TagSea-Tac Communities Plan(236)

SEA Internal “Operational” Audit of Noise Insulation Program - January 2013-March 2019 Definition of Job Order Contract (JOC) from the internet: “Job Order Contracting is a project delivery method utilized by organizations to get numerous, commonly encountered construction projects done quickly and easily through multi-year contracts for a wide variety of renovation, repair and minor construction projects." In 1985, SEA initially used what is termed in FAA literature as the “single parcel” approach to install a noise insulation system, consisting of double-pane windows, solid core wood doors, and attic insulation. Homeowners were provided with a list of contractors to ch_oose from and then select their ch,i„ f,r , ,ont„,to,. I„„„,i,t,„t w„k,.a„ship a„#Sam,ntr,I/,,_va@,,;_ suffered using this approach; not to mention that the window contract6r wentbustA4>"roc ass. - 7 Not surprising, this approach has not been adopted by any other airport but SEA. ' I/ ,W/ANS w) q“"b In today’s mitigation systems, atticA% other fresh air ventilation, 3-ply glassycoustical windows, and tests of “air balance" within th'e home at the completion of construction are now part of the insulation package. Over time, it was discovered that–without the installation of a fresh- air intake system,7nold and mildew would accumulate because the interior space in a home was “tigh%II areas where noise leaks in would be closed off. Also, in SEA’s early program, Zometimes only the areas of a home facing the airport would be sound proofed ! Fortunately, their program is now streamlined and consistent with what other airports have researched and developed…

AllnlW connect b,CIA_S sauna lnsulatlo, ://connect xnrllW.com/appsulte/ v= / SHARYN PARKER <sparkermnl@comcast.net> 2/7/2020 7:41 AM KCI A's Sound Insulation Program To Amanda Wyma-Bradley <amanda.wyma- bradley@mail.house.gov> Good morning Amanda, Before our telephone conversation at noon today, I thought I would jot down some comments in response to your questions; and we can speak in more detail later. (King County International Airport at Boeing Field: KCI A--aka BFI--Boeing Field International.) Ba£d£gEQulIdl in 1985, SEA initially used what is termed in FAA literature as the “single parcel” approach to install a noise insulation system, consisting of double-pane windows, solid core wood doors, and attic insulation. Homeowners were provided with a list of contractors to choose from and then select their choice for a contractor. Inconsistent workmanship and poor quality control were common using this approach; not to mention that the window contractor the airport seleJc i went bankrupt in the process.fTmng, this approach has not been adopted by any other airport but SEA. In today’s mitigation systems, attic fans or other fresh air ventilation, 3-ply glass and vinyl acoustical windows, and tests of “air balance” lof6 21112Q.1'51 AM XIlnlty connect KCI sauna lnsulatlo }s://connect xnnlW.corn/appsuHe/ v= / within the home at the completion of construction are now part of the insulation package. Over time, it was discovered that– without the installation of a fresh-air intake system, mold and mildew would accumulate because the interior space in a home was tightly sealed since all areas where noise leaks occurred would be closed off .…

lectxnnlty Ll New language Ior mps://connectxnnlty.corrl/appsulte/v= / } OrmII, Rep. Tina <tina.ormH@leg.wa.gov> 2/10/2020 9:50 AM RE: New language for HB 231 5 To She <shebrush@gmail.com> Copy Mary Soderlind <mary.soderlind@leg.wa.gov> ' Det>i Wagner <debi.wagner@icloud.com> e SHARYN PARKER <sparkerward@comcast.net> FYI, Tina From: Orwall, Rep. Tina Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:13 AM To: Steve W Edmiston <@y3e M pointlaw.com>; JC Harris <j Mga>; Kent Palosaari <kentpalosaari@gmail.com>; She < gUI b: LsD@lr > Cc: Soderlind, Mary <h/arye gM,gw> Subject: FW: New language for HB 2315 Hi Steve, Sheila, JC and Kent, Here is the latest language from the cities/Port. Please let me know what are your thoughts. It is on the floor calendar. I am going to keep the bill moving but hope to have another stakeholder group before the Senate hearing. of 3 2/10/20, 11 :22 AM xllnlty connect Kb_ New language tor mps://connectxTlruW.coIn/appsgtc/ v= / Thanks, Tina (5) An individual pnpelly may be provided benefits by the port district under each of the PQgmms described in subsections (1) through (4) of this section. However, an individual property may not be provided benefits under any one of these programs more than once, unless the property (as)): (a) is subjected to increased aircraft noise or differing aircraft noise impacts that would have afforded different levels of rnitigation, even if the property owner had waived all damages and conveyed a full and unrestricted easement; or (b) QQDbiD£a£QyDdwMgiQSIdlalial!, structure, or other type of sound mitigation egg+WI product or benefit Fy . {} iB£MlaUl9g aIn ;…

FAA Lines of Business and Managers with NEPA Responsibilities Katherine And:rus, Manager, Environmental Policy and Operations, Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-400) Subject : Noise Screening Assessments This Memorandum clarifies existing FAA policy and guidance on noise screening assessments and the appropriate use of noise screening tools and methodologies. This memorandum does not introduce new policy or impose any additional requirements for noise analyses. Current Guidance FAA actions subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) must be analyzed consistent with the policies and procedures set forth in FAA Order 1050. IF, which establishes a threshold of significance for noise impacts.1 Appendix B of Order 1050. IF provides detailed guidance on analyzing noise impacts under NEPA and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, including procedures for seeking approval to use an alternative noise model or method, or to modify standard or default data. Additional guidance, including a list of available noise screening tools and methods, is in the 1050.IF Desk Reference. The threshold of significance for most situations is an increase of DNLI.5 dB or more for a noise sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase. Order 1050. IF notes that special consideration needs to be given to the evaluation of the significance of noise impacts on noise sensitive areas within Section 4(f) properties (including,…

Presented to: Santa Clara/ Santa Cruz Counties Airport/Community Roundtable March 27, 2<:):19Date : A e Olse es a generated by aircraft noise ' Any effort will require support from: ' Airport Sponsors ' Airlines Industry, and Other Systern Users ' Eieeted Officials ' Cornmunity Members ' Aireraf't and Engine Manufacturers + FAA /) SJ:n derat Avi Ad ministra g?+/g f:=i:i; ’ :+7; -:it + U Olse es a ' There are several Roundl:abIes in the Western Service Area: ' sro Roundtable ' OAK Noise Forurn • Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Roundtable ' LAX Roundtable ' SAN Airport Noise Advisory Cornrnittee ' SEA Stakeholder Advisory Roundtable ' Centennial Roundtable ' Others are Adhoc in nature Airport/Comrnunity Noise Roundtables and FAA Support • Airport/Comn3unity Noise Roundtables are time regarding aircraft operations at a nearby airport • Voluntary, often formed by an airport, local government, or by agreement among multiple jurisdictions • Advisory in nature, but can provide the FAA with valuable feedback and insight needs meetings, scope of issues being addressed, decision-making, and meeting minutes/archived presentations II{r::;j;::[F:/S: #fi !#:: dI Airport/Community Noise Roundtables and FAA Support • Typically Roundtal::)Ie mernbership includes: ' Airport Sponsor • Airlines and other System Users eommunil::ies surrounding an airport Elected Officials Roundtable S tJ Olse es a • The FAA may support Airport/Community Roundt:abIes by: y={:j;} • Providing teehnieal inforrnation, data, and advice • Providing technical expertise on operational issues and airspace design • Educate roundtable members on FAA policy, practices, and lessons learned • inform roundtable rnernbers…

Wp I }liI fT C t :T :fl;b & ; •} = Hii? I : I+ q: g AUGUST 59 1983 B 8/5/83 AC 150/5020-1 Land or Interest in land (easement) nay be acquired by negotiatIon, through a voluntary program, or via coadeanatloa, in any case, the provisIons of the Uniform RelocatIon Assistance and Real Property &quisltion PoIIcies &:t of 1970 (P,L, 91'-646) are applicable whenever Federal or federally 'a$slsted prograas are involved , a, Land for Other PubIIc Uses, NoIse inpact:ed land can in acquired by a public or seal-pubIIc agency eIther to implealent the coapatlb111ty plan or in cooperatIon wIth the plan while full 111:Ing another pubIIc purpose , TypIcal uses nay Include sites for equIpaeat aaiateaance or storage yards, water or sewer works, and floodway$ or reservoIrs, Other possIbiIItIes Include selected park, recreation, and open space uses whIch are noise tolerant (golf courses, skeet ranges, nature areas, etc,), All uses should respect the heIght and hazard requirements of the aIrport and be tolerant of future aIrport growth, b, land for Compatible Resale, (k:c3siona11y, state or local governments are wilIIng to acquIre land whIch is then resold wIth covenants or easement:s retained to assure long-tern coapatlbility, in some cases, it nay be feasible to change such land to coapatible uses wIthin existing or 1::enodeled buIldings, in other cases, it wuld te desIrable to clear and redevelop the land before makIng it available for sale, in eIther case, the changes should be in compIIance with the land use plan…

b 1 attachment View Open in browser Download Sent from my iPhone WH•P R .A + a;t A{t -' -bJ+' aiR IFb£J£q„ ;Q '---- h®hl: StIg? AJPIIi$1bLF : :: r J L:::a bLIr }; Kb €q7 q '.($ WIJ GPth (;#F;} t 11F&I& ez wr gb& - -- gP- ;I/hd /A\ i +;It;paul ’ty’; C#b-ri Cttl/t *tt: , , . ', H n,n - - -f „ ' #"na'v+u-HO i++penH++a i /,Fgiikhi -AwWbH€Nr '(, ('X+ ,..,. A } Jill }: !- VCF### 8 : {: C/x, Sal N + p :ng H =lark VI 4th VI _ e)MOMA}( a &Bad;v& hi T:a t1 b ;•:,e ' li;i.i--i:;i':T : iLl•-r.b•• •;.ra e;;}. ' b';:'_ ;' of 9/25/19, 3:05 PM El Centro Input to Legislative Task Force of Burien Airport Cmteemes Moines Aviation Advisow Cmtee#ederal Way <mbjumpstart@msn.com> 9/2}/2019 8:41 AM To Debt Vagner, ShaH’n Parker - and 5 others Dear Debi, Earnest, Millie and Shawn, In prep for Legislative Task Force Meeting, below is El Centro's input. Looking forward to meeting on 10 a.m. 9-25-19 Starbucks 148th & Ambaum. Maria c: John Rising ,$*„„_[g}f,,2,G,}„g_p.t$g$},„$,Qb},f}.d $,eg+,GOB{ GQy,ORi.{„.{e.$R<=}„,vh!„an_2£}§.g 8} Strengthen reference to exi${ing responsit> iiity for air transport8 tion p:anlqjng in Vision 205€3, b} P SRC c$eve top budget for 202€) WA }egi$!8ture ask. See de tails in ernaii beiow. <Working with Seattle CM Mo$queda's office for Vision 205(> amendment.} 8. For 2019/2€32C> PoN of Seattie caarn!$$ioners a} Pas& poi icy {c includa in Port’s purPose triple bottom line of ecanornie, env}ronrnent81 and socia…

COMPARISON OF RESEARCHED AIRPORTS ON SPECIFIC ISSUES OF MEMBERSHIP, RECORDING, AND INVITED EXPERTS Explanation: BAe members and other cities’ airport committees identified some specific issues concerning StART deliberations. The Bylaws of each were reviewed and the cornparison below is extracted from those documents. // SPECIFIC ISSUES Membership by elected officials. mio-visual recordings made. Agenda-setting and motions. Advanced notices and materiats. Inclusion of expert witnesses or speakers at meetings. CHARLOTrE-DOUGLAS AIRPORT IN NC ers frorn :14 city council districts (7 elected); 9 from local county districts (6 elected); plus alternates. Printed summaries provided. Super-majority o membership) required to adopt new recommendations directed to FAA. Officers set agendas. Emailed or mailed in advance without specifying how many days in advance. Public is welcorne at all meetings and subcommittees and are invited to comment. Mute on the question of speakers or expert witnesses included. StART INCLUDES? ! BAC COMMENTARY Y/N CHICAGO O’HARELAX AIRPORT IN CA Electeds from city, county, state, or federal jurisdictions preferred, with alternates approved; +FAA, tAX & airlines; one at-large member. Recordings of meetings are avaitable to the public. Highest priority.No record- ings for public. No; POS determines with contracted facilitator. Yes, POS has agreed to this condition. No, POS will not agree . LAX has a facilitator; majority rules. No steering committee; prefer citizen co-chair. Notices at least 72 hours in advance; materials as soon as possible. High priority. Public is welcome at all meetings and subcommittees; invited to comment. Two methods of inclusion: 1) Recognized organizational representatives; 2)…

Chapter 13. Airport Noise and Access Restrictions 13.1. Introduction and Responsibilities. This chapter contains guidance on the sponsor’s responsibility with regard to restrictions on airport noise and access. Access restrictions have the potential to violate the federal obligation to make the airport available for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination as required by Grant Assurance 22, EconomIc Nondiscrimination. It is the responsibility of the airports district offices (ADOs) and regional airports divisions to advise sponsors on the laws and policies that apply to access restrictions and to ensure that the sponsor extends equitable treatment to all of the airport's aeronautical users. Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) requires airport sponsors proposing restrictions on operations by Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft to conform to 14 CFR Part 161 Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions. (Photo: FAA). 13.2. Background. a. The legal framework with respect to abatement of aviation noise may be summarized as follows: (1). The federal government has preempted the areas of airspace use and management, air traffic control, safety, and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source. The federal government also has substantial power to influence airport development through its administration of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). (2). Other powers and authorities to control aircraft noise rest with the airport proprietor – including the power to select an airport site, acquire land, assure compatible land use, and control airport design, scheduling and operations – subject to constitutional prohibitions against…

Notes from Phone Conversation with Matt Adams - 12/19/19 at 11 a.m. (People present included Mayor Matta, Brian Wilson, Councilmember Nancy Tosta by phone extension, Lisa Marshall; and Quiet Skies Coalition members: Larry Cripe, Debi Wagner, WaIt Bala, Jeff Harbaugh, Terry Plumb, and Sharyn Parker) Opening question directed to Matt by telephone participants: “Are you going to be sending a letter to FAA that includes our expectations in the aftermath of the 9th Circuit Court’s decision? We believe the automated turn had safety implications. We expect that you will analyze the cumulative impacts of its (Court’s) decisions." Matt Adams’ response: The FAA has 45 days (until January 9?) to seek or to request a rehearing in banc:1) however, he doesn’t think there will be another hearing. There is no hearing unless one is requested. 'Sequence of the mandate’ takes it out of the court’s jurisdiction back to the agency, moving responsibility back with the FAA. FAAcould do a minimal turn somewhere over Burien. The LOA should be +’nBwwW withdrawn and then find out if the turn has been removed from it. The LOA contains multiple procedures; but the current 'turn’ procedure should be removed from it." (Ask for evidence that the “automatic turn" had been removed?) Matt didn’t know whether or not the FAA will do the “turn" again. If they want to re-adopt, FAA would have to respond to questions based on the cumulative operations contained within the SAMP. Matt agrees that cumulative CATEX projects should be included in…