TagNSTP(70)

second meetinq of t he rlc rtt1 Cle3r Zone ?.ec-re~ti o 'l Plan Adv·lsory Cor:rnHte~e _t... 1 held in the Hichlir.~ Cormu~lity Center at 6 P. f.l . on AugrJSt 2nd, 1979. ' ~ . I ,, The agenda of the ~ceting was as follows: Earthworks Introductio11 FAA Golf ATV Break Sunset Jr. High SwiiTiilinq Passive Parks Other Elect Chairperson The meeting was called to order by Dave McNe~, of JonnPjan, Gerrarrl ftnd A~lOC1ates who introduced :~ary fi iss, an artist, from ;lew York, who explained Earthworks .trt to the cor.m ittee. t'.ary is oreparinq a rrroposal to be presented August 18, 1979 at the Seattle Art t1useum regardin(] a site at t he west side of the airport (on aoprox. 12th So. & l72nd St.) There is a natural eve appealinq site which would reclaim the area for a site to visit and observe the take-off and !andinrt of planes. The pro- posal will include walks, benches and terraces. Tne Eart hworks Art is a ~ational Pilot Proqram ~/hereby artists take into considerat1on Rock Pits, Enviro~ental Analy- sis Reports and Landsca~e and reconstruct the area to a functional site normally at a much lower cost t'lan a recla rr'.ation project. It was pointed out that previous plans included an Interpetive Center be provided in this area. The question re- garding funding was ask~d of Mary. ~hen the prooosal is made and agreed to there are various funding agents for this type of project. It is possible to apply to…

FINDING & PURPOSE. Citizens residing near airports are often exposed to noise at levels that interfere with certain activities and may be exposed to noise levels that may be hazardous to health. The purpose of the act is to ensure that proprietors of publicly owned airports have the authority to regulate airport noise and to prohibit residential communities from being exposed to excessive levels of that noise. DEFINITIONS. REGULATORY AUTHORITY. A local government that is the proprietor of an airport may, in its proprietary capacity, control the use of the airport for the purpose of limiting noise from airport activities and from related flight operations conducted outside the federally controlled navigable airspace. Such control may include: (1) limiting or prohibiting the use of the airport by all aircraft that cause a certain level of noise or vibration, or (2) limiting the ~ime of day of airport use:~ Regulations establishing such controls shall be reasonable, nonarbitrary and nondiscriminatory. The authority granted by this section is supplementary to other existing authorities. NOISE LIMIT. Noise from airport activities and related flight operations may not cause the community noise level (a daytime average level) in a residential community to exceed 65 decibels. ACTIONS REQUIRED. Local governments operating or providing ai~ ports with more than 30 scheduled flights per day shall take actions to ensure that section 4 is not violated. The actions taken shall also reflect the need for reducing airport and related noise during evening and nighttime hours relative to daytime hours. CODIFICATION.…

Since our recent letter to you regarding presentation of our community assessment, plans have changed somewhat, and we will not be making the presentation pn April 13 as previously planned. Given the length of the report and the complexity of its findings and recommendations, we feel that the small amount of time available for presentation would not allow for adequate understanding or discussion of the contents. Also, unanticipated delays in printing the full report mean,that copies will not be available by April 13, making the presentation further inappropriate. We do expect the report to be ready for mailing within a week, however, so you should expect to receive it soon. A copy of the executive summary of the report is enclosed to give you a preview of the full document. Thank you once again for sharing your time and thoughts with us. We would certainly be glad to hear any comments you have after reading the report, as would Lynn Taylor, Port Public Information Director, whose department initiated the study and who will be working out a plan based on our recommendations. ~~tQ~~ Partner and Principal 100 COLMAN BUILDING • 811 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 • 206/583-0655 ' .. ,......_ .. ~ .. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE PORT OF SEATTLE PREPARED BY: PRINCIPALS: ASSISTANT: Triangle Associates Penelope Peabody Alice Shorett Nancy Harrison ·. ~ ... . • .' ·' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Triangle Associates was retained by the Port of Seattle to assess the Port•s relationships…

• A Council Request Form was submitted in on July 12, 2021, to re-open dialogue regarding the City taking ownership of the entire North SeaTac Park. • Joint working group from the Port of Seattle and the City have been meeting to explore topics around the feasibility and data collecting related to park ownership issues. • Mayor Simpson request of a resolution to support the CRF in the acquisition of North SeaTac Park . NEXT STEPS • Port of Seattle will bring forward for discussion to JAC on March 18, 2022 • City staff will bring a Resolution for consideration to Parks and Recreation Committee at the April meeting for review with a recommendation to forward to full City Council for full support. • Joint working group will continue to meet. QUESTIONS? Slide Number 1 PRESENTATION OVERVIEW CURRENT LEASES BACKGROUND NEXT STEPS QUESTIONS?

King County & Port of Seattle • Triangle Associates • Jones & Jones 2/3/8 7 250 1000 i..~ 500 NORTH /jJ .0 - · I CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES IJJ dl /? r I I.) IJ) I I} Capital cost estimates were developed in 1986 dollars and were developed for each (/ I recommended phase of the master plan update. The costs of the elements included in each phase were based on unit costs and preliminary estimates of quantities, taken from the schematic drawing of the recommended master plan update. The unit costs were derived from compilations of construction costs published in 1986 {Means, Dodge, Kerr, etc.) and also f.rom recent bid costs on Jones & Jones projects. I These preliminary cost estimates are summarized below for each recommended phase, for budgeting purposes. The estimates include itemized costs for major park elements, plus all anticipated additional elements, i.e., contractor's overhead and profit, state and local sales taxes, contingency allowances, design fees, administrative costs, and a one percent allowance for the arts, as required by King County practice. PHASE I Landscaped Buffer -Des Moines Memorial Drive (100' wide) Clearing and Grubbing Rough Grading, scarify, fine grading Grass area Trees - 4" caliper installed 30' O.C. Shrubs/hedge Ground Cover Irrigation Asphalt, path Subtotal Landscaped Buffer - South of So. J36th St (1 OQ' wide) Clearing and Grubbing · Rough grading scarify, fine grading Grass area/seed, soil enhancement-hydroseed Trees - 3"caliper installed 30' O.C. Shrubs/ hedge Ground Cover - 1' O.C. Irrigation Asphalt path…

Figure 17: Water Main and Well Locations on and Near the 55-Acre Parcel (City of SeaTac 2020a) ........ 46 APPENDICES Appendix A Commission-Adopted Order No. 2021-09 Appendix B Existing Documentation References Appendix C Mapfolio Appendix D Photographs

Michael Knapp, Director of Planning and Community Development Cheryl Eastberg; Planner Lawrence Ellis, Recreation Activities Coordinator Mayor and Council Members: Frank Hansen, Mayor Joe Brennan, Deputy Mayor Julia Patterson Terry Anderson Shirley Thompson Kathy Gehring Don DeHan C ,~~ 'l~v'-S North SeaTac Park Advisory Committee Alan Abe /'- . Fran Chang Ola Mae Crawford Barbara Hacker Sheila Kollmorgen Beverley Brown Losey Dick Pierce Tom Reeder David Scheer, Chairperson Diana Seely King County Bud Parker, Parks Division North Sea Tac Park Master Plan 1992

adopting the Sea-Tac Area Update Area Zoning; amending K.C.C. 20.12.240 and Ordinance No. 2883, Section 1, Ordinance No. 3530, Section 1, and Ordinance No. 5401, Section 1, as amended. PREAMBLE: For the purpose of effective areawide planning and regulation, the King County Council makes the following legislative findings: 1. The Sea-Tac area is an appropriate geographic area for augmentation and amplification of the King County Comprehensive Plan through the adoption of the Sea-Tac Area Update and Area Zoning. ' 2. The Sea-Tac area has increasing demand for intensive land uses and requires areawide 'planning and zoning. 3. King County, with the assistance of the Sea-Tac Area Update Citizen Advisory Committee, the Technical Advisory Committee, the Port of Seattle and general citizen input, has studied and considered alternative land use, programs and other means to provide for the orderly development of the Sea-Tac Update area and has considered the social, economic and environmental impacts of the plan and areawide zoning. King County has prepared and circulated an Environmental Impact State for the Sea-Tac Area Update and Area Zoning. 4. The Area Update and Area Zoning provide for the coordination and regulition of public and private development and bear a substantial relationship to, and are necessary for, the public health, safety, and general welfare of King County and its citizens. 5. King County has considered the benefits and burdens of North Sea-Tac Park's location and concludes that the park can be a valuable community amenity if it is planned with safety as…

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…

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…