-----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
>------ ------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)"
> [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 the study based on the maximum number offlights that Paine Field could handle.
I found it odd that the throughout the study the upgrade of the operating certificate was referred to as the "Preferred Alternative". Preferred by whom? Certainly not me and using the attendance ofthe two public meetings as a gauge not the majority of us that live in Mukilteo.
Thursday, Jan 21 at Kamiak High School at 6:00 pm the FAA will be having the final public hearing on the EA. This is the last public forum for us to let the FAA know that we're opposed the change in the airport's operating certificate based on the estimates used in the EA. If you're unable to attend you can email or write to the FAA directly. You will find the information on how to do this on the Save our Communities website at www. socnw.org.
Dan Gardner 10021 63'd PI W Mukilteo, WA 98275 425315-1119
G.7 Response to Comment
Dear Dan Gardner: Thank you for your comments to the FAA, Snohomish County, and Paine Field Airport; they have been noted. Please refer to the following general responses (see Appendix S) that apply to your comments.
General Response 1-1: Why can't the County limit or restrict operations? General Response 1-10: Scope of the EA analysis for future operations and passengers General Response 1-11: Flawed/inadequate/biased EA General Response 1-13: Additional study should be conducted General Response 3-5: Why was 2016 selected as the future year? General Response 3-13: What is a Class I Airport? Explanation of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 139 General Response 3-14: What actions will require additional environmental review? General Response 4-6: What does the term "Preferred Alternative" mean?
G.8 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:23 PM
To: Waggoner, Dave; Dolan l Bill; Ryk Dunkelberg; Ryan Hayes Subject: Fw: Paine Field Everett WA
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 02:22 PM ----- 1------> 1 From: 1 1------> >------ ------1 [email protected]
>------ ------1 1------> 1 To: 1 1------> >------ ------1 ICayla Morgan/ANM/FAA@FAA >------ ------1 1------> 1 Date: 1 1------> >------ ------1 101/24/2010 10:15 PM >------ ------1 1------> 1 Subject: 1 1------> >------ ------1 IPaine Field Everett WA
>------ ------1
G.9 Just a quick note to let you know that I encourage the Commercial Aircraft use at Paine Field and I feel that the EA is right on target ......
Dale Gavey 5810 Fleming Street Space 42 Everett, WA 98203 425-263-6130
Dale
G.10 Response to Comment
Dear Dale Gavey: Thank you for your comments to the FAA; they have been noted.
G.11 -----Original Message----- From: Carol Geissler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January OS, 2010 1:16 PM To: [email protected]; Air Service Comments Subject: Support commercial flights at Paine Field
Hello,
I am writing to express my support of commercial flights at Paine Field. My elderly mother lives in Las Vegas so I fly there 6 to 9 times a year. I currently have a choice of driving 50 miles to SeaTac or 60 miles to Bellingham. I usually go to Bellingham because the traffic is lighter. When I moved here in 1980, I assumed that Paine Field would start commercial flights when the population in the area was large enough to support it. I can't believe that it has not happened yet.
Adding commercial flights would not turn Paine Field into SeaTac North. People opposed should go to Bellingham to see the affect adding commercial flights had there.
I would attend the meetings but I don't need a confrontation with people that are vehemently opposed to something that I think is long overdue.
Regards,
Carol Geissler 5421 83rd Ave NE Marysville, WA 98270
G.12 Response to Comment
Dear Carol Geissler: Thank you for your comments to the FAA and Paine Field Airport; they have been noted.
G.13 From: GGL INC. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:04 PM To: Air Service Comments Subject: pain field
Please, if the opinions of citizens still count, do not allow for even more noise from Pain field to spoil this beautiful place. I moved to the Meadowdale area 10 years ago, because of the serenity of the nearby county park, the pleasant neighborhood and schools. Didn't occur to me that this area can be turned into a new SeaTac, full of noise, traffic and the other problems related to big airports, all for the greed of a few corporations and local Everett politicians. The "slippery slope" of the current proposals is so obvious that if this goes through in a few years the entire neighborhood, including Edmonds and Lynnwood will be transformed, and for the worse. So dear politician, if you ever get to read this e-mail, look yourself in the mirror and think; will my greed cause the destruction of a great neighborhood? If you can live with that, dear politician, you should go work for a corporation instead of "serving" the public. Isn't it strange; if there were a specie of rare lizards or owls living somewhere nearby, the fight against this threat to peace would have a better chance. Alas, we are just people who live nearby and the only thing we can do is to vote. Threatened local resident.
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
G.14 Response to Comment
Dear GGL@hotmail (Email): Thank you for your comments to Paine Field Airport; they have been noted. Please refer to the following general responses (see Appendix S) that apply to your comments.
General Response 6-1: Significance of Project Effects General Response 7-6: What are the existing and future noise impacts? General Response 8-1: Traffic analysis General Response 9-8: What are the health and quality of life effects associated with the project?
G.15 From: Kristi Gillihan [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:15 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Air Service Comments Subject: Paine Field
I would like to voice my opinion in favor of allowing commercial service to begin and expand at Paine Field.
The Puget Sound is outgrowing SeaTac. For all the concern over pollution-what about the pollution from all the cars that we all drive to SeaTac to catch a plane?
I certainly understand the concerns from the Mukilteo and other flight path residents, but from what I have read it is fully within the County's right to open up Paine Field for this. I also believe it will benefit other Snohomish County businesses and keep Everett on the map.
Kristi Gillihan Everett resident 425-870-8815
G.16 Response to Comment
Dear Kristi Gillihan: Thank you for your comments to the FAA and Paine Field Airport; they have been noted.
G.17 -----Original Message----- From: Gladys Gillis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 12:48 AM To: Air Service Comments Subject: Paine Field
Tonight I attended the Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessment of Commercial Flight at Paine Field. It was held at Kamiak High School. When I went in I was focused on how we can reasonably mitigate the implementation of what seems the inevitable opening of Paine Field to commercial flights.
I was thinking of how to make this more tolerable; curfews, achieve max elevation while over the airport perimeter, level off and finish climb over less populated areas.
I had been collecting examples like John Wayne International in Orange County. They have very stringent IFR flight approach and departure procedures in place to mitigate noise. If carriers are required to climb out hot and heavy like they do at John Wayne we could reduce the impact on our community.
San Jose has a very narrow window for arrivals and departures to help reduce local impact.
Google "Noise Abatement" for more ideas and stories of how airports are dealing with the issue. r had also focused on procedures for key airplanes. Which ones are quieter and which we wouldn't want here at all.
It does seem inevitable, doesn't it? Look at all the big hotels that have recently gone up in Mukilteo. The only way they will make it is if we get a commercial airport. Who needs that many room nights in Mukilteo, a town with no Convention Center, next to Lynnwood that is struggling to keep it's Convention Center afloat. All these new hotels seem to be screaming, "Here comes the commercial airport, we are just waiting for the roller stamping of the required checklist! !". The hotels are in. The permeable surfaces have already been lost to impervious ones and yet here we are called to a public hearing about 'whether or not Paine Field will go commercial'?? It feels like (or should I say, "looks like") that ship has sailed.
Anyway, as I said, I went in focused on how we can reasonably mitigate the implementation of the inevitable. I carne out wanting to stop this freight train and demand some real answers.
The meeting was kicked of with a presentation by the consulting firm that was responsible for doing the Environmental Assessment (EA). By law, this firm may not have a financial interest or any other stake in the outcome of the EA. As he got started I thought he was making certain statements in jest. His EA was so full of holes that as he spoke I thought he was trying to be funny. Then I realized it was actually just that he was counting on no one with any brains showing up to listen. I honestly could not believe what I was seeing and hearing.
Airplanes dump fuel. The impact of this well known practice is not addressed at all in the EA. The environmental impact is terrible. It gets
G.18 caught up in cross winds and spread across playgrounds, yards, houses, cars, clothing, toys, you name it. The more airplanes, the more dumping. seatac area has and continues to have problems related to this practice. But again, it is not addressed in the EA.
The EA points out that there will be no adverse effect on ground water runoff because there is just a small piece of walkway that must be built over grass so the net loss of permeable surface is tiny. However he neglected to address parking. Yes there is parking at Paine today but not enough to handle the incredibly low estimate of 280,000 passengers per year. That is more than 23,000 people per month. Think of the weekends and holidays. Let's be honest, we won't make it two years without deciding we need less grass and more parking. Also, as I mentioned before, airports need hotels. Are those hotels being counted in the EA?
Bellingham Airport has recently been opened to Allegiant Air. The original proposal was a couple flights per week, growing to 10 per week in 5 years. Once they got that little proposal approved, the community learned that they couldn't actually control the quantity of flights and now Allegiant is up to 32 flights per week. Well above what their EA ever imagined when the environmental impact numbers were being crunched. Too late now, the rabbit is out of the gate.
2008 Seatac Technical Report - pg 14 states that over 300 million dollars have been spent on noise mitigation. If Commercial Aviation is allowed at Paine Field, where will the money corne from to mitigate the noise in the surrounding schools, public buildings, businesses and homes? When Paine Field was approved, years ago, (it used to be a military base) the community was assured, by Snohomish County, that it wasn't going to be commercial so local building codes where left without noise mitigation requirements. We now have 30 + years of buildings that will need mitigation. Who will pay for that? You want to talk about impacting endangered species? The American Greenback is a rapidly declining population and is clearly on the endangered list.
Years ago Snohomish County approved the airport as a non-commercial facility and then decided to rezone the property around it as residential. Now the SAME County wants to open the airport to commercial traffic. That is just plane wrong. The way that you get a new regional airport is to go to an area where there is no residential (or less residential) and establish the zoning correctly. We do need a Seatac North for all of the jobs and the convenience. We just know too much to pretend that it is safe or prudent to put it in the midst of a residential zone. Find another site that is surrounded by farmland and don't ever rezone it as residential. Buffer it with light industrial instead. Other areas to consider - Bayview in Arlington. Skagit County Airport is ready for commercial traffic now!! These other sites where not even considered in the EA!
Pollution effects include small particulate matter (PM 2.5 & PM 10) which are much higher at small airports in the u.S. than larger airports. There have only been a few studies on the subject of air pollution near small regional airports. The results are bad. The studies that prove that have been ignored by this Environmental Assessment (EA) and the FAA. The County Council and the County Executive need to review this information to make an informed decision about creating commercial traffic in the midst of a highly residential area. In fact, the software used to create this EA was an old
G.19 version. There are two more recent, updated version that have been available since the start of the EA that would have shown the hazards and impact of particulate matter at small regional airports. Many believe the older version of the software was selected to mask the concern.
The EA is based on a limited number of flights but there is no control to keep the flights limited. So a real EA would calculate based on real potential conditions, not make believe minimums.
What is really going on? It isn't about 2 Allegiant flights per week and what type of airplane they will use. It is about "re-classing" Paine Field.
The real goal is to change the Class of the airport from a Class 4 airport to a Class 1 airport. Talk all the issues and suppositions you want, but at the end of the stage show if that goal gets met, there goes the baby with the bath water. That's all she wrote. Tonight a representative from Save Our Communities (SOC), pointed out the results of UNRESTRICTED growth after the CLASS of the airport is changed. There are no restrictions like time of take off and landing, type of airplanes coming and going, or quantity of flights per day on a Class 1 airport. If Paine Field is re-classed to a Class 1 Airport you get what you get, stop your complaining, the ship has sailed.
Allegiant's projections go from 2 flights per week to 10 flights per week in 5 years. In Bellingham they went from 4 to 32 in 6 years, regardless of the original proposal. The EA presented tonight found no real impact on permeable surfaces, no real impact on pollution, no real impact on traffic and even, no real impact on noise in the community. It was hard to believe that he was being serious. It was laughable. These deminimus finding are purely a manipulation of data to deliver a desired result. The EA must be redone to address a realistic probable utilization of the airport and the resulting community infrastructure response. The consultant must be unbiased and open to true findings. We can't afford to allow our use of statistics to fit the old saying that, "The definition of statistics is the science of creating unreliable facts from reliable data."
The County Council and the County Executive need to stop this bogus Environmental Assessment from steam rolling through the process without thoughtful, intelligent and unbiased consideration.
I am happy to get involved if you would like an open minded, reasonable, unbiased person on a panel or team to further review the concerns brought up in the public hearings.
Sincerely -
Gladys Gillis (206) 793-2713
Sent using BlackBerry
G.20 Response to Comment
Dear Gladys Gillis: Thank you for your comments to Snohomish County and Paine Field Airport; they have been noted. Please refer to the following general responses (see Appendix S) that apply to your comments.
General Response 1-1: Why can't the County limit or restrict operations? General Response 1-5: Mitigation General Response 1-9: Roles of consultant and their qualifications General Response 1-10: Scope of the EA analysis for future operations and passengers General Response 1-11: Flawed/inadequate/biased EA General Response 1-13: Additional study should be conducted General Response 1-13: Additional study should be conducted General Response 3-5: Why was 2016 selected as the future year? General Response 3-7: Parking capacity General Response 3-13: What is a Class I Airport? Explanation of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 139 General Response 3-14: What actions will require additional environmental review? General Response 4-1: Alternative airports should be used General Response 4-3: What is the demand for this proposal and how does it fit with regional planning? General Response 6-1: Significance of Project Effects General Response 7-11: Call for noise curfew/activity restrictions General Response 9-3: Socioeconomic Impacts General Response 10-4: Would there be an increase in fuel dump/fuel smell/residue? General Response 10-5: Question regarding the analysis of PM10 and PM2.5 General Response 11-1: What is the impact on wildlife? General Response 11-2: Migratory Bird Treaty Act and ESA threshold of effect were not considered General Response 11-9: How does this project compare to the commercial operations at Bellingham Airport? General Response 11-10: Water quality impacts
Please also refer to the following individual response. Mitigation of Water Quality:
You expressed concern over the volume of increased impervious surface area as a result of the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would increase the impervious surface area at the Airport by approximately 1,000 square feet. As described within the Airport’s Master Drainage Plan, the Alpha regional detention pond has adequate capacity to accommodate this surface runoff.
G.21