Truth in Aviation

August 1996

INSIDE:

ACC Cities File Suit to Block the Third Runway ** PSRC Disregards Expert Panel Decision ** Highlights of PSRC Vote ** SW King County May Secede ** Initiative to Limit Port Property Tax Filed ** ACC Cities File SEPA Appeal ** City of Sea-Tac Appeals FEIS ** Nighttime Curfew at Boeing Field Proposed ** SeaTac v. Port: Judge's Decision Due ** Lawyer Karaganis to speak to Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion ** U.S. House Passes Cost/Benefit Requirements for Airport Expansions ** GPS: The Cheap Alternative ** Editorial-Why It's No Done Deal ** Sierra Club Resolution Passed ** Agencies Fault FEIS Air Quality Analysis ** Permits? What Permits? ** RCAA Needs You.

Two significant, but unenforceable, conditions were imposed on the Port by the Assembly: more noise-monitoring stations; $50 million for mitigation.

As to monitoring, the Port is required to promise that it will "evaluate and upgrade its existing noise monitoring system to include the use of approximately 25 noise monitors" by the end of 1998, and to report routinely on two noise metrics previously ignored by the Port, single-event level and time above.

As to mitigation, the Port is required to promise that it will commit "up to $50 million for school insulation" and to promise that it will meet with the Highline School District to try to reach agreement on a plan for insulating the District's schools.

The remainder of the "requirements" for Port action deal with keeping promises already made, action on minor problems, or future actions couched in such terms as "work with" the FAA or airlines, "seek a commitment" from the FAA, and the like.

The Port is to promise that it will report twice yearly to PSRC on implementation of its undertakings. Viewing the proceedings as being not much more than formal ratification of a decision already reached in private, C.A.S.E. and RCAA essentially boycotted the open-mike session at the start of the business meeting. RCAA provided a formal statement, pointing out the significant questions not being dealt with by PSRC (text at our Web site).

Airport Communities Coalition provided one speaker, Des Moines' City Manager, Bob Olander, who warned that ignoring the panel’s order would "absolutely destroy the credibility of the organization". He urged that King County should not have to bear all the burdens of the potential tax liability for construction, the traffic impacts, and the other negative impacts of a state-wide facility. He also called attention to the very high cost of what is admittedly a stop-gap measure. PSRC also tried to impose an obligation on Highline School District to meet with and reach agreement with the Port on the long- stalled program for sound insulation for its schools, under penalty of mediation under PSRC auspices. The District indicated that it would meet with theort, but of its own volition, and vehemently denied that PSRC had authority to issue instructions to the District (which, we note, is not a member of PSRC, nor one of the entities seeking planning approval for a third runway).

An amendment was proposed by King County Council members to require as a condition of approval that the four counties in PSRC enter into a binding interlocal agreement to share the costs if the Port either raised real-property taxes or issued general obligation bonds to help pay for its proposed improvements. This amendment was voted down, despite support from Bellevue Council member Conrad Lee.

Highlights of the vote Under the PSRC weighted-voting formula, the "yes" votes totalled 910.97, and "no" votes, 177.01. Two candidates for governor voted "yes": Gary Locke (Dem.), King County Executive, and Norm Rice (Dem.), Mayor of Seattle. Sea-Tac Councilmember, Frank Hansen cast all that city’s votes "yes."

levy. The Port has authority to increase its levy to $.45 per thousand without a vote. For more information, phone KCCAT at 344-6472.

On July 11, civic leaders in communities in South-West King County announced that efforts would begin to create "Puget Sound County", a new county including the communities that surround Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. New counties are created by acts of the Legislature, in response to popular petitions. The new county would not automatically be a part of Puget Sound Regional Council, and would be free to abstain from PSRC membership or to create a new regional planning organization for its area. Puget Sound County growth- management policies would control expansion of major facilities, such as the airport. The Puget County Steering Committee can be reached at 344-6479.

Backers of the move believe that creation of a new county would be a highly effective method for Airport neighbors to regain control of their own affairs, and to lessen the power of PSRC leaders to protect their own constituencies at the expense of the airport communities.

The new-county movement was announced in Seattle just before the General Assembly of the Puget Sound Regional Council met to overturn the "final, binding" decision of the Expert Arbitration Panel on noise issues. The Puget Sound County steering committee includes Peter Townsend, past president of Aircraft Noise Group and Federal Way civic leader; Stu Creighton, past president of RCAA and presently a member of the Normandy Park city council. Spokesperson Laura Anderson indicated that third-runway concerns were not the sole reason for seceding, and that there is a long history of PSRC and King County not looking out for the interests of South King County.

Supporters of the initiative argue that Port spending lacks accountability, and the measure will help to protect King County citizens from arbitrary tax increases.

KCCAT may be reached at 344-6472, or Box 365, Seattle, 98101

or, on the Web, at http://www.kccat.org/kccat.

On August 13, the Airport Communities Coalition filed an administrative appeal of the third-runway environmental impact statement. The Coalition challenges the Port’s conclusion as to noise impacts, air quality, wetlands and water-quality issues, impacts from construction work, traffic problems, and compliance with the State Growth Management Act and local land-use plans. The appeal will be heard by the Port’s hearing examiner, whose decisions can then be appealed to Superior Court.

SeaTac's 30-page notice of appeal describes the FEIS as being generally inadequate "in identifying, evaluating and mitigating probable significant, adverse environmental impacts" in 20 different areas:

noise land use property takings residential & business relocations removal of tax-generating income from the City tax rolls archeological, cultural and historical resources social impacts socio-economic conditions air quality water quality and hydrology (aquifer recharge and sicharge area impacts) wetlands flood plain transportation (including short- and long-term additional traffic and parking impacts) plants and animals public services and utilities earth solid waste hazarous substances construction impacts (road and borrow pit impacts from fill haul) aesthetics and urban design (aesthetic impacts from project retaining walls, fill side slopes, and other features)

Further, the various alternatives of the FEIS include varying lengths for various runway options. The City asserts that the "FEIS erroneously focuses on terminal location, rather than runway length, as the major variable". This is a point not previously made by critics of the expansion FEIS, and poses a serious challenge to the very favorable conclusions crafted by the FEIS writers.

The appeal also challenges the failure of the FEIS to discuss loss of jobs and taxes within the City. The FEIS describes certain increases in jobs and taxes, but not the negative impacts.

Numerous problems with the water-quality, wetlands, and flood-plain analyses of the FEIS are described in detail, including numerous conflicts between the expansion plans and all existing plans and regulations for the area.

The FEIS appears to be in sharp conflict with the City's existing transportation plan, which is evidently a particularly sore point with the City.

The City is represented by the Seattle law firm of Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Daheim, with Messrs. Gregory W. Forge and Donald S. Cohen having signed the notice of appeal.

At this writing, the Port in fact does not have a Hearing Examiner, so no one knows when the SeaTac, ACC, or individual appeals will be heard, or whether they will be consolidated. The Port's legal staff has interviewed finalist candidates for the hearing-examiner position, but we are not aware of a timetable for actual appointment, which presumably will be made by the Commissioners.

The public is invited to meet and hear Joseph Karaganis, well-known Chicago aviation attorney, when he addresses a C.A.S.E. meeting at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, September 4. Mr. Karganis, who has won huge settlements from the City of Chicago for schools in Du Page County, Illinois (under the flight paths of Chicago's O'Hare Airport), will talk about lawsuits against airport operators for loss of property value. The meeting will be held at the ERAC (Educational Resources Activity Center), 15675 S.W. Ambaum, in Burien (adjacent to the HiLine Lanes).

Earlier that day, Mr. Karaganis will consult with airport neighbors interested in property damage litigation against the Port of Seattle. Mr. Karaganis will also meet privately with Board members and staff of Highline School District and other schools, discussing legal remedies at O’Hare.

Seattle Neighborhood Asks Boeing Field Curfew

Magnolia Community Club is asking that a complete night-time curfew be imposed at Boeing Field (King County International Airport). The Club's Board of Directors voted June 18 for a resolution calling for a closure from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m, "except in the case of emergencies and certain limited operation".

Mike Rees, chairman of the Club's aircraft-noise committee, says that noise from the facility, located on the south boundary of Seattle, has been the focus of attention for a year. "Nothing has changed. In fact, it's gotten worse." CFAN is sponsoring a county-wide petition backed up by a fact sheet calling for nighttime closure.

King County, operator of the historic airfield, has appropriated $551,000 for work on a rule-making process to adopt night-time noise standards similar to those now in effect at Sea-Tac International Airport. In particular, such rules would prevent further shifting of noisy (Stage II) night-time air-freight operations from Sea-Tac to KCIA.

Sea-Tac's night-time noise rules were adopted before passage of Federal legislation forbidding airport operators from unilaterally setting noise limits. In 1990, Congress, at the instance of the air-express operators, instead passed (without public hearings or debate, and as a rider to a budget bill) legislation permitting such rules only after a lengthy and complex process. King County is committed to making the effort to comply with the statute.

Complicating the problem is the difficulty in distinguishing the source of noisy overflights. Rees and other Magnolia residents believe a large part of the neighborhood's noise problem comes from KCIA. The airport's noise-complaint officer, Larry Burris, has logged about 390 noisy-airplane calls from Magnolia alone in 1996 and 1000 complaints altogether, and has been able to identify only part of them. He believes that many of the complaints actually relate to Sea-Tac-based flights or are small aircraft which are difficult to identify. Burris recommends that in case of doubt, one call the Sea-Tac noise hot-line and ask for a flight track for the particular aircraft, which Sea-Tac can almost always provide for flights in and out of its facility. The Sea-Tac noise hot-line is 433-5393.

King County Council Member Larry Phillips (R., 4), a Magnolia resident, supports action, as does a majority of the Council. "We are doing everything local government can do to lessen the impact of night flights at Boeing Field," he told a Seattle neighborhood newspaper.

The KCIA noise hot-line is 205-KCIA (205-5242), staffed by Mr. Burris.

Judge’s Order Due: City vs. Port -Which Has the Power?

Both sides are waiting for a judge's written decision in the City of SeaTac's lawsuit against the Port of Seattle. The case was presented to King County Superior Court Judge Michael Trickey on July 22, with City Attorney Robert McAdams representing the city and Ms. Tracy Goodwin, of the Port's legal staff, representing the defendant. For background, see SeaTac vs Port", p.3, of our Spring 1996 issue, and article at p.5 of our Summer 1995 issue.

The Department of Ecology, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency all noted the need for ongoing, actual monitoring of air pollutants at and near the Airport. Mitigation measures were not adequately described or their implementation guaranteed.

EPA said that the FEIS did not adequately address (as the law requires) the cumulative impact of a third runway, several other Sea-Tac expansion projects, and other near-by projects (listing eight in addition to direct airport expansion). ACC & EPA described flaws in the modelling techniques used by the FAA.

Does the Port of Seattle need permits to use city streets for its various earth-hauling projects? The Port is using a contractor to haul 450,000 cubic yards of earth for its extension of the south safety area of its east runway at Sea-Tac, and has obtained permits from the cities of SeaTac and Burien. But the Port intends to haul through Des Moines with no permit. Des Moines is threatening $500 per trip fines. Des Moines City attorney Gary McLean describes the Port's position as "the test run for what they would likely do if the third runway proceeded".

Large and medium airports, including Sea-Tac, would be required to provide a cost-benefit analysis for all major FAA- financed projects, under legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Randy Tate (R-9). The House-passed measure will be considered by a House-Senate conference committee in September.

Tate’s amendment to HR 3539 is supported by the Air Transport Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the National Association of State Aviation officials, and many other groups.

SeaTac Mayor Frank Hansen was quoted by the Highline News in its issue of 20 July as advocating deployment of an advanced avigation system that would negate the need for a third runway outside the present Sea-Tac Airport site. The system combines global position satellites (D-GPS) and automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) technologies. The location of each airliner using the airport would be very precisely defined by D-GPS, and then broadcast to every other nearby airliner through ADS-B. "This is not pie in the sky technology," said Hansen. Hansen did not explain why he had cast the votes of the entire SeaTac Council, including his own, in favor of the new runway at the PSRC General Assembly meeting. A June article in Aviation Weekly says that the GPS is completing the approval processes and will soon be ready to go on line.

Those unfamiliar with the Puget Sound Regional Council may assume that the PRSC clearance is the final step to the third runway. Wrong. The PSRC is in charge of the area’s transportation "wish list." Getting a project on a wish list is a long way from getting one’s wish. The PSRC vote means only that some public officials, who don’t want an airport in their back yard, agreed with others, who don’t have to pay for the project, to let the Port apply for permits and try to find the money.

NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY:
ZIP:
Home Phone:
Work Phone:
FAX:
E-mail:
Do you want "No Third Runway" Bumper Strips? (No contribution required.)
Do you want to contribute? (We will send you an envelope. Please do not give your credit card number in an e-mail.)
Would you be willing to volunteer?

Truth in Aviation is published by the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs, a coalition of citizens groups concerned with airport expansion & air transportation issues. Closing Date this issue: 8/15/96.

[Back to Welcome]
[Back to Library]