HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-144-80 - CODIGA JAMES - RIVER EXCAVATIONCODIGA RWER
EXCAVATION
EPIG144 -80
,1906,
City of Tukwila
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845
Office of Community Development
3 October 1980
James A. Codiga
12529 50th Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98178
SUBJECT: Application 80- 27=SMP (Variance Request)
Following their deliberations at the 2 October 1980 meeting, the
Tukwila Board of Adjustment voted to deny the subject Shoreline
Variance Request, based on findings that the proposed action does
not constitute a public purpose as implicitly- required in Chapter 6,
Paragraph 12, of the Shoreline Master Plan Program, and that no
instance of hardship has been demonstrated in the application con -
text.
A copy of the summary minutes for the meeting are enclosed.
Please note that decisions of the Board of Adjustment are final.
Appeal action is open to the Superior Court of King County only.
You may, however, reapply for the subject permit with new infor-
mation substantiating that the primary purpose of the application
is flood management.
Please direct any questions regarding this matter to my attention.
MC:nb
Enclosure
TUKWILA
NING DEPARTMENT
Ma- Caughey
Acting Director
City of Tukwila
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845
Office of Community Development
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment meeting of 2 October 1980.
The meeting was convened at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Richard Goe. Board
Members Altmayer and Regel were present.
Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, was present on behalf of the
City Staff.
MOVED BY MRS. REGEL, WITH MRS. ALTMEYER'S SECOND, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF THE 4 SEPTEMBER 1980 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AS PUBLISHED. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING
-Application 80- 27 -SMP: James A. Codiga requesting approval
of Variance from Chapter 6, Paragraph 12, of the Tukwila Shore-
line Master Plan Program to permit removal of sand from the
Duwamish River and stockpiling thereof on the Shoreline.
Property located at 12529 50th Avenue South.
Mark Caughey read the project staff report.
Chairman Goe declared the Public Hearing open at 8:17 P.M.
-James Codiga, 12529 50th Ave. So., Seattle
Mr. Codiga stated that the primary purpose of the application
is flood control protection of the bank (which he owns) oppo-
site the proposed sand bar extraction site.
He stated his disagreement with the staff report assertion
that the primary purpose of the dredging operation is eco-
nomic.
In response to Mrs. Altmayer's question, Mr. Codiga stated
that he intends to purchase the sand bar from the State Depart-
ment of Resources and resell the material. He also noted that
the entire extraction process would be conducted at his sole
expense.
Chairman. Goe :. requested of Mr. Codiga that he explain to the
Board the details of Diagram Exhibit "D ". Discussion followed
in an effort to clarify the geographic location of the extrac-
tion area, and the scope of work involved.
Page 2
• •
Mr. Caughey explained the application forms submitted and pro-
cedures which were followed by the applicant, and restated
Staff's reasoning for the variance requirement as related to
the "public purpose" interpretation of Chapter 6, Paragraph 12.
- Francis North, Box 441, North Bend
Mrs. North stated that she is a co -owner of the property across the
river from the variance-site; she emphasized that Mr. Codiga's
proposed action is primarily one of flood control. She explained
the stream velocity problems created by the sandbar, and the
resulting impacts upon the integrity of the shoreline of her
property.
Chairman Goe asked if the Shoreline Master Plan differentiates
between "flood control" and "erosion" control. Mr. Caughey
answered that neither term is defined in the Master Plan. He
then asked Mrs. North to elaborate on the degree of erosion 'damage
which the Codiga family has experienced on their property. She
also noted that their concern is to insure against future loss
of the property in question.
- Norma Derr, neighbor of Francis North
Ms. Derr amplified Mrs.. North's remarks relative to characteristics
of the river flow and the resulting erosion impacts of the river
action.
- Violet Buchanan, 12560 51st Place So., Seattle
Ms. Buchanan stated that she has resided at her present address
for 36 years and is not aware of severe flood problems in the
area as described. She suggested that a comprehensive study of
flood problems in the area be undertaken by the Corps of Engineers.
She stated her objection to the stockpile location near her
property due to on -going dust problems associated with the Codiga
landscape materials yard. She then showed the Board the location
of her property relative to the proposed stockpile, and asked
for assurance that the stockpile would, in fact, be located in
the location shown on Exhibit "D ".
In response to the chair, staff noted that the Codia property
is zoned M -1 (Light Industry).
Chairman Goe asked Mr. Cogia to verify that the sandbar in question is sub-
merged at high tide; Mr. Codiga confirmed this point. He then provided the
Board with his estimation of the depth and volume of the sandbar and the
influence on the river course which may result from its removal.
Mrs. Altmeyer then inquired of Mr. Codiga why, if flood control problems
of this magnitude are being experienced, have they not petitioned the
County to undertake the dredging operation; she questions whether it is
a private land- owner's responsibility to undertake flood protection operations,
and whether the variance request is actually motivated primarily for public
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT4DETING MINUTES
2 October 1980
Page 3
benefit. Mr. Codiga noted that his proposed action will protect his lands
on both sides of the river, and that although the County's efforts to
maintain the shoreline have generally been satisfactory, funding priorities
may not allow for immediate resolution of the problems created by sandbar
in question.
In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Caughey noted that his under-
standing of Mr. Codiga's "primary" intent being resale of the extracted
sand was based on personal conversation with him prior to filing of the
application.
Mr. Codiga estimated that the proposed stockpile would be located approximately
50' from the edge of the river bank and 300' from. 50th Place South.
With no further comment forthcoming from the audience, Chairman Goe closed the
Public Hearing at 9:07 p.m. and declared a recess.
The Board reconvened at 9:18 p.m.
The Board then reviewed the testimony presented verbally by the applicant
and public, and by the Staff Report. Mr. Caughey described the topography
of the Codiga river bank as observed in the field, and then restated the need
to substantiate the presence of "hardship" in this application in order to
approve a variance.
The Board expressed some doubt about the adequacy of information presented
which substantiates the engineering effectiveness of .removing 500 cu yds.
of material, thus demonstrating public purpose.
Staff explained the relationship between the Variance Request and the Shore-
line Management Substantial Development Permit. Mr. Caughey reviewed the
history of the Codiga variance application back to 1978. He emphasized that
Mr. Codiga was made aware of the variance necessity prior to his filing the
present action in March, 1980.
MOVED BY MRS. ALTMAYER, WITH MRS. REGEL'S SECOND, TO DENY APPLICATION
80- 27 -SMP SINCE THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE
THE PRIMARY INTENT OF INITIATING FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENT, AND THAT THE
APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED "HARDSHIP" RELATIVE TO VARIANCE THEORY.
MOTION CARRIED, 3 - 0.
The Board directed Staff to transmit a copy of these findings to the appli-
cant.
NEW BUSINESS
The Board discussed permit processes relative to the distribution within the
City by local newspapers of mailing tubes on private property, and what
controls are available to the City, if any, to regulate that distribution.
The Regular October Meeting of the Board of Adjustment was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
TU4 0', :OARD OF ADJUSTMENT
rk Caughey
Secretary
City of Tukwl
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTTAL 4 / Ags
TO: U BUILDING DEPT. POLICE DEPT.
JR
FIRE DEPT. r ECREATION DEPT.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑
•
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
DEnvironmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
'❑ Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request
❑Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
❑Conditional Use Permit DOther:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
• Requested response date:
/ /
Review Department comments:
By: Date:
City of Tukw�
6200 Southcenter Boulevard PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tukwila Washington 98188
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL ' / 406/ S®
TO: ® BUILDING DEPT. ❑POLICE DEPT.
❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT.
❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑
PROJECT: OP 16,k alVag S.V.CA A,T16P(l
LOCATION:
SOM ;. (00VJAMASK
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
Environmental Checklist EPreliminary Plat
❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request
['Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
['Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: .° / AUG /
Review Department comments:
r_-z7 ,hz.
By : ���fy)2-1
Date: ac-(1 5. / % o
City of Tukwe
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 62 / 1X/ g3 C)
TO: ['BUILDING DEPT.
FIRE DEPT.
❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
PROJECT: e4Po6As. pog o
LOCATION:
❑ POLICE DEPT.
❑ RECREATION DEPT.
0
S® i2� �� .s. (putoa kisH hive.)
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
OEnvironmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request
['Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
['Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: TZ / .6> &6 / e®
Review Department comments:
N9 C034 in 711
By:
Date:
C- ,7'g°
City of Tukvill
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL (9 / (J )G / e®
TO:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
•
❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT.
❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑1EATION DEPT.
❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑
a1,164 give& faYrgAr -Tiow
g® !pv S. (powlcto sal C Odfzr��
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request
❑Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: 2g- / ®W S / �O
Review Department comments:
A-2-74 if77. r/.<a 74" �� wr7eH eirr,
l r / o po�D o.r. ;71, / -K
24 A.`s /
���)- �1 /e / �.0 /V' ICJ // /ef /C.i ri fn, i'� (T/-�
1 17 :~lP /V" 76JG V /�Kd 6—e L+� e, 0-/ ft f i'.--
df e c1 �✓ �i�� h.a u� dr.
e39,oc-�,��� C`��.
�GGoh. 4.- e,..�i� d op o ^z, Ci pz4 ty -'. p C r/go o-1: A
By: � Date: ,tic -. 02c /�rc
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: -3---/9 /n F S C 00 / G-//
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 4p2 5-.2 9 5.07W 404 S`i
Si k4 �, GJA 98/ 7 2 76.2.- 17 ( 8
3. Date Checklist Submitted: 3— .:2--7-g0
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: C i 77 o f ��i4 .)r r✓A' /4 -
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: .&ma u 4 L o f <4.70 a F? arr, je/dk/L
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding of,its scope and nature):
Aim() t.t)d oil .9 k Soo e7ds o f SiM/ ,
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):.
/ 5 a 9 5or>y /L✓e) c) Y /78
;Zoo f T c,J D E /9-la So Fr / tiJ D -er# .
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 'Dec. / /9'c)
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES(/ NO
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO i✓
(c) Building permit - YES NO zY
• •
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES NO 4./-
(f) Sign permit YES NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES NO t/
(i) Curb cut permit YES NO
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES NO �/
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES NO i/
(1) Other:
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
i94)ti4iq -L Fa i? . o o f 5,q i o.
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
/00
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil?
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relieffea-
tures?
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
-2-
YES MAYBE NO
• •
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or .
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Explanation:
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
Explanation:
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
-3-
YES MAYBE NO
• •
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters?
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies?
Explanation:
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Explanation:
5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
• •
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels?
Explanation:
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
Explanation:
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate Of use of any natural
resources?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
Explanation:
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation).in the event of an,accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
• • • YES MAYBE NO
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
Explanation:
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation:
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result i
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
Explanation:
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection ?.
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
• •
(f) .Other governmental services?
Explanation:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use.of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation:
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas ?,
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water?
(d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
• •
YES MAYBE NO
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his -.
torical site, structure,
:object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw.any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Date
4,
. . - • .
58
q-,
stockpi
boundaries of 4 acres are
outlined in red
. • i
• 1
17.11
. ;
I .‘
(r)
J
10 11
35 14
•
•REVISE 0
7
• • 1 • • •
EARLINGTON - PARK