Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-34-87 - REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN - AIRPORT SYSTEMREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AIRPORT SYSTEM EPIC -34 -87 Airport activists discuss noise By RANDY BLACK An ambitious effort to mediate remedies to airplane noise depends on the good will and agreement of a wide variety of interests. But if a Wednesday afternoon people interested in representing the areas closest to Sea-Tac airport is any indica- tion, it may be difficult to get mummifies to agree. group of long -time airport activists said they didn't trust the Port of Seattle, which operates the airport. They also wondered if they had enough common ground with other communities to work with them during the process. "I don't understand why we're in With other communities," said. Don Bell of Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion. "We have a greater array of problems than other areas." "We have impacts that don't affect other neighborhoods," said Irene Jones. "This com- munity has an extraordinary number of impacts, starting with noise." The Wednesday meeting drew tnber of people long involve airport issues. In addition and Jones were Dottie of Burien, Angle Lake Chief Jim Adsley, Pat Ft of Mansion Hill, Gene ergaker of McMicken Carol Berwald of 's west edge, among of the group will meet sometime in the next two weeks with representatives of other communities around Puget Sound. The still - unscheduled meeting will start a process that could bring agreement between com- munities. The community representatives will then meet with a mediator and delegates from the airport, the Federal Aviation Administration, air- port and consumer groups, the airlines and airline pilots. THE MEDIATION PROCESS is just one of a long line of at- tempts to solve noise problems around the airport. Jerry Cormick of the Media- tion Institute said the difference between this and other pro- cesses is that mediation focuses on agreement, rather than con- frontation. If the process works, the mediation group will bring a set of recommendations to the Port of Seattle Commission in late June or early July next year. The process is designed to get all the parties to agree before the recommendations are made final. "There are not votes," Cor- mick said. "There is agreement or there is not agreement." He said agreement between the affected communities could be easier than the airport -area group expects. "From what I've heard, the communities have about 90 per- cent common interests," Cor- mick said. "There are about 2 percent real differences and the rest can be resolved." Cormick said that agreeing to disagree on some points can be useful in the process. THE WEDNESDAY meeting was designed to solicit delegates from the "Part 150" area, which is the area most affected by air- port noise. The Part 150 area was describ- edastheareawhere theport is using buyouts and noise insula- tion to remedy noise problems. The final Part 150 delegates to the broader process won't be decided until noses are counted at the larger community meeting. But even within the Part 150 group, there were differences. Some didn't want people who worked in the area, but didn't live there, to represent the area. Others felt they didn't have a strong enough mandate from the public to represent them. Most felt it would be difficult to get agreement with the port, which they said has not been responsive in the past. MIL, MEMBERS OF the group said they were hopeful about the mediation process. "There aren't too many places to go where there is no problem with noise," said Jean Shefveland. "This process needs to happen in addition to all the other pro- cesses most of us have gone through in this room," said Irene Jones. "When someone opens a door, you have to go in," said Al Twidt. "We can't be negative. We have to approach it in a positive manner." But finding ultimate solutions won't be easy. "The problem is the airplanes," said Pat Ashcraft.. "We've always known it's the airplanes." Open house New guide to homes features big savings Inside Unbeaten Highline boy harriers speed past two rivals A -6 WintliftillitiattlaNNXCEIWISSEK Sunday October 2, 1988 Excellence in Community Journalism • The Highline T \rF ,(1:1 `i!i,��l Ci I ( y ;i AY 26 1988 RECEIVED MAY2519 TUKWILA PUBUC WORKS JVCCOG Planning For Tomorrow's Transportation Puget Sound Council of Governments Grand Central on the Park 216 First Avenue South • Seattle, WA 98104 Phone (206) 464 7090 Regional Transportation Plan Airport System Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement May 1988 P u g e t S o u n d Co u n c i I o f G o v e r n m e n t s THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED UNDER THE POLICY GUIDANCE OF THE: STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION King County Executive Tim Hill, Chair Bruce Agnew Congressional Staff Gene Baxstrom Legislative Transportation Comm. Councilmember George Benson City of Seattle Ron Bockstruck Washington State Department of Transportation, Dist. 1 Councilmember Bill Brubaker Snohomish County Mayor Nan Campbell (Alt . ) City of Bellevue Councilmember Brian Corcoran Snohomish County Commissioner Pat Davis Port of Seattle Councilmember Morrie Dawkins City of Bremerton Councilmember Margaret Doman City of Redmond Representative Ruth Fisher District 27 Councilmember Helen Frederick City of Fife Councilmember Mabel Harris City of Tukwila Councilmember Bruce Laing King County Mayor Rita Matheny City of Marysville Councilmember Darlene McHenry City of Issaquah Councilmember Ed Morrow City of Everett Senator Gary Nelson District 21 Admiral Harold Parker WSDOT, Marine Division Representative Mike Patrick District 47 Councilmember Rose Marie Raudebaugh Town of Fircrest Councilmember Jim Ryan City of Gig Harbor Pierce Subregional Council Representative Karen Schmidt District 23 Councilmember Tom Stenger City of Tacoma Councilmember Jim Street City of Seattle Mayor Alice Tawresey City of Winslow James Toohey Washington State Department of Transportation Councilmember Hank Waibel City of Bremerton Councilmember Jeanette Williams City of Seattle FACT SHEET REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AIRPORT SYSTEM AMENDMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BRIEF DESCRIPTION: SOURCE OF PROPOSAL: NAME AND ADDRESS OF LEAD AGENCY: RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: CONTACT PERSON: AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS: LICENSES REQUIRED: DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT EIS : DATE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS: This document is a nonproject environmental impact statement. It provides a description of potentially significant environmental impacts that may occur upon the implementation of regional airport alternatives within the central Puget Sound region. Alternatives are compared and a course of action leading to the selection of a preferred alternative is identified. Puget Sound Council of Governments Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 464 -7090 Mr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Mr. Don Secrist, (206) 464 -6172 Puget Sound Council of Governments Reid, Middleton and Associates Bell- Walker Engineers George Frost Associates Robert Brown Triangle Associates No Licenses are required December 18, 1987 January 5, 1988: Bremerton January 7, 1988: Tacoma January 12, 1988: Tukwila January 13, 1988: Everett February 22, 1988: Tacoma February 24, 1988: Sea -Tac Area DATE OF FINAL EIS: LOCATION OF SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS: May 24, 1988. PSCOG Executive Board scheduled to approve Airport System Amendment on July 28, 1988. PSCOG General Assembly scheduled to adopt Airport System Amendment on September 29, 1988. Puget Sound Council of Governments Information Center 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464 -7532 COST TO THE PUBLIC FOR COPY OF THIS EIS $10.00 DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Air Force, McChord AFB Federal Aviation Administration Federal Highway Administration Urban Mass Transportation Administration State Agencies Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries Department of Game Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Washington State Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics Planning, Research and Public Transportation District 1 District 3 PS COG Members King County Pierce County Kitsap County Snohomish County City of Algona City of Arlington City of Auburn City of Beaux Arts Village City of Bellevue City of Bonney Lake City of Bothell City of Bremerton City of Brier City of Buckley City of Clyde Hill City of Des Moines ' City of DuPont Town of Duvall City of Edmonds City of Enumclaw City of Everett City of Fife City of Fircrest City of Gig Harbor City of Issaquah City of Kent City of Kirkland City of Lake Forest Park City of Lake Stevens City of Lynnwood City of Marysville City of Medina City of Mercer Island City of Mill Creek City of Milton City of Monroe City of Mountlake Terrace City of Mukilteo City of Normandy Park City of North Bend City of Pacific City of Port Orchard City of Poulsbo City of Puyallup City. of Redmond City of Renton City of Seattle City of Snohomish City of Snoqualmie City of Stanwood City of Steilacoom City of Sumner City of Tacoma City of Tukwila City of Winslow City of Woodway Puyallup Tribe Muckleshoot Tribe Suquamish Tribe Tulalip Tribe Other Local Agencies Community Transit Everett Transit Kitsap Transit Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle METRO Pierce Transit SNO-TRAN BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad - Seattle Port of Bremerton Port of Everett Port of Tacoma Port of Seattle Washington State Ferries Snohomish County PUD Puget Sound Power and Light Seattle City Light Tacoma City Light Auburn Public Library Bellevue Public Library Everett Public Library Governmental Research Assistance Library King County Library Kitsap Regional Library METRO Library Municipal Research & Services Center Library Renton Public Library Seattle Public Library Tacoma Public Library University of Washington Library Washington State Dept: of Transportation Library Washington State Library TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Paae EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i I. TEXT OF PROPOSED ACTION 1 Regional Airport System Plan Recommendations 1 Air Carrier Recommendations 1 General Aviation Recommendations 9 II. SUMMARY OF VERBAL TESTIMONY AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN 15 Why Were the Public Hearings Held? 15 When Were the Hearings and How Many Attended? • • 15 What Comments and Concerns Were Expressed at the Hearings? 15 III. WRITTEN COMMENTS WITH PSCOG RESPONSES 21 Kitsap Subregional Council 22 Pierce Subregional Council 24 Councilmember Greg Nickels - King County Council (Letter of 1/22/88) 29 Councilmember Greg Nickels - King County Council (Letter of 2/29/88) 32 Greg Williams, Manager, Snohomish County Planning 36 Stanley C. Lane 43 IV. WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 59 Summary 59 Public Agencies /Officials 61 Religious /Community /Private Organizations 77 General Public 143 V. CONCLUSIONS OF THE PUBLIC REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN 399 What are the Overall Conclusions of the Public Review? 399 Position of the Air Transportation Advisory Committee in Response to Public Review of the Draft Regional Airport System Plan March 24, 1988 399 Actions Taken by Standing Committee on Transportation in Consideration of ATAC Position and Public Comments - May 6, 1988 . 400 Executive Summary Ii.EGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AIRPORT SYSTEM AMENDMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Puget Sound Council of Governments May 1988 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Puget Sound Council of Governments' Airport System Amendment to the Regional Transportation Plan was issued on December 18, 1987, by PSCOG. It was distributed to appropriate public review agencies and to affected jurisdictions. Following publication of the Draft EIS, public hearings were held at six locations in the region: Bremerton (Great Northwest Savings Bank), January 5, 1988; Tacoma Municipal Building, January 7, 1988; Tukwila City Hall, January 12, 1988; Everett Snohomish County Administration Building, January 13, 1988; Tacoma County -City Building, February 22, 1988; and Kennedy Memorial High School, near Sea -Tac Airport, February 24, 1988. At each of the hearings, a presentation on the proposed action was given. Significant response was received at the hearings, much of which was opposed to expansion of existing airport facilities at Sea -Tac International, Paine Field,, and Tacoma Narrows. Complete copies of the transcripts of the hearings are available for review in the PSCOG's Information Center. Since the distribution of the Draft EIS, a number of written comments have been received from public agencies`as well as legislators and private citizens. Most of the written comments concern opposition to air carrier Alternative 3 -- expansion of Sea -Tac International Airport. Copies of the written comments are included in this document along with responses from PSCOG as appropriate. In addition, petitions opposing Alternative 3 were submitted, with a total number of signatures exceeding 1,500. Copies of these are also available at the PSCOG Office. This document constitutes the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Airport System Amendment to the Regional Transportation Plan. The FEIS is organized as follows. The text of the proposed action, which was documented in the Draft EIS, has been revised and appears in Chapter I. This is followed in Chapter II by a summary of the verbal testimony made at the public hearings. Chapters III and IV contain a compilation of written comments received after publication of the Draft EIS. Chapter III includes comments with appropriate responses from PSCOG staff; all other comments are listed in chronological order in Chapter IV. Finally, the conclusions of the public review process and subsequent changes recommended to the Draft Regional Airport System Plan are presented in Chapter V. i I. Text of Proposed Action 1. TEXT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with State Environmental Policy Act rules (WAC 197 -11 -442), which state that an environmental impact statement must be prepared on nonproject proposals, this document is a Nonproject Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Its purpose is to discuss the impacts upon the environment that would occur if the Regional Airport System Plan recommendations were to be implemented. In July 1988, recommendations for the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) are scheduled to be brought to the Executive Board of the PSCOG for approval. Once approved by the Executive Board these recommendations are scheduled to be brought to the Assembly for adoption in September, 1988. The . adoption action will be to amend the Regional Transportation Plan to include recommendations for the airport system element. These recommendations, when adopted by the Assembly, will constitute formal policy which will guide the development and operation of a system of public use airports for the benefit of the central Puget Sound region. The RASP is one element of the Regional Transportation Plan, which addresses the region's transportation needs to the year 2020. The recommendations for air carrier and general aviation facilities, as revised in response to the public review, are described in the following paragraphs. AIR CARRIER RECOMMENDATIONS Principal Conclusions Leading to the Air Carrier System Recommendations 1. Sea -Tac, under its currently adopted master plan, will reach maximum capacity shortly after the year 2000; it will be unable to accommodate the growth in air passenger demand as now projected to the year 2020. 2. Certain airports in the region have an existing runway /taxiway system and instrument landing system capable of serving at least part of the air carrier fleet (multi- engine prop, turboprop, and jet aircraft used by airlines). These airports -- Boeing Field, Paine Field, Bremerton National and McChord Air Force Base (AFB) are candidates for a potential future air carrier satellite role, requiring no major runway expansions. 3. Boeing Field's potential role as an air carrier satellite may be limited because it shares the same terminal airspace with Sea -Tac. 1 4. The use of McChord AFB would be subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Defense on joint use.. The conditions for joint use are defined in Air Force regulations. 5. The potential role of Paine Field as an air carrier satellite will be governed by the 1979 Mediated Agreement, and policies contained therein, on the role of Paine Field. 6. The management of the regional air carrier airport system will likely require institutional changes and /or new interlocal agreements. This will be a necessary part of selecting the preferred alternative. The proposed action is to adopt the following recommendations leading to the selection and implementation of a preferred alternative to serve the region's long range air carrier airport facility needs. AIR CARRIER SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS 1.. First Draft: it is reeemmendeel that a deei-sien- makimg preeess for the i•mpfemen£atien e£ the £effewi mg reeemmenelatiens eerrespend £e the time frame that is given i•n A££aehmen£ AT Reasons for Revision The need, for the sake of airport communities, to expedite the selection of a preferred air carrier system alternative, thereby defining future airport roles. Revised Draft It is recommended that PSCOG, in cooperation with the Port of Seattle and other appropriate agencies, proceed expeditiously with the detailed evaluation and selection of a preferred regional air carrier system alternative, in accordance with the generalized decision process shown in Attachment A. 2. First Draft 4t is reeemmemdeel that AMrper£ imprevemen£ Pregrams and leeal and use deeisions of €ee£4ng airper£ impaet areas be ;guided by the €aeility and epera£ienaf needs that pertain ire the PSGA6 regional preleetiens e£ air passenger demand- Reasons for Revision The need to establish a common data base and thresholds for implementation decisions. Air passengers relate to landside capacity; aircraft operations relate to airside capacity. 2 ATTACHMENT A Regional Airport System Alternatives Refinement Process Revised Draft 5/16/88 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Transportation/Land Use Issues Analysis of Transportation/Land Development Concepts Select Preferred Concept Adopt Regional TransportationPlan Monitor Growth/ Amend RTP Adopt Interim Regional Airport System Plan (PSCOG Executive Board/Assembly) AIR CARRIER JULY 1988 GENERAL AVIATION Forth Regional Air Carrier Task Force (Inter Local Agreement - PSCOG/Port of Seattle) Refine Air Cartier System Alternatives • Existing Airports • New Airports • Resource Management • Outside Region System Performance Analysis Site Specific Cost & Impact Analysis 4 Evaluation of Alternatives Selection of Preferred Air Carrier System Alternative Inventory of Regional Airport Institutional/ Financing Options Refinement / Evaluation Option V Selection of Institutional/ Financing Concept 4 Airport Master Plan Updates Implementation • Near Term Improvements •Long Range Strategy Adopt Regional Airport System Plan Reactivate ATAC (Standing Committe on Transportation) v Monitor General Aviation Growth Issues Plan for Relocation of General Aviation Operations due to Preferred Air Cartier Alternative V Refine General Aviation System Alternatives • Basing Capacity -King Co. • Special Facilities • Privately Owned Airports Evaluation/Selection of Preferred General Aviation System Alternative 4 Airport Master Plan Updates Implementation • Near TemtImprovements • Long Range Strategy TIME FRAMES 18 Months 18 Months 1 Revised Draft It is recommended that implementation timing decisions on the air carrier system preferred alternative be based on regional projections of air carrier passenger demand and aircraft operations. 3 First Draft t is reeeMmended that Master Plan updates be undertaken at the Paine Field; Bremerton Natien; Renton Munieipal and TaeeMa Narrewe airports te prepare ter a- their near term role as a based ter inereasing numbers e£ eerperate; general aviation and training aircraft that regularly need airpert instrument appreaeh faeilitiee; b- the near term eppertunities ter implementing 4FR training pregrame te help relieve Beefing Field praetiee appreaehes- Reasons for Revision Clarity; removal of references to Tacoma Narrows in air carrier recommendations (per direction from SCOT 5/6/88). Revised Draft It is recommended that Renton Municipal, Paine Field, and Bremerton National airports take near -term actions to encourage use by corporate, training, and other general aviation aircraft which can divert from Boeing Field during instrument flight (bad weather) conditions, to the extent consistent with each airport's currently adopted master plan. 4. First Draft t is reeommended that when updating the Master Plans; Paine Field; Bremerton National and TaeeMa Narrows take steps te influence their leeal 3nrisdietienal land use and transportation plans se as te preserve their potential role as satellite air earrier airports- Reasons for Revision Clarify the need for detailed site - specific evaluation before further screening of alternatives; removal of Tacoma Narrows from the list of candidates (per direction from SCOT, 5/6/88). Revised Draft It is recommended that PSCOG, in cooperation with Snohomish County, the Port of Bremerton, and the Port of Tacoma, take steps to influence appropriate land use and transportation 4 plans to preserve a potential satellite air carrier role for Paine Field, Bremerton National and McChord AFB, pending completion of detailed site - specific evaluation and selection of a preferred regional air carrier system alternative. 5. First Draft t is reeommended that land use plans and building and seining eedes adequately regulate residential and ether fneempatible development within the vieinity ef publie -use and military airports- Reasons for Revision Clarity. Revised Draft It is recommended that local land use plans and zoning codes prevent further encroachment and incompatible development around area airports. 6. First Draft t is reeommended that the Pert of Seattle and Ring 6ennty undertake an update ef he 1983 Airspaee Study te determine the fellewing- a- the physieal and eeenew4e feasibility ef upgrading and expanding Sea-Tae =s runway system- b- the future use of Beefing Field; and its relationship with 6ea -Tae- e- the need far anether general aviafien airperf te relieve Geeing Field ef the inereasing demand te base eerperafe general aviation and training aireraft- Reason for Revision Clarification and recognition of planning now in progress. Revised Draft It is recommended that the Port of Seattle and King County, in cooperation with PSCOG and other appropriate jurisdictions, continue to give high priority to studies to determine the operational feasibility of expanding Sea -Tac's capacity, to determine the future role of Boeing Field and its relationship to Sea -Tac, and to determine reliever airport needs. 5 7. First Draft it is recommended that a p /anning study be eendueted te- a- seareh fer traets e£ land suitable te build a new satellite air earrier airpert andfer a new major international air earrier airport; and b- seleet the best traetfs+ ef /and; and e- prepare for landbanking these sites- Reason for Revision Incorporated into new Recommendation 9. Revised Draft Delete. 8. First Draft it is recommended that a planning study be eendueted te examine what petential institutional authority may be required te manage the Puget Seund air transpertatien system in the future- it is further reeommended that the investigation address and answer the legal; £inaneial and pelitieal questiene ef implementing petential institutional authority alternatives? Reasons for Revision Clarify relationship of institutional issues to selection of preferred alternative. Revised Draft It is recommended that the investigation of institutional and financing options for the management of the regional airport system proceed in parallel with the technical evaluation of alternatives so that the selection of a preferred alternative and the identification of the implementing authority occur concurrently. 9. First Draft None. Reason for Revisions Specifically identify the alternatives to be subjected to detailed site - specific analysis in the next•phase of RASP refinement. 6 Revised Draft It is recommended that the following air carrier alternatives be selected for further detailed site - specific analysis to support the selection of a preferred alternative. • Satellite Airports - Existing Locations Development of satellite airports by upgrading one or two existing general aviation or military airports. Candidates within the PSCOG region include Bremerton National, McChord AFB, and Paine Field. Potential candidates outside the PSCOG region may include such airports as Olympia and Skagit Regional. • Satellite Airports - New Locations Development of satellite airports at one or two new locations (could include locations outside the PSCOG region). • Maximize Air Carrier Capacity of Sea -Tac Through the leadership of the Port of Seattle investigate all options for expansion within the existing Sea -Tac property. • New Primary Air Carrier Airport Development of a new primary air carrier airport with capacity potential to serve the long range (through 2020) air carrier demand (could include locations outside the PSCOG region). • Resource Management Optimization of regional air carrier capacity through resource management, with no major airport expansions. Elements .to include but not be limited to: • Use of airports outside the region, such as Olympia or Skagit Regional (Bayview), for satellite air carrier operations to the extent permitted under their currently adopted master plans. • Use of Boeing Field to serve air carrier operations, potentially displacing some of the general aviation now served there. • Joint management and operation of Boeing Field and Sea -Tac. • Limited commuter service at several airports (such as the existing San Juan Airline service to Paine Field) to the extent permitted by currently adopted master plans. 7 • Use of an airport outside the region, such as .Grant County Airport (Moses Lake) or Portland International, as a hub for international flights, with express ground transportation or air shuttle to the Puget Sound region. GENERAL AVIATION RECOMMENDATIONS Principal Conclusions Leading to General Aviation Recommendations 1 In 1985 there were about 3,550 based general aviation aircraft in the Puget Sound region; the collective capacity potential for the region's 22 public use airports is 5,230 with buildout of existing facilities (no major expansions). By the year 2020, the regional based aircraft fleet is project to grow to 3,730 under the low forecast, and to 6,230 under the high forecasts. 2. The potential based aircraft capacity shortfall is concentrated in King County, ranging from near zero under the low forecast to 1,000 based aircraft under the high forecast; Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties appear to have adequate based aircraft capacity through the planning. period. 3. The need for reliever airport capacity for general aviation is greatest in King County because of air traffic congestion in the Sea -Tac /Boeing Field airspace. 4. About one - fourth of the region's public use based aircraft capacity is provided by privately owned airports and seaplane bases. Actions by local and state government to preserve these facilities for public use could mitigate the need to develop new general aviation airport capacity with public resources. 5. The demand for helicopter services is expected to grow faster than other elements of air transportation, because of technological advancements and because of congestion in surface transportation. The greatest demand will be for air taxi services and corporate transportation to central city locations and other major activity centers. Reliable public use facilities do not currently exist in central city locations. 6. Seaplane service is a specialized industry unique to the Northwest and Alaska. Local and state government actions to support the continued operation of existing facilities could help preserve this specialized form of transportation. 7. Sport aviation is a popular form of recreation in the Puget Sound region which has unique impacts and special locational requirements. It needs recognition in local comprehensive land use plans, recreation plans, and airport master plans in order to enhance safety, minimize airspace conflicts and minimize adverse community impacts. The proposed action is to adopt the following recommendations supporting the preservation of existing airports and preparation for providing additional capacity for the region's general aviation needs. GENERAL, AVIATION RECO&MVIENDATIONS 1. First Draft it 4s reeemmemdeel that the deeisiem preeess fer the impleMentat4en of the fallowing reeemmendatiens eerrespend te the time frame that 4s given in Attaehment AT Reason for Revision Clarify the decision time frames for general aviation system recommendations. Revised Draft It is recommended that the decision - making process for the implementation of general aviation system recommendations follow the time frames shown in Attachment A. 2. First Draft it 4s reeemmendeel that a high pr4erity be attael'ted te preserving; Maintaining and improving existing general av4at4en a4rperte in the regien- Reason for Revision Emphasize that local government actions to preserve existing public use airports could mitigate the need to expand or construct new airports. Revised Draft It is recommended that local governments actively support preservation of existing public use general aviation airports. 3. First Draft it is reeemmended that and use plans; building and sen4ng eedes adequately regulate residential and ether ineeMpatibie development within the v ±ein4ty of general aviation a±rperts- Reason for Revision Clarity. 9 Revised Draft It is recommended that local land use plans /zoning codes prevent further encroachment and incompatible development around area airports. 4. First Draft It is recommended that local jurisdictions support the establishment of an airport overlay zone surrounding the boundaries of general aviation airports to avoid incompatible land use development (refer to the model overlay zone in Appendix B of RASP). Reason for Revision None. Revision Draft Same as above. 5. First Draft it is reeemmended that leeal jurisdietions reeegmise that resourees provided by publie use general aviation airports by supporting preperty tax exemptions far these airports that are privately awned - Reason for Revision Property tax exemptions are one of several economic measures which could assist privately owned airports which are providing part of the region's public use general aviation airport capacity. Revised Draft It is recommended that local jurisdictions recognize the transportation resources provided by privately owned public use general aviation airports by supporting economic incentives such as property tax exemptions and other options to enhance their viability as transportation facilities. 6. First Draft it is reeemmended that; if a private airport is faeed with eles4ng its faeilities te publie use the te fimaneial eensideratiens; leeal gevermmentfsi examine the petentsal ter saving these faeilities through publie aequisitien er ether suppert of that airport- 10 Reasons for Revision Clarity. Revised Draft It is recommended that where appropriate local governments consider acquisition of privately owned public use airports threatened with closure. 7. First Draft it 4e reeommended that the preeees relating te the feasibility; ferMat4en e£ an ae£4en plan fer and peas4ble eensbruet4en e£ additional general av a14en facilities in King 6eunty preeeed; g iven- • The e4gnif4ean£ eeeneM4e benefits fer eemmunities derived frets general aviation airperts; • The preieeted unmet based aireraft demand in King Eennty- and • The 4Mpae£ ef 4nereas4ng a4repaee restrictions near the large urban airports- Reason for Revision The supporting items listed under Recommendation 7 have been included in the preceding conclusions and in the RASP text. Revised Draft It is recommended that the process of assessing the feasibility of constructing additional general aviation facilities in King County, as recommended by the 1982 RASP, proceed in order to facilitate future implementation, should additional loss of general aviation airport capacity occur over the next ten years. 8. First Draft It 4s recommended that when updating their A4repaee Study; the Per ef Seattle and Kong Senility adept a reg4enal perspeetive te address the 4Mpae£s en general av4at4en and ether elements ef the airport system- Reason for Revision •Recognition of planning study now in progress. Revision Draft It is recommended that the Port of Seattle, in assessing the operational feasibility of expanding Sea -Tac's capacity, 11 adopt a regional perspective to address the impacts on general aviation. 9. First Draft None. Reason for Revision Identify the general aviation alternatives to be carried forward in the RASP and subjected to further analysis in subsequent phases of plan refinement. There is no need to choose a preferred general aviation system alternative at this time. Revised Draft It is recommended that the following general aviation system alternatives be retained in the RASP for further analysis and refinement, based on changing conditions in the general aviation industry and /or stabilization of growth outlook. • Maintain Viability of Existing General Aviation Airports. ■ Expand Capacity of Selected Existing General Aviation Airports. • Expand Capacity by Development of New General Aviation (general utility class) Airport. 10 First Draft Several policy recommendations appeared under the hearing "Special Air Transportation Facilities Recommendation." Reason for Revision Clarification of the intent. Revised Draft a. The PSCOG supports a cooperative effort to provide helicopter landing facilities in central city locations, if warranted by growth in demand and subject to environmental compatibility. b. The PSCOG believes that the use of local ordinances such as the model ordinance in Appendix.A of the RASP, and other operations management measures will be needed in order to serve increased demand for helicopter operation with minimal community impacts. c. The PSCOG believes that the protection of privately owned public use airport facilities through zoning for land use compatibility, through economic incentives and liability 12 insurance reforms which will assist those facilities, must be considered by local and state governments. d. The FSCOG supports preservation of existing seaplane services and their required operating facilities, in conjunction with cooperative efforts to reduce negative impacts of seaplane operations on communities. e. The PSCOG supports a cooperative effort to provide adequate physical and operating facilities for sport aviation activity, providing adverse community impacts are mitigated. 13 II. Summary of Verbal Testimony at Public Hearings II. SUMMARY OF VERBAL TESTIMONY AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN WHY WERE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD? The public hearings were held as part of the Environmental Impact Statement and public review process on adoption of the updated Regional Airport System Plan. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in December 1987, and a public review process conducted under the guidelines of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The public hearings held in January and February 1988 were an opportunity for the public and affected organizations to comment on the draft plan and its EIS prior to approval by the Executive Board of the PSCOG. WHEN WERE THE HEARINGS AND HOW MANY ATTENDED? Estimated Date Location Attendance Jan. 5 Bremerton; Great NW 60 Savings & Loan Bank Jan. 7 Tacoma; Municipal 25 Building Jan. 12 Tukwila; City Hall 60 Jan. 13 Everett; Snohomish Co. 120 Administration Building Feb. 22 Tacoma; County -City 60 Building Feb. 24 Sea -Tac Area; Kennedy 500 Memorial High School WHAT COMMENTS AND CONCERNS WERE EXPRESSED AT THE HEARINGS? The following is a summary of the concerns and comments presented at each hearing. In cases where the same concern or comment was stated by more than one person, it is not repeated here. A full transcript of each hearing is available for reading in the PSCOG Information Center (464- 7532). 15 Bremerton - January 5, 1988 • Support for an increased air carrier role for Bremerton National Airport (BNA) because of its proximity to U.S. Navy installations and because it would bring jobs and other economic benefits to Kitsap County. • Concern that air carrier operations at BNA may displace light aircraft or take away general aviation facilities. • Concern that increased operations at BNA will have a widespread noise impact and degrade the quality of life in Kitsap County. • Expanded use of existing airports appears to be the most cost - effective solution with least environmental impact. BNA has the basic size and facilities to serve air carriers. • If we have air carrier service to multiple airport locations in the region, we need a rail system or other good ground transportation connecting them. • We need adequate general aviation facilities so that light aircraft don't have to mix with large aircraft. They're not compatible. • Satellite airports are not favored by the airlines and can be an inconvenience to the traveling public. One good airport to serve air carriers is the way to go. • If we have to have satellite airports we should insist that only Stage 3 (quieter) aircraft be allowed to use them. • It's not fair to landowners to restrict growth and development around the airports just because they are candidates for satellite air carrier service. • We can have development of the airport and still maintain the rural environment in Kitsap County if local officials and landowners cooperate and everyone maintains a positive attitude. • Concern that Kitsap County not be selected for airport expansion just because the resistance may be less than in the other counties. • Can BNA be used as a freight terminal or as a base for airline maintenance functions? • Would a regional airport authority be needed to finance new air carrier facilities? Tacoma - January 7, 1988 • Tacoma Narrows Airport (TNA) is not a good candidate for a satellite air carrier airport because the airport is controlled by one agency (City of Tacoma) but lies within the 16 land of another (Pierce Co.). People living around the airport won't have control over the elected officials responsible for its operation. • TNA is located in a residential area and does not have hotels, ground transportation, and other services needed for a satellite airport. • The increased jet traffic at TNA would be over the Gig Harbor area (to the west) because the air traffic pattern to the east overlaps with McChord Air Force Base. • Joint use of McChord AFB should be considered because it is more accessible, services are closer, and some of the air traffic can be over the Ft. Lewis military reservation. • Opposition to TNA's being considered for a satellite air carrier airport or increased helicopter operations; not consistent with the recently adopted master plan which assumes a continued general aviation role for TNA. • Support for continuation of TNA as economically viable general aviation airport, primarily for light aircraft and some commercial cargo services, but no significant commercial passenger services. • Clarification that TNA does not have the physical space nor the runway strength for large commercial aircraft; in any case it can only serve intermediate and small size aircraft. Tukwila - January 12, 1988 • Concern that Thurston and Mason counties, who could be impacted by the decisions resulting from this plan, are not included in the process. • Concern that a realignment of runways at Sea -Tac would shift the noise impact 'area over west Seattle. • Concern that shift of some airline service to another airport will cause problem with transfers via ground transportation. • Priority should be given to residents of the area to preserve quality of life rather than placing priority on serving all the future demand for air travel. • Support for developing McChord AFB into a new international airport. • Concern that further expansion of Sea -Tac will destroy the surrounding communities. • It's time for other communities to share in the airport impacts; expanded facilities should not be developed at Sea -Tac. 17 ▪ Concern about increased use of helicopters as inter -city shuttles and private transportation, lack of restrictions on where they may fly and at what altitudes. Cities need stronger ordinances to regulate helicopter use. ▪ Streets and highways in the Sea -Tac area are not keeping up with traffic demand, causing traffic to spill over onto neighborhood streets. Expansion of Sea -Tac would be intolerable for the community. • Support for using other existing airports like McChord AFB and. Paine Field for additional air carrier capacity. O Concern that expansion of Sea -Tac would cause additional loss of population and decline in schools. ▪ Communities aren't given fair consideration in planning for the expansion of the airport. ▪ Realignment of Boeing Field runways (instead of Sea -Tac runways) would impact commercial property rather than residential property. Everett, January 13, 1988 ▪ The cost of improvements to Sea -Tac under the current master plans are included in all of the alternatives; under Alternative 4, building a new international airport with up to 44 million annual passenger capacity, the near term improvements at Sea -Tac would not be needed. This is misleading. ▪ Concern about the projections of growth. Are we predicting growth that will never occur, just like WPPSS? ▪ Why can't Eastern Washington airports serve some of the growth, with connecting ground transportation? Is there a potential alternative outside the four - county area? ▪ Concern about lack of hearing notification to policy makers and residents in the Paine Field area. ▪ The recent Part 150 noise study, the appointment of the Paine Field Role Task Force, and the lease allowing San Juan Airlines to begin commuter service at Paine Field are viewed as a threat to the homes and lifestyle of the area residents. ▪ The proposed plan holds communities hostage to an uncertain future. ▪ Strong support for the 1978 mediated agreement, which upholds general aviation as the only acceptable role for Paine Field. Residential growth was allowed because of that agreement. It's too late to expand the airport. • Strong opposition to any consideration of satellite air carrier role for Paine Field. 18 • Concern for the impact of large facility such as an airport on water resources and wildlife habitats. • Any new airport development should include rapid transit to get to and from it. • Concern that the Skagit flats may be selected as a site for a new airport. ■ High speed surface transportation should be given more consideration. • Aircraft of the future won't need 10,000 -foot runways. • The growth projections are flawed because they don't recognize that _airlines are going to begin purchasing larger aircraft and filling more seats per aircraft departure. • New technology, such as the microwave landing system, will reduce the interaction between the Boeing Field and Sea -Tac approach and departure flight tracks, thereby providing the additional capacity. This could also make Boeing Field a viable candidate for satellite air carrier operations. • Consideration of major airport expansion or new airport in any community should be put to a public vote. Tacoma - February 22, 1988 ■ Have you considered restricting air travel growth to preserve the quality of life we have traditionally enjoyed here in the Puget Sound area? • Opposition to consideration of McChord as a satellite air carrier airport because of increased noise impact, security. issues (with joint military and civilian use) and loss of property value. • A better location for an airport would be south of McChord on the Ft. Lewis property. ■ Concern that joint use at McChord would require a new runway, which would have severe impacts on developed areas of Parkland- Spanaway•- Lakewood. • Joint use has proven to be workable at several airports in the U.S., even with shared use of the same runway. • Improved air service could be beneficial to Pierce County; experience shows that improved air service can have a positive impact on property values. • Once an airport like McChord has been named as a candidate for an expanded role, any delay in the decision process has an adverse impact on the community well before any of the economic benefits are realized. 19 • There is a possibility of reduced noise from military aircraft at McChord under a joint use arrangement, because some of the military training activity may be shifted to remote locations. • Tacoma Narrows is not a good location for a satellite airport because of ground access constraints, e.g., the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. • We'd better start thinking about sustainable development instead of just continuing to plan for expansion. • Tacoma Narrows Airport as a commercial airline option to relieve Sea -Tac is not acceptable to the residents of the Gig Harbor Peninsula or to the areas of Tacoma and University • Place that would be affected by the flight tracks. Sea -Tac Area - February 24, 1988 • Strong opposition to Alternative 3 -- Expand Sea -Tac with Addition of a Third Runway -- because of cost of property acquisition; dislocation of homes, businesses and schools; disruption to the road system; disruption of the environment. • Numerous requests to remove Alternative 3 from further consideration. Additional air carrier facilities, if needed, should be provided in other areas of the region. • The first order of business is a close examination of the forecasts of future aviation need as it relates to•Sea -Tac, and full consideration of the ways in which capacity can be maximized without major expansion. • Inclusion of Sea -Tac expansion as an alternative puts all of the Sea -Tac communities on hold and creates an atmosphere of uncertainty while the options are being studied. • Strong opposition to any consideration of realignment of the Sea -Tac runways, because of noise impact and community disruption. • We are not being imaginative enough; new airports should be developed in remote locations with high speed ground transportation to access them. 20 III. WRITTEN COMMENTS WITH PSCOG RESPONSES Commenting Agency Kitsap Subregional Council Pierce Subregional Council Councilmember Greg Nickels King County Council (letter Councilmember Greg Nickels King County Council (letter Greg Williams, Manager Snohomish County Planning Stanley C. Lane of 1/22/88) of 2/29/88) 21 Page Comment Response 22 24 29 32 36 23 26 31 35 39 43 55 Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 MEMORANDUM RESPONSE TO KITSAP SUBREGIONAL COUNCIL 1 Bremerton National Airport (BNA) is a potentially viable option for a satellite air carrier airport. It has a runway /taxiway system and instrument landing aids capable of serving intermediate sized jet aircraft used by commuter airlines. The physical space is available on the airport property to provide the necessary terminal and parking facilities. Site - specific analyses in subsequent phases of the RASP will determine if the impacts of air carrier operations are acceptable or can be mitigated. Access by surface transportation may be a limiting factor to the market which can be served by BNA, but it is not a fatal flaw. Improvements in cross -Sound ferry service, addition of bridges, or introduction of air shuttle service could enhance the accessibility of BNA. The specific costs, benefits and impacts of BNA as a satellite air carrier airport will be addressed in subsequent phases of the RASP. 2 With support from the appropriate local government(s) and the community, an airport can posture itself to become an air carrier satellite. The airlines, however, make the decision on which airports to serve, subject to approval by the FAA for compliance with flight standards and air traffic control procedures. 3 BNA could serve air cargo, maintenance, and training functions which can be most readily decentralized from the primary hub airport. The cost - effectiveness of this type of service scenario will be examined in subsequent phases of the RASP. 4 BNA's location outside the region's heavily congested airspace, particularly around Sea -Tac and Boeing Field, would contribute to mitigating future airspace congestion. 5 Same response as Comment No. 3. 23 Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 November 3, 1987 TO: Standing Committee on Transportation FROM: PSCOG Staff SUBJECT: Pierce Subregional Council Review Comments on the Regional Airport System Plan The Regional Airport System Plan recommendations were presented to the Pierce SRC at the October 21, 1987 meeting. The Pierce SRC requested that their review comments be formalized and forwarded to the Puget Sound Council of Governments Air Transportation Advisory Committee and the Standing Committee on Transportation for consideration in the review process of the four air carrier alternatives being examined: (1) Develop a new satellite airport; (2) Expand existing general aviation airports to take on a satellite role; (3) Expand the Seattle- Tacoma Airport; and (4) Develop a new international airport. A summary of the Pierce SRC review comments follows: 1. The joint use of a military airbase should not be foreclosed as an option. If the military role of McChord changes in the future (no longer basing a fighter squadron), joint use may be an option. This alternative should be kept as an option in the long -term planning process. 2. More information needs to be obtained and studied on the traffic mix (origins and destinations) at Sea -Tac. It may be that surface transportation alternatives could more economically handle much of the Sea -Tac traffic in the long run. 3. Expansion of existing general aviation airports is most likely the least costly alternative; however, cost should not be the overriding criterion. The impact on adjacent residents and the local community, and the accessiblity to users are just as important. Tacoma Narrows Airport is currently surrounded by residential development; therefore, future zoning restrictions would have little effect. The amount of accessibility to users is also in question. MPSCOT 24 11/3/87 4 Much of passenger demand is based on airline flight schedules and price marketing. Air management alternatives such as changing user ideas of when they should fly and the use of staggered flight schedules needs to be considered. 5 The current plans for Sea -Tac call for incremental improvements to support facilities that. would increase passenger capacity from 13.5 to 25 million passengers. The question was asked if Sea -Tac expanded, could a third runway be designated for commuter use? If airlines change the way they operate, demand forecasts and corresponding facility requirements could vary substantially.. 6 Siting of a new airport will be the most difficult alternative to achieve. MPSCOT 25 11/3/87 4 6 RESPONSE TO PIERCE SUBREGIONAL COUNCIL 1. McChord Air Force Base has been added to the RASP as a candidate for a future air carrier satellite role, subject to reaching agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense on joint use. Because McChord was not listed as a candidate in the Draft RASP, an additional public hearing was held in Pierce County (2/22/88) to give the public an opportunity to comment on this option. The site - specific costs benefits and impacts of using McChord as a satellite air carrier airport will be addressed in subsequent phases of RASP refinement. 2. Based on research and analysis done for the. High Speed Rail Passenger Service Economic Feasibility Study (Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas /TRAC for the Washington State LTC, December 1984), the split between air and surface transportation modes for the Western Washington Corridor (Vancouver, B.C. to Portland, OR) in 1980 was as shown below: WESTERN WASHINGTON CORRIDOR MODE SHARES Year 2000 1980 High Super Base Existing Upgraded Speed Speed Mode Year Amtrak Amtrak Rail Rail Air 7.1% 6% 4% 4% 3% Rail 1.2% 1% 10% 22% 32% Bus 3.0% 3% 3% 2% 2% Auto 88.8% 90% 83% 72% 63% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Based on analysis of alternatives scenarios for the year 2000, it was concluded that some shift from the air, bus, and auto modes to rail may be possible with different levels of investment to upgrade rail. This, however, would require a concerted shift in policy at the state and national level to redirect financial resources, or create new funding sources. 26 Based on an assessment of aircraft departures from Sea -Tac during the period July 1, 1986 - June 30, 1987, it was determined that about 21 percent of the total departures were bound for Vancouver (B.C.), Bellingham, or Portland (Re: Official Airline Guide, through I.P. Sharpe, and PSCOG analysis). This represents a segment of the travel market for which inter -city rail and bus modes could compete. By today's standards, this would require significant upgrade of rail and bus services to match the level of service provided by airlines. Further analysis of the cost - effectiveness of upgrading surface modes to off -set the need for airport expansions can be conducted in subsequent phases of RASP refinement. This analysis, however, would most appropriately be done within the context of the Washington State Transportation Plan. 3. The evaluation of alternatives for the Draft RASP and DEIS included the following criteria: • Capacity provided • Cost of upgrading existing facilities or constructing new facilities • Noise impacts • Airspace safety and congestion • Accessibility to the region's population • Economic development and activity. • Other environmental impacts The evaluation was conducted at a very general level in keeping with the conceptual nature of the alternatives. The intent was to make general comparisons of the alternatives and identify issues and environmental sensitivities which will be addressed in greater depth in future phases of site - specific evaluation. Future evaluation and decisions must be based on a comprehensive set of criteria similar to those listed above. 4. The ATAC has proposed that the next phase of analysis to refine the RASP alternatives include a "resource management alternative" which consists of optimizing the use of existing airport -facilities without major expansions : - This would involve improvement of existing airports only within their currently adopted master plans. Examples of options that could be considered within the resource management concept include: 27 • Use of airports outside the region, such as Olympia or Skagit Regional (Bayview), for satellite air carrier operations to the extent permitted under their currently adopted master plan. • Use of Boeing Field to serve some air carrier operations, potentially displacing some of the general aviation now served there. • Joint management and operation of Boeing Field and Sea -Tac. • Limited commuter service at several airports, such as the existing San Juan Airline service to Paine Field, to the extent permitted by the currently adopted master plan. • Use of Grant County Airport (Moses Lake) as a hub for international flights, with express ground transportation or air shuttle to the Puget Sound region. 5. The proposed third runway at Sea -Tac could be designated for . commuter airline use. This would provide less overall capacity than a full - length third runway. 6. Comment acknowledged. 28 GREG NICKELS King County Council District Eight January 22, 1988 Curt Smeltzer, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments Grand Central on the Park 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Curt: Immediately following the final public hearing on the Regional Airport System Plan, my office received several calls from Sea -Tac area residents concerning the proposal for a third runway at Sea -Tac International Airport. These individuals stated that they were unaware of the Sea -Tac option, were inadequately informed of the hearing, and that a hearing should have been scheduled in the Sea -Tac area. Sea -Tac has suffered the impacts of transportation facilities more than any other community in the region. A third runway would significantly increase the size of Sea -Tac and require the acquisition of large segments of the residential and commercial areas to the north and west of the airport. Appeals for an additional hearing are justified and I request that PSCOG schedule a hearing to afford residents of the Sea -Tac and • Highline areas ample opportunity to comment on the options in the Regional Airport System Plan. Because the Regional Airport System Plan will guide our decisions on multi -modal transportation needs into the next century, it is imperative that all options are thoroughly considered and discussed. The Defense Department's willingness to consider joint civilian military operations at McChord Air 2 Force Base merits including McChord as a candidate airport. Its incorporation could significantly alter the conclusions reached in the draft plan. Another element that might modify PSCOG's findings would be the consideration of King County International Airport as a reliever facility for Sea -Tac. Presently the King County Council is considering the possibility of developing a new 3• general aviation airport to supplement and relieve operations at Boeing Field /King County International Airport. It is possible 402 King County Courthouse SE 2 9 shington 98104 (206) 344-3447 Curt Smeltzer January 22, 1988 Page 2 that joint operation of airports, utilizing King County International for cargo operations and a new airfield for general aviation, could effectively increase the ability of Sea -Tac to accommodate passenger airline traffic. I look forward to your response to these issues at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, 4IP Greg Kin N kels ty Counc lmember cc: unty Executive Don ecrist, PSCOG Bill Bowlin, Highline Community Council Sea-Tac Community Council AN 9. r OF GO .L. L. 30 RESPONSE TO KING COUNTY COUNCILMEMBER GREG" NICKELS (LETTER OF 1/22/88) 1. At the request of Councilmember Nickels, a public hearing was held on February 24, 1988, in the Highline area (J.F. Kennedy Memorial High School). A summary of the verbal testimony and the letters submitted as a result of the hearing are contained in this document. A complete transcript of the hearing is available at the PSCOG Information Center. 2. McChord Air Force Base has been added to the RASP as a candidate for a future air carrier satellite role, subject to reaching agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense on joint use. Air Force regulations define the process for considering joint use. It consists of a proposal for joint use being submitted by the appropriate civilian agency, a review by the FAA with regard to air traffic control issues, a review by the local base commander to assess compatibility with the military mission, and a final decision by U.S.A.F. headquarters in Washington, D.C. The detailed joint use proposal and assessment of costs, benefits and impacts will be prepared during subsequent phases of RASP alternatives refinement. 3. In response to the DEIS review and public hearing process, the ATAC has proposed that the next phase of work to refine the RASP alternatives include a "resource management alternative," which would optimize the use of existing airports with no major expansions or new airports. This alternative could include, but not be limited to: • Expanded air carrier role for Boeing Field, including diversion of some general aviation based aircraft and operations to other airports if necessary. • Limited satellite air carrier operations at several airports, instead of concentrating satellite operations at one or two airports (e.g. San Juan Airlines service at • Paine Field). • Decentralizing operations which have the least need for connections at Sea -Tac, such as all -cargo carriers, maintenance activities, and training activities. It was the conclusion of the ATAC that the Resource Management Alternative could result in significant capacity improvement, but would not provide the full capacity increment suggested by the mid -range demand forecast through the year 2020. 31 GREG NICKELS King County Council District Eight February. 29, 1988 Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Curt: As you know, on February 24 I chaired the PSCOG hearing on the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) at Kennedy High School. An estimated 500 people from the. Highline, SeaTac, and West Seattle areas attended the meeting to hear and offer testimony on RASP. I have attempted to outline the testimony and I am submitting this summary and my conclusions to the PSCOG as part of the Environmental Impact Statement comments. From the time the Bow Lake airstrip was chosen as the site for the region's international airport and renamed Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, the residents of Highline, Angle Lake, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Burien, White Center, and West Seattle have suffered the impacts of this facility. Thousands of people have been relocated to accommodate expansion of the airport and thousands more have been moved from their homes to provide safety zones and noise buffers. The community, now known as SeaTac, has been geographically divided and its character forever changed because of the airport's presence. SeaTac and Highline have gradually accepted the airport as a neighbor and in the past few years have begun to recover and are . rebuilding their communities. This past fall the Highline School district was able to pass a $56 million levy that will provide funds to remodel and rehabilitate most of the schools in the district. Recently, the Port of Seattle and King County have been negotiating to build a regional park at North SeaTac on 210 acres of land vacated through the Airport Noise Acquisition program. A sense of community has slowly re- emerged in the airport neighborhoods. 402 King County Courthouse 32 Jashington 98104 (206) 344 -3447 02 100% Recycled Bond • 2 The specter, raised by RASP, of another expansion to SeaTac has frightened the residents around the airport and created an atmosphere of uncertainty as to the future of their homes, schools, and businesses. The "third runway alternative" at SeaTac International Airport would require acquisition of an estimated 1,700 additional acres of land. To provide simultaneous use of SeaTac runways, RASP proposes a 4,400 foot separation between runways. An expansion of this magnitude would enlarge the boundaries of the airport south to South 216th Street, west to First Avenue South, and north to South 128th Street. Within these boundaries are over 5,000 homes, occupied by more than 20,000 people. The Highline School District operates one high school, five elementary schools, two vocational educational facilities, and two special education schools in the expansion area and has committed spending $30 million in the next few years to rehabilitate these particular facilities. All of this would be displaced by the construction of a third runway at SeaTac. Land transportation corridors to SeaTac are already at or nearing capacity and would require major improvements to accommodate airport expansion. Concentrating the scarce 7 transportation project dollars we have to provide for an increase • in passenger traffic at SeaTac would short change other critical needs in King County and the region. The Regional Airport System Plan outlines a timetable continuing into the mid -1990s to select a preferred alternative. This schedule would, for all practical purposes, put the future of the SeaTac communities on hold for six to eight years while the PSCOG and local governments debate the four identified alternatives. Whether it is actually built or not, the prospect of a third runway will impact the lives and property of all the people living and working within the expansion area. I do not believe that the PSCOG or any local jurisdiction can justify a planning process or a project proposal that precipitates the impacts on property and community that I have described. The .people that testified and provided this information did not say "not in my backyard." Instead, they simply pointed out that there was enough in their backyards already. Our obligation to SeaTac is to assist in rebuilding and healing the community and not to inflict more damage on an area that is still suffering the impacts of airport development. I believe that the third alternative in the Regional Airport Systems Plan must be eliminated from consideration. Further 33 3 pursuit of the third runway proposal only detracts from the planning process needed to deal with the limited capacity of our airport system. Consideration of capital improvements to SeaTac must not be a disruptive "worst case" analysis but should instead study projects which improve current airport operations without expanding facilities outside present airport boundaries or further impacting these communities. I suggest that PSCOG replace the current third alternative with one that investigates SeaTac .systems and demand management and improved coordination or merging of operations with Boeing Field Internationai. Consideration of current airport capacities must be reviewed with accurate and current forecasting information. James Dwyer, Executive Director of the Port of Seattle, has written to inform me that the Port has commissioned a study by P &D Technologies to develop new forecasts based on reconsideration of past assumptions in traffic forecasting and changes in the aviation industry. Based on this report, the Port will reexamine the airport's facilities arnd consider ways in which capacity can be maximized without major expansion. I concur with Mr. Dwyer that we must determine what our actual regional aviation needs are and then we must examine all the ways in which to address those needs within our current airport facilities. This approach must be included as an alternative in the Regional Airport Systems Plan. Sincerely, Greg hi•kels King Cou ,ty Councilmember my Counci l members PSCOG •uncilmembers Paige Miller, Seattle Port Commissioner James Dwyer, Executive Director, Port of Seattle 34 RESPONSE TO KING COUNTY COUNCILMEMBER GREG NICKELS (LETTER OF 2/29/88) 1. As the region's primary air carrier airport, Sea -Tac is a major employment site and generator of ground travel, including trips by workers and travelers. The influence of Sea -Tac in generating ground travel both now and in the future is reflected generally in the PSCOG forecasts of population, employment and travel. The prospect of major expansion of Sea -Tac by addition of a third runway warrants special consideration of the ground traffic impacts which may be greater than that now assumed in the forecasts. This would appropriately be done in the next phase of analysis to explore in detail the costs, benefits and impacts of all the alternatives at a site- specific level. 2. There was concern expressed at all of the public hearings that the communities whose airport has been identified as a candidate for an expanded air carrier role will suffer adverse impacts from the uncertainty which hangs over land development decisions and property values. In response to this concern the ATAC has proposed, and SCOT has concurred that the next phase of site - specific study be expedited to facilitate the selection of a preferred alternative as soon as possible. With a reasonable commitment of resources this could be accomplished in a two -three year period, instead of "no later than 1994" as stated in the Draft RASP. 3. In response to the RASP public review comments, and based on a comprehensive planning review, the Port of Seattle Commission, on May 5, 1988, adopted a position indicating to PSCOG that the independent runway alternative (No. 3 in the Draft RASP) be withdrawn for reasons of unacceptable environmental disruption, community disruption, and financial impacts. The Commission further stated that future planning for Sea -Tac would include only options within the existing airport plateau envelope, including the dependent third runway. 35 Snohomish County Planning Greg Williams, Manager 5th Floor, Administration Bldg. Everett, Washington 98201 Willis D. Tucker, County Executive January 19, 1988 Don Secrist PSCOG • 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 SUBJECT: Snohomish County Comments - Regional Transportation Plan Airport System Amendment - Draft Environmental Impact Stateme widely advertised. Snohomish County has a great potential for impact from this plan and deserves adequate notice and opportunity to com- ment. Elected officials, citizens, and governmental staff commented as to the lack of sufficient notice. Both the Plan and the DEIS conclude that no alternative is superior and a decision cannot be made at this time. Nevertheless, Figure 8 (page 55 of the Plan) recommends that a search for a feasible air car- rier site begin prior to 1993. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not require such a search. It appears that no comprehensive decision- making proc- ess is planned which would allow making a choice will be pursued in 1996. This plan . has end goals with no apparent decision- making process into which citizens, agencies and jurisdictions would have organized input. In Snohomish County this has caused a great deal of stress to homeowners around Paine Field and in other areas mentioned as poten- tial sites for a new regional air carrier airport. This needs to be addressed more definitely including dates, decision - makers, and proc- ess. s; (cros) RASPEIS sp10 07 (206` - -13 Toll Free: 3 6 2 -4367 Scan. _ .. _13 An Equal Opportunity Employer REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN - 1988 -2020 PAGE COMMENTS Page 7 Page 42 Page 42 Page 47 Page B2 The last condition that was changed since the plan was adopted in 1982 is incorrectly stated. The determi- nation of Paine Field's role as a general aviation air- port was made in 1978, several years before the current plan was adopted. This, therefore, does not represent a changed condition. Furthermore, Snohomish County has 3 since taken several positive steps with regard to pro- tecting the airport with the adoption of the Paine Field Area Comprehensive Plan. The plan greatly reduced the number and extent of potentially incompatible uses which could be developed in the vicinity of the air- port. The plan and the DEIS contain apparant inconistencies in the description of the air carrier alternatives. For example, page 42 describes "a new air carrier satellite airport ... in conjunction with Sea -Tac" while the DEIS describes one or two such new airports. Chapter VIII //�� (page 77) of the plan refers also to two such new air- 4• ports. In addition, the latter referenced chapter de- scribes these airports with a capacity of 10 -12 million passengers while the DEIS describes their capacity as 6 -9 million passengers (Table 6, page 54). Paine Field is listed as a potential site for a satel- lite airport without mention of previous decisions and agreements regarding the future role of the airport. The plan and the DEIS are deficient in not disclosing 5 • this prior role determination and can therefore not be used as a decision - making tool without a detailed dis- cussion of the airport's adopted role. This is a seri- ous omission. Is there a contradiction between the "economic disad- vantage" of this alternative and the "substantial eco- nomic impact" in Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties? The proposed Ldn 65 contour would not address the per- ceived compatability problems near general aviation and privately owned airports. In those locations the lower Ldn contours and single event noise affect community reaction to aircraft operations. It becomes more diffi- cult for local governments to establish land use con- ■ trols in those areas based on aircraft impact only. These difficulties and the legal implications of land use restrictions in areas outside the Ldn 65 contour should be addressed in the plan and the DEIS. Don Secrist PSCOG January 19, 1988 (cms) RASPEIS 37 Page 2 sp1007 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PAGE COMMENTS Page 51 Page 73 This section does not adequately describe and evaluate the potential land use impacts of the air carrier al- ternatives. Several land use impact scenarios shoud be described, especially for the new 44.5 million passen- 8 ger facility alternative. Such an airport in a cur- rently rural area would have tremendous land use, transportation, and utility impacts whether consistent or inconsistent with local plans. The impact on and need for utilities should be de- scribed in more than a one sentence statement. The utility extensions to a new air carrier airport would g. in turn have land use impacts which may be detrimental to the operation of a new airport as well as having im- pacts along its path. In summary, the DEIS does not address the actual land use impacts and the impacts on local government regarding zoning, transportation and service provision in the creation of or expansion to an air carrier airport. The decision - making process must be more adequately publi- 1 cized ensuring extensive input by local government and citizens. It is also important that the potential for the joint use of McChord Air RESPONSE TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING 1 The Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) DEIS was distributed to the following agencies and organizations in Snohomish County: Snohomish County City of Everett City of Arlington City of Brier City of Edmonds City of Lake Stevens City of Lynnwood. City of Marysville City of Mill Creek City of Monroe City of Mountlake Terrace City of Snohomish City of Stanwood City of Woodway Tulalip Tribe Port of Everett Snohomish County PUD Community Transit Everett Transit Everett Public Library Six public hearings were held on the Draft RASP. The hearing in Everett has held on January 13, 1988. Notification was made in the following ways: • Legal notice published in Seattle Times on December 24, 1987. • Press release sent to Everett Herald and Seattle Times on December 24, 1987. • Project newsletter "Airport Update," Vol. 2, No. 1, January, 1988. distributed to a mailing list of 1,500, elected officials and other interested persons in King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. 2. The Draft RASP recommends that further analysis be conducted on all four of the air carrier alternatives presented. Alternatives 2 and 3 involve the improvement of existing airports; Alternatives 1 and 4 involve the development of airports at new locations (sites not yet identified). For existing airports identified in the Draft as candidates for an expanded air carrier role (Sea -Tac, Paine Field, Bremerton National, Tacoma Narrows, and McChord AFB), site specific analysis is needed to determine costs, benefits and environmental impacts. For those alternatives which involve finding new locations, potential sites must be identified so 39 that site - specific costs, benefits and environmental impacts can be evaluated. The Draft RASP recommends a subsequent phase of work to address the site specific costs, benefits, and impacts for all alternatives. The information generated would provide the basis for eliminating the least promising alternatives and reaching consensus on a preferred alternative(s). An important part of the next phase of work will be development of a decision process by which to select the preferred alternative(s). Expediting the decision process as much as possible will minimize the impact of uncertainty on communities whose airports or land areas are identified as potential sites for air carrier facilities. 3. The last "condition changed" in the.Puget Sound region since 1982, referring to Paine Field, will be corrected to read, "Based on the adopted 'General Aviation' role for Paine Field (re: Airport Commission Resolution, April 11, 1978) and the 1979 mediated agreement with airport communities, residential and commercial development have been permitted adjacent to the airport, inhibiting the potential expansion of its role." 4. The inconsistencies noted on pages 42 and 54 of the DEIS and page 77 of the plan will be corrected. Under the satellite airport alternatives, one or two satellite airports could be needed depending on the availability of sites and the actual growth in air travel demand. Both a high and low growth forecast are presented in the Draft RASP and DEIS. For purposes of evaluating the alternatives, the "worst case" was assumed, i.e., the high forecasts. Under this scenario, two satellite airports would be needed, each capable of serving up to 10 million annual passengers. This capacity combined with the ultimate capacity of Sea -Tac, estimated to be 25 million annual passengers, would serve the projected demand of 44 million annual passengers in the year 2020. 5. All of the airports listed in the Draft RASP and DEIS as candidates for an air carrier satellite role (Paine Field, Bremerton National, Tacoma Narrows, McChord Air Force. Base) have an adopted site master plan. These master plans, in general are addressing the airports' development between now and the year 2000. The RASP has a 2020 planning horizon, therefore goes beyond the time frame of the site.master plans. In suggesting a potential satellite air carrier role for these airports, the RASP is going beyond the scope and policy of the master plans, and therefore proposing that the master plan policies and airport role be examined to determine if a satellite air carrier role is feasible and desirable. Any changes in an airport's master plan would 40 have to be done with community acceptance and by a decision of the airport sponsor. With respect to Paine Field, the potential for a future satellite air carrier role has to be weighed against the current role policy as defined by the Airport Commission Resolution of April 11, 1978 and the subsequent mediated agreement of January 23, 1979. These documents define Paine Field's role as light aircraft oriented and "general aviation," and set forth criteria and a process for achieving that role consistent with community objectives. These documents also stated that, "other aviation activities that would be encouraged to continue and expand would be aircraft - related industries, business and corporate aviation, public service aviation, air taxi and commuter service." Specific reference to the Paine Field role policy mediated agreement will be made under the description of alternatives in the Draft RASP and DEIS. The RASP recommends that a subsequent phase of site specific analysis for the candidate airports be conducted to determine the impacts and benefits of a satellite air carrier role. This information will enable the assessment of feasibility and consistency with local airport and land use policies. 6. The "economic disadvantage" attributed to satellite airports refers to the difficulty in capturing a market share (and generating sufficient revenues) when competing with the region's primary hub airport (Sea -Tac). The substantial economic impact in Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties refers to the job growth and other economic development that would be generated by air carrier service to these areas. 7. The Ldn 65 noise exposure contour is a criterion used by the FAA to define the level above which noise impact is generally unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses, and below which the noise level is generally acceptable. As noted in the comment this criterion is not suitable for many general aviation and privately owned airport communities. The Draft RASP recommends (Recommendation No. 4 under General Aviation) that local governments use the airport overlay zone to address the special land use constraints adjacent to airports. The model ordinance contained in Appendix B of the Draft RASP can be adopted to the site - specific noise impact and flight operations of individual airports. Noise exposure levels other than Ldn 65 can be included on the ordinance at the users option. 8. The impacts to communities, land use, and infrastructure would be substantial under any of the alternatives identified in the RASP. The most effective treatment of impacts and benefits will be through site - specific analysis in subsequent 41 phases of RASP alternative refinement. At this time the alternatives are conceptual; potential sites for new airports will be identified in subsequent studies. 9. Same response as Comment No. 8. 10. McChord Air Force Base has been added to the RASP as a candidate airport for an air carrier satellite role. Since it was not listed in the Draft RASP and the DEIS, a second public hearing was held in Pierce County to give the public an opportunity to comment on this option. 42 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser; 1 February 26, 1988 17416 6th Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98166 Seventeen serious flaws reduce the credibility of the December, 1987 Regional Transportation Plan Airport System Amendment, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. These flaws should be corrected in the next release, even if a delay results. The seriousness of the decision to either expand Sea -Tac or to build a new International Airport cries out for a need to purge this report of error and omission. We must avoid being lured into a disaster like the one experienced by the Washington Public Power Commission. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Here is a list of the report's seventeen serious flaws: FLAW #1: Item 6 on page 3 recommends that the Port of Seattle and King County determine "the physical and economic feasibility of upgrading and expanding Sea -Tac's runway system." Large areas west of Sea -tac would be obliterated, and reorientation of the runways could be devastating. The Phased Decision - Making Schedule on page 2 indicates the decision be made during 1994 - 1995, following seven years of costly study. This schedule would have the unfortunate effect of placing a black cloud of doubt over a huge area around Sea -Tac. This cancer of uncertainty would continue for the next seven years (probably even longer). All plans for construction and improvements for commercial buildings, homes, schools, and roads would come to a halt until the decision is made seven years from now. For the next seven years property values would decline and homes would be difficult to sell at fair value, pending the removal of the uncertainty. The seven years of uncertainty will affect tens of thousands of people and billions of dollars in property values in Burien, Normandy Park, and Des Moines. The author's recommendation that all four options be studied to death for the next seven years is costly, unwise, and unnecessary. It reflects poor judgement on their part. There is a better way that will reduce the cost of the study while at the same time eliminating some of the uncertainty. 43 2 Why subject tens of thousands of citizens to seven years of torment and economic loss if a quick and preliminary engineering study can greatly increase or decrease the apparent viability of the option? Delaying the report six months would allow time to determine if the runway expansion plan is worthy of further detailed study. A short six month delay may avoid the dreadful seven years of economic and emotional punishment. The probability exists that a preliminary study might quickly eliminate the option to expand Sea -Tac. The airport is built on a high plateau. The new runway(s) would have to be located to the west. This terrain slopes away at a rapid rate down to Puget Sound. The new runway would have to be 4,000 to 5,000 feet to the west. The entire area would have to be filled to bring high elevation of the airport. The amount of fill huge that the earth moving and fill operation would largest efforts ever attempted by the human race. to be trucked in (from where ?), compacted layer by prevent erosion. Many thousands of truckloads every day, for several years. it up to the present required would be so surely be one of the This fill would have layer, and banked to would be necessary, Let's put the report on hold for just six months so that an engineering consulting firm can rough out some numbers. They should be asked to use topographical maps and quick surveys to calculate the cubic yards of fill required, and compare this to other fill projects attempted by mankind. They should be required to list other fill projects, and compare them in magnitude, fill schedule, and final cost. They should then calculate the number of truckloads required, the trucks per day, and the years for the filling to be completed. They should then identify some possible sources for the fill, and examine the impact on the freeways when the fill is trucked to Sea -Tac. They should estimate the cost. They should examine the stability of the fill during and after an earthquake. Finally they should look at the fill's impact on the environment at both the source of the fill and west of Sea -Tac (quantity of runoff mud entering streams and Puget Sound). A preliminary feasibility study as outlined here should require perhaps five engineers for six months. At $100 per hour, the cost should be well under $100,000. The benefits would be incalculable. Residents, municipalities, and businesses of the area would have a better feel for the future and could plan accordingly. If after this very simple and expanding Sea -Tac still seems list of candidates. If it does the tens of thousands impacted relatively inexpensive six month study, feasible, go ahead and include it on the not, remove the seven year headache from Highline residents. 44 3 The cost of the feasibility study will not be lost. If it eliminates expansion at Sea -Tac, it will avoid a much more costly future study. If it does not eliminate the possibility, that future study will have a running start. FLAW #2: The maps of the third runway concept show the runway parallel with the others (in a north -south direction). This requires the airport be expanded well west of First Avenue South. Contrary to the maps that are circulating, page 67 of the report says "a substantial increase in capacity would be realized only if Sea -Tac's runway system were configured so as to be parallel to Boeing Field's runway." Obviously it would be unwise to spend the estimated $2.75 billion and not achieve a substantial increase in capacity. The report does not say whether the estimated cost is for a new runway parallel with the existing, or for the reconfigured runway system. The report should include both versions, showing the capacity in flights per day, and the estimated cost. The authors say one plan achieves a substantial increase, and the other does not. If that is so, they should include the information in their report because of the huge impact on surrounding communities caused by reorientating the runways. This is not a minor point for them to gloss over. Page 71 contributes still further to the confusion. The page says it would be limiting to build it parallel to the existing runway. It also says it would "not be advantageous to construct the third runway so that it intersect the existing two runways ". The report favors "total realignment" so the runways are parallel with Boeing field. It goes on to say "Such a result would be very costly." Is the report's estimated $2.75 billion the very costly scheme, or is it the ineffective version? The consulting firm hired to perform the quick study described under FLAW #1 must look at both. FLAW #3: Page 24 describes the Sea -Tac expansion alternative as "constructing (at the least) a new runway." Page 36 of the report forecasts passenger requirements in the year 2020 with an astonishing accuracy of five significant figures. Yet it neglects to state how many new runways will be required to meet these future passenger projections, or how many new runways have been included in their estimate for $2.75 billion. What do they mean when they say "at the least "? If more than one new runway is being advocated, is expanding Sea -Tac still viable? If only one new runway is built at Sea -Tac, will adding a fourth runway be impossible, thereby rendering the $2.75 billion future sunk cost at Sea - Tac a total loss? 45 4 It is obvious that if the third runway is placed parallel and to the west of the existing ones, a future fourth runway, parallel to the others, must be planned for at the same time. The enormous requirement for fill dirt must be increased still further for the fourth runway. Remember, the report claims a need for one new runway "at the least ". It makes no sense to sink $2.75 billion into a new runway if expansion beyond that is impossible. What if the runways are shifted to be parallel to Boeing field? The report says this is required if a substantial increase in capacity is to be achieved. Then would one be enough, or would the "at the least" comment still apply? FLAW #4: The estimated cost of $2.75 billion to expand Sea -Tac is clearly stated on page 81. However, in addition to being unclear as to the quantity and orientation of the runways, the land acquisition cost is not mentioned in the report. The authors could have driven through the neighborhoods, estimated the numbers of homes, and estimated the cost. This cost could be one -half to one billion dollars. Is this cost in their $2.75 billion estimate? The report should say so. FLAW #5: Pages 13 and 14 correctly states that deregulation of the airlines has resulted in "increased frequency of flights, leading to the use of smaller aircraft and hence, a significant increase in the volume of operations (number of flights)." The authors have a defeatist attitude, feeling they must accept and plan for this unfortunate situation. The good news they overlook is that the very same free market forces that caused the problem will gradually and automatically correct the problem. Yes, for a brief period in our history there was a shift to smaller planes. But we need not accept that as good reason to spend $2.75 billion. Larger planes carry more passengers. If the average plane landing at Sea -Tac had 50% more passengers, there would be one -third fewer landings. Double the passengers per plane, and you have in effect added not one, but two new runways to Sea -Tac. Whether we provide economic incentive for the airlines to use larger planes (we should), or just let fundamental economics run-its course, it is inevitable that the number of passengers per plane will gradually increase. The reasons are as follows: A. The economics of fuel and equipment favor larger planes and fewer flights. For now the airlines are gripped in a temporary fierce competitive struggle to have many flights at all hours. We need to have confidence that eventually common sense and economics will prevail. The use of jumbo jets will become more common in our area, just as is the case back east. 46 5 B. The report forecasts a-passenger count increase of between 2.5 and 4 fold by the year 2020 (page 36). This might be so, but the entire air traffic system must be considered. It simply can't handle this large of an increase in airplanes. Every major city would have to expand its facilities along with Seattle to accommodate a 2.5 to 4 fold increase in airplanes. The nation's air traffic control system would have an impossible task and accidents would soar. It would be unfortunate if we spent the money to increase our air traffic capacity, and then find the planes we can place in the air have no place to land in Chicago, San Francisco, or New York. Even now flights are often held on the ground at Sea -Tac waiting for a landing slot in Chicago or New York. We gain nothing by spending our money to expand unless all other major airports also agree to expand. This of course would require the $2.75 billion estimated for the Sea -Tac expansion, multiplied by perhaps a hundred cities, for a total of $275 billion nation -wide. It's unrealistic to expect this will happen, especially when every city will see the obvious (jumbo jets avoid the need for the expenditure). Jumbo jets are the wave of the future because the skies and the airports of our country cannot and will not be able to handle the forecasts shown in the report. Once the skies and airports reach saturation, the only way to carry the increase in passengers is by having more seats per plane. C. As our population increases, economics will compel the airlines to use larger planes for flights to and from Seattle. This is already happening in the busy air traffic corridors back east. Northwest and United have jumbo jet service from Seattle to Chicago. Northwest even has one on a run from Portland to Seattle. The authors cannot ignore the trends that are here right now. The report needs to compare the use of jumbo jets here with the more dense population centers. D. If Sea -Tac did not expand, flight slots would be rationed and allocated very competitively. The airlines, not able to land as many flights, would land larger planes instead. Hence the increase in passenger traffic would be handled automatically by the invisible hand of economic forces. If we expand Sea -Tac, we would simply encourage the airlines to concentrate their small planes on Seattle service, and do exactly the opposite of what is best economically for them (and us). E. Part of the problem is the large number of empty seats flying into and out of Sea -Tac (and every airport). An empty seat requires as much fuel, runway capacity, terminal space, and causes as much noise and pollution as a full seat. Empty seats cause the unnecessary expenditure of billions of dollars to expand airports and purchase airplanes. 47 6 The energy conservation theme of the 70s and 80s eliminated the need for many costly new power plants. Likewise the theme of the 90s may well be "flight conservation ". Across the entire country resistance will develop to the constantly increasing number of flights. The term "flight conservation" will slip into common usage by planners, airport officials, and airline executives everywhere. Small planes with lots of empty seats will be a thing of the past. This wonderful and universally beneficial trend can be nurtured and encouraged if across the nation we put an end to costly airport expansions. We could start a national trend to put an end to this waste by putting a stiff tax on every empty seat flown into or out of Seattle. That action alone would put the need for airport expansion further off into the future. Likewise we could encourage the simultaneous use of jumbo jets through properly structured landing fees. That also would push the need date for expansion further into the future. We could encourage a more uniform distribution of flights away from peak periods through the imposition of time related passenger fees. These differing fees would show up in the airline's ticket prices. Every city, hoping to cut noise and pollution, and either postpone or avoid costly airport expansions, will consider similar measures. Seattle can become the leader of this national movement that will benefit us all (residents, passengers, tax payers, airlines, and even Boeing). FLAW *6: Projecting trends into the future is hazardous. The "energy experts" forecast future power demands by projecting trends far into the future. They incorrectly forecast a need for a multitude of atomic power plants. The Washington Public Power disaster resulted. Page 36 of the report is guilty of the same error. For the year 1985 they show that at Sea -Tac there were just under five passengers per resident (passengers divided by regional population). For the year 2020 they show this ratio increasing to a low of 7 and a high of over 10. How many vacations and trips to visit grandma are they thinking we will take? Do they really think the average person will have the vacation time and the disposable personal income for a 40% to 100% increase in travel? Should the need for a $2.75 billion airport expansion be based on this unsubstantiated and questionable forecast that is hidden in a column of figures on page 36? This is a very deadly flaw, and renders the report's claim for a need to expand the airport debatable. 48 6. 7 This error is exactly the same as the one made by the experts who projected ever increasing per capita energy consumption rates far into . the future, and then sold us on the idea of building a host of new atomic power plants here in Washington. We all know the sad result of that bad projection. Let's not be fooled by yet another doubtful projection. Let's keep in mind the saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." FLAW #7: The report fails to compare vital statistics at Sea -Tac with other cities. For every major city it should show millions of people per runway, so it can be seen if our quantity of runways is insufficient. It should show daily landings and takeoffs per runway for every major airport, and compare them to Sea -Tac.. It needs to compare average passengers per plane (to see if Seattle is being fooled into seeing a false need for more runways because of the unnecessary use of too many small airplanes by the airline companies servicing Seattle). It needs to compare-the arrival and departure of empty seats (per cent loading) to see what improvement is possible. It needs to compare the passenger fees imposed at other airports to those that will be necessary at Sea -Tac to pay the estimated $2.75 billion expansion cost. Thus a terrible flaw of the report is that it treats Seattle like an isolated island unto itself. The report's authors have a dangerous lack of interest in how things are done elsewhere. FLAW #8: Page 61 shows the future cash flows pertaining to the expansion. It needs to be explained. For the years 2001 to 2020 it shows funding of roughly $400 million from the Port of Seattle. Where does that come from? If it is tax based, it amounts to an annual per capita charge for the estimated regional population of about $100, or about $300 per worker. In addition, the table shows a shortfall of roughly $700 million per year. Where will this come from? If it is a passenger tax, it will amount to between $16 and $26 per passenger, depending on the report's range of estimated passengers. This will have to be doubled for round trips. If the number of passengers per capita of population does not rise as expected by the report, a little arithmetic will show the per passenger fee is $35. If the project has a 50% overrun in cost (not unusual) the passenger fee could be $52 ($104 for round trips). This is clearly excessive. 49 8 Still the question remains, where will the $400 million provided by the Port come from? If this is also collected as a passenger fee, simple arithmetic shows the passenger fee could be $52 plus $15, or $67 for a one -way ticket. The report needs a sensitivity analysis to show the per passenger fee for different assumptions for passenger projections and airport cost (best case, expected case, and worse case). The authors should have consulted the airlines to see if they consider these numbers to be reasonable or prohibitive. They should be compared to other airports, and the figures included in the report. If airlines had a choice, would they prefer using more jumbo jets to serve Seattle and as a consequence avoid the need for the costly airport expansion and the resulting fees? Or would they prefer to pay the fees so they can fly more small planes to Seattle? It is their problem and hopefully their cost. Why not consult them and put the results in the report? FLAW #9: What is the present passenger capacity of Sea -Tac? The report is not clear, so lets piece the information together. Page 70 says the FAA claims the maximum capacity of Sea -Tac's present runways is 992 flights per 16 hour day. Do they mean 992 landings plus 992 departures? Or do they mean 496 of each? Using 365 days per year, and with 100 passengers per flight, the total annual passengers would be 36 million. If more jumbo jets are used to attain an average of 200 per flight, we would have 72 million passengers per year. On page 36 the report forecast between 27 and 44 million passengers for the year 2020. Even if these wildly optimistic projections for the growth in per capita air travel are correct, the present capacity of Sea -Tac seems adequate to the year 2020. What the report doesn't say is that if the number of flights increases proportionally with the projected increase in our population (a very defendable assumption), there would be only 20 million passengers in the year 2020. This is only one -half to one - fourth of Sea -Tac's present capacity. This of course requires _ the spreading of flights to avoid peak periods (the subject of the next point). FLAW #10: The report seems to be based on the flawed assumption that we need to buy and provide expensive airport facilities sized to allow any and every airline the ability to have a flight whenever they wish. On page 23 we read "Peak demand scheduling and frequency of flights give an airline the competitive edge over others within a given market." 50 9. 9 This bad practice, if continued to extremes, will bankrupt many airline companies. We should not encourage this folly by adding expensive capacity. We need not incur massive debt so the airlines can better pursue a competitive advantage (higher profit). The fact of the matter is that all the airlines would be more profitable if constraints imposed by limited airport capacity forced them all to better distribute their flights through the day, reduce the number of empty seats, reduce the number of flights, and use larger planes. Having limited airport capacity would cause the total of airline profits to be higher, and would eventually cut airfares for us all Page 61 shows a net deficit resulting from the airport expansion of over $700 million per year by the year 2001. This will have to come from either the passengers or from the airlines (and then passed on in part to the passengers). The only benefit of this $700 million is that people will be better able to travel when they want (during peak periods instead of the less popular times of the day). We have already seen that there is capacity for 992 flights per day, which will suffice to the year 2020 if the flights are spaced throughout the day. If passengers were given a choice of paying $700 million per year in higher ticket prices in the years 2001 to 2020 (page 61), or of not having a full choice of departure or landing times, they would surely select the inconvenience. Good Government is doing what the people want. FLAW #11: The report avoids the mention of improved ground transportation. Consider the large number of flights from Seattle to Portland, and return. How many passengers would consider taking the train if it was convenient and competitive. FLAW #12: The report fails to consider that the reason for the heavy use of air travel is the cheap fares in recent years. This is to a major extent due to low fuel prices resulting from low crude oil prices. The world is using oil faster than it is being discovered, and eventually demand will catch up with supply. When that happens, the price of jet fuel will rise, ticket prices will rise, and the demand for flights will suffer. The report's authors have been fooled by a period of low fuel prices that should be considered only a temporary aberration. They have used the resulting high demand for air travel and projected it to the year 2020. They even went beyond a simple ratio of passengers to population by forecasting the air travel per capita would see a rise of between 39% and 123% (page 36). In fact, per capita travel might actually fall if fuel prices rise appreciably. The authors are guilty of ignoring very basic economics, the impact on demand by price. 51 10 FLAW #13: The other economic error is that they didn't evaluate the impact on the demand for air travel resulting from the $700 million shortfall forecast for the years 2001 to 2020. This shortfall will have to come either directly or indirectly from passengers, and that will decrease demand. Yet they are forecasting an increase in per capita demand of between 40% and 123 %. 1 11 If we as a community got tough, and said there will not be an expansion of our airport, we might start a national movement against airport expansions. This in turn would create a demand for larger jets that would then create more Boeing jobs. The subject of jobs should be discarded from the report. FLAW #15: Pages 21 and 22 include the "No Action Alternative ". This is dismissed in only three paragraphs. Half the report should have been devoted to it, because it is the most viable alternative. If the authors do not feel so, they should devote many pages of information and data to support their view. The lowest cost option should always be considered the base case, from which we deviate after only the most convincing onslaught of indisputable evidence and information. Instead the report starts from the assumption that big bucks need to be spent, and it projects passenger figures far into the future. These are the same mistakes made by the Washington Public Power Commission. FLAW #16: The report doesn't give enough emphasis to the impact on other communities resulting from overflights. Page 83 says that the airports would be optimized if Sea -Tac's runways would be made parallel with Boeing field. It then says that "This would cause perceptible changes in the aircraft overflight patterns for communities of the region." Which communities? Why not have a map and fully disclose the impact? It seems certain that currently pristine neighborhoods (Bellevue) would feel the impact. They also might then resist these changes. FLAW #17: The report also makes no mention of the reason why or how a third runway would increase capacity. A third runway would allow two landings (or takeoffs) to occur at the same time (as is done at Dallas - Fort Worth). To avoid in -air collisions, the FAA will then eventually require flight patterns that resemble giant clover leafs in the air. Consequently, communities not now under flight patterns will suddenly have planes above them. Those communities that are not actively resisting this plan, thinking that only Highline will be "stuck" with the additional grief, will get their just rewards if Sea -Tac is expanded. The report should have a map showing these new patterns. Several maps need to be included: one for the new runway parallel with the existing, and the other with the three runways reorientated to be parallel with Boeing field. Was the map left out of the report so that the 80,6 of King County residents that don't live near the airport would not get alarmed? 53 12 If you have any questions about my observations concerning the report, I would be pleased to talk with you. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely C3'LA(Q Stanley C. Lane 54 RESPONSE TO STANLEY C. LANE 1. There was concern expressed at all six public hearings that the communities whose airport has been identified as a candidate for an expanded air carrier role will suffer adverse impacts from the uncertainty which hangs over land development decisions and property values. In response to this concern, the ATAC has proposed and the SCOT has concurred, that the next phase of site- specific study be expedited to facilitate the selection of a preferred alternative as soon as possible. With a reasonable commitment of resources this could be accomplished in a two -three year period, instead of "no later than 1994" as stated in the Draft RASP. 2. In preliminary evaluations of the air carrier alternatives, the ATAC concluded that realignment of Sea -Tac runways, which could optimize air traffic flow interaction with Boeing Field, is infeasible due to the sunk investment in existing facilities and currently adopted Noise Remedy Program. The realignment option was discarded from further consideration. References to it will be removed from the RASP and DEIS. 3. For purposes of estimating the cost of alternative 3 it was assumed that one runway, 10,000 feet in length, and parallel taxiway would be added to Sea -Tac. The new runway was assumed to be parallel to the existing runways. 4. The estimated cost. of $2.75 billion (1987 dollars) for Alternative 3 included land acquisition (about 1,700 acres at $0.5 million per acre). 5. The following historical data and assumptions were used to translate the forecasts of air carrier passenger demand to aircraft operations at Sea -Tac: 1979 actual 1985 actual 2000 forecast 2020 forecast Average Seats per Aircraft 163 125 139 139 Average Average Average Thru- Available Load Seats Seats Factor 15 148 54% 18 107 52% 21 118 52% (high) 58% (low) 21 118 53% (high) 63% (low) As shown by the average seats per aircraft, there is assumed to be some reversal of the recent trend toward smaller 55 aircraft. This could occur as conditions under deregulation stabilize and as airlines purchase larger aircraft over time in response to airport and airways congestions. Another influential variable is average load factor, i.e., the proportion of seats filled of total seats per departure. For the high forecasts it was assumed that the airlines would continue today's practice of filling about 52% of available seats, on the average. For the low forecast it was assumed that unfavorable economic conditions and higher operating costs would force higher load factors. In more recent studies, a consultant for the Port of Seattle has tested a scenario assuming the average seats per aircraft would grow to 150, and load factors up to 70 percent. (Re: P & D Technologies for the Port of Seattle, Airspace study, Working Paper 1, Nov. 1987.) These assumptions, if realized, would reduce the required number of aircraft operations to serve the projected air passenger demand. This lower operations scenario still exceeds the capacity of Sea -Tac's current runway system, but could reduce the required separation for the third runway. As listed in the comment letter, such factors as cost and availability of larger aircraft, cost of fuel, state of airport capacity in the national network, and general economic conditions will influence the actual outcome. 6 Same response as Comment No. 5. 7 The assessment of long range airport needs for the Draft RASP was based on forecasts of air passenger demand. These forecasts were produced by a regional regression model which derives air passenger demand from independent projections of regional population growth, regional per capita income growth and the change, in real terms, of average air fares. Air passenger demand is translated to air carrier aircraft operations based on assumptions for average aircraft seating capacity and load factor for the fleet mix serving this region. (See response to Comment No. 5.) In developing forecast assumptions and in checking the reasonableness of the model - generated forecasts, national trends and air travel patterns of similar size urban areas were considered. The forecast results were also reviewed and accepted by the ATAC, which has representatives from airport jurisdictions, airlines, state airport system planning and national airport system planning. They were judged to be reasonable projections on which to base the RASP. Actual growth is monitored on an on -going basis. Adjustments are made to implementation schedules or to the scope of plan recommendations if assumptions prove to be erroneous. 56 8. As part of the cost and financial analysis for the Draft RASP, a comparison was made of capital needs vs. revenues available from existing funding sources projected through the planning period 1987 -2020. Table 10 (page 61) of the DEIS reports results of this analysis for a representative air carrier alternative (Alternative 4, New International Airport, was used) and a representative general aviation alternative. The analysis of the air carrier alternative shows total capital needs of $1,950 million, and total revenues ranging from $809 -980 million, producing a shortfall of $970 to 1,060 million (1986 dollars) over the entire period from 1987 -2020 (not $700 million per year as reported by Mr. Lane). The sources of revenues were assumed to be the federal Airport Improvement Program, landing fees charged to the airlines, property rentals and concession revenues. Historically, the port property tax levy collected in King County has been used for marine facilities, and not for airport facilities. In recent years the Port has generated an average net operating revenue of $22.5 million per year, which is available for capital projects. The higher end of the revenue forecast reported in Table 10 ($742.5 million) was estimated by projecting this net operating revenue through the planning period. Additional funding sources would have to be identified to implement any of the air carrier alternatives. These sources could include high airline ticket tax, higher landing fees, allocation of property tax levies, general obligation bonds, other forms of private sector participation, and state sources, if enacted. These sources will be explored more specifically in subsequent phases of refinement of the air carrier alternatives. 9 The passenger capacity of Sea -Tac is estimated to be 25 million annual passengers, if the airport is built out according to the master plan adopted in 1985. The existing operations capacity, estimated by the Air Traffic Control staff, is 992 operations per day. An operation is a take -off or a landing. 10. Comment acknowledged. The statement of a net deficit of $700 million per year by Mr. Lane is incorrect. Please refer to the response to Comment No. 8. 11. Improved ground transportation to serve air carrier facilities will be addressed in subsequent site - specific evaluations of the air carrier alternatives. 12. Comment acknowledged. 57 13. Please refer to the responses to Comments 8 and 10. 14. Comment acknowledged. 15. The ATAC has proposed that the next phase of analysis to refine the RASP alternatives include a "Resource Management Alternative" which consists of optimizing the use of existing airport facilities, without major expansions. This would involve improvement of existing airports only within their currently adopted master plans. Examples of options that could be considered within the resource management concept include: • Use of airports outside the region, such as Olympia or Skagit Regional (Bayview), for satellite air carrier operations to the extent permitted under their currently adopted master plan. • Use of Boeing Field to serve some air carrier operations, potentially displacing some of the general aviation now served there. • Joint management and operation of Boeing Field and Sea -Tac. • Limited commuter service at several airports, such as the existing San Juan Airline Service to Paine.Field, to the extent permitted by the currently adopted master plan. • Use of Grant County Airport (Moses Lake) as a hub for international flights, with express ground transportation or air shuttle to the Puget Sound region. 16. All of the air carrier alternatives could create overflights of communities not now directly under flight paths. This impact will be evaluated for specific airport sites in the next phase of alternatives analysis. 17. The third runway at Sea -Tac would increase the capacity of the airport by allowing independent or more closely staggered aircraft operations. It would increase the number of communities directly under flight paths. 58 IV. Written Comments from the Public IV. WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC SUMMARY In addition to testimony received at the public hearings, substantial written comment on the draft airport system plan and EIS was received by PSCOG. Written comments received after publication of the Draft EIS are presented in this chapter. They are organized in the following manner: 1. Comments from public agencies /officials. 2. Comments from religious /community organizations and private sector. 3. Comments from the general public. Comments in each category are presented in chronological order. The following is a tally of the written comments. Removal of Air Carrier Alternative #3 - Expansion of Sea -Tac 182 Drop expansion of Cedar Grove Airport 3 .Drop expansion of Bremerton National Airport 3 Drop expansion of Paine Field 10 Against new airport 4 Build new airport 19 Expansion of an airport, but not Sea -Tac 11 Expand existing facilities 2 Expand Paine Field 10 Expand Sea -Tac 3 Expand McChord for joint use 3 Expand Bremerton Airport 1 Expand Tacoma Narrows 1 Expand Bellingham Airport 1 59 Build smaller airport on Eastside - 2 The following groups of petitions were received by PSCOG during the public comment period. 1. Highline United Methodist Church; against alternative 3, Sea -Tac Airport Expansion. Number of signatures: 26. 2. Marvista Elementary School; against alternative 3. signatures: 35. 3. D. Gail Lane, Normandy Park; against alternative 3. of signatures: Approximately 1,600. 60 Number of Number PUBLIC AGENCIES /OFFICIALS 61 62 Senator Eleanor Lee Washington State Senate Thirty-third District March 31, 1988 Curtis Smelser, Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: This is to request that any further consideration of plans to expand SeaTac Airport facilities eliminates the option of a third runway. The cost of such a means of expansion does not make this a viable option. Furthermore, a seven year study period will hang like a black cloud over area residents and businesses. Even an impractical suggestion, such as this option is, will have a dampening effect on the economy of our area. Recent action by the PSCOG working group to "defer" consideration is a step in the right direction, but hardly a help in removing the cloud on property values. We need a positive action to instruct that a third SeaTac runway not be considered as an option. I urge your quick rejection of this option and more careful consideration of other possibilities if such expansion is still deemed essential. Sincerely, Eleanor Lee State Senator u 1988 PUG_ r \ E ,.. i nog J P.O. Box 390 • Seahurst, Washington 98062 • Office: 764 -4263 102 Institutions Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • 786 -7664 63 • g&S At&ne4 THE `r9f " CITY DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 March 10, 1988 Mr. Donald Secrist, Project Manager Regional Airport System Plan Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 D [gr-t-fsir,-:,F7_11,,,..,7. t:;_,==J r w. 0\ VAR 1 198B PUGEE SOUND CO 1 L OF GOVERNMENTS Re: Regional Transportation Plan, Airport System Amendment, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, December, 1987 Dear_ Mr. Secrist: I am writing regarding the ongoing study of air traffic in Puget Sound by PSCOG. I understand that PSCOG is examining a number of different alternatives which would potentially alleviate excess air traffic beyond the theoretical saturation point of the Sea Tac facility. A proposed project of this magnitude clearly requires a close examination of all available alternatives as to their cost benefit, both in terms of monetary and social costs. Very often expanding existing facilities can be the least expensive and most logical option when one is trying to increase existing capacity. The third runway option, as identified in the PSCOG alternatives, is the apparent least desirable from a cost benefit perspective. Both Councilmember Whisler, Chair of the City of Des Moines Environment Committee, and I have testified in recent PSCOG public hearings that a third runway, in addition to being the most expensive option, would substantially impact the City of Des Moines beyond the severe impact the City is currently suffering as a result of airport activity. The City is already the most severely impacted municipality of any community in the greater Sea Tac area. A third runway would not only exacerbate the extreme noise impacts in our City, but would cause severe disruption of King County transportation systems, schools and surrounding residents. There are many notable metropolitan areas in the nation that have more than one regional airport serving their needs. If additional airport capacity is required in the greater Seattle area, a second regional facility is the answer. Such an option is the most logical and should be pursued aggressively. Donald Secrist, Project Manager Regional Airport System Plan March 10, 1988, Page 2 The option of expanding the Sea Tac facility is neither logical nor is it cost effective, certainly in monetary terms to the region but most importantly it further hurts a community that is already shouldering the burden of airport impacts for the benefit of the Pacific Northwest region. To further require these citizens to endure additional burden would be cruel and grossly unfair. We would strongly urge PSCOG to drop the third runway alternative and to actively pursue the second regional facility option. Sincerely, Pat DeBlasio Mayor PD:sb cc: Paul Barden, King County Councilmember Greg Nickels, King County Councilmember 65 19900 4TH S.W. March 11, 1988 CITY OF NORMANDY PARK NORMANDY PARK. WA 98166 TELEPHONE (206) 824.2602 Mr. Curtis Smelser Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: -6--i ri-_--3 f::::: r - 1 n PUGET Suu:o_ •..:d:'EL OF GOVERN aY N s i At its regular meeting of March 9, 1988, the Normandy Park city council unanimously passed the enclosed resolution expressing its opposition to any major expansion of Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. The city joins both private citizens and many community groups in expressing their opposition. It is our hope that both elected and appointed officials will hear the growing concern over the activities at Sea -Tac Airport and will maintain their policy of being good neighbors in the Sea -Tac community. We ask that positive action be taken to eliminate any possibility of expansion that would adversely impact our homes and community. Sincerely, Donna K. Hanson City Manager dtj /Enclosure 66 RESOLUTION NO. 5a ! A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NORMANDY PARK, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO ANY MAJOR EXPANSION OF SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WHEREAS, the city of Normandy Park, as well as other communities in the vicinity of Sea -Tac Airport, have, for years, been adversely impacted by noise and air pollution from the airport; and WHEREAS, major expansion of Sea -Tac Airport, including addition of a third runway and extension of the airport boundary a considerable distance to the west, has been proposed by Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) as an alternative to accommodate increasing air traffic; and WHEREAS, such expansion of Sea -Tac Airport would, at a minimum, involve an intolerable increase in noise, air, and traffic pollution for Normandy Park, as well as a drastic reduction in property values, and could very conceivably result in the complete demise of Normandy Park as a viable residential community; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORMANDY PARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city of Normandy Park is adamantly opposed to any major expansion of Sea -Tac Airport and its expansion west of the existing airport boundary. Section 2. The city will actively participate in and support other community and /or citizen action directed toward the rejection of Sea -Tac Airport expansion as a solution for accommodating increasing air traffic. Section 3. The city, through its designated appointee to the Aircraft Noise Abatement Committee, or alternate representative, will officially attend all known meetings of significance on the subject of airport expansion and, at these meetings, will ensure that the city's position is clearly understood. Section 4. The city will immediately send correspondence to the Seattle Port Authority, the King County Council, PSCOG, and any and all other agencies in a position to make or influence a decision on Sea -Tac Airport expansion. This correspondence is to clearly and firmly state the opposition of the city to major Sea -Tac Airport expansion and to any expansion of Sea -Tac Airport beyond its present western boundary, and will request that Sea -Tac Airport expansion be removed immediately as a potential solution for accommodating increasing air traffic. Further, to preclude the necessity of Normandy Park's living under the continued threat of Sea -Tac Airport expansion to the west, this correspondence is to strongly insist that the agencies involved immediately adopt binding policy statements ruling out any further consideration of expansion of Sea -Tac Airport to the west. This correspondence, which is to be postmarked no later than March 15, 1988, is to request the opportunity for city officials to meet on the subject with 67 Resolution No. 52/ Page 2 responsible agency personnel and is to request a formal response by April 15, 1988 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORMANDY PARK THIS '7 410 DAY OF L7YI04,00 , 1988; AND SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE THIS C141,-; DAY OF -77&(.(J-3 , 1988. Atteste by1ity Clerk /Treasurer 68 1i1/ . P4R 1:9p? PUGET SOUND OF GOVEleNfo ns .. � Governmental Operations Law and Justice, Ranking Minority Member Ways and Means Senator Phil Talmadge 1725 SW Roxbury 05 Seattle, Washington 98106 Tel: 764 -4334 Olympia: 786 -7666 Washington State Senate February 26, 1988 Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments Grand Central on the Park 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: RELEoug MR 03 79,RR PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS I am writing to express my concern about the Regional Airport System Plan, specifically the proposal which would allow the expansion of Sea -Tac Airport by adding a third runway. I can certainly understand the conclusion drawing in the plan that in its current state, Sea -Tac will be unable to accommodate future passenger demand. But I do not support the proposal to add the third runway, expanding west of the current runways. This would have a detrimental affect on the community. It would require land acquisition by the Port, thereby uprooting families, homes and schools. It would mean increased air traffic over the neighborhoods from Federal Way to West Seattle and increased noise. Finally, the expansion option is must too costly compared to the other options. I urge you to drop this option from the plan. I appreciate the Plan. I will progresses. Sincerely, 114 opportunity to express my concerns about the be carefully monitoring this issue as it Phil Talmadge State Senator pt9vv cc: Highline Times Vladimir Selivanoff Bill Bowlin REPRESENTING THE 34TH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 69 3 SCHOOL DISTRICT Nt). 401 IIIGIII_INE PUBLIC SCHOOLS KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOL11ION NO. 758 A RESOLUTION of the Board of Directors of ilighline School District 11401, King County, Washington, certifying its opposition to the addition of a third runway at SEA -TAC international Airport and directing staff to make the district's opposition known. WiIEREAS, The Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) has identified four potential options to deal with anticipated over - utilization needs of the existing facilities of SEA -TAC International Airport; and WHEREAS, one of those options involves the expansion of the airport by the construction of a. new third runway parallel to an existing runway, with the west side the more likely location; and WHEREAS, said option is the most costly option under consideration; and WHEREAS, said option could result in the condenrnat.ion of property as far west as First Avenue, north to 128th Street, and south along 216th Street; and WHEREAS, the Highline •School District presently maintains and operates one high school; one Occupational Skills Center; one Maintenance, Operations and Transportation compound; five elementary schools; two alternative special schools; and one memorial field and athletic facility in the area impacted by said option; and WHEREAS, surplus school properties and tenant revenues of Maywood, North Hill, Sunnydale and Sunny Terrace would likewise be lost to said option; and WHEREAS, approximately 4.000 students currently receive educational programs in the schools listed ahovc, and of those 2,60n reside in the area directly impacted by such option; and 11IIERf.AS, said option, if implemented, would accentuate the level of noise from airport •act.ivities necessitating sound proofing modifications to remaining district facilities; and • WHEREAS, completed or pending capital improvements authorized by the Board of Directors, and funded in part by a 56 million dollar bond issue passed by community. voters in September 1986 to modernize, renovate and /or replace district facilities, would be curtailed if said option were viable and lost if implement.ed, and W11f:RF.AS, the education program would he negatively .impacted by a reduction of some 55 certificated staff and 20 classified staff; and 70 WHEREAS, access to remaining facilities by transportation, maintenance, Operations, food service and other support, services would be c.omplicat.ed by the circular geographic shape of the left over district; and WHEREAS, the remaining 1400 students displaced by the closure of existing sites would necessitate the construction of new buildings to house them educationally, whether at existing sites or not; and WIIE-_REAS, the desirability of moving into, constructing, modifying, improving or otherwise economically expanding residential areas in the Highline School District, while said option is under discussion, will be seriously chilled; TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Highline School District is opposed to the option tinder consideration which involves the addition of a third runway to SEA -TAC International Airport. iT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the a(Irninistration is 1.) authorized to take such steps it deems necessary to monitor the deliberations of the Puget Sound Council of Governments, and its attempts to resolve the future utilization needs of SEA -TAC; 2) directed to apprise the Board of the progress of said deliberations; and 3) from time to time to make recommendations to the Board as to action plans both political and legal to assure that said expansion option, which is undesirahle, harmful to the school district and community, and not in the best interest of the Paget Sound Governments, is deleted as an option from the Puget Sound Council of Governments recommendation to the County Council, Port of Seattle, and other affected governmental agencies. ADOPTED at a regular open public meeting of the Board of Directors held on February 24, 1988. 11IGIII_INE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 401 C-or Pr s i (lent ty- /22 rc-:(,1i2et, 1, Kent D. Matheson, Secretary to the Board of Directors of Highline School District. No. 401, King C.onnty, do hereby certify that the attached t.ached i s a t.riie and acciira l.e copy of original Resolution No. 758 for the use and purpose intended. 2/24/88 71 ( /4., 1). Secretary Ak the hoard BOB ROEGNER, MAYOR MARY McCUMBER, PLANNING DIRECTOR January 18, 1988 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 25 WEST MAIN, AUBURN, WA 98001 (206) 931 -3090 Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA. 98104 Ref.No. 88 -034 RE: Regional Transportation Plan Airport System Amendment Draft EIS Dear Mr. Smelser: The Department has reviewed the above referenced "nonproject" DEIS and does not have any comments at this time. The City will be particularly interested in reviewing project specific airport development or redevelopment EISs in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to review this matter. Yours very truly, Department of Planning & Community Development G. .Mary McCumb Director MM:pb 72 • g • THE "W " CITY DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 January 13, 1988 Mr. Don Secrist, Project Manager Regional Airport System Plan Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. So. Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: Regional Transportation Plan, Airport System Amendment, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, December, 1987 Dear Mr. Secrist: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The City of Des Moines is well aware that Sea -Tac airport is becoming increasingly more crowded and will soon be saturated. Des Moines consistently receives the greatest noise impacts of any community in the airport's vicinity. The predominant take -off pattern is to the south, directly over the City of Des Moines. Major changes in current runway configurations or the addition of new runways at the Sea-'Tac airport will result in new flight paths and increased air traffic volume which will have a significant adverse impact upon our City and its citizens requiring substantial revisions of zoning laws, additional building codes, not to mention the additional adverse noise impacts on an already severely impacted area. As stated in the DEIS Executive Summary, none of the proposed solutions stands out as a clear winner. The City agrees that clearly further impact definition must be done on all of the various alternatives. Des Moines is vitally interested in continuing to work with the PSCOG on any alternative that would affect this municipality. In particular we are concerned with those alternatives that would seek to modify the Sea -Tac facility. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and request that you include us in any further discussions as they develop. Cordially yours, dt DeBlasio Mayor PD:GP:sb cc: City Council CITY HALL [u POLICE DEPT 8301178TH<A4595" VE:'S0. ;:;x;21640 11TH AVE SO 878.3301:,: " MUNICPAL COURT _MARINA PUBLIC WORKS & BLDG .DEPT. 1630 ;11TH AVE..SO:= .22307 DOCK :AVE SO.: 21650 11TH AV,E SO: ' :878.8626. 73 49 'METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 January 11, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Draft Environmental Impact Statement; RTP Airport System Amendment Puget Sound Council of Governments Dear Mr. Smelser: Metro staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Airport System Amendment to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and offers the following comments. The DEIS adequately describes the potential adverse impacts on regional surface water quality resulting from major new or expanded airport facilities for a non - project or programmatic - level environmental impact analysis. Construction of one or two new airports would have substantial impacts on water quality as noted. The project -level environmental impact statements should identify impacts and proposed mitigation of adverse impacts to surface water quality. The DEIS recognizes the potential impacts of new or expanded airport facilities on surface transportation. It also acknowledges the influence regional rail may have on the alternatives. Project -level environmental impact statements should include the role of public transportation in the alternatives analysis, and identify requisite facilities and services. Metro staff should review and comment on the forthcoming project - level EIS's. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB : j mg 74 JOSEPH R. GLUM Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -6600 • (SCAN) 234 -6600 January 11, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: in Environmental Impact Statement for Regional Transportation Plan and Airport System Amendment Within the Puget Sound Region. One of the major impacts to rivers and streams in urban areas is the introduction of pollutants such as oils, heavy metals, phosphates, etc. These pollutants enter the rivers and streams through storm run -off systems. Most run -off systems are designed using underground pipe leading to either underground detention vaults or detention ponds . designed to prevent downstream flooding. Unfortunately, even with oil /water separators, these systems concentrate pollutants, then discharge them to the receiving waters. Therefore, it is necessary to provide some means, in addition to the standard oil /water separators, that will remove the pollutants typical of urban run -off. This can be accomplished by designing shallow grass -lined swales leading to open detention ponds. The detention ponds must be large enough to allow the establishment of vegetation within them that will create a bio- filter. We also wish to emphasize that a Hydraulic Project Approval issued by either the Department of Fisheries or the Department of Wildlife will be required prior to the start of work within the ordinary high water line of any stream, river or lake within the State of Washington. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact our Habitat Management office at 753 -6650. MD:JR:bb cc: WDW Sincerely, Millard Deusen Fish Biologist IV 75 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Planning Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C -3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 -2255 Mr. Don Secrist Puget Sound Council of Governments Grand Central on the Park 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Secrist: - 3 '988 We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Regional Transportation Plan Airport System Amendment with respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' areas of special expertise and jurisdiction by law as designed by the President's Council on Environmental Quality on December 21, 1984. As indicated in the DEIS, wetland habitats are ecologically significant areas that help to maintain the quality of the human environment in a number of important ways. Seattle District encourages PSCOG to give strong consideration to major airport siting alternatives that minimize impacts to wetlands. Also, any siting in or in close proximity to wetland areas would require well conceived mitigation plans. A Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit would be required for any placement of dredged or fill material in many wetlands (adjacent to waters of the United States) in the central Puget Sound region. Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. Copy Furnished: CENPD -EP -ER 76 Sincerely, Fred C. Weinmann Chief, Environmental Resources Section RELIGIOUS /COMMUNITY /PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS 77 78 �e `Lutheran urch gfthe6Atonement (Missouri Synod) 740 SOUTH 128TH STREET • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168 REV. KENNETH F. BOETCHER, Parsonage: Pastor CH. 4 -1208 1915 S.W. 116th Street Office. CH. 4 -3020 April 4, 1988 Mr. Henry Aronson. President Port of Seattle Conlksioners P. O. Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Dear Mr. Aronson: Page 1 of 2 We are writing you in regard to a third runway at Sea -Tac as an alternative for handling airport expansion in the area. None of the articles printed have mentioned the number of churches that would be affected by the addition of a third runway at Sea -Tac. Many would be eliminated completely and some, like Atonement would he greatly curtailed in progran'i and operation because of noise and loss of members. As a matter of fact, many of the churches in the area of Sea -Tac Airport have already been greatly affected. The Toss of houses, bought up by the Port, has recant a loss of members because of their moving from the area and a loss of potential new members because of a reduction in the number of households. Our church is located on the corner of 8th Avenue South and South 128th Street, in a flight line of the airport, obviously by the noise from planes flying over us. We have been located at this address since 1957. During these 30 plus years we have observed many changes in the area, including the various expansions of Sea -Tac Airport. With each of these changes there has been a certain amount of decimation of the surround- ing communities. There has also been an ever increasing number of flights leaving and arriving at the airport and with these an increase in the noise. There are a number of Sundays when our worship must be interrupted to allow the thundering planes to pass over. We understand that the Port is considering a number of alternatives to meet the ris- ing demand of air travel in the Puget Sound Area. We strongly request that all other al- ternatives for solving the problem be considered and that the expansion of Sea -Tac not be one of those alternative,. We ask this because of the additional impact that would have on our ability to conduct worship services, hold meetings and even to continue in operation as a congregation, and the impact on Burien and other surrounding communi- ties. We would support some of the other alternatives, such as building another airport at a different location. People living in Everett area would find it more convenient to leave from Paine Field or another airport in that area than coming all the way to Sea -Tac. in the Burien area we have already been severely affected by the expansions of Sea -Tac over the years. Isn't it time for some other areas(s) to bear the brunt of the increasing air traffic? "Behold the Lamb of God, whit! Egyivii,---g71 APR 1 ' 198B 79 E (;ET SOUND GUUNCIL away the sin of the ►+Ib' F dt1RNMENTS Page 2 of 2 We appreciate you considering our concerns and would like to be informed if you plan to hold further hearings on this matter in the future and would appreciate hearing about your decisions. Thank you, Reverend Kenneth F. Boetcher, Pastor Allagf/ra earld A. Ramsey, Congregation President cc: Pat Davis, Port Comissioner Jack Block, Port Comissioner Jim Wright, Port Comissioner Paige Miller, Port Comissioner Tim Hill, King County Executive Paul Barden, King County Councilman Greg Nichels, King County Councilman Curtis Smelser, Executive Dir. of the Puget Sound Council of Governments REgEn.f.ig APR 12 1998 PUGET SOUND uuUNCIL OF GOVERNMF_N S 30 fpnAl !•12 III Illllllllln matumumu in nnn.M tnmm11MMluun 111111 �m OFFICE OF THE ARCHBISHOP ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE 910 MARION STREET SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 1206) 382 -4884 March 29, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser, 7[c) IL PUGET t, OF ce i.'` , Lit. .;I I, Mr. Jack Schuster, principal of John F. Kennedy Memorial High School, has just brought to my attention that you have included a third runway at Sea -Tac airport in your planning for the regional airport system plan. Such a decision would have disastrous effects on four of our Catholic parishes in the area and would, in effect, result in the condemnation of one of those parishes, plus John F. Kennedy High School. Even if the third runway proposal never reaches the point where it is seriously considered, . the very fact that you have placed it on the table will, unless withdrawn, have a serious effect on enrollment and fundraising for Kennedy High School. In fact, it could conceivably bring all fundraising for capital improvements at John F. Kennedy to a near halt. I therefore ask that you eliminate the harm already done by withdrawing consideration of that Proposal immediately. Chr Raymon� . unthausen Archbishop of Seattle cc: Mr. Jack Schuster Port of Seattle Commissioners Henry Aronson, President Pat Davis Jack Block Paige Miller Jim Wright 31 NORTH HILL - NORMANDY VISTA COMMUNITY CLUB 20827 - THIRD AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE t8, WASHINGTON 98198 TO: Puget Sound Council of Government FROM:North Hill- Normandy Vista Community Club RE: Airport Expansion DATE:March 10, 1988 Greater Highline Chamber of Commerce 15030 - 8th Avenue Southwest Seattle, Washington 98166 (206) 241 -1723 March 17, 1988 Greg Nickels Chairman Transportation and Public Utilities Committee King County Council King County Courthouse Seattle WA 98104 E Eng i El H b r; AR '2 19,8x, PUGET Sudiii.) �Ei3�TS IL OF GOVERN The Greater Highline Chamber of Commerce supports the motion providing policy direction to the Puget Sound Council of Governments with regard to the proposed Regional Airport System Plan. The idea that a third runway should be added to the west of existing runways at the Sea -Tac International Airport is unthinkable. TO plan and carry out such a project would require massive displacement of residents, businesses and public facilities. We would be confronted with a tragic scenario. Many thousands of homeowners would have a black cloud over them and their property for several years. Words aren't adequate to describe the destructive impact the PSCOG proposal already has had in the Highline area. While denouncing the PSCOG third runway proposal, we wish to support the Port of Seattle's plan to re- examine the airport's facilities and consider ways in which capacity can be maximized without major expansion. Bigger is not necessarily better. With more efficient operations, quieter aircraft and a light rail system to transport passengers and employees to and from the airport, we feel that Sea -Tac airport can grow internally, without boundary expansion. This alternative would allow for increased passenger traffic without a disastrous impact on the surrounding Highline community. We say Nol to the third runway and urge the King County Council to maintain a strong position in dealing with the Puget Sound Council of Governments on the issue. For the Board of..,Directors Dan Olson President 33 March 15, 1988 Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser VAR 21 23B PUGET SOUND WOW_ OF GOVERNMENTS After reviewing many articles, attending many meetings, reading the EIS. study, and reviewing the copy of the King County Motion Number 88 -194, proposed by Nichels and Barden we also submit the third runway be dropped as an alternative. While we applaud the efforts of Nichels and Barden in realizing the great impact the third runway proposes we would also submit you consider omitting the fourth option as well. For many, if not the same and more negative impacts affecting the communities of Sea Tac, would be realized if this alternative is considered further. The members of the Sea Tac Community Council are available to your organization as people living and working in a community with an international airport in its midst who are concerned about the future problems associated with the airport as well as the • many opportunities it affords to this community. At this time no one from our community serves on your board. Sincerely Barbara Blake, Vice President Sea Tac Community Council 18028 51st Ave South Seattle, Washington 98188 244 -4656 84 The Greater Des Moines oChamber of Commerce n'j' Serving The "W " Community 21630 11th Ave. South Des Moines, WA 98198 March 14, 1988 Mr. Donald Secrist, Project Manager Regional Airport System Plan Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 878 -7000 MAR 17 PUGET SOW.ti. CuUNClz OF GOVERNMENTS Re: Regional Transportation Plan, Airport System Amendment, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, December, 1987 Dear Mr. Secrist: I am writing on behalf of the Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce concerning the ongoing study of air traffic in Puget Sound by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. PSOOG is currently examining a number of alternatives designed to alleviate the eventual saturation of the Sea -Tac facility. One of the proposed alternatives is the addition of a third runway west of existing facilities. The Chamber is extremely concerned about the additional noise related impacts on the surrounding greater Des Moines community resulting from the addition of a third runway. The greater Des Moines community is already severely impacted frran existing aircraft overflights. While I realize that this is only a study, the mere inclusion of the third runway alternative is already having negative impacts on our community. As long as the third runway option remains a seriously considered alternative, land values will suffer, builders will be reluctant to invest in our community and the potential disruption of neighborhoods, schools and roadways will be a continual threat which this community will have to live with in addition to the burden it already shoulders resulting from present airport activities. The third runway alternative is the least preferred by the Greater Des Moines chamber of Commerce of all alternatives presented. I would strongly urge, on behalf of the Chamber, that the Puget Sound Council of Governments delete the third runway option from their study. Sincerely, f. Ronald J. Millheisler ;-- President Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce PM:sb 1889 "The Centennial City in the Centennial State"Tm 1989 85 RIVERTON HOSPITAL March 16, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: 12844 Military Road South Seattle, WA 98168 (206) 244 -0180 EPER1En MRR 17 1988 PUOFTGOVERNMENT'L GOVERNMENTS We have reviewed the Puget Sound Council of Governments Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Range Regional Airport System Plan. As a community healthcare provider and as an employer of over 350 staff, we strongly oppose expansion of the sea -tac runway system to include a third runway. As outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement, expansion of the current runway system represents the highest capital cost of all the alternatives pro- posed, will create a large new noise impacted area, and will create major environmental impacts, especially during construction. The creation of a new noise impacted area is of the foremost concern. I have personally driven past rows of suburban blocks that lie vacant, where once there were houses. These areas were made up of families and schools; a viable com- munity. To label this area as a "noise impacted area" is to minimize the spoliation and denudation of a community. And to propose dislocating many more families, in the special interest of one industry, is deplorable. Sincerely, 1 chael M. Gherardini nterim Managing Director MMG :jh nSS In participation with physicians, serving the health care needs of our community. 86 • • ' I •--• .— e i `-•••-• • \.! 1 0 .17; PUGET SO OF .7urstwood Community Club c/o 13807 18th S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98166 Parch 7, 1988 Tr. Curtis Smelser, Exec. Director Puget Sound Council of qovernments 216 First Ave. 50. Seattle, ]a. 98104 Dear Sir; Hurstwood Community Club is an orFanization of approximately 125. families in the 17:! Burien area. We wish at this time to endorse the position taken .by- the 7iphline Commvnity Council to you (letter dated. January 11, 198e) on the subject of Commercial Airport Alternatives for the Puget Sound isasin. • Lajor expansion of Sea—ac airport is totally unacceptable to cur community as a solution to the expected increase in future air travel. We hereby formally 'request that PSCOG.drop it's alternative 3 (rajor Sea—?ac Expansion) from it's Drtft•Repionaa Airport . System Plan; 1988-2000 by t:.e 9/68 planning date. Our organization welcomes the opportunity to work with PSCCG the PCS as a viable solution does exist, but not at our duress apmin. 87 Ver tr½llv yours, • 14esident RUrstwood Community Club Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments February 29, 1988 NORMANDY PARK COMMUNITY CLUB 1500 Shorebrook Drive. S.W. • - - Seattle, Washington 98166 — re: Expansion of Sea -Tac Airport Dear Mr. Smelser: I am writing to you as an expression of my grave concerns, both personally and as President of the Normandy Park Community Club, regarding the proposed expansion of Sea -Tac Airport in the Regional Transportation Plan. This alternative would have the most disastrous impact, both environmentally and economically, to all the Burien- Normandy Park -Des Moines area. Changes of this magnitude would completely destroy the fabric of these communities. Replacement of single- family homes, churches and schools with abandoned property, boarded up buildings and peripheral commercial zoning is a no-win plan that will ignite local communities to oppose it. Existing noise and air pollution are already generating local community-Port of Seattle conflicts, and the fact that this option is still under consideration can only cause more ill -will in these communities. I wish to go on record as being in absolute opposition to ANY expansion of the existing capacity of the Sea -Tac Airport. cc: Henry Aronson (Port of Seattle) Paul Barden (King County Council) Jack Block (Port of Seattle) Donna Hanson (City of Normandy Park) Paige Miller (Port of Seattle) Greg Nichels (King County Council) Jim Wright (Port of Seattle) Vince Yeager (City of Normandy Park) 88 uart J. Creighton, President Normandy Park Community Club 1500 Shorebrook Drive SW Seattle, WA 98166 (206) 878 -5073 BEVERLY PARK COMMUNITY CLUB P.O. Box 46248 Seattle, WA 98106 (206)243 -6384 February 26, i988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN After attending the open hearing chaired by King County - Council member, Greg Nichels on February 24, 1988, the alternatives were brought before the Beverly Park Community Club and discussed at some - length. Please be advised and make it a matter of record that the Beverly Park Community Club is unanimously opposed to expansion of Sea - Tac Airport by means of the building of a third runway. This alternative would so severly impact the Highline area the community might cease to exist! Any assistance our club can render to PSCOG to enable:them.to make the mot practical and economical decision is available on call. The Highline area needs representation! Thank you for your attention. Yours truly, BEVERLY PARK COMMUNITY CLUB �� . - . < -- Forrest C. Wells, Sr. President FW /me cc: Greg Nichels Paul Barden Henry Aronson Pat Davis Jack Block Jim Wright Paige Miller 89 Duvall Concerned Citizens for Planned Growth P. C. Box 622 Duvall, WA 98019 February 29, 1988 Air Transportation Advisory Committee Gary Secrist, Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Committee T enloers : We are an association of residents of the ;Northern Portion of the Snoqualmie Valley devoted to the preservation of our rural environment. Our area of concern also includes the Northern tip of the Snoqualmie Willey Basin within Snohomish County. We would like to participate in the public hearing process devoted to the latest Draft ?airport System Plan. We oppose the landbanking of any sites within the Snocualmie Valley Easin for purposes of airport development, either general aviation or international air carrier. Any facility of such size, and the resultant industrial and transportation development, would severely impact the area we represent, even if such sites were located in the Snohomish County portion of the Basin. You should be reminded that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance ( #4365) of King County addresses itself particularily to our area, because �rzc 9 ' eater run off into major -river systems than - - = '- = = • -_�hg ouAty, it is impossible to ameliorate the impact of toxic pollutants from an airport facility and resultant development. As well, the narrow con- formation of this unique farming valley amplifies sound, and acts like an echo chamber. irport development in cur region is incompatible with Ling County's Snoqualmie Valley Plan commitment of preservation of farmlands and the wishes of the public. 11ternative solutions to air traffic problems already exist. We believe that the future capacity :of `Sea.tac Airport should be recalculated after incorporating the use of microwave guid- ance systems. The new figures defining Seatac's capacity should be shared with the public. A plan for management of landing slots should be instituted'. In addition, the public will not be satisfied until existing facilities are utilized to their capacity. '=ours truly, ea.n .Ferrier, Chairan ,irport - nforn_ation ;o� ittee Duvall ' oncerned Citizens for 1-'lanned Growth 90 Windermere Real Estate/Burien 401 S.W. 152nd St. Seattle, Washington 98166 Telephone 244 -5900 91 Page Two r• r 0 ;; >: Whats left of the Burien Highline Community will be pushed'. into Puget. Sound by further zoning changes. A viable residential community is at risk of dying. To rescue the Burien Highline area from it's slow demise, I ask that you sincerely consider removing Sea -Tac Expansion from the Regional 'Transportation Plan NOW! Sincerely your, Robbie Howell, CRS Residential Specialist 92 er, TACOMA- PIERCE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE February 23, 1988 Don Secrist, Project Manager Regional Airport System Planning Project Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Secrist: It was a pleasure to meet you at the public hearing in Tacoma last night. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the planning of a regional airport system as well as giving us the overview of the study in your presentation. I noted the lack of an implementation plan, or a consideration of the impacts associated with the de facto implementation plan. If I understand the accepted process, the plan will be adopted but left to local jurisdictions for actions. This could lead to competitive development to what is now a truly regional facility, Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. I suggest what is needed is an implementation plan for the airport system, especially the air carrier facility. Thank you for this final opportunity to comment on the planning process. Please note that my comments are not official Chamber policy, but an attempt to provide you with local assessment within the time constraints of the comment period.- Sincerely, Gary D.`Brackett, Mgr. Business and Trade Development ,R) I'.ACIFIC A \'F \LI-. ' Lini 3,1. 1,01-:0\ 1,133 n 93 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 School of Public Health and Community Medicine Department of Environmental Health, SC -34 February 23, 1988 TO: Port Officials PSCOG FROM: Peter A. Breysse, Assoc. Prof. Emeritus Dept. of Environmental Health School of Public Health and Community Medicine University of Washington 543 -4252 I was requested by a citizens' group to review the EIS relating to possible airport expansion as it relates to construction of another runway at Sea -Tac Airport. Enclosed is a copy of an article that I wrote in 1972 (Environmental-Health-and Safety News, Vol. 20, Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 1972) entitled the "Unbearable Menace...Airport Noise." There is no doubt in my mind that airport noise is a greater menace today than it was in 1972 despite efforts to purchase property and to insulate homes. The continued expansion in air traffic, both passenger and freight, will likely continue to make living in close proximity to major airports undesirable. The addition of another runway to Sea -Tac would magnify an already serious noise and air pollution problem. Consequently, it would be desirable to remove, as a visible alternative, the proposal to add one more runway. 94 Director: James McCarroll, M.O. Editor: Peter A. Breysse, M.S., M.P.N. Sept., Oct., Nov., Dec. 1972 Volume 20, Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 THE UNBEARABLE MENACE -- AIRPORT NOISE Noise, defined as unwanted sound, surrounds the urban dweller in a- never - ending excessive and gradually increasing din of decibels. No one is exposed more intolerably than the citizen who resides in close proximity to a major airport. Exposure of humans to noise can result in both mental and physical distress. While the most noticeable effect of noise exposure involves the hearing mechanism, certain noises may result in non - auditory distress such as alterations in respiration, circulation, basal metabolic rate, and muscle tension. These physical effects are primarily related to intensity and frequency of the offending sound. Equally important and very likely more important than the physical manifestations are the possible psychologic effects. Psychologic reactions involve a multiplicity of factors which vary with the characteristics of the sound -- the inappropriateness of the stimulus, unexpectedness of the noise, interference with speech communication, and intermittancy, as well as its intensity and frequency. The quality of the noise rather than the quantity is usually the deciding factor in influencing the emotional reactions to noise. No doubt the most widespread reaction to noise is that of annoyance. Certain characteristics of sound appear more annoying than others. These characteristics are: 1. Loudness - the more intense, louder noises are considered more annoying. 2. Pitch - a high pitch noise is generally more annoying than a low pitch noise of equal loudness. 3. Intermittancy and irregularity - sound that occurs randomly or varies in intensity or frequency appears to be more annoying than . continuous or unchanging sounds. 4. Localization - a sound which appears to change its relative location to the listener is more annoying than a stationary source. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 95 SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMMUNITY MEDICINE University of Washington, 461 Health Sciences Bldg.. Seattle, Washington 98195, Tel. (206) 543 -4252. SCAN: 323 -4252 -2- Aircraft noise certainly fits all of these criteria for annoyance. In addition to annoyance, two of the chief complaints concerning aircraft noise involve the interference with speech and the disturbance of sleep and relaxation. DISTURBANCE OF SLEEP Disturbance of sleep is of primary importance because of its necessity for "normal" psychologic and physiologic functioning. Aggravated sleep loss may have a profound effect on body health, particularly for the aged, the sick and the very young. Recent testimony before a legislative committee on jet noise in New York City cited paranoid delusions, hallucinations, suicidal and homocidal impulses as some of the possible consequences of continued sleep loss. Effects of noise on sleep have been observed by studying brain wave patterns utilizing an electroencephalograph. Indications are that quality of sleep may be impaired by shifts from deeper stages to shallower stages or by the interruption of dream sequences. A study by Jensen concerned the sleep sensitivity of seven subjects for 120 nights who were exposed to noise from 300 milliseconds to 90 minutes duration. Results indicated that even the deepest stages of sleep were influenced by noise intensities from 60 to 65 dBA. Thiessen exposed a number of sleeping subjects to a recording of truck noise from 40 to 70 dBA on different nights at a constant level. His results indicated that at 70 dBA the most probable reaction would be to awaken from sleep. At 50 dBA approximately 50% of the subjects would change to a less - deep sleep or awaken, and at 40 to 45 dBA approximately 10% of those so exposed will respond by changing the depth of sleep or awaken. J.D. Miller, Effects of Noise on People, Central Institute for Deaf (1971), concluded that all factors being considered, one must tentatively assume that sleep disturbance by excessive noise will reduce one's feeling of well being. Furthermore, when noise conditions are so severe as to disturb sleep on a regular and unrelenting basis, then such sleep disturbances may constitute a hazard to one's mental and physical health. At the request of a number of citizens residing adjacent to the Seattle - Tacoma Airport, a noise survey was conducted to determine the effect of aircraft traffic on the noise environment. Continuous noise measurements were conducted inside a mobile camper at four locations on the borderline between Zone 3 and Zone 2. According to the Federal Housing Authority, most homes located in Zone 3 because of excessive noise and strong jet and fuel odor would be ineligible for FHA mortgage insurance. The camper of modest size was utilized to represent indoor measurements utilizing the same structure. 9 E -3- Results of this investigation are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3. It should be noted that for a significant amount of time each day (Table 3) ranging from 53 minutes to 103 minutes, the noise levels exceeded 60 dBA. During the 24 hours of measurement at location 1 (Table 1) there were a total of 161 flyovers, of were over 75 noise level being 91 dBA. 6 exceeding 75 dBA, and at location 4 2 4ewere195 dBA. exceeding 75 dBA. The maxim m During sleeping hours, 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., at Locations 1, 2, and 4, there were 29, 34, and 26 flyovers, with the number of peaks over 75 dBA being 25, 29, and 25. Maximum noise levels ranged from 89 to 94 dBA (Table 3). Noise levels determined during this limited investigation would definitely be considered excessive and over a long perio t of could effect on the mental health and physical well being as a result ofiperiodic awakenings and /or changes in depth of alep this area mentioned that their children were at times sent home from school as the result of dozing or falling asleep in class. Such exposures as mentioned above could be f major asignificancet ven during daytime hours for children under one year age who the day, for children 1 to 5 who nap during the day, for the aged and sick, and for those who work nights. INTERFERENCE WITH SPEECH IN SCHOOLS The problem of noise in some schools has already stage, particularly for those structures located adjacent freeways. The quantity and quality of noise in schools may produce adverse psychologic effects, interfere with study habits, and interfere with comprehension of the spoken word. Since speech and its understanding are vital to the learning process, optimization of the sonic environmentoforothelpurposes of communication desirable. One of the requirements g that the background or interfe�nd or ambient sound be controlled re is noise eaorelatively imperative that the backg ou low intensity. Ambient noise is the with all - systems (air conditioning, etc.) p rating present. A measure of noise known as the Preferred Speech Interference Level (PSIL) and estimates of it by the A- weighted decibel level (dBA) has recently been proposed as a useful tool for evaluating this aspect of noise. The is the arithmetic average of the sound pressure levels i nethei a summary centered around the 500, 1000, and 2000 Hertz (Hz). of the PSIL and comparable dBA readings that will barely permit acceptable speech intelligibility at various distances and noise levels. 97 TABLE- 1 NOISE MEASUREMENTS - 4 LO ATIOWS - ZONE 3 PEAKS ABWE It dBA MAX. d$A TOTAL NO. FLYOVERS 9 -10 7 7 12 96 61 91 5 6 5 to-11 4- 6 5 i1-1241 S S 2 89 92 91 6 5 2 ft-i s S 8 86 91 61 S S 8 91 89 88 4- 4 i- z 3 2 2 -3 2 1 81 89 80 2 2 I 3 -4 1 1 1 78 l6 0j1 1 1- 4 -S o 3 3 3 83 86 94 0 3 4 3 S-6 2. S o 1 81 g 1 E3 2 7 o i 6_ 3 0 3 0 83 72. 88 70 4- 3 3 � �I 8 ■ 7 -8 10 0 ii 2 84 14 o 87 14- 2 12. 88 83 88 94 t3 4 11 S� � 8-9 13 4 10 90 80 76 92 q 5 2 c)--10 q 4 1 6 10-11 e o 7 01 7S 79 9z 9 9 7 11-12vM 4 ii. ; 90. 94- 7 8 t 98. TOTAL. 1'1 L Z1 oS 07 9S 9S Zsc z 1 6 S' D 01 6Z o1 z 01 1 6 Z Lr 9•0 9'0 1 Iz 601 'WO 5O1 - S'lb S'16 • ob ok• •5'Z8 S79 -6L SL - S 'L°) S'.9-09 09 -5•75 S'ZS - S•b S•i� • S' �1: • os. 01 WK. Ss3'% S'af 'N1W S�Inoti 'N►W CanoH 'N� W S/noH 3WLL 3 111 -b • )431.1.r>31 • NOL 11r)o'1 Z - NOI1Y)01 SWILL V9P 1.3/%31 NoLLv�o1nssnd 4Nnos £•3NO2 -SNoll o1 'b • SSN3W3Z1fSV3W 3SION AO AibvWnS • 7 319v1 TABLE 3. SUMMARY( OF NOISE MEASLIdLEMgF1T5 DURING, SLEEKING 2S- LOVN•"1AM1 4 I.OGKT10N5 • ON'E 3 100 -4- In most classrooms the maximum distance between student and instructor 101 TABLE- 4 PREFERRED SPEECH INTERFERENCE LEVELS (psL) THAT PERMIT BARELY ACCEPTABLE SPEECH INTEll14I61UTYAT 1F1E DISTANCE BETWEEN SPEAKER AND LISTENER AND VOICE LEVELS SHOWN. COMPARABLE MVOS OF AN- M1F14H"TFD NETWORK Q:_tilA) ALE GIVEN. ' 01 STANCE &T) VOICE Lfi�L NORI6L RAISED LOUD M PSIL d I A PSIL � d BA PSIL dBA 2 65 70 69 76 /5 82 5 55 62 61 66 67 74 10 49 56 55 62 (ol 68 15 45 . 52 51 SO 5?) 65 2o 43 5o 49 56 55 62 25 41 46 41 54 53 6 0 102 SCORE 1 SCNOOL LOc4TIONS NOISE STUDY ESE MEl4TARYmOL JUNIOP HO SOHomt A SEM az y i4OOL • • "A %0 103 s. REScokt.T5 o4 SCNoot- NP,E I . V ESTica a"T io N SCN OM_ A T E X00 M No 1 t+ Do Y WEA114 E R GoKDrflON TAKE OFF NOISE d BA EVE L TIME cam- MIN 1 REM ARKS > ,o d 6A sb�bo dBA a a�oN Max MIN Ft TAU I 66.11-lo 351 OPEN cLEA R No. 99 'so 34m 344 S FR 6-• 8 3s1 OPEN CLEAR So, >9)0 44- 2oM 20 M 22M 6 -19 301 OPEN CJZA R 5o. >90 448 194 ISM 24 I 6.2.2 301 OPEN CLEAR No. >90 46 38M 38M 3SM 6-2.3 Poft,T• OPEN CLEAR No. ) 90 48 38M 38M 44M 2 6-25 Pon CUOSED CLEAR NO. 61 46 19M 19M 2114 6 -2.6 PORT. OPEN OVE .C4sT No. )90 45 31M 31M 41 M 6.29 3 apse. oveUir So. 72 45 6M 6M ZIM 6 -30 3 OPEN OVERCAST SO 150 44 12M 12M ?bM 3 7 -b 101 O95ED CLEAR co. 60 45 0 0 _ 4t4 7 -7 19( otEN CLEAR NO. 82. 46 3o M 3ow1 444 7-9 101 CLOSED CLEAR NO. 71 43 GM (oM 2.IM 4 1-2.e 13 owl O.E4R So. 72. 43 3M 3t4 48M 7-3o 13 on % 0-011z. No. 80 42. 26M 26M VIM ■■ TALE- 5. CONTINUED. 5C 1oo PA T Zoom N ®. w� ■ oA ws vitAn RR CoNp1TtoN TAKF•oFF NOISE LEVEts TIMER.. MIN. ',MARKS >booa8A 50.60 dui �tt�cTloN t�id,t, t�ilt�i• CRAFT Term. 5 1-31-70 k-s OPEN CLEAR No. 'TS 42 7M 8M ?4M HEM MOW 6-3 14-i OPeN Na 18 46 2314 24M SSt HE1VY V .'T1tAf 6-4 22 MED CLEAR, S0.. . 63 51 I M 04 041. N6>VY vsi." 1 f1 8-5 22 °P ell CLEAR N 0 /sa 81 41 20m (o3M 45ER Ifsvm veg Imp 6 6-b 6 OPEN OV 4ST So Set 41 321 33M cm ~mulct 1WM h_, ° 8-1 6 OM OVELCAST S0. 86 46 491 44M S5Nt, aaw Illuck AAR 8-10 6 OPEN CLEAR . N a 90 55 88M 33M. Nit NAVY Ttufcit $-ti 6 CIOSED CLEAR No. -Po SZ. BM 6M (0 It NOW Rua 'tUU 7 8-12- 14 OPEN CLEAR SO.. 8$ 45 ISM ISM cM4 8-13. 16r , OPE 4 mem T so /tro. 17-M 194 SSM 8-14 9 oo C« N0. 6o 4t o 0 to $-t-t 9 oreN ant S0. 90 42. 28M Z8M UM $ 8-19 18 ; . OPEN CLEAR No. 790 44o i3M Z ?M • 8.24 18 QO D Q EQ RT MAO. 7 9 410 IPA 15M 16M 6-___,mi n. _I6 OPEN ouaLC161. NO. 19 44o 6M 6M 23M ALE- 5. CONTINUED SCN001,• DA T E Qap M NO. I p w s W EATI♦ ER CONDITION TA CE.OFF DIRECTION NOISE dM LEvE S TIME 1t . -MIN.) 50-6o d•A REMARKS ?bOd Bbl MAX X , MIN. c:/a 'r ' PTA of 8•2.4 9 O ?EN ovekostsr So. 40 440 2SM. 294 ISM 8-Z5 fat- is OPT N ONERCAST S0. 80 443 21 M 21 M 22M 10 8-26 104 OPEN CLEAR No. t4c 16M 16M 22M 1341 104 OPEN a SST So. 87 <4o 20M 20M 22M 8-28 104 aD5ED OVERCAST _ 0 /No. 16 44o ISM ISM 23M 0 a, 8-31 in MN ovetiCAST SQ. $) 44o 23M 23M 21 M 11 4 -1 19 OM OJn casT SQ. &4. <4o 33M 33N1 21 M C)-2 19 D CLAR 50. 1S <4o ISM ISM 46$1 12. I Ne• La•M , 6 Z 49 0 O OVET Sd�DOL .— . 107 Seahurst Community Club c/o 14617 25th S.W. Seattle, Washington 98166 February 10, 1988 Henry Aronson, President P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, Washington 98166 c.c. Pat Davis, Commissioner Jack Block, Commissioner Jim Wright, Commissioner Paige Miller, Commissioner Curtis Smelser, Executive Director, PSCOG Dick Barnes Eleanor Lee Phil Talmadge Paul Barden Tim Hill Greg Nickels Georgette Valle Jim Dwyer SAY NO TO THE THIRD RUNWAY! As one of four alternatives, Puget Sound Council of Governments ( PSCOG ) has proposed EXPANSION OF SEA -TAC AIRPORT to accommodated increasing levels of air traffic. The expansion will cause the following problems: • The area west of the airport will suffer increased noise and air pollution. ▪ Hundreds of families will have to leave the homes they love and the Highline area. • Immediate economic loss to home owners due to residential value depreciation. • Inevitable changes in zoning resulting in airport office buildings, hotels, and parking lots on the west side of the airport. • Thirteen of the Highline School District's School buildings and other facilities will be taken away from the community. Some of the children that remain may have to be bused to another area. , A copy of the Environmental Impact Statement is available for review at the Burien Library. WHAT CAN WE DO? Write or call Mr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director, of the Puget Sound Council of Governments, 216 First Avenue South, Seattle, WA. 98104, Telephone 464 -7515, and request that the Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative be dropped from the Regional_ Transportation Plan. Call the Port of Seattle Commissioners: Henry Aronson, President; Pat Davis, Jack Block, Jim Wright, and Paige Miller, Telephone 728 -3034. Ask that major Sea -Tac Expansion Planning Be Dropped. Write to your King County Coouncilmembers, Paul Barden and Greg Nichels, 400 King County Courthouse, Third and James St., Seattle, WA. 98104. Tell them to stand behind the community and oppose the Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative. BE SURE AND MAKE YOUR CALLS BEFORE THE FINAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS ISSUED ON MARCH 17, 1988, AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT YOUR NEIGHBORS IN THIS AREA UNTIL WE HAVE WON. Seahurst Community Club Sully Selivaroff, President, Telephone 244 -3039 109 Page Two y to � '?>'C` »7(-/ It is CPNSA's opinion that the Puget Sound Council of Government's (COG) December, 1987 draft EIS is fatally flawed. Among its deficiencies are the failure to include: Noise contour maps; noise abatement costs; litigation costs; revenue bond costs; water run -off costs; total overall capital improvement costs; military participation impact; inflation; police and fire protection costs; loss of tax revenue; in -depth analysis of direct and indirect impact on residences, businesses, schools, places of worship per the four options provided within the December 1987 Draft EIS. CPNSA sincerely appreciates the profit motives of such business entities as the Seattle Rotary, the Lynnwood Rotary, the South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce, the Everett Chamber of Commerce, the Snohomish Economic Development Council, Forward North County, Boeing, The Port of Seattle, the Port of Everett, etc. It is appreciated that COG is attempting to position the region's transportation needs for local, national, and international commerce, in particular, and the population movement, in general. CPNSA does take strong exception, however, to the gross manipulation of decision making data used to reach COG's pre- determined choice of actions. Some of these manipulations, dominated by contrived ignorance and deceitful actions by some of COG's staff are identified in the listed documents submitted. The decision to expand Paine Field and, most likely, Tacoma Narrows Airports into Junior Sea -Tacs were determined prior to the official beginning of this EIS. CPNSA, therefore, has no alternative but to lable COG's Regional Transportation Plan Airport System Amendment draft environmental Impact Statement as an act of bad faith. CPNSA shares COG's assessments for future regional transpor- tation needs. But to cause negative impacts on 200,000+ lives when the number could be limited to 6,000 or less; the willingness to waste several billion tax dollars to achieve an increase of 44+ million passengers capacity when approximately $2.3 billion would accomplish the same ends; the setting into motion a process that will eventually cause the loss of some 30,000 properties (homes, etc. -to be purchased at approximately 60% of their respective assessed evaluations) from the tax roles and significantly adversely impact another 30,000 homes' values when impact could be limited to maybe, 1,000 homes, are unconscionable, irrational actions. 111 Page Three COG's EIS process has denied fundamental fairness, shocks the "universal sense of justice" and flies in the face of social responsibility. It would only underscore the feeling that all is "fate accompli ", with public officials only "going through the motions" to satisfy laws or to prevent citizen backlash. We feel that Humans are at least as environmentally sensitive as fish, plants and wildlife and are entitled to be preserved as well. A 1990's, high speed transit system, eventually connecting Vancouver through Bellingham, and a new 44+ million passenger regional airport located in North Snohomish County would be an excellent solution to the taxpayers', business and governmental needs. The option of two "junior Sea- Tacs ", eventual expansion of Sea -Tac Airport and /or the building of a new regional airport after 2020 and the building of a moderate speed, light rail system after 2020 is a wasteful and unjustifiable solution when all costs and impacts are fully considered. Recognizing the concerns of Pierce County's business and governmental concerns, CPNSA is willing to support the concept of a passenger fee at Sea -Tac and the new 44+ million passenger regional airport. These fees would be used to accomplish noise abatement by funding the purchase of 5- 10,000 acres for a future Pierce County sattelite airport, etc. CPNSA urges COG to step back and redraft its Regional Airport System Plan. COG is encouraged to recognize Snohomish County's 1987 purchase of farm land as wetlands for its wetland preservation program as a precedent. Snohomish County paid approximately 200% for this previously income earning property CPNSA believes such a purchase program would avoid long litigation and the remote possibility of civil unrest or, possibly, outright violence. It would make farmers financial winners instead of victims of the political process. Those of modest financial stature must become winners also. CPNSA does not call for pity for the Paine Field Area Residents, or unequally impacting of others, or deprivation of the influential of their lucrative profits. We do ask you to be sensitive to all constituents equally. 112 Page Four, People are more than faceless units of labor or abstract sources of revenue. Their constitutional and property rights. deserve equal protection and equal consideration. CPNSA urges COG to clean their hands. Equity is a small price to pay when the alternatives are fully considered. Respectfully submitted, 04g1:411° Louis V. Marks, Representative, CPNSA LVM /lm Note: The documents listed on page 1 of this letter are not included, but are available on request in the PSCOG offices. M I R R O R M O N T C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I A T I O N January 17, 1988 JAN tio12,.88 PUG° " OF GOVERNVNIS Mr. Don Secrist, Project Manager Regional Airport System Plan Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA. 98104 Dear Mr. Secrist: As President of the Mirrormont Community Association, I write to urge PSCOG to eliminate the Cedar Grove Airpark from any consideration as a general aviation airport. In the fall of 1987, when talk of the Cedar Grove Airpark as a candidate for public takeover and expansion emerged, our Board of Directors met in and unanimously agreed that expansion of the airstrip into a general aviation airport was fundamentally detrimental to the livability of our community. We opposed expansion of the Cedar Grove Airpark then and continue to oppose expansion. Accommodation to heretofore uninterested pilots throughout the region should not supercede the rights of residents living in the affected areas. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Sin erely, Ralph Young President Mirrormont Community Association 26325 SE 158th Street Issaquah, WA. 98027 1 -15 -88 TO: Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director, CPNSA FROM: Louis V. Marks, Representative, CPNSA 5311 134th Pl. SW, Edmonds, WA 98020 SUBJECT: Additions to FEIS for RASP, 1988 Dear Mr. Smelser: JAN 15 199,8 PUGET SOUND. COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Find enclosed Attorney Bernard H. Friedman's letter of 1 -11 -88 to Councilwoman Liz McLaughlin.. I would like said letter and his attached enclosures placed into the FEIS for the RASP, 1988. I have also included two other documents for the FEIS: a 7 -8 -87 letter from Port of Seattle Commission President Henry Aronson and a 7 -20 -87 PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL article entitled Paine Field: 'pain' or untapped asset? Respectfully submitted, csu-inc,,aL Lou Marks Representative, CPNSA 116 LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION F LEE CAMPBEL.. ROBERT D MORROW WARD L SAX JOHN F KRUGER COLEMAN P HALL FLOYD L NEWLAND ROBERT P PIPER CRAIG P CAMPBELL JOSEPH D HOLMES JR ROBERT PAYNE KARR LLEWELYN G PRITCHARD MARY ELLEN HANLEY MARTIN T CROWDER FREDERICK M MEYERS JOHN C COART GERALD G TUTTLE STEVEN V LUNDGREN CHARLES A KIMBROUGH JOHN J SOLTYS PAUL M SILVER JAMES R DICKENS JAMES R HERMSEN BRUCE P FLYNN TERENCE P LUKENS PHILIP E CUTLER JAMES L AUSTIN JR BRUCE E LARSON RICHARC J OMATA DAVID 0 SWARTLING PHILIP A TALMADGE JANIS A CUNNINGnAM JOHN .1 O DONNELL JOHN E SHAW WILLIAM .1 PRICE THOMAS M FITZPATRICK JAMES D GRADE,. LAWRENCE 8 RANSOM DAVID F ROSS MICHELE G GANGNES DENNIS H WALTERS WILLIAM N BEAVER JR GAIL P R.JNNFELDT WALTER M MARS 1I1 GARY D HJFF SoEC•L COUNSEL TO THE FIRM ROBERT n FINCH (INC 1' •MCu4Cx C ' -C s'.'C e.. • • u C•STR.CT ,' CG:oM6.. e. :.SS =CI.1 OF COUNSEL PAYNE KARR HOWARD TUTTLE CLARENCE H CAMPBELL MURIEL MAWER CARL G KOCH DEVITT O BARNETT TRACY R BARRUS KATHRYN M BATTUELLO SANDRA R GLAIR CORINN J BOHN BRUCE J BORRUS DIANA K CARET 8 JEFFREY CARL BRUCE T CLARK CLAIRE CORDON SCOTT M ELLERBY BERNARD H FRIEDMAN MARK 8 GANZ J SCOTT GARY PETER H HALLER CATHERINE HENDRICKS PHILIP G HUBBARD JR LYNN E HVALSOE JAMES 5 1R81 MART. R JOHNSEN MOLLY 8 KENNY SCOTT A MILBURN CAROL LEE MOODY JULIA E PADEN CATHY L PARKER STEVEN D ROBINSON SUSAN .1 ROBINSON ALLEN R SAKA1 RICHARD B SHATTUCK TIMOT"Y x SULLIVAN CATHERINE M TORLAI 1 1111 THIRD AVENDE'- SUITE 256b 4 SEATTLE. WASHINGiQ{r.{f�101 .,- PidCE 3.SUTJ u LOL NCIL January 11, 1988 Councilwoman Liz McLaughlin Snohomish County Council County Administration Building Everett, WA 98201 Dear Ms. McLaughlin: FAC SIMII(E;i FG G �R �� LT S 1206) 6827108/ 0 C CABLE KARRTUTTLE TELEY 314592 KARRT,TTLE BELLEVUE OFFICE ONE BELLEvUE CENTER ' SUITE 1030 411 • 1081,, AVE N E BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98004 12061 451.8433 FACSIMILE (63. G2. G11 • (2064 462.7665 PEOPLES BANK OFFICE SUITE 1900 1415 51. AVENUE SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98170 12061 2231313 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE You may remember that during my testimony on November 10, 1987, before the County Council on the San Juan Airlines lease I questioned the legal validity of the August 13, 1987, letter from Mr. Field of the local FAA office to Mr. Bakken (Attachment 1). That letter purported to address the legal consequences of denying a lease to San Juan Airlines. I suggested that county decision makers ought not rely on the legal opinion of a civil engineer, and that the appropriate FAA authorities ought to be contacted if a legal opinion from the FAA was deemed necessary. In response to a question from one of the council members about the legal validity of the FAA letter, Mr. Bakken testified as follows: Our request to Mr. Field for an opinion stipu- lated that he would get this opinion with the conformance of legal counsel. It is my under- standing that his opinion was reviewed by legal counsel at the FAA regional office and that they agreed to this opinion. On several other occasions we have had the request to get opinions like this and in every case FAA legal 117 • Councilwoman Liz McLaughlin January 11, 1988 Page 2 counsel has been involved in making these determinations. I could check that for you but I'm positive that FAA legal counsel was involved in Mr. Field's decision as to that document. Mr. Bakken did not explain the nature of his request to Mr. Field for an opinion; nor has he made that request a part of the public record, so we do not know what it was exactly that he asked Mr. Field, or why, if it was a valid legal opinion he was seeking, he did not contact the FAA's Northwest Regional Counsel instead of a civil engineer. Likewise, he did not explain the basis for his "understanding" that Mr. Field's opinion was reviewed by legal counsel. The Council members appeared to be satisfied with Mr. Bakken's response. Others have relied heavily on Mr. Field's letter. In his memo of August 21, 1987, to Don Bakken, Airport Manager, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Edward E. Level cited two passages from Mr. Field's letter as authority for the proposition that the County could not refuse the San Juan Airlines lease (Attachment 2, at 5). In his testimony before the Council on November 10, 1987, on the proposed San Juan Airlines lease, Mr.. Level said, "[t]he FAA says you must permit this operation." In your letter to me of November 6, 1987 (Attachment 3), you stated: "According to Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Ed Level, the County airport is legally obligated to be available for use by San Juan Airlines for planes holding no more than 30 passengers." In a press release dated November 4, 1987, Councilwoman Bartholomew said, "In fact, federal regulations leave us little choice about allowing San Juan in" (Attachment 4). Because I had doubts about the legal efficacy of Mr. Field's letter, on November 11, 1987, I wrote to Mr. E. Tazewell Ellett, Chief Counsel of the FAA in Washington, D.C. (Attachment 5). I asked whether the letter from Mr. Field represented the legal opinion of the FAA. The Acting Chief Counsel of the FAA replied by letter of December 31, 1987 (Attachment 6). I call your attention in parti- cular to the first paragraph of that letter, where the Acting Chief Counsel wrote: "A telephone call by my office to our Seattle office confirmed that the letter [from Mr. Field] did not receive legal review, and was not intended as a legal opinion of the FAA." The letter goes on to state the truism that non- compliance can result in ineligibility for grant assurances, without discussing whether denial of the San Juan Airlines lease 118 Councilwoman Liz McLaughlin January 11, 1988 Page 3 would constitute non - compliance. The remainder of the letter contradicts much of what Mr. Field said in his letter of August 13, 1987. I suggest that the airport staff and Mr. Level have disserved the people of Snohomish County by failing to provide the Council thoroughly researched and fully objective information on the FAA's position with regard to the use of Paine Field. To the extent the Council relied on such information in approving the San Juan Airlines lease, great and irreversible harm may have been done. I hope you and your fellow Council members will insist upon thorough research and objective information from staff in the future. Very truly '1?;A e, Bernard H. yours Friedman BHF:ja Attachments cc: Councilwoman Shirley Bartholomew Councilman Brian Corcoran Councilman Don Britton Councilman Bill Brubaker Willis Tucker Seth Dawson Jim Muhlstein Ed Hanson 119 Councilwoman Liz McLaughlin January 11, 1988 Page 4 bcc: Br a Olson u Marks Susan Houston George Simmons Patrick McGreevy c/01164 -001 120 U5 Deportment 01 Transportation Federal Aviation Administration August 13, 1987 . Mr. Don Bakken Manager Paine Field /Snohomish County Airport Everett, Washington 98204 Seattle Airports District Offic. 7300 Per:merer Road S:.rr See tte. Wasn.ngrcn Q8 8 Dear Mr. Bakken: This letter is in reference to the proposed scheduled service by San Juan Airlines and the consequences of denying the access to Snohomish County Airports. The owner of any airport developed with Federal assistance under the FAAP, ADAP, or AIP programs is required to operate it for the use and benefit of the public and to make it available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. While you as an airport owner, must allow use of the airport by all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity, as well as by the general public, the obligating agreements do provide for exceptions. The following operating limitations may be determined acceptable: a. In the interest of flight safety, you may impose reasonable rules or regulations which restrict use. b. Where the volume of air traffic is approaching or exceeding the maximum practical acceptance rate of a runway, you may designate oertain runways for use by particular classes of operation. o. You may set noise threshold levels for aircraft operations provided there is a measurable improvement with levels of speech, bearing, or sleep. Actions to restrict an operation should be determined on a case - by -case basis, pending review of the situation by FAA. TCN 121 2 If an aeronautical activity cannot be shown to affect the safety or efficiency of an airport or exceed a predescribed threshold level of noise, it must be permitted. Failure to oomply with the above has the potential of leading to a finding of non - compliance. A sponsor in a noncompliance status is ineligible to receive Federal funds until the deficiency is corrected. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, \ h . Ar" David A. Field Civil Engineer 122 s;el m d bakken:13 SETS R. DAWSON Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Mission Building Everett, Washington 98201 Telephone: 259 -9333 FILE NO. AP87 -20g M E M O TO: DON BARREN, AIRPORT MANAGER FROM: EDWARD E. LEVEL Deputy Prosecuting Attorney DATE: August 21, 1987 RE: ROLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PAINE FIELD/ SAN JUAN AIRWAYS The airport commission has asked airport staff to define terms used in the "Role for Development of Paine Field" (Role) and how such terms apply to proposed operations of San Juan Airlines (San Juan). My understanding is that San Juan proposes to have two flights into and two flights out of Paine Field every morning and every afternoon early evening utilizing Beech 99 (Turbo Props) , with capacity of fourteen passengers, later shifting to a nineteen passenger plane. San Juan will not be utilizing Paine Field as an operations base but will require terminal and parking space which cannot be fully satisfied with existing facilities. A. The Role,. The Role, which was adopted by the Snohomish County Commissioners on April 11, 1978, was primarily findings and conclusions of the County Planning Commission and two conditions which are not relevant to the San Juan operation. There are many ambiguities in the Role. This memo attempts to determine the meaning, or meanings, of terms used in the Role through a consideration of the Role, Draft EIS (EIS) for the Paine Field Community Plan, Master Plan, and federal regulations. ATG 123 Page - 2 08/21/87 Pertinent findings, contained in the Role may be paraphrased: 1. There is concern about possible expansion. 2. Any expansion, if not controlled, could impose substantially increased environmental impacts. 3. There is presently no justification for additional "large transport air carrier or air cargo facilities" at Paine Field. 4. Failure to reduce adverse impacts would cause hardships. Narrative portion of the Role recommends a role combining objectives of 'Revised General Aviation' and 'Do Nothing' roles into a new role termed 'General Aviation '. The principal objectives of the adopted Role are to retain and enhance light aircraft general aviation, keyed to growth rates in the 'Do Nothing' role, and to 'imposing strict controls over aviation activities with potential for adverse environmental impacts, permitting expansion of improvements for light aircraft general aviation subject to impact mitigation, ,encourage activities including, 'aircraft related industries, business and corporation aviation, public service aviation, and Air taxi service.' Expansion would be permitted so long as it would not interfere with light aircraft general or Boeing's operations and there were satisfactory mitigation of impacts. Facilities for "supplemental/charter al./ passenger service, large transport grew training operations, pir cargo aviation, and military aviation' are to be 'Strongly discouraged" from expanding. A noise abatement program was included in the Role. New aircraft are required to comply with FAR 36 aircraft noise emissions standards, and older aircraft modified to comply with FAR 36. This provision would apply regardless of the Role, and I assume that SJ aircraft will be required to comply with FAR 36. Page - 3 08/21/87 Pertinent conclusions state that the general aviation role will permit reasonable airport expansion to continue subject to mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, that light aircraft general aviation will remain the dominant aeronautical activity for the the foreseeable future, and that expansion of aviation activities which are least compatible, with dominant, aviation role be limited. The Role uses general terms (dominant, principal, encouraged,, Strongly discouraged,, permitted mansion, least, compatible). Terms are not prohibitory nor absolute. The general intent of the Role seems to be that the Role is designed to discourage expansion, particularly with respect to certain uses, but also that the airport is not static and will be subject to growth. Does the Role prohibit, encourage, discourage. or otherwise take a position with respect to operations such as San Juan proses? The answer involves a consideration of what is meant by various terms in the Role: "general aviation ", 'light aircraft general aviation ", "air taxi service ", and "supplemental /charter aircraft service ". The Role indicates that it anticipates a combination of the revised General Aviation and the Do Nothing Roles, which are described in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Paine Field Community Plan. The Do Nothing role permits a wide range of public and private aeronautical uses, dominant being light aircraft general aviation, and that, "corporate aviation, air cargo, military, airline and large transport crew training, and Boeing factory aviation activities would continue'. The Role ties anticipated growth to the Do Nothing rate (325,000 flights per day by 1995) . Under the EIS, Revised General Aviation anticipates light aircraft being dominant, that, 'corporate aviation, air cargo, military, airline and large transport crew training and Boeing factory aviation acitivites would continue" with varying degrees of expansion, and that, 'Short -haul commuter air taxi and supplemental /charter passenger service would also probably develop at Paine Field 125 Page - 4 08/21/87 within the framework of this alternative ". The Paine Field. Master Plan which was adopted by the County Council after adoption of the Role also recognized that short -haul commuter air taxi and supplemental /charter passenger service would also probably develop under Revised General Aviation. The Master Plan also anticipated substantial increases in flights and the expansion of terminal building requirements including, "commuter /air taxi operational space'. The term "air taxi' has been given definitiveness in federal regulations. L11 14 CFR 135.1 and 298.3(5) . The term is more concerned with plane size that type of service. "Commuter air carrier" is an included form of air taxi operation. 14 CFR Sec. 298.2(f). Capacity in which San Juan is federally licensed to engage has not been stated. It could be an air taxi operation. It does not appear to fit the category of supplemental operator. al SFAR No. 38- 2, paragraph 6(3), 14 CFR Sec. 4(a)(3), 121.1(4), and 121.41- 121.61. With the information currently at hand, we conclude that San Juan can be characterized as an air taxi service, expansion of which is anticipated under the rule, and that its activity is not one that should be "strongly discouraged" (supplemental /charter air passenger service, large transport crew training operations, air cargo aviation, and military aviation) under the Role. These conclusions are conditioned upon San Juan providing . additional information with respect to its operations consistent with the assumptions made in this memo. At this stage it is premature to consider the impacts, if any, which might substantially affect the quality of the environment and how the State Environmental Policy Act might be involved in evaluating San Juan's proposed operation. B. The Federal Overlay. Semantic considerations of what category in the Role that San Juan fits are largely academic in view of federal requirements. Deed restriction by which the county acquired the property involved provides that the property, "shall be used and maintained for the use and benefit of the public in fair and reasonable terms. without unjust discrimination . . . provided, that the grantee may establish such fair, equal, 126 Page - 5 08/21/87 not unjustly discrimatory conditions to be met by all users of the airport as deemed necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport ". The airport has recieved many federal grants. It is subject to the conditions placed on such grants, including that the airport "gill be available for public use on fair 49 It • • It 1 - USC Sec. 2210(a); earlier forms of law being 49 OSC Sec. 1110 and 1718(a). With respect to the San Juan situation, the FAA wrote the airport stating: The owner of any airport developed with federal assistance . . . is required to operate it for the use and benefit of the public and to make it available for all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. and that: Failure to comply with the above has the potential of leading to a finding of non- compliance. A sponsor in a non - compliance status is ineligible to receive federal funds until the deficiency is corrected. Although not stated, the federal government also has other remedies, including cancelling its deed to the airport. The FAA letter indicated that operating limitations may be acceptable, particularly that in the interest of flight safety reasonable rules and regulations may be imposed, where air traffic volume exceeds the maximum practical acceptance rate of a runway other runways may be designated, and noise threshold levels may be set provided there is a measurable improvement with levels of speech, hearing or sleep. Nothing indicates that these provisions are applicable to the situation here, and it should be noted that these permit limitation, not prohibitions, of operations. The letter also notes, "If an aeronautical activity cannot be shown to affect the safety or efficiency . • Page - 6 08/21/67 of an airport or exceed a predescribed threshold level of noise, it must be permitted'. Federal regulations require that any rules and regulations which might be applied to San Juan by th airt must be reasonable and uniform with respect 1,Y they operators on the airport. EDWARD E. LEVEL Deputy Prosecuting Attorney EEL:ss 1HOMSH COUNTY COUNCIL unty Administration Building E tt, Washington 98201 (206) 259.9494 ;LEY BARTHOLOMEW DISTRICT NO. 1 LIZ McLAUGHLIN IDISTRICT NO. 2 BILL BRUBAKER IDISTRICT NO. 3 BRIAN CORCORAN DISTRICT NO. 4 DON BRITTON DISTRICT NO. 5 Cities end Towns Arlington Brier Derrington Edmonds Everett Gold Bar Granite Falls • Index Lake Stevens Lynnwood Marysville Mill Creek Monroe Mountlake Terrace Mu kilted Snohomish Stanwood Sultan Itioodway November 6, 1987 Bernard H. Friedman 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, Wa 98101 Dear Mr. Friedman: Thank you for your letter regarding commuter airline service to and from Portland via Paine Field. My apology for the delay in answering, it took time to get the legal opinion as to the County's options. Federal law and Federal aviation regulations prohibit discrimination as it applies to all aircraft operations at Paine Field. According to Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Ed Level, the County airport is legally obli- gated to be available for use by San Juan Airlines for planes holding no more than 30 pas- sengers. However, operating limitations may be placed upon San Juan in the interest of traffic safety, runway volume, and noise levels. I believe certain conditions should be placed on any proposal for commuter airline service. Among these conditions are: 1. Restricted hours of operation. 2. Operation within the part 150 noise level. 3. Service must be within the scope of the 1980 mitigated role agreement. On November 3 the Council was briefed on the County Airport's proposed lease with San Juan Airlines. This was an informational session and no decisions were made. The Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed lease at 10:15 AM on. Tuesday, November 10 in the Henry M. Jackson Hearing Room on the 6th floor of the Snohomish County Administration Building. You are cordially invited to attend the meeting and tes- tify on the issue. ATGIA 3 129 .,.. _„_dl Employment Opportunity Employer DHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL. ounty Administration Building rett, Washington 98201 (206) 2599494 ULEY BARTHOLOMEW DISTRICT NO. 1 LIZ McLAUGHLIN DISTRICT No. 2 BILL BRUBAKER DISTRICT NO. 3 BRIAN CORCORAN DISTRICT NO. 4 DON BRITTON DISTRICT N0. 5 Cities and Towns Arlington Brier Darrington Edmonds Everett Gold Bar Granite Falls Index Lake Stevens Lynnwood Marysville Mill Creek Monroe Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo Snohomish Stanwood Sultan Woo 1way Thank you for sharing your concerns. Your let- ter has been made a part of the public record on the issue. I can understand the frustrations of Paine Field area residents. Although San Juan cannot legally be denied access, I will request that noise levels and other requirements be strictly enforced. Most Sincerely, P Liz McLaughlin An 113 0 )Ioyment Opportunity Employer ISNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL County Administration Building DISTRICT NO. 1 LIZ MCLAUGHLIN DISTRICT NO. 2 BILL BRUBAKER DISTRICT N0. 3 BRIAN CORCORAN DISTRICT NO. 4 DON BRITTON DISTRICT N0. 5 Cities and Towns Arlington Brier Derrington Edmonds Everett Gold Bar Granite Falls Index Lake Stevens Lynnwood Marysville Mill Creek Monroe Mountlake Terrace Makatea Snohomish Stanwood Sultan Woodway 4 November 1987 NEWS RELEASE EVERETT -- The Snohomish County Council will hold a pub- lic hearing Tuesday, Nov. 10th to receive public testi- mony on a proposed lease agreement to allow commuter air- line service from Paine Field. The hearing will be held at 10:15 A.M. in the Jackson Hearing Room on the sixth floor of the county administration.building in Everett. San Juan Airlines is anticipating offering flights from Everett to Portland, and possibly other points. Com- muter airline service is specifically allowed at Paine Field under the county's existing policy for use of the facility. "In fact, federal regulations leave us little choice about allowing San Juan in," said County Council Chairman Shirley Bartholomew. "But the county can keep a handle on this kind of business through lease agreements for ground services and facilities. "The airport commission has sent us a proposed lease which places certain limitations on what San Juan can do and when they can do it," she said. "The council wants to look at some of those conditions and see if they meet the surrounding community's concerns about preserving . their peace and quiet. "The council particularly needs to address the community's concern about the future of Paine Field and where this proposed commuter service fits in," said Bar - tholomew. For more information, contact Don Wlazlak, 259 -9494. 131 N y An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer November 11, 1987 E. Tazewell Ellett Chief Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Washington, D.C. 20591 Re: Seattle Airport's District Office Letter of August 13, 1987 Dear Mr. Ellet: Enclosed is a copy of a letter from the Seattle Airport's District Office to the manager of Paine /Field Snohomish County Airport. As you can see, the letter purports to present the FAA's position with regard to the legal consequences of denying access to San Juan Airlines to Snohomish County Airports. This letter was one basis for a legal opinion the Snohomish County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney provided to the Snohomish County Council during its deliberations over whether to enter into a lease with San Juan Airlines for the use of Paine Field /Snohomish County Airport. The Deputy Prosecuting Attorney quoted two passages from the letter in his legal opinion, and clearly relied on the letter as authority. Because the letter was signed by a civil engineeer, and not countersigned or even originated by any FAA legal office, there is some question as to whether the letter was fully and appropriately staffed within FAA channels prior to issuance. Would you please November 11, 1987 E. Tazewell Ellett Page 2 of 2 state whether the enclosed letter does in fact represent the FAA's position with regard to the question it addresses? Very truly yours, Bernard H. Friedman BHF :sm cc: Representative Al Swift Representative John Miller General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transporation 133 D US Department of tonsponotion wend Aviation Administration Bernard H. Friedman, Esquire Karr, Tuttle, Koch, Campbell, Mawer, Morrow & Sax 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, Washington 98101 :]EC 3 1 k 800 Independence Ave.. S.W Washington. D.C. 20591 Dear Mr. Friedman: Tnis is in response to your letter of November 11, 1987, asking whether opinions appearing in a letter dated August 13, 1987, from a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) civil engineer in the FAA Seattle Airports District Office to tne Manager of Paine Field /Snonomisn County Airport, received legal clearance within the FAA. A telepnone call by my office to our Seattle office confirmed that the letter did not receive legal review, and was not intended as a legal opinion of the FAA. As you request, this reply provides the FAA's legal position concerning the matters referred to in tne letter. Tne August 13 letter, as you know, addresses the consequences of denying San Juan Airlines access to Snohomish County Airport for the purpose of conducting scheduled service. It indicates that the owner of an airport developed with Federal assistance must operate it for the use and benefit of the public and make it available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. In this respect, the letter correctly summarized a key provision of the grant assurances tnat apply to Federally- funded airports. It also correctly states that ineligibility for funding may result if the grant assurances are not complied witn. The letter furtner suggests that, wnile an airport owner must allow use of the airport by all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity, as well as by the general public, the obligating agreements provide for "exceptions." Please note that, while tne effect of a particular grant assurance on an airport may depend heavily on the facts, there is no specific provision for the granting of exceptions from grant assurances. With respect to the reference in the letter to an airport's authority to impose restrictions related to flight safety, it should be noted, as a general rule, that sucn restrictions are Federally preempted insofar as they affect the operation of aircraft. However, certain safety matters affecting ground operation remain within tne province of the airport operator, ATcli 134 2 such as fire code rules that may govern where an aircraft can be started on the airport, parking near fuel pumps, etc. It is recommended that any proposed restriction on aircraft operation be coordinated in advance with the FAA to ensure that there is no intrusion into the FAA's responsibility for safety in air commerce. The letter makes reference to the designation of certain runways for operation under specific operational conditions. Please note that the implementation of preferential runway programs affects the approach and departure of aircraft and is accordingly preempted by the FAA's responsibility for air traffic management and control. Such a restriction would therefore have to be implemented through an FAA Tower Bulletin or other FAA document. _ With respect to the setting of a noise limit for aircraft that may land or depart the airport as discussed in the letter, this is within the proprietary responsibility of the airport owner as long as the following key limitations on that authority are observed: such restrictions must be shown to respond in a reasonable manner to a demonstrated noise problem; they may not place an undue burden on air commerce; they may not unjustly discriminate against certain aircraft operators; and they may not otherwise interfere with the FAA's reponsibilities for safety in air commerce. Here again, prior coordination with the FAA is strongly suggested. Hopefully this responds to your inquiry. Should you wish further information, it is suggested that you contact the FAA's Northwest Regional Counsel, George L. Thompson, who is located in Seattle. He can be reached by telephone at (206) 431 -2007. Sincerely, • Vdward P. Faberma n cting Chief Counsel 135 Poi- i of July 8, 1987 Louis V. Harks 5311 134th P1. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Hr. Harks: rte,,. , ', r IN I (i� `'I \\oft JUG —L-, JAN 15 )98 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS I'm writing to respond to some of the statements contained in your testimony to the Paine Field Task Force which you graciously sent to the Port of Seattle Commissioners recently. I should note at the outset that the Port of Seattle Commission has taken no position with respect to Paine Field's present or future aviation role in the region. We do recognize that Paine Field has been discussed in some of the regional airport system planning especially with regard to the Puget Sound Council of Government's current study. Port of Seattle staff has periodically offered information about air carrier issues requested by the COG or by the Paine Field Task Force. In that light there are several references contained in your testimony which can be clarified as they relate to the operation of Sea -Tac International Airport. On page two of your testimony you state that transforming Paine Field into a satellite air carrier airport would benefit Snohomish County by 8,000 direct and 12,000 indirect jobs. This statement implies that the functions which are now all being conducted at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport would all be conducted at Paine Field were it to become a satellite air carrier airport. This is unlikely. Were Paine Field to take on a satellite air carrier role, the direct and indirect employment impacts would be likely to be substantially less than those experienced by the major hub airport which would remain at Sea -Tac. On page 3 of your testimony you quote a letter from Port of Seattle Executive Director Richard Ford dated April 8, 1985 regarding the fact that a Raster Plan would be completed in 1985 to handle a doubling of passenger traffic. This statement is correct. However, in 1985 the airport handled approximately 11.5 million passengers, doubling this figure yields approximately 23 million passengers which is within the range of the 26 million which is being discussed as the capacity of Sea -Tac airport in other documents which you reference. It is very difficult to imagine a scenario where - without major modifications well beyond the scope of any existing master planning - Sea -Tac airport could accommodate between 42 and 46 million passengers, as stated in your testimony. 136 Louis V. Marks July 8, 1987 Page 2 On page 6 you refer to the Port of Seattle's programs to buy homes around Sea -Tac as a financial burden which we we would want to shift as much as possible to Paine Field. Our committments to Noise Remedy Programs at Sea -Tac are based on established air carrier activity and impacts which would not appreciably change whether or not Paine Field acquired any future passenger traffic. We certainly have not looked at Paine Field as a solution or alternative to our well established efforts to mitigate noise in Sea -Tac's vicinity. Long term aviation capacity and environmental concerns may result in a variety of regional aviation development proposals but we don't expect anything to alter our commitments to make Sea -Tac as compatible with its neighbors as possible. 1 hope1these comments will help clarify some of the references to Sea -Tac in you testimony and assist you in your further discussions with the Paine field role task force. Again/I appreciate your forwarding copies of th- testimony to the Port Co isioners. f Si ly, Hen Pre y A •nson dent, Port Commission cc: Port Commission James D. Dwyer, Executive Director, Port of Seattle John G. Belford, Deputy Executive Director, Port of Seattle Vernon L. Ljungren, Director, Aviation Division, Port of Seattle Don Bakken, Airport Manager, Paine Field Edward Hansen, Chairman, Paine Field Task Force 3023F /RBS /sf 137 PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL ■ PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL • Paine Meld: phi' or untapped asset? By Scott Miller tt's P' F' 1 , used for private and military flying, is a Likely candidate to begin commercial -airline service soon after the year 2000, • ,according to two economic planning SrooPs- Both organizations, the Paine -Field Task Force and, the Puget Sound Coun- cil of Governments (PSCOG) are con- sidering turning the 51-year-old site into a reliever airport for fast - growing Seattle - Tacoma International Airport. Under one scenario being discussed, Paine Field and at least one other Puget Sound airport would . become satellite Task forces ponder • r r l : • • Paine Meld's future be debated IsG. L f • Continued Iran pegs 17 .The county is bound to..run Paine as -an Paine 'ask Force.` "How this is handled could have a very positive impact on the economy here." Indeed, easy access to an airport is important to companies looking to begin or expand operations. Freight is increas- ingly shipped by air and many executives prefer the convenience of nearby flights. Jim Wright. commissioner at the Port of Seattle which runs Sea -Tac, went as far as to say that a satellite airport in Snohom- ish County would have an economic impact at least equal to the basing of the Nimitz in Everctt. Community groups, on the other hand, fear that rising numbers of noisy jets will ruin their neighborhood. • . - • One group. the Citizens Alliance for Better Life and Environmtnt (CABLE),•.a coalition of 10 homeowner groups, says residential . growth around Paine; Field would make it one of the worst locations for a commercial airport. . The Snohomish' County .Planning • Department itself.. predicts that 5,000 homes • will be built in areas near Paine Field during the next 10 years. "Just because Paine exists• is not a good: reason to putt large airport in here," says Janice Simmons of CABLE. "It would be very disappointing:, to see commercial flights come here. We want to protect our way of life. , • . :" Thoresen says the county will not over look these cgncerns..if an airport is built. "We have no intention of turning this into Sea -Tac North." There is no market for large airlines* like Japan Airlines,' or Northwest Orient, he adds. Bill Dolan, Paine's airport aviation director, agrees that airlines probably will not flock ;to the airport in the immediate future, but says it may be illegal to block 'airlines' use of Paine. • • . • • "airport ". according to agreements . signed when the military gave away the airport. Some officials think this could also mean • commercial flights must be allowed. • Meanwhile, Snohomish, county passed an ordinance in 1978 citing Paine's role to be "general aviation." The task force is discussing that definition. ,, • . , . Although.' the • PSCOG is considering several satellite. facilities,' including Ren- . ton Municipal Airport and •McChord Air . Force Base, Paine is a strong candidate. . The airport already has an extensive . runway system and instrument landing capability,, and _ is located . near major. cities... • • 1 • . The Pori of Seattle would be interested in running a Snohomish County airport, says Commissioner Wright. . . . • . "We don't want to get involved in loca- tion decisions, but if a community tells us where they want one, we will put it up," adds Wright.: .: . ' . • Wright says • there are •problems with. Paine and favors building an entirely new . • airport, maybe in north Snohomish Coun- ty. CABLE also favors this solution. • ;. • Although upgrading Paine would cost 5500 million, it is the cheapest alternative being discussed by the.PSCOG. , Building an entirely .new.. airport," as Wright .suggests, would cost "about 51.6 . Don Secrist, senior planner and project manager : for Council of Government's • • 'regional. airport update •plan ., .cautions that predicting traffic volumes through the year 2020 are based on many assumptions and are difficult.:• • ` _ • • ,. • The • Puget.' Sound Council of Govern ments' draft report is due neat month and the Paine Field Task Force will deliberate' for at ..least another six*: months :. Both reports are only recommendations and have no direct decision- making power. • To: Puget Sound Council of Governments cc: Henry Aronson Dick Barnes Jim Dwyer Elinor Lee Phil Talmadge Paul Barden Barbara Blake Tim Hill Greg Nickels Georgette Valle Highline Community Council Sunset Activity Center 1809 South 140th Street Seattle, Washington 98168 January 11, 1988 Subject: Commercial Airport Alternatives for the Puget Sound Basin The Puget Sound Council of Governments is commended for their planning efforts necessary to satisfactorily solve the regional problem resulting from the 17% airside traffic growth in commercial aviation at. our Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. My Highline Community Council is well aware of this traffic growth problem in as much as it is the resident community council of greater Highline which emcompasses the Sea -Tac Airport. We are aware of the severe current landside traffic problem in addition to noise resulting from old technology aircraft that constitute a more than significant portion of the increased airside traffic. The landside traffic problem solution for the Sea -Tac community is at least a decade in the future requiring completion of the rebuilding of the First Avenue South Bridge and the South extension of the 509 freeway. Local landside traffic currently is nearly gridlock during peak hours with excess spilling over into local neighborhood streets. A third runway at the Sea -Tac Airport may be a satisfactory airside solution to this growth problem. Ground handling, terminal, and aircraft control facilities can be easily built until airspace conjestion becomes the limit. A third runway at the Sea -Tac airport would be a disaster for my community already detrimentally impacted by this airport. Highline is a residential community of about 100,000 residents with this airport located smack dab in the middle of it. A second or a third commercial airport in the Puget Sound Basin is a much better solution. There are two existing airports that should be seriously considered, Paine Field at Everett and McCord Field at Tacoma. Both have long runways compatible with commercial aviation. Both are located near large population centers currently served by the Sea -Tac airport. McCord Field previously supported commercial aviation as the Tacoma Municipal Airport. There will be public outcry whichever alternative is selected. The third runway alternative at the Sea -Tac Airport will have organized opposition that will make the public outcry of the Metro sewer outfall selection of Seahurst seem like a gentle breeze by comparison. We in the Highline area would like to work with the Puget Sound Council of Governments to arrive at satisfactory solution to air travel growth problems. Not being served by a local government, we cannot at the present time. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me on 655 - 5942/244 -4956. Bill Bowli "n, President 140 STUDY TO DETERMINE LOST DUE TO REAL ESTATE DEPRECIATION CAUSED BY PSCOG'S ALTERNATIVE *3 OF THEIR REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN The :Following six burien area real estate brokers/agents were contacted bv Phone and asked thelr estimates of C13. C23. and [3]. Their values were totaled and averaged as indicated below. NAME Steve Comoo Harvey Dewitt Dear irinton Cr Hermsen Peter Ailsnuru Keith ti"fat C13 [23 UT) Estimateo Estimate= JU8 broker ercker Agent Agent Broker Broker average average oentent The length of the PHONE COMPANY r13 E23 C37 All Amer. Homes *70000 Cent. 21 *600 Dei *6.:7a00 Marine Vu Prop. $70000 Seattle So. Side ,t7F000 Nrmdv Pk Hm ndr 1 7.1 t• 10% 57. AVERAUEs = e70000 home vaiue in stuov area immediate deoreciation resulting from Alternative #3 c.f vacant lots study area is the same as the Sea-Tac Airport. South 129th E,-reet tc 216th Street. 93 olocks. The width 04- the study area is +rom 1st Ave So to 12 Ave from So. 12 blocks. With home lots being estimated to be 7.2% vacant. and 85 foot lots. block will have 2 rows of (33O-60)/85 = t homes / block Total number of homes * 88 = 5880 units each' in study area, the buyout area = (1.-.072) * 6 * 12 The average depreciation loss to each home owner = *70000 * 15.4% = *10800 The total The the ztuv are ,rt = tee) * sioeoo = t6v million total loss outside the stucv area. outside the estimated buy out area. is to :'e three times that of the buyout area. or fleo million. The total immediate loss tc Des Moines. Normandy-Far. Buren. White Center. and west Seattle is *240 million, all to individual home owners. 141 wrtmoe liTe Bill Bowlin. February 22. 1938 GENERAL PUBLIC 143 Mr. and Mrs. Donald Ellinson 18600 - 4th Avenue S.W. Seattle, WA. 9816.6. Mr. Gene Lobe, Executive Board of PSCOG President 239 - 4th St. Bremerton, WA. 98310 . Dear Mr. Lobe, Seattle, April 12, 1988. We would like you to know that we as citizens of Normandy Park do not want any additional runways. If ever Seattle's airport becomes so popular that there is a need for expansion, then the only practical solution would be to put such a major sized airport far away from built up communities. If Tokyo can have their international airport 90 miles outside their city and install a rapid transit system, as well as London with Heathrow Airport, then there is no reason why we cannot do the same. We, who have invested our life savings into our properties, do not want to worry about possible plans for a third runway. If you would ever want us-to vote for you in any future election, then please eliminate this third runway from all your future planning. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Ellingson ,_____ ...„ r., ..„, ......: ,.............. .4., „,...„„ 145 -Cato MF OFFICE OF _ LJ UHF MAVQA • Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Zykowski 18616 - 4th Avenue S.W. Seattle, WA. 98166. Mr. Gene Lobes Executive Board of PSCOG President 239 - 4th St. Bremerton, WA. 98310 . Dear Mr. Lobe, APR 181988 PUGET SOUND COUN IL OF GOVERN Seattle, April 12, 1988. We would like you to know that we as citizens of Normandy Park do not want any additional runways. If ever Seattle's airport becomes so popular that there is a need for expansion, then the only practical solution would be to put such a major sized airport far away from built up communities. If Tokyo can have their international airport 90 miles outside their city and install a rapid transit system, as well as London with Heathrow Airport, then there is no reason why we cannot do the same. We, who have invested our life savings into our properties, do not want to worry about possible plans for a third runway. If you would ever want us to vote for you in any future election, then please eliminate this third runway from all your future planning. Sincerely, t") J Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Zykowski 146 • RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR .date Mr. and Mrs. John Christensen 18617 - 4th Avenue S.W. Seattle, WA. 98166. Mr. Gene Lobe, Executive Board of PSCOG President 239 - 4th St. Bremerton, WA. 98310 . Dear Mr. Lobe, V 6 ppGET pv p G ER�4v1�C�, t s Seattle, April 12, 1988. We would like you to know that we as citizens of Normandy Park do not want any additional runways. If ever Seattle's airport becomes so popular that there is a need for expansion, then the only practical solution would be to put such a major sized airport far away from built up communities. If Tokyo can have their international airport 90 miles outside their city and install a rapid transit system, as well as London with Heathrow Airport, then there is no reason why we cannot do the same. We, who have invested our life savings into our properties, do not want to worry about possible plans for a third runway. If you would ever want us to vote for you in any future election, then please eliminate this third runway from all your future planning. Sincerely, ii % ///r. and Mrs. John Christensen RECEIVED O IN THE OFFICE ( F THE MAYOR 147 Mrs. Patricia Rieman 18611 - 4th Avenue S.W. Seattle, WA. 98166. Mr. Gene Lobe, Executive Board of PSCOG President 239 - 4th St. Bremerton, WA. 98310. . Dear Mr. Lobe, 'It-3C?VAI Oti Q��E� O� �R�t+tt4C1��T5 C) Mr. and Mrs. Alankar Gupta 18612 - 4th Avenue S.W. Seattle, WA. 98166. Mr. Gene Lobe, Executive Board of PSCOG President 239 - 4th St. Bremerton, WA. 98310 . Dear Mr. Lobe, l8 ,9,B Exult OF GOVFRMiiFt..17.S Seattle, April 12, 1988. We would like you to know that we as citizens of Normandy Park do not want any additional runways. If ever Seattle's airport becomes so popular that there is a need for expansion, then the only practical solution would be to put such a major sized airport far away from built up communities. If Tokyo can have their international airport 90 miles outside their city and install a rapid transit system, as well as London with Heathrow Airport, then there is no reason why we cannot do the same. We, who have invested our life savings into our properties, do not want to worry about possible plans for a third runway. If you would ever want us to vote for you in any future election, then please eliminate this third runway from all your future planning. Sincerely, and Mrs. A ankar Gupta 149 _gate kF DPF/c``: Y -ry_ EoFThE Ma roR Mr. and Mrs. James Powell 18603 - 4th Avenue S.W. Seattle, WA. 98166. Mr. Gene Lobes Executive Board of PSCOG President 239 - 4th St. Bremerton, WA. 98310 . Dear Mr. Lobe, ss P.O. Sox ee696 127 SW 16eth Seattle. Washington 98188 106) 246 -7022 Kay Cummings Senior Analyst Application Software Mr. Tim Hill Chairman, Transportation Committee 400 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Hill, 19301 Second Avenue South Seattle, WA 98148 March 2, 1988 H[ggEOr AP's-' 131983 PUGEI. SOU O i;WUNG1 . OF GOVERNMENTS I am a homeowner, taxpayer, and registered voter in South King County, and as. such I am directly affected by the proposed "alternatives" with regard to improving the facilities at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. In particular, I object to the third alternative, which is to build a third runway. The reason for this should seem obvious, if you look at a map; it would go right over the top of my house: Seriously, there many other residents of the Highline area who would be similarly affected. This may have been "the boondocks" when the airport was first built (although I doubt it), but it certainly isn't now. In the recent past, when there was some mention of incorporating the Highline area into a separate city, it was discovered that such an action would create an entity which would become the third or fourth largest city in the state'. Building a third runway would displace thousands of those people, destroy millions of dollars worth of personal property, and uproot countless children from their friends and neighborhood schools. I think I can speak for many homeowners when I say that our home is our biggest investment, and to lose it due to "progress" (or someone's warped view of progress) would be financially devastating. And don't tell me that the Port of Seattle would pay "market value" for it -- as soon as the third runway was announced, its value would plummet, as I'm sure you are aware. In short, I am strongly opposed to any "third runway" being built at Sea -Tac, and I wish to go on record as having expressed my opinion well in advance of any decision that is made. I request that this alternative dropped from the Regional Transportation Plan. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you need to contact me for any reason, I have enclosed my business card. Sincerely, o Kay A. Cummings 151 REIVEO MAR 1 1 1988 KING COUNTY EXKUTIVE OFFICE m 60 DUE DATE: 3 - 88 AUTHOR: sU$ CT:Seg •Tod iC..`L wen ACTION pAVI la'+� `,LIESPONSE FOR EXEC SII'. RESPOND FOR EXKUTIVE REVIEWED IT 13045 Standring Lane, S.W. Seattle, WA 98146 April 11, 1988 Puget Sound Council of Governments Grand Central on the Park 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 REFERENCE: Airport Expansion Plans Gentlemen: I have recently been made aware of the Port of Seattle Plans for expansion of SeaTac Airport. Alternatives 2 and 3 appear to me to be grossly unfair to those of us who have purchased homes to the northwest of SeaTac deliberatly looking for a site where there would not be airport noise. If I understand them correctly, (EIS pages 56 and 57) would align SeaTac runway system with the Boeing Field runway system and that would cause airline traffice to go directly over the Shorewood area and the southern part of West Seattle. Those areas at present are quite well shielded from airport noise. They are well populated suburban areas with many nice homes. The thought of air traffic taking off and landing across that area is disheartening to say the least. Property values would drop and people would move and there would be a major disruption to what is now is a very livable area along the Sound. Alternative 3 is to build the third runway 5,000 ft. west of the existing runways (EIS Page 71). This alternative appears to be ludicrous in that, if I understand it correctly, it would remove Highline High School and run all the way over to First Avenue wiping out a built up residential and commercial area. It has the advantage over Alternative 2 however of keeping the direction of the flight path the same as it is now and hence, a less extensive area would be impacted than with the realignment. 152 13 PLICEJ SOUND COOf\ICiL. OF GGV_RNM NTS Puget Sound Council of Governments April 11, 1988 Page TWO I urge that you recommend to the Port of Seattle that Alternatives 2 and 3 are totally unacceptable. Housing in the current flight path of SeaTac has already been depreciated by the noise and air pollution of the existing runways. Let's not destroy the living quality and value of more homes in this area. Yours truly, Harold Kitson cc: F. Hazeltine H. Johnson Loretta Bowers, Windermere Real Estate Paul Barden Greg Nickels v 1988 COU! C1L 153 n. � 17-1 _� 1-7-7.11-77-11), Lam; U LI i� J 1988 April 1, 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS UI Port of Seattle Commissioner Henry Aronson, President After attending fruitless port /home -owner meetings for a number of years and going through all kinds of channels for answers, we now understand you are considering expansion of Sea -Tac Airport. We now have such horrible motor ground noises at night that it is almost to the point of insanity. If you proceed with this ludicrous plan, I feel all people north, south, east and west of the airport should have the option of selling their homes to the Port of Seattle. What right do you have imposing this hardship on us for the sake of many people that do not live in this area? cc: Paul Barden Tim Hill Gregory Nichels Curtis Smelzer 154 Sincerely, James E. Renschler 14003 2nd SW a ttl 7WA 98166 ej- r ❑ ELL:jk2TUV.nt-'' I X1 1 AP.''' 198.E PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMEr` TS 17136 Second Avenue S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 March 20, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave S. Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr Smel ser, We ask you to drop major Sea -Tac Expansion planning which would include expansion west of existing airport boundaries. We are opposed to the third runway for the following reasons: 1) An added runway west of the existing runways would increase the aircraft noise at our home, which is just west of the airport. The existing aircraft noise levels are unpleasant and degrade our quality of life. An added runway closer to our home would worsen the problem. 2) _Increased airport noise will have a negative impact on property values. This will cause a financial loss to us when we sell our home. 3) Since all residents of the Seattle metropolitan area share in the benefits of the Sea -Tac airport we feel that some of these other residents should bear part of the burdens of expanded air travel by accepting a portion of the air traffic in their area. Thank you for your consideration, understanding and help in removing the third runway option from airport plans. Sincerely, 155 • VAR 28198' PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 18831 2nd Ave S. W. Seattle, WA 98166 March 24, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director, Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: Please be advised of our most emphatic disapproval of the proposed Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative that is being considered in the Regional Tansportation Plan. This alternative, if adopted, would severely disrupt the communities and neighborhoods in the Burien and Normandy Park areas. It would have a devastating effect on the Highline School District and on property values in long established and highly desirable residential neighborhoods. The substantial investment of many homeowners in this area would be severely degraded, including that of the undersigned. This alternative is not in the region's best interests. Please do all that you can to assure that the Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative is dropped from the Regional Transportation Plan. Sincerely yours, Richard D. McCork e Colleen C. McCorkle ■ � [A[EgGnIG] MFR w 1988 Sincerely, 9141, 114,„ )1d4.01- 0, 157 • k) w6 I 3,uf -, -12": 3t.ei 0.4.1‘46 `1.4h8 / C, cJ Z2-426/.138 1/er ¢ D al[1:'10Vg MAR )/.--1988 1710 Ce �. 44fc °AI 93 /0 ¢ � PUGci otiND COUNC - GO -RN TENTS Cc • ° ,� st /pg,0 4, 7 /Co 4z4 ,.cd //1 Co "la typo � C l a�.,,r /174/6- 6 sco l.Seti 98 /6G • G.vt.{+10 se al' /P5Co6 / Zi , P;1 ve s r / S- 48/04 - _ /'�3rl //7g3-,.jJq// 64 (2.¢3-5794) fir►. ' • - " /4 "311 @ S�Tc • 158 N ulG 3") J g-€44..wa/ 40.14/k G,to f-/w elf" ""r"^^ 4U,.,. „►o , ce,..accr), / ZS 1. e - 14/ 5-atie c� • / awuro hh ,-.f aricriAA.0 ®5k 14 43, • 2445 • 2 c1J4 o � 1e-+ .51A 30 4- • .Z.t.- 'S) c&t,Ho � A 3,1 5 44 b S71,1o>o i C 4.1 (32Jo h� k 4 Pueo+ q Ili 4400 Art t 3.Ad Maj. IiV " f _ _ _ _ _ U.ril"IMLO' (Sy !t /L()LtS) a at Soo ef q M 3.0 4. 144,1,01 4. a", aJ 40° ,4 ! W a-ST =-- 3,42 gu,w,A■11,1 c 41 L k, Gore 44 ev44 Ake itAig .6.415 iike •1444"AistAr YD A4-1 of /14 )14;1/ A4A■s%AvaLi 4a,ta /44 g, /o y ARAA•lewour 577c 341 oviA.%447t.o awe k ►f 4 p -►iolrd2 - 4,4,5'1 t O1t4 #( 040 hzeuldaw Anil) V / 4e . ti cs - fko y,.ot 44„&14.441.440 7.0 dun, ok Skin 3 r al4exa 5 . 159 $ 3 ap -act, 6) a, f,.lof ,G/a 6A6 (-�j .014.14h3) 54A,-,, s 1,! /EOR" 4e, 6 Ai 314 2 2- the,,, 8 5 De44.1 j(;% PiAl44414e l o , a ) ado LVtd,e2e, a -i yvw' eta.l i p & — t/r7 o 7114, -4 4f .( -ka4 ''.r►, a',l.' / / obo .r !AAA' aeast.m.ti 6 q�� • 4.4000'i/34d '710 wxo{ „ 3,4 titivs� " J 40° ltzt a 0 - - u y a aO ? o A 0 1M J r, "3J n4 11 ..,,o a u. " . Pv° k d ' 3^-d khnit, izeid (4,va jti Diu fcisa.0 -'X ° eat tib e-vtriebe 4:,___Cs_;b44 Gt, Q ded M 0( Cal 0(4 ,k1491- 4eca.0444/11 e, /iCef�a& 7f /i14( Ael 6-7 4:t CZOlolat;IA41.‘4•1 GwtL a// Q,vtio //c/ ek 71 .f �5ac�ro�. oon 7'"i vuw -- 7tit P5C0G uoe mob .Gr' Nvuo l ivva 4 cAez i c. Rai - toid 4 — /1L1liloal .ct.'. i wtJ a ' 5, 9 Jll09ca 61-(=22,0x/0-4- $ ld.%) 33d 'P.»,,,„,i„, (243 .-s,q) • Pine+ See4 Cent..41 .� G........... +a PI ahned Fu4ure- Alrlaor+ , •■•••■■IIAARUI! ■ ■■■■ • r 1 }— 1 �J 4400 FEET ^.-- •�`.ir • AtFtPoRT I1 Sou NOM r .Y I� I �■ . CITY LamtT (.o S o • PPOioa • CITY ow 4tA.T,•,c, Nits 1 G � — — — — — r1 1 J ui lAtil BM A'�►�il�st�.Jlil �`. p�Q n. 41II " Valitilliiiillimek 47±agnisim i eassktip M ,Z11('' ' *SI\ itrAZ:Prlit As L /;" illeVOUPTIONNYINWINI:Prgi ,r_-/ / illits.,11%Plitil,ENEOrZinn* I* VII I.' giiiimmarianirlillifil, 'Avli iiira-mws73,TArt_ _e_.1,,,.,1 lial I. '� �� 1 � Y% Z-iT: yr.' -.`� al : �. �` 1V °",�t 11 �� i iLl it k' LiDi _ f•Litivi-----N--;q- • jegi I' MIIi11g1W� o; f ._."--& ��.. i��;...,_ A ►, , \bar .; 11/J���� f •' gaol tz• .,.,c4.--.:iAt-Iripi. .:' 1121 _EU 1111111 • rim 4 AREINErl"2111,1A--40.11631 III AI N immumogen, k airausri J� -1I 1.IL ! ���11 I) smr i� �I��c� i �r NE au 7 . Mir ►� � i � 'jr ��., virreemal ►li'1 N %h�� pd. ��`��`� �j��% iii' ®`'��`�������.i,��%�1�.� G� � Z• • ■m\nI�rr� ■,1- Mr 1„,ni did ra VW' 163 ..i. . ._. , 1 1741 `14 •1n Om' ...•,:'` 0 „ Ai 4 ri!=i6t'' A i I ■ 'OP fi)N 1111 •:. • !All ' a f m . iii ....._ . itivmmr7PIKIIII!flir o1 lit57ii6,41 .li..ril ., Le Arfilmli.E.,§t._ _AL • piillill gigroin=lizeinguatzomill PArninieni outailionmaillikiimm is-tr. Tan , r , rlisar.-.1101,1 • ' 1 taiii011.41 n -- ','% ma.vm., eV ht._ A -1019111 .11 um . ,3.1-,-.:74,4rei,..."‘ fiElmk,_:rmiTsrraii,r; 1 ■i= it''' Ariina. ...Num ,4,"MaiMikillEtRimiiii i*a.r.iiorm: mill =:,,asaii=1"Eill..-' -Esr' 1 l ' 4 41111;MV11.111.11Eflii-421[00 r i i ti rri fritiglillinnigaigni „i 111 1/ ittbiulltliMFAltiriSIRIZna ■161‘-=7"//0 ' iMIETRITErEfifej, 4 AO w .-;.a..-.6alk!ojimrliii&II-N. ' -- IIIIIHEONT mcwir. . ,,,64,074pirorrlp ii-or,44_1________,, in „ '.1/41/twAvit1511-1..rn-Arrif ttesotami an .-.)^ it. ''',"2111M111144 4,, ,„ %. 7r......,..7b. -,..0..q. ......„............_ .:,K.-:rtiarv,i4.7,.. IprigiritigfillW,4 INtriCii Vigil! 10111007 wit 1 r"OVR:=341-M-IVIMI r, zr-`1241 mr,p7ivii %:* gaitgitilir- ff, - N ?la' 1 iraiiiiki6AW .,,tit 0 JAC . la. IL I " A - - — - .11.4.1" sw. ,41., vrriiii lb i'. 1 1 4;16151151411111i510F416 41,0 Zile N1111 qtrar4griirt 'j1jj mg ffigkgpi; 49/4* cal -_-_- ItiflOriiii 11\ N -- ,,IrprAi , dk , illFiva ,1,_ft,,Aili• imtian , pj --, p :ii A i tall Itliri) * i a 11111 in „tlu,..15 0 .'• vl am m ,., , .P1 r.lui Li) IF" 1 Ste Igla TI";'r:M1P:ETA 1 ip .: it :Pilo k , 4 .. . i ... SRN: thlTrillima• Ifigi ..--.,--, ,, ..., "fill■ . xi I rI! ■ .t: i bill 'Oprio5...„,quill fi,fiA§11 1 Ei ..',4m .. ,:r•-.M7,, . _ , MhS,Paigv,,41-7.72,,Z,1, ., 1 1.1-114j11121,40114,1/7g06"6:5314‘ .;■,:, ,;,-, ''AIIP)1,10-03P' ,per"-''''•,- . ! ■ .*.. \ \ „ 4 i r A-1 ki:. e1.1.3. 1 1, , 1# \N \ 6,92 1 kiii ilt Jri \,., _NW Wilinralgrjg MS IERFLEiriiMINgi . 11111VI' 1,, Ital 511 V, k 111 lir 1 , l ti - 9 MO 11, o'r 164 1 RS /00 AeTV/*t 1e/GL = d 1ti•NO Trisess 14 01-0 100 73 EAST RW NF Pare•e►,r w! Rio 4- A. Um 'mac. to• ,elers . 417,81*. ti itAti 32.6o' t " — /inZ =1100xi0` CoFr 1 . ?DL7AOf� 4v O MeV 0E04% END or ibioJwqe 741ioof. a. (car) GA) 'V6 I 34# 88 30a Rodsvmui 51 g 5of Azt4.0t,41 /so ei /2,814 auhz,,,,, scy r 88 E/w ,h a 11.%. GAG /Gal / km.-.953 E — 14A tea. iit447 128 4 2/4- d ,uo3Ct� 5c4ffre ced s cl..f 4/A 14,4/".tet, l LS Al p G/» (! 0 / Air, s) 7414‘45 &Y./0 5 aLere Sk► ?r,i4 . 7:24, �, pro?' Al L /4p1 adr:Gi -5*-- /IL /401 J/h a,,le' SA lit -l�' uOea� 'alo s� /0 64 13A4A• ChA.c.i i. . lie-d-A 1h/ samrP G�,h►ilve 1 3`vdr, (0114, c Oki oa 644d414W e,1 )111- a<l• c - op Abe- et 3eAti 7:14 4.1) s Ai w4,• . N d5 14, So /So 9 {u /o 4' -e; .Cei ? 1 (.0 P. ,A..� it = E$ ) /88 fi .1.4•••••1-1440 91 6f ,R V 1# 6.14) 5/8 �+ c 0 4.4 �� d W1421.14/14,41444.1 c 4.. st,Aft. okra i Jee(dJcMl Polit.et ? WgiA/ 200x /D "44410 � �? la% 'a cod s toAxi 44.11a. /01644,, olaLcui ,Dudi- 4ThAte ?mac co /0 ydo /A4 — = 20 O04 Doe' o lma- ,Q-0td ? (,uti o pap Fm '`, y'.al° ? 170 64) cup L �e I zz" '^�as ial� 8 2x I O ;` 444d /0 �� - (�1; ;`�- 4'"t..r 2K /0 �. ycQo So a,!'o O Solo/ w(C = 250 da+y/%6" g444..ise : 4 ytaco /000 da"o 2.0 000 -49040/c/ 8 /dal 2So0% 4/.67 = /, 4(4 P. auti L� 3ome q _ 12 , /�r►�Q 2 440 A iii-p.404 a. / 3 414.64 p.4444 1, — hostr g4.0 ickw •frA, yeti. 2X /O �e 11 O /oy�/ �. trim .G4 {a �4`, 2 el a00 0C4411211: / �• w - - , /tua. 200x0 ,taa,/e/A.7 itA. 4147 Atista . 4 ,l _ /4 0 /d"4, 820 � �j+o � �j Mawatf /40 r►1, /,4444 x /am - /60000 rv++ %a.,/Q9 ward . /c4nikte /cs? 171 h-crEdrAgrn ILA MAR 2 2 1998 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave S. Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr Smelser, 17121 Second Avenue S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 March 20, 1988 I ask you to drop major Sea -Tac Expansion planning which would include expansion west of existing airport boundaries. I am opposed to the third runway for the following reasons: 1) An added runway west of the existing runways would increase the aircraft noise at my home, which is just west of the airport. The existing aircraft noise levels are unpleasant and degrade my quality of life. An added runway closer to my home would worsen the problem. 2) Increased airport noise will have a negative impact on property values. This will cause a financial loss to me when I sell my home. I am retired, living on a fixed income, and will need to derive maximum value from my home. 3) Since all residents of the Seattle metropolitan area share in the benefits of the Sea -Tac airport I feel that some of these other residents should bear part of the burdens of expanded air travel by accepting a portion of the air traffic in their area. Thank you for your consideration, understanding and help in removing the third runway option from airport plans. Sincerely., 172 .- Jy� us 2 I a r 4 OSOdOtid do SL%Wi�'�7ji� .1' sO • �` ..4-4 1 -33 00 tPi7 � V y , l I� J do • ��_ ono • • rniri■.l.uir`� �i�■ `-' +...0 j..py ',..^+r'4 pau4e Id 0 .4. usr..Miswwe) t lm"'oJ Y%.eos ,+aiirA� w w §11113 3 7' �Nnoo QNnos J3 8661 j iz eivcv aid rivarc{-:.-qc) / /J Art /"6MI)C QAS/1417"k f -.vvy 4w - -vra,761 • 1 a ?A y / tior s/ iN0 - "" A►NA> /' f • L�./I�iIIN // /�N0/�2� a �l ko / /t(/d ^(7�id IiI C"' aYf 00✓ )$4a 8 /86 " f r n (' /ff n- ts S 74/1 `41"1"1/ 1"1/ o WI 1 (We) want alternative X73 EXCLUDED from the. Puget Sound Connell of Government's Regional Transportation Plan. n ; QJntne ) Q�lame (Address) i qa �, I Gro Add i.t i.ona.l Comments: 411Z a9 1. (We) what alternative X13 EXCLUDED from the Puget Sound Council of Government's Regional Transportation Plan. 4 nme) Q4ame) ' i i /01E 4 / /'vc (Address) /5'/ % 4;5•-c/L-"l Additional Comments: j/ D MAR 21199B \U) PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Dear Puget Sound Council of Governments, Just a short note to formerly request that the Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative be dropped from the Regional Transportation plan. I,m quite alarmed at the environmental Impact this would have on the overall quality of life in my community. My entire family is strongly opposed to the expansion. Sincerely 1ViACAA4k &4-439-"Lli 175 CxRe Lena e 1- e-t f SCp� C•K„ . ' .2/d F-L.R.d 4 v So £€t& wA fgv,�� :::?j-77"14/171 -5-e-ithtte IdA MAR 18 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SCR, 6117&1 1-0J o2 , /14.- - eo7 4l cy/ 4.470t4 4./t0. AifEA 0-V-4ti ien .A/z4f4A_ 7CL. fr-4 uu MAR 1. 199 PUGET SOUND uuUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS C/n f,x/e),( soe6n, zefl6‘e,74 a,e/ /7 a9fv--4 a)47,_ 9,1&,6 177 2511 S. W. 121st Street Seattle. WA 98146 March 16. 1988 Mr. Curtis Smel.ser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 s MAR 17 igsp, PUGEH SOUND CuuNC1L OF GOVERNMENTS RE: Alternative 3 (Major Expansion of Sea -Tac) Greetings: I have lived in the Shorewood area for the past 27 years, and am a former board member of the Shorewood Community Club. Twenty years ago we chose to build in Shorewood because of the quality of life - the quiet, the view, the churches, schools etc. I was shocked and dismayed to learn that the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) has proposed Expansion of Sea -Tac Airport as one of four alternatives. 1 attended the February 24, 1999 meeting at Kennedy High School and strongly support the proposals to eliminate Expansion of Sea - Tac Airport as an alternative, and eliminate consideration of a runway realignment to parallel that of Boeing Field. The reasons are many: 1. The cost. 2. The disruption of the already clogged road system. • The problems created for the Highline -School District in updating educational facilities. 4. The upheaval it would cause for the people in the construction area and flight pattern. 5. The increased noise pollution. 6. The destruction of the quality of life in the Shorewood area. Thank you for your consideration and for voting to eliminate: 1) 2) Sincerely, Alternative 3 (Major Expansion of Sea -Tac) as a PSCOG option. Realignment of the Sea -Tac Runways. Carnot H. Thomas, jr. 1)q 178 gragUggn PEAR 17 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS -7?-0 afro, a /r7"44-7 M4-r/---a/4-/---- , St'/ G'71 /; t'7, /41?, '-2 LUef (i2&. ,/7Zeee ./._e/ mss 4 e --1.fc-V) ‘%/(zie7<,,z` 617 je//t/ /9& : / -k &«,- 179 Ogg VIEy MAR 17 1988 PUGEI SOUND COUNCIL. OF GOVERNMENTS March 15, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Councel of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Mr. Smelser: I have made my home in South Seattle for twenty -eight years. Despite the airport noise, I like the area, the people, and businesses that I have traded at. And so, when I decided to build my dream home in 1986; I did so in an established community in Burien. As a part of the consideration for property location, lack of airport noise was important. I found that location and built that home. It is a model home by any standard! The proposed Sea -Tac Expansion, alternative #3, shatters my dream. I vigorously oppose it. I urge you to oppose it, also. It seriously alters the community that I love, and will surly devalue my lovely home. Sea -Tac expansion and improvement should not be at the expense of people and communities. Please oppose this anti - community /people alternative. Sincer ly EGA" - Alan V. Olson 16515 -19 Avenue S.W. Seattle, Washington 98166 180 Mr. Don Sechrist Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 1st Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Sechrist; March 16,1988 igic.D'EME MAR 17 198R PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS I am a registered voter and a resident of Normandy Park, WA. I am against the expansion of Sea -Tac Airport, in particular, the addition of a third. I believe the additional noise and congestion will negate any benefit a larger facility would provide. Though my residence would not be consumed by the new runway directly, the property will be affected. I urge that the Sea -Tac Expansion project be dropped from the Regional Transportation Plan and that the expansion of Paine Field be considered. Sincerely, `&kCI Meda C. McKean 20653 Marine View Dr. SW Normandy Park, WA 98166 (r2o. 181 7 . iag MAR 16 ma PUCE( uUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 18184 Normandy Terrace 5. W. Seattle, Washington 98166 March 15, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Dir. of Puget Sound Council of Gov. We are strongly opposed to the third runway at Seattle- Tacoma Airport. We feel that the first consideration must be given to the removal of commuter aircraft and general aviation from Sea -Tac Airport. Perhaps the most logical place for these flights is Boeing Field which is close proximity to the City of Seattle and Sea -Tac International airport. Very truly yours, W.W. Hoagland Lethe Hoagland 182 //7_/78.8 Rig PUU UNCIL OF- GOVERNMENTS- _. )--) 5_6_0 /moo 183 MR. & MRS. PAUL L. ZIESKE MSS ith PLACE S.W. • $IATTI.i. WASHINGTON N11111 er,t.tom /M add 2S-A 9 7/o4L ka.t e) /41 /98j RigEO VLF,' LI MAR 16 -i9RR PUGS I:UUWdCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Zk..e. ate, a-71 I.1, - n �J a 1,d' 4-e-11-e- i "itJ .- `� tel /CiU -eft Aft _ aCie4AuLti,;•-e).4(EJ ‘4417002e06144- 4At. LL sJ, / -),-'u■' ate , a-tic 0771 .77? #e'(,i AlLe d- - r�_ -� RIEREOVE MAR lf, 1q28 �3/, PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS r .:e9 °V r .Cc4xs- 4ADA � .1 2 11 Cdr e &_ (/ Q4 �.. O 0-2,/ axe LaZdn 185 16/47tdt you °S24 • /1 LBE7e7- iC' / vE72�9 _2G Z It.; 17G S, nt7" Wit gfd3 Z RKEZOU... MAR 15 1988 PUGEt SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 0 March 14, 1988 Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Sea Tac Airport Dear Sir, This letter is to express opposition to any further expansion of the runway system at Sea Tac Airport, or further adverse revision of the traffic patterns. Destruction of Living Environment Most people that live in the environmentally, and economically impacted area surrounding the SeaTac airport, (an area that extends considerably beyond the current devastated areas adjacent to and directly in the flight paths), are completely fed up with, and frustrated with the unconscionable destruction of their residential living environment by the Port of Seattle, and associated government bodies. Individual investment in residence development and improvement is severely jeopardized by the current state of SeaTac Airport development, decisions, and decision making processes. Page 187 REgEntlEn MAR 1:. lg8B PUGEf SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Decision Criterion Change The past, and current processes, and results must be stopped so that people can have confidence in the future as they plan and develop their homes and enhance their living conditions. The value systems for decision making at the SeaTac Airport, must deemphasize the current commercial and business preoccupation, and institute a value system instead which maximizes the residential quality of the living environment in the areas surrounding SeaTac Airport, as well as any future airport. Distribution of Airport Services Major population centers have discovered long ago that to concentrate airport services in a single airport inevitably results in unmanageable impacts on the residential living environment in the adjacent areas, since airport expansion impacts to a larger degree the surrounding residential area . As a consequence multiple airports are developed with efficient connecting ground transportation. Airport services at the older airport gradually approach a steady state, while the services at the new airport /s gradually increase. Naturally the new airport /s are sited in areas of sparse, or non - residential development. Properly planned, the surrounding areas of the newly sited airports can be controlled to prevent or limit residential development and thus avoid the resulting conflicts. This is a far better economic strategy to limit impacts on residential living environments (rather than a "buy back" plan as now having to be utilized). Page .188 Request for Action Again I urge and request that you take every action necessary to stop consideration of further expansion of the runway system at SeaTac Airport, and to promptly establish the non - expansion decisions so as to restore the confidence of the local community that the residential living environment will no longer be degraded. Very truly yours, cso /42?-‘ Ralphf E. Miller Jr. 17220 Eighth Avenue S.W. Normandy Park, WA 98166 Page 189 RIE@IEW/g MAR 1�� 199B PUrGOVERNMENTS COUNCIL OF Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Sirs /Madams: March 13, 1988 My wife and I have lived at 18968 Marine View Drive, S.W., since 1956. It has been a very pleasant place to live, except for the airplane noise. The airplane contributing most of the noise has been the Boeing 727 -- an airplane so noisy it shouldn't have been certified to fly and ruin the quality of living in the vicinity of hundreds of metropolitan air- ports. The 727's are being gradually retired from service and replaced with quieter planes. This seemed to offer the pro- spect of living our retirement years, at our present address, with a much quieter ambiance. This hopeful prospect will be destroyed, if a third runway is added to Sea -Tac. With a third runway at Sea -Tac, we will not only have the quality of life degraded by airplane noise and traffic, but also the increased noise and pollution of additional auto traffic. A third runway will impact the area around the airport in many ways , make Normandy Park a less desire - able neighborhood to live in and drastically reduce pro- perty values. WE ARE UNALTERABLY OPPOSED TO A THIRD RUNWAY AT SEA -TAC. rs truly, \ Robert � Angle Ilene J. Angle cc: Paul Barden, King County Councilman 190 - - - -- T. (We) want n1terAntive I13 EXCLUDED from the t'Ierrt: Sound Celinc11 of Government 'q Region:11 'frnnspor tat ton Ilan. OVnme). OVnme ) ( Address Add t.ti owl 1 Commenter: a i." - /ems P4 ' Gv_ T T. (We) wnut n1ternntlire fl3 FXC?Jfl)I:h from the first Sound Connell of Government's Reg tonn1 Trnn::l.orInIIon I'lnn. QJin ne) ALI cam, G, c5C vrevse QVame) (Address) /'7/ 7 Jc.J /lam �Lw `14 to Add It Iona L Comments : 4 vI Li I it 109 sPct '1 a��u.ceri� -/Z, ..s. e_ PPMC MAR 1:i 198B PUGET SOUND COUNCIL _. ,a '� OF GOVERNMENTS /fit fop r-L• d tai 1i € 4 _7 _ e ‘, 41,4 ieseACoz- 7 /x_ze-ee,- ,) .G -b ec- Va 7_Z ae;e ,A.gz<4 er e.-e.ci l/ v • E DE Vi MAR 1`1 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 19436 Normandy Park Drive S.W. Seattle, Washington 98166 March 10, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director of the Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Mr. Smelser: We strongly urge you to remove. the Sea -Tac Expansion Alter- native from the Regional Transportation Plan for the following reasons: 1. The Miller Creek area is an enviornmentally rich area which would be destroyed by the Plan. 2. The Burien area and the Highline School District would be dramaticly impacted, affecting the lives of thousands of people who live beyond the Airport's boundaries. 3. The cost of expanding the Airport is prohibitive when alternatives such as Paine Field exist. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �1) Terry W. Ketcham Dana Dunn Ketcham 192 RgalrgOWlig MAR 1> 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 0 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director of Pubet Sound Council of Governments 216 - 1st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: March 10, 1988 I am writing you to request that the Sea -Tac expansion alternative be dropped from the regional transportation plan. My husband and I are will be retiring in the next 3 to 5 years. This would put us in a very bad position to have to relocate. We have improved our home over the past 30 years as well as having plans drawn up for our yard and have begun implemnting those plans. In the event that the expansion is not dropped and we in all likkihood would haven) relocate, I do hope that specific consideration would be given to the cost of relocating and not just the purchasing of our property. We had planned to retire here as we are close to our doctors - -my husband being diabetic and had a heart attack and I have had cancer -- hospital, bank, grocery store and other shopping, most of which we could walk to. There are many already retired in this area whose homes might not be worth so much but to relocate would be costly and not possible on retired income. I would appreciate pm your serious consideration to this grave matter. Thank you. 193 Sincerely, n rely Mrs. Gerald R. Morse 857 South 146th Seattle, WA. 98168 EEMOW771 MAR 1'L 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS March 11, 1988 Ms. Linda Randall -Hyatt 1420 South 129th Seattle, Washington 98168 Councilman Greg Nickels 516 Third Avenue 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 RE: Sea -Tac Airport Expansion /Third Runway Dear Councilman Barden: I live close to the Sea -Tac Airport and, as the garbage issue is to some, the question of a third runway is a highly emo- tional subject to the people living near and around the air- port. I am voicing my opinion - NO WAY!! If a third runway is constructed, we will lose even more of our neighborhoods. We would also lose DES MOINES WAY MEMORIAL DRIVE and all the trees along the Drive (planted in memoriam of men and women who gave their lives for our country in World War II). We stand to lose old schools, i.e. Highline High School; a school with tradition and a school just voted to have an exten- sive amount of remodeling and expansion. What will happen to our tax dollars if the school is demolished? We already lost neighborhood businesses and stand to lose even more; some have been in business for many years. It is sad to lose all of the above, but even more sad we are losing our identity as an established neighborhood. 194 Councilman Greg Nickels March 11, 1988 Page Two • 22:221JVIE MAR 1,1 1998 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS It is odd how everything controversial (airports and garbage dumps) are in the south /southeastern part of the county. How about locating some of same in the north end of the county for a change? PLEASE STAND BEHIND THE COMMUNITY AND OPPOSE THE SEA -TAC EXPAN- SION ALTERNATIVE. Sincerely, Linda Randall -Hyatt LH:LW:lw seatac388.1tr cc: Henry Aronson, President, Port of Seattle Curtis Smelser, Executive Director, Puget Sound Council of Governments 195 inggEnflgi P. MFR 1'' 1988 PUGET S OF Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. South Seattle, Wa. 98104 Dear Sir: March 10,1988 As residents and property owners of the Highline area of King County for many years, we have a considerable emotional and financial investment in this area which would be placed at great risk should the suggested SeaTac 'Third Runway ", Option Three , be approved. Even the indecision about the decision, puts us already in jeopardy. We wish to register a strong "nor to this concept. We ask that the SeaTac Expansion Alternative be dropped from the Regional Transportation Plan! 196 Sincerely, ack D. Ballard t �o Novelle Ballard Dear Mr..Smelser : REPEME KR 1 -i MR March 10, 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS I am writing to you to ask you to take the plan proposal of expanding Sea -Tac Airport off the list of proposals. And consider the option of expanding the Bellingham Airport. 0 believe that the area that they are proposing to use, all the way up to First and 128th would create a lot of congestion, hazards and force several families to move plus cost taxpayers more money to build other accomadations for their children to go to school. A lot of us moved out to that area because of what it represents. Relocating would cost people a lot more money than they would probably get for their property where they. live now. A lot of us live out there because it is somewhat cheaper than other areas of the city, it is closer to where we work and a lot of us are financially unable to move and end up paying more rent. I would some of the other areas to be considered like Bellingham as those areas could use the . business, provide . more jobs and the other economic factors that could boost the local area. Please reconsider your proposals and remember that one day, you may be force to move out of an area that you like and can afford to somewhere that you can't afford and create hardships for you without much of a choice. Sincerely, Debby Lundell P.O. Box 12359 Seattle, WA 98111 -4359 197 • 3 -10 -88 Mr. Curtis Smelser, I am writing to express my concern about the Regional Airport Systems Plan, specifically the proposal which would allow the expansion of Sea -Tac Airport by adding a third runway. I realize that the airport at this time is not able to accommodate as many planes and passengers as it would like and also realize as the years go by it will be a even more bigger problem. I feel making a third runway isn't the total answer. We who live in this area live here because we like it here and even tho I myself am in the byout zone now, which I may add, I'm not happy about see no reason to disturb more and more people in this area all.the time. Hasn't the port caused enough moves in the past several years? Our community has been split up enough. Most of the people who have been bought out want to live in the same area. We happen to like it where we live the same as I'm sure you and your family like living where you are. My grandparents moved here in 1921, I was born long before the airport was here so don't like people saying "Oh those people knew the airport was there when they moved there ". I have watched the airport grow and think the time has come to stop the growth. There are several other plans which have been mentioned and wouldnt- uproot this community anymore. I feel cost wise the other plans would be much more appropriate. It's about time the port, government and Port Commissioners realize that they have done enough in this area. There are alot of business's school's and homes involved in this. It is sensless when there are other ways to go. Maybe some of you making the discussions need to put yourselves in our places for a change and see how you would like it. Lets be fair for a change. Sincerely Jo Ann Geving 14811 25th Ave S. Seattle, Wash. 98168 REEEOVED MAR F. 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 198 February 29, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director of P.S.C.O.G. 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA. 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser, REEME MAR 111 1988 PUGET SOUND. COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS After having listened to the extensive analysis to the proposed CHANGES FOR Sea -Tac air transportation, I have come to the con- clusion that it would be just a matter of a short time before the problem of outgrowing facilities is inevitable. It is only too clear that a chance for expansion and even greater service to the state would be to use Bremerton or even McChord . The extensive expansion was supposedly planned to aid the airport, but the dislodging of our citizens in the immediate area would cause great injury financially, physically and emotionally. The removal of the houses north of the airport does not seem to be taken into consideration. Why not consider using the land you have already purchased? There seem to be just a few light'industrial buildings on that land now. The rest of the land looks like a ghost town. I have worked for 29 years for the Highline Public School District, and I have lived very near the airport. The noise factor has not only increased, but the area of the patterns has shifted. It affects people no matter where you live or work. Our studies have shown that all this noise causes emotional imbalances affecting learning as well. Sometimes we feel as if the aircraft will be landing right on top of us. Our windows rattle, and we pause thinking "What next ?" The Highline School District has just voted our levy issue through that will go for upgrading our schools. Your proposal for a Third Runway would eliminate a number of schools within the line of the runway, and it would make life very miserable in the remaining schools. 199 -2- As a taxpayer, and Highline Citizen, I sincerely hope you take into consideration the feeling and views of the many people who have had their lives and homes threatened by these proposed changes. The people of this immediate area have been threatened by Metro and their dreadful sewer plans. The citizens turned out en masse to object to that issue, and their voices were heard. Tonight we meet again to listen to another threat to our well -being by Runway Three. Congressman Paul Barden spoke about his having had to relocate because of Sea -Tac once before. He also gave his opinions as to why he considers it irresponsible to go ahead with plans for the Third Runway. The large number of citizens at Kennedy High School tonight certainly agreed with him. The other two ladies who spoke for Highling: Public Schools Educators and the School Board only spoke aloud the true feeling of the entire area. They are definitely against the Third Runway. As a citizen I feel that I must voice my opinion as well. You would be eliminating too many schools, homes, jobs, and business facilities as well. It would be economically impossible to play catch up. Use another area to build a new airport handling freight and cargo. Leave Sea -Tac for heavier passenger carriers. The popular opinion would be McChord Field, or Bremerton as second choice. Within twenty years you will be facing the problem of much the same value, so why not opt for the place with the most space and room for constant expansion. Sea -Tac certainly will not be able to spread further west like a cancerous growth. Every person I have spoken to has the .same opinion, so why is it that your planning board sees the Third Runway as a possible solution is strange. We are hoping that you will listen to our voices once more. ZEN MAR 1. 19:48 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Thank you for reading my letter. A Highline Citizen, mother. and voter-taxpayer. 96°"'( &/C-4Jr--L") 200 FEEIggn MAR 1. Ms PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Joice Bueling 403 SW 174th Seattle, Wa.98166 March 2, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Puget Sound Council Of Governments Dear Mr. Smelser, Thank you for taking the time to see us and receive the petitions with the 1500 names that requested that Major Expansion of Sea -Tac be dropped from PSCOG's Regional Transportation Plan. Enclosed is a copy of the Sea -Tac Forum ( of which I spoke to you), that was sent to 35,000 homes in the vicinity of the airport prior to the hearing February 24th. Please pay particular attention to the article entitled "Runway Rumors Run Rampant ". My opinion is that the article was confusing and misleading. I realize I can be faulted for not catching the mention of a third runway in the 'Plan'. This article diffused any worry I had about the expansion and since it reached 35,000 other homes and was produced by the Port of Seattle, I'm sure others had a similar reaction. As you said when we had our meeting, and I agree, "You should feel real good, because it (the 'Plan') is so expensive and extensive ". Well, I will feel real good when the plan to expand Sea -Tac is DROPPED. Please consider doing so. 201 Sincerely, oice Bueling • - � 25S c.c±J C 2,1,u 7 / 6 4 anv- MAR 1.1 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS • MAR 11 igga, PUGET SOUND CuUNCitrch 11, 1988 OF GOVERNMENTS Port. of Seattle Commissioners P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, Wa 98111 Re: Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative To the Regional Transportation Plan Sirs: If you think that the homeowners in and around Burien, Gregory Heights and Seahurst are going to play dead while the above proposed airport expansion ruins all of our property values, our life styles, and dis- places our schools, etc., you had better prepare yourselves for the battle of your lifetimes and the appropriate class action lawsuits that will no doubt follow. The residents in these areas chose not to purchase or live in the close proximity of the airport and therefore paid premium prices for their homes and property. These properties h.gye been our inyestmgents for our retirement years and our safety valves in many cases.. We do not intend to let that be taken from us. Airport expansion is a problem, and we acknowledge there is no easy solu-. tion. However, perhaps it should have been located elsewhere to begin with. On the other hand, none of feel we need another O'Hare. Better we place another airport between Tacoma and Olympia, and why not one east of the mountains in the .Ellensburg area since the only other main airport is in Spokane. There must be other alternatives that are reasible as well that will not further congest and ruin this almost exclusively residentail area. cc: Henry Aronson, President Pat Davis Jack Block. Jim Wright Paige Miller Tim Hill, King Co Exec Norm Strange, Normandy Pk Paul Barden Greg Nichels Curtis Smelser, Exec.Dir.PSC of Govts. 203 Beverl 1405 Sea on rook Dr SW Wa 98166 fri WEgg[liVIZER uu MAR 1 1 °s PUGET SOUND GUUJCIL OF GOVERNMEN S Curtis Smelser Executive Director of PSCOG 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104. Dear Mr. Smelser, 16803 6th S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 March 10, 1988 I have recently become aware of the Puget Sound Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan. I am writing to request that Alternative #3 (major expansion of Sea -Tac) be dropped from the PSCOG's Regional Transportation Plan. This plan calls for NOT making a final selection until 1994 -1995. If Alternative #3 is not dropped: ° This will effect thousands of families who may be evicted and whose property values, in the meantime, will plummet due to seven years of uncertainty. We will be in an untenable position should be have to sell our homes. The neighbor hoods surrounding Sea -Tac Airport already have enough noise and pollution without a major expansion. The voters passed a school levy last year of approximately $57 million to upgrade the Highline School District, Alternative #3 would demolish 13 of the Highline School District's school buildings as well as Kennedy High School, a private high school. Once again, please consider dropping Alternative #3 from PSCOG's. Regional Plan. Si cerely, wotO A .rte. Vivien A. -r 204 . CHARLES A BEFFA 16433 SECOND AVENUE. 5. W. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98166 March 10, 1988 MAR 1., 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Re: Puget Sound Council of Governments (P.S.C.O.0.) regional transportation plan. Curtis Smelser Ex- cutive Director of PSCOG Gentleman: I sincerely request that-alternate # 3 ( major expansion of Sea Tac) be dropped from PSCOC's Regional Transportation Plan. This alternative wo,ald displace thousands of homes and businesses and cause unsurmountable traffic problems. Not - withstanding the huge cost of such an alternative. Finally we don't want to be exposed to the threat of declining values to our homes and lifestyle from now to the next 10/20 years. Sincerely yours, )�,��� acv 205 20625 Marine View Dr. SW Seattle, WA 98166 March 8, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. S. Seattle, Wa 98104 RE: Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative Dear Mr. Smelser: RREEGUE MAR 1`1 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS We have been homeowners in Normandy Park for the past 32 years and have thoroughly enjoyed raising our children in this area. We are very upset over the proposed airport expansion. Sea -Tac expansion alternative would: * destroy our neighborhood area that has been a very desirable place in which to live * cause increased noise and air pollution * destroy the Highline School district * lower property value * create rezoning of area for office buildings, motels, parking lots (another Highway 99 strip) * increase traffic (freeway access to west end of airport) * cause economic loss to numerous families, churches, and businesses We earnestly request that the Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative be dropped from the Regional Transportation Plan. A better alternative would be to build a satellite airport in a less populated area. Robert Broznow Gwen Broznowski 206 March 12, 1988 RE@ELIVE MAR 1 1988, PUGET SOUND • COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Mr..Curtis Smelser Executive Director of the Puget Sound Council of. Governments 216 First Ave. South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Smelsers I ask you to drop major Sea -Tac Expansion planning which would include expansion west of existing airport boundaries. I am opposed to the third runway for the following reasons: 1. The catastrophic disruption of mature homes, schools, and businesses. No way to put a price tag on this disaster. 2. The expansion option has been judged to be the most expensive one in terms of dollar cost. Sincerely, F. E. Akin 19451 First Place, S. W. Seattle, Washington 98166 207 March 12, 1988 0 I(..;,L.?[1./,71‘ MAR 1 4 -1 r /9Qi7 L.) OF GOVERNM E Sc,; I..r. Curt:47 af,c1s.cr :,xecuti 4'e Dig E ctc2 of t :-. tu`et Sound Council or Go.verr.mentr: 214 r. i _ ,..,. ray':: SOL Seattle, .:c stin,7 moo:.. S. ,j I ask you to drop major,Sea -Tac Expansion planning which would include expansion west of existing airport boundaries. I am opposed to the third runway for the following reasonss 1. The catastrophic disruption of mature homes, schools, and businesses.; No way to put a price tag on this disaster. 2. The expansion option has been judged to be the most expensive one in terms of dollar cost. Sincerely, Phyllis D. Akin 19451 First Place, S. W. Seattle, Washington 98166 208 Phyllis Kennedy 24827 9th Pl. S. Des Moines, WA 98198 JL1,¢ -Ret/ / /988 Ve?7-4- /74 . SY�- 2S'E7z X-40 x/6 Lt/ /Y-ir NuMrE6uS o7he72.- ,e6 011 h�- 144/7`74/74 %/ ,/91e�, 41/1/ 'z2ar L i ��4—i1 A/T Co 4- r'ivAt/ 1-y /A) t70/•v63, 7 /9-7xfio ? PPo59 /In ;rote, 9i9,/Si0'/1 ,ffL c �k' e LkP ff tr 72,v4 7 VE 3 /=4z0n tai9ir/$ o r/ P1474 77697114 you f-ox ya c,& cews/-verm`''- . MAR i -, 199e •. PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ,O'9/ /7f• `51r r $ c- r , c>0f. me- 7 rv,4 - /a c_ (7,7 5. c n • 5 iF x �(.! C`E--; na 94 - 'zz" 3 209 5/n <Y i • yy/ fe?cz h/ A 92/9' • \\ V g \ \ 7 7 /4(7 ‘ - (eZt■tti , 1.e- ^■c-- F g(6(‘ • REMOVR. MAR 1.4 198R PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 8 March 1988 Curtis Sme leer. Executive Director Puget.Sound Crici1 Governments 216 ist Seattle, WA, jj :4 .7:e r Mr. c:nelse-: Plea.me eir.to the Sea-Ted E.:.pene:itr: from the Regional Tra.n=portatio- Flan. 11 is to: e nzt onl,/ in irnmedia.te cost but in waste 04 rare plea.sant living space. long-range effect uto- the ettnomi: ant tr whole Seattle tC TICOri6. corridor, ant tr e. rrn7ale and standard r.:4 11V4.r1; horn White Center to Fede7-al Wa-. Fleas F '1:rint a- 'E.- a suitable for a. n Sinre-el Donald E. Pose 20156 are Seattle, cc. Paul Barden, Tim Hill. Norman Strange, Greg Nichels, Port Comissioner 211 eA2 Q [C;; ; ^ !/ -- • !I MR 1. PUGET SOUND CUUNCft OF GOVERNMENTS ,4-^) p, 6 l` a A /AJ on_ , 4 �-v t bA scc ) Gam) uA.oe2 s74 -.r4 th i `*GE. scC/ 50L� G%u i L / (ypJ Sc z- is /7/4/0/L r / /0� . /��.et:tt ) 4cZe. c /-U /ii c � e FX a.,-)s o-J /r'1 z.,, 4 Z4Z N c.1 i2 e. v c...1 /6 Ze cl zop ycJ 4;00- i 1j % �,J,,4 ,�.a „s 4 iL,f C:C)Ar -s ANO V J/ / �e e te e �� c o -� lO�.� °- 7'r C O 4- tz^ L f /,7 t P_ C c v /g S �-•, �n L 0 I) t C o- i LAC,,./ 4 Q L,cl� Se.a - r L At //C /94)4, , / 212 1 -J -72/qc/1 14 PV.A°,1\- \‘'dQ\ \(\)LpAl '''f6'. A! i ,!,., yi\,r„ tc- \ ..‘_. to, cv I, , ,. ,v, V 0 n . Y‘ a i V (I- • n t. \ 0-- j\° 0_ o' ,R.S- A\ 0 - • ,<9' \.Q'JUTo: .Ring County Council Members AI V Attn: 33rd District Legislators 34th District Legislators Port Commissioners Archidiocese of Seattle Seattle, WA 98166 March 8, 1988 Re: Alternative 3 PSCOG Draft (Airport Expansion) As a King County taxpayer and long time resident in the Seahurst Community , I am (along with thousands) asking for your help. Because of the following reasons we request that Alternative 3 be dropped from the PSCOG Draft Regional Transportation Plan: 1. This is a regional issue - -cost cr benefit should be borne BY THE REGION - -not the "South End." 2. The Boeing, Renton and Sea -Tac air space is already heavily con- gested over a densely populated urban core. Inviting more congestion would be dysfunctional and unsafe. 3. Expanding Sea -Tac would displace thousands of people and the com- munities they have built for the past 100 years. 4. Cost of expanding Sea -Tac is by far the costliest option (2.75 billion) - -twice as much as building two new satellite airports. 5. Environmentally this area already has serious air pollution, water runoff and traffic congestion problems. Increasing any of these would dramatically lower our quality of life. To leave Alternative 3 in the PSCOG Plan for a 6 - 8 year period will destroy the communities surrounding the airport. Business and people will move out and people won't move in with the cloud of possible expansion. Please vote to remove Alterntive 3, thereby urging PSCOG to go back to their drawing board and find a more workable, affordable and healthier alternative than 3. PSCOG should be working with the best interest of PEOPLE in mind, not as a cold machine disregarding the very people who pay their wages and whom they are supposed to be serving. Sincerely and with appreciation, R. Parker • 213 Mr. Curtis Smelser, Puget Sound Council 216 1st Avenue S. Seattle, Washington Dear Sir: Executive Director of 1overnments 9 51 oi: I am writing to express ry displeasure of the March 8, 1988 r= CgriE toLI r Ili} MAR 11 1g.gg PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS consideration of the ex- pension of the Seattle- Tacora Airport as one of the alternatives to fut7e air traffic congestion as considered by the Puget Sound Council of Governrents Regional Transportation Plan. I am seeking your support to drop this considera- tion. This, most expensive, alternative plan would gu'', the heart out of the Greater Seattle southwest communities focal point. It would ruin a fire neighborhood residertia1, educational, commercial, and recreational area of fine tradition and lone standing. Residential properties' value would definately decrease 3 great deal, and neighborhood (community) businesses would cease to exist. I would favor, as en alternative, the expansion of Paine "ield anprosimately far north of Seattle as Sea -Tac is south. Two regional airports an equal distance north and south of Seattle would minir:i 7e trans"'orta tion difficulties back and forth tc, Seattle, and to the growinC North King County area. There would be minimal imps^.t or the residential and business communities in this ore sparsely populated area. It also would be a less expensive alternative. Respectfully, James . Vaughan - 2148 19 1312 Tr! 172d - Seattle 9816 215 March 9, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. South Seattle, WA. 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: MAR 11 19R:P PUGET SOUND CUUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Adding a third runway at Sea -Tac International to handle airport expansion in this area is not a viable solution for several reasons. We ask you to not consider expanding the existing airport boundaries of Sea -Tac Airport. If additional flights in and out of the Seattle area are proven to be necessary, they should be directed to a second airport either north of Seattle or south of Tacoma. Automobile traffic is often unbearable now on all streets and highways around the Sea -Tac area. Also, as a resident west of the airport we can attest to the fact that present airplane noise is, at best, barely tolerable now. We do not want the noise any nearer to our home. We have invested a tremendous amount of money in our home and it would be economically disastrous to us to have our property value depreciated by the airport expansion. The disruption to our district's school system would be expansive and expensive. The amount of homes and businesses demolished would be tremendous. Considering it is the most expensive of the four proposals should be reason alone not to accept it as an alternative. We ask that you drop the Sea Tac Expansion Alternative from the Regional Transportation Plan. Sincerely, Jack and Nadine Scott 216 March 19':i Curtis. Smels_er, Executive Director Puoet Sound Council Governments_ 216 F1r=_t Ave S Seattle, WA 9::;104 Dear Mr. Smelser: MAP, 11 1'?Rc, PUGET SOl1C !l OF GOVERNMENTS Business is: for people. People do not live for the sake of business. The apex the evolution of Planet Earth is not money, flake` jet setters, heart attacks steel and glass_ offices with perfect security systems. If the water is fouled, the air is poisoned or the food is contaminated, or our will to live is destroyed our hurried chew excesses, business will die too. of or or by Western Washington has been a wownderful place for people. Puget Sound is a treasure. It will not remain sr'' unless_ it is carefully protected. Too dense Copulation is the greatest threat and as the rest of the world overflows., we must be ready with safeouaros or the western-most (the last) pleasant living space for humans will resemble India, China. or York. In this_ day, the critical mess_ will appear suddenly, net over centuries or decades as before. Please do ever ithinri '; ou can to remove the Sea Tac Expansion r.lteernative frnrr. the Regir _ : r rar_o.,ort _ti r Ple n. And a l`__ _ the alternative that s o n_st_ Bremerton, or any land , the worth of which is effected by the shoreline or other natural advantage. We can held the line wherever we want if we make the decision that people, and the beaut.y and space they need for sanity, come: first. Piannin_ for a decent 1Lrture wh!i =h, our nrar,rlchildrer, ran live With ago- physical end mental health requires a lon_ -ranoe view based upon clearly define' principles. I think one principle should be that, no matte" what the final CCE1 er ler'_e airport must be situated where it has enough space for expansion and does not conflict with the lives of future generations. Choose a place in the state where the congestion, the noise and air pollution, the prostitution (if that's necessary to an airport), etc. do not displace or even adjoin prime living space. That is, at least 10 miles from the shDre:lir_ and not impin ins UDo!- any Netive Amenicar'. Reservation. Put in the excellent rapid land transportation to make it work. Do not spend money on '_'it: - ite a oa_=in_ fad. Go for efficiency, comfort and real beauty. The narrot;•; and inn tr. c.tr1F_ of shoreline that blesses Wester, V.ashingtc'n nurtures homes and people who enhance education, civility, the arts and sciences, charity, excellence, the personal resoonsitility necessary to lasting freedom, etc. These values bene4it all of society-. If that strip is exploited for a fast disappearin_ profit, the whole area will be downgraded. Wha.t is the wisdom of a temporarily fat portfolio i4 the family who owns it must live in a slum'' Too long •we have so oht expediency over quality. Please plan for a decent future. WE v.'ill pay the sincerely ,;c'',r._. Pos.: `_'!r- Mari_.e'.iC. rnve. E. seattle, Paul er i:�r��T��r� St 'ri 1 Fort 'rraEs :.rte,_ cc. Fa_1 Bard_ ;, ._ � .rrner- rr. }'i_ .. _ 217 MR CURTIS SMELSER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOV'T. 216 FIRST AVE.S. SEATTLE , WA. 98104 DEAR MR SMELSER; !AAR 1019,QP, PUGET SOUND CUUNC OF GOVERNMENTS MARCH 8,1988 17950 MARINE VW.DR.S.W. SEATTLE,WA. 98166 SUBJECT: THIRD RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE SEATAC INT'L AIRPORT I WISH TO EXPRESS MY OBJECTION TO THE ADDITION OF A THIRD RUNWAY TO SEATAC AIRPORT. MORE TO THE F'OINT 1 OBJECT TO ANY FURTHER EXPANSION TO THE AIRPORT IN ITS PRESENT LOCATION. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PRESENT FACILITY IS TOO SMALL FOR THE TRAFFIC THAT UTILIZES THIS AIRPORT'. HOWEVER SIMPLY ADDING ANOTHER RUNWAY IS CERTAINLY NOT THE ANSWER. A NUMBER OF OUESTIONS COME TO MIND IMMEDIATELY: 1: WILL THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA BE RECOMPENSED FOR THE DECREASE IN THE VALUE OF THEIR F'ROPERTY,UF' FRONT'' 2: THE ESTIMATE OF $t$2.75 BILLION WILL WITH OUT DOUBT BE INSUFFICIENT,iA= IS MOST GOVERNMENTAL PROJECTS) WILL THE RE.SIDENTS,BUSINESSES AND OTHER TAX PAYERS IN THE AFFECTED AREA BE GIVEN A TAX BREAK FOR THEIR LOSS 3: DOES. THE ABOVE__ FIGURE INCLUDE REPLACEMENT OF THE SCHOOLS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED? 4: WHO PAYS THE LOSSES INCURRED BY THE BUSINESS PEOPLE IN THE AREA? THERE ARE WITHOUT DOUBT MANY OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS, HOWEVER, 1 AM CONCERNED WITH THE LOSS THAT WILL BE SUFFERED BY HOMEOWNERS LIKE MYSELF. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT A MORE VIABLE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE COMPLETE RELOCATION OF THE AIRPORT FACILITY. WITH RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING IN THAT AREA. FURTHER, THERE SHOULD BE A FLAN INACTED IN SUCH A FACILITY TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE AIRPORT. IN OTHER WORDE: ONLY F'ASSENGERS,AND EMPLOYEES COULD ENTER THE FAC 1 L I T r' . ALL F ASSENGERS , EMF'LO YEEB , AND OTHER AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL WOULD t .1 HE F; AT A "MOTOF: TERMINAL" AND BE TRANSPORTED TO 'ME AIRF'OF'T. N LARGE DECREASE IN THE EXPENSE OF SECURITY , PARE I NG FA_ I L 1 T I E: _• , ANL OTHER SERVICES. 218 RagNIVIED OR 10198° PUpFTGp COUNCIL SOUND GOVERNMENTS IN VIEW OF THE "BUY OUT" THAT STILL CONTINUES NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE AIRPORT, ARE WE NOT SETTING THE STAGE FOR ANOTHER PROGRAM OF THE SAME SORT? I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT ALL INVOLVED RETURN TO THE. "DRAWING BOARD" AND COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT SERVES THE COMMUNITY IN A MORE REALISTIC FASHION. $INCER WILLIAM DUMAR 219 FYLECLLT:'_ IJV MAR 10 199p, PUGET SOUND COUNCIL Or GOVERNMENTS Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Dir Puget Sound Council of Govt. 216 1st Ave. S. Seattle, Wa. 98104 Dear Sir; March 7, 1988 20921 7th Pl. S. Seattle, Wa. 98198 I am concerned about the possibility of having the Sea -Tac Airport expanded to include another run -way to the west. Our area already sees and hears so many planes that another runway would probably destroy this community. We have lived in our house for 31 years, my husband has just retired from Boeing and we had hoped to continue living here. Air transportation continues to rapidly expand and it seems that adding . one more runway to the west of the present one would just be a band -aid (and an expensive one). It seems that another location away from heavily populated areas would be the only solution, I request that the Sea -Tac Expan- sion Alternative be dropped from the Regional Trasportation Plan. Sincerely 4--- Jean Jean Varnum 220 XY )51/9.72A5 ., -;z/..i_i . z„, 7---ce -c12-6---7-(;;L--C,ct-i-, z--- ( - 3) -lf.e • L1-4---e5.7Z-, 4 , e ,. z-k-ef-eii._ '4&a40 3 ,ie,'"'-c- M/ 4t-4 /6, ,( Z.f:eL.7.iL-.1:,1 / (e/iV &Ai Nlee 1AM , I ./ GG MAR 10 199B PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director, Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 19301 Second Avenue South Seattle, WA 98148 March 2, 1988 Dear Mr. Smelser, I am a homeowner, taxpayer, and registered voter in South King County, and as such I am directly affected by the proposed "alternatives" with regard to improving the facilities at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. In particular, I object to the third alternative, which is to build a third runway. The reason for this should seem obvious, if you look at a map; it would go right over the top of my house: Seriously, there many other residents of the Highline area who would be similarly affected. This may have been "the boondocks" when the airport was first built (although I doubt it), but it certainly isn't now. In the recent past, when there was some mention of incorporating the Highline area into a separate city, it was discovered that such an action would create an entity which would become the third or fourth largest city in the state: Building a third runway would displace thousands of those people, destroy millions of dollars worth of personal property, and uproot countless children from their friends and neighborhood schools. I think I can speak for many homeowners when I say that our home is our biggest investment, and to lose it due to "progress" (or someone's warped view of progress) would be financially devastating. And don't tell me that the Port of Seattle would pay "market value" for it -- as soon as the third runway was announced, its value would plummet, as I'm sure you are aware. In short, I am strongly opposed to any "third runway" being built at Sea -Tac, and I wish to go on record as having expressed my opinion well in advance of any decision that is made. I request that this alternative dropped from the Regional Transportation Plan. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you need to contact me for any reason, I have enclosed my business card. Sincerely, 6/,;? & Kay A. Cummings 222 Dear Mr. Smelser, NEff,,cglivir,-7,-, . — - L riu 1.0 � PUGET SOUND R�'T� COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS March 8,1968 This letter is to request that you drop the Sea -Tac Expansion P1..ernative Plan from the Regional Transportation Plan. Our community needs your support. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, 4el/r-cff (Firs.) Diane Pierson 223 R ErarLEIF:7711 0 r+1AR 10 9 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Mr. Curtis Smelser, Exec. Dir. Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First. Ave. S Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: 132 SW 207th S t. Seattle, WA 98166 March 8, 1988 It is my very strong request that the Council drop all consideration of Option 3 for a major expansion of Sea -Tac boundaries westward for a third runway. My opposition is based on the following reasons, not necessarily listed in order of importance: 1. Increased jet noise, already excessive, to the communities west, north and south. 2. Extremely high cost to the taxpayers to buy the large number of properties, obtain and move. an extreme amount of fill dirt, as cell as building the necessary runway and taxiways. 3. Foggy conditions, often prevalent at Sea -Tac, will only decrease landing reliability if a third runway is added. 4. The existing terminal, parking and adjoining roadways are already overloaded at times of high air traffic. 5. Additional air traffic operational and safety problems will be very likely for three runways. It would seem .ouch more logical to follow the example of larger cities, eg.., New York, Chicago, Los Angeles/Orange counties, and build the expansion in a suitable and completely different part of Puget Sound. Yours truly, /04,4, h A. Kaelin Curtis Smelser 216 First Ave. S. Seattle, Wa. 98104 REEEDrirr MR 10 199B PUGET SUUNNMEf�TSCIL OF GOVER I ask you to drop major Sea -Tac Expansion planning which would include expansion west of existing airport boundaries. I am opposed to the third runway for the following reasons:. 1. Highline is a highly populated area. You would be displacing and ruining many lives, tearing friendships and communities apart. 2. Due to the highly developed Highline area the funding for such a project is exorbitant. It would be prudent to utilize our existing facilities such as Paine Field, Tacoma Narrows, Bremerton National, and Renton Municipal. 3. Seattle must grow up as a City and must look into the future. The Northend, The Eastside, and Tacoma areas should have satellite airports to service their needs and too round out our air service. 4. Major Expansion of SEa -TAc Alt. #3 -- should be eliminated . from the proposal. Lives and property values should not be put on hold. for 7 to 8 years. Alt. #3 is only a temporary solution which is and already is outdated. Sincerely, p j� , - c2)//- 4.3G Z_ 15324 4th AVENUE S.W. / SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98166 / (206) 246 -7004 225 February 29, 1988 Mr. Cirtis Smelser. Executive Director, Puget Sound Council of Government 216 First Ave S. Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Smelser: RE551U71 :1AR 10 19,5 PUGET SOUND CIL OF GOVERNMENTS I ask you to drop major Sea -Tac Expansion planning, which would include expansion west of existing airport boundaries. I am opposed to the third runway for the following reasons: 1. The resulting traffic congestion would be unbearable. 2. The noise and air pollution would be detremental to peoples physical and mental health. 3. Many of the Highline School District schools would either have to be moved or would become so over - crowded with transfers that the quality of eduction for the children would surely suffer. 4. The property values of the community that I live in, Normandy Park, would be severly and adversly affected. The property values would fall and the area would become one of second rate facilities and services. 5. The Greater Burien area has aldready born the brunt of the congestion and pollution of the existing airport and to intensify those problems when there are other alternatives is unfair to those of us living in the area. I understand that a busy airport is one of the sacrafices of living in a very busy and growing metropolitan area and I am willing to cope with that, up to a certain point. The expansion of the airport following Alternative Three goes far beyond that point. I urge you to consider the other alternatives before you, especially those which include building new airports to service the vastly increasing amount of air traffic in this state. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely ent bailey an ana 5. Bailey 225 13th Ave W. Seattle, WA 98166 226 o f 6 -42 cLj2. CJ -tip a;�c -- [etc) c? ? (.77,- - 7 • l tit rt-\ i SC'- «[1t�GL• 'i. x104 3)11 E iUfl 98166 IEEEPLITE PAIR 101 9P, PUGET SOUND CI`. OF GOVERNMENTS N N , w-t- 1v. '.' ■ �C?t� ILtiL p > pc ,„„s CU LA"-.LP: -f i`14 -a). c, t4 `2k_ ag@gg MAR n ' PUGET _~�, ���0���h�r�� �F '_ =°pv«�.� wm GOVERNMENTS '.--.,= Mr. Curtis Smelser. Executive Director, Puget Sound Councilof Governments 216 First AvenueS. Seattle, Washington 98104 206 S. W. 171st Seattle, Washington 98166 March 8, 1988 Dear Mr. Smelser,_ As executive direcl:or of the Puget Sound Council of Govern- ments, please do all you can to see that the Sea -Tad Expansion Alternative is drbpped from the Regional Transportation Plan. We are very much against having third runway at Sea-Tac airport. When we built our' home here in Normandy Park in 1957, the planes were of interest, and had no adverse effect on our daily living. Now, 'our. duality of life is not nearly as good, with so much noise, and copious amounts of jet exhaust, particularly when we have an east wind. We believe that the jet exhaust, coupled with wood smoke' and other pollutants, is causing definite health problems for our family. Also, having the airport extend to 1st Avenue South would bring it within one block of our home, and therefore destroy the value of our property. It would be very difficult to leave here and relocate somePlace else if this happens. Please help us by oreventing thjsexpensicn. Yours respectfully, xv ",,,Letw (1Xeue Flahlon R. .qoover Barbara J. Hoover (Mrs. Mahlon Hoover) 228 D -E gir-7,11 vd ;7] fr, MAR 10 l g 9 9 PUGET SOUND GuuNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 1st Ave.• S. Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: John R. & Ruth J. Hamblin 18810 5th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98148 242 -4652 March 9, 1988 My husband and I are property owners in the area that may be affected by the proposed Sea -Tac Airport expansion plans. We are totally against the Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative. We strongly urge you to drop the Alternative and any other plans for the expansion of Sea -Tac Airport from the Regional Transportation Plan. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, .. g4f-a-natt-ft/ 229 M. CURT SME-Lsee) pxecu-TIUG igE-c-roK, Z1( 0.G „ Firsr Au, so,, )2_ 0.e-er4-c- _e>14,.&71, ae-) itee}2,; „., 126eA a24 67L -tertE_ ( 1 A IS C;, ,avt / 959 ,417,1-k ,A-6t„Lf to- ) EPEWIgn tAAR 10 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS dz:eiett-c_ -7-Lke_ /vo /Al TO R-E-714-Cr vo lc E /ty 444-ee- v(re-7 °AA-4 tic /Le4)(- /01Ariza--9 c{/ 1,0 -e_t -L C 2 4- 10 O (c dztt. nit . e /Ci i crn ZZ A 1J) 9//D 231 inggrgAign MAR 10 19Qa, PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Carl E. Sells ADVANCED TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 21045 DES MOINES MEM. DR. DES MOINES, WA 98198 March 7; 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. S. Seattle, Wa 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser, pflgra tAPAI 9 19BB PUGEE SOUND COCSS,I OC GOVERNICI I would like you to remove expansion of the SEA -TAC AIRPORT from consideration by your organization. My wife and I recently selected our home on Des Moines Memorial Drive for our residence and for my cottage business. This selection took several months of visiting schools, watching traffic patterns and the delight of finding a house and community that just fitted us perfectly. It has come to my attention that the SEA -TAC expansion that is being considered will destroy my home or will make resale either impossible or unprofitable. We purchased our home with the understanding that airport noise might affect the value of our home but the noise is tolerable and it is sometimes pleasant to watch the planes leave for far away places. However, the trip passing through our living room might be a bit much. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely Yours, Carl E. Sells 232 EgEfirng � I -J r� R 9 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 233 N W 1�L A(CC <<, rr:11�l z r:& /6i. 7T /7y,�l i - -[ .L L -D `/),z.4 Z. -1, riU Dear Curtis Smelser, I'm asking that you use your influence to have PSC0Q drop the Seatac 3rd Runway elan from their consideration., for the following reasons. There has to be a better space fo a-naw Re ionAl Airport, that would not trash the whole South Suburban area of the city,. and involve 20,000 people. The hospitals, schools, and businesses are too far developed to be scrapped. The job loss would be monumental. Sinde Federal Way traffic is already impacted, couldn't that problem be worked a.lona with a new- negi.onal airport? I.hear from my pilot friends, that a third runway would not be :tnat safe from an air traffic standpoint. Thank you for y ur attention. L MAR 9 M,4o i; lL; PUGE1 SOUND , , OF GOVERNMENTS 7 C L 235 a)a. 97,/ Letter to: Tim Hill Norm Strange Pat DeBlasio Paul Barden Greg Nickels Curtis Smelser Henry Aronson Pat Davis Jack Block Jim Wright Paige Miller Gentlemen; March 5, 1988 17416 6th SW Seattle, WA. 98166 REEZOVE MAR 81986 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS D Many of you have already received my 12 page letter to Mr. Smelser. In it I criticize the basic foundations of the report to PSCOG that includes an alternative for expanding Sea -Tac. I thought you should know that letters similar to the attached have been sent to key individuals at all of the television and radio stations, and reporters at all of the newspapers. You might consider preparing yourselves for interview requests. Don't be surprised if you even get a call from Mike Wallace of CBS's 60 Minutes. The proposal to wait 6 or 7 years to decide an issue that is so technically absurd that an answer can be had in a matter of weeks is legally indefensible. The need to make the decision in a matter of weeks in light of the estimated $400 million drop in property values is obvious. The right of consulting firms and public officials to dream up bizarre ideas is without question. However, the courts might question the right to injure the innocent, when the infeasibility of the bizarre idea is either so obvious, or is so quickly and easily determinable that injury of the innocent can be avoided. Many of you have it within your power and authority to work to defeat this obviously flawed idea, and thereby eliminate injury of the innocent. I'm confident that no one will want to be considered partially responsible for the loss in property value that has already occurred, and that will accelerate from here. S. C. Lane 236 March 5, 1988 17416 6th SW Seattle, WA. 98166 Dear (name blanked out); Don't you wish that you could go back in time and prevent the Washington Public Power System disaster? Remember the dumb errors made back then? They said our appetite for electricity would keep increasing, the per capita kilowatt -hours used by each of us would keep climbing, and of course our population would keep growing. They said a string of new power plants was needed. You may have missed that opportunity to head off a disaster, but you can get in on the ground floor of a brand new "WPPSS -like" mistake in the making. The very same mistake of projecting unending growth in per capita demand is now being made again. I'm talking about the alternative to expand Sea -Tac airport at a cost of $2.75 billion. Read my attached letter. I have dissected the PSCOG report, found it filled with flaws, errors, and omissions, and have itemized them one by one. I raise valid points that have not been raised to date. We don't need an airport expansion. While everyone gets emotional about the destruction of the Highline area, no one has noticed that the report is fatally flawed! Among other mistakes, it forecasts an unrealistic increase . in per capita ticket sales of between 40% and 120 %. Remember WPPSS? Doesn't basic economics tell us that demand drops when the unit price goes up (or doesn't this fundamental rule apply to those selling us multi- billion dollar projects like WPPSS and third runways ?)? If we just sat on our hands (and wallets), wouldn't the invisible hand of economic forces automatically force the airlines to use more jumbo jets, space out flights through the entire day, and reduce their empty seats and redundant flights? These are all good questions, but they are not mentioned in the report because the case for spending $2.75 billion might be spoiled. Even if we needed another runway (we airport makes it nearly impossible. The to be level with the airport plateau. requirement of 5,000 feet wide times 7,000 40 feet. don't), the topography west of the entire area would have to be raised I conservatively estimate a fill feet long, with an average depth of If you use your hand calculator, you will find that if we use trucks having a capacity of 10 cubic yards each, 5,185,185 truckloads of fill dirt would be required. If this is to be completed in four years, it would require a truckload every six seconds (based on an eight hour day and a five day week. If the dirt is hauled from a source 20 miles distant, the total miles driven would be 8,296 times around the earth. If each truck survives for 200,000 miles . before it is junked, the project would wear out 1,037 trucks. 237 This project is so absurd that it makes no sense to wait until 1994 -5 to eliminate it (the delay is recommended in the report). If they do wait, I estimate $2 billion in property value will gradually sink 20 %, for a loss of $400 million. During the seven year period of uncertainty, it will be tougher to sell homes throughout West Seattle, Burien, Normandy Park, and Des Moines. Multitudes of frightened home owners (including me) will throw their homes on a market having fewer buyers. Realtors have already said they are now informing their customers of the possible airport expansion. Waiting seven years to eliminate this option guarantees a catastrophe like the October 19 crash in the stock market (everyone will be heading for the exit at the same time). Public officials have the right to condemn property for the public good. They do not have the right to hurt the innocent by suggesting the absurd, and then proposing a seven year wait for a decision that can easily be made today. Public officials cannot shout "fire" in a crowded building. They have tossed a hand grenade in our community, and only they have the power to repair the damage. They can drop their Alternative #3. They have only a couple of months to behave responsibly. If they do not, the legal "shotguns" will be blasted in all directions. There will be multiple class- action suits filed against each of these public officials and their organizations who failed to exercise their power to avoid this economic calamity. The claim will not be against their right to condemn property for the public good, but against their unwillingness to quickly study the feasibility of the monumental fill requirement and the overall cost in a sincere effort to avoid the estimated $400 million loss in property value. "WPPSS 2" can be stopped, and you can help. Why not consider a series of articles comparing WPPSS to the PSCOG report? 1. Dig out the language and the per capita growth projection rates used back then. 2. Investigate the use of jumbo jets. Ask the airlines if they would prefer to solve the problem (if it occurs) with jumbo jets and better scheduling, or a stiff tax on every ticket to pay for a new runway? 3. Compare energy conservation to flight conservation. 4. Show my letter to economics professors for comment. 5. Take photographs of the area needing fill. Hire an engineer to estimate the land fill. Compare the size of this landfill with the biggest fills in the history of mankind. 6. Ask why we should wait 7 years to eliminate an alternative that can be dumped in a matter of months? Investigate the schedule's source.. 238 7. Investigate the qualifications and background of the consultants. They are: Reid, Middleton, and Associates; Bell - Walker Engineers; George Frost Associates; Robert Brown; and Triangle Associates. 8. Investigate how they were selected. See if they also were involved in the WPPSS studies. Find out how much PSCOG paid for the report. 9. Talk to the consultants. Ask them if they considered the fill requirement. 10. Interview Realtors. Ask them about their rumored suit. Ask them if they are informing customers, and what has been the reaction. 11. Talk to legal experts. Investigate the vulnerability of officials, organizations, and consultants to liability for considering the absurd, and failing to act timely to prevent economic injury to the innocent. 12. Interview public officials, ask their opinion and ask what they are doing personally to reduce the economic impact and speed the decision. Talk to Mr. Tim Hill. My suggested investigation would take an ambitious and costly effort. But then this is an ambitious $2.75 billion plan, the mere existence of which will probably cause a stampede as property values plummet an estimated $400 million. The economic mistakes of WPPSS should not be repeated. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. To the planners with their unending and unreasonable projections and extrapolations, let's simply say "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Please read my attached letter, and give me a call if you have any questions (246- 5898). Please reproduce it and pass it out freely to your associates. As a community, let's make sure we don't get into another "WPPSS like" disaster. Stanley C. Lane 239 Mr. Don Secrist - Project Director Air Transport Advisory Committee Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 - 1st Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Proposed Stossel Creek Airport Site Dear Mr. Secrist: March 4, 1988 Pauline Couch 29833 Mountain View Road N.E. Duvall, WA 98019 NEM-c,0WIA MAR 8 198B PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Erosion of the county's areas of peace and quiet is steady. There must be foresight in zoning so that noisy business and industry are centralized...quiet protected. King County voters: mandated with their dollars that farmlands be protected. Why protect farmlands from taxes only to be put under seige by the noise of a nearby airport. By smearing aircraft noise pollution over the east as well as the south west of the county that leaves a little area in the northwest and southeast relatively quiet. Factor in Paine Field's potential; we now have Black Diamond and Enumclaw the only quiet area in the county. The health of Seattlites and Seattle benefits by having truely rural countryside nearby. Noise is a problem already where we live. On frequent occasions - mostly weekends, it is a bit like living in a war zone beseiged by huge air reserve helicopters. One is forced to endure the insidious intrusion. It is not so much the level of aircraft noise as the differential. Where industrial areas exist with a constant noise level of around 90 decibels an increase to 130 of a jet take off is aggravating. When the increase goes from near 10 to the same 130 decibels, the result of the logarithmic increase is devastatingly health threatening. Who wants another airport? Business interests yes - Weyerhauser certainly. No individual wants one as a neighbor, however. Where then should an airport be located to satisfy future needs and current desires. 240 Please locate an airport where rail and established interstate highways currently exist for servicing. Logistics favor Paine Field for international traffic. There is water approach for safety, a fuel supply system serviced by rail, and highway in place. Further most nearby residential development is newer than the current airport. Folks chose to be an airport neighbor....not of the magnitude proposed, agreed. The Home Port growth in Everett will increase that city's need for an international airport. Even without the Home Port, strip population density along the salt water is certain. Traveling the length of Seattle is already a problem. Future congestion and air pollution would be minimized. Now then, about a commuter /pleasure airport. The I -90 corridor has the most favorable qualifications. There is existing rail and interstate plus it goes due east of the county's largest population centers. There are also existing north -south feeder highways. Business and rural zones would not be disturbed, worse yet, flip - flopped, as would happen if a new highway (Stossel Creek Road inclusion in 520) were built to service an airport. The Paine Field expansion plus a small airport in the I -90 corridor makes sense. Finally, I realize the voices of the individuals in the path of a proposed airport must sound weak compared to the corporate boom from Weyerhauser and the Eastside Aviation group. They pay much of the county's bills. You must be practical... A healthy county is practical. I count on protection of our quiet areas in the county and practicality too. Sincerely, Pauline Couch -.11 CO-? ti 1, Vf) C(Ndet, P-u-jatn,t,fe.44116 to-(g4t2t ctAteQ. REgEnign L76eiy Lta MAR 7 ip,RR PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS -ref-'14. /ti-e7144Z. 0/ air-14,th .51"t& /v-bvi &V.-a-L.24 Crt&b7 LL; 6aA-061.e-LL, -14 W aJ, JA., 75ase7, .frey\- t, ate 242 1(5 rtcz-> y4c„e, a/tAce) —e441Aiox 1u56 --Lt 9, c? *i • — N fir/ c9 � A. 44 elt7Aa..cseitr;. ,rd ..44 3 1.~ de,/ eef S.vL s7, s, --nrrriWqr-7 MAR 7l R PUGti /0Jai/ � 7 7174z- /9;c3-07-Y 711a1)- F 0.9 a'aq, 9 O��e2 ale 4,10i/P6014.1, s ilig M/14, Ve ale - Liituto j4C1( I / %4,f, V,se± seu,„t LvgimE Ce -VC / 1du . /19 `- MAR 7 1988 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL °-1 L�-g U OF GOVERNMENTS we<_ 19la c , /gceg ice. dA-Pf14-6e-C o. tk_e , /Lc c/o ht44-.‘ Vgii/ee;vi ,i (LiCZiOG° -v ,a-ecrii/t4 244 • riL I% 07/fe fkr. Cw,-hs S , se Ex ec,.,h n -Q 0,x_ Co �J nt t J .a k t„, `$,;c S , G 4 4 Q e ) 1 0 A G b ■oM Dew (\' S 11.12 0As2. L(J -�-,. 9r -•Ae CLACIaL c,93 ■■k .W dA-oP 0Je e N u-t e.AS 1•: MAR 7 iq o NOGE1 tO (J UNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Albert & Marilyn Berger 16313 Maple Wild Ave., SW Seattle, Washington 98166 cvLk3, `s 245 February 25, 1988 Curtis Smelser Fvecotive Director Puget Sound Council $ Governments 216 1st Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98104 MpagEOUR AR : ippp, PUGET SOUND COUN ,CIL RE: Air Carrier Alternative #3# -Sea Tac ExpansioPF GOVERNMENTS As a citizen of Normandy Park and South King County for approximately'.35 years, I wish to go on record as strongly opposing the above Alternative. This alternative should be removed from all planning for the future of the system. Listed below are some of the reasons for assuming this position, not necessarily in order of importance. 1. Disruption of the quality of life of a huge area of South King Co. and the various cities and communities therein. 2. Approximately 13 schools would be lost and many more upgrading plans delayed, or cancelled. 3. Added anise and air pollution for schools.h.osp.itels, arld homes that remain.. .4. Tax revenues will be lost due to condemnation and reduced value of present prime property. 5- Transportation to and from the present facility is rapidly becoming obsolete, thus making mass rapid transportation systems connecting main airports with satellites attractive. 6. Alternative #4# , a new international airport is attractive, since it will be less costly and can be built to the State of the Art at the beginning. ? Any system comprised of a main airport and one or more satellites may prove to be very useful in case ofdsaster (either man made or natural) where one unit ipay notbe usable: Therefore, I say remove Alternative No. 3 from the planning . -- agenda because it is an outlandishly expensive, impractical, and disruptive solution to the airport dilemma. Ma Y nard N. Butcher 18228 8th Ave. S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 243 3636 cc: PA Puget Sound Council of Government 216 First Ave. S. Seattle. WA 98104 Dear PSCQG, Lffli7 Edward M. Thorburn Margaret E. Alonso - Thorburn 3017 Fairmount Ave. S.W. Seattle. WA 98116 R L) PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS February 26.1988 We are writing to express our view against a proposed third runway at Sea - Tac Airport. Not only will this project destroy homes and other property in -T c ,,!-1-4 Dec Mc i neE b.. t it will !lea t { ve 1 y i !npar most all neighborhoods in the city of Seattle that are now infringed upon by airport noise and operations. Included in these are West Seattle. Delridge. Beacon Hill, downtown Seattle. and Magnolia. We already suffer from rattling windows, disturbed sleep. and classroom interruptions due to airliner and gen- eral aviation take -offs and landings. A third runway or any major expansion of Sea -Tac would. only make these problems worse. This would not be healthy for the growth or livability of Seattle. It may raise economics for those few who would gain jobs because of this expansion. or for the air carriers. who already make a handsome profit. It is often brought up that we all need and desire the airport. This is not true. Most of us go through our lives never using Sea -Tac airport or other general aviation. but are still suffering fne noise pc,iiuti,w1 effects. We quote for you portions of a case study made for the Los Angeles City Planning Commission: Case Study of Los Angeles with Special Reference to Air Craft by Melville C. Branch. Los Angeles City Planning Commission and R. Dale Bland. A.I.A. 1970 pg. 4. "....Also. as apartments are found to be undesireable because of noise transmissions within the building. tenant turnover and poor care are likely to Increase. Similar effects occur when single- family homes are subjected to 247 excessive outside noise. In both instances, deterioration of the building is hastened. which in turn adds to any other neighborhood conditions favoring pro- gressive economic decline of the area and its becoming blighted... "...And as aircraft of.various types proliferate over the city. the entire urban environment becomes subject to noise pollution which -- besides the effects already mentioned - -can impair the economic 'health' and growth potential of a city by generally reducing its desirability as a place to live." Please help us to keep the Seattle area a nice place to live. not just a place to tolerate for those to poor to move. EUENgO MAR 1?�a PUGFT SOU IL OF GOVERNMENTS Yours, (E rd M. Thorburn Margaret E. Alonso- Thorburn � -ie( , t C,iihnl• e l %��st ff /e � �t �' 248 TO: Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments G March 1, 1988 MAR 0 3 1989 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS My Husband and I knew when we purchased our home in August of 1987 about the airplane noise and our adjustment to it; but being close in to Seattle was an advantage. We moved from West Seattle where busing school children across the city and crime were neverending. Little did we know that one month down the road the proposed garbage incinerator in our area would be considered a few blocks from us. Two months later the power lines down 509, (2 blocks from us) was under scrutiny. Now, six months later a third runway at Sea -Tac Airport being proposed. This would virtually wipe us out. We are outraged that this area is constantly being impacted with environmnetal hazzards. Putting in a third runway is the most expensive alternative to our problem here. Please search out another solution. Take the load off Sea -Tac, give us some peace and peace of mind, search out a place that no one will be adversly.affected, as we already are. We paid a considerable amount for our property and Home please don't take it away from us. Let's build our prospering community not tear it down'' ! THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES. • Please drop the Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative from the Regional Transportation Plan. 249 Thank you , James and Janice Gleason (Troy & Tanya) 11718 10th Ave. So. Seattle, WA. (8168 LILL Cg) CAo Ni-/I: a0.-VA., 0.,--- 0 1 L \ %4NN isaUtS' 6. Pkit- C\ 1\./■•• O. ry sk)0.-\(- 0."-i- 6- oV■. 6\KA- 11,U, 1-0,..A.- ki.,-k- i.knaL, NCvpft,c-ki at?1 (0,-TA'Je 4c), tka. iNNIaistv .,.t.4,- CkJs ' n.,L__ Y\A. N.LLAA,U- 1 k- ak ,Ck 4 UsA,..'14-• La, N.\..A- 6-13, 0N-V".6, scia.Z.,-, ) . kArv,1.0L oLLJA--,,,,i MR 03 19RP. PUGET SOUND COUNCIL • OF GOVERNMENTS 666.A.) 6 jJr 1403 iqt-t2- kos0.4) c.- q%\cos. 250 REUROVE MAR 03 19gp PUGET SOUND COUNCIL Qtico. 11/, ,pie ., OF GOVERNMENTS c;208 , 7W Clue ,Qo, ,Qeeitezzi 4O 98/%6' 772 &hh. / , 8 3' ai 1 al Zfl4 Ctrl �ft� y - u� ecr.2, �c (/ c eh/ -2 C y.„ - cyZA2, au ^c, i'yw �ect-c c, 1 L .11a . %.1c yu a��oC et '-e, .-0/ . 21-6 et a C -ea 44,4724 ,6 Z zU .012 o £ ,LCL cw / e. <'t d /Art w,24.a/ cis X/ .- Ufi ,6u,' G�c; fie. Ltd, 251 rwe iir • J � uJ� PTS %2a2 -6 cc. cz_4}. c /-- 0_,,6,upo� - Li C- e / ,% 7)//1-,-e-,e06 _/_}._e, /-NY-' -''-/- \-° 'W-- , , J2?6.V- emu. L,zso�ec�c� 253 :ear i\Lr. Smelser; iiiarch 2, 1988 We are strongly opposed to any expansion of SEATAC airport to the west as is being con -. sidered as alternative #3. We live at 146th Avenue South and 8th Avenue South so would be directly affected by such action. As a suggestion to alleviate some of the air- plane traffic at SEATAC, why not restore the minimum landing speed that was in effect a few years back and have the smaller planes use the smaller airports? It would no doubt reduce some of the "near misses ", too. PLEASE EXCLUDE ALTERNATIVE 3 FROM THE PLAN Virginia N Bell obe t . Bell 14459 -8th Avenue South Seattle, WA. 98168 • u�i.Cct cv cYi-? /11G'- y/(�ylc�2i' :• z //: � ��%L, Gio"t�t`" _'`.7�v v C �<,�r� yl,3 6t.^v�J v'..0 fi,�.r vim. w7•7i Ovt-L _4-, .4J-C Z) �2•ayr�C 4/.422 %t ✓u �, .dot' 'dc�:. -14.c, 2 y: a Avzuf 'r . tt nF r) .28 /P - u /i3 �` 4 iS71 , . -le., 'JA y 2 i yG R. Paul DeBruyn 17417 -4th SW Normandy Park, Wa. 98166 PSCOG 216 -1st Ave So. Seattle, Wa. 98104 Dear Sirs, Feb. 28,1988 In reference to the proposed plans for the Sea -Tac I am quite concerned that the impacted community does not fully understand the technical jargon that is being used to present the EIS. The 70 and 100 page documents and overly complex summaries do not get the message across as well as one meeting at Kennedy School. Ire only 48 hours two (2) nor- political worsen organized and got over 1500 signatures opposing the expansion of Sea -Tac. My concern is that apparently after almost two years of preparation of the report that the cornrnunity is not informed. The blame for this has to lie with PSCOG! I personally have four major complaints with the plan. 1) The concept that in 25 years that the automobile will be how most people want to get to the airport ignores the experience that is taking place in other parts of the world and the effect of the price of oil on car usage. One only has to think back a few years to remember gas lines. 2) The total rejection of any sort of energy efficient high speed (150 mph) trains. 3) The inability to cornprehend.the current impact that the airport is having on the community that translates to a four county search for a site instead of a state wide site study for the sitting of a truly international airport! 4) The lack of personal concern for the people living around the current airport is evidenced by the inclusion in the EIS of the THIRD RUNWAY EXPANSION. The economic impact on real estate and home values for the next decade will be horrendous to the average horse owner because of the Real Estate code of ethics. Ire summation I think that the third runway should be dropped from the plan and the underlying assumptions should be analyzed based on different pricing levels of OIL. Thank you for your attention -to this subject. Looking forward to receiving a new more forward looking report. Sincerely Yours, R. Paul DeBruyn 255 95Z rw/i_2v' 137,f6;c3r74-P .2/22/ 7 'eitywM/ 7ri ?-'42,17" 34/ /1.7 •0•■ - cir -)0?), rrzvi sD .°7/1112d 0 r-1 «-1 LL 4-, :-) c) +) t-, cd +) •r1 . N . c) r- N «i N H t,0 O VD rC_Y f' 1 N rD (1) 0 •ri 0 S. � E 0 r-1 VD (1) -4 a •-1 4- .) (1) U) H ,C:.0 0 r0 (J) +) 0 0 i. S-, CO QS 'C: +) •r-4 S, r-I 0 0 r0 4 O -1 TS~ J S , •r1 r' , U) ,--1 O N U) T~ ,N ) •r4l 0 ) Ol N (A c4 N ' :1 EA C) CO 0 •r1 0 0 3 N s s. � [T, +a C C) +) ,c; s, rn Y- N to . . G :- , -J (S j 0 0 .: ,(, () C ++' c 1 r) L - a Q 0 Sr w 4-3 cd [' 1: : 51--, S : 6,--1 4-1 -1 0 r -4 S S: i -8-) N 0 rS~-1 3 c n, .rS i tr t •r 7, i ) 1 4 ,'4 (202. L-, -4.) •r1 4) 0 La ,C, S, ,C P. CV 6r1 f r-1 S_, u 0 0 ,) P. `.� (_J C1) al 0 r•1 ") S.. a) 1 0 •r1 '. , ,`� 0 4-, r) •ri rrj C-. ).J+-' N N C: O 04 [il 'CJ S-/ 6,1 N 3 Si ai 0 ,C' r i +) 04 O!-1 S : Cti `r• 1. C) Sr', L' .0 ,4 r- «i CS .'-a 0 Ti • • 0 ' «i . 0 CO 4O ."....4 rrSj , E3 LI ri •ri N 0) 4) N C c_,' •ri R-) r-1 (A \0 S-( p -ri El .r.; -: •1.i U) +) O y) ri in c G) O 0) U C + -) -. ni •r-1 (ti :1 O O .' 0) •— z E t - , . c ' d 4-. C) N r-i 4 - ' 1-i O y O. 0) .. 0 4 , N U E.C: fl .1 c N r--1 :-1 «-4 0 0 0 0 'Cy S~ •-i •r-1 (1 0 O oS 0 ) 'C7 04 j) S'14 S'. 0 fJ +' r i 1 S, ri C0 05 +' S: '3 4� it O '0 '- S-. 0 :-, S, (1) U) •r1 4-3 0 0 4-1 • r F a) (0 N O S. .Y +) ,.. ;) S: O , .) ,) U ,r 1) 0 (i 3 .) o 01 E ' ., i S +� r r-40 Ci ), .r 1C9 cU (L) 'rJ of + -' �, f;: a) a) «S X ••-1 :. 0 4.1 }) rL:i S, r.' N • (1) N ,C, � N N O (1) S: •r i r.: c; 0 i. 0 3 'O 4 -' S I (1) r0 U) U) cd C7 0) 1) : al Co :>, N •ri CI, f) ll O +' n i S, 0 Hal (i) ti : -, 0) m !of ) t:,:i ) ) O ti ,.) S.; a S. • ; G (1) ,S..; r- rr .C: N O .r-i C J C. , 1:) 0 ri rl a. -) S., 4•. S, +' 0 �' () (Jr)-, • .Y (II r -1 O ,'1 of c r') i • • _, o �.' ) -, , + L • -( 0 0 0 S1 •. 0) .0 N :1 O : O H (D S. U. .. -i C) a) c4 'CS cij N 4 I [-7 0 5,-4 0 1 01 )-: S: r'( C) N .` N .---4 C!) a) • C, -i i' Cr .,-4 F ' I) r -1 U a: c4 0 Co qS L.) O ('J r-) .ri E-+ S. r-1 t w r.; , f 'I 0.) ^ ? n, S_. S, 6,-1 G. 0 c) ti O N O i U a) U) u. « S. ri ci r-, ?: «-1 .4 -4 [•., 4 -1 0) : . ) (CI S; C:1 S ; •,.1 t;) :.) ., -! C : N 0) S_: 0 1 0 1 1 r-1 .S a) S=: r'- 4-) cd N S. . •r1 4- is •r1 C i • y 0) L) O- 01 0: 4.' S, ;) S. 0 c.` 1 0) c_..; (.) U■ „--1 r1 od F. ::-1 >; a '05 1. ,5: (.) . 0 ) O C I S-< , I - . i; P11 'C7 N +) rr._i • : :: •cd F-i ., 0 0 (• 0 0) • a) 0) (.) (1).1)'().r'4 4ti • (j) ' .4--4 11 4 -) 4_3 4.1 ::--, S- o • `D 0 r: )r1 •, 1 • 05 �a w ,) O 4) • • 4 -1 CI -1 .4.' a) .r-1 +) ✓ r-1 0) i, r-1 a S, -4-) a) S, UZ S G) 0) 0,S i ). !C S, U) •r 4 (1) S, .4-4 f , • 7.1 •rr 1 ,-1 - r -I S, S„ .-1 4-' a) o.3 U) ((, O S:. ' ..) N N of S, C) 4) r 4 +) +) :J .-1 X: -1 S: Si O C),.0 J N .'S', 01 a) ,) L; :,) } -? ,5.1 ( :1 •-' N 1:1 :A of 9a 0) 0 • ! 1:) ■._0 as al •r 1 c. :: i t X) O 0) S), a) CO F 4-1 ,. 05 S: S, 0 r- W N S, 6,1 O «-1 4 -1 S � h S, .C; O O O 0 •r-i :': P. 04 co C -) [ + 01 C? :i O ca +' C) E-4 +) 0 , -' S-i FA frl H U.) •w O ,..1 0) 0 4.1 7 S~ H = Mr. Curtis Smelser, Exec Dir. Puget Sound Council of Gov'ts 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: March 1, 1988 I am writing this letter to request that Alternative 3 (Major expansion of Sea -Tac Airport) be dropped from the Regional Transportation Plan. There are many obvious reasons, some of which I'm sure are shared by residents of any area, but I think there are quite extinuating circum- stances regarding Alternative 3. The amount of disruption and extra noise created by this alternative would be simply unbearable. The people of Burien, Normandy Park, South Seattle, West Seattle and environs have more than bore their share of the brunt over the years from noise and pollution as a result of Sea -Tac being in their back yards. While everyone understands the need for a major airport in Seattle - Tacoma, those of us in this area have had to put up with the disadvantages as well as the advantages over the years. I'm sure you'll be getting letters from people in the immediate area of Sea -Tac, so I'm going to address myself to the problems encountered in West Seattle. Two years ago when the FAA was trying out new flight path routes over Duwamish Head, and Elliott Bay, the increase in noise to West Seattle was tremendous. On occasion we could smell jet fuel that was filtering down to the gound level from planes going overhead. Once the airplane was ready to bank, those going southbound would bank out over the sound and create noise in the opposite direction that they took off. Even though this went on for a short while, the FAA received many complaints and eventually took the route away. I'm sure these complaints are still on file with the FAA if you care to look them up. In short, I think Alternative 3 is simply irresponsible. With the thousands of people affected (those who have already been affected) and the negative effect it would have on homes, businesses, and schools in this area by major expansion of Sea -Tac, it simply is unfair. It's time for the Port of Seattle to seriously explore alternatives away from Sea -Tac Airport, such as Paine Field, McChord AFB, or a new airport on the Eastside. I hope you will also support dropping Alternative 3 and add your opposition to the many people who are outraged by this choice. Thank you in advance for any support you can give to opposing Alternative 3. Sincerely yours, Dave Christie 6718 -42 SW Seattle, WA 98136 258 February 29, 1988 18314 Riviera PI SW Seattle, WA. 98166 Mr. Curtis Smelser -- Puget Sound Council of Governments Mr. Henry Aronson -- Port of Seattle Commissioner Ms. Paige Miller -- Port of Seattle Commissioner Mr. Paul Barden -- King County Councilmember Mr. Greg Nichels -- King County Councilmember Dear Responsible Officials: I have read Mr. Stan C. Lane's analysis of the December 1987 Regional Transportation Plan Airport System Amendment, Draft Environmental Impact Statement mailed to you on February 26, 1988. As a resident and concerned citizen of the community which would be directly affected by the proposed Sea -Tac West Boundary Expansion, I ask you to carefully consider the wisdom and economics of this decision. Based on the information available at this time, I am opposed to the third runway at Sea -Tac for several reasons: • While one cannot dispute a public authorities ability to condemn property "for the public good ", this duration of the SEA -TAC decision process (until 1994 -1995) would "hold hostage" the property owners of this area. It would have the effect of driving down property values, thus, insuring significant economic Toss to residents not to mention the reduced quality of their living environment due to added congestion, noise, air pollution, etc. agree with Mr. Lane that you should commission a simple and inexpensive six month feasibility study of the Sea -Tac Runway plan to quickly determine its merit. • Have you as members of the Sea -Tac Runway Expansion advisory group considered your liability individually or as an entity for negligence which could result from allowing this project to continue in an uncertain "study phase" for years. There would certainly be a Class Action Suit from those of us who would suffer under this protracted process. Conceivably, such a suit could tie up progress on the construction program for years forcing more realistic alternatives to be pursued. It seems prudent for intelligence to be exercised in the selection process. Citizens have a right to expect care and diligence in deciding on a project of this magnitude. The number of flaws in the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement suggest a need to rethink the basic selection approach now being pursued. 259 Page 2 • The considerations for funding the significant shortfall in financing of this massive project do not appear to include input from those for whom the Sea -Tac Runway Expansion is designed to benefit. i.e. the airlines and passengers who will be affected by the heavy passenger use tax. Sea -Tac could actually experience loss of frequency if its high passenger use tax was not competitive with other regional airports. This would place heavier burden on local tax payers to service the debt. I believe that the commercial airline representatives should be requested to provide their input on the economics of this expansion plan and other alternatives. In summary, I would like you to know that I appreciate the difficulty of the decision you must make. You are pulled by many forces from all directions. No one wants a new airport in their back yard. It is difficult to estimate the future on passenger growth, airline revenues and cost of related airport services. Technology is difficult to forecast beyond the near future. And projecting the nation's and Northwest's economies can be like crystal ball gazing! However, realistic plans must be formulated and alternatives investigated. The hope of us all is that wisdom and reason will prevail in this difficult decision process for adding additional airport capacity. Thank you for considering my concerns about the proposed Sea -Tac West Runway Boundary Expansion. cc: Mr. Stan C. Lane 260 Sincerely, Richard P. D buque FRANK ABRAHAM ENGINEERING SERVICE MECHANICAL DESIGN 2636 S. W. 167TH PLACE Q14t2 -6349 Mr Curtis Smelser, Executive Director, Puget Sound Council of Government, 216 1st Avenue, S., Seattle, WA., 98104. Dear Sir, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98166 February 29th, 1988 As a concerned taxpayer 1 would appreciate it if you would stand behind our community and oppose the runway changes in the new SeaTac Expansion Alternative Plan. We have all seen the decimation. that has been wrought to the homes along the Des Moines Memorial Way by the existing Airport operation, and do want this to happen to so much of the rest of Burien. An immediate effect will be the loss to home owners due to residential values depreciating. Of more interest to the government will be the lesser taxes coming in with the decreased assessed values of the homes. Thirteen of the Highline School .Bstricts school Buildings will be taken away from the community, and children will have to be bussed away .. to other areas. Hundreds of families will have to leave the homes they love in this Burien area due to the increased noise and pollution. I•iany places such as MoChord Field have been suggested as a site for a second airport but have beenturned down due to the vigorous objections of local.r2sidents. However, within a thirty mile radius of the SeaTac Airport are a lot of heavily wooded areas that we have seen from the air where an airport could be built sufficiently far away from residential areas. An electric railroad, such as already exists underground at SeaTac Airport could be built between the two airports to facilitate the transfer of passengers between them. We look forward to the considerable influence you have in your position to help us in phis matter. Yours sincerely, , •r 1 � 1%, t )� 261 ti Ll f I 141 NJ ON N /Llr• (.�t/�i-f rnnA /rPr . / /'ter_ ;JCPt I u cL CO ) Aly /P'"o29 Su) af2/e 7i? /7Pt C / V lnoatprn I, r/. 4 iShaa� eenc` G! Ore c,0el 7' c� 0.Sidle_- �hir rt. nu}av Q L� o U --cFKC c=7:). LA r i P ei LA )i NcZP fivt a A.:4. the ✓ rvt Lk. s L �PJ c_ -ten wie r acw >. h6, ha "f • c?i L it t -C Ire acly /6SL Q.„, G /lt e //•t 1 P oe✓l c- oSS ! Or t e. C L e O ✓� W h P N t /t,{ /� m /' rv(P Dr S' a C/ 7 J ct r1 rrca..ce tri te_ SC466/is 4 Ghkro4.Ps 6MSr'Ners ct ! Va. �� e S .4e i it 4 ci r� c C. P C t 4,/eQ1'e-- "tit r Vet rl 11" m rvt G o g s (N � raV I.D vt ��rt -mot r rya "f "� D/Ley - wLrei-6 is ir( hrrtr coe/rer ; f sre- APir /' n1I 4 n a Csr? « 1 U S P -J (°o L L //e - i --0—(7 o inv+ c� -Zi P ro6/e m �m u �� 4 e, /re t- i a (// ql/ rirl4te_. SO /if E' (IOLA:41f 4-71-' 2-Jo' 3'3/-7 d 746'1- 'tiff ?,/ 91/Let—c,c-4 /fir Al`—e cs)-e 47.4 263 oTtd. E. elLudand 1714 0 - 2d olivznue .SE.attte, (4'aifiin5ton 9 816 6 J C t.A4 y---, e4-et4-eL N't • Ja7J-4-4t,— /t-t-42- -3) ( • 265 , J-6044 A/ a.; e - 'eAe_ S_e a_ULL. 266 00,-,c(recf - N O" x Mrs. Joe Pompeo 434 - 186th S. W. Scathe 66, Washington ` - e &,,,,.,c.,Q,,„ IU' &kJ 14,1u LLI e ftei ii iocezte-aoe keptl; u Ut &L m4J 1- lDt Latt/U441 Ata att.. (..IAL42 -4., 'tome"- etai i VI u.2•Uq LC a i2 �°%yt.e/L..( 61.4 - Lue .atl•llc e �L�j 2/ /l � � (ic-a. 0/ t; t cu " v m ct t c ce. (,ZL(,p_l kiA ./wAttutzi ) a, Z al ut -.0 Q 124441Z1,41, fuAnucilLtp tuL 4TWiietfACom/f2eti V(� .inf+-o 40 pd/i444 h act. •.. ��,,, Y th / _ 7 1 4.. -tuum- A V.lval ice ac it(244M-W. JAWA/111UALeAtelA t44. ? ,,1)&44X--- (law �tii c: l ut u.f Atttitivt, %i Iluo 447410.61-- Mon. Feb. 29, 1988 Mrs. Jean Shefveland 17059 - 16th. Ave. SW Seattle, WA 98166 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments Dear Mr. Smelser, I would like to request that the Sea - Tac Expansion Alternative be dropped from the Regional Transportation Plan. As long as this plan is an alternative it will cause the Highline Area to decline. Already we have been told that the fact that is has already been considered an option that our property has decreased in value by 15%. You need to be very aware that you and the Port commissioners are not just dealing with airplanes and runways, but people's lives. I am also very much aware of what this does to our school district now that we are about to fix up the schools. I have worked on both Bond and Levies and understand what this means to this area. It doesn't take much understanding and knowledge of what this option does to indivi- duals, businesses and schools. It is an urgent matter that needs to taken into account and removed immediately. My request to you and the Council is to use your head and have a heart and remove this plan. Thank you. Sj ncerely ;.Jean Shefveland C4 r / /lS SV`� ZX CC-4( 1? 4,2" e -2,' Psc-c -SE 4 rz.c' 1 8 /O S< Z2C.10-Y /1-1 a /S-l�✓ 2 /7fV • �—� xe•sc..., e y/�r. r_ 1' / ✓y��G .Iwo -cyv /S.S-c /C: !a -1-c-. C L_, r i /2-ii .4 -77e ---+ C>%Ct y G / c .S / .c; v -e-7)4 P4-rry c ' ' 7.7 all, V e e c. -r- P Q �r v' c. Gc 7o c c 0 'Z;r.-i. Z,;G71'7-ek, _ l'✓CS €T�/ ,4 y e °t c e�z� c. 7 /A- .1 /74 Cu ,-7-7 ,g, i /Z/ ,. C>,=. t s , rn c:*w cr7 7979- 3 " Q // w v� /a/ ,t ,ter` 9771--n-- r?'R /d-..6, �`i� c-Ce vet -cam` ,C/5 t2i'- - 7 7 �. / 772 /.S ti to r.' ,C-' /.S /GS a .. ,r• 268 7 y eS ■-r ✓ G4-71 r,41 72�- /7�'Yt, c=/c -`G /r• ./ 3 ' February 29, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser, Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First So. Seattle, Wash. 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser, We are writing in regard to the Sea -Tac Expansion We have been residents of Normandy Park for 15 years and really love our community. We feel this 3rd runway would ruin the Highline and Normandy Park area. We would ask that you drop this plan, and consider strongly a new airport south of Seattle between Tacoma and Olympia or some other alternative. Thank you. S "ncerely Cies0c4-6-7-(„) Glen and Karen Gabrielson 848 SW 174th St. Seattle, Was. 98166 242 -5060 269 Richard & Lori Hoyt. 150 So. 170 Seattle, Wa. 98148 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Wa. 98104 February 29, 1988 Dear Mr. Smelser, Both of us live in the Burien area and work for ;• rilaic:r air carrier „ - serving Sea-Tac. We feel the intended e.xpansion of third runway for the airport will not only jeopardize our way of life, but will also displace hundreds. of .families and businesses. Granted, some form of expansion i necessary, but, why should one community bear the brunt of noise, dislocation, and economic loss, for something that benefits not only the Seattle area, but all of Western \Washington. We ask you to drop major Sea-Tac planning which would include expansion west of existing airport boundries. We are opposed to a third runway at Sea-Tac, and will do everything within our powers as property owners and private citizens to meet our goals. Sincerly, - 65.7 4,{ ae1)7104 270 /Richard & Lori Hoyt 18666 Beverly Rd. S.W. Seattle, Washington 98166 February 26, 1988 Puget Sound Council of Governments, 216 1st Avenue So. Seattle, ?Washington 98104 Attn: Curtis Smelser Executive Director . Gentlemen: The proposed third runway and airport expansion west 'D" Sea -Tac will seriously reduce the quality of life for a large segment of population in the Des Moines, Normandy Park, Buries: and surrounding areas. ?e urge you to consider expansion of an alternate existing facility. Furthermore, the traffic flow around Sea-Tac is fast approaching a daily dead -lock during rush hour and a third runway with the associated increase in business and airport traffic would over- load the existing road systems. Yours sincerely, Wm Walton c. c. Jim Wright 271 ;2s, /9d2 71/14. hzi60 /707 >11A4- )176 6cfieVz,aalk .19/-e/24W7lic.)-c 6470.6( 146-Tit Nikke /e-yovel A4,bp-2/al«zk ('efv/ 104/6 ,e?(. - 0-02 eo-) /ceic."-• It/ .1; February 29, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: We urge that the Puget Sound Council of Governments eliminate Alternative /13 from consideration in the regiounal transportation plan. We believe that alternative /13 is too costly, would cause too much damage to the environment and would cause more congestion in the area of Sea-Tac airport. The Council should seriously investigate the development of airport fa- cilities in another location which would serve some of the flights coming in to this area. This plan could provide more convenience and safety to the traveling public. Yours very truly, �hDtii'f� -P/ O• /4-14-k 2712 SW 167th P1. Seattle, WA 98166 273 Mr. Curtis Smelser Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 cc: Councilmembers: Paul Barden and Greg Nichels. Seattle Commissioners: Henry Aronson, Pat Davis, Jack Block, Jim Wright, Paige Miller. Dear Mr. Smelser: As a twenty six year resident of the Highline community and a new homeowner in the area I am asking that the proposed alternative three of major expansion to the west of th existing Sea -Tac airport be dropped. Not only would this proposed expansion cause intolerable levels of noise pollution to surrounding areas it woI.ild also mean the move of hundreds of families from an area in which they chose to live. While it is evident from attending the recent Puget Sound Council of Governments public hearing that Sea -Tac is quickly reaching its capacity, several other options exist which seem more financially and environmentally sound. It seems rather absurd to totally uproot a community which has been long lived while there are other viable options with dramatically less impact. It appears to me that the Highline- Normandy Park area has put up with its fair share of airport noise for several years. What will be left after expansion? An area which once had a high degree of pride of ownership reduced to just an airport buffer zone. If alternative three is seriously being considered, it should be ammended for a complete buyout•or plan of compensation for any area west to the water of the proposed expansion. Will this area still be desirable and still retain property value? Sure, it still has•a view, right. However this will not affect me as I am located in the expansionary area. My problem will be solved for me. It is evident that a plan must be devised for dealing with the burden of increased air traffic in the Puget Sound area, but myself and many others believe it should be a fair one. Alter- native three is not fair or feasable. Thank you. Sincerely, Ro3eric A. MacRae 144412 5th P1. S. Seattle, WA 98168 274 16650 -6th Ave. S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98166 February 28, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: This is to advise that we are completely against Alternative No. 3 for the expansion of the Seattle - Tacoma Airport to include a third runway. We have lived here in this area since 1957 and we feel that the home owners have already put up with more than their share of airport noise, expansion and pollution. After raising and seeing our child- ren educated in this area, we hoped to also realize the same benefits for our grandchildren. It is painful to imagine having to move from this area and to think of the possibility of having our grandchildren bussed because their schools would be demolished to provide for a third runway. Using McChord or Paine Field to spread out the congestion of air traffic makes more sense to us. The cost of Proposal #3 to expand. Seattle- Tacoma Airport will be prohibitive and an unknown figure. We hope this proposal will be withdrawn and not considered further. Yours truly, 7� Donald D. cRae Doris L. MacRae cc: Councilmembers: Paul Barden and Greg Nichels. Seattle Commissioners: Henry Aronson, Pat Davis, Jack Block, Jim Wright, Paige Miller. Azt.y /itz_e(e. p...,tr aitz,e, 7f/cl • -,zii-La_e1,2_4 z 1ff 1-5;e4 it-71 ( / )tet /4.late 64 N. (NJ t • it1 e..1 ,•..• el rn _17 1: I .. .4--; 1(....... :34 s. i: t. 4-1 .1: A.1 ! ••••. , ' •.1 ..... I iii • , • GI iorii Li i if! u Ei 0.1 ill 7.: i li _. IA LI 1;0 LA ,4 4J Alt (.0 ii.. (1...i. .,4 •, LI f,*: +1 17 i - .,, i...:'. (1 i, . 1,11 ':',- •.-1 0 tr 1, ..1 fli -,+...1 VI .„ • .. .44. '...t •.-; .0 E 111 ...7i -1 rl Iii rr.71 * (1 ••, .. ...) ,--:-I a • ,,..4t 1,11 . ci. 11 ti I ...I ' MO: r , LT: L.1 ,-.1 Ct ...11 rI ' ''•"' Li !.. '4.: ....,.. ., li--: .:. .,...1 ...T.: 1*.•1 , I .:1 ., :.4l-s L. . Itt 0 f'.••1 r, 0 - • , 4:i : ,f,:.:; eti r 4.1 Ill 0 , i.:.: i...., '':.:1 •-•-i ,(1 • i -4 a Ir-i Cii 1,;•.., r.1 c r•••1 n ...I f'il i •1.4 a I ;'• I .4":". ',.■'; -• . . ., t 3.. .„:, : 1,,L, ui Yi •'.-4 c94 '1 -CI , •:-.1 :::i at • ..,.4 IA ,.. L. :17. ,:lt 11 ::: Ill '71 •. 4. ; I • j .. .., .1 : i , '.• i • =74 .1,1 :- ..-4- - '., • .i.-4 1....1 ?151 ••• • .• CZ.... 1... ..,.- ., ....:1 r! 17. ci ..,... :11 ,... • , E-.:' : :--::: • Cr: -.11 ...., :1 !.1 , : ,,.• : , t . ::,1 t.... .....1 -: , ,....-:,...., ':ii y: '.. 7.: •:. t ..!.1 : 1- t:, , c. i :! ql ,....k. ',, • :- - ..:1 ..,... ::: i., I: l ;7: -,'-: 1.,. ;A NI 1.:1 .4-::, -,•_'•:- 1 -1 '... h.. ..i :i .,.... ''' 1".•; ,,, ..::: il :Jr r.i ::,:', I,. •I'i'l .: !,.....,., ::). i. 4f:.:1 ,..1.■ .;.:,! .1:., ,, ..0 ,,, 3,., :: ..- , i .••••-, • 1. .: : 1 t ii • • ‘ . ....,• ,::: 1•••• •,, !. 1 • 4 l ••••• :4, ' .• i ■-•• I 1:... ! • .4.1 tli i. : ; • r ■ , 1.1 ; 4.J , : ( 1 11! ••.1 0i 08Z 8/86 v(v1"7 ri--7cr P 21111- 607/?" 2 --PLL 0 .9_11 (vt -1/161/A A...vvry -v 64117)(r 2-re -WV vvvtivvt/14.4.0 ) , • • • ; t ) • . , 4 t .7 : -1701 ritu (2'1/2 7.7 •V - 2A- a 74 1A4 111')S7'771AkS ,2 February 29, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smeller Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Sir: We ask that you drop the Sea -Tac Expansion Plan as an alternative. If Sea -Tac is expanded it would disrupt so many people, businesses, schools, highways, etc. The impact on the surrounding communities cannot even be measured! Please give us your support in keeping the Burien, Highline, Des Moines area intact. Fredrick & Evelyn Curcio. 20929 7th P1 So Seattle, WA. 98198 Sincerely, 281 7,e/ Curtis Smelser, Exec. Director Puget Sound Council of Governments • 216 1st Ave. S. Seattle, W a . 93104 Dear Sir, February 29, 1988 We are writing to protest strongly one of the alternatives for • expansion of the Sea -Tac International Airport, namely a third runway to the west of the existing runways. When we biAlt our home' on the Ncrth Hill of Des Moines in 1960 (21025 7th Ave. S.) we were well aware of the nearby airport. Through the years we have in fact enjoyed the sight of the airrlanes coming and going (especially in the evening as we observe the approaching lit,hts from the soutr?), even though there lave been more and more airplanes ane. the noise level seems to have substantially increased. We would like to go on record, however, as strongly opposing the addition of a third runway to the west of the two already ex- isting ones. This would severely impact•this area with increased noise, more and more air pollution, and a great decrease in the loss of value to our homes because of the inevitable addition of more office buildings, hotels, parking lots, etc., etc. Please remove from further consideration the addition of a third runway, and seek other alternatives such as the use of Paine Field or ':cChord Airfield as auxiliary airports to Sea -Tac. Thank you very tech. 21025 7th Ave. S. Seattle, \'Ja. 98198 282 Sincerely, Richard C. and DdrJs W. Jones I hv.e, 1-6' k\- r (,), A n i 0Y1 1r \NO\t* . o \ThO1/4\k_' . ...--. WC-f__ . _ i (J\f•:)7.77.‘, CO (2,: .),...)',z..--.1.--- L'aj\\( C\ ICA, .\-‘-jtr) W 0.,";.-\:A. r-,-,?_a\..iLA -..>._■ :-•.: 761L''., • i'.: / ( 283 20459 - 2nd. Ave. SU Seattle, WA 98166 February 29,1988 Nr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound.Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104i rear Nr. Srnelser: resident of Normandy Park, I am very concerned about the proposed. expansion of SeaTac tAirport to accommodate increasing levels of air traffic. Specifically, this affects my family because the value of our residence will depreciate significantly and our children, who attend. sc'-lool to the Highline School District, may have to be bused from our nra Lo another. The total effect on the school district as a whole would he, .I.believe, devastating. 1 helieve that there are other alternatives that would be far less disruptive to schools, families and homes. PLEASE drop the Sea -Tac Exp n:sion Alternative from the Regional Transportation Plan. i���Tl�ii• Sicerely, (Mrs.) Nancy Hawkins 284 • - ( • " • A • ./ ) , 7 ,." -/ , .0-7-7776m7i-9,51),/ -u,op'?2a fr7p-rivi/c., /22 71,-Y7 /-71. 77> ->" 21,17 .---?p-- 14.-) 2.9'79-29,7-S. 1-7 c•- -7.2;2 c- • 7-07-7-7:,72- (7-7724— --47 — -?, ,x2 .. / :,,t.z-z,,;..4.---_, ,;,2,,..)---/2 7. 44- 7 . Kn-.2 e P--- ,e'? 2y/ e.2 ,--- 7 •21--42,--i2 --a-.--.7 .. u)•rt Brnelrf Ewortie are R So r Cou (roc. ve(rr ran k, Am. 5o.Jk %sttle Wa. cY6! 51c pis W. 183-4A aatfut2, DA3, 951&0 ebrory 2(0) (9E8 eme et 28 6 L'W6 Vi” L 8 Z 'Oy(bU pa*PC, plaid auto} •��(9-31,0 and 4lajo) Hindi! hgdtc puo 6fajo91 0&51.crA,1 wool d2p40/ py4sipi.-4,c.u(9 rrRepd- u0,}H Jav R1,nq -A)/\61-)\ Aafrj 4'94 Wan cL) 50 '12 Licij4QA3U.al ta()), quo, . SkAa )0,1-9p1G .)_gnc 1c4439 au::, 1-64- (4- sou,m i6uto(,)01.1,0) s 114edoO X11 - SSpaY.1 61),u,Jej DJ: J9- )-D,Auyy) 91,c ono so p-itopnui fili ur.> >ulm 9u0 "Spam (Nal,, 091 �irn Papi.ico+ p46.i ndccl dQ) ()■pcile s! pu2\40vs i4i.rpro,,ons aus.L 07 @3vj r9lerlun \\_/1 .4? -*}_k■v4 JOQ j&I Cg (Del en (AD\ ryouin piacv uicf:>ez spi4,f9, V-� iga4,-. / kC) a (Jit�• `� �i c z 1 61 livruz:C4i2.,,,_, -�� Catherine B.Martin 138 - 116th S.W. - G -11 Seattle, WA 98146 ,JLC- 47,/,(347 'I t q 11A A 4/VAL -511-11,_ i_p,9 c2 4Nio &th2 1 D a4fCd L( oL4p 1-(AZ art4cc19-t_ 0-vvi 2 iirwe TV70 -LJ ce/ta_ cui owl), 1,,dp.ea-_, iv) 0,.4i.1 'LOW • CLP-othi2A) ( 1.1; ' -- • //tic( --( 289 7pn7\ 74p o73P2 116 wiPP77 07‹ ling9 70nroi -lig/ ,0772rm-Yd 77-m2 ?-2/frb.17711" '1°' 0-yn% • prem )-01 (-4937ryo i/unv 10.-rith -Km/ oh wiry )709 (77m9 -ovrafi7 (r/072,-riv kryynu oityr 0Y7? *nd4:1211 1/712 )(no) ??7? -97i rmovolif w?-01 )2?7212o2 ),0# 9/77jVP 1 / „ 70 'n4-9107.0,CW 41140/ / 2949/Y 0-91/ Vnil ;MO 20741 t5 lfirge .14 07/0 -Itrimg 37/k4qo vo '1,401rYi!_widovoiv*by pCkkpdq w2J w92C/ZI42civ .._77-24m(rp 797/nhi ?-w gg76 1 : 1 • ! • 1 . • lit14) ir?1,P-PluS) '4(k) poub wi7'1Pn6 . Finvd-oT __/o/vr if 72_ Gr)20 (n.--din-How/i919 d ?(7'7--7-)29* (34-7720-iac 0_21; .01h 16644 - 6th Ave. S. W. Seattle, Wa. 98166 February 28, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: This is to inform you that we are completely against Alternative No. 3 for the expansion of the Seattle - Tacoma Airport to include a third runway. We have lived in this area since 1957 and in our present home since 1977. We now have a 10 month old son and have made major plans for remodeling our home this summer. Since Alternative No. 3 has been considered, we have had to stop all plans for our home. There is no way we will put our hard earned money into property that will eventually become neighbors to an airport runway.. This is not only an inconvenience to us as far as our plans go, but it is a major disappointment to us to realize our neighborhood schools will be gone and our child will not be able to be educated in this area. We feel that we as home owners have already put up with more than our share of airport noise, expansion and pollu- tion. Using McChord or Paine Field to spread out the congestion of air traffic makes more sense to us. The cost of Proposal #3 to expand Seattle- Tacoma Airport will be prohibitive and an unknown figure. We hope this proposal will be withdrawn and not considered further. Sincerely yours, Keith S. MacRae Robin B. MacRae cc: Councilmembers: Paul Barden and Greg Nichels. Seattle Commissioners: Henry Aronson, Pat Davis, Jack Block, Jim Wright, Paige Miller. 291 1NA M GUSTIN 16711 3RD AVE SOUTH SEATTLE, NA 98148 C�;rMee.�4) -41..<r, LC / i y L ' /.• '- L-ti .. f (1. '1'2 r 2 4 tt - % i % (. % � C j 7 � l .1,. i : �• ; , 292 f. x ±C j,, t..t..6. -L(Aj --(A-c%-t.‘--,L. ti' „c� .c-c .—( L.L. Z Li J ,4-11^- -L-4 - -1 ,.,k;_. -C -c_-& -t 1ti 4-1_` .- _4,,1..•'CZ. (.-e -(. _r�Z . C - C.`f_.� � -�il% . c.� `t �'•� /11-4.14.-LA AC; I !) k ��ti1ti (:Z L.�• -t -:ice 293 L C- --C \j-L-tff6-tzt A C 63 cS /Sqc 9S776 294 0 44 al Yi7,( - 0_. a_ a, zZ &7"-e- 40/ A_ )74-t yr? e eeet,e-1 02 /7f /-1 z c",-- • 295 • • • Christ's Community at SOUTHM INSTER Presbyterian N634 • sTII AVE. SOUTH • SEATTLE. WASHINGTON .98E48 • 878,51.,3 PASTOR- RENNET LINDSTROM ( .; _-7/ 4;E- vc.,1-7-zr /7/7.1„; 11/ X(14) v y ,-1,66/44 g et'tfe/A) Al .27/1, 6* ,z1,ef.77e-g—. 2.71 2■7-2-v--a--z.....,/ Z-l.-A-- • 9 C / 47Z kk Mr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser, February 28, 1988 We are writing to inform you of our opposition to the proposal for Sea -Tac Airport expansion and strongly urge you to completely eliminate it as an alternative to handle increased air travel in the 1990's and beyond. The major reason for this opposition is the potential destruction of most of the community of Burien and the total devastation this would bring with the elimination of homes, businesses, schools, churches, etc. Some other reasons against -this alternative are: It is the most expensive. Two other locations (Paine and McChord) already have existing runways. Several schools would be destroyed which are currently scheduled for renovation including historical Highline High School. Further renovation plans would be suspended and children would have to continue attending schools badly in need of repair. This area is being taken advantage of because it is an unicorporated area and does not have enough representation in local government, as a city. Current real estate values in areas surrounding Sea -Tac would plummet. If this alternative is not eliminated, most real estate transactions in this area will be "on hold" for at least five years which is unfair to property owners and businesses who depend on economic progress. What if the projections of such increased need for air carrier facilities are erroneous? We who live in the Burien area accept Sea -Tac and its accompanying noise pollution as it exists today; however, we do not feel it is necessary to impose this possibility of expansion upon us. 298 Charles Pasquan Gloria Pasquan 520 Southwest 166th Seattle, Washington 98166 16463 6th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98166 February 27, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave So. Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Opposition to the third runway at Sea Tac Airport Dear Mr. Smelser : I wish to voice my strong opposition to a third runway or to major expansion of Sea Tac airport. A third runway_iwould create major congestion, unsafe flying conditions, and destruction of both the Highline school district and the Burien community. It is unthinkable to consider such a proposal when more efficient management of Sea Tac and use of smaller airports for cargo and light planes are viable considerations. I do not wish to see both my home and my community destroyed by construction that is unwise, uneconomical and unsafe. PLEASE STOP FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF A THIRD RUNWAY OR MAJOR EXPANSION OF SEA TAC AIRPO T. Thank you forrtime. Very truly youps, A -pz) (1CLZ/x721-6/7J Carolyn V. Carpenter 299 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave', S. Seattle, Washington, 98104 Re: Airport Expansion Dear Mr. Smelser: Feb. 27, 1988 /'i•-•C� I urge you to drop the Sea-Tac Expansion Alternative from the Regional Transportation Plan. If this plan were to go in affect, the communities of Burien, Des Moines and others, along with the Highline School District would be wiped out. I support a plan involving a Metro type system to interconnect a new airport with Sea-Tac. 300 3 k you, .4 Neg,,,,,a9.1 ClandelR. Reinwald Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Dir. of PSCOG 216 First Ave. South Seattle, WA. 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: February 26, 1988 As a resident of the Highline community I am very concerned about the proposed plans for expanding Sea -Tac airport. An expansion of the magnitude could possibly destroy the cities of Burien and Des Moines and would have a devasting effect on the Highline School District. I request that the Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative be dropped from the Regional Transportation Plan. Sincerely, nn Elaine McDaniel 18240.- 8th Ave. SW Seattle, WA 98166 301 (.A) CD -oe,ute atee; //'/9 ,3,k,,,,vedi,) 49-6-c2 Odez, (J-e6 e 44_7-66' L'i 2,) e_, ec-cite. L-?.,) -Z36.7 4C,tic7re. et-z; „ft--; v)97,4 — f,e- d4eze Leci 0-e-e-t, -th y;_et-e/ce it zixe 2 .• <1../ z-e-cte cat) 1",2z-t&& -- 711--.:1Z- .-.C--e., ' t—e ( 1-'1'! -e A 62,A-6- ( cz4,)7_ -6:&46247 • •t/-11,2,21„...,) /6,4-6 Lh‘'if-1 (ZAL-- 3--6eAz.) a../1-6;4_, (2-74- cl—e 'L- 4,6,& 1'27 '2?.YP7 v p (2 / _k;-7122 ,;(7 -72?2 nz '72 22 l -7 VAp ) 42- 7"-K. -1,%7 / 7 9 Q-7 777)-??7-;,-) -3-22--;? 4)/ 7 7 • • ,,, - - t?-31,2.7 1- Fr -.2gr;r7t7?. ;17 707A/,-2in.:•;' -227L2W 771'7; 731P-IV ?-7--P-S :fri42 4-0-7-27; ;2? .7"3"31.-Yz K1-42 ( e- P-zyry-x-7, 2-12 74, rxx;i-2-(,75), ife7. ./-72-72 77317/ )-2 ' 1"j-?- 77t- .- ?;7772:p 72/0/ '7?-7)) 7_0-\ Cr) 0 February 26, 1988 Don Secrist, Project Manager Regional Airport System Planning Project Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Wa 98104 Subject: Potential use of Mc Chord AFB as a civilian joint -use airport I would like to submit this written support of the Regional Airport System Planning Project of Puget Sound Council of Government's consideration of listing Mc Chord AFB as a potential civilian joint -use airport in the overall plan. I think it (Mc Chord) would have a great potential as a reliver -type airport with the possibility of cargo only as an interum use. Another consideration should be a long -range plan in the event Mc Chord ever ceased to be a military airport and would be converted to pure civilian use (avoid the struggle Paine Field has experienced since becoming a civilian airport after release from the Air Force in the 50's). Tacoma and Pierce County government should definately have a ' contingency plan' if this ever happens to Mc Chord. Please continue to 'press -on' with further study and recommendations for all airports (existing and potential) in the local area. Sincerely, Ken Russell 6620 Alfaretta Ave. SW Tacoma, Wa 98499 copy to: Mayor, City of Tacoma County Executive, Pierce County Economic Development Board Chamber of Commerce Aeronautics Division - WSDOT Western Flyer Aviation Newspaper, Tacoma, Wa AOPA, Fredrick, Md 304 <Q, ,Z1 Ln cvn -ac n!� I roc! W D&s A- Z - so oT gi b ko ptk rte, ao L' k3 74--- 14-1(.4... ER-4T' `_1_11,2. o 4-Lvvt c€_, V4( 0_. UU-2, tB--P! ,1 P9-tAzr0 Q -r . Co d L D --FC,1 -c..e • thp, VIA r4'G-0 «r abs - AR.t.ovs G,, t(„2„0„.. [4-cr 4141:42. wtt 1 V 1 itiffr 63-‘-`thQ_ v 406 CD 0 tkrny bige A-K3 ea. 0)914157iZiAmi Gl Wbu(-D ,;j ain, 0IAAvtklcia. M a-a:n I .J ( Ut c,& a G-et it %k, 0 cJ L-b ki 4 LLQL 18 -e-TS GuouLA ( 11..Q N 0 t S.2, 9 01 k, -U--. (AJ-12 w t 1! t&) w 0--) J q t 2 a xzoti.S OCLt' R C�ao/UT 74- etru V 9-fz 2 s 61. 411a4.. -Ikea Aniter_tottc. s-.)( 1,0_16 • (-rw-s bow " /Ne 1 •' 1.114 t.c girzo W hat. 1 Are-r- rr "Ytteruia dt-e, TaQc-s)24,71:e• —RP- TOettLedle-,, ()JAM 43 Aildw11-42-e)- 4/. AWL-- TiLeu-e-S 6,.e._ ,)s..,2..vw l llt-b4Cr ;t . 308 11- VEE • February 28, 1988 Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Sir: A We wish to protest any consideration op,,third runway on the west side of Sea -Tac Airport. We are senior citizens who have lived many years in Des Moines and "heard" it grow from a quiet town to a nerve - shattering crescendo which at times requires that you have all doors and windows shut to listen to the television. We do not think a small segment should have to pay for the conven- ience of many. A third west runway would make life unbearable. The Port of Seattle has neither purchased up the land in a wide enough territory around the airport but is years behind in offering any kind of insulation for homes and then you have to dig up 50% of it which many of us cannot afford. Why hasn't a tax been put on the rest of the area to give us some relief. Instead they am considering piling more sound on us. If port officials and engineers were required to live under all this roar, we would bet that the planes would even quiet down very soon. Please give us a break and reconsider against the west runway. IF YOU DON'T, PLEASE BUY US ALL OUT. Copy to Port of Seattle. Very truly yours, Edith and George Brown 22723 10th Ave. So. Des Moines, WA 98198 309 l kio 400,z61%. ,to iisk6c4) ortiv te..ozA � - G a /)/40 'L 2,, e f .e)-1) a/nd ad d6, -Z77 ti/L aeA 40(1-21AU-2-t71) aetE441a.tee, (214e-A/a /`1,64-YYIJ Olf2- L.??,a/lu2/0,M,t61.tel%7v 2,-4,91), Puget Sound Council of Government 216 ist Ave S Seattle, WA 98104 Don Petchick: Dear Sir: We have lived in the Burien area since 1968 - for twenty years - and strongly object to any further airport expansion into our neighborhood. In the last twenty years the noise level has increased to an uncomfortable level and in the wintertime when the leaves are off the trees, evening noise from jet engine noises can be heard for miles. At that time, the hot line is not in effect, and even in the daytime, the hotline is ineffective. The economic loss to out home value would be a serious sacrafice to our retirement income. Our home, now valued at about 150,000, would be directly affected. Do not consider the SEATAC AIRPORT EXPANSION as an alternative!. Feb. 29, 1988 Sincerely, 115 Bet e and %oug ct Cu lom 16626 6th Ave S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 244 -1059 311 February 26, 1988 Puget Sound Council of Government 216 1st Ave S. Seattle, WA 98104 To Whom it May Concern: I am writing to you to express our deep concern that our neighborhood, Normandy Park, may be ruined by further Sea -Tac Airport expansion. Possibly we should flood the hotline with complaints, but we haven't, as we realize that the air traffic and noise are both a part of a very metropolitan area and must be coped with; to a point that is. Expansion of the airport towards First Avenue would be injurious to our mental health, cause unbelieveable traffic congestion and require rebuilding of our schools on new sites. Further, our wonderful view property and corresponding property values would suffer so greatly that I am sure Normandy Park would become another area of poor property value and secondary quality services. We urge you to select from other alternatives, especially those that might develope a second airport servicing this growing section of the state. Thank you for your consideration. Sincere v.. Kent Bailey aric. Dana S. Bailey 17225 13th Ave S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 312 • 4 .0" - >gt .71‘Ze ■ • . • s.. ; — ' /Or )1/7,v, at,z, 4612, o4,4 „2 /6 &-, SrCtL 1/.0Y /9.414, "rmi, 2L arAxrf,_," yu-t- 9 z Avx6 /7L0 aw44144.&,d 4 ,tv,-/.0 eA7 2 I r 1-;.• I . ' -.t /(4(%/ '1, 24 ," n-v1r,6ec cr./ al re; /J.& .,40‘; ael JaZir-e- a ae/.7, de .4 liv,deAA,1-(A447 , ,e-lec--Grx-P/2 pf-4e/ a/ 4,ed GaeAi4ite t‘, / t /fr eeYte&Izt /t4 ue, 14.;coel 317 Curtis P L1 e S O Li a/C) F7esr. Aue,,G,e,_ Seattle- /-'34 ?S /o (/ Fcb. as ,c? /s€ r E � x e c ?Lilt.) Q.- Cc),.., , / c 12ear /%r, /sir) tfJe are wr;ti�„ 'fv ref, e -r A /t e,-• d t,' v e C r 3) be 1 ra .i s /r7o r i` Cl ; o V! /7 y /7056, v�+i C.‘1,701 /a/ , a v of w e_ r e y-'1 e. /# , tri l vt e. a 1^ e_ct o e; r a s r-, buT we also Ana Q H o 0-4e r ;tiy- oiera61e U N c a �, Fr fl e w /d s J cJ U �� `v c /o s �/' SAC) e Wbc4te hdJe_ Y -tei/' hoNses dou�iIr — T c, 14i Y- ie:/' /,`ves of;sr 7fems(, 1,IticiT abo,,-r - ;s 14 u ct 4/t Fig a I% i c 5T , Pr 000 v s a l 47`' 3 ct -r- a 75 L,'//,'o yr b� `al' 41 e v ast exeNS,'ve o f- e_ '40u/' cr/tervtaf 0 e5, Aid (,• 1c /9.1'.7 -5 ` or :7 ate, 7S b: / /,' (...4.) Li rrtc c cr // Go vei" d o off 5 a d '1-w0 Y-o lev e / of a 4/1 e.w S d �-e,ll ,' 1 e- a roc, or 7" o r Y-o ex pa ex s f evi era / o, v,'ati`Ov, a; /' or7S-- aT /,'/ c� " i,y3 b,'/ /,C4/l, a//' por 1- Lo „4 �,•�, u H Y c { l . 4/41e., a wi o t- :0,4.1 ( c-o s -r 5i 'T''�` -e-- / e- vi v;to N ,,+.� -t-a ( Coo 51-.5 a vim( ` e Y^ c, 4/1 c; a l Go51-$ of Sea - Tac -e VcrN5- o4/, are 0 3re.‹7-, w� resfo--c--t /(y rey 44 es T yo 44 :4 ?ely ofrof 144 o fa S'o �, o-F s - Tc c .o 'Fu r Y- er c. vi s,`o/e r a 7'1 4/7 319 5714 ere/y Lisa Fie �.,,; ,� «, u1 Ste vev4 it/00A 65 5 sw /3? Y-1-' 5r. Sept l� W,4 9 3"/ “, av/- 55 4/ '7 Seattle, WA bleb. 25, 1988 Councilman Greg iiichels After attending the hearing last night Feb. 25 regarding the expansion of Seatae Airport I can only say the slide show itself showed the very good reasons why Alternative 3 should not be followed. hot only excess cost but also the inc- reased air and noise pollution, traffic con- gestion, degradatian of the residential aspectof the area and all theincrease of forcing people from their homes show in no uncertain terms that this alternative should be followed. Please work to that end. Sincerely /K-vri a Yct-wifi oym . A. Kamp 11434 12th Ave. S.W. Seattle WA' 98146 RECEIVED FEB 29 1988 KING COUNTY COUNCIL DISTRICT NO. 8 320 e,tor.reL,Li 6 1- Lr i7C7 a .- ( ' 2,,,-, vt/ 4 ■ 1, Q4! &° SuJ I7 r oePrz r6C 5,16/, �lz sr got )1J1 24'3f3 /7al° %(Xdt 5J(77// 17L 321 • 4i.er,Rb is-76. Su-we- 96(6 k, 1 L L� February 26, 1988 Mr. Greg Nichels, Councilman 400 King Co. Courthouse 3rd and James Street Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Nichels: I also oppose the Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative Plan. Please do everything within your power to see that this proposal be dropped from the Regional Transportation Plan. Sincerely, Elaine McDaniel 18240 - 8th Ave. SW Seattle, WA 98166 RECEIVED FEB 2 9 1988 KING COUNTY COUNCIL DISTRICT NO. 8 322 E Z E rir err-4/ criec9 frP-Y-rvwcr m 4 1 1 A/fr°1-4r '-7"Y 1r$7-7-w r)r6r1Y r'71D rr-rx1sku2 c*17?# 4Yw7r7/14/14(40 F ( P7X/ rerr 1)r'V1714 _Wf r;V-6el .'>4f rtP'ktar rrP-Prir .27-A'trup° r)-! (V.AAA^11/f/ f?rtri 14-,Z e?Aar (6 rp- ic.0-14/ ror-tr PYfr' -g-oxy-or pri irvrr 1-7144-0 (7A' rzrivi°97rr 7? 34.:;:f:7..4.4*,•-.c-, --"„ --.1•77-t . • rrtc,r-p-n/ 4,er 1-"arer Pi/ v46- • 2bUl. 6 71 €(111:1 • - • don/ iviPirru-tr Velb ‘124/L r /PC / (›gtV io-wraer 27c 4,21epel,u 440 az, � "mac 325 aov+w,*H ?5.L. 1 i ■ S .. t� % b t e c. t.N. T v vo 1. e_T c. t ■∎ t C. . R, (� %-A cs. 1 i t; !1 O 4, s x , et \'\ ck ui r. F, N� t Z-v 1 1- 7 V T jV� ♦_ 0- -••v.. .,.mc,. s C3.:1cs.1; t E,, ,.. i2, GlQ -"•'ry t. �!vtt:�i c.-o O1' ek-NrN- ti -n, . -T , L .1 J. f a .n X. 3 o e, ..> 1 v.,-,,,ti, II 1 lr.... � I. , - -,h -s -� X 1 Y c�. .'Yl j '� v L jS eft L GNn. r ,� �; „..a...-1 ac... AT Ayrs.t.,+Y S■,c..iwL. ■S Z e 0C Q... Qv. '",i,n,S.tK t.n eyi ,t? r\ C„i,,TI‘ R� C.F.iZs7 .ha.-C LCI�e.,i1�j '�"he.. L0.Y �Y u�� ?cY�S hc<.4,e i.v-C T'��e„ Se-, Fc.',v.,,b_l� .'� \av�.`nC1 '(Y1C 1 1'1+1'S)F' a , ?-4-1z ...s€ o'S Cu., \a, tvtw .4.c..•'.c 1- VW_, �7o'as.Z.%, (L' .,t 3c-. -n'_ sAect_R Cc-m.o., / .T ` i Y, N -- .[,, J K c� S A L N "",..A. Y, G K.. K G c; G I C\ 4Y `G. ...Vv.*. 1 C `1 � \1 IF e.. W., Kh,r1.o-..7 h �+ , i.' $ ., A. `+. ZL H yle� �vlTev.nv.Y.aYla�\ ci.scyi?ov1 .AO.;,� 4.•t��-N,•. -� '5,:t..70,::. •,. ... +I 7 e PR G' . I G ,,.> V1. C \') 1 o. C•c .n Vi c.. Z,'t c . X' ..+•Ld. vs C sus ) ...? i_ u "vo R - v .ev.'(1 iCiT.,le. P'vva v. 4-rr.v 1144. -4.,ie v.—ea. v.bn.S'aj:::( :tme -e",'-- v nr �++.a.�r�v �+ '.;i @ w� 't c�.f F�ti' Z ;C .�� at., \\ �p lam. r, t •'rh�2. (�,�,._ ��i11�G}� �> ryaer...-0. 4.y v.Y1 t?c1. 'is -.4.2- -•'mkt -vl4:k "+ \- V�,!.�v� .vR�h a F .T. 44. c..\'5 Yrw� o .w 1`o i' �.. �c. .$:4. 5 ..ut_ •f. •rLA tis5�e o`c :ii1.�r' Y»>✓1hc. c. 7 y �S �., ,.:.s 7 - *W. .ri ■ ".n^ \v1,&Iet\s.,..., 1 , .f ,_ T � rb. �.-m. -.,, e . �, ze ties r L F Thy, Cr+mYv. n� S �h et rti �C r).4_. 6 e.......1 ..—yj J 1.,, C' "r i}. C. Lt;' 1i1A i7_. Lo 'AN C.11.1.1'_ 1'r-v' C.cf^M • SS q) 326 LZ£ vms76 rt) r7fril7rr ms 91- 61 Lg 33,v-7r2,71?242"k- 2-702-797 ri-/-0„.02279-w -—ow,/ /2,7,27 27/z/ / 6.2x -W 1/, w7,1"),-/ 91Pg2. 0/7/ --97z171/ 97/2/2Z7t7 -#16)f 16463 6th Ave. SW Seattle, WA 98166 February 26,1988 Mr, Curtis Smelser. .Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. South Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Opposition to Alternative #3, Sea -Tac Expansion Dear Mr. Smelser: I am writing to express-my opposition to Alternative #3 of the PSCOG Regional Transportation Plan. My opposition is based on information presented at the public hearing held in Burien February 24, 1988. I request that Alternative #3 be dropped from further consideration. It is surprising that the alternative still remains in consid- eration in view of the multiple disadvantages of highest cost, most interference with air traffic patterns, and largest ir+ ,pact on the surrounding community. As a resident of the potentially affected area, I cannot accept the idea of having my home demolished or devalued when better alternatives exist. The alternatives of improving Paine Field and /or McChord AFB seem most attractive. An additional advantage that doesn't seem to have been emphasized is that operations can begin at either location with low first investment, since all basic operating elements are in place. Completion of all improvements could be done later in stages. This procedure would avoid the need for large start -up funding. Thank you for the opportunity for input. Very truly yours, 'James E. Carpenter 328 32314 -11th Avenue S.W. Federal Way, WA 98023 February 26, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: We were appalled to learn of the possible expansion of Sea -Tac Airport to include a third runway. The impact on the Highline community and the Highline School District would be extreme. We feel that the community has already paid a high price in terms of uprooted neighborhoods, closed schools, and noise pollution. The projected Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative would close even more schools, cause even more people to move, and create even greater feelings of a fractured community. As educators and parents of children who attend Highline Schools, we are strong supporters of the District and believe it offers an outstanding educational program. The airport expansion plan would destroy much of the District. We urge you to drop the proposal from your list of alternatives. Sincerely, and Ron and Nancy Edmiston 329 16736 32nd Ave. S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98166 February 25, 1988 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director, PSCOG 216 First Ave. So. Seattle, Wa. 98104 Dear Sir, This letter is to inform you of our strong opposition to expansion of Sea Tac Airport to include a third runway. Based on facts shown at the February 24, 1988 community meeting at Kennedy High School by the Puget Sound Council of Governments representative, it is clear that Alternative 3(Sea Tac expansion) makes no sense from either a cost or environmental basis. This alternative needs to be dropped immediately so that its devastating effect on the Highline C:bmmunity can be ended. As long as the Alternative remains in the Regional Transportation Plan it will impede community improvement and put a brake on economic activity as well as depreciating property values. Please take immediate action to strike Alternative 3 (Sea Tac Expansion) from the PSCOG Regional Transportation Plan. 330 Sincerely, /1 t R.E• Bob & Carol Clos c&A.Ld6, P Seior) ent4-cP . i9e4, eei • —uAL.Q,--d,o5f dfAite-6( 14 iA•- ot_v_4fL a .N.e 2✓I k� l 16457 6— otiueii St/a)- SetztLe c,J 90f �� • Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle WA 98104 26 February, 1988 RE: proposed Sea -Tac expansion Dear Mr. Smelser: It is time to drop option three, expansion of Sea -Tac airport, without any further consideration. This option is so obviously flawed that any consideration of it would be a misuse of the powers of your organization. I and others would most likely sue PSCOG and each member of the board personally, for the estimated 15% decrease in my property value that has already occurred, and for the pain and suffering caused by uncertainty over the next six years. In my opinion, you already owe this compensation for damages, regardless of what decision is ultimately made. The entire Highline area has already been harmed by the mere mention of this absurd plan. Current estimates are that this option is twice as expensive, at $2.75 billion, as the cheapest alternatives. Further, I doubt that this figure includes the extra billion it will cost to settle lawsuits, or the rise in costs that will occurr during the ten years that the project would be stalled by these lawsuits. This option would thus probably cost closer to 5 billion dollars, a figure so clearly out of reach that it is negligent for you even to consider it, even if major airlines agreed to cover part of the cost. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the growth estimates which would make this expansion necessary are erroneous. Changes in long- distance communication, such as video conference calling, will undoubtedly occur during the next ten years, and may well reduce the need for business travel; an economic downturn could cause a decrease in air traffic. Additionally, the inclusion of a large factor foi increased helicopter travel is specious. Such increases may not occur;. if they do, it is not the job 6PSCOG to provide for such luxuries. Are you asking us to give up our homes and our neighborhood, to allow a few wealthy individuals to increase their wasteful use of helicopters and private planes? For these reasons, option 3 is totally absurd. It would be just as sensible to build a new airport in Pioneer Square as to demolish the residential and business area around Sea -Tac. PSCOG has 333 been negligent even to mention the possibility, and so is already responsible for the damage caused to the finances and peace of mind of the surrounding area. I and others are saying much more than "Please don't do it in my neighborhood." We are saying that this is not a viable alternative for monetary, political, and legal reasons. I repeat, if this alternative is not dropped now, you can expect that we will sue the project to death; the project will go the way of WPPSS, and your own jobs will be about as secure as those of the folks who recommended WPPSS. Please do the honorable thing and forget this option. Sincerely, ./ 07 StevefAkerman 16407 4th Avenue S. Seattle WA 98148 244- 0342/343 -2527 334 Mr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. South Seattle, Wash. 98104 Dear Sir: n 18640 Beverly RD SW Nofmandy Park, Wa. 98166 26 February 1988 In reference to additional facilities for increased air traffic. I am a retired pilot and have operated two large airports in my tine. Based on this lifetime experience, I make the following recommendation. Of the four, alternatives in the Expansion Plan, the up- dating of Paine field would be the best choice based on the following: 1. Less congestion of air traffic in the Seatac airport control area, and surface traffic in and out of the airport and surrounding areas. 2: Paine field would be more convenient for the population growth areas of Everett, Lynnwood, Bothell, Woodenville, Kirkland, Redmond, etc. 3. Paine field already exists and would be the most economical to upgrade. 4. The selection of Paine field would be the most compassionate approach for the thousands of citizens living west of Seatac. 5. In case of war, it would be best not to have just one central airport that would be easily targeted. 6. Last but not least, as a taxpayer that supports the Port of Seattle, I cast my family's vote for Paine Field. Sincerely, .a‘ 51.14/4) Kenneth Slaker Lt. Colonel, USAF Info to: Paul Barden, King County Councilman Eleanor Lee, State Senator 335 Mr. Curtis Smelser Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments 216.First Ave., S. Seattle, Washington 98104 Re:Airport Expansion Dear Mr. Smelser: Feb. 27, 1988 As a long time resident of the North Hill Area, I am writing to ask you to drop the Sea -Tac Expansion Alternative from the Regional Transportation Plan. I feel that we have more than endured our share of airport conjestion for the Puget Sound Area. We bought our home twenty years ago, fully aware that we were buying in the airport area. At that time living near the airport was not a determent to buying the house. However, over the years with the addition of the second runway and greatly increased traffic, it definately would be a consideration. We've been informed by Real Estate people that they are obligated by law to inform perspective buyers of the Expansion Proposal when showing homes in this area. As you know this has an adverse effect on the property values and the sale of homes in this area. Thanking you in advance for your consideration. //Z -y� /2/ s w t 9//7/ 336 Sincerely, .f� udith A. Reinwald nc IL1. a-- J ,2/ 22- //S 4/ /pi ccrz-,, 1127 crt 149:-a-e-t, .72 63- C42- 4-1--€4-- 15 C L 7- r. o • .•-• ; i • 337 4. ,a,cee,r -e 7"1-7 t19./ Gr4 moo, --�� s L,a-� , / u o 4,0a �c� (--/,-4//6/ ,D22/: 7 / A ..--) -7 C-6 • C-4 6ie fy /-7) ).7. 9 _,..- --:---2-e ../ (.3-A6-41..,6-4,11.44- - 12447/2_ --7a-Cht/e .evz- 20.."../..-17-t-- ) 339 MELVIN J. STURMAN, M.D. 17930 TALBOT ROAD SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 Mr. Henry Aronson President Port of Seattle Commissioners P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 February 25, 1988 Dear Henry: I attended the Puget Sound Council of Governments community hearing at Burien last night on the proposed third runway for SeaTac Airport. This was part of their Draft Airport System Plan for the region. It is appalling to find out that only a few days were left for public response and that this was the first time the community most impacted by such a proposal had an opportunity to be heard. Worse yet, no one from Burien was ever on the committee in the first place. Obviously many qualified people are available. Let alone the pros and cons, this has to be government at its worst. Statements that local governments, business and community interests were represented as described in the Airport Update, PSCOG January 1988 publication, are blatantly false and intolerable. Proposals Doming in the guise of task forces, councils or committees when stacked by non - representative groups or individuals is not my idea of democracy. Lack of knowledge, understanding and concern of the impact of Oven the possibility that a third runway should be built should invalidate the proposed expansion at SeaTac. The disadvantages are obvious and were addressed by many at the meeting. I am asking for your support to reject that particular prQpv001, as well as any realignment of the existing runways, from the final Airport System Plan. MJS:la Best regards, Melvin J. Sturman L A5 eike,4‘41 •-•-tc7L Az&,,,t,„_, zit /1470;:„ 588 - 7.-26 / /0 4,i /1-(44rxr) (Al Lio ,c4,A, 444-e_ Adzat, `e-€417-z-ezry )4Ata‘-0-t- .te-e-ckette,4 fAwd. idtz4‹, 1/d _ de-14 ,44etz:24,.eea—L-4-"i "1-2 7 j.;;;,;:,::;;;;;7:iz;3:it.,;;:38;31i1;t::;;;;:;;:•&I L .eA4 44J L4 432. 41 h8 4trze 42 1'6/ Ae 342 7 February 26, 1988 Mr. Don Secrist Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 2nd Ave So. Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Airport Site Dear Don; Public resistance to specific projects, such as airports, dictates that the siting plan for a. new airport be made a part of a broader transportation plan. This broader plan would in turn benefit and enjoy the support of a wider constituency. The Bremerton area would be most ideal for a (21st Century) new airport; extensive vacant land is available at lower cost, noise is moved away from higher density areas, design could start from a clean sheet of paper, etc. etc. A Bremerton airport site would furthur expedidite the integration of the east and west sides of Puget Sound into a viable economic regional entity. The problem with Bremerton as a site are the ferries; nineteenth century trans- portation solutions (the ferries) cannot address 21st century trans- portation requirements. The most expedient solution at the lowest cost would suggest a bridge from Seattle to Vashon, with short connecting bridges from Vashon to Southworth and from Bainbridge to Bremerton. The first two bridges would be required to support the airport. The third bridge would be necessary to eliminate all auto -ferry routes south of Edmonds /Kingston. How to finance a Seattle - Vashon bridge? Revenue bonds and tolls. The 10,000 vehicles that use ferries daily today would provide about 30% of the revenue required to sustain the revenue bonds. Initial bridge traffic would be between 50% and 100% greater than current ferry traffic. The current DOT subsidy for the ferries may have to be partially diverted to subsidize the bridge until traffic reached sustaining levels. Would airport users go for a toll bridge? Give bridge users free same day parking at the airport. Land is inexpensive in Bremerton parking facility costs would be minimal. By the time the bridge bonds are paid off, the airport will have grown substantially, and parking fees could be imposed on bridge users. How else do we benefit from this plan? For starters, heres ten reasons. 343 1. $300,000,000 worth of ferries could be sold. 2. Eastern Washington legislators could support this as their subsidy of the ferry system could come to an end. 3. 10,000 cars a day, which now go thru downtown Seattle to and from the ferry terminal, will be removed from downtown Seattle streets. Alaska Way traffic jams would be gone, and the Seattle waterfront could become a "people place ". 4. Ferry overloads and delays, together with a myriad of problems related thereto would be eliminated. 5. Passenger ferry service from downtown Seattle to Vashon, Brem- erton and Winslow would become viable (preferably Metro would operate these ferries, as opposed to DOT). 6. Airport noise is moved from a high population density area to a low population density area. 7. The Seattle - Vashon - Southworth bridge(s) will offload the Tacoma Narrows bridge, which is already at capacity several hours a day. 8. Bridge(s) will bring Kitsap County industrial /commercial areas into closer proximity of Seattle markets and labor force. 9. Olympic peninsula recreation areas will be brought into closer proximity for a million King County residents. 10. Should the Bremerton Airport become "The" regional airport (circa 2020), Sea -Tac property could be sold off, eliminating the need for future property tax subsidization of the Port of Seattle. In closing, please seriously consider proposing a broader trans- portation plan than just an airport. If I can be of help, please call or write. Sincerely, Jim Ghiglione P.O. Box 10098 Bainbrige Is., WA 98110 (206) 842 -6794 344 •••N A • L.+ / ( cr-r- ;2. 172 / 2 S- ..' 0 4 /9) / 7.-"' ,-... ,.., : ite.,,..Lvp _,...:,..z..,,) :-.2,./‘5 7_.k.„ .4, ,_. (...i..,,...., ..,„, (71,4,--t I,e1- ''., ..-;..-1.1... '')\ -Z-41/11 u -,'.:-Lt 7Q,, ‘-.7-..--K- ) (4.4 ‘, • Li ' e :./ e' •,•?' • a ,,I1 ...i q -1 4' 4 .,„..„.t frf., 7C..4,..., -4-....i. ____44.,......,„,..,... _.. _,,,....._ .,...— ,e.........../ . / SS 4t- .# • /111.,C C.J1. (11 d 1 0,/..)1/ t■-19 /Lt.. 1'742- >It cL.A. 4i7 7, • • c.; • - - --J . 4. '1•••_ Ta.4,1,441, • 6:1 11:1 • 4-± 345 t :.!:•;•• 6: e-4/ 1'14' 4-'1" Cjj— :2---4-;* ( ‘04-- q, p„c sl, C fe--4:7-71:7) I LC Ce; L.-ee.. .-(1. (/..% . ./. (....i.--A... t- Ell- _ f ; • . . :. .. \. 3-1-....-1,..A, tt-t-z—pi.-1.--L.---e--.1.1 /1-v■- 7E---a-k 1.4.-e. • 4:- -7/- ..----- /7 .1.1i ‘;`- • L :,---,f- .,.- iv-L.L/AL., ( L tiii-c_ 4-4- ._-71- --v- 4.-1-•-• ,-2. ?1.......t.c.--)4_,je-- . .. ' i.- - c• 4.----e. -(': ki .1.77:4L-4.....t./ V) .......c..... .N) C, j...4 ■416-1,, At 5" -{41-4. e..:..t- a.). • 1,-kel 71.- . j2-6.1, • ,///4--(1). .7.-t.. i, -• ,.. 4142;± to-- (I. • .-t ,..__..,.: 1--C-2.- th2—,.--6.....e i I; ..1 -• (Li. La.,...a_.L2....i., il ii-14-_ /1,11.•1-2..n.A...., --12 4...4.-taje • p t e.:_.,....,2_. 1 ,..f ,..,, c , ••-y,,A.1 6:: 7..-1-t A....4.-i: c.---GL : 7,.-ii.,„,_' ;,4"-, , V • . c--1- 4-4-t-• 1-Le 44. 1 tAZ-4.--vv-vvil : i)- 21,14i f — ...1. il 41'41-4 •-i..-4_,2.._ ,---) , v ...„:„, c --h1,1 .1S..... ci.. IL-, 1 . Iii-fijr 4-1 .i. (,--1,- 1,(t' • ,-. & -1-----: & 'I./ --x-E,-1, e.; Itilt.........• i. i .t.,,C I, 17 • •4., & C VG t• pr) 1 '1---€ .):-. -1 c, C,...- a.„_ 4 i - •••lk ,;-t.-0-.. l'A.3-1-4- L ; CL- it 4. 11.4.;„ • 11 346. At„ -at; ,eart-,, P,of 0,, 4•0&4k-c ia 174 •?xty—, iWkez, /6,11-1;44-4-- 7;4 vL7 i anti frt-e-tAr- r,)ees air-,L-( to5a-z_o 0114D -72-7111 J /2S«'(, • MUCH HAS BEEN REPORTED & TELEVISED BY THE MEDIA & VARIOUS COMMUNIQUES ISSUED THROUGHOUT PUGET SOUND AREA ON WHEN THE MAXIMUM OPERATING CAPACITY WILL BE REACHED AT SEATTLE TACOMA'S AIRPORT FACILITY. (HOLD UP EIS - IDENTIFY & RASP) • PLANNING DOCUMENTS RELEASED BY THE PSCOG INDICATES THAT CAPACITY SATURATION WILL BE REACHED WITHIN A 16 YEAR ENVEL- OPE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT A CAPACITY PROBLEM DOES EXIT. • A NUMBER OF OPTIONS FOR SOLUTION HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT (EIS * * *) ONE OF WHICH I5 FOR MAJOR EXPANSION AT SEA -TAC WITH THE ADDITION OF A THIRD RUNWAY & SOME FORM OF RUNWAY REALIGNMENT TO BE EFFECIENT. • MANY RUMORS ERRUPTED AND SOME WERE ADDRESSED IN THIS RELEASE (HOLD UP SEA -TAC FORUM), BUT WERE SUBDUED BY PORT SPOKES PERSONS WITH QUESTIONS REDIRECTED TO PSCOG OFFICIALS. • TWO ADDITIONAL MEETINGS /HEARINGS HAVE BEEN HELD= IN_FEBRUARY AND WE ARE BEING ASSURED THAT ITS ALL JUST IN THE PLANNING STAGE. • THIS PUBLICATION (HOLD UP HIGHLINE TIMES) RELEASE AFTER A FEBRUARY 8 MEETING • REVEALED THAT A THIRD RUNWAY RUMOR WAS BEBUNKED AT THAT TI11E. • NOW WE ALL KNOW OUR DULL" ELECTED PORT OFFICIALS HAVE THE FINAL VOTE ON WHAT SOLUTION WOULD BE PURPOSED AT THE AIRPORT, BUT DOUBT & SUSPICION REMAIN IN THE MINDS OF HIGHLINE CITIZENS AS LO,IG AS WORDS EXIST IN PLANNING DOCUMENTS NOW ON THE STREET. DOUBT & SUSPICION RESULT FROM PREVIOUS BUREAUCRATIC PL AN'.;INGL & ACTIONS T'HryOJ0HOUT THE AREA - SUCH AS SEWER OJTFALLS AND POWER LINCATIC:'v5. • i NOW CH _NGE i HE i'` T0 REMOVE ALL DOUBT .& SUSPICION WHICH WOULD CLOUD THE r• ENDS OF CI IZENS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS IN THE H L LINE AREA FOR THE NEXT 6 - 8 YEARS E THE COC -.0'.. .r1i =_ PLAN. YOU CAN DO THIS BY DELETION OF THIS YEAR ;opr,J;; 349 '3LA-TID INCLUDING IN MARCH V. M. SELIVANOFF 14617 25TH AVENUE S.W. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98166 —mss /•Se - '- �d IN CONCLUSION - BOTH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THE PSCOG DOCUMENTS CONTAIN EXCELLENT & VIABLE SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE NOT ONLY LESS COSTLY & COMMUNITY DISRUPTING, BUT INVOLVE INTERFACING COMMUNITIES AS CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REGIONAL PROBLEM RATHER THAN DUMPING P. REGIONAL ENIGMA ON THE HIGHLINE AREA. STUDY TO DETERMINE LOST DUE TO REAL ESTATE DEPRECIATION CAUSED BY PSCOG'S ALTERNATIVE #3 OF THEIR REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN The following six burien area re=.1 estate brokers/agents were contacted by ohone and-asked their estimates [13. [7]. and [33. Their values- were. totaled and av=r,t‘cled as indicatm below. NPOIE joB PHONE nitmF'ANY [13 [2] E33 Steve CDMDC brbyer 4372.-., ii1 1. imer. Homes e70000 Hrtry-=v 12=T:1ti- r=ker 7:40iD C:eht. .z1 D=an brIm'Ion f-;gent ',4---?00 sc.e:7500 10% !=igent '..-..2.-10J.! !:.-.!-1:-E VU ."'!-V:D. Pet_er ii,=nuri_.. TL:rT2=r '4'-'-'7H7 :::'eattie • t'ice e.71-000 lf% 76% !(01th "-- :Jrcier t:L:.-!--_-. Nrfr,t! HL Hm i:no'r s..../22 12.5% ...F.:timate: average ntm..., 17, Es':imates avera;e immeciate t's:tretiaticn resuitim7 .t.rtm Alrnatve 1 !z'Etimate.: terser:t va7ar.-: it= The length r.,t *n- f=ruriv =tr=a 1- 1-t-i=. ,-L-rrpr- e. the Sea-Tac Airoort. from lhe w:sth :he stuclv area is 1.=-t f;VE 12 Ave o. 17 ble-trkc.. hcir' 1 bein ot,m-,.t=r1 to -.7% vatant. P.nd Pt +oot lots. each blcck will ave r:we Lt+ =-0-=(:)/7 = / b1c1= nmber hdmes ih st_utv area, the buyout area = (1.-.072) * 6 * = 5880 units The average depreciation loss to each home owner = '70000 7t 15.4% 510900 The tttai lc,sa in area =- e1ki-20 = Tne C.!1:712S but_side the bu.* cut area. is es-_imate:! tnree tra1 t7e area. iir•e'2-20 million. The total immediate loss tc F1,7:17-V€-2. Wh:te r-er.:er.. ant tea.:•_le is $240 million, al-I 351 u Tmoe 1-1. lnr'IV1muz.1 hdme dwnerc. Fhruary 2. 138 L S-c; v — ?'iz — ' fl u' ✓3 c. /i c .447 2_2 C 2— / / . 4, > C / 0.1N 641..41 i ! G e-71 c, / 1 • ✓��c "� Jf c. • c ham-, Lam/• rs.'^,44-- •& /67-vi(■ yG- — 1 t i; ,C., f�. " -A , Li/ sz/ C/ • -'t ( t*-c- C1/1- r/ ;t /C , c-t (itov� d /T J ✓ / t / r. .� J c' C C>> �i G r^'. �� )3f {'.f ' / c %..GZ' "9'4_ c Z s✓( 0 )0—'4'7; #12-,'L lt,L c. /?` cvL -,/ %// ... �..� / T /-✓>-� �S /J / 4.- / VT'S l »-' - C A /Jh,) J c/Ht • / G �r 1.0 /C. Q►t1- C /'/ 44L 11.4 C-71" / /14- /A, /11,1,..d, �:v� -L+C- f�..,- f, /J /, (' , i t.., c/ i(' / C -L r►�- .vj't -, cv.�(' -�-2 _ G :f. c.�� (a., 4 4Lz s i" fr. C' 02/Z4 71 I A4 • r-s/%c/ r /, 7,•-•v+j1.•et irC ± <.�. �� J l,i,r cam+ 1T`" `v' / ( vvfc.. `1 je/ t,Tjtr+ -t - / ,-,_. , , co- a-e" l r /.77 ( -t - J) 5./7//1-,.. / as / --'' let1 ,c. / . y� ]/-� 77'`.ar !T^VLL 3 t i, �.+- r�l�].iZ.0 c �. !.!�)/ CJ 6 75, j' � t•c6cd zue� Y-L l' -js. )1.v • ra n-, •� �� � �. -+•� • , �j/ ✓ ■■ t�ti. J h ‘c -, -z- — • c LL' ;,_ '1 Cc a /7 «L f J4.— 11 y 353 /u ,ss,,z a/se . •_4__ _ cam,.. -- Ac_14 4. rsc_e, S r (1„.k. .4). 7 cx 1 -1 i-d' '-••., , ,ism cv .141,-, 7 A. , )).5 c-t. 6 GYM .y— %f / , to s .J • r , s • y )-t", Vi iZ Ju. GC"), :L , d; v-c J /,'f/Y1("1 "7 S. / t l+� ,k /"h'' lr-t / rll.- - /1..t. )7S c-0 c• cat C: ✓�� �, .� ti� / / "C /� /7ic.Jrt�r:re�.�cJ ,/y, � V `d- • ' /' fC S C�ti — /' `. 2', c=-s_ 4 . ��Y-+� �j. c�l.iC� , Sd/ G Oc c 7-/ O n / S / .:i c1 _ s c....•• r.( ticf 't/J 354 `' Very truly yam, 355 (e) r Grant Woodfield 13721 68th Aven f West Edmonds, WA. 98020 If additional air carrier airport space is needed in the future .my main concerns are with building new sattelite airports or a new regional airport to replace Sea -Tac. New airport construction' would take place in rural or semi -rural areas. The impact of a new air carrier airport in a rural area would have the following but they play an important role in our state's economy and a major role in the quality of life of the residents of Washington State. 2. Noise factors. The noise created by an air carrier air- port in a rural area would be devastating to the people who have chosen to live there. The increase in noise would be much greater in a rural area than it would be in in an area that already has a major airport. 3. Wetlands. The DEIS states that the creation of a new airport in or adjacent to a wetland area would have a major impact. Any proposal which would allow for the possible development of a sattelite or major regional airport in North Snohomish County or South Skagit County would almost certainly infringe upon the wetlands in these areas. The same situation would undoubtedy occur in other rural portions of Western Washington. There are a number of other concerns involved in creating a new regional airport or sattelite airports. Among these are the effect on wildlife, the potential for water and air pollution, and the encroachment of urban growth into ever shrinking rural areas. For these reasons I believe that the only plausible alternative is to develop existing facilities where urbanization, noise mitigation programs and pollution controls are already in place. The threat to wildlife, wetlands, agriculture and the rural landscape would be minimized by eliminating the alternatives of creating new airport(s) from the plan. Concentrating on full utilization and development of Sea -Tac is,in my view the most reasonable and least destructive alternative set forth in the plan. The use of Sea -Tac in conjunction with "Boeing" (King County) Field may be a promising alternative, but is not even mentioned as a serious proposal in the plan. Finally, use of existing airports in Bremerton, Tacoma, and 357 Everett,although a poor alternative in my opinion, would be far better than the proposal to build new airport(s). Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on this issue. Sincerely, l Mark Eikeland Treasurer, Citizen Advocates for Responsible Development (C.A.R.D.) 358 ,_7-0..h.i.A4u3 15 `"' jc Puse± Scond- wiI f etivkts Alto Fri Ave. cioti-t &aide_ kJ4 Qq(D4 LT: , • ' JAN 21 rPP, PUGH Subi:k Attekrbon: TrasisFokiaLpiA Don &-cel-L.. Preed Marta eieritiemen hea'ih Gvi 14.441,/ 0,_/025, Jeblitar3 /3t, /qt, pyrrosect Pe@fnaL ht`rpora 39Siter Rah 4 (1 ossibIe effds Okt atuni3. 1 Would like Cornrnent ov) +tie_ plan cts Firs4 of ail., 1 would like -to complimeert, 3ecirl`g- oti his peesevit-L'on 1.-t- was 14)61- omaigirect ?fr`Yey, jr) proreSSI/>-)al rhayme.k. oe peoposals were_ -pre.semke_a_. -619 See ryi fr) be, 6wed- favor of the) of- expaftdirti5 a 9enekcti awalion airrOvt rather 4442.11 *lore_ loret.cal_ soicyb;e5245 5ock as 0 expaPd.iv &aT Of/Or 2.) bui[d L kr.t.t) PritiolnaL coloch-t. 1 an-) sore) air earrier6 Ore) in Favor- of -Hie, chest alfernativez bot csirnple. ectrylom(c_.s 15 1,10-b 43,1e- ont Conaiderationj • clivp-i-ion of. 43/7ousaActs itie-S bj 359 Creak:Ai@ o a.:Le.1(4.-tr) ai trrnrt (A) -their t-nicit is an issue. -b,Nctb (4)(16 referred_ In orNt in passic3 person-Lai/en . moved oot of &a±& e.) 172- Tars oer) oor cif_cfaion th mlf(e_ in &Doth Snchonicz1-=1 COUniti was ir\fluericeci b(3 PT?) Alecliafect._ Aoreemeht 313a±ement. P3ve Red_ remain a "Tienzl, avictkibin airport, lb 5tes.-L o charge now is ccinlizin irlatlovolyriate. As Snol/tovvlisti aportkj Cok>16lrv.ar, (11)baleey- exeressect it so Lt>61, " kin Q01 WO( IC, OtoOt- Et, ea y& 400 Late_.' To re.comnlera, -that Pamei .(„cL -take_ 36e4os "1:o loc_al.. jovfs - (11'd-tonal laA01 um- plates ats."1 pc±eni:fal., vote, as CoJJ 5ca:e_11;fe., air Garrity-II airloOrt, 15 CrOUS . c)■- CteGI'deCC 0. nornEev- of (dears acao r rOrnOtf---- 1 Cord ose, ;in this arecc for te,n$ Are. residential 6 eVe.loprnenb . Such CILV d prnent acct.) r red. Continues r OCC.2.3v- Verri rap c d (3 ; -Et) so9(6sL tinaE, be_ soficter, reVerSea. 10t-kaS exileemel, poor corrTrek)ersiov) oc- the_ _ trar6porkai-ion Scord €i On "Paine_ Feld, is c-.0A iiirz; role_ in saite. _ stie)Cti- ro does hot rvee.c ex\ocu-Nsion. ) 360 • I' 4.111f*_ *Nth. C_orevvIt..,(NiAti nlervx‘zerS LA*P sroke.. ov-1 eveninci expres_nea ve_kb toe.A1 4ke cary_eirne conseAsos c5( 0-11 Os Lot le. %reside_ in rb3r4icaas near 4:ke_) airvort. "1-hei also scd. veY v'eat alreEta(3 cit.osseci.) N>cssibi ;.-k\ o esojciA ad-ion noo1cl. 3keps be_-‘ciVerx e..YRand W‘Ack..-v rr\eyvVion_ia ct_b3ve, reNas-- also criopt Or'r4P5 near crt-ireir avcatiot, aitstort coreAderea poSCilz*e_ expaiOn. re_r_omPren6, saNfmc3 a pv-ob\ern bL Aire dory)? ik axy‘e_tgne, elses backLard- Cs orco-ir, 4 in 'We' CorNO\ rOni MO\re- eXlizreiraWC_. i5 Itrsairn 1e_c3a1 _proIcAems). thickYicos ?\annlyn A-0.1<.-e_ a more_ YooActA c-occi'? CorCeinATcdc., all air CArtriei( ac.L.To_c --rovYN sorcticle), bpi Ferf\nd. adU* likr■O± biked arprorraie-ku\ tzik\h acece ct.ccomoaate„ Tho- ,escO ifor e (IQ 510S-1334 a. S.v3. EckrnetrYi q"6020 361 • !: ,.■•••- January 18, 1988 Curtis Smelser Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Smelser: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Regional Transpor- tation Plan Airport System Amendment, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. I support all the air carrier recommendations except Item 7, which has to do with siting new satellite airports or a new interna- tional airport. I believe using and expanding existing airport facilities is better than developing new sites. I have the following questions and comments to the DEIS. VI Compatibility with Local Plans and Policies It is doubtful that any new airport could be sited, especially in a rural area, that would conform with or even be compatible with existing zoning or comprehensive plans. Therefore, siting a new airport should be recognized as having "significant" impacts on land use. In addition to the airport property proper, there will be a demand for support industries and commercial establishments - these land uses are probably not compatible with existing rural zoning or consistent with adopted comprehensive plans. VI Capital Cost It makes sense that land acquisition in a developed area would be more expensive, but conversely it seems that utilities in rural areas would be very costly. In most rural areas utilities can not be extended - they have to be created from scratch. In Table 8, what are the separate costs for land acquisition ver- sus utilities? Do these costs include any mitigation? Are the new road systems (local, county, state, interstate) and mitigation measures included in the cost estimates as a utility? If not, what would these costs be? It is hard to believe that a new 40 -45 million passenger airport would cost less than adding 20 -25 million passengers of capacity to Sea -Tac. What is the reason for the extra expense of alterna- tive 3 versus alternative 4? 362 VI Noise Exposure The EIS should disclose the noise impacts associated with siting new satellites or a new international airport in a rural area. Would airport noise impact wildlife and livestock such as dairy cows? Aren't noise impacts evaluated relative to existing sound levels? Since rural areas are quieter than urban areas, aren't the noise impacts greater? VII Surface Water, Ground Water, Wetlands The construction of new satellite airports or a new international airport should be considered a "significant" impact on all aspects of water resources. The EIS makes no mention of possible mitiga- tion. Have these very real costs been added into the cost com- parisons? Sincerely, "3 �� ICJ SUTAN WONG SWINT (`1 0N 6 A c,G2 1`7�, 363 January 16,1988 Puget Council of Governments 216 First Ave. S. Seattle, Wa. 98104 Attn: Don Secrist Re:Regional Airport Systc; Plan Dear Cir; This is responce to the meeting he]d January 13 in Everett to hear what the public would say about the plan. I passed my chance to speak to help keep the comments from redundancy. Everyone was saying T00 LATE INVIOLATION ofthe "1978 Mediated Agreement" and absolutely devasting to the environment and THE LAND_U5E that the county has approved since then. Even if this was a viable solution to the airport needs of the future the cost factor including condemnation,law suits and implementation would be completely out of line to an alterna- tive. One speaker suggested that many make the decision , not a few who accidentally happened to be there. Your notice tothose most affected wacandalous by its absence. Perhaps this needs to be on the ballot for a vote from the entire county not just those who can benefit financially and this includes the county. We have lived in Chennault (the Plat of) since 1970 and have witnessed what the county has allowed to develope with their approval and promises. This proposal is a flagrant example of bad faith on the part of government and its agents. Sinc rely, elna J ion 6215 102nd Place S.W. Everett, Wn. 98204 C/ Bill Brubaker, Dist 3 364 6130 Norma Beach Rd. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 1 - 16 88 This letter is written in objection to the Puget Sound Council of Governments' study favoring Paine Field as a Satellite of Sea -Tac Airport. After attending the Jan. 13th meeting in Everett & listening to all the comments, we sifted out the most intelligent approaches to the problem. We agree 'with one solution by Rick Genesse, a Task Force Member & Pilot, who said a new Aircraft Guidance System being tested by the F.A.A. might eliminate conflicting flight paths between Sea -Tac & Boeing Field, so that the two airports could be joined into a super- airport with one handling takeoffs & the other landings. Another important factor to consider is the development of Light Rail in all populated areas to take some pressure off Airlines. Finally, we wish to emphasize the legality of the County Agreement in 1978 whereby General Aviation was established as the Role for Paine Field & Commercial Aviation was denied. We will join our thousands of neighbors in fighting off this threat by a Class Action Lawsuit if an attempt made to place our homes under the Skies of "North Sea - Tac." 365 Sincerely, 9nd /u1- (V' aZ�LZ Mary E. Acheson / /,� jI wane B. Ac eson Mr. Don Secrist, Project Manager Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First .Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 26443 SE 154th Place Issaquah, WA 98027 :=;,January 14, 1988 Re: Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) Cedar Grove Site I live 15 miles east of SeaTac; that is by design; I live 3 miles northeast of the Cedar Grove landing strip; that is by accident, and evidently a grievous oversight on my part. I understand the Puget Sound Council of Governments, and King County, lust after that shabby Cedar Grove landing strip and harbor visions of unnatural public acts in the name of rescuing it from its shabbiness, and transforming it into a full general aviation airport. I plead that the Cedar Grove site be dropped from the PSCOG roster of sites to rescue, and from King County's roster of sites as well. It is sensible to recommend, as the RASP does, that existing airport sites be preserved, but only when that applies to highly developed sites like SeaTac, Boeing Field, Paine Field, etc. The Cedar Grove landing strip is in an entirely different aviation league, if indeed it is in any league at all. The Cedar Grove strip is,�piece of fairly level ground; it has a windsock, some lights with glass jars over them, some little airplanes tied down, some little airplanes in sheds. It might take a determined crew 62 hours to remove all trace of past aviation activity from that site. To buy out the Cedar Grove site simply because it is now used as a landing strip, and to develop it into a general aviation airport is sentimental folly of the highest order. Ten years from now that site is going to be as inappro- priate and unacceptable for an airport as were Sand Point, Bellevue, and Issaquah in their final hours. The Cedar Grove landing strip is just four miles from the Issaquah Skyport site where recently even aviation activity con- fined to its most colorful and picturesque manifemt pns became no longer acceptable. To propose now a full general aviation with the whole spectrum of aviation activity that would allow, so close to he small skyport so recently closed is preposterous. The RASP has involved itself in "serving air transportation needs" rather lavishly and indiscriminately I feel. Many of the "needs" are simply wishes, fondest hopes, sheer indulgence of an elite group of pilots and their clients in a small segment of aviation. The public at large does not have an obligation to serve that small elite segment or to serve aviation in general. Aviation should serve the public. And in some cases, serving the public is best done with less rather than more aviation in the skies, particularly when it comes down to the question of sacrificing residential peace and quiet in order to indulge the convenience of an elite few. In the case of the Cedar Grove site, what would serve the public is elimina- tion of that site as a potential hub of general aviation. I urge you to eliminate that shabby strip from your roster of candidates for procurement, expansion, development, and to allow us who live here whatever peace and quiet remains. cc: County Executive Tim Hill County Councilman Bruce Laing Representative Bruce Holland Representative Michael Patrick 366 Senator Kent Pullen (:)0L.aeC Laurene McLa e RECEIVED IFEB 011968 ING COUNTY COUNCIL DISTRICT NO. 8 26443 SE 154th Place Issaquah, WA 98027 January 29, 1988 The Honorable Greg Nickels, Chairman King County Council Committee on Transportation & Utilities 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Proposed Ordinance #88 -67 - Reliever Airport Dear Councilman Nickels and Committee: I am concerned about this ordinance. Here are four areas of concern I hope you will consider before making your decision on how or IF to proceed. Tne Aviation Mystique. Documents like the County's Airport Master Development Plan and PSCOG's Regional Airport System Plan make it sound as if accommodation to aviation is the highest good; that more is better. Aviationfrom a broader perspective is simply one of many means of transporting people and goods. It can be the fastest means of transpor- tation, but in indirect costs and external costs to the public it can be the most intrusive, the most disrespectful of privacy, and the least accountable for disturbing the peace all over this land. When aviation becomes recreation, its redeeming social importance becomes nearly imperceptible. Evidently considerable pressure on Boeing Field comes from recrea- tional flying. In the general public interest, Boeing Field may just have to exclude recreational flying. That act alone might obviate the "need" for a reliever airport. The Aviation Money. Apparently public money (locally from projected sur- pluses in the Boeing Field Construction Fund, and nationally from the FAA) abounds to pursue the reliever airport issue. Money of this sort can readily breed extravagant projects that serve the best interests of a special interest to the detriment of the public at large. Expanding avia- tion capacity entails infringements on other spheres of interest, e.g., residential, and generates conflicts that the aviation money cannot resolve. When the best interests of aviation triumph, the best interests of the public at large can be severely compromised. I hope you can over- come the temptation to create a reliever airport simply because the money is there. The Regional Aviation Scene. The regional equation changed radically January 18 when base officials at McChord AFB made it clear that McChord could indeed be used as a regional satellite airport to SeaTac. With McChord handling some SeaTac traffic, SeaTac could handle some Boeing Field traffic and the "need" for a general reliever airport just might fade away. Meanwhile, even withottMcChord in the civilian aviation equation, the recreational flying that cramps Boeing Field's commercial aviation activities has ample well- documented alternative playfields elsewhere in Puget Sound, perhaps across County borders, but not so very far away. 367 The Neighborhoods. Expanding accommodation to aviation is inevitably done at the expense of residential qualities and values. Aviation is a lousy neighbor for miles and miles and miles around. Inviting avia- tion into the center of a residential area is an outrage. But that has been the not -so -well- hidden agenda since Fall 1987 when Don Smith, Manager of King County Public Works Airport Divison, made it clear that the Cedar Grove landing strip was the chosen site for a general aviation reliever airport for Boeing Field (partly just because it was there and for sale, and partly because Don Smith was going to retire in 71 years and didn't have the energy to try some other route that made more sense). The landing strip at Cedar Grove is an airport to the extent that a logging road is a freeway. Just because in the days before land use plan- ning some bold soul stuck a windsock up there and landed some airplanes does not sanctify that land as aviation land. Yes, the site is'immedi- ately surrounded by gravel pits and adjoined by the County's most famous public works project, but beyond that are miles and miles and miles of residential developments populated with people who do not need or want to bear the indirect and external costs that expanded aviation on that site would bring. The current amended ordinance is less obvious about singling out Cedar Grove than the original ordinance, and considerably less blatant than the budget item to "study" Cedar Grove's feasibility. But I fear that Cedar Grove is still acutely vulnerable because of the County's mounting disdain for this neighborhood, the County's reluctance to adopt a regional perspective, and the conspicuous lure of the aviation money and the aviation mystique. I urge you to drop Proposed Ordinance 88 -67 altogether and to think instead of how existing regional facilities, to which McChord is now added, can accommodate aviation without further compromise to the general public welfare. May the,money and the mystique not distort clear thinking on the proper place of aviation in the total picture of the general public welfare. Thank you for the opportunity to comment at this stage of your deliberations. Sincerely, Laurene McLane cc: Cynthia Sullivan 4450 Lakeview Dr SE Port Orchard WA 98366 15 January 1988 Puget Sound Council of Government Grand Central on the Park 216 1st Ave S Seattle 98104 As residents of Kitsap County we are registering our opposition to the proposed expansion of the Bremerton airport. Such an expansion will detract from the charac- teristics that make Kitsap County a desirable place to live. Areas that already have existing commercial facilities should be developed instead. Le ,P 67 ,�Gl LeRoy G. Mc Kee and Ann Marshall orteincx_, . jui,b(Lp q.,c/o&/ . JLam, a-7J _.,.L. ,.n Ve l./Yt yrt 4L. PLeee-e2-e cLe.tu c-e Lc i_ t t/tA k &L 5//3 ?6L-?` !c! , / c1 es- . i Wb LL ..0 2 r L&:,>-- 0.---C) L. c7 u e eit-14 7c /LL k' d -77tc . GJQ- (/ZJ.l,10 sz_ (L) 5 Q a Leal`. ,L-11 (. L� Q-2; >ir4: u - - (2,4‘ vI e Q__ --- fly b euiccep --/7 6-44 czne-c e.Q- (A -t- aeryn Ct ct c c t 0 LC L ` AL J i t-t tl-- ort-0 -e / ?C .3/1u, it-0(...112. LL1 e.C4 , 12 pa ! -� 370 Oltt- 6141-e-C (M1--Q 0 C!)7' j?tQ/Ut2L4J2 371 1 -17 -88 Dear Mr. Secrist: I am very much against Paine Field being considered for extended air traffic. Just having San Juan Airlines is too much. People who live in the north end have no desire to reproduce the area around Sea Tac in our area. The noise of the air traffic and the impact on the surrounding area of Sea Tac is certainly not something any neighborhood would welcome. I don't feel a Committee should be able to determine a community's "availability" for an "extension" of an existing airport. Phyllis Chastain 372 13737 240th Ave. SE Issaquah, WA 98027 January 16; 198$ Puget Sound Council of Governments Air Transportation Advisory Committee Grand.Central on the Park 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Gentlemen: This letter is written in response to the Regional Transportation Plan Airport System Amendment, Draft EIS and the Draft REgional Airport System Plan 1988- 2020. When studies conducted by PSCOG itself and the King County Council staff, plus the FAA Aviation Forecasts 1987 -88 all indicate that General Aviation has one into a decline in recent years primarily because of expense of operation, it hardly seems wise to operate on the principle that all existing airfields must be maintained at whatever cost. The studies indicate that there is sufficient space for general aviation at existing developed airports in the four county area to last for 20 years or more. You also note in your reports that residential development is incompatible with airports and that local authorities must take steps to influence local jurisdictional land use and transportation plans. These are °extremely important statements and indicate good long range thinking. They also indicate that the Cedar Grove Air Park should be removed from your list of possibilities. There is already extensive residential development in the immediate area and there is no indication that the County is planning to change the rules. No resident of the area would benefit economically or in anfi_ other way from de- veloping Cedar Grove. Q The Cedar Grove Airport is not a developed airport. It has a scruffy landing strip and some ramshackle buildings and its only claim to fame is that it is a'functioning airport. But being in the midst of residential development, it is very likely to go the way of Bellevue and other small airports in the not too distant future as residents increasingly object to the annoyance.. One of the main reasons for closing airports is the expense of operation. Is it then suitable for King County's taxpayers to assume this burden for what will be a playground for private pilots? Will it solve their insurance problems? Is this airport development necessary? With ample capacity in developed air- fields, it hardly seems sensible for King County to destroy the ambience in our communities. And would it be used to capacity? The small plane industry produced just 1000 planes in 1987 vs. 17,000 in 1979. This plan sacrifices too many to the whims of a few. With WPPS ever in mind, Puget Sound planners tend to panic on the side of development. Private planes should be dispersed from Boeing Field, if necessary, to existing developed airports. Bandera, with no residents, should be con- sidered for a play field early in the next century. Pilots will claim that this is inconvenient, but their wails should not supersede the rights of the com- munities underneath them.. 373 Very truly you Constance D. Dow ,et su Ale/ edaficii of GollepNmefirs DA/ Sec_thr- 26 /.f�E late �' .✓c�reNE-t) , i2i ze./2s' Rd/vA/1-7o G,eo u/f!. of TAE Reafe e 4a/A/Alii, 4e'& eda eo As Of fJ ��ctuee ��iP,odef dixeassioAV. it-4"/R% CX/A-ezea.ce, 11-444s-/-ez.. Ajea,er Ca�nrn��ee i�L2iR�e28o 7fo. �OX 4OZ� � , 61/A. ?o./y 374 ' Deht-A2_ dur>c,L / fae 5-tr411" 61;pvitide At -er' ✓( / /c�l4.�N1r` ✓2 7 N . /5-1 967 �=f l ✓ A4 1,t ylizi G9e1/yz ' . (06_ Lil 14:4^y 7-die mod" d/ 19-(L 14/72&4 , /2 )71 tt4-1 ‘.eL t/t? PieriA/ ,‘ 1-4-2.-&41.zre, _14 Jo-rid p)Atoivvz,,7,44, ./ e41- 2- 2-Lri7", e/i..C>I,e X .L�. j , �'✓�Zi°')'� / , //i Z �fitZil!l'/I� l�- 1-'-ri; di ,./ /c if/44144d 77/X, je- tivf .A."4 e /a/14/u2. /4„ Ae.t€4,e, ,o0geri eon -14(7/ ftel-41‘ke Ai-eid/12.116W 114,4, /7def,t/ /aaviz;-az eaAAadi 477/it /P;11( 375 � FINISHING TOUCH Dear Council, JAnuary 15th 1988 I was unable to attend the meeting in Everett regarding the proposed, expansion at Paine Field, but in spirit I was there to beg you to reconsider. Please do not allow more traffic at PAine Field!!!! My parents live 10 minuites from O'Hare Field in Chicago. It is horrible. As a child , I was a sound sleeper, ex- =cept in the summer, with windows open we would jump out of bed as a plane would land. The noise was lessened somewhat when we could affon air conditioning. Who , may I ask needs an airconditioner in our area? People back home all speak so loudly, it seems ....Expanding the airport would ruin the quality of life in our beloved Mukilteo, and probably spell the end of my marriage, as we are so heavily mortgaged in our home (we have just started a buisness) we couldn't move. We live one stinking minute away from Paine Field and I would leave, no run to save my sanity, if expansion occurs here. Solution? I approve of joining Sea -Tac and Boeing Field with one accepting arrivals and the other accepting departures. Also maybe we could take some displaced loggers and retrain them to operate Airport Express vehicles. Thank you for your time. 377 Sincerely, ebora L. Nicholas 4612 73rd St. S.W. Mukilteo, Wa. 98275 17624 15th Ave. S.E. Suite 112A • Bothell, WA 98012 (206) 486 -9030 • (206) 743 -3110 /4 A, 1) [ S �v �7 ►n w c. cl \cni A /r _ '? C" F ✓lam w r 's ti I, Gc. . /' c` cr / d /17..) 49 5 5 ! G /e sy� C %' i • 4- - j • .. a vt 6 Ise' ■✓,' f..i ("c')--- L ./.t.'�r, /. VW y ! 17-71 r i //l- l > G' t� ) . / ' c / // E _.r • % i o r J if he!, E✓e i1 f !E4jA R/9rr`der.41-e >. .ie��, Lars. (-C" C I (c) Lam' r l ea S [fY[ S /q GGc >s - 6 e c- -� kt it/G. T U✓e er l /7 iY1it 7 r S -ALC, •. or,VVrer 1-7 See- ✓e t 0 ' ~ 4,c v e q ,`L'vt . C, � ,/ e /',-7 6 Go ✓ Li e v` / ci ddre5s / cC( fie c/ ICY 4 v1 -r as' s Tr4 4 S, t' Sj.S,Le 5 Pi'- ✓E -1 -it r (^i V r r • (1--(,ryJ. / T S 41e H. 4 r:c : AG /i .--, i.c s 71— i C- S e - r e d %T /-4L 51 1 ✓cs h S /'- S y S r•. e wo 1.1 n,fk. / 'e .f% /,-,...i e deal k1� !A i\ ay-- cf ,),(, k L 4 jam' �l 1^U c.V ! "� / C.✓ I( h� Sea IffP nvv �/ V ✓r>°rn�r�h wvti�d ,'YL GI /7 h A.•s c414 s to n iT S e r✓ e. rj yle ...1114 • - E L.: ✓ . reel ✓V1.7 qo r- "tor (7a erS K a/ oly-esS • aGSv S ice ss�S c 514.) e 174 -Ca 44 r‘ -74-LE"-e- a i s a .3 u e 5 h-rn1 / C[ e C, -! .?r+-i vx.. -t s/ ,6 e 4 D r v/ c IL kc i-1.., / 4 / '•t/ e 4-1 ✓ • �•'a;7 vn e h / : W 5 • ezi 6,,e n< e,- 1-e•-i Q S ct_ s e A 4 ctI iv, (i/ 71-0 kJVal. /d a'rt ClY`a5At4 /17 /‘.--cOtcCI- 379 yt v s► ✓+ t lip -i' /14,4 G• 1 v e t' S Ct . 5 , l''�t ✓ ti ! • -e h ✓ • "rbh /1 £ (re"—, i- 9 i t 4.7 7i �+-t 5 t ep J rd d d�� u r� u z a� r e cc (V v I a l'1 t r d r r r S e le c /-���- , s, 4 u7r-se- 4 I r e ti o% e; .-K f a J-G •-i c u s T i- � w �S <, / a u v { yr w/ 4 k?_-_ V ru w �� , 4.e �.0 LA ■-1 41( C- v -,i �-, , `s S 4 -dY1 e r-s i- e, c e h /� c a /4 d l A (eyy(J_ 4 e n c G /-4- �C C.-L/14 H //-67-S j� u c-0 / 1/ 0 7 a ! u i e , x2 Li •r L ; ,./1.1 J- I 6 r'P • e.- 4--,-, /1%4 l ; ..-v-, a l 41,72 d ✓ e S (,O ct rt ` 'G-Y' t-e) 44 ‘,..S cl 04 l . I19-7 /e %,'.. ,',":3 a r,v vt d S c= rJ �7�E d Pa .'.., e °�i P[d ��✓lUd�,.7�q LI s G�ec�ei 4 lc`ve •>, api :.- ,r..�/e1 ci v"eA J ge U Qoi2 1e vn . k, fYa f'en,h .5.,A s r /CCie/ vlo� l-o ey 54.0k vtJt c (r�r[ ed 7z . Pal. 1, s - ,441e.,e/c i -4,,, el) 4,- C„/- ,' 4 C (.. 4 hPkr,�as, r r, i / Gt // S,/eS /'ec.e,d co .v, C 4.117 I, c.+1, d cclhl . A.) L,✓ eitr,e / 2 w i S 4 T �-e L/JKnCi i to 4 4."( Ukly ip evpIc- 7v sra-k t`O s -el e G ^r'Yl‘ o `- are v+'1 ��t"M/ %V or /' U ., 4 / 4/ r9V w e -►--e i ■ Ci:te.'ic (.4 /t w t t - < ) s c i d o e r b v n 4 l i sL eh t h ; i- %e;ev Fu;F;�u(l c..�dYa. run.c,uli, v u/ 0-11. &S. v c t.J - C_ e5q) ;.-c_ U toi e . • -t / P 1 /es eG( /''(,%a 14rtvts 4-re /5-8.7 117 L3e /�.re '454. Qt64528 380 13 '??w Igcsg fW J rtulgi 61,440 o 6. ioutt,&rneki- abtei rea.dl auzurt 4ttacii kaitmot GrA.A) v/L Cismnti2/14 r9 ciAAphvE pkto15 / 4 z:i art oD a.rn- oppftecc t0 anp i a1-. 6)f Tetist-e- rvaInvusus j%ta o & t4 r c74 s+ns -th:,s . oppoe la erl -fa . CC.Q,rnos-t- .W L (OD t1 cLQ cevtd t d-a. - ' r 4 naLentbeA at- c lay. pramised no carrt rn.e.Aca i ,„ Gal 61) ` et- -K.,- ei e l.d . W-e. b6e4 wth 4-kt..nt a' cc-kperldi . n ryvax. 4-hca1 ank ua¢..e. k.. a. f eA '4-ke. .e.J -t chi avw - Reid -ID frL'j .J ? - ` ° Recd v ) ,D.! to n i `�t ti, coax -0- �� �j wa.�'S w�, - k . -tz) rn.e ,cam -cam r cm.po tuVLbets r-14-&) -1?cptitgit anci gel- dnix . - 6.-Ad 'rU r crI , no-t ht. a1-r d .1 . 1 any. CA.OtAWKAd ,food /u -.6di°nto0 am Ivcu.) lb=6 v __ __ • be OW GWt hI5rn4 . c_. heate fad 0-n2 p fa..t.e tit 94 GotcJd /a- P nwn.412e4 . 2& u oirvf , (j wuta.L.Lici ectad kue �. ArsyKt. ciefa.e . zae- b teA. lo ofandiwt ? `d iuul.au.o a4 44J . C ., a.14.peLt a-t 141/ft-614g/1k Z-MiG1611- . 381 It uitA . c►bvl 6X4ic.j 4.44..0 ir-emk.. 4-4.t._ Q,c. , . W .e. di) - w aid fo 414 - 46cli - u.nt- ,&vk.1 11-5 ,en eL 7`) si 41 i� aP ci b-e i ►i , ail axo Sca - i`'a.e_, qraloirLs . 4....... k-,,,,./ b -ctiLerP. W0 .) pc(. ntimmryo 0--x.-- 0) ru)i-,e_ 4-kiez.t- AC-fice...L / oi._ Y--14-(m ...e..44-4A- ,z, rt /Di- • .J4 D /5 sOk .b AS . .d Az - k1-u ci,Q.eP n ewinaLeci &.4t4-1 `r��v Latta tt,,a a .,� t.�. ex - 4�pp�� nts-Lo cLItzt_ yot,t. n1c A-a7L Jita...4.-L Tu. 61) Ast.A2‘ . Ju ZQnne. /� . 'es .411 11/ / - X 30 1 ! `S�,c) Lynnw )ood 4 JGPo37 382 SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL County Administration Building Everett, Washington 98201 (206) 259-9494 SHIRLEY BARTHOLOMEW DISTRICT NO. 1 LIZ McLAUGHLIN DISTRICT NO. 2 BILL BRUBAKER DISTRICT NO. 3 BRIAN CORCORAN DISTRICT NO. 4 DON BRITTON DISTRICT NO. 5 Cities and Towns Arlington Brier Darrington Edmonds Everett taota bar Granite Falls Index Lake Stevens Lynnwood Marysville Mill Creek Monroe Mountlake Terrace Mu ki Iteo Snohomish Stanwood Sultan Woodway 6 January 1988 To Constituents Concerned About Expanded Role for Paine Field Many of you will have read in local newspapers that on Wednesday, January 13th the Puget Sound Council of Governments' (PSCOG) will be holding a public hearing in Everett on their "Draft Regional Airport System Plan: 1988 - 2020." While the County Council was very much aware of the on -going study, the Council also only learned of this meeting from the newspaper story. I plan to attend this hearing to let the committee know what I think of one of the several options listed, in draft plan -- the option which calls for possibly turning Paine Field into a "satellite" airport to re- lieve overcrowding at Sea -Tac. I urge you to also consider attending the hearing to express your views -- or just to back up with your presence those speakers with whom you might agree. I intend to tell the committee that I am disturbed; that this airport service expansion plan completely ig- nores the commitment made in 1978 by Snohomish County to area residents. We promised you that Paine Field's role would be limited to "General Aviation." and that major passenger airline service would not be allowed. As you are all well aware, that commitment (known as the "1978 Mediated Agreement ") allowed for continued residential zoning around the airport -- exactly the kind of development which would drastically conflict with a major passenger satellite airport -- not to men- tion the dreadful noise and traffic impact on those lo- cal residents! You should know that this plan does not call for a decision right now on the issue of airport overcrowding -- it just lists several alternative solutions. However, whoever makes this decision ten years from now needs to understand that Paine Field can't be one of those alter- natives. That's why I intend to attend this hearing and why you should too! on at The hearing will be held in the Ginni Stevens Room the first floor of the County Administration Building 7 P.M. See you there... Bill Brubaker County Council, Dist. 3 An Eaual Employment Opportunity Employer 384 January 7, 1988 Puget Sound Council of Governments Mr. Don Secrist, Senior Transportation Planner 216 - 1st Ave. S. Seattle, WA 90104. Dear Mr. Secrist: I watched your television interview and was pleased to learn of the three proposals for Sea -Tac traffic expansion. I have enclosed a copy'of a letter which I wrote to the Port of Seattle. I attended the meeting at which this letter was on the agenda. I hoped that someone on the Jet -Noise Abate- ment Committee or the Joint Committee on Aircraft Overflights would make a motion that the committee(s) take some action on the points contained in my letter that evening. However, to my disappointment, not one committee member spoke up on. this. Thus it appears to me that this group is impotent to progress. I wish to thank you for realizing the current and forthcoming transportation and traffic problems at Sea -Tac. enc: 2 Sincerely, (7,f&dp. William fi. Speer 28011 - 67th Ave. S.E. Mercer Island, WA 980110 (206) 232 -9222 385 October 5, lyt37 Port of ,,eattie Seattle-Tacoma International Airport P.U. box otti7l'i Seattle, Wash. )U1b8 Re: desponse to Seattle - Tacoma Jet Noise Abatement Joint Couunittet; Oil Ai. reraf.t 0verflight}q: Since my prc:v- io'J;; it: l -ter to you. dated July 8, 1967, 1 have been iuterview.uw ;,1.,.ctr.; who fly y out of Sea -Tac, some of whom nave' thirty years' experience in taking off and landing. The responses from these pilot; center on these points: 1. They prefer io fly the newer model planes such as the 7117; these planes are not only quieter but are able to climb to 5,00u fist t before turning; therefore, there is less noise over uenseLy- po },u.Lateu areas. 2. The older DC-9's, r: i';; etc.,have not been modified and cannot climb as s,,eeply before turning; thus the noise they product: ih extremely uncomfortable. 3. They suggested considering phasing out the older noisier 4AIrplanes and using the quieter more efficient engines. L. immediate study shuu.la be made to install an East -West runway to divert flights over the :3owid and eliminate noise over the more heavily - populated areas; this run- way should be: put .ut at any coc:L. More homes : nou.l'i be purchased on the East -West runway path; the 7•t _ _ d ... ve pn • .. f.cy for paying noise- ir►Lru;n „u remuneration Lo such homeowners. 0. !'fans should now be started. for building another inter- national airport in a le;,; ;er- populated space. Please refer to 'my letter of July b, 1967,; 1 ask that you consider and respond to the above su,;l;es L, ons. ►r► e � cc: 717 William M. Speer ;o014 - (.”; th Ave. S.E. Mercer island, WA 96040 -y22? Ji.a ie ,;ummerhays Wes farm. 1 t,.rc,_ -Fede rai Aviation Administration %di for - -:,t :, Ltle Times btator--Mercer L;_ .►r►o Reporter 386 To Whom zt Play Concern: NOM w' 'is a part14J recordinq of aircraft f /cyht3 Over perrer J Thi inFormafion vvas recor[f a Uri June. )7,1'187. The, Flryhts Qs be,n9 drrccily avcrhtgd reA-✓ to (1ihts sfrai9f,t- cd.ovc. o& . of 4ZS'ot-t_ °(r' AVc S.k oh Mercer TSlgnd• When C4 carrier was d l rec it (J. above- our res,d c, (c._) -/), c_. ruv ;.... . W4S OF s Lich infens ity 111a1' cohversation was rnd errLipl -e cl. Th, :. ::,7 -e;•, < W45 SorncW%at JcSS ened IN1,1eri fie-, Fi,yhl's wcrc.. YYtor l: Serv4L) ) nve,. l>14. nDefil cirri $ALA thciS of •the 'island rafiuv -iiah r,yn -tt ovLV VL,►- 1 . ) , , L 4 . . ( . . . : . - Vie_ above - rnenteonPd d de, dur1ii dic rfl fr•,,,,: 1 „,,,,..1 Gii erne.,on -fly ere.. VAS , !'arse!! PI mor;;:rd ;`f a/ p • a w;,.,i";- o( ctsrc ran- poise) — tic. v.11 rnajor,fy DE -/' itt ho /se- 1,=I ■ti .fro;,..., .cuYnmerc.«tl Jef Planes. 6 . Ire hope- the. "lirn!Teel Iden7 i heeitJor) 4 of emcl-► c rc.r,zt 7L ";////)e),0 ":'.: I I t o 1 r r . W C . each F /4n� a,1 to departures and 76 (1s r 7' th -rlc-, r ,i, i"crl oPdatel •'oy ±h.. Seu -7 c. Jel Nol'1e Angl yJ 'is . we art. 41.5 0 CISikrny fha't Overr/IM- fes -fin? bQ' ?'er,1�,;r> s!<eer cif soon cif Minimum (414 74 aacumu /al ' , 1/ve .f e 1 heedr `t• shif t fryi fhe to■ 77i !c dr s�Qr rig Of i,�l,�,..:, 1�he lane✓ /sine, of CtU /c'tcvjds arid . less. +ota1 l�ai_i ; „�u►,.:i,tr• f1-, y Seq. Tae • 1=cn411y) we ► ueSt tiled -/J . Oict -t►�, �.�cl r,::::, and 9roupt coracenned issue? f commendaicor,r fhuf o /r(/-,e fitcharrrs toka colon cc: D1,7 n& Su mmerha. ys IQ,ch Conrad. ��c�lr7 r eh ,jlnes • 387 Thuhl< wait., ,14 r; Dams ,, p e 'v ,Q6L_/- 117 eAve, Mercer 1)4,t./, IN : .13D j T Ft ij r 1-71 ri .; `.2.7 1 1 0 V e (Z, .0E. NEP e3-1".$ N/),, .e.". A-5 77.. 1.3 • 11 ic‘; V fi N 2_.;2.j P . . Mt- 1-/-}A)P .P/1-5-r• 1!0 Er1577 lgo t- ,u(;INE.c, ,0 ( -1-17.,..\i 1'.: fq.. T5L .E(177..- 7,3 C.,' 1 (Z) 14 erky .z)1,1-pr e: it ( , GO (116_) - 4.1-7- Tr- t) 1; /. .-! ric:5 17)E. of...F-0 .p) o _Olt) 1,0 fik96-5 ) .,90eR_ c H a E I I'S (-.5 it) OCT eIL &chi: . ,0 ■Q't H E Mic ' 7: ;. 1 NE5 VD rc/g,./-.4-61-E-) T)(11/41,!:6--0?..FLY. 6:/ 0:X) Ft) 5t--- /—/16.-&;, ENT) T 14, c.:2/&f l`f EpijZ rk.)0 1.7,71oGnia. .00 ..c. nil EtZyt.011",-5 CA) .-.(+.-E 4-- 7! E:CIL)• C) -71‘)O71-1- lJa -117( N _!5 _ t‘.) —.- I) ! N ri 1 AJ' • . /1), CP .1,-; ji 4-2(.;t-A&gL5 FEL-i/G-E-1 IPTC"7-Ly c,t; 1;6- I F5 L4&, ITA-tW ‘.)q v L:. b.' 3f/ t- A)6 It) E 5 0 4) 1-46-e) e0.,..y u 1,) FuSE-G46-Gi ic A/16- (N E5 nit) ME rl ; cc-', t: IUr y I /i Ej }tjc; ICS o/0 4)(s -1 V. O A) L • ■ of 6cT I `r Fu 5 E L- /1-G -t) .D/EC-57-7 Wi N6-5) D1IQ F-EFL • 389 .06)04 -- 67 Me Ei4 -JS1, L1i 1 pm- 13c J 2 .2 LZ0g6 ,ipmfrow inusp Opi !CZ revcrumb rvir6 /3' /p 7' 7,-Py24 j-7, 9 14-27 /2.7 a f7 :7- 17-2.fri 7 -PV-r 37/ Z-r-r-s--r • /-7- ,74 /1 //t4 ote 9,1,faue- 4-_,,,71 n7a ? (L :2? 649 7-zr-V /741-71-f- /..r?"'"?-- /7 1)7/ r"11. 117,: „Id - 77/17 .C17/ ry 27 1-7 tf...479 r7 <19f/0 it 2-1r777 Cr 27 7ar)/(7r (7..,?;,17 eve- fiti/ ,7-)V re_ec"-y •.) Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Sirs, I live near Paine Field and I am against the proposal to make Paine Field a major airport servicing major airlines. I would fight it all the way. Sincerely, i,LAUAL7) Ronald Storz Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue S. Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Sir: Please, no more airplanes over the Issaquah area, Issaquah residents voted to close the Issaouah Skyport.. As soon as it was closed, SeaTac sent jet passenger planes over the Skypar t every five minutes. It was a voting farce. Finally, Sea Tac decided the "Scatter airline noise tests proved ineffectual" and stooped heavy jetliner traffic over the Issaouah area. Now - a possible Eastside general aviation airport. I repeat - we just closed an airport] Sincerely, Dulcie Chalfa 24201 SE 42nd Place Issaquah, Washington 98027 F.scott Casselma.n 10102 64th P1. W. Fverett, Wa. 98204 Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. c. Seattle, wa. 98104 Dear. Ladies and Gentlemen: I want you to :Know how stronly I oppose your plan to ex- pand the role of Paine Field Airport to be "our" next Sea -lac of the North. I oppose it vehemently and for two reasons! 1.) it's too late and 2.) Tt's too beautiful. Gentlemen, it's too late in the development of the surround- ing area to try to shoehorn in a major commercial airport among the many quality sound -side communities existing here. Yost of the area is already developed, much of it into fine residential areas. What's left, Harbour Pointe, is already platted and zoned as high quality light commercial and pristine residential pror- erty. The area is too far developed to destroy with the environ- mental assaults of a major. airport. It's too beautiful. Those of you charged with the responsi- bility of directing airport development in Puget wound must visit the site of what you*. considering. Get in the car on a quiet (hopefully in your neighborhood too), sunny afternoon and visit rdmonds, Wind- and -Tide, Picnic Point, Chennatalt Beach, and T ukilteo. 393 Drop in on Denis Vrabek at the'Harbour Pointe Office and see the projected quality development already in progress there. This • whole area is a kaleidescope of natural wonder. As you move up the sound, its many geographic jewels continuously fall into new variations of natural beauty. There is no place just its equal in the northwest end -few places in the world that match its splen- dor. Tt therefore provides a sanctuary for-people to renew therm- selves for worthwhile work, a sanctuary fr.^7:m the horrors of the mediocrity of American commercialism such as "7-71ahwav 99" or "Downtown" Lynnwood. This area is of great spiritual value to the thousands who live here and of still greater value to future generations. Your Sea -Tac North would trash this irrevocably. It's too much to even contemplate I and many other citizens made important financial decisions for family homes based on our confidence in the 1978 j\trport Agreement. To proceed now to unilaterally rescind that agreement' can only reflect elements of Incompetence, deception, or the surrender to manipulations by (how powerful ?) special interests groups who do not see and do not care about the quality that is here and must be protected. We citizens will not allow tunnel - visioned, myopic, profit oriented developers, entrepreneurs and bureaucrats to desecrate this region. If you proceed, you can expect a strong coalition of citizens such as myself to get in the pit with you and go to war. We have the money; we'll make the time; we have the will. We :will go to 394 the courts. We will win. I hope such confrontations will not be necessary. We will be watching closely. We will be ready. Sincerely, E. ti E. Scott Ca.sselman Chennavlt Beach Homeowner 395 /7I 2-37,4177 4/6/ •' OhoN, � ar cis -= �59���bCQ. sc'�t,o , o g:riecceoe a l ^r4,- ∎res, So c.en rot.N raivver y tw e trkkap&I,4_5 frbe- 1A.0.00 01 AA kS MQAAN 4t) er- • Motive Yelp A. ertfrvi.a n^ ,,,-L cQ °t't,LtAstc... -1-0(.1(ve weoirtAA -i-kfz. erc..s,e,v\-4-c0cu6,\ , vre_ tAd .4. p x-ck -44 l vin. , uj ►'�. - - .0ijc'an.-S t srt �- t l5 lVkaA-A--" 0.4 0..-f OS t6(2 5o(v4-..ne) eau/- red t ®v`.ck. k a-u t o.kulY` t‘Ac`-S t (kJ ey,e ) - /re - fIN Vin v o 1 d1 'cS 00+ tkrs 44&k 03u rtJcr— r vtdt cam n.is k i )ALt(er 25v 15- 5v) 1(0-(11% PL- Sea. W. 9wnsW5 €I s t'n • i�- ,-�-c.a -d- - r r 5 4-0 St� t‘ � A-k 6(42,. ekev-c-Co « d,� c,t,o �d er t v5 Wire O.l�to�r�� � r U 1�c jkL its c vi . n YGti.J ‘/40.--W-- � °� G� -�ttN he.o�r - �;��,s�n 2, G�s�- �41a, 5 8�1,1tY,• -- 1 Co o..d 1,Jc d -fir' k,c. � S 1ntic� k ejvt�o �- sue° � 'J cCe55c6‘ t5 Veir access . - haX �'- 5 ? 1t (, 5cit52.- -IL b r� �e' ih, W �n aM 41:1 rk - O \ ,�xt sfi .i_ +1. ? �e .b-o l02 � tel � � wt�e -� � -I-o aN\ , � a" � �E 4a k - C'-'--°- `�'O d.0 5o , %So Alt. No. tSo. r S ,9�,:y��,z ��Q� �t'ln..S 'f1.� (' 2 yy`0V'e.� �) �` `'�` . ` `a` s &r arm rt, J- d v .,� �� 0. � , ti � ro G2o.0 _ P<<Cd --t-t WI ��� %,�,� ar X1.4- cr� 9 r -mac. -� 114- (hgG,,lc"L_ GADA- (.,nu nct `z° ds.)w n %o‘ of w� - 4•0teirate_ e4-.e v kod. c * (1 c Spv& + w 1 Il 144 4.4_ t*rG S t .SerociAc V. Conclusions of the Public Review and Recommended Changes to the Draft Regional Airport System Plan V. • CONCLUSIONS OF THE PUBLIC REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN WHAT ARE THE OVERALL CONCLUSIONS OF THE PUBLIC REVIEW? From the combined verbal testimony and written comments the following overall conclusions were drawn: ■ There was universal concern that communities whose airport was named as a candidate for expanded air carrier services will be adversely affected by the uncertainty until a decision is made on the preferred alternative(s). • There was strong opposition for expanded air carrier services at Sea -Tac, Paine Field, and Tacoma Narrows Airport. • There was mixed support and concern for expanded air carrier services at Bremerton National Airport and McChord AFB (under joint use). • There was widespread opinion that air carrier needs have to be viewed as a statewide issue, or at least involve areas outside the four - county PSCOG planning area. POSITION OF ATAC IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN - March 24, 1988 The Air Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the Regional Airport System Plan be adopted with the following. revisions: 1. Clarification that McChord AFB is a candidate for a satellite air carrier role; include description of process for considering joint use. 2. Policy direction to expedite the next phase of analysis to address site specific costs, impacts, roles, and benefits of the air carrier alternatives; include general description of the decision process required to reach resolution on a preferred alternative(s) in 2 -3 years. 3. Addition of a resource management alternative to the set of air carrier alternatives to be evaluated in the next phase of work. This alternative would entail improvements to existing airports to maximize their efficiency and capacity without major expansion. 4. Policy direction to reevaluate the location of the third runway in the "Expand Sea -Tac" alternative based on changing FAA runway separation criteria, and on environmental considerations. 399 5. Policy direction to identify air carrier capacity alternatives beyond the PSCOG four - county planning area, and recommend to WSDOT that they be included in further state -wide aviation system planning. 6. Policy direction to reexamine Boeing Field as a candidate for a satellite air carrier role. This can be done in the subsequent site specific analysis of air carrier alternatives. ACTIONS TAKEN BY STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION IN CONSIDERATION OF ATAC POSITION AND PUBLIC COMMENTS - MAY 6, 1988 The following actions were taken: 1. The staff was directed to prepare the Final EIS, incorporating the results of the public review, and a Revised Draft RASP, incorporating the position of the ATAC as modified by the SCOT. 2. Tacoma Narrows Airport was withdrawn from further consideration under the RASP air carrier recommendations. 3. The "expand Sea -Tac" alternative (with an independent third runway), as presented in the Draft RASP, was withdrawn and replaced with an alternative to explore all options which could be included within the existing airport plateau envelope, including the dependent third runway. 4. The staff was directed to provide a detailed definition of the commuter role in the Revised Draft RASP. 5. The staff was directed to bring back to SCOT a description of the planning process to address the air carrier alternatives in a coordinated effort with the Port of Seattle, and other appropriate jurisdictions, recognizing that the solutions may include areas outside the normal PSCOG planning area. 6. The Final EIS and Revised Draft RASP were referred to the subregional councils for action in June. The staff was directed to mail the documents to SCOT members as soon as possible. 400 Planning For Tomorrow's Transportation Puget Sound Council of Governments Grand Central on the Park 216 First Avenue South • Seattle, WA 98104 Phone (206) 464 7090 Regional Transportation Plan Airport System Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement December 1987 P u g e t S o u n d C o u n c i I of G o v e r n m e n t s KING SUBREGION Algona Coun. Sue Langley Auburn Mayor Bob Roegner Beaux Arts Village Coun, Robin Stefan Bellevue Mayor Cary Bozeman Coun. Nan Campbell Bothell Coun. Walt Wojcik Clyde Hill Coun, Roger Shaeffer Des Moines Mayor Pat DeBlasio Duvall Coun. Paul Reddick Coun. Ruth Subert Enumclaw Coun, Gaye Veenhuizen Issaquah Coun. Darlene McHenry Kent Coun. Jon Johnson King County County ,Exec. Tim Hill Coun. Gary Grant Coun. Audrey Gruger Coun. Bruce Laing Coun. Lois North Coun. Bill Reams Kirkland Mayor Doris Cooper Lake Forest Park Mayor Dick Rainforth Mercer Island Coun. Verne Lewis Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Exec. Director Virginia Cross Normandy Park Coun. Norm Strange North Bend Mayor Obe Healea Redmond Mayor Doreen Marchione Coun, Margaret Doman Renton Coun. Kathy Keolker Seattle Mayor Charles Royer Coun. George Benson Coun. Virginia Galle Coun. Jeanette Williams Snoqualmie Coun. Darwin Sukut Tukwila Coun. Mabel Harris Coun. Doris Phelps KITSAP SUBREGION Bremerton Mayor Gene Lobe Coun. Spencer Horning Coun, Mary Lou Long Kitsap County Comm. Ray Aardal Comm. John Horsley Comm. Bill Mahan Port Orchard Mayor Jay Weatherill Poulsbo Mayor Richard Mitchusson Coun. Chris Endresen Suquamish Tribe John Bagley Winslow Mayor Alice Tawresey PIERCE SUBREGION Bonney Lake Coun. Robert Hawkins Buckley Mayor Eugene Robertson DuPont Mayor Pole Andre Fife Mayor Robert Mizukami Coun. Helen Frederick Fircrest Mayor Larry Cavanaugh Coun. Rose Marie Raudebaugh Gig Harbor Coun. Jim Ryan Milton Coun. Leonard Sanderson Pierce County County Exec. Joe Stortini Coun. Barbara Skinner Coun, Paul Cyr Coun. Bill Stoner Puyallup Mayor Ron Crowe Steilacoom Coun. Peter Pedone Sumner Coun, Pearl Mance Tacoma Mayor Doug Sutherland Coun. Ruth McElliott Coun. Tom Stenger SNOHOMISH SUBREGION Arlington Mayor John C. Larson Edmonds Mayor Larry Naughten Everett Coun. Ed Morrow Coun. Connie Niva Lake Stevens Mayor Richard Toyer Lynnwood Mayor M. J. Hrdlicka Marysville Coun. Rita Matheny Mill Creek Coun, Linda Blumenstein Monroe Mayor Gordon Tjerne Mountlake Terrace Mayor Lois Anderson Mukilteo Mayor Emory Cole Snohomish Mayor Ann Averill Snohomish County County Exec. Willis Tucker Coun. Bruce Agnew Coun. Brian Corcoran Stanwood Coun. Robert Lunn The Tulalip Tribes Chair, Stanley Jones, Sr. Woodway Mayor Jeannette Wood P u g e l S o u n d C o u n c i I of G o v e r n m e n t s THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED UNDER THE POLICY GUIDANCE OF THE: STANDING COMMITTEE ON King County Executive Bruce Agnew Congressional Staff Mayor Lois Anderson City of Mountlake Terrace Gene Baxstrom Legislative Transportation Comm. Councilmember George Benson City of Seattle Ron Bockstruck Washington State Department of Transportation, Dist. 1 Councilmember Nan Campbell City of Bellevue Commissioner Pat Davis Port of Seattle Councilmember Morrie Dawkiris City of Bremerton Councilmember Margaret Doman City of Redmond Representative Ruth Fisher District 27 Councilmember Helen Frederick City of Fife Councilmember Mabel Harris City of Tukwila Councilmember Rita Matheny City of Marysville Members of the Standing Committee on the Subregional Councils, the public WSDOT. The committee chair appoints TRANSPORTATION Tim Hill, Chair Councilmember Darlene McHenry City of Issaquah Councilmember Ed Morrow City of Everett Senator Gary Nelson District 47 Representative Mike Patrick District 47 Councilmember Rose Marie Raudebaugh Town of Fircrest Councilmember Jim Ryan City of Gig Harbor Representative Karen Schmidt District 23 Councilmember Tom Stenger City of Tacoma Councilmember Jim Street City of Seattle Mayor Alice Tawresey City of Winslow James Toohey Washington State Department of Transportation Mayor Richard Toyer City of Lake Stevens Councilmember Hank Waibel City of Bremerton Councilmember Jeanette Williams City of Seattle Transportation are appointed by transportation agencies, and the additional ex- officio members. FACT SHEET REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AIRPORT SYSTEM AMENDMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BRIEF DESCRIPTION: SOURCE OF PROPOSAL: NAME AND ADDRESS OF LEAD AGENCY: RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: CONTACT PERSON: AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS: LICENSES REQUIRED: DATE OF ISSUE: DATE COMMENTS ARE DUE: DATE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS: This document is a nonproject environmental impact statement. It provides a description of potentially significant environmental impacts that may occur upon the implementation of regional airport alternatives within the Puget Sound region. Alternatives are compared and a course of action leading to the selection of a preferred alternative is identified. Puget Sound Council of Governments Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 464 -7090 Mr. Curtis Smelser, Executive Director Mr. Don Secrist, (206) 464 -6172 Puget Sound Council of Governments Reid, Middleton and Associates Bell- Walker Engineers George Frost Associates Robert Brown Triangle Associates No Licenses are required December 18, 1987 January 18, 1988 January 5, 1988: Bremerton, 7:00 p.m. Great Northwest Savings & Loan Bank Community Room January 7, 1988: Tacoma, 7:00 p.m. Tacoma City Council Chamber, City- County Building January 12, 1988: Tukwila, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chamber, Tukwila City Hall January 13, 1988: Everett, 7:00 p.m. Snohomish County Administration Building, Ginni Stevens Hearing Room DATE OF FINAL ACTION: FEIS to be issued on March 17, 1988. PSCOG Executive Board scheduled to approve Airport System Amendment on March 24, 1988. PSCOG General Assembly scheduled to adopt Airport System Amendment on September 29, 1988. LOCATION OF SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS: Puget Sound Council of Governments Information Center 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464 -7532 COST TO THE PUBLIC FOR COPY OF THIS EIS $10.00 DISTRIBUTION LIST U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard Urban Mass Transportation Administration Federal Highway Administration Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle - METRO Community Transit Everett Transit Pierce Transit Kitsap Transit SNO -TRAN Burlington Northern Railroad - Seattle Port of Everett Port of Tacoma Port of Seattle Snohomish County PUD Puget Sound Power and Light Seattle City Light Tacoma City Light Department of Ecology Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Department of Fisheries Department of Game WSDOT - Olympia, District 1, District 3 Washington State Ferries King County Pierce County Kitsap County Snohomish County Puyallup Tribe Muckleshoot Tribe Suquamish Tribe Tulalip Tribe City of Algona City of Arlington City of Auburn City of Beaux Arts Village City of Bellevue City of Bonney Lake City of Bothell City of Bremerton City of Brier City of Buckley City of Clyde Hill City of Des Moines City of DuPont Town of Duvall City of Edmonds City of Enumclaw City of Everett City of Fife City of Fircrest City of Gig Harbor City of Issaquah City of Kent City of Kirkland City of Lake Forest Park City of Lake Stevens City of Lynnwood City of Marysville City of Medina City of Mercer Island City of Mill Creek City of Milton City of Monroe City of Mountlake Terrace City of Mukilteo City of Normandy Park City of North Bend City of Pacific City of Port Orchard City of Poulsbo City of Puyallup City of Redmond City of Renton City of Seattle City of Snohomish City of Snoqualmie City of Stanwood City of Steilacoom City of Sumner City of Tacoma City of Tukwila City of Winslow City of Woodway Auburn Public Library Bellevue Public Library Everett Public Library Governmental Research Assistance Library King County Library Kitsap Regional Library METRO Library • Municipal Research & Services Center Library Renton Public Library Seattle Public Library Tacoma Public Library University of Washington Library Washington State Dept. of Transportation Library Washington State Library TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i I. TEXT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1 Regional Airport System Plan Recommendations 1 Air Carrier Recommendations 1 General Aviation Recommendations 4 Special Air Transportation Facilities Recommendations 5 II. BACKGROUND 9 Description of the Region 9 Regional Airport System Plan 9 History of the Regional Airport System Plan 11 The Plan Update Process 11 Changes Since the Plan was Adopted in 1982 13 Components of the Regional Airport System 14 III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM 17 Purpose and Scope 17 Public Information on Air Transportation Issues 17 Media Coverage 18 Public Forums 18 IV. REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 21 Scope of the Alternatives 21 No Action Alternative 21 Air Carrier Alternatives 22 General Aviation Alternatives 24 Special Air Facilities Alternatives 26 V. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 33 Human Environment 33 Natural Environment 49 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 51 Compatibility with Local Plans and Policies 51 Economic Development 52 Accessibility to Air Transportation 62 Noise Exposure 66 Airspace Congestion and Safety 69 Air Quality 72 Energy Consumption 72 Community Facilities, Parks, Public Services, Utilities 73 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES - NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 75 Surface Water 75 Floodplains and Flood Zones 77 Wetlands 77 Vegetation and Ground Water 78 Wildlife 79 Soils and Agriculture 80 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 81 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures 81 Conclusions 84 REFERENCES 85 APPENDICES A. Model Ordinance Program Regulating Helicopter Landing Areas A -1 B. Model Airport Overlay Zone Ordinance B -1 C. Glossary of Airport System Planning Terminology C -1 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Existing Airports 15 2. Population /Employment Growth Projections 34 3 Forecasts of Air Passengers in the Central Puget Sound Region 36 4. Annual Regional Air Carrier Operations Historical and Forecast Series 37 5 Comparison of General Aviation Based Aircraft Demand to Maximum, Ideal Existing Airport Capacity by Service Area 42 6 Direct and Indirect Job Impacts of the Air Carrier Airport Alternatives 54 7. Impact of Air Carrier Airport Alternatives on County Employment 55 8. Air Carrier System Alternative Capital Costs 58 9. General Aviation System Alternative Capital Costs by Term 59 10. Representative Comparison of Available Funds to Needs 61 11. Accessibility of Regional Airport Locations - 1985 Average Daily Travel Times 63 12. Accessibility of Regional Airport Locations - 1985 Congested Travel Times 64 13. Accessibility of Regional Airport Locations - 2000 Average Daily Travel Times 64 14. Accessibility of Regional Airport Locations - 2000 Congested Travel Times 65 15. Accessibility of Regional Airport Locations - 2020 Congested Travel Times 65 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Paae 1. Phased Decision - Making Approach for the Implementation of Air Carrier and General Aviation Recommendations ... 2 2. Phased Implementation of Special Air Facility Recommendations 6 3. Existing Public Use and Military Airports 10 4. Regional Airport System Plan Update Process 12 5. 1986 Forecast of Annual Air Carrier Operations 38 6. Comparison of Historical and Forecast Based Aircraft 41 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN • ,AIRPORT SYSTEM AMENDMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Puget Sound Council of Governments December, 1987 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND This document is a Nonproject Environmental Impact Statement, in accordance with SEPA rules WAC 197 -11 -402 and WAC 197 -11 -442. The purpose of this document is to provide a description of potentially significant environmental impacts that may occur upon the implementation of regional airport alternatives within the Puget Sound region. A project to update the currently adopted Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) was initiated in 1985 as a concurrent effort with updating the Regional Transportation Plan. As such, its planning horizon was extended from the year 2000 to 2020. The intent was to both broaden the scope of the Regional Airport System Plan and update the forecasts and inventory to..2 020. The first phase of the project addressed the special issues related to helicopter, seaplane, and sport aviation facilities, and to privately owned airports. The second phase consisted of updating the demand /capacity analysis for air carrier and general aviation airport facilities. Alternatives for providing airport facilities out to the year 2020 and for mitigating the impacts of airport operations were formulated and evaluated to arrive at a recommended plan. POLICY DIRECTION The update of the RASP was coordinated through the Air Transportation Advisory Committee and under the policy direction of the PSCOG Standing Committee on Transportation and Subregional Councils. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is to amend the Regional Transportation Plan to include the recommendations for the air system element. The specific recommendations proposed at the conclusion of the RASP update are listed in the following chapter. These recommendations, when adopted by the Assembly, will constitute formal policy which will guide the development and operation of a system of public use airports for the benefit of the Puget Sound region. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS In this document, the Regional Airport System Plan alternatives were subjected to environmental and economic evaluation. The intent of the evaluation was to provide the information needed to support the selection of a proposed alternative. The focus is on an identification of potentially significant environmental impacts and a description of environmental issues that need to be addressed in subsequent alternatives analysis and project design phases. The overall conclusions of the environmental impact evaluation, for the final set of alternatives, were as follows: • All of the alternatives will generate significant impacts to the natural and human environments. Areas of concern and potential impacts have been identified. Many of these can be mitigated in the project design. • Among the alternatives, the principal difference in impacts, both positive and negative, is whether they will be contained at existing airport locations or dispersed among existing and new airport locations. • Based on the analysis, no alternative stands out as being clearly superior to the others. Further definition of the impacts at the site specific level will assist in the selection of a preferred alternative for the regional airport system. • Extensive mitigating measures will be necessary for environmental protection and such measures will increase the cost of implementation. OUTLINE OF THE REST OF THIS DOCUMENT In the following chapter, the recommendations proposed as a part of the Regional Airport System Plan are given. These recommendations provide the impetus for this EIS document. Chapter II consists of background information and details the plan update process as well as a description of the components of the regional airport system. The public involvement program is described in Chapter III, a detailed description of the alternatives is given in Chapter IV, and a description of the affected environment is given in Chapter V. Environmental impacts of implementing the alternatives are considered in Chapters VI and VII. A summary and conclusions are presented in Chapter VIII. ii I. Text of the Proposed Action I. TEXT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with State Environmental Policy Act rules (WAC 197 -11 -442) which state that an environmental impact statement must be prepared on nonproject proposals, this document is a Nonproject•Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Its purpose is to discuss the impacts upon the environment that would occur if the Regional Airport System Plan recommendations were to be implemented. In March 1988, recommendations for the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) will be brought to the Executive Board of the PSCOG for approval. Once approved by the Executive Board these recommendations will be brought to the Assembly for adoption in September, 1988. The adoption action will be to amend the Regional Transportation Plan to include recommendations for the airport system element. These recommendations, when adopted by the Assembly, will constitute formal policy which will guide the development and operation of a system of public use airports for the benefit of the Puget Sound region. The RASP is one element of the Regional Transportation Plan, which addresses the region's transportation needs to the year 2020. The recommendations, categorized by air carrier, general aviation, and special facilities, are described in the following paragraphs. AIR CARRIER RECOMMENDATIONS Regional air transportation projections generated as part of the RASP update indicate that, although Sea -Tac has sufficient capacity under its current master plan to serve demand for the next 10 -15 years, it will be unable to accommodate the projected growth through the year 2020. The RASP evaluates four alternatives for serving air carrier demand beyond Sea -Tac's current capacity potential, but does not identify a preferred alternative. The proposed action is to adopt the following recommendations leading to the selection and implementation of a preferred alternative to serve the region's long range air carrier airport facility needs: 1. It is recommended that a decision - making process for the implementation of the following recommendations correspond to the timeframe that is given in Figure 1. 2. It is recommended that airport improvement programs'and local land use decisions affecting airport impact areas be guided by the facility and operational needs that pertain to the PSCOG regional projections of air passenger demand. 1 FIGURE 1 PHASED DECISION — MAKING APPROACH FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR CARRIER AND GENERAL AVIATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1988 - .1993 Incorporate relevant elements of Regional Airport System Plan into State and National Plans • Update Master Plans for IFR and air carrier roles • Upgrade general aviation airports to accommodate IFR traffic as needed • Continue programmed improvements at Sea -Tac • Investigate institutional authorities • Search for feasible air carrier airport sites • Update the Port of Seattle /King County 1983 Airspace Study with a regional perspective • Improve and revise building, zoning and land use codes in airport- impacted areas • Implement policies to support the continued availability of publicly -used airports Proceed with the process (refer to pages43 and 44) that relates to the feasibility, plan and possible construction of general aviation facilities in King County ... 1994 - 1995 • Evaluate system performance; adjust remaining schedule as necessary • Analyze air carrier capacity alternatives, using new Master Plans • Select preferred alternative, including institutional authority and financing arrangements • Major environmental review process • Continue programmed improvements at Sea -Tac • Evaluate success of policies that support general aviation airports • Continue with the process (refer to pages43 and 44 ) that relates to the feasibility, plan and possible construction of general aviation facilities in King County - Air Carrier Alternatives: ............ .................ij............ . 1 DEVELOP A NEW SATELLITE AIRPORT 1996 -2000 • site selection • planning, design, environmental review • land acquisition • utility installation 2000• • major construction 3 MAJOR EXPANSION OF SEA -TAC 1996 -2000 • planning, design, environmental review • land acquisition • utility expansion 2000• • major construction 4. - :General memA • viation 1 ommoAlternatives u 2 EXPAND EXISTING G.A. AIRPORTS TO ACCOMMODATE AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS 1996 -2000 • planning, design, environmental review • land acquisition if needed • utility expansion • major construction 4 DEVELOP NEW INTERNATIONAL AIR CARRIER AIRPORT 1996-2000 • site selection • planning, design, environmental review • land acquisition • utility installation 2000+ • major construction 9 1 MAINTAIN VIABILITY OF EXISTING AIRPORTS 1996 -2020 • support on master plan development aid in meeting noise compatibility requirements maintain effective tax relief measures preserve airport overlay zones preserve compatibility of land uses within airport- impact areas • public acquisition of private airports if required . . . . . . . . ' 2 EXPAND CAPACITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES 1996 -2000 • planning, design, environmental review land acquisition if needed utility expansion • major construction EXPAND CAPACITY OF THE GENERAL AVIATION SYSTEM - NEW AIRPORT 1996 -2000 • site selection • planning, design, environmental review • land acquisition utility installation 2000+ • major construction 3. It is recommended that Master Plan updates be undertaken at the Paine Field, Bremerton National, Renton Municipal and Tacoma Narrows airports to prepare for: a. their near term role as a base for increasing numbers of corporate, general aviation and training aircraft that regularly need airport instrument approach facilities; b. the near term opportunities for implementing instrument flight rules (IFR) training programs to help relieve Boeing Field practice approaches. 4. It is recommended that when updating their Master Plans, Paine Field, Bremerton National and Tacoma Narrows Airports take steps to influence their local jurisdictional land use and transportation plans so as to preserve their potential role as satellite air carrier airports. 5. It is recommended that land use plans and building and zoning codes adequately regulate residential and other incompatible development within the vicinity of public -use and military airports. 6. It is recommended that the Port of Seattle and King County undertake an update of their 1983 Airspace Study to determine the following: a. the physical and economic feasibility of upgrading and expanding Sea -Tac's runway system; b. the future use of Boeing Field, and its relationship with Sea -Tac; c. the need for another general aviation airport to relieve Boeing Field of the increasing demand to base corporate general aviation and training aircraft. 7. It is recommended that a planning study be conducted to: a. search for tracts of land suitable to build a new satellite air carrier airport and /or a new major international air carrier airport; and b. select the best tract(s) of land; and c. prepare for landbanking these sites. 8. It is recommended that a planning study be conducted to examine what potential institutional authority may be required to manage the Puget Sound air transportation system in the future. It is further recommended that the investigation address and answer the legal, financial and political questions of implementing potential institutional authority alternatives. 3 GENERAL AVIATION RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis of projected general aviation demand and the capacity of the region's existing airport facilities, it was concluded that expanded and /or new facilities will likely be needed within the planning period. The timing of that need will depend on the extent to which existing airports are preserved and the extent to which the general aviation industry recovers from the current (since 1980) slow growth period. The proposed action is to adopted the following recommendations supporting the preservation of existing airports and preparation for providing additional capacity for the region's general aviation needs: 1. It is recommended that the decision - making process for the implementation of the following recommendations correspond to the timeframe that is given in Figure 1. 2. It is recommended that a high priority be attached to preserving, maintaining and improving existing general aviation airports in the region. 3. It is recommended that land use plans and building and zoning codes adequately regulate residential and other incompatible development within the vicinity of general aviation airports. 4. It is recommended that local jurisdictions support the establishment of an airport overlay zone surrounding the boundaries of general aviation airports to avoid incompatible land use development (refer to the model overlay zone in Appendix B). 5. It is recommended that local jurisdictions recognize the resources provided by public use general aviation airports by supporting property tax exemptions _for those airports that are privately owned. 6. It is recommended that, if a private airport is faced with closing its facilities to public use due to financial considerations, local government(s) examine the potential for saving those facilities through public acquisition or other support of that airport. 7. It is recommended that the process relating to the feasibility, formation of an action plan and possible construction of additional general aviation facilities in King County proceed, given: • The significant economic benefits for communities derived from general aviation airports; • The projected unmet based aircraft demand in King County; and • The impact of increasing airspace restrictions near the large urban airports. 4 8. It is recommended that when updating their Airspace Study, the Port of Seattle and King County adopt a regional perspective to address the impacts on general aviation and other elements of the airport system. SPECIAL AIR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS Regional policy statements have been developed for the four specialized air transportation elements of the region's airport system: helicopters, seaplanes, privately owned airports and sport aviation. Regional Policy Statements provide broad guidance for the Puget Sound region in terms of the physical and operating requirements to serve these specialized modes of air transportation. Supplementing these policy statements are a set of implementation guidelines that are intended to provide local jurisdictions with options for addressing regional air transportation facility needs at the local level. Selecting any one or more of the proposed alternatives is expected to advance regional objectives for serving air transportation needs within the discretion of local government. A phased decision - making approach for implementation of the alternatives and guidelines is given in Figure 2. The proposed action is to adopt the following regional policy statements: Regional Policy Statement on Helicopter Facilities Helicopter operators are experiencing increased demand for services, and are finding inadequate landing facilities to serve this demand, particularly in central city locations. Demand for helicopter services in the Puget Sound region is expected to double over the next fifteen years. Local governments have the option of helping to define and shape how helicopter demand will be served in the future by taking a more active role in making decisions regarding helicopter facilities and operations. The PSCOG promotes a collective effort to provide helicopter landing facilities to the greatest practical extent in central city locations throughout the region. Regional Policy Statement on Helicopter Operations Helicopter traffic will increase as these services are more widely utilized for intercity travel in the region. The PSCOG supports the use of helicopter operations management techniques in order to serve this increased demand with minimal community impacts. 5 FIGURE 2 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AIR FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 1988 -93 Central cities (Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, Bremerton) adopt ordinance for helicopter landing facilities (Re: RASP Appendix A) Central cities /PSCOG identify suitable sites for downtown helistops PSCOG develop model helicopter operations impact mitigation plan Counties and appropriate cities adopt ordinance for airport overlay zone (Re: RASP Appendix B) • Jurisdictions with existing public use seaplane bases (Seattle, Renton, Kenmore /King Co., Pierce Co.) adopt seaplane base overlay zone, including community impact mitigation guidelines • Counties /PSCOG develop guidelines for location and operation of sport aviation facilities, incorporate in comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances as appropriate • Continue evaluation of special air facility needs; adjust implementation schedule as necessary 1994 -2000 • Evaluate air system performance; adjust implementation schedule as necessary • Select final sites for downtown helistops, preserve locations • Define air corridors for helicopter operations • Develop downtown helistops as dictated by market demand • Finalize helicopter operations impact mitigation plans; execute inter -local agreements as necessary • Reevaluate need for new seaplane facilities • Evaluate capacity potential of privately owned airports; adjust implementation schedule for new general aviation capacity • Continue to address sport aviation needs and impact mitigation in local land use and recreation plans /ordinances; rely on private sector development and operation 2000-2020 • Evaluate air system performance; adjust implementation schedule as necessary • Continue development of public use heliport /helistop system as dictated by market demand • Develop new public use seaplane facilities if necessary to replace or supplement existing facilities • Continue support for privately owned public use airports • Evaluate capacity potential of privately owned airports; adjust implementation schedule for new general aviation capacity • Continue to address sport aviation needs and impact mitigation in local land use and recreation plans /ordinances; rely on private sector for development and operation 6 Regional Policy Statement on Seaplane Base Facilities Seaplane service is a specialized industry unique to the Northwest and Alaska. The PSCOG supports protection of the seaplane industry and its required operating facilities. Regional Policy Statement on Seaplane Operations The PSCOG supports a collective effort to protect the seaplane industry as well as affected communities by undertaking cooperative efforts to reduce negative impacts of seaplane operations on communities. Regional Policy Statement on Sport Aviation Sport aviation is a growing recreational activity in the Puget Sound region and has special physical and operating requirements: - Insofar as sport aviation is like other public recreational activities, the PSCOG supports a collective effort in the region to provide adequate physical and operating facilities for sport aviation activity to the greatest practical extent. Regional Policy Statement on Privately Owned Airports Privately owned airports that are open to public use provide 30 to 40 percent of this region's basing capacity for general aviation. The PSCOG supports the protection of these facilities through zoning for land use compatibility and through economic incentives, and support for liability insurance reforms which support those facilities available to the public 7 Background �I. BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION The central Puget Sound region consists of four counties -- King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish, as shown in Figure 3. The region covers an area of approximately 6,300 square miles, and in 1985 contained a population of more than 2,400,000 people. Almost eighty percent of the population lives in the urbanized areas of the four counties. The region varies from the intensely urban and industrial areas to farmland, wilderness, lakes, and mountains. It has several deepwater ports as well as . transcontinental railroad, highway and airline connections. It serves as a major gateway to Alaska, Canada and the Far East. REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN The purpose of the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) is to address air transportation and airport facility needs. It sets forth general policies which guide the development and operation of a system of public use airports for the benefit of the four county area. The plan contained herein covers the period 1988 -2020. The airport facilities included in the plan range from the largest air carrier airport, which at present is Seattle- Tacoma International (Sea -Tac), to the smallest general aviation airports, and includes heliports, seaplane bases, and sport aviation facilities. The plan defines the role of each airport facility in providing air transportation services through the planning horizon, which is the year 2020. It is concerned primarily, though not exclusively, with public use airport facilities, whether they be publicly or privately owned. The existing public use and military airports in the region are shown in Figure 3. This plan is intended to provide policy guidance to local land use and capital improvement decisions related to airports. It promotes cooperation and wise use of resources in the development, management, and operation of the region's airport system. The RASP is one element of the PSCOG Regional-Transportation Plan, which addresses multi -modal transportation needs of the region over the next 33 years to the year 2020. The update of the RASP was coordinated through the Air Transportation Advisory Committee and under the policy direction of the PSCOG Standing Committee on Transportation and Subregional Councils. 9 ■ Air Carrier • General Aviation s Seaplane Base ® Heliport * Military Darrington Municipal Arlington Snohomish Co. (Paine Field) Harvey Airfield Flying F Ranch • Sky Harbor Kenmore Seaplane a se Skykomiah State SeaFirst Bldg. Helistop King Co. Intl. (Boeing Field) W. Rogers/ W. Post Seaplane Base Renton Municipal Bremerton National Port Orchard Veshon Island Seattle- Tacoma International Cedar \ Grove Airpark Auburn Municipal Tacoma Narrows Lester State • f►m eric an Lake Seaplane Base � McChord AFB Pierce Co. (Thun Field) Spanaway Gray AAF ti (Fort Lewis) • Swanson Ranger Creek State • • COI �... ,. PZCOG EXISTING PUBLIC USE AND MILITARY AIRPORTS Figure 3 10 HISTORY OF THE REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN The first airport system plan for the Puget Sound region was completed in 1969. It was funded by an Urban Planning Assistance Program grant from the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, and prepared by a consultant under contract to PSCOG (then the Puget Sound Governmental Conference). The Air Transportation System Advance Plan (ATSAP), as it was called, was a very ambitious plan reflecting the rapid growth of the Seattle area, the airline industry and general aviation throughout the 1960's (2). With a planning horizon year of 2000, the plan called for improvements to existing airports in the region, the construction of a second regional air carrier airport and general aviation airports, and the formation of a Regional Airport District. The ATSAP was completed and fully documented but it was not adopted as an airport system plan for the region.___ In 1974 the PSCOG received a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop a new regional airport system plan. This plan had a horizon year of 1990 and was based on scaled -back forecasts of air carrier and general aviation demand. It concluded that Sea -Tac, if developed to its potential, had sufficient capacity to serve the region's air carrier needs through the planning period. The draft plan recommended one new general aviation airport on the Eastside in King County. The 1975 draft plan was tabled when PSCOG discontinued its airport system planning program the following year. In 1979 the PSCOG received another grant from the FAA to update the 1975 draft plan and present it for adoption. The updated plan concluded that Sea -Tac had sufficient capacity to serve air carrier needs to the year 2000; and it recommended a new general utility airport be constructed by 1990 to serve general aviation in the King- Snohomish County area. The recommendation for a new airport was controversial. After a lengthy period of review and deliberation, however, the plan was adopted in February 1982 (3). THE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS A project to update the currently adopted plan was initiated in 1985 as a concurrent effort with updating the Regional Transportation Plan. As such, its planning horizon was extended to the year 2020. The intent was to both broaden the scope of the Regional Airport System Plan and update the forecasts and inventory to 2020. The first phase of the project addressed the special issues related to helicopter, seaplane, and sport aviation facilities, and to privately owned airports. The second phase consisted of updating the demand /capacity analysis for air carrier and general aviation facilities. Alternatives for providing airport facilities out to the year 2020 and for mitigating the impacts of airport operations were formulated and evaluated to arrive at a recommended plan. The two -year process of plan development is illustrated in Figure 4. 11 Study Design 1985 1986 1987 1988 Formation of ATAC Public Info Program Design Evaluation of Plans 1 Helicopter Service Needs Seaplane Facility Needs Privately Owned Airport Issues Sport Aviation LIIssues Local Govern- ment. Workshop 1 1 Air Carrier Forecast Airport System Alternatives Public Forums Evaluation of Alternatives Policy Review of Draft Plan (SRC /SCOT) Air Carrier Demand/ Capacity General Aviation Forecast 1 Draft Regional Airport System Plan General Aviation Demand/ Capacity Draft EIS Public Hearings Plan Adoption/ Amend RTP (PSCOG Assembly) REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE PROCESS FIGURE 4 CHANGES SINCE THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 1982 Although the airports in the region have not changed substantially for many years, the Regional Airport System Plan is updated at frequent intervals to reflect the changing behavior of air travelers and the changing nature of the air transportation industry itself. The draft recommended plan contained in this document reflects the following changes: • Population and economic growth forecasts for the region have been updated and extended to the year 2020. • Forecasts of air carrier and general aviation demand have been updated and extended to the year 2020. • The Bellevue, Issaquah and Duvall Airfields have closed. The Cedar Grove Airport is facing potential closure. • Some privately owned public use airports have changed their status to private restricted use airports. • Implementation of the process (established in the 1982 RASP) which may lead to development of a new general aviation_ airport has not proceeded. • Sea -Tac is expected to reach its capacity before the end of the planning period, that is, before 2020. • Policy recommendations related to helicopter, seaplane, and .sport aviation facilities have been added. • The reliance on capacity provided by privately owned airports has become more critical while their availability more uncertain. • Master plans have been updated for Sea -Tac, Boeing Field, Tacoma Narrows Airport, Bremerton National Airport and Thun Field; updates are in progress for Renton Municipal Airport, Harvey Airfield, and Arlington Municipal Airport. • The potential expansion of Paine Field has been inhibited by the decision of Snohomish County to allow residential and commercial development adjacent to the airport. Many of the study findings and recommendations contained in the draft 2020 plan reflect changes that have taken place within the larger context of the nation's air transportation industry. Some of the more important or visible changes. within the industry are as follows: • deregulation of the air carriers, which in turn has resulted in -- • a hub - and -spoke patterned air transportation network 13 • increased frequency of flights, leading to the use of smaller aircraft and hence, a significant increase in the volume of operations • fluctuating price and service levels ▪ stabilized growth in the nation's general aviation fleet size 9 emerging sport aviation industry ▪ emerging role of helicopters • establishment of noise and flight track mitigation programs COMPONENTS OF THE REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM Overview of Airport System The Regional Airport System Plan addresses the broad range of airport facilities that serve air transportation needs. Included are air carrier airports, general aviation airports, seaplane bases, heliports, and sport aviation facilities. Of primary interest are those airports which are open to public use, whether they are publicly or privately owned. The plan development process, however, must also include airports which are not open to public use but do consume airspace and land space, and which must operate compatibly with the public use facilities. These include military airfields and private restricted use airport facilities which are used only by permission from the owner. In the four county planning area there are about 150 known aircraft landing areas of all types. All landing areas are required to be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), so that their locations are known and their use of the airspace can be monitored in relation to all other aircraft operating areas. Of the 150 areas, 30 are public use facilities which serve most of the aircraft operations in the region. They include Sea -Tac, the region's air carrier airport, five medium -to -large scale general aviation airports which can serve both large and small aircraft, and 24 general aviation airports, seaplane bases, or heliports which serve light aircraft operations. There are also two active military airfields in the region. The public use and military airports are listed in Table 1, indicating the owner /operator and the responsible land use jurisdiction for each airport. The location of each is shown in Figure 3. The numerous other airport facilities in the region are not open for public use. Based on a 1986 inventory documented in Reference 35, there are about 37 land -based private use airfields consisting of residential airparks and landing strips on farms or other private property. There are about 26 heliport/helistop facilities which are separate from helicopter landing areas at existing airports. These facilities serve private business and 14 Airport TABLE 1 EXISTING AIRPORTS public Use Owner /Operator Auburn Municipal Bandera State Cedar Grove Crest Airpark Kenmore Air Harbor King Co. International (Boeing Field) Kurtzer Flying Service Lake Union Air Service Lester State Renton Municipal Seattle- Tacoma International Skykomish State Vashon Island Will Rogers/Wiley Post Sea -First Bldg. Helistop Bremerton National Port Orchard American Lake Pierce Co. (Thun Field) Ranger Creek State Spanaway Swanson Tacoma Narrows Arlington Municipal Darrington Municipal Flying F Ranch Harvey Airfield Martha Lake Sky Harbor Snohomish County (Paine Field) McChord Air Force Base Gray Army Airfield City of Auburn WSDOT Private Private Private King County Private Private WSDOT City of Renton Port of Seattle WSDOT King County City of Renton Private Port of Bremerton Private Private Pierce County WSDOT Private City of Eatonville City of Tacoma ' City of Arlington City of Darrington Private Private Private Private Snohomish County Military_ USDOD USDOD 15 Land Use Jurisdiction City of Auburn King County King County King County King County King County City of Seattle City of Seattle King County City of Renton King County King County King County City of Renton City of Seattle Kitsap County Kitsap County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County City of Arlington City of Darrington Snohomish County City of Snohomish/ Snohomish County Snohomish County Snohomish County Snohomish County Pierce County Pierce County industry, hospitals, recreation areas, the news media, and other specialized uses. A third category of private use facilities is seaplane bases. The facilities consist of docks, ramps, and storage areas at waterfront locations. According to the 1986 inventory (35) there are only two private use seaplane bases in the region, the other active bases being public use. Other seaplanes not operating from established bases operate from private waterfront homes much the same as pleasure boats. 16 III. Public Involvement Program III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM PURPOSE AND SCOPE During the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) update process, a program of public involvement provided the affected public with opportunities to understand and comment on the Regional Airport System Plan alternatives. The program included a public information slide show, periodic project newsletters, a local government workshop on land use issues, media coverage, and a series of public forums. PUBLIC INFORMATION ON AIR TRANSPORTATION ISSUES A detailed slide program on air transportation was developed and shown to the subregional councils of the PSCOG and to the participants in the Local Government Workshop. The program included information on the current RASP, how we use air - transportation, what makes up the regional airport system, airport operation needs . and community needs. The slide show also presented the issues that the plan would address. 'These included helicopter service needs, seaplane facility needs, sport aviation, privately owned airports and forecasts and inventory. The public involvement program also included regularly published newsletters on a wide variety of air transportation issues. The dates and topics of the newsletters are as follows: Regional Airport System Planning Project Newsletters "Airport Update" Vol. 1 No. 1 March 1986 Vol. 1 No. 2 April 1986 Vol. 1 No. 3 May 1986 Vol. 1 No. 4 August 1986 Vol. 1 No. 5 Airport System Studies in Progress Seaplane Facility Needs in the Puget Sound Region The Role' of Privately Owned Airports in Our Air Transportation System Air Carrier Demand Forecasts for the Central Puget Sound Region December 1986 General Aviation Outlook During the first phase of the plan update, a Local Government Workshop on Air Transportation was sponsored by the Puget Sound Council of Governments on June 11, 1986 at the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. It included a project overview of the PSCOG's Regional Airport System Plan, a panel discussion identifying problems and issues in air transportation, and a discussion of possible 17 solutions to air transportation problems and how local governments can help. In addition, an information exchange provided participants with an open forum for questions and answers. MEDIA COVERAGE There was frequent media coverage throughout the plan development process in newspapers and on radio and television. Articles and press releases appeared in the Seattle Times, Seattle P -I, Lynnwood Enterprise, Everett Herald, Tacoma News Tribune, Woodinville Weekly, and others. Interviews with the media were conducted on KIRO and KOMO television stations and KING 1090, KIRO 710 and KASY radio stations. selected out in a rural area so that no one would be disturbed, and that development not be allowed to occur around the airport in the future. • The PSCOG general aviation and air carrier forecasts were challenged as to their assumptions and accuracy. • Concern was expressed regarding the future of small sport aviation facilities; the point was made that state and local governments help in providing for golf courses, motorcross race tracks, horse racing, and other sporting facilities, but that governments do not assist with sport aviation facilities and they should help protect /develop these facilities. • An inquiry was made as to the relationship between the airport system plan and local comprehensive plans. Pierce /Kitsap County Area Gig Harbor City Hall Tuesday, February 24, 1987 • Questions about preventing encroachment were asked; airports encroaching on communities, and vice versa. Support was expressed for airpor oning overlay. • McChord AFB in combination with Fort Lewis, is one of the major training and staging facilities on the West Coast; it is unlikely that joint use would ever be granted; future buildup of installations such as Everett Navy Task Force makes it even more unlikely. • There was some support for pursuing the availability of McChord Air Force base as a joint use facility. • There was concern that airports don't follow their noise abatement plans and procedures. • The question was asked: how,much can air carrier capacity be extended using demand management techniques? • Support was expressed for protecting privately owned airports to relieve light general aviation traffic from larger general aviation airports. • Concern was expressed for ground accessibility to major airports; will this be considered in evaluation? • Both support and opposition were expressed for giving tax breaks to privately owned general aviation airports open to public use 19 Bellevue /East King County Area Bellevue Public Library Thursday, February 26, 1987 • It was pointed out that bridge accessibility was problem in terms of ground transportation access to air transportation facilities. • A statement was made that airports are important to business growth and development. • The point was made that the PSCOG's general aviation forecasts are too high; general aviation is "dead." ■ Many companies have stopped producing light aircraft because of sales trends and liability problems - the question was posed as to when these factors will be reflected in the general aviation forecasts. ■ Another point was made that products are being developed in foreign markets that are expected to be successful here, and that trends could turn around. • One viewpoint expressed an interest in seeing the skills of pilots upgraded. ■ There was one suggestion made to impose a surcharge on tickets sold through Sea -Tac in order to finance new or improved general aviation facilities. • The point was made that no new airports should be allowed in rural east King County due to the intrusion on rural lifestyles and natural habitats; it was further stated that residents and businesses around existing airports knew an airport was there when they located their homes and businesses, and they should have to bear the inconvenience of expanding these facilities. • There were several comments made in support of airport overlay zones to protect existing facilities. 20 IV. Regional Airport System Alternatives IV. REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES SCOPE OF THE ALTERNATIVES The regional airport system alternatives are in three groupings. Air carrier alternatives address facility and operational needs of commercial airlines serving this region as part of a national and international air transportation network. At the present time nearly all of the region's air carrier operations occur at Sea -Tac. In the future, such operations will probably occur at other airports as well. General aviation alternatives address facility and operational needs for all types of aviation activity except air carrier and military operations. All of the airports in the region except the military airports are part of the general aviation system. General aviation entails non - scheduled and air taxi services, corporate and business travel, personal travel and recreation, and flight training. The third grouping is special air facilities alternatives which address the needs of helicopter and seaplane operations, sport aviation, and the role of privately owned airports. These alternatives play a minor but important role in this region's air transportation system, and they present some unique land use issues and operational requirements. The no- action alternative and the alternatives in each of the three groupings are described in the following paragraphs. NO- ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No- Action Alternative, the region's 29 public use airports would continue in their current service role. Scheduled air carrier operations would be served primarily at Sea -Tac. Commuter airlines and air taxi operators would serve other airports as justified by market demand, and only to the extent consistent with existing local policy on the airport's service role. General aviation airports would collectively serve non - scheduled and charter air operations, corporate and business travel, personal travel and recreation, and flight training in roughly the same market shares as exist today. Specialized facilities for helicopters, seaplanes, and sport aviation would continue to be provided by the private sector in response to market demand, with minimal support from local government. Privately owned airports would maintain approximately their current role. of serving 30 -40 percent of the region's based aircraft fleet, although this could diminish as airport closures continue to occur from urban development pressures. 21 There would be no major expansions of publicly owned airports. Incremental improvements would be made in accordance with currently adopted master plans, within the constraints of existing funding resources and community impact mitigation policies. Airport and airways congestion would increase gradually over time, as growth in air transportation demand out paces the airport facilities available to serve it. AIR CARRIER ALTERNATIVES Four generalized alternatives were developed to address long term carrier needs for the Puget Sound region. All of the alternatives have a common near -term (1988 -2000) element needed to reduce delays and congestion experienced by aircraft during poor weather conditions, particularly when they coincide with peak travel times. The long term elements have been formulated in anticipation of both airside (runway and air traffic control systems) and landside (terminals and ground access facilities) capacity shortfalls after the year 2000. The long term elements differ substantially in their use of existing versus new facilities. Near -term Element Common to All Air Carrier Alternatives Sea -Tac and Boeing Field are in such close proximity that during many instrument flight rule (IFR) or poor weather conditions, Sea -Tac and Boeing Field airspace capacities are effectively reduced to that of one airport. Thus, an aircraft approach to Boeing Field prevents the simultaneous approach of an aircraft destined for Sea -Tac and vice versa. This situation results in a substantial reduction in the utilization of Sea -Tac's capacity with corresponding costly delays to air carrier flights. The objective of the near term element is to improve and maintain the overall instrument capability in the region. This would allow general aviation and business jet flights the opportunity to use regional airports other than Boeing Field's and Sea -Tac's during instrument flying conditions, if they so choose. With the existence and use of additional facilities at other airports, the joint airspace of Boeing Field and Sea -Tac could then be utilized more effectively to serve air carrier demand. To accomplish this, the following airports would be equipped with weather reporting capability, instrument landing systems (or the upgrading thereof) and limited terminal facilities for general aviation purposes: • Bremerton National • Paine Field • Renton Municipal • Tacoma Narrows These airports have existing runway and taxiway capability and would only require minor improvement of other facilities. The 22 near -term element common to all of the air carrier alternatives also includes continued incremental improvements at Sea -Tac in accordance with the currently adopted master plan. Long -term Element of Air Carrier Alternatives The distinguishing feature of the air carrier alternatives is their long term element. Airspace congestion has increased dramatically in the last few years with the advent of airline deregulation. Peak demand scheduling and frequency of flights give an airline the competitive edge over others within a given market. The effects of deregulation have been felt by all major airports across the country and Sea -Tac is no exception. In the 1983 Airspace Study conducted by the Port of Seattle and King County, it was projected that annual operations at Sea -Tac would reach 208,000 by the year 2000 (27). Similar forecasts were prepared by the PSCOG in the 1982 RASP and by the Washington State DOT in the 1980 State Airport System Plan. In fact, this level of annual operations was surpassed just two years after completion of the Airspace Study, when in 1985 annual commercial operations at Sea -Tac reached 215,858 -- 15 years ahead of schedule. This tremendous increase in operations, and the resulting congestion that it brings, is being felt by all major airports throughout the country. When congestion and resulting delays at these airports reach intolerable levels and when demand management techniques have been exhausted, there are three very general long term options for increasing capacity. Construction of a new airport is an obvious and direct way to increase capacity. Another alternative is to expand the existing airport by building new runways and other facilities. A final option is to make use of other, usually smaller, airports within the region as satellite facilities to handle the main airport's overload. Given these broad options, the following long term alternatives have been formulated: Alternative 1: Develop New Satellite Airport(s) Initiate the process for the eventual construction of one or two new air carrier satellite airports to be operated in conjunction with Sea -Tac. Alternative 2: Expand Existing General Aviation Airports to Accommodate Air Carrier Operations Upgrade the role of one or more of the airports in the system to allow for the future development of air carrier facilities. These facilities would serve as satellite airports and operate in conjunction with Sea -Tac. • Paine Field • Tacoma Narrows • Bremerton National 23 • Renton Municipal Alternative 3: Major Expansion of Sea -Tac Expand the runway system at Sea -Tac by constructing (at the least) a new runway. Expand terminal and other facilities as necessary to continue to serve most of the air carrier operations at Sea -Tac. Alternative 4: Develop New International Air Carrier Airport Initiate the process for the eventual construction of a new international air carrier airport and operate it in place of Sea -Tac as the region's primary air carrier airport. Provide sufficient capacity to serve all or most of the projected demand for air carrier service. Feasibility of McChord AFB as a Regional Satellite Airport McChord Air Force Base has been proposed as an air carrier alternative that would operate jointly as a regional satellite air carrier facility and as a military air base. Although precedence has been set for joint use of military airports around the country (Portland's airport is used for civil purposes as well as by the Air National Guard), all of these airports serve as support facilities to military personnel. McChord AFB has a dual mission: it is a support facility for the North Pacific fleet and it is home to the F -15 fighter intercept squadron. This latter function is the critical factor in determining whether or not McChord could or would accommodate joint use of its runways. To investigate this possibility, project staff held conversations with several of the military personnel. The most salient finding with respect to the Regional Airport System Plan is that the U.S. Air Force will not authorize joint use of military installations if the facilities or services are available in the private sector. McChord was therefore dropped from consideration as a satellite airport candidate at this time. GENERAL AVIATION ALTERNATIVES As reflected in the 1982 Regional Airport System Plan, the focus of concern within the aviation community in the late 1970's and early 1980'.s was on the need to accommodate the increasing levels of general aviation traffic. During that same time period, the capacity of Sea -Tac appeared adequate to handle the projected demand for air carrier travel. In the ensuing years, however, with deregulation and continued low oil prices, the air carrier issues have become more prominent and the needs of the industry have become critical as well. As seen in the previous section, many of the solutions for meeting future air carrier requirements are comprised of elements of the general aviation system. If or when air carrier activity 24 begins at Bremerton National, Paine Field,. Renton or Tacoma Narrows, the ability of these airports to simultaneously handle growing levels of general aviation activity will deteriorate. However, more immediate problems exist with the current general aviation system. To resolve these immediate concerns and also to plan for potential air carrier facility requirements, the following alternatives have been developed: Alternative 1: Maintain Viability of Existing Airports Implement policies to maintain the viability of publicly -used airports through public assistance in the form of: • support on airport master planning consistent with local comprehensive plans • aid in meeting noise compatibility requirements • implementation of effective tax relief measures • establishment of airport overlay zones • implementation of building, zoning and land use codes to preserve the compatibility of land uses within airport impact areas • public acquisition of private airports faced with closure due to financial considerations. Alternative 2: Expand Capacity of Existing Facilities Expansion of existing airport facilities would allow maximum utilization of existing airports. One possible solution to achieve this objective would be to construct multi -level aircraft sto •rage facilities. This option is best suited for airports that have a low aircraft utilization rate so that the additional basing capacity would not generate pressure on operations capacity. Another option for getting the most out of existing airports would be to consider a major expansion of an existing public use airport either by a local government or a private • developer, acquiring adjacent land if necessary. Alternative 3: Expand Capacity of the General Aviation System - New Airport Development of a new airport is the alternative proposed by the previous Regional Airport System Plan.. As adopted in 1982 and revised for this update, the plan recommends a process consisting of the following steps: • Carry out the assessment of airspace demand and airspace management - necessary to determine the need for a new general utility class airport in the Puget Sound region, focusing immediate attention on King County. As necessary, based on the above, assess the land use, environmental and economic feasibility of locating a new airport in the Puget Sound region, focusing immediate attention on King County. 25 • Subject to a finding of feasibility, a public agency and /or private party should develop an action plan for acquisition of a site and development of the airport. • In the event that a new general utility airport is built, local officials should ensure that its use and size are not expanded beyond the FAA general utility design category. SPECIAL AIR FACILITIES ALTERNATIVES The 1987 Regional Airport System Plan, in addition to addressing the needs of the traditional general aviation and air carrier airports, examines the special needs for helicopter, seaplane, and sport aviation facilities, and the special issues related to privately owned airports. These facilities are in fact part of the general aviation system but are grouped separately in this report to more clearly address their unique aspects. The following groups of- alternatives consist of a general regional policy statement followed by supporting implementation guidelines. Helicopter Facilities There is growing demand for helicopter services in the Puget Sound region and inadequate facilities to serve this demand. The advance siting of new helipads can preclude helipad development from occurring at unsuitable locations in the future. Adequate landing facilities are necessary to maintain the availability of this form of transportation. The greatest demand for helicopter facilities is in central city locations throughout the Puget Sound region. Generally, demand for helicopter service includes origin and destination requests to and from central cities. Currently there is one public use (privately owned) helipad available in downtown Seattle. In conjunction with the need for helicopter landing facilities is the need for improved helicopter operations management. This is particularly critical for helicopter services because of the need to access city center locations, and thus the potential exists for community disruptions. One innovative program that has been successful in other parts of the country is a "Fly Neighborly" program; this is a cooperative program based on the pilot's use of flight techniques that minimize intrusion on communities. Another option would be mandated helicopter corridors, using enforcement and punitive mechanisms. Site selection for helicopter landing facilities plays a key role in creating opportunities for satisfactory management of helicopter operations. Regional Policy Statement on Helicopter Facilities. Helicopter operators are experiencing increased demand for services, and are finding inadequate landing facilities to serve this demand, particularly 26 in central city locations. Demand for helicopter services in the Puget Sound region is expected to double over the next fifteen years. Local governments have the option of helping to define and shape how helicopter demand will be served in the future by taking a more active role in making decisions regarding helicopter facilities and operations. The Puget Sound Council of Governments promotes a collective effort to provide helicopter landing facilities to the greatest practical extent in central city locations throughout the region. Implementation Guidelines - Helicopter Facilities : • Designate location and provide public funding for a public use helistop in central city locations. • Designate suitable location for a helistop; encourage the private sector to take over development and operation of the facility. Regional Policy Statement on Helicopter Operations. Helicopter traffic will increase as these services are more widely utilized for intercity travel in the region. The Puget Sound Council of Governments supports the use of helicopter operations management techniques in order to serve this increased demand with minimal community impacts. Implementation Guidelines - Helicopter Operations : • Develop a program based on the "Fly Neighborly" concept to minimize the impacts on communities from helicopter operations. A cooperative program would be established between helicopter operators, local governments, aviation officials, and the public. • Through local action in cooperation with federal aviation officials, mandate the use of specific air corridors by helicopter operators. Seaplane Base Facilities Seaplane operations provide transportation and tour services throughout the Northwest. In the Puget Sound region, seaplane bases are located on Lake Union, Lake. Washington, and American Lake. The seaplane industry is not experiencing significant growth, but existing facilities are feeling pressures from urban development. Potential solutions to some of the pressures being felt by seaplane operations could include a base consolidation effort by federal, state, and local officials in cooperation with seaplane operators. The consolidation of operations in the King County area in particular would certainly restrict origin and destination choices on the part of seaplane clients, and would impact the base area community while relieving impacts on those 27 communities where seaplane operations are terminated. The most attractive feature of a consolidated seaplane base may be the relative ease of protecting the facility from future encroachment. Seaplane service is a unique industry with a stable market. Protecting existing facilities in the region and fostering a peaceful coexistence between seaplane operations and affected communities are the priorities in addressing this mode of air transportation within the context of the. Regional Airport System Plan. Regional Policy Statement on Seaplane Base Facilities. Seaplane service is a specialized industry unique to the Northwest and Alaska. The Puget Sound Council of Governments supports protection of the seaplane industry and its required operating facilities. Implementation Guidelines - Seaplane Facilities : • Implement a trial seaplane base overlay zone to protect existing facilities. U Promote local and state actions to protect existing seaplane bases through ordinance and legislative action where possible. Regional Policy Statement on Seaplane Operations. The Puget Sound Council of Governments supports a collective effort to protect the industry as well as affected communities by undertaking cooperative efforts to reduce negative impacts of seaplane operations on communities. Implementation Guidelines - Seaplane Operations : ▪ Develop a cooperative public information program sponsored by seaplane operators to explain what seaplanes do and who regulates them; create a dispute board composed of base operators, citizen representatives, local elected officials, and federal or state aviation officials to resolve disputed issues as needed. Sport Aviation Facilities Sport aviation activity includes ballooning, gliding, parachuting, and ultralight piloting. These are very specialized recreational forms of aviation. Such activities are important within the context of the Regional Airport System Plan because they utilize airspace and require unique physical facilities. It is common for local jurisdictions to have some level of sponsorship in community recreational facilities such as golf courses, race tracks, trails and parks. But sport aviation fields have typically not been included in these municipally- sponsored facilities. Sport aviation activity, 28 however, has been increasing, and the sport requires special physical facilities. Sport aviation activity currently takes place at some general aviation airports where the physical layout of the facility permits compatible use by light aircraft and sport aviation aircraft. In terms of physical space for sport aviation, the development of a specialized sport aviation activity center would be ideal. This type of facility could include a spectator area and designated areas for the different types of sport aviation activity; a suggested design layout for such a facility is included in the RASP report for information and guidance purposes. Aviation in general as a recreational activity is popular in the Northwest; the sport aviation modes of ultralights, ballooning, gliders, and parachutes is a growing segment of this recreational activity in the Puget Sound region. Sport aviation can be an attractive spectator as well as participatory sport, and the economic and recreational potential of developing a sport aviation facility merits some consideration by local jurisdictions. Regional Policy Statement on Sport Aviation. Sport aviation is a growing recreational activity in the Puget Sound region and has special physical and operating requirements. Insofar as sport aviation is like other public recreational activities, the PSCOG supports a collective effort in the region to provide adequate physical and operating facilities for.. sport aviation activity to the greatest practical extent. Implementation Guidelines - Sport Aviation Facilities: • Designate suitable areas that can accommodate sport aviation activity with acceptable community impacts. • Designate suitable existing airports which can accommodate sport aviation activities without adversely impacting general aviation operations and the community. Privately Owned Airports In recent years privately owned general aviation airports open to the public have faced increasing pressure from surrounding land uses due to increased development and heightened concerns over noise and safety. Even though the airport was probably "there first" the surrounding residents often view the airport as a nuisance or threat to the livability of their community. In contrast, the owners of general aviation airports often feel constraints from local governments as to how they may use their airport property in order to provide the best general airport services and facilities. 29 Problems have intensified in recent years because land uses sensitive to aviation noise have moved nearer to these airports and air traffic volumes have tended to increase. In some communities, delays or cancellations of plans to expand existing airports or build new airports have occurred. Although aviation noise is due to airplane operations, inappropriate development approved near airports contributes to the impact by increasing population density in the vicinity of these facilities. Most local jurisdictions have comprehensive plan policies and zoning regulations which support and encourage compatibility between airports and their surroundings. However, there are a number of privately owned airports open to the public which are experiencing difficulties because of incompatible land uses. What is often lacking in these cases is specific zoning ordinances which address these conflicts and allow for a more compatible existence. Not only does this desire for compatible existence apply to surrounding land uses but also the uses on the airport property. Whether it is the development of additional hangar space or public services facilities such as a restaurant, the general aviation airport owner often is frustrated by the lack of surety as to what he can or cannot do with his property. It should also be noted that these issues apply to general aviation airports that service seaplanes, helicopters, and recreational uses (i.e., skydiving, balloons, ultralights and gliders). Because seaplanes and helicopters tend to be located in denser urban areas the land use issues are different. However, recreation airport uses are similar to privately owned general aviation airports because of their location in rural or semi -rural areas. Privately owned airports provide aircraft basing capacity and air transport operations at little or no public cost. They are a valuable resource that may be lost if steps are not taken to protect their role in providing air transportation services. Regional Policy Statement on Privately Owned Airports. Privately owned airports that are open to public use provide 30 to 40 percent of this region's basing capacity for general aviation. The Puget Sound Council of Governments supports the protection of these facilities through zoning for land use compatibility and through economic incentives, and support for liability insurance reforms which support those facilities available to the public. Implementation Guidelines - Support for Privately Owned Airports: • Implement an Airport Overlay Zone to facilitate compatible development for both airports and communities by predetermining the area around airports to be protected (see Appendix B). 30 • Protect solvency of existing privately owned airports open to public use: restrict new airports. • Protect solvency of existing airports: no position on new airport development. • Seek property tax relief for privately owned airports serving the public. • Seek to update state /national insurance requirements to assist in economic solvency of general aviation facilities that are threatened by increased insurance costs. • Acquire privately owned public use (or former public use) airports that are threatened with closure. 31 V. Affected Environment V. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT HUMAN ENVIRONMENT The human environment conditions potentially affected by the implementation of the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) recommendations consist of local land use plans and policies, population and economic growth, transportation, facilities, ambient noise, use of the airspace, air quality, energy consumption, and requirements for public services and facilities. These conditions are described in the following paragraphs. Local Land -use Plans and Policies Land use plans and policies on the local level are extremely important to the implementation of any regional airport system alternatives. Zoning designations by local jurisdictions can have a strong influence on the improvement of existing airport facilities and the development of any new facilities. The problems of airport related noise and development often provide the impetus for concerned citizens to influence the local plans guiding airport development and operations. Existing residential land owners in the vicinity of an airport are often opposed to an increase in operations bringing with it an increase in noise and possibly an increase in associated airport activity. Similarly, residents of predominantly rural areas are likely to,oppose the construction of a new airport bringing with it an increase in noise and development to which they are not accustomed. The attitudes of those people living, working and playing near proposed airport changes are likely to strongly influence the local land use planning process. Population and Economic Growth From 1960 to.1985 the Puget Sound region has grown at an annual average rate of 2.4 percent. This is compared to a 1.3 percent annual average growth rate for the United States as a whole. Economically, the region has grown similarly during the same 1960 to 1985 time period. The total number of jobs has grown at an average annual rate of 3.9 percent, while personal income per capita has grown at an average annual rate of 3.1 percent in real terms. According to Puget Sound Council of Governments' forecasts used as a basis for the RASP, the region will continue to grow in the long run. These rates of growth will be slower than in the past, a trend similar to that occurring nationwide. During the 1990's, total jobs are projected to increase at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent, while real personal income per capita is projected to grow annually by 1.7 percent on average. The overall population of the region will experience moderate growth with the annual rate projected to be 1.8 percent on average during the 1990 to 2000 time period. Similar rates of growth are projected for the 2000 -2020 time period, leading to the population and employment totals shown in Table 2. 33 TABLE 2 POPULATION /EMPLOYMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS Population (thousands) Increase % Increase County 1980 2000 from 1980 2020 from 2000 King 1269.8 1650.4 30.0% 2207.4 33.8% Snoh. 337.7 535.2 58.5% 791.4 47.9% Pierce 485.6 635.6 30.9% 862.8 35.8% Study Area Total 2093.1 2821.2 34.8% 3861.6 36.9% Employment (thousands) King 747.5 1010.0 35.1% 1419.5 40.5% Snoh. 119.2 180.7 51.6% 281.5 55.8% Pierce 191.0 267.3 40.0% 326.1 22.0% Study Area Total 1057.7 1458.0 37.9% 2027.1 39.0% 34 Transportation General. The Puget Sound region's physical transportation system consists of almost 18,000 miles of roadways, about 30 public use airports, an auto vehicle and passenger ferry system, public and private bus transit systems, and inter -city passenger and freight rail facilities. The region is both the victim and the beneficiary of geographic location and topography. The unique combination of glacially formed topography, Puget Sound, and many large inland lakes provides unusual scenic beauty, numerous economic attributes, and strong determinants for an urban transportation system. Generally, urban development has taken the form of a series of linear corridors oriented north and south. Topography is a moderate to severe obstacle in most east -west corridors and overall, has added significantly to the cost of providing the transportation facilities needed to serve the area. The region has a well - developed public transportation system provided by five local public transit properties and the Washington State Ferry System. These are supplemented by publicly supported vanpool and carpool programs and by services of a wide variety of private transportation providers. It is ,a long term policy of the region to proceed toward implementation of a regional urban rail system to serve the major travel corridors and activity centers. The region's airport system serves one of 'the primary modes of passenger travel to and from the region. It also has a significant role in the movement of goods to and from the region. Regional Air Transportation Growth - Air Carrier. As seen in Table 3, total annual air carrier passengers are projected to increase from 11.5 million passengers in 1985 to 18.7 million passengers by the year 2000 under the low scenario. Under the high scenario, passenger demand is predicted to reach 25.2 million by the year 2000. By the year 2020, passenger growth is projected to increase to 27.6 million passengers annually under the low- growth scenario and 44.5 million passengers under the high - growth scenario. These figures represent annual compound growth rates of between 3.2 percent and 5.1 percent during the 1986 to 2000 time period as compared to an annual compound growth rate of 5.9 percent actually experienced at Sea -Tac from 1981 to 1985. The annual compound growth rate is projected to level off during the 2000 to 2020 time period, ranging from 2.0 percent to 2.9 percent for the low and high growth scenarios respectively. Forecasts for annual air carrier operations are given in Table 4 and graphically displayed in Figure 5. In 1985, annual regional air carrier operations totalled 219,000. Operations,are forecasted to increase to 287,000 by the year 2000 under the low growth scenario and 443,500 by the year 2000 under the high growth scenario. These figures represent an annual compound 35 rn Regional Popula- Year tion 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 2,321.3 2,330.8 2,345.3 2,370.4 2,412.1 High Forecast TABLE 3 FORECASTS OF AIR PASSENGERS IN THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGION Regional /Income Capita ($1982) 12,852.0 12,733.0 12,696.0 12,910.0 12,993.0 1986 2,434.3 13,214.0 1990 2,522.9 14,136.0 1995 2,750.0 15,379.0 2000 3,051.1 16,731.0 2010 3,613.3 19,4.17.0 2020 4,175.6 19,417.0 Lad Forecast 1986 2,434.3 13,188.0 1990 2,522.9 13,997.0 1995 2,750.0 15,079.0 2000 3,051.1 16,244.0 2010 3,613.3 18,852.0 2020 4,175.6 18,852.0 Air Passenger Annual Yield Origina- /$1982) tions . 1299 .1177 .1119 .1087 .1098 . 1049 .0992 . 0972 .0965 .0965 .0965 .1082 .1077 . 1077 . 1077 .1077 . 1077 3,451.9 3,487.1 3,790.3 3,893.0 4,237.4 4,650.0 5,674.0 7,169.0 9,086.0 13,442.0 15,527.0 4,449.0 4,920.0 5,775.0 6,896.0 8,798.0 10,168.0 *A11 figures are in thousands except income per capita and yield. Total Connec- tions 1,114.1 1,156.2 1,283.7 1,353.6 1,504.3 1,660.0 2,066.0 2,691.0 3,517.0 5,490.0 6,717.0 1,572.9 1,823.3 2,219.1 2,448.0 3,192.0 3,609.0 Total Enplane -ments 4,566.0 4,643.3 5,074.0 5,246.6 5,741.7 6,310.0 7,740.0 9,860.0 12,603.0 18,932.0 22,244.0 6,028.0 6,666.0 7,825.0 9,344.0 11,990.0 13,777.0 Total Passenaers 9,132.0 9,286.6 10,148.1 10,493.3 11,483.5 12,620.0 15,480.0 19,720.0 25,205.0 37,864.0 44,488.0 12,056.0 13,332.0 15,650.0 18,687.0 23,980.0 27,554.0 - - - • TABLE 4 ANNUAL REGIONAL AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS HISTORICAL AND FORECAST SERIES Enplane Total Average Avg. Avg. -ments Total Total Enplane Seats/ Thru Avail Load /Depar Pass. Pass. All Total Year -ments Aircraft Seats Seats Factor -ture Dep OPS Cargo OPS 1979 4,920.4 163.0 15.3 147.7 0.54 79.4 61,946 123,892 4712 128,604 1980 •4,607.9 161.0 16.3 144.7 0.48 69.5 66,278 132,556 4822 137,378 1981 4,567.1 158.0 17.1 140.9 0.48 67.2 67,987 135,974 5236 141,210 1982 4,644.2 156.0 17.9 138.1 0.46 63.7 72,883 145,766 6806 152,572 1983 5,075.6 139.0 17.2 121.8 0.46 56.3 90,090 180,180 8252 188,432 1984 5,248.3 137.0 18.4 119.0 0.47 55.8 94,093 188,186 8598 196,784 1985 5,743.5 125.0 17.8 107.3 0.52 55.0 104,344 208,688 10,338 219,026 High Forecast 1986 6,310.0 124.0 17.6 106.4 0.52 55.3 114,105 228,210 11,845 240,055 1990 7,740.0 127.1 -19.1 108.3 0.52 56.3 137,477 274,956 15,917 290,873 1995 9,860.0 133.0 20.0 113.1 0.52 58.8 167,653 335,306 23,545 357,851 2000 12,603.0 138.7 20.8 117.9 0.52 61.3 205,569 411,137 32,376 443,513 2010 18,932.0 138.7 20.8 117.9 0.52 61.3 308,801 617,603 48,635 666,238 2020 22,244.0 138.7 20.8 117.9 0.53 62.5 355,978 711,956 56,066 768,022 Low Forecast 1986 6,028.0 124.0 17.6 106.4 0.52 55.3 109,005 218,011 10,992 229,003 1990 6,666.0 127.1 19.1 108.3 0.54 58.5 113,949 227,897 11,491 239,388 1995 7,825.0 133.0 20.0 113.1 0.56 63.3 123,618 247,236 12,466 259,702, . 2000 9,344.0 138.7 20.8 117.9 0.58 68.4 136,608 273,216 13,776 286,992 2010 11,990.0 138.7 20.8 117.9 0.63 74.3 161,373 322,746 16,273 339,019 2020 13,777.0 138.7 20.8 117.9 0.63 74.3 185,481 370,963 18,704 389,667 E 888 --i Ito i rl 700-i c " 600- 0 508 - o it 400 -! r " 300- re c J 208-; z ACTUAL z 108 -1 7 J Q 1— 0 l T 1979 1985 1990 1995 2805 YEAR 2010 PSCOG HIGH PSCOG LOW 2020 1986 FORECAST OF ANNUAL AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS Figure 5 growth rate of 4.5 percent for the high forecast and 1.6 percent for the low forecast. The figures are in line with the growth in operations forecasted by the FAA for this region. The FAA projections are for an annual growth rate of 2.3 percent until the year 2000. From the year 2000 to 2020, total operations are projected to grow between 1.5 percent and 2.8 percent annually. This equates to 389,600 annual operations for the low growth forecast by the year 2020 and 768,000 annual operations for the high growth forecast. Note that in addition to considering passenger - related factors, these forecasts also include projections for the 4.8 percent (in 1985) of operations that are categorized as all -cargo operations. Given the uncertainty regarding the continued growth in all -cargo operations, two scenarios on future growth were developed for generation of the forecasts. As a final note, the operations projections contained in Table 4 only represent scheduled (as well as significant charter) carrier operations. General aviation and military operations are not part of the forecasts. Reference 31 contains a detailed description of the assumptions underlying the forecasts. From a comparison of the growth in demand for air carrier passengers and operations to the maximum capacity potential of Sea -Tac (25 million annual passengers) it was concluded that Sea -Tac would reach its maximum capacity shortly after the year 2000. The limiting factor which will determine Sea -Tac's maximum capacity is probably the existing runway system. With improvements identified in the currently adopted master plan, the terminal facilities are expected to keep pace with the maximum passenger and cargo volumes that can be delivered by the runway system. Regional Air Transportation Growth - General Aviation . The growth in general aviation activities during the last several years has not kept pace with the significant growth that was experienced during the 1960's and 1970's. Economic factors are assumed to be the principal reason for the recent slump, including the dramatic increases in product liability insurance and higher aircraft maintenance costs. Given FAA projections on a continuation of these high costs into the future, two alternative demand forecasts were generated as seen in Figure 6. These demand forecasts of regional based aircraft are a basic indicator of general aviation activity. Both forecasts are considerably lower than the forecasts contained in the .1982 RASP, which were calculated prior to the economic downturn. The first demand forecast generated for the current study assumes that the growth in based aircraft demand will keep pace with the growth in population. It assumes that the ownership rate per capita will remain constant; it is termed the high forecast. Based on revised FAA projections regarding aircraft demand at the national level, a low forecast has been generated and reflects regional based aircraft demand that in 39 1997 is 16 percent lower than the high forecast. Demand forecasts for each airport are contained in Reference 6. General aviation based aircraft demand is compared to capacity by market area in Table 5. Both high and low demand forecasts are given for three future years - 1990, 2000 and 2020. For the low demand scenario, it is projected that existing capacity will be sufficient to accommodate the demand for based aircraft. Under the higher growth scenario, the forecasts indicate that existing capacity will not be able to accommodate demand within the King County market area by 2020, with marginal problems in Pierce County as well. Note that several underlying assumptions for both scenarios are that existing private airports currently open to public use will retain that status; that any future air carrier activity at general aviation airports will not affect the general aviation aircraft capacity of these airports; and that proposed changes to terminal control area boundaries by the FAA will not affect the capacity of general aviation airports. 40 7. 088— b, 800 - 1- w 5, 888 c.� H 4. 008-1 3, 808 Z El 2, 008 w 1, 008-1 0 -r / ACTUAL PSCOG 1986 HIGH PSCOG 1986 LOW 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2020 YEAR IP C ©G COMPARISON OF HISTORICAL AND FORECAST BASED AIRCRAFT Figure 6 TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF GENERAL AVIATION BASED AIRCRAFT DEMAND TO MAXIMUM, IDEAL EXISTING AIRPORT CAPACITY BY SERVICE AREA General Aviation Market Service Area King Snohomish Pierce Kitsap 1 9 9 0 Unconstrained Based Aircraft Demand Low High Forecast Forecast 1714 1161 486 215 1840 1249 520 234 2 0 0 0 General Aviation Unconstrained Market Service Based Aircraft Area Demand Low High Forecast Forecast King Snohomish Pierce Kitsap General Aviation Market Service Area King Snohomish Pierce Kitsap 1739 1178 492 218 2157 1466 602 282 2 0 2 0 Unconstrained Based Aircraft Demand Low High Forecast Forecast 1789 1212 505 226 2979 2021 814 411 Maximum, Ideal Capacity of Existing Airports 1775 2052 771 632 Maximum, Ideal Capacity of Existing Airports 1775 2052 771 632 Maximum, Ideal Capacity of Existing Airports 1775 2052 771 632 Unmet Demand 0 to 65 None None None Unmet Demand 0 to 382 None None None Unmet Demand 14 to 1154 None 0 to 43 None Footnotes: Chapter III of this report documents the factors and assumptions used in developing this table. Major factors and assumptions include: 1. Existing private airports that are currently open to public use will maintain that status. 2. Any future air carrier activity at general aviation airports will not affect the general aviation aircraft capacity of these airports. 3. The proposed changes to Terminal Control Area boundaries by the FAA will not affect the capacity of general aviation airports. 4. Maximum based aircraft as well as operational capacity may differ from actual or effective capacity in the future depending on noise abatement programs, the mix of aircraft types, etc; (for example, there is a trend developing at some airports to base the larger sized aircraft which will in turn displace greater numbers of small aircraft. One large aircraft occupies more than one small aircraft basing space). 5. High demand forecast - based on FAA national forecasts published in 1986 Assumes a constant Puget Sound ownership rate per capita. Low demand forecast - based on (revised) FAA national forecasts published in 1987. 42 Helicopter Facilities and Services. Helicopters provide specialized air transportation serving a variety of purposes: business, air taxi and charter services, air ambulance service, and traffic reporting. The demand for helicopter services is expected to more than double over the next fifteen years. Based on national and regional forecasts developed by the FAA, there will be about 220 helicopters based in the Puget Sound region by the year 2000, compared to 85 helicopters today (37). The largest share of the helicopter fleet is anticipated to be in commercial service and business travel. Lower operating costs, higher speeds, expanded maneuverability, greater reliability and lower noise levels brought about by rotorcraft technological advances are reasons why the role of helicopters will change and grow. The demand for helicopter services exists but facilities do not. There are currently no downtown heliports in the Puget Sound region that are open for unrestricted public use, and helicopter operators are limited in choices for landing sites near major destinations, particularly in central business districts. However, locational opportunities do exist near the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Bremerton and Everett. Three such opportunities near downtown Seattle are located several hundred feet south of the Kingdome, and are close to the south end of the Metro transit tunnel, currently under construction. Other opportunities include the state convention center and the proposed ferry terminal expansion. Bremerton could be served by a combination heliport and seaplane barge located near the ferry terminal. Bellevue, which is the fourth largest city in the State of Washington, has no aviation facilities. Bellevue was listed as a high priority origin and destination by the helicopter operators that were surveyed. Two locational opportunities near Southeast 8th Street would be close to downtown and to most of the new office buildings in the area. A helistop near the Tacoma Dome has been under consideration by city and Dome officials with the assistance of the Washington State Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division. A heliport could be developed atop the parking garage at Sea -Tac Airport. Such a facility is part of the Sea -Tac Airport Layout Plan and would be much more convenient and useable than the existing helipad which is located a substantial distance from the terminal. If an elevated structure is used, the loss of auto parking spaces would be minimal. A heliport serving Everett has been designated at Paine Field on the current Airport Layout Plan. This site is eight miles from the downtown, and it is within reasonable commuting distance to the high -tech corridor in north King County and Snohomish County. 43 Industrial areas, freeway and railroad tracks can easily accept helicopter flights without undue community concern. Residential areas, on the other hand, should be avoided by helicopters and operation techniques should be employed as much as possible to minimize rotorcraft noise. In addition, all aspects of helicopter safety should be considered in community planning for new helicopter facilities. Present emergency medical helicopter operations in the region appear to be cost - effective. Military Assistance for Safety and Traffic (MAST), the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy and the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office provide an effective network of emergency medical and search and rescue helicopter service for the Puget Sound region. Seaplane Operations and Facilities. Seaplanes provide convenient air travel directly to water related destinations difficult to access by other modes of transportation except for helicopters. Based on a survey of operators, the destinations with demand for seaplane operations within the four - county study area include Tacoma, Bremerton, Hood Canal, Seattle, and Everett. Outside the study area, demand exists for service to Washington coast sites, the San Juan Islands and Canada/Vancouver Island destinations (38). It is anticipated the demand for seaplane facilities will continue to increase moderately over the study planning period in response to existing travel patterns in the unique markets served by seaplanes. Lack of facilities may constrain the industry. The most critical factor facing the seaplane industry is the preservation of existing facilities. _This is particularly true for the Kenmore and Lake Union facilities. Kenmore Air Harbor is significantly impacted by expansion of boat marinas. Without adequate control, the conflict between marina boat activity and seaplane operations poses a major threat to the Air Harbor. Lake Union seaplane facilities face an economic threat due to the escalating value of waterfront property near the center of a metropolitan city. The seaplane operations in the four - county area add to the economic well -being of the Northwest and should become a'primary preservation issue for the local area.' Their operation is a part of the Northwest heritage, and seaplane services add a unique dimension to the quality of life in the metropolitan areas of the Puget Sound region. Sport Aviation. Sport aviation in the form of ballooning, gliding, sky- diving, and ultralight flying presents some unique land use issues for local governments and some unique operational issues for airport managers. Local governments need to be concerned because sport aviation is generally not addressed as a recreational activity in parks and recreation plans . or as a land use in comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. There is a public interest because sport aviation activities, if conducted improperly, can put innocent bystanders at risk and /or cause 44 community unrest. If conducted properly it can be a benefit to the community and a positive element in the Puget Sound region's outdoor recreation market. Existing general aviation airports have in some cases been able to accommodate sport aviation activities, but in many cases have not because of differences in vehicle operating characteristics and limited space. Gliders and parachutes (for sky- diving) are the most familiar forms of sport aviation. Ballooning used to include only the most adventuresome aviators but has recently become more widely popular. Ultralights, the newest sport aviation vehicle, are very light weight and relatively low cost. They carry one to two passengers and fly at lower altitudes and slower speeds than conventional small aircraft. There are currently ten locations in the region where sport aviation activities are known to occur regularly. Most of these are general aviation airports which also serve sport aviation uses. Most of the organized ultralight flying now occurs at Arlington Ultralight Center. Most glider flying has been from Issaquah Skyport which has recently closed, and Arlington Airport. Most parachuting occurs at Harvey Airfield and, until recently, Issaquah Skyport. Balloons are launched regularly from Harvey Airfield but also operate (with permission) from other open areas such as vacant lots, farmer's fields and public parks. With the closure of the Issaquah Skyport, some displacement and re- shuffling of activity to alternative locations in the region will occur. While most sport aviation activity is currently accommodated at general aviation airports or specialized air fields, there is potential for developing an all- purpose sport aviation facility. Developing such a facility with ample room for gliding, sky- diving, ballooning and ultralights, as well as spectators, would require 65 to 100 acres (40). A smaller scale facility for just ultralights and balloons would require 40 to 70 acres. Sport aviation can, of course, continue to occur at existing airports, but this has to be done selectively because of differences in vehicle operating characteristics and flight patterns. Sport aviation facilities, whether they are at existing airports or exclusive locations, can have a positive economic and social impact on the community. The negative impacts of noise and aircraft overflight can be mitigated through the resolve of user groups and local governments. The outlook for sport aviation is mixed. Ballooning appears to be a strong growth market for the next few years, while ultralight flying, gliding and sky- diving will fluctuate in the uncertain insurance and regulatory climate. Ultralights, after a wave of popularity in the early 1980's, have settled down to a sustained level of interest. But ultralights have also provided an excitement and stimulus to aviation design. Manufacturers and innovators will strive to introduce new designs that will make aviation available to lower and middle income groups. The growth in sport aviation, as with many other industries, will be constrained by the high cost (or unavailability) of liability 45 insurance, and by limited sport aviation facilities. Although a small segment of the total outdoor recreational market, sport aviation deserves attention in much the same fashion as off -road vehicles and marinas. Like any other outdoor recreation, sport aviation can be a source of tourist dollars, as well as enhancing the region's quality of life for its residents. Privately Owned Airports. Privately owned public use airports provide a significant share of the general aviation facilities and services in the Puget Sound region. As a group, the privately owned public use airports provide at least one third of the region's hangar, tie -down and maintenance facilities for based aircraft. These facilities serve aviation and air transportation needs at little or no cost to the taxpayer, while contributing to general tax revenues in the form of aviation fuel tax, vehicle registration fees and taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. They also provide both employment and recreational opportunities (35). Over the past ten years several privately owned public use airports in the region have closed. Reasons for these closures include changes in land use, especially on those areas around the airport, often creating incompatible circumstances between the airport users and those using the surrounding land. Airport standards are often applied to all airports regardless of size. This will create unreasonable burdens for smaller public use airports. Both insurance costs and property tax increases affect the ability of general purpose airports to survive. Finally, there is lack of understanding and appreciation as to the benefits of privately owned airports open to the public. Privately owned airports are part of this region's transportation resources. They provide aircraft basing capacity and operations facilities through entrepreneurial efforts, as well as contributing to the region's overall tax base. Protection of these existing facilities will preclude the need for public sector involvement in providing such facilities. Noise Exposure Noise impacts are the most crucial aspect of the human environment when dealing with questions of airport development and changes in airport operations. Excessive noise adjacent to airport areas can affect communication in residential homes, teaching in nearby schools and sleeping for local residents and persons in the aircraft flight paths. These noise impacts can also be a nuisance to activities in the workplace and also to recreational activities. The level of annoyance or irritation developed by airport associated noise is related to how loud the noise is, how often it occurs, whether it occurs in daylight or nighttime hours, what types of aircraft are producing the noise, and whether the affected areas are particularly impacted because of the land use (e.g., residential, university, rural). 46 The research into the effects of noise on the human population has lead to several generally accepted conclusions: • The effects of sound are cumulative, and, therefore, the duration of exposure must be included in any evaluation of noise. Noise interferes with outdoor activities, speech, and other communication. • Noise annoys by disturbing sleep, TV /radio reception, and relaxation. • When community noise levels have reached sufficient intensity, community action has occurred to reduce the noise through organizations pressing for new regulations or filing civil nuisance suits (15). Airspace Safety With the growing demand for airport facilities and the projected future growth in airport operations, airspace safety is becoming a subject of ever increasing concern for the officials responsible for airport operations, the public using air facilities, and the communities around airports. The development of new airports can result in a dispersion of regional airspace use. The airspace associated with Sea -Tac and Boeing Field is becoming so congested at times now that there is pressure to move general aviation outside the urban core. It is clear that in many ways the issue of airspace safety is one of the most critical to examine when determining the impact of a new airport development or a significant change an existing airport (8). Air Quality Air quality standards define acceptable contaminant levels that will have no long -term undesirable affects on health, aesthetic values, or property for all segments of the population. Air quality standards originated with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, which established a national program to attain and maintain a standard of air quality. As a result, the EPA drafted a set of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for those pollutants considered a major health problem (15). The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) monitors air quality for the region. A series of monitoring stations are spread throughout its four - county area of jurisdiction. Air quality in the vicinity of airports in the region is affected primarily by four factors: 1) aircraft activity; 2) manufacturing activity, including space heating, at the facilities; 3) traffic utilizing the airport, sites and traveling past on adjacent arterials, and 4) other sources including adjacent residential and commercial activity (52). 47 Although aircraft operations usually contribute a relatively small percentage of the ambient air pollution, there are several factors which make then troublesome: • The pollution occurs over a short period of time, i.e., mostly during the daylight hours so the maximum or peak rates may be fairly high. • Emissions are most prominent during daylight when most people perceive them to be hazardous and aesthetically displeasing. • Most airports are located at the periphery of towns or cities where people expect cleaner air than in the inner cities. • Human reaction to air pollution is influenced by other undesirable characteristics such as noise and ground traffic if any of these events occur together (15). The maintenance of acceptable air quality levels is an important consideration in the future planning of air transportation in the Puget Sound region. Aircraft operations, terminal operations, ground services, fuel storage and transfer, and airport associated motor vehicle activity all need to be closely analyzed and monitored to ensure a high standard of air quality in the areas surrounding the region's airports (53). Energy Consumption Energy costs associated with airport plans can be difficult to quantify. Advances in aviation technology can help reduce the energy costs of airlines due to the use of more fuel efficient aircraft. However, it is projected that the cost of fuel will continue to rise in the future. The development of new airports or expansion of existing airports entails a wide variety of energy costs including those involved in the construction phase as well as the operation. Location of the region's airports with respect to population and commercial centers determines the energy requirements for ground access. While steps can be taken to reduce the energy costs associated with any airport plan alternative, it seems certain that these costs for airport development and operations will continue to increase in the future but this will have only a slight impact on regional energy consumption. Public Services and Facilities The issue of public services and facilities is important in the planning of future airport facilities and operations. The list of public services provided in the Puget Sound region is quite comprehensive and includes: Police Protection Fire Protection Solid Waste Services Water Services 48 Electrical Services Natural Gas Services Telephone Services Sewer Services Health Care/Hospital Facilities Educational Facilities Religious Facilities Recreation Facilities Parks /Open Space Changes in airport operations, expansion of existing airport facilities and construction of new airports are all things that could impact the provision of the services listed above and thus the quality of life in the region (54). NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Elements of the existing natural environment that may be potentially affected by Regional Airport System Plan alternatives include surface water, flood zones, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and soils. These elements of the region's environment are discussed below. Surface Water Water resources play a major role in the Puget Sound region. Puget Sound and the numerous rivers and lakes provide transportation routes and serve a variety of purposes, including commerce, resource extraction, recreation and aesthetics. Overall, the condition of the bodies of water in terms of water quality is good although some of the lakes have suffered an accelerated aging rate because of the effects of urbanization of their shorelines. Flood Plains and Flood Zones Throughout the Puget Sound region there exists several flood plains and flood hazard zones. The flood plain areas are most often subject to periodic overtopping of rivers due to rapid snowmelt or unusually long and heavy rainy periods (or both). Flood hazard zones are found throughout the area. They are likely to be flooded, on the average, once every 100 years, or have about a one percent chance of flooding each year. Most of these flood hazard areas are adjacent to wetlands that often display surface water during the winter months. Wetlands Wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. This would include swamps, marshes, bogs, and 49 similar areas. Wetlands can be found throughout the region and vary in size. In many cases, they help to control storm water runoff and also provide wildlife habitat. Vegetation and Drainage The rural and suburban sections of the region contain extensive evergreen forecasts interspersed with deciduous trees and thick underbrush. While the original evergreen forests have been eliminated, a substantial amount of large second and third growth timber exists throughout the area. Most vacant land parcels contain extensive stands of mixed forests and understory growth. Even highly urbanized areas are interspersed with extensive domestic, as well as natural vegetation. Where vegetation has been removed due to the effects of urban growth serious drainage problems have often occurred. The pollutants occurring on streets and highways is then often carried directly to nearby streams and creeks. Wildlife Because of the urbanization of most of the region, few of the original natural habitats exist. Only species that can adapt to urbanization have survived. Smaller mammals and most birds have adapted to this environment. The relatively large number of trees and groundcover that now exists still provides limited habitat for these remaining species. Fish continue to frequent the area's streams and lakes, but have been adversely affected by impacts of urbanization. Soils The topography and soils encountered throughout the region are the result of repeated glaciation. The weight of the overlying glaciers over consolidated then - existing soils have caused • lock -in stresses. Consequently, areas sloping in excess of 15 percent are considered relatively unstable. Slope stability is strongly influenced by the physical character of the glacial formation underlying the vegetated surface. Also, soils consisting of poorly drained to impervious alluvium, saturated organic soils and all other soil types on slopes greater than 15 percent were designated earthquake hazards. Annual erosion in the region is highly correlated with seasonal rainfall cycles. Studies indicated that 46 percent of the annual erosion takes place during the months of November, December, January, and February. 50 VI. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures — Human Environment VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES - flUMAN ENVIRONMENT COMPATIBILITY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES The development of any new airports, whether they are air carrier, satellite, or general aviation airports, need to be compatible with local plans and policies to enable eventual construction. The impacts that occur to the human environment and natural environment during construction and subsequent operation of a new airport can be severe. Therefore, it is important to have the support of local elected officials and local residents for the development and completion of such a project. In many areas local citizens have expressed displeasure with the idea of a new airport in their area. This feeling is conveyed to their elected representatives and often results in policies preventing this type of development. If citizens living near a new airport site are to be amendable to such a development several steps need to be taken. The impacts associated with airport development should be minimized. Noise levels, the top aviation related complaint in residential areas, should be kept at their lowest possible levels with a constant search for new ways to reduce noise. Airport related development should be regulated. Many residents complain of the strip development associated with airports. There are other impacts such as damage to the natural environment, increases in local traffic levels and lowering air quality standards that can be minimized to encourage elected officials and citizens to be more open to new airport development in their areas. The expansion of the Sea -Tac runway system would create more noise problems in the area and also might force the dislocation of some residences. An advantage for Sea -Tac airport is that the airport is a long standing use in the area. The precedent has previously been set for noise impacts and airport development in that location. Despite this, there is' opposition to expansion of the airport by local residents and efforts would have to be made to comply with the appropriate local plans. Plans for increases in helicopter and seaplane operations will also come under close scrutiny to insure that they comply with plans and policies that regulate development and land use. The consolidation of seaplane activities at one site could cause landowners along the particular waterfront to oppose this type of operation. The many possible impacts on local communities due to airport development must be addressed in local plans and policies. It is essential that elected officials, local planners and concerned citizens be aware of the costs and the benefits of a new airport 51 constructed in their area, the expansion of an existing airport, or a significant change in airport operations. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic impacts measure the importance of aviation as an industry, in terms of the employment it provides and the goods and services it consumes. Estimates of economic impacts are useful when developing master plans and system plans such as the RASP because they help describe the basis for and consequences of the development of an airport. These estimates are particularly useful in today's social and political climate, where the negative impacts associated with the noise of an airport often prevail in any discussion of the future role of the facility. The following analysis focuses primarily on the relative impacts of the air carrier alternatives which have the most pronounced effects on economic development. Both employment impacts and capital costs will be addressed. Given that the Puget Sound region already has an air carrier airport, the economic impact of utilizing regional satellite airports or of moving all operations to a brand new airport would involve the redistribution of impacts within the Puget Sound region. Thus, assessing economic impacts means determining the relative influence of locating an air carrier airport in different areas of the region rather than estimating what would be the impact of having versus not having an air carrier airport at all. Employment Impacts The primary indicator of any service or facility's impact on the local economy is the amount of employment its activities generate. In many instances, particularly when dealing with large capital investments, it is difficult to determine the exact number of jobs that can be attributed to that facility. For example, the Boeing Company employs approximately 83,000 people, yet there are many secondary and indirect jobs that exist in support of these 83,000 people. Thus, the economic impact or influence of Boeing within the Puget Sound region is much greater than its direct contribution of employing 83,000 people. With respect to airports, direct impacts (20) are consequences of economic activities carried out at the airport by airlines, airport management, fixed base operators and other tenants with a direct involvement in aviation. A direct impact is an immediate consequence of airport economic activity. Off -site economic activities that often are also categorized as direct impacts are services provided by travel agencies, hotels, restaurants and retail establishments. Induced or indirect impacts are the multiplier effects of the direct impacts and reflect the increases in employment and incomes over and above the direct impacts created by successive rounds of investment and spending. 52 Given the scope of this study, the potential economic impacts associated with each of the air carrier alternatives are defined in very broad terms. For this study, the only economic measure calculated was the number of jobs associated with each alternative and the percentage of total employment within each of the four counties that these jobs. represented. A similar, but much more detailed analysis was undertaken in 1982 by the Port of Seattle to determine the economic impact that Sea -Tac and the harbor had on King County (29). That study was used as a basis for the present analysis. Other studies that were referenced were: the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Airport Plan (3), conducted. in 1980 (to observe its treatment of economic impacts associated with satellite airports) and the 1986 FAA publication entitled "Measuring the Regional Economic Significance of Airports" (20). The results of the analysis are given in Tables 6 and 7. In Table 6, an estimate is given of the direct and indirect job impacts associated with each of the air carrier airport alternatives. Note that job impacts are measured for each alternative without reference to a specific geographical site. At this level of analysis, it is assumed that a given level of passenger demand will generate a certain magnitude of jobs, regardless of the specific geographical location. The real impact that these jobs have upon different subregional areas is given in Table 7. This table illustrates the impact that the air carrier alternatives would have on direct and indirect employment within each of the four counties of the Puget Sound region. Their potential impact is measured as a percentage of total county employment for projected 2020 employment levels. Note that a substantial number of jobs can be attributed to a large public facility such as an airport; therefore, it is not surprising that even a relatively small satellite airport represents a significant percentage of total county employment. This would be particularly true for the smaller counties, namely Kitsap and to a lesser extent even Pierce and Snohomish counties. The employment and other economic impacts of the general aviation and special air facilities alternatives were not quantified. It can be concluded generally that development of a new general aviation airport or expansion of an existing airport would have positive economic impact on the region. This is also true for the development of new heliports, seaplane bases, or sport aviation facilities. For the community in which any of these facilities is located, the positive economic impacts could be offset by negative impacts, such as loss of property value, due to aircraft noise and overflight. If mitigation measures are successful however, the negative impacts can be minimal so that the net effect is beneficial. 53 TABLE 6 DIRECT AND INDIRECT JOB IMPACTS OF THE AIR CARRIER AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES (thousands) TABLE 7 IMPACT OF AIR CARRIER AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES ON COUNTY EMPLOYMENT. AIRPORT EMPLOYMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT SATELLITE ONE AIR SEA -TAC COUNTY AIRPORT CARRIER AIRPORT WITHOUT EXPANSION KING Direct 0.3 to 0.5 2.5 to 4.0 2.0 to 2.5 Indirect 1.4 to 2.1 7.2 to 11.6 5.9 to 7.1 PIERCE Direct 1.3 to 2.0 9.0 to 13.7 n/a Indirect 5.2 to 7.6 22.3 to 31.6 SNOHOMISH Direct 2.0 to 2.9 12.6 to 18.9 n/a Indirect 7.4 to 10.7 29.5 to 40.3 LITSAP Direct 3.8 to 5.6 22.1 to 31.4 n/a Indirect 13.6 to 19.1 45.2 to 57.1 Source: PSCOG Analysis; References 3, 20 and 29. 55 Capital Costs Capital costs in constant 1986 dollars were estimated for both the air carrier and the general aviation alternatives. The special facilities for helicopters, seaplanes, and sport aviation were included under the general aviation alternatives. Total capital costs, including land and physical facilities, were estimated for the period 1988 -2020. For the air carrier alternatives it was assumed that two cost elements would be common to all alternatives. The first was continued improvements at Sea -Tac, amounting to about $350 million (1986 $) in accordance with the currently adopted master plan. The other common element was a measure to help relieve the Sea -Tac /Boeing Field airspace of IFR general aviation traffic during congested periods. The instrument landing systems at two existing airports (among Bremerton National, Tacoma Narrows, Renton Municipal and Paine Field) could be upgraded slightly, at a cost of $0.6 million each, to facilitate their use as an alternate during congested IFR conditions. The assumptions used for the additional capital elements of the air carrier alternatives were as follows: ■ Alternative #1 - Develop two new satellite airports to handle 10 -12 million annual passengers each. The sequence of construction would follow that of Alternative #2. ■ Alternative #2 - Expand two existing general aviation transport airports to handle 10 -12 annual million passengers each. This step is not likely to be undertaken in the 1987 -1992 time period because Sea -Tac has remaining capacity. The assumed sequence is to upgrade one airport in the 1993 - 2000 time period and the other after the year 2000. • Alternative #3 - Major modification and expansion of Sea -Tac from a 20 - 25 million annual passenger airport (its ultimate capacity on existing airport land) to a 40 - 45 million annual passenger airport. This expansion and redevelopment opens up the possibility of runway alignments that would be less in conflict with Boeing Field. airspace. The preliminary steps, through land acquisition and utility expansion, would be accomplished in the 1993 - 2000 time period. In the years beyond 2000, the rest of the construction would take place. • Alternative #4 - Develop a completely new 40 - 45 million annual passenger capacity air carrier airport. The phasing assumes that in the 1993 - 2000 period, the site selection, planning, design and environmental reviews would begin, as well as land acquisition and utility installation. Thus modest-expenditures are needed for the medium term and the bulk of the expense would occur after the year 2000. For the general aviation and special facilities alternatives, it was assumed that upgrading of existing airports to their full 56 capacity standards (under currently adopted master plans) and the development of some helicopter, seaplane, and sport aviation facilities would be common to all alternatives. The additional major capital cost items assumed under each alternative are as follows: • Alternative #1 - Maintain viability of Existing Airports. No additional capital costs beyond those common to all alternatives. • Alternative #2 - Expand Capacity of Existing Facilities. Expand facilities for basing aircraft at five airports at approximately 100 aircraft each. The specific airports are not identified. • Alternative #3a - Expand Capacity of the General Aviation. System, by construction of a new general utility class airport to serve approximately 500 based aircraft. The location is not identified. • Alternative #3b - Expand Capacity of the General Aviation System, by public acquisition of a privately owned airport and expansion as necessary to serve approximately 500 based aircraft. Capital cost estimates for the air carrier system alternatives are summarized in Table 8, categorized by time period of need. The last column in Table 8 contains total capital cost estimates for the respective alternative. The estimated capital costs for the general aviation and special facilities alternatives are summarized in Table 9, also by time period of need. Note that given the conceptual nature of this study, the cost estimates are approximations of "order of magnitude" only. Site specific data are not incorporated in the estimates. The consultant team advised that a range of plus or minus 25 percent be applied when interpreting the cost figures. A higher level of confidence cannot be achieved without the increased detail available through master plans and /or design of specific facilities. Detailed assumptions and background data for the cost estimates are contained in Reference (31). 57 TABLE 8 AIR CARRIER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COSTS (1986 $ in millions) Description A. Common to all Alternatives Existing Improvement Plans at Sea -Tac Divert GA IFR Traffic from BFI SUBTOTAL B. Alternatives Alternative No.1 2 New Satellite Airports Plus A Above Near Term Medium Term Long Term Total 1987 -1992 1993 -2000 2001 -2020 1987 -2020 194.0 0.6 194.6 194.6 Alternative No.2 Expand Existing GA Airports as Satellites Plus A Above 194.6 Alternative No.3 Expand Sea -Tac Plus A Above 194.6 Alternative No.4 New Int'l Airport Plus A Above 194.6 Notes: 156.0 NA 350.01 0.6 1.2 156.6 NA 351.2 540.1 540.1 696.7 540.1 509.0 665.6 500.0 656.6 300.0 456.6 509.0 509.0 1,900.0 1,900.0 1,300.0 1,300.0 1,080.2 1,431.4 1,018.0 1,369.2 2,400.0 2,751.2 1,600.0 1,951.2 1. No additional costs assumed beyond completion of currently adopted master plan. 2. GA = General Aviation; IFR = Instrument Flight Rules 3. Source: Reference 31 58 TABLE 9 GENERAL AVIATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COSTS BY TERM (1986 $ in millions) DESCRIPTION A. Common to all Alternatives Seaplane base(s) Heliport(s) Sport airpark Bring existing airports up to full capacity/ standards SUBTOTAL PUBLIC AIRPORTS • Private NPIAS Airports Private non -NPIAS Airports SUBTOTAL PRIVATE AIRPORTS TOTAL A B. Alternatives Near Term Medium Term Long Term Total 1987 -1992 1993 -2000 2001 -2020 1987 -2020 39.5 1.81 1.2 29.9 3.4 1.22 2.1 18.8 3.4 3.0 3.3 88.2 39.5 32.9 25.5 97.9 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- 4.8 2.4 1.9 9.1 4.7 4.6 4.7 14.0 INS OM 9.5 7.0 6.6 23.1 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- 49.0 39.9 32.1 121.0 Alternative No. 2 10'- 4.0 5.0 Expand Capacity at 5 Airports Plus A Above 49.0 40.9 36.1 126.0 Alternative No.3a 3.0 8.1 11.1 New Airport Plus A Above 49.0 42.9 40.2 132.1 Alternative No. 3b 2.0 4.3 6.3 Public Acquisition of Private Airport Plus A Above 49.0 41.9 36.4 127.3 Notes: 1. 3 heliports @ .6m 2. 2 heliports @ .6m 3. NPIAS = National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 4. Source: Reference 31 59 Comparison of Available Funds to Needs Both costs and revenues are difficult to project over 33 years. This section examines the principal funding sources and compares them with needs for a representative air carrier alternative (No.4) and a representative general aviation alternative (No. 2). A detailed discussion of the analysis is contained in Reference 31. A summary of the results is given in Table 10. In terms of the general aviation system, it seems likely that needs can be met, subject to continued participation by the private sector. Special major projects will be able to access discretionary funding from FAA.' The likely continued strength of the Aviation Trust Fund is an important assumption. In terms of the air carrier needs, the financial impacts are much greater, and conventional funding sources are insufficient. Moreover, the Port of Seattle, which currently provides most of the air carrier funding in the region, does not have jurisdiction or funding powers over the entire four - county market area. Jurisdictional and funding considerations will be inextricably linked in meeting air carrier needs. Many options exist for increasing air carrier funding, especially if the new Airport Improvement Legislation permits major hubs to develop their own funding through a passenger tax, fee, head•tax or other charge (previously prohibited). These and other funding options currently authorized at the local and state level would likely be able to produce the revenues needed to implement any of the alternatives. The severity of the funding short -fall more for the high cost alternatives and less for the lower cost alternatives. 60 TABLE 10 REPRESENTATIVE COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE FUNDS TO NEEDS (1986 $ in millions) Air Carrier Needs (Table 8, Alt. No. 4) Available FAA Port Subtotal Net Surplus (deficit) Near Term 1987 -1992 $194.6 Medium Term 1993 -2000 $456.6 Long Term 2001 -2020 $1300.0 36.5 58.4 146.1 98.5 -112.5 157.6 -180.0 394.0 -450.0 135.0 -149.0 216.0 -238.4 540.1 -596.1 Total 1987 -2020 $1951.2 241.0 650.1 -742.5 891.1 -983.5 (45.6 -59.6) (218.2- 240.6)(703.9 - 759.9) (967.7- 1060.1) NOTE: No private sector $ assumed here. General Aviation/ Needs (Table 9, Alt. No.-2) Available FAA State Basic Special Local Private Subtotal Net Surplus (deficit) Notes: 49.0 16.1 0.4 0.5 4.0 6.7 27.7 (21.3) 40.9 25.7 0.7 0.8 3.0 8.1 38.3 (2.6) 36.1 64.2 1.8 2.0 2.0 12.8 82.8 46:7 126.0 106.0 2.9 3.3 9.0 27.6 148.8 22.8 1. No private sector funds were assumed for the air carrier alternative in this analysis; some of the shortfall would likely be offset by private sector participation. 2. Source: Reference 31 61 ACCESSIBILITY TO AIR TRANSPORTATION The landside capacity of an airport is usually defined (58) as originating with the airport ground access system and continuing on through the various elements of the parking and terminal buildings. When dealing with airport alternatives that are regional in their scope it is useful to similarly broaden the "ground access" portion of the landside capacity definition to include the regional ground transportation network. This expanded definition of the airport ground access system addresses a major concern of many people; namely, that the current and projected traffic congestion on the region's freeways and major arterials will make it increasingly difficult to get to and from Sea -Tac. Congestion levels for the 2000 and 2020 time periods were estimated in a recently completed study for the Puget Sound region as a whole (41). It was found that the levels of congestion on the regional highway system will increase significantly over the next 30 to 35 years, with the most dramatic increases occurring after 2000. Although it is a small consolation, the findings also indicate that these congestion pressures will generally be equally distributed throughout the region. Given projected traffic levels to the year 2020, the relative accessibility of the air carrier alternatives to the region's population was estimated. The results of this analysis offer a comparison of travel times for the time periods 2000 and 2020, with 1985 given as a base year. Travel times based on free flow versus congested speeds are given for the years 1985 and 2000. It is assumed that congested speeds only would exist by 2020. Accessibility estimates were calculated for four potential air carrier airport locations: McChord AFB, Sea -Tac, Paine Field and Bremerton. Estimates were also calculated for Boeing Field. Results of the accessibility analysis are given in Tables 11 - 15. The accessibility figures are expressed as a cumulative percentage of the regional population that falls within a given travel time category,-measured for each airport location. For example, in Table 11, the first figure.under the heading McChord is 17.0. This number means that it takes 17.0 percent of the Puget Sound population less than 30 minutes to travel to McChord AFB. Sea -Tac is more accessible than McChord to a larger share of the region's population because 29.2 percent of the region can get to and from Sea -Tac in less than 30 minutes. As expected, Bremerton National is the least accessible of the airport alternatives: only 25.1 percent of the region's population is less than an hour's drive from that location. The figures in Table 11 represent the average travel time during an average day in 1985. In Table 12, peak hour or congested travel times are given for an average day in 1985. Looking at Sea -Tac as an example, it can be seen that while 70.4 percent of the population were within a 45 minute drive during uncongested travel times in 1985, this figure drops so that during peak periods of the day, 62 only 52.7 percent of the population is within a 45 minute drive of Sea -Tac. Similar relationships exist for the other airport location alternatives. In Tables 13 through 15, accessibility figures are given for year 2000 average daily travel times, year 2000 congested travel times and 2020 congested travel times, respectively. Note that for each time period the congestion continuously increases, thereby reducing the accessibility of all location alternatives. By the year 2020, travel times have increased to such an extent that 40 percent of the region's population will travel longer than an hour to get to and from Sea -Tac. Other than Boeing Field, Sea -Tac is still the most accessible of all the airport locations. For example, by 2020 it is projected that while 59.2 percent of the region's population will be within an hour's drive of Sea -Tac, only 39.5 percent of the region's population will be within an hour's drive of Paine Field. Given the year 2020 population projections, this means that approximately 800,000 people will find Sea -Tac more accessible than Paine Field. McChord is less accessible than Paine Field for . this time period while the Bremerton alternative remains the least accessible. TABLE 11 ACCESSIBILITY OF REGIONAL AIRPORT LOCATIONS 1985 AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL TIMES CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL POPULATION WITHIN EACH TRAVEL TIME CATEGORY FOR VARIOUS AIRPORT LOCATION ALTERNATIVES TRAVEL TIME (MINUTES) McCHORD SEATAC BOEING PAINE BREMERTON Less than 30 17.0 29.2 39.1 20.0 6.4 Less than 45 27.8 70.4 68.8. 44.9 11.8 Less than 60 45.1 88.2 90.7 60.8 25.1 Less than 90 91.0 97.1 95.8 88.1 56.1 Less than 120 100.0% 100.0% 99.8 94.3 95.1 120+ n/a n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 63 TABLE 12 ACCESSIBILITY OF REGIONAL AIRPORT LOCATIONS 1985 CONGESTED TRAVEL TIMES TRAVEL TIME (MINUTES) McCHORD SEATAC BOEING FAINE BREMERTON Less than 30 14.1 23.0 28.7 13.8 2.5 Less than 45 23.6 52.7 55.4 23.8 6.7 Less than 60 33.4 80.0 85.1 37.7 7.6 Less than 90 60.9 94.1 94.3 63.1 22.3 Less than 120 94.9 96.3 96.2 88.0 49.0 120+ 100.0% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLE 13 ACCESSIBILITY OF REGIONAL AIRPORT LOCATIONS 2000 AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL TIMES CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL POPULATION WITHIN EACH TRAVEL TIME CATEGORY FOR VARIOUS AIRPORT LOCATION ALTERNATIVES TRAVEL TIME (MINUTES) McCHORD SEATAC BOEING PAINE BREMERTON Less than 30 13.4 21.5 26.8 16.6 4.9 Less than 45 27.1 61.3 60.4 42.4 12.1 Less than 60 42.0 84.9 87.8 55.7 24.5 Less than 90 82.1 96.1 94.4 78.4 53.2 Less than 120 99.8 100.0% 99.7 92.1 90.3 120 + 100.0% n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 64 TABLE 14 ACCESSIBILITY OF REGIONAL AIRPORT LOCATIONS 2000 CONGESTED TRAVEL TIMES • CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL POPULATION WITHIN EACH TRAVEL TIME-CATEGORY FOR VARIOUS AIRPORT LOCATION ALTERNATIVES TRAVEL TIME (MINUTES) McCHORD SEATAC BOEING PAINE BREMERTON Less than 30 11.7 19.5 25.3 11.5 4.8 Less than 45 18.8 46.4 53.6 22.9 8.7 Less than 60 28.4 73.2 84.4 34.1 9.3 Less than 90 49.5 93.2 93.5 62.1 11.5 Less than 120 86.6 98.8 97.4 88.4 14.9 120+ 100.0% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLE 15 ACCESSIBILITY OF REGIONAL AIRPORT LOCATIONS 2020 CONGESTED TRAVEL TIMES CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL POPULATION WITHIN EACH TRAVEL TIME CATEGORY FOR VARIOUS AIRPORT LOCATION ALTERNATIVES TRAVEL TIME (MINUTES) McCHORD SEATAC BOEING PAINE BREMERTON Less than 30 10.2 11.8 16.4 12.7 7.0 Less than 45 19.5 35.2 39.3 26.0 9.2 Less than 60 31.0 59.2 63.3 39.5 13.3 Less than 90 58.5 89.3 93.4 59.7 34.3 Less than 120 87.1 97.4 97.7 83.2 59.6 120+ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 65 Some general conclusions can be drawn from the above accessibility analysis. For all time periods and congestion levels, Sea -Tac and Boeing Field remain the most accessible of the airport alternatives for the majority of the Puget Sound population. The Bremerton National Airport alternative is the least accessible alternative for the majority of the Puget Sound population. It is projected that by 2020 it would take 40 percent of the region's population two or more hours to travel to that location. Although not listed in the tables, Tacoma Narrows Airport would probably rank next to Bremerton National as being least accessible. During average daily travel time periods, Paine Field is generally more accessible than McChord. During congested time periods, however, the difference in accessibility between the two locations is minimal. The foregoing analysis was based on projected travel times on the current and future highway system. It reflects accessibility by private vehicle, public transit, and airport shuttle as all of these modes use the highway system. It is the long range policy of the Regional Transportation Plan, as amended in 1987, to implement an urban rail system by the year 2020. If implemented, the urban rail system could change the relative advantage of one airport location to another, depending on the exact alignment and station locations. NOISE EXPOSURE Because of the growth in air transportation projected for the Puget Sound region, all of the RASP alternatives would result in increased noise exposure for the region as a whole. The most significant impacts, in terms of noise levels and number of people affected, will result from the air carrier alternatives. Although these are more general aviation airports than air carrier airports, severity of noise exposure from air carrier operations is usually greater than that for general aviation operations. For all of the RASP alternatives, the future noise exposure impact is either contained at existing. airport locations or shared between existing and new locations. Noise exposure at new locations not now affected could result from development of downtown helistops, seaplane facilities, or a general utility airport (satellite or major international). Preferred sites for new facilities are not part of the proposed action on the RASP at this time. Future work to evaluate site alternatives for new facilities, or to evaluate expansion of existing facilities, would quantify the noise exposure impacts. Some general inferences and conclusions can be drawn for the air carrier alternatives for this region. They are based on noise abatement programs currently underway or on experience of similar 66 airports in other urban areas. These are discussed in the following paragraphs. Noise Exposure Impact of Expanding Sea -Tac Beginning in 1976 with adoption of the Sea -Tac Communities Plan, Sea -Tac has continually implemented an aggressive noise abatement program. Following a study of aircraft noise impacts on surrounding communities, Sea -Tac found that the noise - impacted zone encompassed 10,370 homes. It split the zones into three concentric rings: in the innermost ring containing 1,370 homes, it has purchased 850 of the homes; in the second ring of 2,800 homes, it has offered to pay 100 percent of the cost of insulating the homes; in the outermost ring containing about 7000 homes, Sea -Tac will pay for 50 percent of the insulation cost. If homeowners choose to have their homes insulated, they are then required to sign an navigation easement ", which grants Sea -Tac the right to fly overhead. By agreeing to this easement, homeowners waive their right to sue. If a third runway were constructed at Sea -Tac to increase its capacity, the sufficiency of the existing noise abatement program would depend on the configuration of the third runway. As discussed under the "Airspace Safety and Congestion" section of this paper, it appears at this preliminary stage that a substantial increase in capacity would be realized only if Sea -Tac's runway system were configured so as t� be parallel to Boeing Field's runway. This would involve the realignment of the two existing runways when the third runway was constructed. If such an alternative were implemented, a completely new set of homes would be affected, resulting in a tremendous loss in the the sunk investment associated with the current noise abatement program described above. Noise Exposure Impact of Constructing a New Air Carrier Airport The assumption can be made that if a new international air carrier airport, or two new satellite airports, was . chosen as the preferred alternative, a location(s) would be selected and preserved early enough to plan for and' thereby ensure compatible land uses surrounding the airport site. The Denver metropolitan area recently underwent a site selection process for a new air carrier airport to replace the Stapleton Airport facility. The issues faced in the Denver decision process and the noise policies formulated for the new airport provide some insight when considering such a proposal in this region (11). • At the onset of the study, the following policy was formulated: "Measures shall be recommended to ensure land use compatibility in the environs with airport and aircraft operations; only those off - airport land uses that conform with applicable standards and criteria for noise 67 compatibility shall be permitted, and the airport will be planned to minimize the impact of airport - generated noise." ▪ Detailed simulations of noise effects were undertaken, with Ldn 65 and Ldn 75 values being determined for the anticipated aircraft mix, runway use and level of operations by time of day. Based in part on the simulation results, the design of the runway configurations and the positioning of the airport boundaries were chosen. ▪ Construction of the new airport is scheduled for the 1990's. In the interim, Denver will be implementing anti -noise regulations that allocate a noise budget to major airlines operating at Stapleton, effective June 5, 1987. It is most probable that these regulations will also be enacted at the new airport when Stapleton's operations are transferred to the new site. ▪ Denver is the first of the major hub airports to allocate a noise budget to airlines (5). The regulations involve a single event noise cap of 77.7 decibels (db). Compliance with these regulations will entail increasing the use of the quieter Stage 3 aircraft. Airlines whose operations do not exceed a daily average of 58.83 db. are exempt from the regulations. For those airlines that are not exempt, exceeding the above 77.7 db. cap will result in a $2,000 penalty. Noise Exposure Impact of Developing Existing General Aviation Airports into Satellite Air Carrier Airports A major concern voiced by citizens at RASP public meetings related to the future role of the region's general aviation airports and the implications of expanding the role of these airports to allow for air carrier operations. As discussed earlier in this section, it is difficult at this stage to quantify exactly what the noise impacts would be. Recent experiences with satellite airports in other metropolitan areas does however indicate the magnitude or degree of impact that would be encountered by regional airports and their surrounding communities in this area. In the Southern California area, Burbank, Long Beach, John Wayne and Ontario function as satellite airports to Los Angeles International. Several points regarding their noise impacts and related noise programs are as follows: • Airport noise is regulated by the State of California, which has determined the maximum noise levels that will be permitted in residential communities surrounding the airports. The California Airport Noise Standards called for a phased reduction in airport noise such that beginning in 1986 the maximum level cannot exceed 65 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level). 68 • Probably the most effective mitigation measure is to control aircraft noise at the source, the aircraft engine. Burbank Airport is the first medium (or greater) activity airport to have 100 percent of its airline fleet operating with Stage 3 aircraft, even though the national average is only 20 percent. • At Long Beach, the local government has attempted to put a cap on the number of flights in response to the nearly 1,000 lawsuits that have been filed over its 18 flights per day. • John Wayne Airport governs classes of aircraft and sets limits on flights, parking positions and passengers. Regulations in effect at John Wayne Airport regarding the above could be used as a model for regional airports in this area considering an expansion of their role to an air carrier satellite airport. Noise Exposure Implications for the Puget Sound Region A key element in mitigating future negative noise impacts is the immediate and continued prevention of incompatible land uses around airports. In the Puget Sound region, year 2020 projections indicate that the average residential densities for the aggregated census tracts adjacent to potential air carrier facilities are as follows: Airport 2020 population /acre Paine Field 6.3 Sea -Tac 5.2 McChord AFB 3.8 Tacoma Narrows 1.5 Bremerton National 0.6 The Bremerton National location has a low density figure because, except to the north and northeast of the airport, the land surrounding the airport is largely an undeveloped wooded area. At this preliminary stage, the Bremerton location would appear to offer the potential for affecting the fewest people. However, care must be taken when drawing such an implication because all impacts relating to noise are negative - selecting an airport based on the number of people affected will just serve to pit communities against each other. AIRSPACE CONGESTION AND SAFETY Airspace congestion (and the associated implications for safety) has increased dramatically in the last few years with the advent of airline deregulation. Peak demand scheduling and frequency of flights give an airline the competitive edge over others within a 69 given market. The effect of the added competition due to deregulation has more rapid growth in aircraft operations than predicted in the early 1980's. This increase in operations, and the resulting congestion that it brings, is being felt by all major airports throughout the country. In the Puget Sound region, however, there is another important factor which further contributes to the level of airspace congestion experienced by Sea -Tac. This is the presence of Boeing Field, which shares the same airspace. The level of activity at Boeing Field is such that in 1985 it was ranked by the. FAA as the 14th busiest airport in the United States, with respect to number of total,operations (19). Sea -Tac and Boeing Field are in such close proximity that during many instrument flight rule (IFR) or poor weather conditions, Sea -Tac and Boeing Field airspace capacities are effectively reduced to that of one airport. Thus, an aircraft approach to Boeing Field prevents the simultaneous approach of an aircraft destined for Sea -Tac and vice versa. This situation results in a substantial reduction in the utilization of Sea -Tac's capacity with corresponding costly delays to air carrier flights. Both short term and long term alternatives for reducing congestion and increasing the utilization of Sea -Tac's capacity have been proposed. The feasibility and impacts of implementing these alternatives were discussed with the FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) and Port of Seattle staff (23). Major findings are as follows: U Sea -Tae's Maximum Airside Capacity. The average number of daily operations at Sea -Tac during VFR conditions is currently 711. Air traffic control (ATC) staff estimate that the maximum number of operations Sea -Tac's runway facilities could handle would be 62 operations for 16 hours a day or 992 operations per day. ▪ Factors Influencing Effective Capacity. During IFR conditions, the effective capacity of Sea -Tac is reduced by 15 percent. Other factors that influence Sea -Tae's effective airside capacity are the mix of aircraft using the runway facilities and weather conditions, which dictate the approach pattern of incoming aircraft. U Influence of Noise Abatement Program. The noise abatement program has substantially reduced the ability of Sea -Tac to use its airside capacity efficiently. O Interaction of Sea - Tac /Boeing Field Airspace. Given the airspace interaction between Sea -Tac and Boeing Field, Sea -Tac's capacity would be more effectively utilized if business jet and general aviation aircraft had the opportunity to use regional airports other than Boeing Field and Sea -Tac during instrument flying conditions. 70 • Relative Attractiveness of Reliever Airports. Because Sea -Tac, Boeing Field and Renton Municipal Airport are close together, their airspace "control zones" are adjacent and in fact overlap in some areas. Therefore, Renton is not an ideal candidate for accommodating Boeing Field and /or Sea -Tac traffic during many IFR conditions, although it is acceptable in some cases (IFR north departures from Renton can operate simultaneously with IFR north departures from Sea -Tac or Boeing( Field). ATC staff felt that Paine Field was the best suited airport for accommodating Boeing Field and /or Sea -Tac traffic during IFR conditions. It is outside the Boeing Field /Sea -Tac airspace and has sufficient airside facilities to accommodate all sizes of aircraft. Bremerton National Airport and Tacoma Narrows are also good candidates for taking on the above role as reliever airports, however, they would be limited by their runway size to intermediate size aircraft. The ATC staff also felt that pilot training programs should be initiated at Paine Field, Bremerton, Tacoma Narrows or Renton to help relieve the long term congestion pressures at Boeing Field. With respect to the feasibility of a third runway at Sea -Tac, the following comments were noted. • A third runway at Sea -Tac would need to have at least 5,000 feet separating it from the other runways in order to be effective in increasing capacity. • It would not be advantageous to construct the third runway so that it intersected the existing two runways at Sea -Tac (making it parallel with Boeing Field's runway), since Sea -Tac would still be left with just one effective runway during IFR conditions. • It would also be limiting to construct the third runway so that it lay parallel with the existing two runways at Sea -Tac. Such a configuration would still result in conflicts with Boeing Field operations unless a curved approach to the Sea -Tac runways could be utilized. This would be possible if a landing directional aid system were implemented. • Total realignment of the existing Sea -Tac runways so that they lay parallel with Boeing Field's runway is conceptually possible, but would result in a completely new noise impact area. Such a result would be very costly, given the enormous investment in the existing approach path. In summary, a third runway is a "long term" alternative for addressing the increasing congestion levels faced by Sea -Tac and Boeing Field. In the interim, the existing capacity of Sea -Tac can be used more efficiently if the role of other regional airports is expanded so that they take on the function of 71 becoming true "reliever" facilities. To the extent possible during IFR conditions, ILS training and other general aviation operations should be given the opportunity to use regional airports other than Boeing Field and Sea -Tac. AIR QUALITY The development of a new international air carrier airport and the accompanying airport related development would likely cause an increase in the pollutants associated with airports and their operations. The development likely to occur in surrounding communities and the increase in automobile and truck traffic in the area all would contribute to air quality problems. It would seem that the greatest possibility of problems would occur in the immediate vicinity of the airport terminals and runway facilities. Pollutants could be generated by the use of ground service vehicles, the storage and transfer of aircraft fuel, heating and other operations of the terminal complex, and the motor vehicles used by airport employees, passengers, and visitors (54). Similar air quality problems would be encountered with the development of a new satellite airport or a new general aviation airport but on a smaller scale. The numbers of aircraft operations would be lower and the likelihood of significant air quality problems at these facilities would also decrease. The expansion of the runway system and the accompanying increase in airport operations would likely cause an increase in air quality problems in the area. Dust could be a problem to nearby business and residential areas during the construction phase. With the increase in operations would come an increase in air pollution already generated by the facility and its operation. Helicopter, sport, private and seaplane alternatives presented in the Regional Airport System Plan should not have a significant effect on air quality. In fact, many of the alternatives in these areas propose more efficient operations which could reduce the risk of air quality problems. Future area quality problems, at these and larger aviation facilities, can be minimized by careful planning and the implementation of certain measures used for the dispersal of potentially harmful air pollutants. ENERGY CONSUMPTION The construction of a new international, satellite, or general aviation airport will cause an increase in energy consumption, at least in the short term. The energy costs related to airport construction would be enormous. Following this would be added cost of the operation of a new airport and the energy costs associated with airport development. 72 The expansion of the Sea -Tac runway system would also involve a major energy outlay. The construction process use a significant amount of energy and the increase in operations would also boost energy cost at the facility. Increased air traffic, increased auto traffic, larger ground service operations and maintenance of a broader facility will all contribute to higher costs and greater energy usage. The alternatives presented for special aviation useage will not significantly alter energy consumption in a negative or a positive way. These special needs will continue to use approximately the same amounts of energy under the alternative with the possibility of slight increases. In all cases, attempts should be made to utilize construction techniques and designs which employ accepted practices in energy conservation. Construction impacts can be alleviated by an efficient approach to construction with an eye toward maintaining practices which conserve fuel and other non - renewable resources. It is also important to note that the congestion on the ground at existing airports, if new facilities are not constructed, could result in a very inefficient use of existing energy resources (15). COMMUNITY FACILITIES, PARKS, PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES The construction of new airports and the expansion of Sea -Tac airport could have significant impacts on community resources in the areas near the airport sites or in aircraft flight paths. Schools, libraries, community centers, hospitals and religious facilities could all experience adverse effects due to the noise associated with major airport construction and subsequent increased operations. Recreation areas, parks and open spaces located in rural and semi -rural areas would be impacted not only by aircraft noise but also by a new emergence of automobile traffic, urban development and possible damage to the natural environment. Provision of water, sewer and other services could prove to be a heavy burden on the local communities adjacent to the airport. In the case of rural and semi -rural area the construction of an airport would increase the growing pressure from urbanization for a change in the character of local communities. - 73 VII. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Natural Environment VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES - NATURAL ENVIRONMENT SURFACE WATER The construction of one or two new air carrier satellite airports to be operated in conjunction with Sea -Tac would have a substantial impact on surface water in the region. The construction of new airports would require the development of large tracts of land in sparsely populated areas. Development of such rural areas puts previously unspoiled surface water at great risk. Impacts during construction could include siltations, erosion, contamination, and the filling or dredging of important surface water areas. The paving of large tracts of land for runways and other facilities would alter the previously natural drainage. Fuel, deicing compounds, and other chemicals can now find their way into nearby water reserves. The expansion of existing general aviation airports to accommodate air carrier operations would have a minor effect on surface water in the region. The general aviation airports under consideration have all carried substantial air traffic in the past and have addressed the issue of airport related surface water pollution. If some of these airports were further developed to handle air carrier traffic certain measures could minimize any impact on surface water. Steps to avoid an increase in drainage and runoff would have to be taken. The additional pollution from fuel and aircraft cleaning fluids could easily find its way to nearby water reserves if runoff was a problem. Despite potential problems, impacts on surface water can be controlled during the expansion of general aviation airports. If expansion of the runway system at Sea -Tac involved the paving of otherwise drainable land the process could produce adverse effects on drainage of the Sea -Tac area and create further water quality problems. The area has had problems with water quality and quantity in the past created by the rapid airport, highway and urban growth. Close attention to runway drainage systems during construction would minimize the impact. An increase in operations at Sea -Tac would also cause an increase in wastewater from aircraft - related cleaning operations. These types of wasterwater discharges, if uncontrolled or untreated prior to ultimate discharge to downstream environments, could have severe adverse effects on the health of receiving streams (54). The construction of a new international air carrier airport would have a severe impact on the surface water resources in the area where it is located. Due to the limited availability of large tracts of land in developed areas, the construction of a new regional air carrier airport would involve obtaining undeveloped, sparsely populated acreage. The construction of such a large facility would result in the paving and covering of this 75 previously undeveloped land. Such action would alter the drainage of the area increasing the possibilities for runoff related problems in larger waterways. This type of large scale construction carries with it construction related pollution. Fuel spills, wastewater, sewage, and soils transported through runoff could all create major water quality problems in the vicinity of the new airport. Drainage of the airport site could carry these and other pollutants to the surrounding watershed. Indeed, it is hard to estimate all possible impacts on surface water supplies from a project of such large scope. There would be real possibilities of severe watershed impacts regardless of the site and any efforts to minimize these impacts would be difficult and costly. The implementation of the general aviation alternatives of the Regional Airport System Plan would have, for the most part, a minor impact on surface water in the region. The exception would be the locating of a new general utility class airport in the Puget Sound region. As was discussed in previous paragraphs, the construction of any new airport, in what was previously undeveloped land, involves substantial impacts for surface water. Problems of drainage, increased runoff, siltation, sewage, wastewater pollution, and fuel spills can severely affect surface water in the vicinity of a new airport as well as the surrounding watershed. New helicopter facilities in the Puget Sound region are expected to have an insignificant impact on surface water resources. The greatest demand for helicopter facilities is in central city locations throughout the Puget Sound region. Therefore, the sites selected for helicopter landing facilities are likely to be in areas that have already been developed. Addition of helicopter operations to these areas would have little or no effect on surface water. An exception might be a helipad developed in a waterfront location. The avoidance of fuel and wastewater (from helicopter cleaning operations) from entering the adjacent water areas would have to be a primary concern when addressing a possible waterfront helipad site. The Regional Airport System Plan alternatives for seaplanes would have a minimal effect on surface water quality in the region. This is because the alternatives presented in the plan advocate a seaplane base consolidation effort and not new seaplane bases. The consolidation of bases could possibly impact the particular water area contain the seaplane operations but with careful - planning and reasonable regulations water quality problems could be kept to a minimum. In contrast to air carrier and general aviation facilities it is anticipated that sport aviation facilities and operations will have no adverse effects on surface water quality in the region. Even a significant increase in sport aviation involvement in the area would not cause a problem since these activities contribute little to aircraft related water pollution. Privately owned 76 airports, located in semi -rural or rural areas are facing development pressures from surrounding communities and carry much of the recreational aviation operations. In some cases the existing airport facilities may be preferred, from a water quality standpoint, to the urban development which would bring with it substantial impacts to local water resources. FLOOD PLAINS AND FLOOD ZONES Flood plains and flood hazard zones occur throughout the Puget Sound region. It is possible that the selection of sites for new airports, either air carrier or general aviation, could be in areas designated as flood hazard zones. The construction of a new airport would increase the flood hazard in these areas. The severity of the impact would depend on the magnitude of the project. The construction of a new international air carrier airport in . a flood hazard zone could have significant impacts. The acreage, which had drained naturally would now be built upon. The installation of runways, terminals, support buildings, access roads and parking to a rural or semi -rural area would alter the previous drainage pattern. Runoff to certain rivers and streams would increase in volume and become less manageable. The results of a change in drainage patterns. could cause an increase in the frequency of floods in these zones and an increase in their severity. The construction of a smaller airport (i.e., a general aviation airport) on a flood plain or flood hazard zone would cause similar impacts on those stated above, but on a smaller scale. The impact on flooding in an area would be a more localized concern. An increase in airport operations (air carrier or general aviation) at existing facilities and helicopter, sport, and private aviation operations will not have an impact on flood hazard zones in the region. The impact of new airport construction on flood plains and storm water runoff can be mitigated by careful and precise planning during the airport site selection process. WETLANDS Wetlands can be found throughout the Puget Sound region and should be of major concern in the site selection process for new airports. In the region, as throughout the country, wetland areas have been disappearing to urban and suburban growth at an astounding rate over the last quarter of a century. Wetlands serve a multitude of ecological functions and two of the most important are the control of storm water runoff and the provision of crucial wildlife habitat. The construction of a new air carrier satellite airport, new international air carrier airport or new general aviation airports would cause major impacts of located in or adjacent to a wetland area. Construction activities could result in disturbance or removal of existing marsh habitat and existance of 77 wildlife populations. Increased noise levels caused by construction and subsequent airport activities could further disturb wildlife populations. In addition, the filling of a wetland area (commonly located in a flood hazard zone) would dramatically increase the storm water runoff in the area. This would in turn increase the frequency and severity of flooding in the area. The drastic effects of siting a major airport project near or in a wetland area should not be overlooked. The effects on runoff, erosion, drainage, vegetation and wildlife populations is substantial. The avoidance of wetland areas, because of their biological importance and their scarcity, should be a major priority during the site selection process for new airports. This expansion of the Sea -Tac runway system would not adversely affect wetland areas since the site has long been saturated by urban growth. An increase in air carrier and general aviation operations and in helicopter, sport and seaplane operations at existing facilities would have no impact on wetland areas. VEGETATION AND GROUND WATER The development of one or two new satellite airports in the region would cause major impacts to vegetation since such facilities would require large tracts of rural or semi -rural land. The construction of new airports would require extensive development of building and paved areas and the large scale removal of trees and other existing vegetation. A detailed survey of vegetation at specifically selected sites would determine if any unique or endangered species exist. The removal of vegetation over such a large areas can result in a change in the aesthetic quality of a rural or semi -rural area. In addition to these considerations, vegetation is important for stabilizing soils, retarding stormwater runoff, providing wind breaks and harboring wildlife. All of the effects of vegetation removal applies also to the construction of a new international air carrier airport on a much greater scale. The development of new general aviation airports would also impact smaller areas of vegetation. The construction of new airports could' possibly affect ground water reserves in the region. Fuel, aircraft cleaning fluids, motor vehicle related fluids and other development related pollutants can easily enter and contaminate ground water supplies. An increase in airport operations can also contribute to adverse effects on ground water by increasing the amounts and frequency of chemicals entering the system. The Sea -Tac area has experienced rapid urban growth in recent decades transforming it into an area where significant impacts on sensitive plant or animal populations are not likely with expansion of the runway system. Some minor land clearing might be necessary and steps should be taken to minimize erosion, 78 ensure proper drainage and protect from contamination surface and ground water supplies in the area. It is difficult to mitigate the loss of vegetation during the construction of new airport but several steps may be taken. Trees and ground cover should only be removed when it is absolutely necessary. Ground cover should be replaced in as short a time as possible to prevent soil erosion and blowing dust. Natural plant materials should be used for replacement and, as much as possible, for new landscaping. With new landscaping, complementary planting should be made as an attempt to blend the development with the landscape (15). WILDLIFE In comparison with nearby urban communities the rural and semi -rural lands necessary for new airport development contain extensive ground cover and vegetation, riparian and marsh habitats. Due to rapid urbanization and the conversion of forested lands into an urban environment, few original natural habitats exist. Despite this, a wide variety of bird species and small mammals make use of the forest, wetland and water habitats that do remain. The construction of any new airport will have a significant effect on local wildlife populations. The severity of the impact can be determined by the size of the facility being constructed. The areas converted to buildings and paved areas during construction will be eliminated as areas supporting wildlife. Noise and human activity during construction and afterwards can disturb and possibly displace waterfowl and other birds feeding, nesting and breeding in the area. Wildlife'displaced by habitat alteration would be forced to relocate into adjoining areas. How well the small mammals and birds can adapt to the newly urbanized environment will determine their fate after airport construction. An increase in airport operations at existing airport facilities would not cause a significant impact on wildlife populations. The wildlife in the areas of existing airports have either adapted to the noise and activities of the area or they have moved into other areas of less disturbance. All development of new airports should include measures to protect the water resource and water runoff which should also protect the biological systems. An on -site inventory of both special plants and wildlife should be made of all proposed new airport sites prior to the commencement of design and construction activities. Special care and design considerations should be given to natural drainage streams or runoff patterns (15). 79 SOILS AND AGRICULTURE A wide variety of soil types and conditions exist in the Puget Sound region. Some of these could be a factor during the construction can be taken during the design and construction phases of airport development to help minimize the impacts on local soil conditions. Improper construction practices and building on poor soils can result in soil erosion, increased storm water runoff, increased landslide risk, poor drainage and other soil related problems. Geotechnical analysis would be needed at the sites selected to determine areas of steep slopes and potentially unstable soils. Additional measures could be taken to control surface water runoff. The extent of surface water management controls could be identified during engineering design work. Sophisticated engineering techniques can ensure that soils will not be a significant factor in the construction of new facilities. There are considerable agricultural lands located in the Puget Sound area despite the threats of encroaching urbanization. As with wetland areas, agricultural acreage is being converted to other uses at an alarming rate. Since new airport development is most likely to occur in rural or semi -rural areas, agricultural land is a prime target for conversion to airport development. It is important during the site selection process that agricultural areas be spared from development if it is at all possible. In many areas of the region, agriculture provides the landscape with many aesthetic values that create a unique visual character. As these lands diminish it becomes increasingly important to preserve certain areas in a traditional agricultural landscape. The contributions of agricultural acreage to an urban society, in terms of food production, wildlife habitat, timber production and aesthetic values have only recently been realized. • 80 VIII. Summary and Conclusions VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES The foregoing analysis of environmental impacts and mitigating measures related to the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) alternatives leads to the following principal findings: Compatibility with Local Plans and Policies • An air carrier satellite role for Paine Field, Bremerton National Airport or Tacoma Narrows Airport would necessitate revision of both the airport master plan and the appropriate local comprehensive (land use) plan. • The expansion of Sea -Tac by addition of a third runway and supporting facilities would result in additional (beyond the currently adopted noise remedy program) dislocations of residences and of businesses and would necessitate revision of the Highline Communities Comprehensive Plan. • Development of a new air carrier airport, a new general aviation airport or sport aviation facility, or new downtown helistops or seaplane bases would require revision of the appropriate local comprehensive plans and the adoption of new zoning ordinances defining design conditions and mitigation of impacts. • Public comment to date on the RASP alternatives has been mixed. Through the public forums and media coverage there has been support expressed for protecting existing airport facilities and providing new ones in response to the growth in demand, opposition expressed for an expanded role (services and operations) for existing airports, and both support and opposition for locating new airports in presently rural or undeveloped areas. Economic Development • The combined direct and indirect job impact of Sea -Tac, if developed according to its currently adopted master plan, is estimated to be a maximum of 106,000 jobs. Each satellite air carrier airport to supplement Sea -Tac could generate up to 32,000 jobs (direct plus indirect), and an expanded Sea -Tac or a new primary airport to replace Sea -Tac could generate up to 178,000 jobs. • On a regional basis, the employment impact of the air carrier alternatives would be roughly the same. The distribution of the impact would vary depending on the .location of the new facilities. • Based on preliminary estimates, the total capital costs (1986 $) through the planning period of the air carrier 81 alternatives are as follows: Expand Sea -Tac -- $2.75 billion, New International Airport -- $1.95 billion, Two New Satellite Airports -- $1.43 billion, and Expand Existing Airports as Satellites -- $1.40 billion. The overall capital costs of the general aviation alternatives are nearly the same, ranging from a low of $126 million to a high of $132 million among the alternatives. • For the general aviation system, it is likely that funding needs can be met with conventional sources over the long term. For the air carrier system the financial needs are much greater; supplementary funding sources will have to be sought. Accessibility to Air Transportation • Based on an analysis of existing airports which could have air carrier service in the future, it was found that Sea -Tac and Boeing Field remain the most accessible for the majority of the Puget Sound region's population. Paine Field and McChord Air Force Base are the next most accessible for the majority of the population; Tacoma Narrows and Bremerton ' National Airports are the least accessible. Noise Exposure • Because of the growth in air transportation projected for the Puget Sound region, all of the RASP alternatives would result in increased noise exposure for the region as a whole. The location of the noise would vary between being contained at existing airport locations or being shared among existing and new airport locations. • Based on a comparison of population densities around existing airports it appears that additional operations around Tacoma Narrows and Bremerton National Airports would affect the fewest people; additional operations at Sea -Tac /Boeing Field, Paine Field, and McChord would affect greater numbers of people. • Resources are available through the FAA Part 150 Program for developing and implementing noise exposure mitigation measures at any of the airports which may adopt an expanded service role. Experience in other urban areas indicates that satellite air carrier airports can function effectively within constraints on number of operations, type of aircraft and hours of operation, which keep noise impacts at acceptable levels. • The addition of a third runway at Sea -Tac would significantly increase the off - airport noise impacted areas. If the expansion also included realignment of the runways to be parallel with Boeing Field runways (for maximum capacity) it would cause significant alteration of the currently adopted Sea -Tac Noise Remedy Program. 82 • The evaluation of site alternatives for new air carrier airport, general aviation airport, sport aviation facility, or downtown helistop or seaplane base would of necessity (for public support) include consideration of noise buffer areas and compatible surrounding land uses. Airspace Congestions and Safety • In the near term, airspace congestion in the Sea -Tac /Boeing Field area can be alleviated if the role of other regional airports (Paine Field, Bremerton National, and Tacoma Narrows) is expanded to include being relievers for general aviation operations during IFR conditions. • Of the long term alternatives, the expansion of Sea -Tac with a third runway would cause the greatest concentration of operations in the Sea -Tac /Boeing Field airspace; the new airport alternatives would cause a greater dispersion of operations in the regional airspace. • Use of the Sea -Tac /Boeing Field airspace would be optimized if the runways of the two airports were parallel rather than intersecting as they are now. This would cause perceptible changes in the aircraft overflight patterns for communities of the region. Air Quality • Because of the projected growth in air transportation for the Puget Sound region, all of the RASP alternatives will cause increased air pollution from aircraft operations, ground vehicle operations, and other ground operations. The additional pollutant emissions will be either concentrated at existing airport sites or dispersed among existing and new airport sites depending on the alternatives chosen. • It is unlikely that the additional pollution generated by future airport operations would cause violations of air quality standards; however, the air quality impacts will be verified in site - specific analyses at future stages of planning. Energy Consumption • Because of the projected growth in aircraft and airport operations, all.of the RASP alternatives will result in increased energy consumption for the region. • The energy costs associated with construction of a new major international airport, an expanded Sea -Tac, a new satellite airport, or a new general aviation airport would be major; the other alternatives would have relatively minor energy costs by comparison. 83 Community Facilities, Parks, Public Services, Utilities ▪ The alternatives which involve development of new airports in what are now undeveloped areas would require extensive upgrade of utilities and other public facilities and services; the alternatives which rely on existing airport locations could utilize existing utilities and services to a large extent. Natural Environment • The most significant impacts to surface and ground water, wetlands, flood plains, vegetation, wildlife and soils would occur with the RASP alternatives that involve construction of new airport facilities in undeveloped areas. The severity of the impacts would vary among specific site(s); the environmental sensitivities of alternative sites would be among the criteria used to select a preferred site. • A major expansion of Sea -Tac or other major development at existing airports could compound impacts on the natural environment which is already overburdened by urban development in general. • Mitigating measures to address environmental sensitivities of either existing airport sites or new ones can minimize the adverse impacts; they must be identified and included early in the project design and in construction phases. CONCLUSIONS Each of the Regional Airport System Plan alternatives will result in significant impacts on the natural and human environments. Among the alternatives, the principal difference in impacts, both positive and negative, is whether they will be contained at existing airport locations or dispersed among existing and new airport locations. Based on the analysis, no alternative is clearly superior to the others. Further definition of the impacts at the site specific level will assist in the selection of a preferred alternative for the regional airport system. In any case, extensive mitigating measures will be necessary for environmental protection and such measures will increase the cost of implementation. 84 • Air Carder • General Aviation ■ Seaplane Base ® Heliport * Military Oarrington Municipal Arlington Snohomish Co. Paine Field) Harvey Airfield Flying F Ranch • Sky Harbor Kenmore Seaplane Base Skykomiah State SeaFirst Bldg. Helistop King Co. Int I. (Boeing Field) W. Rogers/ W. Post Seaplane Base • Renton Municipal Bremerton National Port Orchard Vashon Island Seattle - Tacoma International Cedar \Grove Airpark Benders State ,^). Tacoma Narrows Lester State • mericen Lake Seaplane . Bose J McChord AFB Pierce Co. tThun Field) • Spanawey Gray AAF (Fort Lewis) P §COG fSwanson Ranger Creek State EXISTING PUBLIC USE AND MILITARY AIRPORTS Figure 3 10 • REFERENCES 1. Akhimie and Kask for Pierce County, Pierce County Airport - Thun Field Master Plan, (Tacoma, WA; Nov. 1986). 2. Akhimie and Kask for Pierce County, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Pierce County Airport - Thun Field Master Plan, (Tacoma, WA; Sept. 1986). 3. Association of Bay Area Governments, Regional Airport Plan (San Francisco, CA; 1980). 4. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1986 publications. 5. Aviation Week and Space Technology, "FAA Assessing Impact of Regulation Setting Airline Noise Budget at Denver's Stapleton Airport" (March 30, 1987). 6. CH2M Hill for City of Auburn, Auburn Municipal Airport Master Plan, (Auburn, WA; May 1978). 7. Coffman Associates for King County, Airport Noise Impact Assessment Study for Boeing Field King County International Airport, (Seattle, WA; Oct. 1983). 8. Coffman Associates for King County, Master Development Plan for Boeing Field /King County International Airport, Technical Report, (Seattle, WA; Aug. 1986). 9. Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force, Use of United States Air Force Installations by Other than United States Department of Defense Aircraft (Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 250, December 31, 1986). 10. de Neufville, Richard, Airport Systems Planning, (MacMillan Press, Ltd; 1976). 11. Denver Regional Council of Governments, Metro Airport Study Final Report (Denver, CO; 1983). 12. Devco Aviation Consultants for Crest Airpark, Draft Airport Layout Plan Report for Crest Airpark, (Kent, WA; March 1985). 13. Devco Aviation Consultants for Crest Airpark, Environmental Assessment for Crest Airpark, (Kent, WA; Dec. 1984). 14. Devco Aviation Consultants for City of Tacoma, Airport Master Plan Report for the Tacoma Narrows Airport, (Tacoma, WA; Dec. 1985). 15. Devco Aviation Consultants for City of Tacoma, Final Environmental Assessment for Tacoma Narrows Airport, (Tacoma, WA; Nov. 1984). 85 16. Federal Aviation Administration, Measuring the Regional Economic Siginficance of Airports. (Washington, D.C.; October 1986). 17. Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1986 -1997, (Washington, D.C.; Feb. 1986). 18. Federal Aviation Administration, airport Capacity and Delay Advisory Cicular (Washington D.C.; Sept. 1984). 19. Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Statistical Handbook of Aviation (Washington, D.C.; 1985). 20. Federal Aviation Administration, Measuring the Regional Economic Significance of Airports (Washington, D.C.; October 1986). 21. Federal Aviation Administration, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports Advisory Circular (Washington, D.C.; August 1983). 22. Maddison, D., etal, "Crunch Time for Airport Engineering" (ASCE Civil Engineering; no date): 23. Meeting with PSCOG, POS and FAA staff (Seattle, WA; March 20, 1987). 24. Navarrete, J.D., and Samis, R.A., "Six Out of Ten Air Passengers Use Dulles or BWI" (publication untitled; March 1987). 25. Port of Seattle, Sea -Tac International Airport Noise Exposure Update, (Seattle, WA; June 1982). 26. Port of Seattle, Final Report, Master Plan Update for Sea -Tac International Airport, (Seattle, WA; Sept. 1985). 27. Port of Seattle and King County, Sea -Tac International Airport /King County International Airport Airspace Study, (Seattle, WA; Jan. 1983). 28. Port of Seattle, Working Paper, Master Plan Update for Pea -Tac International Airport, Alternatives Evaluation, (Seattle, WA; Dec. 1985). 29. Port of Seattle, Planning and Research Department, 1982 Economic Impact Study, Technical Report (Seattle, WA; 1982). 30. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Population and Employment Forecasts (Seattle, WA; March 1984). 31. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Regional Airport System Plan Technical Report on the Air Carrier and General Aviation Elements, (Seattle, WA; Oct. 1987). 32. PSCOG, Regional Transportation Plan, (Seattle, WA; Sept. 1982). 86 33. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Regional Airport System Plan, (Seattle, WA; June 1982). 34. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Population and Employment Forecasts, (Seattle, WA; March 1984). 35. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Task 6 Issue Paper - Privately Owned Airports in the Puget Sound Region, (Seattle, WA; May 1986). 36. Puget Sound Business Journal, "Is This Area a General Aviation Backwater ?," August 24, 1987. 37. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Task 3 Report - Helicopter Service Needs, (Seattle, WA; March 1986). 38. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Task 4 Report - Seaplane Facility Needs, (Seattle, WA; April 1986). 39. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Draft Regional Airport System Plan (Seattle, WA; October 1987). 40. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Task 5 Report - Sport Aviation in the Puget Sound Region, (Seattle, WA; May 1986). 41. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Multi- Corridor Summary Report (Seattle, WA; November 1986). 42. Reid, Middleton and Associates, Regional Airport System Capital and Operating Costs, Technical Paper (Edmonds, WA; May 11, 1987). 43. Rodwell Research and PSCOG Staff, Split Operations in the Seattle Hub, Technical Paper (Seattle, WA; March 26, 1987). 44. R. Dixon Speas Assoc. for Puget Sound Governmental Conference, Air Transportation System Advance Plan, (Seattle, WA; Sept. 1969). 45. Reid, Middleton and Associates, The Parry Co., Snohomish County Paine Field Airport Draft Environmental Impact Statement, (Everett, WA; Nov. 1980). 46. Reid, Middleton Field Snohomish June 1981). 47. Reid, Middleton for the Central 1986). and Associates for Snohomish County, Paine County Airport Master Plan, (Everett, WA; and Associates, General Aviation Forecasts Puget Sound Region (Edmonds, WA; August 48. Reid, Middleton and Associates, Robert O. Brown for Port of Bremerton, Bremerton National Airport - Airport Plans Update, (Bremerton, WA; Dec. 1985). 49. Reid, Middleton and Associations, Regional Airport System Capital and Operating Costs, Technical Paper. (Edmonds, WA; May 11, 1987). 87 50. Rodwell Research, Paying for the Puget Sound Regional Airport System, (Seattle, WA; May 1987). 51. Rodwell Research and PSCOG Staff, Demand Management at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, Technical Paper (Seattle, WA; March 26, 1987). 52. Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field) Draft Environmental Impact Statement, (Everett, WA; Nov. 1980). 53. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 1984 -1993, (Washington D.C.; August 1985). 54. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Planning for the Airport and its Environs: The Sea -Tac Success Story, (April 1978). 55. VTN Washington for City of Renton, Renton Municipal Airport and Will Rogers - Wiley Post Seaplane Base Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report, (Renton, WA: Feb. 1978). 56. Washington State Department of Ecology, State Environmental Policy Act Rules, Chapter 197 -11 Washington Adminstrative Code, (Olympia, WA; April 1984). 57. Washington State Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, Draft Element 4 Data Update, Washington State Continuous Airport System Plan, (Olympia, _WA; Oct. 1986). 58.,Wiley, John R., Airport Administration (Eno Foundation for Transportation, Inc.; 1981). 88 Appendix A Model Ordinance Provisions Regulating Helicopter Landing Areas APPENDIX A MODEL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REGULATING HELICOPTER LANDING AREAS SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS 1. APPROACH - DEPARTURE PATH. The flight track of the helicopter as it approaches or departs the takeoff and landing area. 2. HELICOPTER. A rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion depends principally on its engine- driven rotors. 3. HELIPORT. An area of land or 'a portionof a structure to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters on a recurring and frequent basis. Within the context of these regulations, heliports shall be distinguished from other helicopter landing areas on the basis that heliports include facilities for aircraft maintenance, fueling service, permanent helicopter parking areas, terminal /passenger buildings and related improvements for operation of a complete facility. a. Public and /or Commercial Heliports A heliport that is available for use by the public in general or is available to a restricted class provided compensation is paid for each landing /takeoff therefrom. b. Private /Personal Use Heliports A heliport facility that is used by the owner (individual, corporation, public agency) or their specific invitees without compensation for each operation, and not available to the general public. 4. HELIPAD. An area of land or a portion of a structure to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters for the purpose of picking up or discharging passenger /cargo on a regular and frequent basis. Helipad facilities shall not include permanent aircraft parking positions, fueling services or aircraft maintenance facilities although transient helicopter parking, lighting and related safety /security improvements may be available. Helipad may be Public /Commercial or Private /Personal. 5. INFREQUENTLY USED HELICOPTER LANDING AREA. An area of land or a portion of a structure to be used for the landing and takeoff of- helicopters for an indefinite time - period and on an infrequent basis. Infrequently Used Helicopter Landing Areas shall be available only for private /personal use and such utilization shall not.exceed thirty (30) landings per calendar year. A -1 6. TEMPORARY HELICOPTER LANDING SITES. An area of land or a portion of a structure to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters for a limited period of time not to exceed one hundred and eighty (180) consecutive days commencing with the day of the first helicopter landing. 7. EMERGENCY HELICOPTER LANDING AREA. An area of land or a portion of a structure used by a helicopter for takeoff and landing operations while participating in an actual or perceived emergency /disaster, when operating pursuant to the directions of law enforcement, public safety, fire suppression or medical authorities or when going to the immediate aid of any person in peril. SECTION 2. REGULATIONS GOVERNING HELICOPTER LANDING AREAS GENERALLY 1. No helicopter landing area, of any type, may be lawfully used unless the helicopter, its crew and flight operations thereof comply with all applicable provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Violation of a Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.0 while operating from a helicopter landing area, as defined in these regulations, shall automatically void all approvals and permits previously issued or relating to the helicopter landing area. 2. It shall be unlawful to operate a helicopter landing area, or allow its use, without at all times having maintained in full force and effect public liability and property damage insurance in the amount of at least•:$ with respect to Property Damage, and of at least $ combined Single Limit Bodily coverage. 3. It shall be unlawful to operate or use any helicopter landing area in a manner contrary to conditions or restrictions imposed by the (name of Jurisdiction). If the helicopter landing area owner has not cured or provided adequate assurances within thirty (30) days following notice of an action breaching a condition or restriction, all approvals and permits previously issued or relating to the helicopter landing area shall automatically be voidable at (name of jurisdiction) exclusive option. 4. The use of any helicopter landing area shall be limited to the periods between sunup and sundown daily, unless adequately lighted. 5. Fire suppression equipment shall be provided at heliport and helipad landing areas as determined necessary by the 6. A.wind indicating device shall be installed and maintained in working order at all-heliports and " helipads. • 7. Owners of heliports and helipads -shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, an annual helicopter landing area audit and shall submit this report to the Planning Directors, (name of A -2 jurisdiction). Areas to be evaluated /inspected include: available facilities and equipment (known hazards, barriers, or obstacles), operating procedures, adherence to conditions and restrictions, reported complaints, lighting and marking, communications and related issues. 8. Smoking shall not be permitted within fifty feet (50') of the helicopter touchdown pad when a helicopter is present. SECTION 3. APPLICABILITY OF ZONING REGULATIONS 1. Establishment of a heliport in any land -use zoning district requires notification of the proposed project, a public hearing, Planning Commission approval and issuance of a conditional use permit. 2 Helipads are established as a use by right of ownership in designated agricultural (list zones), industrial (list zones), and manufacturing (list zones) land -use zoning districts, subject only to a review of construction plans by the Building Inspector and Fire Marshal. In other land -use zoning, districts, helipad applicants shall obtain a conditional use permit prior to allowing helipad operations. 3 Infrequently Used Helicopter Landing Areas and Temporary Helicopter Landing Areas may be established in any land -use zone, except residential, provided all applicable Federal and State requirements are satisfied, the property owner has granted permission and all operations are conducted with the highest regard for the public's health, safety and welfare. SECTION 4. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA 1. All helicopter landing areas shall conform, to the greatest degree possible, with site selection criteria set forth below. a. The proposed helicopter landing area should be located so as to minimize any adverse affects to adjoining land uses; b. Helicopter Landing Area sites shall be located to maximize approach and departure paths over terrain which affords emergency landing areas (open parks, golf courses, industrial areas, highways, freeways and open land. Approach and departure paths over residential development, schools, playgrounds or highly populated areas should be avoided; c •No.helicopter landing site -shall -be..located.within 1,000 feet (measured by air line) of any public or private school boundary maintaining Kindergarten classes or any classes in grades 1 through 12, without prior approval of the State Department of Transportation; and A -3 d. Separate approach and departure paths shall serve the touchdown pad, align into the prevailing wind, and be separated by a minimum 90 degree arc. SECTION 5. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA FOR HELICOPTER LANDING AREAS 1. Heliport improvements shall, to the greatest extent possible, comply with the following development criteria: a. The length and width or diameter of the takeoff and landing area shall be at least 1.5 times the overall length of the largest helicopter expected to use the facility; b The peripheral area is intended as an obstacle -free safety area surrounding the takeoff and landing area and shall be /14 of the overall length of the largest helicopter expected to use the facility, but not less than 10 feet; c. Approach and departure paths to the site shall be governed in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.) Part 77 and shall be obstruction free for a minimum distance of 400 feet from the takeoff and landing area; d. A wind indicating device shall be provided and maintained in a working condition at all times; e. For nighttime operations, the heliport's landing area shall be provided with adequate lighting; f. Heliport facilities shall be marked in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.) heliport design guidelines; g Surfacing of the heliport's landing surface shall be constructed to minimize blowing any dust, dirt or other objectionable material onto neighboring property; h. Every heliport shall be limited in hours of operation to the periods between sunup and sundown daily, unless properly lighted; i. Takeoff and landing areas shall be no closer than 50 feet from any property line; any administrative or operations buildings erected on a heliport site shall be located not closer than 15 feet from any property line; helicopter maintenance facilities shall be located not closer than 25 feet from any property line; location and set backs for buildings storing combustibles shall be approved by the j.name of jurisdiction) fire-marshal; The exterior edge of the peripheral area shall be fenced or otherwise protected to keep unauthorized persons out of these areas; J A -4 k. Adequate fire extinguishers shall be provided as determined by the (name of jurisdiction) fire marshal; and 1. Approved means of communications (telephone, radio, fire alarm box, etc.) shall be available when helicopter operations are in progress. 2. Helipad improvements shall, to the greatest extent possible, comply with the following development criteria: a. The length and width or diameter of the takeoff and landing area shall be at least 1.5 times the overall length of the largest helicopter expected to use the facility; b. The peripheral area surrounding the takeoff and landing area shall be a minimum width of 10 feet; c. Approach and departure paths to the helipad should be planned in accordance with F.A.R. Part 77; d. A reliable wind indicating device (flag, banner, etc.) shall be available; e. Adequate lighting shall be available if night operations are anticipated; f. Helipad markings in accordance with F.A.A. guidelines; g. Touchdown pad surfaces which minimize blowing dust or debris; h. Fencing, natural barriers or security procedures which restrict public access; and i. Adequate fire extinguishers as determined by the (name of jurisdiction) fire marshal. 3. Infrequently Used Helicopter Landing Areas and Temporary Helicopter Areas shall, to the greatest extent possible, comply with the following criteria; a. Length and width or diameter of the takeoff and landing area shall be at least 1.5 times the overall length of the helicopter using the landing area; and b. Before each landing, the pilot shall carefully examine the landing area for obstructions, wires, and people on . or near the landing area. SECTION 6. SUSPENSION OF HELICOPTER LANDING AREA APPROVALS 1. Any helicopter landing area permit or approval is automatically and immediately suspended if related approvals by the State of or the Federal Aviation Administration are revoked, withdrawn or suspended. A -5 2 If in the considered opinion of the (title of responsible official) a helicopter landing area or the operation thereof is determined to be a serious and continuing danger to the Public health, safety and welfare, the (title of responsible official) may, upon giving notice, immediately suspend any helicopter landing area permit or approval provided by these regulations. Notwithstanding such suspension, the helicopter landing area owner is entitled to a hearing within thirty (30) days upon initiating an appeal of the .suspension.. Appendix B Model Airport Overlay Zone APPENDIX B MODEL AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE ORDINANCE Intent and Purpose. The intent and purpose of the Airport Overlay Zone is to establish appropriate regulations to protect.. the air space in the vicinity of airports and runway approaches, including those airports operated by the U.S. Armed Forces, to protect the lives and property of airport users, and to protect the property and occupants of land within the vicinity. This overlay zone will regulate and restrict the height of structures and objects, either natural or man -made, and restrict the uses of property in accordance with this title within the boundaries outlined on the County Zoning Maps. Limitations to Uses. All property, uses and activities within the Overlay Zone shall be subject to the restrictions set forth herein, as well as all restrictions of the underlying zoning classification in which it is located. Area of Application. All of the lands in unincorporated County which are lying beneath the approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, conical surfaces, or within noise exposure areas defined as follows, and identified on the County Zoning Map: 1. Height limitation area - all of the land within the following designated areas around the subject airport's primary runway surface, divided into four height limiting categories: a. Transition area - slope seven feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at the primary approach surface and extending to a height of one hundred fifty feet. b. Horizontal area - one hundred fifty feet above the airport elevation. c. Conical area - slopes twenty feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at the periphery of the horizontal area at one hundred fifty feet above the airport elevation and extending to a height of three-'hundred fifty feet above the airport elevation. d. Approach areas: 1) Precision instrument runway approach area - Slopes fifty feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface;. and,extendiPg'to-a horizontal - distance as designated along the extended runway centerline; thence sloping forty feet outward for each foot upward to an additional horizontal distance as designated along the extended runway centerline. ■ B -1 2) Non - precision instrument runway approach area - Slopes thirty -four feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface; and extending to a horizontal distance as designated along the extended runway centerline. 3) Visual runway approach areas - Slopes _twenty feet outward for each foot upward, beginning at•the.end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface; and extending to a horizontal distance as designated along the extended runway centerline. 2. Land Use Guide Area - All of the land identified as the land Use Guide Area conforms to the ldn sixty -five composite noise contour established by the existing airport activities or by an approved airport master plan. The Land Use Guide Area shall be generalized to the nearest property line outside the noise contour. Amendment to Boundaries. Amendments or revisions to the boundaries of the height limitation area or land use guide area identified on the County Zoning Map shall occur in accordance with the procedures for changes in zone classifications, Restrictions and Rectulations. a. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, no structure shall be erected, altered or maintained, and no trees shall be allowed to grow in any zone covered by this title to a height in excess of the applicable height limitation herein established. b. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no use may be made of land or water within any approach area established by this title in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between the airport and aircraft, make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, create bird strike hazards, or otherwise endanger or interfere with the landing, take off, or maneuvering of aircraft intending to use the airport. c. No place of public assembly, including but not limited to, schools, theaters, churches and hospitals, shall -hereafter-be constructed-or otherwise-established within the Lane Use Guide Area. d. Land located within the Land Use Guide Area shall be zoned for uses compatible with airport uses. B -2 e. All new subdivisions within the Land Use Guide Area will be subject to navigation easements which will provide notice of the restrictions to future property owners. f. All new uses of property within the Land Use Guide Area shall be served notice of noise impact as part of development review. g. The Land Use Guide Area will not be allowed to expand into established residential areas in order to- protect. those areas from undue impacts. Expansions of airports may be limited by other conditions within this title. h. Each airport shall establish noise standards and noise abatement procedures and noise monitoring points and shall be responsible for enforcing such procedures. J All airport construction shall be in accordance with an approved binding site plan. Use of an airport for other motor vehicle activities, including but not limited to, motorcycle racing, sports car racing, drag racing, sports car rallies and auto crosses, shall be subject to all applicable provisions of this title. k. Jet aircraft, including prop -jet aircraft, shall use non - military airports for takeoff and landing only. No jet or pro -jet training flights shall be allowed, that is, no "touch and go" flights are allowed. Variances. Any person desiring to erect or increase the height of any structure or allow the growth of any tree, no in accordance with these regulations, will apply for a variance pursuant to subsection ( ). The application shall be accompanied by a determination by airport management and the Federal Aviation Administration or other appropriate Federal Agency as to the effect of the proposal on the operation of the airport. Glossary of Airport System Planning Terminology pilots for guiding or controlling flight in the air, or the landing and take -off of an aircraft. C -1 AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER (ARTCC) AIR TAXI AIR TRAFFIC AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC) AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITY AIR TRAFFIC HUB A facility established to provide air traffic control service to aircraft operating on an IFR flight plan within controlled air space and principally during the en route phase of flight. Nonscheduled aircraft operations carrying passengers and /or cargo for compensation. The capacity of air taxi aircraft is limited to 30 passengers and /or 7,500 pounds useful load. Air taxi operators (including helicopter operators) must comply with FAR Part 135. Aircraft operating in the air or on an airport surface, excluding loading ramps and parking areas. A service operated by appropriate authority to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic. A facility which provides air traffic control services located in the U.S., its possessions and territories, and in foreign countries especially established by international agreement. Air traffic hubs are not airports; they are the cities and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas requiring aviation services. Communities fall into four classes as determined by each community's percentage of the total enplaned passengers in scheduled service of the fixed -wing operations of the domestic certificated route air carriers in the 50 states, the District of Columbia., and other U.S. areas designated by the Federal Aviation Administration. AIRCRAFT Means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air. AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY A grouping of aircraft based on a speed of 1.3 times the stall speed in the landing configuration at maximum gross landing weight. An aircraft shall fit in only one category. If it is necessary to maneuver at speeds in excess of the upper limit of a speed range for a category, the minimums for the next higher category should be used. C -2 AIRCRAFT CONTACTED AIRCRAFT MIX AIRCRAFT OPERATION AIRCRAFT TYPE Aircraft with which the flight service stations (FSS) have established radio communications contact. One count is made for each en route, landing, or departing aircraft contacted by an FSS regardless of the number of contacts made with an individual aircraft during the same flight. A flight contacting five FSS's would be counted as five aircraft contacted. The number of aircraft movements categorized by the capacity of the airport or their operational role, and specified as a percentage of the total aircraft movements. There are two types of operations - -local and itinerant. Local operations are performed by aircraft which a) operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the airport, b) are known to be departing for, or arriving from, flight in local practice areas within a 20 -mile radius of the airport, c) execute simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport. Itinerant operations are all aircraft operations other than local operations. A term used in this publication in grouping aircraft by basic configuration -- fixed -wing, rotorcraft, glide'r., dirigible, and balloon. C -3 AIRFOIL The shape of a cross section of a helicopter rotor blade or an aircraft wing. AIRMAN A pilot, mechanic, or other licensed aviation technician. AIRMAN CERTIFICATE A document issued by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration certifying that the holder complies with the regulations governing the capacity in which the certificate authorizes the holder to act as an airman in connection with aircraft. AIRPORT An area of land or water used or intended to be used by aircraft during landing and take -off; includes buildings and facilities, if any. AIRPORT ADVISORY SERVICE (AAS) A service provided by flight service stations at airports not served by a control tower. This service consists of providing information to landing and departing aircraft concerning wind direction and velocity, favored runway, altimeter setting, pertinent known traffic, pertinent known field conditions, airport taxi routes and traffic patterns, and authorized instrument approach procedures. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP) A program initiated under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 authorizing the allocation of federal grants for the purpose of airport planning and airport development. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP) A graphic presentation, to scale, of existing'and proposed airport facilities, their location on the airport, and the pertinent clearance and dimensional information required to show conformance with applicable standards. To be eligible for AIP funding assistance, an airport must have an FAA- approved airport layout plan. AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR (ASR) Radar providing position of aircraft by azimuth and range data. ASR does not provide elevation data. It is designed for range coverage up to 60 nautical miles and is used by terminal area air traffic control. C -4 AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT) AIRPORTS OF ENTRY ALTITUDE ENCODING (Automatic Altitude Reporting) ANGLE OF ATTACK ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME APPROACH AREA APPROACH CONTROL FACILITY APPROACH CONTROL SERVICE APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (ALS) APPROVED INSTRUMENT APPROACH APRON A central operations facility in the terminal air traffic control system, consisting of a tower, including an associated IFR room if radar equipped, using air /ground communications and /or radar, visual signaling and other devices, to provide safe and expeditious movement of terminal air traffic. Aircraft may land at these airports without prior permission to land from U.S. Customs. An aircraft altitude transmitted via the Mode C transponder feature that is visually displayed in 100 feet increments on the ground radar scope having readout capability. The angle between the relative wind and the chord line of the rotor blade. Estimate of an airport's annual capacity in operations that may be used as a reference in planning the runway system. The area beyond the end of the runway over which the landing and take -off operations are made. A terminal area traffic control facility providing approach control service. Air traffic control service provided by an approach control facility for arriving and departing aircraft and, on occasion, tower en route control service. A system of lights placed on the approach• to a runway which is used by pilots to identify the runway, particularly during IFR conditions. One type of ALS is the medium intensity approach light system with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR). Instrument approach meeting the design requirements, equipment specifications, and accuracies, as determined by periodic FAA flight checks, and which is approved for general use and publication by the FAA. An area intended to accommodate aircraft for purposes of loading or unloading C -5 AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) AUTOMATED DIRECTION FINDER (ADF) AUTOMATIC PILOT AUTOROTATION AVERAGE STAGE LENGTH AZIMUTH BASED AIRCRAFT BASIC TRANSPORT AIRPORT BASIC UTILITY AIRPORT passengers or cargo, refueling, parking, or maintenance. A method of using navigation instruments that allows pilots flexibility to fly direct routes between waypoints or offset from published or established routes /airways at specified distance and direction. An aircraft radio navigation system which senses and indicates the direction to a nondirectional radio beacon ground transmitter. Direction is indicated to the pilot as a magnetic bearing or as a relative bearing to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. An aircraft can be controlled about the roll, pitch, and yaw axis by use of an automatic pilot. Information from VOR, ILS, MLS, and other navigation aids can be coupled to the automatic pilot for en route and approach flights. Rotorcraft flight without engine power, where the air approaching from below the rotor disc keeps the rotor turning up to an operational speed, thereby allowing a power -off emergency landing to be accomplished. The average length of a flight from origin to destination in air miles (straight -line distance) Horizontal direction or bearing; usually measured, from the reference point of 0 degrees clockwise through 360 degrees. Aircraft stationed at an airport on an annual basis. An airport capable of accommodating turbo jet airplanes up to 60,000 pounds gross weight with a runway length in the 4,000 - 5,000 foot range. An airport capable of accommodating most single and many of the smaller twin- engine aircraft, about 95% of the general aviation fleet. The runway is typically 2,500 -3,500 feet in length. C -6 COMMERCIAL PILOT COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORT CONTROLLED AIRSPACE CRITICAL AIRCRAFT CROSSWIND RUNWAY dB(A) Noise produced when a rotor blade intersects the vortex generated by a previous blade. Height above the earth's surface to the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena. A fan - shaped area extending up to 1/2 mile from the end of each runway which is to remain free of all structural development. A commercial pilot may act as pilot -in- command of an aircraft carrying passengers for compensation or hire and act as pilot -in- command of an aircraft for compensation or hire. Any public use airport which receives scheduled passenger service aircraft and annually enplanes 2,500 or more revenue passengers (or is forecast to within the plan period). Airspace control area designated as a continental control area, control zone, terminal control area,' or transition area, within which some or all aircraft may be subject to air traffic control. The user aircraft which' requires the most sophisticated facilities at the airport; the aircraft for which facilities are designed. A runway additional to the primary runway to provide for wind coverage not adequately provided by the primary runway. A quantity, in decibels, read from 'a standard sound -level meter that is switched to the weighting network labeled "A ". The A- weighting network discriminates against the lower frequencies according to a relationship approximating the auditory sensitivity of the human ear at moderate sound levels. The A- weighted sound level measures approximately the relative "noisiness" or "annoyance" of many common sounds. DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND VALUES A computed measure of the community (LDN) response to noise levels accounting for C -7 DEMAND /CAPACITY ANALYSIS DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME) ENPLANEMENT FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) FINAL FINAL APPROACH COURSE the loudness of sound, the frequency range of sound, the number of flights the type of aircraft, flight paths, the distribution of flights during the day, and the difference in sound impact between day and night. An investigation into an airport's ability to safely and conveniently meet present and future aviation demand. Electric equipment used to measure, in nautical miles, the slant range of an aircraft from a navigational aid. A term applying to passengers and cargo which board a departing aircraft; total enplanements include originations, transfers and stop - overs. An agency of the Federal Department of Transportation responsible for the promotion, regulation and safety of civil aviation, especially in the areas of air traffic control, navigation aids, aircraft, airports and pilot license. Commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with a landing area. A straight line extension of a localizer, a final approach radio/bearing, or a runway centerline, all without regard to distance. FIX A geographical position determined by visual reference to the surface, by reference to one or more radio NAVAIDs, by celestial plotting, or by another navigational device. FIXED -BASE OPERATORS (FBO) A private enterprise engaged in services related to general aviation, such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, hangar and apron parking, aircraft rental and sales, flight instruction and crop dusting. FLAPPING The up- and -down blade motion about the horizontal hinge at the blade root or about a corresponding flexible portion of the hub. C -8 A beneficial increase in rotor thrust and decrease in drag due to slowing down the inflow through the rotor because of proximity of the ground. A rotorcraft whose rotors are normally engine driven for takeoff, hovering and landing, and for forward flight through part of its speed range, and whose means of propulsion, consisting usually of conventional propellers, is independent of the rotor system. An aircraft lifted by a large motor powered propeller mounted horizontally above the fuselage. Forward motion is achieved by tilting the craft slightly so that the propeller is simultaneously lifting and pulling forward. C -9 HELIPORT HELISTOP IMAGINARY SURFACE INSTRUMENT APPROACH INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS) INSTRUMENT OPERATION ITINERANT OPERATION JET ROUTE LANDBANKING A small landing area suitable for landing and take -off and temporary parking of helicopters. Heliports may be located at existing airports, on rooftops, in open areas next to hospitals, meeting sites, or industrial areas. They may be equipped for refueling and have passenger facilities and aircraft parking spaces. A small landing area suitable only for drop off and pick up of passengers and cargo by helicopter. No parking or fuel facilities are provided. One of several planes or curved surfaces in space which dimension the safe operating area for aircraft around airports. Ideally there will be no trees, towers, building, etc. which . penetrate these surfaces. When they do, they must be clearly marked and noted on navigational charts. A landing approach made without visual reference to the ground until approach minimums are reached. Rules that govern flight procedures when ceiling• acid visibility are below 1,000 feet and 3 miles respectively. A set of navigation instruments used to guide aircraft on the final portion of the runway under limited visibility conditions. A takeoff or landing of an aircraft while on an instrument flight clearance. Itinerant operations are all aircraft takeoffs or landings other than touch and go's and other training manuevers that are conducted within sight of the airport or at practice areas within 20 miles of the airport. A route designed to serve aircraft operations from 18,000 feet to 45,000 feet. The reservation of land through easements or acquisition for future use for a public facility (such as an airport). If a local government wants to purchase land for a future airport C -10 LOAD FACTOR LOCALIZER (LOC) LOCAL OPERATIONS LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID (LDA) purpose, the FAA will work with such a sponsor to help purchase it. Land acquisition is eligible at the 90 percent level under the Airport Improvement Program. Land acquisition grants are given, but the time period isn't open -ended and the money must be refunded to the FAA if the airport is not built. The ratio of total weight supported by the wings of an aircraft to its actual weight, at any given time, expressed in units of gravity force, 1G, 2G, etc.; also the percentage of available passenger seats occupied by passengers. Providing horizontal guidance to the runway centerline for aircraft during approach and landing by radiating a directional pattern of radio waves modulated by two signals which, when received with equal intensity, are displayed by compatible airborne equipment as an "on- course" indication, and when received in unequal intensity are displayed as an "off- course" indication. As pertaining to air traffic operations, aircraft operating in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the tower; aircraft known to be departing for, or arriving from, flight in local practice areas located within a 20 -mile radius of the control tower; aircraft executing simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport. A facility of comparable utility and accuracy to a localizer, but is not part of a complete ILS and is not aligned with the runway. MAIN ROTOR The rotor that supplies the principal lift to a rotorcraft. MICROWAVE LANDING:SYSTEM.(MLS) An instrument landing system transmitting in the microwave radio spectrum, which provides lateral and vertical guidance to aircraft having compatible avionics equipment. C -11 MINIMUMS/MINIMA MISSED APPROACH NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS (NPIAS) Weather condition requirements established for a particular operation or type of operations; e.g., IFR takeoff or landing, alternate airport for IFR flight plans, VFR flight, etc. An instrument approach not completed by landing. This may be due to visual contact not established at authorized minimums or instructions from air traffic control, or other reasons. A planning document updated periodically which describes the current, 5 -year and 10 -year requirements of the national airport system as determined by the FAA. NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE Airspace at or above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), including airspace needed for takeoffs and landings. Minimum flight altitudes are defined in FAR Part 91. NOISE EXPOSURE FORECASTS A method developed by the FAA which summarizes the noise effects of airport operations' occurring over a 24 hour period. The level of noise exposure is indicated by sets of contours radiating from the airport runway and the approach /departure paths. NONDIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB) A low or medium - frequency radio beacon which transmits nondirectional signals with a loop antenna can determine his bearing and "home" on the station. (See Nonprecision Instrument Approach.) NONPRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH An electronic aid designed to provide an approach path for alignment of an aircraft on final approach to a runway. It lacks. .the high accuracy qualities of the precision approach equipment and does not provide descent guidance. The VHF Omnirange (VOR) and the Nondirectional Homing Beacon (NDB) are two examples of the type of equipment used. NOTICE TO AIRMEN (NOTAM) A notice containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any component of, or hazard in the National Airspace System, the timely knowledge of which is essential C -12 OBSTRUCTION . to personnel concerned with flight operations. An object which penetrates an imaginary surface described in the FAA's Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), Part 77. OPERATION A take off or a landing. OUTER MARKER (OM) POSITIVE CONTROL An ILS navigation facility in the terminal area navigation system located four to seven miles from the runway edge on the extended centerline indicating to the pilot, that he /she is passing over the facility and can begin final approach. Control of all air traffic, within designated airspace, by air traffic control. PRACTICAL ANNUAL CAPACITY (PANCAP) The theoretical number of annual operations that can be handled by an airport without exceeding certain delay criteria. PANCAP is calculated by considering types of aircraft using the airport, numbers and types of operations (IFR, VFR, Touch - and -go), and runway /taxiway configurations. PRACTICAL HOURLY CAPACITY Theoretical number of hourly operations (PHOCAP) that can be handled by an airport without exceeding certain delay criteria. PHOCAP is calculated by considering the same factors used to calculated PANCAP. PRECISION APPROACH RADAR (PAR) Radar equipment in some ATC facilities operated by the FAA, and /or the military services at joint -use civil /military locations and separate military installations, to detect and display azimuth, elevation, and range of aircraft on the final approach course to a runway. This equipment may be used to monitor certain nonradar approaches, but is primarily used to conduct a precision instrument approach (PAR) wherein the controller issues guidance instructions to the pilot based on the aircraft's position in relation to the final approach course (azimuth), the glide path (elevation), and the distance (range) from the touchdown point on the runway as displayed on the radar scope. C -13 PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH AID An electronic aid designed to provide an approach path for exact alignment and descent guidance of an aircraft on final approach to a runway. Instrument Landing System (ILS), Precision Approach Radar (PAR), and Microwave Landing System (MLS) are the existing prevision NAVAIDs. PRECISION INSTRUMENT RUNWAY PRIMARY AIRPORT PRIMARY USE PRIVATE PILOT PRIVATE -USE AIRPORT/HELIPORT PRIVATELY OWNED AIRPORT/HELIPORT PUBLICLY OWNED AIRPORT /HELIPORT PUBLIC -USE AIRPORT/HELIPORT RADIO ALTIMETER REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN A runway having an existing instrument landing system (ILS). A commercial service airport having 0.01 percent or more of total U.S. enplanements. Sea -Tac is currently the only primary airport in the Puget Sound region. The use category in which an aircraft flew the most hours within a calendar year. A private pilot may not act as a pilot -in- command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers for compensation or hire nor may a private pilot act as pilot -in- command for compensation or hire. An airport which is not open for the use of the general public, or except by prior permission of the owner. An airport which is owned by a private individual or corporation. An airport which is publicly -owned and . under control of a public agency. An airport open to the public without prior permission, and without restrictions within the physical capacities of available facilities. May or may not be publicly owned. Aircraft instrument that makes use of the reflection of radio waves from the ground to determine the height of the aircraft above the surface. A document that address the air transportation and airport facility needs of a metropolitan area. The plan allocates air transportation demand to specific airport facilities, defines their role in the community and C -14 C -15 SLANT'RANGE The line of sight distance between two points not at the same elevation. STALL The separation of smooth airflow from the surface of the rotor blade or aircraft wing, thereby destroying the lift supporting the aircrafts' weight, resulting in descent of the aircraft. STATE AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN A document that outlines the orderly and timely development of a system of airports intended to connect communities of the state with government, transportation and business centers. STOLPORT An airport specifically designed for STOL (Short Take -off and Landing) aircraft, separate from conventional airport facilities. STUDENT PILOT TAXIWAYS TEETERING ROTOR TERMINAL AREA TERMINAL CONTROL AREA (TCA) A student pilot operating under a certificate issued by the FAA, may not operate an aircraft that is carrying passengers, or that is carrying property , for compensation or hire. A defined path, usually paved, over which aircraft can taxi from one part of an airport to another. A two - bladed rotor with a single horizontal hinge for flapping, such as found on the Bell 47 helicopter. A general term used to describe airspace in which approach control or airport traffic control service is provided in the vicinity of an airport. Positively controlled airspace with boundaries which surround a high density terminal area. TERMINAL RADAR SERVICE AREA (TRSA) Airspace surrounding designated airports wherein ATC provides radar vectoring, sequencing and separation on a full -time basis for all IFR and participating VFR aircraft. TRSAs are depicted on VFR aeronautical charts. Pilot participation is urged but is not mandatory. T- HANGAR A T- shaped aircraft hangar which provides shelter for a single plane. C -16 ULTRALIGHT VEHICLE UNICOM The designated beginning of the runway that is available and suitable for the landing of airplanes. A parking area for securing aircraft; can be overnight (transient operator) or permanent use (in lieu of a hangar). An aircraft operation for practice or testing purposes characterized by a landing touch down and then continuing take -off without stopping. Operations or other activity performed by aircraft not based at the airport. The additional lift obtained by helicopters because of increased efficiency of the rotor system when transitioning from a hover into horizontal flight, or when hovering into a head wind. The airborne radar beacon receiver /transmitter portion of the Air Traffic Control beacon system that automatically receives radio signals from interrogators on the ground and selectively replies. Each aircraft transponder is capable of replying to 4,096 codes as selected by the pilot. Provides the air traffic controller positive location and, in some cases, altitude information. An aircraft having a jet engine in which the energy of the jet operates a turbine which in turn operates the air compressor. An aircraft having a jet engine in which the energy of the jet operates a turbine which drives the propeller. A class of flying craft which is characterized by very light weight construction (254 lb. maximum), and limited range (five gallons maximum fuel capacity). The vehicle may be powered 'or unpowered and is limited to one occupant (except for training vehicles). Airport advisory radio station operated by an airport affiliate, but not by the FAA. C -17 VORTICES/WING TIP VORTICES WEATHER RADAR Circular patterns of air created by the movement of an airfoil through the air when generating lift. As an airfoil moves through the atmosphere in sustained flight, an area of low pressure is created above it. The air flowing from the high pressure area to the low pressure area around and about the tips of the airfoil tends to roll up into two rapidly rotating vortices, cylindrical in shape. These vortices are the most predominant parts of aircraft wake turbulence and their rotational force is dependent upon the wing loading, gross weight, and speed of the generating aircraft. The vortices from medium to heavy aircraft can be of extremely high velocity and hazardous to smaller aircraft. Provides the flight crew with visual display of weather that could contain turbulence. The system's primary function is to assist in turbulence avoidance, although most airborne radar systems are also capable of terrain mapping. C -19 ACRONYMS AIP Airport Improvement Program ALP Airport Layout Plan ' ALS Approach Lighting System ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center ARTI Advance Rotocraft Technology Integration ATAC Air Transportation Advisory Committee ATCT Airport Traffic Control Tower DARPA Defense Advance Research Projects Agency DME Distance Measuring Equipment EMS Emergency Medical Service FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation HAI Helicopter Association International, Inc. IFR Instrument Flight Rules ILS Instrument Landing System IMS Integrated Multiplex System JVX Joint - Services Advanced Vertical Lift Aircraft LDA Localized Type Directional Aid LDN Day -Night Average Sound Values LHX Light Helicopter Experimental LOC Localizer MAST Military Assistance for Safety and Transportation MLS Microwave Landing System NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NAVAID Air Navigation Facility NDB Nondirectional Beacon NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOTAR No tail rotor system development for helicopters NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems OM Outer Marker PANCAP Practical Annual Capacity PHOCAP Practical Hourly Capacity R & D Research and Development RAIL Runway Alignment Indicator Lights REIL Runway End Indentifier Lights RTP Regional Transportation Plan SAR Search and Rescue SCOT Standing Committee on Transportation SEPA State Environmental Policy Act TCA Terminal Control Area VASI Visual Approach Slope Indicator VFR Visual Flight Rules VOR Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range WSASP Washington State Airport System Plan