Paine Field; New Regs Banish Old Worries - Marysville Globe
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 2:41 PM To: Waggoner, Dave; Dolan, Bill; Ryk Dunkelberg; Ryan Hayes Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Fw: Paine Field Airport proposal Cayla Morgan Environmental Protection Specialist Seattle Airports District Office Federal Aviation Administration 425-227-2653 ----- Forwarded by Cayla Morgan/ANM/FAA on 01/25/2010 01:41 PM ----- 1------------> 1 From: 1 1------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 ILinda Gabourel <[email protected]> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1------------> 1 To: 1 1------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 ICayla Morgan/ANM/FAA@FAA >------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1------------> 1 Date: 1 1------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 101/22/2010 05:42 PM >------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1------------> 1 Subject: 1 1------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 IPaine Field Airport proposal >------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 G.1 Ms. Morgan I am writing with comments regarding the proposal to have a commercial airport at Paine Field. Like many others I am very concerned about this possibility. Here are my thoughts. 1. What we have: I live in Mukilteo. This area represents the best of Washington. It is a costal community made up of families, schools, homes, ferries, and beautiful outdoor recreational opportunities. Paine Field is a stones throw to our schools, parks and homes. It seems like common sense that our community is not the appropriate place for a municipal airport. I am hoping that this is not a done deal and the opinions of the people most affected by this proposal will be heard and considered. 2. Environmental concerns: I was dismayed to see the environmental report in the Everett Herald stating that having air traffic in our community would have negligible effects here. It doesn't take the sharpest pencil in the box to see that increasing air traffic will indeed increase air pollution, noise pollution, traffic congestion and night time light issues. I am not looking at the first few years of operation when I say this. If one looks 20 years into the future of this community, the changes here will be extremely damaging and we will not be able to take them back. If we allow one air carrier to fly in and out of Paine Field, what is to stop other competing airlines from demanding their market share? How long before another runway is proposed to handle increasing air traffic? How many parking garages will need to be built to handle increasing demands for parking? When will we have to pay to widen our roads? Do I want the area around Paine Field to look like the areas around Sea Tac? Absolutely not. When Boeing does their test flights over my neighborhood, it sounds and looks like those planes are skimming our roof tops. I have lived near an airport before. I use to live within a 15 minute drive to Stapleton airport in Denver, Co. The air quality in Denver, has been one of the worst in the nation. The brown rim that surrounded that city is not one I would want to see here. This noise from incoming and outgoing flights could not be ignored. It was there all the time. We are proud of our environment here and wish to maintain the quality of life we have. 3. Adverse affects on the community: Airports change communities. It is the nature of the business. No major airports are located in the middle of suburban communities. Even Colorado had the common sense to build the new airport away from where people live and work. The proposed airport will require the building of parking garages, hotels, fast food restaurants, road widening ( potentially forcing people to give up their homes) and gas stations. Look at the development around Sea-Taco Property values are low, crime rates are high, and in a word, it is just plain ugly and dirty. This is not what the people of Edmonds, Mukilteo, Lynnwood, Woodway, and Everett want for their community. Housing values will plummet and in these economic times, that is not going to help this community. Many people have view and bluff property that will be under the flight paths. My neighborhood is a five minute drive to Paine Field and G.2 homes here are in the $500,000 range. The investment we have all made in our homes and property will be lost. The same will happen to neighborhoods in the Harbor Pointe area as well. 4. The issue of jobs: Every community is looking for ways to increase employment, but not every business or industry is appropriate for all communities. Prisons and nuclear power plants also produce jobs, but they would not be any better for our community than the proposed airport. An airport just is not the best way to get jobs here. We need to be looking for other industries that fit in with our Pacific Northwest environment. The majority of people who live and work in this area are against this airport. It will have a devastating affect on life here in the long run. Sincerely Linda Gabourel G.3 Response to Comment Dear Linda Gabourel: Thank you for your comments to the FAA; they have been noted. Please refer to the following general responses (see Appendix S) that apply to your comments. General Response 1-10: Scope of the EA analysis for future operations and passengers General Response 1-13: Additional study should be conducted General Response 1-16: How will the proposal be funded? General Response 3-5: Why was 2016 selected as the future year? General Response 3-7: Parking capacity General Response 3-10: What is the capacity of the airport? General Response 3-14: What actions will require additional environmental review? General Response 4-4: Relationship between capacity at other airports and Paine Field General Response 6-1: Significance of Project Effects General Response 7-6: What are the existing and future noise impacts? General Response 7-12: How are the potential noise impacts compatible with surrounding residential land uses? General Response 8-1: Traffic analysis General Response 9-1: What is the impact upon property values? General Response 9-2: Indirect/induced traffic effects General Response 9-6: What is the impact of the project on crime? General Response 10-1: Greenhouse gas/climate change General Response 10-2: Air quality conformity G.4 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:27 PM To: Waggoner, Dave; Dolan, Bill; Ryk Dunkelberg; Ryan Hayes Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Fw: I oppose expansion of Paine field Cayla Morgan Environmental Protection Specialist Seattle Airports District Office Federal Aviation Administration 425-227-2653 ----- Forwarded by Cayla Morgan/ANM/FAA on 01/06/2010 11:26 AM ----- "GALLAGHER, TIM (ATTSI)" <[email protected]> wrote on 01/05/2010 11:14:07 AM: > [image removed] > > I oppose expansion of Paine field > > GALLAGHER, TIM (ATTSI) > > to: > > Cayla Morgan > > 01/05/2010 11:14 AM > > I strongly oppose the plan to expand Paine field operations to include > commercial planes. Expand SeaTac or do what other large metropolitan > areas with good planning do, move the operations to a more remote area > that will not disrupt the lives of homeowners. > > Tim Gallagher > > G.5 Response to Comment Dear Tim Gallagher: Thank you for your comments to the FAA; they have been noted. Please refer to the following general responses (see Appendix S) that apply to your comments. General Response 4-1: Alternative airports should be used G.6 From: Dan Gardner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 1:56 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Air Service Comments; County Executive Subject: Paine Field operating certificate EA study Citizens of Mukilteo it's time to let the FAA know that you're not going roll over and accept their flawed Environmental Assessment (EA) on the expansion of operations at Paine Field. The EA was prepared for the FAA in response to a request of two airlines, Horizon and Allegiant Air, to amend the airport's operating certificate to allow scheduled commercial air service at Paine Field. The study uses a minimal number of flights estimated by the two airlines to justify a finding of "No significant impact" in all areas of the study. The fact is that when the operating certificate is changed to a Class I by the FAA there would be no limit to the number offlights that could operate out ofthe airport. This is the big flaw in the EA. In order to reflect a true picture of the impact of the proposed change the FAA needs to update