TagLand Use(62)

National Auociation of Counties Research , Inc. fJL- E Quiet Communities: Minimizing the Effects of Noise through Land Use Controls . . . . . . . . . . . ... Highway Noise Map Quiet Communities: Minimizing the Effects of Noise through Land Use Controls Alan Magan, Principal Author Robert Weaver, Associate Director Constance Mason, Secretary National Association of Counties Research, Inc. Bernard F. HiJJenbrand, Executive Director March 1979 Disclaimer: Work on this handbook was supported by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policy of the Environ· mental Protection Agency. Airport Noise Map Table of Contents Preface ........................................... 1 Executive Summary ................................... 3 Comprehensive Land Use Planning ........................ 5 Implementation Techniques .............................. 9 Special Noise Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 Implementation ..................................... 23 Appendix A: Noise Metrics and Prediction Methodologies ................ 25 Appendix B: Noise Standards ........................... 27 Appendix C: Compensable Zoning ....................... 36 Appendix D: Bibliography ............................. 40 Community Noise Control U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Model Noise Control Ordinance, 1975, 24pp. California Department of Health, Model Community Noise Control Ordinance, 1977,57 pp. Noise Assessment and Prediction U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Noise Assessment Guidelines, 1971' 20 pp. Sources: Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health, 21 51 Berkeley Way, Berkeley,…

o }!- /Y.fJ a 1 Jt( r 11 CL_/7] , J PORT MONITORS SA LES AGREEMENT NEW OWNER RETAINS E L1 G I B I Ll TY F 0 R AL L NEIG HBORHOOD REINFORCEMENT NOISE REMEDIES NO PORT ACTION AND NO AVIGATION EASEMENT NO ..., SALE Ill"' OURCE : Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Port of Seattle Planning & Research D-"f t1~ PROPERTY PLA CED v ON WA ITIN G LIST FO R TRANSACTION ASSISTANCE NO APPROVAL HOMEOWNER APPLIES TO PORT FOR TRANSACTION ASSI STANCE PORT APPROVES UP TO (X ) APPLICATIONS PER YEAR . Sea-Tac lnternationa Airport Ndise Remedy Upd; SUGGESTED TRANSACTION SSISTANCE PROCESS Fll NEIGHBORHOOD REINFORCEMENT PROGRAM AR PURCHASE ASSUR NCE NOISE REMEDY OPTIO April 1984 PORT .._ APPROVALJIII"' . J PORT PAYS FOR : e Property Apprai sal to Determine Fair Market Val ue (FMV) e Noise Audit o f House ' PATH IF APF RAISAL IN " D" IS 95% OR ~ORE OF THE FINAL LISTEp PRICE IN " A " PORT MONITORS SALES AGREEMENT .,, NEW OWNER RETAINS ELI GI Bl LITY FO R APPLICA BLE NOISE REMEDIES NO ADDITIONAL PORT COSTS AND NO AVIGATION EASEMENT .. , Sea-Tac lnternationa:• Airport N 1se Remedy Update UGGESTED TRANSACTION ~SSISTANCE PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM NEIGHBORHOOD REINFORCEMENT PROGRAM AREA PURCHASE ASSUR~NCE NOISE REMEDY OPTION POR T a... PROVALJII"" . J PORT PAYS FOR : e Property Appraisal to Det ermine Fair Market Value (FMV) e Noise Audi t of House April 1984 PATH IF APF RAISAL IN "D"…

OLYMPIA - Washington's Supreme Court has upheld King County's approval of The Boeing Company's proposal to build corporate headquarters near Seattle-Tacoma Airport. Although the opinion was unanimous in rejecting challenges to the plart to build an office on a :ID-acre site west of the airport, two justices differed sharply over an appearance-of-fairness issue in the case. The court ruled that the appearance-of-fairness doctrine it has · established through cases since 1969 was not violated by two King County Council members who accepted campaign contributions from Boeing Co. employees, then voted for the construction plan. In a series of cases developing the doctrine, the court has held that local government bodies, in quasi-judicial actions such as rezones, not only should act fa'rly 'but should appear to act fairly by avoiding contacts and pressur~ :rom advocates for specific projects. Yesterday's <'t>inion upholds judgments of the King County Superior Court, whicL held that . despite the Boeing employees' contributions, the ~0P11ty Council acted properly in approving the company's project. The Westside Hilltop Survival Committee, a Highline-area citizens' group, had challenged the project and said the Council had illegally re- zoned the comprehensive plan it had approved earlier for the area. But the court said the action wasn't a rezone because the issue of the airport building was recognized in the original adoption of the comprehensive plan and was deliberately deferred for public hearings. Thus, the court said, the approval was only a continuation of the process of adopting the plan. It was- a…

228-78-R

Boeing Headquarters rezone Westside

From: Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming (APP-1) Copy: Director, Office of Airport Compliance (ACO-1) Office of the Chief Counsel (AGC-600) Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards (AAS-1) Subject: Instructions to Airports District Offices and Regional Office of Airports Employees Regarding Airport Layout Plan Reviews and Projects Potentially Affected by Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 Summary This document provides instructions to the FAA’s Airports District Offices (ADO) and Regional Offices of Airports as well as states participating in FAA’s State Block Grant program regarding changes in legal authority under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. This document explains the internal process for reviewing airport layout plan (ALP) changes when new development is proposed by an airport sponsor and provides instructions on release of federal grant obligations and the circumstances under which these actions are necessary. Additionally, this document provides information on the way in which environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should address the new limitations on FAA’s regulatory authorities. These are internal instructions for implementation of FAA’s statutorily revised authorities over use of airport property and do not require new actions from airport sponsors. Applicability These instructions are for the internal use of the FAA and those administering the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) under the State Block Grant program. These instructions are not legally binding in their own right and will not be relied upon by the FAA as a separate basis for affirmative enforcement action or other administrative penalty.…