DOCSLIB.ORG

City of Seattle Solid Waste Intermodal Transfer Facility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City of Seattle Solid Waste Intermodal Transfer Facility FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT City of Seattle Solid Waste Intermodal Transfer Facility (photograph) Seattle Public Utilities August 5, 2005 Note: Some pages in this document have been purposefully skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Nature and Location of Proposed Action Seattle Public Utilities proposes to construct a new solid waste intermodal (truck to rail) transfer facility on one of four alternative sites, all of which are located within the city limits of Seattle, Washington, south of downtown Seattle. The four alternative sites are the following: Alternative 2 (Harbor Island Terminal 10 site). This site, located on the southwest side of Harbor Island, west of 16th Avenue SW, would support a city-only intermodal transfer facility. Alternative 3 (Harbor Island Terminal 10/Pendleton site). This site, located on the southwest side of Harbor Island, west of 16th Avenue SW, would support a combined city-county (King County) or a city-only intermodal transfer facility. Alternative 4 (Corgiat Drive site). This site, located between South Corgiat Drive and Airport Way South, southeast of South Albro Place and southwest of Interstate 5, would support a city-only intermodal transfer facility. Alternative 5 (Edmunds Street site). This site, located in the southwest quadrant of the South Edmunds Street/Airport Way South intersection and west of Interstate 5, would support a city-only intermodal transfer facility. The principal features of the proposed intermodal transfer facility would be the following: A main transfer building, 50 to 60 feet in height above grade, where waste is delivered, compacted if necessary, and loaded into containers An exterior container storage area Rail siding tracks with adjacent cranes and other equipment for loading containers onto railway cars An employee/office building with adjoining parking Access driveways with entrance and exit scale facilities A small fueling station. Construction of the new intermodal transfer facility would take approximately 16 to 22 months. This environmental impact statement (EIS) also addresses the no-action alternative, designated as Alternative 1. i Fact Sheet This EIS supplements the August 1998 EIS that evaluated the impacts of Seattle’s 1998 solid waste management plan (On the Path to Sustainability) and the July 1990 EIS (Seattle Waste Transport and Disposal Project Final Environmental Impact Statement). Proponent Seattle Public Utilities Lead Agency Seattle Public Utilities Date of Implementation Fall 2005 Responsible Official Chuck Clarke Director Seattle Public Utilities Seattle Municipal Tower 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 P.O. Box 34018 Seattle, Washington 98124-4018 Contact Person Henry Friedman Solid Waste Facilities Planning Manager Seattle Public Utilities Seattle Municipal Tower 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 P.O. Box 34018 Seattle, Washington 98124-4018 (206) 733-9147 [email protected] ii Fact Sheet Required Permits and Approvals City of Seattle Shoreline substantial development permit (Alternatives 2 and 3 only) Building and grading permit Demolition permit. Public Health – Seattle & King County Solid waste permit. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Air permit. Washington State Department of Ecology Industrial Stormwater General Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System construction permit. Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1). EIS Authors Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Primary author Land and shoreline use Aesthetics and visual quality Plants and animals Earth Water Hazardous materials Public services and utilities. Heffron Transportation, Inc. Transportation. Environalysis, LLC Air quality and odor Noise. iii Fact Sheet Issue Date of the Draft EIS February 17, 2005 Due Date for Comments on the Draft EIS Comments on the draft supplemental EIS were due no later than the close of business on March 21, 2005. Public Meeting Public meetings to receive oral comments on the draft supplemental EIS were held at the following times and locations: March 1 at 6:30 p.m.: Hamilton Middle School, 1610 North 41st Street, Seattle, Washington March 2 at 6:30 p.m.: Concord Elementary, 723 South Concord Street, Seattle, Washington March 3 at 6:30 p.m.: West Seattle High School, 3000 California Avenue SW, Seattle, Washington. Issue Date of the Final EIS August 5, 2005 Date of Final Action Summer/fall 2005 Availability of the Final EIS The final supplemental EIS is available at the following branches of the Seattle Public Library: Central – 1000 Fourth Avenue th Ballard – 5711 24 Avenue NW Beacon Hill – 2821 Beacon Avenue S. Columbia – 4721 Rainier Avenue S. iv Fact Sheet Delridge – 5423 Delridge Way SW Fremont – 731 N. 35th Street Wallingford – 1501 North 45th Street West Seattle – 2306 42nd Avenue SW. It is also available at the following neighborhood service centers: Delridge – 5405 Delridge Way SW Fremont – 908 North 34th Street Greater Duwamish – 2821 Beacon Avenue South West Seattle – 4205 SW Alaska Street. The final supplemental EIS can be reviewed on the project website at <http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU>. Copies on CD (in Adobe Acrobat format) of the final supplemental EIS may be obtained without cost by contacting: Barbara Orr Seattle Public Utilities Seattle Municipal Tower P.O. Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 (206) 386-4567 v Contents Fact Sheet......................................................................................................................................... i Abbreviations............................................................................................................................... xix Part 1: Summary Objectives of the Proposal ........................................................................................................... 1-1 Description of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ................................................................. 1-3 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................... 1-7 Transportation....................................................................................................................... 1-7 Noise..................................................................................................................................... 1-8 Air Quality and Odor............................................................................................................ 1-8 Land and Shoreline Use........................................................................................................ 1-9 Aesthetics and Visual Quality ............................................................................................ 1-10 Plants and Animals ............................................................................................................. 1-11 Earth.................................................................................................................................... 1-11 Water................................................................................................................................... 1-12 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................... 1-12 Public Services and Utilities............................................................................................... 1-13 Major Conclusions, Areas of Controversy, and Issues to Be Resolved..................................... 1-15 Part 2: Proposed Project and Alternatives Background.................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Seattle’s Past Solid Waste Planning ..................................................................................... 2-1 Need for the Proposed Project .............................................................................................. 2-2 Objectives of the Proposal ........................................................................................................... 2-5 Description of the Proposed Project ............................................................................................ 2-7 Alternative Intermodal Sites................................................................................................. 2-7 Construction Period .............................................................................................................. 2-9 Implementation Schedule ................................................................................................... 2-10 Property Search for Alternative Intermodal Sites...................................................................... 2-11 Description of Alternatives for the Proposed Project ................................................................ 2-13 Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................................................... 2-13 Alternative 2 (Harbor Island Terminal 10)......................................................................... 2-13 Alternative 3 (Harbor Island Terminal 10/Pendleton)........................................................ 2-13 vii Alternative 4 (Corgiat Drive).............................................................................................. 2-19 Alternative 5 (Edmunds Street) .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical
    METRORAILICOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 & TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT Technical Memorandum Number 3 Prepared for Prepared by IIStB Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 METRORAIUCOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 Prepared for Prepared by BS'R Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY DESCRiPTION ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 TRANSIT MODES DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 4 3.1 ENHANCED BUS SERViCES ................................................................... 4 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT .............................................................................. 5 3.3 TROLLEY BUS SERVICES ...................................................................... 6 3.4 SUSPENDED/CABLEWAY TRANSIT ...................................................... 7 3.5 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSiT ....................................................... 7 3.6 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT .............................................................................. 8 3.7 HEAVY RAIL ............................................................................................. 8 3.8 MONORAIL
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Monorail Project the New Plan
    Seattle Monorail Project The New Plan Overview of the Monorail Ballot Measures In September 2005, the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (Seattle Monorail Project or SMP) Board of Directors approved placing two ballot measures before the voters this November. The first measure (Proposition 1) would modify the 2002 Seattle Popular Monorail Plan, authorizing an initial monorail phase of 10 miles and 12 stations. Phasing would save over $330 million from the original plan, resulting in an estimated project cost of $1.7 billion. The second measure (Proposition 2) would provide for a majority of the Board to be elected rather than appointed. These materials have been prepared to inform the general public about factual issues relevant to these propositions. They are not intended to influence voters to support or oppose either measure. Proposition 1 - Phased Construction Proposition 1 asks voters for authorization to construct an initial 10-mile, 12-station monorail line. If approved by the voters, SMP will initially construct a rapid transit system that links Dravus Station (Interbay) and Alaska Junction Station (West Seattle) to Downtown. With connections to light rail, streetcar and buses, the initial line will serve an expected 42,200 riders per day at start-up in 2010 and 57,000 riders per day in 2030. Stations will serve major activity centers and Downtown, with trains departing every six minutes during the commute hours from all stations. The remainder of the 14-mile Green Line will be completed if the City approves construction permits following review of SMP’s Finance Plan. Project costs have been reduced by over $330 million to an estimated $1.7 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Scoping Summary Report
    Early Scoping Summary Report April 2018 West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Summary Purpose Sound Transit conducted early scoping for the West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions (WSBLE) Project in Seattle, Washington, from February 2 through March 5, 2018. The early scoping started the public planning and environmental processes for the project. This report describes how Sound Transit conducted early scoping and summarizes the comments received from local and regulatory agencies, tribes, and the public during the early scoping period. This information will be considered by Sound Transit as it identifies and studies alternatives for the WSBLE Project. The Early Scoping Process Sound Transit published an early scoping notice in the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) register on February 2, 2018, which initiated early scoping and started the 30-day comment period. Additional public notification was provided with mailed postcards, print and online advertisements, and social media notices. Three public open houses and an agency meeting were held during this comment period, as well as an online open house from February 12 to March 5, 2018. Sound Transit requested comments on the purpose and need, the Representative Project, other potential alternatives, and potential community benefits and impacts. Comments were accepted by mail, email, online comment forms, and on comment boards and maps at the open houses (both in person and online). Agency Early Scoping Thirty-four federal, state, regional, and local agencies received
    [Show full text]
  • Considering Monorail Rapid Transit for North American Cities
    Considering Monorail Rapid Transit for North American Cities Ryan R. Kennedy Table of Contents INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................2 PART ONE—Defining Monorail..................................................................................3 A. Monorail Types…3 B. Characteristics of Monorail Technology...7 Conclusion...11 PART TWO—Straddle Monorail Systems and Technology.................................12 A. Aerial Structures...13 B. Straddle Monorail Vehicles...18 C. Straddle Monorail Implementation...25 Conclusion...27 PART THREE—Monorail as Cost-effective Urban Transportation.....................28 A. Monorail Capital Costs...29 B. Comparing Conventional Rail Systems to Monorail...33 Conclusion...40 GENERAL CONCLUSION..........................................................................................42 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................43 Cover Picture: Seattle Alweg Monorail built in 1962. Source: Seattle Times 1 INTRODUCTION Monorails have often been lumped together with flying cars as part of a naïve, cartoonish vision of the future. Despite the immense popularity monorails have had with the general public, this form of transportation has been mainly relegated to world’s fairs and amusement parks. Recently, however, a number of major, transit-grade monorails have either been built or are in the construction or planning phase. Japan is clearly the leader
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of SEATTLE Seattle Public Utilities
    CITY OF SEATTLE Seattle Public Utilities IMPROVEMENT OF: DELRIDGE NPDES 99 CSO GATE RETROFIT FUNDED BY: DWF PW#: 2018-066 ORDINANCE #: 125475 VOLUME 1 OF 2 DIVISION 00 Advertise: October 18, 2018 Bids Open: November 7, 2018 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 00 01 10 DELRIDGE NPDES 99 CSO GATE RETROFIT Page A VOLUME 1 of 2 (DIVISION 00) DIVISION 00 – PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS Section 00 01 15 – Contract Documents List and Distribution Section 00 11 13 – Pre-Bid Information And Advertisement For Bids Section 00 21 13 – Instructions To Bidders Section 00 31 10 – Owner-Furnished Project Information Section 00 31 43 – Permits Obtained By Owner Section 00 41 00 – Bid Form (Reference Page) Attachment A – Inclusion Plan Section 00 43 93 – Bid Submittal Check List Section 00 52 00 – Agreement Form Section 00 60 00 – Sample Forms Section 00 72 00 – General Conditions Section 00 73 00 – Supplementary Conditions Section 00 73 16 – Insurance Requirements Section 00 73 43 – Prevailing Wage Rate Requirements Section 00 80 10 – Contractor Performance (with Forms) VOLUME 2 of 2 (DIVISION 01 – 40) DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Section 01 11 00 – Summary Of Work Section 01 22 10 – Measurement and Payment Section 01 29 73 – Schedule Of Values Section 01 31 10 – Contractor’s Project Management Section 01 32 10 – Construction Progress Documentation TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 00 01 10 DELRIDGE NPDES 99 CSO GATE RETROFIT Page B Section 01 33 10 – Submittals Section 01 35 05 – Environmental Protection and Special Controls Section
    [Show full text]
  • Kendall Dec 7.8.15.Pdf
    Senior Vice John Perlic, PE President—Puget Sound Region John is a traffic engineer with experience managing traffic analysis and design efforts for a variety of transportation projects. He has managed the traffic and multi-modal transportation integration analysis for the Central and North Link Light Rail EIS, The Villages and Lawson Hills Master Plan Developments in Black Diamond, and many other large public sector infrastructure and private sector development projects. He has extensive experience with traffic forecasting, level of service, and other traffic operations analysis techniques used to evaluate improvement alternatives. John has also been the project manager or transportation engineering manager for some of the most significant and complex transportation infrastructure projects in the Puget Sound region including, Central Link Light Rail, Seattle Monorail Green Line, SR 520/Trans- Lake Washington Corridor Study, and Cross-Base Highway. All of these projects have involved traffic analysis and design to support transportation improvement projects. Selected Project Experience Traffic Impact Studies John has managed the preparation of over 200 traffic impact studies for Environment Impact Statements and other environmental review documents. Projects have included shopping malls (Redmond Town Center, Auburn Super Mall); mixed-use master plan developments (Lawson Hills, The Villages, Westpark, Port Blakely Bainbridge Island, Sea-Van Mt. Vernon, Villages at North Bend); major institutions (Providence Hospital, Overlake Hospital, North Seattle Community College); and numerous other office, residential, light industrial, and retail projects. Lawson Hills and The Villages EIS – Black Diamond, WA John was the transportation director responsible for providing direction and quality control review of the transportation analysis for the Lawson Hills and The Villages EIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Within the Overall Metro System, the ___Is Crucial in Connecting Major Employment, Shopping and Medical Centers, Residential C
    CLAUDIA FITCH____LETTER OF INTEREST My fascination with St. Paul is the city’s immediate interface with the Mississippi River, showing layers and layers of human history through a rich visual mix of industry, commerce and culture. I am fascinated by the anecdotal poignancy of its many interconnected neighborhoods, from the downtown core to surrounding communities, each expressing its own authentic life through time. I want the art to seductively reveal the resources of each urban village, but to also the experience of St Paul as a whole, and how the historical and contemporary patterns of human and natural habitation statewide form and are informed by this Capitol City. I see enormous potential for integrated public art to enhance infrastructure and/or transit development within St Paul environs on several levels: • Create Site Identity: How will the integrated art reflect the life of the infrastructure site and/or the experience of its surrounding neighborhood? Visually expressing its legacy, social vitality and/or distinct urban landscape, the art potentially creates an authentic, memorable landmark within the community. • Help Orientation: Transit and other urban infrastructures often a self-contained, rigorously designed network of trajectories, junctures and destination points with its own unique visual language. How can the artwork create a bold and balanced dialogue with the visual dynamics of the system, safely orient the citizen and bring a sense of human scale to a larger-than-life environment? • Express Humanity: As a gateway from one world to another, a transit station, or entry to a public place is an extraordinary transition zone, a powerful marker in the citizen’s daily routine.
    [Show full text]
  • Creative Financing for Seattle's South Lake Union Streetcar
    South Lake Union Streetcar Capital Financing and Operating and Maintenance Plan April 13, 2005 Prepared for: Seattle City Council Prepared by: The Office of Policy and Management, City of Seattle Table of Contents Chapter 1 Project Description Page 1 Figure 1 – Project Area Map Chapter 2 Capital Financing Plan Page 6 Private Sector Contribution: Local Improvement District Private Sector Contribution: Joint Development of Maintenance Base Public Sector Contribution: State and Federal Grants Public Sector Contribution: City Property Sale Proceeds Summary of Capital Financing Plan Chapter 3 O&M Financing Plan Page 10 Phase One Overview Private Sector Contribution: Streetcar Sponsorship for the South Lake Union Streetcar Operations Fund Private Sector Contribution: Bulk Pass Purchases for the South Lake Union Streetcar Operations Fund Phase One: Summary of Sources and Uses Phase Two Overview Phase Two: Summary of Sources and Uses Summary of Operating and Maintenance Financing Plan Page 2 of 16 Chapter 1 Project Description The City of Seattle, in cooperation with the U.S Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA), proposes to construct a new streetcar line to serve the downtown, Denny Triangle and South Lake Union areas of Seattle. This line would provide local transit service, connect to the regional transit system, accommodate economic development, and contribute to neighborhood vitality. The project elements and construction are discussed in detail in the South Lake Union Streetcar Project Description Memo (Parsons Brinckerhoff, March 2005). The proposed South Lake Union Streetcar would begin in the vicinity of the intersection of Westlake Avenue and Olive Way/5th Avenue in downtown Seattle (see Figure 1-1).
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Previous Studies and Plans
    Summary of Previous Studies and Plans February 2018 West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Summary This memorandum summarizes the findings of prior transportation studies that are relevant to the West Seattle and Ballard LRT Extension (WSBLE) Project, including those prepared by Sound Transit, the city of Seattle, King County, and Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). This memorandum primarily identifies findings related to transportation conditions within the study area, past study recommendations and how they were incorporated into the representative project, and policy directives of relevance in local and regional planning documents. Page i | AE 0036-17 | Summary of Previous Studies and Plans February 2018 West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose of report ................................................................................................ 1 2 CITY AND REGIONAL PLANS AND STUDIES ...................................................................... 3 2.1 Policies and legislative actions ............................................................................ 4 2.1.1 State of Washington Growth Management Act ........................................ 4 2.1.2 Regional Growth Strategy ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Long-Term Taxes Would Pay for Sound Transit Expansion
    Tacoma News Tribune, 4/16/16 http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article72241182.html April 16, 2016 3:21 AM New long-term taxes would pay for Sound Transit expansion $50 billion proposal would expand light rail, other transit options Car-tab, sales and property taxes would rise to pay for plan Most taxes would be collected for decades after project’s built By Adam Lynn Voter approval in November of Sound Transit’s proposed $50 billion expansion would result in a 108-mile light-rail network from Everett to Tacoma, Ballard to Bellevue. It also would mean tax increases across three fronts. The motor vehicle excise tax and the sales tax collected on behalf of Sound Transit would increase from current levels, and, for the first time in the regional transit agency’s history, it would levy a property tax. The taxes would be collected for decades, well beyond the proposed build-out date of 2041. This from a Sound Transit online FAQ about the proposed ballot measure, called Sound Transit 3: “As with virtually all major infrastructure projects, construction would be paid for in part using long-term bonds issued over the course of the project delivery period. “Approximately 25 or 35 years after completion of the package, the retirement of those bonds would enable the agency to begin scaling back tax collections to the level needed to support ongoing operations and maintenance of the expanded system.” That’s on top of taxes the agency already collects for two previous transit projects. Supporters of the ballot measure, which the Sound Transit board will firm up in June, say the increased tax burden would pay for desperately needed expansions of light rail, express bus service and Sounder commuter rail across the Puget Sound region.
    [Show full text]
  • Building the Monorail Green Line: Highlights of the Agreement
    Building the Monorail Green Line: Highlights of the Agreement The Seattle Monorail Project (SMP) and Cascadia Monorail Company, LLC, have reached an agreement for the construction of Seattle’s new Monorail Green Line. The Green Line will provide 14 miles of elevated, automated transit along the voter-approved route from Ballard to West Seattle through Downtown. Scheduled to open on December 1, 2010, it will serve key destinations including Seattle Center, Key Arena, Belltown, the Downtown retail core, Pike Place Market, Pioneer Square, Chinatown-International District, Qwest Field, Safeco Field, and SODO. The agreement’s fi xed price is $1.615 billion (year of expenditure dollars). The fi xed price to build the Green Line, and all other costs to build and operate the Green Line, including the cost of running the Seattle Monorail Project, will fi t within voter-mandated funding limits. Refl ected throughout the agreement are many of Seattle’s core values, including strong commitments to environmental sustainability, local economic development, equal opportunity in employment and contracting, and community involvement. The Green Line will be friendly to the Green Line construction will offer equal environment by providing a clean, quiet, fast opportunity to all citizens in employment alternative to cars. The agreement calls for and contracting. The agreement sets high Monorail trains with regenerative braking that goals for apprenticeships and diversity in reuses energy; aggressive reuse and recycling contracting, and it incorporates a Helmets-to- programs during construction and operations; Hardhats program to bring military veterans minimizing energy use in both construction and into construction jobs. operation of stations; and encouraging even greater The Green Line will be built with the use of non-polluting transit by allowing bicycles community in mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Monorail Exploratory Study
    Regional Monorail Exploratory Study prepared by Lea+Elliott, Inc. in association with HNTB Corporation SG Associates, Inc. Remline Corporation Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott, LLP for Wilmington Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO) February 2004 Regional Monorail Exploratory Study Final Report CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................ES - 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Report Organization..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background..................................................................................................................1 1.3 The Study Process........................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Study Methodology ..................................................................................................... 3 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Description of the Study Area ..................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Major Roads..................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Major Rail Lines.............................................................................................. 5
    [Show full text]