Written by Here is another summary of the Jet Center issue from my brilliant and hard-working colleague Marcie Palmer. Marcie has been working to gather input from the community on this issue. She also makes the important point that at Wednesday’s Transportation meeting we figured out that the Jet Center was called the preferred alternative only by a consultant, not by the council or the RAAC. Council and staff want more data before making a decision.
This issue is not decided, and all inputs are appreciated and accepted.
_______________________________________
There is no action being taken Tuesday at RAAC. There is no specified time a vote will be taken. I believe that there is so much confusion that we need to take a step back, take a deep breath and calm down, and look at the whole thing again. At the Transportation/Aviation Committee last Wed., we realized that if some of us are confused, then no wonder the community is. And where there’s confusion, there’s generally misinformation. The other big realization was that the only reason the option with a jet center has been referred to as the “preferred” alternative, is because the consultant put that on. They were looking at the policies approved in the Airport Development Study portion of the Business Plan. The RAAC has never voted on which is the recommended or preferred option, Council hasn’t voted, so we should not have been putting this out there yet as the “preferred” plan. We have slowed down everything since Nov. when we realized the concern in the Community. We are trying to do a good job of community outreach by offering to go to every neighborhood groups, reviewing information with the RAAC so newer members have opportunities to learn and get answers, and trying to get better information out there for all to look at.
I haven’t seen the 3 proposals, and all I’ve been told by Staff is that “They are all very different from each other”. Can we open them and look? I don’t know. Would that answer questions? Some, probably. I anticipate it will also raise new questions.
At this point, there is no plan to push forward at a fast pace. While we continue with having the RAAC study ALL the options and offer opportunities for Community education and input, Council still needs to see financial information, a noise study needs to be done, a Boeing building must be demolished as well as other tasks relating to use of the land. Council will be reviewing the policies in the Development Study at our Retreat the end of the month. I’m speaking for myself here, not the full Council, but I believe our priorities stated in those policies have been and are: (1) The airport business works within guidelines set by the FAA; (2) the airport be self-sustaining so it doesn’t become a drain on the General Fund; (3) the airport business be community-friendly to the best we can do that with aircraft noise.
The jet center at our airport is NOT a “done deal”. There are an equal number of neighborhood and avaition members serving on the RAAC. The City, Council and RAAC Chair are well aware of the Community interest and concerns and WE ARE LISTENING. That’s what you all asked us to do and we are. Meanwhile, aviation businesses of all sorts continue to request lease space on the field and we will assess each according to the priorities and policies in place while RAAC continues to study and debate long-term options.
While I might have seen the wisdom of the “jet center”, I believe it is always important to re-assess all the facts and information as time goes on. And remember, I live under the flight path and right alongside my fellow Renton residents and truly want to make the best decision. Whatever the decision is—jet center, seaplane base enhancements, flight schools, servicing businesses, City-owned hangars, etc.—not everyone will be happy. We’ll just try to get to the best consensus at the appropriate time and not be pushed too fast.
I’m always happy to answer any questions, and although I often don’t always have the answers, I know people who can help us.
Respectfully,
Marcie Palmer
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Renton Airport Jet Center mtg Feb 13
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:22:26 -0800
From: “Mark Hancock”
To: webgirl@…
The Renton Airport Advisory Committee (RAAC) will be meeting this coming
Tuesday, February 13, from 5:30 – 7:00 PM in the Renton City Council
chambers in City Hall. They have been told by their chair that they will be
asked to approve an airport master plan to pass on to the Council in either
this or their March meeting. The City’s preferred alternative is the jet
center. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend and observe the
discussion and decision.
A few comments:
1) A vote at this time is premature – the nature of the jet center has
never been clarified to the point where an informed decision can be made.
The number and type of jobs, number and type of flights, City expenses and
income, etc. are all vague and confusing in the public discussion so far
(either lacking or often contradictory). The City should open the RFP
responses and tell the public what is really planned to happen on the ground
and in the skies over their homes, and only then ask for a decision by the
RAAC. SEPA does not include economics, so that discussion needs to be held
now, before any vote.
2) When there is a vote by the RAAC, it’s already a lock for the jet center
– it’s a done deal. The homeowner voting representatives are outnumbered
by the airport/council/staff voting representatives, so there’s no stopping
it. Right now it’s 8 to 7, and after Monday night’s Council meeting it will
be 9 to 8.
3) The Council is adding representatives to the RAAC in their meeting this
Monday night, February 12. To their credit they are adding a representative
from Mercer Island, but then adding another Pilot’s Association rep “to make
it fair.” The RAAC is already a stacked deck, and this maintains that
status. There will then be 8 neighborhood reps, 7 airport reps, one Council
member and one City staff member. Neighborhoods lose the vote 9 to 8.
4) The make-up of the RAAC should be further modified by the Council in
their meeting on Monday night, by removing voter status for the Council
member and City staff member on the RAAC. Then it will be 8 to 7 in favor
of the neighborhoods. Residents of the City should have the majority on the
RAAC, not the airport business interests. It is also not appropriate for
Council or staff to vote on a community stakeholders committee like the RAAC
– the Council member will be able to vote on the Council Airport Committee
and the full Council, and the staff rep is beholden to the Mayor.
5) Unfortunately, even then just one neighborhood rep voting with the
airport crowd locks the jet center, and that will most likely happen. The
airport crowd has done a good sales job in the RAAC meetings.
More info and links at: www.nojets.org
Thanks for listening,
Mark Hancock
Kennydale resident
It is good to hear that the RAAC will not vote this week. At the January 9, 2007 RAAC meeting, the chair very clearly stated that he expected a vote on the airport master plan alternatives in their February or March meeting. There were around 20 people in the room, and I am certainly not the only one who heard that. There has been no specific public scheduling direction from the City other than that, so if the City has a different schedule this is a good time to show it to the public so we can all “step back and take a breath” as Councilwoman Palmer wrote.
In the RAAC meeting minutes for 11/14/06 there was a “Show of hands on who approves of jet traffic at Renton Airport.” So there’s already been a preliminary RAAC vote, and oddly enough the minutes do not say what the results of that vote were, or who voted one way or the other.
The RAAC voting membership numbers in my previous note are accurate, taken from the proposed Council ordinance for Feb 12, and the related 1/22/07 staff report for the previous draft of the ordinance. That same staff report says the “RAAC was formed in 2001 to act in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and City Council.” It is inappropriate to have a voting position on this citizen’s committee for a Councilmember or a staff member.
The later SEPA checklist and discussion will not include economics (see the checklist in WAC 197-11-960). Since economics is the whole reason for the jet center proposal, a public economic discussion of City expenses/income (both direct and indirect) needs to be held now, about a specific jet center operation as well as viable alternatives, before any votes or decisions are made by the RAAC, because the discussion scope and public input opportunity will narrow after that.
Yes it is time to slow down, and learn more and clarify things before decisions are made, and thanks to the City for that. I fully respect all the work that has been done by so many in the last few years, but there needs to be a very specific proposal made for the RAAC and then Council to consider, not a generic jet center whose operations, economics and impacts are open-ended. The stakes are too high – the internet is full of cities around the US that are struggling and helpless to control jet noise at night due to FAA restrictions, so we need to think/plan long and hard before we build a facility that encourages and increases jet usage of our airport.
Mark Hancock
Kennydale Resident
Links to all the documents cited above can be found at http://www.nojets.org
It is important to understand the situation regarding the Airport Master Plan alternatives that have been given to the RAAC.
The current alternatives on the table reflect the City’s new direction for the airport. The City has gone from the “no growth” 2002 Business Plan to the 2005 Development Study which “recommends” the airport “increase its share of light and medium business jet traffic” and calls for the airport to be “a major economic engine for the City of Renton.” I have heard the term “maximize the airport’s potential” a number of times in the various meetings and discussions, quite contrary to Councilmember Palmer’s statement here that “the airport be self-sustaining.”
The decision has not been made for/by the RAAC? Well, in politics you can determine the outcome by defining the discussion, and this has been done by the alternatives given to them. There has been little discussion supporting General Aviation Alternates 1 and 2 (which have been “rejected as impractical” on page 3 of the 10/10/06 staff report to the Transportation Committee Meeting), while nearly all discussion is on adding a jet center in Alternatives 3A and 3B (which the same staff report says “were considered viable”), resulting in the preferred jet center hybrid 5th Alternative. There are no other alternatives being considered or proposed to the RAAC, so it’s either the jet center or picking between two “impractical” light plane alternatives. Have Alternatives 1 and 2 been revised so they are practical?
Contrary to Councilwoman Palmer, the RAAC is not being given the opportunity to “study ALL the options.” Where are the alternatives for the several other airport related uses that the FAA should approve on Renton Airport property – e.g. an aircraft manufacturing type facility. There are certainly Boeing suppliers up and down the Valley who would be delighted to get out of a Kent or Auburn facility and get closer to Boeing in Renton. Those would provide more and better paying jobs than the rental car clerks, limo drivers, and restaurant workers the jet center would bring. Ryan told the Mercer Island folks that manufacturers aren’t out there – OK, so why hasn’t Renton issued an RFP to find out? (and why rush to demolish the existing building that Boeing is vacating – could it be re-used in this context?) This solution is win-win – good jobs, without an increase in aircraft noise over our homes.
Hopefully the Council will direct the RAAC and consultants to provide more and better alternatives to the jet center before decisions are asked for. Thanks a lot for your thoughtful approach Randy.
Mark Hancock
Kennydale Resident
links to documents cited above at http://www.nojets.org
get the most $ for the annoyance
It seems silly to me to continue to operate the Renton Airport as-is and not to enhance the facility to be able to support uses that would generate better revenue and appeal to a higher class of clientele than the Cessna crowd. If you have to bear some noise from aircraft, why not have it be the ones who are coming into the area to do business and can afford to pay higher rents than the prop pilots who seem to only touch-and-go all-day?
Also, don’t let a bunch of Mercer Islanders dictate what Renton will do with our facility. The airport was there long before they were.
Re: get the most $ for the annoyance
It is interesting to me the only person who supports the noise of the jets is ANNONYMOUS. Hmmmmmm….
Jan Hickling – Talbot Hill Neighbor
Very Light Jets are not coming
As you are aware some in the city of Renton is pushing to put a Jet Center in at the local airport. The supporters are emphasizing attracting new, Very Light Jets (VLJ). They claim VLJ are being purchased to replace old jets. The following research indicates pigs are more likely to fly.
According to an article written by Vaughn Cordle, CFA, CEO and Chief Analysis of Airline Forecasts LLC, an airline analyst and consultant to various hedge funds, government agencies, corporations and consulting groups, 25 years airline industry experience, a senior B777 captain for a major airline, member of NY Airline and Security Analysists Society and holders of 33 national and world speed records, “My best guess is that perhaps 300 of the VLJ’s will be sold annually for the next 10 years.” (FAAMA.org) Another statement regarding VLJ sales, “The FAA said “industry experts” suggest the market for new micro jets could add 500 a year to the active fleet by 2010. The agency forecast “assumes that micro jets will begin to enter the active fleet in 2006 (100 aircraft)” and grow by 400 to 500 a year after that to reach 4,950 aircraft by 2017. (FAAMA.org)
I wonder how many of the few, new VLJ’s will make Renton Washington their home as compared to the many older, loud jets currently flying?
There are currently no VLJ’s flying out of Renton. There are Lear 33’s/35, Cessna Citation 10, Falcon 50 and turbo props such as TBM 700, Piper Malibu and Baron 58. Common sense says there would be more of the same style flying out in the foreseeable future.
I would also like to add none of the VLJ has received certification from the FAA or European Aviation Safety Agency. There is also industry concern for pilot and air traffic controller skills regarding the new jets. We only need to remember the airplane that destroyed Kennydale Elementary School to know the reality of airplane crashes.
It is my opinion the citizens of Renton are being manipulated with misleading information. The promises of quiet jets which will soar up at steep angles far above our homes is unrealistic. The jets will bring nothing but noise. Much, much more noise than single or twin engine planes. Which contrary to claims do not spend their flying time doing touch downs. This is an activity only used to practice flying which I assume anybody who owns a plane is able to do.
I support Plan A which would leave the airport basically as is. If ty-downs were installed at the proposed Jet Center site it could easily be converted at some future date, perhaps in ten years when VLJ traffic was a more realistic possibility.
Attracting loud, disruptive jets to a jet center will reduce the quality of life not only for the residence of Renton but the surrounding communities of Mercer Island and Newcastle. The cumulative drop in property values, which would be in the millions, will be devastating and infuriate the residence.
Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy posting. This is a serious that needs careful consideration based on facts not blue sky promises.
Sincerely,
Jan Hickling
Talbot Hill Neighbor