Council workshop hears Snohomish PUD easement proposal for transmission line; pilots and residents warn of airport safety risks

Snohomish PUD representatives told the Arlington City Council at a workshop that a proposed Crosswind transmission line is needed to energize the utility’s Arlington Clean Energy Campus — a 26‑acre site that includes a microgrid, a nearly complete Crosswind Substation and a battery energy storage system under construction.

"We purchased the site back in 2012… the Crosswind Substation is under construction and the battery energy storage system is under construction right now," said Jessica Spar, program manager for Snohomish PUD’s Energy Storage and Emerging Technologies department, outlining the campus facilities and the project timeline. She warned several campus components could not be energized without the transmission line.

The utility’s presenter introduced a preferred alignment after studying five routes and consulting with the city, the airport and the FAA. "We submitted the required forms, had them review it, and then they came back with, no adverse effects," the presenter said when council members raised FAA clearance questions. He described design choices intended to minimize structures near the airport, including 70–80‑foot combined transmission/distribution steel and ductile‑iron poles, selective tree removal and optional structure lighting requested by airport pilots.

City staff presented an easement and compensation proposal for airport property that would permit the lines. According to staff, the proposal would require approximately 237,633 square feet of easement on airport land and carry a compensation package of $1,425,798 plus $7,920 for timber value. "FAA grant assurances require easements be compensated at current market value," staff said when introducing the item.

Council members asked detailed follow‑ups. Councilmember Tim Abrahamson pressed whether the FAA’s reviews accounted for per‑pole obstruction details and whether airport operations or nearby buildings might require removal; staff said the FAA obstruction (Form 7460) submittals were completed and returned with no significant concerns and that, in some cases, the project could reduce overall obstruction by replacing taller trees with poles. On the feasibility of undergrounding, PUD staff said burying transmission is far more expensive and uncommon for these voltage levels: "Burying transmission is very, very expensive… it can be anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than going overhead."

Public commenters focused on flight safety. Neil Carmen, citing glider and helicopter patterns on the airport’s east side, said the proposed wires would lie in recurring traffic paths and "power lines, you can't see them… a vote for these power lines is a vote against safety for pilots." Connor, the fixed‑base operator manager at Arlington Airport, said the airport has growth potential and revenue value but that safety must be prioritized: "If safety is a risk, you know, it's gonna discourage people from showing up from flying." Dan Tarasevich said he had discussed power‑line incidents with an NTSB representative and warned that engine‑out departures could place wires directly in a departing aircraft’s path. Kevin Duncan urged the council to consider alternate routes and questioned whether easements for non‑aeronautical uses fit FAA grant assurances for airport property.

PUD staff and city staff repeatedly pointed to FAA coordination and said the FAA’s review informed their alignment choices. They also emphasized efforts to engage the pilot community through an airport open house and site tours for councilmembers.

No final vote on the transmission‑line easement or compensation was recorded in the workshop minutes. The council proceeded to other agenda items, including municipal code amendments and a Jensen Park change order request.

Why this matters: The proposed easement would permit infrastructure intended to support a local clean‑energy project but could change obstruction profiles near Arlington Airport and prompt operational or safety tradeoffs. The FAA’s "no adverse effect" determination was cited by staff; several pilots and airport tenants told the council they remain unconvinced that the evaluation fully addresses glider and low‑altitude patterns.

Next steps: The easement and compensation proposal was discussed in detail but not adopted at the workshop; the record shows staff answered questions and accepted public comment. The council moved on to other business without a recorded approval of the easement.