Comments to Paine Field Airport; They Have Been Noted
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SnohoniLt 1) • 17’ 1 J ,4$~ic~ Comments Countvkitport u amer len ~F Environtuental Assessinen~ ~~S4LW, LOft. 9~t7f NSCtEwJ cn~, cc~c i2~k ~u u~ COMMENTS: A~ 4o~i-c ~M ~—Tw*~ C Ia Dave Waggoner Cayla Morgan Director Environmental Protection Spedalist Snohomish County Airport Seattle Airports District Office Comments to 3220 100th Street Southwest or Federal Aviation Administration Everett, Washington 98204 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Barnard Dunkelberg >? Company Email. [email protected] Renton, Washington 98057-3356 BridgeNet International Email. [email protected] Synergy Consultants Gibson Traffic Consultants Thank You! D.1 Response to Comment Dear Jeanne and George Dalton: Thank you for your comments to Paine Field Airport; they have been noted. D.2 -Original Message— From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:40 PM To: Waggoner, Dave; Dolan, Bill; Ryk Dunkelberg; Ryan Hayes Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Roland. J.McKee@faa . gov Subject: Fw: Paine Field review Cayla Morgan Environmental Protection Specialist Seattle Airports District Office Federal Aviation Administration 425—227—2653 Forwarded by Cayla Morgan/ANM/FAA on 01/20/2010 04:38 PM I > From: I I > I > IStephen Dana <[email protected]> > > I To: I > I > Cayla Morgan/ANM/FAA@FAA I > > Date: I > > 101/20/2010 03:22 PM > > Subject: I > > IPaine Field review > D.3 January 19, 2010 Cayla Morgan Environmental Protection Specialist Seattle Airport District Office, FAA 1601 Lind Ave SW Renton, WA 98057 Ms. Morgan, The matter of commercial air service at Paine field is up for environmental review before your office in the coming weeks. There has already been considerable debate and data gathered regarding this subject, but collecting that data, considering issues and different points of view contribute to the decision making process at this regulatory level of government. I support the process completely. For me and my neighbors in and around Snohomish, the possibilities for commercial service at Paine Field are exciting and encouraging. Even though we have no illusion that service at Paine Field will be anything like Sea-Tac, the ability to have local service is encouraging. From a purely selfish point of view, being able to avoid the trip to Sea-Tac would be very desirable. My family currently uses commercial air transport a dozen or more times per year. In the scheme of things, that is not too much, but each time we have to make that journey we waste valuable time and resources. From an economic development point of view, commercial air service offers better marketability for our county and the businesses that have already made the commitment to locate here. Adding new businesses anywhere in the county improves the tax base and leverages the investment we already have made. Building on that foundation produces benefits for many. If only we were able measure lost opportunities. If this discussion were about whether we should be building a new airport on that same site in today’s world with today’s other conditions, we might be arguing for other locations as being more suitable. The fact is there is a world class publicly owned facility in place already. It was improved to accommodate jet aircraft of any size with public funds. This facility already has all the components we would require if we built a new airport on a different site. There is no doubt that encouraging the use of the airport for any purpose will create impacts. Adding business of any kind to the airport will require analysis to consider impacts to existing uses. Regardless of the specific business, off site impacts like traffic and noise will come to the area and the same process will apply when determining proper mitigation. When Snohomish County built the Solid Waste Transfer Station at Paine Field they created a stream of traffic and associated environmental impacts that may be more detrimental to the study area that increased air traffic. That project sailed through the review process without a problem. D.4 For surrounding residents, increased air traffic will certainly create some level of impact both in the air and on the ground. I don’t want to minimize their concerns. I would only suggest that when the Growth Management Act was adopted, it made provision for siting essential public facilities. The process of siting an essential public facility takes into consideration mitigation for impacts. Even though the airport already exists, the process of making it available for commercial air service may require consideration of specific measures to address impacts. As a former elected official from Snohomish, I understand the difficult position you find yourself in when you have to make the right decision for all of us taxpayers perhaps at the expense of those closest to the airport. I know you will consider all the input very carefully and make the right decision. Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. Sincerely, Stephen Dana D.5 Response to Comment Dear Stephen Dana: 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 1-5: Mitigation General Response 6-1: Significance of Project Effects D.6 —Original Messag— From: [email protected] [nailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 1:12 PM To: Waggoner, Dave; Dolan, Bill; Ryk Dunkelberg; Ryan Hayes Cc: [email protected]; Caroline.CTR. [email protected]; Roland. J. McKee@faa . gov Subject: Fw: No additional flights at Paine 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 12:11 PM “Robert Darrow” <[email protected]> wrote on 01/06/2010 09:01:39 AM: > [image removed] > > No additional flights at Paine > > Robert Darrow > > to: > > Cayla Morgan > > 01/06/2010 09:02 AM > > There seem to be some serious flaws in the EA, and the FAA seems to > be serving the developer’s lobbyist. The thousands of residents who > bought homes in the area based on no airport growth are going to be > very upset with the way this developer profit opportunity is being handled. > > Robert Darrow > Mukilteo D.7 Response to Comment Dear Robert Darrow: 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 1-3: An independent investigation is needed because the FAA pushed the County to approve the terminal General Response 1-11: Flawed/inadequate/biased EA D.8 From: Waggoner, Dave [mailto:Dave.Waggoner©co.snohomish.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:26 AM To: Air Service Comments Subject: FW: Public Comment period on draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for Air Service at Paine Field extended to 1-29-10 From: [email protected] [mailto:chipandjoan©aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 10:15 AM To: Waggoner, Dave Subject: Re: Public Comment period on draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for Air Service at Paine Field extended to 1-29-10 I believe that the prospect of scheduled air service will enhance the utilization of the airport facility and I support air service to begin as soon as possible 244th ave se, woodinville Clifford W Davidson Original Message From: Waggoner, Dave <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Dec 21, 2009 3:07 pm Subject: FW: Public Comment period on draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for Air Service at Paine Field extended to 1-29-10 Attached find a notice of the extension of the public comment period on the draft EA for Air Service at Paine Field. Written comments will now be accepted until January 29, 2010. Dave Dave Waggoner Airport Director Snohomish County Airport--Paine Field 425-388-5100 Direct 425-508-7286 Mobile [email protected] www.painefield.com D.9 Response to Comment Dear Clifford Davidson: Thank you for your comments to Paine Field Airport; they have been noted. D.10 —Original Messag— From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 3:19 PM To: Waggoner, Dave; Dolan, Bill; Ryan Hayes; Ryk Dunkelberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Roland.J.McKee@faa. gov Subject: Fw: Paine Field air service Cayla Morgan Environmental Protection Specialist Seattle Airports District Office Federal Aviation Administration 425—227—2653 Forwarded by Cayla Morgan/ANM/FAA on 01/05/2010 02:17 PM [email protected] wrote on 01/05/2010 07:25:22 AN: > [image removed] > > Paine Field air service > > JDayRoch > > to: > > Cayla Morgan > > 01/05/2010 07:20 AN > > I support service at Paine Field. I live in Mill Creek and aircraft > from Paine Field fly over our neighborhood regularly. I do not > believe the addition of commercial flights will damage our area. In > fact, it will likely benefit the community. > > John Day > 2506 161st St Se > Mill Creek, WA D.11 Response to Comment Dear John Day: Thank you for your comments to the FAA; they have been noted. D.12 Page 1 of 1 Nimmy Dayalu to: Cayla Morgan 02/05/2010 04:18 PM Show Details Pulikeshi Dayalu 5223 169th PL SW Lynnwood WA 98037 425 787 9579 [email protected] February 5, 2010 Dear Sir/Madam, As a resident of Lynnwood WA, I oppose the conversion of Painefleld airport to a cmmercial status. I am not interested in environmental reports that highlite the safety aspects. We simply do not want to live near a commercial airport.