Des Moines Planning Commission 2/6 & communities act on airport pollution

Standing up for North SeaTac Park & all health-protecting forest within 10 miles of SeaTac Airport

February 2025
Write us at info@defendersofhighlineforest.org

In this issue…

City of Des Moines Planning Commission on 2-6 City Council Study Session agenda
SAMP comments received by community, cities and EPA
Des Moines Creek West Business Park update
Lawsuit against Port of Seattle and airlines’ practice of "showering unwanted and harmful pollutants on people's homes" moving forward
Volunteer events around the South Sound

Citizens voices heard! Des Moines puts Planning Commission Topic on Agenda for 2-6 City Council Meeting

October 18, Defenders at the Citizen Appeal to protect 500 trees in Des Moines from the Des Moines Creek West Business Park Development

A Study Session for creating a public planning commission will be held at the February 6 council meeting. Submit public comments in person or via email.

Des Moines is at a critical crossroads when it comes to protecting its greenspaces. Time and again, opportunities to preserve natural land have been lost to development—and for the first time, the City Council will be reviewing a proposal to establish a Planning Commission at this Thursday’s 2/6 City Council Study Session by request of new City Manager Katherine Caffrey.

For a bit of historical context that we covered in depth in past newsletters and special bulletins….

On January 30, 2025, the City Council voted against purchasing WSDOT owned vacant land adjacent to the Barnes Creek Trail Extension, turning down an opportunity to safeguard this space for future generations. Read more. This follows the November 21, 2024 decision, where a citizen appeal heard in court on October 18, 2024 to protect 500 trees in the proposed Des Moines Business Park West was denied by the Hearing Examiner. Read more.

Without intervention, Des Moines’ last remaining greenspaces will disappear.

One major issue? Des Moines lacks a Planning Commission—a crucial body that provides oversight and guidance on land use decisions. Nearby SeaTac (a smaller city!) has a Planning Commission, ensuring community voices are heard and development aligns with residents’ needs. Why doesn’t Des Moines?

We need your voice to demand action! Here’s how you can help:

Contact City Council Members –Urge them to establish a Planning Commission.
Speak Up at Council Meetings and/or Email Your Comments – Public pressure from many voices makes a difference.
Join and Support Local Advocacy Efforts – Continue staying informed and supporting grassroots organizations fighting for our environment such as The Defenders

The future of our greenspaces depends on all of us. Let’s stand together to protect the land, trees, and trails that make Des Moines a beautiful place
to live.

Take Action Now

You have three ways to provide Public Comment at this Thursday, 2/6, City Council Study Session at 6:00 PM in support of the City of Des Moines establishing a Planning Commission!

In person: Show up a few minutes before the meeting and sign the sheet. Public Comment is usually conducted at the beginning of the meeting. City Council Chambers 21630 11th Avenue S, Suite C.Des Moines, Washington
By e-mail: All e-mails sent to citycouncil@desmoineswa.gov are considered public comment. They are instantly available to all members of the City Council and the City Clerk who includes them into the record of public comments at the next meeting.
By US Mail: Attn: City Clerk Office, 21630 11th Avenue S., Des Moines WA 98198 no later than 4:00 p.m. day of the meeting. Please provide us with your first and last name and the city in which you live.

City Council meetings can be viewed live on the City's website, Comcast Channel 21/321 or on the City’s YouTube channel.

Review the agenda HERE.

Thank you for being a voice for greenspaces in Des Moines.

Overwhelming Community and Government Response to SAMP

The Port of Seattle’s deadline for submitting comments regarding SAMP (Sustainable Airport Master Plan) was December 13, 2024. To recap, the Port intends to increase airport operations by 30%, increase night flights to 200 per night, and build an additional 30 warehouses in nearby airport communities. This would inflict a toxic double-whammy on near-airport residents: trees and other vegetation on dozens of acres of land, which now help to protect them from the airport's heat, noise, and air pollution, would be replaced by massive new industrial sources of pollution.

The Port released an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project. There was a staggering amount of technical information in the 4,800 page EA. The Port took approximately 8 years to compile it, and then provided the public an insulting 6 weeks upon which to comment. Commenters were urged to ask for a much more thorough Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Below are selected comments from airport cities, as well as the EPA.

SeaTac

The City respectfully reiterates that Washington SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197-11-005 (2)) states: “the lead agency shall prepare its threshold determination and environmental impact statement (EIS), if required, at the earliest possible point in the planning and decision-making process, when the principal features of a proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably identified.”

The City has raised its concern with the 'piecemeal' environmental review and assessment process in previous Port SEPA actions, including the International Arrivals Facility, North Satellite Expansion, Flight Corridor Safety Program, and the Concourse D Hardstand Project. The City reiterates this concern in light of the SAMP’s compartmentalization between near-term and long-term work at the airport. A piecemeal approach to environmental review does not adequately consider the cumulative impacts of all these projects together, which is a requirement under WAC 197-11-060 (3) and WAC

197-11-060 (5.d.ii) that state that 'phased review' is not appropriate when 'it would merely divide a larger system into segmented fragments or avoid discussion of cumulative impacts.'

EPA

“Studies also indicate that proximity to airports and airport activities may cause adverse health effects including increased rate of premature death, pre-term births, and decreased lung function. The EPA also notes local ongoing studies at the University of Washington with assistance from surrounding cities and the Port of Seattle are examining impacts from ultrafine particulate matter. To fully identify and evaluate public health impacts, the EPA recommends partnering with public health experts including local and state health departments, tribal health agencies, or federal public health agencies. We recommend the analysis consider the cumulative effects of increasing and existing exposures on the affected communities. This is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) EJ Guidance which states that “agencies should consider relevant public health data and industry data concerning the potential for multiple or cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected population and historical patterns of exposure to environmental hazards… Agencies should consider these multiple, or cumulative effects, even if certain effects are not within the control or subject to the discretion of the agency proposing the action.”

City of Des Moines

“The amount of information contained in the Environmental Assessment combined with the highly technical nature of the content would require months to review thoroughly. The period, even with the extension, does not provide ample time for staff, let alone the public, to review areas of interest to ensure their concerns are satisfactorily addressed. It is very disappointing that the FAA offered such a short timeframe, especially considering the magnitude of the SAMP and Environmental Assessment. In many ways it seems allowing the public to review the assumptions, analyses, and conclusions, was more about “checking a box” rather than truly seeking input…. This should not be just about “checking a box” but rather respecting the communities and environment that are directly and indirectly.”

Burien

“The General Study Area—the Port’s boundaries for its Area of Potential Effect—is drawn very tightly around the airport campus. The Port is attempting to force evaluation of the 31 “Near Term Projects” (NTPs) that make up the SAMP largely for impacts that will occur while those projects are under construction. This tactic ignores the impact—noise and other forms of pollution—that would occur in surrounding communities once additional aircraft and vehicles accommodated as a result of the SAMP projects leave the airport grounds.”

City of Tukwila

“The City of Tukwila is disappointed that our comments raised during the Scoping Process were not considered or addressed in the SAMP Draft EA. In fact, except for a very small part of the City, impacts to Tukwila were not even considered in the SAMP Draft EA.

The City believes that the SAMP Draft EA study area is too small, the mitigation measures are insignificant, and the SAMP Draft EA fails to meet the Port’s own commitment to equity and social justice. The City of Tukwila respectfully requests that a full Environmental Impact Statement be completed for the proposed Master Plan and that the General Study Area (GSA) be expanded to at least include all of the City of Tukwila.

The Port of Seattle’s website notes that “it commits to taking a role in regional and national efforts to achieve equity and social justice.” Yet, the SAMP Draft EA does not demonstrate any commitment to addressing equity and social justice.”

City of Normandy Park

We recognize the Port of Seattle's significant role in driving the economic growth of our region and appreciate the airport's importance in facilitating regional, national, and international connectivity. However, as communities directly affected by airport operations and development, we believe it is essential that SEA growth is balanced to sustain the quality of life in the region, particularly for those communities adjacent to SEA. Historically, south King County, including the communities within the general study area, has a large population of minority and low-income communities. The increase in impacts on these already disadvantaged communities is unfair and must be addressed by the Port.

Citizens and Community Groups Respond to the SAMP

In addition to Defenders of Highline Forest, other community organizations which commented include No Added Harm, 350 Seattle, Quiet Skies Puget Sound, and Seatac Noise Info. Thousands of airport community citizens also sent in their own letters. Below is just one of those comments. Read the full list of comments HERE.

The Port of Seattle (‘PoS’) and FAA appear to have used statistics ‘much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.’ This EA has been crafted with a heavy thumb on the scale, ignoring readily available science on airport noise and pollution impacts to support an agenda of increasing flight operations by 87,000 annually.”

–Steve Edmiston, local activist/filmmaker/lawyer

And… Read the letter written on behalf of four near-airport cities HERE.

Des Moines Creek West Business Park Update

A second appeal was filed with King County Superior Court against the initial decision last November in favor of Pannatoni Corporation to proceed with development of the 403,000 square foot warehouse on S. 216th St. in Des Moines. Stay tuned for further details as they develop.

Lawsuit against Port of Seattle and airlines’ practice of "showering unwanted and harmful pollutants on people's homes" moving forward

An encouraging development to hold airlines accountable for health impacts made the news last November.

A class action lawsuit was filed in 2022 on behalf of all residents within 5 miles of Seatac airport. The lawsuit claims that airlines are harming the health of residents of airport communities. On November 25, a judge DENIED the Port’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Steve Berman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, in an email called the ruling "a first step toward environmental justice for this class."

Said one local resident: Airlines and airport authorities must not shower unwanted and harmful pollutants on people’s homes. The laws of negligence, nuisance, trespass, battery, and (for government defendants) the Takings Clause of the Washington Constitution prohibit such unwanted and damaging behavior. People who suffer harm when airlines and airport authorities break these laws are entitled to the court’s protection.

This Youtube video of a comment to the Port back in 2018 states that the Port had the public health proof needed to address the harms from aviation to local communities, and predicted that if they did not, the lawsuits would come.

Read more about the lawsuit HERE.

Volunteer activities in YOUR City:

Normandy Park

2/8 10:00 AM -1:00 PM

Family Foresters Tree planting and noxious weed removal at E.J. Nist Park

https://normandyparkwa.gov/event/family-foresters-2-2/

SeaTac

2/8/25 -9:00 AM -12:00 PM North SeaTac Park - Volunteer Restoration Event https://www.seatacwa.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/13230/16?backlist=%2fhome

Tukwila

2/11/25 11:30am - 1:30pm Riverton Park - Restoration at Riverton

https://tukwila.greencitypartnerships.org/event/290/

Support the Defenders

Donate

Defenders of Highline Forest needs your help to continue its mission of standing up for the preservation of this community’s forest. Would you consider supporting our work with a donation? Our fully volunteer-run operation incurs operating costs for expenses such as our website, newsletter, and fliers.

Thank you!

Donate here

Volunteer

And as always, Defenders of Highline Forest welcome volunteers, too, to help with the newsletter, fundraising, and advocacy campaigns. Want to lend a hand in 2025? We’d love to have you! Contact info@defendersofhighlineforest.org

Content Contributors

Content for this edition of your Defenders of Highline Forest newsletter was provided by, Clare Parfitt, Eileen Lambert, Barbara McMichael, and Noemie Maxwell.