TagSea-Tac Communities Plan(236)

Approximately $1 Million will be invested in these partnerships to create middle class jobs, generate local economic impacts and promote region wide prosperity • E t King County cities will receive funding to advance local economic development throughout the region. • Annual grant funding would be formula: • – Grants capped at $65,000 – Smallest cities receive a minimum of $5,000 Partnership Program Grant Amounts ALgona Auburn (part) Beaux Arts Village Bellevue Black Diamond Bothell (part) Burien Carnation Clyde Hill Covington Des Moines Duvall Enumc Law (part) Cooperative Program Federal Way Hunts Point lssaquah Kenmore Kent Kirkland Lake Forest Park Maple Valley Medina Mercer Island Milton (part) Newcastle Normandy Park S $ $ S S $ S S $ S $ S $ 5,000 65,000 5,000 65,000 5,000 26,590 50,000 5,000 5,000 18,750 30,570 7,425 11,410 t IIEt } £odheR=$ 1NadaM KkibId = SeaB le -- . Redmond Budea TJk©l£ Renton bruaNT SeaT:3 : h& "TE= “" „,„ g„H:; R n \\X1: ? ! !:: u m B 1 3 ;;h i & m o n d lin haL–i KirB County Cities $ $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ S S 65,000 5,000 34, 590 22,320 65,000 65,000 12,940 24,790 5,000 23,660 5,000 It,090 6,540 North Bend Pacific (part) Redmond Renton Sammamish SeaTac Shoreline Skykomish Snoqualmie Tukwila Woodinville Yarrow Point 7/17/2017 S •Olar• IIi Fo• qe X in 1 C eu • rp ”"n b: A: I = &rrdim ;iS$ H'd? ->dlevue SaRIHamish Ab Herat bbrd…

Understanding Airport Air Quality and Public Health Studies Related to Airports CHAPTER 4 Health Impacts This chapter serves as a primer on understanding potential air pollutant health impacts and health risks. 4.1 Pollutant Health Impacts Overview Each of the pollutants targeted in this report can be categorized as either a criteria pollutant or a hazardous air pollutant (HAP). HAPs are also referred to as air toxics or as both criteria pollutants and HAPs (e.g., Lead, Pb, is regulated as a criteria pollutant but Pb-based compounds are on the EPA’s HAPs list). Each of these pollutants has health effects that range from mild to severe chronic and acute health effects, as well as premature death. Figure 4- 1 provides an overview of the population proportions associated with the severity of health effects–in general, the more severe the effect, the smaller the proportion of the population affected. The figure describes different degrees of health effects, and it should be understood that different poHut- ants will have different health impacts and levels of severity. The following sections describe the potential health effects of each pollutant. There are six (6) criteria pollutants. A discussion of concerns over their public health impacts follow: e Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas that can cause various physiological damages by displacing oxygen in the bloodstream. At high concentrations, CO has known health effects including dizziness, unconsciousness, and death. At lower concentrations more typical of ambient settings in the United States, individuals with cardiovascular disease are…

A few things that I have done: Currently serving as an appointment by Burien City Council to a two year term as a member of the Bullen Airport Advisory Committee. Board member of Quiet Skies Coalition Served as an appointment by recommendation from Rep Tina Orwall to the UW Ultrafine Advisory Panel from to 201 7 to present on behalf of the City of Burien. Served as an appointment by recommendation from Port Commissioner Fred Fellemen to the Port of Seattle Energy and Sustainability Committee 201 5-2016. Co-authored Burien Resolution 375 along with Council Member Nancy Tosta passed in 2015. Author of "Over My Head" 201 1 an auto-biography of events that occurred during the third runway controversy. Member of Aviation Justice, 201 1 -present After release of the State of Washington (first ever) Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory, I was Invited by the Port Commission to review and provide a report on the climate change emissions at Sea-Tac Airport - 2007 Co-founder of US Citizens Aviation Watch, Inc. in 1998, a national umbrella organization concerned with the environmental impacts of aviation on US citizen health and welfare. Partner and work with organizations throughout the US and elsewhere to share information, network and support both national and international efforts to raise awareness about the environmental impact of aviation including climate change. Served as Administrative Director of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs, an umbrella organization funded by the cities of Burien, Normandy Park, Des Moines, Federal Way, Tukwi Ia from 1996-1…

(1) in new construction, plans submitted under WAC 246-366-040 shall specify ventilation equipment and other mechanical noise sources in classrooms are designed to provide background sound which conforms to a noise criterion curve or equivalent not to exceed NC-35. The owner shall certify equipment and features are installed according to the approved plans (2) in new construction, the actual background noise at any student location within the classroom shall not exceed 45 dBA (Leg*) and 70 dB (Leq*) (unweighted scale) where x is thirty seconds or more. The health officer shall determine compliance with this section when the ventilation system and the ventilation system's noise generating components, e.g_, condenser, heat pump, etc., are in operation (3) Existing portable classrooms, constructed before January 1, 1990, moved from one site to another on the same school property or within the same school district are exempt from the requirements of this section if the portable classrooms meet the following: (a) Noise abating or noise generating features shall not be altered in a manner that may increase noise levels; (b) The portable classrooms were previously in use for general instruction; (c) Ownership of the portable classrooms will remain the same; and (d) The new site is in compliance with WAC 246-366-030(3). (4) in new construction, the maximum ambient noise level in industrial arts, vocational agriculture and trade, and industrial classrooms shall not exceed 65 dBA when all fume and dust exhaust systems are operating. (5) The maximum noise exposure for students in vocational education…

Really enjoyed coming over yesterday, your house is just lovely! ;• Here are the notes I jotted down: Title: Request for Assessment of Part 150 Compliance A position or fruit of thoughts, not an argument, but points as to why we feel the part 150 is out of compliance. *reference record of approval of existing part 150 *reference chapter 1 of current airport system before congress, as in your letter to the port, point 21 measure P-2 *Port staff has now declare they will do "parts" of the 150 within the SAMP, but those "parts" were not transparent in the public scoping process. They recently announced they would be doing this within the SEPA/ EIS process. *3rd runway never studied for the full time usage (also runway use agreement has changed. Does this also apply?) *Impacts due to procedure changes and frequency .Qb Other issues we may or may not include, EPA never signed off or1 last one. Do we ask about StART and are they using it for a partial part 150 round table? Document I sent from FAA that we discussed Shawn, I can not thank you enough for taking this on! I am available to you for anything. Sheila 206-501 -9553 of 5/31/19, 12:47 PM

We’ve identified 2 general areas of concern for the clients. The questions and comments are addressed below: Growth in impacts between 2012-2018 not addressed through the NEP A review SEA 3rd Runway Use NEPA reviews are required for federal actions which in the airport context, are typically those associated with the approval, execution, or funding of projects. NEPA reviews are intended to assess the impacts resulting from a proposed action. In the case of the SAMP, NEPA will identify the environmental impacts associated with the construction of projects within the S AMP. At least three scenarios will be included: 1) Existing conditions (current operations and impacts), 2) Future conditions with implementation of the S AMP projects (based on forecast operational levels and resulting impacts), and 3) No-'.Action future scenario with forecast operations and resulting impacts). This will represent total operations and impacts with no S AMP projects implemented. The growth in impacts based on the growth in operations from 2012-2018 will be included in the existing conditions assessment in the S AMP NEPA review. This will include noise exposure contours based on the existing operations which is the product of the growth since 2012. NEP A will not specifically look at a comparison of conditions from 2012-2018. This would have been analyzed in previous NEPA work, associated with construction projects completed by the Port. The last Part 150 analyzed operations and noise exposure from 2013 (existing/baseline conditions) and 2018 (future/forecast conditions). The Part 150 included updates to the Airport’s Noise…

ABCx2 Review of Arlyn Purcell’s presentation to Burien regarding SAMP EIS near term projects: Presentation Noted Changes include. B A review ofcurrent airport impacts back to 2018 as opposed to 2012 ' Initiating the Part 150 process following the SAMP EIS process as opposed to having it occur prior or concurrently ' The statement that the Part 150 process is voluntary on behalfofthe Port ofSeattle. ' The articulation of process and intent on the part of the Port of Seattle were at times stunning and left our Councitmembers and staff with many more questions than answers . A review of current airport impacts back to 2018 as opposed to 2012 The environrnental review process under both federal (NEPA) and state (SEPA) regulatory framework are associated with federal/state . As an example, when FAA funds a project at an airport, the funding of the project constitutes a federal action. NEP A requires environmental review for federal actions which may have environmental impacts. The growth in operations (2012-present) does not constitute a federal (or state) action, therefore, it would be inappropriate to conduct a NEP A/SEPA analysis specifically on the growth. The expansion and construction projects and their subsequent (forecasted) impacts are subject to environmental review. Between 2012 and 2018, there have been significant construction projects at Sea-Tac; speci.neatly the enhanced international termiaal and the north satellite area. The number of flights have increased substantially over this time period and these projects and others have been initiated to accowtmodate this growth. Prior…

Burien Airport Advisory Committee White Paper–September 19, 2017 Sea-Tac Airport was built in 1949 and by the late 1980’s it was clear that increasing air traffic was having and would continue to have significant negative impacts on health and quality of life in surrounding communities. Archival research reveals that since 1992 South King County cities have diligently worked with state and regional governments to identify a location for a new airport. Unrestrained air traffic growth at this single, major-hub airport is not sustainable in terms of increasing noise and air pollution or economic development in Washington State. Despite millions of dollars spent on sound mitigating some homes and schools, and purchase of some close-in residences, the Port has not embraced any effective remedy that reduces higher levels of aircraft noise or dangerous levels of air pollution that compromise health of at-risk children and adults. These impacts are suffered daily within a concentrated area of South King County and parts of Seattle. Adoption of their new multi-billion dollar expansion plan demonstrates that the Port continues to prioritize the comfort and ease of the flying public, at the expense of increased numbers of cancer and asthma victims on the ground. g Is it reasonable to expect that continued expansion at Sea-Tac Airport is really sustainable from any perspective? Can one large hub airport--with limited access and egress--really meet the demands of Western Washington travelers into mid-21st century, never mind considering the health and environmental impacts? Given lack of input by voters on…

Dear Mayor Krakowiak and Members of the Burien City Council, have reviewed the September 19th draft copy of the Burien Airport Committee (BAC) white paper currently under development. My colleagues and I commend the BAC for undertaking this work and using the form of a white paper as a way to articulate facts and existing policy to build common understanding and lay a path for ongoing constructive engagement. The Seattle Port Commission embraces this approach and looks forward to continuing our work together. The draft white paper does a good job laying out some of the areas of work ahead, but contains a number of inaccuracies that should be addressed in subsequent drafts. I’m providing clarification so these elements can be updated as part of the BAC’s white paper refinement process – and inform any proposed resolution that may follow. Specifically, the following elements of the September 19th draft white paper were described less than accurately and are worthy of clarification as the white paper is finalized: Sea-Tac Airport Capital Funding Sources As we move forward with our investments in renovations and new infrastructure to accommodate increased regional air travel demand, it is important for our local residents to understand that in addition to airport revenues, a major funding source for airport infrastructure is the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC). The PFC is a fee set by Congress and charged to departing passengers as part of their ticket purchase. Property tax collected by the Port of Seattle is not used for…

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Buden finds that it is appropriate to create a committee to address issues related to Seattle Tacoma International Airport (hereafter “Airport”); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURIEN, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Committee Established. A Buden Airport Committee (“Committee”) is hereby established to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council with the following purposes: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. To discuss both the positive and the negative impacts of the Airport on the City of Burien; To discuss land use issues related to the Airport, including impacts on the C'ity of Burien, including but not limited to the South Aviation Support Area (S AS A), the International Arrivals Facility, and Airport access; To discuss agreements between the City of Buden and the Port of Seattle related to the Airport including, but not limited to interlocal agreements; To discuss mitigation of Airport impacts including but not limited to traffic mitigation, surface water management, parking, and the payment of impact fees; To make recommendations to the City Council regarding ways to protect residents and businesses from negative Airport impacts; To make recommendations to the City Council regarding ways for residents and businesses to take advantage of positive Airport impacts; To address other Airport related issues as deemed appropriate by the Committee or the City Council. Section 2. Meetings. The Committee will meet on an as-needed basis. Section 3. Committee Composition. The Committee shall be comprised…