![[BACK TO WELCOME/HOME]](buthome.gif")
On July 22, the SeaTac City Council unanimously voted, with no public hearing, to accept a deal with the Port of Seattle, settling a pending lawsuit and a companion administrative appeal under the Growth Management Act. The Port will gain control over land-use and zoning policies on Airport-owned land in the City and over most of the proceeds of the City’s tax on parking fees. The City will sell the Port, at a very substantial discount, some 60 acres of land resulting from street vacations in the construction zone for the third runway, and rezoning 50 acres of North SeaTac Park to industrial use and relinquish it to the Port. In return, the Port promises to pay the City $10 million, which the Council has earmarked for its troubled efforts to build a new city hall. The Port also commits to contribute to some transportation improvements designed to improve access to its Airport.
“This is a very bad deal for the citizens of SeaTac,” said longtime SeaTac resident Luella Gestner. “The Council got themselves a City Hall, but the residents got no relief from the burdens of the airport and the bill for policing the SeaTac strip. To do it without any opportunity for comment tells me that they knew that they are doing the wrong thing.”
The agreement’s mitigation measures are described described as “complete community relief”; however, most of it is for transportation improvements to serve the Airport better. Of prime importance is permanent south access. Port and City will lobby the State for a roadway connecting SR 509 and I-5, to be linked to the Airport by a major connector running along 24/28th Ave. So., funded jointly by the Port and the City. The Port would pay for a new interchange where the connector meets So. 188th St.
Other major transportation work would be determined by a study, half of which will be paid for by the Port. The Port would pay its “pro rata” or “proportionate” share of the costs of agreed projects. A figure of $36.8 million is mentioned in the settlement packet as the Port’s total costs for these various projects, but in fact the amount to be paid is entirely uncertain.
Other mitigation consists of ‘up to’ $10 million to ‘beautify’ the West edge of the expanded Airport and ‘up to’ $1.5 million for a recreational trail in the city’s Westside. Nothing is provided to expand the Port’s insulation program into impacted Eastside areas or to compensate property-owners for depression of property values. Air pollution is unaddressed. SeaTac agrees to accept the Port’s plans for dealing with surface-water and ground-water issues.
| “This is a very bad deal for the citizens of SeaTac. The Council got themselves a City Hall, but the residents got no relief from the burdens of the airport and the bill for policing the SeaTac strip. To do it without any opportunity for comment tells me that they knew that they are doing the wrong thing.” --Luella Gestner, longtime SeaTac resident |
Further details of the agreement are contained in a special SeaTac supplement included in copies of this newsletter distributed in SeaTac. Extra copies of the supplement will be available at the RCAA office and on the RCAA website. The Port Commission had given tentative approval to the agreement earlier in the day, again with no public hearing, and, like the SeaTac Council, with virtually no discussion in public of the terms of the agreement. At the Commissioners’ meeting, copies of the agreement package (running to more than 120 pages) were made available just as the Commissioners began to discuss approval, and long after the public-comment part of the meeting. At the SeaTac Council meeting, the agreement package was never available to the press or public. A multi-page press packet announcing the Council’s action and summarizing some aspects of the deal was distributed to news-media folk in attendance less than a minute after the vote. The City does not plan to publish the full package until minor details have been thrashed out. The only hearings will be on the best way of using discretionary funds to be received by the City. (This money in fact is already committed, in the Council’s mind, to what the city calls a community center, but the public calls a new city hall. The Council voted earlier in the evening to acquire real estate on Angle Lake for about $3 million, which is the candidate as the site for the new City Center.) The City wants the RTA to locate a station at the new city hall.
In an impassioned oral argument to a two-member panel of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Appeals Board on July 10, J. Tayloe Washburn, Esq., of Foster, Pepper & Shefelman, attorneys for the Port of Seattle, asked the Board, in effect, to order Des Moines to withdraw from all administrative and legal challenges to Sea-Tac expansion. Washburn asserted that by joining Airport Communities Coalition (ACC), which opposes Sea-Tac expansion, and by participating in a lawsuit that challenges the environmental-impact statement for the expansion, the City had violated the Growth Management Act (GMA). In written filings with the Board, as well as his oral remarks, Mr. Washburn claimed that the Port had been “forced” to come to the GMA hearing board because of the ACC lawsuit and also by a pending appeal by Des Moines to the Hearing Board on other issues. He argued that the GMA requires the City to bring its plans into ‘consistency’ with the regional plan for Sea-Tac expansion; therefore, any City policy expressing opposition to Airport expansion requires that the Hearing Board order the City to change its policy statements.
Although it did not provide supporting evidence, the Port also claimed that “numerous provisions” of the City’s comprehensive plan “would obstructively, irrationally, and unnecessarily increase the costs and environmental impacts of a Third Runway”. Among these provisions are policies “to preserve and protect designated residential communities from inconsistent and incompatible land uses” (sec. 8-03-01(2), such as Des Moines comprehensive plan and a policy to “[p]rotect and preserve residential neighborhoods by adopting weight limits and maximum noise levels for commercial trucks on surface streets in residential neighborhoods” (sec. 8-04-01(1)(c)). In other words, the Port wants the Hearing Board to rule that Des Moines no longer has legal authority to regulate use of its streets, should the Port decide to run dump trucks with fill dirt for the third runway through the City.
By contrast with Washburn’s hot political rhetoric, the City of Des Moines, represented by John W. Hempelmann, Cairncross & Hemplemenn, rested its case on legal arguments. Three key points emerged. First, the growth management statute does not actually contain any provision making the plans of cities subordinate to the policies adopted by bodies like PSRC. Second, the statute requires that regional transportation plans be consistent with existing city comprehensive plans. Third, regional plans that bind cities must be adopted by the legislative authorities of the counties. This has not happened in the case of Sea-Tac expansion plans. The Port’s response was that King County’s authority had been delegated to PSRC. Mr. Hempelmann questioned whether the statute could be read as permitting such delegation. He cautioned the Board that delegation raised serious constitutional issues both under the State constitution and Federal court decisions (such as the case holding that the organization of METRO was improper). Boards, like courts, should steer away from interpreting statutes in such a way as to raise constitutional issues.
The Port’s attorney was especially indignant about the City’s policies adopting noise levels: in general, Des Moines aims to bring ambient noise down to 55 LDN (the level recommended as the maximum permissible by the US EPA). The Port admits that as the level of operations at Sea-Tac increases with the third runway the noise level in Des Moines will rise. The simple statement by Des Moines that it aspires to less, not more, noise proves (according to the legal papers filed by the Port) that the City is completely out of line with the plans of the Port and Puget Sound Regional Council.
The Port’s oral argument and lengthy written filings try to cast Des Moines as a pariah, at odds with the process that the Hearing Board exists to enforce. According to the Port, the City caused the Port to bring the GMA action by suing the Port and by challenging the failure of PSRC and the Port to make their plans consistent with those of Des Moines. The case “involves one city’s rebellion”, Mr. Washburn wrote in an earlier memorandum.
A decision from the full Board is due August 13, after review of the transcript of the argument by the third member Edward McGuire, after this issue has gone to press.
Superior Court Judge Robert H. Alsdorf ruled on June 13 that all relevant evidence, including the results of the State-funded mitigation study (H-O-K), may be introduced at the trial of the cities’ lawsuit challenging the Port’s third-runway plan. The Port, and its co- defendant, the Puget Sound Regional Council, had asked the court to limit the case to the documents prepared by the two agencies in support of their airport-expansion case, ignoring other evidence. Alsdorf, who is assigned as the trial judge, said that parties could ask him to consider evidence outside the record, such as the mitigation study, and he would rule on each request individually. In particular, he indicated a willingness to consider the mitigation study and “other facts that may be outside the regional planning process”.
At the same time, the Port/PSRC also lost a motion to eliminate a trial of the case and a companion motion to prevent the cities from gathering more information. The agencies wanted the court to proceed to final legal argument in the next few weeks, changing (to their advantage) the previous schedule for the case, which sets the trial for January 1998.
The court declined to rule on motions from the Port/ PSRC seeking reimbursement for alleged expenses in preparing the necessary administrative record.
[Page 2]
| The black exhaust coming from the tailpipes of jets is obviously full of particulates; however, nobody knows the particulate burden in airport communities because EPA has never required measurements of particulates smaller than 10 microns, the size of particulates in jet exhaust. This summer, the EPA adopted a new particulate standard that would regulate particulates down to 2.5 microns. Now, measurement and monitoring will likely be required, if not action. Caught between well-documented medical findings that fine particulates are a significant hazard and worries of certain industries that it will be very expensive and difficult to address the problem, EPA adopted the new standard but promised a “go slow” approach to implementation. Precisely how the go-slow approach will be implemented is unclear at this time. Gov. Gary Locke has certified to the U.S. Department of Transportation that there is “reasonable assurance” that the Sea-Tac expansion will be built and run “so as to comply with applicable air and water quality standards—IF. The “IF” is a long list of permit and environmental study requirements (some onerous). Requirements that the Port not alter “the average instream flow” of Miller and Des Moines Creeks may be especially difficult to meet. Not included, however, were any studies of air pollution from the Airport operation. The Governor’s personally-signed letter, dated June 30, supersedes an earlier letter from the Department of Ecology, which was challenged as not meeting the Federal requirements for a certificate from the State’s Chief Executive. |
According to the Port of Seattle, the scope of work for recently selected consultants will be the subject of a public meeting in late September (details to be announced) soliciting public input into its current Part 150 study. Part 150 is a federal program for review of impacts of airports on local communities. Members of the citizens advisory committee for the program are Mike Anderson, Anne Bonney, Rose Clark, James Combs, Nancy Cleminshaw, Lloyd Doctor, Arden Forrey, Al Furney, Doug Hakala, Bud Jones, Richard Kennedy, Steve Mullet, Clare Nordquist, and Gerald Wea./P>
[Page 3]
As information about the impacts of Sea-Tac Airport expansion and potential mitigation becomes available, analysis shows that cities in the metropolitan area will experience a wide range of disruptive changes. This article, continued on page 6, and accompanying sidebar ‘boxes’ provide an area-by-area review. All neighborhoods identified as needing noise mitigation are also at risk for health-endangering air pollution.
Seven Burien Neighborhoods, Downtown, Schools and Hospital Hit HardCentral $5.8 million SEL Seven public schools and Highline Community Hospital will also need anti-noise insulation on the basis of projected 65 LDN contours, the study advises, with costs still undetermined. The schools are Highline High School Gregory Heights Elementary, Hazel Valley Elementary, Salmon Creek Elementary, Seahurst Elementary, Shorewood Elementary, and Sylvester Middle School. Burien is the only city where the main shopping district is partly in the 60 LDN. Areas North of Sea-Tac Not Studied; Severe Impacts PredictedNot included in the recent H-O-K study were such densely populated areas as White Center, Skyway, South Park, South-East Seattle, Beacon Hill, the southern part of Delridge (in West Seattle), and other areas north of the Airport where noise problems are frequently reported. The H-O-K team noted the necessity for ensuring compliance with Executive Order 12898 ('Environmental Justice' order) in these minority-heavy areas. Some of Highline's schools lie in this general area: three are recommended for closure and seven for insulation. Departure flight paths blanket much of the area between the north end of the Airport and the I-90 bridge, and some areas even farther north. Many neighborhoods receive impacts comparable to those in neighborhoods recommended for major mitigation; schools, hospitals, and other institutions suffer serious, but as-yet unstudied, noise impacts. These areas to the north of Sea-Tac Airport also experience growing levels of noise from King County International Airport and, in many cases, much helicopter traffic. City of SeaTac Faces Unique ChallengesThe City of SeaTac faces unique challenges from airport expansion. Unfortunately, the only independent examination of possible adverse impacts in SeaTac has been restricted to the schools (part of the Highline School District). The City Council chose not to participate in the H-O-K study, after the cities of the Airport Communities Coalition refused SeaTac’s demand to be put in charge of the entire study. SeaTac’s seven Highline District public schools all will need major insulation. Most of the residential property needed for westward expansion of the Airport campus is in SeaTac. Under the Port/Sea agreement, SeaTac only $3.5 million from POS for 60 acres on the Westside and no improved noise mitigation programs. |
Historic Des Moines May Lose Half Its Neighborhoods and ResidentsDes Moines, a community founded in 1867, and now a city of 27,000 residents with 10 distinct neighborhoods, will be heavily hit by overflight noise, and will lose much of its residential character, if recommended mitigation measures are implemented. More than a third of each of four neighborhoods will be within the 65 LDN contour (as projected by the Port) when the Airport with third runway reaches maximum capacity. The H-O-K mitigation study considered those four neighborhoods (making up half the 5.8 square miles of the city, with half the population), as candidates for acquisition and total conversion to non-residential uses. See map below. The neighborhoods and estimated cost of acquisition and redevelopment are: East Central $475.8 million North Central $183.2 million South Des Moines $373.9 million West Central $364.0 million West Central is the historic district just upland from Des Moines’ charming, tourist-attracting, Downtown neighborhood. The waterfront-oriented Downtown would remain, isolated from the remaining residential areas by a solid mass of commercial development a few steps to the East. The impact on Des Moines’ potential for tourism would be ruinous. The H-O-K team also concluded that four other neighborhoods that will be almost entirely within the future 60 LDN contour should receive anti-noise insulation treatment plus compensation for lost property values (see box ‘Insulation & Compensation’). East Woodmont $ 11.5 millionNorth Hill $ 23.4 million West Woodmont $ 16.1 million Zenith $ 20.6 million Unsurprisingly, City Manager Bob Olander says of the third runway, “It is the No. 1 threat to our quality of life and is the No. 1 priority of our City Council” . |
Acquisition and Redevelopment — Heroic RemediesA key mitigation measure for airport noise is purchase and removal (or razing) of all impacted homes, requiring residents to move elsewhere, followed by redevelopment of the area for more intense uses, usually industrial, warehouse, or very large commercial structures, after the streets and utilities are upgraded. The H-O-K study estimates the costs of this mitigation at $760,000 per acre. The result is the replacement of entire neighborhoods with lots of concrete; local businesses dependent on residential customers wither and die. In the long run, municipal tax revenues may increase, but there will be years, perhaps decades, when the ‘take’ area lies idle, an effect anyone may see on the East side of Des Moines Way, South of S. 128th. |
Insulation & CompensationFor neighborhoods lying in whole or in part within the future 65 LDN contour, or subject to excessive single- event (SEL) noise, or departure tracks directly overhead, the H-O-K team recommends (1) compensation for lost property values and (2) anti-noise insulation: attic and wall insulation; triple-glazed window systems; air- conditioning in older structures. Suggested compensation would follow the Dallas-Fort Worth model: 25 percent of the appraised value, based on comparable properties not impacted by airport noise. In return for compensation, property owners would grant avigation (overflight) easements to the Port. (The Port plans to base its acquisition offers on the West side of the airport on lower prices—see “Port’s Appraisers Instructed To Undervalue ...” p. 4.) |
Tukwila: Expansion Will Bring Freeway Congestion, Aircraft Noise, Neighborhood Traffic ProblemsTukwila’s future, if expansion of Sea-Tac Airport goes forward, includes major congestion on the major freeways and interchanges serving the city, sharply increased traffic in all neighborhoods, and plenty of overflight noise, according to the recent mitigation study, which predicts troublesome overflows of traffic into minor arterials (neighborhood streets) as the result of increased congestion on major arterials (including freeways). Total transportation mitigation needs are estimated at $192 million, with most of the impacts on the State freeways and overpasses. City streets will need $71 million in new funding. |
Normandy Park to See Noise Increase, Miller Creek AlterationWhile no Normandy Park neighborhoods are candidates for buy-out and demolition, one neighborhood is recommended for 65-LDN mitigation (East Central, at a cost of $3.4 million), and six more for mitigation because of SEL or departure noise (Bonniewood, North, Riviera, Normandy Province, Arrow Lake, and South,) for a total of about $43 million. If portions of North Central are not considered appropriate for the 65 LDN remedy, the neighborhood would be a candidate for direct-overflight mitigation. Five of the city’s neighborhoods may need protection from Port-sponsored alterations of the Miller Creek basin, causing potential flooding . |
Property Devaluation Affects 13,000 Homes in Federal WayLying southwest of the Airport, Federal Way is entirely outside the projected 65 LDN contour, with only a small area in the 60 LDN zone. Nonetheless, the H-O-K study found that proximity to flight tracks results in thousands of homes experiencing significant property devaluation, estimated at almost $200 million in lost property value among 13,792 homes when the Airport reaches peak capacity. Only Burien has more homes so impacted. According to the H-O-K study, the entire north half of the city, consisting of six neighborhoods north of S. 320th, should receive anti-noise insulation and compensation for lost property values. The neighborhoods and mitigation amounts are:
City Center $ 16.3 million |
[Page 4]
Port Looking for Money, FAA Issues RODAs expected, the regional office of the Federal Aviation Administration has given its formal approval of the $3 billion expansion project at Sea-Tac International Airport, a formality that permits the FAA to make grants to the Airport under the federal Airport Improvement Program. The AIP money, if approved, would be less than $230 million according to a 1996 Port documents. The runway cost alone is estimate by the Port to be $587 million. The hunt for other money is on. The unsigned document (“Record of Decision), issued on July 3, provides for minimal mitigation but addresses almost none of the numerous adverse impacts detailed in the recent State-funded mitigation study (see our Spring 1997 issue and articles beginning on page 3 of this issue). Only four schools are to receive insulation. No provisions are made to compensate local governments for lost tax revenues, or to compensate property owners for devaluation of homes or businesses. Insulation of 170 homes not covered by the existing insulation program may be required, and properties will be acquired in two Approach Transition Areas, a total of 153 single-family homes, 60 apartment units in 8 buildings, and two mobile-home parks with 96 spaces. Instead of requiring a full environmental analysis of impacts past the year 2010, FAA proposes to allow the Port to deal with those in the far future in Part 150 studies, not governed by State and Federal environmental statutes, and not subject to court review). Water-quality problems that had been pointed in detailed comments on the FAA/Port supplemental EIS were ignored. Nothing is provided for mitigation of construction impacts. A nominal, one-page, cost-benefit analysis is included in the Record of Decision dealing only with runway expenditure. No consideration is given to mitigation costs, even the minimal mitigation suggested in the ROD. With no stated basis, the document assumes that starting in the year 2005, the expansion will result in reduction of “delay” (not defined” by over 130,000 hours at $28.16 per hour (the same number for aircraft and for each individual passenger). It is claimed that this will result in astronomical savings, starting with $438 million the first year, and increasing to $854 million per year in 2015, for a claimed total benefit of $7.1 billion in 10 years. The document does not indicate whether constant-value dollars are used. The ROD arbitrarily reduces the stated cost of the completed project from $587 million to $488 million, by the use of an unexplained “discount”. It is unclear why the FAA prepared this analysis, when FAA procedures require that airport sponsors (such as the Port of Seattle) prepare and submit benefit-cost analyses. See Federal Register for June 24. |
Port’s Appraisers Instructed to Undervalue Residential Property in SeaTac Purchase ZoneIn preparing for future purchases of homes in SeaTac’s Westside area, the Port of Seattle has instructed its appraisers to set the value of property below what comparable property in non-airport-impacted areas is worth. Homeowners who accept Port purchase offers will thus lose the difference between the true value of their homes and the sharply reduced value caused by Airport activities. Appraisers are to value properties in comparison to other Airport-impacted properties, instead of using homes not impacted by overflights as ‘comparables’.
The impact-mitigation study completed earlier this year for Burien and other neighboring cities shows that single-family homes in the vicinity of the Airport are currently valued at less than 90 percent of comparable homes in the Shoreline area (virtually free of jet overflight disturbance). In addition, proximity to flight paths imposes a further loss of value. The mitigation report states that "other things remaining equal, the value of a house and lot increases by about 3.4% ($4,450 on the average valued house of $129,000) for every quarter of a mile the house is farther away from being directly underneath the flight track of departing/approaching jet aircraft." State Auditor to Examine Sea-Tac Noise Insulation ProgramAfter sampling some 3,000 Port of Seattle records, SW King County Citizens, led by Minnie Brasher, took a list of concerns to State Auditor Brian Sontag. After receiving their documentation, Sontag said that their questions would be incorporated into this year’s audit of the Port, which was due to start on August 1 .“We want a performance audit,” said Brasher. “This program is 23 years old and there has never been a performance audit.” In their review of Port records, the citizens found a number of anomalies. The group found many cases where prices paid by the Port through its transaction assistance program averaged $15,000 to $20,000 less than King County Assessor's records show. The group found seven cases of property outside the approved noise insulation area receiving a total of $71,000 in insulation, though there is a long waiting list of homes inside the insulation area. Their samples showed generally that homes farther from the Airport received more insulation than those close by. For example, one home in South Park on the far north of the 65 LDN noise area, valued in Assessor’s records at $43,500 dollars, received $48,000 of insulation. One landlord owning 18 homes received insulation for all of them while others waiting for years have not received any insulation. The citizens pointed out that before homeowners could receive any insulation, they are forced to sign an avigation easement relieving the Port of further obligations, even though the avigation easement specifies that the Port does not guarantee any reduction of noise. The Federal government pays 80 percent of the costs but does not require avigation easements in exchange for insulation. The Dallas-Fort Worth Airport pays homeowners 25 percent of the assessed value of their home for avigation easements. Finally, the citizens questioned the Port’s failure to go the cities in which the program was being implemented for approval as recommended by the Port’s own auditors. Attending the meeting were Liz Cairns, Al Furney, Barbara Stuhring, Debi L. DeMarais, and Karen Kaiser’s aide, Sue Evans. |
A recent study of three FAA-funded noise-insulation programs shows that the Sea-Tac program delivers far less noise reduction than expected and at a high cost.
David Gillen of the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California (Berkeley), in a pioneering examination of the costs-benefits ratio of insulation programs, found that Sea-Tac achieved smaller reduction (5-8 dB) than other programs, and, as compared to Stapleton (old Denver) at a much greater cost. Sea-Tac’s average expenditure was $18,000 per home, with reductions of only 5-8 dB. Stapleton’s reductions were 9-17 dB, with cost averaging $7500 per home.
Gillen’s samples were small, and he learned that none of the programs came close to meeting goals of 20-25 dB reductions for houses in 65-70 LDN zones.
Gillen’s paper was presented at a recent national symposium on airport noise, held at San Diego.
Dallas-Fort Worth Noise ProgramFair Market Values: All programs use comparables outside of the actual 65 dB DNL. The assessment is determined by an independent, not airport appointed, appraiser.Relocation: Residents within the current, not projected, 70 dB DNL have option to be relocated at airport expense. Acquisition: Acquires property under the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Assistance Policies Act. Allows up to $22,500 differential to purchase alternative housing. Pays moving expenses for owner occupants as well as tenants. Easements: Pays homeowners within the current, not projected, 65 LDN noise contour a lump sum payment of 25% of the assessed value of their homes in exchange for avigation easement. |
Sea-Tac Noise ProgramFair Market Values: All programs requires comparables to be inside the Port’s projected, not actual, 65 dB DNLcontours. Uses Port-selected appraisers. Relocation: Only Port-designated areas eligible for acquisition. “Transaction assistance” for those unable to sell their homes in areas “generally...adjacent to or near areas proposed for outright acquisition by the Port.” Acquisition: Acquires property under the federal Uniform Relocation Act. Up to $22,500 differential to purchase alternative housing. Pays moving expenses for property owners as well as tenants. Easements: Requires homeowners to sign and avigation easement in exchange for participation in Port Noise Insulation Program. |
[Page 4]
Oebser: “Done Deal? |
The Port of Seattle’s airport operation comes off far worse than expected in a professional public-opinion survey taken on the Airport’s behalf by telephone in early April. The Port has yet to announce the results, but Truth in Aviation has obtained a copy of the report of the polling firm, Evans/McDonough Company, dated May 15, showing that residents in the five cities surveyed do not support the third-runway project and that a majority believe that most of the negative impacts of a third runway cannot (or perhaps, will not) be mitigated. Throughout the area surveyed, even in the City of SeaTac, where support for the Port and the third runway is strongest, a majority of residents believe that the third runway, if built, will hurt their communities overall. (Federal Way was not polled.)
According to Evans/McDonough Company, the Port of Seattle has a “net negative” rating of 18 points – 53 percent unfavorable, 35 percent favorable. The report notes “not surprisingly, airport area residents’ opinion of the Port is closely tied to their feelings about the third runway”. By a 53 to 42 percent margin, residents agree that the third runway must be stopped at all costs.
Opinions about a possible third runway, by city, were:
| Burien | 78 percent opposed |
| Des Moines | 70 percent opposed |
| Normandy Park | 91 percent opposed |
| SeaTac | 56 percent opposed |
| Tukwila | 57 percent opposed |
The two most important problems facing the communities were thought to be crime (32 percent) and the third runway (19 percent).
The city governments, County government, and State Legislature, all received greater-than-50 percent favorable ratings, except for SeaTac’s council, which only received a 47 percent favorable rating ..from area residents. This may reflect area-wide disillusionment with SeaTac Council’s perceived pro-Airport-expansion attitude: the poll was taken before the release of the H-O-K study and well before the announcement of the SeaTac/Port deal.
The pollsters posed numerous questions about residents’ opinion of the Port. Respondents gave the Port terrible ratings for “listening and responding to citizens’ concerns” (only 22 percent favorable), and “minimizing the airport’s impacts” (only 23 percent favorable). Ratings were nearly as bad as to solving regional air-transportation problems and minimizing aircraft noise
.In each of the cities, except Tukwila, large majorities believed that construction of the third runway would cause residential property values in their own neighborhoods to decrease. (Opinion in Tukwila was evenly divided on this issue.) Despite repeated claims by the Port and FAA to the contrary, huge majorities (64 to 83 percent), believe that the third runway, if built, would cause more aircraft noise in their own neighborhoods.
The Highline School District and the Port are once again negotiating on the schools’ insulation problem, according to District Information Officer, Nick Latham. Details of the talks are confidential.
The Port agreed to meet after reviewing the school Board’s proposal for a pilot project. The Highline team is led by superintendent Joe McGeehan with legal counsel David Hokit.
According to Aviation Daily (issue of 8 July), European civil-aviation authorities have banned use of noisy, hush-kitted Stage II aircraft, effective April 1, 1999. Husk-kits legal after that date will have to meet new, quieter European standards, considerably more restrictive than the minimum requirements of the European equivalent of the U.S. Stage II standard.
A Horizon Airlines spokesman has told Truth in Aviation the airline is interested in using Paine Field for four or five daily flights to Portland; the service may begin in the first quarter of 1998.
[Page 6]
Superior Court Judge Barbara Lane granted the City of Burbank’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the airport authority’s challenge to a city-imposed parking tax. Peter Kirsch, special counsel to Burbank (and counsel to ACC) told Airports that this ruling set a precedent for other cities “having similar taxes to mitigate negative impacts of having an airport in their community.”
| Len Oebser, President |
| Jeanne Moeller,Vice-President |
| Bud Jones, Secretary-Treasurer |
| Board Members: |
| Jim Bartlemay (Des Moines) (V.P., CASE) |
| Rose Clark (Burien) |
| Clark Dodge (Normandy Park) |
| Allan M. Furney (Des Moines) |
| Dennis Hansen, M.D. (Burien) |
| Jane Rees (Seattle) (Seattle RCAA) |
| http://www.rcaanews.org/rcaa |
| E-Mail: rcaa@earthlink.net |
Outreach co-ordinator: Kathy Parker
Newsletter Editors: J. Beth Means & Chas Talbot