1w and Frontage linnUrovement Design. Construction and &12airQ} lj,satiais, 5.4.1 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Des4m., The City and Senior Center shall work together to design a Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements that meet the requirements for the shared use by the Edmonds Waterfront Center and the City's Regional Park 9.2.c Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of facilities. The total number of parking spaces incorporated into the design for the Parking Lot shall accommodate as closely as possible the anticipated parking demands for the Edmonds Waterfront Center activities and the City's Regional Park activities. The Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements shall be located outside the boundaries of the Property on the City's abutting property. The costs of planning and design of the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements shall be paid by the City. 5.4.2 Parkin., t_otand Frontage lmprovement5, CgLgEuGtion. The City shall design, permit, procure and engage a general contractor and pay the cost of construction of the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements adjacent to and which serves the Property and the City's regional park according to the design plans as provided to Senior Center in Section 5.4.1, above. The Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements must be constructed in coordination with Senior Center's construction of the Edmonds Waterfront Center Building so that it is substantially complete before the Building and related. improvements are occupied. 5.4.3 Parking of and FrontaM. Improvements ainten ce and Re . air. The City shall have full responsibility for repair, maintenance and any capital improvements required for the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements after its initial construction, except for work associated with the Building's utilities, which shall be the Senior Center's responsibility. The City shall undertake regular inspections of the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements consistent for a property of that type and implement necessary and appropriate maintenance activities at reasonable intervals to keep the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements in good condition. When capital renovations are required to restore the Parking Lot and/or Frontage Improvements to good condition during the Lease Term, the City shall undertake such capital improvements. 5.4.4 Beach Restoration and Walkway. The City has other areas of its regional park that are located adjacent to the Property. Two of these other areas are the City beach and the City walkway. The City is undertaking a beach restoration project for its regional Park area and it shall complete that restoration project, and walkway completion and pay the cost thereof. The City shall also complete the design, permitting, construction of and payment for the City walkway project adjacent to the Property, and any other contemplated improvements not located on the Property. 5.4.5 The Building's Location within &gional Park G;ounds and Park Mai ni enange-Ropmibility. The Property is owned by the City and is adjacent to a City -owned regional park. The City shall define maintenance standards and intervals for the grounds adjacent to the Property, including landscaping, irrigation, and general refuse removal (not inclusive of the garbage utility from the Building on the Property). This park area will be within the control of the City. The Senior Center acknowledges that, as a public park, the grounds adjacent to the Property likely constitute a public forum for First Amendment purposes and that there may be circumstances in which the City may need to allow constitutionally protected activity to occur on the site adjacent to the Property. Such circumstances shall not constitute a constructive eviction of the Senior Center and may not be grounds for damages to be paid from the City to the Senior Center. The Senior Center may not exclude the public from the park grounds, or any 3 9.2.c Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of other area outside the Property, unless it has obtained the applicable event permit or reservation from the City. SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE 6.1 General Indemnity Upon the Commencement Date of this Lease, the Senior Center agrees to defend (using legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold the City harmless from and against any and all actual or alleged claims, suits, actions, or liabilities for injury or death of any person, or for loss or damage to property, damages, expenses, costs, fees (including, but not limited to, attorney, accountant, paralegal, expert, and escrow fees), fines, and/or penalties, (collectively "Costs"), which may be imposed upon or claimed against the City, and which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, arise from or are in any way connected with Senior Center's use of the Property or the Parking Lot, or from the conduct of Senior Center's business, or from any activity, work or thing done, permitted, or suffered by Senior Center in or about the Property or the Parking Lot, except only such injury or damage as shall have been occasioned by the sole negligence of the City including: Any act, omission or negligence of the Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or its event space renters; any use, occupation, management or control of the Property or the Parking Lot by the Senior Center; any condition created in, on or about the Property or the Parking Lot by Senior Center, an agent, sub lessee, or event space renter, including any accident, injury or damage occurring in, on or about the Property or the Parking Lot after the Effective Date; any breach, violation, or nonperformance of any of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters; any damage caused by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters on or to the Property or the Parking Lot. The Senior Center's obligations and liabilities hereunder shall commence on the Effective Date of this Lease, if earlier than the Commencement Date and if caused by the activities of the Senior Center or its agents or invitees on the Property or the Parking Lot. As used herein, the indemnification provided by the Senior Center is intended to include indemnification for the actions of the Senior Center and its employees and other agents and all of the Senior Center's Sub lessees, event space renters and all of their respective employees and other agents. The Senior Center's obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City hereunder include indemnification of the employees, agents and elected officials of the City. 6.2 InSM-ance Requirements. The Senior Center shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Lease insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the Building's operation and use of the Property or the Parking Lot. Senior Center's maintenance of insurance as required by the Lease shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Senior Center to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. The amounts listed indicate only the minimum amounts of insurance coverage the City is willing to accept to help insure full performance of all terms and conditions of this Lease. All insurance required by Senior Center under this Lease shall meet the following minimum requirements: 6.2.1 Certificates; Notice of Cancellation. On or before the Commencement Date, Senior Center shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the existence of all insurance required under Section 6.3. Thereafter, the City must 9 9.2.c Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of receive notice of the expiration or renewal of any policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration or cancellation of any insurance policy, PROVIDED THAT the Senior Center shall provide the City with written notice of any policy expiration or cancellation, within two business days of its receipt of such notice. No insurance policy may be canceled, revised, terminated or allowed to lapse without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice being given to the City. Insurance must be maintained without any lapse in coverage during the entire Lease Tenn and any Extension Tenn. Insurance shall not be canceled without City consent. The City shall also be given copies of Senior Center's policies of insurance, upon request. 6.2.2 A dd it io t1al Insured. The City shall be named as an additional insured in each required policy using ISO Additional Insured -Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage and, for purposes of damage to the Property or the Parking Lot, as a loss payee to the extent of its interest therein. Such insurance shall not be invalidated by any act, neglect or breach of contract by Senior Center and shall not in any way be construed by the carrier to snake the City liable for payment of any of Senior Center's insurance premiums. 6.2.3 Priniary Cover a o. The required policies are to contain or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Senior Center's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 6.2.4 Company Ratinga. All policies of insurance must be written by companies having an A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. The City may, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Senior Center, require Senior Center to change any carrier whose rating drops below such rating. 6.3 e it Ir c At all times during this Lease, Senior Center shall provide and maintain the following types of coverage: 6.3.1 Commercial General Liabilily 1 1surance. Senior Center shall maintain an occurrence fonn commercial general liability policy (including coverage for broad form contractual liability; and personal injury liability) for the protection of Senior Center and the City, insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damages because of personal injury, bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring on or in any way related to the Property or the Parking Lot or occasioned by reason of the operations of Senior Center. Such coverage shall name the City as an additional insured using ISO Additional Insured -Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage. CoiynnerciW GenekalLiabilit insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover premises and contractual liability. 6.3.2 Pro orty Insurance Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during the Lease Tenn, "All Risk" property insurance covering all buildings, fixtures, equipment, and all other Improvements located on the Property or the Parking Lot. Coverage shall be in an amount equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the new replacement value thereof with no coinsurance provisions. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and loss payee 10 9.2.c Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of as to its full interest in the insured property and shall include the insurer's waiver of subrogation in accordance with Section 6.4. 6.3.3 Autornula.'1Q. LiaE ility Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or the Parking Lot or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property or the Parking Lot an occurrence form automobile liability policy insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damage because of bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring in any way related to the use, loading or unloading of Senior Center's owned, hired, leased and non -owned vehicles on and around the Property or the Parking Lot. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence. 6.3.4 W kers' Coml2ensatioti lasuraneg.Senior Center shall maintain in force Workers' Compensation insurance for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or the Parking Lot or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property or the Parking Lot, including coverage for Employer's Liability. In lieu of such insurance, Senior Center may maintain a self-insurance program meeting the requirements of the State of Washington and a policy of Excess Workers' Compensation with a limit of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident above the self -insured retention. Senior Center has indicated that none of its employees will be on the Property or the Parking Lot since Senior Center intends to hire a management company to oversee the Property or the Parking Lot. In that case, Senior Center shall be responsible to require that its management company provides workers' compensation insurance for its employees on the Property or the Parking Lot and Senior Center shall fully defend and indemnify the City against any workers' compensation claim. 6.3.5 Builder's Risl . Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during construction of Senior Center's facility described in this Lease, Builders Risk insurance covering interests of the Senior Center, the City, the Contractor, Subcontractors, and Sub- subcontractors in the work. Builders Risk insurance shall be on a all-risk policy form and shall insure against the perils of fire and extended coverage and physical loss or damage including flood, earthquake, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, temporary buildings and debris removal. Coverage shall include: 1) formwork in place; 2) all materials and equipment on the Property or the Parking Lot; 3) all structures including temporary structures; and 4) all supplies related to the Work being performed. The insurance required hereunder shall have a deductible of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), which will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Higher deductibles for flood and earthquake perils may be accepted by the City upon written request by the Contractor and written acceptance by the City. Any increased deductibles accepted by the City will remain the responsibility of the Contractor. The Builders Risk insurance shall be maintained until final acceptance of the work. 6.4 W i e uf gation. Senior Center and City hereby release and discharge each other from all claims, losses and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered by property insurance on or in connection with the premises or said facility. This release shall apply only to the extent that such claim, loss or liability is covered by insurance. 6.5 PSIdgdic Review, The City shall have the right to periodically review the limits and I 9.2.c Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of terms of insurance coverage. In the event the City determines that such limits, and/or terms should be changed, the City will give Senior Center a minimum of thirty (30) days' notice of such determination and Senior Center shall modify its coverage to comply with the new insurance requirements of the City. The City agrees that it shall be reasonable in any coverage change required, and that such change will be in accordance with standard market requirements for the Building or similar activity centers. Senior Center shall also provide the City with proof of such compliance by giving the City an updated certificate of insurance within thirty (30) days. 6.6 Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Senior Center to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of lease, upon which the City may, after giving five business days' notice to the Senior Center to correct the breach, terminate the Lease or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand. SECTION 7. DEFAULT 7.1 &nigr Center Default. 7.1.1 The occurrence of anyone or more of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease by the Senior Center: 7.1.1.1 Vacating the Property. The vacating or abandomnent of the Property by the Senior Center for more than thirty (30) days. 7.1.1.2 Failure to_2gy Rent. The failure by the Senior Center to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by the Senior Center under this Lease, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by the City to the Senior Center. 7.1.1.3 Unlaolitted Use of the Property. The use of the Property for any purpose not authorized by Section 1.2.1 of this Lease where such unpermitted use of the Property shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof shall be grounds for default. 7.1.1.4 F-dilure to Perform. Failure by the Senior Center to observe or perform any of the covenants or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by the Senior Center, specifically including, without limitation, the Senior Center's utilization of the Property for purposes materially inconsistent with those set forth in this Lease where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the City to the Senior Center. Provided, that if the nature of the Senior Center's default is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then the Senior Center shall not be deemed to be in default if the Senior Center shall commence such cure within the thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligent prosecute such cure to cornpletion. 7.1.2 Remedies in Default. In the event of any default or breach by the Senior Center under this Lease, in addition to any other remedies at law or in equity,the City may: 12 9.2.c Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of 7.1.2.1 Tconinate Nic Lease. Terminate the Senior Center's right to possession of the Property by providing written notice of at least thirty (30) days; 7.1.2.2 Continue the Lease. Maintain the Senior Center's right to possession in which case the Lease shall continue in effect whether or not the Senior Center shall have abandoned the Lease Premises. In such event, the City shall be entitled to enforce all Landlord's right and remedies under this Lease; and/or 7.1.2.3 Other rernedi.e-SL Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to a Landlord under the laws of the State of Washington. The City expressly reserves the right to recover from the Senior Center any and all actual expenses, costs and damages caused in any manner by reason of the Senior Center's default or breach. 7.1.3 Legal Expenses. If either party is required to bring or maintain any action including insertion of any counterclaim or cross claim or claim in a proceeding in bankruptcy, receivership or other proceeding instituted by a party hereto or by others) or otherwise refers this Lease to any attorney for the enforcement of any of the covenants, teens or conditions of this Lease, the prevailing party in such action shall, in addition to all other payments required herein, receive from the other party all costs incurred by prevailing party, including reasonable attorney's fees. 7.2 Default by the City. The City shall not be in default unless the City fails to perform obligations required of the City under this Lease within a reasonable time, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after written notice by the Senior Center to the City provided, that if the nature of the City's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for performance then the City shall not be in default if the City commences performance within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. The notice shall specify the portion of the Lease that the City has failed to perform and the action that the Senior Center seeks to be taken by the City to prevent the default. The Senior Center further agrees not to invoke any remedies until such thirty (30) days have elapsed. SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 a resentations of Se itor Ccn tr 8.1.1 Senior Center is a duly organized and legally existing corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. 8.1.2 Senior Center's execution, delivery and perfonnance of all of the tenns and conditions of this Lease have been duly authorized by all requisite corporate action on the part of Senior Center. This Lease constitutes Senior Center's legal, valid and binding obligations, enforceable against Senior Center in accordance with its terns subject to the effects of bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance or similar laws affecting creditor's rights and to equitable principles. Execution of the Lease does not conflict with any provision of Senior Center's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws or other corporate documents. 8.1.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the 13 9.2.c Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of actual knowledge of Senior Center, threatened in writing, nor is there any legal determination or injunction that calls into question Senior Center's authority or right to enter into this Lease or perform the obligations specified in the Lease. 8.1.4 Senior Center has not employed any broker, finder, consultant or other intermediary in connection with the Lease who might be entitled to a fee or commisslon in connection with Senior Center and the City entering into the Lease. 8.2 Re presentations of the City, 8.2.1 The City is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Washington, with full power and authority to own and lease the Property. The City has the power to enter into and perform its obligations pursuant to this Lease. 8.2.2 The City's execution, delivery and performance of this Lease have been duly authorized consistent with its requirements under Washington law. 8.2.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of the City, threatened in writing, nor is there any outstanding judicial determination or injunction that calls into question the City's authority or right to enter into this Lease. SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.1 No Partnershi12. It is understood and agreed that this Lease does not create a partnership or joint venture relationship between the City and Senior Center. The City assumes no liability hereunder or otherwise for the operation of the business of Senior Center. The provisions of this Lease with reference to rents are for the sole purpose of fixing and determining the total rents to be paid by Senior Center to the City. 9.2 Qoverninu Law, This Lease shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the State of Washington, without regard to its choice of law provisions. Venue shall be in Snohomish County. 9.3 No Benefit to Third Pftrtigs. The City and Senior Center are the only parties to this Lease and as such are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Lease gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise to third parties. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed as intending to create a special relationship with any third party; neither the City not the Senior Center intend to create benefits in favor of any third parties as a result of this Lease. 9.4 Notice.All notices required or desired to be given under this Lease shall be in writing and may be delivered by hand delivery, in certain cases sent by facsimile, or by placement in the 'U.S. mail, postage prepaid, as certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the City at: 14 9.2.c Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of And to Senior Center at: The City of Edmonds 121 5"' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: City Clerk Edmonds Senior Center P.O. Box 717 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Executive Director Any notice delivered by hand delivery shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee upon actual delivery; any notice delivered by certified mail as set forth herein shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee on the third Business Day after deposit. The addresses to which notices are to be delivered may be changed by giving notice of such change in accordance with this notice provision. 9.5 in e of t ie Essence, Time is of the essence in the perfonnance of and adherence to each and every covenant and condition of this Lease. 9.6 on -waiver. Waiver by the City or Senior Center of strict performance of any provision of this Lease shall not be deemed a waiver of or prejudice the City's or Senior Center's right to require strict perfonnance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 9.7 Survival. Any covenant or condition (including, but not limited to, indemnification agreements), set forth in this Lease, the full perfonnance of which is not specifically required prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and any covenant or condition which by their terns are to survive, shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease and shall remain fully enforceable thereafter. 9.8 Partial lnvaliditV. If any provision of this Lease is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9.9 Calculation of Time. All periods of time referred to in this Lease shall include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day of any period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall be extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. "Legal Holiday" shall mean any holiday observed by the Federal Government. As used in this Lease, "Business Days" shall exclude Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and the week between December 25 and January 1. 9.10 Headina The article and section headings contained herein are for convenience in 15 9.2.c Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of reference and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provisions of this Lease. 9.11 Exhibits lncarporgted ?v Reference. All Exhibits attached to this Lease are incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 9.12 Modification. This Lease may not be modified except by a writing signed by the parties hereto. 9.13 Engagement of Brokers. Senior Center and the City each represent to one another that if a broker's commission is claimed, the party who engaged the broker shall pay any commission owed and shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any such claim. 9.14 Right Qf Pwlics and Sucmsorsin Inter 1. The rights, liabilities and remedies provided for herein shall extend to the heirs, legal representatives, successors and, so far as the terms of this Lease permit, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The words "City" and "Senior Center" and their accompanying verbs or pronouns, wherever used in this Lease, shall apply equally to all persons, firms, or corporations which may be or become such parties hereto. 9.15 Execution of .Midtiple Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one instrument. 9.16 Defined Terms. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings given them in the text of this Lease. 9.17 No Limit on Citv's Powers. Nothing in this Lease shall limit, in any way, the power and right of the City to exercise its governmental rights and powers, including its powers of eminent domain. 9.18 Non -Binding Mediation, Should any dispute arise between the parties to this Lease, other than a dispute regarding the failure to pay Rent or other payments (including taxes) as required by this Lease, it is agreed that such dispute will be submitted to a mediator prior to any arbitration or litigation. The parties shall exercise good faith efforts to agree on a mediator. The mediation fee shall be shared equally by the City and Senior Center. Mediation shall be non -binding and will be conducted in Edmonds, Washington. Both parties agree to exercise good faith efforts to resolve disputes covered by this section through this mediation process. If a party requests mediation and the other party fails to respond within ten (10) days, or if the parties fail to agree on a mediator within ten (10) days, a mediator shall be appointed by the presiding judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court upon the request of either party. The finding of the mediator shall only become binding upon the parties if both parties so agree and thereafter execute a settlement agreement based on the mediator's findings or recommendation. 9.19 This Lease, agaq cedes. This Lease shall replace and supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties hereby terminate the 2008 Lease in its entirety; provided, however, the 2008 Lease shall remain in place, operative and complimentary to the Ground Lease until demolition is commenced on the current Senior Center Building located at 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, WA. 9.20 Rocording,, A Memorandum of this Lease may be recorded after execution by the Parties. 16 9.2.c Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of 9.21 Entire As-,reement. This Lease represents the entire agreement between the City and Senior Center relating to Senior Centcr's leasing of the Property. It is understood and agreed by both parties that neither party nor an official or employee of a party has made any representations or promises with respect to this Lease or the making or entry into this Lease, except as expressly set forth in this Lease. No claim for liability or cause for termination shall be asserted by either party against the other for, and neither party shall be liable by reason of, any claimed breach of any representations or promises not expressly set forth in this Lease; all oral agreements with the parties are expressly waived by both parties. This Lease has been extensively negotiated between the parties. Therefore, no alleged ambiguity or other drafting issues of the terms of this Lease shall be construed, by nature of the drafting, against either party. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have subscribed their names hereto effective as of the day, month and year first written above. LESSEE: EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER By: wreC, Af>-mac Its:G G. ``z c LESSOR: OF EDMONDS 01 By: L]'avid Earling As its Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: rA OH ATTEST: Office of the City Attorney -za Scbtt'Passey, City CIer 17 9.2.c Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I certify that I have evidence that David Earling is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to executed the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: '-Z- of y,, uigrri Q I RIN D N E: OON G OhFt/Sc f 6 ra t 01A/?.4. NOTARY PUBLIC r = o w'. s z A In and for the State of Washington A 'N N= r+ r sU84, % My commission expires: CI tlllllll OF WPS STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I certify that I have evidence that YjeA F 6Y\WVA is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that s/he signed this 'nstrument, on oath stated that s/he was authorized to executed the instrument and acknowledged it as the Aesi ee t)f V o Senior Center, to be the free and voluntaryact of such art for the usesan i party `d"p rrposes 'Mentioned in the instrument. DATED: u,11 Al \Cl wl rr ttrENQL 1t1i PRINTED NAME: 5 Ill ice' Gf.l r1MupEgle I JJNOTARYPUBLIC In and for the State of Washington W - Z My commission expires: a -0 ZZ01 rstttOF till , W 18 9.2.c Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of EXHIBIT A Property Description Parcel Properly 220 RAILROAD AVE, EDMONDS, WA Number 27032300104200 Address 198020-4133 Property Description AT R/A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683-545 2/23/73 19 9.2.c Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Edmonds Senior Center Ground Lease (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of 9.2.d Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Securitization Letter to City 09 26 2019 (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Competitive Grant Program Guidelines For new projects funded in the 2017-2019 Capital Budget Community Capital Facilities P.O. Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 (360) 725-3075 capprograms@commerce.wa.gov www.commerce.wa.gov COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAMS: Building for the Arts  Building Communities Fund  Youth Recreational Facilities  9.2.e Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: 17_19 Competitive Capital Guidelines FINAL[3] (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1011 Plum Street SE  PO Box 42525  Olympia, Washington 98504-2525  (360) 725-3075 Dear Grant Recipient: Congratulations! With the signing of the 2017-2019 Capital Budget you have been awarded a direct appropriation from Commerce Community Capital Facilities. These guidelines will walk you through the final steps toward receiving your funds. We expect that the Office of Financial Management will make Capital Budget funds available as soon as possible. If you haven’t already done so, please submit the Contract Readiness Survey discussed in your award letter at your earliest convenience. Once you send in the survey a Project Manager will be assigned to work with you. Please don’t hesitate to ask questions of them or anyone else here at Community Capital Facilities. Again, congratulations on receiving a grant award. With best regards, Tony Hanson, Managing Director Community Capital Facilities 2 — COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR 2017-2019 — COMMUNITY CAPITAL FACILITIES 9.2.e Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: 17_19 Competitive Capital Guidelines FINAL[3] (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Five Steps to Obtaining your State Grant Funds STEP 1: Submit a ‘Contract Readiness Survey’ Your grant award packet includes a Contract Readiness Survey. Please complete the survey and return it to us as soon as possible, even if you do not plan to begin drawing your funds for a while. Feel free to give us a call if you have any questions as you fill out the survey (see contact information on right). STEP 2: Meet our other requirements Grantees must meet a number of requirements before we can write a contract and release your funds. These include site control (through a long-term lease or ownership) and a commitment of all non-state funds needed to complete the project. Construction projects may be required to pay state prevailing wages, meet the LEED Silver Standard, and be reviewed for archaeological and cultural resources. Grantees must provide Commerce with a deed of trust or leasehold deed of trust as security for the grant for projects performed by nonprofits over $500,000 in state funds. STEP 3: Sign a grant contract Once you have met all requirements we will draft a contract, which we will send to you for signature. We develop contracts on a first-come-first-served basis, so if you are in a hurry for your funds, please submit all requested information as soon as possible. It generally takes four to six weeks to execute a contract. Once the contract is executed you will have access to your funds. STEP 4: Submit reimbursement materials This includes an A19, invoices, status reports, and other information. This is a reim- bursement-style grant. That means no advance payments, but once the contract is executed you can begin drawing down funds — or even cash out your grant as long as you have incurred and paid sufficient documented eligible costs. We may also conduct a site-monitoring visit . STEP 5: Close out your contract If your project is required to obtain LEED certification, then that must be documented as well. Community Capital Facilities Department of Commerce Mailing / street address: P.O. Box 42525 1011 Plum Street SE Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Main phone: (360) 725-3075 Fax: (360) 586-5880 E-mail: capprograms@commerce.wa.gov STAFF: Tony Hanson Managing Director (360) 725-3005 Tony.Hanson@commerce.wa.gov Rebecca Spencer Real Estate Specialist (360) 725-3076 Rebec- ca.Spencer@commerce.wa.gov Michael Kendall Program Manager (360) 725-5065 Mike.Kendall@commerce.wa.gov Chuck Hunter Grants Manager - BCF (360) 725-2924 Chuck.Hunter@commerce.wa.gov Emily Hafford Grants Manager - BFA (360) 725-5001 Emily.Hafford@commerce.wa.gov Sheryl Reed Grants Manager - YRF (360) 725-3074 Sheryl.Reed@commerce.wa.gov COMMERCE LEADERSHIP: Brian Bonlender Director Mark K. Barkley Local Government Division Assistant Director COMMUNITY CAPITAL FACILITIES — COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR 2017-2019 — 3 9.2.e Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: 17_19 Competitive Capital Guidelines FINAL[3] (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of 1. Origins of your grant You have been awarded funds through the 2017-2019 state Capital Budget. No federal dollars are involved. We strive to administer funds expediently and with a minimum of red tape. We do so within the policies and procedures established by the Legislature, the Office of Financial Management, the Treasurer, Commerce, and the Office of the Attorney General. 2. Funding restrictions A grant can only be spent by the designated organization for costs that fit the scope of work as contemplated by your elected officials. This information was previously submitted to the Governor, or your Senator or Representative and has been forwarded to Commerce. 3. Cost reimbursement Funds are available on a reimburse- ment basis only, and cannot be ad- vanced under any circumstances. If the funds are being used to purchase real property, please contact us. Reimbursable costs are those that a grantee has already incurred and paid. We may reimburse grant recipients for costs incurred prior to the date a contract is executed, and as far back as July 1, 2014. 4. Contracting conditions In the absence of special legislative instructions, five requirements must be met before grantees can begin drawing down their grant funds.  Grantees must demonstrate the financial capability to complete the project, or a distinct phase of the project that is usable to the public. This means documenting that any needed non-state funds have been committed to the project.  Grantees must provide written evidence of site control, for a minimum of 10 years after final payment, either through outright ownership of the subject property or a long-term lease. This does not apply to awards designated solely for preconstruction or property acquisition. CONTRACTING SPECIFICS These guidelines itemize the legislative and administrative requirements govern- ing the disbursement and use of grant funds. A grant contract will provide a formal and legal description of the relationship between Commerce and the grant recipient. Prevailing wages and your project As a result of a court ruling, construction projects that receive any of our grants are required to pay state prevailing wages (including landscaping) beginning January 19, 2018. Acquisition-only projects are exempt from state prevailing wage law (RCW 39.12). Note that these projects must result in a usable facility. The Contract Readiness Survey has a number of questions related to prevailing wages. If you have not paid, or were not planning to pay, prevailing wages we will contact you to discuss your situation. If you need technical information about prevailing wages, please contact Jim Chris- tensen at the state Department of Labor and Industries. He can be reached at (360) 902-5330 or chrj235@Lni.wa.gov . 4 — COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR 2017-2019 — COMMUNITY CAPITAL FACILITIES 9.2.e Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: 17_19 Competitive Capital Guidelines FINAL[3] (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of  Projects performed by nonprof- its for construction, acquisition and renovation that are $500,000 or more in state funds must list Department of Commerce on the deed of trust or leasehold deed of trust and provide title insurance. The deed of trust or lease- hold deed of trust must be recorded before reimbursement can begin.  The projects of some grantees may be reviewed by affected Tribes and the state Dept. of Archaeology and His- torical Preservation (DAHP). This re- view must be satisfactorily completed before a contract can be developed (see Section 6).  Capital construction projects that are required to meet high-performance building standards must document that they have entered the LEED certification process. 5. Non-state funds Non-state funds may consist of cash on hand, previously expended, credit, documented pledge commitments, a legal commitment of funds from a governmental entity, the value of land acquired for the project, and in-kind contributions when properly document- ed (see box on Page 6). Grantees may also include the proceeds of a letter of credit or other binding loan commitment as part of their non-state matching funds. The value of land used as a match must be supported by a current appraisal per- formed by a certified professional ap- praiser. 6. Archeological review Some projects may need to be reviewed for archaeological and cultural resources. This is required of projects not undergoing a Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act if the project:  acquires property,  disturbs ground, and/or  involves structures more than 50 years old. If your project falls into any of these categories we will provide you with further information. 7. Design contracts In certain instances, Commerce may determine that project funds may be prudently invested by committing up to 10 percent of an appropriation for design costs in order to minimize disruptions in a project’s timeline. Examples include, but are not limited to:  Instances where grantees are experiencing delays or other difficulties in raising the non-state share of funds necessary to complete a project; or  Instances where unexpected or unpredictable circumstances dramatical- ly alter the fundraising environment. In such cases, grantees must demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to complete the design phase. State (as opposed to federal) prevailing wages are required of your project as of January 19, 2018 if it includes construction labor. Grants are subject to an administrative fee Commerce Community Capital Facilities is authorized to retain funds from each award to cover all administration costs—this is our sole source of funding. We will be deducting 3 percent (up to $50,000) from 2017-2019 Capital Budget grants. The project budget included in your grant contract will use this net grant amount rather than the total appropriation. This publication is available in an alternative format upon request. Events sponsored by Commerce are accessible to persons with disabili- ties. Accommodations may be arranged with a minimum of 10 working days notice by calling (360) 725-3075. COMMUNITY CAPITAL FACILITIES — COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR 2017-2019 — 5 9.2.e Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: 17_19 Competitive Capital Guidelines FINAL[3] (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of YRF SCORING CRITERIA AT A GLANCE 8. Contract development We will draft a contract when a grantee meets all contracting require- ments. The first step in that process is to fill out our Working Papers. This form will help us determine if your pro- ject is ready to begin the contracting process. Contracts take about six weeks to execute once all needed information is provided to us. 9. Accessing your funds Funds are available once a contract is executed. Grantees have the flexibility to cash out their grant or draw down funds as frequently as once a month. Requests for reimbursement must be submitted on an A -19 form supplied by Commerce. An individual authorized by the grantee organization must sign each A -19 submitted. Copies of invoices and proof of payments that clearly document the expenses claimed must accompany all requests for payment. A Status Report and sub- contractor information are also required. After the contract is executed you will receive instructions on how to sub- mit a reimbursement request. Incomplete or improperly prepared submissions may result in payment delays. Grantees are responsible for maintaining clear and accurate project records, and making them accessible to Commerce and the State Auditor. Site visits during construction and after completion may be scheduled. 10. Amending a contract A contract may be amended if proposed changes operate within the legislative intent of the appropriation, however amending the scope of your contract may not be possible if the proposed changes vary significantly from your original project. 11. Reappropriations Washington operates under a biennial (or two-year) budget. Each appropriation in the 2017-2019 Capital Budget must, by law, lapse at the close of the biennium (June 30, 2019). Since many projects take more than two years to complete, Commerce will Funds will lapse at the end of the biennium, on June 30, 2019. We will request a reappropriation of any unspent funds but cannot guarantee that the Legislature will agree to do so. How should in-kind donations be handled? or her services (be sure to document these costs with invoices). Nonprofessional labor is calculated at $15 per hour. This can be documented with a memo itemizing the type of work done and number of hours worked by your volunteers. We reserve the right to make the final determination regarding the acceptability of in-kind contributions and their estimated value. In-kind donations may be applied to a non-state match requirement. Eligible donations include property, labor (except when donated by an applicant’s paid staff), materials, or equipment as long as their value can be properly assessed and documented. We treat in-kind professional and nonprofessional labor differently. Professional labor is calculated at the rate a volunteer would normally charge for his 6 — COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR 2017-2019 — COMMUNITY CAPITAL FACILITIES 9.2.e Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: 17_19 Competitive Capital Guidelines FINAL[3] (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of automatically request a reappropriation of any unspent funds. However, we cannot guarantee that the Legislature will agree to extend funding, nor can we legally obligate funds from one biennium to another. Grant recipients are advised to discuss pending reappropriations with their legislators prior to the beginning of the legislative session in which the reappropriation is expected to occur. 12. Change of ownership Most capital projects must be held by the grantee for a minimum of 10 years from the date of final payment and be used for the same purpose expressed in the application and/or contract. Under certain conditions a facility may be sold if proceeds from the sale are used to purchase another facility that will be used for the same purpose. 13. Eligible costs These funds may generally be used to pay for the following construction- related expenses incurred as far back as July 1, 2014:  design, architectural, and engi- neering work;  building permits/fees;  archeological/historical review;  construction labor and materials;  demolition/site preparation;  capitalized equipment;  information technology infra- structure (cables and wiring);  construction management (from external sources only)*;  initial furnishings**;  landscaping; and  real property when purchased specifically for the project, and associated costs.*** Our grants are intended to fund “bricks and mortar” type expenses unless otherwise designated in the Capital Budget or supporting legislative materials. 14. Ineligible costs Our grants are intended to fund bricks and mortar unless otherwise designated in the budget or supporting legislative materials. This is why the following costs are not eligible for reimbursement and cannot be used to match state funds:  internal administrative activities;  mortgage or loan payments;  project management (from any source);  fundraising activities;  feasibility studies;  computers or office equipment;  rolling stock (such as vehicles);  lease payments for rental of equipment or facilities;  any maintenance or operating costs;  property leases (including long- term); and  the moving of equipment, furni- ture, etc., between facilities. * Construction management and observation is on-site management and/or supervision of the work site and workers thereon. This is an eligi- ble project cost. Construction management does not include work performed by off -site consult- ants or consultant organizations, grant writers, project managers, or employees of the grantee, unless the employee is hired solely and specifi- cally to perform on-site construction manage- ment as defined above. ** Furnishings and equipment are considered eligible project costs as long as the average useful life of the item purchased is 13 years or more. *** Costs directly associated with property acquisition include appraisal fees, title opinions, surveying fees, real estate fees, title transfer taxes, easements of record, and legal expenses. T O T A L F O R COMMUNITY CAPITAL FACILITIES — COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR 2017-2019 — 7 9.2.e Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: 17_19 Competitive Capital Guidelines FINAL[3] (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of Community Capital Facilities Mailing address: P.O. Box 42525, 1011 Plum Street SE, Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Main phone: (360) 725-3075 Email: capprograms@commerce.wa.gov Web: http://www.commerce.wa.gov 9.2.e Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: 17_19 Competitive Capital Guidelines FINAL[3] (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the State of 1 When Recorded Return To: Washington State Department of Commerce Community Capital Facilities 1011 Plum Street SE SAMPLE ONLY Post Office Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 Contract Manager: «Contract_Manager_and_phone» ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LEASEHOLD DEED OF TRUST Grantor (Lessee): «ABCDEF»The Edmonds Senior Center Grantor (Lessor): City of MNOP Beneficiary (Lender): Department of Commerce Grantee (Trustee): « Title» Legal Description (abbreviated): «PTN SW 1/2 3-25-4» Assessor’s Tax Parcel ID#: «1111222»27032300104200 Contract Number: «00-0000-000» THIS LEASEHOLD DEED OF TRUST (hereinafter called “Deed of Trust”) is made this ___________________ day of _______________________, 20___, 19, between ««ABCDEF»The Edmonds Senior Center, a Washington «non profit organization»nonprofit corporation, whose mailing address is P.O. Box 717 «Organization_Street» «City_State_Zip»Edmonds, WA 98020 as Grantor ("Lessee"); ««Title Company» Trustee_name», whose mailing address is «Trustee_Street_City_State_Zip» as Trustee ("Trustee"); and the Washington State Department of Commerce, or its successor agency, as Beneficiary ("Beneficiary"), whose address is 1011 Plum Street SE, P.O. Box 42525, Olympia, Washington 98504-2525. 1. Grant. Lessee hereby irrevocably grants, bargains, sells and conveys to Trustee in trust, with power of sale, the following described property in «County»Snohomish County, Washington (hereinafter called "Leasehold Estate"): That certain leasehold estate (hereinafter called "leasehold estate"), together with and including all right, title and interest of Grantor Lessee therein, which said leasehold estate embraces and covers the real property hereinafter described, situated, lying in the City of _______, Edmonds, County of «County»Snohomish, State of Washington, and is more particularly described as: The leasehold estate created by that certain Lease (hereinafter called " Lease") dated the _______ 15 day of ______________, April, 20____, 19, executed by and between _______________________, the City of Edmonds, a __________________________________, Washington municipal corporation, as Lessor, and «Organization_Name_»The Edmonds Senior Center, a Washington «Org_type_nonprofit_tribal_HA_etc»nonprofit corporation, as Lessee, for a term of _____ forty (40) years beginning on the _________ 15th day of ___________________, April, 20____, 19, which the Lease was recorded on the ________ day of 9.2.f Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: 2019-09-25 Deed of Trust - Leasehold - Comm Cap Facilities (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from 2 ___________________, 20______, as Instrument No. _____________________, in the Office of the County Auditor of «County», state of Washington, and covers the following described property: «Full_legal_descript» TOGETHER WITH all right, title and interest of Lessor Lessee in and to all options to purchase, options of first refusal and renewal options with respect to the Lease or said property or any portion thereof or any interest therein and in and to any greater estate in said property (including the fee simple estate) as may be subsequently acquired by or released to Lessee. TOGETHER WITH all interest, estate or other claims, both in law or equity, which Lessee now has or may hereafter acquire in said property. 1.1. The Lease shall not be modified or changed in any way without the written consent of Beneficiary. 1.2. Beneficiary Lessee shall be immediately furnish Beneficiaryed with all Notices of Default served by Lessor of the Lease on Lessee. 1.3. In the event Grantor Lessee shall fail to make payment due on the Lease or to perform any term or covenant as provided therein, in addition to any such default constituting a default under this Deed of Trust, Beneficiary may, at its option, make the defaulted payments or perform the term or covenant and add the same to the amount due under this Deed of Trust without waiving any of its rights under this Deed of Trust and the Note which it secures. 1.4. If both the Lessor's and the Lessee's estate under the Lease shall at any time become vested in one owner, this Deed of Trust and the lien created hereby shall not be destroyed or terminated by the application of the doctrine of merger, and in such event, Beneficiary shall continue to have and to enjoy all of the rights, title, interest and privileges of Beneficiary as to the separate estates. In addition, foreclosure of said property shall not destroy or terminate the Lease by application of the doctrine of merger or as a matter of law or as a result of foreclosure unless Beneficiary or any purchaser at foreclosure sale shall so elect. In the event that Lessee shall, at any time prior to the payment in full of all indebtedness secured by this Deed of Trust, acquire fee simple title to said property, such fee simple title shall not merge with the leasehold estate encumbered by this Deed of Trust, but such fee simple title shall immediately, without further action on the part of the Lessee, become subject to the lien hereof. In the event of such acquisition by Lessee, Lessee agrees to execute and deliver to Beneficiary such further instruments, conveyances and assurances as Beneficiary may reasonably require in order to further confirm and assure that the fee simple title so acquired by Grantor Lessee is subject to the terms, provisions and lien of this Deed of trust. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in the event Beneficiary acquires the fee of said property, except if Beneficiary shall so elect. Said Propertyproperty is not used for agricultural or farming purposes. 2. Obligations Secured. This deed is given for the purpose of securing payment in the amount of «Grant_loan_written» dollars («Grant_loan_Number») payable by the Lessee to the Beneficiary evidenced by: 1) a Promissory Note between «Organization_Name_»The Edmonds Senior Center and the Washington State Department of Commerce dated ______________________, 20_____ 19 and; 2) Community Capital Facilities Contract Number «Contract_Number» between «Organization_Name_»The Edmonds Senior Center and Washington State Department of Commerce as now or hereafter amended, securing performance of each term and condition of said Contract and Promissory Note, together with all future advances. 3. Lien Priority. This Deed of Trust shall be in a lien priority position against the Property. 9.2.f Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: 2019-09-25 Deed of Trust - Leasehold - Comm Cap Facilities (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from 3 4. Protection of Security. To protect the security of this Deed of Trust, Lessee covenants and agrees: 4.1. To keep the Propertyproperty in good condition and repair; to permit no waste thereof; to complete any building, structure or improvement thereon which may be damaged or destroyed; and to comply with all laws, ordinances, conditions and restrictions affecting the property. 4.2. To pay before delinquent all lawful taxes and assessments upon the Propertyproperty; to keep the Propertyproperty free and clear of all other charges, liens, or encumbrances impairing the security of this Deed of Trust. 4.3. To keep all buildings now or hereafter on the Propertyproperty continuously insured against loss by fire or other hazards in an amount not less than the replacement cost of the Propertyproperty. Except as otherwise provided herein and in the Contract the amount collected under any insurance policy may be applied upon any indebtedness hereby secured in such order, as the Beneficiary shall determine, subject to the rights of any senior lien-holder. Such application by the Beneficiary shall not cause discontinuance of any proceedings to foreclose this Deed of Trust. In the event of foreclosure, and subject to the rights of the Beneficiary or beneficiaries of any senior deed of trust, all rights of Lessee in insurance policies then in force shall pass to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale. 4.4. To defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the security hereof or the rights or powers of Beneficiary or Trustee, and to pay all costs and expenses, including cost of title search and attorney's fees in a reasonable amount, in any such proceeding, and in any suit brought by Beneficiary to foreclose this Deed of Trust. 4.5. To pay all costs, fees and expenses in connection with this Deed of Trust, including the expenses of the Trustee incurred in enforcing the obligation secured hereby and Trustee's and attorney's fees actually incurred, as provided by statute. 4.6. Should Lessee fail to pay when due any taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, liens, encumbrances or other charges against the Propertyproperty, Beneficiary may, but shall not be obligated, to pay the same, and the amount so paid shall be added to and become a part of the debt secured by this Deed of Trust. 5. General Conditions. The parties hereto agree that: 5.1. In the event of any fire or other casualty to the Propertyproperty or eminent domain proceedings resulting in condemnation of the Propertyproperty or any part thereof, Lessor Lessee shall have the right to rebuild the Propertyproperty, and to use all available insurance or condemnation proceeds therefore, provided that (a) such proceeds are sufficient to keep the loan in balance and rebuild the Propertyproperty in a manner that provides adequate security to the Beneficiary for repayment of the loan, or if such proceeds are insufficient to provide adequate security or to keep the loan in balance, then Grantor Lessee has funded any deficiency, (b) Beneficiary shall have the right to approve plans and specifications for any major rebuilding and the right to approve disbursements of insurance or condemnation proceeds for rebuilding under a construction escrow or similar arrangement, and such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and (c) no material default then exists under this the Contract, the Note, or the Deed of Trust or the Covenant. If the casualty or condemnation affects only part of the Propertyproperty and total rebuilding is infeasible, then such insurance and/or condemnation proceeds may be used for partial rebuilding and partial repayment of the loan in a manner that provides adequate security to the Beneficiary for repayment of the remaining balance of the loan. 5.2. By accepting payment of any sum secured hereby after its due date, Beneficiary does not waive its right to require prompt payment when due of all other sums so secured or to declare default for failure to so pay. 9.2.f Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: 2019-09-25 Deed of Trust - Leasehold - Comm Cap Facilities (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from 4 5.3. The Trustee shall reconvey all or any part of the Propertyproperty covered by this Deed of Trust to the person entitled thereto on written request of the Grantor Lessee and the Beneficiary, or upon satisfaction of the obligations secured and written request for reconveyance made by the Beneficiary or the person entitled thereto. 5.4. Power of Sale. Pursuant to Chapter 61.24 of the Revised Codes of Washington and upon default by Grantor Lessee without timely cure and after written notice of thirty (30) days in the payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in the performance of any agreement contained herein, all sums secured hereby shall immediately become due and payable. In such event and upon written notice of Beneficiary, the property Leasehold Estate shall be sold, in accordance with the Deed of Trust Act of the State of Washington, at public auction to the highest bidder. Any person may bid at the Trustee's sale. Subject to the rights of the beneficiary Beneficiary or beneficiaries of any senior deed of trust, the proceeds of the sale shall be applied as follows: (1) to the expense of the sale, including a reasonable Trustee's fee and attorney's fee; (2) to the obligation secured by this Deed of Trust; (3) the surplus, if any, shall be distributed to the person or persons entitled thereto. 5.5. A Trustee shall deliver to the purchaser at the sale its deed, without warranty, which shall convey to the purchaser the interest in the propertyLeasehold Estate which Lessee had or had the power to convey at the time of the execution of this Deed of Trust, and such as Lesseeor may have acquired thereafter. Trustee's deed shall recite the facts showing that the sale was conducted in compliance with all the requirements of law and of this Deed of Trust, which recital shall be prima facie evidence of such compliance and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of a bona fide purchaser for value. 5.6. The power of sale conferred by this Deed of Trust and by the Deed of Trust Act of the State of Washington is not an exclusive remedy; Beneficiary may cause this Deed of Trust to be foreclosed as a mortgage. 5.7. Beneficiary may at any time appoint or discharge the Trustee. 5.8. This Deed of Trust applies to, inures to the benefit of, and binds all parties hereto and their successors and assigns. The terms "Lessee," "Trustee," and "Beneficiary" include their successors and assigns. 6. Acceleration. Except as otherwise provided for in the contractContract, if without Beneficiary's prior written consent, all or any part of the Propertyproperty or any interest in it is sold, conveyed, transferred, encumbered, or the Propertyproperty is not used as required by the contract Contract between Beneficiary and Lessee, Beneficiary may, at its option, require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Deed of Trust. However, this option shall not be exercised by Beneficiary if exercise is prohibited by federal law as of the date of this Deed of Trust. If Beneficiary exercises this option, Beneficiary shall give Lessee notice of acceleration. The notice shall provide a period of not less than thirty (30) days from the date the notice is delivered or mailed within which Lessee must pay all sums secured by this Deed of Trust. If Lessee fails to pay these sums prior to the expiration of this period, Beneficiary may invoke any remedies permitted by this Deed of Trust without further notice or demand on Lessee. IN WITNESS HEREOF, «Organization_Name_» has executed this Deed of Trust on the __________________________ day of ____________________________, 20_____. «Organization_Name_», a Washington «Org_type_nonprofit_tribal_HA_etc» corporation 9.2.f Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: 2019-09-25 Deed of Trust - Leasehold - Comm Cap Facilities (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from 5 By:_____________________________________________ Print Name:______________________________________ Title:___________________________________________ 9.2.f Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: 2019-09-25 Deed of Trust - Leasehold - Comm Cap Facilities (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from 6 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF «County» ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _____________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the _________________________________ of «Organization_Name_» a Washington «Org_type_nonprofit_tribal_HA_etc» corporation, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Date: ____________________ (seal or stamp) ________________________________________ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at _______________________________ My commission expires ____________________ ________________________________________ Print Name ___________________________, a Washington ___________________________ By:_____________________________________________ Print Name:______________________________________ Title:___________________________________________ 9.2.f Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: 2019-09-25 Deed of Trust - Leasehold - Comm Cap Facilities (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from 7 REQUEST FOR FULL RECONVEYANCE TO BE USED ONLY WHEN ALL OBLIGATIONS HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL DUTIES PERFORMED UNDER THIS DEED OF TRUST. TO: TRUSTEE: The undersigned as the party entitled to the performance, benefits, duties, and payments under the Community Capital Facilities Contract «Contract_Number» between Grantor Lessee and Beneficiary, which is secured by this Deed of Trust and other legal documents. The obligations thus secured have been fully paid, duties performed and satisfied, and you are hereby requested and directed, on payment to you of any sums owing to you under the terms of said Deed of Trust, including Contingent Interest, to cancel evidence of indebtedness secured by said Deed of Trust delivered to you with said Deed of Trust, and to reconvey, without warranty, to the parties designated by the terms of said Deed of Trust, all the estate now held by you hereunder. _____________________________________ Dated _____________________________________ Name _____________________________________ Title 9.2.f Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: 2019-09-25 Deed of Trust - Leasehold - Comm Cap Facilities (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from 1 *** SAMPLE *** PROMISSORY NOTE-Leasehold _____Organization________________ $_________ _______ WA Date: ________ FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ______________ The Edmonds Senior Center ("Grantee"), a Washington non- profit corporation, promises to pay in lawful money of the United States of America, to the order of State of Washington Department of Commerce, Capital Programs Unit or its successor agency (“Grantor”) at 1011 Plum Street, SE, Post Office Box 42525, Olympia, Washington 98504-2525, the principal sum of $_______________$4,000,000 or so much thereof as may be advanced hereunder. This Note is subject to the terms and conditions of the Capital Programs Unit Grant Agreement, Grant Number ________________ ("Contract") executed between the Grantee and the Grantor pursuant to which Grantor has awarded Grantee funds for the purposes outlined in the Contract (the “Award”). Disbursement of the funds evidenced by this Note is to be made subject to the terms and conditions of the Contract. Grantee agrees that a schedule of the dates and amounts of advances and repayments on this Note certified by an officer of Grantor shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes of such dates and amounts. All amounts payable hereunder shall be paid without any set-off or deduction of any nature. Grantor has no expectation of repayment of the Award so long as the award funds are used according to the conditions set out in the Contract. If the Award is not used as required by the Contract for a period of ten (10) years as required in the Contract, Grantor shall be entitled to the unpaid principal balance of this Note with interest at a rate of 5%, compounded annually. In case Grantee defaults under this Note, Grantee agrees to pay all of Grantor's costs of collection, including but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Grantor or the holder of this Note whether or not suit is instituted. If any legal proceedings are instituted relating to this Note, including without limitation any arbitration, bankruptcy, trial, or appellate proceedings, Grantee will pay Grantor's costs, including reasonable attorney's fees in all such proceedings. Grantee hereby waives presentment and demand for payment, notice of dishonor, protest, notice of protest, and any other notice not specifically required by the Contract. This Note is secured by a Leasehold Deed of Trust covering property situated in __________, Edmonds, Washington, and shall be construed, enforced and otherwise governed by the laws of the State of Washington. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Grantee, its assigns and their respective officers, employees, agents and contractors shall have no personal liability for payment of the indebtedness evidenced hereby o r performance of the covenants set forth in this Note, in the Leasehold Deed of Trust or in this the Contract, and the recourse of the holder hereof shall be confined to the exercise of its rights under the Leasehold Deed of Trust, provided that nothing shall diminish the Grantee’s liability for damages or deficiencies resulting from theft, waste, fraud, material misrepresentation and misuse of rents. ____________________________ a Washington nonprofit corporation By:______________________________________ ________________, Executive Director 9.2.g Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Promissory Note (Leasehold DOT) - BLANK SAMPLE (Securitization Requirement for Edmonds Senior Center Grants from the City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/1/2019 City Attorney Evaluation Summary Review Staff Lead: Tom Mesaros/Dave Teitzel Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Councilmember Mesaros will be providing updated information on the attorney evaluation summary. The evaluation summary is based on responses from City Council Members, the Mayor, the Directors and any other personnel Directors felt might offer input into the evaluation process. 9.3 Packet Pg. 368