Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Final Site Selection Report Kittitas_082118
FINAL REPORT Kittitas County Transfer Station Site Selection Report Prepared for Kittitas County August 2018 AX0622181133PDX iii Contents Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. v 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Background Information ..................................................................................................... 2-1 3 Basis of Design Report Summary ......................................................................................... 3-1 4 Site Screening and Selection Process ................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Site Screening and Selection Process Overview .............................................................. 4-1 4.2 Identify List of Potential Sites Using Initial Siting Criteria ................................................ 4-2 4.3 Conduct Preliminary Site Screening ................................................................................. 4-3 4.4 Conduct Secondary Site Screening .................................................................................. 4-4 4.4.1 Step 1 – Secondary Site Screening ...................................................................... 4-4 4.4.2 Step 2 – Secondary Site Screening, Scoring, and Ranking .................................. 4-7 5 Public Involvement Activities .............................................................................................. 5-1 6 Final Recommendation and Next Steps ................................................................................ 6-1 Appendixes A Basis of Design Report B Site Ranking Matrixes C Background Data for Select Secondary Screening Criteria D Public Involvement Materials Tables 4-1 Comparative Rough-Order-of-Magnitude Costs ........................................................................... 4-6 4-2 Summary of Total Weighted Scores ............................................................................................. 4-8 5-1 Summary of Community Feedback Received at Public Meetings ................................................ 5-1 5-2 Number of Community Comments Received During Feedback Periods ...................................... 5-2 Figures 2-1 Existing Site Flooding .................................................................................................................... 2-1 4-1 Sequential Siting Process .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4-2 Initial 60 Potential Sites ................................................................................................................ 4-2 4-3 32 Sites Identified in Preliminary Screening ................................................................................. 4-3 4-4 11 Sites Identified in Step 1 of Secondary Site Screening ............................................................. 4-4 4-5 Conceptual Site Layouts of Three Potential Sites ......................................................................... 4-5 4-6 US 97/Old Highway 10 Site ........................................................................................................... 4-6 AX0622181133PDX v Acronyms and Abbreviations Basis of Design Report Kittitas County Transfer Station Basis of Design Report BOCC Board of County Commissioners CH2M CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. City City of Ellensburg, Washington County Kittitas County existing facility existing Ellensburg Transfer Station FAA Federal Aviation Administration facility new transfer station FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency MRW moderate-risk waste (or household hazardous waste) project new transfer station development and site selection process SEPA State Environmental Policy Act WAC Washington Administrative Code SECTION 1 AX0622181133PDX 1-1 Introduction This Site Selection Report documents the comprehensive siting process used to prepare recommendations for selection of Kittitas County’s new transfer station (facility) site. The projected population growth and solid waste management needs of Kittitas County, combined with existing Ellensburg Transfer Station (existing facility) challenges and limitations, requires construction of a new solid waste transfer station at a new location. The new transfer station will be designed to address existing facility limitations and support a growing community. The new facility will include a transfer building, composting area, moderate-risk waste (MRW) building, and recycling dropoff area as well as various administrative, parking, and other required elements. The new transfer station development and site selection process is referred to in this report as the project. This Site Selection Report is organized as follows: • Section 1: Introduction • Section 2: Background Information • Section 3: Basis of Design Report Summary • Section 4: Site Screening and Selection Process • Section 5: Public Involvement Activities • Section 6: Final Recommendation and Next Steps Supporting information is provided in the appendixes to this report. SECTION 2 AX0622181133PDX 2-1 Background Information The existing Ellensburg Transfer Station is located at 1001 Industrial Way in the City of Ellensburg, Washington (City) and serves both residents and commercial haulers. The existing facility handles solid waste, recyclables, and household hazardous waste (also referred to as MRW) and makes compost from yard waste. The entire existing facility and composting site is located adjacent to Wilson Creek within the 100-year floodplain. Topographically, the existing site is at a low elevation relative to the surrounding floodplain. During spring thaw and heavy rain events, the existing facility is often flooded, impacting a majority of access roads, unloading areas, and operational areas (see Figure 2-1). In addition to the customer access and operational challenges associated with frequent seasonal flooding, the existing facility is also space constrained. The small size of the facility results in long customer queuing times and potentially unsafe conditions within the small unloading and processing areas. As a result of existing size and property constraints, the existing facility does not have the capacity to accommodate additional material or users. The existing facility and property cannot support the growing solid waste management needs of Kittitas County. Figure 2-1. Existing Facility Flooding SECTION 3 AX0622181133PDX 3-1 Basis of Design Report Summary A Basis of Design for the new transfer station and site was established during the feasibility study phase of the project. The Kittitas County Transfer Station Basis of Design Report (Basis of Design Report; CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. [CH2M], December 2016) presents the existing Ellensburg Transfer Station service area and customers, tonnages and process flows, and County growth projections and goals for establishing new facility design parameters. A conceptual site layout, including key elements of the new transfer station, was also established and presented in the Basis of Design Report. The new transfer station was designed to address existing facility limitations and meet the long-term needs of the County. The new transfer station includes the following elements: • Roads and facility geometry to safely accommodate traffic flows • Transfer building • Composting area • Administration building • Scalehouse building and scales • Recycling dropoff area • MRW building • Stormwater management Preliminary designs for the conceptual site layout were prepared in accordance with industry best practices, local planning, and State of Washington regulations for solid waste facilities (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-350-310). Results established in the Basis of Design Report estimated a required area of approximately 20 to 25 acres to meet the solid waste and material management needs of the new facility. This estimate did not take into account site-specific features and dimensional limitations that may modify the space and design requirements. However, the estimate provided the County and the CH2M team with the required information to begin identifying and evaluating specific sites. The minimum size used for site selection was 25 acres. The Basis of Design Report is provided in Appendix A. SECTION 4 AX0622181133PDX 4-1 Site Screening and Selection Process Kittitas County implemented a step-by-step siting process to identify and select preferred sites for the new transfer station. The County worked with consultants CH2M and EnviroIssues to perform engineering and analyses and to engage and coordinate with the community throughout the siting process. Community input and transfer station design and siting parameters were considered during the development of siting criteria. Once siting criteria and measurement scales were established, potential sites were filtered through the sequential site screening process. Each stage of the screening process refined both siting criteria and the list of potential sites. Conclusively, the screening process resulted in a list of three potential sites meeting developed technical and community criteria. 4.1 Site Screening and Selection Process Overview The step-by-step siting process included the following sequential stages (as summarized on Figure 4-1 and further detailed in Sections 4.2 through 4.4): 1. Identify List of Potential Sites Using Initial Siting Criteria • Identified potential sites using the initial siting criteria (over 60 potential sites identified). • Obtained community feedback on siting criteria and revised preliminary screening criteria and secondary siting criteria. 2. Conduct Preliminary Site Screening • Applied revised preliminary screening criteria to the 60 potential sites (reduced the list to 32 potential sites). 3. Conduct Secondary Site Screening • Conducted Step 1 of secondary site screening using revised secondary siting criteria (reduced the list to 11 potential sites). • Reviewed list of 11 potential sites with representatives from the City and County. Using updated City/County zoning, land-use discussion, and urban growth area information, further refined the list to three potential sites. • Prepared conceptual layouts and rough-order-of- magnitude cost estimates for the three potential sites. • Consulted with the community on the three sites, conducted further research and technical review, removed one site, and added another site. • Prepared conceptual layout and rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimate for new site. Figure 4-1. Sequential Siting Process SECTION 4 – SITE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS 4-2 AX0622181133PDX • Conducted Step 2 of secondary site screening using the secondary siting criteria; prepared scores for the three sites; weighted criteria using stakeholder feedback on criteria of most interest; ranked sites; recommended preferred site. • Conducted final site selection. Community outreach and involvement was encouraged and coordinated throughout the siting process and included early public outreach, interview of local stakeholders, community briefings and meetings, and online public reviews and feedback periods. Public involvement activities are further described in Section 5. Each step summarized above is further discussed in the Sections 4.2 through 4.4. 4.2 Identify List of Potential Sites Using Initial Siting Criteria An initial list of potential sites was developed by the County project team in April 2017 and included over 60 potential sites around the cities of Ellensburg and Kittitas (Figure 4-2). This list of potential sites met the following initial siting criteria: • Greater than or equal to 25 acres in size • Within 2 miles of either City of Ellensburg or City of Kittitas • Does not contain a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone • Does not have residential zoning This initial list of potential sites was presented to the community during the early public outreach and involvement phase. The first County-led community meeting was held on June 6, 2017, and was attended by approximately 30 community members. During the meeting, the overall project description and objectives were shared with attendees and included existing Ellensburg Transfer Station challenges and conditions, current project status, design parameters, growth projections, and community involvement. Community feedback was solicited on preliminary siting criteria and overall community values. Additionally, the County’s online engagement website was shared and became available to the public on May 23, 2017. The website’s public feedback tool remained open through June 30, 2017, for this early review period. Community feedback collected online and from the community meeting during this early review period revealed the following public considerations and values: • Provide convenience and accessibility for users • Avoid residential areas • Consider routes and traffic • Consider utility water availability and stormwater impacts • Develop a solution that reflects economic efficiency Figure 4-2. Initial 60 Potential Sites SECTION 4 – SITE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS AX0622181133PDX 4-3 4.3 Conduct Preliminary Site Screening The project team finalized the preliminary site screening criteria based on initial community considerations and values. The revised preliminary siting criteria consisted of the following: • At least 25 acres in size with at least 25 acres of connected usable space • At least 25 acres outside the 100-year floodplain • Within 2 miles of the Ellensburg and/or Kittitas population center • Not located within a residential zone • Existing utility connections available within ½ mile of the site • Not located west or south of the Yakima River and/or I-90, and has easy access to I-90 • Not located within takeoff or approach areas of the Bowers Field Airport and/or not within Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) location restrictions During the initial site screening process, the project team applied the preliminary siting criteria to the initial list of over 60 potential sites, filtering down to 32 potential sites (Figure 4- 3). The most significant change at this stage of the process resulted from community feedback to keep the new transfer station site close and accessible to the community center. The project team added new criteria to keep the site “within 2 miles of the Ellensburg and/or Kittitas population center.” The project team then analyzed city population and existing infrastructure, traffic impacts, and hauling distances, and concluded that areas surrounding the City of Ellensburg would result in the least traffic impacts and a higher community value. Figure 4-3. 32 Sites Identified in Preliminary Screening SECTION 4 – SITE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS 4-4 AX0622181133PDX 4.4 Conduct Secondary Site Screening 4.4.1 Step 1 – Secondary Site Screening Step 1 of the secondary site screening process applied a subset of secondary siting criteria to the 32 potential sites remaining from the initial site screening stage. The secondary siting criteria used to reduce the list of 32 potential sites to 11 potential sites included: • Zoning • Distance from population center (ease of access by customers) • Floodplain • Drive time access to interstate and landfill • Current land use The 11 potential sites (Figure 4-4) were further reviewed and discussed in a workshop attended by City and County representatives. During the workshop, the participants reviewed updated City and County zoning, planned land use, and urban growth area information. Results of this workshop refined the list of 11 potential sites down to the following 3 sites: • Site 1: Cement Plant Site • Site 25: Tjossem Road Site • Site 32: Airport Site Figure 4-4. 11 Sites Identified in Step 1 of Secondary Site Screening SECTION 4 – SITE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS AX0622181133PDX 4-5 Conceptual site layouts were designed by the project team for each site based on requirements and parameters established in the project Basis of Design. Figure 4-5 shows conceptual site layouts of the Cement Plant Site, Tjossem Road Site, and Airport Site, respectively. These three potential sites, along with project progress, were presented to the community during the second County-led community meeting. The second community meeting was held on September 13, 2017, and was attended by approximately 37 community members. Additionally, based on conceptual site layouts, the project team generated rough- order-of-magnitude cost estimates for each site and presented a comparative costs estimate. Comparative costs for each potential site were separated into the following: • Facility development cost, representing all building and facility construction costs required onsite within the property • Offsite development cost, representing construction costs required outside the property to connect roadway infrastructure and utilities to the new facility • Land acquisition cost by owner, representing property sale or lease Table 4-1 (shown on the next page) summarizes the comparative costs of the sites. During the September 13, 2017, community meeting, the County obtained feedback on the three potential sites and secondary siting criteria weighting. Additionally, the County’s online engagement website was available for review and public feedback for the period from September 13 to 30, 2017. Community feedback collected from this second online period and meeting revealed that the Cement Plant Site was the most preferred site because of its location in an industrial area and proximity to the interstate. The Airport Site was the least preferred site due to the following concerns: traffic congestion through residential neighborhoods, concerns about future development planned for the surrounding property, and FAA setback requirements. Additional community feedback collected during this period revealed that the secondary criteria most important to the community were the floodplain and current land use criteria. This feedback reinforced high community value in identifying a site that avoids potential flooding and for Figure 4-5. Conceptual Site Layouts of Three Potential Sites SECTION 4 – SITE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS 4-6 AX0622181133PDX which current land use policy is most supportive and potentially beneficial in developing a new transfer station. After hearing from the public and conducting additional technical work and further research into FAA rules and the Airport Master Plan, the project team removed the Airport Site from further consideration. The project team revisited the previously identified list of 11 potential sites for candidates to replace the removed Airport Site. All remaining sites were found to be unfavorable due to zoning status and location outside of the urban growth area, which would prohibit development of a new transfer station. Initial site investigation and discussions with the current property owner of the Cement Plant Site led to additional investigation of a potential site across US Highway 97 from the Cement Plant Site. This new site location was identified as Site 33, US 97/Old Highway 10, and was found to have been removed from consideration during the initial site screening process due to the presence of a thin strip of a FEMA 100-year flood zone dissecting the site. After further review, confirmation of City Light Industrial Zoning (which would require some additional approvals but appeared to be workable), and consideration of the floodplain, the project team determined that the site had more than 25 acres of usable space and the floodplain channel could either be avoided or relocated and engineered with low impact to new site development and the floodplain network. A conceptual site layout was prepared for the new US 97/Old Highway 10 Site (Figure 4-6) and a rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimate was developed (Table 4-1). Table 4-1. Comparative Rough-Order-of-Magnitude Costs Kittitas County Transfer Station Site Selection Report Potential Site Facility Development Costa Offsite Development Costb Land Acquisition Cost by Ownerc Cement Plant $10 to $20 million $0.8 million TBD/privately owned Tjossem Road $10 to $20 million $1.6 million TBD/privately owned Airport $10 to $20 million $0.1 million $82,000 per year/County lease US 97/Old Highway 10 $10 to $20 million $0.8 million TBD/privately owned a Total facility development cost includes scalehouse, recycling dropoff, transfer building, onsite utilities, onsite roads, MRW building, and composting area. b Offsite development cost includes extending water, sewer, electrical services, and road improvements. c TBD means the price of the site would need to be negotiated as part of a sale. Figure 4-6. US 97/Old Highway 10 Site SECTION 4 – SITE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS AX0622181133PDX 4-7 A County/City workshop was held on November 16, 2017, to review project status, layouts, rough-order- of-magnitude cost estimates, and initial site criteria performance scoring of the three potential sites. Results of this workshop confirmed the following three potential sites for final consideration: • Site 1: Cement Plant Site • Site 25: Tjossem Road Site • Site 33: US 97/Old Highway 10 Since Site 33 US 97/Old Highway 10 was added after the September 13, 2017, community meeting, another meeting was added and the site was presented to the community via the County’s online engagement website. Feedback was solicited from January 12 to February 23, 2017, and additional community feedback was collected at the community meeting held on April 9, 2018. 4.4.2 Step 2 – Secondary Site Screening, Scoring, and Ranking The final three potential sites (Cement Plant Site, Tjossem Road Site, and US 97/Old Highway 10 Site) were carried forward to the final site screening stage: Step 2—Secondary Site Screening, Scoring, and Ranking. CH2M conducted Step 2 of the secondary site screening using the complete list of secondary siting criteria that were developed earlier in the project, as follows: • Zoning • Distance from Population Center (ease of access by customers) • Floodplain • Drive Time Access to Interstate and Landfill • Current Land Use • Surface Waters • Depth to Groundwater • Endangered Species • Cultural Resources • Proximity to Existing/Future Residential Neighborhoods • Traffic Impacts • Ownership of Property • Acquisition and Development Cost These final screening criteria reflect the community input that was received on screening criteria during the various phases of community engagement. The three sites were scored against the secondary site screening criteria using the measurement scales shown in Appendix B, Table B-1 and the CH2M multi-objective decision analysis tool to document and summarize results. Scores were summarized and tabulated as shown in Appendix B, Table B-2. In Table B-2, scores are represented with a color scale that ranges from red to green, with red representing the worst scores (i.e., worst feasible outcome) and green representing the best scores (i.e., best feasible outcome). Scores shown in Table B-2 do not reflect any weighting of the screening criteria and are therefore only preliminary results; however, as reflected in Table B-2, the US 97/Old Highway 10 Site has the best unweighted scores. Technical information and rationale used in the scoring of each criteria are documented in Table B-3 and additional background data for select secondary screening criteria are included in Appendix C. Each secondary screening criterion was weighted to show the relative importance of that criterion using City, County, and public feedback. Table B-4 shows the relative percent weights for both City/County and public feedback. The relative weights were applied to the criteria and normalized with the endpoints of the scales set to 0 (low) and 100 (high). The final value scores for each site were calculated using a weighted averaging process in which the normalized scores were multiplied by the weighting factors and summed for each category. These results are shown in Appendix B, Table B-5. Table B-5 SECTION 4 – SITE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS 4-8 AX0622181133PDX shows the weighted results using feedback from two different stakeholder groups. In the upper portion of the table, the scores using weights established by City and County staff are represented, whereas in the lower portion of the table, the scores using weights reflective of public comment are represented. These results are summarized in Table 4-2. Table 4-2. Summary of Total Weighted Scores Kittitas County Transfer Station Site Selection Report Site Total Scores Using City/County Weights Total Scores Using Public Weights Site 1: Cement Plant Site 50.9 73.3 Site 25: Tjossem Road Site 43.5 46.9 Site 33: US 97/Old Highway 10 Site 70.9 77.7 As shown in Table 4-2, regardless of whether the City/County or Public Comment weights were used, the US 97/Old Highway 10 Site had the best overall score, followed by the Cement Plant Site, and then the Tjossem Road Site. Figures B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B provide additional summaries of these results. Figure B-1 shows stacked bar charts for the final weighted scores (for both City/County and Public Comment results). These bar charts illustrate the relative impact of each secondary screening criterion on the overall score. Figure B-2 is a plot of the overall scores of each site (for both City/County and Public Comment results) versus the estimated acquisition and development costs that were calculated for each site. As shown on Figure B-2, Site 25 (Tjossem Road Site) has the highest cost and the lowest score. Site 33 (US 97/Old Highway 10 Site) has the highest score and a moderate acquisition and development cost. SECTION 5 AX0622181133PDX 5-1 Public Involvement Activities The County developed and implemented a Public Involvement Plan to engage and coordinate with the local community throughout the project. Implementation of the plan’s tools, activities, and community outreach materials enabled an important two-way dialogue between public and project team. Through engagement, the project team was able to better understand interests of people in the communities served by the existing transfer station and how best to involve community members in the siting and construction of the new transfer station. This approach ensured that the public had an opportunity to learn about the project, interact with the project team, and provide input on the siting decision. Community outreach was performed through stakeholder interviews, community meetings, briefings, the County’s online engagement website, and feedback surveys. Initial stakeholder interview participants were identified by project staff and were intended to be representative of a variety of community perspectives. Stakeholders included representatives from local governments and community groups and comprised the following participants: • Paul Jewell – Kittitas County • Ryan Lyyski and Margaret Reich – City of Ellensburg • Barry Brunson – Our Environment • Sharon Lumsden and Barry Brunson – Kittitas Audubon Society • Charli Sorenson – County Residents Against PacifiClean • Charli Sorenson – Grant County Public Utilities District A summary of stakeholder interviews and feedback is provided in Appendix D. As shown in the summary, the major themes that emerged through this feedback were as follows: • Select a location that is convenient for the surrounding community. • Increase the amount of recyclable plastic accepted. • Inform and engage the community using local radio stations, stores, and organizations. The County online engagement website has provided up-to-date information, including project description and schedule, upcoming events and announcements, and contact information. The website has been open to the public since May 23, 2017, and has been updated with current project information, meeting materials, milestones, and decisions throughout the project duration. The website augmented community meetings by providing project milestone material and a means to provide online feedback. Community meetings were held at the Kittitas Valley Event Center in Ellensburg, Washington, on June 6, 2017, September 13, 2017, and April 9, 2018. The types of feedback received at each meeting are summarized in Table 5-1. Table 5-1. Summary of Community Feedback Received at Public Meetings Kittitas County Transfer Station Site Selection Report Community Meeting Feedback Received June 6, 2017 Potential siting areas and concerns Community values Preliminary siting criteria September 13, 2017 Initial three potential sites Weighting siting criteria April 9, 2018 Revised three potential sites Weighting siting criteria SECTION 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES 5-2 AX0622181133PDX County online engagement website information, and community meeting presentations and feedback summaries, are included in Appendix D. Table 5-2 shows the number of comments received during each feedback period. Table 5-2. Number of Community Comments Received During Feedback Periods Kittitas County Transfer Station Site Selection Report Feedback Period Total Number of Comment Responses Received May 23 to June 30, 2017 15 September 13 to October 3, 2017 59 January 12 to February 23, 2018 33 April 9 to 27, 2018 52 The project team provided regular briefings to stakeholders, the solid waste advisory committee, and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) at key milestones throughout the project. Briefings included presentations with project updates, schedule, and summaries of public outreach and input events. SECTION 6 AX0622181133PDX 6-1 Final Recommendation and Next Steps On the basis of the information and results from the site screening process documented in the previous sections, the top-ranked sites for the design and construction of Kittitas County’s new transfer station site are as shown below (sites listed in order of ranking): 1. Site 33: US 97/Old Highway Site 2. Site 1: Cement Plant Site 3. Site 25: Tjossem Road Site This Site Selection Report will be presented to the BOCC office along with the project findings and recommendations presented herein. The Kittitas County Commission will issue a final decision to the community with a final site recommendation for the new Kittitas County transfer station. With BOCC acceptance, the team will begin preparing applications for local, state, and federal approvals and permits. The most critical approval for the project is the Solid Waste Facility Permit. The granting of this permit requires compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197-11). SEPA is a multiagency collaboration and a public process to identify and analyze environmental impacts associated with government actions. The State delegates SEPA compliance for the Solid Waste Facility Permit to the Kittitas County Public Health Department. In the case of the preferred US 97/Old Highway 10 Site, another major hurdle for the project is the land use change required from the City of Ellensburg Planning Division. The project would not be approved without a rezone; therefore, the SEPA lead agency may be either the Public Health Department or the Planning Division. It is preferable to perform permitting before and during the final design phase of the project so that changes to site design and operation can mitigate potential impacts. The following list is a summary of the types of permits required and a generalized schedule for the next steps of the project: • State and Federal − SEPA: Meets requirements for Section 106, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act Hold preapplication meeting and establish lead agency Conduct fieldwork if needed, for example, wetland and streams, cultural resources, noise, visual quality, traffic impact, air quality, and topographic/lands survey Obtain Determination of Significance – SEPA Checklist or SEPA environmental impact statement − National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Stormwater General Permit − FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Online Letter of Map Change application • Local − City of Ellensburg Community Development Department preapplication meeting – opportunity to discuss the land use development requirements (including rezoning), building code requirements, Public Works and Energy Services requirements (including FEMA Floodplain Hazard boundary), and other environmental issues − Kittitas County – Public Health Department Solid Waste Facility Permit − Various construction permits – for grading and filling, rights of way, driveways, traffic control SECTION 6 – FINAL RECOMMENDATION AND NEXT STEPS 6-2 AX0622181133PDX − Rights-of-way and easements – for site and road access may be tied to the site acquisition process • Public meetings – as required by any permitting processes • Other special meetings – as needed between municipal entities or agencies The overall permitting schedule is highly dependent on the results of the preapplication meetings and the SEPA Determination of Significance. As described earlier, the final design will incorporate the provisions and mitigation measures of the permits. Permitting is not formally complete until the construction phase is complete because there are often requirements for monitoring or building activity reports and inspections. Appendix A Basis of Design Report D RAFT Kittitas County Transfer Station Basis of Design Report Prepared for Kittitas County December 2016 1100 112th Avenue NE Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 iii Contents Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. v Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background and Objectives ................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Service Area ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Purpose of Basis of Design Report ................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Process Selection ............................................................................................................. 1-2 Design Parameters ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Existing Tonnages and Traffic .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Projected Design Quantities and Traffic .......................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Peak Storage .................................................................................................................... 2-2 Conceptual Site Layout Road Geometry .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Transfer Trailers ............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Commercial Vehicles ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Self-haul Vehicles ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.4 Yard Waste/Composting Material Traffic ........................................................................ 3-1 3.5 Recycling Vehicles ............................................................................................................ 3-2 3.6 Moderate-risk Waste Vehicles ......................................................................................... 3-2 3.7 Employee/Visitor Vehicles ............................................................................................... 3-2 3.8 Scale Plaza ........................................................................................................................ 3-2 Tipping Building ............................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Tipping Floor Level ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Ground Floor (Tunnel) Level ............................................................................................ 4-1 Composting Area............................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Composting Area Components ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Facility Capacity ............................................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 Acceptable Feedstocks..................................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Amendments.................................................................................................................... 5-3 Administrative Building .................................................................................................................. 6-1 Scalehouse and Scales .................................................................................................................... 7-1 Recycling Drop-off Area .................................................................................................................. 8-1 Moderate Risk Waste Building ........................................................................................................ 9-1 Stormwater Management ............................................................................................................ 10-1 Facility Land Area Requirements ................................................................................................... 11-1 References ................................................................................................................................... 12-1 Tables 1-1 Kittitas County Population Estimates: 2015 to 2035 .................................................................... 1-2 CONTENTS Section Page iv EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 2-1 2015 Ellensburg Transfer Station Quantities and Traffic .............................................................. 2-1 2-2 Recommended 2046 Design Parameters ..................................................................................... 2-2 Figures 1 Conceptual Site Plan 2 Transfer Building Plan 3 Transfer Building Elevations (1 of 2) 4 Transfer Building Elevations (2 of 2) 5 Compost Process Flow Diagram 6 Composting Area Plan 7 Scalehouse, Administrative, and Moderate Risk Waste Building Plans 8 Recycling Drop-off Plan EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 v Acronyms and Abbreviations ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ASP aerated static pile CDL Construction and Demolition Landfill County Kittitas County MRW moderate risk waste MSW municipal solid waste OFM State of Washington Office of Financial Management yd3 cubic yard(s) SECTION 1 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 1-1 Introduction Kittitas County intends to construct a new solid waste transfer station, compost facility, moderate risk waste (MRW) facility, and recycling depot at a new location (that has yet to be determined). The new facility will replace the existing Ellensburg transfer station and will be designed to address some existing site challenges and prepare the County for future growth. The County has retained CH2M HILL, Inc. (CH2M) to perform preliminary engineering services in support of the development of this new solid waste transfer station. The project will also accomplish the following: comply with local planning and state (Washington Administrative Code 173-350-310) regulations; efficiently manage all material types (solid waste, recyclables, and green waste); provide safe operation for customers and workers; be cost effective; be designed to efficiently process material; and address community concerns. The project is expected to be conducted in multiple phases. This report summarizes the work conducted as part of the first phase (Phase A – Project Initiation and Programming) and incudes the basis of design and conceptual layouts for this facility. 1.1 Project Background and Objectives The existing Ellensburg transfer station has location and size constraints. Located in a floodplain, the facility is closed because of customer access issues during significant rainfall or spring runoff events. The facility is also undersized for the number of customers using the facility. The small size of the facility results in long queuing times and potentially unsafe conditions within the small unloading and processing areas. The new transfer station will be designed to address these limitations and to fit the current and long-term needs of the County. The new facility will include a transfer building, composting area, MRW building, and recycling depot as well as various administrative, parking, and other required elements. 1.2 Service Area The existing Ellensburg transfer station, located within the City of Ellensburg, off Industrial Way, is one of two solid waste transfer stations used by County residents. Waste Management, Inc. is the current operator of the transfer facility. Solid waste generated by commercial accounts and residents from Kittitas County is hauled to this transfer station where the solid waste is loaded into transfer trailers and transported approximately 80 miles to the Greater Wenatchee Landfill in Douglas County, Washington. The population of Kittitas County in 2010 was 40,915. Table 1-1 shows the annual population estimates prepared by the State of Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) for 2015 through 2035. These population values and estimates do not account for the rather large transient student population associated with the Central Washington University in Ellensburg (enrollment of approximately 11,000 students). Population estimates in Table 1-1, indicate a 31 percent average increase in population from 2015 to design horizon 2035. The new transfer station will need to accommodate this significant growth. SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION 1-2 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 Table 1-1. Kittitas County Population Estimates: 2015 to 2035 Kittitas County Transfer Station Basis of Design Report Year Total Estimated Population Intermediate Series High Series 2015 42,592 47,759 2020 45,255 52,395 2025 47,949 57,065 2030 50,567 61,652 2035 53,032 66,075 % growth (2015 to 2035) 24% 38% Average % growth 31% Source: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/projections12/GMA_2012_county_pop_projections.pdf 1.3 Purpose of Basis of Design Report This Basis of Design document provides the project team with vital facility design parameters and land area required for a new facility. This information was gathered during the project workshop that was conducted with County staff and the existing site operator on November 2, 2016. Key “takeaways” from the workshop included design parameters (tons per day, peak daily flows, tipping floor storage capacity) for current and future materials (solid waste, recycling, green waste, other materials), and confirmation about other important facility parameters such as compost area size, administrative building requirements, parking requirements (including contract operator truck parking), and County equipment preferences (scales, software, equipment, etc.). 1.4 Process Selection The new transfer station will be designed to operate in a similar fashion to the existing facility and will use open-top trailers to haul the municipal solid waste (MSW). The main transfer building will be a two-level facility with a drive-through tunnel for loading. Commercial collection vehicles and residents will deposit their loads directly onto the tipping floor (the upper level). A front-end loader will move the waste from the tipping floor to floor opening(s) over the tunnel to push the MSW into the trailers below. In addition to the main transfer building, the facility will include a composting area, MRW building, recycling depot, and support equipment and structures. SECTION 2 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 2-1 Design Parameters Design parameters used in this basis of design report are based on 2015 data provided by the County, additional information gathered during the November 2, 2016 workshop, and the 31 percent population increase estimates that were described in Table 1-1. This data is further discussed in the sections below. 2.1 Existing Tonnages and Traffic The existing Ellensburg transfer station accepts, processes, and transfers MSW, yard waste, recyclable material, and MRW material from residential and commercial customers in the Ellensburg area and lower Kittitas County. Material is hauled to the facility in commercial garbage trucks and from a significant flow of self-haul vehicles (automobiles, pickup trucks, and trailers). Table 2-1 summarizes 2015 quantities and traffic at the Ellensburg transfer station. Table 2-1. 2015 Ellensburg Transfer Station Quantities and Traffic Kittitas County Transfer Station Basis of Design Report Category 2015 Quantities (tons) 2015 Traffic (vehicles) MSW, Yard Waste, CDL Quantities and Incoming Traffic Commercial – MSW 15,327 3,626 Commercial – yard waste 387 255 Commercial – CDL 2 1 Self-haul – MSW 7,056 51,458 Self-haul – yard waste 2,011 9,139 Self-haul – CDL 1,767 3,608 Yard waste from Cle Elum 320 45 Tires from Cle Elum 71 11 MRW 1,000a Total Incoming 26,941 68,143 MSW and Material Outgoing Compost sold 1,537 172 Recycling drop-box 747 354 Vehicle batteries 3 4 Metal 48 5 MSW transfer to Wenatchee 22,543 909 CDL to Ryegrass Landfill 1,373 179 Total Outgoing 26,251 1,623 aApproximately 1,000 customers used the MRW facility in 2015. Note: CDL = Construction and Demolition Landfill Table 2-1 does not include an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 customers that used the recycling drop-off area in 2015 or septage or leachate loads that are weighed at the scalehouse. SECTION 2 – DESIGN PARAMETERS 2-2 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 In 2015, the County weighed 161 septage hauler vehicles at the scalehouse and hauled 60 truckloads of leachate from the facility (compost stormwater ponds and transfer station tunnel) to the Ryegrass Landfill septage facility. In addition, the Ellensburg transfer station weighed Waste Management, Inc.’s curbside recycling trucks containing single stream and cardboard recycling material at the scalehouse (420 vehicles representing 1,283 tons). These loads are not included in the table above. Table 2-1 also does not include an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 customers that used the recycling drop- off area in 2015. In summary, the existing Ellensburg transfer station accepted, processed, and transferred approximately 27,000 tons of MSW, yard waste, and CDL from approximately 70,000 vehicles in 2015. 2.2 Projected Design Quantities and Traffic Projected waste quantities were estimated using 2015 quantities, a 30-year design life, and OFM population projections (intermediate to high growth – 31 percent) through 2035. Table 2-2 summarizes the estimated design waste volumes for the proposed facility. Table 2-2 Recommended 2046 Design Parameters Kittitas County Transfer Station Basis of Design Report Parameter Quantity Unit Current waste tonnage 80 Tons per day Projected 2046 waste tonnage 105 Tons per day 2046 peak-hour tonsa 26 Tons per hour 2046 peak-hour trafficb 78 Vehicles per hour 2046 yard waste quantitiesc 7,145 Tons per year a Based on CH2M’s previous experience, a peak hourly tonnage was estimated using 25 percent of the daily tonnage. b The peak-hour vehicle count was determined by using the 2015 Peak Hour (Saturday, July 9, 2016) vehicle count and increasing it by the estimated growth (31 percent). c Yard Waste quantities are based on doubling the current quantities and increasing that amount by the estimated growth rate (31 percent). 2.3 Peak Storage To account for inclement weather conditions and other unexpected issues that may affect delivery of waste to the landfill, 5 days of peak storage are used to size the waste receiving and processing building. The 5-day peak storage quantity is 525 tons and was calculated using five times the 2046 average daily throughput (105 tons per day). Contingency storage of up to 7,000 cubic yards (i.e., approximately 10 days of current waste receipts) could be accomplished by stacking waste 10’ deep across the tipping floor. SECTION 3 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 3-1 Conceptual Site Layout Road Geometry The proposed facility is designed to keep traffic flowing in the same general direction and minimizing traffic cross-over points. The conceptual layout uses a counter-clockwise loop, which is an industry standard safety practice, to allow collection vehicle drivers a proper backing site-line, without having to rely on passenger side mirrors. It is assumed that the site of the proposed facility will be located in an area of high groundwater, requiring the placement of approximately 15 feet of structural fill to elevate the transfer building tipping floor to allow gravity feed of solid waste to open-top transfer trailers in the tunnel. The road configuration for each of the vehicle and customer types is discussed in the following sections. 3.1 Transfer Trailers The basic design principle for the site layout is to use perimeter roads for transfer trailer traffic with a counter-clockwise loop to minimize traffic impacts on vehicles accessing the transfer building. Transfer trailers will enter the site and use the bypass lane to maneuver around the scalehouse. The transfer building is designed with a drive-through tunnel to minimize backing of transfer trailers. Loaded and empty trailers will use a lane adjacent to the transfer building (on both sides) for parking. A pit scale will be installed under the load-out port to maximize trailer loads. Once a trailer is loaded with solid waste, the truck will pull through the tunnel and will park, or use the bypass lane to exit the site. Transfer trailers will make a complete circle around the site, passing several merge points, but never having to cross traffic. 3.2 Commercial Vehicles Commercial vehicles will enter the facility and proceed to the scalehouse where their weights will be recorded. Departing the scale plaza, the vehicle will turn left at the entrance to the tipping building, where the vehicle will use a dedicated lane and climb up a 4 ± percent slope to the flat backing apron located outside the tipping building. The vehicle will back in the proper direction (over the left shoulder) into the building where solid waste will be unloaded onto a flat concrete floor. The vehicle will depart the site using an access road and proceed across the scale to record the tare (empty) weight in order to calculate the solid waste tonnage. Commercial vehicles with tare weight on file may use the bypass lane. 3.3 Self-haul Vehicles Self-haul vehicles will use the same general traffic pattern that is used by commercial vehicles, but self- haul vehicles will use a dedicated lane to access the backing apron and separate unloading area. The self-haul vehicle will proceed to a separate unloading area, discharge the material onto the concrete tipping floor, and exit the site using the shared outbound scale lane. 3.4 Yard Waste/Composting Material Traffic Customers dropping off yard waste will proceed to the scalehouse to obtain their weights and proceed along the perimeter access road to the yard waste unloading area. After discharging yard waste material, the vehicle will proceed to the scalehouse. Yard waste traffic will have to cross the loaded- outbound transfer trailer lane. The crossing will not affect traffic because it is estimated that only four to five transfer trailers per day will be hauled offsite (which equals about one trailer every 2 hours). SECTION 3 – CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT ROAD GEOMETRY 3-2 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 3.5 Recycling Vehicles Recycling vehicles will have a separate entrance before the scalehouse. The recycling drop-off area will be a pull-through type facility with adequate unloading areas. An additional two pull-through lanes will be available during peak times (i.e., Saturdays). 3.6 Moderate-risk Waste Vehicles Customers dropping off used oil and antifreeze will access the MRW building using the recycling drop-off area entrance. They will enter the MRW facility using a drive-through lane. Customers dropping off other MRW material (batteries, household chemicals, batteries, etc.) will contact the County for drop off. A County representative will meet the customer at the same drive-through lane to drop off material. 3.7 Employee/Visitor Vehicles County employee and visitor traffic will turn left before the scalehouse to access the administrative building. Contract employees will proceed past the scalehouse (via the bypass lane) and will park in areas near the transfer building. 3.8 Scale Plaza The scale plaza is designed initially with one inbound and one outbound scale to handle all traffic. The scale plaza is designed with a bypass lane for transfer trailers and has an area where another scale could be added at a later date. There are accommodations for automated inbound and outbound commercial transactions in the future (e.g., card-readers, RFID, etc.) See Figure 1 for conceptual facility layout. SECTION 4 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 4-1 Tipping Building The approximate 100- by 210-foot transfer building will be divided into three primary functional areas: (1) waste receiving, storage, and handling; (2) tire and white goods loading area; and (3) contractor offices. 4.1 Tipping Floor Level The tipping floor level will consist of a cast-in-place concrete floor surface enclosed by a separate superstructure. The large tipping floor area will be covered by a pre-engineered steel rigid frame system spanning the entire floor. Cast-in-place concrete push walls protecting the exterior building walls will be constructed independent of the building’s framing. Walls enclosing the tipping floor will be a combination of metal panel walls designed to be hosed down for cleaning, and louvered openings will be provided as needed for cross ventilation. Translucent panels will be used high in the walls to provide a natural light source where possible. The exterior walls of the contractor office area will be a combination of cast-in-place concrete and load-bearing concrete block masonry walls. The tipping floor has two separate areas for unloading commercial and self-haul vehicles. The commercial unloading area is designed to handle four vehicles at a time, includes areas for at least 5 days of storage, and has an area for stockpiling single stream recycling material for load-out by the contract operator. The self-haul unloading area is designed to unload nine vehicles at a time and has an area designated for stockpiling construction and demolition debris material for separate load-out. During peak times (Saturdays), the commercial unloading area will be available to unload self-haul vehicles. The transfer building roofing system is designed to provide a minimum of 28 feet of clearance to allow unloading of all types of garbage trucks and other vehicles. The roof is designed so that rain water will flow to the load-out tunnel side of the building at a slope of 2 to 12. The roof system will consist of metal standing-seam panels and selected areas of skylight panels attached to the sub-framing of the pre-engineered building. The metal roof panels will have a bottom surface of sheet metal to protect insulation from water generated by interior hose-down activities. Perimeter gutters will provide drainage from the upper roof with external downspouts discharging to underdrains at the foundation. 4.2 Ground Floor (Tunnel) Level The ground floor level construction will be primarily cast-in-place concrete with portions of the exterior wall surfaces exposed to view. These exposed areas will be finished using painted concrete. Doors, framing, and window framing materials will match other buildings onsite using noncorroding materials wherever possible. The load-out tunnel will have a flat concrete floor, with a pit scale under the load-out port. The tunnel may have two 15-foot-wide by 20-foot-high doors (one on either end). See Figure 2 for the transfer building plan and Figures 3 and 4 for building elevations. SECTION 5 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 5-1 Composting Area Similar to the existing operation, the new composting area will be an outdoor operation designed to accept and process yard waste, agricultural by-products, and wood waste into compost. Future addition of other feedstocks may be considered at a later date; however, the County has indicated that it is not interested in accepting post-consumer food waste or biosolids at this site. The composting technology used at the new site will be different from that at the existing windrow operation. The new site will use a combination of aerated static pile (ASP) and windrow curing, and will be designed to be operated in a batch process. 5.1 Composting Area Components The following key components of the proposed development are shown on the attached process flow diagram (Figure 5) and compost area concept layout (Figure 6): • An uncovered feedstock receiving, grinding, and mixing area (223 feet by 242 feet) situated just off the compost traffic lane, toward the top of the site. This area will be designed for back-in access to customers for dropping off materials for composting. Feedstocks will be unloaded onto the asphalt pad in this area and then subsequently moved or handled with a small front-end loader. The existing electric grinder will be used to grind feedstock and amendment as needed. • Eight outdoor (55 feet by 25 feet) ASP composting systems with back, side, and interior walls constructed of ecology blocks. These systems will have an associated biofilter odor treatment system. This area will be designed for a material residence time of 4 weeks. The ASP composting system will consist of eight discrete aeration zones that are constructed in two identical groups of four. The two groups of aeration zones will run independently of each other, and each will consist of the following components: − On-grade high-density polyethylene aeration laterals situated below each composting pile (two per aeration zone) − An above-grade header pipe that distributes air to and from the aeration laterals (one per aeration zone) − A common process air duct that provides the connection between the individual aeration zone headers and the fan equipment − Centrifugal fans (one per group of four aeration zones) and associated dampers that allow airflow to each zone to be controlled − An organic media biofilter that will treat process air collected from the composting piles • An outdoor pad for windrow curing of feedstocks. The size of the windrow pad will be based on managing materials in up to 18 windrows that are up to 18 feet wide and 7 feet high using a large straddle-type windrow turner with an 8-week residence time. The typical length of each windrow will be 115 feet. • A screening area between the curing windrows. The aisle between the two rows of curing windrows will be wide enough to accommodate the existing trommel screen. • An amendment storage and finished product screening and storage pad designed for up to eight rectangular finished product piles that are 55 by 75 feet and will accommodate a height of 12 to 13 feet. Piles will be made with a front-end loader. SECTION 5 – COMPOSTING AREA 5-2 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 • A product sales area located near the finished product storage area. • Up to three surface water retention ponds to capture runoff from the active operating areas. The site will be graded to separate runoff from the ASP and receiving area from the rest of the site so that surface water collected from areas other than the ASP pad and receiving area can be used to moisten piles as needed. Leachate and condensate that collect within the aeration system’s laterals and ducts will be captured and drained via gravity through polyvinyl chloride piping to one of two leachate manholes. The two leachate manholes will also serve as the “water trap” that is necessary to allow leachate and condensate to drain continuously from the aeration system while it is in operation. The leachate manholes will be equipped with electric pumps and float level sensors that will transfer liquid that collects in the manhole to the retention pond located near the ASP area. 5.2 Facility Capacity The facility is designed to accept and process the projected 7,000 tons per year of feedstocks that are anticipated. The facility design also factors in the historical peaking factor based on quarterly data from 2013 through 2015 from the existing site. However, the mass of material present at the site at any one time will vary based on the type of equipment used to form and turn the windrows, residence times, and the density and moisture content of the materials being composted. For these reasons, it is more convenient to refer to the volumetric capacity of the various composting systems. The facility will have the following capacities: • The ASP composting system is designed around operators constructing two composting piles per week which have a combined capacity of up to 654 cubic yards (yd3). At times of the year when feedstock quantities are lower, the composting piles will be built with a lower height. • The capacity of the windrow composting and curing operation is expected to be approximately 5,028 yd3. However, this capacity may change (increase or decrease) as a result of changes in turning methods and equipment and changes in windrow spacing. These changes can be accommodated without the need to expand the physical size of the windrow pad. • The amount of material stored in the finished product storage area is expected to vary significantly from year to year. Also, amounts will vary within each year based on compost production levels and market demand. The capacity of the area will be based on storage of materials in eight rectangular piles (75 feet by 55 feet). However, this storage capacity will be increased to respond to lagging seasonal or year-over-year market demands by building stockpiles closer together or using an extended pile configuration. 5.3 Acceptable Feedstocks The new facility will be designed to process the same materials that the existing facility is permitted to receive and process (Type 1 [vegetative] and Type 2 [manures] feedstocks), which include the following: • Landscaping and yard trimmings • Wood wastes (natural woody debris, including land clearing stumps and brush, and clean, unpainted, and untreated dimensional wood) • Straw and bedding with associated manures (primarily from nearby fairgrounds and small farms) Future addition of pre-consumer food waste may be considered at a later date. The current site experiences seasonal variation of compost material depending on the weather. During the late fall and early winter periods, incoming material contains a higher proportion of brush and tree limbs. SECTION 5 – COMPOSTING AREA EN1213161143SAC INSERT LEGAL ENTITY (IF APPLICABLE) 5-3 5.4 Amendments Amendments are normally added to organic feedstocks as part of the composting process. This is done to adjust the moisture content and carbon-to-nitrogen ratio to the desired range. In addition, amendments provide structure and free air space to improve the movement of air through the composting pile. While the necessary adjustments can often be achieved through the use of one amendment type, it is not uncommon to use two or more amendments to achieve the desired results. Amendments may also be added to curing piles or to finished compost product to enhance their agronomical characteristics. The following are common amendment sources that may be used at the compost facility: • Wood chips produced from onsite grinding of wood waste, dimensional lumber and logs, stumps, or brush, or purchased from material brokers • Oversized material screened from finished compost produced at the site (screening overs) • Leaves and brush from leaf and yard waste diversion programs • Cardboard and paper • Sawdust • Straw Actual quantities and types of amendments used at the site will vary from week to week depending on feedstock characteristics and amendment availability. SECTION 6 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 6-1 Administrative Building The administrative building will be designed primarily for County staff and will be located near the entrance/exit of the facility. Additionally, this building will be located near the MRW building, scalehouse, and recycling depot, and will also be accessible to visitors without requiring them to cross the scales. The administrative area will be constructed with a pre-engineered steel rigid-frame system. The exterior walls of the administrative area will be a combination of cast-in-place concrete and metal panel siding over steel framing. The architectural features of this building will be similar to those of the scalehouse. The administrative building will include the following main features: • A reception/customer service area • A conference room with capacity for 16 to 18 people • Three enclosed offices and four open offices (cubicles) • Two Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)-accessible restrooms for staff See Figure 7 for the administrative building plan. SECTION 7 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 7-1 Scalehouse and Scales The new facility will be equipped with an inbound and outbound manual scale, and an inbound automated scale that will be dedicated for commercial accounts. The scalehouse and scale area will also have room to accommodate a future outbound automated scale. The scalehouse will be situated between the inbound and outbound manual scale and will have a working area large enough to accommodate three computer screen monitors (each side for inbound/outbound), a camera system, an ADA-accessible restroom, one ADA parking stall, a break area, and a floor-mounted safe that will be built into the floor. The exterior walls of the scalehouse will be a combination of cast-in- place concrete and metal panel siding over steel framing. The architectural features of this building will be similar to those of the administrative building. See Figure 7 for the scalehouse plan. SECTION 8 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 8-1 Recycling Drop-off Area Similar to the existing site, the new site will include a recycling drop-off area that is accessible without going through the scale. The recycling drop-off area will include a row of 15 roll-off containers located on a concrete pad with an ADA ramp, ADA platform, and stairs on both ends of the row. The area will not be covered. Both sides of the row of roll-off boxes will be accessible during peak days and hours. Only one side of the row of roll-off boxes will be accessible during non-peak days and hours. Each side will be equipped with two drive-through lanes and one bypass lane. A gate on either end of the roll-off boxes will be used to control access to the side used only for peak periods. See Figure 8 for the recycling drop-off area plan. SECTION 9 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 9-1 Moderate Risk Waste Building The new MRW building will be much larger than the current facility in order to improve separation and storage as required. The MRW building will be an open, two-sided structure with a fully enclosed portion that is explosion proof and has proper ventilation. The building will be located before the scale and will be designed for customers to pull through the drive-through area that will be located under a roof. See Figure 7 for the MRW building plan. SECTION 10 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 10-1 Stormwater Management The site drainage and stormwater scheme will be largely dependent on the actual site that is selected. However, it is anticipated that the site will be graded to maximize gravity flow. Stormwater will be collected in a series of swales and retention basins strategically located throughout the site. The collected stormwater can be used for the composting process as needed, and contact water from the transfer station’s loadout tunnel will be managed as leachate. SECTION 11 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 11-1 Facility Land Area Requirements Based on the results of facility needs and future growth projections for Kittitas County, the estimated area required to provide the solid waste and material management needs for this new facility will be approximately 20 to 25 acres. This estimate does not take into account site-specific features and dimensional limitations that may modify the space and design requirements. However, this estimate will provide the County and the CH2M team with the required information to begin identifying and evaluating specific sites. SECTION 12 EN1213161143SAC DRAFT – 12/23/16 12-1 References CH2M, Workshop Meeting Summary (with Kittitas County), conducted November 2, 2016 Kittitas County, Kittitas County Ellensburg Transfer Station Scale-house Data. 2015 Kittitas County, Kittitas County Ellensburg Transfer Station As-builts Kittitas County, 2010 Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan Update, August 2011 State of Washington, Washington Administrative Code, Solid Waste Handling Standards, WAC 173-350 State of Washington Office of Financial Management (SWOFM). County Growth Management Population Projections by Age and Sex: 2010-2040 [online]. Olympia, Washington. Accessed in November 2016 from: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/projections12/GMA_2012_county_pop_projections.pdf Figures FILENAME:PLOT DATE:12/22/2016 PLOT TIME:1:57:47 PMFig01-Kittitas_site plan.dgn KITTITAS COUNTY TRANSFER STATION KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON INBOUND OUTBOUND SCALE SCALE SCALE SCALE HANDICAPPED PARKING MANUAL SCALE LANE MANUAL SCALE LANE AUTOMATED SCALE LANE INBOUND OUTBOUND FUTURE AUTOMATED SCALE LANE BYPASS LANE BYPASS LANE 0 1" = 50' 50'100'150' 1033'983'LEGEND: TRANSFER TRAILER COMPOSTING SELF-HAUL COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC FLOWTRANSFER BLDGRECYCLINGADMINMRW EXPANSION FUTURE DRAFT BLDG, SEE FIG 7 ADMINISTRATION (APPROX. 23-ACRE SITE) PROPERTY BOUNDARY 50-FT BUFFER SEE FIG 2 TRANSFER BLDG, SEE FIG 8 AREA, DROP-OFF RECYCLING SEE FIG 6 COMPOSTING AREA, SEE FIG 7 SCALEHOUSE BLDG, SEE FIG 7 WASTE BLDG, MODERATE RISK LOADOUTWALL W/G TIRES LANE TRAILER PARKING EMPTY TRANSFER FIGURE 1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANSCREENING AREAAREA AND CHIPPING CUSTOMER UNLOADING DEC. 23, 2016PRODUCT SALESPARKING LANESFULL TRANSFER TRAILER BLDG EQUIPMENT STORAGE OFFICE FILENAME:PLOT DATE:12/22/2016 PLOT TIME:9:26:55 PMFig02-Kittitas_transfer bldg plan.dgn KITTITAS COUNTY TRANSFER STATION KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON 0 1" = 12' 12'24'36'FIGURE 2 TRANSFER BUILDING PLANRECYCLING4 x 15' W BAYS UNLOADING COMMERCIAL 9 x 12' W STALLS UNLOADING RESIDENTIAL TIPPING FLOOR 50' STRAIGHT LEVEL EXIT 4 x 12' W STALLS RESIDENTIAL FUTURE EXPANSION 28' HIGH CLEARANCE BACKING APRON OFFICE VIEWING DISPLAY ENTRY/ WC WC DEC. 23, 2016 DRAFT RETAINING WALL 16' H STORAGE / PUSH WALL CDL45' - 10"27' - 4"96' - 6"RETAINING WALL LOADOUT PORT 210' LOADOUT FUTURE / OPTIONAL PORCH COVERED ENTRY COVERED WALL 16' H PUSH WALL 16' H PUSH FILENAME:PLOT DATE:12/22/2016 PLOT TIME:9:28:44 PMFig03-Kittitas_transfer bldg elev.dgn KITTITAS COUNTY TRANSFER STATION KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON FIGURE 3 DEC. 23, 2016 DRAFT FRONT ELEVATION FRONT PERSPECTIVE FRONT ENTRY PERSPECTIVE FRONT PERSPECTIVE TRANSFER BUILDING ELEVATIONS (1 OF 2) FILENAME:PLOT DATE:12/22/2016 PLOT TIME:9:30:27 PMFig04-Kittitas_transfer bldg elev.dgn KITTITAS COUNTY TRANSFER STATION KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON FIGURE 4 DEC. 23, 2016 DRAFT BACK ELEVATION BACK PERSPECTIVE BACK PERSPECTIVE TRANSFER BUILDING ELEVATIONS (2 OF 2) FILENAME:PLOT DATE:12/22/2016 PLOT TIME:9:38:25 PMFig05-Kittitas_process flow diagram.dgn KITTITAS COUNTY TRANSFER STATION KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON FIGURE 5 DEC. 23, 2016 DRAFT COMPOST PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FILENAME:PLOT DATE:12/22/2016 PLOT TIME:9:46:44 PMFig06-Kittitas_composting plan.dgn KITTITAS COUNTY TRANSFER STATION KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON 0 1" = 30' 30'60'90' FIGURE 6 DRAFT COMPOSTING AREA PLAN BIOFILTER 8 x 25' W BAYSASP BUNKERSWINDROW CURING PILE8 PILES PRODUCT STORAGE FINISHED 16 PILES WINDROW CURING STORMWATER POND STORAGE PILE PRODUCT FINISHED 681' 242'385'239' 200'223'165'60'115'18' 55' 75'55'320'GRINDER PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING DEC. 23, 2016 AND CHIPPING AREA CUSTOMER UNLOADING STORMWATER PONDS SCREENING AREA SALES PRODUCT OFFICESTORAGE BLDGEQUIPMENT FILENAME:PLOT DATE:12/22/2016 PLOT TIME:10:17:41 PMFig07-Kittitas_scale admin mrw plans.dgn KITTITAS COUNTY TRANSFER STATION KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON 9' 4"12' 6"10'12'9'58'31'9'6'-9"11' 7' 12'6' 9"6'29' 8"8' 11"30'30'50'20'25', TYP 1"= 5' 0 1" = 5' 10'15' ADMINISTRATION BLDG 5' 1"= 5' 0 1" = 5' 10'15'5' SCALEHOUSE BLDG FIGURE 7 SCALEHOUSE, ADMINISTRATION, AND MRW BUILDING PLANS AREA BREAK MECH/ELEC RESTROOM TRANSACTION 2-WAY DRAFT 6'x6' CUBICLES RESTROOM RESTROOM OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE LOBBY RECEPTIONCONFERENCE ROOM TYP OVERHANG ABOVE, LINE OF ROOF AND CANOPY ABOVE, TYP LINE OF ROOF OVERHANG COPIER PRINTER/ 1"= 10' 0 1" = 10' 20'30'10' TYP OVERHANG ABOVE, LINE OF ROOF DEC. 23, 2016 STORAGESTORAGE MRW BLDG DOOR TO MODERATE RISK WASTE (MRW) BLDG FILENAME:PLOT DATE:12/22/2016 PLOT TIME:10:31:20 PMFig08-Kittitas_recycling drop-off plan.dgn KITTITAS COUNTY TRANSFER STATION KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON 0 1" = 12' 12'24'36' FIGURE 8 RECYCLING DROP-OFF PLAN BYPASS LANE BYPASS LANE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE CONCRETE PAD ROLL-OFF BOXES 15 - 30 CUYD LANDSCAPE AREA ELEVATED 4' ADA PLATFORM 1:12 SLOPE ADA RAMP DRAFT STAIRSSTAIRS DEC. 23, 2016 1:12 SLOPE ADA RAMP ELEVATED 4' ADA PLATFORM PEAK PERIODS OPEN DURING DRIVE-THROUGH, SEE FIG 7 MODERATE RISK WASTE (MRW) SECURITY GATESECURITY GATE Appendix B Site Ranking Matrixes APPENDIX B Contents Tables B-1 Secondary Siting Criteria and Performance Measures B-2 Site Scores B-3 Site Scoring Rationale B-4 Percent Weights B-5 Weighted Results Figures B-1 Results B-2 Score versus Cost Table B-1. Secondary Siting Criteria and Performance Measures Worst Best 1 Zoning Current Zoning Designation 1-5 scale reflecting current zoning and ease of siting a transfer station in that type of zoning Prohibited by current zoning and outside the UGA Acceptable under current zoning without conditional use permit or zoning change 2 Distance from population center (ease of access by customers) Maximize ease of customer access Estimated drive time from transfer station to population center (City of Ellensburg -intersection of University Ave and B Street) Estimated drive time is 9 minutes or more Estimated drive time is 7 minutes or less 3 Floodplain Minimizes potential for impact to floodplain Percent of site estimated to lie within floodplain Only 25 acres are located outside the flood plain and/or engineering controls are required to provide at least 25 acres of usable space. More than 50 acres are located outside the flood plain 4 Drive time access to interstate and landfill Minimize long-haul costs by locating site close to I-90 Intersection Driving time from site to I-90 Measurable drive time is 7 minutes or more to the interstate Measurable drive time is 2 minutes or less to the interstate 5 Current Land Use Current land use is most supportive of developing a transfer station 1-5 scale reflecting current land use and ease of developing a transfer station Use of this site would displace high- value land Use of this site would result in reclaiming a portion of unused industrial complex or remediating a contaminated site 6 Surface waters Minimizes potential for impact to wetlands and related wildlife 1-5 scale reflecting likelihood of impacts to wetlands or other surface waters Wetlands and/or water bodies clearly present onsite and site is near an area conducive to the presence of wetlands or within 200 feet of a protected water body. No wetlands or water bodies onsite and not within 200 feet of a protected water body. 7 Depth to groundwater Shallow groundwater will impact development cost 1-5 scale reflecting depth to groundwater and impact on site development (shallow groundwater requires more imported structural fill) Shallow depth to groundwater requires additional imported structural fill Deep depth to groundwater allows balancing cut/fill soil volumes 8 Endangered species Minimizes potential for impact to endangered species 1-5 scale reflecting likelihood of endangered species impacts A known (sighted and documented) protected species or habitat has been identified onsite. No protected species or habitats listed or known onsite. 9 Cultural resources Minimizes potential for impact to historic properties or archaeological resources 1-5 scale reflecting likelihood of historic properties or archaeological resources Historic properties or cultural resources clearly present onsite. If tribal, must mitigate with tribes, otherwise must mitigate with Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. No historic properties or cultural resources onsite. No need for a cultural resource survey because of previous documentation. 10 Proximity to existing and future residential neighborhoods Site not likely to result in impacts to persons living or working near the transfer station Parcels with residential or commercial structures within 2 zones (within 250 yards and within 500 yards on site center). Parcels multiplied by the following factors: 5 and 1, for the respective zones add 1 if in urban growth area Value of 4 using the following: Parcels with residential or commercial structures within 2 zones (within 250 yard sand within 500 yards on site center). Parcels multiplied by the following factors: 5 and 1, for the respective zones add 1 if in urban growth area Value of 2 using the following: Parcels with residential or commercial structures within 2 zones (within 250 yards and within 500 yards on site center). Parcels multiplied by the following factors: 5 and 1, for the respective zones add 1 if in urban growth area 11 Traffic impacts Truck route(s) to the transfer station appropriate for heavy trucks (does not require many changes) and not likely to affect existing persons or businesses 1-5 scale reflecting the readiness of existing access roads and the relative impact on residences and businesses along truck route Portions of access road have speed limit of 30 mph or less and/or use of road for this purpose will significantly increase traffic near heavily populated residential or business areas No portion of access road has speed limit of less than 30 mph, most of the access road has speed limit of at least 50 mph and few if any persons likely to be impacted by additional traffic 12 Ownership of property Maximize ease of property acquisition 1-5 scale reflecting the ease of ownership transfer of the site Site has multiple owners Site is owned by the City or County or by an interested private seller 13 Land acquisition and offsite utility improvements* Minimize costs required to acquire and prepare site for use (e.g., site topography, stormwater/drainage considerations, depth to groundwater, development cost, existing property cleanup/demolition) Estimated acquisition and development cost ($000)$777 $592 Secondary Siting Criteria Performance Measure Measurement Scale Siting Criteria Description Scoring Sheet Kittitu County Transfer Station Siting Study Select a preferred site for a new solid waste transfer station to serve Kittitas County waste generators.. Worst Best Feasible Feasible Site 33 US97/Old Evaluation Criteria Measurement Scale Outcome Outcome Cement Plant Tjossern Road' Highway 10 1.1 Zoning 1·5 scale 1 5 3 2 4 1.2 Drive time from populat ion Drive time (min) 15 5 7 9 7 center 1.3 Fl oodp lain 1·5 scale 1 5 5 4 3 1.4 Drive time access to interstate Drive time to 1-90 and landfill (min) 10 2 3 3 3 1.5 Current Land Use 1·5 scale 1 5 3 2 3 1.6 Surface Waters 1·5 scale 1 5 1 2 3 1.7 Depth to Groundwater 1·5 scale 1 5 2 2 2 1.8 Endangered Species 1·5 scale 1 5 2 4 3 1.9 Cultural Resources 1·5 scale 1 5 2 2 3 1.10 Proximity to existing/future Impact scale 125 2 4 2 2 r esidential neighbo rhoods 1.11 Traffic Impacts 1·5 scale 1 5 5 1 5 1.12 ownership of property 1·5 scale 1 5 1 3 5 1.13 Land acq uisition and offsrte Cost (S000) $933 $475 $475 $933 S702 uti lity imp r ovements• ·N ote: Land acquis ition cost unknown at this time, only indudes offsite and utility improv em ents Table B-2. Site Scores 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 Table B-4. Percent Weights Percent Weights - City/County Kittitas County Transfer Station Siting Study Select a preferred site for a new solid waste transfer station to serve Kittitas County waste generators ID# Evaluation Criteria Consensus 1 Zoning 13% 2 Driving time from population center 3% 3 Floodplain 7% 4 Driving time access to interstate and landfill 1% 5 Current land use 12% 6 Surface waters 13% 7 Depth to groundwater 1% 8 Endangered species 9% 9 Cultural resources 9% 10 Proximity to e/f residential neighborhoods 13% 11 Traffic impacts 11% 12 Ownership of property 9% Percent Weights - Public Comment Kittitas County Transfer Station Siting Study Select a preferred site for a new solid waste transfer station to serve Kittitas County waste generators ID# Evaluation Criteria Consensus 1 Zoning 5% 2 Driving time from population center 10% 3 Floodplain 8% 4 Driving time access to interstate and landfill 8% 5 Current land use 7% 6 Surface waters 7% 7 Depth to groundwater 6% 8 Endangered species 2% 9 Cultural resources 2% 10 Proximity to e/f residential neighborhoods 18% 11 Traffic impacts 24% 12 Ownership of property 2% MODA scores of individual criteria may not sum to the total because of rounding. Table B-5. Weighted Results MODA Results for Consensus Weighting -City/County Kittitas County Transfer Station Siting Study 80 70 60 ... 0 so u <( 40 Cl 0 30 � 20 10 0 S itel ■ Zoning ■Floodplain ■ Curr ent l and use ■Depth to groundwater ■ Cu ltura l resources ■ Traffic i mpacts Site2S Site 33 ■Driving time from population center ■Driving time access to interstate and landfill ■ Surface waters ■Endangered species ■Proximity to e/f residential neighborhoods ■ Ownership of property MODA Results for Consensus Weighting -Public Comment Kittitas County Transfer Station Siting Study 90 80 70 � 60 0 � so (S 400 � 30 20 10 0 Sitel ■Zoning ■ Floodplain ■ Current land use ■Depth to groundwater ■ Cultu ra I resources ■ Traffic impacts Site2S Site 33 ■Driving time from population center ■ Driving time access to interstate and landfill ■ Surface water s ■Endangered species ■Proximity to e/f residential neighborhoods ■ Ownership of property Figure B-1. Results Figure B-2. Score versus Cost Appendix C Background Data for Select Secondary Screening Criteria Surface waters: Minimize potential for impact to wetlands and related wildlife Cement Plant Site and US 97/Old Highway 10 Site U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine April 27, 2018 0 0.25 0.50.125 mi 0 0.45 0.90.225 km 1:16,796 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Tjossem Road Site U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine April 27, 2018 0 0.25 0.50.125 mi 0 0.45 0.90.225 km 1:16,796 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Proximity to existing and future residential neighborhoods: Site not likely to result in impacts to persons living or working near the transfer station Residential or commercial structures within 2 zones (within 250 yards and within 500 yards). Number of separate structures (e.g., shed or garage not counted separately from house) multiplied by the following factors: 5 and 1, for the respective zones add 1 if in urban growth area Site 1 – Cement Plant Site In UGA Score = 0*5+3*1+1=4 Within ~250-yard radius of center of site: Zero Within ~500 yards of center, three existing commercial. X X X Site 25 – Tjossem Road Site Not in UGA Score: 0*5+2*1+0=2 Within 250 yards: zero Within 500 yards: two residences X X Site 33 (New) ‐ US 97/Old Highway 10 Site In UGA Score: 0*5+1*1+1=2 Within ~250-yard radius of center of site: zero Within ~500-yard radius of center of site: one commercial property X Distance from population center (ease of access by customers): Maximize ease of customer access Drive time access to interstate and landfill: Minimize long- haul costs by locating site close to I-90 intersection Kittitas Transfer Station Project – Drive Times Site 1 (revised) – Cement Plant Site https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Ellensburg+Cement+Products,+1071+US‐ 97,+Ellensburg,+WA+98926/E+University+Way+%26+N+B+St,+Ellensburg,+WA+98926/@47.0055595,‐ 120.5904067,4107m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x5499f155f3e05bcd:0xf20bdfc3ed 3f7f57!2m2!1d‐ 120.5988308!2d47.0136156!1m5!1m1!1s0x5499f3c627b27c45:0xa1529b906ad50225!2m2!1d‐ 120.5469633!2d46.99967 https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Ellensburg+Cement+Products,+1071+US‐ 97,+Ellensburg,+WA+98926/47.0079751,‐120.5945143/@47.0088607,‐ 120.5971672,1042m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x5499f155f3e05bcd:0xf20bdfc3ed3f7f57! 2m2!1d‐120.5988308!2d47.0136156!1m0!3e0 Site 25 – Tjossem Road Site https://www.google.com/maps/dir/46.9697888,‐ 120.5288545/E+University+Way+%26+N+B+St,+Ellensburg,+WA+98926/@46.9834088,‐ 120.5501836,4121m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x5499f3c627b27c45:0xa1529b906ad 50225!2m2!1d‐120.5469633!2d46.99967!3e0 https://www.google.com/maps/dir/46.9697881,‐120.5286215/I‐90,+US‐ 97+%26+Canyon+Rd,+Ellensburg,+WA+98926/@46.9673756,‐ 120.5344068,1027m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x5499f22144dfb83b:0x35ad731a591 838e3!2m2!1d‐120.5388167!2d46.974519!3e0 Site 33 (New) – US 97/Old Highway 10 Site https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.016538,‐ 120.5931755/E+University+Way+%26+N+B+St,+Ellensburg,+WA+98926/@47.011441,‐ 120.5842115,3898m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x5499f3c627b27c45:0xa1529b906ad 50225!2m2!1d‐120.5469633!2d46.99967!3e0 https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.016538,‐120.5931755/I‐ 90,+Ellensburg,+WA+98926/@47.0110771,‐ 120.6000545,1949m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x5499f159e0565f47:0xceaa97b 7f2634112!2m2!1d‐120.593616!2d47.0074709!3e0 Appendix D Public Involvement Materials APPENDIX D Contents Stakeholder Interview Summary Community Meetings − June 6, 2017, Community Meeting Presentation − June 6, 2017, Community Meeting Summary − September 13, 2017, Community Meeting Presentation − September 13, 2017, Community Meeting Summary − April 9, 2018, Community Meeting Presentation − April 9, 2018, Community Meeting Summary Transfer Station Relocation Website Screenshots Public Comments and Feedback Summaries Stakeholder Interview Summary Kittitas County Transfer Station Stakeholder Interview Summary 1 Introduction and Background Kittitas County is looking to relocate the Ellensburg Transfer Station to either a site already owned by the County or other suitable locations within the greater-Ellensburg area. The new facility will replace the existing Ellensburg transfer station and will be designed to address some existing site challenges (location and size constraints, customer access issues during significant rainfall or spring runoff events, long queuing times and small unloading and processing areas) and prepare the County for future growth. To better understand the interests of people in the communities served by the current transfer station and how best to involve community members in the siting and construction of the new station, project staff conducted informal interviews with key stakeholders. In addition, interviews were used to collect feedback on concerns with the existing facility and ways a new facility could be improved. Selected Stakeholders Interview participants were identified by project staff and were intended to be representative of a variety of community perspectives. Stakeholders included representatives from local governments and community groups. Interviews were conducted with the following participants: Name Organization Paul Jewell Kittitas County Ryan Lyyski City of Ellensburg Margaret Reich City of Ellensburg Barry Brunson Our Environment/Kittitas Audubon Society Sharon Lumsden Kittitas Audubon Society Charli Sorenson County Residents Against PacifiClean; Grant County Public Utilities District Methodology Interviews were conducted by the project consultant team. Following a brief overview of the purpose and goals of the project, the interviewer asked participants for their feedback on a variety of topics and questions, including community perception of the Ellensburg Transfer Station, suggestions for a new site, and the best methods to involve the community in the process. Interviews were completed between April 11 and April 20, 2017. Interview Questions A standard set of interview questions were developed by the project team based on identified key issues and information needs. These questions served as a general guide during the interview process, allowing for a more free-form discussion to take place between the interviewer and interviewee. The questions were divided into three categories: the existing facility, the new facility, and the public involvement process. Kittitas County Transfer Station Stakeholder Interview Summary 2 General themes for the questions included: ▪ Key concerns that should be addressed in the siting and design of the new facility ▪ Key community members and organizations that should be informed about the project ▪ Ideas for informing the public and sharing information Major Themes Major themes that emerged through stakeholder feedback included: ▪ A convenient location is a priority to the surrounding community. ▪ Increasing the amount of recyclable plastics accepted at the new transfer station would be appreciated. ▪ Using local radio stations, stores and organizations will be necessary in informing and engaging the community. Responses to Key Questions The stakeholder interviews provided insight into key concerns stakeholders have about the existing transfer station and the future vision for the new transfer station. Key feedback received is listed below and is organized by topic area. Existing facility ▪ The primary concern with the existing Ellensburg Transfer Station is its size contraints, followed by the limited variety of recyclable plastics it accepts. o Curbside recycling accepts a wider variety of recyclable plastics. ▪ Messaging between the County and Waste Management is inconsistent on why materials are/are not accepted at the transfer station. ▪ As a user, not being able to pay with a credit card is inconvenient. New facility ▪ The new transfer station should be sited: o with consideration to water availability and cost; o away from current and planned future residential growth; o away from streams to reduce the potential for water pollution; o designed with protection from wind; and o in a convenient industrial area. ▪ People do not want to see it, smell it, or hear it and be able to easily access it. ▪ The County should be sensitive to a potential reduction in property values and economic inequality. ▪ Suggestions for the new transfer station include: o accept a wider variety of recyclable materials o permit recycling on weekends o increase accessibility for all, especially at the recycle area o develop clear and easy to understand signage Kittitas County Transfer Station Stakeholder Interview Summary 3 Public involvement process ▪ Suggested methods for informing the community include: o Postcard mailing o Block ad in newspaper o Project-specific FaceBook page o Community Connect FaceBook postings o Kittitas County website o Event at Hal Holmes Community Center o Posters at grocery stores and parks (open spaces) o Community events and student clubs at Central Washington University o Live stream at a City Council meeting through ECTV o Local radio ▪ KXLE ▪ Ellensburg Community Radio ▪ Daily Record Station ▪ Specific parts of the community, interest groups, organizations and others the project should be sure to include are: o City of Ellensburg Environmental Commission o Washington State Department of Ecology o Local tribes and schools o Mid Columbian Fisheries o Our Environment o Pastors of Unitarian and Methodist churches o Audobon Society o Rotary Club o Oddfellows (Howard Lyman) o Cattlemen’s Association o Residents Against PacifiClean o Central Washington University, Solid Waste Coordinator ▪ Places to share information via displays, booths or printed information o Saturday Market o AG Board o Old Mill Country Store o Ace Hardware o Anderson Hay (Mark Anderson) o Midstate Co-op Farm Store o True Value o Arnold’s Ranch and Home o Calaway Trading Inc. o Knudson Lumber o Habitat for Humanity ▪ Project team should be mindful that there are two audiences in Ellensburg regarding this project: college population and long-time residents. For the latter, some may not welcome any change. Kittitas County Transfer Station Stakeholder Interview Summary 4 ▪ When communicating with locals, keep the dialogue informal and use community group leaders for dispersing information. ▪ The project team will most likely reach people during the evening or on weekends. Next Steps Feedback received through the stakeholder interviews will be shared with the project team to help shape the project’s public involvement process and gain community acceptance of the new facility. Community Meetings Kittitas County Solid Waste Ellensburg Transfer Station Relocation Project Community Meeting June 6, 2017 Agenda •Introductions •System overview •Project overview •Community input •Questions Kittitas County Solid Waste Program •Two transfer stations –Ellensburg and Upper County (Cle Elum) •Ryegrass Landfill –(no cash customers) •Moderate Risk Waste drop-off and facility (household and small quantities of business hazardous waste) •Recycling drop off at both transfer stations •Composting facility at Ellensburg Transfer Station •Batteries and waste oil drop-off collection •Reduce and recycle programs Why we’re here tonight -Ellensburg Transfer Station •Built in 1999 •Processed ~ 25,000 tons of solid waste in 2014 •Handled ~ 60,000 customers in 2014 •Has three serious challenges Challenges •Flooding •Impacts customer access •Impacts composting operation •Size constraints for additional materials •No space to accept new materials •Size constraints for additional customers •Long queuing lines •Small unloading area •No capacity for projected area growth The solution? •Relocate the transfer station •Bigger site •Drier site •Room for expansion in the future •Five phases for the project •Basis of design •Site selection •Land acquisition/permitting •Detailed design •Construction Phase 1 •Draft Basis of Design Report •25 acres needed •Conceptual layouts •Defined objectives for new station •25 acre site will support: •Addition of new materials for recycling as markets allow •Handle more customers as Ellensburg and Kittitas County grow •Safely manage traffic queuing on-site •Provide environmental benefits Phase 2 –Site Selection •Identify siting areas •Identify potential sites •Initial site screening •Secondary site screening •Conceptual layouts and cost estimates •Site selection report •County Commissioner’s decision Future phases •Phase 3 -Land Acquisition/SEPA/Permitting 2017/2018 •Phase 4 –Detailed Design 2018 •Phase 5 –Construction 2019/2020 Community Involvement in Relocating the Station 1 Early outreach to key stakeholders 2 Develop public involvement plan 3 Seek input at key milestones during siting 4 Inform community about county commissioner site decision 5 Seek input during station design 6 Inform community about construction 7 Celebrate opening Community Involvement in Siting Community voices matter •Input we are asking for now: •Info on siting areas •Concerns, hopes, opportunities for new station •Input on preliminary siting criteria Your Info on Siting Areas What’s important to you about the new transfer station? •Convenience •Increased recycling availability •Increased plastics recycling •Improved accessibility for all •Clean water and rivers •Economic efficiency •Be sensitive to property values and economic inequality •Avoid current or planned residential areas •Others? Preliminary Siting Criteria •Greater than 25 acres in size •Acreage outside of 100-year floodplain •Facility setback requirements •Nearest utilities (water, sewer, electrical, telecommunication) •Site access Phase 2 –Site Selection Phase 2 –Site Selection -Secondary Screening Criteria Zoning Current land use Permitability / State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Endangered species Historic properties / natural resources Distance to existing and future residential neighborhoods Impact to county roads (e.e., changes needed, traffic impact) Distance / access to interstate Distance from transfer station to landfill Distance from population center (ease of access by customers) Ownership of property Existing property cleanup / demolition requirements Site topography Depth to groundwater Stormwater / drainage considerations Development cost Share your thoughts! •Comment cards tonight •Sticky notes on the maps •KittitasCountyTransferStation.participate.online Questions? Thank you! https://kittitascountytransferstation.participate.online Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 1 Details Date: June 6, 2017 Time: 6 – 8 PM Location: Kittitas Valley Event Center (Manastash Room) 901 E 7th Avenue, Ellensburg, WA Attendees Approximately 30 interested community members attended the community meeting and signed in. Key Topics The following topics were brought up by members of the public during the open house: • Noise and odor • Fire hazards • Signage • Traffic impacts and previous studies • Accessibility • Flood risks at potential sites • Additional materials accepted at the transfer station • No additional impacts (property taxes, fees, etc.) • Project funding and costs Outreach Materials Project staff developed and updated a variety of outreach materials for different purposes: Notifications • Postcards were mailed to approximately 15,000 households within the project area as the initial invitation to the community meeting. • Radio announcements were aired on Friday June 2, 2017 and Monday June 5, 2017 to remind and encourage the public to attend. • Note: Meeting sign-in sheet responses revealed almost all attendees learned about the meeting from the postcard. Additional means noted were word of mouth, radio and newspaper (no newspaper ad was placed for this meeting.) Tools • Participate Online, a website with online commenting, was released the week before the community meeting to serve as the project website. The website provides meeting details and serves as a platform for interested community members to provide feedback. The website includes the same material presented at the meeting and provides interested community members an opportunity to review the project information when it is convenient for them. The project team will be receiving feedback on the community meeting until June 20, 2017. Handouts • Fact Sheets were provided to give a high-level overview of the project. • Comment forms were provided as an opportunity for the public to provide their feedback on the siting areas and criteria, and community values. Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 2 Display Boards • Display boards were developed to provide detailed information on: o The project overview and purpose o Siting process and anticipated schedule o Preliminary siting criteria o Public involvement opportunities o Community values and concerns Feedback At the meeting, eight comment forms were submitted. The project team continued to receive feedback until June 30 on the project website (participate online). Following June 30, the questions were removed from the Feedback page. Question and Answers Q1. Need to consider range fires during siting/design of facility. A1. The project team will consider range fires during the siting and design process. Q2. Where is the garbage collected at the transfer station disposed? A2. Solid Waste collected at the current transfer station is hauled to Waste Management Inc.’s landfill located in Wenatchee. The landfill has a permitted life of over 100 years. Q3. How big is the existing site? A3. Approximately 9 acres. Q4. What growth increases were used to calculate projected tonnages and traffic counts? A4. The projected traffic and tonnages accounts assumed a 30 year facility design life, population projections prepared by Washington State’s Office of Financial Mangement, and 2015 and 2016 scalehouse data from the existing facility. Q5. How will the project be financed? A5. The Kittitas County solid waste program operates as an enterprise fund and revenue is generated by charging tipping (dumping) fees at the Cle Elum and Ellensburg Transfer Stations. Portions of the tipping fees have already been set aside to pay for a new facility, but that isn’t enough. In addition, the County will likely use other financing mechanisms to develop the facility. Q6. Will property taxes be raised to pay for the new facility? A6. No. Property taxes are not used to operate the current system and property taxes will not be raised to pay for the new facility. The facility will be financed by using portions of the tipping fee and other financing methods. Q7. How many times has the existing station experienced floods? A7. The transfer station has been completely closed approximately five times since opening in 2000 due to flooding. The composting and white goods areas have been closed more frequently than Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 3 that. In addition, during other flooding events, the facility has remained open, however, temporary detour measures are used to keep customer traffic flowing to the transfer station. Q8. Has a traffic study been completed? Is the traffic study available to review? A8. A traffic study will be conducted during the permitting/environmental permitting process. To estimate projected traffic flows to and from the facility, the project team assumed a 30 year design life, population projections prepared by Washington State’s Office of Financial Mangement, and 2015 and 2016 existing scalehouse traffic data to perform conceptual design of the facility. This information is summarized in the draft December 2016 Basis of Design (BOD) report which is located on the project’s website. Q9. What will happen to the existing transfer station site? A9. Kittitas County currently leases the current site from the City of Ellensburg. It will be returned to the city. Q10. What size parcel is needed for the new facility? A10. Based on projected growth and traffic estimates, the estimated size needed for a new facility is approximately 25 acres. Q11. What is the current lease payment? A11. *Approximately $33,085.22 per year. And it goes up every year. Q12. Will the current site need to be torn down? A12. We don’t believe so, but that will need to be determined. Q13. Where is the funding source for this project? A13. Tipping fees and likely some financing. Q14. What is the tipping fee revenue generated per month? A14. *June 2017: Garbage $250,049, Yard Waste $10,315.00 2016: Garbage $2,442,420.00, Yard Waste $98,296.51 *Answers provided after the community meeting. Kittitas County Transfer Station Relocation Community Meeting September 13, 2017 Agenda •Welcome and overview •What we’ve done •Siting process and criteria •Concept designs & cost estimates for the 3 potential sites •What we have left to do •Q & A •Wrap up and adjourn Welcome and Overview Why relocate the Ellensburg Transfer Station? The existing Ellensburg Transfer Station has three serious challenges: Flooding • Impacts customer access • Impacts compost area operation Size constraints for additional materials No space to accept any new materials Size constraints for additional customers • Long queuing lines Small unloading area No capacity for projected growth The new transfer station will be sized and designed to address these challenges and to handle the long-term needs of ltittitas County. �, �,,, - Kittitas County Transfer Station Relocation Project Kit#itasCvuntyTransferSta#ivn.participa#e.online ���; Community Involvement Process 1 Early outreach to key stakeholders 2 Develop public involvement plan 3 Seek input at key milestones during siting 4 Inform community about county commissioner site decision 5 Seek input during station design 6 Inform community about construction 7 Celebrate opening What We’ve Done So Far Completed Work Elements •Developed site basis of design (25 acres) and preliminary layout •Identified potential areas to consider •Obtained community feedback on screening criteria •Identified potential sites to consider •Performed preliminary screening •Performed Step 1 of secondary screening •Identified 3 potential sites •Developed conceptual layouts and cost estimates for the 3 potential sites What We Have Left to Complete •Score the 3 potential sites •Use community feedback from 2nd community meeting to weight screening criteria •Identify the preferred site •Gain approval from County Commissioners to move forward •Design/permitting/construction Identified Potential Sites within Siting Areas Identified more than 60 potential sites that have more than 25 acres We added: 1.At least 25 acres of connected usable space 2.Located within 2 miles of population center 3.Not located within a Residential Zone 4.Connections to utilities exist within 1/2 mile 5.Not located west or south of the Yakima River or I-90 (unless easy access with existing services) 6.Not located within Airport take off or approach or other FAA location restriction 7.At least 25 acres outside the 100 year floodplain Community input influenced preliminary site screening process to identify 32 potential sites We heard: •Convenience for users •Avoid residential areas •Consider routes and traffic •Consider water availability and water quality •Economic efficiency Completed Preliminary Screening Applied revised preliminary screening criteria and identified 32 potential sites Conduct Secondary Siting Criteria Step 1 Criteria Description Zoning Current zoning designation Distance from population center (ease of access by customers) Maximize ease of customer access Floodplain Minimizes potential for impact to floodplain Current land use Current land use is most supportive of developing a transfer station Drive time to interstate and landfill Minimize long-haul costs by locating site close to I- 90 Intersection Results of Secondary Siting Criteria Step 1 Applied first part of secondary screening criteria and identified 11 potential sites Secondary Siting Criteria Step 1 (continued) •Reviewed the 11 sites with representatives from the City and County. •Used updated City/County zoning, land-use discussion, and Urban Growth Area information to further refine the list to 3 potential sites. 3 Potential Sites Carried Forward Cement Plant Site Airport Site Tjossem Road Site Developed Concept Designs & Cost Estimates for 3 Potential Sites Cement Plant Site Airport Site Tjossem Road Site Preliminary Cost Estimates What We Have Left to Do •Score sites using Secondary Screening Step 2 criteria •Weight criteria using feedback from community •Rank sites •Select preferred site Secondary Siting Criteria Step 2 Criteria Description Surface Waters Minimizes potential for impact to wetlands and related wildlife Depth to groundwater Shallow groundwater will impact development cost Endangered Species (Permitability/SEPA)Minimizes potential for impact to endangered species Cultural Resources ( Historic properties/archeological resources) Minimizes potential for impact to historic properties or archeological resources Proximity to existing and future residential neighborhoods Site not likely to result in impacts to persons living or working near the transfer station Traffic Impacts (e.g. changes needed, traffic impact) Truck route(s) to the transfer station appropriate for heavy trucks and not likely to affect existing persons or businesses Ownership of property Maximize ease of property acquisitions Acquisition and development cost Minimize costs required to acquire and prepare site for use What’s most important to you as we weight criteria? Zoning (Current Zoning Designation) Distance from population center (Maximizes ease of customer access) Floodplain (Minimizes potential for impact to floodplain) Current Land Use (Current land use is most supportive of developing a transfer station) Drive time access to interstate and landfill (Minimize long-haul costs by locating site close to I-90 Intersection) Surface Waters (Minimizes potential for impact to wetlands and related wildlife) Depth to Groundwater (Shallow groundwater will impact development cost) Endangered Species (Minimizes potential for impact to endangered species) Cultural Resources (Historic properties/archeological resources) (Minimizes potential for impact to historic properties or archeological resources) Proximity to existing/future residential neighborhoods (Site not likely to result in impacts to persons living or working near the transfer station) Traffic Impacts (e.g. changes needed, traffic impact) (Truck route(s) to the transfer station appropriate for heavy trucks and not likely to affect existing persons or businesses) Ownership of property (Maximize ease of property acquisition) Acquisition and development cost (Minimize costs required to acquire and prepare site for use) What are your top three criteria? Continuing to gather feedback •Comment Form •Online: KittitasCountyTransferStation.Participate.Online Thank you! Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 1 Details Date: September 13, 2017 Time: 6 – 8 PM Location: Kittitas Valley Event Center (Armory Main Hall) 901 E 7th Avenue, Ellensburg, WA Agenda • 6:00 – 6:15 p.m. Open house • 6:15 – 6:45 p.m. Presentation • 6:45 – 7:00 p.m. Question and answer session • 7:00 – 8:00 p.m. Open house Attendees Approximately 37 community members attended the community meeting and signed in. Key Topics The following topics were brought up by members of the public during the open house: • Potential impacts to groundwater • Floodplain impacts • Impacts to residential communities • Traffic impacts • Accessibility • Sizes of the potential sites • Suggestions to modify the current site • Project funding and costs Outreach Materials Project staff announced the meeting through a variety of outreach methods: Notifications • Postcards were mailed to approximately 15,000 households within the project area as the initial invitation to the community meeting (Appendix A). • Radio announcements were aired on Friday September 8, 2017 and Monday September 11, 2017 on KXLE radio to remind and encourage the public to attend (Appendix B). • A display ad advertising the meeting ran in the Ellensburg Daily Record on September 7, 8, 9, and 11 (Appendix C). • Note: Meeting sign-in sheet responses revealed most attendees learned about the meeting from the postcard. Additional means noted were word of mouth, radio and newspaper. Tools • A Participate Online project website had been running with content from the first round of outreach since May 2017. The website was updated in advance of the meeting with details of the upcoming meeting, when and where it would be held and what information could be expected. The website was updated again on the day of the meeting to include all meeting materials (including display boards and the PowerPoint presentation shown at the meeting) and provide interested community members an opportunity to review the project information when it is convenient for them. The Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 2 feedback survey from the community meeting was also posted on the Participate Online site, allowing site visitors to provide their feedback. The project team received feedback on the content presented at the September community meeting until October 3rd, 2017 (Appendix D). PowerPoint Presentation • A PowerPoint presentation given at the September meeting introduced three potential sites and the opportunities and challenges that each presented (available online). Display Boards • Display boards (Appendix E) provided detailed information on: o The project overview and purpose* o Preliminary siting criteria* o Final siting criteria o Site screening process o Cement plant site location o Cement plant site potential layout o Tjossem Road site location o Tjossem Road site potential layout o Airport site location o Airport site potential layout o Comparative costs o Public involvement opportunities* o Siting process and anticipated schedule* *Some boards were originally produced for the June 2017 community meeting. Handouts • Printed surveys were provided as an opportunity for the public to provide their feedback on the three potential sites and the secondary siting criteria (see feedback summary below). Feedback 20 paper surveys were submitted at the community meeting. To see the results of this feedback, please see the September Feedback Summary. Question and Answer: The following questions were asked during the question and answer period of the September community meeting: Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 3 • Did you look at tax information to determine values of properties in question? Response: The project team utilized the County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database to identify and evaluate properties. The GIS database includes land values from the county’s Tax Assessor office for each property. • What size is your current site? Response: The current site is approximately 10 acres. • Has anyone contacted the property owners for the two private sites under consideration and gotten a binding agreement in place? Response: The project team will be contacting owners of the two private sites under consideration to request if they are interested in particpating in the site selection process. • What is the depth of ground water at the three potential sites? And is that a potential impact? Response: The depth to groundwater at the three proposed sites is shallow. Shallow groundwater depths will impact site development cost by requiring importing structural fill to raise the tipping building to allow loading of tranfer trailers. • The two private sites are further away from domestic wells. Is this a consideration given potential impacts to groundwater? Response: The transfer station and compost facility will have a leachate collection system to manage contact water and a storm water collection system to control impact to ground water. • Are you looking at economic impact to neighbors as a criterion? It isn’t listed. Response: The current proposed seconday screening criteria does not directly include economic impact to neighbors. However, the criterion, “Proximity to existing and future residential neighborhoods”, accounts for the impact to neighbors, and indirectly includes economic impact (based on proximity). • If the motivation for moving is flooding, what is the potential for flooding on these three sites? What is the recent history of flooding at the three potential sites? Response: The project team utilized FEMA floodplain mapping to identify potential sites. If a potential site had less than 25 acres outside the 100-year floodplain, the site was removed for further consideration. Based upon available floodplain information, the three proposed sites have at least 25 acres of usable connected land outside the 100-year floodplain. • Does the 25 acres layout include a buffer? If so, what is size of that buffer? Response: The Basis of Design report developed facility sizing requirements for facilities to be located at the new site including scalehouse, transfer building, compost operations, MRW facility, recycling drop-off area, administration building, employee, truck, and trailer parking areas, and onsite roads. The conceptual layouts include a 50’ buffer. Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 4 • Were FAA regulations regarding Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B regarding hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports looked at? Response: Siting requirements outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B were considered when identifying potential sites for consideration. Our understanding of current FAA rules is that enclosed transfer stations are compatible with safe airport operations. The FAA requirements also require a 1,200-foot setback between composting operations and the airport. The proposed Airport site meets both requirements. The project team will perform an additional review of FAA requirements. • Have you taken into consideration the impact on 200+ people currently working out near the airport site? Response: Once a site is selected, the project team will perform a traffic study to determine impacts on roads servicing the proposed facility. • How would you pay for the private property? Would you end up with a mortgage? Is there other funding available? Response: The County is considering various funding options for purchasing land and to develop the site. • Will all comments be presented on web site? Response: Yes. All comments will be presented on the website. • How does this 25-acre site affect undeveloped acreage at airport? Does it affect any other development plans on that property, such as a new Public works site? Response: Based on an initial review of this location, we believe a transfer station would not affect the proposed public works facility. • Is there an assumption on the airport property that the lease price will stay the same for 30 years? Response: The lease agreement price would be adjusted by the rates established by the County Commission. • How many acres of asphalt will be at the new site? Will all 25 acres be paved? Response: Onsite roads and parking areas will be paved as well as operational areas at the compost facility. • Has rain and snow runoff been taken into account and will it contaminate nearby surface water? Response: On-site stormwater flow will be conveyed via channels and culverts to lined stormwater retentions ponds. The site will comply with all stormwater management requirements including the development and implementation of a stormwater management plan. • Looking at site maps, they don’t all look to be 25 acres. What is the acreage of all three sites? Response: The Cement Plant site is a 102 acre parcel, the Tjossem Road site is 188 acres, and the Airport site contains 42 acres. All three potential sites have the minimum 25 acres required for Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 5 the facility. If a site is chosen, the County will negotatite with potential land owers for a minimum 25 acrea parcel. • Are routes to and from the transfer station being looked at? It appears the airport site would have users traveling through residential neighborhoods. Response: The project team developed potential routes to each proposed site for customers (trucks and self haul vehicles, as well as transfer vehicles). Our proposed secondary siting criteria includes an evalaution of traffic impact on neighborhoods. • Is there a lease at the current transfer station site? What happens to the property when you move? Response: The County currently leases the current site from the City of Ellensburg. One option is to relocate some of the buildings to the proposed new location, or the City may decide to utilize the buildings. • How are you going to get waste transfer trucks out of the airport site? Will they travel the same route as the station users? Response: The project team evaluated potential routes for waste transfer vehicles from the Airport Site. One potential route is to utilize Bowers Road to Reecer Creek Road to West University Way to access I-90. • Where would the entrance to the airport site be? Will there be split entrances for trucks and customers? Response: The proposed entrance to the Airport road site would be located along Falcon Road at the northwest corner. The proposed conceptual layouts include one entrance for customers and transfer vehicles. Vehicles would be seperated after the scalehose to minimize potential traffic issues. • Are infrastructure upgrades to roads used by transfer station traffic being included in costs of sites? Response: The conceptual cost estimates include costs to upgrade nearby roads that service the proposed facility at each site. • Has splitting up operations been considered? For example, keeping some operations at the current location and moving some operations such as composting to another location. Response: The County evaluated splitting the transfer and compost operations and determined the cost of operating two separate operations would be more costly than operating at one location. • Has impact to house values, land values, county airport development plans, and future leasing potential been looked at. Response: The current secondary screening criteria does not directly include impact on house/land value, impact on airport development plans, or potential leasing. However, the criterion, “Proximity to existing and future residential neighborhoods”, accounts for the impact to neighbors, and indirectly includes economic impact (based on proximity). Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 6 • How many heavy trucks (transfer trucks) are leaving the transfer station per day? How would this affect the DR Horton development site? Response: Currently three to four transfer vehicles per day are transferred to the landfill for final disposal. In 2040, the number increases to five to six transfer vehicles per day. • Can information about how many people are currently and projected to use the transfer station be posted on the website? Response: The Basis of Design report is located on the website and includes information on current and projected customers, tonnages, and material quantities. • How are you going to value/weight your criteria? Response: The project team will utilize input received from the public at the community meeting and on-line to determine value/weights of each criteria. In addition, project team members (County and City of Ellensburg staff) as well as Solid Waste Advisory Committee members will provide input on the weighting criteria. • Can you make the current site work? What if there were no other options then could you make the current site work by being innovative and using space differently, controlling the flooding issues through dikes, etc.? Response: Building stormwater berms/dikes is not allowed per County ordinance. The current site is not large enough to accommodate future growth. • The railroad is right near the current site. Have you looked at utilizing it to haul trash and commodities away? Response: The cost to develop rail loading and unloading infrastructure is prohibitive for the small amount of waste being sent to the landfill. The County currently transfers municipal solid waste to the Wenatchee Landfill which has capacity for another 75+ years. • Could you just add another scale at the current site to separate the commercial trucks from the rest of the traffic? Response: Adding another scale at the current transfer station would eliminate the issue with the rest of site traffic before the scalehouse. However, the commercial vehicle would still need to wait in line with other customers (i.e. self haulers) to enter the transfer building. • Why were there not sites considered east of town? Response: As part of the intial screening, the project team identified a number of potential sites east of town. Potential sites located near Kittitas were eliminated because of the long travel distance for a majority of facility users (within the City of Ellensburg area). In addition, sites east of Ellensburg were eliminated due to lack of utilities (water and sewer). • What services are you looking to add or decrease? Recycling only milk jugs and pop bottles are not enough plastic options. Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 7 Response: The proposed new facility will have a dedicated recycling drop-off area located before the scale house to allow customers to unload material for free (same as the current facility). The County will continullay evaluate potential new mateials to add to the drop-off areas. • Why is there a cutoff date for comments in the feedback processes? Can that date be published? Response: The project team needs to assemble community comments and weighting of criteria to allow the team to compile information to perform final rankings. The comment cut-off date will be added to the website. General comments are always welcomed; it is just the specific input on criteria that is needed to inform the next step of the siting process. • Can a land swap be done with neighboring property so the current station could be enlarged and made to work? Response: The current site is located in a floodplain and needs to be relocated. Adjacent properties are located in the same floodplain and would be prone to flooding as well. • Would the new station be ugly and seen from the freeway if it is located at the cement plant site? Response: The new station will have architectural features to make it visually appealing. However, due to the expected height of the building, the facility will be seen from the freeway. At the conclusion of the question and answer session, the meeting was adjourned. Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 8 Appendix A. Postcard B. Radio announcement C. Display ad D. Participate Online project website E. Display boards F. Printed survey Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 9 A. Postcard Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 10 B. Radio announcement “Where should we put a new transfer station? The County is seeking a new site for the Ellensburg transfer station that doesn’t flood and is large enough to handle our growing area’s trash, recycling and yard waste for decades to come. After months of technical work and consulting with the community, three potential sites have been chosen. Which site is best? What’s important to you? Join the community meeting on September 13 at 6 p.m. to learn more and share your thoughts on the potential sites. Come to the Armory Main Hall at 901 E 7th Avenue in Ellensburg at 6 p.m. to hear more and share your feedback. Visit kittitascountytransferstation.participate.online for details. “ Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 11 C. Display ad Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 12 D. Participate Online project website Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 13 E. Display boards Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 14 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 15 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 16 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 17 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 18 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 19 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 20 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 21 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 22 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 23 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 24 Kittitas County Transfer Station Community Meeting Summary 25 Kittitas County Transfer Station Relocation Community Meeting April 9, 2018 Agenda •Welcome and overview •What we’ve done •Siting process and criteria •What we’ve asked so far •Concept designs & cost estimates for the 3 potential sites •What’s changed? •Revised list of potential sites •FAQs •Next steps •Q & A •Wrap up and adjourn Welcome and Overview Why relocate the Ellensburg Transfer Station? The existing Ellensburg Transfer Station has three serious challenges: •Flooding•Impacts customer access•Impacts compost, white goods, and tire processing area •Size constraints for additional materials •No space to accept any new materials •Size constraints for additional customers •Long queuing lines •Small unloading area •No capacity for projected growth The new transfer station will be sized and designed to address these challenges and handle the long -term needs of Kittitas County. Community Involvement Process 1 Early outreach to key stakeholders 2 Develop public involvement plan 3 Seek input at key milestones during siting 4 Inform community about county commissioner site decision 5 Seek input during station design 6 Inform community about construction 7 Celebrate opening What We’ve Done So Far Completed work elements •Developed site basis of design (25 acres) and preliminary layout •Performed preliminary screening •Performed Step 1 of secondary screening •Identified 3 potential sites •Developed conceptual layouts and cost estimates for the 3 potential sites •Consulted with community on sites; further technical review •Removed one site; added another What we’ve asked you about so far: Outreach period Feedback gathered June 2017 •Potential siting areas and concerns •Community values •Preliminary siting criteria September 2017 •Previous potential sites: Cement Plant site Tjossem Road site Airport site –REMOVED December 2017 •Weighting siting criteria February 2018 (online only) •Current potential sites: Cement Plant site Tjossem Road site US97/Old Highway 10 site What we have left to complete •Complete scoring for the 3 potential sites •Weight screening criteria based on community input •Identify the preferred site •Gain approval from County Commissioners to move forward •Design/permitting/construction Identified potential sites within Siting Areas Identified more than 60 potential sites that have more than 25 acres Completed preliminary screening Applied revised preliminary screening criteria and identified 32 potential sites Conducted secondary siting step 1 Criteria Description Zoning Current zoning designation Distance from population center (ease of access by customers) Maximize ease of customer access Floodplain Minimizes potential for impact to floodplain Current land use Current land use is most supportive of developing a transfer station Drive time to interstate and landfill Minimize long-haul costs by locating site close to I- 90 Intersection Results of secondary siting step 1 Applied first part of secondary screening criteria and identified 11 potential sites Secondary siting step 1 (continued) •Reviewed the 11 sites with representatives from the City and County. •Used updated City/County zoning, land-use discussion, and Urban Growth Area information to further refine the list to 3 potential sites. Community and technical review of sites •Requested and received input on potential sites •Conducted further research on sites •Removed Airport Site •Added US97/Old Highway 10 site 3 potential sites carried forward Cement Plant SiteAirport Site Tjossem Road Site US97/Old Highway 10 site Cement Plant Site Tjossem Road Site US97/Old Highway 10 site Comparative costs Potential site Facility Off-site Land acquisition development cost' development cost' cost/Owner plantCement $10 to $20 million $0.8 million TBD/Privately owned US97/Oid Highway • site $10 to $20 million $0.8 million TBD/Privately owned Tjossem R.., site $10 to $20 million $1.6 million TBD/Privately owned 1. Total facility development cost includes scaiehouse, scales, recycling drop-off, transfer building, on-site utilities, on-site roads, MRW building and composting area. 2. Off-site development conceptual costs inciude extending water, sewer, electrical services and road improvements. Kittitas County Transfer Station W Relocation Project KittitasCountyTransferStation.participate.online Frequently asked questions Can the current site be mitigated for flooding? •Located adjacent to Wilson Creek and within 100-year floodplain •Spring thaw/heavy rain flooding –unable to mitigate Won’t the US97/Old Highway 10 site have the same flooding issues? •Site is at a much higher elevation relative to the surrounding floodplain •Existing minor floodplain channels can be relocated with little impact to the new site development and existing floodplain Flood plain comparison Existing Site US97/Old Highway 10 Site Frequently asked questions What is the potential for flooding at each of the three sites? •All three sites have at least 25 acres outside of 100-year floodplain •US97/Old Highway 10 site will require minor floodplain channel relocation to create continuous 25 acres •Flooding impacts not anticipated for new site due to location and design •Site will be designed to handle stormwater demands Frequently asked questions •How will the transfer station protect groundwater? •Stormwater ponds will be lined •Stormwater contacting solid waste in tunnel area will be collected and treated •Would the new transfer station be seen from the freeway or have odor issues? •Likely to be seen from the freeway due to expected height •Architectural and engineering features will address sight issues •Tipping floor is cleared of waste every evening to manage odor and vectors Frequently asked questions •Will the roads used by transfer station traffic be upgraded as part of the project? •Yes •Why weren’t sites considered on the east side of town? •Far from majority of facility users •Lack of utilities •Are you looking at economic impact to neighbors (such as house values, land values, etc.) as part of your criteria? Is future land use considered? •Secondary siting criterion: “Proximity to existing and future residential neighborhoods” Frequently asked questions •How will additional traffic due to the new sites be managed? Will the new roundabout near the Cement Plant site or US97/Old Highway 10 site have increased traffic? •Traffic study to be completed during permitting/environmental permitting process •Has the County begun property negotiations with the private site owners? •No. The county has asked property owners if they are willing to sell, but has not begun any discussions about purchase What we have left to do •Complete scoring for three existing sites •Weight criteria using feedback from community •Rank sites •Select preferred site What’s most important to you as we weight criteria? Zoning (Current Zoning Designation) Distance from population center (Maximizes ease of customer access) Floodplain (Minimizes potential for impact to floodplain) Current Land Use (Current land use is most supportive of developing a transfer station) Drive time access to interstate and landfill (Minimize long-haul costs by locating site close to I-90 Intersection) Surface Waters (Minimizes potential for impact to wetlands and related wildlife) Depth to Groundwater (Shallow groundwater will impact development cost) Endangered Species (Minimizes potential for impact to endangered species) Cultural Resources (Historic properties/archeological resources) (Minimizes potential for impact to historic properties or archeological resources) Proximity to existing/future residential neighborhoods (Site not likely to result in impacts to persons living or working nea r the transfer station) Traffic Impacts (e.g. changes needed, traffic impact) (Truck route(s) to the transfer station appropriate for heavy trucks an d not likely to affect existing persons or businesses) Ownership of property (Maximize ease of property acquisition) Acquisition and development cost (Minimize costs required to acquire and prepare site for use) What are your top three criteria? Secondary siting criteria step 2 Criteria Description Surface Waters Minimizes potential for impact to wetlands and related wildlife Depth to groundwater Shallow groundwater will impact development cost Endangered Species (Permitability/SEPA)Minimizes potential for impact to endangered species Cultural Resources ( Historic properties/archeological resources) Minimizes potential for impact to historic properties or archeological resources Proximity to existing and future residential neighborhoods Site not likely to result in impacts to persons living or working near the transfer station Traffic Impacts (e.g. changes needed, traffic impact) Truck route(s) to the transfer station appropriate for heavy trucks and not likely to affect existing persons or businesses Ownership of property Maximize ease of property acquisitions Acquisition and development cost Minimize costs required to acquire and prepare site for use What we’ve heard so far on importance of criteria During our Fall 2017 outreach period, we asked people to pick their top three siting criteria. Top choices: •Floodplain •Current land use •Ownership of property •Endangered species We’re gathering feedback through April 27 •Comment Form •Online: KittitasCountyTransferStation.Participate.Online Thank you! Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 1 Meeting Details Date: Monday, April 9, 2018 Time: 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Location: Armory Main Hall, 901E 7th Avenue, Ellensburg, WA Agenda • 6:00 p.m. Doors open • 6:15 – 6:30 p.m. Presentation • 6:30 – 6:45 p.m. Question & Answer session • 8:00 p.m. Adjourn Attendees Approximately 30 community members attended the meeting. Key Topics The following topics were brought up by members of the public during the community meeting: • Suggestions to modify the current site • Potential impacts to groundwater • Floodplain impacts • Impacts to residential communities • Traffic impacts and studies • Increased recycling options • Coordination with current property owners Outreach Materials Project staff publicized the meeting through a variety of outreach methods: Notifications • Postcards were mailed to approximately 15,000 households within the project area as the initial invitation to the community meeting (Appendix A). o Note: Meeting sign-in sheet responses revealed most attendees learned about the meeting from the postcard. • A radio announcement was aired on Friday, March 30, 2018 and Monday, April 2, 2018 on KXLE radio to remind and encourage the public to attend (Appendix B). • A display ad advertising the meeting ran in the Ellensburg Daily Record on March 29 and 30 and April 3 and 4, 2018. Online advertisements were also posted on the Ellensburg Daily Record’s website from April 2 – 13, 2018 (Appendix C). • An email listserv update was sent out to the project listserv on April 3, 2018 to inform community members of upcoming public feedback opportunities (Appendix D). • A press release was issued to inform local media outlets of the next phase of outreach. The Ellensburg Daily Record also ran an article regarding this phase of outreach and the current potential sites (Appendix E). Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 2 Tools • A Participate Online project website has been available with content from the first round of outreach since May 2017. The website was updated in advance of the meeting with details of the upcoming meeting, including when and where it would be held and what information would be shared. The website was updated again on the day of the meeting to include all meeting materials (such as the display boards and the PowerPoint presentation shown at the meeting) and provide interested community members an opportunity to review the project information when it was convenient for them. The feedback survey from the community meeting was also posted on the Participate Online site, allowing site visitors to provide their feedback. The project team accepted feedback on the content presented at the April community meeting through April 27, 2018 (Appendix F). PowerPoint Presentation • A PowerPoint presentation given at the April meeting provided project updates, a summary of what has been completed to date, frequently heard questions and concerns regarding the site selection process, and next steps (available online). Display Boards • Display boards provided detailed information on the following (available online and in Appendix G): o The project overview and purpose* o Preliminary siting criteria* o Final siting criteria* o Site screening process* o Cement plant site location* o Cement plant site potential layout* o Tjossem Road site location* o Tjossem Road site potential layout* o US 97/Old Highway 10 location o US 97/Old Highway 10 site layout o Comparative costs o Public involvement opportunities* o Siting process and anticipated schedule* o Frequently asked questions *These boards were originally produced for the June 2017 and September 2017 community meetings. Handouts • An FAQ was produced to respond to common questions and concerns the project team has heard so far and to inform further feedback (Appendix H). • Printed surveys were provided as an opportunity for the public to provide their feedback on the three potential sites and the secondary siting criteria (see feedback summary below) (Appendix I). Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 3 Feedback 14 paper surveys were submitted at the community meeting. To see a summary of this feedback, please see the April Feedback Summary. Question and Answer session: The following questions were asked and addressed during the Q&A period of the April community meeting: • Why is the traffic study occurring so late in the process? Response: Traffic studies are very expensive, and it is not in the best interests of taxpayers’ money to expend such funds on each site before it is chosen. Once a site is selected, then the project team will complete a detailed analysis of the selected site. The current layouts presented are just preliminary. If traffic is important to you, we encourage you to list it as one of your priorities on the comment form. • Currently there is no way to recycle office materials, school papers, etc. Will there be mixed paper recycling at the new site? Response: Offering more recycling drop-off options requires more space than is available at the current site. This is one of the reasons for the new transfer station. We are not sure yet what new materials might be accepted at the new transfer station. • Will there have to be an environmental clean-up of the current site before it can be used for a different purpose? Response: The current site is owned by the City of Ellensburg and leased by the County Solid Waste Department. Before the County Solid Waste Department returns the property to the City, we will complete all necessary tests on the site. However, the potential for contamination is very low. • Why can’t we upgrade the current site? Response: Population growth and flooding cannot be alleviated or mitigated at the current site. The current site isn’t large enough for the current population or for future projected growth. The public has requested more recycling options and shorter wait times, which the current site cannot accommodate. Additionally, increased traffic creates issues of safety on the tipping floor for employees and customers. • What about the ground water in each of the three sites? Was the cement plant site entirely on the floodplain? Response: The depth to reach the ground water is very shallow on all of these sites, which is partly due to the nature of the valley in general. When building a transfer station in areas with shallow groundwater, all three sites will require placement of structural fill material to develop a facility Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 4 above groundwater. We will take the elevation and construction requirements into consideration during the detailed engineering phase. The cement plant site is not located in the 100-year floodplain. • How do you plan to mitigate climate change? The current designs are based on a 100-year floodplain, which may not be a severe enough standard, given climate change effects. Response: While the 100-year floodplain is the standard for planning, we’ll develop the design once we have detailed analysis of the selected site. The project team will engineer the selected site with consideration for climate change impacts. • What does the city have in mind for the current transfer station once the new one is complete? Response: Currently, the City of Ellensburg does not have a specific plan for the current site. We will repurpose the area as appropriate. • Can you tell us more about the liners that will be used in the water collection basins (stormwater ponds)? Response: The stormwater ponds will be lined with a 40 to 60 mil layer of high density polyethylene (HDPE) material. • Regarding the current site, does Anderson Hay use your compost? Response: Not that we are currently aware of. • Is there the possibility of contamination seeping downhill onto the neighboring property, say in 10 years from now? Response: Transfer stations are not typically sources of groundwater contamination. For the proposed compost area, monitoring wells will be installed around the site and will be monitored for groundwater contamination. There are statutes and regulations that require environmental monitoring. • Is there ongoing monitoring for other parts of the site besides the compost facility? Response: Yes. Stormwater will be managed and monitored in accordance with a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention program. • Since you’ve discussed your ability to engineer the strips of floodplain on the Old Highway 10 site, does that mean you can do whatever you like on your property, regardless of floodplain regulations? Will there be downstream or adjacent property impacts as a result of your engineering of the floodplain? Response: Kittitas County has specific requirements when constructing facilities within or adjacent to 100-year floodplains. In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 5 specific requirements when constructing within a 100-year floodplain. We (Kittitas County) will have to go through all the same steps, requirements and reviews that a resident would have to go through when developing on a floodplain. • How often do you monitor the groundwater wells? Response: We monitor the groundwater wells around the compost facility quarterly, which is in compliance with regulations. • There are wetlands on the US97/Old Highway 10 site — what does the project team plan to do about that? Response: During the environmental/permitting phase, the project team will perform a detailed wetland survey/inventory of the selected site. If wetlands are identified, the facility layout could be adjusted to avoid wetland areas, or the wetlands could be mitigated in accordance with state and federal regulations. If wetland impacts are a primary concern to you, we encourage you to let us know via the comment form. • How does the floodplain keep from spilling over into Reecer Creek? Response: There are several engineering methods that can be used to mitigate the floodplain including the construction of retention ponds, stormwater channels or other engineering controls. • Have any of the three property owners indicated that they are willing to sell? Response: Yes. One owner has indicated a willingness to sell. One owner is an unwilling seller. • If the property owner does not want to sell, will you use eminent domain? What does that process look like? Response: The County will work with property owners and take their feedback into consideration when selecting a preferred site. Eminent domain has not been used by the County in the past for similar projects. Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 6 Appendix A. Postcard B. Radio announcement C. Display ad/online advertisements D. Email listserv update E. Press release and media F. Participate Online project website G. Display boards H. FAQ (frequently asked questions) I. Printed survey Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 7 Appendix A. Postcard Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 8 Appendix B. Radio announcement “Where should we put a new transfer station? The County is seeking a new site for the Ellensburg transfer station that doesn’t flood and is large enough to handle our growing area’s trash, recycling and yard waste for decades to come. The County has not heard from many people about the three potential sites under consideration. What are your thoughts? Hear the County’s responses to common questions and concerns for each site and provide your feedback at an upcoming public meeting. Join the project team on April 9 at 6 p.m. in the Armory Main Hall at 901 E 7th Avenue in Ellensburg to learn more and share your thoughts on the potential sites. Visit kittitascountytransferstation.participate.online for details.” Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 9 Appendix C. Display ad/online advertisements Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 10 Appendix D. Email listserv update Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 11 Appendix E. Press release and media Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 12 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 13 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 14 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 15 Appendix F. Participate Online project website Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 16 Appendix G. Display boards Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 17 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 18 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 19 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 20 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 21 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 22 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 23 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 24 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 25 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 26 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 27 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 28 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 29 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 30 Appendix H. FAQ (frequently asked questions) Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 31 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 32 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 33 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 34 Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 35 Appendix I. Printed survey Kittitas County Transfer Station April 2018 Community Meeting Summary Updated 5/31/2018 36 Transfer Station Relocation Website Screenshots Welcome Thank you for visiting the Ki tti Cas County Transfer Station Relocation project website. Kitt! Las coup ty intends to relocate the Ellensburg Transfer Station to a new site at a location that has yet to be determined. The new station will provide all the same services (transfer station, compost facility, household hazardous waste facility, and recycling depot) that are at the existing Ellensburg Transfer Station, which wi[I be closed. We are excited to be working with the community to decide on the new site for the transfer station. Your suggestions and input are essential throughout the site evaluation process. We want to make it as easy as possible to hear from the community. During comment periods, this website will allowyou to provide your feedback. Please check back periodically for project updates. Latest update (February 2018): We've extended our current feedback period to February 231 A new potential site, the"US 970d Highway 10 site", has been added to the list of potential sites following the removal of the Airport site. Visit the Siting Status tab to learn more, and visit the Feedback tab to provide your feedback on the new potential site by February 23. How to Use This Website • Visit the tabbed "stations" to learn more about each aspect of the project • You can visit Lhe site as many times as you wish • During comment periods, submftyour feedback (make sure you hit submit!) • Share this site with others who maybe interested in the project Project Materials Fact Sheet • Basis of Design Report Share this Online Open House 0000 Contact PHONE: 569-962-7542 EMAIL: so11dwaste@co.k!1tt1tas.wa.us WEB: www.co.kittilas.wa.usjsplid-waste/default.aspxx participate online powered by Envirolssues copyright 3)2018 Envirolssues Scalehouse at entrance to transfer station Side of the Transfer Building (for garbage) Nextpagepage Sign up to stay informed Enter your email address below to receive email updates about the project. Background Rafe of a Transfer Station White most., S[Annns plAy an 1 onw nr Polo m Aw.asrei maniginlcnriyitenl, tering asa link tioe r n tooel weal. mllectivn props ams and the flnnl dlaqusal laulity. The prinldry reason rut Oink a amts'., Station is [o r4dllry [he oos l of IranwDpiling wasCo to dimant disposal rscllwm Elie nshurg Transfer Station ISI1 plea 1-1ya e.ovrg EIlenabuPg Transrer Steunn IS located all IndustrWI way wit{nn the City or Elr—boirgaad is oneof nsal mild warm transfer staa.ps pmyldod by rhe, nunry-The transfer etanon paperty is t W flrHn th"11V of E[lenshvrC and We trarl5fn syllbn ly operaMd by Wo* Mai lac errµ4lt- 1nc. under contract to We County -Opened In 2060. the irars Mr sratlon Is alwaW 17 years old. [he ekl5[mg srannn hn ndlea sold wage. rxyrlaol a. household nhtemeus wase. and makes mrtlpns[ horn ymd et-te that L reteirud t"Ite The station handles apps uamdwly 24.000 turas of solid waste every yiar and WNK'Mair 60,0on [a Kamers lrbsnients and b nlrle.sesl• snlld WAs[e d:aF sS htnuj(h] c0 We stepw la then loaded Info Vander tral]ers oral lobi Prod spprrWrr ely E4 miles to [he greeter Vicnawne r Landllll In oougla5 Cpuney, Wmningtom R9CNadie matefldl5 [ulrataa a[the mi nler slaltoll vu m Waste HannUmenl's fltytl In l; fat lllly. Relocating a Transfer Station =a crannsta 5Gdon 15 not a last M easy process. Ther�am many it4ps Co take, Ipis uiplanning, and c alnlly.nrppyemenl{s neilded nhrnuoaij I IIW pro[ ass RpinW is a hrwF de 1plipn Vf llW 4—c-stw will ga Olipwgh to relocate the Coup ry'a Ellin shufg iran3tee Smtlon. St.p 1. Figur. out who[ 6 needed is the n.w fsllhy 1 n lnrludc-s an—ring ILPgPanl such ac • Who[SeTYlEeswlll oe proWodd Otto. sonars. an6to whom? � Flow n]urll W.Isle alae tee)•[ llnp do We e>71xf mlu,Irdle ravel {he life o! Ina IIeW hNtlun! How Clgaeltodo)s'a need to prdyldealt rheservi es7 • whal kind of rlenlblk]y dv we need to IntIVdF So avatars keep up ilio Chang�5ln Ina hlrylre ,population grooith- changES In IaeyLling rna[enaLl, e[p.l these npeslincis dtea Weteil In 14 ellnrl khowll a5 a pav5 of n"Ell lepdt. Qj(jk We [n VIIPW the dfare ElasiSai Design repot[ Por [he Ellensburg Tfan Wer Sta[lap. 3rap'l -Find a eta This egdlltet fl"Ing a alt& that me6ts Wdrileal 4Nulieirn iii laorilibep In Ifle gAsls of p Iii jn lepml. Mn tsmeny dirfve EC le tlan [rit2rla llnctueingeammunity uAlues) and[enmeet ad l mutzIntPgttIz m. MgnrLodtng Ivwuoemnnral Conrems and yoningl Seep 3 - fHtdicn a ad permit the it ca Votea al to is SeteLlw1, It I s III'*[A CJU y;1 ilae naP�ret 5iAtlon Io ni i hesl[e. Ong the vze all0 Amps of the slm I5 known, [he 6aNs atoes]gn lraarta updacca m rerlw mese demns.A daslgnvrscarts I•lyingdu[ all Ilse Penmi that go Into a minsfar Sra[wn Iden[]fy{ng Paw rraryl[ will 11vw, wbe LIIltelenl fet1lltlPt w{II he incasedvirs the sue, I.ow the uperetmns well work -etc IS Is duchy, this mage Mal rho [aunty appllos for rho in—des nrrrcaary to hmld and nporatc-nse mmr Seep S - eanstmet the she will, [he plans all dtrlded. a [vnlratfor 6s2[nred 10 ndl ld LhOadl 114e5, 4hUall maos end walkways. mstAll slgoage. act Once the site IS Contra[ied-it 15 Its Leel to en54ra operanans wn vnpormv. the vice t5 safe fon [kers ado is nready to aeetpt customers• Step 5 - Operate the site Trio new SCalaan is Open for hueanen5. Share this Online Open House Sign up to stay informed 0000 Enter your. ..it add re.. h.tow co r.c.w..a n.it ui d.—.hoot th. Contact PHONE 6.04 907 75'7 6."n Tf>• r MRII .SIHItlw[.Q}fllywL`„Wd.uS WE6:.,s'trw. Pers kllnlas we uslualld•wat]e+dW."', asnl 1�k participate -online Pew 6.106 ❑y En yitol aorta Copyngnt 0701 E EnVuolmur5 Why Move the County's E[lenshurg Transfer Station? �.i • •ralrnf EJIl ,b.,E Tr—fer SlnI0-116 IuVhPR.d hon it, RPl innl Irn,nm d—In Ihrw sennua Flooding .,creed m a rinopplwr near a creel. me Iacffity is igen cknWa twpayse of cnsrgnwr access agues gmng ugniwAnt nranlml cr rpana]L rumI ayenfR. Flpctllnj 3Ise-m ; npxatlnn el the mmnau Read Size constraints (mate ria is) a en -Rn- Wild1mg of therrani!er itar u app*aR—Iy 7,5 squRr q[ A will, aUping rlom of apprmrmdteiy S,Aop Ause lee[. Based On lle s.necansrra 5, the fKiIiN"no; neva the SapaPPl r9 4 Pea awry ri W -E.i4l pryws Size constraints {customers} the fa ty is ui,de wd for rhe numrfer of rus E -s -ng n Much orren rewis In long queuing tlmes arm potonholy-sare[aWrt�enswin•RrN-01 unload -ng ar'd pr,—w•gareas. admnonallys[ y rnpnn is andcWted in Enwtshurg, and the tranow stinaun a iW smRB 0 a[commodaW mon mawafs ear � iron. TiMe Ll. KIMM county PPp Mui Eintnaaes: foss ts NSS r,ppRT mthn lyW rMmg autnn.c[ ouniy adimrntlu.4 au gwhry du. ro laraplR e... ug yr.n wears. upst 1nec9nrpos[ rac10g would pflvw [hr [vunry m xsml mwc er..n xa:rr nnu imv�aeaur mr vudlrv. I he nee f1AM* dlflm wlrl he sired and vevgnrd lu Iddms these uiAwngesartl to heldle rhe lrmg. term nods nVtU—[punry. Share this Online Open House 0000 Contact PNI]NL ir•u+ulz '151} ENNL: ididurRs[ce�{vs�'� lir: _J:: KIP www.cu Imi r. ... participate online pnwurad by invllosad MIL He.t Flooding Pit rmpdmgdlwrg I he fn.re Imo of !ne Yrrfterri fa.Imeser Waler Su-mmis the large home appbance clo raved ,md wmpux Arte svrnw P. warn stun ro nppm� Size constraints nvr�a.uRyxrrwPNf run>n R.�m��ev Sign up to stay informed e— ywar .m.;I addnaa t,s"w —1— —11 .Pd.—at—r A. PrefKt- Teta1 EeflawM/ PeryOgpn War In}E—.dkq See. AMih seek. "Is 42.59] 4;J-% MI) 45,155 gx.ns SFWA xw 47.11" — ]1135 W,%T GIAN xtra5 w -Ma Akorb ■ ginwm MIS ao 10151 7Ak U.. ayrrayeaemnh al.. r,ppRT mthn lyW rMmg autnn.c[ ouniy adimrntlu.4 au gwhry du. ro laraplR e... ug yr.n wears. upst 1nec9nrpos[ rac10g would pflvw [hr [vunry m xsml mwc er..n xa:rr nnu imv�aeaur mr vudlrv. I he nee f1AM* dlflm wlrl he sired and vevgnrd lu Iddms these uiAwngesartl to heldle rhe lrmg. term nods nVtU—[punry. Share this Online Open House 0000 Contact PNI]NL ir•u+ulz '151} ENNL: ididurRs[ce�{vs�'� lir: _J:: KIP www.cu Imi r. ... participate online pnwurad by invllosad MIL He.t Flooding Pit rmpdmgdlwrg I he fn.re Imo of !ne Yrrfterri fa.Imeser Waler Su-mmis the large home appbance clo raved ,md wmpux Arte svrnw P. warn stun ro nppm� Size constraints nvr�a.uRyxrrwPNf run>n R.�m��ev Sign up to stay informed e— ywar .m.;I addnaa t,s"w —1— —11 .Pd.—at—r A. PrefKt- New Transfer Station Elements I , n -- .r.�ns.el Z&U, • --•II'• L•t u -k, ped lb W—le I,, a scut• lar L: si—, W [I Ie r -i i nt Ia; - II Iv. Lu l well ave -mel PRWy and wld be I-aled at a mule Wi[ablesl W. Projected Design Elements paced 0. sale Faolmbr openlion.1 needs and future growth prgeWphS rW gltiltn Eounly, the esjlmaiM area remuned W pr tae the t.IW was',andv ienal management neeos Ivr the new tadhyw till be appr{almately Z Dao awes. Sltr Satoty — ]rill. fluw will he orpganleed W IMMI. ll affk [roar Ing pu•nis and IWproye 5APMY rul users ul Ille We. • Thu bmWm Building rim .14 hamxwuntc oto.. IN unloading -mmol id and salt haul y Iudm. • A minimum or zB Pept ofw.Fihead clearance]crude the rransrre building will aQnw safe unlvadlnp of ad types of yrarnape rnlcks and niher whlcles. Projected Station Elements dui I ni ronuDrs r.,,I[h. n—rl anelFr-11r, ate d -1—d lb[ w: hnwnanr, flnat-Ix calls full I he d -VW- whan riff final umm Is M—. hYisk,11 WAS I here MIP he three prumlaly Innctlohal neat ISl waste. n celvWg. sluragr. mW handling'. ILI the and While goods iuedn-g area, and 43+eontldf [pr olfi— Ca44Pa11HntMa Phe Inmr coniposbni; alem will be an uuvf i uperalf.n deslomd 10 ncevt and p4m— yard Weate, dpi lculturcl 4ry-0lWuct, and wuod were Into with"L Fuldle adoiva-or v[hei reedeux la pray be wiisirleled et a Imler date. y McCwnty rim Ind"UMm lhd[ 1[ 46 hoi mteree[ed In .tep[rne most• n-,I-fouml—V or tm..Ildf at Rrls sloe. ly-nlnla,eal„.a4.n4Ar� — P.Ih-arlly dol gflev 4W [.dirty s[arf. Ibe mdimhhlfepre bolding will he 4aGled-lear Ills clf[ram evicil of 11* Wully, bi. will tae accessibleto+n511p-s Wdhmu t repalnhg[hem W cross the .ales. Sealrheaem rl.d arils. f lit new Mull IV will be MuWped With Inbound and uu l6.u06 manual mdfes, and an Irawuhd au[prna[ed male dedicated for cummc nal otwun[i the atafe uP and stele arm Will misu haat rows wau:umnevdate n future ou[bun nd euwmaied mca4. R.cy.lin it aro P-mR Ara. — P lierftWi l+g dr.p.oA area .411. be -WodW m,d Inoue safer and 411 We cahyeHW4 fol lb— I I will he atte ,We wRhoui going through the ", Hou.. hold H ... rdau. Was[. Build ina Me hew IwuSehold Aaraldoum wefts bultdlrlg Whl accept whimeh hourwhadd mate] laba has va•bbed polio. Oed hwl.r all, ptfucldes. tiat"4m. etc. It will be Idtger than tlee curlxne iJilllly [o h1lpr.-xvarauon end Mor Age. the tui Iding WIII be Located "fore the —16 mild WIII be dtslgned Ior rinlomrlf to pull irhvugh adrive through 4r Was will bB lom[ d udder aitwr Share this Online Open House 0000 Contact EhiO4L SphdW,f!N eo.kletlta5.wn d. yyB& www.w I.I C', wn uelmlld wa5m.rf.fa:Ill esa i participate online powa-ad by E-1rm1f.0 Pf "Law- n c4915 Cn]a[4.f541E1• 0 Sign up to stay informed E. -e. our ...II .don.. blow to e.e.fvremail uyd.t...6out 6. Prat t- Siting the New Transfer Station Technical Approach KiIt! Las County is doing a step-by-step process to find the best s!re far the new transferstation. The Caunty is working with a team of consultants and wl Il consult with the community throughout the siting process to ensure that the public's feedback is incorporated into the decision and a location that best meets technical and community criteria is chosen. Click the Community Voice tab to see how the community's voice will be incorporated into the technical work. Siting Process 1. Identify Siting Areas: Identify potential areas for the new transfers i that show promise for meeting basic requirements, includEng100-year floodpIa!ns, we hands, available acreage, etc. 2. Identify Potential5ites: Usetechnical requirements including minimum land acreage, and community values, identify potential sites for consideration. County staff will. use a Geographic Information System (GISj to develop an overall map showing potential sites, land ownership, zoning, and floodplain information. 3. initial Site Screening: Finalize initial screening criteria, which may include: floodplains, wetlands, county zoning, and regulatory requirements [local, state, and federal). Potential sites identified will be evaluated and screened in accordance with the selected initial screening criteria. 4. Secondary Site Screening: Finalize secondary screening criteria and establish performance measures. Use the screening criteria and performance measures to prepare an initial ranking of the potential sites that passed the initial screening. A brief description will be developed for each site, initial and secondary siting criteria, and selected performance measure. S. Conceptual Layouts and Cost Estimates: Develop conceptual layouts and cost estimates of three shcrtlisted sites for the transfer building, composting area, scaiehouse, household hazardous waste building, and recycling drop-off area. (WE ARE HERE) 6. Site Selection Report: Finalize ranking of potential sites using the initiat and secondary site screening results, conceptual layouts, and cost estimates. Develop a report summarizing results of site selection tasks and the project team's recommendation. T. County Commission's Decision: Present Site Selection Report to the County Commissioner's office. Commissioner's office reviews the report and makes the final site selection decision. Share this Online Open House 0000 Contact PHONE: 509-962-7542 EMAIL: solidwaste0co_kittitas.wa.us WEB: wvvw.m.kiLUI[as.wa.uslsalid-waste/default.aspx participate online powered by Envirolssues Copyright X2018 Envirolssues Next aaee Sign up to stay informed Enteryouremail address below to receive email updates aboutthe project. Email poftiolpate-onilhe Community Voice Next Community Influence Throughout the Siting Process The County will be seeking input from community membersthroughout the siting process, and will share Information in many ways to ensure it is accessible and easily understood. Opportunities to give feedback are aligned with the technical process so the project team can consider and mmrporate pubbcfeedback to the greatest extent passible. You're always welcome to share your thoughts, and here's an overview of when feedback will be most useful to the team. LL. Early feedback on siting areas and siting criteria: Station users and community members can provide valuable information about potential areas for the new station. The County seeks the community's hopes and concerns for the new site, and any additional feedback about the project overall. The ccmmunity is encouraged to provide suggestions for community criteria to inchide in the evaluation of potential sites. This step aligns with technical step 1(see Siting Process). This feedback was gathered until June 30. 2017 (view the feedback summary from this comment neriodl. 2. Review and give feedback on potential sites: Provide feedback on potential sites the project team has selected based on technical and community criteria. The County will share conceptual site layouts and cost estimates of the sites that passed site screening. The County will seek your site preferences, concerns, and any other feedback on the potential sites. This step aligns with technical steps 2 - 5 (see Siting Process). Thfs feedback was gathered from September 13-30,2017 (view the feedback summary from this comment neriodl. 3. Preferred Site Selection: Using input from the community and further technical evaluation. the County will identify a preferred locatton forthe new transfer station. They will share this preferred site recommendation with the community before it goes to the County Commissioners For Final site selection. This step aligns with technical step 6 (see Siting Processl. 4. County Commissioner Select Site: After reviewing the technical team's work and community input, the commissioners will hold a public hearing before selecting the transfer station site. This step aligns with step 6 (see Siting Process) and mndudes the siting process. Additional Opportunities to Be Involved Solid Waste Advisory Committee The County has a standing Solid Waste Advisory Committee made up of Interested businesses, residents, and other agencies. This committee, called the SWAG, carefully reviews county solid waste plans and projects and provides advice on solid waste issues. SWAG meetings are open to the public. The SWAC met on May 23rd, at 3:00 p.m., to discuss the first step in the siting process. The community was €nviLed to attend and hear the SWAC'sdiscussions. Community Briefings Have a group interested in solid waste and the County's Transfer Station Relocation Project? County staff are available to attend your group's meeting, provide Information about the project, and answer your questions. Email the project at solidwaste@m kittitas.wa.us to request a briefing for your group. Stakeholder Interviews We have already started talking to people in the community about the project. Read the Stakeholder Interview Summary for a summary of what we have {earned sofa r. Share this Online Open House ©©0O Contact PHONE 509-962-7542 EMAIL solidwasteaco.ki ttitas.wa.us WEB: www.m.kittitas.wa.uslsalld-wasteldefault.asgxx participate online powered by Envirolssues Copyright D2018 Envirolssues ew Next Dag Sign up to stay informed Enter your email address belowto receive email updates about the project. Feedback Next Than kyou for your interest in providing feedback. Feedback was collected on theTjossem Road site and Cement Plant site in fall 2017. The project team is now seeking feedback on the US 97/Old Highway 10 site, as itwas added W the [is t of potential sites afterthe last feedback period. If you have any comments or concerns regarding the US 97l01d Highway SD site, please enter them in the text box below, then click submit. Feedback will be collected until February 23. For more information on the U5 97101d Highway 10 site, please visit the Siting Status tab. Previous feedback opportunities and what we've heard: • CommunityMeeting-September 13,2017 • Presentation • Summary • COmmentSummary • Community Meeting -June 6, 2017 Presentation o Summary Commen t Summary Share this Online Open House 0000 Contact PHONE: 509-962-7542 EMAIL: solidwaste(-co.kittitas.wa.us WEB: www.co.ktttltas.wa.us/solid-waste/default.aso participate online powered by Envirolssues Copyright (02018 Envirolssues Next page Sign up to stay informed Enter your email address below to receive email updates about the project. Email Community Voice Thankyou Thank you for visiLing the project website! Please check back regularly far updates on the transfer station siting process. Share this Online Open House 0000 Contact PHONE: 509-962-7542 EMAIL: soUdwaste(@co.kittitas.wa.us WEB: vvww.co.kfttitas.wa.us/solid-wasteLdefault.asp participate or hhe powered by Envirolssues Copyright CD2018 Enyir4155LIe5 Sign up to stay informed Enter your email address below to receive email updates about the project. Emall Public Comments and Feedback Summaries Kittitas County Transfer Station Public Feedback Summary September 13, 2017 – April 27, 2018 1 Introduction and Background Kittitas County is performing a study to relocate the Ellensburg Transfer Station to a site already owned by the County or to another suitable location within the greater Ellensburg area. The new facility will replace the existing Ellensburg transfer station and will be designed to address some existing site challenges (including location and size constraints, customer access issues during significant rainfall or spring runoff events, long queuing times and small unloading and processing areas) and prepare the County for future growth. In June 2017, an initial phase of outreach, including an Online Open House, survey, and community meeting, was conducted to better understand the interests of people in the communities served by the current transfer station and how best to involve community members during siting, permitting, design, and construction of the new station. In Fall 2017, an additional feedback period was held to gather feedback on the three potential sites (the Tjossem Road site, Cement plant site, and Airport site) and on how the secondary siting criteria should be weighted. After removing the Airport site from consideration and adding the US97/Old Highway 10 site, an additional online-only feedback period was held in Winter 2018 to gather feedback on the US97/Old Highway 10 site. In order to hear from more members of the community and provide a chance for community members to leave feedback on all three current potential sites (the Tjossem Road site, Cement plant site, and US97/Old Highway 10 site, an additional feedback period was held in Spring 2018. During this feedback period, additional input was also gathered on how the secondary screening criteria should be weighted. The community meetings included a brief presentation, Q&A session, informational display boards, and feedback forms (see our September 13, 2017 and April 9, 2018 meeting summaries online for more information). The project also engaged community members using the Online Open House engagement platform, which contained the same information and feedback opportunities as the community meeting. Details regarding the Fall 2017, Winter 2018, and Spring 2018 feedback periods are listed in the following table: Feedback period Public meeting date Online Open House feedback period date range* Total number of comments survey responses received Fall 2017 September 13, 2017 September 13 – October 3, 2017 59 (Appendix A) Winter 2018 None January 12 – February 23, 2018 33 (Appendix B) Spring 2018 April 9, 2018 April 9 – 27, 2018 52 (Appendix C) Total number of comments/survey responses received 144 *The Online Open House remained online and accessible between feedback periods for those seeking more information on the project. Kittitas County Transfer Station Public Feedback Summary September 13, 2017 – April 27, 2018 2 Survey Questions & Feedback The public involvement process provided insight into the community’s values regarding selecting a new site, and community preferences regarding the three potential sites. Survey questions and key feedback received through the online open house and in-person meetings (via comment forms and sticky notes on display boards) are summarized below. A full list of comments received during each feedback period can be found in the Appendix. Secondary Criteria •Question: Please review the secondary criteria (shown on the right) and check the three criteria most important to you when selecting a new site (asked during Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 feedback periods). •Responses: *This criterion was added following the Fall 2017 feedback period, and prior to the Spring 2018 feedback period. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Cultural resources* Endangered species Ownership of property Zoning Depth to groundwater Drive time access to interstate and landfill Surface waters Floodplain impacts Acquisition and development cost Current land use Drive time from population center Proximity to existing/future residential neighborhoods Traffic impacts Fall 2017 responses Spring 2018 responses Kittitas County Transfer Station Public Feedback Summary September 13, 2017 – April 27, 2018 3 Potential Sites Question: What are your thoughts on the three potential sites? (shown below) (Note: in the summaries below, each response is only counted in one category (positive, negative, or mixed), but may be counted in multiple sub-categories (Low impact to residential areas, close to interstate, etc.) depending on the response content) • Key Feedback on Cement plant site (received during Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 feedback periods): • Positive (40): • “Best choice of the three” (18) • Low impact to residential areas (17) • Close to interstate (14) • Already in an industrial area (12) • Multiple access routes (8) • Negative (13): • Subject to flooding and potential groundwater infiltration (8) • Concern about future development in area (4) • Will cause debris/unpleasant smells for area downwind (2) • May increase traffic due to added roundabout (2) • Key Feedback on Tjossem Road site (received during Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 feedback periods): • Positive (7) • Mixed (16) • “This is my second choice” (11) • Easily accessible/convenient (4) • Negative (54) • Impacts on agricultural land (18) • Impacts to local lakes and ponds/water supply/fish populations (14) • Proximity to existing/future developments (8) • Access (8) • Traffic (6) • Impacts to wildlife/birds (6) • “Worst choice of the three” (5) • Key Feedback on US 97/Highway 10 site (received during Winter 2018 and Spring 2018): • Positive (23): • “Second choice of the three” (12) • Easily accessible/convenient (8) • Mixed (16) • Keep the current site in addition to building a new site (3) • Negative (24): • Sight/smell impacts (10) • Concerns about floodplain/wetlands (8) Kittitas County Transfer Station Public Feedback Summary September 13, 2017 – April 27, 2018 4 • Proximity to current/future residential neighborhoods and businesses (7) • Impacts to wildlife/birds (2) • Increased traffic (2) • Impacts on agricultural land (2) Additional Questions • Question: Any other thoughts for the team to consider as they select the preferred site? • Key Feedback (received during Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 feedback periods): ▪ Suggestion to modify the existing site (8) ▪ Select a site that is not in a residential area (5) ▪ Make it easier to recycle (4) ▪ Consider floodplains when designing a site (2) ▪ Thank you (2) Next Steps The project team will use the feedback gathered during these feedback periods to inform the selection of the preferred site. Kittitas County Transfer Station Public Feedback Summary September 13, 2017 – April 27, 2018 Appendices A. Fall 2017 feedback B. Winter 2018 feedback C. Spring 2018 feedback Kittitas County Transfer Station Public Feedback Summary September 13, 2017 – April 27, 2018 A. Fall 2017 feedback Report for KCTS September Feedback Completion Rate:100% Complete 59 Totals: 59 Response Counts 1 1. Please review the secondary criteria below and check the three criteria most important to you when selecting a new site. Value Percent Responses Zoning (current zoning designation)17.4%8 Distance from population center (maximizes ease of customer access) 23.9%11 Floodplain (minimizes potential for impact to floodplain)19.6%9 Current land use (current land use is most supportive of developing a transfer station) 19.6%9 Drive time access to interstate and landfill (minimize long-haul costs by locating site close to I-90 intersection) 21.7%10 Surface waters (minimizes potential for impact to wetlands and related wildlife) 19.6%9 Depth to groundwater (shallow groundwater will impact development cost) 17.4%8 Endangered species (minimizes potential for impact to endangered species) 4.3%2 Proximity to existing/future residential neighborhoods (site not likely to result in impacts to persons living or working near the transfer station) 58.7%27 Traffic impacts (e.g. changes needed, traffic impact; truck routes to the transfer station appropriate for heavy trucks and not likely to affect existing persons or businesses) 63.0%29 Ownership of property (maximize ease of property acquisition)6.5%3 Acquisition and development cost (minimize costs required to acquire and prepare site for use) 17.4%8 2 ResponseID Response 1 This site appears to have the best compatability with heavy truck traffic and minimizing impacts to residential areas. It is close enough to most customers to not be an inconvenience to visit. This would be my first choice given the criteria limiting where the site can be. 2 Great idea here but I believe road to recycling and to and from scale should be a site road to limit ways people entering and exiting. Like how there is multiple ways of getting to site. Could be expensive but at least you gain an asset. 3 Seems to me to be the best location. Close to interstate, non-residential area, and an area built for and use to truck traffic already. 4 Close to freeway&ilia already in an industrial area. The area already has heavy traffic by both heavy equipment and smaller vehicles. It looks to be close enough to residential areas to make short travel time, but far enough away to minimize impact on local residents. The only concern I have is acquisition cost. As far as installing utilities it's in the middle of the road. In all, this one seems best to me. 5 This seems like the best location of the three presented. 1) It has the easiest access to I-90 and major through-ways in and around the City of Ellensburg. 2) There is very little residential development in the area. 3) The surrounding land is zoned light industrial. 4) There are no creeks or streams in the area although Mill Ditch does run near the back of the property. 6 The only concern I have with this location is the view from the freeway, and the future development, e.g. Triple L or some other regional retail 7 This site seems like it would have the easiest access 8 To me this makes the most sense. Traffic patterns already set up for large trucks. Little residential in area and probably not a lot with cement plant there. Still easy town and I-90 access. 9 I like this site for it's location near town, and it's separation from neighborhoods and conflicts. The site has been mined and is already an industrial area. Ground water may be shallow. Acquisition may be difficult-but having available material may be handy. 2. What are your thoughts on the Cement plant site? 3 10 This is the best location since its already in an area that is not being used for a real purpose. Plus theres a freeway enterance right next to it and also its the cheapest in the long run. 12 This site seems to have the least residences nearby/close. It is already right next to an industrial area (cement plant). 13 I think this is the best site from both an economic impact and minimizes the impact to adjacent areas. The airport is no easily accessed and is upwind from a lot of residential properties and the Tjossem Road site is productive agricultural land, visible from freeway and adjacent to residential housing. 14 Elevation and proximity to areas prone to flooding are an issue for this site, and depth of groundwater is a likely problem. Consideration should be given to an area outside the irrigation district for this reason. 15 Best option: Roads are already undergoing significant upgrades (that's paid for) Access to the site does not tempt customers to cut through residential areas It's the shortest distance to the freeway for heavy trucks. This is an industrial area - perfect for this kind of use. 19 an ok site - not close to residential development 20 Best potential site with least impact to residential areas as well as agriculture, including traffic. Site is adjoined by ECP with low risk of becoming residential, so low risk of future odor and traffic complaints. Addition of the roundabout will also assist with access to this site without other road improvements. 21 Not a good choice. All land on both sides of 97 west of the new Round-a-bout is zoned by the city to be Commercial in various forms. The south-west side is almost filled with commercial businesses. The north-east side is zoned Commercial and the adjoining 56 acres to the north will undoubtedly be zoned commercial at some point. At the very least, if commercial development does not take place, you can bet that it will end up with a residential zoning. The transfer station will cause debris and unpleasant smells to be present in this whole Hwy. 97 area. They are all down-wind from the proposed site. With the large amount of traffic at the new round-a-bout which will grow with development, do we need to add daily trips of garbage trucks through the round-a-bout and on out 97. The I-90 Interchange there is already very busy and will likely become the busiest of the two Ellensburg Interchanges. The garbage trucks I see around down daily are huge machines and often drive too fast for their size. They always seem to be in a great hurry. I think the Transfer Station needs to be further away from any possible future development in the City of Ellensburg. ResponseID Response 4 24 This is the site that I feel would be the most viable of the 3. I realize that infrastructure cost is a question but I like the location because the impact of traffic, noise and trucks would be less and it has easy access to I-90. 25 To close to the river across I-90. This location can also possibly be seen by visitors on the freeway and turn away potential tourism, etc. 26 My preferred location for ease of access and least impact to neighborhoods. ResponseID Response 5 ResponseID Response 1 I initially thought the airport would be a good location but using the criteria the location proposed would not be the best one. Locating that close to the FBO would not be desirable. Heavy truck traffic both transit and local pickup would expose a lot of residential housing areas to high volumes they presently don't have. 2 Great site close to main population center. Potential layout looks like need works couldn't storm water be used at compost facility if so pond is far away? This cold also bring in business to the area. Do not like the cost of the lease and ending up with nothing at the end would county consider selling? 3 Potentially too expensive with flood issues. The smell and truck traffic may deter all the westsiders from buying these homes though, which would increase affordable houses for this community. 4 This site is closest to residential areas but furthest from the freeway access. It is also farthest from areas used to heavy trucks. I think this site could have a negative impact on local residents and future residential development. The acquisition cost seems the most reasonable. But I fear it would cost more in the long run. 5 Without seeing your proposed sites I considered the airport area as the best location. I do believe there are better areas of the airport property more suited for the project. $82,000/yr rent is idiotic. If the price is set by the BOCC by resolution then a new resolution should be considered to change the rental rate for this project, or sell/transfer the property from Public Works to Solid Waste Department The site is already zoned light industrial so the site fits here even if the surrounding residents don't want it. The County has been pushing for new industrial activity in the area for years if they are successful in the future the surrounding landowners may not be happy with that development either. Mercer Creek is adjacent to the project area. This creek experienced flooding this spring and has flooded several times over the last few years. I understand you will building up the project site but do you really want to deal with the potential for flooding or its effects at the new site? 6 Doesn't seem like the best location from a variety of perspectives - too close to neighborhoods, aircraft and birds, etc. 3. What are your thoughts on the Airport site? 6 7 This site is too close to residential areas 8 Would be nice for county to get income stream but lousy location. To much residential traffic. Roads not set up for heavy trucks. Kids all over the place. Lousy I-90 access. Would be my 3rd choice. 9 Not crazy about this site. Proximity to neighborhoods and increasing traffic would push me away from this site. Over time the lease costs will inflate and the cost over time may be more than a purchase. My least favorite site by far. 11 This is too close to housing developments and will have a negative impact on residents. 12 I would be pissed if I lived on Airport Rd. and you built a transfer station here. The increase in traffic alone would be terrible and the smell being blown by the Ellensburg wind unimaginable. 14 While within the irrigated portion of the valley, this location poses the least issues relative to surface water control/flooding of the currently proposed sites. The vicinity of the airport industrial park is also less likely to be built up into residential areas. 15 Far and away, the WORST option: - Roads will need a lot of improvement to handle the traffic - A LOT of customer traffic will go through residential areas. - Residential development is trending in that direction - negative impact on property values Side note: I believe the shotgun range relocation was struck down largely by extremely vocal resident objections - the County will face similar assaults with a transfer station. The County ownership factor is a financial convenience, nothing more. 17 We like this site the best because it appears the cost of land acquisition or rental may be lower, and water concerns (surface water, groundwater and floodplain) seem much less than the other two sites. Our one concern with this site would be future population growth, as it seems that Ellensburg is growing to the north faster than in other directions. Traffic routing may also be more of an issue. thanks for your great web site to help keep us informed. 18 This site is not compatible with airport operations. It would present a serious hazard to flight operations as well as other airport activities. The attraction of birds alone is a disqualifying factor. 19 a lousy site - driving through town and residential area to access ResponseID Response 7 20 Would rate this site second out of the three sites, as it's already in an area that is semi-industrial. Traffic access would need to be improved from 18th St. north to accommodate increased traffic. While access has been added from Reecer Creek, the most direct routes of Water or Airport Rd. would probably see the brunt of increased traffic - not desirable for residential areas. 21 I see some of the same problems I noted in the Cement Plant site. It is too close to existing and future residential sites and the increase in garbage truck traffic is a detriment to the two lane roads and Central University. I needs to move farther out. How about the county owned land on the other side of the airport. 24 In my opinion this site is the least viable. I think it would be too congested. Having all that traffic filter through the University would be a terrible idea. I realize that the cost may be less initially but with the high cost of a yearly lease the costs will level out over time. 25 Prefer this site over the other two choices. It is closer to population, close to airport which already has knowledge of location, it is not viewable from the highway, close to CWU campus, and residential housing. Only concern is how this new site might affect the airport in future years. ResponseID Response 8 ResponseID Response 1 This would be my last choice. You will experience resistance in taking good agricultural ground out of production similar to a utility scale solar proposed just East of that site. It would not expose existing residential housing to truck traffic and it is reasonably close to the interstate but utilities are not close and road improvements would be necessary. 2 Worst site furthest away from population center and from population center only one way in Canyon Road under I90 which is already a traffic jam. This would focus 90% or users to go down this path creating a nightmare. Also Barry road is a narrow road and there is not much you can do on the south end of Barry road to make it better. I believe missed the mark on this one and only loads going out was considered not what is coming in. 3 High ground water levels and probably expensive farm ground, but this would be my second choice. 4 This site seems to have the best of both worlds. It is close to the freeway yet far enough away from residential areas do not cause a problem. I think the acquisition and utility costs would outbalance that however. And personally this site would cause me to have to drive farther than I do now and farther than the other two sites. 5 There is a fish barring stream within the overlay as part of the project. Even if you have a set back buffer area along the stream there will still be material blowing into the stream that can affect the stream and be washing downstream to Wilson Creek. There is also a stream that has been illegally redirected off the property to enter Wilson Creek at a different location so potentially you could be dealing with two fish barring streams. Of the three proposed sites this is the only one that isn't zoned for light industrial. This site is zoned Commercial Ag. The County is losing agricultural production land at a fast rate as it is we shouldn't be taking land out of production for a Transfer Station that can be sited in an area already zoned for industry. 6 The only concern I have with this location is there is already a problem with yakima bringing their waste to Eburg. 4. What are your thoughts on the Tjossem Road site? 9 8 While it has good I-90 access the streets are residential in nature and not set up for large trucks. Also a residential area with kids around. Lots of groundwater/flooding in area with spring melts and then irrigation. As traffic exits off I-90 first thing they will see is dump which is eyesore. That whole Tjossem region is either farmland or residential. Tjossem Road drains traffic out of the whole Badger Pocket area and traffic mix really would need to be mitigated. Curious what zoning is at that site compared to cement plant. 9 My first choice. It is clearly near the population center and access from all parts of the area, mostly without increasing town traffic and dragging big trucks through town or a long detour around town. This site may be met with less resistance than the airport and if people understood it does not have to be an eyesore and can be a neutral impact on the view it would help. 10 Dont use this site. My family farms near by and this will only give us more problems trying to move crops and so forth. Plus theres no freeway enterance really near it. And its more expensive. 12 Really...take a huge beautiful agricultural piece of land and turn it into a dump. That STINKS!!! Okay, I live on Tjossem Rd and I don't really want it in my backyard or front yard which would be the case. Who wants to look at an industrial site 24/7 from their home that was purchased 40 years ago because of its beautiful location surrounded by farmland but still close to town. I haven't even finished my first paragraph and I'm crying. Not sure if it's because of what we'll lose or what we'll be saddled with for the rest of our lives. The traffic alone would be insane with trucks coming and going all day long and probably exceeding the speed limit to meet their work quotas. Not to mention wear and tear on the road. When I said it stinks I meant that literally because my property is down wind of this proposed dump. Have you been to the Transfer Station on a hot day? I have and I just about gag from the stench. I can't image having to be subjected to this daily not to mention what it will do to property values of the homes surrounding this choice. Next, have you consider how this will greet visitors coming from the east as the first impression of Ellensburg...a dump!!! Pretty unsightly!!! How close to town does the dump need to be? I can't believe people wouldn't drive 5 extra minutes so that it doesn't have to be in someone else's backyard. I would! PLEASE do not select this site! 14 This site also has potential surface and ground water issues, with proximity to existing ponds/lakes, the Yakima River and irrigation return flow channel(s). ResponseID Response 10 15 Second option: Easy access to freeway - Community perception will be "it's too far away" (because it is) from the majority of the population - Could be too close to residential neighborhood (let's not relive a Millpond Manor situation). Personally, I think it's a waste of good, in-use agricultural land and it doesn't present a nice aesthetic - a transfer station nestled amidst the ag fields. 16 This site is harder to get to for the majority of users. A larger amount of users would need to come through Ellensburg to get to this site. 19 an ok site - no close proximity to residential area 20 Would rate this last of the three sites. With the increasing population of Kittitas County, agriculture lands south of I-90 should be preserved as best as possible. In addition - Berry Rd, Tjossem Rd and possibly Bull Rd (overpass addition or underpass expansion) would need improvements for the increased traffic. 21 This site also seems too close to the Mobil Home Park just west of the proposed site. These people just spent the last 45-50 years putting up with the Schaake feed lot smell and now you want to put the Transfer Station next to them. Granted, the Station would be down wind most of the time from the Trailer Park, but there will be days when the wind blows from the east and south. The traffic problem will be the same as the other two sites. Find a site further from town where it cannot affect existing and future residential development. ResponseID Response 11 22 As owners of the home to the south of the proposed "Tjossem Road" site, we are very opposed to the transfer station being at that location for the following reasons. There is a deed restriction on much of that land that doesn't allow buildings or roads to be built on it. This deed restriction was put on when we sold this land to Brunson's because we didn't want our view blocked and didn't want roads on the property. 2. Even though the facility would be housed indoors, litter would be a problem. It would be impossible for all of the litter to be maintained. Litter would be a problem at the site, as well as on the access to the site. The field that would surround the proposed transfer station would be export quality hay. This hay is high quality hay that goes to foreign countries that have very high standards. The possibility of plastic or other garbage getting into the bales of hay would be cause for the hay to be rejected by foreign buyers 3. Brunson's recently bought this land, to farm, they shouldn't be forced to sell it. The field that is being considered is prime farm land, with senior water rights. This is expensive land that has had a lot of money put into it for irrigation improvements (leveling and Linears) If the Transfer Station was to get located anywhere in the field, much of the irrigation system would have to be redesigned. If Waste Management were to pay Brunsons, the land owners, what it is worth it would be very expensive. 4.It has Bull Ditch on the north side of the proposed land site. It has water drain from a pond on the north side of the freeway that drains through the site. The drain is piped under I-90 and under Bull Ditch and along the eastern side of the site. 5. The roads in this area are county roads that weren't built for high traffic. They don't have have shoulders. There have been several accidents on Berry Road in the recent years. More traffic would probably lead to more accidents. 6. We have personal reasons for not wanting to live next door to the Transfer Station. We have owned the area surrounding our house for over 40 years. It was with much hesitation that we sold some of the land. We did, however, put restrictions on the seller that there is to be no buildings or roads because we value the view that we have. It doesn't seem reasonable that we could have to look at the Transfer Station right next door. When the one Waste Management truck, picks up our garbage, several pieces of garbage fly out of the truck as he drives down the road. I don't know why this happens because our garbage is all bagged, but if that is any indication of how much garbage would be flying around with multiple Waste Management trucks, as well as people bringing their own garbage to the transfer station, littler would be a huge problem. Because there isn't much traffic on Berry Road, it has become a popular place for walkers and bicycles. It would become dangerous if there was a lot of traffic. 7. We feel that we should have been personally been told that this site, right next to our house, was one the the three final choices for the Transfer Station. We only knew about it because on September 20th there was a "Letter to the Editor" in the newspaper that caught your attention. Sincerely, Morrie and Pat Sorensen 1360 Berry Road 509-306-7300 623-266- 3219 ResponseID Response 12 23 We don't feel that "Tjossen Road Site" is an appropriate title for the project that is much more closely connected to Berry Road. Even though the proposed site is right next door to our house, we wouldn't have realized that it pertained to us because we are a long ways from Tjossem Road. Morrie and Pat Sorensen 1360 Berry Road 509-306-7300 24 This would be my 2nd choice though I don't like the idea of filtering traffic down Main St. to access it. Also I read a letter to the editor from a neighbor who gave a more detailed description of the land and the possible impact to neighbors. I realize that if we want garbage service we need to compromise but the Concrete Plant site seems to be the least invasive in terms of residences and traffic. 25 Located on past farm land, concerned about chemicals, trash, bacteria leaking into the underground water supply. ResponseID Response 13 ResponseID Response 1 You may want to elaborate on the enclosed tipping floor design so people who do not use the site can understand this is not just a pile of garbage waiting to be blown around. Compatability with heavy truck traffic is important to avoid resistance from residential housing areas. Thanks for reaching out to the public in this important project 2 Instead of all loads going I90 for Criteria as anyone talked to the hauler to see if at airport and cement site they would utilize hyw 97? Why is there no where to process recycling on new sites? Couldn't this be a source of income for the county? 3 Please think this project through carefully, this is an expensive investment with long term impacts and consequences if not done right. 4 The acquisition costs for each of the sites is important. But if the site is to be permanent (which I assume it is because I heard we don't want to have to do this again) the Airport site is potentially the more expensive because of possible lease rate increases. Also, it's surrounded by currently developed areas. This makes future expansion impossible. The cement plant site or the Tjossem site are preferable in this area. 5 Everybody wants ever available amenity but nobody wants it in their backyard. The current location doesn't seem to be affecting the growth or economic development in the surrounding area. There have been several new businesses built near the current location since the current Transfer Station was built. 8 Keep it out of the residential areas. Big trucks and kids do not mix. 9 I don't think you are acquiring too much land. The Tjossen site would make a handy place for a lot of public entities to use i.e. County and State public works shops, State Patrol etc. Rent it to them until you need the whole thing. Good luck! 10 Use land that is not farm land. 12 Put it somewhere out of site of neighbors! 5.Any other thoughts for the team to consider as they select the preferred site? 14 13 I think this is the best site from both an economic impact and minimizes the impact to adjacent areas. The airport is no easily accessed and is upwind from a lot of residential properties and the Tjossem Road site is productive agricultural land, visible from freeway and adjacent to residential housing. 14 Although not as close to the city, an area outside the irrigation district would mitigate potential groundwater impacts from solid waste and composting/recycling activities. Areas to the east of Kittitas also receive less annual precipitation, reducing precipitation management issues. Long-term issues associated with solid waste facilities are generally water-related (except landfills, where gas management is also an issue). 15 None at this time. Thank you for including the Community in this important process. 16 Consider a 3 sided high roof enclosure for recycle containers. This would allow for more items to be recycled (like paper) as the wind would no longer be a factor. 21 I assume because of the location of the three preferred sites, you want to hook up to City Services. This may be important, but at what cost to the surrounding area. Just because you get there first does not mean you don't have an obligation to strongly consider the effect on the surrounding areas. Find a different site, like the north side of the Airport that hopefully does not effect anyone. 24 I was impressed with how the 2nd meeting was conducted. It was informative and the audience had some insightful questions and comments. I especially like the idea of moving toward a value of less garbage. We need a universal packaging program whereby all packaging is recyclable. 25 Needs to be accessible to locals, as well as CWU students, teachers, staff, etc. Most students recycle whenever they can, if its not easy then people will not recycle. The site needs to be accessible for people who live in Ellensburg, but also hidden from new visitors/guests, etc. 27 Have you considered moving the composting process only to another site and add on to the existing solid waste structure. I believe there would be plenty of room, and the flooding issues could be easily resolve with a slightly elevated approach road to climb the hill. This could save millions to the county. 28 It appears, from the data presented, that the airport site does the best job of balancing zoning, environmental, and cost considerations. ResponseID Response 15 29 Please take into consideration closeness to current and future growth residential areas. I feel that is most important when talking about waste management facilities. 31 Why does this need to be so close to town ? I understand that people want it convenient but does it matter if it is 2 miles or 6 miles from town ? I doubt people would say forget it I am not going. ResponseID Response 16 Kittitas County Transfer Station Public Feedback Summary September 13, 2017 – April 27, 2018 B.Winter 2018 feedback Report for Kittitas Feedback 2018 Completion Rate:100% Complete 33 Totals: 33 Response Counts 1 ResponseID Response 1 I think it is a very good site. 2 Commissioners; Please take in to account the wind blows very hard at that location, drivers will be driving 40-50 mph plus the 40 mile per hour head winds; it is difficult to secure a load of garbage with an 80 mph head wind. Please consider enlarging the current site, and farming the yard waste at another location. 3 This is not much different than the cement plant site as far as location. What may figure in is the cost of dealing with the flood water and price of the ground itself. This new site is a little closer to a potential big box site but not enough to be a factor in the decision between the two sites. I like both these sites near the west interchange over the Tjossem Road site. Good job! Shan Rowbotham 4 This site looks promising. One big plus is less traffic will have to negotiate that dreadful roundabout. 5 This looks like an adequate site. I like to access routes available. It is far better than the airport site. I would put the Tjossem site above it simply because it is more accessible to Kittitas and other points east of Ellensburg since Cle Elum, etc. have access to the one near Cle Elum. 6 The US 97/Old Highway 10 site needs to be presented with a similar information as provided for the Tjossem Road and Cement Plant sites in order to solicit constructive feedback. Based on the single aerial provided, it is difficult or impossible for much of the public to even know where exactly the site is, how it would be accessed, or what the adjacent land uses and natural features are. Please ask again when sufficient information is available to provide meaningful feedback. 7 I think the US 97 site is too close to Reecer Creek road and potential housing development on that end of the valley. Think the Cement Plant site, which is already a commercial site would be more appropriate site for a waste management/transfer station. I would rather see the site remain in the same location and hold the costs to customers at a low rate. 1.If you have any comments or concerns regarding the US 97/Old Highway 10 site, please enter them in the text box below, then click submit. Feedback will be collected until February 23. For more information on the US 97/Old Highway 10 site, please visit the Siting Status tab. 2 8 I think US97/Old Highway 10 or the cement site are both good choices. The area is already industrial in nature and there are no homes which are that close. Given that the current transfer station is right in town and one hardly knows it's there, maybe look at which one would best facilitate traffic flow. If it turns out that the floodplain issues cannot be worked out in a feasible fashion, I would prefer the cement plant over this one. Otherwise, it's a good site. 9 I think that this is a poor location, affecting all who reside in the area and wish to maintain a rural/agricultural lifestyle. The traffic increase would be significant, the distance from the city is exceptional and this is a poor site to choose. I am strongly against it! 10 I disagree with this site. I think it's too close to farm and community that at minimum would be impacted by smell. In addition trash typically attracts birds that could be a problem for farmers. 11 The site location in a rural scenic area at the start of two scenic drives on 97 and 10 seems inappropriate. It will destroy the character of the area. The concrete plant is a better site. It's already impacted and less visible. 12 If 97/Old Highway 10 site can be mitigated for flooding, I would suggest that the existing transfer station site be mitigated for flooding. Expand the the existing drop-off area by making it double sided with two entry ramps. Increase, to two sets of entry stations. I think the property could be reorganized in order to accommodate a more efficient site. Thanks 13 I like it! 14 Please keep the current transfer station for use and develop a new station out on 97. We cannot afford to build a total new facility. 15 Hello, It seems the potential retail development of the land which lies downwind of the 97/10 site may be impacted by sight, smell, and litter. I feel the cement plant site is better as it already services heavy commercial truck traffic which includes dust and noise. There would be minimal down wind impact by added activity of this kind at the cement plant site. Thank you for your service and the opportunity for my opinion. 16 I believe the 97/10 site and the cement plant site are equally excellent locations. They are far preferable to the Tjossem site due to traffic flow by avoiding the congested south interchange, the comparable productive farm land loss and the exposed view from I90. ResponseID Response 3 17 If there were any smell emanating from the Hwy 97 site (sites), wouldn't we get the prevailing winds straight into Ellensburg? Mot that the wind ever blows in Ellensburg. 18 Again, As a business owner near the hwy 97/10 site, I don't like it for many reasons; I don't think it fits in with potential retail shopping that may go in someday, also it will add to the truck congestion on the round about. I am concerned about odor from the site impacting current and potential retail businesses. I am also concerned about garbage blowing from vehicles who's loads are not properly secured for the 40-50 mph speed limits plus the spring time 40-50 mph head winds.(I'm not sure people secure their loads for 100 mph winds). Update the current facility and move the farming to Tjosem Road. Sincerely, Jeff Faltus 19 The site provides significant advantages over the cement site owing to access and site circulation proximate to Highway 10 and recirculation (traffic) back through the west interchange. The Flood Control Zone District is able to adjust existing floodplain issue through it floodplain development permit process. Proximity to I90 and the ease of mounting I90 via the newly constructed roundabout make the site attractive. The impact of displacing valuable crop land is also minimized with this site - providing an advantage over the TJossem site. 20 Of the three currently proposed sites this would be my second choose after the Cement Plant facility. This location is after the cement plant because it is closer to residential housing. The 100 year floodplain is clearly misplaced as it marks old irrigation ditches and is not even close to Reecer Creek. This floodplain issue should be resolvable. Compared to the Tjosseum location where the tentative layout has part of the facility over the top of a creek. 21 I would put the plant on either one of the US97 sites. They are right across the highway from each other. I would decide based on acquisition cost and development cost - or total cost of construction on either site. 22 Either this site or the "cement plant" site seem like better options than Tjossem. Much easier accessibility and they are located west of the city, which is where people are going to continue to expand (and have garbage to get rid of) 23 Concerned this will bring/funnel even more traffic to an already congested area, despite the new roundabout. 24 This seems the least desirable of the sites. We haven't exactly had great success in managing water and runoff in other projects in the same area. ResponseID Response 4 25 This appears to be the most desirable site and meets all the criteria. 26 When I think of wind and smells, I think if those are our only choices, it would be Tjossem Rd, downwind from Ellensburg with easy and quick access to the freeway. 27 Please keep the existing transfer station and build a similar one elsewhere. We do not have the funds to build a brand new whole transfer station! 28 Our vote is NO, NO, NO! Horrible site choice. For one thing it would be a huge eye sore to the community. Our vote would be for Bowers Field. Thank you for considering our opinion. Bruce & Judy Montgomery 29 The water table is shallow in this area. Just look at the cattails adjacent to this sight. Why build in areas prone to flooding or high water tables? The wind will blow garbage and the smell towards town. Why not consider a site east of Ellensburg where the land is more arid, less impact on landowners, and leave the areas close in (and on the way North on 97) with a clean and pleasant view. Consider the population density of this area v. the density further east. Regarding people having to drive a little further, "If you build it they will come." 30 Hello. I do have some concerns on the US 97/Old Highway 10 site. My name is Cristy "Cris" Ellingson-Jett and I own property a ways down and along US 97 myself. For seven years I also served as a planning commissioner in the City of Black Diamond, WA. Having reviewed the plans I have a few concerns I would like to see addressed. This location, besides the potential flooding impact which has been reviewed by your staff, has it appears, four separate routes of ingress and egress along US 97. Reducing that number to only one or two seems prudent if this site is seriously considered as it would be safer.. It is also close to the intersection of the two highways a well as close to the Iron Wayne/John Wayne trail. The "grinder" location should be sited elsewhere, further from US 97, both for noise asthetics as well as potential impact to motorists if the grinder is suddenly started up. Also what kind of lighting abatement is planned and what mitigation steps are considered to minimize light and glare offsite as well as minimize chances for debris to travel offsite due to strong winds often found in the area. The relocation to this site would significantly increase industrial noise levels in the area, which is currently relatively quiet and residential in nature. I would also like to suggested another site, that being along the roadway east of the truck repair and University Auto (the dealership address being 1817 North Sr 97.) The zoning and roadway at that point is industrial and four lanes, much better for placement of the transfer station. It is also easier to travel to with the interstate nearby, for the removal of the full containers to offsite destinations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Cris Ellingson, 120 Cross Creek Drive, Ellensburg, WA 98926 Ph: 509-925-9499 ResponseID Response 5 31 By looking at the map and the residential neighborhoods involved, I feel the Tjossem Rd site is a much better choice for a transfer station. I feel the US 97/Old Highway sites sits much closer to residental housing than needs to. I feel the Cement Plant site is a 2nd best choice before the Old 97 site for the same reasons. I would chose Old 97 site last. 32 I think the west interchange is the wrong place for the project. Our future in that location is more housing and retail businesses. Not compatible to have transfer station located there !! Makes no sense unless we want to kill growth out there. We can do better. Let's explore locations that make sense and have less impact on the surrounding neighbors. Dale Jurgens Ellensburg 33 Whatever site ultimately is approved, I strongly encourage adoption of procedures that will allow an expansion—not restriction—of materials accepted for recycling, including sufficient dumpsters for such items. This should include expanded acceptance of varieties of plastic, and of acceptance of flatboard (e.g., cereal boxes, not just corrugated cardboard). ResponseID Response 6 Kittitas County Transfer Station Public Feedback Summary September 13, 2017 – April 27, 2018 C.Spring 2018 feedback Report for Kittitas Feedback - April 2018 Completion Rate:100% Complete 52 Totals: 52 Response Counts 1 1.Please review the secondary criteria below and check the three criteria most important to you when selecting a new site. 2 Value Percent Responses Zoning (current zoning designation)8.1%3 Drive time from population center (maximizes ease of customer access) 24.3%9 Floodplain (minimizes potential for impact to floodplain)24.3%9 Current land use (current land use is most supportive of developing a transfer station) 27.0%10 Drive time access to interstate and landfill (minimize long-haul costs by locating site close to I-90 intersection) 16.2%6 Surface waters (Minimizes potential for impact to wetlands and related wildlife) 21.6%8 Depth to groundwater (shallow groundwater will impact development cost) 13.5%5 Endangered species (minimizes potential for impact to endangered species) 10.8%4 Cultural resources (historic properties/archeological resources; minimizes potential for impact to historic properties or archeological resources) 5.4%2 Proximity to existing/future residential neighborhoods (site not likely to result in impacts to persons living or working near the transfer station) 35.1%13 Traffic impacts (e.g. changes needed, traffic impact; truck route(s) to the transfer station appropriate for heavy trucks and not likely to affect existing persons or businesses) 64.9%24 Ownership of property (maximize ease of property acquisition)8.1%3 Acquisition and development cost (minimize costs required to acquire and prepare site for use) 27.0%10 3 ResponseID Response 4 To close to residential housing 5 i believe this is the perfect site for the new transfer station! 6 I believe this is a perfect site as it will give the farmers in badger pocket closer access to a disposal site and maybe they will stop burying household waste and unwanted items instead of recycling and donating to charity. 9 I live on Tjossem Rd.(24 yrs.,) so it would be very nice and convenient for me, however traffic has greatly increased in the last several years and we have a LOT of farm equipment on the road mixed in with hay trucks, people speeding, sometimes bicycles, or even animals and it has just become a very busy hazardous road in my opinion. The transfer station would just make it worse. I think it's too close to town as well. Not sure but wouldn't it eventually get surrounded by new houses? So although it's convenient I am totally against this site. 10 Expense of land prep. 11 Probably the best site - however, too close to current developments if future growth is considered. 12 Prime fertile farm land - large supplier of Timothy Hay. Protected wildlife - Audubon society, field stream Roads not designed to accommodate traffic and large trucks 13 Existing road system very inadequate. Also too far from I-90. 14 This site should absolutely not be used. The surrounding land use is mostly farm ground and the large pond is used extensively by waterfowl. The transfer site activity would eliminate most bird activity and the farms would unfortunately be the recipient of noise and blowing trash. 15 Access seems like a major limitation. Best if it can come past the truck stop and in from the north. Berry Rd. from south is densely populated off Canyon Rd. 17 3 2.What comments or concerns do you have regarding the Tjossem Road site? 4 18 Best site -> out of the floodplain, not too far from town 20 This site has several negative impacts: - Visibility from the freeway - Access/infrastructure - Impact of property value of proximate landowner - Removal of ag land - Wildlife habitat impact 22 I sure don't think the site should be visible from the freeway traffic 23 No, it's Mill Pond displacement on someone else. It's [illegible]. 24 Road access (according to KCTS) is from Berry Road. Tjossem Road would be 0.5 mile south from the site and would not be an access road. This site should be called Berry Road Site, as that is the area that will be negatively impacted. Tjossem Road site is inaccurate and misleading. 25 The eastern and south eastern boundaries of the site are formed by an Unnamed Stream that is a tributary to Lyle Creek. This stream flows year round and is fish bearing. Lyle Creek and Unnamed Stream come together south of the proposed facilities. • Although not shown, the new access road on the northern portion of the property would have to cross Lyle Creek, another fish bearing stream and a tributary to Wilson Creek. Years ago, a fish passage barrier was removed near the confluence of Lyle and Wilson to improve access to Lyle Creek. • Tjossem Pond, south of the site, is an important waterfowl stopover site. This location is well known for a diverse assemblage of birds throughout the year. Several species on the PHS list have been documented here. • There is probably a relatively low risk of surface water flooding this site, but the proximity to Wilson Creek, Bull Canal, Lyle Creek, and Unnamed Stream pose some risks of flooding to the facility. • The water table is likely high throughout the irrigation season, decreasing the efficiency of typical stormwater ponds and potentially increasing interactions with groundwater. The proximity to the canyon (natural constriction) may influence groundwater elevations. ResponseID Response 5 26 We live near the proposed "Tjossem Road" site. We don't want the transfer station to be at that site for lots of reasons. (We have sent very detailed letters previously.) One big problem with this site is that we put a deed restriction on that land when we sold it to Brunsons. The deed restriction says that there are to be no roads or buildings in that field West and South of Lyle Creek. This deed restriction means that you can't put in a road from Berry Road to the "Tjossem Road" site. I can provide you will maps and the legal documentation if you would like to look at it. In summary this is what the Deed Restriction says" Declarants hereby agree and covenant that Declarants and Declarants' heirs, successors and assignees shall not construct any new buildings or roads on that portion of the Property legally described above in Recital C, which is west and south of the centerline of Lyle Creek. Sincerely Pat Sorensen 1360 Berry Road sorensen@elltel.net 509-306-7300 28 Its to close to residential . 32 Harder to access because most traffic would have to go through Canyon Rd interchange with is a pain already. 34 Since it is the most expensive and also the closest to flood plain, I would think this is the last choice. 35 I think it's too far away 36 This site is currently in farm ground and very near homes. The other sites would have less impact to people living in the valley. This is a beautiful area that should not be used in this manner. Definitely against this site! 37 This is an important BIRD AREA here in Kittitas co. Sorensons Ponds are located here. Use as a transfer station would be bound To hAve anegatime impact on wildlife here.there are ponds here which attract a lot of birds. Esp Waterfowl. It is important birding area for locals, Audubon Society field trips and people from out of town who see the ponds listed on Audubon pamphlet about birding in Kittitas County. This is an inappropriate location for a transfer station. It would probably require a n environmental SEPA review by the state. Please choose another site. 38 Seems to involve the longest drive for just about everybody. That general area is all very low-lying. Seems that there's lots of potential for wastes to get into surface and ground waters. ResponseID Response 6 39 My main concern with this site is its aesthetic appearance from I-90. I believe it would be a eye sore in the middle of one of our counties agricultural areas. This area gives a good visual representation of the agricultural importance of Kittitas County to so many as they travel this section of the I-90 corridor. I also believe either of the other two sites would be better served by the existing higher capacity roads in close proximity to I-90. 40 Too far from most of town. There is only one route from town to the site and that is along Canyon Road which is at times very busy. This would be my lowest choice. It may also cost the most. I do not care for this site. 41 This site looks to me like it would much more suited to agricultural rather than a transfer station. It also appears to cost the most so I would list it as number 3 on list of solutions. 42 Last choice of the three. Should not be destroying more of our productive farmland. Next to a scenic byway. Nothing scenic about a transfer station. Streams and ponds close by. Impact on I-90 exit / entrance - would need improvements. 43 Tjossem Road site should not be used at all. The nearby Sorenson Pond would be adversely affected. Sorenson Pond is used by lots of birds and deserves to not be impacted by the noise and traffic. 44 Poor existing roads for traffic and there is a nearby community neighborhood. Looks like good farmland. Owner does not sound willing to sell. Worst of the 3 choices. 45 - Makes the least sense - not traffic friendly, too far away - We need to protect and keep our Timothy Hay crops! Owner is not willing to sell! 47 Trailer park next door. Area has a history of high water table during spring and irrigation season. 48 This is near a prime migratory birding pond. I do not believe this site should be considered as the noise and traffic will have a negative impact on the wildlife. ResponseID Response 7 49 As owners of the land adjoining this proposed dumpsite and access road, we understandably are very opposed to this location. We just built a new house in 2017. This dumpsite would be 450 feet east of our new home. A dump next door would DESTROY the value of our home and property. We also agree with the many valid objections given in the other responses and feel they bear repeating: 1. good agricultural ground would be taken out of production 2. Berry Road is residential in nature and not set up for large trucks, heavy traffic, and resulting wear and tear 3. Berry Road is narrow without shoulders and has limited turning access at Tjossem Road due to a small bridge 4. no close existing access to utilities 5. added "nightmare" congestion along the main access from Canyon Road/Main Street 6. furthest distance (of the 3 proposed sites) from population center 7. two fish-bearing streams (Lyle and Wilson Creeks), Bull Canal and pond drainage from the north would be adversely effected 8. high ground water which increases dramatically during irrigation season 9. this site is zoned Commercial Ag, not Light Industrial 10. disgusting, unsightly view for I-90 travelers as a "Welcome to Ellensburg" 11. destruction of existing beautiful views for the MANY of us that have been here 40 years or more 12. uncontrolled stench 13. blowing trash and litter 14. too close to Millpond Manor Mobile Home Park 15. deed restriction in existence on adjoining land that doesn't allow buildings or roads 16. Berry Road would no longer be safe for those now using it for walking and bicycling 17. contamination to area wells, creeks and underground water supply What about the Growth Management Act? This proposed dumpsite would be built on prime irrigated farmland. Is the GMA not intended to protect prime agricultural land? The current GMA brochure states "growth management protects valuable farmland from the pressure to develop." You know, no one makes new farmland… 50 Like this site. 51 This is the only site that would remove the rural character of the county. It is actively in crop production and surrounded by other crops. This would also be one of the first things people see coming into Ellensburg from I-82. Please keep this farmland, our countys fertile ground is already trying to be developed with solar and wind projects. 52 This site is in an area that I would like to see strictly farming, not "industrial." 53 This site seems to be better suited to agricultural/residential use and there aren't currently any industrial sites in the area. ResponseID Response 8 ResponseID Response 3 Dear County Commissioners, November 9, 201 We are owners of the home to the south, adjacent to the proposed "Tjossem Road" site for relocation the garbage transfer station. We are very opposed to the transfer station being at that location for the following reasons. 1.There is a deed restriction on much of that land that doesn't allow buildings or roads to be built on it. This deed restriction was put on when we sold this land to the Brunson's because we didn't want our view blocked and didn't want roads on the property. 2. Brunson's recently bought this land, to farm, they shouldn't be forced to sell it. The field that is being considered, is prime farm land, with senior water rights. This is expensive land that has had a lot of money put into it for irrigation improvements (leveling and Linears) If the Transfer Station was to get located anywhere in the field, much of the irrigation system would have to be redesigned. If the County were to pay Brunsons, the land owners, what it is worth it would be very expensive. 3. Even though the facility would be housed indoors, litter would be a problem. It would be impossible for all of the litter to be maintained. Litter would be a problem at the site, as well as on the access to the site. The field that would surround the proposed transfer station would be export quality hay. This hay is high quality hay that goes to foreign countries that have very high standards. The possibility of plastic or other garbage getting into the bales of hay would be cause for the hay to be rejected by foreign buyers 4. It has Bull Ditch on the north side of the proposed land site. It has water drain from a pond on the north side of the freeway that drains through the site. The drain is piped under I-90 and under Bull Ditch and along the eastern side of the site. 5. The roads in this area are county roads that weren't built for high traffic. They don't have have shoulders. There have been several accidents on Berry Road in the recent years. More traffic would probably lead to more accidents. 6. Until recently our family owned most of the farm fields along Berry Road. About 30 years ago members of the Field and Stream Club furnished and installed signs that read "Game Preserve- No Hunting or Trespassing" on all of our farm land. They did this because they noticed an abundance of wildlife in our fields and they wanted a place where the birds could rest when they are migrating. A transfer station in this area would undoubtedly interfere with bird migration and wild life. 7. Within a half mile of the proposed site is our pond, which is labeled on many maps as "Tjossem Pond". This pond is a hotspot for observing birds. Over 30% of all the species of birds that have ever been observed in Kittitas County, have been observed on our pond. www.ebird.com is a website that lists and shows pictures of many of the birds that are observed at this pond. Go to "Explore data" then go to "Explore Hotspots". 8. There is an osprey nest on Berry Road near the proposed "Tjossem Road" Land fill site.Osprey are protected under both federal and state wildlife laws. The osprey is a migratory bird protected by the Migratory 3.What comments or concerns do you have regarding the Cement plant site? 9 the Transfer Station. We have owned the area surrounding our house for over 40 years. It was with much hesitation that we sold some of the land. We did, however, put restrictions on the buyer that there is to be no buildings or roads because we value the view that we have. It doesn't seem reasonable that we could have to look at the Transfer Station right next door. When the Waste Management truck, picks up our garbage, several pieces of garbage often fly out of the truck as he drives down the road. If that is any indication of how much garbage would be flying around with multiple Waste Management trucks, as well as people bringing their own garbage to the transfer station, littler would be a huge problem. Because there isn't much traffic on Berry Road, it has become a popular place for walkers and bicycles. It would become dangerous if there was a lot of traffic. 10. We feel that we should have been personally been told that this site, right next to our house, was one the the three final choices for the Transfer Station. We only knew about it because on September 20th there was a "Letter to the Editor" in the newspaper that caught our attention. Sincerely, Morris and Patricia Sorensen 1360 Berry Road 509-925-9436 CC Kittitas County Field and Stream essman@fairpoint.net CC Kittitas Audubon Society P.O. Box 1443 Ellensburg, WA 9892 kittitasaudubon@hotmail.com 5 this is located too far from the population center. 9 No opinion 10 Seems most appropriate to build transfer station. Not sure how traffic would be effected with other businesses and truckers on 97. 11 Probably the best site - has adequate roads. 13 Probably the next best site - However, too close to current developments if future growth is considered. 14 Our preferred site. This site seems most suitable for the activity. It affects the least amount of residential homes, is next to a noisy major highway, and is somewhat shielded from view. 15 Looks good. Same comments as US 97/Old HWY 10 site. 17 1 18 Out of floodplain is best 20 Of the three sites, this seems to be the best. It doesn't seem to impact nearby property owners adversely and is proximate to infrastructure. 21 Most logical spot that would be my 1st choice Bird T reaty Act 9. We have pers onal reas ons for not wanting to live next do or to 10 22 Good choice 23 Has my vote. This if I understand it is between I-90 97. It has right turn access from Rt 10 Faust intersection. Good for [illegible] Less new environmental impact Already industrial 25 Mapped wetlands appear on the site. Many are likely artificially constructed, but may be providing habitat and water quality functions that should be mitigated for. • Mill Ditch runs along the western and southern portions of this property. It is an irrigation ditch that is screened. • This property was historically part of the Yakima River floodplain/channel migration zone; now separated by I-90. It is highly likely this property is in hyporheic exchange with the Yakima River. This likely results in a relatively high water table throughout most of the year (as evidenced by the water surface elevation in the surrounding ponds). Protecting water quality will be of the upmost importance. • Overland flooding may be limited due to I-90 and the Dry Creek levee, but ground water flooding seems likely to occur during high flow events. 28 I feel this would be a good place for it . It is away from homes and businesses. 34 This would be my first choice since it has been utilized by a cement company-- which has probably made the land less desirable for other things and its a good location. 35 Think this is a viable option, not around homes but fairly accessible to others and a short drive 36 This seems a good site and in an area with less homes near it. 37 Not familiar with it. 38 Looks like a good site, with easy access for most people. I see little difference between Cement plant and US97/Old Highway 10 sites. 39 I prefer either the Highway 10 or Cement plant over the Tjossem site primarily for access. 40 This is perhaps the best site to avoid water problems. It's location provides for multiple routes for access from most of the lower county over roads that at this time are not particularly crowded with traffic. A good site. Number 1 on my list.. Possibly the lowest cost. ResponseID Response 11 41 My concern here would be staying out of the floodplain so as not to have problems we have with the current site. But, I would tend to vote this as the preferred site. 42 Best location of the three. Close to I-90. Hwy 97 and Hwy 10. Would improve on an already eyesore. Not destroying productive farmland. 44 2nd best choice but closet to I-90 and poor aesthetics for travelers 45 2nd choice - please keep Ellensburg beautiful for our travelers along I-90! 47 Too near the river. Anyone remember the old dump? It was located at the KOA campground and immediately up-river from the current bridge. 50 Traffic impacts, location near future development. 51 Seems to be the best option. Already been developed. No floodplans, Close to I- 90 and won't impact traffic as much as the US97/Old 10 would. 52 My only concern re: this site and the US 97/Old Highway 10 site is that you either have to go through town to get there or go through the Roundabout at the West Interchange. The potential for increased "litter" along either of these routes is great. 53 This seems to fit the area well. Already industrial development in the area, close to freeway, and not likely to ever become a residential area. ResponseID Response 12 ResponseID Response 5 too far away. 7 I think this is the best site. 9 No opinion 10 Extra expenses for water flow. If it weren't for the water situation, would pick this sight as #1. 11 Existing road system very inadequate. Also, too far from I-90/ 13 Probably the best site - has adequate roads. 14 There are more residential homes affected by this site and is further from the noisy I-90. Second choice. 15 Good location. This surrounding area is already used for industrial purposes. 17 2 18 No go! Stay out of flood plain 22 Good choice 23 Eh. One less field....poor birds... Unless your thinking of adding a rail spur, good luck with BNSF and hauling stuff to Yakima. 4.What comments or concerns do you have regarding the US97/Old Highway 10 site? 13 25 Mapped wetlands appear at the southern extent of the property. These may (or may not) be associated with the irrigation ditch that delivers water through the property. Although they are likely low habitat value currently, any wetland losses should be fully mitigated. (There may be opportunities for mitigation at the northern extent of the property.) • The floodplain areas identified by FEMA on this site represent current irrigation ditch alignment. These ditches can and do convey floodwaters associated with Reecer Creek (and sometimes Dry Creek). • Reecer Creek flows east of the property. It is a fish bearing stream that has benefited from multiple publicly funded projects to restore fish habitat. ESA listed steelhead are present in Reecer Creek as well as coho and chinook salmon. • During the irrigation season, there is probably a relatively high water table at this location as well due to its proximity to Reecer Creek and the delivery ditches supplying water to this property and nearby parcels. 28 Not familier with this site. 29 Additional traffic / road damage/noise/. Can be seen from freeway " Take the first freeway exist after the transfer station...". Close to sensitive environmental areas e.g. ground water, river, water runoff. Or how about this " my house in the development just east of the dump. And when the wind blows just right, you can really smell the mountain air! " 32 Negative visual impact and smell when coming into town. 34 This would be my second choice. 35 think this is the second most viable choice 36 It would be my second choice. 37 Not familiar with it.n 38 Looks like a good site, with easy access for most people. I see little difference between Cement plant and US97/Old Highway 10 sites. 39 I prefer either the Highway 10 or Cement plant over the Tjossem site primarily for access. 40 This site also provides for multiple routes for access from most of the lower county over roads that at this time are not particularly crowded with traffic. A good site. Because of a steam proximity, flood control may cost a bit more than the Cement Plant Site. A good site Number 2 on my list. ResponseID Response 14 41 I have the same concern as the Cement plant site, but it seems the Cement plant site would be better. I could rate this a toss up to the Cement plant site. I would get down to costs between these last two sites and pick the cheapest, everything else being equal. 42 Second choice, but would not be something you want visitors to see when coming into Ellensburg on US97. 44 Seems the best of these 3 - has 2 highway access for traffic 45 Best choice in terms of traffic patterns 47 Best site from ground water stand point. 50 Traffic impacts, location near future development. 51 Decent option but the flood plans are a concern with how expensive it will be to build and I think it will cause traffic issues, Hwy 10 is well used at all times. 52 I prefer this site, mainly because I could understand the "map" better. It seems more logical. ResponseID Response 15 ResponseID Response 2 I understand one owner has indicated they are not interested in selling. I would eliminate that one. 5 none, thankyou. 8 Thanks for the website/presentation. I have not been attending any of the meetings, so this was especially informative. The Cement plant site is my favorite. 9 FYI someone who works on Umtanum Rd. near the sheriff's office says the smell from the current transfer station can pretty bad on hot summer days. 10 Property taxes may not rise, but I'm sure fees for garbage, etc will rise. They always get you one way or another. We the people will be paying for it. 13 Kittitas County has been woefully inept at planning for future growth, especially considering infrastructure. Need adequate traffic system considering the project. Slow down overall growth until infrastructure plans are developed and presented to the public. 14 The present site is best if it can be updated for service. 15 Double the liner thickness and double seal the seams. 17 Thank you for the presentation. Your staff answered all my questions. 18 Don't be too close to the river (Yakima) or floodplain. Add recycling!! More bins. Make it easy to recycle. Protect wildlife! Preserve water quality 19 Stay at current site and improve layout and flooding plan. 20 they need to consider sites that have the fewest negative impacts on existing proximate landowners. You can call it a transfer station, but it's the "dump." As a landowner of two properties "down-flow" from the Tjossem site, I have concerns for the contamination of my well water and other homes "down-flow" form the Tjossem site. 5.Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share? 16 23 If I understand: the cement plant has potential for a bike bridge across I-90 to S. Thorp HWY and Hanson Road. Actually, the woman who suggested redesigning what we have works. the long haul trucks and public can be coordinated. there's city buildings nearby. That's your property potential. Let us have full access - a few days to look around. You never know... 24 Why can't we recycle paper? It is a very common recyclable especially among university staff and students. 25 We were not able to attend the public meeting last night, but wanted to provide a few comments on each of the sites for your consideration as you move toward final site selection. We strongly encourage you to work with Public Works as new floodplain maps are currently being developed that may influence site plans and/or site selection for each area. Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments about what we've provided below. Thanks for your consideration and we look forward to working with you on this important project. 27 I live in Briarwood next to BiMart. The current location badly pollutes this area in the early morning hours when they burn. The affected people include those in the hospital, 3 assisted living facilities, the Rehab Center, and all residents east of the Transfer Station's facility. Living downwind of this facility is a nightmare. Ellensburg also tolerates burning outdoors and wood fireplaces in the winter that add to the polluted air the elderly must breathe in the winter. This area is a lowest elevation in Ellensburg and suffers from poor air quality year around because of refuse and wood burning. Please move transfer station Northeast of the town. Thank you. Barbara Gordon (Soil Scientist, USDA, retired) 29 Could the existing transfer station be retrofitted to mitigate the flood risk? That would give the county time to implement reduce / recycle solid waste transfer programs without the delta cost of a completely new facility. The cheapest option is always reduce the volume vs. build more. 30 The potential sites: The Cement Plant The Tjossem Road The US 97 Old HWY 10 All bad locations, the potential sites are too far from town. Keep the transfer station where it is at. 31 -Very opposed to moving -Current location is very convenient, ideal -Your flooding isn't that much of a problem, cheaper to build a dike -Moving further away will mean heavy equipment driving on country roads ResponseID Response 17 32 Why isn't the postcard sent out about this on recycled paper? When will this County catch up in terms of more types of recycling? When we will be able to get chips made from construction project ends, milled lumber. 33 Make a new upper county transfer station instead 34 Looks like you have considered all my concerns in your evaluations. It would be nice if you could increase the items you accept in the recycle bins to include more plastics or mixed paper. I do appreciate your recycle programs--including the shredding and battery recycle. 35 Thanks for getting community imput 40 I believe that a major consideration for the site location and layout should be to facilitate the publics use of the site for recycling, yard waste disposal (which is not collected by Waste Management) and the disposal of other waste by those of us (such as myself) who use the transfer station instead paying a premium for a waste pickup service. For us the ease of access is the principle thing desired un the site. And we do pay the tab. Please keep the public posted via the newspaper. Thank you. 41 I would really let the engineers decide between the Cement Plant site and the US97/Old Highway 10 site. By that, I mean choose the site that is the most cost effective, both in building and long term maintenance. I do not think protecting endangered species is really relevant for such a small site. 42 Ellensburg is known for it's farming (hay), cattle and now orchards. We need to stop destroying productive land. There is nothing wrong with the transfer station now and must better uses for the large amount of money that would be spent. 44 Property owner is willing to sell rather than forced SE downwind residential areas not affected by odors 45 Respect landowners livelihood! Respect the property owners and don't force them to sell. Protect family farms, neighbors, and water quality. Downwind property owners need to be considered as well. 50 East of Kittitas ResponseID Response 18 52 We use the transfer station A LOT. The personnel are absolutely A and so helpful. We are amazed, though at the things that end up in solid waste that could have been recycled. I don't have an answer to that problem. Education, I guess. 53 Could reopening the old landfill site at Ryegrass be reconsidered to reduce transport costs? ResponseID Response 19