Written by We’ve had two extremely long Transportation committee meetings on the last two Wednesdays, and there appears to be no end in sight. The committee has realized that in addition to public backlash about the jet center langage that came out of the Airport Study, there is also much confusion about who is first in line at the airport for new rental space. We will need more meetings in the near future to review the airport leasing policy, the queue for new space, and to solicit the input of a certain large airplane manufacturer that we wish to keep building planes in our little hamlet.
I recieved this good input from Mark Hancock, a citizen airport-activist in Renton. He summarizes our conversation and his input pretty well, and I suspect many in our city would agree with him.
I would love to get some reader comments on this issue.
Thanks,
Randy
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Randy –
Attached is my initial (very rough) thoughts on the airport policies etc. from the other day. I’m sure that brainstorming with others, and looking over the 2002 and 2005 airport plans would help add to these lists. Maybe the context to put them in to others is: “here’s some initial thoughts, what do you have to add?”
I hope I wasn’t too strident in my pitch at the end of the committee meeting on Wednesday. While I’m obviously happy that the jet center is not longer in there by name, the now absence of any decision criteria other than “good quality” makes me very nervous (how could you make a decision, and have a basis to select one use over another – or to turn one down?). I’m going with the comparison in the meeting – the Airport policies are the “comp plan”, while the Layout Plan is the “zoning”. It was interesting that Jay Covington said there were policies elsewhere – I need to ask him where that is. (maybe the real Comp Plan?)…
Thanks again so much for all your help,
Mark
AIRPORT POLICY OVERVIEW
The big decision is will the Renton Airport:
1) Remain a manufacturing facility, that also includes recreational light aircraft General Aviaton users ?
or
2) Become the new Boeing Field – a regional commercial facility with scheduled and charter passenger carriers ?
Will the City of Renton:
1) Grow the airport to maximize the economic engine ?
or
2) Put quality of life in Renton as the main priority?
Which is more important:
1) Neighborhood needs, with the airport uses designed to preserve them ?
or
2) The airport uses and users, with neighborhoods told to “get used to it” ?
Will Renton (and Mercer Island, Newcastle, etc.) neighborhoods:
1) Remain the peaceful quality neighborhoods they are now ?
or
2) Become the next SeaTac and Georgetowns ?
It is important to recognize:
1) This is an urban airport, inside the Urban Growth Area boundary, in a growing area
not
2) Not an airport out in the country where there are few homes in the flight path
The Renton Airport could likely change incrementally over time (not all at once):
1) Encouraging jets and letting in commercial carriers starts down that slippery slope…
and combined with the Port of Seattle takeover of Boeing Field pushing commercial users to Renton…
2) Ultimately reduces the City of Renton’s future options, and ability to control/change their airport
The FAA can tell Renton to make the airport available to aviation users,
but they cannot specify what those uses and who those users must be.
AIRPORT POLICIES, PRIORITIES and GOALS CONSIDERATIONS
1a Support of Boeing is main priority – now
Need to promote current activities
(e.g. no conflicting uses, keep space available)
1b Support of Boeing is main priority – future
Need to support future activities – keep airport flexible
(e.g. keep space available through short term leases)
(e.g. do not bring in conflicting uses)
2 Preservation of neighborhoods is prime
“Good neighbor” tenants at airport (uses, behavior)
Discourage noise (esp. at night) – don’t just talk about it
Consider adjacent residences, and under/by flight paths
3 Support private light aircraft General Aviation users
Construct T-hangers for indoor aircraft storage
Avoid uses that will conflict, dominate, limit or detract from them
4 Financial return is important, but not driving force
City/neighborhood integrity comes first
Airport should strive to break even; but people before profit
5 Short term leases shall be the norm
Allows flexibility of airport, and control of tenants
Need to do what’s right for the City (not cater to tenants)
6 Keep the current mix of airport uses
7 Discourage night flights, and frequent flights
Careful selection of uses, users, facilities (& mgt of same)
8 Seek to attract new compatible uses:
aircraft and aviation related production
aircraft retrofitting
maintenance/repair services
These will not conflict with existing uses
and will have good paying jobs
9 Responsive noise complaint procedure
Need to be on top of it (not “we don’t know”)
Professional and responsive, like other airports do it
Followup management of users based on public complaints
TENANT LEASING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Proposed use must meet City’s airport Policies/Goals, and Airport Layout Plan
Proposal must include all details of proposed use, and detailed layout of any proposed structure (inc. employees, # flights and their times, type of aircraft, etc.)
User must fill out & sign a SEPA checklist – listing, quantifying, and addressing all uses and their impacts
What is the user’s previous history, and their relationship with cities and neighborhoods elsewhere ? (owner financial information, corp. history, experience, etc.)
Council shall receive copies of all proposal letters and RFP responses
Council shall have an aviation lawyer review the use, user, risks, terms and conditions, etc. (can also deal with tenant lawyers, lease terms, and the FAA)
Council shall have the last word on contracts, including approval of final contract language (not staff, mayor, or airport manager)
City to own all buildings from the start
May build it, or buy it at completion of construction
Building to be adaptable for future uses/users
Allows for short term leases, and control of tenant
Short term leases are a requirement (allows airport flexibility; control of tenants)
Lease rates should be competitive
Do not give the property away
Give consideration for desireable/compatible/nonintrusive uses.
Consider one use against others before selection is made (pros & cons).
How could tenant expand/change over time?
Will there be new/different uses?
Can they get FAA to force Renton to accept new activities once they get a
lease and presence on the airport property ?
What does the use contribute (or not) to City/citizens/neighborhoods ?
Statements must be supported (esp. business spinoff claims, # jobs, etc.)
Airport Development Plan
As a long time airport tenant and owner of one of the companies responding to the City’s RFP, let me say how much I appreciate the hard work and long hours put in by the Transportation Committee. I hope the controversy surrounding development at the Renton airport will soon be resolved.
My company, Pro-Flight Aviation, receives many inquiries regarding airport operations from citizens of all the surrounding communities. This prompted us to publish a website containing information and our point of view on these issues.
http://jetcenter.flyproflight.com
Like most aviators, I believe in maintaining the best possible relationship with airport neighbors. At Pro-Flight, we inform all visiting pilots of the noise abatement procedures and require our own pilots to abide by them. It really is possible to operate aircraft, including jets and turbo-props, with minimal noise impact, using procedures we currently have in place. I believe all the proposed modifications to the instrument approach should be implemented ASAP to further reduce noise impacts.
I’d also like to thank Mark Hancock and his organization for their efforts in bringing many important issues to the forefront. Constructive dialog between concerned citizens, City officials, and Airport users will prove beneficial to us all.
Thanks,
Bernie Paholke
Re: Airport Development Plan
What constitutes “minimal noise impact” to a business owner who will reap huge financial gains by having jets and turbo-props flying over our neighborhoods and the people who live in the homes whose property values will plunge are two completely different things. Sugary words will not change the bitter facts. Jets are loud and intrusive and no noise abatement procedure will make any significant difference to those of us who live under or near the flight path.
Jan Hickling – Talbot Hill neighbor
Re: Airport Development Plan
My family and I live in Renton on Cemetery Hill, just northeast of Talbot Hill. Last summer, during the Boeing Field closure, our neighborhoods experienced a significant increase in jet noise and many of our neighbors came to us asking about the situation. I really do understand where you’re coming from, and I agree that jets flying over or near your home can be intrusive. This affects your neighborhood most when the wind is from the south and Mercer Island and Kennydale when it’s from the north.
Turbo-props are a different story. Modern turbo-props are very quiet, compared to jets or piston-powered aircraft of similar size and power. Not only do they produce less noise, but they gain altitude quickly so they are higher when they go over your area. Renton has had a number of turbo-props based here for years and, to my knowledge, have never received noise complaints on any of these.
Given the short runway length at Renton, and the proximity of surrounding neighborhoods on hills,
turbo-props are the ideal type of aircraft to have using the Renton Airport. These are the type of
planes Pro-Flight has aggressively tried to attract to Renton.
Boeing has given up 13-14 acres of land at the airport and many companies, mine included, have asked for space to expand. The City can delay this expansion for a while but, sooner or later, the FAA will insist that this available property be used for aviation purposes.
I think the real issue is what type of aircraft and aviation related activities will have the most benefit for citizens and aviation service companies alike. This is a complicated question. Some areas, like yours and Mercer Island, are nearly in line with the runway and will be most affected by jets. Other areas, like Kennydale, would be adversely affected by smaller, piston-powered aircraft flying the traffic pattern. Owners of lakefront property are most affected by seaplanes. The solution will probably be a mix of all these activities.
Please believe me, I’m not trying to sugar coat anything. My company is, and always has been, willing to openly discuss any of these issues. You, or anybody, should feel free to come to our business, take a tour of the airport, or whatever. As I said, open, constructive dialog between citizens, city officials and aviators is the only way to achieve an equitable solution for all.
Thanks,
Bernie Paholke
Owner
Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc.