1131 7TH AVE S.PDFIIIIIIIIIIII
6941
1131 7TH AVE S
CITY CITY OF EDMONDS
PUBLIC WOMM — ENGINMRING
RECEIVED
� ACTION REPORT
Jul 2 5 z�u!
ENGINEERING DIVISION N? 2807
SUSPENSE DATE:
Date: 21P4,---Time: File #
j Attachments:
SUBJECT:
REQUESTOR:
PHONE: / f 45
REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
TELEPHONE
CONTACT IN OFFICE r---j
OTHER: .�
RECEIVED
PNITF Tn-
I
v
=Yes
eiW5�
of
��
of
MM
Em
IN
Hl.l lUIV:
Action Completed/File
890 l9y
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL
OF JOHN CLAUS OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
00
FILE: AP-13-90
RECOMMENDATION: The City of Edmonds should withdraw the DNS
and require the Applicant to provide addi-
tional information. This new information
should be reviewed by the City and appropriate
agencies, and a new threshold decision made
based upon all of the available information.
INTRODUCTION
Kurtis Dunphy, 1126 "B" Avenue, Edmonds, Washington 98020 (here-
after referred to as "Applicant") , applied for a building permit to
install a hot tub and construct a deck on an existing single family
residence at 1126 "B" Avenue, Edmonds, Washington. Pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) an environmental checklist
was required because the site is identified as an environmentally
sensitive area. On August 8, 1991, the lead agency, the City of
Edmonds, issued a determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the
building permit.
On August 20, 1991, John Claus (hereafter referred to as
!!Appellant") filed an appeal of the threshold determination of the
DNS. A hearing on the appeal was held before the Hearing Examiner
of the City of Edmonds on September 19, 1991.
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
JEFFREY S. WILSON
Planning Dept.
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
KURTIS DUNPHY
1126 "B" Ave
Edmonds, WA 98020
JOHN CLAUS
1131 - 7th Ave S
Edmonds, WA 98020
At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the
record:
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
HEARING EXAMINER
RE: AP-13-91
Page 2
Exhibit
1
of
2
of
3
it
4
of
5
of
6
of
7
if
8
is
9
it
1.0
of
11
RECOMMENDATION
10/21/91
- Staff Report
- Appeal Letter from John Claus
- DNS issued 8/8/91
- Environmental Checklist
- Proposed Site Plan/Building Plan Check
- Vicinity Map
ECDC 20.15.250
- WAC Sections 197-11-30, 197-11-40
- Letter from DOE, 8/23/91
- Letter from Appellant Claus, 8/21/91
- Letter from Dept. Of Wildlife, 6/14/91
At the public hearing the record was extended to allow the
Appellant and the Applicant. an opportunity to meet with City
officials to determine if -resolution of the problem that was the
basis of the appeal could be reached. Subsequent to the hearing
and to the meeting, the following exhibits were received:
Exhibit 12 - Letter from Applicant Dunphy
it 13 - Letter from Appellant Claus
The period for review of this appeal was extended in order to
accommodate the efforts to settle the disputes between the
Appellant and the Applicant. However, it appears that no resolution
has occurred, so the above -stated decision, supported by the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions are submitted.
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Appellant
and the Appellant; and evidence elicited during the public
hearing; and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject
property and surrounding areas by the Hearing Examiner, the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of
the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. Kurtis Dunphy, 1126 "B" Avenue, Edmonds, Washington, applied
for a building permit on May 15, 1991, to install a hot tub and to
construct deck additions on a single family residence at 1126 "B"
Avenue, Edmonds, Washington 98020. Pursuant to the State Environ-
mental Policy Act (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required.
The subject property is identified as an environmentally sensitive
area because of a stream that flows through the site.
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION
RE: AP-13-91 10/21/91
Page 3
2. The City of Edmonds was designated lead agency for the SEPA
review. On August 8, 1991, the City issued a Determination of Non
Significance (DNS) for the building permit application. On August
20, 1991, an appeal of this threshold determination was filed by
the Appellant. The appeal was timely.
3. The subject property is a rectangular shaped lot with
dimensions of 72 feet by 124 feet. .Through the property flows
Shellbarger Creek. It also appears that there is a convergence of
another unnamed stream within the site. Admitted as Exhibit 5 was
a proposed Site Plan for the site. Attached hereto is a copy of
the Site Plan. The two streams that converge are shown on the Site
Plan.
4. The DNS that was issued on August 22, 1991 did not address any
issues of flooding from the two streams on site. The City deter-
mined during its DNS review that the proposal did not have a
probable significant adverse impact on the environment.
5. The Department of Ecology (DOE) submitted comments to the DNS.
These comments, admitted as Exhibit 9 at the public hearing,
addressed wetlands on site and the need to protect the wetlands.
It does not appear, however, from the comments of the DOE that the
issue of two streams on site, and possible diversion of these
streams, were considered by the DOE.
6. The Appellant submitted that the two streams on site have
created water. problems for the Appellant and the adjoining property
owners. The Appellant contended that these water problems did not
start until the streams were rerouted around City of Edmonds
property. This reroute of Shellbarger Creek, according to the
Appellant, causes floods and significant disruption of the constant
flow of the site.
7. The Checklist, as submitted on June 11, 1991, does not address
two streams, or the rerouting of the streams. In Section 3(A), the
Appellant indicated that there is a small stream that intersects
the proposed site. This appears to contradict the Site Plan that
was submitted by the.Applicant, which shows two streams on site.
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION
RE: AP-13-91 10/21/91
Page 4
8. According to the Appellant's appeal letter, the improvements
to .the subject property will be within 25 feet of the streams. He
also submitted at the hearing that the improvements would be only
15 feet from the run-off.
9. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) establishes
procedures for appeals of SEPA determinations. ECDC 20.15(A).240(C)
grants the Hearing Examiner jurisdictional authority to review an
appeal and to advise the City Council with regard to it.
10. In addition to the issue of distance from the streams, the
Appellant submitted that the DNS was improperly issued because the
proposed hot tub and surrounding deck was not part of the request
for the building permit and thus was not properly reviewed. Also,
the Appellant submitted that the groundcover on site is not
permeable and will not absorb run-off. As a result, the Appellant
contended that the run-off will be rampant.
11. A significant part of the testimony and the testimony set
forth in letters of appeal related to issues between the Appellant
and Applicant over a period of time. These issues, although rele-
vant to the parties, are not relevant to many of the issues of SEPA
review, which is restricted to issues involving the environmental
impact on site.
12. ECDC Chapter 20.15(A) sets forth the environmental review
process within the City of Edmonds. Included in the process is an
adoption by reference of various sections of the Washington
Administrative Code, WAC Chapter 197-11. Included in the adoption
by reference is WAC 197-11-080 (1) , which allows that if information
on significant adverse impacts essential to a reasoned choice among
alternatives is not known, and the costs for obtaining it are not
exorbitant, agencies shall obtain and include the information from
the environmental documents.
Also adopted by reference in ECDC 20.15(A).060 is WAC 197-335.
This administrative regulation states that the lead agency shall
make its threshold determination based on information reasonably
sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of the proposal.
If the information available is insufficient, the lead agency can,
among other things, consult with other agencies and request infor-
mation on the proposal's potential impacts.
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION
RE: AP-13-91 10/21/91
Page 5
13. Construction on the.proposed project was commenced prior to
the issuance of any building permit.
CONCLUSIONS
1. On August 20, .1991, an appeal of the DNS for the building
permit for improvements at 1126 "B" Avenue, Edmonds, Washington
98020, was filed by the Appellant.
2. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has jurisdictional
authority to hold a hearing and to issue a recommendation to the
City Council of the City of Edmonds. This authority is set forth
in ECDC 20.15(A).240(C).
3. The information submitted in the environmental checklist is
incomplete. Information relating to the number of streams and
surface water on site identifies only one stream. This contradicts
the testimony received at the hearing in which two streams were
identified., It also contradicts the Site Plan.submitted by the
Applicant in which two streams are depicted.
4. The information provided to the Department of Ecology was
insufficient for the Department to make an accurate determination
as to the impact to the streams. In particular, the DOE did not
have the information relating to. both streams and did not have any
information relating to diversions of either of these streams.
This information is relevant and should have been reviewed.
5. WAC 197-11-080 was adopted by reference by the City of Edmonds
pursuant to ECDC 20.15(A).020. This administrative section
requires that, if information on significant adverse impacts
essential to a reasoned choice<of alternatives is not know, and the
costs are not exorbitant, then the Agency shall obtain and include
information in the environmental documents. The information
relating to the two streams on site is information on a potential
significant adverse impact that is essential to making a reasoned
choice. To have the information of the diversion of these streams
will not result in exorbitant costs and should be reviewed by the
Department of Ecology and others.
6. WAC 197-11-335 was adopted by reference by the City of Edmonds
pursuant to ECDC 20.15 (A) .060. This administrative regulation re-
quires the lead agency to make threshold determinations based upon
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION
RE: AP-13-91 .10/21/91
Page 6
information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental
impact of a proposal. The information present was not reasonably
sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact because both
streams and prior diversions were not considered. As a result, the
City can require the Applicant to submit more information and may
consult with other agencies to request information on the
proposal's potential impacts. The information relating to the
diversion of the streams and its impact to downstream properties as
well as upstream properties, is relevant and should be considered.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding findings of facts and conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is
hereby recommended to the City Council of the City of Edmonds that
the Declaration of Non Significance for a building permit at 1126
"B" Avenue, Edmonds, Washington 98020, be withdrawn and that the
City of Edmonds, the lead Agency, be required, pursuant to WAC 197-
11-080 and WAC 197-11-35 to obtain further information on a
significant potential element that could result. in adverse impacts
to the subject property, adjoining properties, and to properties
both up and downstream from Shellbarger Creek.
In particular, the additional information that should be obtained
by the City, before making the new threshold decision on, this
matter, should be: the exact number of streams located on the
subject property; any historical diversions that have occurred of
these streams; and, what impacts, if any, result from the diver-
sions. This information should be used to determine if, in fact,
the issuance of the building, permit will create a significant
environmental impact.
This recommendation is made because it appears from the testimony
and evidence submitted that the second stream was not considered in
the environmental review. In the checklist submitted by the Appli-
cant the question was asked as to whether there is any surface
water body in the immediate vicinity of the site (including...
seasonal streams...). The Applicant answered, "There is a small
stream that bisects the proposed site." This, however, contradicted
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION
RE: AP-13-91 10/21/91
Page 7
the Site Plan in which two streams were depicted as converging on
site. This checklist information also contradicts the testimony of
the Applicant, who indicated that there are, in fact, two streams
on site.
Of greater importance. than the two streams on site is the his-
torical use of the streams. Uncontradicted testimony was presented
that the streams have been diverted in a manner that impacts the
property of the Appellant. Such diversions of the stream may be
contrary to Department of Ecology, the Department of Fisheries, and.
other state regulations. These diversions, if illegal, could be
required to be changed to eliminate past flooding problems.
Because all of this information was not reviewed, the issuance of
the DNS was premature. It is recommended to the Council that the
City withdraw its DNS and require the Applicant to submit further
information with regard to the streams and the historical diversion
of the streams on site. This information should then be submitted
to the various agencies to determine if, in fact, there is any
potential impa, �r m�P
e issuance of this permit.
G
ENTERED this d y October, 1991, pursuant to the authority
granted the H ring Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community
Development Code of the City of Edmonds. _
RES M. DRISCOL
aring Examiner
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds
for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of
Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior
to 5:00 p.m. on November 4, 1991.
;. CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 7713202
HEARING EXAMINER
j890 19�0
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL
OF JOHN CLAUS OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
FILE: AP-13-90
Please. attach the enclosed Plot Plan Map to the Findings and
Recommendation issued on October 22, 1991, for the above referenced
matter.
DATED this.22nd Day of October, 1991. `
AM S M. DRISCOLL
Hea ng Examiner
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
-TD
-n
m
C-)
C) m
\V
f 7 R4
T
WORK
ADDRESS
OWNER
APPROVED C)
BLDG. 0 r- F I C." A L
P E R C- R
40,5
3 7- 3'
DF, I VEWIA Y
MAY
A
141
STAIRS
V\
2-6 - 5
r
i ,a
7
NOTE: SIOE SLOPES SHOWN
ARE THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED. THEY MAY
BE FLATTENED AT THE
OWNER'S DISCRETION
DUNPHY PROPERTY BIOFILTER SWALE
24' WIDTH
BIOFILTER SWALE
OPTION - A
NOT TO SCALE.
TOP -OF -BANK
CHANNEL
4% MAX
RIP -RAP DETAIL
SLOPE OVER 4%
NOT TO SCALE.
MAX '
RIP -RAP PER
NOTES BELOW
ROCK GRADATION REQUIREMENTS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
MAINTENANCE NOTES
FOR RIP -RAP
1)
A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL MAY
1)
ALL SEDIMENT AND OTHER
100% PASSING 8' SIEVE
BE REQUIRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT
DELETERIOUS MATERIAL IS TO BE
40-60% PASSING 6' SIEVE
OF WILDLIFE BEFORE COMMENCEMENT
REMOVED ON A REGULAR BASIS
0-10% PASSING 2" SIEVE
OF CONSTRUCTION
2)
WEEDS AND OTHER VEGETATION
2)
SWALE IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A
THAT RESTRICT THE FLOW OF
NATURAL AND MEANDERING FASHION
WATER ARE TO BE TRIMMED SO
3)
ALL SECTIONS OF SWALE OVER 4%
THAT A FREE FLOWING CONDITION
LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ARE TO BE
IS MAINTAINED
ROCK LINED
3)
ANY AREAS THAT BEGIN TO
4)
ALL DISTURBED AREAS THAT ARE NOT
ERODE OR THAT WILL NOT
ROCK LINED ARE TO BE SEEDED AS
SUSTAIN GRASSES ARE TO BE
THE FINAL STEP IN COMPLETING
ROCK LINED
CONSTRUCTION
5)
ALL WORK IS TO BE PREFORMED IN
A FASHION THAT WILL PREVENT
SEDIMENT LADEN WATER FROM
LEAVING THE SITE
CITY OF EDMO NDS STREET FILELARRY S. NAUGHTEN
250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-3202 MAYOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN
Public Works • Planning - Parks and Recreation - Engineering DIRECTOR
October 10, 1990
John and Vernelle Claus
1131 - 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA. 98020
Re: Drainage problems located.at 1131.- 7th Ave. S.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Claus:
A 16 116 (qU
The City received the letter from your representative, Hugh W. Judd.
We are willing to meet with you to discuss solutions to your drainage
problems, but the problems appear to be private and not the City's
responsibility.
We have no records indicating that the City "altered the natural flow
of a stream", as suggested in your letter. The City's policy has been
to allow storm drainage in the natural drainage system only "where it
is possible to do so without significantly altering the natural
drainage ways". The stream "altering" you refer to was probably done
by the developer or a previous owner.
The stream, Shellabarger Creek, is a "water of the state" and work in
or, around it is under the jurisdiction of the state. The Department of
Fisheries or Department of Wildlife will typically not allow work in
the stream after October 15, 1990. Therefore, there is little
opportunity to resolve your problem before this year's rainy season.
URS Consultants completed a drainage basin study in June, 1989 and
found no erosion or capacity problem with Shellabarger Creek near your
house. The City cannot work on private property to benefit individual
property owners. Please contact Jim Walker at 771-3202 to discuss the
specifics of your problems.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. ALBERTS, P.E.
City Engineer
JCW/RJA/sdt
DRNPROB.7TH/TXTST530
o Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
PLANNING DATA
NAME:
SITE ADDRESS:-` / 3 4 A"" f DATE:
ZONING: Sl �O PLAN CHK#:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 51c,�
CORNER LOT Pa (Yes/No) FLAG LOY-4 (Yes/No)
SETBACKS:
Required Setbacks: i
Front: 2° ' Left Side: S Right Side: s Rear: /s
Actual Setbacks: i
Front: q Left Side: !'L • S Right Side: S Rear: yy
Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes/No)
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED (Y/N)
LOT COVERAGE:
Maximum Allowed: 35 Actual: Z 7 `
BUILDING HEIGHT: f /
Maximum Allowed: 25 Actual Height:
Datum Point: Datum Elevation:
A.D.U. CREATED?: N v
SUBDIVISION:
CRITICAL AREAS #: 9� -I 3
SEPA DETERMINATION: 6
LOT AREA: /, 7 7 3
OTHER:
Plan Review By: Z:T�6 w
c'T1 Ics*ffnit%^p1andatdoc
o S/
LE Ju 0i e
dITY a F "11 0 AID '57
A10 AJ -S j\.m
ENGINEERING
Tp
A514 & S/
SL)re.(Jg Y
UJ G. 2 7T M--
You ..—'le Aeles.. 'o A/
lerre-A— SAIO
e.T 7-1
cd A,:5; IfO
sxilej e
c c IZ-6 4- )l
h, C-�-A5
J
1131 7th Ave. So.
Edmonds, WA
May 21, 1984
City of Edmonds
Engineering Dept.
City.Planning
Edmonds, WA
Dear Sirs:
My problems continue with heavy drainage during,peak runoff periods.
This was referred to in an Edmonds City Council Meeting of 1/9/79.
The erosion has continued and I am near seeking a legal remedy.
During the Council Meeting of that date it was stated that new storm
sewers•were being planned. This was to alleviate or control the problem.
To reiterate: ' (1) Stream volume.was increased by new home construction
(impervious surfaces -roofs, driveways, and sidewalks). (2) Increasing
stream velocity was initiated by City approval -straightening a meandering
stream bed and removing debris from the stream bed. All the so called
improvements were. -above or.upstream from my property.
I propose that the City improve the stream just before it enters my
property. This would involve a stream drop or concrete holding basin.
This improvement would lessen stream velocity so that erosion wouldn't
be a factor.
As you can see by my exhibit the stream now acts as a boundary.
Fencing approximately thirty -.feet -would be ver.tually impossible without
moving the stream back into my lot.
Please advise as to the proposed improvements including the fence.
Also as to the permits that will have to be obtained.
S ircere ly,
J
John D. Claus
;. 1131 7th Ave. So.
Edmonds, WA
r�
rto
sod0lid
3 �.i�tJ,ti�`� �T3.SodOvd
-y
ti--- � o tiv►n w�rvi W �.
lro del s 3�'gt�s /•`
oy o
W i"3 X1
t cn- 3Q s �N�d aryl
o �r.
•�, , ; s1•vb�_3�f1s c.731�Niw�.y3 ,�-7f/ '
4\7 , 141112-7
r
�r3r y
T
J o N � *D , C'
T-H AV
ik
Er
Ir
ru
L-j
L-j
Cr
CLAIM CHECK
NO.
4
D 1\,Lo &J
0 HOLD Of F
/lDh-Al
C
DATE
hh
2ND NOTICE
'i RETURN
.1034
Detached from
Oct. 19.80
TIE77 FILE
FILE# N/A
STREET FILE DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal
8 foot by 10 foot shed
Proponent John Claus
1131 7th Ave. S., Edmonds WA, 98026
Location of proposal, including street address, if any
1131 7th Ave. S., Edmonds, WA 98026
Lead Agency Edmonds Planning Division
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have
a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead
agency. This information is available to the public on request.
X There is no comment period for this DNS.
_ This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not
act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments
must be submitted by
Responsible Official
John Bissell
Position/Title Code Enforcement Tech. Phone 771-3202
Address 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds WA 98020
Date June 6, 1991 Signature
X You may appeal this determination of nonsignificance
to Hearing Examiner
at 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds, WA 98020
no later than 5:00 p.m. June 16, 1991
by filing a written appeal citing reasons.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact
John Bissell to read or ask about the procedures for
SEPA appeals.
There is no agency appeal.
u
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does
not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part 0).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant,"
and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic
area." respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
it 3 1 -? z 7tv f- S o CPeRTABCE SN���
2. Name of applicant:
Joe&) C v s
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
1131 7W Ad£ So
4. Date checklist prepared:
S-/y- s/
5. Agency requesting checklist:
CITY 0 F �'D,kcul�S
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
a w k5 —/4 5 soau r¢s pzRt- i r is / ssv
7. Do you.have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related
to or connected with this proposal? If,yes, explain.
A10
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or
will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
AIIA-
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain. NIA'
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your
proposal, if known. .. //
A 14-
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You'do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form
to include additional specific information on project description.)
/g�,X 1) Fa /L 1�c s J £ �n h R D £ 6 It O t. S if !f T�jel A [--
(C% CLIP. (3 L
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street
address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal
would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the
site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic
map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the
agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with
any permit applications related to this checklist.
��3j 7:�,4-�� sQ f��Ke•dos
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one) lat rolling, hilly, steep
slopes, mountainous, other -Fp 56,L-Ae 6 e*O E P-ss/ ac y /o,1a
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
/D
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify
them and note any prime farmland.
Cc.,d-j✓ - 5.4,cl4
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or
grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
A/o4, z
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,
generally describe. /V A/
D
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
/ v/,4
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth,
if any: ,/due,
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project
is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
AJO N L
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
/v O
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if
any:
NON 01
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If
yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it
flows into. } £k,Q XOVdD STR&O+A4 Df2A/NS IN 1--V 3 0 Ll
2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
AJO
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
IVIA
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the
site plan.
�C,
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
/V O
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,
the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
/ Ar/ k
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will
this water flow into other waters? Iff so, describe.
0 -r-r ieO 0 r-
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
4/0
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
/F So DiRF-cTSa WOvc.O Pvr DR,a-iN SPOUTS d'/f f CONNfc
NOUSe Srsrsnn of Ti,£Q DizA,rA/ Fl"
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
_ pasture
_ crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
_ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
AlvWf-.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
/,// /4
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
111A
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: .... ? .........
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ............1A'�........
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: ...�!U.........
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
A1A-
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
N/A
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
/Vie A
6. Energy and --Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used
to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
A//A
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any: NIA
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including_exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur
as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
WOVE V401017
Z KNc 10 Or
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
/V0A
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
AI/A-
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
NkIL,AJG NA-mmF,&, 54VJ 7-5
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
N/A-
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
9i5, D f A17-A- —
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
li&aSE 2,4 x sy
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
N
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"
area? If so, specify.
-5 TR 9'hM
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
/1�o itJ2
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Al, A) F_
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
IJIA
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
4 r�.0 P£etic c r
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
N
b. Approximately how many units, if.any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing. IVIIA
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
IV`4
10'._ Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building
%building material(s) proposed?
/"/A
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
V/
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
/. V1�
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would
it -mainly occur?
CVO 4 16/,f1`
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere
with views? /
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Ale, vF-
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
AleAl2
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
s F�t� 7—
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe. AA nn
/Vp
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
14J/A-
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or
local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally
describe.
/v
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
/ 1A
c_ Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
. N/4
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
177,1 Av�;. So
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
NlA-
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private). . ND
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or
air transportation? If so, generally describe.
N
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?
If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
/ /0 Alt
g. Proposed measures to reduce ocontrol transportation impacts, if any:
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example:
fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe.
A/0
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if
any.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas,
water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
Alo Z-
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing
the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the
immediate vicinity which might be needed.
/VDN�j—
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand
that the lead agenc ' re. in th to make its decision.
Signature:.......... .........................
Date Submitted:... ....... ...�.[ ..L. ...............................
D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Rezones, Code Changes, Annexations, etc.) -- Do
not use this sheet for project actions.
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with
the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or
at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general
terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to
air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or
production of noise? q 6 '714(,y
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
a arc l✓
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas
or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species
habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
%T Woc)/, 1> ,f ( E yaoE5 TN.a7
Pk,4UN£.P -P(A)oR-r-q Or _114Z lZaPZ:PT7
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
"//i4
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
VIA
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
ENVCHK3/PFORMS
rT
RECEIVED
AUU 1 y 1991
MOTION
Amended
Amendment
ENGINEERING
Gertrude Domenici, 19804 Maplewood Dr., said that she would like to have a height
restriction included in the plat, so her view would not be obstructed. The hearing
was then closed.
Councilmember Kasper stated that he felt that the Council was getting into an area
of restriction that is highly questionable. Following discussion, COUNCILMEMBER HALL
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE P-2-82 BASED UPON THE RECOM-
MENDATIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.
Councilmember Hall explained that she felt this recommendation was not clear. Council -
member Gould stated that he felt the intent of the applicant was to develop the plat
within the existing code with minimum adverse impact on adjacent owners. Rather than -
delete Recommendation No. 5, COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT RECOMMENDATION NO. 5, SHALL BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN,
"THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS 9 AND 10 SHOULD BE DONE IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMIZE
ADVERSE AFFECTS TO ANY VIEWS OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH." A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS
TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO AMEND, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST, ALLEN, GOULD AND JAECH
VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS HALL AND KASPER VOTING NO. MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED.
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper stated that he felt
the term "blockage" would be more appropriate than "adverse affects."
HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION TO VACATE ALLEY LOCATED EAST OF 7TH AVE.,
SOUTH OF FIR, NORTH OF ELM, AND WEST OF "B" STREET (ST-4-82)
The Hearing Examiner had heard this item on July 26, 1982, issuing his report on
August 17, 1982. His report was provided to the Council, as well as a vicinity map
and site plan. Planning Director Mary Lou Block showed slides of the property. She
stated that the subject alley is an unimproved, heavily wooded and vegetated piece
of land that is inaccessible to the public except by foot, and there are no developed
trails. The southern part of the alley has a slope of approximately 10 percent, and
the remainder of the alley is level. It is single-family development to the west,
and to the east is City -owned reservoir property. The alley is 74 square feet and
20 feet in width. The City Engineer has recommended vacating the entire width of the
alley rather than a portion and retaining a 20-foot utility easement throughout the
alley. Ms. Block said that due to the fact that not all of the property owners have
agreed to the proposal, an ordinance has not been brought to the Council to complete
this vacation. The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval of the vacation, sub-
ject to the following conditions: (1) A 20-foot utility easement should be retained
in the alley; (2) The applicant shall bear the cost of the appraisal which will
determine the value of compensation; (3) The applicants shall only be responsible for
the value of compensation for that portion of the alley that has been petitioned to
be vacated; (4) The City shall cause an easement to be drafted and recorded on behalf
of the property owner at 1141 7th Avenue South for water service from Elm Street to
the mentioned residence; and (5) Should the residence identified as 1141 7th Avenue
South no longer use the water service from Elm Street, the easement created shall
lapse and that residence shall be provided water from the water main on 7th Avenue.
Councilmember Nordquist indicated that he would not want to see the vacation approved
piecemeal, and City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that the vacation must be granted in
whole or a new proposal be submitted by the applicant. Ms. Block indicated that the
whole alley could be vacated with the eastern 10 feet becoming City property and the
western portion becoming the property owners property. The hearing was opened.
Harold Schierman, 1161 7th Avenue S., spoke as one of the petitioners. He stated
that he had understood the petition was to vacate the entire length of the alley, and
if the property owners to the north did not wish to be included, the petitioners would
not have to pay for the northern portion.
Joel DeLisa, 1137 7th Ave., S., petitioner, explained that the original petition
included five lots on the west side of the alley and two on the east. He stated, how-
ever, that one of the property owners on the east did not wish to participate.
Louis Kribs, 1159 7th Ave. S., petitioner, delineated the exact lots that are in-
volved in the petition, stating that it was proposed that the alley be vacated to the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 - September 21, 1982
s
T
end of the Claus property to the north. Wayne Tanaka advised that the petitioners
could pay for the portion of the alley that would belong to the uninterested party;
otherwise, the Council could modify the vacation to exclude that lot or the peti-
tioners would have to request a new petition.
Robert Highland, 1141 7th Ave. S., petitioner, stated that he wished the utility
easement for his property remain as is.
John Claus, 1131 7th Ave. S., petitioner, stated that he would like to have the alley
property in order to control a stream that runs across his lot and is eroding the soil.
He indicated that he would probably put in a covered culvert. Councilmember Kasper -
suggested that Mr. Claus apply for a permit to build the culvert if the vacation is
not approved. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr. Claus if he would be willing to
share the expense for the property owner who doesn't wish to participate, and Mr. Claus
said that it would depend upon the cost. City Clerk Irene Varney Moran advised that
a notice had been sent to the property owner who did not sign the petition, and a
response has not been received. The hearing was closed.
Councilmember Nordquist stated that he felt the decision on this item should be post -
MOTION: poned until a definite response was received from the remaining individual. COUNCIL -
MEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL THAT THIS ITEM BE PLACED ON
Withdrawn THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, AND THAT A CONCERTED EFFORT
BE MADE TO CONTACT THE CONCERNED PROPERTY OWNER. Councilmember Allen pointed out that
the Council had not determined as yet whether they would be willling to sell the property
in question. She said that this would have to be discussed at the October 5 meeting
MOTION: unless decided upon now. MOTION AND THE SECOND WERE WITHDRAWN. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO VACATE THIS ALLEY ADJOINING THE FIVE LOTS
WEST OF 7TH AVENUE AND MR. CLAUS' LOT TO THE CITY RESERVOIR, ALONG WITH THE LOT NORTH
OF MR. CLAUS' SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE OWNER. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER
MOTION: NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL THAT FINAL APPROVAL OF THIS VACATION
BE PLACED AS ITEM NO. 1 ON THE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 5. MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Moran stated that she would send the party in question another letter asking
whether or not he is interested in being included in the vacation.
HEARING ON PARKING PROBLEM AT SECOND AND BELL
City Engineer Jim Adams stated that this item was introduced at the August 24 Council
meeting. He showed slides of the area involved. He reported that with the recent
elimination of parking restrictions on the north side of Bell Street, there has been
a considerable amount of all -day parking on Bell Street by post office and State
ferry employees and commuters. Mr. Adams said that numerous complaints have been
received from adjacent residents as there is no available street parking in the
vicinity of their homes for the use of visitors, etc. The staff has recommended
extending the three-hour parking restriction to include 2nd and 3rd Avenues to Edmonds
Street, the north side of Bell Street from Sunset to 3rd Avenue, and both sides of
Edmonds Street from Sunset to 3rd Avenue. Councilmember Allen asked whether parking
was available in the ferry and Diamond parking lots south of Main Street. City Clerk
Irene Varney Moran said that approximately 10 of the 89 monthly ferry parking stalls
are not being utilized at present, and that there are metered stalls in addition that
can be used on a daily basis. Mr. Adams indicated that the Diamond lot is not being
fully utilized most of the time. The hearing was opened.
Victor Schoch, 135 2nd Ave. N., expressed concern over the full parking spaces which
seem to be utilized by nonresidents. He said that the parkers are noisy in the early
hours of 5:30 to 6:00 a.m. and throw garbage on his parking strip. He indicated
that visitors to these homes shouldn't have to use the 3-hour parking farther down
the street.
Marion Larrabee, 205 2nd Ave. N., stated that the parking situation was fine when
she moved here 9-�years ago, but for the past 4 years it has steadily gotten worse.
She said that her property is hemmed in by parkers which makes visibility poor, and
sometimes she can't even get out of her driveway. She said that the past month she
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 - September 21, 1982
end of the Claus property to the north. Wayne Tanaka advised that the petitioners
could pay for the portion of the alley that would belong to the uninterested party;,
otherwise, the Council could modify the vacation to exclude that lot or the peti-
tioners would have to request a new petition.
Robert Highland, 1141 7th Ave. S., petitioner, stated that he wished the utility
easement for his property remain as is.
John Claus, 1131 7th Ave. S., petitioner, stated that he would like to have the alley
property in order to control a stream that runs across his lot and is eroding the soil.
He indicated that he would probably put in a covered culvert. Councilmember Kasper
suggested that Mr. Claus apply for a permit to build the culvert if the vacation is
not approved. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr. Claus if he would be willing to
share the expense for the property owner who doesn't wish to participate, and Mr. Claus
said that it would depend upon the cost. City Clerk Irene Varney Moran advised that
a notice had been sent to the property owner who did not sign the petition, and a
response has not been received. The hearing was closed.
Councilmember Nordquist stated that he felt the decision on this item should be post -
MOTION: poned until a definite response was received from the remaining individual. COUNCIL -
MEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL THAT THIS ITEM BE PLACED ON
Withdrawn THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, AND THAT A CONCERTED EFFORT
BE MADE TO CONTACT THE CONCERNED PROPERTY OWNER. Councilmember Allen pointed out that
the Council had not determined as yet whether they would be willling to sell the property
in question. She said that this would have to be discussed at the October 5 meeting
MOTION: unless decided upon now. MOTION AND THE SECOND WERE WITHDRAWN. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO VACATE THIS ALLEY ADJOINING THE FIVE LOTS
WEST OF 7TH AVENUE AND MR. CLAUS' LOT TO THE CITY RESERVOIR, ALONG WITH THE LOT NORTH
OF MR. CLAUS' SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE OWNER. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER
MOTION: NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL THAT FINAL APPROVAL OF THIS VACATION
BE PLACED AS ITEM NO. 1 ON THE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 5. MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Moran stated that she would send the party in question another letter asking
whether or not he is interested in being included in the vacation.
HEARING ON PARKING PROBLEM AT SECOND AND BELL
City Engineer Jim Adams stated that this item was introduced at the August 24 Council
meeting. He showed slides of the area involved. He reported that with the recent
elimination of parking restrictions on the north side of Bell Street, there has been
a considerable amount of all -day parking on Bell Street by post office and State
ferry employees and commuters. Mr. Adams said that numerous complaints have been
received from adjacent residents as there is no available street parking in the
vicinity of their homes for the use of visitors, etc. The staff has recommended
extending the three-hour parking restriction to include 2nd and 3rd Avenues to Edmonds
Street, the north side of Bell Street from Sunset to 3rd Avenue, and both sides of
Edmonds Street from Sunset to 3rd Avenue. Councilmember Allen asked whether parking
was available in the ferry and Diamond parking lots south of Main Street. City Clerk
Irene Varney Moran said that approximately 10 of the 89 monthly ferry parking stalls
are not being utilized at present, and that there are metered stalls in addition that
can be used on a daily basis. Mr. Adams indicated that the Diamond lot is not being
fully utilized most of the time. The hearing was opened.
Victor Schoch, 135 2nd Ave. N., expressed concern over the full parking spaces which
seem to be utilized by nonresidents. He said that the parkers are noisy in the early
hours of 5:30 to 6:00 a.m. and throw garbage on his parking strip. He indicated
that visitors to these homes shouldn't have to use the 3-hour parking farther down
1131
STREET FILE
0
SEI>-
T kMap ZWrmc*JTS 6kk PVUY,70--
H-A-S ?TZO��AOCSL�
u t -7o ►4ew ufs
Ax-
PAJ �U-c
• j � 12,c�� Owv:.�vY� . �
4,
Po C-
s
r
E k
k j
113
---------------
47.
4 E
2� � �Lp00-') T -T Ci Z
' LI i
t
COU i-N iT MA tti M p r�alL� M75 d ►� �12.t V ��
r �
��t7'P�Z�-1. C�S ��.�. Lt�TT�'L Q � �o r.►.c_ �r� `D r7c..1.5, � �L
V O I0 r� CF- s�12��°�'1 I-- ?9-0 �, a5 Ly
,
1D(J t 70.)
I" l(
i
i
c
htCtIVED
MAY 2.1. 1984 1.131 7th T.ve. So.
ENGINEERING "`=' "`j.s ' VA
:-icy 21, 1984
City of Edmonds
Ftigi_neering Dept.
city Planning
EdMond s , WA
Dear Sirs:
My problems continue with heavy drainage during peak runoff periods.
This was referred to in an Edmonds City Council Meeting of 1/9/79.
The erosion has continued and I am near seeking a legal remedy.
During the Council Meeting of that date it was stated that new storm
sewers were being planned. This was to alleviate or control the problam.
To reiterate: (1) Stream volume was increased by new home construction
(impervious surfaces -roofs, driveways, and sidewalks). (2) Increasing
stream velocity was initiated by City approval -straightening a meandering
stream bed and removing debris from the stream bed. All the so called
improvements were. above or upstream from my property.
I propose that the City improve the stream just before it enters my
property. This would involve a stream drop or concrete holding basin.
This improvement would lessen stream velocity so that erosion wouldn't
be a factor.
As you can see by my exhibit the stream now acts as a boundary.
Fencing approximately thirty feet would be vertually impossible without
moving the stream back into my lot.
Please advise as to the proposed improvements including the fence.
Also as to the permits that will have to be obtained.
Si cere ly,
�.�(Z-
John D. Claus
1131 7th Ave. So.
Edmonds, WA
e-uble
I
of
Aj
61e"A.
PF7KFeZt;-rF.o Dkn,,Aj
PRO p
31 - 7"rg A
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 51h AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
July 30, 1984
John D. Claus
1131 - 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA. 98020
Dear Mr. Claus:
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
Since receiving your letter regarding the erosion in the
stream bed, the City Planning, Public Works and Engineering staff
have visited your property and attempted to find a solution to the
problem.
You recommended culverting the stream. The City
Comprehensive Plan states, "The natural drainage system (i.e.
streams, ponds and marshes) shall not be filled or permanently
culverted except where no other alternative exists." It is the
opinion of the Planning Director that our Comprehensive Plan
prohibits the stream from being culverted in either the alley or
through your property.
We discussed your proposal to reroute the stream to the
south. We are not opposed to this solution, but our Public Works
forces cannot do the work. They are prohibited by contract from
working on private property.
We will continue to do everything we can to control the peak
flows in the stream, but we cannot guarantee any maximum flow. If
you desire to reroute the stream on your property, we will support
your application. This would require your submitting an
Environmental Checklist to the Edmonds Planning Department,
acquiring a right-of-way construction permit for work in the alley
and obtaining a hydraulics permit from the Washington State
Department of Fisheries.
John D. Claus
July 30, 1984
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding these forms, please call
Duane Bowman or Mary Lou Block at 771-3202.
Sincerely,
JAMES E. ADAMS, P.E.
City Engineer
JEA/st
Concurrence: 1 1 J
Mary Lou Block
Planning Director
Bobby V Mills
Acting Supt. of Public Works
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TI1 AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-3202
COMMUNITY SERVICES:
Public Works • Planning - Parks and Recreation • Engineering
October 10, 1990
John and Vernelle Claus
1131 - 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA. 98020
Re: Drainage problems located at 1131 - 7th Ave. S.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Claus:
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
PETER E. HAHN
DIRECTOR
Ato/16/gv
The City received the letter from your representative, Hugh W. Judd.
We are willing to meet with you to discuss solutions to your drainage
problems, but the problems appear to be private and not the City's
responsibility.
We have no records indicating that the City "altered the natural flow
of a -stream", as suggested in your letter. The City's policy has been
to allow storm drainage in the natural drainage system only "where it
is possible to do so without significantly altering the natural
drainage ways". The stream "altering" you refer to was probably done
by the developer or a previous owner.
The stream, Shellabarger Creek, is a "water of the state" and work in
or around it is under the jurisdiction of the state. The Department of
Fisheries or Department of Wildlife will typically not allow work in
the stream after October 15, 1990. Therefore, there is little
opportunity to resolve your problem before this year's rainy season.
URS Consultants completed a drainage basin study in June, 1989 and
found no erosion or capacity problem with Shellabarger Creek near your
house. The City cannot work on private property to benefit individual
property owners. Please contact Jim Walker at 771-3202 to discuss the
specifics of your problems.
Sincerely,
�e�2 f d.,�
ROBERT J. ALBERTS, P.E.
City Engineer
JCW/RJA/sdt
DRNPROB.7TH/TXTST530
0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
CITY OF EDIdf1` INDS
CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. John Claus
1137 7th Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Mr. Claus,
SUBJECT:
February 23, 1979
HARVE H. HARRISON
MAYOR
CHANNEL EROSION PROTECTION MEASURES
As discussed on February 22, we are sending you general
information on channel erosion protection. This information
is from a manual prepared in 1977 by URS Company for Snohomish
and King County areas. The manual's title is "Stormwater
Management Procedures and Methods".
Yours very truly,
RED F. HERZBERG, P.E.
City Engineer
BF: kjr
Enclosure
B Franklin I Dt. A in. Dt.
P.W. Director Dt.
THESE MINUTES SUBJECT
TO JANUARY 16 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 9, 1979
(Work Meeting)
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City council was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center.
All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Mike Herb Leif Larson, Public Works Director
Phil Clement John LaTourelle, Community Development Director
Katherine Allen Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
John Nordquist Lila Crosby, Administrative Services Director
Ray Gould Art Housler, Finance Director
Larry Naughten Fred Herzberg, City Engineer
Tom Carns Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO REMOVE ITEM (D) FROM
THE CONSENT AGENDA AND TO PASS THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
MOTION: CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CARNS FURTHER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO
CONTINUE ITEM (D), AUTHORIZATION TO EXCHANGE EASEMENT ON NARVESON PROPERTY.
a, ��,� FOR RELOCAIED SANITARY SEWER, TO JANUARY 16, 1979, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
0 STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED. The balance of the Consent Agenda
included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of January 2, 1979.
(C) Acknowledge receipt of claim for damages from Reesey Grinage in the
amount of $158.86.
d.�, J&Uj (E) Authorization to call for bids January 19, 1979 for Senior Center reroofing.
(F) Report on bids opened January 3, 1979 for liquid chlorine and awarding
bid to the low bidder, Jones Chemicals, Inc., in the amount of $17,195.13.
(G) Report on alley condition east of 7th Ave. S., between Pine and Laurel Sts.
(H) Report on comparative costs re loss of revenue from Olympic View Water
District.
COUNCIL
Councilman Carns noted that the AWC convention will be in Spokane June 12-15
and he suggested early reservations be made in order to get into the convention
center. Council members Carns, Naughten, and Allen indicated they planned to
attend.
Councilman Carns noted that the Doces.furniture store is retailing from their
warehouse at. the back of their store, in violation of their rezone contract.
He asked that this be investigated and a report provided at the next meeting.
Councilman Carns expressed concern for streets with asphalt overlays as the
area goes into a thaw period. Public Works Director Leif Larson responded that
there is no evidence as yet of the need for load limits and when they become
necessary the requirement will be area -wide.
MOTION:
MOTION:
MOTION:
Councilman Naughten noted that on January 16 there will be a report regarding
the Boys' Club: He said he had toured the facility and was impressed and he
encouraged the other Council members to accept the invitation to tour the Boys'
Club.
Councilwoman Allen urged that somebody attend the Congressional -City Conference
in Washington,D.C., March 4-6, 1979, sponsored by the National League of Cities.
She felt the money spent on attending such conferences was well spent, based on
her experience in attending the St. Louis conference. It was suggested that the
ideas from these conferences be shared, perhaps at breakfast meetings. Councilman
Herb suggested there should be some kind of policy on how many long-distance
conferences a Council member should attend during a year and when the information
gained should.be discussed in Council. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL-
MAN CLEMENT, THAT BEFORE ANY COUNCILPERSON GOES TO A SEMINAR REQUIRING OVERNIGHT
LODGING AND TOTALLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CITY IT WILL BE PUT TO A VOTE OF THE
COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED.
MAYOR
Mayor Harrison annnounced that the quarterly meeting of the Association of
Snohomish County Cities and Towns will be held January 25, 1979, at the Landmark
Inn in Lynnwood, beginning at 6:30 p.m. Council members Carns, Allen, Clement,
and Naughten indicated their intention to attend.
Mayor Harrison reviewed the Council committee assignments, the only change from
last year being that Councilman Naughten will replace Councilman Nordquist on the
LEOFF Disability Board.
ELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM FOR 1979
COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT COUNCILMAN GOULD
BE ELECTED MAYOR PRO TEM FOR 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING WITH INITIATORS OF PETITION FOR NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX -- 76TH AVE. W.,
NORTH OF 210TH ST. S.W.
Public Works Director Leif Larson reviewed the effects of this proposed annexation
on public facilities. He said the petitioners had requested .that the petition
include the area stated plus an alternate area immediately to the west of 76th
Ave. W., in case there should be a problem in obtaining signatures of 75% of the
property owners in the stated area. The zoning is commercial and multiple family.
Connie Root of 6860 N.E. 137th, Kirkland, stated that a large number of the
residents and apartment building owners were anxious to be annexed in order to
connect to the sewer system that already is installed. Burt Hardy, owner of the
Evergreen Apartments at 20901 76th Ave. W., inquired as to how long it would take
before they could connect to the sewers. Mr. Larson responded that the connections
could be accomplished immediately after annexation, but he noted that the Boundary
Review Board must approve the annexation. Where the main sewers are not yet in,
he -.said it a:ould be eight months-to'a year before they would be installed. Council-
woman Allen was concerned about the cross streets which are in poor condition, and
Mr. Larson said they might be.worked in with the sanitary sewer installation.
COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT THE COUNCIL (1) ACCEPT
THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION, AND (2) THAT ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE TERRITORY HEREBY
SOUGHT TO BE ANNEXED SHALL BE ASSESSED AND TAXED AT THE SAME RATE AND ON THE SAME
BASIS AS PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF EDIMONDS FOR ANY N041 OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS
OF SAID CITY, INCLUDING ASSESSMENTS OR TAXES IN PAYMENT OF ANY BONDS ISSUED OR
DEBTS CONTRACTED, PRIOR TO OR EXISTING AT THE DATE OF ANNEXATIONJ. MOTION CARRIED.
ED14ONDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Financial impact data regarding acquisition of the Edmonds Elementary School was
reviewed. It was also suggested that a committee of Council members and Staff
be formed to oversee the development program of the facility, and this met Council
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 - January 9, 1979
c� Q•L/.t.E'J
MOTION: approval. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT
tS�.&v FEBRUARY 13, 1979 BE SCHEDULED FOR A REVIEW OF A BOND ISSUE AND PLAN FOR THE
MOTION: EDMONDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT THEN MOVED,
[:,�i a&& -.A y SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT AN
JORDINANCE, AND THE RESULTING STAFF WORK BE ACCOMPLISHED, TO ACQUIRE THE EDMOilDS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WITH COUNCILMANIC BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $612,000, AND
NECESSARY BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BE MADE PER THE JANUARY 3, 1979 REVISED STATEMENT
OF FINANCIAL IMPACT DATA RE ACQUISITION OF THE EDMONDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
EXCEPT THAT THE $12,000 SH014N IN ITEM C FOR ADMINISTRATION, CLERICAL, AND
OVERHEAD BE ALLOCATED TO THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND; FURTHER, THAT THE
UTILITY TAX INCREASE OF 3/4 OF 1%,.TO 6 3/40, BE INITIATED AND THAT NO MORE
THAN THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO SERVICE THE $612,000 OF BONDS FROM THE UTILITY TAX
INCREASE BE PLEDGED TO THAT PROCESS. MOTION CARRIED. Council members appointed
to serve on the Council/Staff committee were Councilman Carns and Councilwoman
Allen, with Councilmen Clement, Nordquist, and Naughten as alternates. Other
members of the committee will be the Mayor (Chairman), Mayor Pro tem, Public Works
Director, Community Development Director, and the Manager of Parks and.Recreation
Division.
REPORT ON DRAINAGE PLAN FOR 7TH AND ELM
This report resulted from an investigation of a drainage problem stated by John
Claus of 1137 7th Ave. S. City Engineer Fred.Herzberg reviewed the runoff
situation in the area and explained the options which would be to take the
water from one drainage basin and to put it into another. Mr. Herzberg said
his report was not a detailed engineering report and that a storm water engineer
would be working on the problem in the future, according to priority. He said
the problem was not serious enough to hold back any development in the area
and the Engineering Department will have a study prepared for budgeting next fall.
A,G,CK jv,,,4,A response will be sent to Mr. Claus.
Mayor Harrison announced there would be an Executive Session following this
meeting to discuss a property sale offer and labor negotiations report. There
was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned
to Executive Session at 8:50 p.m.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
LAW OFFICES OF
HUGH W. JUDD
VILLAGE SQUARE OFFICE CENTER
8575 164TH AVE. N.E.
SUITE 202
REDMOND, WASHINGTON 98052
OF COUNSEL
JOHN P. PLOVIE
JORGEN E. SCHLEER
City of Edmonds
Engineering Department
250 5th Avenue, North
Edmonds, WA 98020
PHONE (206) 881-1882
R1J$CX=6) 867-5113
t vk:b
September 12, 19
�f P 2 0 1990
ENGINEERINO
RE: JOHN AND VERNELLE CLAUS AND TSUNETO AND REBECCA LEE
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT: 1131 7TH AVENUE, SOUTH
1137 7TH AVENUE, SOUTH
John and Vernelle Claus and Tsuneto and Rebecca Lee recently
asked me to review the history of water problems they have
had on their properties at the above addresses.
At some time in the past, the City apparently altered the
natural flow of a stream which previously entered
the Claus's property from the Southeast and traversed the.
Northeast corner of his property. That natural stream also
previously crossed through the Lee's property in its actual
stream bed. As a result of that diversion, in conjunction
with other measures taken by the neighbors to the Southeast
(Kurtis Dunphy), the Claus' and Lees' properties have been
flooded at frequent times each year. Those floods have
occurred when significant, but not abnormal, rainfall has
occurred.
My clients have attempted to work with the City to resolve
the flooding problems on their lots, but.those efforts have
not been successful. This letter is to urge the City to
meet with the Claus' and Lees' to resolve this problem as
soon as possible, before the rainy season sets in again this
year.
Please feel free to contact my clients directly; however,
please send me copies of any correspondence you may have
with them.
City of Edmonds
Engineering Department
September 14, 1990
Page 2
We hope that it will not be necessary to take any action to
provide relief from the damages the Claus' and Lees' have
incurred.
Very truly yours,
Hugh W. Judd
HWJ:gk
cc: John and Vernelle Claus
Tsuneto and Rebecca Lee
pq
ST ET FILE
CITY OF E D M O N D S LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
250 - 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
July 30, 1984
John D. Claus
1131 - 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA. 98020
Dear Mr. Claus:
Since receiving your letter regarding the erosion in the
stream bed, the City Planning, Public Works and Engineering staff
have visited your property and attempted to find a solution to the
problem.
You recommended culverting the stream. The City
Comprehensive Plan states, "The natural drainage system (i.e.
streams, ponds and marshes) shall not be filled or permanently
culverted except where no other alternative exists." It is the
opinion of the Planning Director that our Comprehensive Plan
prohibits the stream from being culverted in either the alley or
through your property.
We discussed your proposal to reroute the stream to the
south. We are not opposed to this solution, but our Public Works
forces cannot do the work. They are prohibited by contract from
working on private property.
We will continue to do everything we can to control the peak
flows in the stream, but we cannot guarantee any maximum flow. If
you desire to reroute the stream on your property, we will support
your application. This would require your submitting an
Environmental Checklist to the Edmonds Planning Department,
acquiring a right-of-way construction permit for work in the alley
and obtaining a hydraulics permit from the Washington State
Department of Fisheries.
John D. Claus
July 30, 1984
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding these forms, please call
Duane Bowman or Mary Lou Block at 771-3202.
Sincerely,
JAMES E. ADAMS, P.E.
City Engineer
JEA/st
Concurrence: 11
Mary Lou Block
Planning Director
a
AatA6 Ile
Bobby VMills
Acting Supt. of Public Works
roc
ri
IZ
ol
S77�E-
my
\� �P(��icwsfdk
J;',4 IMIAW
*
ILI-
Lo i-,ft A) -P
001,
oll s77;e64M
FieoM llolVo .5, -504.1 —lW 0
'STRFAW�
XL
c U,
jowt1j. Di I CkAU5
31 - 7 T-q A VF,, 50.
c ic
x Er2z
LDC Project No. 9236.
July 21, 1992
.,%
CLAUS DRAINAGE STUDY
Based upon our investigation, I offer the following comments and conclusions:
1) Soils review: According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County published by
the Soil Conservation Service, the soils in your area are generally of the
Alderwood and Everett series. The Everett series soils are generally easily
eroded due to their high sand content.
2) Field investigation: A field inspection of the creek and surrounding area was
performed on June 3, 1992. The survey covered the area from the City's 24"
storm drain outlet downstream to where the creek enters the storm drain
adjacent to Fir St. During the survey, water was flowing within the creek at
a depth of approximately 2 to 3 inches. Numerous natural springs were
encountered near, and adjacent to, the creek. This indicates a high natural
water table near the surface and is probably responsible for the dry season
water flows noted within the creek.
Extensive erosion of the creek bed was encountered downstream of the City's
24" (concrete pipe) storm drain outlet. The culvert protruded out of a steep
hillside about 6'-8' above the stream channel. The "stream cuts" in this area
were approximately 5 feet high with near vertical banks. A length of 24"
concrete pipe was observed near the culvert outlet. It appeared that the hillside
at the culvert outlet had eroded to such an extent that a length of pipe had
fallen off. It appeared that the City has recently installed a piece of 24" plastic
pipe (CPEP) from the end of the concrete culvert down to the stream bed. The
plastic pipe was held in place with bailing wire attached to small iron pipes
driven into the stream bed. There did not appear to be any attempt at
"armoring" the culvert outlet to prevent further erosion. It is our opinion that
the culvert outfall should be stabilized by the installation of a rock lining or
other energy dissipation device.
Between the 24" storm drain outlet and where it enters the Fir St. storm drain,
sedimentation along the inniority of the creek channel was apparent. At the
boundary between the Dunphy and City property, a wire mesh fence was
installed across the stream channel. The fence had an accumulation of small
sticks and leafs along its bottom rising up 12"-18". It was apparent that the
fence causes the stream to significantly back up water behind it. Due to this
fence, the majority of the stream flow is being redirected into a second smaller
stream that also crosses through the Claus property. Across the back of the
Dunphy property, the steam appears to have been substantially filled in with
water overflowing onto the Claus property. The combination of the stream
redirection due to the fence and the overflow due to the sedimentation of the
stream is causing erosion of, and flooding on, the Claus property. Some minor
erosion was also apparent in the reach just upstream of the Fir St. storm drain.
3) Drainage analysis: Calculations performed by this office indicate that the storm
water flows within the creek channel near your property due to a 100-Yr storm
event should be approximately 34 cfs. The calculations provided to you by Jim
Walker of the City refer to an URS study which shows a storm water flow of
only 15.5 cfs. This difference is considerable and should be investigated. The
second stream traversing the Claus property was analyzed and determined to
be sufficient to carry the runoff from only one-half of a five year storm event
of the upstream 34 acre drainage basin. Therefore, unless the stream is placed
back into its original course the Claus residence appears to be subject to
flooding very frequently.
In addition, it is unknown as to whether or not the URS study used by the City
accounted for the "base" flows within the stream due to the springs. We
estimate the base flow at the time of field survey to be approximately 2 cfs.
This value should be taken as a minimum since the field survey was performed
during a "dry" summer period. The winter base flows are probably much higher
and are probably exacerbating the flooding problems you have mentioned.
The actual calculations performed by Jim Walker of the City are sound.
However, the hydraulic design data he utilized is based upon the URS study.
Since we question the URS study, Mr. Walker's calculations should be used
with caution.
The flooding problems appear to be caused by the following: (a) changes in
upstream land uses (replacement of upstream forests with urban housing)
without providing adequate storm water detention, (b) erosion and
sedimentation of the creek with the resulting loss in carrying capacity, (c)
redirection of stream flows by the Dunphy fence, and (d) the filling of the
stream channel across the Dunphy property.
4) The stream improvements listed in the letter from the City of Edmund's dated
February 27, 1992 appear reasonable on the surface. However, the proposed
improvements do not address the problem of increased runoff caused by the
changes in land use and the implementation of a solution is not provided. Since
the drainage systems on the City property are very sensitive due to the
relatively flat meandering nature of the stream flows, we do not think that log
check dams should be installed without very careful consideration because they
might cause redirection of stream flows similar to , the Dunphy fence.
Installation of the log chi ck. Aims will cause deposition of the sediments farther
i
N
upstream until they become inoperative due to siltation of the upstream face.
The sediment is originating from scour around the 24" storm drain outfall as
well as contributions from the upstream roadways.
5) In regards to the City of Edmund's letter dated April 20, 1992, 1 have the
following comments: (1) The repair of the City's drainage pipe appears to be
temporary at best. I doubt that Mr. Walker was aware of the repair methods
when he stated that the repair was complete. I also doubt that the section of
plastic pipe installed would remain in place through a normal winter season.
Generally, pipe installations of this type have specialized pipe anchors installed
along their length and permanent erosion protection installed at the outfall, (2)
1 am not convinced that a settling or detention pond could not be installed on
the City property. Most detention ponds are fenced to prevent a hazard to
children, see the attached copies of Snohomish and King County standards.
Ponds are also the preferred method of storm water detention due to the water
quality enhancements, 7er, the attached copies of King County and City of
Bellevue standards. f k.,ase note that the King County and City of Bellevue
standards were adopted in 1989 and 1990 respectively, while the Snohomish
County standards were adopted in 1979. Therefore, the preference for
detention ponds present within the King County and City of Bellevue standards
is more representative of the current design philosophy. The impracticality
mentioned in the City letter is not due to physical site, or engineering
constraints. However, it may be due to financial or other constraints. The City
should also consider a permanent repair to their concrete pipe outfall and
should investigate the two stream channel flows through the Claus property.
The City's proposal to clean out the channel upstream of your property is only
a temporary solution. As you are fully aware, this proposal also requires
periodic maintenance along the entire stream.
6) Recommendation: It would be in the best interest of all parties and the down
stream aquatic wildlife if a storm water detention facility with outlet controls
and an oil/water separator were installed on the City property and a biofiltration
Swale installed across the Dunphy property. This would result in creek flows
closer to the natural "pre -developed or forest" condition. The storm water
discharging into Puget Sound will also be cleaner due to pollutants being
removed by the biofiltration facility. This facility will require periodic
maintenance but, if all sediments and debris were trapped in a detention pond,
it should be easier to perform.
The actual location, size, and hydraulic characteristics of the recommended
drainage facilities can not be accurately determined unless a topographic survey
of the upstream drainage basin, City property, Dunphy property, and
surrounding area is performed. The origination of the two stream flows
entering the Claus property are critical to the final design of drainage facilities
on the City property. I have included preliminary design calculations for a
detention facility on the City property and preliminary designs for a biofiltration
swale across the Dunphy property. Since a topographic survey has not been
made available to us, engineering judgement was used to guide thepreliminary
design work.
The biofilter designs I have provided do not meet the "strict" requirements for
a biofilter swale as given within Snohomish County Standards. I have taken
the liberty of modifying the standard design to fit the amount of area available,
provide for a reasonably sized facility, match the surrounding area, and limit the
amount of remedial work required. Due to the inaccessibility of the Dunphy
property the exact site conditions are unknown. Therefore, I recommend that
the installation be under the direction of a Professional Engineer to account for
variable ground conditions. A Hydraulic Project Approval may also be required
from the Department of Wildlife in Mill Creek prior to beginning any work within
the creek corridor.
To prevent erosion and flooding from occurring on the Claus property,
rechannelization of the stream across the Dunphy property and removal of
channel restrictions is necessary. The stream banks should also be stabilized by
either revegetation or rock lining. All work within the creek corridor should be
coordinated with the Department of Wildlife.
979 JOYOoW-OOV15W co. sT,gtia�,�,L?s
OPEN RETENTION/DETENTION POIJDS - REQUIREMENTS
1.
Side slopes for earth lined retention/detention ponds shall
be.no steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical unless approved
by the Director. Flatter slopes are encouraged.
2.
The access road grade into the proposed retention/detention
pond must be no steeper than !i horizontal to 1 vertical.
:i.
All retention/detention ponds not abutting a public right-of-
way shall be Accessible for maintenance and operation and a
vehicular access road pr.ov.ided. in cases where the bottom
width of the pond is 20 feet, or greater, the road must be
provided to the bottom of the pond. The access road shall be
surfaced to support maintenance.vehicles and equipment such as
a 10-cubic yard dump truck and 3-cubic yard front end loader.
An access gate for access roads may be required and shall be
structurally and aesthetically acceptable for the use and
location proposed or an acceptable alternative to control traffic.
4.
All retention/detention ponds shall have a minimum of one foot
of freeboard above the maximuri desiqn water surface.
5. Any embankment material. for construction of a retention/detention
pond in excess of 4 feet must be approved by a qualified pro-
fessional soils engineer and the Director.. The minimum top
width of this berm shall be 15 feet with a key section, unless
otherwise approved by a qualified professional engineer and the
Director.. This may require fencing with access gate.
6. Any embankment less than 4 feet including 1 Foot of freeboard
in depth forming one or more rides of a retention/detention
pond shall have a minimum 6-foot wide bermwith back slope not
to.exceed 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
7. if the basin is to be used only intermittently for peak flow
detention, consideration shout-d'be given to seeding the floor
and sides witl1 a suitable grass. In any event, the sides
above the maxisrii r <<ratr,r level:.
evel should be seeded. If the basin
is to be a combination permanent pond/storage basin, the sides
should be seeded down to the permanent pool elevation.. .
Consideration should be given to preventing siltation or the
basin by means of upstream erasion control measures. 'If'the
basin is to be used as a sedinsent collection facility,;.adequate
access must be provided for the necessary equipment to.periodi-
cally remove accumulated sedinient..,and:debris..'.
8:: All constructed and graded retention/detention ponds shall be
sloped no .flatter than 0.005 ft./ft. (N%)towards the outlet
for drainage. _
53
r
EXCEPTION! This requirement need not apply to natural ponds,
which exist, and are utilized:for.storm.water retention:
9. All berms or embankments constructed for retention/detention
ponds in excess of 2 feet in'height`shall be compacted to at'
least 95 percent of the maxittium "relative: density`'hs'. determined
..by Section 2-03.3 (14) D of. the! Washington State "Highway'." Departme
Standard Specifications. Those berms 2`feet'in 'height*. and less
shall be compacted by a dozer or similar'type"'piece of'equipmen
in lifts not`to.exceed 6 inches of compactable:soil.
10. The back slopes for a1A ecru, berms shall be no steeper than
2 horizontal I vertical.
11: Backup retention/detention facilities and the' preservation of
natural drainage ponds are encouraged.
r
CET�.S'1" 1OQ _SIdJ
_�.
(Ul.O1S-TU2B���
12..:1.,All detention ponds shall�have�'a spillway whose top elevation
shall.be equal to -the maximum .design water surface elevation.
13..:.:Spillway..surfacing may be rocJ`9palls or crushed rock:having
one face with a minimum dimension,- of. - inches Spalls''or
crushed rock shall. be laid 'in two or more layers to d minimum
depth of 1"2 ir: he:,, . spillway shall. have side. slopes at the.
ends not to exceed a slope of 3 horizontal _',to'.1 vertical,
14. Spillways for retention/detention ponds shall be designed as
suppressed sharp-crested.weir:3"so long'as maximum.depth,of
,.flow over weir does not exce&.] , 0..33 feet
15..!::Storm retention/detention ponds may be"'utilized.as Interim
Drainage Facilities if approved by the'Director.
.54
16.. The use of a private parking lot. to act as a, retention%detention
:facility is permissible provided the surface storage"portion'of
the facility is located entirely within the lot.'` -The major
access roads shall not be'utilized for surface'storage.,'..In case
'of blockage at'the outlet, the design s all
g h provide for overland
flow
(preferably to a street) when the' depth increases':to::six, (6)
inches.
17.. 11 fence is required around a retention/detention pond when the
.:depth`of water exceeds 3 feet or inside slopes are `greater than
. 3 to i.. This fence shall have'a (late of sufficient - size to tmit
maintenance .equipment (1.6 min. ) . it is required that:1hv..oate bo
kept- l(:)c,kc t1 whCn not in use.
.it
55
/X.90 A'/A,) e-. ed. ,S7-A+Vb MJ>,S
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
o All R/D facilities not located in King County right-of-way to be maintained by King County shall be In
a tract dedicated to King County. Any tract not abutting public right-of-way will require a 15' wide
extension of the tract for access to the R/D facility (see Section 1.2.6, Chapter 1).
4.4.4 PONDS
Open pond design for R/D facilities is the most desirable method for controlling runoff from developed
areas. King County requires "dry pond" designs for most development. However, multi -purpose ponds
that Include "wetpond" and "Infiltration" pond features may also be used in conformance with the following
criteria:
Design Criteria
Capacity/Discharae: Volume and restrictor analysis shall be In accordance with performance and
hydrograph routing requirements given in Chapter 3. Restrictor orifice structure design shall be per
Section 4.4.7. Note that the design water surface elevation is the highest elevation which occurs in order
to achieve the required discharge performance for the pond.
Geometrics: Minimum length t-) wi,lth ratio of the pond design water surface shall be 2:1 in order to
enhance water quality bensfiti. t ,nger lengths allow more travel time and opportunity for low -flow
Infiltration, biofiltration, and sedimentation. The pond inlet and outlet shall therefore be located as far apart
as possible in the pond to maximize these mechanisms.
o Ponds must be designed as "flow -through" facilities (no back-up ponds) with two sequential "cells"
approximately dividing the detention volume equally between the cells.
o Interior side slopes up to the maximum water surface shall be no steeper than 3H:1V unless a fence
Is provided on the slope at the maximum water surface or higher on the slope.
o Exterior side slopes shall be not steeper than 2HAV. UnlesAIanalyzed for stability by a geotechnical
engineer.
o The pond bottom shall be level to facilitate sedimentation, and the pond bottom area shall be
located 0.5 feet below the inlet and outlet to provide dead storage for sediment.
o Pond walls may be retaining walls, provided that the design is prepared and stamped by a structural
engineer registered in the State of Washington, that they are constructed of reinforced concrete per
Section 4.4.6, that a fence Is provided along the top of the wall, and that at least 25% of the pond
perimeter will be a vegetated soil slope of not greater than 3H:IV.
Overflow: A pond overflow system must provide controlled discharge of the 100-year, 24-hour design
storm event for developed site conditions without overtopping any part of the pond embankment or
exceeding the capacity of the emergency spillway. The design must provide controlled discharge directly
Into the downstream conveyance system. This assumes the pond will be full due to plugged control
structure Inflow pipe and/or plugged restrictor/orifices conditions.
o Open Type 2 catch basins can function as weirs (see Figure 4.4.4C) when used as pond overflow
structures to control overtopping. The overflow structure as shown in Figure 4.4.4E may be required
In some circumstances to protect embankments from overtopping.
Emergency Overflow Spillway: In addition to the above overflow requirements, an emergency overflow
spillway (secondary overflow) must be provided to safely pass the 100-year, 24-hour design storm event
(for developed site conditions and assuming the pond is full to the crest of the spillway) over the pond
embankment in the event of control structure failure or for storm/runoff events exceeding design. The
-- spillway must be located -to direct overflows safely towards the downstream conveyance system and shall
be located In existing soil wherever feasible. The emergency overflow spillway shall be armored with rip
rap in conformance with Table 4.3.6A and shall extend to the toe of each face of the berm embankment.
4.4.4-1 1 /90
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
o Design of emergency overflow ;piliways require the analysis of a broad -crested trapezoidal weir.
The following weir section is required for the emergency overflow spillway:
FIGURE 4.4.4A WEIR SECTION FOR EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SPILLWAY
b wiM.
EME.t�tErtGY or�2FwW
h, 42
o.s' mill.
0 1 (Ot' M14.)
j;Z'(r?4p peje-VaWL 413-I&A
o The emergency overflow spillway weir section shall be designed to pass the 100-year, 24-hour
design storm event for developed conditions as follows:
For this weir, Q,,, = C (2g)112(2/3LH'I2 + B/15 Tan& H"')
using C = 0.6 (discharge coefficient);
Tan = 3 for 3:1 slopes);
= 72 ;
The equation becomes: 0,00 = 3.21 (LH312 + 2.41-1512)
To find width L, the equation is rearranged to use the computed Q," (peak flow for the 100-year, 24-
hour design storm) and trial values of H (0.2 feet minimum).
L = (Q,O,/(3.21H312)) - (2.4H�); 6 feet minimum Ifs
Access/Maintenance: Pond access tracts and roads are required when ponds do not abut public right-of-
way. Road(s) shall provide access to the control structure and along side(s) of the pond as necessary for
vehicular maintenance. For ponds with bottom widths of 15 feet or more, the access road shall extend to
the pond bottom and an access pad provided to facilitate cleaning. For ponds less than 15 feet in width,
an access road must extend along one side.
o Roads and pads shall meet the following criteria:
- Maximum Grade: 15% to control structure, 20% into pond.
- Provide 40' minimum outside turning radius on the access road to the control structure and
the turnaround to the pond bottorn.
- Fence gates shall be provided for access roads at straight sections of road.
- Access roads shall be 15' in width on curves and 12' on straight sections.
- Access pads shall be 15' in width and 25' in length.
o Manhole and catch basin lids must be at either edge of an access road or pad and be at least three
feet from a property line.
o Access shall be limited by a double -posted gate if a fence Is required or by bollards. Bollards shall
consist of two fixed bollards on each side of the access road and two removable bollards equally
located between the fixed bollards.
o Access roads and pads shall be constructed by utilizing one of the following techniques:
4.4.4 -2 1 /90
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
Construct an asphalt surface meeting the same standard as King County residential minor
access streets.
- Construct a gravel surface road by removlog all unsuitable material, laying a geotextile fabric
over the native soli, placing quarry spalls (2"-4") six Inches thick, then providing a two -Inch
thick crushed gravel surface.
- Construct a landscape block surface by removing all unsuitable material, laying a geotextile
fabric over the native soil, placing landscape blocks (24"x 24"x 6"), filling the honeycombs with
soil particles, and planting grass.
Berm Embankment/Slope Stabilization: Pond berm embankments higher than 6-feet shall require design
. by a geotechnical-civil engineer licensed In the State of Washington. The berm embankment shall have a
minimum 15-foot top width where necessary for maintenance access; otherwise, top width may vary as
recommended by the geotechnical-civil engineer.
o A berm dividing the pond Into cells shall have a 5' minimum top width, a top elevation set one foot
lower than the design_water surface, maximum 3:1 side slopes, and a quarry spall and gravel filter
"window" between the cells (see Figure 4.4.4F). r _,yr -5%.Yr.r"AcF
o For berm embankments 6 feet, or less than (including 1-foot freeboard), the minimum top width shall
be 6 feet or as recommended by the geotechnicai-cNil engineer.
o The toe of the exterior slope of pond berm embankment must be no closer than 5 feet from the tract
or easement property line.
o Pond berm embankment must be constructed on native consolidated soil (or adequately compacted
and stable fill soils analyzed by a geotechnicai report) free of loose surface soil materials, roots and
other organic debris.
o Pond berm embankments must be constructed by excavating a "key" equal to 50% of the berm
embankment cross -sectional heighth and width (except on till $Oils where the "key" minimum depth
can be reduced to 1 foot of excavation Into the till).
Its
o The berm embankment shall be constructed on compacted soil (95% minimum dry density, standard
proctor method per ASTM D1557), placed in 6" lifts, with the following soil characteristics per the
United States Department of Agriculture's Textural Triangle: a minimum of 30% clay, a maximum of
60% sand, a maximum of 60% silt, with nominal gravel and Cable content (Note, in general,
excavated glacial till will be well -suited for berm embankment material).
o Anti -seepage collars must be placed on outflow pipes in berm embankments impounding water
greater than 8 feet in depth at the design water surface.
o Exposed earth on the pond bottom and side slopes shall be sodded or seeded with appropriate
seed mixture (see Section 5.5.4., Chapter 5). Establishment of protective vegetative cover shall be
ensured with jute mesh or other protection and reseeded as necessary (see Section 5.5.2, Chapter
5).
F n in : A chain link fence is required to be constructed at the maximum water surface elevation, or
higher, when a pond slope is a wail or ff the slope exceeds 3HAV.
o The fence shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height.
Ekceptlon: The fence may be a minimum of 4 feet In height If the depth of the impoundment
(measured from the lowest elevation in the bottom of the impoundment, directly adjacent to the
bottom of the fenced slope, up to the maximum water surface) Is 4 feet or less.
o Access road gates shall be 16 feet in width consisting of two swinging sections 8 feet In width.
4.4.4-3 1 /90
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
o Pedestrian access gates (if needed) shall be 4 feet in width.
o Fence material shall be No. 11 gauge galvanized steel fabric with bonded vinyl coating. Vinyl
coating shall be green in open areas and black In wooded areas.
o Fence posts shall be galvanized steel , with top caps, and set a minimum of 2 feet deep in concrete
filled post hole. Corner and gate posts shall be set a minimum of 3 feet deep in concrete. Cross
bars shall connect adjacent fence pests.
o , ,All posts, cross bar, and gates shall be painted or coated the same color as the vinyl clad fence
fabric.
In
All permanent R/D ponds, infiltration ponds and wetponds, shall have signs placed so that at least one is
clearly visible and legible from all adjacent streets, sidewalks or paths.
o The signs shall meet the design and Installation requirements illustrated in Figure 4.4.4G.
Details
Standard details are shown In Figures 4.4.4E through G. Control structure details are shown in Section
4.4.7.
4.4.4-4 1 /90
/9�9 BEtteyu4e ,oZDs
ii. Open surface ponds shall be used in preference to closed detention
systems.
(1) Slopes on all interiors of surface ponds shall not exceed three
feet horizontal to one foot vertical for all detention ponds in
residential plats. Ponds in commercial developments which are
to remain under private ownership and maintenance shall have
at least one interior slope not exceeding three feet horizontal
to one foot vertical. All other sides with slopes exceeding
three shall one to be retaining walls designed by a licensed
structural engineer. The use of rockeries on detention pond
interiors shall not be permitted. Interior pond sides with a
three to one slope or less shall be stabilized and vegetated with
sod or an appropriate mulch and seed mixture. (See Chapter 2
of these standards.)
(2) The bottom of all ponds less than three feet deep shall have six
feet as a minimum dimension. The bottom of all ponds three
feet or more deep shall have 15 feet as a minimum dimension.
Maximum water depth in all ponds shall be five feet.
(3) Ponds suited to multiple use are strongly encouraged.
Exarnples of multiple uses are sport courts, play areas,
11:!iglihorhood parks, and picnic areas. Such ponds may be
designed with engineered retaining walls (with slopes exceeding
3 to 1) only as approved by the Engineer on a case by case basis.
(4) All ponds shall have a landscape plan and shall. be landscaped
with vegetation so as to provide slope stability and pleasant
appearance by utilizing sodding, eeding, and planting of trees
and shrubbery, etc. (See Chapter Zof these Standards).
Landscape materials and the mairifenance thereof shall be fully
compatible with use as a detention facility. Under no
circumstances shall use of easily floatable or erodable
materials (such as "beauty bark") be permitted in pond
interiors. Landscape materials shall be selected for water
quality enhancement potential.
(5) Maintenance of surface ponds in commercial developments
shall be the responsibility of the property owner, or Owner's
Association. Maintenance of surface pond landscaping in single
family residential areas shall be the responsibility of the
adjacent property owners or homeowners association and shall
be noted on the face of the plat except in the case of multiple
use ponds or other ponds dedicated and accepted for
maintenance by the City. Maintenance of landscaping and
facilities of multiple use ponds in single family residential
developments shall be the responsibility of an owner's
association or community club and shall be so stated on the
face of the plat unless accepted for maintenance by the City.
5498m I V-17
12/88
(6) Containment berms for all detention ponds other than those in
parking lots shall have a minimum of one foot of freeboard
above the maximum design water surface.
(7) All constructed and graded retention/detention ponds shall be
sloped no flatter than 0.01 ft./ft. (1%) towards the outlet(s),
for drainage.
EXCEPTION: This requirement need not apply to naturally
occurring ponds or wetlands, which are utilized for storm
water det,?ntirm.
(8) The use of "wet" detention ponds having a permanent standing
water area may be required for removal of certain types of
pollutants if the impact of pollutant loading on adjacent
waterways is deemed significant by the Engineer.
Multiple -stage ponds may be required to provide better
pollutant trap efficiency.
(9) Use of "flow through" detention ponds is encouraged due to
their potential water quality benefits. All "flow through"
detention ponds shall have a well defined low flow channel to
contain runoff of lesser storms. Any low flow channel shall be
designed so as to enhance the pond landscaping and overall
pond appearance. Plantings -3hall be used to provide water
quality enhancement. See Chapter 2 of these standards. Ponds
shall be designed to minimize "short circuiting" of the flow
through the use of appropriately designed baffles.
(10) Outlets of all detention ponds shall be provided with suitable
debris barriers or trash racks designed to protect the outlet
from blockage or plugging. Ir
(11) The maximum design water depth in all detention ponds shall
be five feet.
(12) The design volume of detention ponds shall be shown on the
plan and the pond volume shall be inspected by the Permit
Authority prior to landscaping. A note to this effect shall be
shown on the plans.
(13) Storm retention/detention ponds may be utilized as Interim
Drainage Facilities if cleaned following completion of paving
and if approved by the Permit Authority.
(14) See Drawing No. 4C-42 for a typical surface pond sketch.
iii. Embankments
(1) Where berms are to be constructed as banks of detention
ponds, the following requirements as regards to soils shall be
met. Attainment of these specifications and the fact that the
berm is safe and suitable for the intended use shall be
5498m IV-18
12/88
41!41�0�
".."m
G / 7Y %=ie o fb_S1f "'
ndtn9 S}4jion Fur
S+ream X:mprovemcm+z
1
ItZ-Lo9 Ckeck
�\
CITY- RESERVE
�00
NOTE: For Typical S+ream-Lo9 C6eck Dv^^
Channel _Improvements, See o0
ACcoMpanin9 Deal I
LL
u.
N
••
Log ChecK
DUNP4Y
Wood Fence
/Re,no-we Cka,. Llnk Fence
Below Wood Fence
, Log C I.cck Darn
S5
0410 i
La' Ckeck Dom
geq�nn�np SFo Fro., (ror —
S{-Jrer m J I:Mprovtrnenri
o0
0
t
ICLAUS
i
i
rQ'itz� � 1���'.� ' ��M��/tea' = i�in,o� ; cv✓rlo���
_
i
`4
1 � c
i
�Ld w <!i!✓Di77G+v� �liy,��. 7lii�`� /�aLGo�i/�UF
.. _ � �� Lf%� moo'✓F 2 = :Fz.-.v�.EJ'�: .. ... ....
�Xi177�t1 �'. CGS i7Y.•�1J' I {
t
V,4rl AE S
4,.
0
����■■■11111 �� ■=�■11►./11119"M
��■ ■ 11111 ■ 1■1►/11111����
MMEM1111111 1, I'l W
MEMNON111111 // /,/IU111F Ir"I
1 ■��IIIIIIIIIIII,��� %��1��1i�ll�illl��
1
i
(FEET PEP- SEC�C�IJO)
This figure may be used to help
estimate overland flow times for
surface flow.
TRAVEL TIME FOR,OVERLAND FLOW
5
3
2
1
16
RATIONAL MFTHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
If. the Design Engineer elects to depart from
coefficients shown -on pa(Fe 19, he must adequately
demonstrate justification for this change and in no
case differ from the fol:.-.owing ranges
Description of Area
Runoff CoeffiClentS
Business:
Downtown
0.70
to
0.95
Neighborhood areas
0.50
to
0.70
Residential:
Single-family areas
0.35
to
0.50
Multi -units, detached
0.40
to
0.60
Multi -units, attached
0.60
to
0.75
Residential (1/2 acre lots or more)
0.30
to
0.45.
Apartment Dwelling areas
0.50
to
0.70
industrial:
Linht areas
0.50
to
0.80
Heavy areas
0.60
to
0.90
Parks, cemeteries
0.10
to
0.25 I
Playqrounds
0.20
to
0.135
Railroad yard areas
0.20
h.)
0.40'
Unimproved areas
0.10
to
0.30
Taken from "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual",
Denver Regional Council cif Governments, March, 1969
19
RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORM SEWERS
(Values of "C" in ) = CIA) -
FLAT
0-58
UNDEXELOPED LAND
Wood & Forest ................................. 0.10
Sparse Trees & Ground Cover ................... 0.15
Licllit Grass to Bare Ground .................... 0.20
DEVELOPED AREA
Pavement& Roofs .............................. 0.90
Gravel Roads & Parking Lots ................... 0.75
CityBusiness .. ....... ...................... 0.85
Apartment Dwelling Areas ...................... 0.80
Industrial Areas•(Heavy)...................... 0.70
Industrial Areas (Light) ...................... 0.60
Earth Shoulder ................................ 0.50
Play(ground.................................... 0.25
Lawns, Meadows & Pastures ....................... 0.20
Parks & Cemeteries ............................ 0.15
1-.0 -
1.5
1.5 -
3.0
3.0 -
3.5
3.5 -
4.0
4.0 -
6.0
6.0 -
9.0'
9.0 -
15.0
STNGLE .FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(Dwelling Unit/cross Acre)
ROLLING
5%
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.90
0.80
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.70
0.50
0. 30
0.25
0.20
DU/GA................................. 0.30
DU/GA................................. 0.35
DU/GA................................. 0.40
DU/GA................................. 0.45
DU/GA ................................. 0.50
DU/GA................................. 0.60
DU/GA................................. 0.70
N CITr- IN a *L
NIF�-r is '" I o
W
18
I've
//
SIMPLE RETENTION/DETENTJ'ON BASIN DESIGN
(Yrjanainen & War. -en .Method)
>' W w I-Vor o-D
By Snohomish County Ordinance, the peak rate of runoff from an
existing site shall not be increased due to the proposed develop-
ment for a qiven design storm. Therefore, a retention/detention
facility on -site may be required. There are a number of ways to
design a retention/detention facility. However, for development
oC 200acres or less, the Yrjanainen & Warr -en Method which is
described in the Dec ember, 1973 i ssuv of: the Water & Sewacj_a Works
.l
may be used. For deveopments inc-ree than 200 acres Tn 8.�z, we—..
recommend a more detailed method such as the Soil Conservation
Service Method.
The Yrjanainen & Warren Method fcr retention/detention basin design
takes into consideration that t.hc outflow is instantaneously chang-
ing as the head varies., This tyre of outlet can be analyzed by
Applying basic calculus to the controlling outflow equation: If.
the outflow is at a constant rate, i.e., a pump, the analysis is
easier. The volume of stcrin water into the retention/detention
basin can be determined by the rational formula. The'req_uired
volume is the volume of. runoff. that flows into the basin minus
that which flows o,jt- Equations 1 and 2, shown below, relate the
maximum required storage per acre imperviousness (V) to allowable
s
outflow per acre imperviousness using the time for maximum storage
(T) as a parameter and the type of outlet condition.
VBT
S _ ,j, 2, _ 40 nc�T Orifice 61itlet Equation 1
1�
V
s _ T 25 - 60 oc�ri Co istant Rate nutlet Equation 2
B is a variable depending upon th,� slope of the Rainfall -Intensity -
Duration Curve used and for the design storm.
B = i (T + 25)
T is defined as the instant stora(Xe begins until. the peak is
attained in minutes.
This can be computed by taking the first time derivative of the
storage volume (V ) and setting ii: equal to zero. The resultant
equations, relatiigq T with no has been developed.for conditions
as tabulated.
O is the maximum allowable Oki tf..tow per acre imperviousness (Cfs/AC)
u?ing subject site only.
no = rl.ic�r,-;.ba.e Outf1O4/
Acreage x 1'ui.ur.e Runoff Coeff.
47
i
Allowable outflow is the total ruio.ff in cfs leaving the site in
the existing (pre -development) coidition and is usually computed
by the Rational Method.
The total volume of water to be stored in the retention basin (VT)
may then be computed by the equation
VT = VS x acres x developed runoff coefficient
The assumptions in this method ara that storm water rises in the
retention/detention basin at a co:lstant rate to fill the basin to
.the peak volume, and that the maximum allowable outflow is reached
only at the peak volume.
A listing of the retenntion/detent.ion equations .for both a 10-year
and 25-year frequz nc.7 storm is.shown below.
.:This table lists only two outlet 1:onditions, an orifice with head
pressure and a constant flow (or pump) outlet. however, other types
of outlets may be used since theso equations are used only for
calculating required storage volumes.' For example, if a weir out -
Jet .is used, the "orifice'with.head" equations apply. The size/
.configuration of the outlet structure is calculated by relating
the allowable outflow to the equations that define the outlet.
Consideration for adequate maintenance must also be given to the
selection of the outlet Structure_
1
.10 YEAR DESIGA STORM
25 YEAR DE IGN S
KSTORAGE
MSTn q
" qq
AREA
TYPE OF OUTLET
TIME (MINUTES)
V)LUME(FT�9AC�
TIME
OLUME(FT�/AC
USE FOR
ORIFICE WITH HEAD
•. 2255
1 2S♦ �o
Y3EC71
_T7.45 /0 qoT
2706
T•-25♦ -�-
4•
1-31415
SYON4M1SIi
•
10 QoT
CONSTANT FLOW
1503
7•-25*
Y
V,OU11Y
T'
"60 VoT
T•-25��1801
�o
: 60 GotOo
7-i-
48
Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design
Open Channel - Uniform flow
Worksheet Name: CLAUS - 9236
Comment: ESTIMATION OF EXISTING FLOW IN CREEK
Solve For Discharge
Given Input Data:
Bottom Width..... 3.00 ft
Left Side Slope.. 1.00:1 (H:V)
Right Side Slope. 1..00:1 (H:V)
Manning's n...... 0.040
Channel Slope.... 0.0400 ft/ft
Depth............ 0.25 ft
Computed Results:
Discharge........
Velocity.........
Flow Area........
Flow Top Width...
Wetted Perimeter.
Critical Depth...
Critical Slope...
Froude Number....
2.19 c f s
7.70 Cps
0.81 sf
3.50 ft
3.71 ft
0.25 ft
0.0411 ft/ft
0.99 (flow is Subcritical)
Open Channel Flow -Module, Version 3.16 (c) 1990
Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside.Rd *!Waterbury, Ct 06708
Trapezoidal Channel. Analysis & Design
Open Channel. - Uniform flow
Worksheet Name: CLAUS - 9236
Comment: 24" CULV TO DUNPHY - 100 YR STORM (LDC)
Solve For Depth
Given Input Data:
Bottom Width.....
Left Side Slope..
Right Side Slope.
Manning's n......
Channel Slope....
Discharge........
Computed Results:
Depth............
Velocity.........
Flow Area........
Flow Top Width...
Wetted Perimeter.
Critical Depth...
Critical Slope...
Froude Number....
4.00 ft
2.50:1 (H:V)
2.50:1 (H:V)
0.040
0.0400 ft/ft
34.10 cfs
0.95 ft
5.65 fps
6.04 sf
8.74 ft
9.10 ft
1..05 ft
0.0272 f`t/ft
1..%'0 (fIow is Supercritical)
Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.16 (c) 1990
Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708
Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design
Open Channel - Uniform flow
Worksheet Name: CLAUS - 9236
Comment: 24" CULV TO DUNPHY - 100 YP STORM (URS)
Solve For Depth
Given Input Data:
Bottom Width.....
Left Side Slope..
Right Side Slope.
Manning's n......
Channel Slope....
Discharge........
Computed Results:
Depth............
Velocity.........
Flow Area........
Flow Top Width...
Wetted Perimeter.
Critical Depth...
Critical Slope...
Froude Number.:..
4.00 ft
2.50:1 (H:V)
2.50:1 (H:V)
0.040
0.0100 n/f:t
15.50 cfs
0.62 ft
4.49 f.ps
3.45 sf
7.11 ft
7.35 f.t
0.67 f.t
0.0304 ft/ft
1.14 (flow is Supercritical)
Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.16 (c) 1990
Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708
f�7
Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design
Open Channel - Uniform flow
Worksheet Name: CLAUS - 9236
Comment: CLAUS DITCH (HALF 5-YR STORM)
Solve For Depth
Given Input Data:
Bottom W.idth.....
0.50 ft
Left Side Slope..
1.25:1 (I1:V)
Right Side Slope.
( I1 : V )
Manning's n......
0.035
Channel Slope....
0.0400 ft/ft
Discharge........
9.30 cfs
Computed Results:
Depth............
.1.01 ft
Velocity.........
5.19 fps
Flow Area........
1.79 sf
Flow Top Width...
3.03 ft
Wetted Perimeter.
3.75 ft
Critical Depth...
1.10 ft
Critical Slope...
0.0276 ft/ft
Froude Number....
1.19 (flow is Supercritical)
Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.16.(c) 1990
Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708
NOTE: SIDE SLOPES SHOWN
ARE THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED. THEY MAY
BE FLATTENED AT THE
OWNER'S DISCRETION
DUNPHY PROPERTY BIOFILTER SWALE -
MP_
24' WIDTH
BIOILTER SWALE
O-TION - A
vOT TO SCALE.
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
MAINTENANCE NOTES
1)
A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL MAY
1)
ALL SEDIMENT AND OTHER
BE REQUIRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT
DELETERIOUS MATERIAL IS TO BE
OF WILDLIFE BEFORE COMMENCEMENT
REMOVED ON A REGULAR BASIS
OF CONSTRUCTION
2)'
WEEDS AND OTHER VEGETATION
2)
SWALE IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A
THAT RESTRICT THE FLOW OF
NATURAL AND MEANDERING FASHION
WATER ARE TO BE TRIMMED SO
3)
ALL SECTIONS OF SWALE OVER 4%
THAT A FREE FLOWING CONDITION
LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ARE TO BE
IS MAINTAINED
ROCK LINED-
3)
ANY AREAS THAT BEGIN TO
4)
ALL DISTURBED AREAS THAT ARE NOT
ERODE OR THAT WILL NOT
ROCK.LINED ARE TO BE SEEDED AS
SUSTAIN GRASSES ARE TO BE
THE FINAL STEP IN COMPLETING
ROCK LINED
=
CONSTRUCTION
5).
ALL WORK IS TO BE PREFORMED IN
A FASHION THAT WILL PREVENT
SEDIMENT LADEN WATER FROM
LEAVING THE SITE
TOP —OF —BANK CHANNEL ;24'
q7 MAX
O
V P¢�ES
RIP —RAP PER
NOTES BELOW
/ 4% MAX
RIP -RAP DETAIL
SLOPE OVER 4%
NOT TO SCALE.
ROCK GRADATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR RIP -RAP
100% PASSING 8' SIEVE
40-60% PASSING 6' SIEVE
0-10% PASSING 2' SIEVE
m
NOTE: SIDE SLOPES SHOWN
ARE THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED. THEY MAY
BE FLATTENED AT THE
OWNER'S DISCRETION
DUNPHY PROPERTY BIOFILTER SWALE
1
36' WIDTH
BIOFILTER SWALE
OPTION - B
NOT TO SCALE.
TOP -OF -BANK
CHANNEL
47 MAX
RIP -RAP PER
NOTES BELOW
47 MAX
RIP -RAP DETAIL
SLOPE OVER 4%
NOT TO SCALE.
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
MAINTENANCE NOTES
ROCK GRADATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR RIP -RAP
1)
A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL MAY
1)
ALL SEDIMENT AND OTHER
100% PASSING 8' SIEVE
BE REQUIRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT
DELETERIOUS MATERIAL IS TO BE
40-60% PASSING 6' SIEVE
OF NILDLIFE BEFORE COMMENCEMENT
REMOVED ON A REGULAR BASIS
0-107. PASSING 2' SIEVE
OF CONSTRUCTION
2)
WEEDS AND OTHER VEGETATION
2)
SWALE IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A
THAT RESTRICT THE FLOW OF
NATURAL AND MEANDERING FASHION
WATER ARE TO BE TRIMMED SO
3)
ALL SECTIONS OF SWALE OVER 4%
THAT A FREE FLOWING CONDITION
LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ARE TO BE
IS MAINTAINED
ROCK LINED,
3)
ANY AREAS THAT BEGIN TO
4)
ALL DISTURBED AREAS THAT ARE NOT
ERODE OR THAT WILL NOT
ROCK LINED ARE TO BE SEEDED AS
SUSTAIN GRASSES ARE TO BE
THE FINAL STEP IN COMPLETING
ROCK LINED
CONSTRUCTION
5)
ALL WORK IS TO BE PREFORMED IN
A FASHION THAT WILL PREVENT
SEDIMENT LADEN WATER FROM
LEAVING THE SITE
24"
zo
Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design
Open Channel - Uniform flow
Worksheet Name: CLAUS 9236
Comment: DUNPHY SWALE - 2 YR STORM (OPTIONAL)
Solve For Depth
Giver Input Data:
Bottom Width.... .00 ft
Left Side Slope.- 1.00:1 (H:V)
Right Side Slope. 3.00:1 (H:V)
Manning's n...... 0.040
Channel Slope.... 0.01,00 ft:/ft
Discharge........ 10.80 cfs
Computed Results:
Depth............
Velocity.........
Flow Area........
Flow Top Width...
Wetted Perimeter.
Critical Depth...
Critical Slope...
Froude Number....
GpiTou •A
0.65 ft
4.18 fps
2.58 sf
5.92 ft
6.13 ft
0.69 ft
0.0318 ft/ft
1.11 (flow is Supercritical)
Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.16 (c) 1990
Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708
Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design
Open Channel - Uniform flow
Worksheet Name: CI.AUS 9236
Comment: DUNPHY SWALE - 100 YR STORM (OPTIONAL)
Solve For Depth
Given Input Data:
Bottom Width.....
2.00 ft
Left Side Slope..
3.00:1 (H:V)
Right Side Slope.
3.00:1 (H:V)
Manning's n......
Channel Slope....
O.U400 ft/ft
Discharge........
34.10 cfs
Computed Results:
Depth............
1.12 ft
Velocity.........
5.65 fps
Flow Area........
6.04 sf
Flow Top Width...
8.74 ft
Wetted Perimeter.
9.11 ft
Critical Depth...
1.23 ft
Critical Slope...
0.0272 ft/ft
Froude Number....
1.20 (flow is Supercritical)
Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.16 (c) 1990
Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708
ZZ
Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design
Open Channel - Uniform flow
Worksheet Name: CLAUS 9236
Comment: DUNPHY SWALE - 2 YR STORM
Solve For Depth
Cive'n Input Data:
Bottom Width.....
Left Side Slope..
Right Side Slope.
Manning's n......
Channel Slope....
Discharge........
Computed Results:
Depth............
Velocity.........
Flow Area........
Flow Top Width...
Wetted Perimeter.
Critical Depth...
Critical Slope...
Froude Number....
3.0n ft:
2.50:1 (li:V)
2.50:1 (H:V)
0.040
0.0400 ft/ft
10.80 cfs
0.58
ft
%..18
f'ps
2.58
Sf
5.n0
ft
6. 1.3
f: t
0.62
ft
0.0318 ft/ft
1.11 (flow is Supercritical)
Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.16 (c) 1990
Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708
2,3
Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design
Open Channel - Uniform flow
Worksheet Name: CLAUS 9236
Comment: DUNPHY SWALE - "►i► �'n_ STORM
Solve For Depth
Giveh Input Data:
Bottom Width.....
Left Side Slope..
Right Side Slope.
Manning's n......
Channel Slope....
Discharge........
Computed Results:
Depth............
Velocity.........
Flow Area........
Flow Top Width...
Wetted Perimeter.
Critical Depth...
Critical Slopd...
Froude Number....
3.00 ft
2.50:1 (H:V)
2.50:1 (H:V)
0.040
0.0400 ft/ft
34.10 cfs
1.05 ft
5.76 fps
5.92 sf
8.26 ft
8.66 ft
1.16 ft
0.0271 ft/ft
1.20 (flow is Supercritical)
Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.16 (c) 1990
Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708
John & VernelleCZos
1131_7th Ave. South
Edmonds, WA 98020
1131 7th Ave. So.
Edmonds, WA 98020
August 21, 1991
Dear Mr. Naughten,
We finally connected on saturday. I thank you for listening
to my concerns and I hope that you may have the dedication
and courage to stand up for the citizen's rights'
Just to recap our conversation, I've tried to record some
points I found the City in error or omitting.
1. On or about the 15th of May our neighbor, Kurtis Dunphy,
who resides at 1126 Ave. B began excavating. Soon
thereafter he began installing a hot tub.
2. On or about the 3rd of June I inquireo at the City
Planning Division whether I needed a permit to build a
portable storage shed in my back yard. l was to]d that l
needed to 4ile an environmental impact statement. At
that time 1 stated that it sure is getting to he a
hassle because of the stream running Lroraugh our back
yard. l commented that Kurtis Dunphy was in t/'e process
of insta1ling a hot tub and l wondered how much of a
hassle chat must have been for him to get a permit. At
that time l was told Mr. Dunphy Qidn t have a permit.
3 asked w''y he could continue to finish installing his
hot tub mthout a permit. l was to1d that l would have
to submit a protest before the City could act to stop the
installation. { submitted a protest that very day.
3. Work continued, l called the City several times, not on
the same day but on separate occasions. Each time I was
assured that someone would go out immediately and
investigate. The last time I called I suggested that the
investigator take a camera to record Mr. DunFhy's
progress. Even before he had started installing deck
around the tub they were using the hot tun. lhen 1 was
told by Jeffrey Wilson that the City has to trust each
citizen and they can't enforce their own ordinances.
4' On or about the 12th of August Lou Kribs was talking to
my w,fe about the city. He informed her that the
Dunphy's had applied for a deck and platfnrm addition and
Determination of %on-Sig/ufigance. He saw it posted at
the Edmonds PO.
5. The next day I inquzred at the City Planning Dept. as to
why the hot tub wasn't included in the filing. I also
asked whether there was another permit for the hot tub.
I was told that the tub was included in the deck and
platform addition. During that time l noticed the City's
information regarding getting a permit for a hot tub. In
the City's literature it stated that a separate permits
had to be submitted for decking and a hot tub.
6. According to the information given by Jeffrey Wilson
three plans were submitted by Mr' Dunphy. One dated as
received on May 17, 1991' This plan includes both the
hot tub and deck.
Another plan was said to be the original but has no date
stamp. [his plan actually shows what was constructed
without a permit- It in�ludes both tub and deck.
The third plan submitted
dated June 11, 1991 was said to
have been withdrawn but there was no indication or
confirmation to that fact shown on the plan. This plan
shows walkways and small decks within a few feet of the
stream. Now which plan is the one that is being used for
the Declaration of Non-Signifigance???
Why am I so concerned? Am I a trouble maker? % will fill
you in on some previous history involving She]labarger Creek'
First of all, Bomar Construction obtained a permit to rock
and redirect Shellabarger to the back of 1126 Ave. 8 before
constructing a new home that Mr. Dunphy purchased. This took
p]ace during the spring of 1978. There are plans for the
stream redirection and construction on fi1e in the archives.
During the springs of 197`/-60 the stream washed four foot
holes into my yard. I complained to the city at a Council
Meeting. They told me it was my prohlem. At that time ]
should have sued the City and the builder but didn't. i*
rocked the streambed through my property eliminating the
problem.
During 1984-85 Mr. & Mrs. Dunphy got a dog and boarded up the
stream's entrance and exit to prevent the dog's escape. Three
to four years went by and silt began to fill in the stream
where Bomar Construction ended the so called stream bed
improvement. (approx. 2/3 the way through the yard)
In approx. 1987-88 winter the stream overflowed in Mr.
Uumphy's yard. It was so bad that he thought his fence was
in jeopardy. Water had collected behind his fence and his
solution was to remove three boards approximately 23' from
the stream. All the water was released from behind his fence
onto Mr. & Mrs. Lee's and our yard..
D^sing the following summer I planted laurel and raised an
eight inch dike to protect my yard from his water runoff. At
each interval l had asked Mr. Dunphy to remedy the situation.
Next spring because of the debris and silt in Mr. Uunphy's
streambed the reduced stream went out of its banks(no large
rain) and saturated the Lee's and ay yard. I asked Mr.
Dunohv to oei the water back in the stream. This went tin fur
approximaLely two weeks. Mr. Lee ]ost a tree and my yard wa
left with ruts after mowing the grass.
During a heavy rain the water will be approximately two feet
above the bottom of Mr. and Mrs. Dunphy's original fence.
During the last two or three years he has blocked the
stream's entrance to his property allowing only two to three
inches of runoff to enter his property. He has diverted 90%
of the high water runoff into the City stream which is near
his south boundary. Now the high water runs through Mr. and
Mrs. Lee^s yard and into mine at a different location that
was intended by the City's permit to Bomar Construction in
1978. You now understand why my wife and l look very
suspiciously at any more additional runoff caused by his
property.
We suggest that the following be incorporated into his plans
+or stabilizing and possibly retarding runoff.
I. Because of the approximately 300-400 sq. ft. of proposed
and illegally.4nstalled improvements. He must apply for
a variance as to the distance of deck to the stream.
7th and Fir construction requires a setback of 25'. Mr.
and Mrs. Dunphy were in attendance at the 7th & Fir
hearing- They wanted more restrictive setbacks and
rules to control growth- If City ordinances are not
enforced then he should be fined and the improvements
removed.
2. According to City guidelines the one improvement calls
for a fence around the facility. if the examiner
believes there is a fence in place they' the present one
needs to be repaired. Boards new to be replaced as
small r|.j}dren could eoter through the breaches.
3. Because of the increased runoff from decks, etc.
maintenance of the stream must have high priority. l>'e
establishment of a streambed to handle the extra water,
the use of grasses and other vegetatioo to decrease
silting(present stream is nearly silted in).
4. Mr. Dunphy must allow the stream to follow its natural
course by removing blocking boards to where the stream
enters and exits as what was approved by a City permit.
5. Unauthorized construction must obtain a permit or be
torn out.
6' Al] illega] improvements must be inspected and adhere to
all the City's ordinances and restrictions. Drainage of
hot tub must be in accordance with City ordinance #24w8.
7. All inspections must be a part of the public record
especially the illegal improvements.
'
John D. Claus
FILE 0•
STREET
end of the Claus property to the north. Wayne Tanaka advised that the petitioners
could pay for the portion of the alley that would belong to the uninterested party;
otherwise, the Council could modify the vacation to exclude that lot or the peti-
tioners would have to request a new petition.
Robert Highland, 1141 7th Ave. S., petitioner, stated that he wished the utility
easement for his property remain as is.
John Claus, 1131 7th Ave. S.,petitioner, stated that he would like to have the alley
property in order to -control -a stream that runs across his lot and is eroding the soil.
He indicated that he would probably put in a covered culvert. Councilmember Kasper -
suggested that Mr. Claus apply for a permit to build the culvert if the vacation is
not approved. Councilmember Nordquis•t asked Mr. Claus if he would be willing to
share the expense for the property owner who doesn't wish to participate, and Mr. Claus
said that it would depend upon the cost. City Clerk Irene Varney Moran advised that
a notice had been sent to the property owner who did not sign the petition, and a
response has not been received. The hearing was closed.
Councilmember Nordquist stated that he felt the decision on this item should be post -
MOTION: poned until a definite response was received from the remaining individual. COUNCIL -
MEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL THAT THIS ITEM BE PLACED ON
Withdrawn THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, AND THAT A CONCERTED EFFORT
BE MADE TO CONTACT THE CONCERNED PROPERTY OWNER. Councilmember Allen pointed out that
the Council had not determined as yet whether they would be willling to sell the property
in question. She said that this would have to be discussed at the October 5 meeting
MOTION: unless decided upon now. MOTION AND THE SECOND WERE WITHDRAWN. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO VACATE THIS ALLEY ADJOINING THE FIVE LOTS
WEST OF 7TH AVENUE AND MR. CLAUS' LOT TO THE CITY RESERVOIR, ALONG WITH THE LOT NORTH
OF MR. CLAUS' SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE OWNER. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER
MOTION: NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL THAT FINAL APPROVAL OF THIS VACATION
BE PLACED AS ITEM NO. 1 ON THE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 5. MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Moran stated that she would send the party in question another letter asking
whether or not he is interested in being included in the vacation.
HEARING ON PARKING PROBLEM AT SECOND AND BELL
City Engineer Jim Adams stated that this item was introduced at the August 24 Council
meeting. He showed slides of the area involved. He reported that with the recent
elimination of parking restrictions on the north side of Bell Street, there has been
a considerable amount of all -day parking on Bell Street by post office and State
ferry employees and commuters. Mr. Adams said that numerous complaints have been
received from adjacent residents as there is no available street parking in the
vicinity of their homes for the use of visitors, etc. The staff has recommended
extending the three-hour parking restriction to include 2nd and 3rd Avenues to Edmonds
Street, the north side of Bell Street from Sunset to 3rd Avenue, and both sides of
Edmonds Street from Sunset to 3rd Avenue. Councilmember Allen asked whether parking
was available in the ferry and Diamond parking lots south of Main Street. City Clerk
Irene Varney Moran said that approximately 10 of the 89 monthly ferry parking stalls
are not being utilized at present, and that there are metered stalls in addition that
can be used on a daily basis. Mr. Adams indicated that the Diamond lot is not being
fully utilized most of the time. The hearing was opened.
Victor Schoch, 135 2nd Ave. N., expressed concern over the full parking spaces which
seem to be utilized by nonresidents. He said that the parkers are noisy in the early
hours of 5:30 to 6:00 a.m. and throw garbage on his parking strip. He indicated
that visitors to these homes shouldn't have to use the 3-hour parking farther down
the street.
Marion Larrabee, 205 2nd Ave. N., stated that the parking situation was fine when .
she moved here 9� years ago, but for the past 4 years it has steadily gotten worse.
She said that her property is hemmed in by parkers which makes visibility poor, and
sometimes she can't even get out of her driveway. She said that the past month she
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 - September 21, 1982
TREE- ' FILE
taWVED
MAY 1984 1131 7th Ave. So.
ENGINEERING Edmonds , wA
May 21, 1984
City of Edmonds
Engineering Dept.
City Planning
Edmonds, WA
Dear Sirs:
My problems continue with heavy drainage during peak runoff periods.
This was referred to in an Edmonds City Council Meeting of 1/9/79.
The erosion has continued and I am near seeking a legal remedy.
During the Council Meeting of that date it was stated that, new storm
sewers.were being planned. This was to alleviate or control the problem.
To reiterate: (1) Stream volume was increased'by new home construction
(impervious surfaces -roofs, driveways, and sidewalks). (?) Increasing
stream velocity was initiated by City approval -straightening a meandering
stream bed and removing debris from the stream bed. All the so called
improvements were. above or upstream from my property.
I propose that the City improve the stream just before it enters my
property. This would involve a stream drop or concrete holding ba'sin.
This improvement wound lessen stream velocity so that erosion wouldn't
be a factor.
As you can see by my exhibit the stream now acts as a boundary.
Fencing approximately thirty feet would be'�zertually impossible without.
moving the stream back into my lot.
Please advise as to the proposed improvements including the fence.
Also as to the permits that will have *'be obtained.
Si cerely,
John D. Claus
1131 7th Ave. So.
Edmonds, WA
,�. .. ti' �'': •r : "1, •t _ ..r a.. .. -t...� ,r.r .�� ' . Y1t,�+' — l • : r•,-c ..r..J�. c .v • �t,r1�-^�Y- .1:7:I.
, 1 • -•nrinn-.. , ryr. 1� l ..`t.,w ...t.. : 4 'i1� adlt�r.iu,J}-�.
. City -of
91W 7
RIGHT-OF-WAV CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT Permit Numuer.=
C a ` Issue Date:
I _ A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: d i may( 7T "t AV f- 5
j 8 9 0
9 C B. Type of Work (be specific); U (PLACIL DI=F EC.T•I VI- DkOr
1
C. Contractor: tC.IUMRSISUIEP-16Z CA Contact: 7bR AMOffEMAJ
t Mailing Address: 5-3 3 MAID ST Phone: 774 — -914
State License #: SUPER— C C: 10 ( C) A Liability Insurance: Bond: $
D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable):
E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project 0,Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, L , WATER)
❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other
INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: I A&
%.
F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes ®No G. Size of Cut: x H. Charge $
APPLICANT TO READ AN "AIGN
INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or
claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the Cit of Edmonds,ror any of its departments or
employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including def� 18, andA raey fees by reason ofgra jTthis permit.
/ `� �• j -
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH
IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT.
Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application.
A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220.
Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion.
Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes.
Street shall be kept clean at all times.
Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer.
All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day;
NO EXCEPTIONS.
I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be
available on si t all tPqs for inspection purposes.
Signature: Date: Ioo ?,5--
(Contractor or Agent)
CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
I FOR CITY USE ONLY
APPROVED BY: IAIMi�Wy t
TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER A� DAYS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 9A
RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT
DISRUPTION FEEAUND 111:
RESTORATION FEE:.
PERMIT FEE: � n • �
TOTAL FEE: C> U
COMMENTS: RECEIPT FEE:
DATE: ISSUED BY: _
NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT':ISSUANCE
Eng. Div. 1994
FIELD INSPECTION NOTES (Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.)
Comments:
.. .•ter
Diagram;
N
CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES ❑ NO
Partial Work Inspection by P.W.:
Work Disapproved By: Date:
FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date:
y
!13) 7 i1{ AVE 1
� 105 MW Tu 1-1-
- S ZS- Z7 -AN IU-Z 1:
OLD E-KTkY D RO P
D fzS TF,6 YE D W H Eli
FE-NICE PUTIN
3
U 1131-
I ! Q Aspi4
ULK- 9 U[J-` H E AlD
chi► 3 �' TH(C(C Y-1MMENTAL TPEES
J
s'sw KSTALL 66 ` lZG - G LIE
CUST VVANiTS IT MEY-T T6
DW & SIN lF FOS51GLE
SELF Z 5- Z%- 3 R-INP
` 3
L
'I
u
►�
Q
i
1
DL D ENT 2Y D RO F
D FPS TK6 YC r[) W H EN
FF—ML7 PUT IN
(131
I•�sPi�
JI
:5, \ \ ' ULIC 9OL4 N EA
TH(CtC 6ENAMEATAL T-CES
s'sw [NiSTALL 80 ` l2G - (- ClC
CUST WANTS IT MEY-T T6
DULL & SIN IF FOSM3LFL
r
r'
4^^
H
----------------1131 -7th Ave. S.
3 4-Comex C-PL / --
wC Forma Adaptor
W 'Deep
Q
Asptn! Dd.away
rw:a-Fo
For000 Adaptor
Z' Deep
CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS -BUILT
ADDRESS PERMIT
1131 - 7th Avenue South NUMBER 9452
HOMEOWNER Zmg VanSickle CONTRACTOR Rescue Rooter
DATE 5-22-01 BY
dim Roberts
4�� �r� .Y Is � v^1�.�v Y--•--+-•rY .^�t+' 1 /�v.n ,m.- by .:4W✓ - v J '�.f��r{tii. ...�..�4N..-.SL�"C�, 7r � .�yK' i f^ Wvl^"`J i✓!"v.'�N C. hf^!• w/' 'G.r.,�J�,�.,r�'�r'.'-.�.. ��\4'^'�^.M_^.r..,.I1^.f�✓�✓4^ti'.-M'A•�."'L.'li'y-w�...y�j•l�lnfl..^°'��"�w� `1'�i"r
Ci of Edmonds
PERMIT NO:. 94��5.2
In C. a� SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES .Q 0
. 18 Address of Construction: j 7 Avt S LID #
Property Tax Account Parcel No. 4�2 e"e
Attach copies of all access and utility easementsVM Verified and Approved by -----�
Owner and/ 'Contracto : A eLL
Contractor License #: �SC,Ii
Single Family
Multi -Family (No. of Units
❑ Commercial (No. of Units )
❑ Public
0 (_ trigi (4 nS�
Permit #:
Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes XNo
*RW Construction Permit #
Cross other **Private Property: ❑ Yes VNo
**Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement.
Owner or contra ' a ure and acknowledgement statement: �`-
By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled
�ide Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein.
CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-425-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION
R FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extension 329
24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
...
Permit Fee $ Repair Fee $— Issued By:
Trunk Charge $ &1,4 Date Issued:
Assessment Fee $ 4�4 Receipt No: %f®
City Permit Surcharge Fee $5.00 Total Fees Paid $�
NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN
INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED.
Job Site Ready YES NO Date: Initial:
Partial Inspection: Date: Initial:
Partial Inspection: Date: Initial:
FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: Initial: As -built to Street File: ❑
PA
f5 PERMIT MUST BE POSTED_ ON JOB SITE 'C,
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant,
L;temp;bl dg;forms;sspermitj lg4/00
T�
Date
M E M O R A N D U M
January 29, 1992
TO: Peter Hahn, Community Services Director
VIA: Bob Alberts, City Engineer qk
FROM: Jim Walker, Assistant City Engineer*
SUBJECT: DRAINAGE PROBLEM ALONG SHELLABARGER CREEK,
BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH AVE. S.
A section of Shellabarger Creek, between 7th and 8th Ave. S., has
overflowed its banks in storms. Storm water then flows through
adjacent yards::before reentering the stream through a tributary. The
problem appears to be primarily "private" and not something the City
has taken responsibility for in the past.
Three (3) homeowners are impacted by this problem: Kurt
Dunphy at 1126 "B" Ave. S., John and Vernelle Claus at 1
S., and Tsuneto and Rebecca Lee at 1137 - 7th Ave. S. T
of Shellabarger Creek flows through the City property at
Elm St. It then enters 1126 "B" Ave. and flows across t
1122 "B" Ave. The stream cuts across a --corner of 1122 It
enters 1126 "B", where a tributary joins the main stream
sketch 1). The tributary -collects runoff from the main
overflow, but does not have enough capacity to carry the
flow. The tributary originates from groundwater flow in
property and flows through the Lee property to the Claus
where it joins the main channel. The tributary normally
insignificant storm water flow.
and Shirley
131 - 7th Ave.
he main channel
"B" Ave. and
hat property to
B" Ave, and
(see attached
channel
additional
the City
property,
carries
The primary cause of recent diversions has been the property line fence
placed by Mr. Dunphy. Diversion has also resulted because of
sedimentation in the stream channels in Mr. Dunphy's yard and on City
property. The stream was relocated by Bomar Construction as part of
Short Plat S-22-77 to allow construction of Mr. Dunphy's house.
The City has taken, or permitted, several actions in the past which
have affected .the stream. A portion of the City property was cleared
of blackberries in the late 1970's. The exposed soils contributed to
sedimentation in the stream channels. The stream relocation for Short
Plat S-22-77 was permitted by the City and took place on City property,
in addition to Mr. Dunphy's property. The channel was not constructed
as planned. The channel was placed closer to the house than approved,
and a drain line to the stream was run by the house instead of well
away from it as shown (see sketch 2). The City has done limited
maintenance on.the stream channel within City property per Department
of Wildlife recommendations.
Memo to Peter Hahn
January 29, 1992
Page 2
The State Department ofWildlife is the agency with the greatest
authority over Shellabarger Creek. Wildlife requires a Hydraulic
Project Approval for any work within the ordinary high water level of a
stream. The City requires no permit for work in a stream independent
of another permit.
The City would normally only be involved with a stream on private
property during land development. We would try to prevent impacts to
or from the stream. The City would need easements from landowners to
work on private property. We have only worked, or proposed to work, in
streams when no other method for controlling a major storm water
problem could be found (such as portions of Shell and Perrinville
Creeks).
No problem -was identified by the Shellabarger Basin Study:.in this
stream reach. The consultants assumed an average stream section and
slope that -does not exist throughout the area. The drainage problem_
could be resolved if "private" property owners obtained HPA's from
Wildlife and restored the stream as "designed". Those property owners
include the City because of the City property at Elm and "B" St. Mr.
Dunphy, the owner where the stream needs the most modification, also
must prevent his fence from diverting the stream.
Another method to control the local flooding would be to construct a
bypass channel through the vacated alley to carry excess storm water
away from the neighboring yards as shown in sketch 1. The most
expensive option would be to intercept storm water upstream of any base
flow source to the stream and discharge back into the stream downstream
of the problem area (see sketch 3).
This problem has been reviewed in the past and determined to be a
"private" problem (see attached letter). The City makes no effort to
":improve" stream channels on "private" property. Any work in a stream
channel must be approved by the Department of Wildlife or the
Department of Fisheries. The best solution to this problem appears to
be an effort by individual property owners to obtain HPA's from
Wildlife and restore the main stream channel to pass storm flows.
JW/sdt
Attachments
SHLABRGR.PRB/TXTST530
AFC/STERN
JAL
FOR
gOr1AR.CONSTRUCTION
Sizin Channel Cross Section
Utilizing the Manning Formula
Q = 1.49 AR 2/3 S1/2
n
De
Q Q 15.0 CFS. (Design flow per City of Edmonds Engineering pt.
Requirements)
n a 0.040(Canal with rough stony bed some weeds and stones)
S = 6.97% (See plan view of site for existing stream topo.)
A - 8 sq. ft.
P - 7.66 sq. ft. (Wetted perimeter)
R-A= 1.04
where
Solve for A required to give at least 15 CFS
2/3 1/2 82.7 CFS _ 15.0 CFS oict'..
Q = 1.49 (8) (1.04) (.0697)
z
00
Hand Placed Rip -Rap Rockery
(As required to hold bank)
4-l-5" Minus - Quarry Spall or
Native Stream Gravel
Z—o
struction. :7otify the City Enc;irec.r o: tce scr^auic--
cing work (NO WOF—K WILL BE l:z:DERTAKEN IN THE MALIC RI"HT-OF-WAY UNTIL I.UTHORIZED
BY THE ENGINEERING
If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact the City En,ineer';
office.
CO!:::Ei:T6
(S���er+oicE OF P. olt,V1a(, tNItHPM �11viVrtt. C�4PAGIY
OPJ Sfe-CA 1 C1} hAhJEt. �EQ�Ii�=�
0,F S c-�- `WmA RE7Nco OF _.j4-A14bl,%4G SEFPAC.E f2o-1
Sp1214G L)OeR
hi9..ertV.-_ / .lr? C>r1Itlr! t�l� a,l City i::yi.:r of t'c:caancs
OPJSTK. 3Z LF coNC-'*
SAN.-SEWER AT
: . I .
GLEAN -OUT
C OAIS rR. 40 i..F.'
(,6 * A
SEWERg /.Oyw
DVItQW.A. JAC93
0
or�
C
oq �plj' �111
.10
% C
j. J��6
Gomsrq.. 71 Cg�
2!l.45 it r,500 64
�jv SEWIR e , 0 X
C014SM, CLEAk-our r A.B.S. OR COAft
jjA
7
C ONS r; —45 L. F 0
S R COVC. 0.
10NUAN
Ic
6"AZO\j
SAN. SEWER e lo7- 44 7.
C
0. CLAUS
-4
C4MSAR. C4fAM-our
INV. 1/170
--- O �� i I �' M , stoptog
%u
7 .EX151,
SO,
so
joIEL A. DoLISA 9730 T.v—
Joe..
:p roe •
-("Xlsr vrA IAMIA -r,
Z11 9-
P L A [A.
40=4:
Ac,
:f boy x, g I,
R COAIs rR&c r c. 45. Tye si.
ro,- a 16. So TI:
RJ�A`l ION 4VVIAf- - F i
CH
'WI
FA
'-N-rw CHANNEL �_��� St
PROPOSED) • cp
0.4 Placed
flock")
s jol�us
1.6.411
t
TYPICAL CREEK SECTION
NO SCALE
5 C. H
Alley
Sbe0o6rq e I -
Greek
or;y:»d�
CITY
/ A
l -Tri pti ctrj
Poe»I;a�
<-, 4--- E— "' - -- -
i I
1
I
CL QS i LFE
I
) I31 ! )37
-7 +� Ave. S -7th Ave S
;= V
y i�'b !• ,yO, ,M, fF < ,.
> � ° <' ` E �d }£ '°' �� 7 f! h s�/d'' j/J 6X� � �f .('. k". '•�
�. ,L_ � se:.i� '`. ii" m°'kf >yrY •t, Xi. <S �b'a6Nr•. ".•7i'� 4� `bv/ �e w"•<i �. '$�'
n Sid' e3 <a r'
d}
i d Y .>
n
. '/^>'< j� �j `s y, Y ! ' <~ d 6 6s `m 1J /�6 iSN'�£. r•� .,n � ���"�1F�'',� Y
„/ .'~ / / �, / " Y rY : � m'� % ,..r R nr.+ d>k �f7•i; • � � . "i`'ir• Q° '. oYb
T .y >� -. � s• �' </ ' �. -'!yo � , .f'' .s '.• : i?ls`'^`70 � f�✓' -.
�W
e �M s �j_ ✓ t/ ! �./i'. 'vir. ,y 5 P•! K.'..4,�„� <'/�, ya"�bq<.E :fit ,�,ey;>:
>>��Xj•h ,@.:f /'c:. �Sf ,.°���" Sw''H,p< ,/� ✓n <y,/ �rq''
f a'
�• ea,. �� !f.../^' b< of 'J'`ii) <"ai'+'.�f % '} -°'
,
•s x
S'?'h:: "' x•.. '.: is w
/t s tY 4 c wa s 4 >>
ll-
Y i0i / wY.ii y' H a •. ,.,� <mo^'AA�,' byd,'^ (.^"'D:�w:! \ . w.. 9 � $ A N 1, w
OOT-
> '"s / c � •,?�' ,`�. '• f�i<Y `i^'d �/sue, '"�; �, z� �j r
y Yf "% R.S F/ G ' 4+/��<•/'<^v'.•^' .«._ S, it [� "Y"'
�' f `fit• ,. :�--r . <�
S'
fewr� �l
�'/ •.:ate`.,, ;w.%�. a'.�. Y °,f f/�� `'�4E7,K .�
> N S [
ogl s+
� C
„^�: �•�, H,n :�;� v d.,✓ ;:fw °2. w•.•L "`� WG?P �! 's` s•�
' � °;°'"..�.•."7^y "5"'�'•�"i •--.4,y `' x.0 r'e: y ti <,,,, , � �ce,.�,•z�° � � "�'� f�A'ia"''�
4e„n
.ems. ( IIY
w it. rY
.r any +� � i / Ys /,. ..•<�. H to .•••� .s'l4
5 rer's� H Q - N d
�" ° vs RF/Y,r%.� s E �: � : �s{ Y r /y t •..y�. Nn 1�� X iG':. Lb.I ?r
J W^
(
M
>AH � •,6 /G<„f �'Sv %r�' ..,°'°•^f16 "� f: o..:.b.'w, A�`G'•.;,'»/� ,/y'e s ...
U�r,
r.— XXX
�g�9+"' f .. _\. � IS., � -':Y �. ✓%,,�/i';�. .O s:. ,<„ ,E4 .'%c 3 xQ..c..�� w ..
i<'t• ,a s, ,/ uA `.� ✓ /' ,./.. �'•x .kr f, •. 1. to :_; ,YH'. fit., .,`
r r
e• 13i `�' ;'>�A :�y/�i. zp!.0 '� R'?����9 �° w � a �s� "< �7 Ya, ':1 > . ?' .� > 3'• r �,; � :,.
Ybf `� •U' f< in�.7<" �af ,�7qq •Y' ::.f ':5(, ` vB"4/.%: i i ��
�,;` � a 4'!>0 f�%•%�ey"d ,y `�g, ri % � d s /<l ,��H/� brn �i .4 !, n ,a Eh
Y t° .��:�' k:Yw / s .i �%' 'i f -f'3,i it,. c�N ,%•. d. r / E'.
l i > ii& $ "f'. ♦" ".u:• y%; rI' ' w' "'I s'r /ri .� d�' s }
a � a 6'ay�yyrr�� � qP�< � r � � /M/ /� f::; • , / ,.: z,�y� � -•! ' ' A, ;,e
AVM' ',,.!</'�•. yW �1'.'',."'/C 'Y � aNi•Yw // ', '�<' ..3 G;IiL f
b� � �`,�, t ,/Y S � S.h < i;-r.� /. f ,:F....__'w };nr�t,y # •"� � $ �•,
'. •, P ;� °� a ,,»a»°vv'?`','k � y> yyy ri/'i ,/ I s .C' ':1 �i/� �� <t;. ,. <" s ,
,d' �'/ vl ,9 d;vj Y�t'v✓"'°'e'>by ^ }_4
"'F � Si��'fi.•..,?�S } 's��e�efe L t i��r yak dyi A /�� � J
Lo
'E2'0, '''1(� y,�s �R1Y. • � �'" � £ �.a •,s' 6'°'�y',' � ,.d .."rI /r°Q". t/ ",�
A. � f-'0""«;:�°`°" <'ad<f+��r si,y: :obi, tom' •<
���� t IID ✓ ,w HR c< Ot k R / Q
SS �' itt. ,e "w � •��� a hr..�' df <{ymw u, g C... � ,
1°l�`�►' � ;„'� 4 w �.,y E /v� ` l `k' � YDz " ep � 1t �'
!'s ,6 it ,yI ,.,ee• ,c x.• j b . � ry/ryv@ r,c. o ^V� � A
'k. �� �;... aJ ? � w,@ .: k �" € ' $ P :"'; ...b„fs d••%..' iL / A aF '+e �"'
/r '. :37.,✓,: '"� yr,+. �,�. Y�� b '��'" 'E' 1 y`
V4e
':nnS. "'f, :`•s i.'}s a ?> i ,.�,Y K,e/5 ,sz %•'�.:i�e'� t... � n,�
i'b a'�R 6�'� b}„,�,A�A�:� £ ,Yd'v�%i/•,,.,R+� �.. •s � /// ;sss f(°r .zc y.r ''
�ss,...Y,�j�ydaw.,�d ;r SL �no•`�. r4,;;•e•t s ,V�yY "s '�''�, s.. ''::�
s. s, y J � ,l'o tiA jjr 4•0.+ ✓' „a.'+ ,r, tPo `i
ty
eA.. [
,� � � .ir, g � , _.V •, as Aza. </ �' �.� y �s , '�; d �.,,.lP � G` +< ° /r ,y � X ,
Y< b S '3 `` � t� ay 4 V &y re S �♦ ,/ � / N.r.
' .. �i• + � a-,:" a ' g o � ( r C'�' a s ' ;; %�, ks Jj`•,e
'°. a ' % ;�.' .az d rbel'�ii a.'�- e i `.� �..,�' t d ♦ '� >r� >r '6X
�x
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - STH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202
COMMUNITY SERVICES:
Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation - Engineering
October 10, 1990
John and Vernelle Claus
1131 - 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA. 98020
Re: Drainage problems located at 1131 - 7th Ave. S.
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
PETER E. HAHN
DIRECTOR
�V yA16/16lgo
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Claus:
The City received the letter -from your representative, Hugh W. Judd.
We are willing to.meet with you to discuss solutions to your drainage
problems, but the problems appear to be private and not the City's
responsibility.
We have no records indicating that the City "altered the natural flow
of a' -stream", as suggested in your letter. The City's policy has been
to allow storm drainage in the natural drainage system only "where it
is possible to do so without significantly altering the natural
drainage ways". The stream "altering" you refer to was probably done
by the developer or a previous owner.
The stream, Shellabarger Creek, is a "water of the state" and work in
or around it is under the jurisdiction of the state. The Department of
Fisheries or Department of Wildlife will typically not allow work in
the stream after October 15, 1990. Therefore, there is little
opportunity to resolve your problem before this year's rainy season.
URS Consultants completed a drainage basin study in June, 1989 and
found no erosion or capacity problem with Shellabarger Creek near your
house. The City cannot work on private property to benefit individual
property owners. Please contact Jim Walker at 771-3202 to discuss the
specifics of your problems.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. ALBERTS, P.E.
City Engineer
JCW/RJA/sdt
DRNPROB.7TH/TXTST530
o Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
CITY OF E D M O N D S
PUBLIC WORM — ENGGINEERING,
ACTION REPORT
N? 2807
SUSPENSE DATE:
Date: Time: File #
Attachments: =Yes
SUBJECT: f--1 No
Ele
k�
�7,ff
C
REQUESTOR: NAME:
PHONE:
REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
TELEPHONE ct§—
CONTACT IN OFFICE
OTHER:
RECEIVED BY,: —
ROUTE TO:
M
MSMMMMMA�..
�---M MW
�
/ — 4
City of Edmonds
CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is
to be filled out by any person preparing a
Development Permit Application for the City of
Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development
permit to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The
information needed to complete the Checklist should
be easily available from observations of the site or
data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories,
maps, or soil surveys).
MAY 0 5 9z08
PLMrsisiQ U&T.
An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out
the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the
City. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map along with the signed
copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and
locating the specific piece of property described on
this form. In addition, the applicant shall include
other pertinent information (e.g., site plan, topography
map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist
to assist staff in completing their preliminary
assessment of the site
I have completed the attached Critical Areas Checklist andattest that the answers provided are factual, to the
best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
Owner/Applicant:
'J &in C"(.ia� 2 S -
Name
/ f 3 � '! u S.
Street QAddress
City State Zip
04"
Telephone
Signature
Date
Applicant Representative:
c-VCw
Name
l (5� I L=, u �� Scam.)
Street Address
L o '643 .
City State Zip
L4Z-56- 771 -31,2
Telephone
2
Signature
/-/—
Date
(over)
c:recepti on\j ana\cacl. doc
CA FILE NO. t
Critical Areas Checklist
--------------------------------------------------------------
Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation)
1. Site Address/Location: / 1 `_ j ath AVE � a-Qt&" .0 WQZ}
v �-
2. Property Tax Account Number: PAw-41 & 1 q 4 001009 61 b
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):
4. Is this site currently developed?.. yes; no.
If yes; how is site developed? zn( " a (["
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
_P"'O' - Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
horizontal distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical
rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over
a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: SO ; Approx. Depth:
7. ' Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: NQ_; Approx. Depth: _
What season(s) of the year? - W I"
8. Site is in the floodway_ t0 floodplain U6 of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are
year-round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? N A_ ).
10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs mixed ;
urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: Wo
^ca chkdoc; Rev 02/11/97
it? C.18911
May 26, 1998
John Claus
1131 7th Ave. South
Edmonds, WA 98020
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARAFAHEY
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH,'- EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works - Planning/Building - Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant
Subject: Determination regarding Critical Areas Checklist # 98-131
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted. The "DETERMINATION" reached by the City
is located on the reverse side of the form (bottom of page).
It is very important for you to retain a copy of this Critical Areas Checklist "DETERMINATION" for your records.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO BE NOTED:
PLEASE EXAMINE THIS" DETERMINATION" FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. YOU MAY NEED TO SUBMIT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUCH AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST OR CRITICAL AREAS STUDY.
The `DETERMINATION' for the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted is a site -specific determination not a
project -specific determination.
You must submit a copy of the CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST and DETERMINATION WITH ALL
PERMIT APPLICATIONS or YOUR APPLICATION WILL NOT BE PROCESSED.
Permit applications include the following:
Building Permits
Conditional Use Permits
Subdivisions
Variances
Applications to the ADB* Land Use Applications
Any other development permit applications.
Enc: Critical Areas Determination
* Architectural Design Board
Thank you..
Sharla Graham
Acting Planning Secretary
C: ReceptionUana\CRLTR.doc
P Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Dave Meven Determination CA-98-131
Project Name: Permit
Number:
Site Location: 1131 7'" Ave S. Property Tax Acct 6194-009-008-01-05
Project
Description:
Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required
A site inspection has revealed a Class 2b Stream without salmonoids on the subject
property. Due to the presence of a Class 2b Stream a study shall be required.
The purpose of this study will be to identify the top of the stream bank and both the 15 foot
building buffer as well as the 25 foot critical area setback for the Class 2b Stream. To
identify theses boundaries we suggest that you obtain the services of a licensed surveyor.
This process will be considered a three party contract including the applicant, the
contractor and the city that shall be legally binding.
Ultimately, the City's goal is to ensure that a Critical Area or its buffer is not adversely
impacted by development. So, prior to issuance of any permits on the site, the following
must be submitted:
A native growth protection easement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, must be
recorded on the property with a legal description of the location of the Critical Area and/or
its buffer. A statement must be included which prohibits the construction of buildings
within 15 feet of a Critical Areas buffer. (Any encroachment into a Critical Area or its
buffer would require the City to grant a reasonable use exception prior to issuance of a
building permit.)
If the applicant feels that their development proposal will not effect the Critical Area in any
way, they may request a Conditional Waiver from the requirement to prepare a Study.
;SENT @Y:OGJEN MURPHY WALLACE ; 8- 7-S2 ;11:15AM ;
2064470215- 2067710221;# 4
ATTORNEV8 AT LAW
/tic �v
� r � RArrotn�
DATE- August 5, 1992
TO: Mayor Laura Me Hall, council President Jeff Pa and
Council Members
FROM: Office of City Attorney, W. Scott S;nydor
Engineering Department, Jim Walker and Don Fiance
Dunphy v- Claga Drainage Dispute
In January the City Council hoard the appeal of Mr. Cla�rtain
from
approval of Mr. nunphyre application relating to
construction which he was undertaking adjacent to the ztre '. In
the courea of the hearing it became apparent that the image
problem in a long standing one which the City Council had to sewed
in the past. To date nothing has been done although it dose ppear
that the City intended at one time to undertake traam
improvements.
At the present time Shellabarger creek rune across the City l
erve
to an existing wood fence an Mr. aunphyila property. The strbad
over the years has become silted in and neither its channel the
channel. across Mr. Dunphy's property adequately convoysainy
season stream flows. The water in periods of high f is
partially dammed by the fence and causes flooding on theausproperty. Dunphy and Claus sere currently involved in littion
regarding the floodingi the city is not a party to that litiion.
This Situation has been reviewed by the City's Hydraulics Eneer
Don Fiane awns{ Engineer Jim walker. In addition a drainageort
has been doge for Cletus by Land Development Consultants. As a
result of a number of meetings a tentative solution ha been
arrived at subject to your approval.
Mr. Walker, Mr. Fiona and I recommend that the City aIdrtake
drainage improvements to improve stream flow throughCity
Reserve enabling the downstream property owners in correcttheir
problem. The project estimate is approximately $lo,000 wmost
of the work to be done by City forces. Direct matericosta
should be approximately $2,000. This proposal will be ouof to
SEPA review �d a permit to work in the stream from the to of
Washington. The improvements would inaluda the followingemsi
1. Complete repair to the
culvert by armoring
rooks and planting
w.iwwus.taaios
existing 24 inch storm dra
of the culvert outlet wi
of vegoi-ation to prove
G SaWs Mat ZU %atleke Center Tower,1401 FaLh Ar.mte, ajaw , WA S6101.1"S, (200 4q.7000, FAIL' (too 441.fI6
G Wa..+.l—UK— 1 OvQth Ohilea Street, P.C." :aye, w.aiah.., WA eeaa7, (a0% eee•1064. 7AX (OOs) OWieee
.,SENT BY:OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE : 8- 7=92 :11:16AM 2064470215-* 2067710221:#
i
Memorandum to Mayor Laura X. Hall, Council President Jeff Palmer
and Council Members
Auguat 6, 1492
page 2
erosion. The problem appear to have increa
over the yearn as the stream channel has filled
due to erosion and siltation of the stream b
Erosion and siltation appear to have occur;
through a combination of upstream development
and out of the city and stream bank erosion.
2. Installation of a gadimant trap balew tha nulvs
to capture silt. This would go forward under
separate application; the State's policy is to da
improvements within the stream course.
3. ChanneliZ&tion of the stream by deepening tt
channel and using the debris material to impro%
the banka. This work will improve the carryir
capacity of the.exintinq channel.
4. Installation of a series of check dams to sla
stream flow preventing erosion of the bank an
further siltation. These are simple structure
which can be installed by City crows and a sampl
drawing is ancloaad.
S. Annual review for a year or two of the check dace
and creation of a program for annual maintenance a
needed to maintain the effectiveness of the dam
and sediment trap if installed. This program ma
include review of a catch basin on adjacent "B
street.
Those improvements would be conditioned on improvements aaro a Mr.
Dunphy's property. It appears that the developer that orig pally
constructed Mr. Dunphy's house failed to channelize the str am in
accordance with approved design plans. Mr. Dunphy wo d be
expected to provide stream channelization as well as two to three
check dams on his property to complete the improvement pr an.
Mr. Dunphy's &minting chain link fence which lima in the tream
channel would be removed and a check dam installed. This would
prevent the clogging of the fence which has resulted in redir ction
of stream flows in periods of high flow, flooding a portion f the
Claus' property.
The necessity for a storm water detention pond was discus ed at
some length. Such a pond would, because of the steep slope n the
area have a relatively small surface area and tie relativel deep
waoaW, X OOOd IM01
5
SENT BY:OQDEN MURPHY WALLACE ; 6- 7-92 ;11:10AM ; 2004470215y
2007710221;# 8
Memorandum to Mayor Laura M. Hall, Council President Jeff
and Council Members
August 5, 1993
Page 3
(eight feet). Baoause the normal depth of the stream chm
twv or three feet along this portion of the stream, I Drag cc
that the City not create an attractive nuisance. The bo
such a steep detention pond would retain water. I was worri
small children could got in the pond and than be unable to
in time in the event of sudden rises in water level. Inote
fence is only a partial solution in that such facilities c
trap rather than an impediment. children have a tendency
in areas that Are out of eight of maintenance crows. Shou
find a way under, around or over the fence, a fence would
Avery more difficult for them to get out. We suggest that t
for a detention pond be monitored over the next year or two
whether the channeliaation and check dam improvement eftec
practical solution to the existing problem. sy solution I
restoration of the stream to a condition adequate to handle
flows at the current state of development, not completely e1.
flooding in all eventualities. The channalization and chi
program has been designed in accordance with the Ci.ty's stor
management guidelines.
lmer
is
'on of
I that
3t out
Ling a
i be a
> play
l they
Lee it
i need
:o see
Late a
mean
formal
Linate
k dam
water
In the event that the School District were to sell property which
it owns upstream for development, stream flows should be cons dared
through the SEPA process, including potential installatior of a
larger detention pond at developer expense on the development site:
This would permit storm water detention at a detention pond which
poses less potential threat to the neighborhood. If the pxc
improvements outlined in this memodo not resolve the prof
City will need to balance the risks from the detention pc
the benefits to downstream owners. It is my recommandat
that of your engineering staff that the detention pond
installed at this time but the need for such a facility sh
carefully monitored.
While we have discussed this solution with the neighbcrinq pY
owners it 'is not our recommendation that the City enter
private agreement. If there are problems with the stream a
property, we recommend that it be improved to City stand&.
City expense. Installation of the improvements will be coast
on fir. Dunphyfs installation of similar improvements acro
property. I do not recommend that the city get int
maintenance agreements or cross indemnifications with indi,
property owners. Having a seriea of private agreements woul
nightrare for your engineering staff to monitor.
W5M= r.1woM33ftQ
m the
with
m and
-5t be
ld ba
to a
city
s at
s his
p the
,idual
Ibea
,SENT BY:0GDEN MURPHY WALLACE 8- 7-92 ;11:17AP! 2067710221:9 7
Xemorandm to Mayor Laura N. hall, Council president Jeff Palmer
and Council members
August S, 199a
Page i
We have reached these reaommsndationa after consulting ext ivaly
with the neighWrs. We hope that a package deal will res It in
resolution of the dispute between Claus and Dunphy. The ty is
not a party to that litigation and our reccmmendati for
improvements is based on appropriate levels of maintenance r the
city's streams and not their litigation.
We request an initial appropriation of $2,000 for material and
authorization for a joint application for a permit to work n the
stream on City property. Thies permit would also inolu a Mr.
Dunphy'e work and proceed through the s&PA xaviay. Imm diate
action is necessary if the work is to be accomplished pr or to
October 15th. This is the state cutoff date for work - n the
streaan. -
Your review is appreciated.
Was: are
Lnclosure
w0S2a1M.11M!0 00.170101
City of Edmonds
CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is
to be filled out by any person preparing a
Development Permit Application for the City of
Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development
permit to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The
information needed to complete the Checklist should
be easily available from observations of the site or
data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories,
maps, or soil surveys).
.Rrtr.;FF.D
MAY 0 5 998
PLAii, , %-tQ OEPT.
An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out
the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the
City. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map along with the signed
copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and
locating the specific piece of property described on
this form. In addition, the applicant shall include
other pertinent information (e.g., site plan, topography
map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist
to assist staff in completing their preliminary
assessment of the site
I have completed the attached Critical Areas Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the
best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
Owner/Applicant:
'J&In (2.1
Name
IIZ)I
Street Address
(f�
City State Zip
_? 78 - o4"
Telephone
Signature
Date
Applicant Representative:
VUN
Name
C5?�d I to q Sr
Street Address
ern vl 1..-w cA f, ).m %4 3.7
City State Zip
(-4 Z -56 771 —33ate;-
Telephone
Signature
Date
(over)
c:reception\j ana\cacl.doc
EM
CA FILE NO.....!26 " /3
Critical Areas Checklist
--------------------------------------------------------------
Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation)
1. Site Address/ Location: 11 3) '74A Zoe-6
2. Property Tax Account Number: - (B t q 009 00Q 6 ( 6 - ,
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): q,s,-t % 0 fit,- e E=.
4. Is this site currently developed? ., yes; no.
If yes; how is site developed?
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
_V"' - Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
horizontal distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical
rise of 10-feet.over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over
a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: JAC2_ ; Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: t4_; Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year? _ W //4.
8. Site is in the floodway _ floodplain M6 of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are
year-round? Al.— Flows are seasonal? t4t)_ (What time of year? N A_ ).
10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs _ %tJ mixed ;
urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: ►. o
---------- ----- For City Staff Use Only----------
1. Site is Zoned? �S✓(�
2. SCS mapped soil types)?i
3. Wetland inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland present on.site? /1/0
4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? i 2,4
5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? /w
:6. Site designated on the zi.vironmebtally Sensitive Areas Map? ��
the 189,3
May 26, 1998
John Claus
1131 7t' Ave. South
Edmonds, WA 98020
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARAFAHEY
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works - Planning/Building - Parks and Recreation - Engineering - Wastewater Treatment Plant
Subject: Determination regarding Critical Areas Checklist # 98-131
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted. The "DETERMINATION" reached by the City
is located on the reverse side of the form (bottom of page).
It is very important for you to retain a copy of this Critical Areas Checklist "DETERMINATION" for your records.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO BE NOTED...
PLEASE EXAMINE THIS" DETERMINATION" FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. YOU MAY NEED TO SUBMIT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUCH AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST OR _CRITICAL AREAS STUDY.
The 'DETERMINATION' for the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted is a site -specific determination not a
project -specific determination.
You must submit a copy of the CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST and DETERMINATION WITH ALL .40
PERMIT APPLICATIONS or YOUR APPLICATION WILL NOT BE PROCESSED.
Permit applications include the following:
Building Permits
Conditional Use Permits
Subdivisions
Variances
Applications to the ADB* Land Use Applications
Any other development permit applications.
Enc: Critical Areas Determination
* Architectural Design Board
Thank you.
Sharla Graham
Acting Planning Secretary
C: Reception\Jana\C R LTR.doc
0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 O
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Dave HIeven Determination CA-98-131
M
Project Name: Permit
Number:
Site Location: 1131 7 h Ave S. Property Tax Acct 6194-009-008-01-05
M
Project
Description:
Determination:
Non -Project Specific
Study Required
A site inspection has revealed a Class 2b Stream without salmonoids on the subject
property. Due to the presence of a Class 2b Stream a study shall be required.
The purpose of this study will be to identify the top of the stream bank and both the 15 foot
building buffer as well as the 25 foot critical area setback for the Class 2b Stream. To
identify theses boundaries we suggest that you obtain the services of a licensed surveyor.
This process will be considered a three party contract including the applicant, the
contractor and the city that shall be legally binding.
Ultimately, the City's goal is to ensure that a Critical Area or its buffer is not adversely
impacted by development. So, prior to issuance of any permits on the site, the following
must be submitted:
A native growth protection easement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, must be
recorded on the property with a legal description of the location of the Critical Area and/or
its buffer. A statement must be included which prohibits the construction of buildings
within 15 feet of a Critical Areas buffer. (Any encroachment into a Critical Area or its
buffer would require the City to grant a reasonable use exception prior to issuance of a
building permit.)
If the applicant feels that their development proposal will not effect the Critical Area in any
way, they may request a Conditional Waiver from the requirement to prepare a Study.
V
M E M O R A N D U M
January 29, 1992
TO: Peter Hahn, Community Services Director
VIA: Bob Alberts, City Engineer AK
FROM: Jim Walker, Assistant City Engineer q/
SUBJECT: DRAINAGE PROBLEM ALONG SHELLABARGER CREEK,
BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH AVE. S.
A section of Shellabarger Creek, between 7th and 8th Ave. S., has
overflowed itsbanks in storms. Storm water then flows through
adjacent yards:.before reentering the stream through a tributary. The
problem appears to be primarily "private" and not something the City
has taken responsibility for in the past.
Three (3) homeowners are impacted by this problem: Kurt and Shirley
Dunphy at 1126 "B" Ave. S., John and Vernelle Claus at 1131 - 7th Ave.l
S., and Tsuneto and Rebecca Lee at 1137 - 7th Ave. S. The main channel
of Shellabarger Creek flows through the City property at "B" Ave. and
Elm St. It then enters 1126 "B" Ave. and flows across that property to
1122 "B" Ave. The stream cuts across a --corner of 1122 "B" Ave-. and
enters 1126 "B", where a tributary joins the main stream (see attached
sketch 1). The tributary_.collects runoff from the main channel
overflow, but does not have enough capacity to carry the additional
flow. The tributary originates from groundwater flow in the City
property and flows through the Lee property to the Claus property,
where it joins the main channel. The tributary normally carries
insignificant storm water. flow.
The primary cause -of recent diversions has been the property line fence
placed by Mr. Dunphy. Diversion has also resulted because of
sedimentation in the stream channels in Mr. Dunphy's yard and on City
property. The stream was relocated by Bomar Construction as part of
Short Plat S-22-77 to allow construction of Mr. Dunphy's house.
The City has taken, or permitted, several actions in the past which
have affected'
stream. A portion -of the City property was cleared
of blackberries in the late 1970's. The exposed soils contributed to
sedimentation in the stream channels. The stream relocation for Short
Plat S-22-77 was permitted by the City and took place on City property,
in addition to Mr. Dunphy's property. The channel was not constructed
as planned. The channel was placed closer to the house than approved,
and a drain line to the stream was run by the house instead of well
away from it as shown (see sketch 2). The City has done limited
maintenance on.the stream channel within City property per Department
of Wildlife recommendations.
Memo to Peter Hahn
January 29, 1992
Page 2
The State Department of -Wildlife is the agency with the greatest
authority over Shellabarger Creek. Wildlife requires a Hydraulic
Project Approval for any work within the ordinary high water level of a
stream. The City requires no permit for work in a stream independent
of another permit.
The City would normally only be involved with a stream on private
property during land development. We would try to prevent impacts to
or from the stream. The City would need easements from landowners to
work on private property. We have only worked, or proposed to work, in
streams when no other method for controlling a major storm water
problem could be found (such as portions of Shell and Perrinville
Creeks).
No problem -was identified by the Shellabarger Basin Study..in this
stream reach. The consultants assumed an average stream section and
slope that=does not exist throughout the area. The drainage problem.
could be resolved if "private" property owners obtained HPA's from
Wildlife and restored the stream as "designed". Those property owners
include the City because of the City property at Elm and "B" St. Mr.
Dunphy, the owner where the stream needs the most modification, also
must prevent his fence from diverting the stream.
Another method to control the local flooding would be to construct a
bypass channel through the vacated alley to carry excess storm water
away from the neighboring yards as shown in sketch 1. The most
expensive option would be to intercept storm water upstream of any base
flow source to the stream and discharge back into the stream downstream
of the problem area (see sketch 3).
This problem has been reviewed in the past and determined to be a
"private" problem (see attached letter). The City makes no effort to
".improve" stream channels on "private" property. Any work in a stream
channel must be approved by the Department of Wildlife or the
Department of Fisheries. The best solution to this problem appears to
be an effort by individual property owners to obtain HPA's from
Wildlife and restore the main stream channel to pass storm flows.
JW/sdt
Attachments
SHLABRGR.PRB/TXTST530
VS
Q�. �fC/SiER�
�SS10MAL
FOR
BOi1AR .CONSTRUCTION
Sizin Channel Cross Section
Utilizing the Manning Formula
Q = 1.49 AR 2/3 S1/2
n
Q a 15.0 CFS (Design flow per City of Edmonds Engineering Dept•
Requirements)
n 0.040(Canal with rough stony bed some weeds and stones)
S 6.97% (See plan view of site for existing stream topo.)
A a 8 sq. ft.
P 7.66 sq. ft. (Wetted perimeter)
R - A - 1.04
Solve for A required to give at least 15 CFS
where
Q = 1.49 (8) (1.04)2/3(.0697)1/2 82.7 CFS _ 15.0 CFS ok:-,.::.'
0.0
Hand Placed Rip -Rap Rockery
(As required to hold bank)
4"-5" Minus - Quarry Spall or
Native Stream Gravel
2-0
struction. :iotify the City Engirer.r o: une scrra— e„ w„�:. , �.• •. __ _--
sing Mork (!.? 1:J=\ WILL BE Um-A:RTAKEN IN THE PWLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY UIML AMORIZED
BY THE ENGII:i.ERING DE:F: -..::-.E:7T) .
If yo4 have any quest -ors concerning the above, please contact the City Engineer':
office.
coM_�'Z1�`��AIiJmGe� �' G�AVI►JG PCk1J i:EQ�IREO Pl�1oR T•..
l �SL� cE oe SoI%,o146
OPO STIMM Mh-tjl1JEL Qtlli�t� WITH MINh."M CaP.4c1Y.y
SVAot� RE714 0 OF-ScAIJOU14G St✓>aPAGE fi�o�I
__
--r
City _i::,yi :r of Ecrw.)ncs
ttSTiz. 37 LF 40mc
a
-'STA.04-00 tvk-57 ' X-, 'c-OXIAT 1.0 7. qj
GLEAN-Wr
C VAIS rR. 40 L.F. 'NCLCII*
A Z5. S. 010- CoAtc., Xml
ull . 1114w, jk�c,ia SEWER 110 /.0;* 7
0
0
0,,r �111
Z :t
•
6CIOAtit v
CONS rR. CLZAA-oUr *A.5-S. CW
JH if 211-45 7,500 gq. ft SAM SEWER e 1. 0
C..
*40%
44Z
A
f%
ex 5r
c 0 MT M. 45 1. -.0 1 0
4'AZ.S OR COAIC. 1� ROA�0- 1104MAN 1�11' RC_ - %j
SAM. SEWER e 07. 0 v i.
t!7.
-Iry
JOHN ID. CLAUS "q it
VS 4*11- - - -.q f-111.1% ,
, I coo
sdo"I r - : 0'..-T:-
�
I- -
48 4w
C..7,qSrR. C4f.4M-o&r fq c
INV. 2/1. 70
0
ecolt Sig -
so
IX15
- ���: �s i � � ' I =IS 9
JORL A. DsLISA 9?30
,rx 4
-4 raw w
\-.caysrR&cr c-a- rX#7 r si.
roo- .216.So TI:
VA r, - RJ�A�l 101V 1,vv /if-- f-40-50
tEx/sr vrA lAtA a Ivv our. z/3.*0
Fi
tit 91 j.
fill, cl!
C214.4 of 'wl
PLAt W CHAMNEL FA
1 #4 -4-- (PROPOSED) CF.
— - - -- - °,eTu�•� - - - ---,—
Hood plac@4
oc W)
TYPICAL CR EEK SECTION .pt- w-w1w
NO SCALE
C. ! I
J� -2-
Sbe0d6r,}-E r
Creek
R.cu{4e
GITY
E?oca��on
Alb
Ja
l.-Tri�ticl�ry
' I
t
CLA Q3 LEE
13? HS7
7 +) Ave S -7th Ave S
��JT "i 1
L— 3 i
i,v.,➢:'� F' a *>.> �"fr *y,_ <<v'n ,yo4 4 "'^>f/"bfi'ia a.> .�; �l a' .�, H. .>,'t a 46^ •" fyr' Y '',af'� ? 4 i'e"/ t ryy.i < S<S Yi'3a s/" yam.,
>. Eg/�, :> , _ • w �,.' ,Y, $ s' x. u^':� v '� /!dy;<% x n Ft� $ 'r:<, f �z b .b),
ic'{j! S><Fn>. 4 6✓ �i% � 4 ' �<ty� Q: �+. ;ky., �, '$ ::[ F. � ,k , � R'� �� s, �d'. 2i/ <&.a .,`s/,'� rs ; X ,.�✓ ,r . Y l
7.V '
,n
3' �� # e '�'$s �J! ' �, '=f'�y <Y`":.. ` �f` eb,^o':.4 F •t
.'e� .. �i�. ? E, yy +<� •; a� <. ;:�; x.� ,'r. ..,xs a. '��. •L<.s sr s+d- T'
>r4 r�' r ..:,� <,i% "•„F k�a� , >4 �"� �� .� `> t" '�` < E� '�,>`� <$r s4>�.+ `.j .�;.r ,N' <Y� s'7 ; &^s.'�t^'
s m`,', ya;:� :°ors' r';s+ '�' sit q� i stao<�S •Q; `.ff6f> e••�•-sy�,,',�, k � Lc+dal ,Jim 6>�< ;� R'•*"� �i ;,� f•, �ra, '�
my
l ,9 ,,x' ' t = �..xs'y. €'� - '",(� A°>F` �� ,4 ' :�� <i � �.a b >�+ '��w .xi , ssaF rr' �,�s� ' •t
.2✓ ��� E'': �e �,.>" .S' `�>`�9 y t 'F � 4Y J�t ,. P�w' % ±; rP„�F3� .i^ T n' �' � �. "C.J
_ 9
Lai
nH i�:€ a a �>. ,� �..,, ,a' �Y'. ',•�:� a $r i� Y �?`�4 �< ,"t,. i. ate., r¢ < w �� • � . y'�
�-�<w, 's S :�(";, i':�.✓. ;?` I ..!ebP' z�>� '� i; - i� a., ^'A "F £.; � •i �'J.t �' £ "we• .>`:':•*<,l . �., ,^ "xa
.,S t'. _. s <'R , .^s , ,3.r. sb f-' «✓''�,:<, - "w.,'A ,r'f:
._F. > ,.,» .>.: ? .. • , .;, b •
3>+' 4" S s� '�•`�%.,r �'a�9,7;:. i.� a��: tr`i '�;L.�M "Rh V>,,`�".s.• r� ,,. ,wif �� !F > y'n''=' Yi.r }, /r^ N �.; � :s t'. •\'.,'�� i
a>'; ,-.s:d �,°��`r ='<9 .'z..!' Ya <.!s;_ ,£.+• <nsr. iaa.iP:o sv, '^'v>u`� �r. t G •:?ws .:.s� .."G"yr. X� .'�.� � 1•✓ <s cia
...'� :< -'c .�_ ,,, v�. �.;;vA ><�L wr4•f��y6�t rys a. � ''/' a
i moo', j. p,;,F, ' >a u„ry,,,� �`� `6' 6 4 3„syy K, .,.<.•. s
r ss^:✓ '. y, i'F;p 9...b#; 9�^�, 5y,, •s�;%'/< .a;f2r .f'F i' "g. s<v�ig,ra <..�s�, r. .?, ,Y' :Y �<�7',..•?L�a •,ef r.3� Wes':<£� s;^a, o.. ;'6h<x^�;;•'^'"°'"7,'.-«e:,-r
" t 'Y%cMk j-<I 'T ; ty � 7%� :,a,.'rP."•<anx''.�<°�;',�;w5 3&�..L:�n'';6�4 wx..dr �r� + .oap „ D �..,' t F�', , <. 1 7.":7q,< k ► �
./ r, , i .s�' •�.„H , t<f,<t�".,u. .,. .. ,3�,',c. �/�ih����, !P<e ♦ )[p \ / - i \� w'Lx l sH ;,; «qa .1, �j _ ., � � ,jr+.+•
•k'� 9»4" ✓ < � •t �y' � !'e• ,f g. _� �'tl1 y� � .si+� �� '.:9�.lf's' ,�; ^." �.;•r� �r `.'iJ6 i E� � j,<•,'s`i
f;' ;zr• zz R !
M,sra .;R .�7, yyP 1r:txt in ✓s9>, s t' $sw ��(/ _..
5 ♦G„:• f`.6;'%r A"� :.'..a•':: `YN' yn ;.,> ,!?.-:, > �;:oi >r.•�+a+ ,. j:
,
,ra n° ` / :• _6' �' �k'9<', `�d �s: s; A '"'.:'„ ��\. 'e, :>S ',.�,G•r< r. rnu < �.
;.� .; " ° ¢.."'.t, ...$. :r,^� •^3..b'.'''�..er'd ' y„ w in,."ka siYe:,.. ;,%.,,`� Y.: s^.�t, ;.f ,3 Y: a, ,h�<s" sv.f:� 9 � 'h"i
•.•, at;. r �r,.,,.�"? �l. s'f ''��a^.>'.»,�@{ ,z°yk?<'_ .�F .: �,a 'Tam. , ,;�<i,✓, w A • s' g-?' ! l ,-'ti.,. •✓=.' �s ,.�..
^`f 's ;'AF. / 3:' .<�u''w �F>z. ,^.i.. 69: X, 9. 'd,/•'Yi <'aF>f:, :l,Fj H6 � tYfa '�_'" ,Y ,\
:.� .:',.;:? Hx:.': x. • , 'F r,. :.'� F:4� � %. "��w '< ;i,. `e t°r�.•3'°' ri =F<�-c., s "�,:' y.. Na< ,s a`<< '?';,> a<�bti3, t^#.
ps
y r,h{"<s "'� '<<,': ^C e?o%f.r i> �;.. ,Y <�,�bf�?rt3yo.... � 3X Y.' 4. sp -F>! <s�.,.; a.. &1/,,,,Rs.•w.. i--"'�'..'�, r. r s^
w::� :<g ,, ;. a .•.. n /gs'.,,,.c<2yY ' �.s, "`�� � »"3� �� ✓�d14 ��lis>./�' Y >s <i �r// < " ;€< '/ ; �. .3,,,r y €,•..
•ker'<�gy y tao p'•'L4^tsa•� s :'b• ''!.�i h� a$s�,r'.<p%/a" ,; ,t :<4.� s
' J ' H �Gf.e `✓r6�. �;!' ,:j'Fb�. F� ,o" "Y.:W
N:;..G „`" '9<M .,J F. S�F•>'y9,'y� L koi` l'i,� � h' t� �/
s'Jj. p�
�.-•7- e
::. , i r, ,'u !L 3+,« • p4f o> > a, °c.-'F s'j. Y ,�j,•�,�,, j .. r• . �i' `a sF'.'o ! ': •• 3
.,. n s<'i �.,,,, s �Sr. yy�'' Y� a •.� U<,.�c<. •Lhi ,. '$ 6x, 3 �-
,Ly':>r p.E a., wr,�' .:,d^`'� w�, `c �Ets` A;,t F»✓ r• '.h,:'—
C>M^ .•e: o% .<, p<ei�,,` ."`y; �.�'""<" i � < <3.<. kH 'i!%r5s > � >yd ,a /A' so<A,; .-,X`.:e�, ` �,� '< yy/ 3'"vf� �6�%• '"Re �:..:.., a
,s ':'s�'• x<r 51-71-1101iL,11
•,
�<'+%:.„�. jai c ; � 8A• -.f^' a a '^t .�',cev.'; yo. "F.♦✓ O ¢ t,'r.� ` :.: " f ' :e' S � ' ?!;,"FS , c _ r. :,,> y ''^�`,' �_°.. m°' . ' ' Y, H
> ' x „,,.,. • "'<",:=.::'"a �f+o :at,s.•'' l:. ,.:»><, wc: Q s .>,' ,a.,;. ,.,e � r^ -,:i �#.'x:�r ,. „�•c'�, ys.� � -tf 'bs.,��.
s>,, n^'s<,� v r, r'�. t "'„a, x�" . b y ' 3 Y A<� 3• �F"y'xp �3R_ racl w;� ;<y x<,s, n LUtia ,�^'>rp �'+a:;: "•°' <sn
•r`.^"'W�:,+b: `. "� 8�•;, 73^^.cr � ss�y£l{r } ;:� oy ~.� S> ':,�' Z ,A .. tH,E ».,�;2 "<.s .3 bl.
'�.? f:.�x> ! 8. ,y� k°'i'� �, 'B- .,asFv` ;`a.+' '�d3. � . " s ia;, s.•,'. , <
tires:' �o'"iS•- Nb. .f,
L. C
H• �.C�: `�-' i<� "' <i. ,voi ��.r>�S' ja^e;•• '" Z�.��. `' � r~% 1 ��/.q� .,._".%.:.1•r ,a
<
< ^a
�'' a' .s.? `"°i'„'� "e.•s � _ �A• t t' ^ s"r°°,,, � M;:.t+fy�' - yi.
,; .. `t 6 "„/,#< ¢ a>✓-y�.,»�.ti .'sw' ,r„2:uY z,;r, 1,ie r.>,< '"rl'� 4';3y% M..r•. X n R
-L,<„ ,. >: 3 �.>:ssa �-�K �`4�+i -:>� ..; '.,- „ � „t+.?. „3 B w� s.'�s4< `�'�/ : a " �G`. i!" �: r„ ,s��, 5n �� .r ' G,w<.. /r• .�<R",y" , s .
Y,;. j;•., 'x � s� y�s.oi.G �„M sy � <�.,, «AM '�" � r .�a,, _ � 'r'::. '� ''Aw ' � <' `m• r l: .�s
;.•b ;;� c �:raexav,� er;so / ,,, ,fZw.ir,,,/>TR, <�'�°��".:� '•^,+ , ti""k� � �+�♦..
L „£ ✓ s y ? s 3 ! " " "/� ..: -! ». J > 9 . aw t-y a' "'w'
� �is
_
, n,> w �,f:Ly .k.,...»:+.^ i, :,». �"•` b .. Ss %'%<i'>o JJ Q c ; a
g ( 2�• � ' 3 � 4 � X
� is ,,. JHd' s„ .,?�"=a""""" ^a "" �'"• .% � s° °fav`'sR� r ; •< ` *e � .�s�b,%a'f '�� b>t �v�.-�•.•,<--•!"�rs;A. ; a.>,? i i„�, ---� '
. y ' <.lyj .�y 00£ ��� , '<�6in yt., d,'= � • Y� se �� j%="$o' %,Z,,h< 'l..v�J�"'o,.,, is ^e,,.> '' . A
ar-• ' xees'^ vr„ ��w ;.:. . E,,,�•,.>,,,_°;�°i.«S, ?>sS' »,; �� " s. � nb , ;�:, ;e. 1` Ja ?' "- s+b
�. <�H' '�s / �.• v .a:..i�. , �>40'` '6' K>s�;<<„. �." a ..:,;dj �u ':v4a 'r'r# a _.,%'< <. ..h.. M <
Ir �NA
✓,> J\ �,'<',AL a'r ,c ^?<� sa � '�i,>s ,,y � �, 'a � '!:$'oj>y. �, £,� eFw? .:b/ ro �r� u
�-�„�
<,. •st! .,w rr '° � � � � '✓w ' ` b : w s a f
poa< >I"�;gzs s's`,< f9a3 � ;>. d'S � '.." S'.�,� k d! � <�::. �y ✓ > r. �` � t jn
' i `.:�. ii :,,>,o:,x ,y,., "<A. e> w•� �Y.�:' 3 ��i.•}'kyw�"o o� p ^"; '.Si �,Yrt.a,<r�✓� �:a <,r 1i <i;.. ,y E <, p�r..,,.>< y
,.r V.:�� rb rva#.. aJ t •o:!f• '�; ,•�� q l,<." <° ;t. '.."? ^i� '. !'. z �' It�i@&.) t<i��n �.,, y, S Q Ye b �'�FH Y!'
f 'C'< 'a's ''=^f< S <-,.i�. ,3 �. •. 39 yun. �,"'t/fiX ';y �-Y', f/'. ?,
'a a "., : z "";;.� .,'"'l �� [ 6. �:a ,�%'" �,��., „� ' �. � 9a :wtia��5++' 9' �<'r >•r r� �� ' 'n] „�; ' / e o,<. r"0' .. <
"'•' ' � .:..'w3r OSE� z,��"�`•O .4z.` '1�: s"/ n"`£i:<c<.Y�:" ,� ���sit ; � `Wy: H,'!i1.. $ � ,. XJz 'a �.y > Y, ,ss;F}. i�. r,Z::k�s'Ye.sah•'•t<,.w ^ � p
J .Y ,i "' $ `` 'tsz' 3"s � .s«. ,�"� ,t4: ��AfY �t j..• 4�n;a> f �, a:�1<'� y . � r t <,`
Will ? "i. ♦aX ^>,o.- a.: sK xd I I s f. t y .\. 4c:. /// ✓i ,'> N M / < �,
`•.< ^.�F> a. �'3 y"'� .. a,. ,'4 `"�,,"s x 'a ;•^!a•,s.. �,. ,I�< �;r.... �r' � a<A✓w #'=p+! ��'"':'s�• <'rs%>3'� i,'�+`y,:o b'::.°�' a,o, ti;lt-:h ,,,.t,o ;° +.r> ` '
�' „;,'i r..�>< x y;. gA f,: a.r"$•, ,a t ;;�.8_'>-,•' 'S°;� ;� �&�Y:,.aa!�. .!>. a;,,yq„ 3 y�, 1 .�.,.t' p ,"/' �•�,
�','•""�.. ;r3 .i ":�iS'. vb®'"..�=s,w.� .;f: �G...w,.r+^: i,, :.5„s. ^�"� .»s•. ''�"s,�,� .R 7^tiix^'� y7./�'s„ ^« 'F ! R.� g� R•. �5, .
:'� ii% ; "�L{,C "�F^: �"X,;<Y �,,,� ,*£'�� 3 ' ,s R:, �_ a�_ ^„cy' F q;c"�' ',. 2 ,.,w.t/.<!.a.., 'd r:rb.;. �/� <s,«r £ £;,�,,..': ''•ao '�a,,_\ d ., ��. ^�•�,". ,e<<r
<<s^''" � �vn �'� ,�'& �o,. � Mau: ,.�y� ,4-r ' izi,,;, •> ^we.r � � scyti .' � y'/ ` ', ^1. <� y:..a s�
'� .;: <:z ,c.^ �'�'�;: �<. �.. •Fy�<, ,: '_' a `�' s'� '�' t:;�?o<°" ^'�sz}J:t<«'*'-�"^" � ,/,, 1--1 Y,;��'�f .,j
' Is.,,,z ' ` ..�.. {s::: "•r ;W,,,"H'tS:i :� '�> ..t �� ^rc '�� .,..iy'`�,�.*, i a'�...' ,,. ya�,:s.y yy �, y;;: `' n q p
``#: d:�x.�-�;,,,�0,£dr9': ^ _ ;'.1,n,;;k•'>�,S"-,,,�;;,�„J"� "^S y.w^ .� �Y,�,,:.^ jY .: ss wb�� . ';Y' • rr^+va 3 � s y �/ �• sn , i <
,S;�e., ``\> : . �-^!�'.°� . ,3 <iV . � '^;, .�;� [[ . 115., •<r'. $ // e,.:• '<E �ro a H � s.� ' fi 4,1� � y > � y
3-• ,., zsy �a"'';>�. "";'S_': �i�y,�' :asy,'. L, -$ ,:�;.;•. '✓"�< y,. r.s ..,,: r �': F �' �s u,.:s,p f /'/H, r .:� o�t <`
s '.Y'� `� `o,,k^;� "F°,"a!%,,i�•�'�.b'.'- .�>`zr: bya•�,td;! :: "!•'3� s.. ♦<A,: X �o • .;: �.s""^" F.r ,m>F ,g 4awo r/ r. � � ,'S./EL ss N✓ G �>...✓:.s- '.','�'su
' s%!'t -�;i. �-ee.'s�se'.».,L •S`ss.`� a^�< k�a�" r n �,Nf. .�: ,b.,<gy,g' y c'1:.." .-tom / ;'� �; •� �..<..
v.� ,N, .>* t •-^'wz. :a>cv<„a,w .:y". s "'^•"°3 .r/n �, a4,�sa.Ir
t y 2a�""" �•� S^C.. � ws,f� �"'" •, �`��'^,s � ss `>:S� y � � : i f , yoss� �s, ,:� ,, <?>� v.«6'S �' �;" � � L� / �r^^ r r^�'
$. w .n41 ,. ,,�, ' � ,.,H ryv. .a'0� y c�� any" / :'S.••., - > ,(y �_„'y / N
s w �{ �.+. C .�,�<�'i�•�>• ' y w � .t �':A �. Y`j•� �b <r f A['�<..%iS 25". s: e $ : 5 "s' y ? 'a� X w �>
�r. - .�'�?Z ��°M,Q• q y`y' � IIII ,sil 4�Ye,�„e s +=8 '�'� £ fs, � �;, F ` ' a ..� , s ` /,� �~' �'W�` "� Sg �.r'ziftr-� <, ayW � .'Y�
�. y'a`: ty *�/�e''". �. "ate" ,i. „u>' .,ii �t'j^:x a� r�'�^�a,i'.ego"w%'S^" »sy''w � "'<'q £;:,, f Y� y�,• o,,. o S' � _ S( a,r ;+S' ,%'e: '9 •r � ., i"
c?S'•1,• .._ .s.:,;k ^?e � ,..o.:; �`' :» °ss.3��' "S Lcs',Y �• Y� �� � :..�� &' � ,.y'�. < �.,>s�' y; <�Q
�. ,L r 44;,q ` ar„ '>. ^,., rsoa.;.;, a<'ss7ng" �+Z' . .;<'' . s: e «,�<�:! r, .1 a , s/ 7 „,, / S , & •
Y s:- 4'r •a?,-`rC.. Ct'n �GiA. z .rs3 a< PEdp "x°<°' 2F � ^, f• ',.,., Q.
Y J
,_ �,,. � gib•;,dy .�
-.>, s s"xx�'Kn • �;z ,<t '.h"` a�>a 4^' /<„, r,; � ` , t'"a , A. Lk ('..-.S ..
;,t <.•� 4' w •,s ,y/, fY/ /Hy � n•."'S . � ,-^<t<�s <r<'sr `G s• 'r i .., .� `ia , , '�5 >' ..
,.<N y ," 's L. : a,. '^ ,��� ////r /! ,''�i,.< �. 'M<. >+�''r.•q� .,. ..,i Sin •s ,'< `<9 g Er .., .
.<...� ` - '' lY... a' / �/1Y�► ,.;� ', 4�::�� !.mil {� ;•"� 1 // '� " y S< ' HS l\e�`♦"'`'' ^`; y s ; .:'i i ✓; •i�a
0.
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - STH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202
COMMUNITY SERVICES:
Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering
October 10, 1990
John and Vernelle Claus
1131 - 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA. 98020
Re: Drainage problems located at 1131 - 7th Ave. S.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Claus:
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
PETER E. HAHN
DIRECTOR
A 10 /16 /qU
The City received the letter -from your representative, Hugh W. Judd.
We are willing to -meet with you to discuss solutions to your drainage
problems, but the problems appear to be private and not the City's
responsibility.
We have no records indicating that the City "altered the natural flow
of a'stream", as suggested in your letter. The City's policy has been
to allow storm drainage in the natural drainage system only "where it
is possible to do so without significantly altering the natural
drainage ways". The stream "altering" you refer to was probably done
by the developer or a previous owner.
The stream, Shellabarger Creek, is a "water of the state" and work in
or around it is under the jurisdiction of the state. The Department of
Fisheries or Department of Wildlife will typically not allow work in
the stream after October 15, 1990. Therefore, there is little
opportunity to resolve your problem before this year's rainy season.
URS Consultants completed a drainage basin study in June, 1989 and
found no erosion or capacity problem with Shellabarger Creek near your
house. The City cannot work on private property to benefit individual
property owners'. Please contact Jim Walker at 771-3202 to discuss the
specifics of your problems.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. ALBERTS, P.E.
City Engineer
JCW/RJA/sdt
DRNPROB.7TH/TXTST530
d Incorporated August 1I, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
SHELI,ABARGER CREEK STREAM IMPROVEMENT
DUNPHY PROPERTY - PLAN VIEW
FEN CE
o x x
NOTE: 9�
18" CMP APPEARS TO ;
ORIGINATE AT A CATCH o
BASIN ON "B" STREET RECHANNEL SHELLABARGER
CREEK.. PER ATTACHED
CHANNEL DETAIL
0 1
91 f L DECK / G�
P�
o
_ j P�
0
REMOVE WIRE MESH
FENCE BLOCKING
ELEV: 97.1
Cj
R
DECK
+DECK
X ,
HOUSE DECK
SITE BENCHMARK:
SE �10KivcrR OF F00 T ING PAD
ELEV = 100.00
EXISTING
CONTOURS
ELEV: 90.9
SCALE: 1 "=10'
I-
LA M
CON ULTANTS��
,. �WA
(am) 48e-1023
SHELLABARGER CREEK' STREAM IMPROVEMENT
CHANNEL DETAIL
i
L 24" MIN. ,I 1 24" MIN.
I BERM WIDTH H BED WIDTH
M SOIL BERM TO BE 2:
2 COMPACTED TO 'NqX 28" MIN 21 I
95% MAX. DENSITY 12" MIN ,
12" MIN
NOTE: 2:1 SIDE SLOPES SHOWN "RIP RAP 12 UP
ARE THE MAXIMUM SIDE SLOPES
ALLOWED. THEY MAY
BE FLATTENED AT THE
OWNER'S DISCRETION
CHANNEL CROSS-SECTION i
NOT TO SCALE.
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
1) A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL MAY
BE REQUIRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF WILDLIFE BEFORE COMMENCEMENT
OF CONSTRUCTION
2) CHANNEL IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A
NATURAL AND MEANDERING FASHION
3) ALL DISTURBED AREAS THAT ARE NOT
LINED WITH RIP RAP ARE TO BE SEEDED
AS THE FINAL STEP IN COMPLETING
CONSTRUCTION
4) ALL WORK IS TO sE PREFORMED IN
A FASHION THAT WILL PREVENT
SEDIMENT LADEN WATER FROM
LEAVING THE SITE
MAINTENANCE, NOTES
1.) ALL SEDIMENT AND OTHER
DELETERIOUS MATERIAL IS TO BE
REMOVED ON A� REGULAR BASIS
2) WEEDS AND OTHER VEGETATION
THAT RESTRICT�THE FLOW OF
WATER ARE TO i BE TRIMMED SO
THAT A FREE FLOWING CONDITION
IS MAINTAINED
3) ANY AREAS THAT BEGIN TO
ERODE OR THAT WILL NOT
SUSTAIN GRASSES ARE TO BE
LINED WITH RIP I RAP
TOP OF CHANNEL BANK
CHANNEL BED
CHANNEL PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE.
ROCK GRADA11ON REQUIREMENTS
FOR RIP -RAP
100% PASSING 8" SIEVE
40-60% PASSING 6" SIEVE
0-10% PASSING 2" SIEVE
9
®OPOMNT
CONrsULTANTS�
"woa:Naa�iiM .iQrs