HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-2013 - Supplemental Materials - public commentKachelBaker
From: Ken Bellamy <kcn@thnnetdev.conm>
Sent: Monday, July OO 20131:40PM
To: City Council Mail
Subject: SMP update
Medina City Council Members,
|ameresident ofMedina and amember ofMedina Now. They have been, very helpful and supportive inassisting me
with my understanding of the issues associated with the SMP update and its impact on the use and value of my
property.
Mr. Grumbach and Medina Now have worked together with good results todate. After reviewing the latest response
from DOE, it is apparent more work is required as there are several areas. that exceed the standard of no net loss.
The sections ofparticular concern tonmeare:
-Section3: continuing to use the OHWL vs the CIHWIVI where ever feasible. The CIHWL is more easily established by all
parties.
-Section 1O&11: Mr. (Srurnbaoh'srecommendation onsetbacks ispreferred.
-Section 12:The requirement for additional vegetative mitigation on aha|Uovv lots would be difficult to place.
-Section18,l8 &82: credit should be given for existing vegetation or it will be overly burdensome.
-Sectionl5 & 1G:Why are these apart ofthe 8MP?
-Section 2O,21,23-27:Existing structures need tobegrandfathered and replaceable. The requirement for 9ftofwater
depth for covered moorage isaproblem for those onFairweather Bay.
-Section 29 & 30: 1/8" - 211 gravel will wash out in areas with significant wave action.
-Section 94: Cost and feasibility ofmitigation need tobeconsidered.
-Section 35-39: Damaged and unhealthy trees need to be removed. They are unsafe.
-Section 47-49: Lake Washington does not meet the standards to be classified as a Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Area.
Thank you.
Ken Bellamy
3654Fairweather Lane
Sent from my Windows Phone
Rachel Baker
From: cmarker737@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 12:42 PM
To: City Council Mail
Subject: Fwd: Shoreline Master Plan
Resending to the proper address. ..sorry. Chris Marker
-----Original Message -----
From: cmarker737 <cmarker737 @ aol.com>
To: cmail < ' cmail@medina-wa.Lqv>
Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 10:20 am
Subject: Shoreline Master Plan
To: Medina City Council
From: Chris and Susan Marker
Re: SMP
We have been Medina residents for over thirty years and have always tried to be
responsible citizens and work for the greater good for all property owners.
When we were first made aware of the SMP, we did our best to study and understand it,
but found the plan and the process too complex for the time we had available. Thus,
when we learned of the Medina NOW organization and the active and qualified
volunteers/consultants who were key to its success, we joined to provide financial and
moral support. We think the work done by these people in cooperation with Robert
Grumbach has yielded a better SMP than would have otherwise resulted.
Having reviewed the recent conditional approval by DOE, however, we believe the DOE
is still overreaching and over regulating via the SMP and that further cooperation
between Medina NOW and Mr. Grumbach could very likely result in further clarifications
and compromises that meet the requirement of "no net loss" while preserving Medina
property owners' rights.
We hope that the Council, at its July 8,, 2013, meeting will authorize Mr Grumbach to
continue his work with Medina NOW and other interested parties in order to complete
the SMP process in the best possible interest of all of Medina's citizens.
Respectfully,
Chris and Susan Marker
3635 Evergreen Point Road
Medina,, WA 98039
2
APPEAL TO MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING SMP/DOE Conditional Approval
MONDAY July 8, 2013
Dear City of Medina Council Members and Staff:
1 am COLIN W RADFORD. I RESIDE AT 3663 Fairweather Lane, Medina, WA on property owned by my
family since 1921. i have grown up with the Medina waterfront and wish to comment upon the
discusion between Medina and the State Department of Ecology about the management of the Medina
waterfront.
Environments are always in transition. Medina still includes some native plants and animals. Many of
the plants we accept around us as natural, including blackberries, ivy, scotch broom and many shrubs
and trees were introduced accidentally or on purpose since 1921. Many animals I grew up with here,
including deer, raccoons, mallard ducks, turtles and rodents are here but most mammals have become
nocturnal. Chipmunks, skunks and native rabbits have been replaced by feral cats, rabbits, possums and
bunnies. Mallards have been largely replaced by Canadian geese and pintails and whistlers. Much of
the original Lake Washington vegetation has been supplanted by milfoil and other weeds. Fresh water
fish and shellfish species have I died out and been replaced by imports. We are protecting an
environment largely recreated by Man and Nature since WW2. Both because and in spite of this.. I
submit the following request and recommendation to the Medina City Council under the theory of NO
NET LOSS.
Almost all existing construction and landscaping in Medina has been built in accordance with rules set
forth by King County, Medina and the US Corps of Engineers. Formal provision should be made to
clearly state that what has been built under prior permits is grandfathered as legal and may be replaced,
subject to current fire, health and utility codes.
All waterfront improvements permitted by the Corps of Engineers and Medina have referenced the High
Water Line. The high water line is a surveyed reference point. I recommend that City, State and
Federal governments should use the same surveyed reference data.
One corollary of those recommendations is that provision should be made to protect the redevelopment
of the City's 17 shallow and irregularly shaped lots. I support Staff's recommendations.
In contravention of the 'NO NET LOSS' goal originally set forth, DOE has introduced new language
throughout their most recent response to Medina that reaches further into the watershed, protects
trees within 200 feet of the lake, wants to control side yards, and suggests ill defined `mitigation
sequencing'. I recommend for several reasons that the City hold the line at `NO NET LOSS'.
I
The DOE appears to want to get as much mitigation landscape along Lake Washington as quickly as
possible. They argue shade for fish, yet also argue docks should not create shade, because the shade
they say the fish like also might hide bass and other predators who eat fish they would like to protect.
The properties along the west side of Evergreen Point fronting Fairweather Lane are built on a clay shelf
that was under Lake Washington until the locks opened and the lake lowered. Prior to 1917, there were
no trees, shrubs or grasses there. Along the then shoreline were madronas, salal, Oregon grape and
tiny pre-himalaya blackberries,. In the 1920's, my grandfather gardened the exposed shelf where 3625
— 3665 now are with 5 acres with ornamental maples, raised beds of roses and annuals and plants
grandmother liked, 4 weeping willows along the north waterfront, some asian evergreens, and a
ponderosa, He and we have protected a stand of reeds out front. My dad added a small orchard, now
deceased. When Grandpa Wallace Foster died in 1941, the bank ordered my grandmother to sell the
properties not left to my mother; and they were promptly prepared and sold but remained vacant until
the end of WW2. If the developer did not bulkhead the 4 small triangular lets at the end of the point.. I
suspect the DOE would happily claim today that the environment had reclaimed them. Instead they
have grown wonderful families who have cared for the environment in their own ways.
Native plants are native plants. Protecting the existing should be as valuable as planting new, maybe
moreso. I recommend that paragraphs 15,18 reflect that and that existing plants be counted within
shoreside planting areas.
Re paragraphs 18-19-20: Docks and piers are used for boat moorage, swimming, fishing, visiting.
Various locations and different boats require various styles of docks. The phrase `minimum size
necessary to support the water dependent use' is subjective to the point of being un-interpretable .
Even 100' long docks cannot reach 9' water depths along much of Medina's shelved coastline, including
ours. Safety and dimensions large enough for mom's holding hands with kids and boat carts with sail
bags and motors and camp gear all factor into what the dimensions of a dock or pier should be. The
permit process has been restrictive but do -able when we needed to repair our dock. I would request
not to further complicate the permit process.
In speaking to docks, piers and structural shoreline (19, 29), permits are required; and are they kept for
review for some period of time now. Staff asked whether it is sensible to ask the City to track in
perpetuity all repairs on individual properties. Would the expiration of a normal City holding period (2-
5 years?) be a possible limit in order to control piggybacking permits?
I note from direct observation of my own waterfront and that of friends around Medina and the 3 points
that lake bottom varies from round gravel to coarse sand, fine sand, clay shelf, mud and peat within our
neighborhood. Different species of plants and creatures inhabit each ecological zone. I wonder if
paragraph 30 tries to make one size fit all.
Paragraphs 31, 36, 37 seem to violate the NO NET LOSS theory by requiring additional mitigation even
when the property may better self- mitigate if existing native growth is protected. Stuff grows in the
Pacific Northwest. Anything planted will grow bigger and faster than we anticipated, sometimes even
to the detriment or endangerment of our own or neighbors' properties. Given time and
photosynthesis, every 10" cedar or doug fir will grow to a 48" diameter. The drip line of a mature
douglas fir is immense, up to the size of a small buildable lot. More precise and measurable language
will be more easily enforced. I request that the Council be alert to unintended consequences and
recommend that the City can better deal with this type property management issue locally than any
state or federal agency ever will.
My family respects and I encourage Staffs willingness to work with legal counsel to achieve alternative
language for paragraph 47.
Respectfully submitted,
Colin W Radford
c.radford@comcast.net
425.830.6854 cell phone
W-1chel Baker
From: ArtenniosS.Panos^apanosl@msn.co,m>
Sent: Monday, July U8, 20134:5IPM
To: City Council Mail
Subject: SMP
To: Medina City Council
From: Steve Panos
Tlnn Panos
Rebecca Panos
Weare writing insupport of Medina NOW's efforts to work with the City to express the legitimate concerns of the
waterfront owners regarding the DOE'sproposed changes tothe 8MP.
While there has been much public comment and much participation from the citizens ofMedina, including the
formation of our advocacy group (Medina Now), we share the opinion that the most recent DOE comments require
e response from the City topreserve property rights. VVewould encourage you toauthorize further cooperation
between Mr. Grumbach and Medina Now to advocate for the best possible result for Medina citizens, which meet the
Uno net loss" standard while preserving Medina property owners' rights.
Our family owns 2separate, single family homes onFairweather Lane. Because vvelive onsmall properties, vve
understand the constraints faced by the 17 properties that fall into the category of "shallow lots" and we urge you not
to give in to the DOE because it would mean that those 17 property owners would love valuable property rights. We
are strongly in favor of the "SHALLOW LOT EXCEPTION" that DOE struck from their last draft. (Preferably without the
"vegetative enhancements")
Please insist that the Shallow Lot Exception be included in your SMP response to DOE.
Thank you for your oznsideraton,
Tim Panos
PanosProperties LL[
June 28, 2013
Dear Medina City Council Members:
Below you will find an update on flight track activities.
February - March:
Council approved $2,150 to continue the City's involvement in the Part 150 effort.
The Draft Part 150 was published in mid -April. To date, I have billed $1,250 toward that amount for
reviewing and providing public comment on the Draft Part 150. Council has already received a copy of
the public comment submitted on the City's behalf. The primary objective was to request:
• The Port's Noise Abatement Tracking parameters be reviewed and changed as necessary to
ensure consistency with the 1990 Four Post Environmental Assessment and Record of Decision
which is the foundation for all noise abatement in the region.
• A review of the already completed FAA study to extend curfew to determine whether the results
indicate increased use of the Duwamish industrial corridor on Sat evenings and Sunday mornings
for north flow departure aircraft.
Increased responsibility for the Port's Noise Office to form a community group with
representatives from around the region to work with them on the evaluation of noise remedy ideas
that were presented in the Part 150 meetings but not studied because they were outside the 65
DNL.
It is estimated that an additional $700-$900 will be required to follow up on the final Part 150, as well as
meet with Port officials and/or commissioners to push for the tracking parameter review described above.
Additionally, I was directed to research, evaluate and interview prospective environmental and/or aviation
attorneys for the City to continue to pursue the south flow arrival compliance issue. I was also directed to
meet with the FAA one more time.
April -June:
I provided a recommended legal strategy for the City's review.
Council approved a motion to "...authorize the CM to engage the services of an aviation consultant and
environmental attorney for services related to south flow arrival compliance in an amount not to exceed
$15,000." To date, I have billed approximately $2,900 toward this effort. The environmental attorney
and aviation consultant have resulted in an additional $1,500 in costs.
Temple Johnson and I researched, located, interviewed and selected an aviation consultant with
appropriate qualifications who provided a Letter of Opinion on the south flow procedure set forth in the
Four Post EA. Although, the language is technical in nature, this Letter of Opinion fully supports
Medina's position. A copy has been sent to the City Manager for distribution to council.
Contracts with an environmental attorney were initiated but not fully executed due to the meeting with the
FAA outlined below.
Page 1 of 6
Temple Johnson recommended that I set up a meeting with, Kathryn Vernon, FAA NW Mountain
Regional Administrator who recently returned from an assignment in Iraq. Kathryn had met with the City
of Medina in mid-2000 on the south flow arrival issue. At that time, the Regional Administrators (RA)
had line authority over Air Traffic operations and therefore she was able to intervene. Since that time, Air
Traffic has become a separate organization within the FAA. Temple believed that she still might be able
to provide guidance or assistance to Medina. I met with Kathryn and a member of her staff and presented
Medina's position. I also shared the preliminary results of our aviation consultant's research on the south
flow procedure in the EA.
The result of the meeting was that Kathryn committed to look into Medina's concerns. She set up a
follow-on meeting with a representative from her staff and the TRACON (air traffic) management team
which is now all new players. They came to the meeting with a viable set of recommendations as to how
they would improve compliance and some potential plans as to how make it a permanent solution. They
agreed to work directly with Medina's representatives throughout the process and requested that (with the
current sequestration limitations) they be allowed some time to implement the changes.
Based on the positive nature of this meeting, their acknowledgement that they are required to comply with
the EA parameters and their cautious verbal agreement with our definition of compliance, I recommend
that the City of Medina give the FAA until September to review the results of their actions. At that time,
we can assess whether their intent is sincere to implement a short and long term fix before deciding
whether direct legal action is still necessary. I believe that moving forward with the public records
request before we have provided the new FAA Air Traffic management time an opportunity to respond,
would be detrimental to the City's efforts. I have spoken with the attorney. He concurs with this strategy
and will wait for Medina's direction in September.
I estimate that working with the FAA over the summer may require an additional $2,000-$3,500 which
includes the potential cost of flying the aviation consultant from Boise to meet with the FAA on
developing technical parameters designed for maintaining long term compliance.
Unless I hear otherwise from the Council or City Manager, I plan to continue following through on the
Part 150 and on resolving south flow compliance as described above. Please let me know if you have any
additional input or direction. I will be out of town for the July meeting but happy to answer any questions
at any time. I will plan to provide an update on the FAA's progress at the September meeting.
Sincerely,
Allyson Jackson
City of Medina -Flight Track Consultant
206-954-6175
Enc:
Meeting Summary/Correspondence with Kathryn Vernon, FAA NW Mountain Regional Administrator
Meeting Summary/Correspondence with Heather Leonard, Manager NW Terminal District
Page 2 of 6
From: Allyson Jackson [mailto:abiack5@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:50 AM
To: 'kathryn.vernon@faa.gov'
Cc: 'brian.schimpf@faa.gov'; 'Donna Hanson'; 'Michael Luis'
Subject:
Dear Kathryn,
Thank you to you and Brian Schimpf for taking the time to meet with me last Wednesday. The City of Medina
appreciates your ongoing attention to their south flow arrival concerns.
My intent in meeting with you was two fold: First, to convey that Medina is not satisfied with the FAA's response to
their concern that there has been a noticeable shift of the base leg of south flow arrivals from the east and south
which has occurred since the 1990 EA and ROD and that there is inconsistent use of the "Husky Visual Approach",
Second, I wanted to request your assistance in helping to resolve this issue. (I have attached a copy of Medina's
letter to Donna Warren, FAA Manager Environmental Policy Team, dated September 8 th , 2012 which specifically
outlines Medina's complaint and Ms. Warren's response.)
What I took away from our meeting is the following:
• You confirmed that your office has responsibility to work with municipalities to address these types of
concerns.
• Brian will gather FAA flight track reports for several dates that we request. The objective is to ascertain
whether the Port of Seattle flight track location and elevation data that has been made available to Medina
is consistent with FAA data.
• You will gather clarification on the FAA's definition of "established on final." The Four Post 1990 ROD and
EA state "turbojet arrivals from the Northeast and Southeast arrival fixes will be positioned so as to be
established on the Runway 16 final approach course, no closer to the airport than State Route 520 (11
miles north) and no lower than 5,000 feet MSU. Specifically the issue in question seems to be whether
from a National Airspace perspective, the FAA considers aircraft on a 30 degree intercept heading to be
established on final.
• Once this information has been gathered, we will meet to discuss.
It is Medina's understanding that the base leg of south flow arrivals was very specifically established in the Four
Post EA and Record of Decision to avoid additional noise impacts for Medina, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point, Yarrow Point
and parts of Bellevue, because these communities were already impacted by the north flow departure track. Our
understanding is that it was the FAA's decision, at that time, to establish the base leg north of these communities
because it was believed that the noise impact for both north flow departure and south flow arrivals would be
unacceptable. As you know, prior to the 1990 Four Post implementation, there were no arrivals into SeaTac from
the east side. Therefore, Medina is resolved to ensure that the base leg of the arrivals remains as it was originally
established, over water, north of Medina and the Points communities.
I look forward to working with you to resolve this issue. I am meeting with the Medina City Council the second
week of May and would like to provide an update to them at that time. Please let me know if it is possible to set up
our meeting before then.
Sincerely,
Allyson Jackson
City of Medina -Consultant
206-954-6175
Page 3 of 6
:v'L'Fi :v\{2 v+: t:. .:vA. .2C2. A\� .'i4\• . •ri-0Y.. v. .•C. ... ri:t.•.22: ••:{v�; •2 .:{"�'\v2• '�2 vv +n,:♦, v2 , +n v, ..... ... .... .. :.x 4.. .. ;.: :. .... ...... :... 'c : .,:<; ..A:• ..t.:.... ..??:%u'{2 •: n:. : a .a w .O., C. .., S♦R,.>. (G`a....iN.Y32 C,c,,.v♦.,, Q,'iA4..♦ ♦vf J:y
2kH;Y.Y,kX+K.'tti+y(Cq Sn,a.O>;C1.C2h`p�x22,Q%:�,aF:S•.<.ab\x;AC+Ji§. ahkkb,a.3<,<,.:.n'•♦•...�E♦ah7Ci�.. :kCi,.. At a. e, .,Q2aan\. .t.<.a;>k�A:`23;\.. d.:l. a:Y..v....i. An•..... •J2...t. .tt.♦2..••:•; .h\;i:i::{A::•.i....a (`•••�: •.. '♦ +.,u .,?••.�. :n.: •':k'.?X+2: ,. .. .... .. 2<:hk, ♦ �..0. ..'2,., � �♦,♦'. •\•^^,. .2i'K':
From: Heather. Leonard@faa.gov[ma iIto: Heather. Leonard @faa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:13 PM
To: abjack5@comcast.net
Cc: Kathryn.Vernon@faa.gov; Kevin.Lanier@faa.gov; Brian.Schimpf@faa.gov; Steve.Karnes@faa.gov;
regan.rasband@faa.gov; Clark.Desing@faa.gov; Ron.Fincher@faa.gov; Sheri.Kasen@faa.gov
Subject: Follow-up to our meeting today - Medina
Allyson:
It was a pleasure finally meeting you and Dr. Randolf (Rudolph). I appreciate your patience with another "New"
player in this situation. The discussion was a good and we hope you are encouraged by the actions Kevin
explained that he was taking to help us improve our controller awareness and service as well as enhance
management oversight. I am very pleased that Kevin has "brilliantly" ; ) raised the bar. We are also hoping the
PDAR enhancements (to include TARGETS data) will be a good tool we can all count on to help us make even
more progress.
The next steps we discussed were:
1. Get the PDARS with ability to import Targets data up and running
2. Once PDARS enhancement implemented invite City of Medina personnel to view the product and discuss
how we can use this data to validate the actual compliance information.
3. Collaborate with the City of Medina, possibly the Port of Seattle, S46 and the SC to define a tasking (to the
SC) that will provide us a data driven analysis allowing us to validate compliance.
4. Once the paper is completed - meet with the stake holders to discuss findings and next steps.
As Brian stated very well, your patience is appreciated as our resources are under a lot of demand. I have already
spoke to Steve Karnes of the Service Center (OSG) to give them a heads of up of the possibility of some work
coming their way.
We will keep you updated as we make progress on the above. Please give me a call should you need anything
further now or in the future.
Regards,
Heather Leonard
ceatth
6,
Page 4 of 6
From: Allyson Jackson [mailto:abjack5@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 20., 2013 9:40 AM
To: 'Heather.Leonard@faa.gov'
Cc: 'Kathryn.Vernon@faa.gov; 'Kevin. Lanier@faa.gov'; 'Brian.Schimpf@faa.gov'; 'Donna Hanson'
Subject: RE: Follow-up to our meeting today - Medina
Heather,
It was great to meet you and Kevin. We very much appreciate your time and effort and fresh set of eyes to review
the south flow issue and meet with Dr. Rudolph and me. We found the meeting to be encouraging and have
briefed the Medina City Manager to that effect. Given how much time has already passed, the City is impatient for
resolution, but I have recommended that they monitor the results of your proposed efforts for the next several
months and then assess the situation.
In addition to the action items listed in your email below, I will be including the following discussion points from our
meeting in a detailed briefing to the City. Please let me know if you would like to add any clarification to these
points.
• Medina representatives will be invited to have input into the compliance parameter settings (TARGETS) so
that we are all on the same page in terms of what compliance is and how compliance is measured.
• Kevin will be providing specific briefings and hands on training throughout the month of June to all the
controllers on the EA/ROD procedures. These briefings will include the use of the Husky Visual instead of
generic visual approaches.
• Kevin will be conducting weekly random audits to track and handle deviations from the 13 DME (11 NM),
520 bridge intercept point. I do not recall whether this included tracking altitude at the intercept point,
which is one of the ROD/EA criteria.
• The Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) will be reviewed to ensure that they are aligned with the
ROD/EA language. Removing "if possible" from the SOP's east side arrival procedure will be considered or
additional clarification language will be added to remove ambiguity.
• The possibility of adding video markers to the controller maps will be considered and assessed as a
potential tool to aid the controllers.
One item that we touched on but did not discuss in any detail, was the current process that the Port uses to
measure compliance to their noise abatement corridors and whether their parameters are consistent with the
EA/ROD. As you may already know, the City of Medina submitted public comment on the Draft Part 150 with
regard to this issue. Since the FAA meets regularly with the Port to discuss these compliance reports, we believe
there should be a review of the Port's tracking parameters to ensure they are aligned with the EA/ROD and the
PDARS/TARGETS parameters, so that there is consistency across the board.
Again, we greatly appreciate your attention to Medina's concerns and we look forward to hearing from you soon
once a more specific and realistic timeline has been established. In the meantime, we'll do some random flight
track checking ourselves with the hope that the specific controller briefings are having a positive impact. Please
feel free to call me anytime with questions, clarifications or updates.
Sincerely,
Allyson Jackson
City of Medina -Consultant
206-954-6175
Page 5 of 6
i-0{nYtr' �N{{{1R'n)C6)0.`LOYY 'ygttn. WNIX +f6: {(�tr: Kd%OM �Gf^CHRtriYfAf?'C4W.M%4rlY{t:%Cv:%•%CJfiY'0'grim,{?4%CEUih'?fi'N?%•WYNC4%.'N.y W'{M%• \vv M' .v,.. :4' ^:0.v/hY.%M:?8}%+,ry.::t{tOriS:C:v'v:pY::Ob:{A?i.l?%v�1i 0:0'fiYAY.<H vy..w•pfi:"}i: v.\v'l.;n:M w„tiny%«?<•:{^•{i?'.y.:4' s:l4v,.' M' :n S.:{t' {M?:{<t{•:J:T%4u�%?:;;xx.{:{.• ... vyyM:L.Y'VYi.'<i?y.•e/?' 1:..v,.Y:"lV'KK.:n' {x.v,HK3. .v. n
From: Heather. Leonard@faa.gov[ma iIto: Heather. Leonard @faa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:50 AM
To: Allyson Jackson
Cc: Ron.Fincher@faa.gov; Kathryn.Vernon@faa.gov; Kevin.Lanier@faa.gov; 'Donna Hanson';
regan.rasband@faa.gov; David.Suomi@faa.gov; Brian.Schimpf@faa.gov
Subject: Fw: Follow-up to our meeting today - Medina
Allyson,
Thank you for capturing the discussion points. I have nothing further to add or clarify.
Regarding the current process that the Port uses to measure compliance to their noise
abatement corridors and whether their parameters are consistent with the ENROD, since this is
solely a POS responsibility, the protocol to discuss the parameters and suggest changes would
be to contact Stan Shepard of POS, 206-787-4095.
As an update of the TRACON activities so far, here are a couple of informational items:
• As of today, the TRACON is in the process of doing refresher training in the lab which includes and emphasis on east
side noise abatement and base turns
• Expect the second run of PDARS data for an audit of compliance.
• Working with the staff and NATCA rep to develop changes to the final controllers map
to comply better with the ROD.
• The SOP on our list to get to, but the above will get us close to what we need
• The next briefing cycle will include the ROD and East -side noise
Best Regards,
Heather Leonard
Sealde, WA
4 5. •.:3Y67 3454 4 {c)
Page 6 of 6