Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWorkshop 5 Handout 30 | P a g e Solid Waste Facility Replacement Planning Project HANDOUT # 3 for Workshop # 5 INCLUDES: A. POTENTIAL SITES B. SITES SCREENING CRITERIA Prepared By 23309 100th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98020- 5075 Telephone: (206) 629 – 5935 Email: info@vikek.com Document Issue Date: July 21, 2023 Workshop #5 Date: July 28,2023 0 | P a g e 1.0 Overview This document is used to support SWFTF members’ preparation for workshop #5 and facilitate collaboration for an efficient engagement. JC0726-2022-069-Vikek Potential Sites and Screening Process 2 2.0 Potential Site Identification, Broad Area, and Focused Screening A generalized view of the site screening process is illustrated in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. This 5- step process will include the following detailed evaluations guided by requirements described in State and County policies, and by County staff and Consultant experience. JC0726-2022-069-Vikek Potential Sites and Screening Process 3 STEP 1 - Site Screening Criteria and Process Definition This step involves the development of Site Selection Screening Criteria and a process that will be used for ranking the individual properties. Specific actions related to this step are; 1. Review of the following policy documents; ➢ An analysis of the proposal’s consistency with Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Policies CF-7.7 and CF-P-9, and goals ➢ A review of Jefferson County Resolution 112-94 ➢ A review Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan, Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions (WDOE 99-502) ➢ A review of the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C) ➢ A review of the Washington State Solid Waste Management Reduction and Recycling Act (RCW 70.95) ➢ A review of Solid Waste Handling Standards (WAC 173-350) ➢ An analysis of Jefferson County Code 18.15.1 ➢ 10; Siting of essential public facilities- Special Use Permit 2. Inventory of similar existing essential public facilities in Jefferson County, including their locations and capacities; 3. Forecast the future needs for the essential public facility; and 4. Consider any applicable prior review conducted by a public agency, local government, or citizen’s group (the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. ❖ DRAFT Siting Criteria After review and understanding of the policy framework for Siting, the site screening criteria are developed in collaboration with the County. All criteria will be updated where needed, after feedback is received from the Task Force and community. The three types of criteria developed to evaluate the suitability of prospective sites are: 1. Pass/Fail Criteria 2. Functional Criteria 3. Community Criteria A detailed explanation of these criteria follows. JC0726-2022-069-Vikek Potential Sites and Screening Process 4 Pass/Fail or Exclusionary Criteria Pass/fail criteria, also called exclusionary criteria, consider a variety of regulatory and practical requirements as outlined above, for example, the site must be located outside the floodplain. The pass/fail criteria listed in Table 1 were developed using the related policy information sources. Exclusionary criteria are those characteristics that disqualify prospective sites from further consideration in the siting study. The criteria are narrow, specific but broad. Sites not meeting one or more of the pass/fail criteria will be eliminated from further consideration. Table 1 - Pass / Fail or Exclusionary Criteria Pass/Fail Criteria ( Exclusionary Criteria) ID Criteria Description1 E1.1 Site Location Site is east of the north/south axis of the current facility Site is North of or immediately South of Highway 104 E1.2 Proximity to Urban Growth Area (UGA) Site is within the contiguous Urban Growth Area (i.e. Site is within an area that is adjacent to, or neighboring to the UGA) E1.3 Zoning Site is zoned industrial (or equivalent) or (allowed with administrative action) E1.4 Size is a minimum 20 acres (not necessarily a single parcel) E1.5 No Shoreland Impacts Site is located outside of a FEMA defined 100-year flood plain and Shoreline Zones E1.6 Socio-historical designations The site is free of historical, archaeological, or cultural designations. E1.7 Comparable Land use Site is located at least 1,000 feet from a sensitive receptor land use (i.e. residential, school, State or National parks, other recreational land, airport, nursing home, or hospital) E1.8 Preserved Land Site is not designated as farmland preservation, park, or open space. E1.9 Wetlands Site contains less than 20% of its area in wetlands or other water bodies E1.10 Geological Setting Site contains less than 20% critical area-defined steep slope, landslide hazard, mine shafts or sinkholes E1.10 Road Accessibility Site is within approximately ½-mile of a major arterial or freeway/state highway Note: 1. Italicized items are mandatory criteria defined by Jefferson County’s SWD JC0726-2022-069-Vikek Potential Sites and Screening Process 5 Functional Criteria The project team has developed functional criteria (Table 2) to evaluate the site’s suitability for development as a SW transfer and recycling facility based on optimal engineering, operating, and transportation conditions. It is unlikely any one site will meet all functional criteria – there is no perfect site. Rather, each criterion’s relative importance must be considered in order to identify the best site. Table 2 - Functional Criteria ID Criteria Description FN1.1 Geotechnical Setting Site does not contain soils that are prone to liquefaction. FN1.2 Road Accessibility Site is within approximately ½-mile of a major arterial or freeway/state highway. Development of access to the site is feasible based on existing roadway or easements. FN1.3 Location-Trip Distance Site maintains an equitable distribution of County Solid Waste facilities FN1.4 Roadway Capacity Roadways near the site have the capacity to handle increased truck traffic; quality and nature of the access route is compatible. FN1.5 Site Acquisition Existing owner is willing to sell the property. FN1.6 Impact Equity Site provides equitable distribution of environmental impacts so that no racial, cultural, or socioeconomic group is unduly impacted. FN1.7 Geotechnical/Topography Site topography and site soils can be efficiently graded to support Transfer Station layout and operations. FN1.8 Operational Functionality Shape of site is conducive to the typical layout of a transfer station. FN1.9 Hydrogeology Water table beneath the site is conducive to the use (i.e., deeper as opposed to shallow FN1.10 Utilities Availability A full suite of utilities ( water, sanitary, cable , and power) can be efficiently developed at the site. FN1.11 Operations Area Active area would be approximately 100 feet or more from the nearest JC0726-2022-069-Vikek Potential Sites and Screening Process 6 ID Criteria Description Proximity to Homes residence. FN1.12 Critical Wildlife Habitat Site can be developed without impact to identified critical wildlife habitat. FN1.13 Critical Areas Site does not contain previously un-identified critical areas that could restrict site development FN1.14 Traffic Impact on Operations Potential traffic impacts of facility operation to roadways and intersection level of service can be minimized and/or efficiently mitigated. FN1.15 Business Impact Tenant or business relocation is not needed. Lost opportunity cost in minimal. FN1.16 Economic Development Impact Site is not a key component of a County’s or community’s economic development plan(s). FN1.17 Cost Site cost is within budget. FN1.18 Hauler Equity Potential impacts to commercial haulers in terms of traveled miles , hauling time , and Greenhouse Gas emissions is minimal or can be cost -effectively mitigated Community Criteria The SWFTF was formed to advise Jefferson County’s SWD and the Outside Consultant Team during the SWF planning process. The community criteria presented in Table 3 are based on requirements3 provided by the task force and the general community for the evaluation of potential sites against community concerns, impacts, and values. Table 3 - Community Criteria1,2,3 ID Criteria C1 Site provides equitable distribution of environmental impacts so that no racial, cultural, or socio-economic groups are unduly impacted. C2 Air quality impacts (Dust, debris, odors) from the planned facility will have minimal adverse impacts. C3 The site is located so that no single community has to absorb an inequitable share of essential public facilities and their impacts. Siting considers equity, environmental justice and environmental, economic, technical and service area factors. JC0726-2022-069-Vikek Potential Sites and Screening Process 7 Note: 1. Based on SWFTF requirements described in the ”Stakeholder Needs Assessment Memorandum , and adopted Integrated Project Team Charter 2. Based on Feedback received from Public Surveys 3. All criteria will be updated at the completion of the related Community Input process for this Milestone STEP 2 – Potential Sites Identification Coordinate with the County’s GIS group and develop maps that are then used to identify potential sites that meet the general site requirement for a public facility as informed by the underlying policies. STEP 3 – Broad Area Site Screening Collaborate with the County Public Work’s staff and using input from the community survey, review potential sites and apply the Exclusionary Site Criteria to screen down to a smaller number of sites (less than 10) for more detailed evaluation. STEP 4 – Focused Sites Screening Based on feedback received from Step 3 from the community and SWFTF, collaborate with SWFTF to review the initial short-listed potential sites, apply technical and community -specific criteria, and further evaluate the short-listed sites by providing for each site the short - listed facility design layouts, traffic patterns, potential impacts on surrounding areas, and basic feasibility studies on environmental and operational issues, including geological investigation of the sites, as necessary. Based on the Focused Site Screening activity and information gathered from the virtual site tour, the sites will be ranked again to produce the Site Alternative List, which will include at most three potential site alternatives. STEP 5 – Comparative Site Analysis Once these first 4 steps are completed , the short-listed two to three sites and facility design alternatives are integrated, and assessed on a comparative basis to develop solid waste facility alternatives(site + design alternative). Collaborate with the SWFTF and using input from community survey , apply adapted solid waste facility alternatives comparative assessment criteria to determine the most desirable Solid Waste Facility Alternative, i.e., the preferred Solid Waste Facility Alternative , which is then moved forward to the financing assessment step. FUTURE STEP JC0726-2022-069-Vikek Potential Sites and Screening Process 8 Finally, a preferred SWF Alternative and financing plan is recommended by the County to the Board of County commissioners (BoCC).