Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda AGENDA Transportation Committee Regular Meeting 4:30 PM - Monday, December 3, 2018 Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way 1. Airport Master Plan Preferred Airside Alternative a) AB - 2265 Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of Preferred Airside Alternative #5 to the Renton Airport Master Plan Update, and authorization for staff to brief the Federal Aviation Administration and begin drafting the Airport Layout Plan design using the selected alternative. 2. Rainier Flight Services Lease Proposal Briefing 3. Emerging Issues in Transportation AB - 2265 City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Nov 2018 SUBJECT/TITLE: Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan Preferred Airside Alternative RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee DEPARTMENT: Transportation Systems Division STAFF CONTACT: Harry Barrett, Jr, Airport Manager EXT.: 7477 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: The Airport Master Plan Alternative only has planning level cost estimates at this time. The long-term total cost estimates in current day dollars for the staff recommended alternative would result in $87,011,185, of which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would fund 90% and the Airport would be required to fund a 10% local match. The local match would only need to be available for projects as they are implemented, which would be over a period of several years. Options for funding the local match would be determined by a financial plan outlined by the consultant. Such options may include, but are not limited to, increases or changes in Airport rates and fees, bonding, public-private partnership, creation of an Airport authority, or term rights with lease payments to the Airport for property acquisition. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Airport has reached the “Alternatives Phase” of the Master Plan process whereas a decision for a preferred alternative must be made. The goal of the Master Plan process is to analyze current Airport capabilities as they relate to existing operations, to correct safety deficiencies and implement a plan for future improvements based on an aeronautical forecast of demand. The initial phases of the Master Plan study determined that in its current state, the Airport is unable to safely accommodate the type of aircraft currently utilizing the Airport and the type of growth projected for future demand. Due to this assessment, in April 2018 the Airport Reference Code (ARC), which is determined by the approach speed and wingspan of the most demanding aircraft with 500 or more annual operations, was upgraded from a B-II to a D-III. The change has prompted a need to implement a capital improvement plan that considers large high-speed aircraft over small, slower piston aircraft in future development. As a result there are a number of safety improvements that the Airport is required to address under federal regulations, including the runway safety area, which cannot be waived under federal guidelines. The Airport has reached the Alternatives Phase of the Master Plan study, which is an assessment of all feasible alternatives to address deficiencies. Staff has studied a range of seven airside alternatives and has concluded that while all of the alternatives are suitable, there is one alternative that meets runway safety area standards while minimizing the impacts to the surrounding community. The Airport would like to brief the FAA on Alternative #5, addition of Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) with a north shift of the runway environment as the preferred alternative. The FAA will use the preferred alternative to approve an Airport Layout Plan, which is the legal planning document approved by the FAA and obligates the city to a future development plan under FAA grant obligations. This process will initiate an Environmental Impact Statement study, which may or may not change or influence the actual layout and improvements on the Airport. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) EXHIBITS: A. Issue Paper B. Airside Alternative #5 Drawing C. Draft Open House Summary STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the staff recommendation of Preferred Airside Alternative #5 to the Master Plan Update, and authorize staff to brief the FAA and proceed with drafting the Airport Layout Plan design using the selected alternative. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE:November 19, 2019 TO:Ed Prince, Council President Members of Renton City Council VIA:Denis Law, Mayor FROM:Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator, ext. 7311 STAFF CONTACT:Harry Barrett, Jr., ext. 7477 SUBJECT:Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan Preferred Airside Alternative ISSUE 1. Should Council approve Preferred Airside Alternative #5 – Declared Distances with EMAS (Engineering Material Arresting System) with North Shift to the Airport Master Plan Update? 2. Should Council authorize staff to brief the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and proceed with drafting the Airport Layout Plan design using the selected Preferred Airside Alternative #5? RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the staff recommendation of Preferred Airside Alternative #5 – Declared Distances with EMAS to the Airport Master Plan Update. 2. Authorize the staff to brief the FAA and proceed with drafting the Airport Layout Plan design using the selected Preferred Airside Alternative #5. BACKGROUND In 2014 the Airport initiated an Airport Master Plan Update, an FAA mandated systematic planning process that allows an airport to define a framework for future development. The Master Plan process takes into account current conditions and capabilities, and establishes a plan for future Airport planning. The last Airport Master Plan was implemented in 1997 and updated in 2007. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 6 November 19, 2018 The Airport Master Plan is funded by the Federal Aviation Administration at 90% under a 5-year grant. The FAA grant will expire on December 31, 2018. There are 9 components to the Airport Master Plan: 1. Public Involvement. 2. Environmental Considerations. 3. Existing Conditions. 4. Aviation Forecasts. 5. Facility Requirements. 6. Alternative Development. 7. Airport Layout Plan. 8. Facilities Implementation Plan. 9. Financial Analysis and Plan. Two of the components must be approved by the FAA – the Aviation Forecast and the Airport Layout Plan. The other components of the Master Plan are accepted by the FAA. The FAA approved the Aviation Forecast April 18, 2018. The Airport Layout Plan, which is a graphical representation of future Airport development, cannot be approved by the FAA until the city has selected a preferred airside alternative from the seven Master Plan alternatives. With the April 18 approval of the Aviation Forecast, the FAA provided the Airport with a new Airport Reference Code (ARC). The ARC relates Airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the most critical aircraft utilizing the Airport based on approach speed and wingspan. The ARC is determined by 500 or more annual operations of a specific aircraft type grouping. Under the previous ARC, the Airport design standard was B-II, which typified aircraft such as the Cessna Citation CJ3 and the Embraer 120 Brasilia. With the designation of the new ARC the Airport design standard increases to D-III, which typifies aircraft such as the HS 121 Trident and the Boeing 737. The current annual operations of the D-III group of aircraft at the Airport is over 700 operations. This includes business aircraft and Boeing production aircraft. To comply with federal obligations the Airport must now design to the D-III standard to accommodate the change in ARC and to meet the safety standards. The Airport’s consultant Mead & Hunt has drafted seven design alternatives based on the D-III standard. These alternatives graphically depict the methods by which the Airport can achieve federal safety compliance for the critical design aircraft group at the Airport. Per federal regulations the Airport must attempt, by all means, to comply with safety standards. At the FAA’s discretion, the Airport may be able to secure a modification to standard or waiver for most deficiencies until those standards can be met. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 3 of 6 November 19, 2018 The runway safety area cannot be waived or receive a modification to standard. The purpose of the runway safety area (RSA), which includes the runway protection zone (RPZ), provides a prepared surface that limits damage to aircraft and prevents the loss of life to people on the ground in the event an aircraft either undershoots or overshoots the runway on takeoff or landing. The federal government required that all Part 139 airports receiving grant funding achieve this standard by the year 2016. Now that all commercial service Part 139 airports have complied the focus has shifted to general aviation airports to do the same. The FAA provides 90% funding for improvement projects that meet the standard. While drafting the alternatives the Airport and the consultant considered a range of issues and impacts that formed these alternatives. These issues and impacts include: Community impacts to Renton High School: All alternatives included relocation of the ball fields west of the school and in some alternatives there were impacts to the building. Business development south of the Airport. City transportation and vehicle traffic management. Lake Washington. Environmental factors (to be developed further as part of the Environmental Impact Statement). Air traffic management impacts to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and King County International Airport. Airport users and Airport businesses. Seaplane base operations. Financial feasibility for the city and the FAA. Local and regional level land use and zoning. Current Airport demand and future flexibility and sustainability of the Airport, including regional disaster resource usage. Using great care to problem solve these issues, staff chose to eliminate three alternatives for potential recommended courses of action. Those alternatives are: Alternative #1A – Traditional Graded RSA without Declared Distances. Alternative #1B – Traditional Graded RSA with Declared Distances. Alternative #2 – Declared Distances with South Shift. Alternative #1A and #1B were eliminated due to the sheer scale of impacts to Lake Washington, the Cedar River, downtown, Renton High School and many businesses and tenants currently operating on the Airport. Alternative #2 was eliminated as a potential AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 4 of 6 November 19, 2018 option due to the severe impacts it would have on the downtown core and transportation objectives throughout the city. Staff opined that Alternative #3 – Declared Distances with North Shift is an alternative that is viewed as viable, although it is still highly undesirable when compared to others due to environmental impacts, air traffic management impacts and lack of flexibility and sustainability. Alternative #3 creates substantial impacts to Lake Washington, which would include adding fill and a platform in the lake. Additionally there are a greater number of impacts to the Cedar River. Given the extent of impact this alternative does not provide any additional benefits for flexibility or sustainability given the current demand on the Airport. In fact this alternative may create an undue operational burden, both on the efficiency of air traffic management and on the maintenance of assets. In this alternative the land south of the Airport would need to be secured with aviation navigation easements. The city might have limited or no control over incompatible land uses that undermine federal aviation regulations should the landowners opt to breach the contract. Staff’s view is that there are two alternatives that provide the best options for meeting federal safety regulations, while simultaneously increasing both operational flexibility and financial sustainability on the Airport. However though less involved than other traditional alternatives, the off-airport impacts are substantial, particularly with land acquisition. These alternatives are: Alternative #4 – EMAS with South Shift Alternative #6 – Hybrid approach with EMAS and Slight North Shift These alternatives use the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) as a design measure to reduce the runway safety area dimension, while maintaining the integrity of the safety area purpose. EMAS is a foamed silica bed with concrete surface designed to help slow or stop aircraft in the event of an overshoot or undershoot of the runway. The system is used to reduce and supplement the runway safety area at airports where a full safety area cannot be achieved. Alternative #4 and #6 would require installation of EMAS beds at one or both ends of the runway. In Alternative #4 the runway area would be slightly shifted south, which would allow for an installation to the north without impacting Lake Washington. An additional EMAS installation to the south end of the runway would reduce the amount of land required for acquisition when compared to some other alternatives. Alternative #6 would require a slight shift of the runway to the north with a ramp or fill installed into Lake Washington to support EMAS on the north end. In Alternative #6 a major road AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 5 of 6 November 19, 2018 would need to be relocated and there would need to be some land acquisition between Rainier Avenue North/South to the west and Logan Avenue North/South to the east, and up to Tobin Avenue South to the south to accommodate the runway protection zone. Staff believes there is one alternative that is least impactful to the community, which is Alternative #5 – Declared Distances and EMAS with North Shift. This alternative limits acquisition to the south of the Airport and is least costly in terms of project expense, both of which are desirable. However this alternative does impose impacts to Lake Washington and does not offer additional benefits. OTHER ISSUES The city has obligations to operate the Airport in accordance with federal regulations, or risk losing and repaying all grant funds and land values for property acquisition since the Airport was transferred to the city. Staff is cautious to make recommendations consistent with these obligations. The following federal grant assurances are most applicable to this decision: Grant Assurance 1 – Airport Development or Noise Compatibility Program Undertaken by a Public Agency Sponsor. Grant Assurance 5 – Preserving Rights and Powers. Grant Assurance 6 – Consideration to the Interest of Communities. Grant Assurance 11 – Pavement Preventative Maintenance. Grant Assurance 20 – Hazard Removal and Mitigation. Grant Assurance 21 – Compatible Land Use. Grant Assurance 23 – Airport Layout Plan. Grant Assurance 24 – Fee and Rental Structure. Grant Assurance 35 – Relocation and Real Property Acquisition. Staff can provide additional context for any implications these assurances might impose. COMMUNITY AND AIRPORT ADVISORY COUNCIL FEEDBACK The Airport sought feedback from the community and Airport Advisory Committee on the preferred alternative during the recommendation making process. Staff determined that the community was moderately engaged in the project initially, but that some of the interest in the study has since declined. This may be due to delays in the planning process. Community and Airport Advisory Committee comments and feedback are attached as Exhibit C to this document. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 6 of 6 November 19, 2018 SUMMARY Staff recommends Alternative #5 be selected as the preferred airside alternative to the Airport Master Plan. This recommendation is made based on the limited community impacts and favorable costs estimates. Staff requests Council approve Preferred Airside Alternative #5 and authorize staff to brief the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and proceed with drafting the Airport Layout Plan design using the selected Preferred Airside Alternative No. 5. cc: Robert Harrison, Chief Administrative Officer Chip Vincent, Community and Economic Development Administrator Kelly Beymer, Community Services Administrator Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Cliff Long, Economic Development Director Jim Seitz, Transportation Systems Director Harry Barrett, Jr., Airport Manager Jason Anderson, Assistant Airport Manager AGENDA ITEM #1. a) X X RAINIER AVE. LOG A N A V E .S. 2nd StreetRPZ EASEMENTACQUISITION RSA (F)RSA (F)RSA (F)RSA (F)RSA (F)RSA (F) RSA (F)RSA (F)RSA (F)RSA (F)RSA (F)RSA (F) ROFA (F)ROFA (F)ROFA (F)ROFA (F)ROFA (F) ROFA (F)ROFA (F)ROFA (F)ROFA (F)ROFA (F) 5073' RUNWAY 16 LDA 227' DISPLACED THRESHOLD 227' DISPLACED THRESHOLD 5300' RUNWAY 34 ASDA 350' X 200' EMAS 350' X 200' EMAS 5073' RUNWAY 34 LDA NEW SEAPLANE DOCK & PULL OUT AREA APPROACH RPZ DEPARTURE RPZ RUNWAY 16/34 5300' 5300' RUNWAY 16 ASDA RPZ EASEMENT ACQUISITION LEGEND REALIGN CEDAR RIVER & RELOCATE/ REPLACE NORTH BRIDGE Preferred Alternative #5 - Declared Distances and EMAS w/ North ShiftFIGURE C D.28 Renton Municipal Airport/ Clayton Scott Field 2017 GOOGLE EARTH AERIAL 0 600 1200Disclaimer: This illustration is for study purposes only, based on national FAA standards, and is not necessarily intended for implementation. For further information please see Chapter D of the Airport Master Plan and the FAQ document on the Airport's website. Notes: RW/TW separation to be addressed with operational mitigation.** APPROACH RPZ DEPARTURE RPZ CEDAR RIVER LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY LINE FUTURE ROADWAY ALIGNMENT FUTURE RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) FUTURE RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) FUTURE ENGINEERED MATERIAL ARRESTING SYSTEM (EMAS) RSA (F) ROFA (F) FUTURE TAXIWAY FUTURE SEAPLANE DOCK PROPOSED BUILDING/FACILITY DEMOLITION FUTURE RPZ EASEMENT FUTURE TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (TOFA)TOFA (F) FUTURE RUNWAY SAFETY AREA EXPANSION ROAD CLOSURE RELOCATE COMPASS ROSE 300'** 350'** 300'** MODIFICATION TO STANDARD FOR PERIMETER ROAD IN ROFA FUTURE PAVEMENT500'600' x 500' RSA UNDERSHOOT 500' 600'600'600' x 500' RSA UNDERSHOOT CLOSE TOBIN RD. RPZ CONTROLLED ACTIVITY AREA (EASEMENT)* RPZ FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION FOR APPROACH PROTECTION PURPOSES 1 BALL FIELDS 2 MEDICAL CENTER 3 PARKING 4 COMMERCIAL 5 VACANT 1 2 3 45 REPLACEMENT BASEBALL FIELDS AGENDA ITEM #1. a) EXHIBIT C Renton Airport Master Plan Open House Summary DRAFT 10/19/2018 OVERVIEW The City of Renton held an informational open house on Wednesday, October 17, 2018 to speak with stakeholders about the narrowed airfield alternatives under consideration for the Renton Airport Master Plan (alternatives 4, 5, and 6). Approximately 20 people attended the meeting to learn about the project and speak with the project team. Goals for the open house included to share information on the Master Plan and alternatives, help attendees understand potential impacts, and provide an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments. Notifications were distributed to 141 site and property owner addresses, as well as 148 email addresses, comprised of airport tenant/leaseholds, Renton Airport Advisory Committee (RAAC) members and interested community members who have signed-up for project email notifications. WHAT WE HEARD The following themes summarize the primary concerns and considerations heard during the open house and one-on-one conversations. Key takeaways include: Alternative Elements and Land Use Questions about whether on-airport businesses will be impacted by the planning/construction process, how hangar demolition could affect the project and whether there will be displacement. Questions about where and why Airport Way would be relocated. Questions about what happens to any land acquired inside of the relocated Airport Way, and redevelopment opportunities such as aircraft parking and hangars, or Boeing aircraft parking. Concerns about the lack of aircraft parking without additional developable land. Concerns about subsidizing the Boeing Company (or any private business) and allowing a private company to drive the development of the airport. Questions about Boeing’s role in driving new safety area requirements, and the effect on requirements/alternatives if they were not operating at the airfield. Suggestion to move safety areas to the south to gain more ramp space for Boeing or other tenants. Suggestion to acquire the trailer park area adjacent to the seaplane dock and park. Questions about seaplane activities and impacts and clarification that the seaplane facilities will be relocated but not closed. Concerns about the location of the seaplane ramp and the new Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) line. Interest in technical aspects of Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), such as whether it can be walked on and how animals could impact it. Questions about how these improvements will be paid for. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) Community & Environmental Impacts Concern from property owners in the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)/Runway Safety Area (RSA) areas about how the project impacts them now and in the future: o High interest in details around the acquisition process and schedule. o Concerns about the timing of decisions on alternatives and uncertainty for property owners. o Ability of property owners to sell or develop their properties if slated for acquisition. o Questions about the process for estimating fair market value of land to be acquired and if the cost estimates include inflation. Stated preference by several South Renton property owners for options that do not relocate Airport Way. Concerns about the potential displacement of low-income apartment complex under construction at 2nd South and Whitworth. Questions about whether any of the proposed improvements create increased noise for the community, or if there will be increases in operations/changes to operations. Questions about environmental impacts to Lake Washington and Cedar River. Concerns about the complexity of the environmental permitting process. Questions about Renton High School and ball field impacts and clarification that the three preferred alternatives do not change Renton High School or the ball fields in any way. Questions about the location of new ball fields, should they need to be relocated. Project Schedule & Process Confusion around the difference between the NEPA EIS process and WA SEPA EIS process. Clarification that there will be additional opportunity for public input following the EIS process. Questions about the timing of acquisition and clarification that the process is still years out. Questions about next steps for selecting a preferred alternative and cost analysis. Concerns about short notification period for the public meeting and notification of the RAAC meeting. Concerns about the ability of airport neighbors to provide comments before to decisions being made. Interest in ongoing communication with the community as these projects commence. AGENDA ITEM #1. a)