TagSea-Tac Communities Plan(236)

We are writing to discuss various aspects of the Sea-Tac Stakeholder Advisory Round Table (StART). Thank you for creating this group that provides an opportunity to enhance cooperation between Sea- Tac Airport and neighboring cities. The breadth of membership you’ve included such as airline partners, technical experts, and the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) is helpful for identifying and hopefully, resolving issues. As you know, our Burien representatives have been active participants and they’ve kept our Burien Airport Committee and City Council informed of StART’s activities. In the course of those communications we’ve heard some concerns that we wanted to bring to your attention. 1. Agenda setting – We understand that more opportunity for input to StART meeting agendas would be welcome. Agendas are primarily set by the Port and facilitator and then circulated for review to StART members, but not necessarily in a timely manner for input. We suggest that at each meeting, potential future topics be identified, that these topics be prioritized for subsequent discussion by the full group, and that adequate time for agenda review be provided to all participants. Minutes – We understand that minutes may not accurately reflect the full extent of conversations. Some of our representative have expressed concern that their comments are not documented as well as they would like to see. We encourage you to provide audio recordings the meetings, especially the Subcommittee discussions, to provide broader access to all wishing to understand the deliberations. Decision-making processes – While we understand that StART…

IaIn writing as a fbllow up on prior discussions, including the Dunbar 2018 wnHponda3ce reprdbIg the Port of Smttle’s (the “Port”) proposed implanalbtion of its Sustainable Airport Master Plan ('S AMP). I want to apologize in advme hr the largth of this leOn. There is much to oovn, and formal oonaH)adena betwwr the Port aId Alaska has been minimal to date. I felt it important given whHe things sit today, to lay out whne Alaska is on S AMP to minimin any confusion or ali&wrdastalBlings as we partner on this very import3nt project. To start, I want to reiterate that Alaska fully supports the notion that the airport needs to build additional gates to meet the obj wave of SAMP which is to accommodate 56 million enpla8ed passengers by 2027. In addition, we are fully wppoHtve o/bHaging oa new gac capacity to SeaTac as soon as possible inctwhng the need to iwvest apprmimate ly $2B oJ near term projects mBta:ined in SAW for Aiwon roadway hnprovements, airfIeld improvements and up8udedfuet farm and 4irwaft Rescue and Fire Fighting (''aRFF’)/bel/f#as. Finally,webdi'we we should be wot:king together to clue new 8,Btn that come on line quickly which will allow passalgus to connect to ot:hu flights (dolnestic and international) without having to leave the terminal or travel on a bus That said, over the past yur, Alaska has wnsistently commuric8ted that we believe the cwrent SAMP pHipo$81 does not meet the needs ofaidian nor the mmmunitia they serve. As proposed, the SAMP will daw.Se8Tac…

October 1970 US Department of Commerce Environmental Science Services Administration Weather Bureau “Air Pollution by Jet Aircraft at Seattle-Tacoma Airport" by Wallace Donaldson. "The advent of the commercial jet aircraft attracted the attention of the public through the visible smoke plume and noise.” (page 1) “At local airports there were strong kerosene odors, soot fallout, and occasional occurrences of eye irritating smogs.” (Ibid) Annual operations (takeoffs and landings) in 1960 were 55,000, 108,111 in 1969 with “Ninety percent of the total commercial traffic at the airport...jet-type aircraft” (page 5) and 178,000 in 1979. (table 3) “The Seattle-Tacoma Airport was constructed in 19zYI as an alternate airport to nearby busy Boeing Field. It was expected to be relatively fog-free due to its higher elevation, 400 feet above sea level as compared to near sea level at Boeing Field...The original terminal building was completed in late 1949 and most commercial carriers transferred their operations to the new location at that time.” (page 2) One of the very first studies on airport emissions was presented at the 62-d annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association in New York on June 26, 1968 titled “Jet Aircraft, A Growing Pollution Source”, by R. E. George, J. A. Verssen and R. L. Chass, published June 1969. Much of the work done for that study was used for this 1970 report which found; “Carbon is an important particulate emission, which is found in the form of smoke, the major particulate emission in jet engine exhaust. Engine…

by the Port of Seattle Commission in November 2016, recognizes that neighboring communities experiencing more impacts from airport operations should also experience more benefits. The Commission directed that the program support environmental projects and programs in the cities of SeaTac, Burien and Des Moines. HOW DOES THE ECOLOGY FUND HELP AIRPORT NEIGHBORS? Environmental projects and programs, particularly planting programs to add trees and green spaces, provide multiple benefits. They slow and clean runoff from rain, filter air pollution, provide cooling shade, and enhance the character and beauty of our neighborhoods. The fund can help to sustain and improve the quality of life in our airport communities as the airport, and our reg ion, g rows. The fund will benefit airport communities through grants to non-profit groups and partnership programs with local cities. Additional benefits: " Creating a stronger sense of community by working together on projects „ Enhancing public awareness of ecological issues " Supporting existing projects that need funding imp?©ving the natural environment in c©mmunities affected by airport ©perati©m$ SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT W##///Pm/ Port =///# ofSeattle' WHO CAN SUBMIT A GRANT PROPOSAL? Local community organizations, chambers of comrnerce, service organizations, cornrnunity, youth or athletic associations, or other associations located and providing services in the cities of SeaTac, Burien and Des Moines. Projects must meet these criteria: Applicant is an eligible organization Project occurs within the cities of SeaTac, Burien or Des Moines Project accomplishes specific, measurable outcomes Project shows a local match of three times the grant value (through…

Xfinity Connect Re_ Fwd_ Request for input on the StART Airfield ... https://connect .x6nity.com/appsuite/v=7.10.o-29.20191024.0329'Wp... SHARYN PARKER <sparke Award@comcast.net> 10/27/2019 12:12 PM Re: Fwd: Request for input on the StART Airfield Noise Analysis Scope To Larry Cripe <larrycripe@comcast.net> • Debt Wagner <debi.wagner@icloud.com> ' Jeff Harbaugh <jharbaugh@msn.com> • Javier Tordable <jt@javiertordable.com> HMMH is a credible firm; I’ve worked with them in the past, although I have not worked with this analyst; HOWEVER, the consultant has the cart before the horse! The noise monitors don't all operate well according to Bernadine Lund who carefully tracks these monitoring details every day. Without knowing every neighborhood or monitoring station myself , this is what I do know about noise monitors based upon my experience: 1. The consultant first needs to do their homework before asking any StART member the source(s) of ground noise. The consultant needs to correlate noise complaints to noise monitor stations (NMS) and then correlate those results with the timing of engine run-ups on the airfield. I believe they are required to maintain records of those events and the locations where they occurred. Then they can identify the NMS results to confirm the decibel level of each event. This is important because the Growth Management Act (GM A) contains environmental noise limits contained in WAC 173-60-040, maximum permissible environmental noise levels during 10 pm-7 am period and not to exceed 1.5-15 minutes in any one-hour period of the day) governed by DOE. In the case of engine run-ups, they normally last from…

Last evening at our August meeting, Nancy asked that I review the attachments to July's meeting minutes handout regarding 1) Debbie's summary of Sea-Tac history concerning the history of regional airport planning, and 2) Notes completed by Tony Piasecki after several of us met to write a an outline for a white paper. In response, today I re-read Debbie's chronology of Sea-Tac milestones consistent with planning for an additional regional airport and I thought they were succinct, thorough, and I really couldn't add anything new to them except to re-enforce the origin and timing of the Four- Post Plan; but I think this is an important archive for us to use as reference and mention in our white paper that this effort has been stalled since the early 1990s–almost 30 years ago! Tony Piasecki's notes from our July meeting were consistent with my fading memory of what we discussed and it's good to have them, even if they contain some incomplete thoughts. I commit to working on a draft white paper with one caveat: I have some serious and non-negotiable time commitments until September 16 that prevent me from starting this task until then. If our next committee meeting is after 9/16, then I will attempt to have a draft ready by then. Further, I want to share with committee rnembers an analysis I completed last week that uses recent Port handouts to the committee and Part 150 excerpts (Sea-Tac online) that suggest that, based upon recently reported aircraft operations…

Section 3. Community Boards & Impacts Studies e e If an aviation noise group already represents a community, the cornmunity can decide to continue with their current group Establishes that the members of the community board have disaetion to select the time and place of their meetings. Requires that the FAA designate appropriate personnel to sit in on community board meetings. Community Boards can collaborate with airport operators and the FAA on finding solutions to disparate impacts experienced by the community and they can petition the FAA for compnbensive impact studies that incor}mute broad sets of data on noise and emissions. Community Boards that have petitioned for a study are to work on the scope and methodology of the study with the FAA. llre FAA is required to communicate the results of the study in the appropriate languages as requested by the community. IIM-ataJ (LL ?a A&q .:’ ) Section 4. Action Plans " • • IB Hr q1y e • e • • e Section • e e • e $ Section 6. Authorization of Appropriations • Section 7. Definitions ' Defines “community” as any residential neighborhood, locality, municipality, town, or city. route is 3,000 feet or less above ground level. • Defines an aviation-impacted community as a community located 1 mile from any point where a commercial or cargo@'- ' Defines disparate impact as noise, air pollution emissions, or any other aviation-related impact identified by a community coming from a commercial or cargo M route and that is…

RE: Aviation Impacted Communities Act Feedbnk Meeting August 18, 2019 at 9:25 PM Bervar, Lyndall , Brian Wilson larrycripe@comcast.net, She shebrush @gmail.com Good evening Lyndatl, While away this weekend, I made comments on the draft legislation; but since I cannot edit the pdf bill, I’m listing comments below by pages and line numbers: Page 2, 1ines 10-11: Add new language.,.,"Administrator shall acknowledge each community requesting such designation by a list published in the federal register." Page 2, 1ines 12-17: Very problematic language; perhaps a conflict resolution provision needs to be added because not all communities think monolithically. Perhaps the majority within a community or resolved by the governing body? Page 2, 1ines 20-21 : Substitute "governing body" for community (?) and "section 2" for "section 1." 3. lines 1-6: The existing group who has held this position previously and by state law (RCW 47.80.020--Growth Management Act of 199€>} that empowered certain counties and cRies via re9ionai metroFnfKan planning agencies (}.e-, Puget Sound Re9ionai Council) to identify "essential transportation facilities of statewide significance.” (i.e. Sea-Tac) At least I believe PSRC and Sea-Tac would make this claim. The problem is that PSRC did not follow-through with Sea-Tac with demands of better performance, as a condition of the third runway. My impression is that South King County (SKC) cities do not trust that PSRC would decide in their favor since the organization is largely controlled by the largest cities of King County (i.e. Seattle, Bellevue, etc.). This section sets up a controversy between…

Rep. Orwall's stakeholder meeting re: Port packages August 14, 2019 3:30– 5 PM Kent City Hall building, Chambers East & West, 220 4th Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 1. Welcome & Introductions ,//hinformation „f Airport m2. Background• • Public Aealth –Seattle & • Legislative action King County 3. Homeowner stories 4. Issue overview 5. Next steps + X b b b&/2:/ #a 9Az &(bOb@C#4, M*4 /’&z: /# L / / f IIIP ///9' - (h.Md_, ,„, /dg” €Z72k£