Council Legislation

Proposed Resolution No. R2023-12s

Title: A Resolution of the Pierce County Council Objecting to the Siting of a New Airport at Any Greenfield Site in Pierce County; Requesting the Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission (CACC) to Exclude Greenfield Sites in Pierce County from Its Final Preferred Location Recommendation for an Airport; and Requesting the Washington State Legislature Take Specific Actions.

Status: Completed

Final votes

February 7, 2023
Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Sid Gnesa 2/2/23 10:52 AM I support the resolution. Pierce County has expended a great deal of time and effort to achieve the goals of Washington State and Governor Inslee to protect the states environment and limit urban growth in rural areas. Contrary to the Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission (CACC ) view point, the proposed airport locations are not purposeless empty rural fields sitting in the middle of nowhere that are prime for development. These areas are by intent limited growth areas green zones and have been deemed environmentally sensitive. The areas have been protected at great effort by the Pierce County Growth Management Act and are THE REASON they are still rural. It was not by accident these areas are still rural but by intent! The proposed airport sites are on top of two interconnected aquifers that supply water to the area. These aquifers would be subject to pollution from airport chemicals that are now being detected in the ground water at other major airport sites. The aquifer draw down from an airport and needed supporting businesses will strain availability of water for area homes and cities. The proposed airports are partially on Washington State Native American tribal lands. For environmental and other reasons they officially oppose any new airport in the area. Within the 6 miles radius of these proposed site are homes, farms and schools all of which would be either condemned or suffer a gross degradation in quality of life. The degradation would even affect Mt Rainier National Park as expressed officially by Superintendent Greg Dudgeon who opposes a new airport. The proposed airport site locations and the accompany hotels, restaurants, etc. have no infrastructure to support them and none is planned by Pierce County. The nearest freeway is 8+ miles away and ground site access is limited to a two lane road. The additional tens of thousands vehicles transiting daily would overwhelm the road system. Pierce County and all its representatives officially oppose any new airport. The proposed airport sites are within the flight paths of Joint FT Lewis/McCord military base and its flight training area. The military has stated it would be impossible to accommodate the flight paths of a new airport and still allow them to conduct their flight operations. The US military officially opposes any new airport. There appears to be a conscious effort to force a new airport into Pierce or Thurston Counties. The CCAC was prohibited from considering other forms of mass transport. It was forbidden from considering King County for an airport site even through its rising population is a major reason a new airport has been deemed necessary. Paine Field already exists and has stated it fully welcomes new growth to meet demand. Its location is ideal to the current population centers and new growth in the Puget Sound Area. It has an adequate runway to support growing commercial passenger traffic and freeway access to support getting to and from the airport. Yet Paine Field appears to only have been given a passing glance from the CCAC who state it is not adequate. Due to Covid restrictions CCAC airport meetings were held only by virtual internet with no public comment allowed. The result being many in the Pierce County area never even knew a new airport site was being proposed there. When residences finally found out and had their own in person meetings attendance was standing room only in opposition. It appears the only entities supporting an airport are those who see cheap to buy purposeless open fields deemed prime for development at ANY cost to the surrounding area. This position is directly opposite that of Pierce County officials and Washington State proclamations about preserving the environment, the states limited green zones and limiting develop to areas already zoned and having the infrastructure for it. A proposed 3500+ acre airport and supporting infrastructure would negate all of Pierce County efforts. It would be contrary to the stated goals of Washington State and Governor Inslee. The airport would destroy the area environmentally. It would turn a planned rural area into mega city with its noise, pollution, traffic, and crime to destroy any quality of life for those living in the area extending to Mt Rainier. The resulting increased commercial air traffic would grossly adversely affect the local military base readiness. As many have stated, putting an airport in Pierce County is a “stupid idea.” It’s not only stupid it’s a slap in the face to this states pro environmentalist agenda and those who believed in it. For the stated reasons I support the resolution and oppose any new airport in Pierce County. Regards, Sid Gnesa
James Halmo 2/3/23 2:08 PM February 3, 2023 TO: Members of the Pierce County Council Ref: Proposed Resolution R2023-12 I do support most strongly the legislation which you will be reviewing on February 7th. Rather than commenting directly to the Council, I have been focusing on what I call the ‘players’ in the review process. I have provided detailed comments regarding the impacts of the proposed Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission (CACC) regional airfield in Pierce County. My detailed letters of November 18, 2022 with a revision of November 22, 2022 (8-page letter with eleven maps and charts) were followed subsequently by a very pointed four-page summary letter on January 11, 2023. That correspondence offers details about the key points which your draft legislation addresses. I have also been in conversation with the Washington State Department of Ecology, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, DC, the public affairs officers at Joint Base Lewis-McCord (JBLM), and the media representative of the Federal Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Both the Department of Ecology and the EPA representatives stated that they could not comment in writing at this time without an actual permit application. However, both expressed their concerns. The EPA created our sole source aquifer. The JBLM public affairs officer, with whom I spoke a number of times, has released the military’s strong position. The BPA is working on its comments and is aware of the March 2nd meeting of the CACC when its professional staff will be reporting its findings. BPA’s comments will be important in addressing the “Pierce East Greenfield” site. The proposed runway within the 3,100 acres site would actually run under their major interstate power lines. I also sent a letter to Senator Murray asking for her support with the BPA and the Defense Department. It is important to recall that the ‘powers that be’ at the current existing essential pubic facilities in the County (JBLM, BPA, and the 304th landfill) are under no obligation whatsoever to modify, change, end, or even spend funds to accommodate a new regional airport. My letter of January 11th raised the question about “who pays” for the major infrastructure requirements for a new regional airport. That has not been addressed formally by the CACC. Those projects include: ()1) a new highway or totally upgrading other State Highways to connect with Interstate I-5; (2) major upgrades to the existing single track railroad line (City of Tacoma operation); (3) a new pipeline to the Port of Tacoma for aviation fuel (do not expect the military to share usage of their pipeline operation to McCord Field from the Port); (4) the long sewer line connection to the existing County sewer lines for moving sewage to the regional processing facility on Puget Sound (with extensive pressure/pumping stations set deep into the aquifers); (5) possible relocation of four public schools (three in the “glide path” across 224th Street and removal of another [Kapowsin Elementary School]); and (6) relocation of the BPA power lines (IF they should agree). Demolition/relocation of houses, businesses, and other facilities would be required to address and accommodate the new infrastructure needs. The 3,000 acres proposed site would change land use patterns dramatically in Pierce County. The operating infrastructure needs cited above (including pumping water for the facility’s needs from our sole source aquifer) cannot be ignored. As I stated in my last letter to the CACC, it has totally ignored locating a new facility on forested lands. ‘Greenfields’ traditionally have high water tables, ground water issues, and flooding. Forest lands normally do not have such problematic characteristics. It is one reason I asked why the CACC simply dismissed Lewis County. Acreage is available, and can be found with reasonable access to Interstate I-5. The CACC must reorient its philosophy of operation to consider land areas which may be more fruitful for a new regional airport. Sincerely, James L. Halmo 9806 247th Street Ct East Graham, WA 98338 (253) 875-1890 jimh1890@hotmail.com p.s. The CACC Chair is stating now that neither of the two County proposed sites will most likely be selected. He, however, is but one vote. The County should continue with its deliberations and vote for passage of the Resolution.
Troy & Gayle Leiker 2/5/23 12:14 PM As long-time residents of Graham WA, my wife and I strongly support resolution R2023-12 objecting to the siting of a major new airport at any greenfield site in Pierce County. We firmly oppose the Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission (CACC) targeting two ‘greenfield” sites within miles of our home in Graham for a new international airport. Please be advised, our road grid system in the surrounding area is already burdened with very few arterial routes and excessive traffic congestion. Construction of a major airport will destroy our way of life and threatens everything we have built and invested in with the impending threat of eminent domain land seizure. Construction of a new major international airport will require paving over sensitive wildlife habitat and cap our two interconnected aquifers. Our aquifers require open spaces that are critical aquifer recharge areas. Additionally, this urban sprawl threatens the Nisqually River Watershed that provides critical Salmon habitat, violates our Growth Management Act, infringes on Native American tribal lands and will even degrade the Mt Rainier National Park. Moreover, the proposed sites are incompatible with RCW 36.70A.530 as they all fall within the two-mile zone, overlapping the vicinity of a military installation and would be incompatible with the installation's ability to carry out its mission requirements. Furthermore, we never even had a say in this, only learning of it after the CACC had completed its list of the top two locations on 15 Oct 2022. My wife and I moved to Graham in the 90s, we cleared our homestead by hand and have a large herd of Elk living in our neighborhood; we are blessed with living in a quiet wooded community. To think our quiet rural way of life will be taken from us so we can instead be burdened with hotels, adult bookstores, strip-clubs, rampant urban sprawl and the crime that comes with it is heartbreaking. We respectfully insist that the CACC sites be removed from further consideration as locations for a future primary airport and instead allow the city of Yakima to have the Yakima Air Terminal-McAllister studied as a potential option and to also fully utilize existing Paine Field and SEA/SEATAC for any expansions to capacity. Respectfully, Troy & Gayle Leiker Graham, WA
Elizabeth Vandiver 2/5/23 12:23 PM Please SUPPORT this resolution. Please protect rural Pierce County from the environmental devastation, the sound pollution, the congestion, and the degradation of wilderness experience that a new airport would bring. Protect Mt Rainier!!
Craig MacDonald 2/6/23 10:50 AM Previously posted on Coalition Against Graham and Eatonville-Roy Airports Facebook page. I’m a retired airline pilot and live in Graham. I have been surprised how many people don’t understand the noise and air pollution surrounding a large airport. Too many of these people I have talked to, think that the 6 mile radius of the proposed death circles(Green-fields) will not be a problem since they’re not inside of them.WRONG ANSWER! I tell them to go spend a few hours up around SeaTac. Drive a 6 mile radius around SeaTac, heck make it a 10 plus miles. Get out of your car, open your ears and don’t forget to breathe.(The sweet aroma of jet fuel, burned or not).Then get into a position where you can watch take offs and listen to the noise produced on a take off. There’s a lot of weight to get airborne, so more power Scotty.Conversely listen on landings when the thrust is reversed to slow the aircraft down the runway.Bottom line there’s no way to get away from this crap, except for another galaxy far far away!So now if you’re not worn out from listening to all this noise from aircraft and me,go somewhere near the airport environment and take a deep breath, actually doesn’t even have to be deep. Your smelling mostly exhausted jet fuel. Even take a nice ride to Federal Way, which is approximately 11 miles from SeaTac. Park around the mall area, get out of your car and look up. Aircraft could be arriving or departing SeaTac, but either way you’ll find them.  Just another example. We here in Graham are approximately 38 miles from SeaTac. On any given day and depending on departure, air density androuting, you can look up and see and hear the aircraft headed south and southeast etc. obviously you do not have to smell them, but you can definitely hear them. Keep in mind they haven’t taken off from your backyard either. My experience in life, it seems that there are only a few smells that are safe for a human and animal, ex: nature itself and mom‘s home cooking. There might be a few more. exhausted jet fuel is not on the menu!! So back to the people that don’t live in the 6 mile circles of death. For example South Hill Puyallup, downtown Puyallup, Milton, Edgewood, Sumner, Bonney Lake, Tehaleh, Orting, Eatonville, Spanaway, Yelm, Tenino, Nisqually basin, List goes on, with small townships, etc. just pull out a map and take a look see. So for you that are outside of the circles of death, (Greenfields)and not aware yet, it’s time to wake up and smell the CLEAN air!These flying machines depart and arrive both Approximately North and South usually. East and West will be affected by routing also. Of course the west of the death circles is a real dilemma with McChord air space. ATC (Air traffic control) are going to have their hands full trying to figure this one out! Let alone mountains to the East. If there are any controllers out there reading this, feel free to chime in. In this post my main point was to make many many more people outside of the so-called circles to be aware of what is going to affect you and your surroundings. If this whole idea ever comes to fruition, problems extend well beyond the so-called Greenfields! Good Day, Craig MacDonald
Michele McFadden 2/7/23 10:15 AM I very much appreciate the efforts of the Council to oppose the proposal expected to be issued by the CACC. I think in revisiting the issue, the fundamentals of the projections for growth in the air industry, given how much the world has changed since it began its work - COVID and the resulting explosion in the use of technologies such as Zoom to reduce the need for travel; the continuing impacts of global warming which will require serious efforts to combat, including reducing travel world wide, and how the demand for air travel has been set back by conditions not anticipated when the CACC began it's work, and the failure IMO of the CACC to conduct necessary SEPA review on a plan that was passed by the legislature without SEPA review. So I would ask the council to add a requirement or request that the projections on which this entire plan was founded be revisited by the CACC and/or its replacement, and that the entire process be reviewed for compliance with the SEPA regulations regarding planning for facilities entirely unplanned for under the GMA. A simple exclusion of airports was obviously nothing but a grenade in the state's legislation, and the pin needs to be put back in, and the grenade disarmed.