Final Site Selection Report Kittitas_082118

Home Browse Search

Scoring Sheet Select a preferred site for a new solid waste transfer station to serve Kittitas County waste generators. ID#Evaluation Criteria Site1 - Cement Plant Site25 - Tjossem Road Site 33 - US 97/Old Highway 10 1.1 Zoning Currently County Jurisdiction and zoned Urban Residential. In the UGA, As it stands, this could not have a TS, but it could be annexed into the City and the future landuse for the City has been designated as heavy industrial. Currently County Jurisdiction and zoned Commercial Agriculture Outside UGA, may be possible to rezone Currently City Jurisdiction and zoned Light Industrial Inside UGA Different options for getting zoned heavy industrial 1.2 Drive time from population center 7min, 2.9 miles 9min, 2.7 miles 7min, 3.2 miles 1.3 Floodplain More than 25 acres usable connected site outside of floodplain More than 25 acres of usable connected site outside flood plain; site access requires crossing flood-plain (and has both Lyle Creek and an Unnamed stream running through it) Over 25 acres of usable acreage, however, location of floodplain may require some engineering controls and/or separation of operational areas around flood plain (without relocating FEMA floodplain) 1.4 Drive time access to interstate and landfill 3 min, 1.3 miles 3min, 0.9 miles 3 min, 1.5 miles 1.5 Current Land Use DOR Code:91-Undeveloped land but adjacent to existing cement plant. Value use (provides County aggregate) DOR Code: 83 - Resource - Agriculture Current Use DOR Code: 83 - Resource - Agriculture Current Use; however in City so less of a problem than this type in County 1.6 Surface waters Large area covered by wetlands where adequate buffers may be difficult to establish. Without wetlands or major water bodies onsite (although Tjossem Pond to the south and has both Lyle Creek and an Unnamed stream running through it). However, the transfer station could potentially be located within 200 feet of a protected water body on adjacent property. Wetlands are listed but may also be able to provide a 200-foot buffer area for the wetlands. 1.7 Depth to Groundwater shallow depth to groundwater shallow depth to groundwater shallow depth to groundwater 1.8 Endangered species State ranking is used for the overall ranking because federal findings are the same for all sites. Also, there is a low risk of finding federally listed animals onsite because of poor habitat that doesn’t support these species. State: no endangered species or critical habitats listed. State: despite the lack of no endangered species listed or expected to be found onsite. This is because, a large wetland is listed and located central to the site that constrains a large portion to development and would add costs to the project because of the associated mitigation for permanent wetland impacts. State ranking is used for the overall ranking because federal findings are the same for all sites. Also, there is a low risk of finding federally listed animals onsite because of poor habitat that doesn’t support these species. State: has endangered species listed that that are not confirmed to be onsite and no wetland habitats listed. However, adjacent property has wetlands that must be considered during facility siting on this parcel. State ranking is used for the overall ranking because federal findings are the same for all sites. Also, there is a low risk of finding federally listed animals onsite because of poor habitat that doesn’t support these species. State: no endangered species listed but there are wetlands listed that should be avoidable. 1.9 Cultural resources No previously-identified cultural resources within proposed site, one historic and five precontact sites within 1-mile, 3 other properties within 1-mile high risk for predictive model, no previously- identified cultural resources within proposed site, 3 historic debris scatter, 4 historic isolates, and 1 precontact isolate sites within 1-mile, 13 other properties within 1-mile No previously-identified cultural resources within proposed site, 2 historic irrigations features, 1 historic road, and 1 historic cemetery sites within 1- mile, 16 properties within 1-mile. Farther from the river and across roadway (compared to Cement Plant site) 1.10 Proximity to existing/future residential neighborhoods 250 Yards: 0; 500 yards: 3, 0*5+1*3+1=4 250 Yards: 0; 500 yards: 2 res; 0*5+2*1+0=2 250 Yards: 0; 500 yards: 1 comm; 0*5+1*1+1=2 1.11 Traffic impacts Existing access to major roadways A lot of road improvements required along Berry Rd and Bull Rd Existing access to major roadways 1.12 Ownership of property One private owner (Hutchinson Properties, LLC), not interested Private owner (Valley Land Company LLC). Half of LLC interested Private owner (Duke & Dude, LLC); interested 1.13 Land acquisition and offsite utility improvements* Inside UGA, Total 2017 Value (Assessor) is $1.16M; 58 acres [$20,050/acre]. Acquisition cost is unknown so using cost for offsite mods = $475k Outside UGA. Total 2017 Value (Assessor) is $0.93M; 188.76 acres [$4,946/acre].Acquisition cost is unknown so using cost for offsite mods = $933k Inside UGA, Total 2017 Value (Assessor) is $1.08 M; 54.95 acres [$19,740/acre). Acquisition cost is unknown so using cost for offsite mods = $702k *Note: Land acquisition cost unknown at this time; only includes offsite and utility improvements. Kittitas County Transfer Station Siting Study Scoring Rationale Table B-3. Site Scoring Rationale