LUTC PKT 10-01-2018 Committee Members City Staff
Mark Koppang, Chair EJ Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director
Jesse E. Johnson, Member Mercedes Tenuta, Administrative Assistant II
Hoang V. Tran, Member (253) 835-2701
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use & Transportation Committee
October 1, 2018 City Hall
5:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Topic
Title/Description
Presenter
Page
Action
or Info
Council Date
Time
A. Approval of Minutes: September 10, 2018
Tenuta 3 Action N/A 5 min
B. 21st Ave S (S 320th St to S 316th St)
Pedestrian Improvements – Project
Acceptance
Mullen 5 Action October 16, 2018
Consent
5 min
C. Sherwood Forest ’18 NTS – 18th Avenue SW
& SW 353rd Place
Preston 7 Action October 16, 2018
Consent
5 min
D. Lakota Park Stormwater Facility Repair
Project – Final Acceptance
Tang 11 Action October 16, 2018
Consent
5 min
E. West Hylebos Creek S 373rd Street Gravel
Removal Project – Final Acceptance
Tang 13 Action October 16, 2018
Consent
5 min
F. ORDINANCE: Apprenticeship Utilization
Requirements for Public Works Projects
Winkler 15 Action October 16, 2018
Ordinance
10 min
G. ORDINANCE: Amend 19.142 FWRC and
15.15 FWRC, Flood Damage Prevention
Hansen 21 Action October 16, 2018
Ordinance
10 min
H. Approval of Federal Way Mayor’s Quiet and
Healthy Skies Task Force Report
Walsh
39 Action October 16, 2018
Business
5 min
4. OTHER
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS:
The next LUTC meeting will be Monday, November 5, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers.
6. ADJOURNMENT
This page left blank intentionally.
2
Committee Members City Staff
Mark Koppang, Chair EJ Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director
Hoang V. Tran, Member Mercedes Tenuta, Administrative Assistant II
Jesse E. Johnson, Member (253) 835-2701
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use & Transportation Committee
September 10, 2018 City Hall
5:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Mark Koppang and Committee member Hoang Tran via phone.
Committee member Jesse Johnson was excused.
Councilmembers in attendance: Deputy Mayor Susan Honda
Staff in Attendance: Public Works Director EJ Walsh, Deputy Public Works Director/Street Systems Manager Desireé
Winkler, Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann, Solid Waste & Recycling Project Manager Jeanette Brizendine, and
Administrative Assistant II Mercedes Tenuta.
1.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Koppang called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
2.PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments
3.COMMITTEE BUSINESS:
Topic Title/Description
A.Approval of Minutes: August 6, 2018
Committee approved the August 6, 2018 LUTC minutes as presented.
•Moved: Koppang
•Seconded: Tran
•Passed: 2-0 unanimously
B.RESOLUTION: 2019-20 Solid Waste & Recycling Grant Approvals
Solid Waste & Recycling Project Manager, Jeanette Brizendine, outlined a brief background regarding the three
(3)non-competitive grants available and their estimated grant amounts as: Department of Ecology Solid Waste
Financial Assistance (“SWFA”) at $34,756 (with a 25% required match), Local Hazardous Waste Management
Program in King County (“LHWMP”) at $79,662, and King County Waste Reduction and Recycling (“WRR”) at
$117,110. Amounts are estimates with award contingent on adoption of respective budgets by the
administrative agencies.
Ms. Brizendine identified the project areas funded by the grants as: Recycling Collection Events, Residential &
Community Outreach, Multi-Family Recycling Promotion, Business Recycling Outreach, and Public Area Services.
If approved, the Resolution will authorize the submittal of the grant funding requests, subsequent acceptance of
the funding, and encumbrance into the 2019-20 budget.
Committee forwarded the proposed Resolution to the September 18, 2018 Council Consent
Agenda for approval.
•Moved: Koppang
•Seconded: Tran
•Passed: 2-0 unanimously
DRAFT
3
Committee Members City Staff
Mark Koppang, Chair EJ Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director
Hoang V. Tran, Member Mercedes Tenuta, Administrative Assistant II
Jesse E. Johnson, Member (253) 835-2701
C.Wireless Master Plan/Small Cell – City Infrastructure Leasing Program – Request for Proposals
Deputy Public Works Director/Street Systems Manager, Desireé Winkler, presented a brief background
explaining that wireless demand has seen exponential increase with the demand being met through
implementation of 5G networks. To be competitive, cities must keep up with technology, where 5G networks rely
on densification using small cells. Ms. Winkler provided an example picture of a small cell being attached to a
light pole and stated that the small cells will either transmit their signal by radio through a macro tower or by
fiber optic cable ran underground.
The City owns a wide array of assets and Federal Law requires that public agencies open up use of the
rights-of-way to accommodate wireless technologies with an opportunity to leverage resources for managing
the deployment and earn revenue for leasing City infrastructure. Ms. Winkler outlined the process status and
stated the request for proposal would include a successful consultant team to market City infrastructure to speed
up deployment of the 5G technology, manage deployment to minimize the impact to the City’s limited resources,
honor the City’s design standards and permitting requirements, and maximize revenue. Ms. Winkler also
presented a financial estimate of revenue projected depending on the number of poles leased.
Ms. Winkler and Committee members held a brief discussion regarding the revenue sharing aspect and the
potential for proposals to be competitive in that area.
Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann stated that the FCC is considering putting a cap on lease amounts. In the
future, there could potentially be some preemption issues if/when the FCC changes the laws.
Committee forwarded Option #1 (Direct staff to issue a RFP for the purpose of developing a
Wireless Master Plan and Small Cell City Infrastructure Leasing Program and return to City
Council for recommendations and award) to the September 18, 2018 Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
•Moved: Koppang
•Seconded: Tran
•Passed: 2-0 unanimously
D.Performing Arts and Event Center – Authorization to Accept Bid for Production Lighting Fixtures
Acquisition
Public Works Director, EJ Walsh, stated that 4 quotes were received and opened on August 31, 2018. The lowest
responsive, responsible quote was from Pacific Northwest Theater Associates, Inc. dba PNTA with a total quote
of $89,050.70. Mr. Walsh outlined the budget availability and estimated expenditures.
Committee forwarded Option #1 (Award the Production Lighting Fixtures Acquisition for the
Performing Arts and Event Center base quote and optional equipment to PNTA, the lowest
responsive, responsible submitted quote in the amount of $89,050.70 and authorize the Mayor to
execute the contract) to the September 18, 2018 Council Consent Agenda for approval.
•Moved: Koppang
•Seconded: Tran
•Passed: 2-0 unanimously
4.OTHER
5.FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS:
The next LUTC meeting will be held on October 1, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers.
6.ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:24 p.m.
Attest: Approved by Committee:
Mercedes Tenuta, Administrative Assistant II
4
ITEM#: COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2018 ___ __:_ ___________________ --=====-
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: 21ST A VE S (S 320TH ST TO S 316TH ST) PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS -PROJECT ACCEPTANCE
POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council accept the 21st Ave S (S 320th St to S 316th St) Pedestrian
Improvements project as complete?
COMMITTEE: Land Use & Transportation
CATEGORY!
~ Consent
D City Council Business
D Ordinance
D Resolution
STAFF REPORT BY: Christine J. Mullen, P.E., Street Systems Proj. E
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
Public Hearing
Other
Attachments: Land Use & Transportation Committee Memorandum dated October 1, 2018
Options Considered:
1) Authorize final acceptance of the 21st Ave S (S 320th St to S 316th St) Pedestrian Improvements constructed
by Active Construction, Inc., in the amount of $652,420.17 as complete.
2) Do not authorize final acceptance of the completed 21st Ave S (S 320th St to S 316th St) Pedestrian
Improvements as complete, and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the October 16th City Council
consent agenda for approval.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward Option 1 to the October 16, 2018 City Council consent
agenda for approval.
Mark Koppang, Committee Chair Jesse Johnson, Committee Member Hoang Tran, Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of final acceptance of the 21st Ave S (S 320th St to S 316th
St) Pedestrian Improvements project constructed by Active Construction, Inc. in the amount of $652,420.17 as
complete. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED
D DENIED
0 TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED-12/2017
5
COUNCIL BILL#
First reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE#
RESOLUTION#
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 1, 2018
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Jim Ferrell , Mayor ..,,,_;/ ~
E. J. Walsh, P.E., Pub.lie Works Director -·t
Christine Mullen, P.E. Street Systems Project Engineer~
21st Ave S (S 320tJ, St to S 316th St) Pedestrian Improvements -Project Acceptance
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
This is the acceptance of construction as complete, and therefore no additional funds are proposed to be
spent as part of this agenda item.
BACKGROUND:
This project provided a 12 ft. sidewalk on the west side of 21st Ave S from S 320th Street to S 316th Street
including illumination, street trees, and ADA ramps.
Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work
as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries
requirements. The 21st Ave S (S 320th St to S 316th St) Pedestrian Improvements project constructed by
Active Construction, Inc. (ACI), is complete. The final construction contract amount is $652,420.17. This is
$101,832.83 below the $754,253.00 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City Council
on May 16, 2017.
cc: Project File
6
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2018 ITEM#:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: SHERWOOD FOREST '18 NfS-18rn AVENUE SW & SW 353RD PLACE
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council approve lht: installation of two (2) Speed Humps and one (1) mini-
roundabout on 18u' Avenue SW and SW 353rd Place?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
~ Consent
D City Council Business
D Ordinance
D Resolution
STAFF REPORT BY: Erik Preston, P .E., Senior Traffic En ineer
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee Memorandum dated October 1, 2018
Options Considered:
1. Authorize the installation of one (1) speed hump on 18th Avenue SW, one (1) speed hump on SW 353rd Place,
and one (1) mini-roundabout at the intersection of l 8u1 Avenue SW and SW 353rd Place.
2. Do not authorize the installation of the proposed traffic calming devices and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the October 16, 2018 City
Council consent agenda r approval.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward Option 1 to the October 16, 2018 consent agenda for
approval.
· Mark Koppang,
Committee Chair
Jesse Johnson,
Committee Member
Hoang Tran,
Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize the installation of one (1) speed hump on l 8t1, Avenue SW,
one (1) speed hump on SW 353rd Place, and one (1) mini-roundabout at the intersection of 18'" Avenue SW and
SW 353' Place. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED
D DENIED
0 TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED-12/2017
7
COUNCIL BILL#
First reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE#
RESOLUTION#
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 1, 2018
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Jim Ferrell, Mayor ~
EJ Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director et./.~
Erik Preston, P.E., Senior Traffic Enginee r ~
Sherwood Forest '18 NTS-181h Ave SW & SW 353rd Pl
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
This project is part of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program. In accordance with the approved budget
this project is funded by the Streets Fund. Upon completion of this project, ongoing costs associated with
operations and maintenance will be performed and funded through Streets and Traffic Division maintenance.
Funding requirements for operations and maintenance of infrastructure is reviewed and adjusted as required
during the budget process.
The currently allocated NTS budget is $50,000 per year with $20,000 designated specifically for school NTS
and/or school safety related improvements. Currently, one NTS project has been built in 2018 at a cost of
$15,000, with another currently under construction at a cost of $22,500, leaving $12,500 still available for 2018.
The estimated cost of this project is approximately $20,500 which exceeds the $15,000 per neighborhood per
year budget limitation policy guideline. If this project is fully constructed in 2018 , it would require an additional
$8 ,000 to be added to the 2018 NTS budget. The Council has the option to phase the construction this project to
stay within the 2018 budget, and delay the construction of some devices until 2019.
BACKGROUND:
R eside nts alo ng 18th Ave SW and SW 353rd Pl submitted a petition on June 7, 2018 requesting safety
enhancements to control vehicle speeds and reduce cut-through traffic along 18th Ave SW and SW 353rd Pl.
Both streets are classified as Local streets with posted speed limits of 25 mph . Traffic studies were conducted in
June of 2018, and the results are as follows:
85% Daily Park or # of 5 yr. # of 5 yr. Total Street Speed Traffic School Collisions Injury/Fatal Score (mph) Collisions
18m Ave SW n/o SW 354tn Pl
30.0 776 No 0 0 -
(Local St ree t, 25muh)
SW 353ra Pl e/o 21 51 Ave SW 28 .9 296 No 0 0 -
(Loca l Stree t. 25mohl
Points Scored 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 3.0
Based on the current adopted NTS installation criteria (per table below), the petition scored 3.0 total severity
points . This meets the minimum 3 .0 severity points to qualify for the installation of traffic calming devices .
Local Residential Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision History
Scale Speed Traffic (ADT) School/Park Total Injury Fatal
0 .0 0 -25 0 -500 No 1 --
0.5 26-27 501 -600 Yes 2 --
1.0 28 -29 601 -700 -3 1 -
1.5 30 -31 701 -800 -4 --
2 .0 32 -33 801 -900 -5 2 1
2.5 34 -35 901 -1,000 -6 --
3.0 36+ 1,001 + -7+ 3+ 2+ -u
A neighborhood traffic safety meeting was held on July 25, 2018 at City Hall. The 8+ attendees all agreed that
reducing speeding and cut-through traffic through tile neighborhood, particularly using 18th Ave SW and SW 353rd Pl
to cut between SW 356u, St and 21 st Ave SW. There were also complaints that motorists did not stop at the all-way
stop at the intersection of 18 1h Ave SW/ SW 353rd PL Although all options and traffic calming tools were considered,
Speed Humps and Mini-Roundabouts were the most popular option. A couple also expressed concerns about crossing
the street to get their mail or visit neighbors, sidewalks are present on both sides of both streets.
PROPOSAL:
Based on these concerns, Option 1 (below) was developed to slow vehicles and discourage cut-through traffic along
the 18th Ave SW -SW 353rd Pl cut-through route. With the reduced speed provided by the speed humps and mini-
roundabout, the safety of the neighborhood should be greatly improved for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Option 1 -Two (2) Speed Humps & One (1) Mini-Roundabout
This option would install a total of two speed humps; one on SW 353rd Pl halfway between 21 51 Ave SW and 18th
Ave SW and the other on 18th Ave SW just north of SW 354th Pl, as shown on the attached figure. An effort was
made to space the speed humps as evenly as possible between the roundabout and stop signs at 21 st Ave SW or SW
356°1 St. The humps are located to avoid directly impacting driveways and mailbox delivery and will be located at
the marked locations near ( or between) the following addresses:
• 2004-1926 SW 353rd Pl
• 35404 18th Ave SW
The mini-roundabout would replace the all-way stop control at the intersection of 18th Ave SW/ SW 353rd Pl
and may include landscaping depending on execution of an agreement by adjacent homeowners for
maintenance of the landscaping. The proposed devices should be effective in reducing vehicle speeds, reducing
cut-through traffic, and improving vehicular and pedestrian safety. However, there may be some negative
impacts to the neighborhood including inconvenience and perhaps a slight increase in emergency response time.
Option 2 -No Action
This option would not build any traffic calming devices and the street(s) would remain in its current condition.
Advisory Ballot
In accordance with established NTS policies, City staff sent a total of 148 ballots to property owners and
occupants within 600 feet (measured along the road centerline) of the proposed traffic calming device locations.
The table below summarizes the incomplete ballot results for the 43 ballots recei\'.ed to-date (29% return rate):
Option
1
2
Sherwood Forest 2018 NTS Ballot Count
Description Total Percent
Two (2) Speed Humps & One (1) Mini-Roundabout
No Action
30 70%
13 30%
The Traffic Division staff proposal is in accordance with the balloting results in recommending Option 1. The
proposed locations for the speed humps and mini-roundabout have been marked on the street. The proposed
package should be effective in reducing speeds along 18th Ave SW and SW 353rd Pl and should also reduce cut-
through traffic. However, there may be some negative impacts to the neighborhood including inconvenience,
noise, and a slight increase in emergency response time.
cc : Project File
Day File
encl: Map of Option I
9
Map of Option 1
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2018 ITEM#:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: LAKOTA PARK STORMW ATER FACILITY REPAIR PROJECT -FINAL ACCEPTANCE
POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council accept Lakota Park Stormwater Facility Repair Project as complete?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
IS] Consent
D City Council Business
D Ordinance
D Resolution
STAFF REPORT BY: Fei Tang, P.E., SWM Project Engineer ·;:-1
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Land Use and Transportation committee Memorandum dated October 1, 2018.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize final acceptance of the Lakota Park Stormwater Facility Repair Project constructed by Gary
Harper Construction, Inc., in the amount of $429,666.00, as complete.
2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the completed Lakota Park Stormwater Facility Repair Project
constructed by Gary Harper Construction, Inc. as complete and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the October 16, 2018 City Council
Consent Agenda for approv
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward Option 1 to the October 16, 2018 consent agenda for
approval.
Mark Koppang, Committee C h air Jesse J ohnson Committee Member Hoang Tran, Commi ttee Memb r
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of final acceptance of the Lakota Park Stormwater Facility
Repair Project constructed by Gary Harper Construction, Inc. in the amount of $429,666.00 as complete. "
(BELOW TO JJE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
D APPROVED
D DENIED
D TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED -12/2017
11
COUNCIL BILL#
First reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE#
RESOLUTION#
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
October 1, 2018
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
Land Use & Transportation Committee
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
EJ WaJsb , P.E., P ublic Works Director ~¥
Fei Tang, P.E., SWM Proj ect Engineer rt
SUBJECT: Lakota Park Stormwater Facility Repair Project -Final Acceptance
FINANCIAL IMP ACTS:
This is the acceptance of construction as complete, and therefore no additional funds are proposed to be
spent as part of this agenda item. Future operations and maintenance of this facility will be performed and
funded through surface water management maintenance.
BACKGROUND:
This project was to rebuild the berm that forms a boundary between Lakota Park and Lakota Wetlands to
its design height and replace approximately 470 linear feet of an 18-inch diameter pipe downstream of the
control structure that regulates detention within the wetlands area.
Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project the City Council must accept the
work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries
requirements.
The Lakota Park Stormwater Facility Repair Project constructed by Gary Harper Construction, Inc. is
complete. The final construction contract amount is $429,666.00. This is $120,481.38 below the
$550,147.38 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City Council on May 15, 2018.
12
COUNCIL MEETING DATE_: October 16, 2018 ITEM#:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: WEST HYLEBOS CREEK SOUTH 373RD STREET GRAVEL REMOVAL PROJECT-FINAL
ACCEPTANCE
POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council accept West Hylebos Creek South 373rd Street Gravel Removal
Project as complete?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
i:gJ Consent
D City Council Business
D Ordinance
D Resolution
STAFF REPORT BY: Fei Tang, P.E., SWM Pro·ect En ineer ---
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Land Use and Transportation committee Memorandum dated October 1, 2018.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize final acceptance of the West Hylebos Creek South 373rd Street Gravel Removal Project
constructed by N o rth we t Cascade, Inc., in the am ount of $6 6,205.23 as o mp lete.
2. Do not a ut horize fi nal acc epta nce of the complete d We st Hy lebos Creek So ut h 373rd Street Gravel
Removal Project constructed by Northwest Cascade, Inc. as complete and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the October 16, 2018 City Council
Consent Agenda for appro I.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward Option 1 to the October 16, 2018 consent agenda for
approval.
Ma rk Ko pp an g, Committee Cha ir Jesse John son Co mmit tee Mem ber Hoa ng Tra n, Co mmi ttee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of final acceptance of the Wesi Hylebos Creek South 373rd
Street Gravel Removal Project constructed by Northwest Cascade, Inc. in the amount of $66,205.23 as
complete."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED
0 DENIED
0 TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED-12/2017
13
COUNCIL BILL #
First reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE#
RESOLUTION#
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
October 1, 2018
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
Land Use & Transportation Committee
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
EJ Walsh, P .E.: Public Work-s Directo~~
Fei Tang, P.E., SWM Project Engineer -;::,
SUBJECT: West Hylebos Creek South 3 73 rd Street Gravel Removal Project -Final Acceptance
FINANCIAL IMP ACTS:
This is the acceptance of construction as complete, and therefore no additional funds are proposed to be
spent as part of this agenda item. Future operations and maintenance will be performed and funded
through surface water management maintenance.
BACKGROUND:
This project was to remove approximately 100 cubic yards of gravel from a small branch of the West
Hylebos Creek in order to restore stream flow, protect existing bridge ( commonly referred to as the "old
bridge"), and allow inspection and potential maintenance of the bridge.
Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project the City Council must accept the
work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries
requirements.
The West Hylebos Creek South 373rd Street Gravel Removal Project constructed by Northwest Cascade,
Inc. is complete. The final construction contract amount is $66,205.23. This is $8,794.77 below the
$75,000.00 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City Council on May 15, 2018.
14
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2018 ITEM#:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE: APPRENTICESHIP UTILIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council approve an ordinance to amend Title 3 of the Federal Way Revised Code
to add a new chapter implementing apprenticeship utilization requirements for public works projects?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
D Consent
D City Council Business
~ Ordinance
D Resolution
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Deputy Public Works Director DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: StaffReport
Ordinance
Options Considered:
1) Approve the ordinance to amend Title 3 of the Federal Way Revised Code to add a new chapter
implementing apprenticeship utilization requirements for public works projects.
2) Do not approve the ordinance to amend Title 3 of the Federal Way Revised Code to add a new chapter
implementing apprenticeship utilization requirements for public works projects and provide direction to
staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Option 1.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on October 16,
2018.
Mark Koppang, Committee Chair Je se Johnson, Committee Member Hoang Tran, Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S):
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE (OCTOBER 16, 2018): "/ move to forward approval of the ordinance to the
November 6, 2018 Council Meeting for enactment."
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE (NOVEMBER 6, 2018): "/ move approval of the proposed ordinance."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFlCE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED
D DENIED
0 TAB LED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED -l2/20l7
15
COUNCIL BILL#
First reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE#
RESOLUTION #
DATE: October 1, 2018
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Land Use & Transportation Committee
VIA: Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FROM· EJ Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director lv( it./
· ~siree Winkler, P.E. Deputy Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Apprenticeship Utilization Requirements for Public Works Projects
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
This apprenticeship utilization requirement program is not anticipated to have any immediate significant
financial impacts and can be administered in conjunction with current construction administration
requirements with current resources. Depending on the nature of the work, a project required to utilize
apprentices may have higher costs.
BACKGROUND:
In recognition of the need to complete infrastructure improvement projects that support the economic
vitality of our city, it has been recommended that a concerted effort be made to develop and maintain an
adequate supply of skilled workers. The City can do this by making a concerted effort to encourage the
use of apprentices on public works projects which have ample capacity and schedule for accommodating
training without adversely impacting administration and costs.
To implement apprenticeship utilization requirements for public works projects, the Federal Way Revised
Code will be modified to add Chapter 3.65, which will require all public works contracts in excess of two
million dollars to employ apprentices for at least 15 percent of the contracts labor hours unless that
requirement is waived or reduced by the public works director. The waiver or reduction option provides
the public works director with the appropriate flexibility to ensure that the City does not create absurd bid
situations where apprenticeship requirements do not make practical or financial sense for the City.
16
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to
the establishment of apprenticeship utilization requirements for public
works contracts of more than $2,000,000; and adding a new chapter to
Title 3 FWRC.
WHEREAS, a well - trained, diverse workforce is critical to the economic and social vitality
of the City of Federal Way and the region as a whole; and
WHEREAS, current workforce population trends, without a concerted effort to offset them,
may lead to an inadequate supply of skilled workers in the construction industry; and
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way regularly constructs public works projects; and
WHEREAS, the efficient and economical construction of public works projects will be
harmed if there is not an ample supply of trained construction workers; and
WHEREAS, apprenticeship training programs are particularly effective in providing training
and experience to individuals seeking to enter or advance in the workforce; and
WHEREAS, by providing for apprenticeship utilization on public works projects, the City of
Federal Way can create opportunities for training and experience that will help assure that a trained
workforce will be available in sufficient numbers in the future for the construction of public works;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way is committed to promoting apprenticeship opportunities
on larger public works projects with ample capacity and schedule to provide apprentice opportunities
for various trades without adversely impacting administration and costs.
Ordinance No. 18-
17
Page 1 of 4
Rev 1/18
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title 3 of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended to add a new chapter
3.65 to read as follows:
Chapter 3.65
APPRENTICESHIP UTILIZATION REQUIREMENTS
3.65.010 Apprenticeship utilization requirements
All public works contracts with an estimated cost in excess of two million dollars (herein
referred to as "minimum construction cost ") shall require not less than fifteen percent of the labor
hours performed by workers subject to prevailing wages employed by the contractor or its
subcontractors be performed by apprentices enrolled in an apprenticeship training program
approved or recognized by the Washington State Apprenticeship and Training Council.
Contractor prevailing wage documentation shall be supplemented to monitor compliance with
this requirement throughout the contract. Unless otherwise waived or reduced pursuant to FWRC
3.65.020, any contractor or subcontractor failing to comply with the apprenticeship requirements
of this section shall not be considered a responsible bidder on city public works projects for a
period of two years from final acceptance of the contract in which noncompliance occurred. The
"minimum construction cost," which shall never be less than two million dollars, shall be
adjusted each calendar year by one hundred percent (100 %) of the annual percentage change in
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for _the Seattle- Tacoma - Bellevue Metropolitan Area for the U.S.
City Average Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items (Revised Series) (CPI -
W1982 -84 =100) prepared by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
or a replacement index for the previous calendar year.
3.65.020 Waivers or reductions
The public works director may waive or reduce the FWRC 3.65.010 requirements as follows:
(1) The apprenticeship requirement conflicts with state or federal funding conditions, or the
conditions of any other grant or funding program;
(2) An insufficient number of apprentices are available to meet the contract requirements;
(3) The project involves a high proportion of equipment and materials costs compared to the
anticipated labor hours;
(4) The contractor has demonstrated a good faith effort to meet the established percentage
requirement, but remains unable to fulfil the goal;
Ordinance No. 18-
18
Page 2 of 4
Rev 1/18
(5) In order to meet the requirement, the contractor will be forced to displace members of its
workforce; or
(6) For other reasons deemed appropriate by the public works director.
Section 2. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase
of this ordinance, or its application to any person or situation, be declared unconstitutional or invalid
for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance
or its application to any other person or situation. The City Council of the City of Federal Way
hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence,
clauses, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 3. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to
make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of
scrivener /clerical errors, references, ordinance, numbering, section/subsection numbers and any
references thereto.
Section 4. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of
this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days
from and after its passage and publication, as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of
20
Ordinance No. 18-
[signature page follows]
19
Page 3 of 4
Rev 1/18
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY:
JIM FERRELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
STEPHANIE COURTNEY, CMC, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RYAN CALL, CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
Ordinance No. 18-
20
Page 4 of 4
Rev 1/18
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018 ITEM#:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE: AMEND 19.142 FWRC AND 15.15 FWRC, FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council amend the FWRC l 9 .142, Flood Damage Prevention, to address
issues identified by the Depaitment of Ecology which will update the Code to meet current law, and should the
Council remove 15 .15 FWRC since it duplicates language in 19 .142?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation
CATEGORY:
D Consent
D City Council Business
STAFF REPORT BY: Doc Hansen , Plannin
Attachments: StaffReport
Ordinance
Options Considered:
~ Ordinance
D Resolution
MEETING DATE: Oct. 1, 2018
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
DEPT: Community Development
I. To forward the proposed ordinance for First Reading to the full Council
2. To forward the proposed ordinance with amendment for First Reading to the full Council
3. To not move the ordinance forward for Council review.
TION: Option 1: Forward the Proposed Ordinance to First Reading
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on October 16,
2018.
Mark Koppang, Committee Chair Jesse Johnson, Committee Member Hoang Tran, Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S):
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE (OCTOBER 16): "! move to forward approval of the ordinance to th e
November 6, 2018 Council M eeting for enactment. "
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE (NOVEMBER 6): "! move approval of the proposed ordinance."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED
D DENIED
0 TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
R EVI S ED -12/2017
21
COUNC IL BILL#
First re~cling
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE#
RESOLUTION #
~
CITYOF ~
Federal Way
DATE:
To:
LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
October 1, 2018
Mark Koppang, Chair
MeJ?bers of the Land Use /Transportation Committee
FROM: Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Amendments to Chapters 19.142 and 15.15 FWRC regarding Flood Damage
Prevention
I. Introduction
On December 20, 20 I 7 the Department of Ecology and David Radabaugh with the Shorelands
and Environmental Assistance Program met with a number of Federal Way staff at a meeting,
known as the "Community Assistance Visit," or CAV. The purpose of the visit was to examine
the City's existing flood prevention program, evaluate the Shorelines Master Program in terms of
providing for such protection, and to offer suggestions or recommended changes that needed to
be made in order to provide for greater flood prevention.
II. Background
Most lands considered "floodplains," or special flood hazard area (SFHA), are located on the
City's coastline according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and their
maps that designate where flood areas exist. The Department of Ecology (DOE) recently
conducted a shoreline survey of the City and found a number of situations where they questioned
how the uses were permitted. In the CAV review, Mr. Radabaugh from DOE concluded a
number of items within our process and our Code that needed to be changed to bring it to current
standards. Specifically, DOE is requesting and suggesting to the City to change the Code in a
number of sections of FWRC 19 .142 including:
• Amending reference to the updated study for King County;
• Providing a severability clause;
• Providing additional definitions to make the City's code consistent with the State law;
• Identifying activities exempt from approval of floodplain permit;
• Including requirement for habitat assessment for approval of a floodplain permit.
III. Proposed Code Amendments
The draft proposed code amendments are attached as Exhibit A at the end of this brief. The
proposed amendments would eliminate one section of the Code, add definitions to 19 .142,
provide standards for a habitat impact assessment where required, and provide coastal standards
LUTC Staff Report
FWRC 19.142
22
Page I of3
October I, 20 18
for development within the designated flood plain designated in future maps provided by FEMA ..
Below is a summarization of the proposed amendments.
1. Eliminate FWRC Chapter 15.15. Under FWRC Title 15, Shorelines Management, a
section exists which duplicates FWRC 19.142 verbatim. This was most likely done to
provide ease for the reader looking for these standards. The issue in copying the regulations
from one section and repeating it in another section is that anytime one section is amended,
the section in the other location of the code also has to be amended, and if it is not amended
concurrently, the Code would not be consistent from the one chapter. This inconsistency
within the Code potentially creates a problem in administrating the regulation or when a
standard is challenged.
2. Adding Definitions. Mr. Radabaugh from DOE requested that the City adopt definitions for
"development" and amend the definition "start of construction." Although our definition for
"development" covers the concerns of DOE, it is not the verbatim definition used in the State
RCW, and is proposed to be added to definitions of this section to maintain consistency with
State law. DOE requested that the definition for "Start of Construction" be amended to
include "substantial improvement" since that is the verbatim definition within the RCW.
3. Updated Language and Provision of Exemption from Requirement for Floodplain
Permit. The current Federal Way Code does not reference a "floodplain" permit and does
not provide exemptions allowed by State law for ce1tain activities involving routine
maintenance and removal of noxious weeds. This amendment provides allowance for these
exemptions.
4. Requiring a Habitat Assessment for Development within a Special Flood Hazard Area.
Under current State regulations, Federal Way is required to not allow development within a
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) without a determination of its impact upon natural
habitat. This is considered a "Biological Opinion" which can be addressed by requiring a
habitat assessment by all who wish to develop in a floodplain area or lot. A habitat
assessment is a process often conducted by biologists who understand the process and possess
biological experience. This language is proposed to guide applicants toward habitat
assessment and requirements for mitigation per FEMA guidelines. Language is also added
permitting the City to request third party review of any habitat assessment since the City does
not currently have the expe1tise for such review.
IV. TimeJine
The anticipated time line for completion of the code amendments process are shown below:
Planning Commission Discussions
SEPA Threshold Determination
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Anticipated Land Use/Transportation Committee Meeting
Anticipated City Council 1st Reading
Anticipated City Council 2"d Reading
LUTC Staff Report
FWRC 19.142
23
6/20/2018
6/22/2018
09/19/18
10/01/2018
10/16/2018
11/06/2018
Page 2 of3
October l, 2018
V. Planning Commission Action
Per Code, the Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing and make
recommendation to the City Council on proposed Code amendments. On Wednesday, September
19, 2018 the Planning Commission held such hearing and recommended ordinance approval 6-0.
VI. Mayor's Recommendation
Based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation following the public hearing and based
upon information provided by planning staff, the Mayor recommends approval of the proposed
ordinance.
LUTC Staff Report
FWRC 19.142
24
Page 3 of3
October 1, 2018
ORDINANCE NO. ----
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating
to floodplain development and permitting processes within the City;
amending FWRC 19.142.040, 19.142.050, 19.142.060; and repealing
Chapter 15.15 FWRC. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 06-536, 09-593,
and 09-597) '
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to periodically modify Title 19 of the Federal
Way Revised Code ("FWRC"), "Zoning and Development Code," in order to conform to state
and federal law, codify administrative practices, clarify and update zoning regulations as deemed
necessary, and improve the efficiency of the regulations and the development review process;
and
WHEREAS, this ordinance, containing amendments to development regulations and the
text of Title 19 FWRC, has complied with Process VI review, Chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to
Chapter 19.35 FWRC; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to adopt amended
development regulations for Chapter 19 .142 FWRC regarding development within frequently
flooded areas; and
WHEREAS, the State developed new language regarding flood prevention that has not
been incorporated into Chapter 19.142 FWRC; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Ecology, through its Community Assistance Visit,
informed the City that the new State language needed to be added to the chapters of the FWRC
that regulate development within the areas designated as floodplains by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency ("FEMA"); and
Ordinance No. 18-
25
Page 1 of 13
Rev 1/18
WHEREAS, the absence of such language necessitates amendment to the FWRC to
incorporate the State-required language; and
WHEREAS, Chapters 15.15 and 19.142 FWRC are identical, and such duplication is not
necessary and has the potential to create inconsistencies when those chapters are amended in the
future; and
WHEREAS, the repeal of Chapter 15.15 FWRC eliminates the duplicative chapter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public discussion of these code
amendments on June 20, 2018; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance ("DNS") was properly
issued for the Proposal on September 13, 2018, and no comments or appeals were received and
the DNS was finalized on September 27, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on these code amendments on September 19, 2018 and forwarded a recommendation of approval
to the City Council as follows: (1) repeal Chapter 15.15 FWRC; (2) amend FWRC 19.142.040
by adding and amending definitions for "Development" and "Start of Construction"; (3) amend
FWRC 19.142.050 by changing the reference to the correct flood study title; (4) amend FWRC
19 .14 2. 060 to indicate that the section is related to floodplain development permits and to
identify those activities that do not require a floodplain development permit; and (5) amend
FWRC 19.142.060 by adding required actions that must be accomplished in order to receive a
floodplain development permit, including identifying conditions under which a habitat impact
assessment must be performed, and when a habitat mitigation plan must be completed; and
Ordinance No. 18-
26
Page 2 of 13
Rev 1/18
WHEREAS, the Land Use & Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council
considered these code amendments on October 1, 2018, and recommended adoption of the text
amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following
findings with respect to the proposed amendments:
(a) These code amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City and
will benefit the City as a whole by clarifying requirements of State regulation and correcting
textual duplication within the Code that will mitigate the need for interpretation when reviewing
projects proposed within the identified floodplain.
(b) These code amendments comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth
Management.
( c) These code amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 19 and
Title 15 FWRC and will implement, and are consistent with, the applicable provisions of the
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan.
( d) These code amendments bear a substantial relationship to, and will protect and
not adversely affect, the public health, safety, and welfare.
( e) These code amendments have followed the proper procedure required under the
Federal Way Revised Code.
Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to Chapter 19.80 FWRC and Chapter 19.35 FWRC, and
based upon the recitals and the findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council
Ordinance No. 18-__
27
Page 3 of 13
Rev 1/18
makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the
adoption of the proposed amendments:
(a) The proposed FWRC amendments are consistent with, and substantially
implement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goals and policies:
Goals:
NEGl
NEP4
NEP6
NEP7
NEG6
To preserve the City's natural systems in order to protect public health,
safety, and welfare, and to maintain the integrity of the natural
environment.
The City will continue to work with internal departments, state and
regional agencies, neighboring jurisdictions, and tribes to protect
environmentally critical areas and the City's natural environment.
Mitigation sequencing steps, which begin with avoiding impacts
altogether by not taking certain action or parts of an action, should be
applied to all projects where impacts to environmentally critical areas are
proposed.
Implement and periodically update environmentally critical area
regulations consistent with Best Available Science while also taking into
consideration the City's obligation to meet urban..:level densities and other
requirements under the GMA.
To prevent the loss of life, property, and habitat in frequently flooded
areas .
NEP41 New improvements should not be located in floodplains unless fully
mitigated via best building practices within areas of special flood hazard,
shallow flooding, coastal high hazard, and floodways. FWCP -Chapter
Nine, Natural Environment Revised 2015 IX-10
NEP42 Any approved construction should follow the mitigation recommendations
of a Habitat Assessment report.
(b) The proposed FWRC amendments bear a substantial relationship to the public
health, safety, and welfare because they provide clarification and additions to the sections of the
Ordinance No. 18-
28
Page 4 of 13
Rev 1/18
Code designed to prevent flood damage to life and property located in identified floodplains
within the City of Federal Way.
( c) The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the public and the residents
of the City of Federal Way because they eliminate a duplication within the Code, which can
result in inconsistent implementation when amendments are made to such se9tions within the
Code, and provide greater safety, clarity, and certainty to applicants wishing to develop projects
within floodplains.
Section 3. Chapter 15.15 of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby repealed.
Section 4. FWRC 19 .142.040 is hereby amended to read as follows:
19.142.040 Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires
otherwise. Terms not defined here are defined according to Chapter 19.05 or 16.05 FWRC or
FWRC 1.05.020 in that order.
"Actual start of construction" means either the first placement of permanent construction of a
structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the
construction of columns, any work beyond the stage of excavation, or the placement of a
manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation,
such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or
walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the
erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory
buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main
structure. "Actual start of construction," for a substantial improvement, means the first alteration
of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration
affects the external dimensions of the building.
"Appeal" means a request for a review of the interpretation of any provision of this chapter or a
request for a variance.
"Area of shallow flooding" means designated as AO or AH zone on the flood insurance rate map
(FIRM). AO zones have base flood depths that range from one to three feet above the natural
ground; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and
indeterminate; and velocity flow may be evident. AO is characterized as sheet flow; AH
indicates ponding, and is shown with standard base flood elevations.
Ordinance No. 18-
29
Page 5 of 13
Rev 1/18
"Area of special flood hazard" means the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a
one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designation on maps always
includes the letters A or V.
"Base flood" means the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year (also referred to as the "100-year flood"). Designated on flood insurance rate maps by
the letters A or V.
"Basement" means any area of the building having its floor sub-grade (below ground level) on
all sides.
"Breakaway wall" means a wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is
intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading forces,
without causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system.
"Coastal high hazard area" means an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to
the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high
velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the FIRM as
zone Vl-30, VE or V.
"Critical facility" means a facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great.
Critical facilities include (but are not limited to) schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire
and emergency response installations, and installations which produce, use, or store hazardous
materials or hazardous waste.
"Development " means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including.
but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading. paving.
excavations. drilling operations. or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of
special flood hazard.
"Director" means the director of the city of Federal Way community development department
or his or her designee.
"Elevated building" means, for insurance purposes, a nonbasement building that has its lowest
elevated floor raised above ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, post, piers, pilings, or
columns.
"Elevation certificate" means the official form (FEMA Form 81-31) used to track development,
provide elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with community floodplain
management ordinances, and determine the proper insurance premium rate with Section B
completed by Federal Way.
"Existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or
subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the
Ordinance No. 18-__
30
Page 6 of 13
Rev 1/18
manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the
construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed
before the effective date of the adopted floodplain manag~ment regulations.
"Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means the preparation of
additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured
homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and
either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads).
"Flood" or "flooding" means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete
inundation of normally dry land areas from:
(1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters; and/or
(2) The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source.
"Flood insurance rate map (FIRM)" means the official map on which the Federal Insurance
Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones
applicable to the community.
"Flood insurance study (FIS)" means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance
Administration that includes flood profiles, the flood boundary-floodway map, and the water
surface elevation of the base flood.
"Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that
must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water
surface elevation more than one foot.
"Lowest.floor" means the lowest enclosed area (including basement), except that where an
unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or
storage in an area other than a basement area, is built in compliance with the applicable non-
elevation design requirements ofFWRC 19.142.140(1)(b), the next lowest enclosed area is the
lowest floor.
"Manufactured home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on
a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when
attached to the required utilities, but does not include a recreational vehicle.
"Manufactured home park or subdivision" means a parcel ( or contiguous parcels) of land
divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
"New construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or
after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter.
Ordinance No. 18-
31
Page 7 of 13
Rev 1/18
"New manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision
for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes
are to be affixed (including at a minimum the installation of utilities, the construction of streets,
and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the
effective date of adopted floodplain management regulations.
"Recreational vehicle" means a vehicle:
( 1) Built on a single chassis;
(2) Four hundred square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection;
(3) Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and
(4) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for
recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
"Start of construction" includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building
permit was issued, where the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or
other improvement occurs within 180 days of the permit date. See also "actual start of
construction."
"Structure" means a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank that is
principally above ground.
"Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before'."damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
"Substantial improvement" means any improvement of a structure, including any repair or
reconstruction, where the cost of the improvement equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market
value of the structure either before the improvement is started or, if the structure has been
damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred.
Substantial improvement does not include: any project for improvement of a structure to correct
pre-cited existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which
have been previously identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the
minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or any alteration of a structure listed on the
National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places.
Substantial improvement begins when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other
structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external
dimensions of the structure.
Ordinance No. 18-__
32
Page 8 of 13
Rev 1/18
"Variance" means a grant of relief from the requirements of this chapter that permits
construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this chapter.
"Water-dependent" means a structure for commerce or industry that cannot exist in any other
location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations.
Section 5. FWRC 19.142.050 is herehy amended to read as follows:
19.142.050 General provisions.
( 1) Application of chapter. This chapter shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within
the jurisdiction of Federal Way. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal
Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance
Study for Feeleral Way King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas" dated May 16, 1995,
and any revisions thereto, with an accompanying flood insurance rate map (FIRM), and any
revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The
flood insurance study and the FIRM are on file at Federal Way City Hall. The best available
information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in FWRC 19.142.070 shall be the
basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under
FWRC 19.142.070.
(2) Penalties for noncompliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located,
extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other
applicable regulations.
(3) Summary abatement. Whenever any violation of this chapter causes or creates a condition
which constitutes or contributes to an immediate and emergent threat to the public health, safety
or welfare or to the environment, the director may summarily and without prior notice abate the
condition. Notice of such abatement, including the reason for it, shall be given to the person
responsible for the violation as soon as reasonably possible after abatement. The costs of such
summary abatement shall be recoverable via procedures for recovery of abatement costs as set
forth in Chapter 1.15 FWRC, Civil Enforcement of Code.
(4) Abrogation and greater restrictions. This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or
impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter and
another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever
imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail.
(5) Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be:
(a) Considered as minimum requirements;
(b) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and
Ordinance No. 18-
33
Page 9 of 13
Rev 1/18
(c) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes.
( 6) Warning and disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood protection required by this chapter is
considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering
considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be
increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside the areas
of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood
damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of Federal Way, any officer or
employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration for any flood damages that result
from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.
Section 6. FWRC 19.142.060 is hereby amended to read as follows:
19.142.060 Development Activitjes Subject to Floodplam Development Permits.
(1) Floodplain Drl.eve/opment permit required. A floodplain development permit shall be
obtained before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard
established in FWRC 19.142.050(1). The permit shall be for all structures including
manufactured homes, as set forth in FWRC 19.142.040, and for all development including fili
and other activities, also as set forth in FWRC 19.142.040.
(2) Non-development Activities. Activities that do not meet the definition of "Development" in
this chapter are allowed in the regulatory :floodplain without the need for a floodplain
development permit under this chapter, provided all other federal, state, and local requirements
are met. The following are examples of activities not considered development or manmade
changes to improved or unimproved real estate:
(a) Routine maintenance of landscaping that does not involve grading, excavation, or
filling;
(b) Removal of noxious weeds and hazard trees and replacement of nonnative vegetation
with native vegetation:
(c) Normal maintenance of structures, such as re-roofing and replacing siding, as long as
such work does not qualify as a substantial improvement;
(d) Normal maintenance of above ground public utilities and facilities, such as replacing
downed power lines;
(e) Normal street and road maintenance, including filling potholes. repaving, and installing
signs and traffic signals, but not including expansion of paved areas; and
(f) Normal maintenance of a levee or other flood control facility prescribed in the
operations and maintenance plan for the levee or flood control facility.
Ordinance No. 18-__
34
Page JO of 13
Rev 1/18
(3) Other Activities. All other activities not described in subsection (2) of this section are
allowed, as long as a floodplain development permit is approved, and, if required, as long as such
activities meet all the other requirements of this chapter and tlle other provisions of the FWRC.
(24) Application for floodplain development permit. Application for a floodplain development
permit shall be made and shall include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate drawn to scale
showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question, existing or
proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the location of the
foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required:
( a) Elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all
structures recorded on a current elevation certificate (FEMA Form 81-31) with Section B
completed by the city of Federal Way building official;
(b) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed;
( c) Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing
methods for any nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in
FWRC 19.142.140(2);
( d) Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a
result of proposed development ·
(JS) Designation of the administrator. The director or designee is hereby appointed to administer
and implement this chapter by granting or denying development permit applications in
accordance with its provisions. The director shall:
(a) Review all development applications to determine that the requirements of this
chapter have been satisfied;
(b) Review all development applications to determine that all necessary permits have
been obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior
approval is required; and ·
( c) Review all development applications to determine if the proposed development is
located in the floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment
provisions ofFWRC 19.142.160(1) are met.
(6) Proiect requirements. If the project is located in the regulatory floodplain and includes
activities not listed in FWRC 19 .142.060(2). the application shall include a habitat impact
assessment completed by a professional biologist. If that assessment determines that impacts
upon the habitat would result from the project, the application shall also include a habitat
mitigation plan. The habitat assessment and the habitat mitigation plan shall be performed as
described in FEMA s Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in
the Puget Sound Basin. 2013. and any revisions thereto.
Ordinance No. 18-__
35
Page II of 13
Rev 1/18
(7) Third-party review. For any habitat impact assessment or habitat mitigation plan, the city
may require a third-party review. Third-party review requires the applicant's habitat impact
assessment, habitat mitigation plan, and /or additional technical studies to be reviewed by an
independent third-party, paid for by the applicant, but hired by the city. Third-party review shall
be conducted by a qualified consultant as defined in the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and
Mitigation Regional Guidance, FEMA Region X, 2010, and any revisions thereto.
Section 7. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and
severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of
this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall
not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any
other persons or circumstances.
Section 8. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized
to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of
scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any
references thereto.
Section 9. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective
date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage
and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of ----
, 2018. _________ ,
Ordinance No. 18-
36
Page 12 of 13
Rev 1/18
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY:
JIM FERRELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
STEPHANIE COURTNEY, CMC, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. RYAN CALL, CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
Ordinance No. 18-__
37
Page 13 of 13
Rev 1/18
This page left blank intentionally.
38
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2018 ITEM#:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: AP PROV AL OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR'S QUIET AND HEAL THY SKIES TASK FORCE REPORT
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way approve the Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies
Task Force Report, including all twenty-four (24) distinct recommendations?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation
CATEGORY:
D Consent
~ City Council Business
STAFF REPORT BY: Yarden F. Weidenfeld
Attachments: StaffReport
D Ordinance
D Resolution
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
DEPT: Mayor's Office
Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force Report
Options Considered:
1. Approve the Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force Report, including all twenty-four
(24) distinct recommendations, in entirety.
2. Reject the Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force Report, including all twenty-four
(24) distinct recommendations, in entirety, and provide direction to staff.
3. Approve part or parts of the Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force Report, including
some but not all of the twenty-four (24) distinct recommendations; reject other part or parts of Federal
Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force Report, including some but not all of the twenty-four
(24) distinct recommendations; and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Option 1.
MAYOR APPROVAL:
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task
Force Report, including all twenty-four (24) distinct recommendations, to Council Business at the October 16, 2018
City Council meeting for approval.
Mark Koppang, Committee Chair Jesse Johnson, Committee Member Hoang Tran, Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "/ move to adopt the Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force
Report in entirety, including all twenty-four (24) distinct recommendations, and to instruct the mayor to explore
methods to effect the recommendations. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED
0 DENIED
0 TAB LED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED-12/2017
39
COUNCIL BILL#
First reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE#
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 1, 2018
TO:
VIA:
Land Use & Transpo~Committee
Jim Ferrell, Mayor ~« '1' pL:i /t <y
FROM: Yarden F. Weidenfeld, Senior Policy Advisor, Mayor's Office
SUBJECT: Approval of Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force Report
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force Report includes twenty-four (24)
distinct recommendations, only three of which entail a financial impact to the City, as follows:
I . Recommendation 6 on Page 33-"The City of Federal Way should purchase a portable noise
monitor so as to give data and metrics for objective impacts to lives."
Expected Cost: Approximately $15,000.00
2. Recommendation 4 on Pages 63-64-"Engage the technical and legal expertise needed for
analysis and response to the forthcoming SAMP DEIS, possibly by joining the other four airport-
impacted cities that plan to collectively engage."
Expected Cost: Approximately $104,000.00
• $4,000.00 authorized by Mayor Ferrell from 2018 Mayor's Office Budget
• $100,000.00 included in Mayor Ferrell's proposed 2019-2020 biennium budget
($50,000.00 in 2019 and $50,000.00 in 2020)
3. Recommendation 5 on Page 64-"Support the State of Washington study of current Sea-Tac
Airport impacts."
Expected Cost: $70,795.27
• $70,795.27 included in Mayor Ferrell's proposed 2019-2020 biennium budget
($35,397.64 in 2019 and $35,397.63 in 2020)
• City Council previously approved Agreement between. the Cities of Burien, Des
Moines, Normandy Park, Federal Way, Tukwila, and SeaTac to Provide Local
Matching Funds for the Sea-Tac Airport Impact Study in an amount not to
exceed $70,795.27, and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement and all
other necessary documents.
40
Page2
BACKGROUND:
In March 2017, City of Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell appointed a group oflocal residents to his
Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force. They were asked to provide the Mayor and City Council with some
guidance on the complicated and intersecting issues, (including the environment, safety, noise, and
health), surrounding increased air travel, the proposed expansion of Sea-Tac International Airport, and
other changes that are occurring or are about to occur with respect to our air traffic system. Mayor Ferrell
asked the Task Force to help him and the Council determine what is happening, how our community is
feeling, what other municipalities in the area are doing, and finally what the City of Federal Way should
do, particularly in interactions with Port of Seattle (POS) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
officials.
The Task Force met monthly through 2017. Task Force members also put in dozens or even
hundreds of hours on this issue outside of formal meetings in both 2017 and 2018.
The Task Force report (Attachment One) containing the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Task Force after the last year-and-a-half engaged in this important issue, was
released on August 2, 2018 and was formally presented to City Council on August 14, 2018.
The 67-page report contains twenty-four (24) distinct recommendations at the end of Sections III,
IV, V, VI, and VII. Since these are the "operative" items of the report, they are reproduced below for
ease. It should be noted that for religious/personal reasons, I am unable to attend the LUTC meeting on
October 1, 2018. However, one or more Task Force members will likely attend, should there be questions.
Also, I will be available to make another short presentation to the full City Council on October 16, 2018,
when the Task Force report is expected to be considered.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SECTION III: Sea-Tac International Airport Flight Operation Noise Impacts on Federal Way and
Potential Abatements and Mitigations
I. The City of Federal Way should continue to engage with Rep. Adam Smith and strongly support
his Aviation Impacted Communities Act. This legislation would not only expand the definition of
an aviation-impacted community (where federal mitigation funds may be spent), but would also
require the FAA to:
a. work with community boards designated by such communities and attend their board
meetings;
b. "devise an action plan that alleviates or addresses the concerns brought up in ... [a]
community report" drafted by a community board that "detail[s] the community's
concerns and issues related to disparate impacts";
c. collaborate with community boards on scoping and methodology of any community
study requested by a community board;
d. "devise an action plan that alleviates or addresses the concerns brought up in the ...
community study";
41
Page3
e. "where effective, consider the implementation of changes to operations and flight paths if
the community report or community study indicates that such changes would decrease the
impacts on the designated community";
f. "explain the rationale" for any determination that "changes to operations and flight paths
that a community report or community study indicated would decrease the effects on the
designated community would not be effective";
g. "[u]pon request of a designated community, and in addition to the annualized average
measurement . . . provide additional noise measurement instrumentation to measure
airplane noise";
2. The City of Federal Way should also strongly support the efforts of Congressman Smith and
others to ensure that the FAA quickly completes its evaluation of the DNL and alternative
metrics.
3 . The City of Federal Way should engage with newly-authorized FAA community engagement
staff, as soon as they are hired, and should insist that alternatives to DNL be examined. If these
efforts are fruitless, the City of Federal Way should support legislation to change the standard.
4. The City of Federal Way should also lobby the FAA, Port of Seattle, and, if necessary, Congress,
to change all glide slopes to at least three degrees (or higher) and flight paths so as not to go over
populated areas.
5. The City of Federal Way should make the case with the FAA and Port of Seattle that the third
runway should only be used for its original purpose, which was inclement weather.
6. The City of Federal Way should purchase a portable noise monitor so as to give data and metrics
for objective impacts to lives.
SECTION IV: The Authority to Regulate: Case Study on Efforts toward Curfew for Cargo Flights
In the short-term, the City of Federal Way should address the concerns with cargo flights,
particularly during late-night hours, by:
1. Support for the Port's efforts and pressure on the Port to intensify those efforts to get voluntary
compliance from the most egregious offenders
2 . Pressure on the Port to see if some cargo flights could be voluntarily moved to other airports if
feasible (such as Moses Lake or possibly even McChord Air Force Base).
3. Pressure on the Port to cease affirmatively marketing its 24-hour availability for cargo aircraft
SECTION V: Other Health Impacts of Increased Air Traffic
1. Once the current University of Washington study on the levels ofUFPs in areas impacted by Sea-
Tac International Airport is completed, support the "second phase" of that study on the health
effects of such UFPs.
2 . Re-engage with Congressman Adam Smith to support his continued efforts to get passed a bill
that would mandate a federal study on the health effects ofUFPs.
42
Page4
3 . Encourage Port of Seattle officials to continue supporting additional research into the relationship
between UFPs and aircraft and into the health effects ofUFPs.
4. Ensure that scoping on the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) includes an examination of
UFPs ( as well as other emissions/pollution, general health· and quality of life issues) and the need
for mitigation of such through, for example, increased use of biofuels.
SECTION VI: Environmental Review of Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP)
1. Closely monitor, and advocate for Federal Way's interests, in connection with the activities
and recommendations of the Port Commission's newly formed Regional Airport
Capacity/SAMP Committee. Its members are Commissioners Stephanie Bowman and Peter
Steinbrueck. Along with their Commission colleagues Courtney Gregoire, Fred Felleman and
Ryan Calkins, they all have publicly declared as "unrealistic and unattainable," due to traffic
congestion and noise/health impacts, the expansion of Sea-Tac to accommodate the SAMP's 66
million per year passenger demand projection. The City should encourage and support the
current Port Commission's prospective efforts to explore alternative airport locations in the
region and state, in order to help meet future passenger and air cargo demand within the Puget
Sound region .
2. Support, closely monitor and advocate for Federal Way's interests during and after the
PSRC's Central Puget Sound Regional Aviation Baseline Study, requested and funded by
the FAA, which will analyze the potential capacity of regional airspace and airports in
King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish countie·s to meet future air travel and cargo demand
generated by those counties. Following informal recommendation of the Task Force, prior to
submission of this report, City of Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell voted to support this proposed
regional aviation baseline study that was approved at the February 22 , 2018 PSRC executive
board meeting. Importantly, at Mayor Ferrell 's urging, additional language was added to the
study' s scope of work specifically referencing impacts on communities surrounding Sea-Tac and
other airports, as well as the region's current capacity ("landside and airside") to absorb future
growth. Once this study is completed, the City of Federal Way should support the siting of a new
regional airport .
3. Actively support State Rep. Mike Pellicciotti's plan to reintroduce an aircraft noise
abatement bill amending RCW 53.54.020 and .030 during the 2019 legislative session.
Introduced at the City's request during the 2018 regular session of the State Legislature, HB 2497
proposed to amend existing state aircraft noise abatement law affecting Sea-Tac. Specifically, this
amendment would enlarge the current geographic area within which the Port is authorized to
operate an airport noise abatement program, by extending its reach from the current six miles
south of Sea-Tac, to 12 miles south into Federal Way. Although HB 2497 was not passed during
the abbreviated 2018 legislative session, Rep . Pellicciotti has committed to reintroduce similar
legislation next year and seeks needed co-sponsors in the interim. The City should rally local
support for this bill and actively lead the lobbying effort that will be needed to help ensure its
passage.
4. Engage the technical and legal expertise needed for analysis and response to the
forthcoming SAMP DEIS, possibly by joining the other four airport-impacted cities that
plan to collectively engage. The Task Force strongly believes that the City will need to engage
outside technical and legal experts with experience analyzing the environmental impact of major
airport expansion plans in order to thoroughly review the SAMP Draft EIS (DEIS), which is
43
Page 5
likely to be hundreds of pages in length. That expertise will be needed to identify and compile
written comments related to potential factual flaws, inadequately supported conclusions, and
unanswered questions in the DEIS regarding potential future noise and health impacts. Those
comments must be submitted within a 30-day period following release of the DEIS, should the
Port allow only the minimum response period provided for under SEP A. A combined and
coordinated response to the DEIS potentially will be more persuasive to the Port and FAA and is
also a more cost-effective method for the City of Federal Way and the other impacted cities to
engage in the SAMP environmental review process. Unfortunately, the $1.50 per capita funding
formula in the Inter-local Agreement (ILA) recently entered into by the Cities of Burien, Des
Moines, Normandy Park and SeaTac would disproportionately affect the City of Federal Way.
However, the ILA states that this formula applies only to initial funding of a joint effort, so the
City of Federal Way could mitigate this financial disadvantage by seeking to negotiate a more
equitable funding approach as a condition for joining the ILA. For example, the City could
propose a funding formula that is based on the resident population of Federal Way neighborhoods
identified for needed noise mitigation in the 1997 Sea-Tac airport impacts study. Also, it is vital
that consultants with the proper technical and legal expertise be engaged. If this is not the case
with the experts hired by the four airport-impacted cities, the City of Federal Way may have to
retain its own.
5. Support the State of Washington study of current Sea-Tac Airport impacts. The City of
SeaTac has committed up to $250,000 toward a "baseline" analysis, to be conducted by the State
of Washington Department of Commerce, "of both positive and negative community and
economic impacts" on cities surrounding the airport, in order to equip those cities and community
members with objective and relevant data prior to the Port's release of the draft SAMP EIS. The
State Legislature approved a 2019 state operating budget "proviso" appropriation of $300,000
(sponsored by Rep. Mike Pellicciotti), to match an equal local funding amount. The proviso
directs the State Department of Commerce to undertake and complete the study by December
2019. Under SEP A, the SAMP EIS must also compare baseline conditions against future impacts
of proposed airport expansion projects. However, City of Seatac staff believes that the State study
would more broadly quantify baseline conditions and current impacts than will the SAMP DEIS
and would provide useful information with which to identify flaws and shortcomings in the Port's
environmental impact analysis. Following the Task Force's informal recommendation to Mayor
Ferrell and prior to submission of this report, the Federal Way City Council unanimously
approved Resolution 18-735 endorsing the proposed state impacts study. The Task Force further
recommends and supports the City of Federal Way contributing a share of the funding.
6. Consider asking the Washington Department of Transportation or other appropriate state
agency to request designation as the SEP A lead agency for preparation of the SAMP EIS.
An independent lead agency would help ensure that the SAMP environmental impact analysis is
impartial and objective. This alternative would require the Port to agree to transfer the lead
agency responsibility to a state agency. Although not required, SEP A Guidelines encourage the
two agencies to enter into a written agreement to avoid later confusion. This could be a comment
submitted during the SAMP EIS scoping period.
7. Request the Port to underwrite the technical support needed by airport-impacted Federal
Way community-based organizations to conduct their own review of and comment on the
SAMP draft EIS. Although not provided for in SEPA, doing so has precedent in State law that
governs the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC). Specifically, the UTC
is required to grant "intervener status" to any group or individual that can show it has a legitimate
interest in the outcome of a utility rate case or other regulatory matter. Obviously, those
neighborhoods in Federal Way that lie directly under the current Sea-Tac flight path and suffer
44
Page 6
from low-flying aircraft noise and health impacts have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the
SAMP.
8. Form an Aviation Impacts Committee of the City Council to oversee implementation of the
City's various policy actions and initiatives related to Sea-Tac existing operations and
future growth. As described and proposed in this report, the City likely will be engaged in
several simultaneous and politically challenging inter-governmental efforts to mitigate and limit
the adverse effects on Federal Way residents of existing and future Sea-Tac overflights. While
the Task Force acknowledges the Mayor's Office has primary responsibility for coordinating this
effort, it is recommended that this important and complex responsibility be shared with the City
Council. Thus, a three-member committee of the City Council should be formed to monitor
implementation of City policies related to aircraft overflight impacts, to keep the full City
Council apprised of the status of those efforts, to serve as a "sounding board" for concerns of
residents in overflight-impacted neighborhoods, and to keep those residents and the entire
community informed of the City's various efforts. Although the Port's SAMP implementation
process and related inter-governmental initiatives are expected to take several years, the Task
Force envisions this being an ad hoc (i.e. limited duration) City Council committee, during which
time its members would hold regular public meetings as appropriate and needed.
SECTION VII: Military Aircraft
At this point, the City of Federal Way should:
l . Publicize to its residents the above contact information for complaints with respect to military
aircraft.
2. Follow up on the recommendation to contact an FAA controller exclusively assigned to deal with
military aircraft at Seattle TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities) to further
investigate why military planes are being directed over residential neighborhoods in or near
Federal Way.
3. Seek regular (annual?) meetings with 62nd Airlift Wing Command leadership to communicate
issues of concern raised by residents.
CONCLUSION:
Mayor Ferrell recommends that the City Council approve the Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and
Healthy Skies Task Force Report, including all twenty-four (24) distinct recommendations, in entirety.
45
Federal Way" Washington Mayor's
Quiet and Healthy Skies
Task Force Report
Task Force Members
David Berger
William Brough
Chris Hall
Britt Ohlig
Task Force Staff
Yard e n Weidenfeld
Senior Policy Adv isor
City of Federal Way Mayor's Office
--
46
I. INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................... 3
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 3
III. SEA-TAC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FLIGHT OPERATION NOISE IMPACTS ON
FEDERAL WAY AND POTENTIAL ABATEMENTS AND MITIGATIONS ....... : ............ 10
a. Recent Changes in Aircraft Noise in Federal Way: Third Runway ...................... 10
b. Recent Changes in Aircraft Noise in Federal Way: Increased Operations .............. 11
c. Most ltnpacted .Areas ............................................................................... 12
d. Increasing Federal Way Noise Complaints .................................................. 13
e. Will it get worse--Air Freight? .... , ........................... : .................................................. 14
f. Will it get worse-Airport Expansion? ......................................................................... .14
g. Can it be abated? .......................................................................................................... 15
i. Glide Slope .......................................................................... .15
ii. Flight Tracks ........................................................................ 16
iii. Flight Schedules ................................................................... 22
h. Federal Way Residents Disproportionately Hanned ....................................... 23
1. DNL Meaning and Appropriateness ......................................................... 27
i. DNL Meaning ........................................................................ 27
ii. DNL Appropriateness .............................................................. 27
iii. DNL fails to consider noise as a health issue, in addition to annoyance .... 30
j. Should City of Federal Way Invest in Portable Noise Monitors? ............................... 32
k. Recommendations .............................................................................. 32
IV. THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE: CASE STUDY ON EFFORTS TOWARD CURFEW
FOR CARGO FLIGHTS .................................................................................... 34
1
47
a. Cargo Flights ..................................................................................... .34
b. Legal Analysis .................................................................................... 36
c. Conclusions ....................................................................................... 44
d. Recommendations ................................................................................ 45
V. OTHER HEALTH IMPACTS OF INCREASED AIR TRAFFIC ................................. 46
a. Airplane Pollution in General ................................................................... 46
b. Nitrogen Oxides .................................................................................. 46
c. Ultra-Fine Particles (UFPs) ..................................................................... 47
d. Recommendations ................................................................................ 52
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF SUSTAINABLE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ....... 53
a. Introduction and Section Overview ............................................................ 53
b. The SEPA and NEPA Environmental Impact Review Process ............................ 55
c. Short History of the Controversial Sea-Tac Third Runway Project ....................... 5~
d. City of Federal Way's Involvement in Opposing the Third Runway and its Flawed
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ............................................................ 57
e. Lessons Learned from Unsuccessful Opposition to the Third Runway Project ......... 58
f. Initial Review of Final Sea-Tac Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) ............... 59
g. Recommendations ................................................................................ 62
VII. MILITARY AIRCRAFT .............. , ......................................................................................... 65
a. Discussion ......................................................................................... 65
b. Recommendations .............................................. : ................................. 61
VIII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 67
2
48
L INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In March 2017, City of Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell appointed a group of local
residents to his Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force. They were asked to provide the Mayor and
City Council with some guidance on the complicated and intersecting issues, (including the
environment, safety, noise, and health), surrounding increased air travel, the proposed expansion
of Sea· Tac International Airport, and other changes that are occurring or are about to occur with
respect to our air traffic system. Mayor Ferrell asked the Task Force to help him and the Council
determine what is happening, how our community is feeling, what other municipalities in the
area are doing, and finally what the City of Federal Way should do, particularly in interactions
with Port of Seattle (POS) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials.
The Task Force met monthly throughout 2017. In addition, Task Force members have put
in dozens or even hundreds ofhours on this issue outside of formal meetings in both 2017 and
2018.
This report contains the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Task Force
after the last year-and-a-half engaged in this important issue.
The Task Force would like to acknowledge the contributions of former Task Force
members Robert Blix, Lyn Coring, Michael Kun, Keith Livingston, Ray Miryekta, Doug
Painchaud, John Resing, Melinda Robinson, and Kristin Yodock, Ph.D. They have not endorsed
or approved this report.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The substantive portions of this report are contained in Sections III through VII.
Sectloa DI examines noise impacts from Sea-Tac International Airport (Sea-Tac) flights
on Federal Way, as well as potential abatements and mitigations. This examination includes:
• Subsection a: History ofSea·Tac's third runway from the inception of that project in the
1990s to the third runway's opening in 2008 and:
o Resulting six-fold.increase in "Northflow" landings (i.e. those that go over
Federal Way) between 2011 and 2017
o Lack of any mitigation for increased noise being paid for Federal Way residents
as recommended in a 1997 state-funded study
• Subsection b: Increased aircraft operations (takeoffs or landings) from 317,186 in 2013
to 412,170 in 2016
• Subsection c: Illustration of how Federal Way is particularly impacted
• Subsection d: Data concerning increasing complaints about aircraft noise from Federal
Way residents
3
49
• Subsection e: Projections concerning continued growth in air cargo, with the Port of
Seattle having a stated goal of tripling air cargo and marketing its 24-hour, no-curfew
airport access
• Subsection f: Projections concerning airport expansion, with the Port of Seattle looking
to double its international flights
• Subsection g: Ways that noise impacts in Federal Way could be abated, including:
o Sub-subsection i: Changing glide slopes:
• For Runway 34R, approaches to which go over Federal Way, from the
current 2. 75 degrees to the international standard three-degree glide path.
• For all runways, potentially beyond the standard three-degree g]ide path.
o Sub-subsection ii: Changing flight tracks so that they no go out of their way
over residential areas to the south of the airport, such as in Federal Way
o Sub-subsection iii: Changing flight schedules to minimize traffic between I 0:00
PM to 6:00 AM or at least the Port's ceasing to market the 24-hour availability of
Sea-Tac to large and noisy cargo operations
• Subsection h: An analysis of how Federal Way residents are disproportionately banned
by airport activity, including:
o Available data concerning the economic benefits of Sea-Tac to Federal Way and
other nearby communities
o An acknowledgment of the current lack of good data concerning the harms
suffered by Federal Way residents due to airport activity
a A re-examination of the 1997 state-funded study, which concluded that
• Federal Way would require mitigation for sound abatement insulation and
avigation easements in the amount of $148,000,000 ($232,000,000 in
2018 dollars), which was never paid
• Communities closer to the airport (such as Federal Way) experience a
decline in property values
o An acknowledgment that Federal Way residents are excluded from Sea-Tac's
mitigation zone, within which residents of neighborhoods to the north have
received $400 million in noise insulation and other mitigation benefits
o Acknowledgments that
• An inordinate amount of air traffic is brought over Federal Way
• Flight paths over F~deral Way go over more people than necessary and are
often on a lower than standard glide path
• Subsection i: A discussion of the DNL metric, which the FAA uses to detennine noise
exposure levels, including:
o Sub-subsection i: Meaning of DNL
4
50
o Sub-subsection ii: Explanation why DNL as a measure of noise annoyance to
peop1e is fundamentally flawed, despite the F AA's insistence that it is a valid
metric
o Sub-subsection iii: Discussion of noise as a health issue, in addition to
annoyance, and the failure of the DNL metric to take that into consideration
• Subsection j: A discussion of whether the City of Federal Way should invest in portable
noise monitors:
o They would confirm the real sound levels at different locations and thus give
better insight as to the real impacts within neighborhoods.
o But current FAA rules and regulations do not allow readings from noise monitors
to -be used to determine the noise contours. The regulations only allow the FAA's
qualified tool that uses modeling.
• Subsection k: Recommendations, including:
o Support for proposed legislation sponsored by Congressman Adam Smith that
would expand the definition of aviation-impacted communities and require the
FAA to work with those communities on their concerns with aircraft impacts
o Support for efforts by Congressman Smith to ensure that the FAA quickly
completes its evaluation of the DNL and alternative metrics
o Engagement with newly-authorized FAA community engagement staff and
insistence that alternatives to DNL be examined
o Lobbying to change glide slopes and flight paths
o Making the case for the third runway only to be used for inclement weather
o Purchasing a portable noise monitor
Section IVa examines the dramatic increase in both cargo and passenger flights at Sea-
Tac, including a 10.2 percent increase in cargo tonnage in 2016, another 16.34 percent increase
in 2017, and (to June 27, 2018) another 5.1 percent increase in 20l8. These dramatic increases
have led to increasing complaints, particularly with respect to certain middle-of-the-night
international cargo flights. While Port staff has indicated that the airport director has asked the
airline if it can voluntarily look at an alternative to the middle-of-the-night flight to China that
disturbs so many people, it remains a concern that the Port has plans to triple air cargo and that
it markets its great avallability for cargo, including its 24-hour, no curfew operation.
Section IVb analyzes the legal history of efforts by local conununities and airport
proprietors to place limits on aircraft, while Section lV c concludes that current law does not
allow such restrictions unless agreed to by all aircraft operators, which is unlikely, or approved
by the FAA after an expensive and time-consuming "Part 161" submission, which would likely
be futile since such a submission has been approved only one time since 1991 at a small airport
in Florida. Thus, recommendations in Section IV d, while in the long-term include the possibility
of pressure on the Port to go through a Part 161 submission if other efforts prove futile, in the
short-term involve:
5
51
• Support for the Port's efforts and pressure on the Port to intensify those efforts to get
voluntary compliance from the most egregious offenders with respect to cargo flights
during late-night hours
• Pressure on the Port to see if some cargo flights could be moved to other airports if
feasible
• Pressure on the Port to cease affirmatively marketing its 24-hour availability for cargo
aircraft
Section V covers other health impacts of increased air traffic, including respiratory issues
from airplane pollution in general in Subsection a and from nitrogen oxides in Subsection b.
Subsection c covers the emerging area of ultra-fine particles (UFPs), their relationship to air
traffic, and their effects on health. This subsection discusses a currently ongoing University of
Washington study on the level of UFPs in areas impacted by Sea-Tac. It also goes over a similar
study in another jurisdiction that found a relationship between UFPs and aircraft emissions.
Finally, this subsection goes over studies that have shown health impacts of UFPs and discusses
the lack of any official environmental standards with respect to UFPs. Subsection d goes over
recommendations, including:
• Support for state legislation funding a second phase to the University of Washington
study that would study the health effects of UFPs
• Support for efforts by Congressman Adam Smith to get a federal bill passed that would
mandate a federal study on the health effects of UFPs
• Encouragement for Port of Seattle officials to continue supporting additional research
into the relationship between UFPs and aircraft and into the health effects ofUFPs
• Ensuring that scoping on the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) includes an
examination of UFPs, as well as other emissions/pollution, general health, and quality of
life issues.
Section VI covers the environmental review process of the Sustainable Airport Master
Plan (SAMP).
Subsection Via explains that the SAMP identifies additional airport facilities and
airspace needed to accommodate its forecast of"unconstrained" passenger and air cargo demand
at Sea-Tac over the next twenty years. The final SAMP projects an increase in annual passengers
handled from 46.9 million last year, to 56 million in 2027, and further increasing to 66
million by 2034. Federal Way residents have long expressed quality-of-life concerns about Sea-
Tac's overflight impacts. These concerns have been aggravated by the greater than one-third
increase in aircraft overflights during just the past three years, by the constant use of the
third runway that the Port promised was for use only during inclement weather, and by the
likelihood of even greater noise and health impacts as a result of the SAMP projections. Thus,
the City of Federal Way must use all means at its disposal to hold the Port to a complete,
objective and thorough environmental review of the SAMP, meaning that the Port should be
required to include full and meaningful mitigation of noise and health impacts on Federal Way
residents from any projects that follow approval of the SAMP.
6
52
Subsection Vlb explains the procedures involved in the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These laws require
analysis of a project's potential impacts on human health and the environment, as well as
proposed actions or measures to mitigate those impacts. The NEPA and SEP A processes can be
integrated. The Port serves as lead agency for SEPA, while the FAA serves as lead agency for
NEPA.
Subsection Vic goes over the history of Sea-Tac's third runway project. Communities
around the airport were heavily opposed. Nevertheless, the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC) concluded that future airport capacity needs would best be met by going forward with
the third runway, adding passenger facilities at Paine Field, and constructing a new
"supplemental airport" in Pierce or Thurston County. The latter effort ended without success.
Though a State commission found that the third runway alone would not be adequate to meet
future need, it was unable to find feasible alternatives. Despite receiving extensive public
comments from local community groups and the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC), which
included the City of Federal Way, the Port and FAA concluded that all of its short-and long-
term impacts could be fully mitigated through sensitive design and wetlands mitigation. Despite
a PSRC-mandated expert panel concluding that the Port ''had not shown a [sufficient] reduction
in real, on-the-ground noise impacts," the PSRC decided noise impacts were sufficiently
mitigated and officially added the third runway project to the federally-mandated Regional
Transportation Plan (which qualified it for future federal funding) in July 1996. The next month,
the Port authorized final design, permitting, and property acquisition for an 8,500-foot third
runway to be located 1,700 feet westerly of the closest of the two existing runways.
Subsection Vld covers the City of Federal Way's involvement in opposing the third
runway. Several City Councilmembers submitted written and oral testimony in the process,
commenting that there was "not one word" regarding the adverse impacts of the proposed third
runway on Federal Way residents, including additional noise, health impacts, increased traffic
congestion, and decline in property values. After approval of the project, the ACC filed suit,
resulting in a supplemental process with additional public comments. Ultimately, however, little
was accomplished other than additional noise and insulation mitigation for schools in the
Highline School District. Most jurisdictions ultimately withdrew from the lawsuit, though the
City of Federal Way persisted until dismissal by the Court and ultimate approval of the project.
The City of Federal Way spent approximately $100,000 in the failed lawsuit.
Subsection Vie goes over lessons learned from the unsuccessful opposition to the third
runway, concluding that the City of Federal Way must develop a proactive, non-traditional
strategy for successfully engaging the Port and FAA in their decision-making processes in the
SAMP. Analyzing the official record from the battle over the third runway provides useful
insights for predicting noise, health and other envirorunental impacts on Federal Way residents
that may not be fully and fairly analyzed as related to Federal Way. In the end, though its
impacts were analyzed assuming use during inclement weather only, the third runway was
environmentally "cleared" without operational restriction. Given increasing passenger demand in
the ensuing years and the lack of identified mitigation for the additional noise and health effects
from unfettered third runway usage, the City of Federal Way and its residents have learned a
painful lesson from this process.
7
53
Subsection Vlf goes over the proposed SAMP itself and potential problems already
noticeable such as;
• An apparently underestimated growth forecast that would result in under-analyzed
environmental impacts
• A statement that Sea-Tac currently meets federal, state and regional air quality standards
for "fine" particulates, despite aircraft engines currently pumping 13 tons of such
particulates into the air each year
• Failure to mention the currently underway state-funded University of Washington study
on Ultra-Fine Particulates (UFPs)
• Reference only to noise impact mitigation defined by the DNL metric
• Failure to analyze twenty specific airport expansion and redevelopment improvement
projects contained in the SAMP's long-term vision (to 2034) that are in addition to the
near-term projects (to 2027), potentially violating SEP A's "phased review" prohibition.
Subsection Vig contains specific policy recommendations, including:
• Closely monitoring, and advocating for Federal Way's interests, in connection with the
activities and recommendations of the Port Commission's newly formed Regional
Airport Capacity/SAMP Committee, including encouragement of and support for the
current Port Commission's prospective efforts to explore alternative airport locations in
the region and state.
• Supporting, closely monitoring and advocating for Federal Way's interests during and
after the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC's) Central Puget Sound Regional
Aviation Baseline Study, which will analyze the potential capacity of regional airspace
and airports in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties to meet future air travel and
cargo demand generated by those counties.
• Supporting the siting of a new regional airport once the latter study is completed.
• Actively supporting State Rep. Mike Peliicciotti's plan to reintroduce an aircraft noise
abatement bill amending RCW 53.54.020 and .030 so that the geographic area within
which the Port is authorized to operate an airport noise abatement program will include
Federal Way.
• Engaging the technical and legal expertise needed for analysis and response to the
forthcoming SAMP environmental review process, either by the City of Federal Way's
independent efforts or possibly by joining the other four airport-impacted cities that plan
to collectively engage, if their engaged consultants have the proper technical and legal
expertise.
• Supporting the State of Washington study of current Sea-Tac Airport impacts, including
by contributing a share of the funding.
8
54
• Considering asking the Washington Department of Transportation or other appropriate
state agency to request designation as the SEP A lead agency for preparation of the SAMP
EIS.
• Requesting the Port to underwrite the technical support needed by airport-impacted
Federal Way community-based organizations to conduct their own review of and
comment on the SAMP draft EIS.
• Forming an Aviation Impacts Committee of the City Council to oversee implementation
of the City's various policy actions and initiatives related to Sea-Tac existing operations
and future growth, to keep the full City Council apprised of the status of those efforts, to
serve as a "sounding board" for concerns ofresidents in overflight-impacted
neighborhoods, and to keep those residents and the entire community infonned of the
City's various efforts.
Finally, Section Via covers military aircraft, including a meeting held at McChord Air
Force Base with the leadership of the 62nd Airlift Wing at which Mayor Ferrell and members of
· the Task Force explained that exercises with C-17 military aircraft had, at times, impacted
residential neighborhoods, including Marines Hills, Browns Point, and Twin Lakes. The wing
commander emphasized that the Air Force wants to be good partners with the local community
and that she was happy to engage in conversations like this. However, she :Said that there are
constraints on the air space, and the military.aircraft have to land where they are aligned. She did
say that Air Force traffic has decreased and will continue to decrease. The wing vice commander
said that we would have to talk to the controllers at Sea-Tac who direct the military aircraft. Roel
A. van der Lugt, Director of Military Affairs & Senior Policy Advisor for United States
Congressman Dennis Heck (WA -10), who was also present for this meeting, recommended
contacting an FAA controller exclusively assigned to deal with military aircraft at Seattle
TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities) at the northwest side of the airport.
Following the meeting, a community relations staff person Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM)
provided a phone number, email, and website to facilitate reporting about issues with military
aircraft noise and low flight complaints. Section Vlb contains a final set of recommendations,
including:
• Publicizing the provided contact information for complaints with respect to military
aircraft.
• Following up on the recommendation to contact an FAA controller exclusively assigned
to deal with military aircraft at Seattle TRACON (Tenninal Radar Approach Control
Facilities) to further investigate why military planes are being directed over residential
neighborhoods in or near Federal Way.
• Seeking regular me~tings with 62nd Airlift Wing Command leadership to communicate
issues of concern raised by residents.
9
55
III. SEA-TAC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FLIGHT OPERATION NOISE
IMPACTS ON FEDERAL WAY AND POTENTIAL ABATEMENTS AND
MITIGATIONS
!.: Recen t Cbunge s io Afrcnft Noise in Fe deral Way: hint Runwa y
The Sea-Tac International Airport (Sea-Tac) third runway opened on November 20,
2008 . Its usage has gone from 10,079 "Northflow" landings in 2011 to 57,287 such landings in
201 i, a nearly six fold increase in six years. This change puts many planes directly over homes
in the Marine Hills neighborhood of Federal Way, where there were none ten years ago.
This frustration was expected, however, based upon a state-funded study done in 1997 on
the proposed third runway's impacts on Federal Way and other communities. The study report
specifically named the Marine Hills neighborhood of Federal Way as needing mitigation for
noise and vibration in the form of"Sound Insulation and Avigation Easements" in the amount of
$19. 8 million.2 Considering the 525 homes in Marine Hills, that amounts to $3 7, 714 per home
($59,212 in 2018 dollars\
Marine Hills is just one of eight federa l Way ne ighbor hoods identified in the 1997 report
as needing mitigation for noise and/o r vi bration.4 Other Fc <h:rn l Way neighborhoods identified as
needing such mitigation were Easter Lake ($27.3 million), Star Lake ($19.5 million); Steel Lake
($13.0 million), First Avenue ($20.5 million), Kitts Comer ($11.2 million), Wildwood ($20.7
million), and City Center ($16 .1 mill.ion), for a total of $148. 1 million in all affected Federal
Wayneigbborhoods5 ($232 million in 2 01 8 dollars').
The Port, however, has never paid any of these mitigation costs. 7
1 "Runway Use Statistics" (Port of Seattle report run on June 4, 2018 and provided to City of Federal Way Mayor's
Office)
2 "Sea-Tac International Airport Impact Mitigation Study Initial Assessment and Recommendations" (Preipared in
February 1997 under a grant from the State of Washington for City of Burien, City of Des Moines, City ofFederal
Way, City of Normandy Park, City ofTukwila, Highline School District, and Highline Community Hospital by
Hellmuth, Obata & Kassebaum , me . and Raytheon Infrastructure Services, Inc .) at Pages 7-9 to 7-LO (Table 7.05
"Neighborhoods Identified for Overflight Sound Insulation and Avigation Easement!!");
htt 1:l www.s11a tuc wn. ov/ lo md , h wD cu nc · .. i ~ I J 3
3 Converted time dollars from hllp .'lwww. m20 t .ldotl11 rs.c ,1m/t 997-dollars-in-20 l 8?am oun t=3 7714
4 "Sea-Tac International Airport Impact Mitigation Study Initial Assessment and Recommendations" at Page 7-6
(Table 7 .03 "Neighborhoods Identified fur LDN Sound In sulation and Avigation Easements") and Pages 7-9 to 7-l 0
(Table 7 .05 "Neighborhoods Identified for Overflight Sound Insulation and Avigation Easements")
6 Converted time dollars from h!!J!./lwww .i1120L'u ytlurs.com/l 99 7-do llars-in-2018?amount=l481QQ009
7 In a meeting held in Seatac City Hall on July 16, 2018 a Port staffer stated that no mitigation resulted from the
1997 study because it was the Port 's position that the study's methodology did not hold up .
10
56
The 1997 study report on the third runway also stated, with regards to the Sound
Exposure Level for single noise events (SEL), that "[t]he EIS [Environmental Impact Statement]
noise study did not have an extensive evaluation of sound exposure level (SEL)" and that "[t]his
information should be developed by the Port of Seattle prior to Master Plan Update
implementation and should include the SEL contours relationship to health problems, in
particular, sleep and speech interference."8 The report went on to explain that
[t]he EIS for the Flight Plan Project (Puget Sound Regional Council and Port of
Seattle, October 1992), included noise assessment infonnation associated with the
55 LON [DNL] level and a SEL of 80 dBA. This SEL was selected because it is
often used to supplement the LON [DNL) analysis and 80 dBA corresponds to the
level at which sleep disturbance and speech interference start to occur. Similar
information should be developed prior to Master Plan Update implementation by
the Port of Seattle. 9
Finally, the 1997 study report recommended with regards to air quality that "additional
studi es [should be conducted] regarding long-term exposure to air toxics associated with Airport
o perations." 10
b. Recent Changes in Aircraft Nojse in Federal Way: Increased Operations
Aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) have increased substantially in recent years, as
follows:11
Aircraft Operations
• 2016: 412,170 operations -8% increase
• 2015: 381,408 operations 120/oincrease
• 2014: 340,478 operations -7°/o increase
• 2013: 317,186 operat;ons
The difference between 2013 and 2016 was 94,984 operations .
That's 260 more aircraft going over homes per day.
8 "Sea-Tac International Airport Impact Mitigation Study Initial Assessment and Recommendations" at Page 7-12.
10 Id. at Page ES-8
11
57
The Port's "Long Range Plan" 2018-2022 has the goal of making SeaTac airport the west coast
"Gateway of Choice" for international tra vel. 12
The International Arrivals Facility (IAF) now under construction will increase
international gates by 67% "from 12 to 20."13 It will "[i]ncrease passenger capacity by more
than double to 2,600 passengers v.er hour" and will · [i Jn co r porate enhanced technologies for
faster passport check clearance." 4The new facility w ill ·'[rleduce minimum pass enger
connection time from 90 to 75 minutes"15 (thereby, as the Port's marketing material/ails to state,
reducing opportunity for economic impact). This facility is projected to open in the second
quarter of2020.16
In addition to the IAF, the North Satellite renovation will also be "adding eight new gates
with a 240-foot extension of the building to the west, add[ing] an upper level mezzanine, more
than doubl[ing] the existing dining and retail square footage, and introduce[ing] a rooftop Alaska
Airlines lounge with vie ws of the Olympic Mountains."17
£: Mo st Impacted A re a s
Neighborhoods on the north side of Federal Way that are aligned with the runways are
most impacted. But due to the flight paths, most of the city is impacted to varying degrees. The
following diagram shows flight tracks in the area.
11 "Noise Programs & NextGen Briefing" (Port of Seattle Power Point Presentation at May 24, 2017 meeting of
Highline Forum held in Sea-Tac [ntemational Airport Conference Center) at Slide 4 .
12 "Port of Seattle 2018-2022 Long Range Plan" Objective 6 (slides 7, 9 , and 15);
htms :/l www.portse:utlc .n rg/s ii cs/d cfo u ll/6 !e~20 18 -05/PQS 2017 LRI' Wcb (;9n11n is.sio n • 6· 18 .pdf
13 htt p:-1 ://www .p1lr lsc~111lc . rgt p1·ui~c 1sl i11 11:rm11 i1)nul -urriv 1l s -foc1 j11y
t4 Id .
16 "New International Arrivals Facility" (December 2017 Port of Seattle Sea-Tac International Airport Brochure) at
Page 2; !ill.Q~/-~~"l!., >11 r sea t1 lc .9 r • sue. I~ i1ult .'fi !1,.:•,_!f_(_U~:<l?11' ) •. .WI X-11 11\F I Pu •r di'
17 "Port Breaks Ground on North Satellite Modernization Project" (February 3, 2017 Port of Seattle pret!S release);
~11 >s ,//www. urt .sca (!J_c .or, 11e ws(ruir1 -brca k~grs,m1d -110 ~.11].:1!.!!.!!,!JJ j!~odc'1ll?J!.CjQ.t.!:JKOJ.C,!!l
12
58
d. lncreasin2 Federal Way Noise Complaints
All of these factors have led to increasinffi complaints about noise from Federal Way and
nearby residents, as outlined in the table below: 8
18 Compiled from reporu provided by the Port to the City of Federal Way Mayor's Office on June 2, 2017
13
59
------Zip Code City Complaints Complaints July Total complaints
January 1, 2014 l, 2015 through January 1, 2014
through June 30, May 26,2017 through May 16,
201S 1017 ------
98001 Algona 6 (0.33/month) 0 (0/month) 6 (0.15/month)
98001 Auburn 6 (0.33/month) 10 (0.44/month) 16 (0.39/month)-
98003 Federal Way 36 (2.00/month) 174 (7.62/month) 210 (5.14/month)
98023 Federal Way 91 (5.06/month) 120 (5.25/month) 211 (5.17/month)
No zip code Federal Way I (0.06/month) 3 (0.13/month) 4 (0.10/month)
listed ----TOTAL TOTAL 140 (7. 78/month) 307 (13.44/month) 447 (10.95/month)
e. wm it get worsc--Air Freight'!
In 2017, SeaTac experienced a l6-percent growth in metric tonnage of air cargo. a 20-
percent increase in domestic freight service, and an 8 .5-percent increase in international cargo.19
And the Port's stated goal is to "[t]riple air cargo volume to 750,000 metric tons."20 In their
cargo marketing publications, the Port emphasizes Sca-Tac's "24-hour operation with no
curfews.21 Their website section concerning .. Cargo Facilities and Region· also states Sea-Tac
has "[m]ore than 200 acres ofland for airport-related logistics park development."22 23
f. Will it get worse-Airport E . ..:pansion?
Port staff has stated that the planned growth of Sea-Tac will include an increase in the
number of gates by about 50%.24 And as mentioned earlier, The Port's ''Long Range Plan" 2018-
2022 bas the goal of making SeaTac airport the west coast "Gateway of Choice" for international
travel.2s The P,0rt also seeks to ·'double the number of international flights and destinations.26
19 "SW1tainable Airport Master Plan -Responding to Regional Growth" (Port of Seattle Power Point presentation to
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Executive Board Meeting February 22, 2018) at Slide 3.
20 "Port of Seattle 2018-2022 Long Range Plan" Objective 3 (slides 9 and 12). At a May 30, 2018 meeting on the
Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) held at Burien Community Center, Port officials said that this tripling of
cargo was a 20-year goal/target of the Port's "Century Agenda", not a forecast It was an "a.,pirational goal" set by
the Port commissioners.
21 "Air Cargo at the Port of Seattle" (Marketing Piece provided by Port staff on July 9, 2017)
22 "Cargo Facilities and Region" (Section "Our Cargo Facilities"); IJJ!Q.':'.:Lf www .Jtorts~aLLle .orJ!/page(i,:.argo -focili1iu ~
and-region
23 The expansion of cargo flights and the ability to regulate them by, e.g. a curfew, is discussed more fully in
Section IV below.
24 Port of Seattle presentation to Federal Way Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force (Held September 14,
2017 in Federal Way City Hall)
2s "Port of Seattle 2018-2022 Long ~ge Plan" Objective 6 (pages 7, 9, and 15)
14
60
g. Can it be abated'!
Efficiencies and mitigations could be gained by raising the glide slope path of arriving
aircraft on the longest runway to the much safer industry standard. Changing the flight patterns
to modem designs (focused on most efficient and safest paths) would also reduce the impact to
Federal Way residents. Having aircraft traveling to and from Asia and Alaska fly over the Puget
Sound would nearly eliminate the impact of those flights to Federal Way residents, while .
reducing their flight time, emissions, and fuel burn. Finally, flight schedules offer another means
of abatement.
i. Glide Slope
All runways on the north side (i.e. south flow approaches to Sea-Tac, those not over
Federal Way) use the international standard three-degree glide path. Three degrees is the
optimum profile descent to minimize fuel burn and emissions.
However, the approaches to the longest runway (34R) that go over Federal Way are on a
lower 2.75-degree glide path. A shallower glide path means not only that the aircraft is lower and
closer to the homes, schools, and businesses below, but it is also no longer in the optimized
profile descent and may be forced to increase power and emissions to stay on its shallow path.
This has a compounding effect on those below. Sound disperses similar to a rock dropped in a
puddle, so moving the source closer increases the concentration and amount received, and then it
is further exasperated by the increased throttle.
At the north end of Federal Way is Nautilus School. The .25-degree glide path difference
changes the experienced noise level on the ground at that location at a level equivalent to the
change were the school raised from one to thirteen floors.
Changing the glide slope will also make the approach safer. The wake turbulence risk
analysis by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Runways 34C and 34R (the two
parallel runways with approaches that fly over Federal Way) was conducted using a three-degree
glide slope tor both runways and the procedure is already authorized at three degrees. 27 By
publishing the procedures using the lower 2.75-degree glide slope, planes are lower and at higher
risk of hitting a crane or obstacle. Therefore, aircraft landing on Runway 34R are lower and
louder, burn more fuel, expel more pollution, and are less safe than if they were flying on the
authorized three-degree glide path.
Raising the glide slope beyond three degrees would further reduce the noise impact.
Frankfurt Airport has tested to 4.5 degrees2 11 solely for noise mitigation prior to settling on 3.2
26 Id. at Slides 7, 9, and 16.
27 See FAA Order JO 7110.308C "Simultaneous Dependent Approaches to Closely Spaced Parallel Runways"
(January 26, 2018) at Page Al (Appendix A, Note 3)
15
61
degrees?' Sea-Tac should investigate raising all glide slopes above three degrees. San Diego's
approaches to Runway 27 are at 3.5 degrees. While this glide slope was set for obstacle reasons,
it shows that it is possible routinely to have a steeper glide slope.
ii. Flight Tracks
The Port claims that "[p]rocedures are designed to minimize noise impact."30 But the
flight tracks show exactly the opposite with respect to Federal Way and other impacted
communities south of the airport. The tracks headed to and from the northwest go out of their
way over the residential areas, when flying over the Puget Sound would be more efficient with a
greatly reduced noise impact.31
Using well-designed Required Navigation Performance (RNP),32 approach flight paths
could take advantage of the unpopulated areas (Puget Sound) to reduce track miles, fuel burned,
emissions, and time spent for airline carriers flying from Asia and Alaska. FAA criteria state that
the final tum should be completed by 1000-feet above the threshold. On a standard three-degree
glide path, that is 3.1 nautical miles (nm) from the threshold. However, exceptions to these
criteria are granted. For example, at Reagan National Airport, the RNP path completes its final
tum at 0 .6 nm from the airport. At Sea-Tac, the ideaJ rollout for the fewest number of homes to
be impacted is 2.2 run, which is/our times farther than the Reagan National RNP to runway 19.
RNP a pproaches from the south and from the east could fo ll ow 1-5 "•trn igh t toward the
airport over the Sout h 272nd Street Park and Ride and th en tbe uni nhabited fo rmer dump north of
it. I-5 is ten lanes of concrete with shoulders, a median, and ditches on both sides and has
significant ambient noise.
But even using standard criteria, a 3 . I nm Final Roll Out Point (FROP) would allow an
approach to Runway 34L that avoids flying over all residents of Federal Way by flights coming
from Alaska and Asia. (A 3 .1 run FROP is depicted in the two images below, the second being a
zoomed-in view of the first.) Today, most approaches flying over Federal Way have a FROP of
more than six run.
28 "Tests at Frankfurt airport of steeper approach path at 4 .5 degrees --tletails awaited" (October 11 , 2013);
h :/Jwww~n,r r1wu11:h .q_r .uk/2tLI_ / I lJ/Lcfil_s_-.ru:Jj·w ,,kf 1r -111 rt -0£st~tpc;r-11wro.fill1.1:.P.uth-ut-4-5-dc rccs -dct· 1 ~
awaited/
29 "Frankfurt Airport pioneers active noise abatement" ( www . in tc 31 · , ula i ortr<::vicw.i:0111 Volume 19 , Issue 4,
2015); hi tp s:/ 6;f~f2illi .t:u/t ra11spurr/sllv;;/tr111 1spv r1/fi lt:s/modes/air/se-s/ses-
1! WHrdlprojec t;;/du1:/iu1 crn1111u11 11 la 1rpur1rcvi t:w zo 15 (L4 frw ikfoa g,u n:q~.f
30 "Noise Programs & NextGen Briefing" at Slide 10
31 Id. at Slide 12
32 RNP is a satellite-based navigation system with additional monitoring to confirm that the aircraft stays in a
defined space . See "Satellite Navigation -NAS Implementati on" at the FAA website (Updated De cember 23, 2016);
hJlL>-~:J/ww, fou .govlabv!J. l)fOft:_vJ g/hc t J_ll.\!!IJ , .,'i.J Die ·s l ;n /scrv11:c_11.11 i1 _s1\~!,W9P.· 11_t!vscrvii:i;.,_.!~' :;s nu: proccJ!.ur
es/mav mp/
16
62
17
63
Aircraft departing for Alaska and Asia should also be taking advantage of the
Wlpopulated areas instead of flying over the most populated. Below are some screen shots
showing fltght tracks of a departing Delta Airlines 767 and an Alaska Airlines 73 7. These paths
are the rare exception, showing what is possible when pilots request it and/or Air Traffic Control
(ATC) vectors them. Shorter routes save time and fuel. If the depicted flights had been vectored
directly down the channel, Vashon Island could even have been avoided.
18
64
••ooo Verizon -:-6:37 PM ' -1 91%
AD SBexchange.com, V RS 2.4.0
Displaying 7 of 7 tracks
OpenADSB
King County
Va s hon
0 \
lnternaYi nal __ _
Airpor "9FI) ~ + Rent on
neno ~
C
Seattle-Tacoma
lnternaHonal
Airport (SEA)
C
t<en·
V ~
Aub
0 I Way
0
Altitude
45.000
~ DAL144, N394DL ~DEL TA
-Altitude, Ground
I
fyµe Oper atu, i
8763 • 8125 ft
Vl=HIIC~I SpP.P.c1
+2880 fpm
Delta Air Lines r
t From --, To I KCVG-+ EGLL I
r1 anspond cr, MLA r Squ<.1wk 1,
360° ADS-8 v2 1634
19
65
....
ADSBexchange.com, VRS 2.4.0
Displ_aying 7 of 7 tracks
Airport (B A~enADSB
Burien to
Vashon
0
0
e
Seattle-Tacoma
International
Airport ~SEA) ..
0
K
ral Way
0 0
)t ASA780,N493AS
Altitude
45 :ooa • i
'74/osio ·
'
Instead of the above-depicted flight paths, which completely avoided all of Federal Way,
the Sea-Tac Airport Noise Mitigation plan for south flow departures does the opposite. As
20
66
depicted below ,33 the plan restricts departing aircraft from turning until they have reached five
nautical miles. This restriction prevents them from turning out over the water as the aircraft
above did and pushes them to fly over Federal Way.
South Flow
tement Proced
\
"[S]ubject to the constraints that the strategies are appropriate to the specific airport,"
federal regulations ("Part 150") require an aircraft operator "[a]t a minimum" to "analyze and
33 "Sea-Tac Airport Noise Abatement Procedures for Jet Aircraft" at Port of Seattle website;
ht1 11s :i:'.6',,ww .pnrL,~cl'lJ!lc .urgwru •c l. sci -t.11.c:J!!.n nrH10 ·sc;:@!!.lf!!IY. 1 ·Qro ·cdu c s-1:h.11 rg:ati
21
67
report on ... [t]he implementation of a preferential runway system" and "[t]he use of flight
procedures (including the modifications of flight tracks) to control the operation of aircraft to
reduee eXfosure of individuals (or specific noise sensitive areas) to noise in the area around the
airport."3 The FAA itself states that
(t]he federal government has the authority and responsibility to control aircraft
noise by the regulation of source emissions, by flight operational procedures, and
by management of the air traffic control system and navigable airspace in ways
that minimize noise impact on residential areas, consistent with the highest
standards of safety and efficiency. 35
But as can be seen by the green lines above, the FAA specifically prohibits aircraft from flying
over the water south of the airport. By contrast, they are forced to fly over the water north of the
, 36 airport.
iii. Flight Schedules
Flight schedules offer another means of abatement. The 1997 state-funded study on the
third runway concluded that "[t]he Port of Seattle should provide evidence of the continuing
effort to minimize flights between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM."37 Reducing flights during those
times would minimize unhealthy sleep interruptions to Federal Way residents. In contrast to the
1997 rep1J rt's recommendations, the Port of Seattle has chosen to market Sea-Tac s '24-hour
operati on with no curfews Jij as a to p selling p int for the typically very large and noisy afr cargo
operations.
14 14 CFR Part 150 Appendix B (§ B150.7(b)(3), (4))
35 "Chapter 13. Airport Noise and Access Restrictions" (FAA 11-purt Co m Jliam:c M_;!!!.uul Order 5190.6B) at
Paragraph 13.2(b)(l));
llliQ.~://~~'0.V. faa.gp v/1!_i,ffi(1f'.!~rci;_1iurccs ~ ublicu1i o1 s/Otl!.\:l':Jcom ,Li.J.!J£c 5 J.2 (_U!l !!)~2 l2.!L<ili cha v.JJ.fillJ
36 Despite the referenced federal regulations and FAA order, it is likely that the FAA and Port will assert that none
of these referenced rules apply to Federal Way, since we are outside of the official "noise contour'' detennined by 65
Day-Night Average Sowid Level (DNL), which is discussed below. The same regulations cited in this paragraph
also state that the "noise compatibility program" is to be developed, and "alternative noise control actions" are to be
evaluated "[b]ased upon the airport noise exposure and noncompatible land uses identified in the [noise] map." 14
CFR Part 150 Appendix B (§ 8150.5). The noise maps must be developed with "[c]ontinuous [DNLJ con~urs for
YDNL [Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level] levels of 65, 70, and 75," though "additional contours may be
developed and depicted when appropriate." CFR Part 150 Appendix A(§ Al50.101(a)). "In those areas where
YDNL values are 65 YDNL or greater, the airport operator shall identify land uses and determine land use
compatibility," but "all land uses are considered to be compatible with noise levels less than L{dn] [DNL] 65 dB.
Local needs or values m11.y dictate further delineation based on local requirements or determinations." CFR Part 150
Appendix A(§ Al50.10l(a), (d)).
J? "Sea-Tac International Airport Impact Mitigation Study Initial Assessment and Recommendations" at Page 7-16
JS "Air Cargo at the Port of Seattle" (Marketini: Piece provided by Port staff on July 9, 2017)
2.2
68
h. Federal W ny Residents Di sproportionately Harmed
Needless to say, the benefits of SeaTac International Airport as an engine of economic
development to the Puget Sound region, including Federal Way, are significant. In January 2018,
the Port released a n :po rt prepared by Co mm unity Attributes, Inc. (CAI) on the economic impact
of Sea-Tac Intematim1a l A irport . 39 This re po rt showed 15 1,400 jobs generated by Sea-Tac
Airport, as follows:
• 19, I 00 were directly generated by activity at the airport.
• 68,200 were directly generated by local purchases by visitors arriving via the airport.
• 16,100 were induced by local and regional purchases by the aforementioned 19,100
directly generated job holders.
• 25,300 were induced by local and regional purchases by the aforementioned 68,200
directly generated job holders
• 8,800 were indirectly generated by local purchases by finns dependent on activity at the
airport.
• 13,900 wt,rc indirect ly generated by local purchases by firms dependent on visitors
, · · tJ · 40 a mv111g via 11.: ai rpo rt.
The CAI report also showed the airport generating $22,478,000,000 in business revenue
and $7,099,600,000 in individual compensation, as follows:
• $5,574,800,000 in business revenue and $1,403,000,000 in individual compensation
directly generated by activity at the airport
• $5,906,500,000 in business revenue and $2,247,800,000 in individual compensation
directly generated by airport visitors
• $2,544,600,000 in business revenue and $854,300,000 in individual compensation
induced by local and regional purchases by holders of jobs directly generated by activity
at the airport
• $4,000,300,000 in business revenue and $1,343,000,000 in individual compensation
induced by local arid regional purchases by holders of jobs directly generated by local
purchases by visitors arriving via the airport.
• $2,001 ,100,000 in business revenue and $503,000,000 in individual compensation
indirectly generated by purchases by finns dependent on activity at the airport
• $2,450,700,000 in business revenue and $748,500,000 in individual compensation
indirect!( generated by purchases by finns dependent on visitors arriving via the
airport.4
39 S.:a.· r c lntllrnu t io m,I Ai _ on b:onymic lmJ2..u~l:1 (Produced for Port of Seattle by CAI Community Attributes, Inc.
(CAI)) January 2018.
40 Id. at page 24 (Exhibit 22)
23
69
The CAI report went on to break down th e data by city,42 showing l 500 out of 19,100
airport employees living in Fe deral Way, or 7.85 percent.4 3 Using a figure of 49,640 Federal
Way residents aged 16 or higher in the labor force, the 1500 airport employees represent 3.0
percent of Pederal Way's labor force .44 For comparison, the presentation shows airport
employees making up 0.4 percent of Seattle's labor force, 2.2 percent of Kent's labor force, 7.1
percent of Seatac's labor force, 9.6 percent ofTukwila's labor force, 0.9 percent of Tacoma's
labor force, 4.4 percent of Des Moines' labor force, 1.0 per cent of Renton's tabor force, 2.1
percent of Burien's labor force, 1.4 percent of Auburn's labor force, 0.9 percent of Lakewood's
labor force, 0.3 percent ofBellevue's labor force, 0.8 percent of Puyallup's labor force, 2 .8
percent of Fife's labor force, 2.7 percent ofNonnandy Park's labor force, and 0.3 percent of
Shoreline's labor force. 45
Finally, the CAI report breaks down the economic activity driven by Sea-Tac
International Airport in 2017 for the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park,
Seatac, and Tukwila, as follows:~6
City Estimated
Number of
Airport
Employees
Burien 540
Des 740
Moines
Federal 1,500
Way
Normandy 100
Park
Seatac 1,050
Tukwila 1,030
42 Id. at pages 27-34.
43 Id. at page 27 (Exhibit 26).
44 Id. at page 28 (Exhibit 27)
45 Id.
46 Id,, at Pages 29-34
Total Jobs
Generated
2,100
2,300
5,900
300
24,100
5,200
-
Total Total Total State Estimated
Compensation Economic and Local Percentage
Activity Taxes of City's
Generated Gross
Domestic
Product
(GDP)
$106,000,000 $138,000,000 $4,000,000 6%
{$50,476/job)
$119,000,000 $115,000,000 $3,000,000 12%
($51,739/job)
$297,000,000 $402,000,000 $10,000,000 69/o
($50.339/job)
$16,000,000 $16,000,000 $400,000 12%
($53,333/job)
$2,000,000,000 $6,000,000,000 $71,000,000 34%
($82,988/job)
$274,000,000 $742,000,000 $13,000,000 3%
($52,692/job)
24
70
In an effort to further explore the relative benefits versus harms from Sea-Tac
International Airport to residents of Federal Way, the City of Federal Way Mayor's Office, upon
recommendation of the Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force, made a public records
request on October 11, 2017 to the Port of Seattle asking for the "[ n]umber of Sea-Tac Airport
passengers broken down by country, state, city and zip or postal code--i.e. how many Sea-Tac
Airport passengers live in each country, state, city and zip or postal code." The Port responded
that it did not possess these records and data and referred us to a link showing overall statistics
on number of passengers, number of operations, total air cargo, etc., but nothing broken down by
zip code. The Mayor's Office rephrased its public records request on October 18, 2017 to request
the"[ n ]umber of passengers departing from Sea-Tac Airport ( either as point of origin or as a
layover site) by country, state, city, and zip or postal code of residence." The Port again
responded that it did not possess these records and data and again referred us to the same link.
While the numbers we do have ( all supplied by the Port of Seattle, it must be noted) do
suggest that Federal Way does enjoy certain benefit<! from Sea-Tac International Airport, the
banns suffered by Federal Way residents due to airport activity are harder to measure. In fact,
shortage of this sort of data is one reason why the Task Force is recommending that the City of
Federal Way participate in funding the upcoming State of Washington Department of Commerce
study of current and ongoing impacts associated with Sea-Tac Airport aircraft operations on
surrounding airport communities, including Federal Way.
As described above, it was over twenty (20) years ago that a study on the impacts of Sea-
Tac International Airport to local communities was last completed, in the context of the building
of the third runway. That study, prepared under a grant from the State of Washington for the
cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Nonnandy Parle, Seatac, and Tukwila, as well as
Highline School District and Highline Community Hospital, concluded that Federal Way would
require mitigation due to LDN [i.e. DNL] contours and overflight<! in the amount of
$1 48 000,000 ($232,000,0 00 in 2018 d ol'lars 47
) for sound a batement insulation and avigation
easem ents. ~8 It was al so estimated that the City of Feder al Way would suffer a loss of single
family residential property tax revenue from the years 2000 through 2020 in the amount of
$11,611,022 as a result of construction and operation of the third runway, with the total such loss
to the five cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Nonnandy Park, and Tukwila estimated at
$39,900.224.49 Commenting on this loss, the study's authors observed as follows:
There is an inequity regarding the benefit of the Airport to its immediate
neighbors. While the study acknowledges the benefit of the Airport to the region
and the State, these benefits are not experienced locally in the 5 impacted
communities [of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park, and
Tukwila]. Approximately 5% of the persons utilizing the Airport live in the area
most impacted. The remaining 95% of Airport passengers and employees come
from elsewhere in the region .
47 Converted time dollars from www .in20l3dollars.com/1997 -do ll ars-in-2 0 l 8?amount=o l 48.00000Q.
'Ill Sen-I a1: l11Cc rna uonnl A1rpor 1 lm pac1 Miligauon Study at Page ES-4.
49 Id. at Page 9-12 (Table 9.08)
25
71
Socio-economic impacts tend to blur across neighborhood lines and impact entire
communities. In general, communities closer to the Airport are expected to
experience a relative "depression" of residential property values (property values
do not rise as fast relative to other similar properties in the region). This will have
a cascading affect on the population mix in these areas. Single-family homes that
cannot be sold will become rental properties. Studies have reported that non
owner-occupied residential areas have a lower average household income and
utilize more social services than other areas. While the property value and tax
revenues are depressed in these areas, the cost of providing social services
increases.
Overall, the 5 communities were projected to experience a loss of$39.9 million
during the period 2000 through 2020 as a result of the proposed project. The loss
of these revenues is compounded with the problem of increasing demand for
community and social services.
The discrepancy between these two trends contributes to the "blighting" of the
area. This ''blighting" impact has already been observed. Homes take longer to
sell in the neighborhoods adjacent to the Airport, and the local real estate market
already acknowledges the impact of aviation activity on neighborhoods. so
The upcoming Department of Commerce study is likely to show similar results,
suggesting that while Federal Way does benefit from Sea-Tac, that benefit is substantially
negated by the hannful impacts of aircraft operations from the airport. Most users of Sea-Tac
enjoy its benefits while sharing few of its costs. But those living under flight paths are burdened
with a decreased quality oflife, sleep deprivation, increased exposure to health risks from
emissions, and decreased property values. Furthermore, Federal Way residents are excluded
from Sea-Tac's Part 150 noise mitigation zone, within which residents of Burien and other
neighborhoods to the north have received $400 million51 in noise insulation and other mitigation
benefits funded by the Port and FAA.
Also, there are more south flow departures and north flow approaches bringing an
inordinate amount of traffic over Federal Way. And the flight paths south of the airport were
designed without regard to the number of people below them, causing flights to take a less
efficient path that also impacts many more people than a modem short path. The approaches in
the north flow (those going over Federal Way) to the longest runway are also on a lower and less
safe glide path. The largest and heaviest aircraft typically favor the longest runway and therefore
end up being lower over Federal Way. On the other hand, no approaches in south flow (those
that do not go over Federal Way) are below the standard three-degree glide path.
50 Id. at Page ES-6.
51 "Noise Programs & NextGen Briefing" at Slide 8 ("$400 million spent since 1985 on mitigation")
26
72
i. D L 'deanin g and A ppropriate ness
i. DNL t\foaniu g
Sound is made up of vibrations in air at different frequencies. Since the human ear does
not hear all frequencies , A-weighted decibels (dBA) are commonly used to measure relative
loudness. A-weighted decibels reduce-the values oflow frequencies so as to be a more accurate
measurement of what is perceived.
"For aviation noise analyses, the FAA has determined that the cumulative noise energy
exposure of individuals to noise resulting from aviation activities must be established in terms of
Yearly Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL), the FAA's primary noise metric."52 "The DNL
has also been identified by the U.S. Envi rorun ental Protection Agency (USEPA) as the principal
metric for airport noise analysis." 53
Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is a 24-hour equivalent sound level.
DNL is expressed as an average noise level on the basis of annual aircraft
operations for a calendar year. To calculate the DNL at a specific location, Sound
Exposure Levels (SELs) (the total sound energy of a single sound event) for that
particular location are determined for each aircraft operation (landing or takeoff).
The SEL for each operation is then adjusted to reflect the duration of the
operation to arrive at a "partial" DNL for the operation. The partial DNLs are then
added logaritlunically-with the appropriate penalty for those operations
occurring during the ni ghttime hours -to determine total noise exposure levels
for the average day of the year . 54
ii. DNL Appropriateness
DNL as an annoyance level is fundamentally flawed. Humans do not perceive a single,-
short, loud sound event as an average over a much longer period of time. The Yale University
Office of Envi romnental Health and Safety places the decibel level of a vacuum cleaner at 75
dBA.55 At tha t amo unt of sound pressure, the vacuum co ul.d n m for twenty minutes of every
hour and not fall within the 65 DNL established by the FAA as the point when people become
annoyed by noise.
52 "Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use" (Enviro nm e ntal lm µacts : Po li cies an <l Prnce du re~--F AA Order I 050.1 F)
at Appendix B, Section B-1. bttps://www.foa.gov /docume ntLibrary/mcdio/O rdcr/F AA Order 1050 l f .pdf
53 "Aircraft Noise & Noise Monitoring" (Published by Federal Aviation Administration) at Question 4;
hu s: f ww\ . · i g.vv/ai · nm· II l fot/Mc.!,lia/Nois • M milor' ·
54 Id.
55 "Decibel Level Comparison Chart'' (Yale Office ofEnvirorunental Health and Safety);
uuu ·1/i.J: \Y nl ·.~du/si t.1t~t;Jau l!l lll~~~ ·c ibc:1 -·vc:1 ·hurtllill '
27
73
Large aircraft on departure register 83+ dBA over Sacajawea Middle School's noise
monitor. including in the middle of the ni~t.56 The DNL calculation adds ten deci bels for
events between 10 :00 PM and 7:00 AM.5 This ten-decibel adjustment has been added because
of the increased sensitivity to noise during normal nighttime hours and because ambient (without
aircraft) sound levels during nighttime are typically about ten decibels lower than during daytime
hours.
The following graphic illustrates how many aircraft it takes to hit the 65 DNL at different
volumes and levels oftraffic:58
IDENTICAL DNL/CNEL LEVELS
1 Event/Day SEL 114 4 dBA = DNL/CNEL 65
10 Ev~nts •Oa, SEL 104 4 dBA -ONLJCNEL 65
100 E~ents•Oay SEL 94 4 dBA = ONL1CNEL 65
56 A China Airlines flight on September 30, 2017 registered 83 decibels at Sacajawea at 2 :24:42 AM as shown on
the Port of Seattle's noise website.
57 "Chapter 4: Impact Categories, Significance, and Mitigation" (En\'.1ro m111.:nt11l Im nc ·: Poli cies an d Proced ures--
FAA Order 1050.IF) at Page 4-8 (footnote 7);
~J.lps:i/, ww .fim . •ow oc u11 1c11.!!,ib .try/nu.-<li· 'Onl-rt FAA _Ordc r_lj)50_1 t ,QdJ
58 "Aircraft Noise l O 1 LAX Community Noise Roundtable " (Power Point presented by Environmental Science
Associates (ESA) on May 9 , 2012) at Slide 31 ; hUQs:/lwww lawa .org,· .. ;mcdrn/l;iwa -web /en vironn11:mt/lax.-
28
74
Can the 65 DNL number be changed? According to the FAA:
When communities are considered as a whole, ... reliable relationships are found
between reported annoyance and noise exposure. This relationship between
community annoyance and noise exposure levels " ... remains the best available
source of predicting the social impact of noise on communities around airports ..
. ". As the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) noted in its 1992
report, "the best available measure of [ community annoyance] is the percentage of
the area population characterized a 'highly annoyed ' (%HA ) by long-term
exposure to noise of a specified level ( expressed in terms of DN L ). "5')
But the FAA's conclusion on the reliability of the DNL metric is belied by our own
experience in Federal Way. On November 19, 2015, the City of Federal Way held a "SeaTac
Noise -Federal Way Community Open House" and got a standing-room-only crowd. Since all
of Federal Way is outside of the 65 ONL contour, the FAA's claim that that metric is the best
gauge for when the average population will be annoyed by noise is clearly flawed.
Due to lawsuits, some airports do mitigate below the 65 DNL. One example is
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). "In 2007 , the MAC [Metropolitan Airports
Commission, which operates MSP] voted to approve a proposed settlement in a noise mitigation
lawsuit brought by the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan. Under the new noise
mi t igati on program, the MAC would provide mitigation to homes in the 60 to 64 DNL
contours." 60
Meanwhile, the FAA has claimed to be reviewing the DNL metric61 , but to date no
change has developed. Congressman Adam Smith has introduced federal legislation to expand
the areas eligible for fede ra l mitigaliol} so as to include communities within "l mile from any
point at which a comme rcia l or ca rgo jet route is 3 ,000 feet or less above ground level."62 At
Mayor Ferrell's urging, Congressman Smith also sent a letter on June 19, 2018 to the Acting
Administrator of the FAA asking for an update on the FAA's evaluation of the 65 DNL metric
and alternative metrics. Also, the FAA Reauthorization Bill passed by the House of
i:mnmLlni1 y-noisc .
i::.iu ublc/ u ·si: ffillil..~J111.:n1 prcscnlatitms/noisu man!ll,l.CJnunt pn.:sc.nt tion/noisert 12050 nirc ft -oise:
! 01. !!s4.7.1.~=~p~IJ!i11lt:= ~ AD CD8 l 4 Al 22 7E572BFF 19 l 62D8 009693 CF 6CE3B (Used with Permission)
59 "Chapter 13 . Airport Noise and Access Restrictions" at Paragraph l3 .16 (emphasis in original)
60 "Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport -N oise Compatibility Program";
hll >s :/0:!'..1vV{.b0e n . · 1 , cso.vrcci:!/boci ·d~Q!lll~Q!l.l)llC(v1al!!!pi~.:, 1.n_1_1_111e ~hs .hunl
61 "Press Release --FAA to Re-Evaluate Method for Measuring Effects of Aircraft Noise" (Released by Federal
Aviation Admini stration on May 7, 2015); l ::''www · uvl n •ws/ rcss n; cuscs1nc..Y!'.,~ ~tory .cl in '1n..:wsld IK 74
6
l Aviation Impacted Communities Act (Sec. Seven, Paragraph (2)).
29
75
Representatives on April 27, 2018 requires the FAA to complete the evaluation within one
year.63
iii. DNL fails to consider noise as a health is!lue. in addition to aoooyance.64
For years, scientists have warned that ever-increasing environmental noise has a negative
impact on people's health. These effects can be physical, psychological, and even intellectual.
For example, one almost forty-year-old study found that after the installation of rubber cushions
and noise-absorbing ceilings in classrooms, children's reading scores increased. 65 And more
recent research found a correlation between exposure to airplane noise and heart attacks, chest
pain, hypertension, and strokes amongst those living near and around airports . 66 A study
published just last year linked loud noises to hearing loss.67 This author asked:
... [W]ill the outcry from citizens concerned about the deleterious effects of
noise on h_ealth convince governments to pass policies to address noise pollution?
Will public officials recognize that sound data already exist to justify passing and
enforcing such policies? I will urge public officials to heed fonner Surgeon
General William H. Stewart's quote: "Must we wait until we prove every link in
the chain of causation? I stand firmly with Surgeon General Burney's statement of
10 years ago. In protecting health absolute proof comes late. To wait for it is to
invite disaster or to prolong suffering unnecessarily."68
Also in 1992 and also right here in Puget Sound, the Health Subcommittee of the
Environmental Impact Committee of the Regional Coalition on Airport Affairs produced a
lengthy document entitled ''The Adverse Health Impacts of Airport Expansion with Particular
Reference to Sea-Tac International Airport," stating that
[ d]isturbance of sleep is one of the most significant sources of distress caused by
airport noise. Airport noise causes difficulty in attaining deep sleep, shortened
REM sleep, and premature arousal from sleep. Both deep and REM sleep are
63 Presentation of Port of Seattle Federal & International Government Relations Senior Manager Eric Schinfeld at
June 27, 2018 meeting of Sea-Tac Airport Stakeholders Roundtable (StART) (held at Sea-Tac Conference Center)
64 The Task Force would like to acknowledge that this subsection is based almost exclusively on research and
writing done by Former Task Force Member Kristin Yodock, Ph.D. She has not endol"lied or approved this final
product.
65 "The effect of a noise abatement program on reading ability" by A. L. Bronzaft. Jo urnal of Environmental
Psychology, 1, 215-222. doi: l0.l0l6/S0272-4944(81)80040-0 (1981)
66 "Residential exposure to aircraft noise and hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases: Multi-airport
retrospective study'' by A. W. Correia, J. L. Peters, J. L. Levy, S. Melly, and F. Dominici. British Ml!dic11I Journal.
347, f5561. doi: 10.1136/bmj.5561 (2013)
67 "Impact of noise on health: The divide between policy and science" by A. L. Bronzaft. Ope n Journal of Social
Sciences. 5, 108-120. doi : l0.4236/jss .2017 .55008 (2017)
30
76
thought to be physiologically important. Sleep deprivation leads to impaired
reaction times, fatigue, lethargy, decreased efficiency, anxiety and desire to be left
alone .69
This subcommittee also stated that
[a]irport noise results in a significant increase in community use of tranquilizers
and sleeping pills. Airport communities have an increased rate of alcoholism, and
admis sions to psychiatric hospitals. Airport-related noise can literally drive people
mad.70
It goes on to allege that
[i]nfants born to mothers 'living under the flight path have lower birth weights and
higher likelihood of prematurity. There is some experimental evide nce to suggest
that serio us birth defects are more likely when the mother is exposed to high noise
levels during pregnancy. Airport communities are unsafe for pregnant women and
their c hil dren.71
"Experts have also claimed," the subcommittee states under "Immunology," "that loud and
disturbing noises trigger changes in circulating hormones and may lower resistance to disease
and in fecti on." 72
This document does not appear to have been peer-reviewed or published in any
professional journal. But the point is that the DNL metric, in addition to its othec flaws, fails to
take the possibility of health hazards from noise into account, instead treating noise as merely an
annoyance.
It should be noted that the FAA Reauthorization Bill passed by the House of
Representatives on April 27, 2018 adds Seattle to cities being analyzed in a study of the health
impacts of airport noise. 73
69 "The Adverse Health Impacts of Airport Expansion with Particular Reference to Sea-Tac Internatio nal Airport"
prepared by D. OeMis Hansen, M.D. and Lee A . Sanders, M.D ., Ph.D. for the Health Subconunittee of the
Environmental Impact Committee of the Regional Coalition on Airport Affairs (October 5, 1992);
70 Id .
11 Id .
oisdnw . >r Ir 1 ~c 1 ml
73 Presentation of Port of Seattle Federal & International Government Relations Senior Manager Eric Schinfeld at
June 27, 2018 meeting of Sea-Tac Airport Stakeholders Roundtable (StART) (held at Sea-Tac Conference Center)
31
77
j. ShouJd City of Federal Way Invest in Portable Noise Monitors?
Having our own portable noise monitor or monitors would allow the City of Federal Way
to confirm the real sound levels at different locations. Due to the valleys and hillsides created by
the greatly varying terrain, the proximity to water, and ambient noise, Federal Way residents
believe that the current Federal Way noise monitors (operated by the Port) may not accurately
measure the real sowid levels experienced at their locations. For instance, the noise monitor at
Sacajawea Middle School has a direct line of sight to Dash Point Road/State Highway 509,
increasing the ambient noise significantly compared to most neighborhoods and therefore
skewing the results as to how much time a typical neighborhood is at a level of noise above the
ambient level. Also, hills and valleys likely impact the sound exposure significantly inside of the
same housing development.
Having a portable noise monitor would give better insight as to the real impacts within
neighborhoods. However, current FAA rules and regulations do not allow readings from noise
monitors to be used to detennine the noise contours. The regulations only allow the FAA' s
qualified tool that uses modeling. 74
k. Recommendations
1. The City of Federal Way should continue to engage with Rep. Adam Smith and strongly
support his Aviation Impacted Communities Act. This legislation would not only expand
the definition of an aviation-impacted conununity (where federal mitigation funds may be
spent)75, but would also require the FAA to:
a. work with community boards designated by such communities and attend their
board meetings76;
b. "devise an action plan that alleviates or addresses the concerns brought up in ...
[a] community report" drafted by a community board that "detail[s] the
community's concerns and issues related to disparate impacts"77 ;
c. collaborate with community boards on scoping and methodology of any
community study requested by a community board 78 ;
74 "Aircraft Noise 101" (May 22, 2018 Power Point Presentation by Steve Alverson of Environmental Science
Associates (ESA) Sponsored by Port of Seattle for Members of High line F onun and Sea-Tac Airport Stakeholders
Roundtable (StART)) at Slide 31
75 Aviation Impacted Communities Act (Sec. Five and Sec. Seven (Paragraph 2))
76 Id. at Sec. Three (Paragraph d)
77 Id. at Sec. Four (Paragraph a) and Sec. Three (Paragraph e)
78 Jg. at Sec. Three (Paragraph g)
32
78
d. "devise an action plan that alleviates or addresses the concerns brought up in the .
. . community study"79 ;
e. ''where effective, consider the implementation of changes to operations and flight
paths if the community report or community study indicates that such changes
would decrease the impacts on the designated community"80 ;
f. "explain the rationale" for any determination that "changes to operations and
flight paths that a community report or community study indicated would
decrease the effects on the designated community would not be effective"81 ;
g. "[ u Jpon request of a designated community, and in addition to the annualized
average measurement ... provide additional noise measurement instrumentation
to measure airplane noise"82 ;
2. The City of Federal Way should also strongly support the efforts of Congressman Smith
and others to ensure that the FAA quickly completes its evaluation of the DNL and
alternative metrics.
3. The City of Federal Way should engage with newly-authorized FAA community
engagement staff, as soon as they are hired, and should insist that alternatives to DNL be
examined. If these efforts are fruitless, the City of Federal Way should support legislation
to change the standard.
4. The City of Federal Way should also lobby the FAA, Port of Seattle, and, if necessary,
Congress, to change all glide slopes to at least three degrees ( or higher) and flight paths
so as not to go over populated areas.
5. The City of Federal Way should make the case with the FAA and Port of Seattle that the
third runway should only be used for its original purpose, which was inclement weather.
6. The City of Federal Way should purchase a portable noise monitor so as to give data and
metrics for objective impacts to lives.
79 14:. at Sec. Four (Paragraph a)
80 Id at Sec. Four (Paragraph b(2))
81 Jg. at Sec. Four (Paragraph c)
82 Isl. at Sec. Five (Paragraph d)
33
79
IV. THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE: CASE STUDY ON EFFORTS TOWARD
CURFEW FOR CARGO FLIGHTS
a. Car20 Flights
It is well-known that cargo flights, as well as passenger flights have been dramatically
increasing in recent years at Sea-Tac rntemational Airport. On January 26, 2017, the Port of
Seattle advertised the airport's having ··vaultL ed j" from 13th busiest in the United States to 9th
busiesl.83 As far as air cargo. the Port note<l that:
[t]otal air cargo went up for the fifth straight year in 2016, increasing 10.2 percent to
more than 366,000 metric tons. Four new air freight carriers in 2016 -OHL, AeroLogic,
PrimeAir, and AirBridgeCargo -helped boost the total. Domestic air freight shot up 20
percent to 194,754 metric tons in 2016. Sea-Tac was the first U.S. airport in 2016 to
welcome the Amazon-branded Prime Air 767 cargo aircraft into service.84
Even these figures from 1 Yi years ago are already out of date. In recent communications, the
Port now says that it handled 425,800 metric tons of air cargo in 201785 , an increase of16.34
percent in one year! As ofJ une 27, 2018, cargo had risen another 5. l percent. 86
Some activists have proposed moving air cargo to Grant County International Airport
near Moses Lake. However, Port staff and commissioners have raised various objections to this
idea. For example, in a July 5, 2017 meeting with Mayor Ferrell and his staff, Former Port
Commissioner John Creighton indicated that there is no cold storage facility in Moses Lake, and
to build one would be very eicpensive when the crops that need this (cherries) are only shipped
three months out of the year.
While data provide by the Port shows the vast majority of flights between 10:00 PM and
6:00 AM are passenger flights, 87 there are certain middle-of-the-night cargo flights that have led
to numerous complaints, for example:
83 "Record 20l6 passenger travel vaults Sea-Tac Airport to 9th busiest in U.S. -up from l3th" (January 26, 2017
Port of Seattle press release)
84 Id.
85 May I, 2018 from Port of Seattle listserv.
86 Presentation of Port of Seattle Airport Operations Director Mike Ehl at June 27, 20 l 8 meeting of Sea-Tac Airport
Stakeholders Roundtable (StART) (held at Sea-Tac Conference Center)
87 A September 6, 2017 email from Port of Seattle Senior Manager, Federal & International Government Relations
Eric Shinfeld provided data showing that of l 208 flights that took off or landed between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM
from July 24, 2017 through July 31, 2017, l l 09 were passenger flights, 7 5 were cargo, and 24 were general aviation.
34
80
• On March 8, 2017, a Task Force member reported that a China Airlines 747-4 woke him
up and kept him up at 2:08 AM. He said it was one of the loudest jet events he had heard
in months, probably due to the wind.
• On May 13, 2017 at 3:11 AM, the same Task Force member reported that the China
Airlines flight registered 83 decibels at the noise monitor at Sacajawea Middle School.
He also said that an earlier flight at 2:38 AM woke him up.
• An email received on February 14, 2018 by the City of Federal Way Mayor's Office from
a Des Moines resident says, "We have cargo Asian liners that rumble over our homes
shaking our windows rendering noise insulation useless, waking us up at 2 and 3 AM in
the morning."
• In a February 27, 2018 meeting with Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Executive
Director Josh Brown, City of Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell went over the issue of
heavy freight flights in the middle of the night (2:00 AM to 3:00 AM) and his resulting
concern with the expected tripling of cargo in the coming years as well as the expected
40 percent increase in passengers. Mr. Brown responded that these issues had arisen in
meeting with other cities' leaders. He had heard from others that there is no lull in air
traffic, which instead is constant and linear (not spread out). He also said that the 747 jet
flight to China at 2:00 AM was mentioned in all meetings. He said that the State is
conducting a study of air cargo and that this study, all master plans, the Federal Way
Mayor's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force report, the University of Washington study
funded by the State Legislature in 20 l 7, and the Department of Commerce 2019 aircraft
impacts study will all be incorporated into the FAA-funded PSRC Regional Aviation
Baseline Study being launched in mid-2018 and expected to be completed by the end of
2019.
• At the May 23, 2018 meeting of the Highline Forum, Seatac City Manager Joe Scorcio
noted that in the last two years, there have been more freight departures in the late
evening and early morning and that this is what causes most complaints. In particular,
Scorcio noted one well-known flight at 3 :30 AM every morning to China that is heavy
and has a slow takeoff. It was acknowledged that these are heavier planes and climb more
slowly.
Port staff has indicated that the airport director has asked the airline if it can voluntarily
look at an alternative to the middle-of-the-night flight to China that disturbs so many people. Port
commissioners have also publicly spoken about trying to get resolution on this issue.
It is nevertheless of further concern that the Port has plans to triple air cargo.88 And the
Port markets its great availability for cargo, including "24-hour operation with no curfews. "89
88 "Port of Seattle 2018-2022 Long Range Plan'' Objective 3 (slides 9 and 12). At a May 30, 2018 meeting on the
Sustainable Allport Master Plan (SAMP) held at Burien Community Center, Port officials said that this tripling of
cargo is a 20-year goal/target of the Port's "Century Agenda", not a forecast. It is, the officials said, an "aspirational
goal" set by the Port commissioneni.
35
81
b. Legal Analvsis
So the question, first of all, is whether a "curfew" on cargo (and/or other) :flights is
feasible and whether it would require a change to federal law.
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court considered a curfew adopted by the City of
Burbank, California that prohibited jet ailfolanes from taking off from the Hollywood-Burbank
Airport between 11 :00 PM and 7:00 AM. 0 The Court held the curfew unconstitutional because
"FAA, now in conjunction with EPA, has full control over aircraft noise, preempting state and
local control."91 "It is the pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft noise,"
the Court reasoned, "that leads WI to conclude that there is pre-emption. ' 92 Though ·'[ c ]ontrol of
noise is of course deep-seated in the police power of the States," the Court went on, "the
pervasive control vested in EPA and in FAA under the 1972 [Noise Control] Act seems to us to
leave no room for local curfews or other local controls." 93
However, the Supreme Court left open an important consideration, as follows:
[W]e are concerned here not with an ordinance imposed by the City of Burbank as
"proprietor" of the airport, but with the exercise of police power .... [M]any
airports are owned by one municipality yet physically located in another. For
example, the principal airport serving Cincinnati is located in Kentucky. Thus,
authority that a municipality may have as a landlord is not necessarily congruent
with its police power. We do not consider here what limits, if any, apply to a
municipality as a proprietor.94
The "proprietor's exemption" to preemption was expanded upon in 1976 when the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California refused to declare unconstitutional an
ordinance enacted by a city in its "capacity as proprietor of' an airport that "prohibit[ ed] all
aircrafts which exceed a noise level of75 dBA from landing or taking off ... between the hours
of 11 :00 p.m. and 7 :00 a.m. "95
89 Air Ca rgo U!.lhe Port o f Scutt I~ (Marketing Piece provided by Port staff on July 9, 2017)
90 Burbank v . Locklu:ed Air Tem,ina l. lni;., 411 US 624, 625-626 (197'.l)
91 Id. at 626, 633.
92 Id. at 633.
93 lg. at 638.
94 [d. at 635 (footnote 14).
95 Natiom:.il Aviat ion v . Ha yw ord, 418 F. Supp. 417,418 (N.D. Cal. 1976).
36
82
The District Court based its decision partially on another United State Supreme Court
case lirigg,s v. Al k:g)J1;:11J1_ l'OLITlfr, 369 US 84 ( 1962), which «held that an airport operator is
financially responsible to nearby property owners for property damage resulting from aircraft
noise from overflying commercial flights."96 Thus, to find preemption would "impose upon
airport proprietors the res ponsibility under Gri ggs for obtaining the requ isite no ise easements,
yet deny them the authority to control the level of noi se produced at their airports."97 However,
the leg i la ti ve his tory of the Noise Control Act of 1972 convinced the District Court that this was
not inten ded .98 Thus, the Di stric t court concluded that
while the Congressional purpose was undoubtedly clear enough to the Burbank
majority to rule that a municipality's police power regulations regarding aircraft
noise at an airport, which it was not the proprietor of, invaded an area exclusively
reserved for federal control, [ footnote omitted] this court cannot, in light of the
clear Congressional statement that the amendments to the Federal Aviation Act
[i.e. in the Noise Control Act of 1972] were not designed to and would not
"prevent airport proprietors from excluding any aircraft on the basis of noise
co ns id erat i ns." [footnote omi tt ed ] ma ke th e same fi nding with respect to
regula ti o ns adopted by muni cipa l airport pro prie tors.99
This "proprietor exception" has been utilized with limited success to uphold certain noise
restrictions adopted by airport proprietors. In 1981 , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which
includes the State of Washington) upheld several City of Santa Monica ordinances that were
passed "to reduce noise at the city-owned and operated airport," including ordinances that:
• "imposed a night curfew on takeoffs and landings";
• "prohibited certain low aircraft approaches on weekends"
• "prohibited helicopter flight training"; and
• 'established a maximum single event noise exposure level (SENEL) of 100 dB"
(decibels].100
"Because Congressional intent not to preempt all regulation by municipal-proprietors is clear,"
the Ninth Circuit concluded, "the district court correctly concluded that these ordinances were
not preempted."101 The Court specifically went on to "hold that the municipal proprietor
exception allows the City to choose the SENEL method involved here, despite
96 timml Aviat mn , 418 F . Supp. at 424.
gs Id.
99 Id. (q uoting Sen . Rep. No. 1353, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 7)
100 Suma M!!nica Airport Ass<,>. v. Su n111 Moui i.:11 , 659 F.2d 100, l02 (9th Cir. 1981).
10 1 Id. at 104 .
37
83
the SENEL's monitoring of noise created by planes as they are ascending or descending." 102
Eleven years later, relying on the Santa Monica case, the Ninth Circuit found that a City
of Long Beach, California ordinance limiting the number of daily flights at Long Beach
Municipal Airport (which the city owned) was not preempted by federal law. 103 However, the
Court neverth ~l1::s s upheld the lower court's permanent injunction against the ordin.mi;e lHl other
grounds ( viol ation of procedural due process due to no opportunity for notice and hearing). 104
Similarly, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected
a preemption argument against noise re ·tric tions adopt~d by the Por t Authority of New York and
New Jersey over John F. Kennedy Airp o rt, which the Po1i owned and 11pc::ra te<l.105 "Contrary to
Arrow's assertion," the Court noted,
nothing in City f Burbank v. Loc khi;ed ir Te rm inal. Inc , [ citation omitted],
casts any doubt on the authority of an airport proprietor to regulate aircraft noise.
In City of Burba nk, the Supreme Court held only that a municipality, using
its police powers, could not limit the time in which aircraft can takeoff and land.
[ citation omitted]"106 ·
Much of the law surrounding federal preemption of local noise restrictions by airport
proprietors, however, was upended by the passage in 1990 of the Airport Noise & Capacity Act
(ANCA), under which "an airport noise or access restriction on the operation of stage 3 aircraft
not in effect on October I, 1990, may become effective only if the restriction has been agreed to
by the airport proprietor and all aircraft operators or has bc1::n s ubmitted to and approved by the
S t·r · "107 '°8 Th . . . t' NC . all . . 1· ecretary o ransportahon. . . . 1s prov1s10n o A A 1s -encompassing as it app 1es
to:
102 Id.
103 Ah1sk:.!...6iili.n~ln£ ..... ~.,.LQ11~Bcl!!ili, 951 F.2d 977,980,982 (9th Cir. 1992).
104 fd. at 981, 986-987.
IDs A11·ow Air, Im,:. v. Port Aut hor itv o f N1.:w York & Nc:w Jersey, 602 F. Supp. 314, 316, 318-319 (S.D. N.Y. 1985).
IDS fd. at 318.
Lo 7 49 USC§ 47524(c)(l)
wa ANCA also prohibited large jets (more than 75,000 pounds) that did not comply with stage 3 noise levels after
December 31, 1999, 49 USC § 47528(a), and small jets (75,000 pounds or less) that did not comply with stage 3
noise levels after December 31, 2015, 49 USC§ 47534 (a). "[O]n July 2, 2013, the FAA published a Final Rule in
the Federal Register for the uop1io 11 ufSram iory P1xi hibi1 io111 0·11( thc Oocr atmn ot'Jc1s Wd&hiug 75.000 ,,ounds or
Lc::s rtuu Are I u l Staue J Noise Compliant'';
l1tm:d /1Y\YW i1·1 • , 1 l QI U/ J,. i ·c r !1 11r I ua rtc!'ll. o · 1 '<; • u >ll n 1~c c111i~s i11 ts/· t or ircrn l n< ise mm ·· level·
Thus, "Stage 1 and stage 2 are no longer permitted to operate in the United States." "Aircraft Noise 101" (May 22,
2018 Power Point Presentation by Steve Alverson of Environmental Science Associates (ESA) Sponsored by Port of
Seattle for Members ofHighline Forum and Sea-Tac Airport Stakeholders Roundtable (StART)) at Slide 65.
38
84
(A) a restriction on noise levels generated on either a single event or cumulative
basis;
(B) a restriction on the total number of stage 3 aircraft operations;
(C) a noise budget or noise allocation program that would include stage 3
aircraft;
(D) a restriction on hours of operations; and
(E) any other restriction on stage 3 aircraft. 109
Finally, to approve the proposed restriction, the Secretary of Transportation must find by
"substantial evidence" that:
(A) the restriction is reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory;
(B) the restriction does not create an unreasonable burden on interstate or foreign
commerce;
(C) the restriction is not inconsistent with maintaining the safe and efficient use
of the navigable airspace;
(D) the restriction does not conflict with a law or regulation of the United States;
(E) an adequate opportunity has been provided for public comment on the
restriction; and
(F) the restriction does not create an unreasonable burden on the national aviation
system.Ho
These new rules do not apply to restrictions in effect as of November 5, 1990.111 The Department
of Transportation has adopted detailed requirements for each of the above six statutory
conditions. For in s ta nce for j ust the first of these conditions (i.e., to prove that the restriction "is
reaso nable, nonarbi tr ary , and nood iscriminatory"112), the following evidence is required:
(1) Evidence that a current or projected noise or access problem exists, and that
the proposed action(s) could relieve the problem, including:
109 49 USC§ 47524(c)(l)
iw 49 USC§ 47524(c){2)
Ill 49 USC§ 47524(d)
112 49 USC§ 47524(c)(2)(A)
39
85
(i) A detailed description of the problem precipitating the proposed restriction
with relevant background infonnation on factors contributing to the proposal
and any court-ordered action or estimated liability concerns; a description of
any noise agreements or noise or access restrictions currently in effect at the
airport; and measures taken to achieve land-use compatibility, such as controls
or restrictions on land use in the vicinity of the airport and measures carried
out in response to 14 CFR part 150; and actions taken to comply with grant
assurances requiring that:
(A) Airport development projects be reasonably consistent with plans of
public agencies that are authorized to plan for the development of the area
around the airport; and
(B) The sponsor give fair consideration to the interests of communities in
or near where the project may be located; take appropriate action,
including the adoption of zoning laws, to the extent reasonable, to restrict
the use ofland near the airport to activities and purposes compatible with
normal airport operations; and not cause or permit any change in land use,
within its jurisdiction, that will reduce the compatibility (with respect to
the airport) of any noise compatibility program measures upon which
federal funds have been expended.
( ii) An analysis of the estimated noise impact of aircraft operations with and
without the proposed restriction for the year the restriction is expected to be
implemented, for a forecast timeframe after implementation, and for any other
years critical to understanding the noise impact of the proposed restriction.
The analysis of noise impact with and without the proposed restriction
including:
(A) Maps of the airport noise study area overlaid with noise contours as
specified in§§ 161.9 and 161.l l of this part;
(B) The number of people and the noncompatible land uses within the
airport noise study area with and without the proposed restriction for each
year the noise restriction is analyzed;
(C) Technical data supporting the noise impact analysis, including the
classes of aircraft, fleet mix, runway use percentage, and day ight breakout
of operations; and
(D) Data on current and projected airport activity that would exist in the
absence of the proposed restriction.
(2) Evidence that other available remedies are infeasible or would be less cost-
effective, including descriptions of any alternative aircraft restrictions that have
been considered and rejected, and the reasons for the rejection; and of any land
40
86
use or other nonaircraft controls or restrictions that have been considered and
rejected, including those proposed under 14 CFR part 150 and not implemented,
and the reasons for the rejection or failure to implement.
(3) Evidence that the noise or access standards are the same for all aviation user
classes or that the differences are justified, such as:
(i) A description of the relationship of the effect of the proposed restriction on
airport users (by aviation user class); and
(ii) The noise attributable to these users in the absence of the proposed
restriction.
(B) At the applicant's discretion, information may also be submitted as
follows:
(1) Evidence not submitted under paragraph ( e)(2)(ii)(A) of this
section (Condition 2) that there is a reasonable chance that
expected benefits will equal or exceed expected cost; for example,
comparative economic analyses of the .costs and benefits of the
proposed restriction and aircraft and nonaircraft alternative
measures. For detailed elements of analysis, see paragraph
(e)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.
(2) Evidence not submitted under paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) of this
section that the level of any noise-based fees that may be imposed
reflects the cost of mitigating noise impacts produced by the
aircraft, or that the fees are reasonably related to the intended level
of noise impact mitigation. 113
Post-ANCA, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered
certain restrictions (including curfews) adopted by New York City's Economic Development
Corporation on the use of a Manhattan heliport. t t4 The Court eitamioed the restrictions under
"the proprietor exception," which it noted, "allows municipalities to promulgate 'reasonable,
nonarbitrary and non-discriminatory' regulations of noise and other environ.mentaJ concerns at
the local level."115 Under this standard, the Court allowed some of the restrictions and disallowed
others.116 "[W]eekday and weekend curfews imposed should be upheld," the Court found, as
"[t]he protection of the local residential community from undesirable heliport noise during
115 14 CFR § 16l.305(e)(2)(i)
114 Nat'I ffolii:optcr Corp. uf Arn . v. Cj ty,Q[_New York, 137 F.3d 81 (2 00 Cir. 1998).
115 Id. at 88 (guoting Brit ish Airways B<J.-v. [>ort Aull h..fil.:.N.,'(_aml. N.J., 558 F.2d 75, 84 (2nd Cir. 1977))
116 {4, at 89-92.
41
87
sk1.;pi ng hours is primarily a matter oflocal concem and for tha t reason falls within the
propri e tor exc eption."l l7 Similarly, the Court upheld the e li min a tion of weekend operations since
that provision was "based on the City's d<:!~ire to protect area res ide nt from significant noise
intruslon during the weekend when most pe ople are trying to re.s t a 11 I relax at home."118 The
Court also upheld a requirement that heliport operations be reduced by 47 percent, even though
that percentage "was not backed by any study reflecting the appropriate scenario or
demonstrating that such specific percentage of noise reduction was the ideal" because "the
proprietor was entitled to eliminate a portion of the HelifOrt's operations upon reaching a
conclusion that a problem of excessive noise existed."11
However, the continued validity of at · 1 l·h :lit.:op tc r is questionable given a recently
decided case in which the same court (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)
held that, in order to claim the proprietor exception to federal preempti o n, public airport
operators must follow A N CA's proceduraJ requirements. 120 This is true, th e Court held,
regardless of whether the airport accepts federal funds or not. L21 Finding ANCA's "procedures
are mandatory and comprehensive," the Court "further conclude[d] that local laws not enacted in
compliance with them ... are federally preempted."L 22 Thus, the Court enjoined enforcement of
three local laws 123 that codified '(1) a mandatory curfew on an ·aircraft traffic, (2) an ·extended'
curfew for certain 'noisy' aircraft, and (3) a weekly one-round-trip limit on noisy aircraft ."124
Finally, the Court in Fri e nds o f th e E. Ham pton Airno rt. Im;. rejected that a different
result was mandated by _a t'l l·ldkopci:r, which "found certain of the challenged restrictions to
fall within the proprietor exception-despite the City's apparent failure to comply with ANCA
procedures," because "[t]irst, 'a sub silentio holding is not binding precedent"' and "(s]econd,"
because the court in ~at' I I-Lcli 1.:9.Qt!IT understood the plaintiff '"not [to] dispute the viability of
the proprietor exceptio n'" but ··to argue that the exception did not apply because the: ity's
challenged a1.:tio ns were taken umk r it~ police power rather than its proprietary auth ority ."125 "In
resolving that dispute favorably to the City," the Court in Friuu J s ,1f the E. Hamp to n A ir pllr t
continued,
117 Id. at 89.
118 Id. at 90.
120 _Er ii:nll sof lhi: E. ~ am ton Aiffiu r1,Jnc. v._T uw 1u 1.LE. Ma 1 1011, 841 F.3d 133, 136-137, 147-152 (2"d Cir. 2016)
u1 Id.
m Id. at 151-152 .
m g!, at 152.
124 .(4, at 141.
125 EJ:icnJ(s o(_t.h\;.Xl.!.m!l )to n 1111or1. Inc., 841 F.3d at 153 (quoting G~!t >c roJ!:.l.!JII Cur , .. L B.J~tl.\:9.l.:2.!.12,., 858
F.2d 103, 113 (2nd Cir. ! 988)(intemal quotation marks omitted) and N.g ' I [·lc hco.12!£c_Co >. of Am ., 137 F .3d at 89)
42
88
this court did not address whether and to what extent ANCA's procedural
requirements cabined the reasonable exercise of a municipality's proprietary
authority over airport noise, much less did it decide whether local restrictions
imposed in the absence of ANCA procedures were federally preempted. Indeed,
the court mentioned ANCA only in passing, at the end of a string cite comparing
the ADA with other ''acts implying preemption of noise regulation at
airports." [ citation omitted]
What the court did acknowledge, however, was that the role preserved for
local airport proprietors in regulating noise levels is a "limited" one. [ citation
omitted] To the extent local restrictions must be "reasonable, nonarbitrary, and
non-discriminatory," [citation omitted] nothing in 1 ·aciona l 1-lelicl peer suggests
that an airport proprietor can satisfy these criteria ifhe fails to comply with
mandated procedures of federal law-such as AN CA-for the enactment of such
restrictions. To the contrary, actions taken in violation of legal mandates are, by
their nature, unreasonable and arbitrary. 126
On June 26, 2017, the Un ite d S tates Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in
Fricn Is of the E. 1-tnrn.I?WD Airport . ln1.:. 127
In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (i.e. the Court that has
jurisdiction over Washington and the other West Coast states) also stated that ANCA "governs
the manner in which individual airports may adopt noise restrictions on aircraft."128 Like the
Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit also noted that ANCA's "requirement of FAA approval is not
tied to grants; grants or not, no airport operator can impose a Stage 3 restriction unless the FAA
gives its approval." 129 130
.
With respect to the above referenced Second Circuit holding and Ninth Circuit statement
that ANCA applies whether or not an airport received federal grant money, it should be noted
that it is also the case that ANCA prohibits federal funding and the imposition of passenger
facility charges if its procedures for regulations concerning noise or access restrictions on Stage
3 aircraft are not followed:
126 [ri,mds of the E. t imn 19n _l.!UQ.r~ !11 1:~, 841 F .3d at L53 (9.YQting ~t'I He ii:o tc_r ~.11-J >f Am,, 137 F.2d at 88
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
127 l'own or Hnmplll n v. f1 •1ends of the E. H,m.!Q!un AirQ.~1rt, Inc., 137 S. Ct 2295 (2017).
128 C ic of Nuplo::s Airport Auth . V, r A.'\, 409 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 2005).
129 ~ at 434.
130 This statement could be considered non-binding "dicta" since the case was actually about Stage 2 aircraft. On the
other hand, this statement was part of the Court's reasoning used to interpret ANCA's provisions concerning Stage 2
aircraft, so an argument could possibly be made that it is binding. In any case, it would seem doubtful that the Ninth
Circuit would contradict itself in a future case.
43
89
Grant limitations .... [A] sponsor of a facility operating under an airport
noise or access restriction on the operation of stage 3 aircraft that first became
effective after October 1, 1990, is eligible for a grant ... and is eligible to impose
a passenger facility charge ... only if the restriction has been-
(1) agreed to by the airpott proprietor and aircraft operators ;
(2) approved by the Secretary [of Transportation] ... ; or
(3) rescinded. l3 t
c. Conclusions
So where does all this leave us? In a coda to the litigation in the Town of East Hampton,
New York the FAA recently (on March 26, 2018) upheld the town's use of airport revenues in
defense o f its restrictions .132 But that wa s ap parently the town 's only victory, ince it has
apparently now conceded, after losing all the substantive court battles
that the only route to implementing its designated restrictions, given the
legislative program enacted by Congress, is to submit its chosen restrictions,
either for unanimous approval by "all aircraft operators" at the airport [ citation
omitted] or by submitting them to FAA for approval [ citation omitted] in
accordance with FAA's regulatory guidance set forth in FAA regulation, 14
C .F.R. Part 161.133
As should be clear from the above recitation of just one section of C.F .R. Part 161, an
applicati on to the FAA to allow a restriction would be "both financially onerous and time
consuming."134 Furthermore, it is unlikely to be successful . One source stated that "no such Part
161 submission has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration ('FAA') in the 25
years that the regulation has existed."135 Another stated that "only one restriction was approved
131 49 USC§ 47524(e)
132 "FAA Supports the Right of Airport Sponsor to Use Airport Funds in Defense of Locally Enacted Noise
Restrictions," by Barbara E. Lichtman, Ph.D., J .D . (April 6, 2018);
h.m,s;11 www._a vi a(\Plll ir _ rt~~v ,1.0Qll )_c_n I W.:.U9J l_io ! RJQ4/art icl cs/fc d l]l;UY.U!_liQ!!·tl UJlllrl islratio n-faa/fon -s.mmc,r ls-
.!hs·nght ·ll l~illl'J1 J[l;~~(Hl 1'1).[:-!.!!::.l!li '-ail' _qrl•li 1111J S:!!.UJ~le 1lfil!·(!f-\l!\ill!l.Y:£lm 'lC\J,·11 >iS,!!.:(~~':\I. i 'liQ,1.1:l/(l!!1!'!r~-•ti?
133 Id. (quoting and citing 49 U .S.C . § 47524(c)(l))
134 ''City ofEast Hampton May Be 'A Day Late and a Dollar Short' in Challenging the Airport Noise and Capacity
Act" by Barbara E. Lichtman, Ph.D., J .D. (March 10, 2017);
hi s :/1 www .<1viu1io11u1 o(!dcvdo m entluw .coJ11/2U 17/()3 uruc lc ·'le d ·rul -avimi 11 -a drni 11 ist rmin11-tilµ/c 11 y-,)i:c11:,1 -
b11-1.tl_P ll)_II .-JTIJ~Y-b~-a.:.~a -lu_1~---•1Q.:..K·_J9ll nr-sh 11 I: ·11 -cJli!.!.lctuti!1 •-th ·-a11;p Qrt -11oi~e-fil!_d-cfl uc 't -a<.:t///nt orc-J g
11s Id.
44
90
since 1991 "136 at a small airport in Florida. 137 This source also stated most airports spent 7 to l 0
million dollars and were unsuccessful. 138 For instance, after eleven years of work (starting in
2004) and an expenditure of $10,000,000, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) completed a
Part 16 l submission thr ee yea rs ago, but the F A denied LAX permissi on to enact the proposed
re tri ctio n even though it wo uld only have affec ted two percent o f traffic . 139
Thus, it is unlikely that the Port of Seattle would be willing to go through a Part 161
submission without significant pressure. A complete curfew during night-time hours would thus
only be possible tu1<ler current law if "agreed to by the airport proprietor and all aircraft
operators;· 1·10 which is also unlikely.
Lobbying for a change to federal law to allow airport proprietors to impose late-night
curfews without an onerous FAA approval process would likely be a very long-term prospect
and would require significant allies beyond the City of Federal Way or even the State of
Washington.
d. Recommendations
In the short-tetn1, the City of Federal Way should address the concerns with cargo flights,
particularly during late-night hours, by:
l . Support for the Port's efforts and pressure on the Port to intensify those efforts to get
voluntary compliance from the most egregious offende r:, 141
2. Pressure on the Port to see if some cargo flights could be voluntarily moved to other
airports if feasible (such as Moses Lake or possibly even McChord Air Force Base).
136 "Aircraft Noise I 01 " (May 22, 2018 Power Point Presentation by Steve Alverson of Environmental Science
Associates (ESA) Sponsored by Port of Seattle for Members ofHighline Forum and Sea-Tac Airport Stakeho!derll
Roundtable (StART))) at Slide 20.
137 Oral Presentation of Steve Alverson of Environmental Science Associates (ESA) at May 22, 2018 Presentation
Sponsored by Port of Seattle for members of Highline Forum and Sea-Tac Airport Stakeholders Roundtable
(StART).
138 (d-
139 Id.
140 49 USC§ 47524(c)(l)
141 Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) "has a voluntary agreement with all scheduled airlines to not
conduct nighttime operations from 2230 [10:30 PM] to 0600 [6:00 AM]. As part of the Noise Compatibility Plan,
the MSP Signatory Airlines all agreed to use their 'best efforts' to limit nighttime activity to current levels.''
"Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport-Airport Curfews" found at
HL s :/1 www lm e 1111;;.1.a.1m rc.-.ou ro.;c: boc.:111 •d 11!_q1_1_1_tl.s;Q!1Jl1J\<l'Ci11l /no1sc.:lin 11rn..:_u h:;_.hll_l_l
45
91
3. Pressure on the Port to cease affirmatively marketing its 24-hour availability for cargo
aircraft
The City of Federal Way should consider, if able to retain additional allies and if voluntary
compliance proves impossible, pressure on the Port to go through a Part 161 submission, despite
the obstacles outlined above.
~ OTHER HEALTH IMPACTS OF INCREASED AIR TRAFFIC
a. Airplane Pollution in General 142
Airplane pollution has been linked to respiratory-related issues.143 In 2015, researchers
collected and examined data from twelve of California's largest airports. 144 Health effects from
pollution readings around the airports were measured using the California Emergency
Department and Ambulatory Surgery data for emergency room visits and inpatient discharge
data for overnight hospital admissions. 14.s Daily admissions of all people with a diagnosis
associated with respiratory illnesses were included.146
The study found a.large proportion of local air pollution is caused by congestion from
airports .147 In terms of the link b~tween health and pollution, admissions for respiratory problems
were strongly related to airplane emissions. 148 Pollution also increased admissions for chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart problems.149 Increases in pollution levels had a
negative impact on the whole population, but greater effects were seen in children and the
elderly.150
b. Nitrogen Ox.ides
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) affect the way we live and breathe and are being emitted at a
much greater level by newer jet engines. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are "one of the main
142 The Task Force would like to acknowledge that this subsection is based almost exclusively on research and
writing done by Former Task Force Member Kristin Yodock, Ph.D. She has not endorsed or approved this final
product.
143 "Airports, air pollution, and contemporaneous health" by W. Schlenker and W.R. Walker. The Review
of Ecllnomic Studie s, 83(2), 768-809. doi: 10. I093/re11tud/rdv043 (2015)
L44 Id.
145 Id.
146 Id.
1471d.
14e Id.
149 Id.
150 Id.
46
92
ingredients involved in the formation of ground-level ozone, which can trigger serious
respiratory problems," including "damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function."151
According to the United States General Accounting Office (GAO), "our estimate of emissions
produced by the U.S. commercial aircraft fleet in 2001 indicates that the engines used on the
newest Boeing 737 models, which are widely used for domestic flights , average over 40 percent
more nitrogen oxides emissions during landings and takeoffs than the engines primarily used on
older-model Boeing 737s.''152
c. Ultra-Fine P11rticles (U FPs)
Ultra-fine particles (UFPs) are particles less than 100 nanometers in diameter.153 The
relationship of UFPs to air traffic and their effects on health is an emerging field of study. The
number of studies on UFPs and airports appears to be gradually increasing from zero to three per
year until 2013 to an average of over six studies per year since 2014. 154 The University of
Washington School ofpublic Health is currently engaged in a study funded by the State
Legislature in 2017 on the levels ofUFPs in areas impacted by Sea-Tac International Airport.155
"The study must attempt to distinguish between aircraft and other sources of ultrafine particulate
matter, and must compare concentrations of ultrafine particulate matter in areas impacted by high
volumes of air traffic with concentrations of ultrafine particulate matter in areas that are not
impacted by high volumes of air traffic."156 It is due on December 1, 2019.157 Former Quiet and
Healthy Skies Chair John Resing is on the advisory committee for this study.
tsi "NOx--How Nitrogen Oxides A ffe ct the Way We Live And Breathe" (Publi11bed by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards EP A-456/F-98-005 September
1998)atpages2-3; I t :i l tc 1~.c . ovl:,,:Ly_l' ~I ~ ''!I) ·k·y '1 0 61.0.D<T
152 Av iation an<l th1,; ~nvirn.1 1cn1 ' tc.: i • r: ·m • v<irk eedcd tl) ,~d,Jrcss C mlh!n es l'os.:ct by Aircrati
Emissions (Report by United States General Accounting Office (GAO) to the House of Representatives Chairman of
Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, GA0-03-252, February 2003) at page
4; htt ·;1/www., 10. ovf llSlil!I. 240/23 4 . <l (
153 "Ultrafine Particles Near Airports" by Dr. Tim Larson and Dr. Edmund Seto (Power Point Presented at
November IS, 2017 meeting of High.line Forum in Tukwila, Washington) at Slide 5. A nanometer is one-billionth
ofa meter.
154 "Ultrafine Particles Near Airports" by Dr. Tim Larson and Dr. Edmund Seto (Power Point Presented at March
28, 2018 meeting ofHighline Forum in Fedentl Way City Hall) at Slide 7.
m Id. at Slides 2 and 12.
tsr. Budget Proviso contained in Washington State Operating Budget passed by the State Legislature in 2017.
47
93
A similar study was released on August 4 , 2016 with respect to Logan International
Airport in Boston, Massachusetts.158 That study found that "aviation impacts on PNC [ultrafine
particle number concentrations] extend many kilometers downwind of Logan airport," that
"PNCs were positively correlated with flight activity," and that "when winds were from the
direction of the airport, PNCs increased with increasing wind speed, suggesting that buoyant
aircraft exhaust plumes were the likely source."159 . The study concluded that "PNC exposure
assessment studies [need] to take aircraft emissions into consideration, particularly in populated
areas near airports."160
The University of Washington study is not a study on the health effects ofUFPs.161 Prior
studies on health effects ofUFPs were "limited largely to roadway traffic studies" but suggested
"associations wi th cardio vas cular , respi rato ry and possibly cancer health effects."162 F or
instance:
• A California study rele ased in 20l5 found a "[p ]ositive association ... between UFP and
ischemic heart dis ease mortality, but not respiratory mortality (including l ung cancer). "163
• A Canadian study released in 2017 found a "[p )ositive association ... between UFP and
inci dent Chronic Obstrucl i ve Pulmonary Disease (COPD), but not asthm a or lung
cancer.' 164 The abstract fo r this study stated that '"nJittle is known about the tong-term
health effects of ambient ultrafine particles ... including their association with respiratory
disease . "'165
m "Aviation Emissions Impact Ambient Ul tra fi ne Particle Concentrations in the Grea ter Bos ton Area'" by N .
Hudda, M. C . Simon, W. Zamore, D. Brugge, and J.L. Durant (Env iro n .. c1. rl!t:i mulog y., 2016, 50 (16), pp 8514-
852 1); fln,1>s ://pub: acs.or ido i/fu llf I O..J_O ., l (u£s.1:st 6bO l l! 15 Forme r T as k Force memb er Kris tin Yodock, P h.D .
provided this reference.
159 Abstract ofid.; h1tps :/lpubs . .i.:s.u rµ!Joil lh l I/ I . I 02 I 'a~s.est.6b01815
160 [d.
161 "Ultrafine Particles Near Airports" (March 28, 2018) at Slide 12 .
162 lc!, at Slide 13.
163 "Ultrafine Particles Near Airports" (November 15 , 2017) at Slide 25 .
1154 I.!!, at Slide 26 .
165 Id. {quoting Abstract of"Long-tenn exposure to ambient ultrafine particles and respiratory disease incidence in
in [sic] Toronto , Canada: a cohort study" by Scott Weichenthal, Li Bai, Marianne Hatzopoulou, Keith Van Ryswyk,
Jeflrey C. Kwong, Michael Jerrett, Aaron van Donkelaar, Randall V. Martin , Richard T. Burnett, Hong Lu, and
Hong Chen (E n v irn nmcn1 al l·k n lth (2017) 16 :64))
48
94
• Another Can adw n study released in 2017 found a "[p]ositive associ ation ... between
UFP and prostate cancer."166 The abstract for this s tudy tated as ' [bJackground" that
'·cpi dcmiolotcal studies ha(d] yet to evaluate the relationship between UFPs and cancer
incidence."1
• Another Canadian study reh::ase d in 2017 found a "( w )eak, non-significant association
between UFP and breast ca ncer."16a
Other recent studies have "[s]uggest[ed] [a]cute [h)ealth [e]ffects in [s]usceptible
[p] opulations." 169 For instance:
• A North Carolina study released in 2014 found that '"[c]ontrolled [e]xposure of [h]umans
with [m]etabolic [s]yndrome to [c]oncentrated [u]ltrafine (a]mbient [p]articulate [m]atter
[c]auses [c]ardiovascular [e]ffects."'170 .
• A study released in 2015 found that in diabetic individuals, ••[e]levated particle number
concentrations induce immediate changes in heart rate variability. '171
Finally, the only airport-related study on the health effects of UFPs known to the
scientists working on the University of Washington study was "conducted in Los Angeles on a
group of asthmatic adults" and "observed an increase in inflammatory blood markers and a
reduction in lung function with short-term exposures."172
In 2017, Congressman Adam Smith introduced a bill that would have required the FAA
to
166 gt at Slide 27.
167 Id. ~ Abstract of"Spatial variations in ambient ultra fine particle concentrations and the risk of incident
prostate cancer: A case-control study" by Scott Weichenthal, Eric Lavigne, Marie-France Valois, Marianne
Hatzopolou, Keith Van Ryswyk, Maryam Shekarrizford, Paul J. Villeneuve, Mark S . Goldberg, and Marie-Elise
Parent (Environnll."lttal R"scarch 156 (2017) 374-380))
168 Id. at Slide 28.
169 Id. at Slide 30.
170 Id. (quoting "Controlled Exposure of Humans with Metabolic Syndrome to Concentrated Ultrafine Ambient
Particulate Matter Causes Cardiovascular Effects" by Robert B. Devlin, Candice B. Smith, Michael T. Schmitt, Ana
G. Rappold, Alan Hinderliter, Don Graff, and Martha Sue Carraway (Toxicolqg 1ca l cicnces 140(1), 61-72 2014))
171 Id. (quoting "Elevated particle number concentrations induce immediate changes in heart rate variability: a panel
study in individuals with impaired glucose metabolism or diabetes" by Annette Peters, Regina Hampel, Josef Cyrys,
Susanne Breitncr, Uta Geruschkat, Ute Kraus, Wojciech Zareba, and Alexandra Schneider (l':1r1iclej1nd _Fi ber
Toxicology (2015) 12:7))
172 "Ultrafine Particles Near Airports" (March 28, 2018) at Slide 13 ,
49
95
conduct a study that-
(1) includes a review of the results of previous studies on ultrafine particles in the
air, including the health impacts of such particles;
(2) for each of the 20 largest airports in the United States ... analyzes and
evaluates with respect to the commwiities surrounding, near, and impacted by
aitport-generated air traffic-
(A) the ultrafine particles present in the air;
(B) the characteristics of such particles;
(C) the spatial distribution patterns and concentration of such particles;
(D) the primary sources of such particles;
(E) the contributions made by aircraft to such particles relative to other
primary sources;
(F) the health impacts of such particles, including with respect to heart and
lung diseases, asthma rates, nervous system disorders, and any other
impacts observed in or suggested by previous studies reviewed under
paragraph (I); and
(G) disproportionate rates of exposure, risks, and other negative impacts on
communities of color, economically insecure residents, vulnerable groups,
and disparately impacted communities; and
(3) analyze the impacts of mitigation options, emission reductions, and the
increased use of aviation biofuels with, or in place of, commonly used
petroleum-based aviation fuels on-
(A)ultrafine particles in the air surrounding airports; and
(B) human health.173
This bill has not moved forward in the current Congress, but Congressman Smith will introduce
it again in the next Congress if necessary.
173 Bill introduced by Congressman Adam Smith (D-W A) on October 19, 2017. On September 21, 2017,
Congressman Smith met with City of Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell and John Resing, then Chair of the Mayor's
Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force, about this bill. Congressman Smith included at least one change to the bill
requested by Mayor Ferrell and Mr. Resing in the bill's final version.
50
96
Also, the State of Washington budget proviso funding the University of Washington
study on ultrafine particles mandates that at its conclusion, "the university must report study
findings, including any gaps and uncertainties in health information associated with ultrafine
particulate matter, and recommend to the legislature whether sufficient information is available
to proceed with a second phase of the study."11,1 This ··second phase" will be on the health effects
ofUFPs.175 In a March 20, 2018 meeting with residents of the Marine Hills neighborhood, State
Rep. Mike Pellicciotti stated that he intended to introduce a bill to fund this "second phase" in
the next legislative session.
Despite the emerging evidence, there do not (yet) appear to be any official environmental
stand ards with respect to UFPs .176 In a presentation to the Highline Forum, Port o f Seattle
Aviation Environmental Sustain.ability Manager Leslie S tanton stated that the existing standards
are for "fine" particles that are still small, but larger than ultrafine partioles.177 Fine particles are
under 2.5 microns (millionths of meters) in diameter.178
Stanton confirmed that "UFP studies from L[os] A[ngeles], Atlanta and other airports
show UFPs from airports. "179 While she claimed that there is "[ n]o clear connection between
exposure levels [ofUFPs] and adverse health impacts," she mentioned that "UFPs penetrate deep
into the lungs" and that the' [e]merging Jjterature suggests health impacts similar to PM 2 .5 [fine
particulate matter]," which is regulated and has been found to "[ c]ause direct adverse health
effects in humans."18° Finally, she stated that the Port is using "[e]xisting studies," "[t]racking
emerging science [of] Ultrafine particulates (UFPs)," and "[s]trongly support[ing] additional
research into exposures and health impacts of UFPs," including the University of Washington
study.1s1
174 Budgl!t Proviso conl:ained in Washington State Operating Budget passed by the State Legislature in 201 7.
175 Confirmed in person to Senior Policy Advisor Yarden Weidenfeld by Port of Seattle Capital Project Delivery
D irector Clare Gallagher on July 16, 2018.
176 See, 1,,,g., "EPA will consider whether to propose ultrafine particle air quality standard" by Baker & Hostetler
LLP -Justin J. Schwab (April 27, 2014) stating that ""[r]ecent comments by EPA officials suggest that the agency
will consider whether it should, for the first time, set a standard for 'ultrafine' p artic les when it reviews its
particulate matter national ambient air quality standard ('NAAQS') under the C lean Air Act" (emphasis added);
hu ps: /www .l l!x.o logy . ..:o m/l ibra ry/1.k1ajl .aspx'!g ·'JO I etlK6 c-2932-4852-8aa8-7diOb5b6915Z
177 Oral Presentation of Port of Seattle Aviation Environmental Sustainability Manager Leslie Stanton at July 26,
2017 meeting ofHighline Forum at Seatac City Hall.
178 "Ultrafioe Particles Near Airports" (November 15, 2017) at Slide 5.
179 Oral Presentation of Port of Seattle Aviation Environmental Sustainability Manager at July 26, 2017 meeting of
Highline Forum at Seatac City Hall (quoting "Air Quality Initiatives at Sea-Tac Airport" by Stanton (Power Point
presentation) at Slide 12)
180 Id. (quoting "Air Quality Initiatives at Sea-Tac Airport" at Slides 5 and 12)
181 Id. (quoting "Air Quality Initiatives at Sea-Tac Airport" at Slides 3 and 16)
51
97
d. Recommendations
So where does that leave us? At this point, the following are the recommendations for the
CityofFederal Way:
I . Once the current University of Washington study on the levels of UFPs in areas
impacted by Sea-Tac International Airport is completed, support the "second phase"
of that study on the health effects of such UFPs.
2. Re-eng;ige with Congressman Adam Smith to support his continued efforts to get
passed a bill that would mandate a federal study on the health effects ofUFPs.
3. Encourage Port of Seattle officials to continue supporting additional research into the
relationship between UFPs and aircraft and into the health effects ofUFPs.
4. Ensure that scoping on the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) includes an
examination ofUFPs (as well as other emissions/pollution, general health and quality
of life issues) and the need for mitigation of such through, for example, increased use
ofbiofuels. In support of this recommendation, the following points must be made:
a. In her July 26, 2017 presentation to the Highline Forum, Port of Seattle
Aviation Environmental Sustainability Manager Leslie Stanton noted that
"[p ]ublished research since 2015 shows significant reductions in PM
[particulate matter] from aviation biofuels" and that the Port intended to
"[ c ]ontinue to track research on PM reductions from biofuels." Lsz She also
stated that between 2008 and 2014, the Port [s]upport(ed] research &
development" on biofuels and "(c]hart[ed) a path to commercial scale
biofuels". L 83 Bet ween iO 15 and the presellt, she said tlrnt the Port bas
"[i]ncentivize[d] biofuel production in WA[shington].' 184
b. In a surruner 2017 conversation that City of Federal Way Senior Policy
Advisor Y arden F. W eidenfeld had with a Port of Seattle official, Weidenfeld
was specifically told, without prompting, that ultra-fine particles (UFPs) could
be an item of interest offered by the City of Federal Way during the scoping
process.
c. Although there do not appear to be environmental health official standards on
UFPs, that does not necessarily preclude an examination of their prevalence,
potential harm, and mitigation. This should be done through analysis in the
SAMP Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As an example, as noted
182 Id. (quoting "Air Quality Initiatives at Sea-Tac Airport" at Slides 15 and 16)
183 Id. (quoting "Air Quality [nitiatives at Sea-Tac Airport" at Slide 11)
t84 Id
52
98
above, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit once upheld
a requirement that heliport operations be reduced by 47 percent, even though
that percentage "was not backed by any study reflecting the appropriate
scenario or demonstrating that such specific percentage of noise reduction was
the ideal " because "'the proprietor was entitled to eliminate a portion of the
Heli port's operations upon reaching a conclusion that a problem of excessive
noise ex.isted."1115 .
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF SUSTAINABLE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
(SAMP)
a. Introduction and Section Overview
In June 2018 the Port of Seattle publicly released an updated, final version of its latest
long-range airport development plan, called the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP).186
The purpose of this planning document, which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
requested to be prepared and grant-funded, is to identify additional airport facilities and airspace
needed to accommodate its forecast of "unconstrained" passenger and air cargo demand at Sea-
Tac [ntemational Airport (Sea-Tac) over the next twenty years. The final SAMP projects an
increase in annual passengers handled from 46.9 million last year, to 56 million by 2027, and
further increasing to 66 million by 2034.
To accommodate that forecasted passenger growth in the near-tenn, within flight
operation delay time-frames acceptable to the FAA, the SAMP proposes construction of a second
passenger tenninal containing nineteen gates, taxiway extensions, additional air cargo facilities,
and approximately thirty other infrastructure projects to be completed in nine years.
Before the Port of Seattle can consider approval and begin to implement the improvement
projects proposed in the SAMP, their impact on human health and the environment must be
analyzed under applicable federal and state laws. Due to the potential significant impact of these
thirty so-called near-tenn projects. Port staff announced a 60-day public "scoping" period for
preparation of a detailed SAMP draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that will commence
on July 30, 2018. Port staff further estimated that the entire EIS process will take 18 months to
185 Na t "l He li copte r Corp. o f Am. v. C ily o l'New Yo rk, 137 F.3d 81, 90 (2"d Cir. 1998)
186 Per February, 4, 2018 SAMP Update Memorandum prepared by Port of Seattle staff for February 13 , 2018 Port
Commission Special Meeting, the final SAMP document was supposed to have been publicly released in April
2018. Subsequently, Port environmental staff advised the City ofFederal Way Mayor's office that the SAMP
planning process would end (and, presumably, the actual SAMP document would be released) once the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) informally "signed ofl" on its adequacy. Thereafter, Port staff advised that they
expected to issue a State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) "threshold detennination" that full environmental
review is required, and that the 30-day-minimum SEP A/NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) public
"scoping period" on key issues to be analyzed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would begin. On
May 30, 2018, the Port held the first of three scheduled public open house meetings to present a "high level"
overview of the final SAMP document and SEP A/NEPA scoping process, with the EIS scoping period expected to
begin on July 30, 2018 .
53
99
complete.187 Importantly, as will be discussed in a later subsection, the SAMP's long-term
vision declares as "not ripe" for current environmental analysis the more than twenty additional
Sea-Tac infrastructure improvement projects allegedly required to accommodate the 66 million
per year unconstrained passenger forecast by 2034 within the FAA's acceptable operational
delay standard for aircraft movement.
For many years, Federal Way residents have expressed quality-of-life concerns about
Sea-Tac' s overflight impacts . Residents are especially aggrieved by a perceived betrayal by the
Port over its declared purpose in creating a third runway ten years ago. More recently, Federal
1 Way residents have been vocal about the greater than one-third increase in aircraft overflights
during just the past three years and constant use of the third runway that the Port promised was
for use only during inclement weather. Previous release of the proposed SAMP has raised
Federal Way residents' fears even more over even greater noise and health impacts in future
years, as the SAMP document lays out plans to maximize operational capacity of Sea-Tac on a
24/7 basis.
Thus, it is absolutely essential that the City of Federal Way proactively and assertively
use all means at its disposal to hold the Port to a complete, objective and thorough environmental
review process of its final, proposed SAMP. This means that the Port should be required to
include full and meaningful mitigation of noise and health impacts on Federal Way residents
from any projects that follow approval of the SAMP.
In short, this time, the City of Federal Way needs to not just "play the game" by the
Port's and FAA' s customary environmental impact analysis standards in drafting of the SAMP
EIS. Instead, the City should seek changes to those standards, in order to more reasonably
balance the Port's ultimate policy decision on the SAMP so as to ensure airport-impacted Federal
Way residents are fairly treated in that process.
This section of the Task Force report will briefly summarize the decision-making process
for impacts analysis required by Washington's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the
federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It will also describe the controversial
decision-making history, flawed environmental impacts analysis and ••lessons learned" in
connection with the Port's Sea-Tac Third Rtmway Project in the 1990s. Those highlights will
show that the Port (and its FAA partner) failed to conduct a fair and impartial SEPAINEPA
analysis and did not even consider mitigating the Project's significant impacts on Federal Way
residents. Finally, this section of the report will make specific recommendations the City should
pursue to ensure that the final SAMP, and the near-and long-term projects identified therein, are
properly analyzed and fully mitigated through the SEPA process that the Port is legally obligated
to follow. It will also recommend various other avenues the City should pursue in seeking
alternatives to Sea-Tac being the only regional airport accommodating future passenger and air
cargo growth.
187 Although not in the final SAMP, Port staff estimated the total cost of proposed projects in a previous SAMP
version at $ l 5 billion.
54
100
b. The SEPA and NEPA Environm ent al Impact R ev ic·\ Proc es s
Under the Washington State Envirorunental Policy Act (SEPA)188 and its implementing
rules, 189 every state agency and local government (e.g. Port of Seattle) acting as the SEPA "lead
agency" must subject every "project proposal" (e.g. airport terminal building) or "non-project
proposal" ( e.g. airport master development plan) to an analysis of its potential impact on human
health and the natural environment before such project or plan is approved by the responsible
state or local governmental entity. SEPA allows a public entity to be lead agency on its own
p roj e ct and lays out a stepwise process for the lead agency to dc tcnninc the tir'e or level of
environmental analysis that all proposed pr oj ects and plans :ho u l<l recei ve. 19
A key step in that process is the agency's "threshold determination" in initially evaluating
the project o r plan, i.e. whether or not a project or plan could result in one or more signi ticant
environ ment al impacts.191 If so, the next step is to detennine if those impacts can be red uced or
mitigated to a level of"insignificance" and, if so, a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) is
prepared. If the identified impacts cannot be mitigated, then the lead agency must prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that fully and objectively analyzes the potential impacts
of the project or plan on specified elements of the natural environment and human health ( e.g.
noise, health hazards, air and water quality). The EIS process must: 1) assess short-and long-
term, direct and indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts; 2) identify and analyze "no-
action" and other feasible alternatives to the proposed project; 3) include opportunities for
comment by the public; and 4) propose actions or measures to mitigate environmental impacts to
a level of insignificance, where possible. Courts have interpreted SEP A as not requiring an EIS
to identify mitigations for every adverse impact, and a lead agency may use its "substantive
authority'' to approve a project or plan in that circumstance.
Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to ensure that the FAA
and all other federal agencies evaluate the likely environmental consequences of a project or
proposal before approving a federal permit or grant funds to a state or local agency. In general,
NEPA requires all federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA), followed by a
Finding of Non-Significant Impact (FONS{), if the project's potential adverse impacts are
deemed insignificant (on a national scale), or an EIS if they are deemed potentially significant.
For the latter, NEPA's full environmental analysis process is similar to SEPA. NEPA encourages
integration of federal environmental impact review with a state or local government's own
environmental analysis. For example, on the Third Runway Project, the Port and FAA acted as
co-lead agencies, and prepared a combined EIS under both SEP A and NEPA. SEPA allows a
188 RCW Chapter43.21C
189 WAC Chapter l 97-11
190 See simplified diagram of that decision-making process in Exhibit A.
191 For purposes of making the threshold determination, SEPA defines "significant" as .. a reasonable likelihood of
more than a moderate adverse impact on environment quality," while noting that "[s]ignificance involves context
and intensity ... and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test The context may vary with the pnysical
setting. Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact." WAC 197-11-794 {l), (2).
55
101
state agency or local government to use an EIS or other NEPA documents, under certain
circumstances, to meet its state environmental review requirements.192
c. S h or t Hi s t or y o f the C on trovers ial Sen-T a T hir d Runw a y Projcc t 193
In the late 1980s, regional planners, the Port, and the FAA concluded that Sea-Tac could
reach its maximum operational capacity as early as the year 2000 and would need to add a third
runway for bad-weather operations. During the early 1990s, the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC) conducted a "flight plan study" to analyze various alternatives to meet future airport
capacity requirements within the Puget Sound region. Alternatives studied included the
feasibility of a passenger "bullet" train to link Sea-Tac to the existing Moses Lake airfield and
adding commercial operations at Paine Field and McChord AFB.
Despite receiving opposition from communities and municipalities around Sea-Tac and
Paine Field, the PSRC concluded in a 1993 report (and accompanying EIS) that future airport
capacity needs would best be met by adding a "bad weather-dependent" third runway to Sea-Tac,
adding passenger facilities at Paine Field, and constructing a new "supplemental airport" in
Pierce or Thurston County. Through one of three expert panels it mandated to oversee its
decision, the PSRC's subsequent review of potential sites for a supplemental airport ended
without success.
Because of major controversy regarding the PSRC's initial conclusions, the State
Legislature passed a two-year moratorium on Sea-Tac expansion and directed the Washington
Air Transportation Commission (AIRTRAC) to review Puget Sound's future airport capacity
needs on a statewide basis. AIRTRAC found that the proposed Sea-Tac third runway alone
would be inadequate for meeting that futµre need. However, AIRTRAC was unable to find
feasible alternatives. The state's moratorium ended in 1994 without further action.
Anticipating the ultimate outcome of the regional and state decision-making processes
described above, the Port Commission decided in 1992 to begin moving forward with planning
the proposed third runway project by preparing a Sea-Tac Master Plan Update and
accompanying EIS. The Port attempted to mollify community concerns over the proposed third
runway by forming a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of local officials and planners.
Among several groups that organized to fight the proposed third runway, the newly-formed
Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) decided to participate in the Port's TAC . The ACC was
comprised of the Cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park, SeaTac and
Tukwila, plus the Highline School District.
After receiving extensive public comments and concerns from local community groups
and the ACC on a jointly-prepared draft EIS (DEIS) that analyzed environmental impacts of the
proposed third runway project, the Port and FAA approved a final EIS (FEIS) on the project in
February 1996. Despite the project needing to acquire about 400 homes, to elttend the airport
192 WAC 197-11-610
193 This section, in part, summarizes a 2003 detailed essay on this highly controversial project, entitled "Sea-Tac
International Airport: Third Runway Project" by Walt Crowley. See Im ·1/www.his!Q[Yltnk.(irg1F il1!r42 I_I
56
102
plateau into a wetlands area on top of 17 million cubic yards of fill earth, and to construct
retaining walls averaging as high as 74 feet, the FEIS concluded that all of its short-and long-
term impacts could be fully mitigated through sensitive design and wetlands mitigation.
The next month, a second, PSRC-mandated expert panel concluded that the FEIS "had
not shown a reduction in real, on-the-ground noise impacts sufficient to meet the noise reduction
condition" in the PSRC's 1993 contingent approval action. Despite the panel's conclusion, the
PSRC decided noise impacts were sufficiently mitigated and officially added the third runway
project to the federally-mandated Regional Transportation Plan (which qualified it for future
federal funding) in July I 996.
The next month, the Port approved the FEIS, adopted the updated Airport Master Plan,
and authorized final design, permitting, and property acquisition for an 8,500-foot third runway
to be located I, 700 feet westerly of the closest of the two existing runways.194
d. City or Federal Way's InvoJvement in Opposing the Third Runway and its
Flawed EIS
During public comment received on the draft EIS (DEIS) for the Master Plan Update and
its proposed third runway project, fonner Federal Way City Council members Jack Dovey, Hope
Elder, Mary Gates and Skip Priest submitted written and oral testimony. Among key points made
in the Council Members' comments were the fact that there was "not one word" in the DEIS
regarding the adverse impacts of the proposed third runway on Federal Way residents, including
additional noise, health impacts, increased traffic congestion, and decline in property values. In
fact, their testimony noted that the geogra phk area around Sea-Tac that was analyzed in the
DEIS for noise totally excluded Federal Way.195
Following the Port's and FAA's 1996 approval of the final EIS (FE1S), the City of
Federal Way and the other member entities in the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC)
retained a Washington, DC law firm to file suit against the Third Runway Project. According to
recent comments to a Task Force member by then-City Attorney Londi Lindell, the lawsuit
resulted in the Port and FAA deciding to prepare a supplemental EIS (SEIS), on which additional
19" This FEIS was jointly prepared by the Port and FAA, in order to meet their respective obligations to analyze the
environmental impacts of the updated Airport Master Plan's proposed third runway project, under state SEPA and
federal NEPA requirements.
195 The DEIS analyzed estimated noise impacts resulting from the third runway project only within the parabola-
shaped boundary of the Port's existing FAA-approved "Part 150" noise abatement area (mostly in central Burien,
surrounding Sea-Tac). Part 150 refers to the federal regulation implementing the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979, under which the FAA provides grants to local airports for residential sound insulation and
property acquisition within the designated noise abatement area. Part 150 planning involves use of an arbitrary and
outdated standard for determining geographic areas within which noise in homes and sensitive public buildings (e.g.
schools) is determined to be at levels "incompatible" with nearby airports. The Part 150 standard, ~ailed "65 Day-
Night Average Sound Level" (or DNL) (also discussed in Section Illi above), averages noise over 24 hours from
aircraft overflights, other sources like cars, and even quiet periods. Thus, use of this arbitrary Part 150 standard
excluded all areas in Federal Way where actual noise levels from low-flying aircraft far exceeded 65 decibels. This
standard remains in use by the Port and FAA today.
57
103
public comments were solicited. Lindell recalls that the only tangible outcome of the lawsuit
was additional noise and insulation mitigation for schools in the Highline School District.
According to Lindell, most of the ACC jurisdictions ultimately withdrew from the lawsuit,
suffering fr om ··funding fatite" over the fact that the Port and FAA were unwilling to consider
further proj ect mitigations. '· 6
Lindell further recalled that members of the Federal Way City Council were equally
frustrated. Nevertheless, the Council decided to support community residents who would be
impacted by the third runway by "going down fighting" and staying in the lawsuit until its
ultimate dismissal by the court, which followed Port and FAA approval of the SEIS in May
1997. Lindell recalls that the City of Federal Way share of funding for the lawsuit was
approximately $100,000.
e. Lessons Learned from Un s uccess ful Opposition to the 'hird Run way Prnj cct
A c entury a go, iconic college football coach Knute Rockne famousl y said, "Build up
your we aknesses un til they become your strong points.' Similarly, from our review of the
standard reac t ion-based approach that local cities and residents took in opposing the Sea-Tac
Third Runway Project, the Task Force firmly believes that the City of Federal Way needs to
develop a proactive, non-traditional strategy for successfuily engaging the Port and FAA in their
future decision-making processes on Sea-Tac expansion plans. Our close examination of the
Third Runway FEIS official record provides useful insights for predicting noise, health and other
environmental impacts on Federal Way residents that the upcoming SAMP draft EIS may be
unlikely to fairly and fully analyze as it relates to our city. To illustrate this point, here are some
key passages in Airport Communities Coalition comments submitted on the third runway Final
EIS (FE IS) and draft Supplemental EIS (DSE IS) that relate direc tly to Federal Way's
noise/health impact concerns:
• Regarding the written comment submitted that the FEIS fails to analyze the impact of
aircraft particulates, the FEIS written response states that "detailed consideration was
given to partic ulate emissions, as measured by PM 10 [particulate matter l O microns in
diameter or smaller 197], from construct ion ac tivi ti es. . .. The F AA and EPA h ave not
upda t ed the particul a te data because no re lia ble data on aircraft particulate emissions is
av a ilab le to i ncorporat e in to the [air qu al ity] model (used in FEIS]."198
• The FEIS contains contradictory statements regarding the Port's proposed use of the third
runway (allegedly to prevent aircraft landing delays during inclement weather due to
inadequate runway separation between existing runways). Based on a quoted letter from
"Mr. Wall of the FAA," "'dual arrival streams will be used whenever the volume of
196 The City of Seatac settled with the Port by entering into a separately negotiated interlocal agreement in 1997 that
contained airport expansion mitigations and concessions for that city.
197 Definition from "Particulate Matter (PMlO) Trends-National Trends in PMlO Levels" (published by United
Sta tes Environm ental Protecti on Agen cy) at htt s:l/www .i: a .gpv/air •lnmdsi urt'culutc-m 1 1cr-n.ml Q:t en ::
198 Response 10 Comment,; 1.m FE IS at page F-78
58
104
[aircraft} traffic dictates this. This will be true in nearly all weather conditions .'" 199 But
"Mr. Wall of the FAA" is also quoted as stating that " ... for the purpose of
environmental analyses and cost/benefit studies, certain assumptions were developed and
used (i.e., in FEISJ . Those assumptions reflect our opinion on how Sea-Tac will operate
with three runways."200 Thus, it appears that for purposes of the FEIS analysis, it was
assumed that the third runway would only operate during inclement weather, even though
Mr. Wall's letter states that "dual arrival streams" (i.e. the first and third runways used
for simultaneous landings) will occur whenever the FAA control tower decides the
volume of aircraft traffic so dictates.
• A comment on the DSEIS includes the observations that the DSEIS "only depicts noise
contours for approximately 474,000 [annual aircraft] operations" and that "it would be
more relevant to compare [then current] 1997 noise contours with the noise contours
associated with 630,000 annual operations -the maximwn capacity of the proposed
Airport expansion [ in the Master Plan Update]. Such a comparison would ex.pose the
fal lac y of the DSEIS' assertion that future noise exposure would be less than current
operations ." 20 1
The above-quoted comments and responses related to the Third Runway EIS clearly
show the biased and inadequate environmental impact analysis conducted by the Port and FAA.
Although its future impacts were analyzed assuming inclement weather use only, the Third
Runway Project was environmentally "cleared" without operational restriction. Due to
passenger demand in the ensuing years and lack of identified mitigations for the additional noise
and health effects from unfettered third nm.way usage, the City of Federal Way and its impacted
residents have learned a painful lesson having "played by the rules" during the Port's and FAA's
joint environmental impact process.
f. Initial Review of Final Sea-Tac S ustainable Airport Ma ster Pla n
Port staff publicly summarized and announced the release of the final SAMP on May 30,
2018. This document appears to consist of an Executive Summary and nine Technical
Memoranda, all of which are available on the following Port webpage ( except for an "Airport
Layout Plan" that the FAA apparently has not yet approved):
h ttps://www.port~eattle.org/pl ans/s us tainable -airport-mas ter-p!an-samp.
Sea-Tac reported a total of 412, 170 aircraft operations202
( all departing and arriving
commercial, cargo, general aviation, and military flights) during 2016, a one-third increase in its
reported totals over the three previous years. SAMP documents show a 7.4% increase in total
199 Id. at page f.106
200 Id.
201 Commen ts on DSEIS at page G-397
202 "Noise Programs & NextGen Briefing" (Port of Seattle Power Point Presentation at May 24, 2017 meeting of
Highline Forum held in Sea-Tac International Airport Conference Center) at Slide 4 .
59
105
operations from 2013 to 2014, which seems consistent with the actual growth trend during this
three-year period. 203 However, the SAMP forecasts a significant drop in the annual percentage
growth of future annual aircraft operations and is surprisingly outdated by showing 2014 as the
last "historical'' year: 3 .2% from 2014 to 2019; 2.4% 2019-2024; 2.1 % 2024-2029; and 1. 7%
2029-2034.204 This aircraft growth rate drop-off is explained by increased load rates (i.e. average
percentage of commercial aircraft seats that are occupied) and larger planes. However, the
forecasts contain acknowledgments that "[i]nevitably, some of the assumptions ... will not be
realized ' and that "there are likely to be differences between the forecast and actual results, and
those differences may be material."205 Since forecasted flight activity will be a key factor for ,
many aspects of the SAMP EIS, an underestimated growth forecast would result in under-
analyzed environmental impacts of its proposed projects. This fear is magnified by the fact that
the SAMP projections sho w 398,210 operations in 2019, a number that, as indicated above, was
already exceeded in 2(Jl o!206
The SAMP documents identify the environmental impact categories to be analyzed in the
draft EIS, including air quality and noise, prior to the Port undertaking proposed construction of
a new terminal and its other near-term improvement projects needed to meet 2027 forecaste<l
demand.201 Ominously, however, the SAMP goes on to tate that Sea-Tac currently meets
federal, state and regional air quality standards fo r tine particulates (PM 2.5),2°8 despite aircraft
engines currently pumping 13 tons of PM 2.5 into the air each year. It also fails to mention the
state-funded University of Washington Environmental Health Department study currently
underway to inventory ultra-fine particulates (UFPs) that continually fall on tens of thousands of
Federal Way and other residents in the FAA' s "sacrificial" flight corridor for Sea-Tac.
Equally ominous but expected, is the SAMP's reference only to noise impact mitigation
defined by the 65-decibel day-night noise (DNL) exposure standard used to determine the latest
Part 150 Noise Compatibility study area boundary, despite its acknowledgment that a subsequent
noise impact analysis in 2016 prepared for the SAMP showed the impacted area being larger
than the Part 150 study boundary due to "growth in aircraft activity occurring notably faster than
predicted [in that study]."20<>
Finally, and most significantly, the SAMP documents state that the Sea-Tac
airfield/airspace system has "insufficient capacity to meet the unconstrained 20-year forecast
203 "Forecasts of Aviation Activity" (Technical Memorandum No . 4 at Page 6-24 (Table 6-8))
ios Id.
206 Id.; "Noise Programs & NextGen Briefing'' (Port of Seattle Power Point Presentation at May 24, 2017 meeting of
Highline Forum held in Sea-Tac International Aiiport Conference Center) at Slide 4.
207 "Environmental Overview" (Technical Memorandum No. 8)
208 Id. at Page 2-l
209 Id. at Page 2-12.
60
106
demand."210 The documents do contain a Long-Tenn Vision that would satisfy the SAMP 2034
forecasted demand by describing an operationally efficient airport layout, which would be
achi ev e d by twent y specific i rport expansio n and redevetoriment improvement proj e ts that it
detai ls in addition to the SAMP's 30 ear-T1m n proJe cts). 11 However , SAMP doc uments go
on to state that these "longeNange projects are not ripe for conducting detailed environmental
impact analy is'' and that "[o]nce those projects are ripe for review, the Port will be required to
compl y with NEPA and SEPA.."212 -
This truncated approach to undertaking the required SAMP environmental impact
a nal ys is may violate SEPA's "phased review pro hibition against "m e r ely divi d(ingJ a larger
s y stem into exempted fragments or avoid[ing] discussion of cumulati ve impacts."21
"A cumulative impact analysis need occur only when there is some evidence that the
project under review will facilitate future action that will result in additional impacts."214 But
whe~ "[t]he.~11~ject 's c um u lativ_l! in:1 1m~ts c1re me rel y ·spe_cu lative ," t hey "_nee d no t be . .
cons idered. • Also , a cu mul ati ve im pact ar gwm:n t req uires a demonstrat1011 'that the project ts
dependent on subsequent proposed development."2 11i • • n EIS need not cover ·ubs equent phases
if the in itial phase under <.:ons tru <.:tio n i s substantially independent of the :ubsequen t ... phases,
and I.he pr oject would be <.:on ·tru.;ted without regard to future dev elop m ents. "'217 2 18
Here, the SAMP documents state that after the SAMP is completed, "[t]he Port and the
FAA bave committed to scoping" a further analysis of airfield/airspace constraints to
implementing the SAMP long-term vision projects needed to meet 2034 forecasted demand.219
Clearly, the subsequent proposed long-tenn vision improvement projects are not speculative in
nature. The short-tenn projects will facilitate the long-term projects. The long-tenn projects are
dependent upon the completion of the short-term projects. They are substantially related to each
other as part of one unified vision. Thus, excluding the long-term vision projects from the scope
ito SAMP Executive Summary at Page 5-12 .
211 "Facilities Implementation and Financial Feasibility" (Tecbnical Memorandum No. 7) at Pages 6-1 -6-4 .
212 "Environmental Overview" (Technical Memorandum No . 8) at Page 1-2.
213 WAC 197-1 l-060(5)(d)(ii)
214 ~Qil.hm v. q !Y..Q f Vam:ouw, 111 Wn. App. 711 , 720 (2002).
217 Id. (quoting SliAP C v. Cunmn ck II O rchar<.I :;, 49 Wn. App. 609, 614--615 (1987))
218 A subsequent case cites Boehm while appearing to say the opposite, i.e., that cumulative impacts analysis is only
required when the subsequent project is dependent on the proposed project Gc bb ~rs v. Okano •an Count y Pub . Util.
Di-le . No. l, 144 Wn. App . 371 , 386 (2008) ("When .. _ any future project is not dependent on the proposed action,
no cumulative impacts analysis is required.")
2 19 SAMP Executiv e Summary at Page 5-12.
61
107
of the SAMP draft EIS may violate the legal precedent for required cumulative impact analysis.
g. Recommendations
Given what transpired with the Third Runway environmental review process, coupled
with the initial deficiencies in the SAMP documentation, both of which are described above, the
City of Federal Way needs to be prepared well in advance for the likely prospect that the Port
and its FAA partner may take a similarly problematic analytical approach in the SAMP EIS . The
City should therefore obtain the capacity to produce technical data needed to refute unsupported
EIS conclusions regarding aircraft noise and health impacts.
The City should also strive for the creation of alternative, objective standards that
measure actual noise, and available empirical data on current and potential health impacts, in
order to counter the non-objective standards and outdated infonnation the Port and FAA are
likely to use in the SAMP draft EIS .220 Without convincing technical data and reference to
alternative standards in its comments, the City can expect the type of inadequate responses that it
received on the Third Runway EIS.
Finally, the City should continue to advocate for state and federal legislation aimed at
raising airport-related environmental impact standards; take advantage oflocal partnership
opportunities to fund the technical capacity required to effectively engage in the SAMP
environmental review process; and actively support actions by other entities that may produce
valuable overflight impact data and meaningful alternatives to Sea-Tac expansion. In the
absence of an aggressive, proactive strategy on the City's part, the SAMP EIS is unlikely to
identify mitigations for the intolerable increase in noise and health impacts on Federal Way
residents that the proposed Sea-Tac airport expansion inevitably will create.
The following are specific policy actions that the Task Force recommends the Mayor
propose for City Council consideration in cowiection with the SAMP environmental review
process:
1. Closely monitor, and advocate for Federal Way's interests, in connection with the
activities and recommendations of the Port Commission's newly formed Regional
Airport Capacity/SAMP Committee. Its members are Commissioners Stephanie
Bowman and Peter Steinbrueck. Along with their Commission colleagues Courtney
Gregoire, Fred Felleman and Ryan Calkins, they all have publicly declared as ''unrealistic
and unattainable," due to traffic congestion and noise/health impacts, the expansion of
Sea-Tac to accommodate the SAMP's 66 million per year passenger demand projection.
22° For example, the state-funded, ACC-managed 1997 Seu-Tac tnicmut imml Airport Cmpact Mitiuution Study used
"single-event noise levels" (SELs) as the measure of actual overflight noise to determine geographic areas requiring
mitigation, rather than the 65 DNL standard used by the Port and FAA in the third runway EIS. As discussed in
Section Ua above, the study recommended funding $148 .1 million in mitigation for noise and/or vibration for eight
Federal Way neighborhoods (as well as neighborhoods in other impacted cities) that were excluded liom mitigation
of future flight track impacts identified in the third runway EIS. As an alternative mitigation method, the study also
stated that modified arrivaUdeparture procedures would avoid direct overflights of those neighborhoods.
62
108
The City should encourage and support the current Port Commission's prospective efforts
to explore alternative airport locations in the region and state, in order to help meet future
passenger and air cargo demand within the Puget Sound region.
2. Support, closely monitor and advocate for Federal Way's interests d11ring and after
the PSRC's Central Puget S011nd Regional Aviation Baseline Study, requested and
funded by the FAA, which will analyze the potential capacity of regional airspace
and airports in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties to meet future air
travel and cargo demand generated by those counties.211 Following informal
recommendation of the Task Force, prior to submission of this report, City of Federal
Way Mayor Jim Ferrell voted to support this proposed regional aviation baseline study
that was approved at the February 22, 2018 PSRC executive board meeting. hnportantly,
at Mayor Ferrell's urging, additional language was added to the study's scope of work
specifically referencing impacts on communities surrounding Sea-Tac and other airports,
as well as the region's current c apm.:ily ("landsidi; and airside") to absorb future
growth.222 Once this study is co mplcu.:d . the Cily or Fct.!e ral Way should support the
siting of a new regional airport.
3. Actively support State Rep. Mike PeUicciotti's plan to reintroduce an aircraft noise
abatement bill amending RCW S3.54.020 and .030 during the 2019 legislative
session. Introduced at the City's request during the 2018 regular session of the State
Legislature, HB 2497 proposed to amend existing state aircraft noise abatement law
affecting Sea-Tac. Specifically, this amendment would enlarge the current geographic
area within which the Port is authorized to operate an airport noise abatement program,
by extending its reach from the current six miles south of Sea-Tac, to 12 miles south into
Federal Way. Although HB 2497 was not passed during the abbreviated 2018 legislative
session, Rep. Pellicciotti has committed to reintroduce similar legislation next year and
seeks needed co-sponsors in the interim. The City should rally local support for this bill
and actively lead the lobbying effort that will be needed to help ensure its passage.
4. Engage the technical and legal expertise needed for analysis and response to the
forthcoming SAMP DEIS, possibly by joining the other four airport-impacted cities
that plan to coUectively engage. The Task Force strongly believes that the City will
need to engage outside technical and legal experts with experience analyzing the
environmental impact of major airport expansion plans in order to thoroughly review the
SAMP Draft EIS (DEIS), which is likely to be hundreds of pages in length. That
expertise will be needed to identify and compile written comments related to potential
factual flaws, inadequately supported conclusions, and unanswered questions in the DEIS
regarding potential future noise and health impacts. Those corninents must be submitted
within a 30-day period following release of the DEIS, should the Port allow only the
minimum response period provided for under SEP A. A combined and coordinated
221 See July 19, 2018 PSRC Staff Memorandum and Scope of Work Summary in July 26, 2018 PSRC Executive
Board meeting packet (Pages 52-56);
I) ://1,l 'l'.£..\J!J.L.l @ .co 11 C.:i I' "n:!1:!liLOru;n.f!.li.R~'!' (49&1nlme=· 'm •
222 Id.
63
109
response to the DEIS potentially will be more persuasive to the Port and FAA and is also
a more cost-effective method for the City of Federal Way and the other impacted cities to
engage in the SAMP environmental review process. Unfortunately, the $1.50 per capita
funding formula in the Inter-local Agreement (ILA) recently entered into by the Cities of
Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park and SeaTac would disproportionately affect the
City of Federal Way.223 However, the ILA states that this formula applies only to initial
funding of a joint effort, so the City of Federal Way could mitigate this financial
disadvantage by seeking to negotiate a more equitable funding approach as a condition
for joining the ILA. For example, the City could propose a funding fonnula that is based
on the resident population of Federal Way neighborhoods identified for needed noise
mitigation in the 1997 Sea-Tac airport impacts study. Also, it is vital that consultants with
the proper technical and legal expertise be engaged. If this is not the case with the experts
hired by the four airport-impac te d cities, the City of Federal Way may have to retain its
own.
5. Support the State of Washington study of current Sea-Tac Airport impacts. The
City of SeaTac has committed up to $250,000 toward a "baseline" analysis, to be
conducted by the State of Washington Department o f Commerce,' of both p ositive and
ne gative community and economic impacts' 22'~ on citi es s urro·unding the airport, in order
to equip those cities and community members with objective and relevant data prior to
the Port's release of the draft SAMP EIS. The State Legislature approved a 2019 state
operating budget "proviso" appropriation of $300,000 (sponsored by Rep. Mike
Pellicciotti), to match an equal local funding amount. The proviso directs the State
Department of Commerce to widertake and complete the study by December 2019.
Under SEPA, the SAMP EIS must also compare baseline conditions against future
impacts of proposed airport expansion projects. However, City of Seatac staff believes
that the State study would more broadly quantify baseline conditions and current impacts
than will the SAMP DEIS and would provide useful information with which to identify
flaws and shortcomings in the Port's envirorunental impact analysis. Following the Task
Force's informal recommendation to Mayor Ferrell and prior to submission of this report,
the Federal Way City Council unanimously approved Resolution 18-735 endorsing the
proposed state impacts study. The Task Force further recommends and supports the City
of Federal Way contributing a share of the funding.
6. Consider asking the Washington Department of Transportation or other
appropriate state agency to request designation as the SEPA lead agency for
preparation of the SAMP EIS. An independent lead agency would help ensure that the
SAMP enviromnental impact analysis is impartial and objective. This alternative would
require the Port to agree to transfer the lead agency responsibility to a state agency.225
Although not required, SEPA Guidelines encourage the two agencies to enter into a
223 See City ofBwien City Council agenda report dated February 15, 2018
224 "The City of SeaTac 2018 Supplemental Operating Budget Proviso Request: Airport Impact Study"
225 WAC 197-11-942 ("Any agency may assume lead agency status if all agencies with jurisdiction agree.")
64
llO
written agreement to avoid later confusion. This could be a comment submitted during
the SAMP EIS scoping period.
7. Request the Port to underwrite the technical support needed by airport-impacted
Federal Way community-based organizations to conduct their own review of and
comment on the SAMP draft EIS. Although not provided for in SEP A, doing so has
precedent in State law that governs the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (UTC). Specifically, the UTC is required to grant "intervener status" to any
group or individual that can show it has a legitimate interest in the outcome of a utility
rate case or other regulatory matter. Obviously, those neighborhoods in Federal Way that
lie directly under the current Sea-Tac flight path and suffer from low-flying aircraft noise
and health impacts have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the SAMP.
8. Form an Aviation Impacts Committee of the City Council to oversee
implementation of the City's various policy actions and initiatives related to Sea-Tac
existing operations and future growth. As described and proposed in this report, the
City likely will be engaged in several simultaneous and politically challenging inter-
governmental efforts to mitigate and limit the adverse effects on Federal Way residents of
existing and future Sea-Tac overflights. While the Task Force acknowledges the
Mayor's Office has primary responsibility for coordinating this effort, it is recommended
that this important and complex responsibility be shared with the City Council. Thus, a
three-member committee of the City Council should be formed to monitor
implementation of City policies related to aircraft overflight impacts, to keep the full City
Council apprised of the status of those efforts, to serve as a "sounding board" for
concerns of residents in overflight-impacted neighborhoods, and to keep those residents
and the entire community informed of the City's various efforts. Although the Port's
SAMP implementation process and related inter-governmental initiatives are expected to
take several years, the Task Force envisions this being an ad hoc (i.e. limited duration)
City Council committee, during which time its members would hold regular public
meetings as appropriate and needed.
VII. MILITARY AIRCRAFT
A. Discussion
On December 7, 2017, City of Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell, Senior Policy Advisor
Varden F. Weidenfeld, Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force (Fonner) Chair John Resing, and
Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force Member Britt Ohlig met at McChord Air Force Base with
the leadership of the 62°d Airlift Wing (Wing Commander Col. Rebecca J. Son.kiss, Wing Vice
Commander Col. Stephen P. Snelson, and Operations Group Commander Col. Mark S.
Fuhrmann), as well as other leading officers. Roel A. van der Lugt, Director of Military Affairs
& Senior Policy Advisor for United States Congressman Dennis Heck (W A-10), was also
present. Christine Nhan, District Representative for Congressman Adam Smith (W A-9),
participated by telephone.
65
111
Mayor Ferrell explained that exercises with C-17 military aircraft had, at times, impacted
residential neighborhoods, such as Marine Hills, in Federal Way. Task Force member Britt Ohlig
also pointed out that there were low and loud c~ 1 7 aircraft over Browns Point. It was also
mentioned that military aircraft had been seen and heard as far as the Twin Lakes Neighborhood
in Federal Way.
Several months later, on April 4 , 2018, residents in the Twin Lakes neighborhood
contacted the City of Federal Way Mayor's Office stating that there were three low flying
military planes right at their residence on the previous evening (April 3, 2018) at about 10:49
PM. They wrote that they "heard two passes one after another, then the third from a totally
different direction, low and startling .... It was shockingly low, probably the lowest [they had]
seen yet, and some have been low; the bright lights seemed to light up the area." They asked
"why this is so necessary over a residential area when Puget Sound is over the hill ... and they
could lly up/down it? Not good PR on their part." Several members of the Mayor's staff who
li ve in the ame ne igh borhood repo rt ed the same thing.22 6
At the December 7, 2017 meeting, Col. Sonkiss emphasized that the Air Force wants to
be good partners with the local community. She was happy to engage in conversations like this.
However, she said that there are constraints on the air space, and the military aircraft have to
land where they are aligned. She did say that Air Force traffic has decreased and will continue to
decrease. Also, she said that the military aircraft do not operate on Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
that far out. They are also no t classifi ed and shoul d be vi sible in the Air Traffic Control System
(though van der Lugt p oi nted out that there is a 15 -m inute del ay ).227 Col. Snels on s aid that we
would have to ask the controllers at Sea-Tac [ntemational Airport why they vector C-17 traffic
over the Browns Point neighborhood since the military pilots do not choose to fly over Browns
Point-they go where the controllers (from Sea-Tac Airport) direct them.
Situ il arly. with respec t to the April 4, 201 8 co mplai nt, Jason Waggoner. Chief of Public
Affairs tor the 62"d Airl it1 W ing, responded that "the 3 C-17 atrc ratl were co ncl ucliug routine
training and were flying under the direction of SEA TAC air traffic control when they were
directed to fly at 2 ,000 feet and onto the fligh t path that took them o ver Federa l Way ." Waggoner
addetl th at "the 62nd Airlift Wing is always conducting routine training and supporti ng world-
wide humanitarian and contingency operations. Unfortunately, there are times when the aircraft
are directed to fly over residential areas." The complainant did not accept this answer, replying
that McChord has "many other flight paths available ... for training purposes" and that they
should ''use those routes and not fly over Federal Way anymore." "There is simply no reason for
your planes to be flying where they were," the complainant continued, "which is why Sea Tac
took control of these aircraft .... "
226 On Thursday, July 19, 2018 , one of these City of Federal Way staff members again reported a low-flying military
plane over Federal Way at LO:OJ pm.
227 In an August 31, 2017 email to City of Federal Way Senior Policy Advisor Yarden F. Weidenfeld, however, Sea-
Tac International Airport Noise Programs Manager Stan Shepherd claimed that "the FAA blocks all military and
sensitive aircraft from [their] tracking system so [theyJ don't have any further infurmation on it."
66
112
On December 7, 201 7, Col. Sonkiss also said that Moses Lake is their primary tactical
location. They generally do not do tactical training at McChord.
Following upon the December 7, 2017 meeting, John Norgren, Legislative Liaison &
Community Relations at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), contacted Weidenfeld by email on
December 15, 2017 with the following information concerning issues with military aircraft noise
and low flight complaints:
• Community Information Line: (253) 967-0852
• E-MAIL: usanny .jbl m.imcom.mbx.pao-public@mail.mi l.
• WEBSITE: hup://ww w.lewis-mccho r<l .anny .mi l/pao/co mrcl .html
Also, van der Lugt recommended contacting an FAA controller exclusively assigned to
deal with military aircraft at Seattle TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities) at
the northwest side of the airport.
b. Recommendations
At this point, the City of Federal Way should :
1. Publicize to its residents the above contact information for complaints with respect to
military aircraft.
2. Follow up on the recommendation to contact an FAA controller exclusively assigned to
deal with military aircraft at Seattle TRACON (Tenninal Radar Approach Control
Facilities) to further investigate why military planes are being directed over residential
neighborhoods in or near Federal Way.
3. Seek regular,(annual?) meetings with 62nd Airlift Wing Command leadership to
communicate issues of concern raised by residents.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The members of Mayor Ferrell's Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force sincerely hope that
this comprehensive report will aid the Mayor and City Council in making important decisions
over the coming months and years regarding how to address the many ways in which air traffic is
impacting the people of Federal Way. Task Force members stand ready to assist in any way they
can.
67
113
Figure 1.
SEP A REVIEW PROCESS
Permit Application
Received
Or
\g -.:n c" Prn n11s11l Initiated
I
Review for Exemption.
I
I Determine SEPA Lead Agency l,
I
I Evaluate Environmental Checklist l
I
Make Threshold Dete11T1ination
(Are significant impacts likely?)
Yes No
Issue OS/Scoping Notice Issue DNS
(14-30 day review) (May have 14 day review)
I I
Issue Draft F.IS lfDNS comment period, (30 day review) evaluate comments
I (retain, modify, or
Issue Final EIS
withdraw DNS)
(7 day wait)
I 1
Agency Decision Agency Decision
(unless DNS withdrawn)
114