Tagletter(41)

This is in response to your Apr 11 29, 1983, letter regardIng the densIty 9uideline for the Sunset fac{1 ity at the North Sea-..Ta£ Park: Enclosed iv{th your jetter was a copy of the Port staff recowvnendat ion paper on thIs Issue. Your letter requested FAA' s written concurrence with the' Port staff recommendatIon for an interiln change in the density guideline for the Sunset fac{1 Ity from 60 peop1 e to 120 peop1 e. We assunie the Port of Seattle wi11 afford the opportunIty for pub1 Ic Input by residents of the affected community prIor to the Port Comm{sslon makIng a f{na1 decision on the Port staff recoaxnendation. What is being recoTmnnded represents a rather controversla1 issue involving the Norh Sea.-Tac Park P1 an and the '"--'“-""„- Sea-Tac Communities Plan. As you know, these pbans reflect extensIve corrmunity involvement programs and were endorsed both by the Port of Seattle and K jag County ' J -__, Our preference would be that consideration for any change in the density guidelines for the North Sea-Tac Park be done as part of the Noise Remedy P P<>gPa fR Update pf{}j ect whIch includes a comp=chen s{ Ye commun{ ty {nvc1 ves:ent program. However, we do not object to the Port CommIssion's approva1 of the proposed InterIm change In_the density gu{de1 {ne for the Sunset faci1 ity as discussed in the Port staff recommendation paper. We do recommend that pub1 ic input be obtained prior to the decision. One of the prImary reasons…

tIThe STCP was developed around a community involvTnent program whose prime purpose was to provide a PROCESS through which the community had a DIRECT and CONTINUING role in t;he development of that PLAN, CItizens were directly involved in the formula- tion of policy and plan alternatives, 11 112:he primary goal of the STCP was to attempt to achieve MAXIMUM Compatibility between the Sea Tac Airport and the surrounding community-to make the airport and the cornmunity better neigh- bo:rs-to blend the airport and the community together, '’ + I' An inlportant land use compatibility issue related to safety of aircraft operations , including safety of those on the ground and safety of those operating aircraft, The boundaries of these 'tapproach protection areas" ( extended clear zones) were based on exist;ing FAA criteriaathus a land acquisition program was in- itiat;ed as part of the PLAN, "The development concept of the PLAN was one of enhancing and protecting the renaining residential neighborhoods in which people wished to live-to improve neighborhood quality through programs aimed at reducing the uncertainty connected with noise impact and programs to renew neighborhood improvements , to solve drainage and pollution problems , to assure compatibility amongst different land uses, to capitalize on the opportunity to promote an extensive open space s'ystem and protect the natural environment o 11 These programs were and still are the communities efforts for- and r E MAX:EMUF'i COMPATIBILITY, As part of furthering the pl?aIring process-citizen partici§ation led to an acceptable development of a Master…

TO: Sea/Tac Noise/ Air Pollution Impacted Cor:r.IUni ty Residents SUBJECT: Noise Study Update Report and Legal Action Discussion Our com~unity meetings in 1980 and 1981 involved discussion of the possibility of legal action against the Port of Seattle (POS), Hi th such action de f erred pending the completion of the !Ioise Update StuG:y. The stud~r is complete and the results are in • • • ~ori thout a soiution to our noise proc~em. That is why I have invited an attorney to the subject meeting to discuss the processes t~at would be involved in our taking legal action against the POS. ?!ark your c~.lendar to attend this meeting in the Highline School District Soard Room in ERAC on January 26, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. The address is 15675 Ambaum Blvd. S. ~ . in Burien. If you are dissati s fied ~ith the Port's callous disregard for the neighborhood noise probl e::: , t·nen ygur attendance. of subject neeting is a must. ~ for- ge t! ~ ~ ~· Sincerely, c§LLed~ - Bill Holstine P.S. An M.D. has also been invited to speak to us about the issue of stress in high noise areas. P.S. There o.'ill be a follo~-:-up r:eeting in t!-:.is sar::e location ' on February 2nd at 7:30 ?.H. to furt!ce::- discuss ou!- inte!:::d.e-:1 action.

Letter from Rosemary Zeutschel criticizing the Port of Seattle’s inadequate public involvement process for the Sea-Tac/Boeing Field Airspace Study, arguing that insufficient time was provided for community organizations to review technical documents and provide meaningful input.

It was with considerab~le interest that I read your recent letter to the editor regarding FAA density guide l ines and the Sea-Tac Communities'Plan for the runway approach . This was a good letter, with your poi nts being wel l taken . If ever I can be of any assistance to you, please feel f ree to call upon me. j s Sincerely, G~~UTM Phil Tal madge State Senator 34th District REPRF SENTING THE 341 H lEGISlATIVE DISTRICT Clear zone ru~les hav se ' It is disturbing to bear that there are residents within our conununlty who seem to feel that the land north of Sea-Tac Airport BELONGS to them. The area was designated in the early 70s as the Interim Land Acquisition , and now is being called the " propos- ed" North Sea-Tac Park. For those who have forgotten, the homes in this area were pur- chased by the Port of Seattle to remove the people from an en- vironmentally unacceptable neighborhood. High noise was causing Wlhappy people and in- numerable law suits. The POS made the statement that the land was not fit for residential use under any circumstances. However, the FAA stated from the beginning that the acquisition was to provide safety areas for Sea-Tac Airport. At the same time they also said that if Sunset Junior High School was purchas- ed with federal participation then they would not allow such a use to continue. The Port now owns most of the land, with the…

In December , Port of Seattle and Federal Aviation Administrat representatives met with State Representative Janet Berleen, topic of conversation was the North Sea'--Tac Park, specific_all guidelines as recomnended in the North Sea-Tac Park Master Pl i& tbThe maIn y the density a A an e As you know, the concept of the North Sea-Tac Park included participation bY the Port , King County, and community, Because of budget restrictions , the King County Department of Parks and Recreation has been Involved to a lesser extent than originally envisioned, Your organization, the Greater Highline Ck)mmunity Parks Board , has taken over the leadership role of King County in park development but as a non-profit Organization without a taxing base such as the County has , the Parks Board faces problems of funding too, ++ The density guidelines contained in the Plan and lease between the Port ald Parks Board are parameters for development , The FAA, in a letter to $enator Slade Gorton , states that the I'participant ofiented t1 co®cept would' The gymnasium and meeting areas of the school building are subject to a of yo£lr non-profit status and operations , both the FAA and Port feel that special events may require special attention, The spirit and intent of the guidelines are to remain , if the Parks Board , however , feels Chat a special fund raising event which potentially wil:I. exceed the -anan.= present guidelines can benef iE the long-"-term development of the park, it should contact…

On Tuesday, December 8th, 1981, the following members of the Technical Advi- sory Committee for the Sea-Tac International Airoort Noise Exoosure Uodate met to discuss certain concerns regarding the final draft of the Noise Exposure Update. Bill Holstine, Riverton Heights Community Bob Nelson, City of Des Moines Virginia Dana, Zone III Committee Jim Chalupnik, Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Program Marian MacKenzie, Citizen Peter Breysee, Department of Environmental Health, U of W Marsha Huebner, City of Des Moines The product of that meeting was an acknowledgement of concerns pertinent to the Noise Exposure Update which we maintain warrant attention. Firstly, the document does not define the problem which the study was designed to address, that is, the effects of aircraft noise on the Sea-Tac Commun- ities. The study was undertaken in order to provide a statistical foundation for the development of an overall strategy for alleviating conflicts bet- ween the airport and its neighbors, conflicts which bear upon property values and individual reactions to aircraft noise. The purpose stated in the report is to update noise exposure data for the Sea-Tac Communities Plan. However, the update is an element of the solution, not a statement of the problem. We find a statement of the problem critical to fosterinq a layman 1 S under- standing of the study and in providing a starti"g point from which to ev~l­ uate its efficacy. As the Port of Seattle will be reappraising noise remedy programs in light of this report, we find the results distressing.…

Letter from Port of Seattle Chairman Otis W. Dunham Jr. notifying Policy Advisory Committee members of a schedule change for their meeting from January 13 to January 14, 1982. The primary purpose of the meeting is the Noise Exposure Update, with additional agenda items to be finalized.

Letter from Jean Pihlman, Coordinator of Zone III Committee, accepting invitation to participate in the Port of Seattle’s Airspace Study Advisory Committee. The committee designates Jean Pihlman as representative and Virginia Dana as alternate, offering cooperation for the study completion.