HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-08-004_Report 2CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 22, 2010
To: City Clerk's Office
From: Stacy M Tucker
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's Office
Project Name: Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
LUA (file) Number: LUA-08-004, ECF
Cross-References: LUA07-097 Conner Heliport Temporary Use Permit
AKA's:
Project Manager: Erika Conkling
Acceptance Date: January 16, 2008
Applicant: City of Renton
Owner: N/A
Contact: Erika Conkling, City of Renton
PID Number: N/A
ERC Approval Date: February 4, 2008
ERC Appeal Date: February 25, 2008
Administrative Denial:
Appeal Period Ends:
Public Hearing Date:
Date Appealed to HEX: February 22, 2008
By Whom: Peggy Lyle DuBois (Galster)
HEX Decision: Affirmed ERC's Decision Date: May 20, 2010
Date Appealed to Council:
By Whom:
Council Decision: Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: Helipad Zoning Code Amendment in R-8 zone where it abuts
Washington.
Location: R-8 Zone Where it abuts Lake Washington
Comments:
Lake
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Renton Reporter
a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of
general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months
prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in
the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King
County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was
regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.
The annexed notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on April 26, 2008.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is
the sum of $88.20.
/ -c7Y1e&r 44 a'f'{.e.i
Linda M. Mills
Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
Subscribed and sworn to me this 26th day of April, 2008.
r the 'State of Washington, Residing
NOTICE Ot' APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
An appeal Hearing will be held by the
Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council
Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton
City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,
Washington. on May 6, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. to
consider the following petitions:
Helipad Zoning Code Text Amendment
LUA08-004, ECF
Location: This is not a site specific
proposal, but the regulations would
change for R-8 zoned properties with
frontage on Lake Washington. The
proposed non-project action would
amend the wning code to allow
hclipads as an accessory use in the R-
8 zone with a conditional use permit.
A property owner in the affected area
appealed the City's Determination
of Non-Significance under the State
Environmental Policy Act on the basis
that the City's review did noL adequately
address environmental impacts of noise.
Legal descriptions of the files noted above
arc on file in the City Clerk's Office, Seventh
Floor, City Hall, Renton. All interested
persons are invited to be present at the
Public Hearing to express their opinions.
Questions should be directed to the Hearing
Examiner at 425-430-6515.
Published in the Renton Reporter on April
26, 2008. #70766.
~ . 1 . • .
·_ '..' . . ·'<_>· i;i
-l.'. • 'o•"' < ,,, C's ; = ...,,__ .. '-"-':--'? -, -f',o\ \...).' ~
-~-~· o,AJr '1)'1 '/
;; -=C:: ~ )-t\">t / -~~ ~~ / ~ ~ -·-~ ~
~(fl h <.i fz::: ~ ,-,.. Va\..' -= O ;: ~ r'/ 19·'\~ ,.:_ .=
,,, ,·.••·"''' ~0 = ,,. , . .,,(~'<'\ .... ..:::-
' "'"' ..... ....
\ \ \,,...,,,, ......
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT:
RESPONDENT:
LOCATION:
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Pegi Galster
2907 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
City of Renton
Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney
File No.: LUA 08-004
3001 Mt. View Avenue N
May 20, 2008
SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of Environmental Review action to amend Helipad
Zoning Code Amendment.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing
and examining available information on file, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
Thefollowillg minutes are a summary of the May 6, 2008 hearing.
The legal record is recorded 011 CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 6, 2008, at 8:35 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the
Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Parties present: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney representing City of Renton
Erica Conkling, Development Services
John Hempelmann, Attorney representing Charles Connor and Ann Simpson
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-08-004 ECF, Exhibit No. 2: Yellow File by reference for LUA 07-
containing the original application, various reports, 097, Appeal of Temporary Use Permit
correspondence file, SEPA documents, and Staff
analysis.
Exhibit No. 3: Binder containing exhibits A-L Exhibit No. 4: Statement prepared by Pegi and Mark
Galster
Exhibit No. 5: Noise Level Regulations
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 2
The Examiner stated that the matter being reviewed was an Environmental Determination by the City for City
Council action to amend a zoning code amendment. The City is taking action on its own accord to amend the
ordinances and therefore it is the City's action to defend. Other parties may attend and testify but it needs to be
relevant to the issues at hand.
Pegi Galster, 2907 Mt. View Avenue N., Renton 98056 read a statement she and her husband prepared for
today's hearing. They believe that the DNS was in error. Sec 2, Public Safety and Emergency Services stated
that were an accident to occur, it most likely would take place over the lake or on the owner's property and not
on neighboring properties. A helicopter using a shoreline helipad will be airborne much closer to neighboring
properties. This will expose the neighborhood to greater risk from any loss of control of the aircraft.
Further stating that the NTSB database on helicopter accidents contains a long record of aircraft returning to
earth out of control and in a location and attitude other than that intended by the pilot during initial responses to
that failure. The record showed further instances of failures that resulted in accidents, scattered debris and other
dangerous situations.
Construction or operation of a helipad along the shoreline would acquire an approved shoreline variance from
the City of Renton, such helipad was built in 2006 without the required variance or review. This helicopter has
been operating without the required approvals. The ERC should have noted that the due process was currently
in place and should have withheld the DNS recommendation until an adequate process could be identified and
implemented.
There is the issue of nesting Bald Eagles and the disruption to their existence with the use of a helicopter. Fifty.
three percent of Eagles seem to respond to helicopters that come close to nest trees, whereas only seven percent
seem to respond to airplanes that come close to the same nest trees.
Regarding noise, the ERC noted that the City of Renton did not have the jurisdiction to regulate the flight paths
of aircraft. The City does have jurisdiction to regulate where and if, in residential neighborhoods, aircraft are
allowed to take off and land. The FAA regulates size and other attributes of helicopter landing areas, distance to
other airports, near military base, large trees or houses in the pathway. It does not address the appropriateness of
the site with regard to noise or safety standpoint.
The noise of a helicopter taking off from the shore is much louder than a seaplane taking off from the prescribed
distance from the shoreline. The mean decibel level for seaplanes is lower than that of helicopters. According
to the ERC one of the criteria for conditional use is an evaluation of noise. The City has failed to meaningfully
evaluate the noise impact by granting a Temporary Use Permit, the same process cannot be adequate for the
Conditional Use Permit, which has been proposed as a zoning code amendment. The review process currently
in place seems to be demonstratively inaccurate. The DNS should be withdrawn and the threshold
determination process re-initiated.
Various sections of the code were cited by Mrs. Galster regarding the use, impact, actions which all impact the
safety for residents along the shoreline. It appears that the City intends for these questions to be answered as
part of the project specific review for multiple potential actions all within a mile and a half of each other.
Lead agencies should withdraw a DNS if the DNS was procured by misrepresentation or lack of material
disclosure. The City of Renton should respond accordingly.
Upon questioning by Ms. Nielsen, Mrs. Galster stated that she understands that they are only dealing with the
Code Amendment to an existing City Code that would allow a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit, there
is nothing specific at this stage.
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 3
Ms. Conkling stated that the staff and Planning Commission now recommend a Hearing Examiner Conditional
Use. The initial recommendation was for an Administrative Conditional Use.
Ms. Nielsen continued with questioning Mrs. Galster; she stated that she believed the DNS was administered
with no expert authorities on the impact. She found nothing in the public record to show how they determined
this or what information they used to come up with their results. There was no mention of safety issues, noise
issues none of these things would be impacted by a zoning change.
She was trying to show that if the zoning amendment goes through there is a possibility of a large increase in
helicopter traffic in this mile and a half section. The DNS is in error because with increased helicopter traffic
there certainly is the possibility of problems occurring, this is a zoning change, not specific to one piece of
property it may have an effect on over a mile and a half of waterfront in the City of Renton.
Joan Rosling. 1023 N 34'" Street, Renton, 98056 read a statement prepared in regards to the SEPA appeal. It
appeared to her that the planning department and City are insisting there are no environmental impacts in their
checklist dated January 10. The RCW clearly directs the local authorities to assess any environmental impacts
on a project, further states that the responsible party should consult and obtain comments from any public
agency, which may have special expertise with respect to environmental impacts. The Department offish and
Game was not contacted or given a chance to show what impact a helicopter would have on the wildlife in this
area. This decision before us today was made solely on information given to the City by Mr. Conner. She
requests that the City use due diligence that is required by the State and follow the law in making a
determination. Until full investigations are completed, the City does not have enough information to make an
unbiased decision in this matter.
Erika Conkling, Sr. Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development stated that she would give
a brief presentation about the process that was used for the review of the helipad zoning code amendment and go
through each of the items that were considered during this review.
First, they received a request from the Planning Department to allow helipads along Lake Washington in the R-8
zone, which was prompted by Mr. Conner's request for a Temporary Use Permit. A SEPA review was initiated
and as part of that review process for non-project actions they are required by law to publish the results of the
DNS and allow for an open appeal period. They are also required by law to send the proposal to State Agencies.
They further posted notice in four locations, Mt. View Avenue, Ripley Lane, near the intersection of Mt. View
meets Lake Washington Blvd., and near the intersection where Lake Washington Blvd. meets Ripley Lane.
Most lots on Lake Washington are extremely small and would not accommodate a helipad. The calculation of
size varies due to the various sizes of the helicopters, rotors, etc. If there were likely to be helipads that were
approved or eligible to go through the Conditional Use process, those helipads would be located within the
vicinity of Mt. View Avenue or Ripley Lane. Therefore those locations were posted so people who frequented
those locations would know that an environmental review was taking place.
All interested parties for the Temporary Use Permit were mailed a notification of the proposed code change.
Following the environmental review process they received a number of comments and issued the determination,
which was appealed. The standard of review for a non-project action is very different from the standard of
review for a project. The non-project action looks at a broader proposal rather than a specific site proposal.
They do look at what types of activities are likely to result from the change in the regulation and whether or not
they would occur at a different intensity than allowed by the current regulations.
She further discussed the issues that they reviewed, for example, they looked at not necessarily current
conditions but those conditions that could be characterized as urban levels of development along the lake such
SEP A Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 4
as the presence of personal aircraft on the lake. There is a flight path for the Renton airport, which does go over
Kennydale Hill as well as some other surrounding areas, there is the presence of wildlife and the public safety
system that responds to aviation accidents. They further considered the baseline conditions allowed underneath
the allowed regulations of the code. Under the current regulations of the code, people are allowed to develop to
a certain extent and looking at the baseline conditions, one seaplane per residence is allowed with no special
permitting and no requirements. Every residence on Lake Washington within the City of Renton is allowed to
have one seaplane per lot without having to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. The City felt that with the
allowing of a seaplane, a helicopter did not pose any additional significant adverse impact above what is
currently allowed in the regulations. The change that is being proposed would not allow helicopters in addition
to seaplanes. Property owners would be limited to one aircraft per site. Substituting a helicopter for a seaplane
would not increase the level of impacts above what currently is allowed by the regulations. There may be
impacts specifically related to helicopter use such as lot size, location, and proximity to neighbors, type of
aircraft used, and other factors that could result in impacts for nearby property owners. Those impacts are
project specific and are related specifically to a particular project and can be addressed through the Conditional
Use process. FAA approval is required prior to any aircraft being permitted, if the aircraft were to change, the
individual would no longer have FAA approval.
The concern with hazardous materials primarily was in regard to the storage of fuels. This was highly unlikely,
but if they wanted to store fuels, they would be required to go through the established permit process for that.
There is no reason why helicopters would be more likely to ask for fuel storage than someone with a seaplane.
Helicopters stored on land are less likely to leak fuel than seaplanes but would be addressed at a project specific
level. The City feels that if the FAA approves a site for the safe landing of a helicopter then that is in fact, a site
that is safe for a helicopter.
The City's analysis shows that any activity within the shoreline area, as defined by the Shoreline Master
Program, would be subject to shoreline regulations. This would include clearing of vegetation and would be
reviewed at the project specific level. The City also reviewed wildlife and found that most wildlife has adapted
to existing conditions along Lake Washington, including being located near a Municipal Airport, motorized boat
traffic and other recreational uses and seaplanes. Wildlife living there currently have adapted to those
conditions. There were two independent studies that showed that helicopters had no measurable impact on eagle
populations. One report showed specifically that bald eagles had no response to helicopters. The City's review
on noise showed two concerns, additional noise over Kennydale Hill and immediate neighbors may be affected
by the noise. Kennydale Hill is in a very noisy area, aircraft landing at the Municipal Airport, traffic noise, and
news helicopter traffic. Whether a helicopter is landing at the airport or a private lot on the lake, Kennydale
neighbors will still have the impact from the noise. Currently there is no limit on the number of helicopters
allowed to land at the airport. The perception of noise is affected by a multiple of factors, which are best
handled at the project specific level. The Conditional Use process can limit or reduce the amount of noise by
limiting hours of operation, limiting the type of aircraft, limiting number of trips and could also include things
like berms or vegetative buffers and other measures that can help to reduce noise.
Tab E in the Binder presented as Exhibit 3 was identified as the Renton City Council meeting minutes of March
24, 2008. It shows broad public support for the approval of the ordinance in general.
Tab F is the preliminary issue paper that was written to present information to the planning commission about
the proposed code change. All proposed code changes must be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Tab G is a document that was handed out at the public hearing that explains the proposed code amendment.
Upon questioning by Mrs. Galster. Erika Conkling provided an affidavit of mailing dated January 17, 2008
which show that the City contacted the Department of Ecology, WSDOT Northwest Region, the US Army
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 5
Corps of Engineers, Department ofNatural Resources, Washington Department offish and Wildlife, Duwamish
Tribal Office, King County Wastewater Treatment Division, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Department, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, the
King County Development and Environmental Services, Metro Transit, Seattle Public Utilities, City of
Newcastle, City of Kent, City of Tukwila, Puget Sound Energy and the State Department of Ecology, Northwest
Regional Office. It is not required by law for any of these agencies to come on site and do any evaluations,
however, she did hear from the Muckleshoot Tribe Fisheries Department and had a lengthy conversation with
them. These groups are empowered with the authority of our Environmental Review process lo implement
conditions and mitigations or to require an EIS for the project.
The instructions for non-project actions asks for consideration to be aware of the extent of the proposal, the
types of activities that would result from the proposal and how they affect the item at a greater intensity than if
the proposal were not implemented.
She did not believe that allowing this helipad would increase the likelihood that more helipads would be
constructed in the area. The FAA information was based on published documents for the approval of helipads
and their guidelines. The documents contain approximately 200 pages with all the different factors that they
consider, which were much broader than the items that Mrs. Galster described.
There is a certain level of noise that is allowed under the current regulations, this proposal would not
significantly increase the noise above the amount currently allowed, however, it did increase noise impacts on
specific people within the vicinity of a helipad, those impacts could be addressed through the proJect specific
permitting process or the proposal could be denied.
Ms. Nielsen cited several codes with regards to noise level regulations.
Charles F. Conner, 3001 Mt. View Avenue N., Renton 98056 stated that he is the applicant in the Temporary
Use Permit appeal. He did submit information and testified at the City Council public hearing regarding this
issue. He will be presenting testimony today as an interested citizen with respect to the proposed text
amendment.
One of the primary issues is safety. He has been a helicopter pilot since 1989, he reads all the helicopter
publications, all the helicopter accident records. His initial flight training was in 1989, he does recurrent flight
training on an annual basis and has been to a number of different flight schools relative to emergency
procedures. Most of the accidents in helicopters are by doing things that other aircraft cannot do, helicopters
can get in places where other aircraft cannot get. Very few accidents happen at airports or helipads where the
pilots are familiar with those particular facilities. Mechanical failures account for 30% of all accidents, 70% are
operator failure and 70% of those are lack of fuel. Departures are where most accidents are likely to occur, you
are pulling torque out of the engine and as you do that it can cause things to break.
On a map he showed the flight path from the Renton Airport, which is a circular pattern that runs north and
south up to about Coleman Point. When they take off from the airport, they fly north then tum to the right and
go out over Kennydale Hill. There is a lot of flight training done out of Renton Airport and there is pretty much
a steady stream of traffic when the weather is reasonable. Helicopters are required to avoid fixed wing traffic.
He explained other flight take off and landing patterns that happen around the Renton Airport. The safest
approach and departure of a helicopter is going to be over water. A departure would be within 45 degrees of the
shoreline and then ascend to an altitude that is below the fixed wing traffic and then go north. There is no
altitude restriction for an airplane or helicopter when they are over water.
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 6
It is unlikely that there would be many helicopters operating from Lake Washington. Most likely those
helicopters would be a light helicopter, less than 3,000 pounds. The larger helicopters tend to be 10-12,000
pounds gross weight. The smallest commercially manufactured helicopter would take a 65-foot wide lot to land
on, his helicopter would take a 68-foot wide lot.
Helicopters are allowed in Hunts Point without any restrictions, they are also specifically allowed in King
County, the City of Sammamish allows helicopters on Lake Sammamish and Pike Lake. There are more
seaplanes on the lakes than helicopters. Helicopters are not practical modes of short distance commuting. If
you are in hurry, don't take the helicopter, there are too many checks that must be done prior to take off and at
landing for this type of commuting to be beneficial. It is not practical, nor anticipated that helicopter use would
increase on Lake Washington.
As a lakefront resident, the lake is noisy, there are aircraft, from small planes to Boeing 737's taking off from
the Renton Airport every day, boats are running up and down the lake at all times of the day and evening hours,
and they don't hear much noise from 1-405 because it is depressed. Aircraft are at their noisiest when they are
directly overhead as they tum away from you it gets quieter.
Tab J contains some written comments that Mr. Conner provided to the Planning Commission in response to the
ERC determination. In trying to gather information on sound he asked a friend for a reference to a sound
engineer, he was referred to Jim Catalano at Argus Pacific. He asked him what the degradation of sound is over
distance? He found on a FAA website a table showing what a helicopter similar to his, the amount of noise that
it actually makes. He had a brief telephone conversation with Mr. Catalano where he explained the source of
the noise and asked for the degradation. He did some calculations and gave Mr. Conner some figures and
followed up with an e-mail clarifying that the degradation numbers were correct. After taking some sound
measurements of his own he found that his calculations seemed to agree with what Mr. Catalano had told him
and that is the information he provided the Planning Commission. He has since come to understand that Jim
Catalano is not an acoustical engineer, he did clarify that via letter dated May 3, 2008. There was no scientific
study done by any exert.
Upon questioning by Mrs. Galster, Mr. Conner stated the proposed zoning amendment change would affect the
R-8 zones from the City boundary at the north to Coulon Park at the south end.
Ms. Conkling stated that the zoning amendment would affect those properties in the R-8 zone along Ripley
Lane, which is north of the Seahawks facility. The property between the Seahawks facility, the old Barbee Mill
site and the Quendall terminals is in a different category called Commercial Office Residential (COR). Then R-
8 runs south from that point all the way to the north edge of Coulon Park.
Trea Johnson, 3233 Mt. View Avenue N., Renton, 98056 (officially, Daniel H. Johnson, III) stated that he has
been flying for 23 plus years and is a commercial helicopter pilot and a commercial seaplane pilot and a local
resident. He owns a seaplane, which is kept on a lift in front of his house.
It seems that the issue breaks down to safety and noise. As a seaplane pilot on the lake he is very concerned
with boat traffic, logs in the water and rough water. Ifhe were in a helicopter, he would not have to worry about
any of those things. He would make his approach over the water but would not have to navigate the water. As
far as noise goes, it is a noisy neighborhood, there is lots of helicopter traffic and repeated noise from training
traffic. The seaplane has to travel approximately 300 feet from shore before it is allowed to accelerate, but there
is no restriction on the amount of noise it can make at the dock. He can tie the plane to the dock and do an
engine check by revving the engine to full throttle. Repetition of noise seems to be the biggest problem,
helicopters don't seem to add to the noise.
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 7
Upon questioning by Mrs. Galster, Mr. Johnson stated that it is his belief that boats and seaplanes must taxi 300
feet is due to speed, and safety in the area closest to shore and humans.
John DuBois, PO Box 1187, Renton 98057 stated that he lives at 1608 Davis Avenue Sin Renton. He has had
40 years flying experience. He is a retired airline pilot, he started his career by flying helicopters for the military
for 4 years. He is qualified as a helicopter instructor. He has had four helicopter crashes, one that was
mechanically related.
There is a difference between a seaplane and a floatplane. The reason there has never been objections to
seaplanes in Renton is due to the fact that they are actually floatplanes and are very much like a boat. They are
started up at the dock and they are taxied out for a specific number of feet and then they take off under FAA
regulations. The uses of helicopters and floatplanes are entirely different, as are the noise levels. Helicopters
are most susceptible to accidents shortly after take-off, the reason is they are pulled up to full power, come to a
hover and then somewhere between a hover and 200 feet of altitude, depending on the helicopter and the
diameter of the blades is what is called the death curve. If you have an engine failure during that altitude there
is going to be a serious crash. The next most serious is in landing. Over flights are not the concern, take off and
landings are the issue. He does find seaplanes and floatplanes completely compatible with a residential area, he
does not find helicopters compatible. He has lived on the lake for a number of years and the noise of boats, jet
boats, seaplanes and jet skis are noise, but he has accepted that noise because he wants to live on the lake.
John Hempelmann stated that he reads all of the Washington appellate decisions with respect to SEPA and other
matters of interest to his law practice. He has never read a case where a DNS on a non-project text amendment
was ever overturned. There are hundreds of amendments to development regulations every single year. Some
change pennitted uses, which are DNS'ed. It is only where there are major overhauls, major Comprehensive
Plan Amendments, where you see a non-project EIS. In the case of this proposed text amendment it is not for a
permitted use, it is for a use that would have to go through a subsequent process, a conditional use hearing
process, where all of the issues would have to be addressed under conditional use criteria if not under other
regulations as well.
In this proposed text amendment, whether it be administrative conditional use or Hearing Examiner conditional
use, in addition to having all the criteria to review the kinds of issues that the appellant was concerned about,
those decision are also appealable. There is a considerable amount of process even if the text amendment was
adopted.
Mrs. Galster read a typed transcript of a telephone conversation with Mr. Catalano. The conversation took place
April 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm. Mr. Catalano stated that he never conducted any on-site testing at the Conner
residence. Mr. Catalano stated he was an industrial hygienist and not an acoustical engineer. He further pointed
out that the linear sound degradation in Mr. Conner's letter is only accurate in an open field environment and in
the presence of self-reflective structures, such as houses, provide additional point sources of noise.
Mrs. Galster continued with her closing statement, that this is an issue that takes in much more than just the
local property owners. It takes in what they want Renton to do, what part of the shoreline they want to protect.
Most people come to the water because it is more quiet and serene, an equal number of people might disagree an
increase in noise as being one of the things that people are working very hard to make Renton a wonderful place
to live. With an airport within a mile of the lake, it does not make sense that this neighborhood should be
submitted to additional noise. Please consider what the people of Renton really want the shoreline to be. They
have worked very hard to not have large buildings and not over build the City or to degrade the shoreline. They
do not want to see these sorts of structures or aircraft come into the City, they hold themselves higher and she
hopes that the Examiner will see these things as well.
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 8
Ms. Nielsen stated that it was clear from the record of the hearing today and all records reviewed and the public
response to this, it is a very passionate issue to all of the residents whether they are in favor or not in favor of
this action. They are not unfounded issues, but they are not properly before the Hearing Examiner. The issues
that the appellant complained of belong in a legislative arena. Before the Hearing Examiner today is an appeal
of the SEPA determination by the City's responsible SEPA official via the Environmental Review Committee.
The review committee came to a determination and that determination was one of non-significance. Mrs.
Galster has been given the burden to overcome this, a decision by the environmental review committee or City
staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. In addition to the RMC, the RCW state that that
deference must be given to the agency determination.
She further felt that the appellant has not met her burden to show that the City's determination was clearly
erroneous. The appellant needs to show that there was a probable adverse impact on the proposed code
amendment. We are talking about a non-project action proposed text amendment. The issues brought forward
today are best addressed at the project specific level and that will occur. Simply allowing a text amendment to
go through does not in any way insure that any of the residents are automatically going to get a helicopter. She
further directed the Examiner to WAC 197 .11.7.94.
All this proposal seeks to do is to permit or give individuals a choice between a helicopter and a seaplane. This
does not mean that people are going to go out and get a helicopter, they would still be subject to other conditions
and have to go through another discretionary process by the Hearing Examiner. She asked that the Examiner
uphold the decision of the Environmental Review Committee.
Mrs. Galster stated that by allowing this, it is opening the door for expansion and may not happen in the near
frame of time, but it will happen. It is unnecessary to have a rezone, this is a residential area and people move
there for that reason. They didn't want to move into a heliport.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 12:30 p.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
I. The City received an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) that it issued for a proposed
change to its R-8 (Residential, Single Family) Zone to allow helipads by Conditional Use Permit along
the shoreline of Lake Washington. The appellant, Pegi Galster, filed the appeal in a timely manner.
2. The City is in the process of amending regulations that would allow helicopters to land on single family
lots located along a portion of the Lake Washington Shoreline generally north of Coulon Park and south
of the City's northern border. There is an estimate that approximately one to one and a half miles along
Lake Washington's shoreline would be covered by the proposed changes. The property affected by the
proposed changes are zoned R-8. It was noted the helicopters can already be stationed at property
located along the lakeshore on the COR zoned property subject to other regulations.
3. The proposed Text Amendment is considered a Non-Project Action. A non-project action is one in
which no actual development or physical changes are proposed to occur, such as changing the text of a
zoning regulation. Nothing would be built and no disturbance, clearing or physical environmental
change would occur. A non-project action may result in change as result of the text amendment but the
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 9
text amendment itself does not create any physical alterations.
4. A heliport had been operating in this area for a while, both without a permit and then subject to a
Temporary Use Permit, which is the subject matter of a separate appeal. The existing helicopter use has
provided some examples of noise. The appellant and neighbors have discussed this experience.
5. The appellant alleges that the City did not appropriately consult with other expert agencies before
issuing its DNS. The appellant alleges that take-off and landings will increase noise levels in the
residential neighborhood and that no study was done about decibel levels resulting from allowing
helipads and especially, the noise affects on immediate neighbors. Neighbors and the appellant indicate
that they can hear the noise of this helicopter and it is intrusive. The FAA regulates most aspects of
flight including the lot sizes for certain helicopters. The City cannot regulate flight paths but can find
uses inappropriate in certain areas and the appellant believed that the City should do that at this time.
The applicant argues that just because there is already noise does not mean more noise or additional
sources of noise is justified. The appellant also raised safety concerns regarding helicopter use in
residential areas. The appellant objected to the ERC determination that if an accident were to occur it
would either occur over the lake or on the owner's property and not likely to involve neighbors or
neighboring property. The appellant cited some statistics about helicopter accidents and the scattered
debris that can result from helicopter accidents. The appellant noted that eagles frequent the area and
may nest nearby and introduced studies showing eagles reacted to noise from helicopters and less so
than planes.
6. The appellant also noted that the helipad should require a shoreline variance but that one was not
granted. The issue, even if true, is not relevant to this review.
7. The City provided notice to State and other public agencies as required by law. These agencies included
Department of Ecology, WSDOT, Department of Fish and Wildlife, King County Wastewater
Treatment Division, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Seattle Public Utilities, and other
nearby cities. Native American tribes including the Duwamish and Muckleshoot were also notified.
None of these agencies are required to respond but do receive notice. They also posted notices at Mt.
View Avenue, Ripley Lane, near the intersection of Mt. View and Lake Washington Boulevard and the
intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Boulevard and sent notice to any parties of record that
were involved in the Temporary Use permit application.
8. The City, using FAA criteria, determined that most lots in the area covered by the text amendment
would be too small to allow helicopter use. The City estimates that approximately seven (7) lots would
accommodate helicopters. Maybe a few more could support helicopter use depending on circumstances.
9. For a non-project action, the City reviews the broad impacts of the proposed changes and judges the
changes and intensities against what is currently permitted by existing regulations. The determination is
not based on the precise conditions in the area but on what current regulations might allow. In this case
current regulations permit seaplanes in this same area of the shoreline. The City used as its baseline for
determining the impacts of the helicopters the fact that seaplanes are already allowed at any of the
parcels that would accommodate helicopters. The fact that there are not many seaplanes does not
change the fact that they can be permitted outright without any additional review. The City detem1ined
that the noise of taxiing planes is equivalent or worse than helicopters. They also noted that the area is
just north of the Renton Airport and jets land and take-off not far from this area of the shoreline and that
any number of motorboats and other motorized watercraft can ply the waters near this area. The City
did reason that helicopter noise impacts would depend on the size of the lot, location, proximity to
neighbors and the size/character of the helicopter. These individual characteristics would be used for
SEP A Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 10
determining appropriateness as specific applications were processed and subject to Environmental and
Conditional Use review. Each specific project could be conditioned to frequency of flight, time of
operation, land use factors including clearing of vegetation and similar matters.
10. The City also reviewed wildlife and determined that this developed shoreline habitat was already noisy
and that wildlife in this area have adapted to a noisy environment. They reviewed independent studies
showing no substantial impacts of helicopters on eagles and noted that the flight path was generally out
toward the lake and then along the lake as additional altitude was gained or lost depending on take-off
or landing.
11. The underlying applicant testified mechanical failure causes approximately 30% of accidents, pilot error
the other 70% of which 70% of those are caused by lack of fuel. He testified that most accidents occur
due to using helicopters in odd situations such as lifting where airplanes or other equipment cannot
function. Mechanical failures generally happen on take-off where more torque is applied as opposed to
once in flight or landing. When close to the ground, helicopters can be brought in for safe descents
unlike planes.
12. The only apparent operator of a seaplane in the potentially affected area (seaplanes can operate as of
right), noted that he can test his engines and plane by running at full throttle without restriction right on
shore where he houses his plane. He does have to taxi to approximately 300 feet for take-off but that
does not restrict the noise while on shore.
13. The City argues that even if the text changes are adopted helipads and by extension helicopter use in the
affected areas would be a Conditional Use and subject to further land use and environmental review. As
it now stands, the Conditional Use permit would be subject to Hearing Examiner approval after a public
hearing. It appears that the original review would have been Administrative without a public hearing.
CONCLUSIONS:
I. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial
weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's
responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the
determination was in error. The appellant has failed to demonstrate error.
2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be
reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port
Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection
Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous'
when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test.
For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed.
3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is
less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEP A requires a thorough examination of the
environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS.
A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of
significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly
flies in the face ofreason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 11
preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement.
4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more
than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278).
Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as
follows:
Significant. (!) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood
of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.
(2) Significance involves context and intensity ... Intensity depends on the
magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be
weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be
significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental
impact would be severe if it occurred.
5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable."
Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ...
Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely
have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782).
6. The appellant did not provide a basis that could be used to reverse the City's determination. The
appellant did not provide any noise studies that would show the general use of helicopters would be
more intense than that of permitted seaplanes. The general text amendment would allow helicopters by
Conditional Use Permit. They would not be permitted outright whereas seaplanes are currently
permitted. In other words before any helicopter can be based on one of the affected lots, the applicant
would be required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. At this time, if the amendment is passed, a
public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit would be held before the Hearing Examiner but only after
an environmental review on the individual permit and its impacts on environment including impacts on
neighboring property.
7. At this juncture, the question for the reviewing body is whether the proposed change in law would have
more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. As noted, currently, City Code permits
seaplanes to be based at any of the affected properties. Seaplanes apparently are expected to take-off
and land approximately 200 to 300 feet from the shoreline meaning that flight occurs away from the
shoreline and homes located on the shoreline. The limitation appears to be based on regulations
applying to boats and how fast they can travel near the shoreline. The limitation on speed does not
affect how much power, equated to noise generation, can be used to taxi to and from the upland home
sites to the landing or take-off location. Nor is there any regulation on testing seaplane engines at full-
throttle while on the shore. The text amendment would obviously permit helicopters on residentially
zoned property and based on current facts, allow, at least, the placement of one helicopter in the affected
area, if a conditional use permit were approved. This does not appear to have more than a moderate
impact on the quality of the environment given background or baseline standards. Clearly, this area of
the lake is subject to individual seaplane noise, flight noise from any number of aircraft using the nearby
Renton Airport and motor craft traffic from larger boats to personal watercraft. The text amendment
permitting additional uses, in this case helicopter use, in the affected area, by conditional use permit
does not appear to create substantial impacts on the environment.
8. It appears that appropriate other agencies were consulted. Their concerns or absence of concerns helped
SEP A Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 12
the ERC make its decision. It appears that the ERC did consider impacts on wildlife including eagles.
They did review noise in relation to existing noise and specific noise sources and they did consider
accidents and the FAA evaluation of parcel size and conditions.
9. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be
affirmed.
DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is affirmed.
ORDERED THIS 20•• day of May 2008.
FREDJ. K
HEARING to,\.,'\.LY!
TRANSMITTED THIS 20•• day of May 2008 to the parties of record:
Karen Black Patience Plano
911 N 34th Street 1110 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Monica Fix Steve & Marcie Maxwell
3007 Mountain View Ave N POBox2048
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Mike Lowry Marc & Kaaren Pritchard
3326 Park Avenue N 2807 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Robert Ziegler Jim & Laura Morgan
922 N 34"' Street 3103 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Joan Rosling Martin & Pegi Galster
I 023 N 34•• Street 2907 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Robert Burr Dan Savoy
3013 Mountain View Ave N 3015 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
R. C.B. Marshall Eddi Shajari
2902 Mt. View Avenue N 3009 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
. (i/L/'.
Kelly Grace & Peter Spouse
3011 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Charles F. Conner
3001 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Gary & Helen Young
3115 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Roger & Marlene Winter
2731 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
John Hempelmann
Caimcross & Hempelmann, P.S.
524 Second Avenue, Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Marsha Spengler
2902 Lk. Washington Blvd. N
Renton, WA 98056
Martha C. Klingen
3014 Lk Washington Blvd. N
Renton, WA 98056
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 13
William & Janice Stoneman
3101 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Greg & Karen Krape
1101 N 27"' Place
Renton, WA 989056
TomDahlby
3213 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
R. L. Goetz
3209 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Mark Hancock
PO Box 88811
Seattle, WA 9813 8
Nabil Hamaeh
2908 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Kent Phillips
3119 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Nancy Porter
3205 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Colleen Lindberg
3111 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
James Reynolds
3004 Lk. Washington Blvd. N
Renton, WA 98056
Richard Bisiak
2801 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Daniel H. Johnson, III
3233 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Bill & Debra Keppler
2805 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Karen Wakefield
1101 N 17'' Place
Renton, WA 98056
Randy Ritualo
701 N 30th Street
Renton, WA 98056
John Burroughs
2815 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of May 2008 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire
Darius Richards
718 N 30 1h Street
Renton, WA 98056
Kim Bowden
2727Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Lori Larson
2727 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
John DuBois
PO Box 1187
Renton, WA 98057
Vicki Richards
3605 Lk. Washington Blvd N
Renton, Wa 98056
Lisa Lord
3307 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Jerry, Mary & Kelly Brennan
3009 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transpiration Division
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section lOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 3, 2008. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-004
May 20, 2008
Page 14
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed iu writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 3, 2008.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
Memo
To: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
From: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner
Date: May 5, 2008 eih---
Community and
Economic Development
Re: Second Addition to Land Use File LUA08-004, ECF
Attached is a document received today by the City. It is an email and two attachments dated May 5,
2008 from Charlie Conner. Please include this document in your copy of land use file LUA08-004,
which you received in advance preparation for an upcoming appeal hearing scheduled for May 6,
2008. The subject of the hearing is an appeal of the environmental review determination for a City
initiated zoning code amendment allowing helipads in the R-8 zone.
Thank you.
I Er.ika Conkling -Catalano lette~;e~nse---_ •. ~~~~~=~--~-----=----_-··_--_· ___ -_--_···_--_-_-_--_-____ P_a~g_e_1~]
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Ms. Conkling,
"charlie Conner" <chasbone1@comcast.net>
<econkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
05/04/2008 9:56:36 PM
Catalano letter response
I have just returned from a week out of town and have read the letter dated
May 1, 2008 from James D. Catalano, CIH Argus Pacific, Inc. I'm writing to
clarify any misunderstanding of the events and documents referenced in my
letter to the Planning Commission dated January 30 2008.
I was referred to Mr. Catalano by an engineer associate of mine who I called
looking for an acoustical engineer who could educate me on sound
characteristics. I contacted Mr. Catalano on Tuesday January 22 after
reviewing sound data found on the website:
<http://www. f aa.gov/about/office _ org/head quarters_ offices/ AEP /noise _I evels/m
edia/helicopter_appendix_ 1 O.xls>.
This site lists noise data for a Boeing MD 520 N helicopter. At the time of
my research it was the only data I had found for the closest model to the MD
500 E that I operate.
I asked Mr. Catalano about the degradation of sound over distance and he
followed up with his opinion on the attached email.
As you can see, I used some of Mr. Catalano's data and for that reason I
cited to both the FAA data and Mr. Catalano. I wanted the City to know the
source of my data.
Subsequently I used a hand held sound level meter to test actual sound
levels. I was reassured that the actual sound readings were as predicted by
the data I obtained from the FAA and Mr. Catalano. I measured sound levels
standing adjacent to the helicopter as it was running in my back yard and I
also measured levels from the appellant's property line. I took additional
readings at Harvey Field in Snohomish County at a distance of 150 feet.
Generally, the sound measurements were consistent with the predictions in
the data.
Without going into all this detail I simply referenced data sources. If you
read my letter you will see I did not state that Mr. Catalano had done any
testing. He did not do the testing and I would not say he did so.
Regarding Mr. Catalano's credentials I was apparently in error of him being
an acoustical engineer. He sounded very knowledgeable and he had good
references to data.
I hope this letter corrects the record. I am enclosing copies of the data
from the FAA and Mr. Catalano.
Sincerely,
Charlie Conner
[~rika Conkling • Catalano Jetter response .
cc: Mr. James Catalano, Mr. John Hempelmann, Ms. Peggy Gallster.
Encl:
<http://www. faa. gov/a bouVoffice _ org/headq uarters _ offices/ AEP /noise _level s/m
edia/helicopter_appendix_ 1 O.xls>
Catalano Email of January 22, 2008 1 :44 PM
CC: <jim@arguspacific.com>, <jhempelmann@cairncross.com>
Page _2 j
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CFC <cfc@connerhomes.com>
"'econkling@ci.renton.wa.us'" <econkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
05/04/2008 10:15:02 PM
FW: Sound attenuation at distance
this is one of the enclosures that belongs with the letter i sent from my
comcast address regarding Mr. Catalanos letter to you of May 1, 2008. you
can print the other from this link:
http://www. f aa. gov/about/office_ org/headquarters _ offices/ AEP /noise _levels/me
dia/helicopter_appendix_ 10.xls
Thanks, Charlie Conner
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Catalano [mailto:jim@arguspacific.com]
Sent: Tuesday January 22, 2008 1 :44 PM
To: cfc@connerhomes.com
Subject: Sound attenuation at distance
Mr. Conner,
I ran the calculations on the sound levels associated with your helicopter.
I was quite a bit off on my "seat of the pants" calculations. The formula
for sound attenuation in a free field (such as outdoors) is 20log(d1/d2).
Thus, for the example we discussed, in which the original measurements were
taken at a distance of 2 feet, the expected attenuation at 200 feet would be
40 db. If the level at 2 feet were 88 db, the expected level at 200 feet
would be 48 db. (For every doubling of the distance, the sound level
decreases by 6db ).
I should point out that weather related factors including temperature,
humidity and wind speed/direction can influence the behavior of the sound.
Therefore, under actual conditions, sound levels may not necessarily follow
the formula as outlined above. In order to determine whether or not a
problem exists, I would recommend a sound level survey in which sound levels
are monitored at various times and locations on the perimeter of the
property. If you would be interested in scheduling such a survey, let me
know. I can be reached at 206-285-3373.
Jim Catalano, CIH
Argus Pacific, Inc.
AIRCRAFT NOISE DATA FOR U.S. CERTIFICATED HELlCOPTERS
(14 CFR PART 36, APPENDIX II)
(FROM AC 36-lll APPENDIX 10; NOVEMBER 15, 2001)
El',GINEDATA MAIN ROTOR
MANUFACTURER MODEL MTOW MLW MFR. MODEL NO.MFR. MODEL BLADES DIA(FT,)
AGUSTA AL09E 6.28 6.28 PRATT&WHITNEY 206C 2 AGUSTA 4 36.00
AGUSTA Al09E 6.28 6.28 TURBOMECA .A.RF.IVS 2Kl 2 AGUSTA 4 36.00
AGUSTA AI09K2 6.28 6.28 TURBOMECA ARRIEL lKl 2 AGUSTA 4 36.00
BELL HELi TEXTRON 206L-4 4.45 4.45 ALLISON 250-C]OP I BELL HEU TEXT 206-015-001-107 2 37.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 230 FXD SKD GR 8.40 8 40 ALLISON 25D-C30Gl2 2 BELL HEU TEXT 222-018-501-101 2 42.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 230 RTR WHL GR 8.40 8.40 ALLJSON" 250-C30G/2 2 BELL HEU TEXT 222-018-50 l-10 I 2 42.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 412J-JP 11.90 11.90 PRAn'&WJl!TNEY PT6T-3E 2 BELL HEU TEXT 412-015-300-109 4 46.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 412 SP 11.90 L 1.90 PRATT&WHITNEY PT6T-38 2 BELL HEU TEXT 412-015-300-109 4 46.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 412EP 11.90 11.90 PRATI&WHITNEY PT6T-3D 2 BELL JJEU TEXT 412-015-300-109 4 46.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 427 6.00 6.00 PRA.n·&wHrrNEY l'W207D 2 BELL HEU TEXT 427-015-001-125 4 37.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 427 6.35 6.35 PRATT&WIDTNEY PW207D 2 BELL HELi TEXT 427-015-001-125 4 37.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 430 ,.oo 9 .OU ALLISON 250-C40B 2 BELL HELi TEXT 430-015-00\-101 4 42.00
BOEING MD 520N 3.35 3 .35 ALLISON 250-CZOR/2 1 MCOONNELL DOUG 3fi9D2 l \ 02-503 5 27.35
EH! EH 101/300/500 ]l.50 3 l.50 GE CT7-6A 3 5 61.00
EUROCOPTER AS 332l2 20.20 20.20 TURBOMECA MAKILA IA2 2 4 53.10
EUROCOPTER AS 350 B2 4.96 TURBOMECA ARRIEL \DI L AEROSP A TI ALE 355A31.000! 3 35.07
EUROCOPTER AS 350BA 4.63 4.63 TURBOMECA ARRIEL 1B I 3 35.IO
EUROCOPTER AS 355 N 5.60 5.40 TURBOMECA ARRIUS 1Al4M 2 EUROCOPTER STARFLEX 355A340004-00 3 35.60
EUROCOPTER AS 355F2R 5.29 5.29 ALLISON 250-GOF 2 3 35.10
EUROCOPTER AS 355N 5.60 5.60 TURBOMECA ARRJUS 3191M 2 3 35.IO
EUROC.Ol'TER AS 365N2 9.37 9.37 TURB01{ECA ARRIEL LC2 2 4 39.20
EUROCOPTER BKl1782 7.39 7.39 LYCOtvHJ\G LTS-101-75081 2 4 36.10
EUROCOPTER BK li?Cl 7.39 7.39 TURBO::vfECA ARlUEL lE2 2 4 36.10
SIKORSKY S-76A STC:568NE !0.80 JU.SO TURB0.\1ECA ARR!EL IS 2 SIKORSKY 7G I 50-9000,'(}<) 100 4 44.00
SIKORSKY S-76C 1 l.70 11.70 T\JR!l()MECA ARRJEL lSI 2 SIKORSKY 76150-09199·41 4 44.00
S[KORSKY S-76C + (PLUS) l l.70 11. 70 TUJU.lOMECA ARRIEL 2Si 2 SIKORSKY 7f.150-09JOIJ-41 4 44.00
Page 1
AIRCRAFT NOISE DATA FOR U.S. CERTIFICATED HELICOPTERS
(14 CFR PART 36, APPENDIX II)
(FROM AC 36-IH APPENDIX 10; NOVEMBER 15, 2001)
TAIL ROTOR NOISE LEVEL (EPNdR}
MFR. MODEL BLADES DlA(FT.) FO TO AP STAGE NOTES
AGUSTA 2 6.6{) 90.8 91.4 9l.4 2
AGUSTA 2 6.60 90.9 91.8 93.3 2
AGUSTA 2 6.60 89.1 91.7 91.1 2
BELL HELi TEXT 206-016-201-127 2 5.40 85.2 88.4 90.7 2
BELL HELi TEXT 222-016-001-107 2 6.R3 90.5 89.1 94.2 2
BELL HEU TEXT 222-016-001-107 2 6.83 90.8 89.1 94.2 2
BELL HELi TEX! 212-010-750-105 2 8.60 93.4 92.8 95.6 2
BELL I !ELI TEXT 212-010-750-105 2 8.60 93.4 93.2 95.6 2
BELL HELi TEXT 212-010-750-105 2 8.60 93.4 92.8 95.6 2
BELL HELi TEXT 427-016-001-[09 2 5.67 89.1 88.0 91.2 2
BELL HELi TEXT 427-016-001-109 2 5.67 89.0 88.5 9\.2 2
BELL HELi TEXT 222-016-00J-lll 2 6.90 91.6 92.4 93.8 2
MCDONNELL DOUG NOTAR 80.2 85.4 87.9 2
4 13.10 93.1 97.6 99.5 2
4 10.40 93.2 94.2 96.5 2
AEROSPATIALE 355A 12.0031 OR 0040 2 6.10 87.1 89.8 9L4 2
6.10 86.8 91.l 91.3 2
EUROCOPTER 350A33-0008-03!04 2 6.20 86.2 88.8 92.9 2
6.10 87.6 89.0 93.8 2
6.10 86.2 88.8 92.9 2
11 3.60 91.0 93.3 96.l 2
6.40 90.8 90.0 96.0 2
6.40 89.7 90.6 96.0 2
SIKORSKY 76101-US I UI-041 4 8.00 92.8 92.5 95.6 2
SIKORSKY 76101-05501-04] 4 8.00 93.2 96.0 97.7 2
SIKORSKY 76101-05501-041 4 800 91.6 93.9 96.l 2
Page 2
Memo
To: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
From: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner
Date: May 2, 2008 .'e,b
Re: Addition to Land Use File LUA08-004, ECF
Community and
Economic Development
Attached is a document received today by the City. It is a letter dated May 1, 2008 from James D.
Catalano. Please include this document in your copy of land use file LUA08-004, which you received
in advance preparation for an upcoming appeal hearing scheduled for May 6, 2008. The subject of the
hearing is an appeal of the environmental review determination for a City initiated zoning code
amendment allowing helipads in the R-8 zone.
Thank you.
May 1, 2008
Ms. Erica Conkling
Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Planning Commission input regarding LUA 08-004ECF and MDNS
Dear Ms. Conkling:
ARGUS ~
() . . :;;
TAAINING•CONSUlTING n
RECEIVED
MAY O 2 2008
City of Renton
Economic Development,
~le,ghborhoods & Strategic Planning
It has recently come to my attention that you received a letter from Mr. Charlie Conner regarding his
permit application to build a heliport on his property. On page 3 of his letter dated 1/30/2008, Mr. Conner
referenced sound level measurements that were made on his property showing attenuation of sound
levels at various distances, and he implied that I made these measurements. The purpose of this
correspondence is to emphasize that I never evaluated the noise generated by his helicopter, nor did I
ever make any of the measurements discussed in his letter to the Planning Commission. Although his
letter does not specifically state that I made the referenced measurements, he clearly implied that I did
so. Another, potentially more serious misstatement in Mr. Conner's communication is his reference that I
am an acoustical engineer. I am not, nor did I ever represent myself to him as an acoustical engineer.
In late February, I was contacted by Mr. Conner to evaluate the noise generated by his helicopter, and to
measure sound levels at his property line. During that initial telephone conversation, Mr. Conner asked
me general questions regarding the physics of sound and its attenuation over distance. As a certified
industrial hygienist, my expertise extends to the evaluation and control of noise exposure; I have some
expertise in the physics of sound. I briefly described sound attenuation in a free field, but I explained that
actual attenuation is not always consistent with basic formulae, and that actual measurements, using
appropriate equipment, would be the only way to accurately determine the sound level at his property line
during operation of the helicopter.
I prepared and sent Mr. Conner a proposal, dated March 3, 2008, to perform these on-site
measurements. Upon receipt of the proposal, Mr. Conner informed me that he thought the issue would be
resolved and declined to sign the contract for performance of the measurements.
I had heard no more regarding this issue until last week, when I received a call from Mr. and Mrs. Galster,
asking me to clarify the measurements I made on Mr. Conner's behalf. I explained to them that I never
made such measurements and asked how they obtained my name, and how they came to believe that I
was responsible for this information. They forwarded me the letter from Mr. Conner to the Planning
Commission to which this correspondence refers.
I have no interest in the dispute between Mr. Conner and his neighbors or the deliberations of the
Planning Commission regarding Mr. Conner's permit application. I simply want to clarify that I am not an
acoustical engineer, and I did not make, verify, or validate any data Mr. Conner may be relying upon
regarding the sound produced by his helicopter .
. · / R:spectfu/J ,,k ;'
,.:~'.J-////7' %me: D. Catalano, CIH
Argus Pacific, Inc.
Cc: Charlie Conner
Mr. and Mrs. Galster
ARGUS PACIFIC INC.• 1900 W NICKERSON• SUITE 3 I 5 • SEATILE, WA 98119 • P (206) 285.3373 • F (206) 285-3927 Page I of I
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Renton Reporter
a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of
general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months
prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in
the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King
County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was
regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.
The annexed notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on February 9, 2008.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is
the sum of $88.20.
:fii'~& /;'/ ;?~
i?indaM. Mills
Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
Subscribed and sworn to me this 14th day of February, 2008.
r the State of Washington, Residing
''"""'' Ii 11, ,,,,, \-\Y D,q( \
..:'.'.--h,,.."1i; ''"\l\1111,, &,;(\ 1,, ~ • { ~ ...... ,~510,V ~fJ1,, '\~ 1,
-""-........ ~, +,011, '-'' .,,
; fo~ ~oT..q..p.J.. ~% ~ g {'-' -. -: i
_.,,m,; '° c.. .::-~ ~ -\ t V'tH..\ ="..:;;;,
-::.. ,;,170 -,-~o_:
-', ~ 11
1 ~19_\ ,..._, .... "' _-
.,(",. 1,1 ,,... 'A -1, '\' 11111111\\\\ ....,,v -
',,,,,0 ~ WAsrl'\ .,.-·
'!11,, ',\'.·
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review Committee has
issued a Determination of Non-Significance
for 1he following project under the authority
of the Renton Municipal Code.
Helipad Zoning Code Amendment,
2007 Docket
LUA08-004, ECF
Location: This is not a site specific
proposal. but the regulation would only
change for R-8 properties with frontage
on Lake Wa~hing1on. Application to
amend the zoning code to allow helipads
as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with a
conditional use pennit.
Appeals of the environmental detenni nal ion
must be filed in writing on or before 5:00
PM on February 25, 2008. Appeals must be
filed in writing together with the required
$75.00 application fee with: Hearing
Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South
Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals
co the Examiner are governed by City of
Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-l 10.B.
Additional infonnation regarding !he appeal
process may be obtained from the Renton
City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
Published in the Renton Reporter on
February 9. 2008. #4ci513
Denis Law, Mayor
March 11, 2008
Joan Rosling
1023 N 34'" Street
Renton, WA 98056
Pegi DuBois Galster
Martin F. Galster
2907 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
RE: Conner Heliport Temporary Use Permit Appeal
LUA 07-097
Dear Ms. Rosling and Mr. & Mrs. Galster:
CI'I'"\ :) l"? RE N'l'O N
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
By agreement of all parties, the appeal hearing for t above referenced matter has been
rescheduled for Tuesday, May 6, 2008. The SEPAC;(ppeal hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m.
followed at 10:00 a.m. by the Temporary Use Permit hearing. The hearings will take place in
the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady
Way in Renton.
If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing.
Sincerely,
I
11/. / 1&271 (A/,;;lli_;,2 r,:z.F"J______.-,-'
Nancy Thompson
Secretary to Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
cc: Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Charles Conner, Owner, Applicant
John Hemplemann, Attorney for Applicant
All Parties of Record
~---10_5_5-So_u_th_Grad __ y_W_a_y ___ R_e-nt-on-.-W-as-h-in_gt_o_n_9_8_05-7---(4-2-5)_4_3_0--6-51_5 ____ ~-
(+.') This oaoercontains 50"/o recvded material 10% r,ost r.nn~, ,mA, AHEAD OF THI.: Ct'.R'·Ji-',
••
cc·,
February 21, 2008
Re: Changing code for Heliports in Renton
ERC Committee Recommendations for Heliport Ordinance DNS
File #LUA08-004, ECF
To Hearing Examiner, City of Renton
Dear Mr. Kaufmann,
<CITY Of KENTOr~
FEB 2 2 Zuus
KECEiVED
(;ITV CLERK'S 0•co=1cE:
I : Z(p /',;,; J&
I wish to submit my appeal of the DNS decision made by this committee regarding the
code change for residential zoning to allow heliports in R-8 zoning along the shores of
Lake Washington.
I believe this decision was made in haste and without adequate research and
investigation.
I also believe the RCW on which ERC asserts its authority (RCW-43.21C.030) states
quite clearly that prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible official shall
consult with and obtain the comments of any public agency which has jurisdiction by law
or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved.
I question why an EIS was not required for noise and compliance with the Shoreline
Master Plan, before a decision of such far reaching impact was made.
I also believe allowing this code change will have an adverse effect on the quality of the
environment as defined by state and local law.
My personal concerns are as follows:
Noise:
The noise level during take off and landing of a helicopter is I believe, greater that that
allowed on the ground in a residential neighborhood. I would like to know what standards
were used by the committee to enable them to give a DNS in this regard. Who did the
research? Has anyone from the State or its governing agencies or the ERC visited the site
in Kennydale where a heliport now exists and conducted an onsite inspection or listened
to the noise level or conducted a decibal level study. If we are indeed going to rezone for
other such properties, should this not have been accomplished before the
recommendation was submitted?
It is a very different experience being inside a helicopter when it is taking off and landing
than when one is on the ground near a home performing the same maneuvers. I am
asking, has any of the decision makers actually stood on a shore 25,50 or 100 feet away
and simply listened during a take off and landing before entering their DNS?. If these
actions have not been accomplished, do you not think they should have been
accomplished before any decision was submitted?
The approval of this code change will commit this level of noise all around the shoreline
and in near by neighborhoods in Renton. I believe if you allow these heliports to be
constructed, you must also look at what changes might be needed to permit this increased
noise level on the ground in residential neighborhoods as well. We have an extremely
serene and quiet area in Kennydale as do other neighborhoods, when one chooses to live
along or near the lake shore in Renton; one accepts noise from off shore and from above.
One does not necessarily want the noise from a helicopter taking off and landing next to
their bedroom window.
My second concern:
Placing a helicopter in the same category as a watercraft:
Boats, seaplanes, jet skis are all water craft and need this medium to be utilized. Water is
NOT the preferred medium for a helicopter. These other craft are forbidden to use full
power close to shore, in fact seaplanes must be 200 feet off shore before they can initiate
full take off power, thus full noise impact. A helicopter takes off on the shore. This
condenses full take off power thus noise directly on the land and quite close to homes.
I hope these concerns are enough to validate my abilityto appeal the ERC decision. And
that these and others will be taken into serious consideration by you when it comes before
you.
I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of the regulations for heliports in Bellevue,
simply as an example of how many concerns they have for mitigating the impact of such
constructions. I believe in Renton we are only proposing three.
I am also inclosing a print out showing accidents for small helicopters for a 10 year
period starting with 1990-2000, when this type of helicopter began being used more often
for private use. I was unable to obtain more recent data.
Enclosed please find my check for $75.00 f ~ you for your ti~~ and attention to my concerns.
~,,_, l<:2,/YJI tu/
Peg1 Galstef-
2907 Mt. View Ave. N.
Renton, Way. 98056.
• •
Bellevue Helicopter Regulatio
Pegi Galster
From:
Sent:
To:
MJackson@bellevuewa.gov
Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:34 PM
lum ar1 992@att.net
Subject: Bellevue Helicopter Regulations
Land Use Code Section 20.20.450 Helicopters.
A. Heliports -General Requirements.
Page I of3
1. In addition to the decision criteria in LUC 20.30B.J40, the City shall consider, but not be limited to,
the following criteria, in deciding whether to approve or approve with modifications an application for a
heliport Conditional Use Permit:
a In consideration of identified noise impacts, the City may impose conditions restricting the type of
aircraft permitted to land at an approved heliport, and conditions which limit the number of daily
takeoffs and landings and hours of operation.
b. The City may impose a periodic review requirement on heliport conditional use approvals in order to
consider imposing additional conditions to mitigate adverse impacts from new aircraft technology.
c. The City may consider whether approach and departure paths are obstruction-free and whether
residential or critical areas would be adversely affected. The City may also consider whether approach
and departure paths abut freeway corridors or waterways.
d. The City may consider whether the proposed heliport facility will participate in a voluntary noise
reduction program such as the "Fly Neighborly Program."
2. All applications to construct a heliport must include the results of the appropriate Federal Aviation
Administration review. A determination of negative impact on navigable airspace by the FAA will result
in denial of a land use or Building Permit unless the applicant agrees to comply with the
recommendations to mitigate such impacts. The mitigating measures shall be made conditions of the
land use or Building Permit.
3. Heliport landing areas shall be at least 1. 5 times the overall length of the largest helicopter expected to
use the facility.
4. The heliport printary surface shall be of level grade and consist of a dust-proof surface.
5. Public use heliports shall be marked in accordance with FAA recommendations.
6. Private use and personal use heliports may be unmarked or marked with individualized markings
recognizable to the pilots authorized to use the facility, but may not be marked with the same markings
as a public use heliport.
7. All heliports intended to accommodate night landings shall be lighted in accordance with FAA
recommendations.
8. Access to heliport landing areas, except water surfaces, shall be controlled by physical restraints. If
fences, walls, or parapets are used for access control, the minimum height shall be 42 inches.
9. All approaches to an area of helicopter operations will have conspicuous signs notifying those who
10/26/2007
Bellevue Helicopter Regulati
approach the operation.
10. Touchdown Pads.
Page2 of3
a. Recommended Touchdown Pad. The recommended dimension of a touchdown pad is equal to the
rotor diameter of the largest helicopter expected to operate from the facility.
b. Minimum Touchdown Pad. At a heliport that has an extremely low level of activity, smaller areas
may be used. Pad dimensions are based on rectangular configurations. A circular pad having a diameter
equal to the longer side of the rectangular configuration set forth in paragraph A. I O.b.i. or ii of this
section is acceptable. Skid or float length should be substituted for wheelbase as appropriate.
i. Public Use Heliports. The minimum sized touchdown pad shall have a length and width at least 2.0
times the wheelbase and tread, respectively, or a diameter of2.0 times the wheelbase of the largest
helicopter expected to use the facility.
ii. Private Use or Personal Use Heliports. The minimum sized touchdown pad shall have a length and
width at least 1.5 times the wheelbase and tread, respectively, or a diameter of 1.5 times the wheelbase
of the largest helicopter expected to use the facility.
11. Each helicopter landing area shall have at least one obstruction-free heliport approach path
conforming to the definition of Heliport Approach Surfaces.
12. No obstructions, natural or manmade, will be permitted within the Heliport Primary Surface,
Heliport Approach Surfaces, or Heliport Transition Surfaces.
13. The requirements of paragraphs A.3 through A.12 ohhis section may be modified in special
circumstances upon written technical evaluation and recommendation of the nearest FAA Airports
District Office or Washington State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics office.
14. A hospital emergency-use-only heliport is exempt from the provisions of paragraph A. I of this
section but must comply with the requirements in paragraphs A.2 through A.13 of this section. For
purposes of this paragraph, "emergency" is defined as when any patient who requires care of significant
severity such that alternative means of transport would adversely affect the health of that person.
15. Government use heliport facilities are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs A.3 through A.12
of this section. Government heliport design shall be based upon technical evaluation and
recommendation of the nearest FAA Airports District Office or Washington State Department of
Transportation, Division of Aeronautics office.
16. A heliport site must have flight path access directly to the interstate highway system which does not
require flight over any residential zoned properties.
B. Helicopter Landing Permits.
I. A Temporary Use Permit is required for the landing of helicopters at a site other than a City-approved
heliport.
2. A permit is valid for a maximum of 30 days. Conditions may be imposed which limit the number of
flights and the hours of operation. The applicant shall be required to execute a hold harmless agreement
in favor ofthe City.
3. A permit will be refused if the City determines that the proposed landing( s) will pose a substantial
10/26/2007
'
.. -Bellevue Helicopter Regulati< Page 3 of3
threat to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding community.
4. Operations of a government authority in cases of emergency, search and rescue, fire and law
enforcement are exempt from the permit requirements of this subsection. (Ord. 5683, 6-26-06, § 8; Qr_d.
5477, 10-20-03, § 1; Qrg._5_472, 10-20-03, § 6; Qrd, 40_29, 9-5-89, § 3)
Matthews Jackson
City of Bellevue, Senior Planner
Phone: 425-452-2729
email: mjackson@bellevuewa.gov
Internet:www.bellevuewa.gov
10/26/2007
NTSB Helicopter Accidents by Category of Operation and Engine Type
1990 -2000
General Aviation (FAR
Year Total Accidents Part 91/103/1291
1990 233 145
1991 198 126
1992 211 150
1993 183 121
1994 220 153
1995 164 116
1996 181 128
1997 174 131
1998 203 152
1999 213 159
2000 231 180
Total 2211 1561
• Turbine helicopters are considered turbo shaft
Tvoe of Ooeration Number of Accidents
Aerial Aoolication 260
Aerial Observation 100
Business 125
Executive/Corporate 20
Ferry 31
Instructional 338
Other Work Use 185
Personal 399
Positionina 132
Public Use 227
Unknown 394
Source: NTSB Database
Data as of: February 28, 2002
Cateaon of Ooeration Enaine Tvoe
Air Taxi/ Rotorcraft
Commercial External-Load Agricultural
(FAR Part 1351 (FAR Part 1331 (FAR Part 1371 Unknown Reciorocatina Turbo Shaft* Unknown
23 19 27 19 132 99 2
20 9 32 11 122 67 9
16 12 22 11 116 70 25
15 17 25 5 94 76 13
17 16 24 10 100 105 15
10 11 24 3 84 76 4
11 15 21 6 77 98 6
10 15 15 3 82 80 12
11 13 24 3 103 87 13
15 12 25 2 80 106 27
17 8 25 1 81 93 57
165 147 264 74 1071 957 183
Breakdown of NTSB Helicopter Accidents by Type of Operation
1990 • 2000
Public Use
10.3%
Unknown
17.8%
Personal
18.0%
Aerial Observation
4.5%
Business
5.7%
Executive/Corporate
0.9%
Ferry
1.4%
15.3%
Other Work Use
8.4%
NASDAC
. .
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6510
~ ;::ash
~Check No._~)_3_1~6~·-
Description:
Funds Received From:
D Copy Fee
D Appeal Fee
Name
,,, '
t>5g' Lyfe bu.'i;oi:S
' . ' Address 2SGJ rl / f ti l'tv ,t-/,;r I(/
' I ti r± 0 81)5.'"°0;, City/Zip ~e,t:en-1. J
Receipt 1053
Date
D Notary Service
D _________ _
Amount$ 7::r, 00
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON.SIGNIFICANCE
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: HE LIP AD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, 2007 DOCKET
PROJECT NUMBER: LUAOUI04, ECF
LOCATION: THIS IS NOT A SITE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL, BUT THE REGULATION WOULD ONLY
CHANGE FOR R~ PROPERTIES WITH FRONTAGE ON LAKE WASHINGTON.
DESCRIPTION; AMEND THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW HELi PADS AS AA ACCESSORY USE IN THE R.5
ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT
THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT
Appeals of the env!ronmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 25, 2008.
Appoals mu.6\ be flied in writing together with the required $75.00 application IH with: Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Rento, WA 98057. Appeals ta Iha Examiner are governed by City of Renton
Municipal Code Section 4-3-110.B. Addl!lonal information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Olfice, (4251430-6510.
lF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND
ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY Of RENTON,
STRATEGIC PLANNING DIVISION AT (425) 430-6575.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
Please include the project NUMBER when calling far proper file identification.
CERTIFICATION
I, Kn ',.s £~~ , hereby certify that r copies of the above document
were posted by me in -1._ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on "''~\\\\\l111
DATE: 2..,/-::f Iott, SIGNED: £,.\.A.,5 ~~~~'*:'-{ r t--t, ,..o , ..... '\f
A TfEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in; ~ -• J.-~,
-~-=====-~ on the ' t "'-day of .J:feJw • l:l , ~ ~~ !11r
-J:.,..:-.CT..
'"'~ 1,11tr,~"'"
,
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 51" day of February, 2008, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing POR Letter and ERC Report documents. This information was sent to:
Parties of Record See Attached
-" ..
(Signature of Sender): gutciftW
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Judith Subia signed this instrument and
acknowledged it to be his/her/their tree and voluntary act for the uses and purposes menMR~a in the
instrument. ~~~~"4
Dated: w-5-0~ p'~~~·1':l;l~~
Helipads Zoning Code Amendment, 2007 Docket
LUAOB-004, ECF
template -affidavit of service by mailing
Helipads POR List
Name Street City, State Zip
Mark Hancock PO Box 88811 Seattle, WA 98138
Joan and Tom Rosling 1023 N 34th Street Renton, WA 98056
Mike Vowels 12717 322nd Ave NE Duvall, WA 98019
Roger & Marlene Winter 2731 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
Steve & Marcie Maxwell PO Box 2048 Renton, WA 98056
Martin & Pegi Galster 2907 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
Jim & Laura Morgan 3103 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
Bill & Debra Keppler 2805 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
Marleen Mandt 1408 N 26th St Renton, WA. 98056
Thomas Dahlby 3213 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
Lisa Dahlby 3217 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
John Hempelmann 524 Second Ave Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-2323
Charles F. Conner 3001 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
Buzz & Pat Dana 5219 Ripley Lane N Renton, WA 98056
Peter Spouse & Kelly Grace 3011 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
Monica Fix 3007 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
Jerry Brennan 3405 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056
Neal Shinery 1705 14 7th Pl SE Bellevue, WA 98007
Eugene Heurchel 14408 149th Pl SE Renton, WA 98059
Randy & Linda Ritualo 701 N 30th St Renton, WA 98056
Greg & Karen Krape 1101 N 27th Pl Renton, WA 98056
David Tryc 3411 Meadow Ave N Renton, WA 98056
Mike O'Leary 800 W Perimeter Rd #A Renton, WA 98057
Sharon Smith 5143 Ripley Lane N Renton, WA 98056
Marc Pritchard 2807 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
Laurey Carolus 14502 Wallingford Avenue N Seattle, WA 98133
Inez Somerville Petersen 1166 Edel Court Enumclaw, WA 98022
Kim Skaar PO Box 2945 Chelan, WA 98816
John Middlebrooks 51 o Seneca Ave NW Renton, WA 98057
Ann & Bernie Moskowitz 8251 South 121 st Street Seattle, WA 98178
02/05/2008
\
February 5, 2008
CIT"\-JF RENTON
Economic Development, Neighborhoods and
Strategic Planning
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
SUBJECT: Helipads Zoning Code Amendment, 2007 Docket
LUA08-004, ECF
Dear Parties of Record:
This Jetter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform
you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced
project. The Committee, on February 4, 2008, decided that your project will be issued a
Determination of Non-Significance.
The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse
impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under
RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-
6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other
information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM
on February 25, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00
application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-
11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton
City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties
notified.
If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6578.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
±f..!W,J,Y
Senior Planner
-------l-05_5_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W_a_y ___ R_e_nt_o_n,-W-a-s-hi-ngt-on-9-80_5_7 ______ ·~
@ This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer
AHEAD OF TH.E CURVE
.,
ERG
REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE:
Project Name:
Owner:
Applicant:
Contact:
File Number:
Project Manager:
Project Summary:
Project Location:
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
Site Area:
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
February 4, 2008
Hclipad Zoning Code Amendment, 2007 Docket
NIA
City of Renton
NIA
LUAOS-004, ECF
Erika Conkling, Senior Planner
Amend the zoning code to allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with
a conditional use permit.
This is not a site specific proposal, but the regulation would only change for R-8
properties with frontage on Lake Washington.
NIA
NIA
-------------------
Proposed New Bldg. Area (fiJUtprint):
Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross):
NIA
NIA
----------------
To ta l Building Area GSF: NIA
Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
-------------
PART ONE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project
impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations.
A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal. staff recommends that the Responsible Officials:
Issue a DNS with a 14-day Appeal Period.
B. Mitigation Measures
1. None required for this non-project action.
C. Exhibits
NIA
D. Environmental Impacts
The Proposal lvas circulated and revinved hy various Ci(v Departments and Divisions tu determine ivhether
the applicant has cuiequatefy ident(fied and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in
conjunction with the proposed development. The City also received comments.from the puhlic. Several
concerns about potential environmental impacts are addressed.
Although RCW 43.21 C. 240 requires non-project environmental review to address only those impacts
that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental
regulations, the following concerns are addressed for clarification.
ERC Report 01/-004.doc
City of Renton FIB/PW Departmen
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, 2007 DOCKET
Report of February 4, 2008
l. Hazardous Materials
Enviro; ta/ Review Committee Stajf'Report ·
LUAOS-004, ECF
Page2 of4
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. The proposed change in regulations
does not affect the storage of hazardous materials, including aircraft fuels. The change also is unlikely to
result in an increased likelihood of applications for the storage of hazardous materials to service aircraft,
since RMC 4-3-090L.1.b.i already allows one seaplane per private residence. As a result, each of the
properties subject to the proposed change in regulations already allows aircraft which could potentially
require permits for the storage of hazardous materials. Installation of fuel storage tanks to support helipad
operations would be subject to the same regulations and permitting process as the installation of such
apparatus for seaplanes. This process involves securing permits from the City of Renton Planning, Building,
Public Works Department and the City of Renton Fire Department. Any necessary mitigation measures
would be addressed at the time of project-specific application. Likewise, since seaplanes are already
permitted in these areas, and the proposed change would only allow one aircraft per residence, there is no
change in the potential for accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials from aircraft.
Mitigation Measures: None. If an applicant for a helipad wishes to store hazardous materials related to
operation of aircraft, approved building and fire permits will need to be obtained.
2. Public Safety and Emergency Services
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. The proposed regulation limits helipad
uses to areas where public safety provisions are already in place. The FAA will only issue approval letters
for helipads with a clear approach (not over residential areas), and the proposal limits the use to properties on
Lake Washington. As a result any helipads operated as a result of this proposal will approach from Lake
Washington and any aviation accident involved with take-off or landing of the aircraft is likely to occur on
the operator's property or over the Lake, and not on neighboring properties. Given that the City of Renton
operates a municipal airport at the south end of Lake Washington and seaplanes are long-standing allowed
aviation uses for properties along Lake Washington, a public safety system is already in place to handle
emergencies related to aviation accidents.
Mitigation Measures: None.
3. Shoreline Areas
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. The proposal would limit helipad
operations to properties along Lake Washington, but does not limit the use to areas outside of Shoreline
jurisdiction. However, the change in regulations would not increase the likelihood of aircraft use within
Shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline regulations already allow the use of one seaplane per private residence
under RMC 4-3-090L.1.b.i. Additionally, construction of a helipad or operation of a helipad use within a
shoreline line or shoreline buffer would require an approved Shoreline variance from the City of Renton
Planning, Building, Public Works Department. Impacts and mitigation are better evaluated at the project
specific level.
It is possible that existing vegetation within Shoreline buffers could be pem1anently removed in order to meet
with FAA approval for clear approach to a helipad site, even if the hclipad site itself was located outside of
Shoreline jurisdiction. At present time, the City of Renton's Shoreline regulations do no explicitly prevent
alteration of the existing vegetation within the Shoreline buffer. RMC 4-3-090K.6 provides that landscaping
should be natural and indigenous, but it is not an imperative requirement. RMC 4-3-090K.2.a does require
that any action that may have detrimental effects on the shoreline to be evaluated in the design of the facility.
This section allows for project-specific mitigation to be levied through SEPA conditions and/or through
conditional use permit approval. Thus, at the present time there is limited regulation of removal of
vegetation within the Shoreline buffer for any purpose, whether it is for aircraft use or any other use.
Renton' s Shoreline Master Program is currently being updated, and it is very likely that this current
regulatory gap will be closed through this process. At such time in the future that this regulatory gap is
addressed; applications for helipad use will be subject to the regulations in place at that time. In the mean
time, project-specific review and mitigation is the best opportunity for evaluation of impacts to shorelines due
to planned removal of vegetation.
ERC Report 08-004.doc
..
'
• City a/Renton FIB/PW Departme,
'HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, 2007 DOCKET
Report of February 4, 2008
Enviro 1tal Review Committee Staff Report
LUA08-004, ECF
Page 3 of 4
Mitigation Measures: None. Construction or operation of a helipad within Shoreline jurisdiction would
require an approved Shoreline variance, which would provide the opportunity to assess site specific impacts.
Project level environmental review would provide mitigation for any unanticipated impacts to Shorelines
from projects located outside of Shoreline jurisdiction. The City anticipates closing any loop holes in
Shorelines protection regulations with the upcoming Shoreline Master Program update.
4. Wildlife
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. Several species of birds, including
Bald Eagles and Great Blue Heron, have been observed on and near Lake Washington and the properties
surrounding the Lake. Concerns have been expressed about potential helipad uses disrupting these birds.
Aviation uses are well established on and over Lake Washington, with each residence allowed one seaplane in
RMC 4-3-090L.1.b.i, and with the operation of aircraft from Renton Municipal Airport and from the Boeing
737 manufacturing facility located at the south end of the Lake. Additionally, the operation ofwatercratl on
the Lake has the opportunity to provide disturbance of wildlife in terms of noise, wave activity, and other
physical disturbance; property maintenance activities on residential land (lawn mowers, maintenance of
bulkheads, chainsaw operations) may also cause wildlife disturbance. Despite these disruptions, many bird
species continue to live and thrive in, near, and on Lake Washington, including Bald Eagles and Great Blue
Heron. In order to thrive, such species have adapted to urbanized areas and increased levels of disturbance.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has used helicopters since 1985 to get close to eagle nests to
count eggs and perform other studies (Watson, James W. 1993. "Responses of Nesting Bald Eagle to
Helicopter Surveys" Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21: 1 71-178.). Similarly, studies of eagles and over-flights
show that Bald Eagles had no response to the over-flight of helicopters (Noise Pollution Clearinghouse.
"Effects of Over-flights on Wildlife" mvw.nonoi.worgi/ibrarv/npreportlchGJZ1<:.r5.htm). As a result, it does
not appear that helicopter operations in particular adversely impact Bald Eagles.
Since one seaplane is currently allowed per residence, the proposal would not increase the potential of
wildlife disturbance from noise; however, because helipad use would not involve taking-off and landing in
Lake Washington, there may be slightly less potential for some types of disruption of both birds and fish.
Mitigation Measures: None.
5. Noise
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. Concerns about noise have been
expressed both for immediate neighbors of any future helipad site and in general for the neighborhood on
Kennydale Hill.
The general vicinity of the area affected by this proposal is a very noisy location. There are noises from
Interstate 405 including traffic and news helicopter over-flights, from recreational noises on Lake
Washington such as jet skis and speed boats, from residential related uses like lawnrnowcts or leaf blowers,
and from aviation uses associated with Boeing, Renton Municipal Airpm1, and the operation of seaplanes.
The City of Renton does not regulate any of these noises, and does not have jurisdiction to regulate the flight
paths of aircraft. Each residence on the Lake is allowed one seaplane under RMC 4-3-090L.1.b.i and the
proposed regulation only allows one aircraft per residence. Furthermore, even without the proposal, the
helicopter traffic would be diverted to Renton Municipal Airport. as is the current situation. Airerafi traf!ic
headed for Renton Municipal Airport is just as likely to create noise for the Kennydale I Jill neighborhood.
Thus, there is no increased potential for impacts for the residents ofKennydale Hill.
Noise is more likely to be experienced by the immediate neighbors of future helipad sites. The amount of
noise experienced by neighbors depends upon the size of the property containing the hclipad, the location of
the helipad on the property, and the type of helicopter flown from the site. As each residence is allowed one
seaplane, this proposal does not increase the potential for aviation related noise for neighboring prope11y
owners. However, the proposal requires that the helipad use be approved by conditional use pern1it. One of
the decision criteria for conditional uses under RMC 4-9-030 is an evaluation of noise. As a result, any noise
£RC Report 08-004.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Depar/men
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENllMENT, 2007 DOCKET
Report offebruary 4, 2008
Enviro ta/ Review Commiltee Staff Report •
LUAOS-004, ECF .
Page4 of4
concerns can be reviewed and mitigated at a project specific level if they are anticipated to be above the
anticipated level of neighborhood noise impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None. Project specific environmental review and conditional use permit criteria will
be used to assess and mitigate noise concerns that go beyond the currently accepted level of neighborhood
n01se.
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their
comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant."
,/ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this
report.
Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed
in writing on or before 5:00 PM, February 25, 2008.
Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in
writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, I 055 S. Grady Way,
Renton WA 98057.
ERC Report 08-004.doc
,
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 5th day of February, 2008, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Agency Letter and Signature Sheet documents. This information was sent to:
Agencies
(Signature of Sender): ',, CJJtttlfl~t~li{
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF KING )
See Attached
*Karen Walter , Muckleshoot Indian Tribe received
Agency Letter, Signature Sheet, and ERC Report
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Judith Subia signed this instrument and
acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument.
Dated: o>:: S -o9
Helipads Zoning Code Amendment, 2007 Docket
LUAOB-004, ECF
template -affidavit of service by mailing
AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING
(ERC DETERMINATIONS)
Dept. of Ecology • WDFW • Larry Fisher• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.•
Environmental Review Section 1775 12'' Ave NW, Ste 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer
PO Box47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 172"' Avenue SE
Olvmoia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092
WSDOT Northwest Region • Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program •
Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE
PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers• KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Office of Archaeology & Historic
Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation•
Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer
PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson St, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343
Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olvmoia, WA 98504-8343
Boyd Powers •
Dept. of Natural Resources
PO Box47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent
Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development 220 Fourth Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72"' Place Kent, WA 98032-5895
Newcastle, WA 98059
Metro Trans it Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila
Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner Joe Jainga, Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
201 South Jackson Street, KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W 6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Tukwila, WA 98188
Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology
Real Estate Services NW Regional Office
Title Examiner 3190 1601
' Avenue SE
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
PO Box 34018
Seattle, WA 98124-4018
Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and
cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. •
template -affidavit of service by mailing
, "~y o CITY _)F RENTON ~~i~ "~ Economic Development, Neighborhoods and
_ Strategic Planning
~ -2': Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~N~o,::--------------------.;.;;.;;;.;;.;.;.;;..;.;;;.;..;.;;;;;;;;;;;;.;;.;;;.;..;.~
February 5, 2008
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Subject: Environmental Determinations
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by
the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on February 4, 2008:
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
PROJECT NAME: Helipads Zoning Code Amendment, 2007 Docket
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA 08-004, ECF
LOCATION: This is not a site spedfkproposal, but the regulation would only change
for R-8 properties with frontage on Lake Washington.
DESCRIPTION: Amend the zoning code to allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8
zone with a conditional use permit.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on
February 25, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee
with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 SouthGrady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the
Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6578. f~;:zry
Erika Conkling
Senior Planner
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division
WDFW, Stewart Reinbold
David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources
WSDOT, Northwest Region
Duwamish Tribal Office
Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance)
Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program
US Anny Corp. of Engineers
Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Enclosure
-------l-05_5_S_o-uth-G-ra_d_y_W_a_y ___ R_e-nt-on-,-W-a-sh-i~ngt_o_n-98_0_5_7----~-~
AHEAD OF THE CURVE . @ Th~ paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer
'·
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICATION NUMBER
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA08-004, ECF
City of Renton
Helipad Zoning Code Amendment, 2007 Docket
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Amend the zoning code to allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8
zone with a conditional use permit
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
This is not a site specific proposal, but the regulation would only change
the R-8 properties with frontage on Lake Washington.
City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/ Public Works
Development Planning Section
This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be
involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 25, 2008.
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code
Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's
Office, (425) 430-6510.
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Terry Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services
February 9, 2.008
February 4, 2008
'--"'::___-• 0 ,t;N/oi ~&~
Fire Depart t
Date
,z,{l..l/06
Date I
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA08-004, ECF
City of Renton
Helipad Zoning Code Amendment, 2007 Docket
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Amend the zoning code to allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8
zone with a conditional use permit.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
This is not a site specific proposal, but the regulation would only change
the R-8 properties with frontage on Lake Washington.
City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Planning Section
This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be
involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 25, 2008.
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code
Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's
Office, (425) 430-6510.
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Terry Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services
February 9, 2008
February 4, 2008
o,;;N/oi Q&~-h~ief~~-
Fire Depart t
Date
q?./y/09
Date
~~loe
Date \
ERG
REPORT
City of Renton
Department of Planning I Building I Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE: February 4, 2008
Project Name: Helipad Zoning Code Amendment, 2007 Docket
Owner: NIA
Applicant: City of Renton
Contact: NI A
File Number: LUA08-004, ECF
Project Manager: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner
Project Summary: Amend the zoning code to allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with
a conditional use permit.
Project Location: This is not a site specific proposal, but the regulation would only change for R-8
properties with frontage on Lake Washington.
Exist. Bldg. Area SF: NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): NIA
NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross):
Site Area: NIA Total Building Area GSF: NIA
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
PART ONE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project
impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations.
A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials:
Issue a DNS with a 14-day Appeal Period.
B. Mitigation Measures
1. None required for this non-project action.
C. Exhibits
NIA
D. Environmental Impacts
The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether
the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in
conjunction with the proposed development. The City also received comments from the public. Several
concerns about potential environmental impacts are addressed.
Although RCW 43.21 C. 240 requires non-project environmental review to address only those impacts
that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental
regulations, the following concerns are addressed for clarification.
ERC Report 08-004.doc
City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMEl\vMENT, 2007 DOCKET
Report of February 4, 2008
1. Hazardous Materials
Environ al Review Committee Staff Report
LUAOS-004, ECF
Page 2 of4
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. The proposed change in regulations
does not affect the storage of hazardous materials, including aircraft fuels. The change also is unlikely to
result in an increased likelihood of applications for the storage of hazardous materials to service aircraft,
since RMC 4-3-090L. l .b.i already allows one seaplane per private residence. As a result, each of the
properties subject to the proposed change in regulations already allows aircraft which could potentially
require permits for the storage of hazardous materials. Installation of fuel storage tanks to support helipad
operations would be subject to the same regulations and permitting process as the installation of such
apparatus for seaplanes. This process involves securing permits from the City of Renton Planning, Building,
Public Works Department and the City of Renton Fire Department. Any necessary mitigation measures
would be addressed at the time of project-specific application. Likewise, since seaplanes are already
permitted in these areas, and the proposed change would only allow one aircraft per residence, there is no
change in the potential for accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials from aircraft.
Mitigation Measures: None. If an applicant for a helipad wishes to store hazardous materials related to
operation of aircraft, approved building and fire permits will need to be obtained.
2. Public Safety aud Emergency Services
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. The proposed regulation limits helipad
uses to areas where public safety provisions are already in place. The FAA will only issue approval letters
for helipads with a clear approach (not over residential areas), and the proposal limits the use to properties on
Lake Washington. As a result any helipads operated as a result of this proposal will approach from Lake
Washington and any aviation accident involved with take-off or landing of the aircraft is likely to occur on
the operator's property or over the Lake, and not on neighboring properties. Given that the City of Renton
operates a municipal airport at the south end of Lake Washington and seaplanes are long-standing allowed
aviation uses for properties along Lake Washington, a public safety system is already in place to handle
emergencies related to aviation accidents.
Mitigation Measures: None.
3. Shorellne Areas
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. The proposal would limit helipad
operations to properties along Lake Washington, but does not limit the use to areas outside of Shoreline
jurisdiction. However, the change in regulations would not increase the likelihood of aircraft use within
Shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline regulations already allow the use of one seaplane per private residence
under RMC 4-3-090L. l .b.i. Additionally, construction of a helipad or operation of a helipad use within a
shoreline line or shoreline buffer would require an approved Shoreline variance from the City of Renton
Planning, Building, Public Works Department. Impacts and mitigation are better evaluated at the project
specific level.
It is possible that existing vegetation within Shoreline buffers could be permanently removed in order to meet
with FAA approval for clear approach to a helipad site, even if the he Ii pad site itself was located outside of
Shoreline jurisdiction. At present time, the City ofRenton's Shoreline regulations do no explicitly prevent
alteration of the existing vegetation within the Shoreline buffer. RMC 4-3-090K.6 provides that landscaping
should be natural and indigenous, but it is not an imperative requirement. RMC 4-3-090K.2.a does require
that any action that may have detrimental effects on the shoreline to be evaluated in the design of the facility.
This section allows for project-specific mitigation to be levied through SEPA conditions and/or through
conditional use permit approval. Thus, at the present time there is limited regulation of removal of
vegetation within the Shoreline buffer for any purpose, whether it is for aircraft use or any other use.
Renton's Shoreline Master Program is currently being updated, and it is very likely that this current
regulatory gap will be closed through this process. At such time in the future that this regulatory gap is
addressed; applications for helipad use will be subject to the regulations in place at that time. In the mean
time, project-specific review and mitigation is the best opportunity for evaluation of impacts to shorelines due
to planned removal of vegetation.
ERC Report 08-004.doc
City of Renton PIB!PW Departmen
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMEJ\uMENT, 2007 DOCKET
Report of February 4, 2008
Enviror, 'al Review Committee Staff Report
LUAOB-004, ECF
Page 3 of4
Mitigation Measures: None. Construction or operation of a helipad within Shoreline jurisdiction would
require an approved Shoreline variance, which would provide the opportunity to assess site specific impacts.
Project level environmental review would provide mitigation for any unanticipated impacts to Shorelines
from projects located outside of Shoreline jurisdiction. The City anticipates closing any loop holes in
Shorelines protection regulations with the upcoming Shoreline Master Program update.
4. Wildlife
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. Several species of birds, including
Bald Eagles and Great Blue Heron, have been observed on and near Lake Washington and the properties
surrounding the Lake. Concerns have been expressed about potential helipad uses disrupting these birds.
Aviation uses are well established on and over Lake Washington, with each residence allowed one seaplane in
RMC 4-3-090L. l .b.i, and with the operation of aircraft from Renton Municipal Airport and from the Boeing
737 manufacturing facility located at the south end of the Lake. Additionally, the operation of watercraft on
the Lake has the opportunity to provide disturbance of wildlife in terms of noise, wave activity, and other
physical disturbance; property maintenance activities on residential land (lawn mowers, maintenance of
bulkheads, chainsaw operations) may also cause wildlife disturbance. Despite these disruptions, many bird
species continue to live and thrive in, near, and on Lake Washington, including Bald Eagles and Great Blue
Heron. In order to thrive, such species have adapted to urbanized areas and increased levels of disturbance.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has used helicopters since 1985 to get close to eagle nests to
count eggs and perform other studies (Watson, James W. 1993. "Responses of Nesting Bald Eagle to
Helicopter Surveys" Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21: 171-178.). Similarly, studies of eagles and over-flights
show that Bald Eagles had no response to the over-flight of helicopters (Noise Pollution Clearinghouse.
"Effects of Over-flights on Wildlife" www.nonoise.org!library/npreport/chapter5.htm). As a result, it does
not appear that helicopter operations in particular adversely impact Bald Eagles.
Since one seaplane is currently allowed per residence, the proposal would not increase the potential of
wildlife disturbance from noise; however, because helipad use would not involve taking-off and landing in
Lake Washington, there may be slightly less potential for some types of disruption of both birds and fish.
Mitigation Measures: None.
5. Noise
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. Concerns about noise have been
expressed both for immediate neighbors of any future helipad site and in general for the neighborhood on
Kennydale Hill.
The general vicinity of the area affected by this proposal is a very noisy location. There are noises from
Interstate 405 including traffic and news helicopter over-flights, from recreational noises on Lake
Washington such as jet skis and speed boats, from residential related uses like lawnmowers or leaf blowers,
and from aviation uses associated with Boeing, Renton Municipal Airport, and the operation of seaplanes.
The City of Renton does not regulate any of these noises, and does not have jurisdiction to regulate the flight
paths of aircraft. Each residence on the Lake is allowed one seaplane under RMC 4-3-090L. l .b.i and the
proposed regulation only allows one aircraft per residence. Furthermore, even without the proposal, the
helicopter traffic would be diverted to Renton Municipal Airport, as is the current situation. Aircraft traffic
headed for Renton Municipal Airport is just as likely to create noise for the Kennydale Hill neighborhood.
Thus, there is no increased potential for impacts for the residents of Kennydale Hill.
Noise is more likely to be experienced by the immediate neighbors of future helipad sites. The amount of
noise experienced by neighbors depends upon the size of the property containing the helipad, the location of
the helipad on the property, and the type of helicopter flown from the site. As each residence is allowed one
seaplane, this proposal does not increase the potential for aviation related noise for neighboring property
owners. However, the proposal requires that the helipad use be approved by conditional use permit. One of
the decision criteria for conditional uses under RMC 4-9-030 is an evaluation of noise. As a result, any noise
ERC Report 08-004.doc
City of Renton PIB!PW Departmen
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMEduMENT, 2007 DOCKET
Report of February 4, 2008
Enviro, ta/ Review Committee Staff Report
LUAOB-004, ECF
Page 4 of4
concerns can be reviewed and mitigated at a project specific level if they are anticipated to be above the
anticipated level of neighborhood noise impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None. Project specific environmental review and conditional use permit criteria will
be used to assess and mitigate noise concerns that go beyond the currently accepted level of neighborhood
nmse.
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their
comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant."
v' Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this
report.
Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed
in writing on or before 5:00 PM, February 25, 2008.
Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in
writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, I 055 S. Grady Way,
Renton WA 98057.
ERC Report 08-004.doc
City of 1<enton Department of Planning I Building I Publlc Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 8, 2008
APPLICATION NO: LUAOS-005, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 25, 2008
APPLICANT: Citv of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Anaie Mathias
SHEET
PROJECT TITLE: Commercial Office Residential Zone
Amendment
SITE AREA: CITYWIDE
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO
JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX
LOCATION: CITYWIDE
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Consolidate the three COR zones into one zoning designation. Based on Comprehensive Plan policies
establish an appropriate minimum density (30 dwelling units/acre) and apply the maximum density of the COR 3 zone (50 dwelling
units/acre) as a standard to all of the COR. Place the consolidated COR zone in the Urban Center Design District C.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable Moro Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Ma/or Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air Aesthetics
Water Liahl!Gfare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transnortation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Histodc/Cultura/
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
~CIM /U)~~!Zi/Z£v
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information i eeded to properly assess this proposal.
•,
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:171-178, 1993
RESPONSES OF NESTING BALD EAGLES TO
HELICOPTER SURVEYS
JA~ES W. WATSON, ·1rashington Department of Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA
98501-1091
Aircraft often are used to assess distribution
and productivity of raptors (e.g., Fuller and
Mosher 1987). Nesting bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocepha/w;) have been surveyed from fixed-
wing aircraft (Mathisen 1968, Isaacs et al. 1983,
McAllister et al. 1986) with minimal distur-
bance (Fraser et al. 1985). Fixed-wing aircraft
surveys are limited on the type and accuracy
of data collected (Sprunt et al. 1973, White
and Sherrod 1973). Helicopters, however, pro-
vide a relatively close, stationary platform from
which to locate nests and count eggs and young
(Carrier and Melquist 1976, Craig and Craig
1984), but they may be more disturbing
(Hodges and King 1982). I am unaware of any
attempts to quantify helicopter disturbance
impacts on bald eagles.
Since 1981, the Washington Department of
Wildlife has conducted annual bald eagle nest
occupancy and productivity surveys in April
and June, respectively. Occupancy surveys as-
sess the presence and activity of breeding ea-
gles, whereas productivity surveys evaluate
nesting success. Until 1985, both surveys were
conducted from fixed-wing aircraft. Since then,
productivity flights have been conducted from
helicopters. I summarize the literature report-
ing bald eagle responses to overflights of fixed-
wing aircraft and helicopters, evaluate effects
of helicopter surveys on behavior and mortal-
ity of nesting eagles, and make recommen-
dations on using helicopters for productivity
surveys of bald eagles.
STUDY AREA AND METHODS
I summarized records from the literature reJXlrting
bald eagle responses to aircraft overflights. No com-
parative statistical analysis was conducted for fixed-
wing and helicopter surveys because of the variability
in reported responses (e.g., encounter distances, re-
sponse types, and encounter locations).
172 Wild/. Soc. Bull. 21(2) 1993
From 1989-1991, I conducted helicopter surveys at
bald eagle territories in a 7-county region of Puget
Sound in northwestern Washington. Habitat varied from
urban parks around inland lakes to relatively undis-
turbed islands with marine shorelines. More than 80%
of the nests in the region were in the top third of
dominant, old-growth Douglas-firs (Pseudotsuga men-
ziesii). Nest trees usually were remnant trees associated
with young forestland or interspersed among homesites
along the shorelines. Regular aircraft activities oc-
curred throughout the region; military aircraft and
float planes were common even over the more isolated
islands.
I conducted surveys from a 3-seat Hiller/Soloy UH-
12E and a 4-seat Bell 206-BIII. At least I observer was
present to record productivity information. Surveys were
fl.own the first week of June, when young were 5-10
weeks old. Primary objectives were to determine nest
success (i.e., presence or absence of young) and the
number and approximate age of young, while mini-
mizing approach time, maximizing approach distance,
and avoiding passes directly over nests. Sometimes this
entailed a single moving pass by the nest, but at other
times hovering and close approaches were necessary,
largely depending on the openness of the tree canopy
above the nest I scanned the area within about 450 m
of the nest trees for adult eagles, and plotted their
locations and the helicopter flight path on l: 12,000
aerial photos.
From plotted locations for each nest visit, I measured
the minimum approach distances of the helicopter to
the nest, helicopter to the eagle (encounter distance),
and eagle to the nest to the nearest 30 m. I also recorded
precipitation (present or absent), wind velocity ( < 16
or ~ 16 kph, averaged from readings before and after
each survey at the airport), number of young if present,
approximate age of young (downy or feathered), heli-
copter activity (move or hover), and the minimum
helicopter altitude above the nest or treeline (estimated
to the nearest 60 m). For each adult eagle encountered,
I categorized and recorded its response behavior as
none (e.g., brood, feed young, other) or disturbed (e.g.,
agitation or Hush). Agitation responses were further
defined as vocalization, crouch (wings tucked), or flight-
attention (wings flicking, leaning forward). For flush
responses, I recorded the eagle behavior after flushing
as circle or soar, evade, fly to nest, or attack. In the
latter behavior, eagles approached the helicopter with-
out veering. For eagles that flushed when helicopters
approached at <60 m, I recorded duration of the heli-
copter presence before eagles flushed, to the nearest 5
seconds. Duration was not recorded at greater encoun-
ter distances because I was unable to determine when
eagles first saw the helicopter. In 1991, I randomly
selected 26 successful nests and resurveyed them by
airplane 1 week after the productivity surveys to assess
the accuracy of the initial productivity estimates; adult
attendance at the nests also was noted.
I used Pearson's chi-square statistic to test for inde-
pendence of adult presence and nest success, response
behavior and encounter distance, and postflush behav-
ior and encounter distance. The sign and magnitude
of the standardized residuals were used to determine
the nature of significant associations. Disturbance rates
were calculated at 30 m increments from the helicopter
(incremental rate) and for all closer distances from a
given increment (cumulative rate). Cumulative rates
were the maximum possible disturbance rate based on
the assumption that disturbed eagles would have been
disturbed at all closer distances. Therefore, incremental
and cumulative disturbance rates gave the lower and
upper limits of actual responses, respectively (Mc-
Garigal et al. 1991).
To test for the influence of several factors on dis-
turbance response while controlling for encounter dis-
tance, I used the maximum likelihood ratio statistic
(G 2 , 3-dimensional model [Fienberg 1982:40]). Factors
included helicopter activity, precipitation, age of young,
number of young, wind velocity, minimum helicopter
altitude above the nest, and the minimum distances
from the nest to the eagle, helicopter to the eagle, and
helicopter to the nest. The effect of the factor on dis-
turbance response was the difference between the mod-
el with the 3 2-way interactions of distance-response,
distance-factor, and response-factor, and the model
without the latter interaction (McGarigal et al. 1991:
16). Encounter distance was grouped into 3 categories
( <60, 60-120, and > 120 m) and other factors were
categorized as necessary to maintain adequate expect-
ed cell frequencies.
I conducted a separate analysis of flush response be-
cause as an index of disturbance there was less bias in
its interpretation at greater ranges of visibility relative
to other disturbance responses (e.g., agitation). To ex-
amine the effects of factors (i.e., the same factors tested
on disturbance response) on flush distance (the distance
from the helicopter at which eagles flushed) I used the
Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test for 2-
and 3-level factors, respectively (Zar 1974: 109---114, 139-
142). Additive effects of factors on flush distance were
assessed with multiple regression using step-down pro-
cedures. Dummy variables were used for nominal scale
values.
RESULTS
Bald eagles exhibited varied responses to air-
craft by encounter distance and aircraft type
(Table 1). Seven to 42% of eagles from different
populations responded (i.e., alert and flush be-
havior) to fixed-wing overflights at approach
distances <3,050 m. Helicopters elicited great-
er responses; "=40% of eagles responded to heli-
copter approaches at distances <3,050 m.
In northwestern Washington, adult eagles
were absent from nests during 272 of 501 heli-
copter surveys (54%); 61% (166) of these nests
contained young. At least 1 adult eagle was
EAGLE RESPONSES • Watson 173
Table I. Responses of breeding bald eagles to aircraft overflights.
Response
Primary Encounter Nooe Alert Flush
Study
Fraser et al. ( 1985)
McGarigal et al. (1991)
Dames and Moore (199l)d
Bowerman (1991)
Grubb and King (1991)
P.N.E.S. (1986)'
This study
Dames and Moore (1991)d
Grubb and King (1991)
P.N.E.S. (1986)'
' FW = fixed-wing, H = helicopter.
"FA = foraging area, NS= nest site.
' Flush and alert responses combined.
airrraft
type'
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
H
H
H
H
di~tance
(mJ " %
<200 3,118 93
<500 26 84
<915 = 59
<1,000 19 86
<2,000 1,541 72
<3,050 143 88
<450 128 48
<915 0 0
<2,000 381 53
<3,050 6 60
Encounter
" % " % location"
2 0 230 7 FA,NS
5, 16 FA
162 41 2 I NS
3' 14 NS
551 26 39 2 NS
20' 12 FA
45 16 97 36 NS
I 100 NS
259 36 79 II NS
4, 40 FA
"Thi.me-; and Moore, Bellingham Int. Airport bald eagle behavior study; 15 through 29 July 1991. Seattle, Wash. Job 03395-035-020. 33pp.
• Pacific Northwest Environmental Servir:es, Effects of jet aircraft activity on bald eagles in the vicinity oE Bellingham Int. Airport. Bellingham, Wa.1h. 12pp.
observed <450 m from nests during the re-
maining 229 surveys; 92% (210) of these nests
contained young. Adult eagles were more like-
ly to be present when nests contained young
than when young were not present (x' = 62.36,
1 df, P < 0.0001). Adults perched <450 m
from nests containing young were on the nest
or in the nest tree 74% of the time (n = 156);
4% of these adults were feeding young (n =
6), and 8% were brooding (n = 12).
I encountered 270 perched eagles during
helicopter visits to nests. Seven eagles were in
flight when encountered and were not includ-
ed in the analysis. Eagles were disturbed in
53% of the encounters (n = 142). Disturbed
eagles either flushed (68%), or were agitated
but did not flush (32%). Two brooding eagles
were flushed but those feeding young did not
react to the presence of the helicopter. Flushed
eagles (n = 97) circled and soared (56%), evad-
ed the helicopter (21 % ), returned to their nests
(12%), or approached the helicopter to attack
(11%). Agitated eagles (n = 45) vocalized (57%),
crouched (25%), or perched at flight-attention
(18%). Agitation response frequencies were
conservative estimates because these behaviors
were not recorded for eagles that flushed and
were more likely to be seen only at relatively
close encounter distances. They constituted
fewer disturbance responses with increasing
encounter distances >90 m (Table 2). Nest-
lings rarely displayed behavioral changes on
approach of the helicopter; none were flushed,
trampled by adults, or known to have been
bumped from nests by flushed adults.
Disturbance rates varied with encounter dis-
tance (x' = 10.52, 4 df, P = 0.033). Eagles
were disturbed more often than expected when
encountered at distances <60 m and > 120 m
(Table 3). Reduced disturbance rates at mid-
encounter distances occurred for incremental
and cumulative responses (Table 3); however,
at distances > 120 m, the latter rate did not
increase. Three factors had a significant influ-
ence on disturbance response after controlling
Table 2. Responses of bald eagles disturbed by survey
helicopters in northwestern Washington, 1989-1991.
Agitated 011ly Flushed
Encounter
di1lan,.., (m) " % " %
<30 3 50 3 50
30-60 19 44 24 56
61-90 17 40 25 60
91-120 4 19 17 81
> 120 2 7 28 93
Total 45 32 97 68
174 Wildt. Soc. Bull. 21/2) 1993
Table 3. Disturbance rates of adult bald eagles in response to helicopter nest surveys in northwestern Washington,
1989-1991.
Encounter Not disturbed Disturbed Disturbance rate(%)'
distanee
(rn) " S.R.'' " S.R Incremental C:umulative
<30 0 -1.67 6 +l.56 100 100
30-60 29 -0.87 43 +0.83 60 82
61-90 46 +0.67 42 -0.63 48 67
91-120 30 +l.18 21 -1.12 41 63
>120 23 -0.42 30 +0.40 57 57
Total 128 142
• Disturbance rate= no. disturbed/no. encountered
"Standardized residuals (observed -expected/expected''), + = disturbance rate greater than expected, -~ disturbance rate less than expected.
for encounter distance (Table 4). Eagles were
disturbed at higher rates when there were no
young in the nest, when they were perched
< 60 m from the nest, or when the helicopter
hovered rather than moved toward the nest.
There was some evidence that higher wind
velocities, precipitation, and presence of young
nestlings reduced disturbance response (Table
4), perhaps indicating that eagles with small
young were more reluctant to flush in adverse
weather. Disturbance responses were indepen-
dent of minimum helicopter-nest distance ( G 2
= 1.43, P = 0.489).
Flush distance (f = 102 m, SE = 7.7, n =
97) was influenced by 6 factors (Table 5). Ea-
gles flushed at greater distances from the heh-
Table 4. Factors influencing the disturbance response of nesting bald eagles with respect to helicopter encounter
distance in northwestern Washington, 1989-1991.
Disturbance rate
<60' 60-120 >120
Factor and level n ,,.
" % " % C' ,.
Number young
0 3 67 13 54 9 89 14.28 0.001
1-3 83 65 108 37 43 49
Eagle-nest distance (m)
<60 76 63 129 46 22 64 7.55 0.023
2!60 2 0 9 33 30 50
Helicopter activity
Hover 30 77 69 51 18 22 6.12 0.047
Move 48 52 69 39 34 74
Wind velocity (kph)
<16 37 78 56 55 19 63 5.89 0.053
.2!16 41 46 82 38 31 55
Precipitation
Yes 18 39 35 20 10 30 5.86 0.053
No 60 68 103 53 42 62
Age
Downy 42 55 59 48 22 59 5.78 0.056
Feathered 26 73 60 62 21 38
• Encounter distance (m)
b Disturbance rate= no. disturbed/no. encountered.
' Loi;:-likelihood $\atislic, 3-dimensional model.
Table 5. Factors influencing the distance at which
nesting bald eagles flushed from helicopters in north-
western Washington, 1989-1991.
Factor
Flush distauce (m) KW or MW•
a11d k:vd " SE (P)
Wind velocity (kph)
<16 55 25 2 2.68 (0.004)
~16 40 38 4
Number young
0 15 40 6 1.92 (0.027)
1-3 80 28 2
Eagle-nest distance (m)
<30 67 75 6 34.08 (0.0001)
30-60 JO 116 20
>60 18 180 15
Helicopter activity
Move 53 35 3 2. JO (0.018)
Hover 42 24 2
Helicopter-nest distance (m)
<60 33 52 6 52.09 (0.0001)
60-120 49 107 8
>120 13 188 19
Helicopter altitude above nest (m)
<30 30 19 2 23.06 (0.0001)
30-60 46 32 3
>60 19 43 5
'KW= Kruskal-Walli5 tesl for 3 levd variabll'S, MW= Marm-Whitoey V
test for 2-level variables.
copter during higher wind velocities ( ": 16 kph),
when they were without young, and when they
perched farther from their nests. This may
suggest eagles without young and away from
their nests were inclined to flush well before
the helicopter approached, particularly in high
winds. Eagles also allowed closer approaches
before flushing when the helicopter hovered
and was closer to the nest in horizontal distance
and altitude. When the additive effect of these
factors was considered, eagle-nest and heli-
EAGLE RESPONSES • Watson 175
copter-nest distances were the greatest influ-
ence on flush distance. These 2 factors ex-
plained 82% of the variability in flush distance
(F = 201.96; 2,92 df; P = 0.0001). This rela-
tionship is described as: Y = 18.25 + 0.754X1
+ 0.663X2; where Y = flush distance, Xl =
helicopter-nest distance, and X2 = eagle-nest
distance. Two flushes that were excluded as
outliers (standardized residuals >4 standard
deviations from zero [Neter and Wasserman
1974:106]) were of eagles >450 m from nests,
and were caused when the helicopter ap-
proached from over a ridge at <30 m and
startled them.
For eagles that flushed at encounter dis-
tances < 60 m, duration of the helicopter pres-
ence before flushing ranged from 0-60 seconds
(f = 16, SE= 3.3, n = 27). Sixty-three percent
of these birds flushed alter 10 seconds.
Postflush behavior varied with encounter
distance (x2 = 15.90, 6 df, P = 0.014). At
eagle-helicopter distances > 120 m there were
fewer than expected evasive flights, and more
than expected attacks on the helicopter and
flights back to the nest (Table 6). Conversely,
at eagle-helicopter distances < 60 m there was
more circling or soaring and fewer attacks on
the helicopter (Table 6). I observed fewer young
(41 vs. 43) and reduced adult attendance (35
vs. 92%) at 26 successful nests that were re-
surveyed 1 week after productivity flights.
DISCUSSION
Bald eagle responses to aircraft were influ-
enced by survey techniques and environmen-
tal variables (weather and biology). Of the for-
Table 6. Postflush behaviors of bald eagles in response to helicopter surveys in northwestern Washington, 1989-
1991.
Circle or soar Evade Attack To ue;"t
Encounter
di,tanl"e (m) " S.R.• " SR " S.R " S.H
<60 20 +1.29 4 -0.66 1 -1.76 2 -0.71
60-120 20 -0.70 14 +1.80 5 +0.o9 3 -0.97
>120 14 -0.41 2 -1.58 5 +0.01 7 +1.87
• Standardized rf'::>iduals (observed -expected/expected'),+= behavior more frequent than expected, -= behavior less frequent than expected
176 Wild/. Soc. Bull. 21(2) 1993
mer group, aircraft type and encounter distance
were the most important influences on distur-
bance response. Fixed-wing aircraft are re-
ported to have little effect on eagle response
(Sprunt et al. 1973, Fyfe and Olendorff 1976,
Fraser et al. 1985, Grubb and King 1991),
whereas helicopters have provoked attacks by
nesting eagles (Fyfe and Olendorff 1976, White
and Nelson 1991). The greater sensitivity of
eagles to close helicopter approaches ( <450
m), are evident in my study where 53% of
eagles responded to helicopters near the nest
tree. Close airplane approaches ( <500 m) re-
sulted in only 7% responses near the nest tree
(Fraser et al. 1985) and 16% on foraging areas
(McGarigal et al. 1991:31). This is consistent
with my observations that perched and incu-
bating eagles observed from fixed-wing air-
craft at close approaches (50-150 m) rarely
responded during activity surveys in north-
western Washington.
Proximity of adult eagles to the nest site was
equally or more important than encounter dis-
tance in influencing their response to helicop-
ters. Increased disturbance rates at encounter
distances > 120 m were a consequence of ea-
gles flushing, presumably to defend young, in
response to helicopters over the nest. Although
adult eagles perched close to nests ( <60 m)
were more agitated (reflected by higher dis-
turbance rates), they tended to remain perched
and had reduced flush distances as helicopters
approached more closely. Also, eagles perched
at the nest were unlikely to respond to heli-
copters over a foraging perch several hundred
meters away. Tenacity to nest sites may be
greater relative to foraging areas or roosts be-
cause of the parental need to protect and feed
young (Bowerman 1991 ). Presence of young
in the nest increased tenacity; adults were more
likely to be present ( <450 m from nest) at
successful nests, and adults at unsuccessful nests
had higher disturbance rates and flushed at
greater distances from helicopters. At relative-
ly close encounter distances ( <30 m), eagles
probably flushed because of the immediate
threat to their survival in spite of their tenacity
and proximity to the nest. This is consistent
with the findings of Carrier and Melquist (1976)
where incubating ospreys (Pandion haliaetus)
in Idaho usually flushed within 50 m of heli-
copters.
Interpretation of disturbance rates and flush
distances must take into account perch tenacity
and postflush behavior. What seems to be no
disturbance and a lack of response to human
activities closer to the nest might actually be
a form of nest defense. Even though adults
may not flush, regular disruption of nesting
activities by aircraft or other human activities
could result in reduced brooding and feeding
of young, which might lead to reduced atten-
tiveness and nest failure. Whereas helicopters
might agitate eagles or provoke them to flush,
the immediate effects of short-term, periodic
encounters were apparently inconsequential. I
detected no direct evidence of adult or young
mortality during the flights, nor did Fraser et
al. (1985) during fixed-wing overflights. Young
eagles generally remained motionless during
productivity flights, as did young ospreys (Car-
rier and Melquist 1976).
My study did not assess whether there were
residual effects that influenced behavior of sur-
veyed pairs (e.g., pair bonds, nest reuse) and
long-term productivity. It was unclear whether
the 2 young absent during resurveys success-
fully fledged or were affected by the earlier
helicopter surveys. White and Sherrod (1973)
reported that productivity of bald eagles on
Amchitka Island that were surveyed by heli-
copter was similar to that of 3 other eagle pop-
ulations in Canada and Alaska, which were not
surveyed by helicopter. In the Amchitka pop-
ulation, 60% of the territories had young, and
0.85 young fledged/active nest. This is com-
parable to my study, where helicopter surveys
revealed 65% of the territories were successful,
and averaged 1. 0 young/ occupied territory an-
nually. It also was unclear whether reduced
adult attendance during resurveys resulted
from helicopter disturbances, although in many
..
instances adult eagles reperched near nests af-
ter the helicopter passed, suggesting that eagles
did not abandon nests. Reduced fidelity of
adults to nests with the passing of the breeding
season is consistent with what Bowerman (1991)
found in Michigan, where adult eagle atten-
dance at nests declined from 1-16% weekly
for the 8 weeks before fledging. Also, use of
faster fixed-wing aircraft for resurveys re-
duced observer time near the nest and the like-
lihood of seeing adults. Adult attendance dur-
ing incubation also was variable in studies by
King et al. (1972), Hodges et al. (1984), Hodges
et al. (1979), and Grier (1969) (e.g., 15, 22, 23,
and 98%, respectively), which may have been
related to the age of young.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMEND A TIO NS
Helicopters have been used effectively for
bald eagle productivity surveys in western
Washington, even though hourly costs are high
relative to fixed-wing aircraft (e.g., $400 vs.
$65). Turbine-engine helicopters, used in my
study, are quieter than comparable piston-
driven helicopters (e.g., 73 vs. 76 decibels at
300 m altitude [Fed. Aviation Agency 1985]),
and have been recommended for raptor sur-
veys because of reduced noise levels (White
and Sherrod 1973, Fyfe and Olendorff 1976).
Maneuverability and close pilot communica-
tions are probably just as important for mini-
mizing disturbance. Helicopter surveys should
be conducted with the least impacts on eagles
and should maximize observer safety by main-
taining flight approach distances of 2: 60 m
from nests. Flights should be made to a fixed
point with the most direct view; hovering rath-
er than moving approaches may increase ag-
itation responses but adults may allow closer
approaches before flushing. Hovering at an el-
evation of 2: 60 m beside the nest tree will
provide an escape route for flushing adults, and
an escape path for helicopters if eagles attack.
Time at the nest should be kept to < 10 sec-
onds, and if eagles appear agitated the heli-
EAGLE RESPONSES • Watson 177
copter should move away from the nest, and
binoculars should be used to complete obser-
vations. Flights should be timed as late as pos-
sible in the nesting season to reduce the like-
lihood of adults being present. Calm dry days
are preferred for surveying because of lower
disturbance rates, better visibility, and reduced
likelihood of young being chilled if adults are
flushed.
SUMMARY
Bald eagles from several populations had
lower response rates to fixed-wing aircraft than
to survey helicopters at similar distances. In
northwestern Washington, bald eagle distur-
bance rates and flush distances from survey
helicopters were affected by encounter dis-
tances and nest tenacity, Eagles with young
and those closer to nests allowed closer heli-
copter approaches before flushing. At encoun-
ter distances > 120 m eagles flushed at higher
rates and returned to nests. No direct mortality
of young or adults was known to occur during
surveys, but 53% of 270 eagles encountered
were disturbed; 68% of disturbed eagles were
flushed, and 32% were agitated. Helicopter
survey protocol that minimizes disturbance, and
maximizes cost efficiency, data reliability, and
observer safety should include hovering for
< 10 seconds at '2::. 60 m from nests, surveying
on calm, dry days, and as late in the season as
possible to minimize adult presence.
Acknowledgments.-L. Leschner, M. Dav-
ison, A. Lettenberger, and L. Young assisted
in the surveys. T. Nguyen, B. Chittick, R. Oga-
ta, C. Conti, and L. Stickney contributed ex-
cellent piloting skills. K. McGarigal provided
invaluable statistical advice and comments; R.
Anthony, F. Isaacs, J. Pierce, and G. Schirato
also reviewed the manuscript.
LITERA TUBE CITED
BowERMAN, W. W., IV. 1991. Factors influencing
breeding success of bald eagles in upper Michigan.
M.A. Thesis, Northern Michigan Univ., Mar-
quette. 113pp.
178 Wild/. Soc. Bull. 21(2) 1993
CARRIER, W. D., AND W. E. MELQUIST. 1976. The use
of a rotor-winged aircraft in conducting nesting
surveys of ospreys in northern Idaho. Raptor Res.
10,77-83.
CRAIG, T. H., AND E. H. CRAIG. 1984. Results of a
helicopter survey of cliff nesting raptors in a deep
canyon in southern Idaho. Raptor Res. 18:20-25.
FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY. 1985. Flight operations
noise tests of 8 helicopters. Noise Abatement
Branch, Nat. Tech. Inf. Serv. FAA-EE-85-7.
Washington, D.C., 700pp.
FIENBERG, S. E. 1982. The analysis of cross-classified
categorical data. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
198pp.
FRASER, J. D., L. D. FRENZEL, AND J. E. MATHISEN.
1985. The impact of human activities on breeding
bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl.
Manage. 49,585-592.
FULLER, M. R., AND J. A. MOSHER. 1987. Raptor sur-
vey techniques. Pages 37-65 in B. A. Giron-Pen-
dleton, B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline, and D. M. Bird,
eds. Raptor management techniques manual. Natl.
Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C.
FYFE, R. W., AND R.R. 0LEND0RFF. 1976. Minimizing
the dangers of nesting studies to raptors and other
sensitive species. Can. Wildl. Serv. Occas. Pap. 23,
Edmonton, Alta. l 7pp.
GRIER, J. W. 1969. Bald eagle behavior and produc-
tivity responses to climbing to nests. J. Wild!. Man-
age. 33,961-966.
GRUBB, T. G., AND R. M. KING. 1991. Assessing human
disturbance of breeding bald eagles with classifi-
cation tree models. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:500--511.
HoDGES, j. I., J•., AND j. G. KING. 1982. Bald eagle
(Alaska). Pages 50--51 in D. E. Davis, ed. CRC
handbook of census methods for terrestrial ver-
tebrates. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.
---, ---, AND F. C. ROBARDS. 1979. Resurvey
of the bald eagle breeding ixipulation in southeast
Alaska. J. Wild!. Manage. 43,219-221.
---, ---, AND R. DAVIES. 1984. Bald eagle
breeding population survey of coastal British Co-
lumbia. J. Wild!. Manage. 48,993-998.
ISAACS, F. B., R. G. ANTHONY, AND R. J. ANDERSON,
198,'3. Distribution and productivity of nesting bald
eagles in Oregon, 1978-82. Murrelet 64:33-38.
KING, J. G., F. C. ROBARDS, AND c. J. LENSINK. 1972.
Census of the bald eagle breeding population in
southeast Alaska. J. Wild!. Manage. 36,1,292-1,295.
MATHISEN, J. E. 1968. Effects of human disturbance
on nesting of bald eagles. J. Wild!. Manage. 32:
1-6.
McALLISTER, K. R., T. E. OWENS, L. LESCHNER, AND E.
CUMMINGS. 1986. Distribution and productivity
of nesting bald eagles in Washington, 1981-1985.
Murrelet 67:45-50.
McGARIGAL, K., R. G. ANTHONY, AND F. B. ISAACS.
1991. Interactions of humans and bald eagles on
the Columbia River estuary. Wildl. Monogr. 115.
47pp.
NETER, J., AND w. WASSERMAN. 1974. Applied linear
statistical models. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Home-
wood, Ill. 842pp.
SPRUNT, A., IV, W. B. ROBERTSON, JR., A. PosrUPALSKY,
R. J. HENSEL, c. E. KNODER, AND F. J. LIGAS. 1973.
Comparative productivity of six bald eagle pop-
ulations. Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour.
Con!. 38,96-106.
WHITE, C. M., AND R. W. NELSON. 1991. Hunting
range and strategies in a tundra breeding pere-
grine and gyrfalcon observed from a helicopter.
J. Raptor Res. 25:49-62.
---, AND S. K. SHERROD. 1973. Advantages and
disadvantages of the use of rotor-winged aircraft
in raptor surveys. Raptor Res. 7:97-104.
ZAR, J. H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 620pp.
Recetved 17 July 1992.
Accepted 11 December 1992.
Associate Edttor: Flather.
• I
NPC Librnry: Chapter 5 nfRepo1t on Eff'ects of Aircraft Ov<:rflighls on the :'Jatio1wl Park .. Page l of43
CHAPTERS
EFFECTS OF OVERFLIGHTS ON WILDLIFE
5.1 Introduction
ln general, wild animals do respond to low-altitude aircraft overflights. The
manner in which they do so depends on life-history characteristics of the
species, characteristics of the aircraft and flight activities, and a variety of
other factors such as habitat type and previous exposure to aircraft. The
potential for overflights to disturb wildlife and the resulting consequences
have drawn considerable attention from state and Federal wildlife managers,
conservation organizations, and the scientific community. This issue is of
special concen1 to wildlife managers responsible for protecting populations,
and to private citizens ,vho feel it is unvvise and/or inappropriate to disturb
wildlife. Two types of overflight activities have drawn the most attention with
regard to their impacts on wildlife: I) low-altitude overflights by military
aircraft in the airspace over national and state wildlife refuges and other wild
lands, and 2) light, fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter activities related to
tourism and resource extraction in remote areas.
The primary concern expressed is that low-level nights over wild animals may
cause physiological andior behavioral responses that reduce the animals'
fitness or ability to survive. It is believed that low-altitude overflights can
cause excessive arousal and alertness, or stress (see Fletcher 1980, 1990,
Manci et al. 1988 for review). If chronic, stress can compromise the general
health of animals. Also, the way in which animals behave in response to
overflights could interfere ,vith raising young, habitat use, and physiological
energy budgets. Physiological and behavioral responses have been repeatedly
documented, that suggest some of these consequences occur. While the
behavioral responses by animals to overflights have been well-documented for
several species, few studies have addressed the indirect consequences. Such
consequences may or may not occur, and may be detectable only through
long-term studies.
h llp :// www .110110 i se. org/l i brary -'n pn:porl 'chapter 5 .h Lm {)[i25-'2008
NP(' l.ibra1y· Chapter 5 ofR..:p01t on Effects of Aircraft Overllights on the National Park ... Page 2 of 43
The scientific community's current understanding of the effects of aircraft
overflights on wildlife are found in the literature. Such studies identify:
collision with aircraft(Burger 1985, Dolbeer et al. 1993); flushing of birds
from nests or feeding areas (Owens 1977, Kushlan 1979, Burger 1981,
Anderson and Rongstad 1989, Belanger and Berad 1989, Cook and Anderson
1990); alteration in movement and activity patterns of mountain sheep (Bleich
ct al. 1990); decreased foraging efficiency of desert big horn sheep (Stockwell
and Bateman 1991 ); panic running by barren ground caribou (Calef et al.
1976); decreased calf survival of woodland caribou (Harrington and Veitch
1992); increased heartrate in elk, antelope, and rocky mountain big horn sheep
(Bunch and Workman 1993 ); and adrenal hypertrophy in feral house mice
(Chesser et al. 1975). Over 200 published and unpublished reports can be
found on the subject. These reports range in scientific validity from well
designed, rigorous studies to professional natural resource manager and pilot
reports.
Recent concerns have focused on the significance of impacts as they affect
wildlife populations. Defining a population as "a group offish or wildlife in
the same taxon below the subspecific level, in common spatial arrangements
that interbreed when mature," 1 it is possible to draw the conclusion that
impacts to wildlife populations are occurring from low level aircraft
overflights. This assertion is supported by numerous studies including the
follo\ving:
I. 50 Cl'R Part 17.3
Previqus _('ha_pte_r
Tnp u I" Chapl er 5
Table of Contents
Return __ to _NPC Library
Return to l\PC Home Page
5.1
• ( decreased calf survival of woodland caribou (Harrington and Veitch
http: -' .'www.nonoise.org/library inprcport/ cha ptcr5 . htm 01/25/2008
NPC (,ihrary: ( 'haptcr 5 of Repent on Effects of Aircraft Ove1tlights on the National Park ... Page 3 of 43
1992)
• disturbance to wintering snow geese documents the effects on
staging/wintering subgroup (Belanger and Beard l 989)
• impacts on nesting herring gulls documents effects on a subgroup during
production periods (Burger 1991)
Additional research will be required to fully address the significance of such
population impacts. However, waiting for and relying on future research
results for current policy decisions is not possible. Therefore, it is necessary to
make informed decisions recognizing that all of the consequences of
disturbance will not be completely understood.
5.2 Physiological Responses to Aircraft Overflights
When disturbed by overflights, animal responses range from mild
11 annoyance," demonstrated by slight changes in body position, to more severe
reactions, such as panic and escape behavior. The more severe reactions are
more likely to have damaging consequences. Studies of aircraft impacts
suggest that whether or not disturbance occurs, and whether or not disturbance
has a harmful effect depends on a variety of characteristics associated with
both the animal and with the aircraft.
When the sudden sight and/or sound of aircraft causes alarm, the
physiological and behavioral responses of animals are characterized as
manifestations of stress. The effects of chronic stress from overflights have
not been fonnally studied, though several national wildlife refuge managers
suspect that stress from overflights makes waterfowl more susceptible to
disease (Gladwin et al. 1987, US Fish and Wildlife Service 1993 ). Other types
of disturbance-induced -stress have been documented to produce a variety of
other problems, such as toxemia in pregnant sheep (Reid and Miles 1962) and
abnormal births (Ward 1972, Denneberg and Rosenberg 1967). That exposure
to low-altitude aircraft overflights does induce stress in animals has been
demonstrated. Heart rate acceleration is an indicator of excitement or stress in
animals, and increased heart rates have been shown to occur in several species
http: / /www _ nonoisc.org/l i hrary/nprepmt/ chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NP(' Librmy: Chaptt'r 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights un the National Park ... Page 4 of 43
exposed to low-altitude overflights in a wild-or semi-wild setting. Species
that have been tested include pronghorn, elk, and bighorn sheep (MacArthur
et al, 1982, Workman el al. 1992a,b,c). Stress responses such as increased
heart rates by themselves are an adaptation for encounters with predators and
other environmental threats, which presumably must be faced daily. It is not
known, therefore, if the addition of stressful events such as overflights
actually harm animals. It may be that a few overflights do not cause harm, but
that overflights occurring at high frequencies over long periods of time, do.
Biologists caution that the consequences of disturbance, while cumulative, are
not additive. Effects could be synergistic, especially when coupled with
natural catastrophes such as harsh winters or water shortages (Bergerud 1978,
Geist 1994). Also, the tendency for additional stress to be harmful probably
depends on other factors, such as the general health of animals to begin with.
Some species are likely to be more susceptible to damage than are others.
Research has shown that stress induced by other types of disturbance produces
long-tenn, deleterious effects on the metabolism and honnone balances in
wild
5.2
ungulates (hoofed mammals) such as bighorn sheep (Geist 1971, Stemp
1983). Many animal biologists maintain that excessive stimulation of the
nervous system can amount to chronic stress, and that continuous exposure to
aircraft overflights can be harmful for the health, growth and reproductive
fitness of animals (see Fletcher 1980, 1990 for review).
The auditory systems of some animals may be particularly susceptible to
physical damage, and such animals may experience hearing loss from
exposure to chronic aircraft sound. Animals living in quiet desert
environments have evolved particularly fragile ears and hence appear to be at
great risk of sound-induced hearing damage (Bondello and Brattstrom 1979,
Fletcher 1990). While aircraft noise and its effects on animal hearing have not
been tested, other types of sound such as motorcycle noise have been shown
to cause hearing loss in desert species, including the desert iguana (Bondello
1976) and the kangaroo rat, an endangered species (Bondello and Brattstrom
http: / /www.nonoise.org/libraty /npreporti chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Libr.:iry: Chapter 5 of Report on E!Tec·tc; of Aircraft Overl1ighb Oil the National Park .. l'ag:o.:: 5 of43
1979). II earing loss can occur after as little as an hour of exposure to loud
noise, and can be temporary or pennanent, depending on the degree of
exposure to sound and the susceptibility of the individual animal.
Conclusion 5.1
Overflights can induce physiological responses in animals, such as
increased heart rates, but whether or nol such responses cause hann
is unknown. Effects may be synergistic, as \Vhen combined with
natural events such as harsh \Vinters or water shortages.
5.3 Behavioral Responses to Aircraft Overflights
Behavioral responses of wild animals to overflights nearly ahvays accompany
physiological responses. Behavioral responses reflect a variety of states, from
indifference to extreme panic. To some extent, responses are species-specific,
whereby some species arc more likely to respond in a ce11ain manner than are
others. Hov.rever, even within a species, individual animals vary. Documented
variations between individuals may be due to differences in temperament, sex,
age, prior experience \Vith aircraft, or other factors. For these reasons,
anecdotal infonnation about one animal's response to an overflight is not
usdul for drawing conclusions for that or any other species. Often. animals
exhibit very subtle and seemingly minor behavioral responses to overflights.
Minor responses that are typical of both birds and mammals include head-
raising, body-shifting, and turning and orienting towards the aircraft. Animals
that are moderately disturbed usually show "nervous 11 behaviors such as
trotting short distances (mammals). standing up with necks frilly extended and
sunning the area, or walking around and flapping wings (birds).
When animals are more severely disturbed, escape is the most common
response. Perching or nesting birds may flush (fly up from a perch or nest)
and circle the area before landing again. Some birds. particularly waterfowl
and seabirds, may leave the area if sufficiently disturbed. There are dozens of
reports. mostly from national wildlife refuges. of waterbirds flying, diving or
swimming away from aircrafi (e.g. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). This
is apparently a v,,.-idcsprcad and common response. Bird flight responses are
usually abrupt. and whole colonies of birds often flush together. Disturbed
http://www. nunoi;<;(:. llrg/1 ibrary /npreporti chapter5 . htm 01/25/2008
:\P(' Library Chapkr 5 of Repo1i on Effrcts of Aircraft Ovo.::rflights on the l\ational Park .. Page 6 ur 43
mammals \.\1ill run away from overflight paths. Table l lists behavioral
responses to overflights that have been documented during studies and
incidental observations.
lop 1..•f Chapto...~r 5
Tahlc Qf ContcnJB
Return to Nl'C Library
Return to N_PC Home Ya,ge
5.3
This table was generated from a review of published literature on the subject.
Reports varied widely in how infonnation was gathered. Aircrati altitudes are
noted where known. Some reports are from rigorous studies, others from
anecdotal information. In general, more severe responses (such as panic and
escape) were a result of lower-altitude overflights. Responses that were not
described in detail are in quotation marks.
As Table I illustrates, only a handful of the thousands of animal species in the
United Stales have been studied for their responses to overflights. Also, a
disproportionate number of studies have concentrated on ungulates such as
caribou and highom sheep. Carnivorous mammals have been virtually
ignored, as have marine mammals, small mammals, and bats. Birds arc more
evenly represented. with studies on waterfowl, shorebirds, marine birds. and
raptors, although songbirds and owls are notably absent. Reptiles and
amphibians have never been studied for responses to aircraft. This uneven
distribution of species representation is likely a result of two factors: 1)
researchers acknowledge that some species are more susceptible to hann than
are others, and have allocated efforts accordingly; and 2) some animals are
easier to study than others.
Generally, fish have not been considered al risk from aircraft disturbance.
Because most fish and other aquatic organisms live entirely belo\v the surface
of the waler, they do not experience the same sound levels that terrestrial
animals do. Marine mammals (besides dolphins and whales) are an exception
because they spend time above waler, on shore. Data on behavioral responses
of marine mammals to aircraft overflights are scarce. However, a study at
http: i iww w. nono ise. urg/l ibrary inpreport/ chapter5. htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircrall Overflights on the National Park ... Page 7 of 43
Copalis National Wildlife Refuge in Washington State (where the U.S. Navy
conducted pilot training from 1944 to 1993) reported responses of harbor seals
and northern sea lions to military A-6 jet overflights as ranging from no
response to abruptly leaving resting sites on the rock shore and entering the
sea (Speich ct al. I 987). California gray whales and harbor porpoises,
conversely, showed no obvious behavioral responses during this study.
Conclusion 5.2
Researchers have documented a range of wildlife behavioral
responses to aircraft overflights. Variations in response may be due
to differences between individuals, and anecdotal infonnation about
one animal's response is not useful for drawing conclusions
regarding that or other species. Behavioral responses may be subtle.
5.4 Indirect Effects of Disturbance from Overflights, and Consequences
for Animals
The behavioral responses to aircraft overflights described above are direct, or
immediate, responses. Biologists and others are concerned that indirect effects
of these responses may have hannful consequences for animals, especially
when overflights (and responses) are frequent. Behavioral reactions have the
potential to cause injury, to influence breeding success, energetics and habitat
use, and to result in bird strikes. Whether or not such indirect effects occur
depends on other factors associated with the natural history of a species. Some
animals are more susceptible than others to disturbance, because of unique life
history patterns such as colonial breeding, habitat requirements, and restricted
distribution. Others may need special protection during certain periods.
Indirect effects are difficult to detect. However, some eftects, such as habitat
avoidance, have been detected ( e.g. McCourt et al. 1974, Schweinsburg
1974b, Krausman et al. 1986). Large-scale consequences such as permanent
habitat abandonment or regional or national population declines have not been
well documented, though some
5.4
Top of Chapter 5
http://www.nonoise.org/1 ibraty /npreporti cha pt er5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park ... Page 8 of 43
Table ofConten!:;
Return to NPC Library
Retun1 to_NPC Borne .Page
Table 5.1. General responses by specific animal species to aircraft overflights
~Response
Large
Mammals
Pronghorn Accelerated heart rate
Run short distance
Bolt and run
INo response
Stop feeding, tense
!muscles
Run
1
Air-
craft2
D J
H
H
Flight IIReference
Alt.3
50011w orkman et al.
1992a
5000
100
150-400[[Luz & Smith
1976
~No response ~11 <300011Lamp 1989
L___J Minor behavior changes l__J
If Bighorn Accelerated Heart rate lJ -----
[[Sheep
Decreased food intake
while feeding
(interruption)
Take more steps while
http:// www . nono i se. org/1 ibraiy inpreport/chapter5 .htm
FW
H
H
sooo11w orkman et al.
1992b
100
100
--,,Stockwell et. al.
1979
01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chaptt,'1· 5 of Kcpmt on 1-.ffccts of Aircrafi Ovedlights 011 the National Park. Pagl'. 9 of43 NPC Library: Chapter 5 ofRcp011 on Effects ofAircr.::ift Overflights on th<.' :'h1tiom1l Pa.. Page 10 of43
!reeding II I
No response r 1640-Mac Arthur et al.
4920 1979
Accelerated heart rate
490-660
Run
No ,~e,~e n ~m,o Lamp 1989
' I
Minor behavior changes I
I
Leave area ~
ILeave area IOI 160-6501 Bleich d al.
1990
No response ;inv 100-990 Krausman &
I
I I Hervert 1983 !
lntertupt normal
acti vi tics
l~Uay abandon areas II IL_____JI
!Run away IIH II --IIHorejsi 1975 I
Are "terrified" DD Chandwick 1973
1i\.1ay abandon areas
Dall Sheep No response nc Nichols 1972
Get "excited"
Do not abandon habitat
I"""·-, ~l :; Feist et al. 1974
Schweinsburg
I
1974a
Alann behavior LJD Linderman 1972
Crowd together --
Run< 330 feet !React "sevcrcly 11 IIH JI --IIAndersen 1 971 I
I
Run .62-1.2 miles
IRun > I mile IIDD Horejsi 1975
Kiger 1970
Desert Mule No movement n1J Krausman et al.
Deer 1986
Move< .6 mile to new
habitat
C Accelerated heart rate r-I
5000 Workman et al.
1992c
100-500
Congregate together rlt~ McCullough
1969
Watch aircraft
IRun away IIH II --IIHorejsi, 1975 I
Mountain React "adversely1
' nn Ballard 1975
Goat
Gray Wolf Initially fright response, DD Burkholder 1959 J (scatter, run), later
accept
Grizzly Bear IRun ILJD Harding & Nagy
Hide
1976
"Mild'' behavior rn Ruttan 1974
response
Run away
Run in "panic" n_J Pearson 1975
Hide (may associate
aircratlwith capture)
Intermpt activity, leave Fl,,~ McCourt ct al.
area 1974a
200-500
Run towards cover Klein 1973
200-500
http://www.nonoisc.org/ Ii hrary inprcporti chaptcr5 h 1 rn 01,,25/2008 http::':' www. nonoi se. org/lihrmy/nprcpmtl chapter5 _ ht m 0 J/25/2008
NPC Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Repmt on Effecls or Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 11 of 43 NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 12 of 43
!Bison !!No response IIMJ II --IIF razi er 1 972
No response DD Fancy 1982
Run 1 mile
Run 5 miles
!Reindeer I Crowd together, panic LJ[:J Ericson 1972
<100
IRun away
IEJD
Slaney & Co.
Ltd. 1974
~ Move short distance LJD Bergerud 1963
Rarely leave area
No response 1:w I 200-500 Klein 1973
Panic, flee 200-500
Walk, trot, gallop away DLJ Gunn el al. 1985
Momentarily stop
feeding
L I Minor changes in l <1300 Miller & Gunn
behavior 1979
<1300
Panic and run
Calves died from D Miller and
trampling during escape Broughton 1974
from either wolves or
aircraft
!Calves died
IEJD
Harrington &
Veitch 1992
Panic and escape (]CJ Surrendi &
DeBock 1976
<790
Small
mammals
IHouse Mouse I Enlarged adrenal glands D -~--
Chesser et al.
1975
Marine
mammals
Atlantic Raise head towards H 4270 Salter 1979
Panic, escape LJ[) Calef et al. 1976
500
Walrus aircraft
Shift body position
Brief startle response MJ 100-500 Harrington &
Veitch 1973
Run for 8-27 seconds H 100-500
No effect on daily
activity
No effect on distances
traveled
Mothers and calves not
DD
Miller &
separated Broughton 1973
Run away from area
EJD
Valkenburg &
Davis 1985
Leave rocks, enter ocean
Harbor Seal, Leave rocks, enter ocean m Speich et al.
1987
Northern Sea
Lion
IRaptors I
Bald Eagle'' No response H --White & Sherrod
1973
Golden Eagle Panic, frantic escape
Peregrine No effect on raising
Falcon young
II
http://www.nonoisc.org/l i braty/npreport/chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008 http://www.nonoise.org/libraty inprepmt/ chapter5 .htm U 1125/2008
NPC Librnry: Chapter 5 of Kcpo11 on I-fl'c-cts nf Aircraft Owtilig!Hs on the National Pa.. Page J 3 of 43 NP(' Library: ('hapkr 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ovclilig:hts 011 the National Pa.. Page 14 of 43
'
Gyrfalcon I
II I LJ Rough-legged
Hawk
No nest abandonment 1000
No effect on daily
activity patterns
Peregrine "Minimal response" M.J <980 Ellis et al. 1991
falcon* May avoid returning to
Alann behavior breed in following years
Coopers Hawk
fly from perch or nest
Common
Black Hawk No effect on raising
young
I Harris' Hawk , i
Zone-tailed I
Hawk
' Red-tailed '
Hawk
I -
Golden Eagle
Prairie Falcon
!Osprey I No effect on raising DD Carrier & j
young Melquist I 97 6 .
Rarely leave nest m Poole ! 98_9Ji
No effect on raising --
young
Northen1 INo response lr=JD .Jackson et al. If
Harrier 1977 . DI <20001
•. :.:-"=--'C
Peregrine No response Ritchie 1987
Falcon
"Severen response
~ .. T Gyrfalcon y away 500-Platt 1975
1000
lert behavior Platt and Tull
! 500-11977
I
1_Prairie Falcon Flush from perches DD Craig & Craig
'] 1984 "
Red tailed No response DD Craig & Craig
Hawk 1984
Flush from perches
Golden Eagle INo response IDD Craig & Craig
1984
f erruginous INo response
IEJ~
White &
Hawk Thurlow 1985
Red-tailed Flush from nests LJD Anderson et al.
Hawk 1989
No effect on raising
young
!Waterbirds I
Brant No response FW 0-500 Ward & Stehn
1989
Emperor Alert behavior H 1-500
Geese
Flight
Canada Geese
Oldsquaw'' Swim away no Ward & Sharp
1974
Surf Seater Dive into water
No response
iO!dsquaw* Escape H I 00-750 Gollop et al.
1974a
Surf Seater Alert behavior
Dive into \Vater
'
'
http).: www. no1101se .org: Ii hrary :nprcpnrti chapr cr5 _ ht m OU25'2008 http ::www .nonoise.org/Jibrnry'npn:port:chapter5 .htrn 0 I /25/2008
NP(' l.ibrmy Chapter 5 of Report on Effects or Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 15 of 43 NPC' Library: Chapter 5 of Repo11 on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page l6 of 43
Flock together LJLJ Change activity budgets
(resting, feeding,
sleeping)
Migrating INo reaction 0: Lamp 1989
ducks*
Minor behavior changes
(various
species) Flush from lakes
Ducks and Fly away FW --Schweinsburg
geese* 1974a
Swim away
L Fly away UC Owens 1977
Widespread "panic 11
Lost feeding time
Brant* Flushing from nests [ 500-Gollop et al.
1000 1974b
Glaucous Gull Disrupt nesting behavior
500-
Arctic Tern 1000
Common No effect on nesting LJD Gollop et al.
Eider behavior 1974b
--
(various Schweinsburg
species) Dive into water 1974b
Abandon some lakes for
Tufted Puffin* No response MJ >500 Speich et al.
1987
Brant Wing-flapping MJ <500
>4 days Double-Flush from perches
Canada goose Arouse from sleep DJ Lamp 1989
Alert behavior
Call
crested
Connorant Abrupt departure of area
Common
Murre
Trupeter Swan Stop activity; head up rn Henson & Grant
2000 1991
Flush from nests H
C
Seek cover in tall r 740-990 Shandruk &
vegetation McCormick
500 1989
Cygnets crowd together
Snail Kite No response DD Snyder et al.
1978
Watch aircraft
~ Panic and escape area LJ~ Henry 1980
1000
H
II
Glaucous Gull
ISoofyT= • May disrupt breeding D super-Austin et al.
some 1970
May cause hatching
failure
Crested Tern Scan sky rn Brown 1990
1000
Alert behavior
Startle and escape
White Pelican Stampede, panic DLJ Bunnell et al.
1981
Eggs lost, abandoned,
eaten
II
http:// w w w . nono ise.orgil ihrary inprcport, chaptcr5 .htm 0[:25/2008 http://www. nono i sc.org/1 ihra1y /npreport/ chapter5 .htm Ot/25/2008
NP(· Library: Chapter 5 of Repott on ['.ffe<:1:,; of A!l'craft ()vc-1i1ights on thc National Pa. Page 17 nf 43 NPC Libraty: Chapter 5 of Repmt on Fffccts of Aircr.::ift Overflights on the :"l".itional Pa.. l'agc 18 of43
Herring Gull No effect on breeding ILJLJ Burger 198 I I
No response . i
Flush from nests ID super-
some
Eggs broken, lost, eaten
Cattle Egret* No effect on colony MJ <500 ! Black et al. I 984
establishment
Double-I crested No effect on colony size
I Comorant
No effect on nesting
Great Blue behavior
IILeave lake area IIFw 11 98-98oollspind1cr 19s3 I
IF!ush from lakes
IEJI ;ggol Salter & Davis
1994
Kittiwake'' Stay on nest (no nL Dunnett 1977
response)
Northern
Fulmar
Brunnich's No response r 0.5-3 Fjeld et al. 1988
.!Guillemot* miles
Flush from nests distant
Kittiwake
No egg or chick losses
Heron Snow Goose'' Flush H --Edwards et al.
No effect on breeding I
Great Egret success
1979
Canada Goose
White Ibis Purple
-
Oldsquaw 1 Flush up and away from H --Christiansen & Gallinule
lake Yonge 1979
Scaup species Northern
Pintail
Redhead
I
Canvasback
American
Coot
Snow Goose Raise head FW --Davis & wisely
1974
Pacific Eider IN o response
IDD
Johnson et al.
1987
Crowd together, call H Great Egret* Flush from nest, return FWH 395 Kushlan 1979
Stop feed Snowy Egret
<5 minutes
Fly away (return in 5
'min.)
Louisiana
No response
Heron
No response MJ <3000 Lamp 1989 !songbirds I
Minor behavior changes
Flush, circle over, depart
or land again I
Lapland No avoidance of nest nnc~"~"'' Longspur sites 1972
H
Ncstlings died
I
http: ii www. nonoi sc _ o rg:,/1 ibrary inprcpmi:-: hapt cr5. ht m Ol ·25-'2008 hltp :ii www .110110 i sc.orgi I i hral)' :nprcpott/ c hapter5 . htm 0[:25/2008
NP(' Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 19 or43
jGame birds I II
E=1 Flush LIi <30001 Lamp 1989
No response
2 FW = small, fixed-wing aircraft, H = helicopters, MJ = military jet aircraft,
C = commercial jet aircraft
3 Aircraft flight altitudes in feet, rounded to nearest 10.
* Studies of more than one species generally documented all of the listed
responses occurring by all of those species
Top of Chapter 5
Ta.ble .. of Contents
Re_tym toNPC Library
R,;turn to_NPC_Home Page
5.5-5.11
experts suspect that they occur. For example, refuge managers at Key West
National Wildlife Refuge suspect that the only known colony of magnificent
frigatebirds in the United States is declining due to frequent low-altitude
overflights by tour planes (Gladwin et al, 1987).
5.4.1 Accidental Injury
A common concern among biologists is that animals will occasionally fall, run
into objects, or become trampled when they panic and run from aircraft. For
example, at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, it was reported that a
low-flying helicopter startled a deer, which ran off of a 26-ft, cliff and broke
its leg (USFWS 1993). Young ungulates are especially vulnerable to being
trampled. One study of caribou calf mortality documented that three young
caribou were trampled during panic and flight from either wolves or aircraft
http://www. nonoisc .orgil ibrary /Jlprepmt/ chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the )iatiomil Pa.. Page 20 of 43
(Miller and Broughton 1974). Startle responses that cause panic and quick
movements are most likely to cause injuries to animals in rugged topography
(boulder fields, cliffs, scree slopes), al river crossings, or on icy ridges,
especially when animals are grouped closely together (Harrington and Veitch
1991).
5.4.2 Reproductive Losses
For many species, it has been argued that disturbance could cause
reproductive losses by altering patterns of attendance to young. Disturbed
mammals and birds have been noted to run or fly away from the stimulus (i.e.
the aircraft), and leave eggs or young exposed. Birds that quickly flush from
nests may accidentally break eggs or kick eggs or young from their nests.
Mammal adnlts and young may become separated when they panic and flee.
Leaving the young exposed also makes them vulnerable to predators.
Numerous studies have addressed the effects of aircraft overflights on the
breeding success of ungulates such as caribou and Dall sheep. Generally,
overflights have not been shown to cause adults and young to separate. Yet
one study attributed Caribou calf mortalities to frequent low-level military
aircraft overflights (Harrington and Veitch 1992). This study compared calf
mortality rates in groups that were exposed to overflights with rates in groups
that were not exposed. Mortality rates were significantly higher in the exposed
group. The researchers hypothesized that milk release was inhibited in caribou
mothers that were disturbed by the overflights, and so young became
malnourished. As this example suggests, calves might not die directly from
overflights, and so mortalities cannot be detected unless studies are designed
to compare rates of survival between calf groups that are and are not exposed
to overflights. Numerous studies have reported that overflights do not affect
survivorship in young, yet they do not compare survivorship of young that
were and were not subjected to overflights. This example demonstrates how
complex cause and effect relationships can be between disturbance and
effects. It also shows that casual observations of how animals respond to
overflights do not necessarily reveal ultimate consequences.
Waterfowl and seabirds nesting on national wildlife refuges are commonly
exposed to both military and private aircraft overflights. Whether or not
http://www. nono i sc. org/1 ibrary lnprcport/chaptcr5 . htm 01/25/2008
'.\'l'C Library: ( ·hapter 5 (lf Report on 1-:ffects ()f Aircraft Ovcrt1ights on the National Pa. Page 21 of43
overflights have indirect effects on breeding success depends on the
circumstances and types of behavioral responses of' the adult birds: whether or
not they flush from their nests, \vhether the exposed nests are vulnerable to
predators, proximity of other nests (some birds nesting close together tend to
fight after a disturbance, resulting in egg breakage), and physical
characteristics of nests and of the adults. Many refuge managers have reported
that birds flush from nests
l"op of C'haph..·r 5
Table of Contents
Return to N PC Library
Return to NPC Hon:ie Page
5.12
in response to overflights (Gladwin ct al. 1987, USFWS 1993 ). This is
considered a problem because of the potential for losses of eggs and young.
Gulls, cormorants, and murres, for example, kick eggs from nests when they
flush during disturbance, and eggs are lost, broken or eaten by predators.
These events have been documented to occur on several national v.rildlife
refuges (USFWS 1993). Some species, such as tundra swans and pelicans,
apparently abandon nests due to chronic disturbance from overflights
(Gladwin et al. 1987, USFWS 1993). Leaving eggs exposed to sun or rain also
jeopardizes their survival.
Several studies have been conducted on nesting birds and their responses to
overflights. Both American white pelicans and brown pelicans appear to be
particularly susceptible to disturbance. Pelican biologists have discovered that
low-flying aircraft can contribute to dramatic reductions in survivorship of
young and in overall productivity of a nesting colony (Bunnell et al. 1981,
Gladwin et al. 1987). Some species, when subjected to overilights during
studies, did not flush from nests and so losses did not occur. Such species
include: trumpeter swans (Henson and Grant 1991), cattle egrets, double-
crested cormorants 1 great blue herons, great egrets, and white ibises (Black et
al, 1984). Others did flush from nests but did not tend to kick eggs from them
and so no losses occurred. These species include: great egrets, sno\vy egrets,
and tricolored herons (Kushlan 1979). These species have only been tested for
responses to overflights during the studies referenced above. Therefore it is
http: i iww w .nono i se. orgi l i braryinpreport/chapt er5 . htm 0 t •25 2008
"'.\JPC Library: Chapter 5 of Repo1t on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa. Page 22 of 43
not known v.•hether more intense stimuli such as aircraft flying at lower
altitudes might cause more panic and subsequent egg or chick losses.
Disrupted patterns of parental attendance to eggs or chicks is also a concern.
Although this phenomenon has been noted on a local scale, it has not as yet
been widely linked to reproductive losses at a regional or national scale. One
study, ho\vever, suggests that supersonic overflights might cause large-scale
losses. In 1969 low-altitude supersonic aircraft overflights of the Dry Tortugas
during the nesting season \Vere suspected to cause a massive hatching failure
for sooty terns (Austin ct al. 1970). This incident is widely cited as one of
severe disturbance, though the cause and effect relationship cannot be proven.
Studies of some nesting birds that respond to less intense (i.e., subsonic)
overflights generally return to the nest to resume incubation after the aircraft
has passed.
Raptors (birds of prey) have also been monitored for signs of disturbance from
overllights during the breeding season. Occasionally, raptors are disturbed by
aircraft enough to respond by flushing from their perches or nests. One pair of
bald eagles at Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia reportedly
abandoned nesting activities altogether and lefr the area afrer repeated
overflights by a military helicopter (Gladdys 1983). On the other hand, once
eggs arc laid, raptors may be less inclined to abandon nests. Ellis et al. (1991)
reported that nest abandonment and nest failures through predation, exposure
of the eggs, or egg losses did not occur during a study of raptor responses to
low-flying military jet aircraft. /\!though conclusions cannot be made from
these two reports alone, the evidence suggests that the seasonal timing of
overflights may be an important factor in the outcome of disturbance.
Top of Clwptcr 5
Table of Contents
Return to NPC Lihrnry
Rct_um_ 1() Nf>C Home Page
5.4.3 Energy Losses
5.13
Panic reactions and escape responses to overflights can be energetically
http Jiwww .nono i ~e .org i I ibra ryinpreport/chapter5. htm 01/25/2008
".'JPC Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Repmi on Effects of Aircraft Ovc1tlights on the National Pa .. _ Page 23 of43
''expensive" to animals for two reasons. First, feeding animals nearly always
stop ingesting food when disturbed, which means a decrease in energy intake.
Second, disturbed animals usually run or otherwise move away from the
aircraft, thus increasing their energy expenditure. Running can increase an
ungulate's metabolism twenty-fold over the normal resting rate (Mattfeld
1974). Hence frequent disturbance imposes a burden on the energy and
nutrient supply for animals (Geist 1978), which can compromise growth and
reproduction.
There is a particular concern that birds may suffer from energy losses due to
chronic disturbance, especially during periods when increasing and storing
energy reserves is critical for survival. During winter, the energetic costs of
daily activities, such as keeping wann and feeding, mean that animals can
spare little extra energy. During other seasons, such as the staging period or
breeding season, large net grins of energy arc required for migration and/or
raising young. For example, the high energy requirements of ducks and geese
during the molting season may not be met if these birds continuously swim,
dive, or run from aircraft (Gollop et al. 1974b). Migrating birds such as snow
geese may be vulnerable to disturbance during the staging season, when
energy accumulation must be great enough to prepare for the high energetic
demands of migration. Salter and Davis (1974) documented snow geese
flushing repeatedly in response to overflights during the staging period just
prior to their migration. The amount of time available for and the limits to
compensatory feeding, or making up for lost time, are unknown. When
animals arc already feeding for a significant portion of the day, the
opportunity for compensatory feeding is probably limited.
There have been four notable attempts to examine the effects of aircraft
disturbance on bioenergetics of animals. Three were conducted on birds
during the staging season; two of these used snow geese as models, (Davis
and Wisley 1974, Belanger and Bedard 1989a,b), the other used brant (Ward
and Stehn 1989). All three of these studies found that, in the presence of
frequent overflights, birds lost feeding time because they stopped feeding to
react to the aircraft. Belanger and Bedard observed snow geese and their
responses to human-induced disturbance, including aircraft, on their staging
grounds over three years. They found that snow geese both increased their
energy expenditure and decreased energy intake in response to aircraft
disturbance. They found that, if disturbance occurred at a rate of 1.46 per hour
http:// ww w .nonuise. org./Jibrmy /nprepo1t1 chapter5. htm 01/25/2008
NPC [,ibrary: Chapter 5 of Repo1i on Effects of Aircraft Oveitlights on the National Pa.. Page 24 of 43
(as it did during their study), birds could compensate for energy losses by
feeding at night, but if they flushed from disturbance and did not return to
feeding areas, they would have to feed during 32 percent of the night-a
significant time commitment. They also found that birds did not compensate
during the day by increasing the rate at which they fed after disturbance.
These researchers concluded that man-induced disturbance can have
significant energetic consequences for staging snow geese.
The amount of food that bighorn sheep ingest while grazing in the presence
and absence of tourist helicopters was investigated in Grand Canyon National
Park (Stockwell and Bateman 1987). Sheep spent 14-42 percent less time
(depending on the season) foraging in the presence of helicopters. In addition,
sheep increased the number of walking steps while foraging by 50 percent.
This study suggests that the increase in energy expended, coupled with a
decrease in energy consumed, might contribute to an energy deficit for
animals when disturbance is chronic. Disturbance has been documented as
influencing pronghorn foraging also (Berger et al. 1983).
Top of Chapter 5
Table of Contents
Rett111!. to NPC Library
Return to NPC Home Pa~
5.14
5.4.4 Habitat Avoidance and Abandonment
Many wildlife biologists are concerned that the disturbance from overflights
could cause sensitive animals to abandon their habitats. This subject has
drawn attention because the consequences of habitat abandonment can be
serious, particularly for species whose high-quality habitat is already scarce.
Observations suggest that some animals do abandon their habitats in response
to overflights, and some do not. This difference may be due to differences in
the sensitivities of individual animals. On the other hand it may be a factor of
different levels of exposure to aircraft during these studies (different flight
altitudes, aircraft types, and flight frequencies). Two studies found that
caribou did not abandon areas in response to small aircraft overflights
(Bergerud 1963, Harrington and Veitch I 991 ), and one found that they did
http://www. nonoise. orgilibra1yinpreportl chapters .htm 01/25/2008
NP(' Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircrafi Ovcli1ight." on the Na1iona\ Pa.. Page 25 of43
(Gunn et al. 1985). Grizzly bears (McCourt et al. 1974), mountain sheep
(Krausman and Hervert 1983, Bleich et al, 1990), and mountain goats
(Chadwick 1973, Ballard 1975) all have been noted to abandon areas in
response to small aircraft overflights, even when overflights \Vere infrequent.
It is not known how many other species avoid areas used by aircraft.
Waterfowl biologists and national wildlife refuge managers have expressed
concern about how walerfowl use of open water and emergent wetland
habitats is disrnpted by aircraft overflights. Overflights have been reported to
cause disturbance at dozens of wildlife refuges in 30 states (Gladwin et al.
1987). Most often, waterfowl flush from lakes and fly away, but return once
the noise levels in the area return to ambient. On the other hand, several
refuges have reported that some waterfov,d species have been completely
driven off by frequent aircrati activity. Belanger and Bedard's ( I 989a,b) study
on snow geese energetics and disturbance showed a significant drop --50
percent in the number of geese using feeding t:,1nrnnds on days following
aircraft disturbance. \\laterfowl using lakes in Canada \Vere displaced for
several days when disturbed by light aircraft overflights (Schweinsburg cl al.
1974b). Vv'intcring sandhill cranes leave feeding and loafing areas (resting
areas) for extended periods when low-altitude overflights take place over
Cibola and Imperial Wildlife Refuges (USFWS 1993). Wood storks may also
abandon habitat in response to overflights (USFWS 1993). Observations by
refuge biologists suggest that the endangered Palila Bird in Hav.•aii
underutilizes a sizable portion of its critical habitat because of low-altitude
military aircraft overflights (Gladwin et al. 1987). It is not currently known
how the use of ponds, lakes and wetlands in national parks is affected by
overflights.
Viildlik refuge and national park managers are also concerned because game
animals are sometimes chased from parks and refuges into areas v,,rhere they
may be hunted. This has been documented in several refuges and one national
park'1 (USFWS 1993 ). This harassment is suspected to be intentional; hunters
are gaining access to animals which are usually protected.
Aircraft activities appear to have varying impacts on raptors' use of habitat. In
general. raptors arc scnsiLive to the activities of people, although species-
specific differences are evident. Raptors have been documented to abandon
both wintering and breeding habitats as a result of human disturbance
http: : :www _ nonoisc.org/! i brary/ npn.::potiichapkr5 . htm 01:25/2008
"\'PC Library: Chapler 5 of Rep011 on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 26 of 43
(Stalmaster and Newman 1978, White and Thurow 1985). Ellis et al. (1991)
found little evidence, however, that raptors abandon habitat in response to
aircraft overflights.
4. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Olympic National
Park, to Acting Associate Director, Operations, National Park Service.
r·or of Chapter S
Table of Contents
Rctmn to '-!PC Library
Retun1 to NPC Home Page
5.4.5 Potential Bird Strike Hazards
5.15
There is some concern over potential aircraft collisions with airborne birds
among national wildlife refuge managers. Collisions are a misfortune for both
birds and pilots. Bird strikes have cost the lives of many pilots and/or
damaged aircraft. Military aircraft are most \·ulnerable to bird strikes since
they fly at low altitudes and high speeds. The US Air Force reports 3,500 bird
strikes annually (Spectrum Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Team 1994 ). The Air
Force continues to develop methodologies for avoiding concentrations of
birds, in order to reduce this frequency. The FAA further recognizes that large
concentrations of migratory birds are a safety hazard to pilots.
Conclusion 5.3
Researchers have documented some indirect effects for some species
and individuals, such as eggs kicked from nests when birds flush in
response to overflights. loss of feeding due to overflight disturbance,
abandonment of habitat in response to overflights. Other studies
have found no such effects for some species and individuals.
h Up:// www .nono i se.orgi I ibrary/npreport/chapter5. htm 01125/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Kcpmt on Effects of Aircraft Overtlights on the National Pa.. Page 27 of 43
5.5 Factors that Influence Animal Responses to Aircraft
It is clear from numerous studies that differences in animal responses to
aircraft do not depend solely upon the species in question. Many other factors
contribute to the responses to overflights, some having to do with the animal
and its particular environment and some having to do with the aircraft
stimulus itself.
5.5.1 How Animals Perceive the Aircraft Stimnlus
An animal's sensory perception of aircraft activity depends, in part, on the
physical features of its environment, as well as on its own physiological
attributes. Some habitats enhance stimuli associated with aircraft overflights.
For example, high canyon walls have the effect of amplifying and repeating
( echoing) aircraft sound, and yet they can also obstruct the aircraft from view.
The sound and visual stimuli associated with aircraft have different effects in
an open desert than in a forest where trees can obscure the sight and may
reduce the sound of aircrati. A further consideration is the animal's sensitivity
to different types of stimuli, which depends on physical limitations of the
senses. Some animals can clearly see aircraft when they are barely visible to
others, and the range of frequencies of sound that can be detected varies
greatly from species to species.
One relationship between aircraft and animals is clear: the closer the aircraft,
the greater the probability that an animal will respond, and the greater the
response. Unfortunately, there is no particular overflight altitude at which all
animals are or are not disturbed. Even within a species, no particular altitude
can be idcnti fted as causing a sudden increase in disturbance, because so
many other factors influence disturbance. Notably, some studies have shown
that animals react in the same manner regardless of altitude (e.g., Lenarz
1974, McCourt et al, 1974). lt is unlikely that one overflight altitude exists
that is sufficient for avoiding disturbance to all animals while not necessarily
imposing undue restrictions on pilots. For instance, a 5,000 foot minimum
altitude may avoid disturbance to all species, but may not
http ://www.nonoise.org/1 ibrary inprepo1t/ chapter5. ht m 0 I /25/2008
NP\ Library: Chapter 5 of Rep011 on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 28 of43
Top of Chapter 5
Table ofConlcnts
Return to NPC Library
Rdurn to NPC Home Page
5.16
be necessary at all times. Researchers have reported disturbances to walruses
by helicopters flying as far away as 4,270 feet (Salter 1979). Grizzly bears run
away from aircraft flying at altitudes as high as 3,000 feet. Few other animals
have been tested for responses to aircraft at altitudes this great, though many
show disturbance from aircraft at lower altitudes.
5.5.2 Aircraft Sound and Animal Hearing
It is apparent that animals can be disturbed by either the sight or sound of
aircraft (McCullough 1969, Snyder et al. 1978, Ward and Stehn 1989, Brown
1990). The relative importance of each stimulus is not known, and may
depend on the species in question. Both birds and mammals respond to the
sound of aircraft before it is visible, yet they also tend to track aircraft visually
as they pass overhead (McCullough 1969, Snyder et al. 1978, Brown 1990).
Aircraft sound is broadband, containing sound energy over a wide frequency
range, rather than a pure tone. There is some evidence that the high-frequency
whine of some turbine-powered helicopters is less disturbing to raptors than
the low-frequency sound of piston-engine helicopters (White and Sherrod
1973). Other than this, little is known about how the frequencies of aircraft
sound influence animal responses. Sound levels at which animals show strong
negative responses in the wild generally have not been determined.
Helicopters apparently disturb some animals more than other types of aircraft.
Comparisons of how animals respond to helicopters versus other aircraft types
have shown that animals respond more strongly to helicopters. For example,
caribou ran longer and farther in response to helicopter overflights than they
did in response to low-altitude overflights by military jets during a study in
the Yukon (Harrington and Veitch 1991). Ward and Stehn (1989) also noted
http Ji www.nonoisc.org/1 ibrary /nprcport/ chaptcr5. htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Repott on Effects of Aircraft Ove1tlights on the National l'a.. Page 2lJ of 43
that greater percentages of brant responded to helicopters than to fixed-wing
aircraft in Alaska. Colonially-breeding marine birds also generally flushed
when helicopters flew over them at 1,000 feet above 6,yound level (AGL).
while light, fixed-wing aircrafi could pass over at 500 feet AGL before
generating a similar response (Gollop et al. 1974b). ln addition to their engine
and 11 rotor-wash 11 sound, helicopter flight patterns may contribute to
disturbance. Brant (llenry 1980), reindeer (Ericson 1972). caribou (Caler and
Lortie 1973, Miller and Gunn 1977), pronghorn, elk, bighorn sheep
(Workman et al. 1992a, 1 992b, 1992c ). and Dall sheep ( Andersen 1 971) all
have been documented to show a more extreme panic response when
helicopters ily slowly or hover over animals.
Sudden aircraft approaches -that cause surprise may also influence responses.
Raptors, for example, panicked and exhibited frantic escape behavior when
helicopters appeared from over the tops of cliffs. but did not do so when
helicopters could be seen approaching from a distance (White and Sherrod
1973). Hence topography should be taken into consideration when predicting
animal responses to overflights.
5.5.3 Increased Tolerance to Overflights
ln some cases, animals may develop an increased tolerance to frequent
overflights. This has been demonstrated by correlating changes in behavior
with sequences of overflights. Other studies have compared reactions of
animals having a history of exposure to aircraft \Vith those that \Vere naive. In
Top of Chapter 5
Table of Contents
Return to NPC Lil)rnry
Return to N PC Home PagL'
5.17
many cases, experienced animals were more tolerant of aircraft, showing less
extreme responses than naive animals.
http:/.' ww w. nunui se. org-' I ibra ry in preporv chapt er5 .htrn 0 I :25 '2008
NPC LibnH)': ('hapter 5 of Report un Effects of Aircraft Overflights on th,c: National Pa.. Page 30 of4J
for animals to become desensitized to sound 1 there must be consistent stimuli
(Borg 1979); frequent, predictable overflights, such as those at major airports,
are more likely to promote tolerance than occasional ones. Several studies
suggest that animals might not become tolerant of infrequent aircraft activity.
Colonially-breeding wading birds in Florida, for example, never adapted to
infrequent low-altitude military flight activities conducted over two breeding
seasons (Black et al. 1984). It is not known just how frequently a stimulus
must occur in order for an animal to become desensitized to it, though it
probably depends upon the species in question, as well as other factors.
It is important to note that some studies do not suppmi the idea that animals'
tolerances of aircraft overflights increase with exposure, even when
overflights have been frequent. For example, brant, emperor geese, and
Canada geese in Alaska (Ward and Stehn 1989) exhibited alert and flight
behavior in response to aircraft activity, despite previous exposure for several
seasons. Harding and Nagy ( 1976) noted that grizzly bears also never became
tolerant of aircraft, despite very frequent exposure.
The degree of disturbance to which animals can habituate is probably limited.
Evidence suggests that aircraft activities that cause mild responses may
become tolerated more so than those that cause panic. This has been
demonstrated in reindeer (Ericson 1972), Dall sheep (Summerfield and Klein
1974), and herring gulls (Burger 1981 ). Also, while some species have the
ability to become tolerant, others may not. For example, whooping cranes
appeared to have become tolerant of light aircraft activity on Aransas National
Wildlife Refuge in Texas, but sandhill cranes had not (Gladwin et al. 1987).
Conclnsion 5.4
factors that can influence animal responses include distance to the
aircraft, aircraft type, suddenness of aircraft appearance and
frequency of overflights. Closer aircraft generally are more likely to
produce a response, though no minimum distance that produces no
effect has been found, the responses being species dependent. Some
tolerance for overflights has been observed when flights are frequent
or regular, hut not among all species.
http: ii w w w .11rn 1oisc. urg i\ ibrary/npreport/ chaptcr5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter S of Repo11 on Effects of Aircraft Oveitlights on the National Pa. Page JI of43
5.6 Biotic Factors that Inflnence Animal Responses to Aircraft
While sound levels and aircraft proximity to animals are probably the most
important factors affecting the levels and types of responses elicited, an
animal's immediate activities are also important. Animals show different
levels of response to overflights depending in part on whether they are
traveling, feeding, resting, or attending young. Habitat features may also
influence the degree lo which animals react to overflights. For example,
bighorn sheep in the San Andreas National Wildlife Refuge appeared more at
ease in response to helicopters when in open terrain where they could escape
more easily (Kiger 1970).
T Qll of Chc1pt er5
Table of Contents
Return to NPC Library
Returnto NPC lfome Page:
5.18
An animal's seasonal activities such as reproducing or hibernating influence
how they respond to overflights as well. Consequently, during some seasons,
animals may be more reactive than during other seasons. Slight seasonal
differences in responses to overflights have been noted in reindeer (Slaney
and Co. 1974), bighorn sheep (Stockwell and Bateman 1987), and caribou
(Klein 1973, McCourt and Horstman 1974, Jakimchuk et al, 1974, Calef et al.
1976). Generalizations cannot be made across species correlating specific
seasons with greater reactions.
At present, general relationships between external factors and animal
responses are unclear because other variables have not been held constant
during studies. In other words, to determine how habitat type (for example)
influences responses, all other factors such as group size, season, etc., must be
held constant so that habitat differences alone can be compared. Stronger
patterns should emerge once more controlled studies are conducted. The
existence of many variable factors may explain inconsistencies between
reports of species-specific responses to overflights. Clearly, whether an
animal (or group of animals) responds to aircraft overflights depends on many
http://www. nono i se.org/librnry/nprt>port/ chapkr.S .htm 01/25/2008
NP(' Libra!)': Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 32 of 43
factors, and those mentioned here constitute only a partial list. Therefore,
when attempting to assess the possible impacts of proposed or existing low-
altitude aircraft operations on wildlife, it is essential to keep in mind that each
situation is unique and must be evaluated accordingly. Figures 5.1 and 5.2
summarize some of the influential factors associated with aircraft overflights
and animals that have been addressed.
Conclusion 5.5
The type of animal activity affects response to overflights. Whether
an animal is feeding, resting, caring for young, etc., can affect how it
responds to an overnight.
5.7 Problems with Detecting Long-Term Effects of Aircraft Disturbance
While short-term responses are easily documented, long-term responses are
more difficult to verify. This is due both to the limitations of ecological
research and to the nature oflong-term responses. Long-term responses that
might occur include perrnancmt changes in habitat use, increased mortality of
birds during migration ( due to lower weight gains during staging, as described
previously), or population effects due to reduced reproductive success (due to
egg losses, for example). Assigning a cause and effect relationship between
overflight disturbance and these types of phenomena is difficult because there
are so many other variables that also cause them. It is very difficult to quantify
small decreases in the survivorship of young that are directly attributable to
overflights, because predators, weather, food availability, and adult skills all
affect survivorship as well. For example, several studies have examined
overall survivorship of young across a season by comparing young subjected
to overflights with control animals and have concluded that overflights have
little effect. However, closer examination has revealed that mortality rates
increased during the specific periods of overflights, though these increases
were not detectable by the end of the season (e.g., Harrington and Veitch
1992). Other long-term effects are difficult to correlate with overflights
because they occur during a time or in a place not immediately associated
with the overflights, such as migrating birds that die enroute to their
destination after energy losses at feeding grounds.
http://www.nonoise.org/llbra1y/nprcpo1tlchaptcr5.htm 01/25/2008
NP(' Library: Chapter 5 of Rqxnt on Fffi.::c1s of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 33 of43
Top of Chapter 5
Table o[ Cgnt~nts
Rdum to NPC Library
Return to N PC Home Page
5.19
Figure 5.1 Animal Responses to Low-Altitude Aircraft Overflights
5.20
Top of Chapter 5
TalJle of Contents
Return IO I\ re Library
&m1_m_ to I\ i'C Home I'iige
haikonlcl ~eo
JIIQ/11 fl"Qqu~r.ey
'nlgt;l Sj:,,,..;;,d
,ilsjlt PJTTerri
"°""""""' \'t!IJoloo&
~
~
hrt p : /iww w . no noi sc. n rg/1 ibra ry/ 11 prepo1t/ dmpt er5 . ht m
terrain type
""""' habtta: fe<ffl..11'\1$
0!.·'25i2()08
l\P( · I ,ibrary: Chapter 5 of Repo11 on Effects of Aircrnft Overtlights on the N.itional Pa Page 34 uf 43
Figure 5.2 External Factors that Influence Animal Responses to Overflights
5.21
Top ol'Chaptcr 5
Table of Contents
Return to NPC Lillrary
Return to_NPC Home Page
Long-tcnn effects are difficult to detect also because they may occur
infrequently. This is due, in part, to the fact that most studies are short-tenn,
making documentation of infrequent events unlikely. With the exception of an
eight-year study of white pelicans (Bunnell et al. 1981 ), too little time has
been spent assessing long-tenn effects.
Many biologists have published reports on the effects of the use of aircraft to
survey animals. In most cases, overflights do no hann (Carrier and Melquist
1976, Kushlan 1979) because nonnal behavior is interrupted only briefly. In
addition, the surveys are conducted only once or twice per season, and
generally they are avoided during poor weather, when stressing an animal
could result in harm, and during parts of the breeding season, when the
consequences of disturbance might be compounded (White and Sherrod 1973,
Poole 1989). Hence the argument that biologists themselves make overflights
of animals should not be used to suggest that overflights do not cause
disturbance.
Conclusion 5.6
The long-term effects of overflights on wildlife have not been
dctcnnined, and are unlikely to be investigated because of the
magnitude of the effort required. Occasional use of aircraft to survey
animals is unlikely to cause hann.
5.8 Overflight Impacts on Endangered Species
There are 98 species on national park lands that have been identified as
http://www. nono i sc. org,' I i brary inprepo1t/ chapter5. htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of R~porl on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the Na11onal Pa.. Page :15 of4J
threatened or endangered. Of these, 36 are bird and 29 are mammal species.
The impacts on threatened or endangered species from overflights is largely
unknown. Of all threatened or endangered species Federally listed in the
United States, there is infonnation regarding responses to overflights only for
the grizzly bear, sonoran pronghorn, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and
everglades kite. None of these species have been studied enough to
differentiate between aircraft activities that do and do not cause hann.
However, observations do indicate that some species are susceptible to
disturbance and subsequent hann. The grizzly bear, for example, has been
noted to panic and flee areas from overflights in nearly all cases where they
have been observed (sec Table 1 ). Biologists recognize that impacts may
occur. Wildlife refuge managers have cited concern for many threatened or
endangered species regarding impacts from overflights, including wood
storks, Hawaiian geese, marbled murrelets, bald eagles, peregrine falcons,
masked bobwhite quails, Stellar sea lions and least terns (USFWS 1993). In
Washington State, USFWS is developing recovery plans for both the marbled
murrelet and northern spotted owl which include 2,000-foot minimum flight
restrictions over feeding grounds and nesting sites for these birds:'
Many threatened or endangered species have achieved their special status due
to habitat loss from development and general human encroachment. They are
species for which habitat is limited; their natural histories prevent them from
using any but specific habitat types. For this reason, it is important that
overflights not cause futther habitat loss to these species, since they cannot
simply 11 relocate 11
•
5. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Olympic National
Park, to Acting Associate Director, Operations, National Park Service.
Top of Clrnpter 5
T.llble of Contents
Return to N PC Library
Ke.t.um 19 NPCJ!onl!'Yage
5.22
hllp: ii ww w. nonoi se. org/libra1y/ npreporti chaptcr5 _ ht111 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Repmt on Effects of Aircraft Oveli1ights on the National Pa.. Page 36 of 43
Whether or not a taking of a threatened or endangered species from Federal
action occurs from overflights may be an area for additional research. It would
be prudent for Federal agencies to take an active approach to evaluating this,
rather than letting the decision lie with the coutts. Studying threatened and
endangered species and their responses to overflights is within the purview of
the law so long as research enhances the survival of the species. However,
some have expressed concern for the idea of subjecting animals to overflights
and monitoring their responses if indeed those responses suggest that damage
. .
1s occumng.
Conclusion 5.7
Ninety-eight threatened or endangered species inhabit units of the
National Park System. Their responses to overflights are largely
undocumented, but Federal agencies may nevertheless be held
responsible for impacts related to overflights.
5.9 Overflight Impacts on National Park Animals
Disturbance levels and consequent impacts to animals living on national park
lands have been anecdotally reported but not quantified. Several NPS
superintendents have prepared reports on the subject which can be used as
indicators of the types of problems some parks are having. Yet the degree to
which these problems are occurring in other parks cannot be measured
without a comprehensive survey.
Reports of park disturbance to animals from overflights exemplify the general
points described earlier: 1) Animals have been noted to modify their behavior
in response to overflights in parks, and 2) the consequences of this disturbance
can only be inferred in the absence oflong-tenn studies. At Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park, the endangered Hawaiian (Nene) goose has been seen flushing
from feeding and socializing areas after tour helicopters passed overhead. 6
Aircraft also alter normal feeding and socializing habits in response to
frequent overflights. The consequences of altering social behaviors and time
http:// ww w .nonoise.org/libra1y/npreport/chaptcr5 .htm 01/25/2008
.
NPC Library: ( 'haptcr .'i or Rcpmi on Ufcds of Aircraft Overl1igltts on the "'<atiom1l Pu.. Page 37 <if43
and energy budgets of animals have not been identified. Forest birds at this
park also stop calling or flee from local habitat, as noted by biologists
monitoring songbird behavior. Biologists speculate that bird behavior is
modified because their calls are interrupted, hence t<:rritories cannot be
properly delineated. Feeding is also interrupted, and other critical activities
cannot be consummated \Vhen birds are disturbed by overflights.
At Congaree Swamp National Monument, bald eagles and osprey are believed
to avoid habitats they would otherwise use because of overflights by military
jets and hclicoptcrs.' Similar impacts to raptors have been reported from
Glacier National Park. There, overflights are suspected of disrupting nesting
and foraging activities of bald eagles, golden eagles and falcons. Biologists
are concerned about possible
6. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park, to Aeling Associate Director, National Park Service.
7. Pers. comm., Robert McDaniel, Superintendent, Congaree Swamp National
Monument, to D. Gladwin, Sterna fuscata Inc. 1994.
Top of Chaptl:r 5
Table or Contents
Return to NPC Library
Rc_tum _lO N.PC_ }Iome Page
5.23
' impacts to raptors that use corridors through the park for migration.· Colonial
seabirds have been seen flushing in response to overflights in Olympic
National Park as well.~ Other birds that may suffer hann from overflights in
this park include the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, northern spotted owl, and
marbled murrelet. These are all Federally-listed species.
Mammals are also disturbed by overflights in parks. Over 80 percent of
http://www. 110110 i:-c .org/1 ibrn ry inpreporvd 1apter5 .hti n 0 l :25i2008
NPC l.ibraT)·: Ch.ipter 5 of Repo11 on Effect:, of Aircran Overflights on the National Pa Page 38 of43
grizzly bears observed in remote areas of Glacier National Park showed a
'
1strong" reaction to helicopters, according to studies in the park from 1982-
1986.
Aircraft disturbing park animals include both military and civilian fixed-wing
aircraft and helicopters. Helicopter tours for the public arc most often cited as
causing problems for wildlife. Most problems occur when aircraft fly at low
altitudes such as 500 feet AGL. Helicopter tour operations are frequent in
some parks; Glacier National Park reports 10 per day, and Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park reports 60-80 per day. Hence cumulative effects of disturbance
are likely, as animals arc chronically interrupted from important life-
maintenance activities.
Several efforts to solve disturbance problems have been initiated by park
personnel in rcccnl years. Monitoring lo\v-level overflights and maintaining
statistics at Congaree Swamp National Park have helped to quantify the
frequency of problems. At Olympic National Park, the staff are cooperating
with the USFWS refuge staff and the endangered species field office in
documenting and reporting aircraft harassment of seabird colonies. At Glacier
National Park, employees are trained to identify aircraft and estimate altitude.
A strict plan is in place there for the use of the park's own aircraft. Parks have
also discussed problems with aviation proponents. Meetings with tour
operators, FAA, and military personnel have been somewhat successful,
though problems do not always cease. For example, Congaree Swamp
national park managers note that, although military personnel are receptive to
cooperation in avoiding disturbance, no efforts have been made by the
military to address problems themselves or to offer mitigation strategies. At
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, staff have been negotiating a voluntary
agreement \vith the helicopter operators association, with assistance from the
FAA.
Park superintendents have an interest in addressing cumulative effects of
aircraft disturbance on wildlife. They also support continued efforts to work
with the military and civilian aircraft operators to develop mutually agreeable
solutions. Preparing educational material on the sensitivity of wildlife and
natural areas has been suggested as a means of reducing disturbance.
h11 p: ii www . n onoise. org/librnry i npreportichapter5 .hlm 01 /2512008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Repoit on Effects of Aircraft Overtlights on the National Pa... Page 39 of 43
8. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Glacier National
Park, to Acting Associate Director, Operations, National Park Service.
9. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Olympic National
Park, to Acting Associate Director, Operations, National Park Service.
IoppfChapter 5
Table of Contents
Ret.u.rn.to.NPC.Lihrary
Return to NPC Home P_llgC
Conclusion 5.8
5.24
In general, reports from national park about the effects of overflights
on wildlife tend to mirror the points made earlier in this chapter:
animals have been observed to modify their behavior in response to
overflights, but without long term study, the consequences of such
modifications can only be inferred.
5.10 Development of Impact Criteria
Studies to-date have verified that physiological and behavioral responses by
wildlife to low-flying aircraft do occur. The nature of these responses suggests
that at least some animals suffer other consequences. The studies by Stockwell
et al. (l 991) and Belanger and Bedard (l 989a,b) provide compelling evidence
that energy losses and habitat avoidance are occurring in response to
overflights. Unfortunately, these studies cannot be used to infer damages in
other species or from other overflight regimes. Only a handful of the many
species that inhabit national parks have been studied for responses to
overflights. It is very likely that there are park species that are susceptible to
disturbance that have never been studied. There is also little information
suggesting how flight patterns, frequencies and altitudes affect any species,
http:// www.nonoise.org/l ibrary inpreprni/ chapter) . htrn {)\/25/2008
.
NP(' l.ibrary: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ovcrtlights on the National Pa.. Page 40 of 43
other than the broad generalizations described earlier. Data to support the
occurrence of damage in a variety of situations would require many years of
extensive and costly research.
It is also not possible to evaluate the after-effects of overflights because in
most cases, animal responses fall across a spectrum so that the question of
whether or not a disturbance occurs cannot be answered with a yes or no. For
example, an overflight generally causes some animals to panic, some to be
mildly disturbed, and some animals to ignore the aircraft. At a lower altitude,
the overflight causes more to panic and fewer to be mildly disturbed? At what
degree of disturbance in what percentage of animals should overflights be
considered detrimental or otherwise unacceptable? At present, these questions
have only largely subjective answers.
Defining impacts according to some specific, measurable criteria is a useful
first step towards developing a policy. There is no consensus in public or
scientific communities regarding impact definition. The following, categories
of impacts are adapted in part from a matrix of definitions developed by Oak
Ridge National Laboratory staff members Roger Kroodsma and Warren Webb
in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force (Braid 1992). They are meant to help
agencies in detennining the severity of impacts. In these definitions, " species
of concern" include Federally-or state-listed threatened, endangered, and
candidate species, species of local economic importance, or species of
particular concern to conservation or other interest groups. This definition can
be expanded to include any species that is known to be susceptible to
disturbance. "Habitat" is used to refer to the physical landscape and its
ecosystem components that are subjected to overflights.
Negligible impacts
• No species of concern are present and no or minor impacts on any
species are expected.
• Minor impacts that do occur have no secondary (long-term or population)
effects ..
Top of Cha pier 5
Table_of Contents
5.25
http :iiwww .nonoise.orgilibrmy/nprepmt/chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
. . ..
NP(' J ,ihrnry: Chapter 5 of l{cp011 on Effects nf Aircraft Ovctilights on the National Pa. Page 41 of43
Return. to NPC Library
Return __ to NPC l--lom~_ l:..ligc
Lmv impacts
• Non-breeding animals of concen1 arc present in low numbers.
• Habitat is not critical for survival and not limited to the area targeted for
overflight use; other habitat meeting the requirements of animals of
concern is found nearby and is already used by those species.
• Occasional flight responses are expected, but v.rithout interference wilh
feeding, reproduction, or other activities nccLssary for survival.
• No serious concerns are expressed by state or federal fish and \Vildlife
officials.
;woderate impacts
• Breeding animals of concern are present, and/or animals are present
during particularly vulnerable life-stages such as migration or winter
( depends upon the species in question).
• Mortality or interference \Vith activities necessary to survival arc
expected on an occasional basis.
• Mortality and intcrfen:nce are not expected to threaten the continued
existence of the species in the area. State and federal officials express
some concern.
High impacts
• Breeding individuals are present in relatively high numhcrs, and/or
animals are present during particularly vulnerable life-stages.
• Habitat targeted for overflights has a history of use by the species during
critical periods, and this habitat is somewhat limited to the area targdc<l
for overflight use; animals cannot go elsewhere to avoid impacts (animals
can rarely 11 relocate'1 except temporarily).
• Mortality or other effects (injury, physiological stress, effects on
reproduction and young-raising) are expected on a regular basis. These
effects could threaten the continued survival of the species.
• State and federal \Vildlife officials express serious concern.
This evaluation process relies on the opinions of wildlife managers and
researchers. In general, members of the scientific community agree that
http://www. nono isc. nrg_i library -'nprcpo11/ c haptcr5 _ ht 111 0 I 25, 2008
NP(' Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Owtilights on the National Pa.. Page 42 or 43
damage to animals should not need to be proven before impacts are
considered likely. In the conclusion of the majority of studies, researchers
caution that, though they cannot prove that impacts occur, overflights that
cause disturbances should be avoided.
In defining what level of disturbance to park animals by overflights is
unacceptable, the NPS must rely on less than complete information. It is clear
that disturbances can result as direct and indirect effects, and that
consequences may affect survivorship. Until more information is available, it
is recommended that the NPS use the levels of impact listed to "trigger"
actions to eliminate or reduce such impacts. In general, the NPS would regard
situations consistent with ''low impacts 11 to warrant monitoring, while
situations that represent 11 moderate impacts" or "high impacts'' would require
pursuit of solutions.
5.11 Summary
A wide range ofimpacts (disturbances) to wildlife due to aircraft overflights
have been reported in the literature. There arc many reports of behavioral
responses in animals 1 lhcse responses are highly variable depending on the
type of study, the species under consideration, spatial and temporal
parameters, and other broad ecosystem characteristics.
lop or Chapter 5
Tal:Jle c,fContents
Return to l\PC Library
Return to J\PC Home Page
5.26
Indirect effects on wildlife such as accidental injury, enL>rgy losses and
impacts to offspring survival have been documented. Current literature
supports the argument that aircraft overflights negatively impact wildlife
populations. However, the significance of such impacts is not clear.
Additional studies arc still needed to better assist land managers in
substantiating the effects on population subgroups.
hup://www.nonoise.org/library/nprepmtichapter5.htm 01/25/2008
..
NP(' Library: Chapter 5 ofRepo1t on Effects of Aircraft Ove1i1ights nn the National Pa Pago..": 43 ol'43
It is certain that some impacts do occur under certain circumstances and that it
is a NPS priority to protect wildlife, especially threatened and endangered
species, whenever a probable impact exists or is expected. Hence, a series of
conditions, applicable system-wide, have been listed that can be used to define
general levels of impacts. Working with these guidelines at specific parks will
lead to setting of priorities, both for possible alteration of overflight times,
locations and numbers, and for identification of further research needs.
N,xt[,ba11rer
Top of Chapter 5
Ta b)e of(:nn.teJ11s
5.27
[· NPc Library Lai..v Library Noise News Hearing ResoUrces Quietnet Search Ask Us Support
http://www.nonoise.org/libraiy :npreport/ chapter5. htm 01/25/2008
. .
@1<aconkling~~ 2007-Docket:Helipad z, -
I Code Amendment-LUA08-004, ECF, N . '] CJfApplication and Proposed Deli'!agin:!1j
From: "Karen Walter" <Karen.Walter@muckleshoot.nsn.us>
To: <EConkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 01/30/2008 9:57:52 AM
Subject: 2007-Docket-Helipad Zoning Code Amendment-LUA08-004, ECF, Notice of Application
and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance
Ms. Conkling:
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the threshold determination and the
environmental checklist for the above referenced project. Please note that the actual code amendment
was not sent to us nor is it available on Renton's website. However, based on a conversation that you and
I had yesterday, we offer the following comments on this proposal based on our understanding of the code
amendment.
As we understand, this code amendment would not prohibit an applicant from proposing a helipad on a
dock or other floating structure in Lake Washington, which would be required to get FAA approval and City
shoreline approval, too. We recommend that the amendment be modified to restrict helipads to upland
areas only since these are neither water dependent nor water oriented uses and would adversely affect
Lake Washington and its salmonid habitat.
We are also concerned that this amendment would permit helipads in or near shoreline areas and require
the permanent removal of any existing vegetation or create a permanent loss of restoration opportunity in
order to comply with FAA requirements for safe helicopter operations. Again, projects permitted under
this amendment will likely adversely affect the shoreline and potentially without mitigation due to FAA
requirements. As a result, we recommend that this amendment be modified to allow helipads in the R-8
zone on properties that abut Lake Washington, only if the helipad can be placed outside of the shoreline
management zone and associated buffers.
As far as environmental review is concerned, we would appreciate a copy of the analysis that "does not
reveal any adverse impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions" including any
analysis of potential cumulative impacts as a result of multiple permits that could be issued under the
zoning code amendment. For the reasons stated above, it is likely that there will be both site specific and
cumulative impacts to Lake Washington and its shoreline as a result of this proposal that may not be
mitigated with existing code provisions.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Please contact me at 253-876-3116 should you
have any questions.
Karen Walter
Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
I Erika Conkling -RE: Planning Commissi( '------"~-··-···-·-· -···----------... ------------------------
,ut Regarding LUA 08-004ECF and MDN
From: CFC <cfc@connerhomes.com>
To:
Date:
Subject:
Thanks Erika,
'Erika Conkling' <EConkling@ci.renton.wa.us>, CFC <cfc@connerhomes.com>
01/30/2008 3:34:17 PM
RE: Planning Commission input Regarding LUA 08-004ECF and MONS
It looks like the Muckelshoots concern is with the construction of or
clearing for a helipad rather than simply landing on an existing surface. a
construction or clearing project would necessarily require environmental
review etc. Since the revision is simply zoning their concerns don't appear
relavent until such time as someone proposed a clearing or construction
project. the ammendment they ask for assumes that the FAA can dictate what
is to be done on shore, trumping local and state regulations which we know
is not the case. in fact it is specifically stated in FAA heliport advisory
circular that local and state land use laws and regulations dictate what can
be done on the ground/water. I'm only stating these things so that you
understand my opinion, i'm not suggesting initiating a response to the
tribe, just that there is one that is well thought out if they insist on an
answer or show up to oppose. i'm assuming you will have some rebuttal to
this in the packet that goes to the planning comission, please feel free to
use my comments as necessary
Mr middlebrooks comments are odd being that he lives miles from the lake, in
fact next door to where i lived from about age 7-17 at 514 seneca avenue nw!
Thanks
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Erika Conkling [mailto:EConkling@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:41 PM
To: CFC
Cc: (E-mail), Anne F. Simpson; (E-mail), John W. Hempelmann
Subject: Re: Planning Commission input Regarding LUA 08-004ECF and MONS
Mr. Conner-
I received your comment and will include it in my report to the ERC, as well
as forward a copy to the Planning Commission.
Per your request to look at the the other comments submitted, I have
attached below three comments I have just received.
Erika Conkling, Senior Planner
City of Renton Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
Department
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
voice: (425) 430-6578
fax: (425) 430-7300
email: econkling@ci.renton.wa.us
CC: "(E-mail), Anne F. Simpson" <annesimpson@comcast.net>, "(E-mail), John W.
Hempelmann" <jhempelmann@cairncross.com>
·Pageil
Erika Conkling -Planning Commission input Regarding LUA 08-
004ECF and MONS
From: CFC <cfc@connerhomes.com>
To: 'Erika Conkling' <EConkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 01/30/2008 1:00 PM
Page I of7
Subject: Planning Commission input Regarding LUA 08-004ECF and
MDNS
CC: "John W. Hempelmann (E-mail)"
<jhempelmann@caimcross.com>, "Anne F. Simpson (E-mail)"
<annesimpson@comcast.net>
Planning Commission Members
Erika Conkling
Regarding LUA 08-004ECF
Dear Commissioners,
This letter is intended to respond to comments from the few citizens
who have questions about the proposed Code Amendment, but let me
first quickly summarize some of the very positive comments from the
many citizens who support the proposal. The overwhelming
sentiments in the community are that Lake Washington is a very
vibrant, active, noisy environment. That vitality is what attracts most
people to the Lake; they appreciate all the activities and believe
helicopters should be allowed on lakefront properties. They
understand that the impacts of helicopters are minimal, less than those
of other unrestricted uses on the lake and that they add interest and
utility. Most important they believe that people should have the
freedom to pursue their own interests as long as they are not harming
others or the environment.
Studies Show Insignificant Environmental Impact:
Helicopters have less impact on wildlife, fisheries, and the quality of
water, air, soil and hydrology than seaplanes or boats. From a
mechanical standpoint taxiing a seaplane or any other watercraft from
the water up on to the shoreline has more impact on the lake bottom
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 2 of7
and shoreline than landing a helicopter inboard of the high water line.
This is allowed in the current code as well as in other jurisdictions such
as Mercer Island. Both involve similar noise and wind but the
helicopter does not create a wake, contact the lakebed or shoreline. It
is more like driving a very light car in the yard, which is also allowed
without permit or restriction.
Helicopters do not discharge oil or fuel into the water as powered
watercraft do.
Federal studies have shown that helipads and helicopter operations
have virtually no impact on the environment, for example:
The National Science Foundation prepared an Initial
Environmental Evaluation (IEE) and an Environmental
Assessment (EA) as a combined environmental document, for the
placement of a prefabricated helicopter landing pad at the Lake
Bonney field camp in the Taylor Valley, Antarctica. It determined
that implementation is not a major federal action which would
have a significant effect on the human environment, within the
meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969. The action is not one which would have more than a minor
or transitory effect on the Antarctic environment, within the
meaning of the NS F's implementing regulations for the Protocol
on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Therefore, an
environmental impact statement and/or a comprehensive
environmental evaluation will not be prepared.
http://huey.colorado.edu/L TER/assessments/eis121896.html
Contrary to the statement by Mr. Rosling, eagles are not an
endangered species; they were delisted on June 28, 2007 and in fact
regularly hunt the shoreline where a helicopter is currently based. The
Bald Eagle Protection Act does prohibit "take" of eagles. Take is
defined in the Migratory Bird Treaty as "pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, possess or collect". Flying an aircraft to or from a destination
does not fit into any of those categories. If it did then all aircraft flying
from the Renton airport would engage in a "take".
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 3 of7
Noise is within maximum permissible level at the property line of a lot
wide enough to meet FAA helipad guidelines, (Chapter 70.197RCW
and Chapter 173-60WAC) of 55 decibels (db), plus 10 db for a total of
65 db for maximum 5 minutes, ?On db is allowed for 1.5 minutes,.
According to FAA data, the MD 500 helicopter generates 88db on
approach, and 80 db at idle, the degradation of sound at 32' is 24 db
(6db for each doubling of distance starting at measurement point of 2')
therefore it is well within the parameters of permissible noise for a
residential zone, as the machine stabilization idle time is 1 minute at
start up and 2 minutes for shut down. These data have been verified
by on site testing and are corroborated by:
hJtp:L/www.faa.gov/about/office erg/headquarters offices/AEP/noise le
Jim Catalano, Accoustical Engineer Argus Pacific Inc. 1900 West
Nickerson Street Suite 315, Seattle, WA 98119 and the MD500
operations manual.
For comparison purposes chainsaws and blowers generate about
100db.
The noise made by a helicopter is infrequent, non-repetitive and
intermittent.
For private owner operators, departures and landings are typically
spaced from about 30 minutes to weeks apart, for an average of about
50 flights per year. The lake is a noisy environment, particularly in
Kennydale due to the proximity of the airport, which predates most of
us.
Additionally Chapter 70.197RCW and Chapter 173-60WAC states that
"sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds originating from
airports are exempt".
No Significant Increase in Helicopter Landings on Lake
Washington Shoreline:
There is unlikely to be a significant increase in the number of helicopter
landings or helipads on lake Washington in Renton because of the
following facts:
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 4 of7
• There are few helicopter owner operators
• Helicopters are more expensive to own, fly and maintain than an
airplane of similar capacity .
• It costs about half as much to charter a floatplane with the same
capacity as a helicopter
• If you needed a to hire a helicopter you would probably drive to the
airport rather than have a helicopter pick you up at your property
due to the added expense and logistics of landing at an unfamiliar
location.
In the city of Renton on Lake Washington there are:
• 132 residential lots
• Only 7 lots which could possibly accommodate helicopter without
tearing a home down, 4 of which are on Mountain View Avenue,
including the only lakefront opponent of the proposed zoning code
change .
• Only 1 other helicopter rated pilot living on the lake, he owns an
airplane based at his residence and his lot is of insufficient size to
accommodate a helicopter.
Hunts Point has no restrictions on helicopters and there are
• 141 lots on Lake Washington all of which are large enough to
accommodate helicopters
• 5+ helicopter rated pilots .
• Only 1 helicopter is based there, part time in summers
Redmond has the same code as Renton's proposed new code and
there are:
• 11 O lots on Lake Sammamish
• Only 1 permanently based helicopter in a hangar integral to a
home .
• 1 additional helicopter based there occasionally.
Regarding the fear of a proliferation of helicopters and heliports, the
training requirements, expense and limited availability of landing sites
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 5 of7
with safe approaches are the practical limitations that currently limit the
number of helicopters where they are currently allowed.
Code and Shoreline Issues:
Helicopters are consistent with Renton's shoreline master plan, though
not specifically listed, due to their similarity with floatplanes. Other
jurisdictions which allow helicopters make no mention of either
floatplanes or helicopters in their shoreline master plans. If
construction were necessary to create a helipad shoreline regulations
may apply.
It has been suggested that the proposed zoning change is too brief,
that lssaquah's would be a better model, however much of the text is
simply a repeat of FAA rules already in force and therefore a
redundant waste of resources. Additional conditions restricting flight
are in the domain of the FAA and no municipality has the authority to
unilaterally modify. It is not feasible to limit flight operations other than
landings and departures because of where an aircraft is based. It is
not possible to discriminate among aircraft because of where they are
based. Flight restrictions are the purview of the FAA and have to
include all class of aircraft.
Safety and Airspace Jurisdiction:
The FAA is concerned with the flight safety. Notifying and
communicating with the FAA is not a requirement, the FAA does not
require that helicopters land at an airport or heliport. Being in contact
with the Renton Control tower is a requirement as all lots on Lake
Washington in Renton are within their control zone. There are both
floatplanes and helicopters based on Lakes Washington and
Sammamish at locations neither designated as heliports or seaplane
bases. Seaplanes are not required to taxi anywhere to "rev up" their
engines, they are restricted to speeds of less than 8 mph within 300' of
shore or structures while on the surface of the water. Approaches and
departures over water are recognized as the safest other than over flat
unpopulated ground. Unlike airplanes, engine out emergency landings
in helicopters require very little open space. Contrary to the opinion of
Mr. Galster in "engine out" situations helicopters are more
maneuverable than fixed wing aircraft, able to make near vertical
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 6 of7
descents and land at speeds of 10 mph or less with a ground run of
less than 30 feet. Most airplanes must land at speeds of over 50 mph
and take hundreds of feet to stop.
Much of the opposition discussion is directed at aviation and
helicopters in general. The concerns will not be alleviated by
restricting helicopter operations to the airport, in fact doing so would
exacerbate the perceived problem as helicopters would then have to
overfly homes to get to the airport, which they do not have to do
operating from lake front properties. Those that state they can hear a
helicopter from lower or upper Kennydale have no idea where it came
from unless they recognize it and know it's base, as they cannot see it
land or depart. Standard altitude for helicopters in the east channel is
500' (Pattern altitude for aircraft over Kennydale is 800'). At a
departure climb of 40kts and 1,000 feet per minute a helicopter will be
500 above ground/water level at a distance of 2100'. There is no
minimum altitude required over water for any type of aircraft.
No Complaints from Prior Neighbors in Over a Decade
Between the years of 1989 and 2002 I flew the same type of helicopter
from my home on Lake Sammamish and neither I nor the local
jurisdiction received any complaints. By typically flying between the
hours of 8 am and 10 pm and talking with neighbors prior to flights
outside of those hours I was able to avoid any conflict.
Conclusion:
Helicopter landings on lake front properties are clearly of no greater
impact to the community and environment than Seaplane operations
from private residences. The vast majority of our community welcomes
them. For all the reasons stated here a Determination of Non-
Significance is appropriate as is approval of the proposed zoning code
modification.
Thank You,
Charlie Conner
3001 Mountain View Avenue North
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 7 of7
Renton Wa. 98056
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001.HTM 01/30/2008
Erika Conkling -ERC Review of Helicopter Landing Proposal
From: <JMIDBK@aol.com>
To: <econkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 01/29/2008 4:33 PM
Subject: ERC Review of Helicopter Landing Proposal
To: City Environmental Review Committee
This submittal is in relation to the proposal to allow helicopters to land on private
property along the eastern shoreline of Lake Washington fronting the lake from
Ripley Lane to Mt. View.
This proposal will have significant noise impacts on neighborhoods in the area
and should be denied on that basis as well as the fact that there is no
demonstrated need since the Renton Airport is approximately one mile away.
This proximity of the Airport demonstrated the fact that there is no compelling
need for this activity to occur out of the usual Airport flight patterns.
Evidence of the disruptive nature of helicopter flights was demonstrated a few
years ago by training activities of the Paul Brindel helicopter school operating
their flights over the North Renton Neighborhood. This was a significant problem
and the City endeavored to limit the duration of that school's lease to the earliest
time practical.
An additional concern is the safety aspect to the residents in the immediate
vicinity. The lack of any buffer zone whatsoever to the immediate properties
increases inherent risks in helicopter operations which have been shown to have
a higher accident rates than general aircraft operations. These risks are not
often acknowledged until an accident occurs.
Respectfully Submitted,
John Middlebrooks
510 Seneca Ave NW
Renton, WA 98057
**************
file ://C: \Documents and Settings \econkling\Local Settings\ Temp \G W} 00001. HTM 01/30/2008
Erika Conkling
Senior Planner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Wa 98057
RECEIVED
Larry Fisher JAN 3 O zoos1anuary 28, 2008
Department of Fish and Wildlife
1775 12 1h Ave NW Suite 201 City of Renton
economic Development,
Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
Issaquah, Wa 98027
RE: Policy change for Heliports on the shores of Lake Washington
Apparently the planning department is insisting that policy changes have no environmental impact. This
is clearly shown in their environmental check list dated January I 0, 2008 which lists NI A for all
environmental concerns. In fact, they couldn't find a single local, state or federal law that might be in
conflict.
The RCW that the planning department claims their authority upon (RCW 43.21 C) clearly directs the
local agency to assess an environmental impact. And in 43.21C.030 (d) the RCW states "Prior to
making any detailed statement, the responsible official shall consult with and obtain the comments of
any public agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental
impact involved."
As a former code enforcement officer for the endangered species act, I advise the planning
department and the City of Renton to follow the law and consult with public agencies such as fish
and game to assess on their own what impacts your proposed policy change will have on eagle habitat.
During the public meeting of January 23, 2008 where this issue was discussed, my testimony was
thrown out for mentioning environmental concerns. Expecting this letter to be thrown out also as it is
impossible to meet the parsing requirements of the planning department. I am forwarding a copy of this
letter on to the Department offish and Game.
During this same public meeting, the neighbors of the current violator named many instances where
eagles, herons, and king fishers are seen. This means that in their own words they live in a eagle habitat..
</•M'-
The bald eagle protection act clearly states that you cannot disturb the eagles. It is a form of"take". I
believe that helicopters flying off in their habitat disturbs eagles. If the planning department thinks
differently, then do a study and be done with it.
Otherwise, consider yourself(City of Renton) fairly warned. No one is above the law, and corporations
can be sued. I find your environmental check list incomplete and lacking. Please, stop pandering to
special interest groups and follow the law as required.
Thank you ./J /) 1~ /~v~
Tom Rosling V
1023 N34th Street
Renton Wa.
98056
Subj:
Date:
From:
To:
heliports
1129/2008 12:47:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
Jfrosling
EConkii ng@ci. renton .wa. us
Page I of I
From Joan F Rosling, 1023,n.34th st RENTON .WA .98056. Dear ms Conkling, As per the
instructions given to me at the Planning Commission meeting Jan 23rd 2008,regarding the proposed change in
RB Zoning on Lake Washington to allow private heliports on the lake. I am now voicing my concerns as to the
environmental impact on Eagles and other wildlife Habitat that this action will cause.I was very gratified to hear
the comments and assertions made by the supporters of this proposal i.e Mr Conner's neighbors.that they
constantly see Herons, Kingfishers and Eagles on this shoreline of the lake and in the cottonwoods, thus
confirming that this is INDEED an Eagle and Wildlife Habitat. The RMC in section RMC-4-3-090 K 2 and 3 of
the master shoreline management program states that a Habitat Assessment and a Habitat Data Report is
required for impact on wildlife and Bald Eagles in particular ,BOTH of which should have been done before Mr
conner built his house and heliport!!! But ,of course the Cit)' d~t know that he was building a heliport at
that time. So these reports and assessments were circumr:1~~~-;,y Mr Conner by his non disclosure of this
facility. I strongly request that these repol(rts be done before making this zoning ammendment The
environmental checklist is a joke!! Every concern addressed therein has a NIA written on it.On page 12 you
state that this proposal does not affect threatened or endangered species habitat but on page 6 para 5a you
state that Lake Washington is home to great herons.several species of salmon and that Bald eagles nest in the
vicinity!!! But any action is "not applicable" as this is a non project action .What are you talking about!!! There
is NO DOUBT that any birds in the vicinity of a helicopter taking off.will up and fly away!!!! According to the Bald
Eagle Protection Act this qualifies as harrassing and disturbing the eagles which is against Federal Law and
will incur stiff fines!I have no wish to have my tax dollars used in this fashion! Also on page 12 para1 you state
that this project will NOT increase the production of noise.although FUTURE Heliports would increase the
amount of noise heard by residents.Does this mean that 1 helicopter produces NO noise .This is pushing the
edge of credulity!!! Lastly, on page 13 para? you state that the project does not conflict with local.state or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. I beg to differ!You have not informed ALL
the appropriate departments of your intended action to allow private heliports on this portion of Lake
Washington.This could be construed as wilful misrepresentation and lack of full disclosure on the part of the
City of Renton . I strongly urge the Planning Commission to vote against this Zoning Amendment until such
time that a full Environment Impact Study has been conducted by an impartial committee and full disclosure of
that report has been given to those of Interest in this matter. I request this in the interest of our lakeshore and
the Kennydale neighborhood in particular. Yours Truly Joan F Ro~; _ ---:_)_ ____ -/:-_)___ / ·;
~--,-,? I ·'F{V,J/{*____ -,,,.--, _ vtc-1.t . J/ ~
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 America Online: Jfrosling
January 30, 2008
Land use number LUA08-004, ECF
Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
Ms. Erica Conkling:
RECEIVED
JAN 3 0 200B
City of Renton
Economic Development, .
Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
I would like to submit some concerns I feel should be addressed before a formal issuance
of a DNS for this project.
Since neither the FAA, the appropriate state agencies or the City of Renton were able to
address these concerns prior to the construction it seems important that an in-depth study
be conducted at this juncture.
I do not have the expertise to oppose the cities determination, however it is important to
understand how the determinations were reached and supported. In addition to what on
site inspections were conducted to support these conclusions.
I would like to submit a few questions for your consideration; I will try and follow the
Notice of Application check sheet you provided. Most of the categories were deemed not
applicable and no action required. I will submit my concerns as follows.
1. Earth: The area in question lies within the 25 foot buffer zone required for a
critical area as I believe the shores of Lake Washington are designated.
2. Air: If one helicopter will not increase emissions, but additional ones will, how
many will it take to have an impact?
kil the origin and destination of the helicopter that is of concern since it
takes off and lands in a residential neighborhood and on the shoreline. This
also would seem to pertain to the number of times this occurs to be of
concern.
3. Water:
Surface water:
This project is inside the buffer zone of Lake Washington. Has it been determined
that this project is compatib.lo with the Shoreline Master Plan?
The maintenance and operation of the helicopter will occur within less than 200 feet
of the shoreline
The project was completed prior to any of the proposals being evaluated. Have they
or will they be evaluated by the city and concerned agencies prior to this
determination of a DNS?
Item 6: Maintenance and operation will take place on the property. Is containment of
possible hazardous waste being addressed? How is it being prevented from reaching
the shoreline?
Has it been determined that this project meets Shoreline regulation RMC 4-3-090?
Plants:
Please refer to same concerns as to fish and wildlife. How will accidental spillage be
mitigated to avoid harm to wet soil plants and water plants? However, if there is a
chance it could eradicate milfoil: perhaps we could discuss this concern.
Animal:
It would appear that the takeoff and landing as well as the approach occur directly
over and amid protected eagle habitat and salmon spawning areas.
7: Environmental Health:
In regard to the risk of fire and explosion, spill or hazardous waste, it seems that
this could occur at any phase of maintaince and operation of the helicopter.
Noise:
While it js a generally accepted fact that when one chooses to live in a neighborhood
on a lake there are certain noises that are expected.
Seaplanes, boats, jet skies. These are water craft. Designed and built to be used on the
water.
When one chooses to live near an airport and the Boeing plant these noises are also
expected and accepted. In the case of 737's flying overhead, one accepts this noise
even a bit more willingly. It usually means Boeing just sold another airplane;
generally accepted as good for Renton.
Parties, dogs and even the occasional hot rod back fire are all part of living in a
community.
When I moved into Renton 37 years ago all of this was a part oflife, however I never
expected, especially with Renton airport less that 10 minutes away that our
neighborhood and shoreline would become home to private heliports. It has been
determined that only 7 parcels are at this time suitable for this type of operation. That
does not exclude the possibility of more becoming available in the future. With the
wealth that is moving into Renton this does not seem a far fetched possibility.
I am aware that my concerns are certainly in the minority. I am also aware that almost
100% ofmy neighbors are in favor of this project. In fact several of them also said
that they would have one if they could afford one, or had room for a heliport.
Perhaps this is indeed the wave of the future. Perhaps if this is approved Renton may
well prove its' selL.Ahead of the Curve. I simply request that due diligence be given
to the above concerns before issuing your determination.
Thanj.sfor your consideration ofmy concerns:
'-,, ,.)71.-1;,)
' .:. CL, ~ . / • , ' .7-~ , ......
Pegi'Galstet'
Page I of2
Erika Conkling -heliports
From: <Jfrosling@aol.com>
To: <EConkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 01/29/2008 12:48 PM
Subject: heliports
From Joan F Rosling, 1023,n.34th st
RENTON .WA .98056. Dear ms Conkling, As per the
instructions given to me at the Planning Commission meeting Jan 23rd
2008,regarding the proposed change in RB Zoning on Lake Washington to
allow private heliports on the lake. I am now voicing my concerns as to the
environmental impact on Eagles and other wildlife Habitat that this action will
cause.I was very gratified to hear the comments and assertions made by the
supporters of this proposal i.e Mr Conner's neighbors.that they constantly see
Herons, Kingfishers and Eagles on this shoreline of the lake and in the
cottonwoods, thus confirming that this is INDEED an Eagle and Wildlife Habitat.
The RMC in section RMC-4-3-090 K 2 and 3 of the master shoreline
management program states that a Habitat Assessment and a Habitat Data
Report is required for impact on wildlife and Bald Eagles in particular ,BOTH of
which should have been done before Mr COnner built his house and heliport!!!
But ,of course the City did not know that he was building a heliport at that time.
So these reports and assessments were circumnavigated by Mr Conner by his
non disclosure of this facility. I strongly request that these repoerts be done
before making this zoning ammendment The environmental checklist is a joke!!
Every concern addressed therein has a N/A written on it.On page 12 you state
that this proposal does not affect threatened or endangered species habitat but
on page 6 para 5a you state that Lake Washington is home to great
herons.several species of salmon and that Bald eagles nest in the vicinity!!!
But any action is "not applicable" as this is a non project action .What are you
talking about!!! There is NO DOUBT that any birds in the vicinity of a helicopter
taking off,will up and fly away!!!! According to the Bald Eagle Protection Act
this qualifies as harrassing and disturbing the eagles which is against Federal
Law and will incur stiff fines!I have no wish to have my tax dollars used in this
fashion! Also on page 12 para1 you state that this project will NOT increase
the production of noise,although FUTURE Heliports would increase the amount
of noise heard by residents.Does this mean that 1 helicopter produces NO
noise .This is pushing the edge of credulity!!! Lastly, on page 13 para? you
state that the project does not conflict with local,state or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment. I beg to differ!You have not
informed ALL the appropriate departments of your intended action to allow
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 I.HTM 01/29/2008
'
Page 2 of2
private heliports on this portion of Lake Washington.This could be construed as
wilful misrepresentation and lack of full disclosure on the part of the City of
Renton . I strongly urge the Planning Commission to vote against this Zoning
Amendment until such time that a full Environment Impact Study has been
conducted by an impartial committee and full disclosure of that report has
been given to those of Interest in this matter. I request this in the interest of our
lakeshore and the Kennydale neighborhood in particular. Yours Truly Joan
F Rosling.
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 01/29/2008
City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works
EN VI R O NM EN TA L & D E VE L OP MEN T A PPL I CA TI O NrR-E V-1-E W SHE E T
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:
APPLICATION NO: LUAOB-004
APPLICANT: City of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Helipad Zonina Code Amendment
SITE AREA: N/ A
LOCATION: R-8 ZONE WHERE IT ABUTS LAKE
WASHINGTON
COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3P.~--:_
DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, '200& ...
"'1 I ti 2nrs PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklina -v
PLEASE RETURNJlE\/JEW SHEET TO.
JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Allow helipads as an accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the
Environment Minor Major Information Environment
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housina
Air Aesthetics
Water Unht!Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transnrirtation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy! Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources PreseNation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
?1,,,, f; r!' K .... ..., / ; .,._/
;:;,..,€ 7:),,"'r
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
Probable Probable More
Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
'
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 1/29/07
TO: Judith Subia
FROM: David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: LUAOS-004 Helipad Zoning Code Amendment.
A review of the material submitted on the Helipad discloses no major reason for
objection of this project.
There is a potential concern that some type of fuel tanks system could be installed for the
Helipad site. If this should ever be the case, a submittal of plans and the obtaining of a
separate Fire Systems permit shall be required. An installation of this nature would
require that it comply with the section of the 2006 International Fire Code and National
Fire Protection Association dealing with storage and usage of whatever type of fueling
system the owner may choose to use.
I strongly discourage the use or storage of any type of fuel on this site.
Any questions or concerns regarding Fire comments pertaining to this review may be
directed to Assistant Fire Marshal, David Pargas at 425-430-7023.
i:\city memos\lua08~004 hclipad zoning code ammendment.doc
City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pm /<.£{llfM)
APPLICATION NO: LUAOB-004
APPLICANT: Citv of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Helipad Zonino Code Amendment
SITE AREA: N/A
LOCATION: R-8 ZONE WHERE IT ABUTS LAKE
WASHINGTON
COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 30, 2008
DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, 2008
PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklino
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO
JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Allow helipads as an accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major lnfonnatlon
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housinn
Air Aesthetics
Water Li"ht/Gfare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transnortation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy! Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Ai,porl Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
'!-\ c,..;c
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
10~
City of ken ton Department of Planning I Building I Pub1 ••• lorks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 30, 2008
APPLICATION NO: LUAOB-004 DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, 2008
APPLICANT: Citv of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklina
PROJECT TITLE: Helipad Zonina Code Amendment
SITE AREA: N/A
LOCATION: R-8 ZONE WHERE IT ABUTS LAKE
WASHINGTON
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO
JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Allow helipads as an accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mo,e
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earlh Housinn
Air Aesthetics
Water LiahtlG/are
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transflortatian
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resoun::es Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
-.Yf--it/U, a,i,e_ /7~77~ V fz0L0
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
n1-uU-(A_,U-/VJ "~ad::::, 1o e to
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
'--lio,d r>.&00<1-.
Signatur8 of Director or AuthVzed Representative Date' ff
DATE:
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION
OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
January 16, 2008
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA08-004, ECF
APPLICATION NAME: 2007 Docket-Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: This zoning code amendment addresses the operation of helipads as an
accessory use to residences in the R-8 zone. The proposal would allow residential properties in the R-8 zone to have a
helipad for lhe operation of a single aircraft upon approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The Administrative
Conditional Use could only be approved if the property abuts Lake Washington, the helipad is approved by the FAA
{Federal Aviation Administration), and the proposal meets the requirements for conditional uses under RMC 4-9-030.
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined
that significant environmental impacts are unlikely ta result from the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and
zoning changes. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS
process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are
integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will fo!Jow the issuance of the DNS.
APPLICATION DATE: January 14, 2008.
Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Zoning Text Amendment.
Location where application may be reviewed: Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
Department Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing on these issues will be held before the City Council an a date to be determined.
Environmental Documents that evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist dated January 10, 2008.
Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: These non-project actions will be subject to the City's SEPA
Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate.
Proposed Mitigation Measures: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts
requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be
imposed at the time of a site specific development proposal on the subject site.
Comments on the above c1pplication must be submitted in writing to Erika Conkling, Senior Planner. Economic
Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. by 5:00 p.m.
on January 30, 2008. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive
additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically
become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON: ERIKA CONKLING (425) 430-6578
iPLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If you would like to receive further information on the environmental review of this proposed project, complete this form
and return to: City of Renton, Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning, 1055 South Grady Way.
Renton, WA 98057. You must return this form to receive future information regarding the environmental
determination for this project.
File No./Name: LUAOB-004, ECF / 2007 Docket -Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
NAME f ~rftlJ 5 £_ ~f} I~
ADDREss j~ ro r 1/;" 'Z vr 1Jv
TELEPHONE NO. "'Jj.5' :)_!]_{,-dr.;6]
I
~ ' TcithV ' F -R...o S/J/,J ~ l02-~-f'J , S'tcA--~+-
Kl~LC1-J . r~£
' ,/
City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Pubi,c .. 'arks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 30, 2008
APPLICATION NO: LUA08-004 DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, 2008
APPLICANT: Ci of Renton PROJECT MANAGER:
SITE AREA: NIA
LOCATION: R-8 ZONE WHERE IT ABUTS LAKE
WASHINGTON
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO
JUDITH SUlNA IN EDNSpt/FLOOR SIX
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Allow helipads as an accessory to residential uses oh properlieS allulllng Lake Washington with an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mon,
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earlh Housinn
Air Aesthetics
Water Lioht!G/are
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Trans ation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy! Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
n\a
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where ad · io I information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Date
City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Pubt1v Norks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REv1Ew1NG DEPARTMENT: Tr;vn ~~
'
APPLICATION NO: LUAOS-004
APPLICANT: Citv of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Helioad Zonino Code Amendment
SITE AREA: N/A
LOCATION: R-8 ZONE WHERE IT ABUTS LAKE
WASHINGTON
COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 30, 2008
DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, 2008
PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklina J: ·' ' {
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEEfTO
JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Allow helipads as an accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housinii
Air Aesthetics
Water L.inht!Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transnortation
Environmental Health Public SeNices
Energy!
Natvral Resources
Histon·c/Culturaf
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
I\J <'.,>'V'-<.....
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
w~
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION
OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DATE: January 16, 2008
LAND USE NUMBER: LUAOS-004, ECF
APPLICATION NAME: 2007 Docket-Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: This zoning code amendment addresses the operation of helipads as an
accessory use to residences in the R-8 zone. The proposal would allow residential properties in the R-8 zone to have a
helipad for the operation of a single aircraft upon approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The Administrative
Conditional Use could only be approved if the property abuts Lake Washington, the helipad is approved by the FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration), and the proposal meets the requirements for conditional uses under RMC 4-9-030.
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined
that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and
zoning changes. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110. the City of Renton is uslng the Optional DNS
process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are
integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS.
APPLICATION DATE: January 14, 2008.
Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Zoning Text Amendment.
Location where application may be reviewed: Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
Department, Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing on these issues will be held before the City Council on a date to be determined.
·*·Environmental Documents that evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist dated January 10, 2008.
Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: These non-project actions will be subject to the City's SEPA
Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate.
Proposed Mitigation Measures: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts
requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be
imposed at the time of a site specific development proposal on the subject site.
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, Economic
Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 p.m.
on January 30, 2008. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive
additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically
become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON: ERIKA CONKLING (425) 430-6578
I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If you would like to receive further information on the environmental review of this proposed project. complete this form
and return to: City of Renton, Economic Development. Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton. WA 98057. You must return this form to receive future information regarding the environmental
determination for this project.
File No./Name: LUAOS-004, ECF / 2007 Docket -Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
NAME:
TELEPHONE NO. 4-f _) 'c
/1
/',\_._('",_( ... 'i' C ,· ~----ic--1/~,t.
I
City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Narks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: W!LWMAM)tl
APPLICATION NO: LUAOB-004
APPLICANT: City of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
SITE AREA: N/A
LOCATION: R-8 ZONE WHERE IT ABUTS LAKE
WASHINGTON
COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 30, 2008
DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, 2008
PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklina . " ~.
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET'tO
JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Allow helipads as an accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable M018 Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor MaJor Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Hausinn
Air Aesthetics
Water Liaht!Gfare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals T ransnorlation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cu~ura/
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Pub,,., Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:
APPLICATION NO: LUAOB-004
APPLICANT: Ci of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Code Amendment
SITE AREA: N/A
LOCATION: R-8 ZONE WHERE IT ABUTS LAKE
WASHINGTON
COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 30, 2008 RECE
DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, 2008
PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin
ITV OF RENTON
UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO
JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Allow helipads as an accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Ma/or Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housino
Air Aesthetics
Water Liaht!Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transoartation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Pre~rvation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
articular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have i
ded to properly assess this p posal.
Date
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION
OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DATE· January 16, 2008
LAND USE NUMBER LUAOB-004, ECF
APPLICATION N.,_ME 2007 Docket-Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION. This ?nr11,·~ c,,•de anerdme~t addresses the op~r~:1o·1 of 1,el1p3dS JS ~n
ac~essory "'t-lo ,.,s denc~s ·n lhc> R-8 zone Tne µropos,ol woe Id 3l'ow "'s dcnt,al proper\i% ,n \he R-8 zcne to !'JV,:; a
hel,p~rl fnr 11,e ope,rc1•.1on o· ~ s1r~le ~ rcraft up"n aJ~rcw~I of an Adm1nistratn,e Cond1lion~I Use Permit The Ad11,nistraliv.,
~nnc,11,,.,~1 Use coul<;' onlf Je ~pproveo f ·htc properly 3buts La Se W,ishi.1gto11, 1% l:Hlrp~d ,s approved b\' the FAA
tFene•al A, .. at,or Adrr1nistrJl1or.1 and t11e prnp<Jsdl mee'.s the recui·em~~1s be wrni,t,~o~l uses under f'!MC 4-9-030
OPTIONAL_DETERMINATION OF NON.SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)· As toe LcJd A~ency the Cly uf Rentor, hJ> O:elc·mined
tCal s,gn,k~111 enworn1en1JI ,npacts are unl,ke y :u resu1\ from the proposeC Comprehensi•,e Plan ~mend"l'Cnts aed
zo.11ng ('br1oe1s. foerefc"°. JO pc,w,1ttod 1,rniw 11,., ",CW 43 21;_: 11C, lh1' C,ty ofRe~•un 18 u81 ,1g the OpliorJI DNS
~r.oces~ I<!~'"" r10t1ce that J lJNS s 1,,ely to l:,e issued Com{"",erl pe'IOCS •or tne pmJe<'l ;nd \he oroposed DNS a·e
, 1.e\!'"·"'· '. 110 a singe _cor:;rrert pe•,oc Th .. ,e w,11 be no ,;omme~: period 'ollowinu \h~ ssuance of :~e Thresho d
C,e1ern1rkuoa of Nor-~1gn1!1cancc 1D~·S\ A 14-day appeal pe·10~ "ill '.oJlc" 1he '"'""'~" o' t~e ON::;
APPLICATION DATE,""' u~,y 1~. 2006
Permits/Review Requested: l::n,·1•cnoiental ,:S~P.l.1 Re·;,ew. Zanin£ Tex: Amend,,-,enl
Lo~atio'., ~he'." application may b~ rev}ewed· Econom,c t.:e,·elopmcnl Ne,gh~mhoo,is aod Stra:ei:i,c p ann eg
Deµartrr.~1.\. S,rateg1c PIJ~n1n9 DMsoon . OS~ South GrJd)' V','J,_ Rcn:or '.'!A ~/\057
PUBLIC HEARING:/, puol1c hea'"'~ on t·1e,se S5\J<l$ w1:1 ~c Cele lrnf:,·e t·,e c,ty G~.rnc1I ;:,n" da:e tc he dH,-rro,neC
Environmental Documen!s that evaluate the Proposed Projec::t: Enwo,r·ertal Chece.list d31fld Jaruc,ry Io ·ioo8
Development Regulations Used For ProJect M1t1gatlon. ThP.se nm,.;,ru;ect 3ct1ons w1:1 Je sJbJeCOT 1n tt,e :,1,-s Sl::1-'~.
Ordnance and Oe·,clo~ment R.,~, l~t ans and other ~~pl1cab1~ cc,de~ ~nc regulat101s as aporo~r,;,1,.
Prop~sed Mi1igation Measuri,s. ThP. ;,,·.~lys" of lhe orooosa docs not re,eal ~")' ~doerse env,ronmon'.al 1111pnc:s
re~u '·"0 ,,,,1,gat10~ 3bovc Jnd bey~nd "x ,1,.,g code orov1s1ons . ..iowever .. ..-,,1,gal,on ma,· be neci,ssacy and ,r~y be
,mpo,e<J al the time or J s,tc sper.1/1~ oevelopmenl p•oposal on lhe su\ec: site
Commcnls or !he at>uve dppl,ca11on 'TiuSI oc su~,:1111P.d "' "'"""g to [/1kJ Conkl,ng, Senior f'lar,J1er. Econo'TI c
Developmcn: Ne,gnoonoods ano Strate_gic Plarrnng 01«o<on. I 0~5 So·.Jth Gcad; Way, Rttnlm,. ',/,'A \18057, by 5:00 pm
on J~nuary 30_, 200S f yo1.. l"av-:, questions """c\ lh,s proposal. or wish lo be marl" a parly of record anC receive
Jdd1t,o"al no1'f1c~l1or· b)' marl, cortac: 1he P,o,P.i,'. M~riager Anyone who submits written comments w,11 Jc'\Omal,cally
bocon1e a P~'ly of record asd w1;1 ~-:, rol1fled of ;,11y deG1s1on or this oro,ect
CONTACT PERSON: ERIKA CONKLING (425) 430-6578
jPLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If ynu would like to receive fu:her 1nfnnuat on an the environmental review of th:s prnposed pro1ect complete 1111~ form
an~ :alum to C,ty of Re1cor, Econom,c D_a·;e op men:. Ne.ignborhoods, an<l S1raleg1c Plaori,SQ, 1 055 South GrarJy Wat.
R~ 1.on,_WA 98057. You m~st ,,.turn th15 form to ri,ce1ve fulu,a information regarding the envlromnental
determination for this µro1ecl
Fife No./Name: LUA08-004, ECF I 2007 Docket-Helipad Zoning Codi, Anrnndment
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NO
CERTIFICATION:f.cS
I, ...:f....:' .,_/'.,_f.c..5--'-"o'--'· f-81,,--""'-"'~"'----=.-' hereby certify that g· f copies of the above document
were posted by me in conspicuous places or nearby the described property ':J}'-:;\~'::r~~:}~~!!i,
DATE: / /; f /o-:i. SIGNED· 5Vvs ~ ~(\ >-· ,.,.~,~
·---J~'-'~.~v1~· L-=.~f--'----' ~ V _ • . ~ · \ ,.._~ ' ··;.~
·-._' %~
A TfEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing-:in : .. -~ ~ cn.J a ,
, on the
(
~ ~~ ui;;.·-v Y lo. E
.. Q :-:..·~=-c1.:
\\\\':-0."~(~ WAS\-\\, .. ,,,
l I 1 \\\""'''"
l
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 16'h day of January, 2008, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Cover Letter, Issue Paper, and NOA documents. This information was sent to:
Parties of Record and Surrounding Property
Owners
(Signature of Sender): <1VM~t.ttu{
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss
COUNTY OF KING )
See Attached
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Judith Subia signed this instrument and
~cknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes m_j~P.~~'.11~.tlJr,
instrument. _,_,::; · . ·; ,. •.,-/111
.:::·.(t . .~
;;.:·. -·:.:--'7'~
Dated: 1-1,-oe, ··:< · ... .., , ,;.
~ . ~
r the Sate of Washington
:_-/_ r:_::~-\ ·:~V'!h.'··(.i / -.': i
Notary (Print):__J8~Mbo~~.-__ 1~'1LL0.1Jr'.'L..!...~J.Jc:t!loc1~:n.=c.["~__:'44,.!.-v...:,/,•41. ·;:;.;·•·c.J.14'"..Jl~l'.l,.;.,~~s;.;s.;,0 ;:....-=
My appointment expires: ""'-\o -to .i.,,1-·.:·,,,,,,,."'"'~6 ~ t::,1 ""\. ·t,, . __ i_:·' IA~y\\: .... ,, ' .. • .t, ;;, , ....
. . -l It 1. ·:\\\\''''
LUAOS-004, ECF
Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
template -affidavit of service by mailing
January 16, 2008
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Renton is considering a zoning code change that would allow
residents to operate a helicopter landing pad for personal use on properties
abutting Lake Washington. You are being contacted because this change
may affect your property, or because you have already expressed interest
in this issue.
Operation of a helipad would be
subject to conditions:
? Limited to one aircraft per
site, and only on properties
fronting Lake Washington
? Helipad site subject to FAA
(Federal Aviation
Administration) Approval
? Subject to an Administrative
Conditional Use Permit
The first two conditions ensure that the helipad is located and designed in a
manner to permit the safe operation of aircraft. The Administrative
Conditional Use Permit requires notification of neighbors and gives citizens
the opportunity to comment on each and every helipad proposal.
How you can get involved in the decision making on this issue:
? Attend the Planning Commission meeting on January 23rd
? Submit written comments on any environmental concerns by January
30th (see attached Environmental Review notice)
? Contact the project manager (below) to add your name to the list of
interested parties to continue to receive mailings
Additional information has been enclosed for your review. If you have any
questions, contact Erika Conkling at 425-430-6578 or
econkling@ci.renton.wa.us
2007 DOCKET-HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
ISSUE: Should helipads be allowed in the R-8 zone (Residential-eight units per net acre) along
Lake Washington'?
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses
on properties abutting Lake Washington with an Administrative Conditional Use Penni!.
BACKGROUND: In summer 2007, the City was contacted by a person complaining about a
neighbor landing a helicopter in the residential neighborhood. Code compliance officers
investigated the claim and began working with the helicopter owner on this issue. The helicopter
owner applied for a Temporary Use Permit, to allow him to operate a helipad on his property. In
the course of processing this permit, the Development Services division gathered comments from
more than 50 interested parties. Although some were opposed to the operation of a helipad in
this area, the vast majority were in favor of allowing this use.
The City of Renton zoning code regulates helipads used for commercial purposes, as well as
helipads which are accessory to a primary use. Accessory uses are activities that are subordinate
or incidental to the main use of the property. Usually the uses are related to the main use, for
example: outdoor materials storage for a manufacturing plant, a small workshop or extra garage
behind someone's home. a home daycare business. or a drive through feature at a fast food
restaurant or hank. Renton currently allows helipads as an accessory use with a conditional use
permit issued by the Hearing Examiner in the light, medium and heavy industrial zones (TL, IM,
IH), the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, the Commercial Office (CO) zone, the Commercial
Office Residential (COR) zone. and the Urban Center No1th 1 (UC-N 1) zone. Helipads are
currently prohibited in all residential zones.
There are two types of conditional use pe1111its issued hy the City of Renton. Administrative
conditional use permits are reviewed by staff and forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for
final decision making. Hearing Examiner conditional use permits arc reviewed by staff and
presented at a public hearing in which the Hearing Examiner makes the final decision on
approval or denial of the permit. Both processes require public notification and comment and
both processes arc subject to review under the decision criteria in RMC 4-9-030. These criteria
instruct the reviewing official to consider the following factors in deciding whether to approve or
deny a conditional use pennit and include consideration of: compatibility with the
Comprehensive Plan, community need, effect on adjacent prope1ties, compatibility with the
neighborhood, effects on trafiic, and the production of noise and glare.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the design, siting. and use of hclipads.
Those who wish to establish a helipad, even for private use, must submit a proposal to the FAA
for review and approval. As pmt of the approval process, the FAA conducts an aeronautical
study to review safety issues and to ensure the hclipad meets applicable design criteria. FAA
rules do not allow aircrati to approach landing spaces over residential neighborhoods. As a
result, only lake front properties would be considered for possible helipad use. Furthennore, the
FAA regulates the size of hclipads based on the size of aircraft that will land there. Even with
the smallest size of helicopter, only a few properties are large enough to accommodate an FAA
approved facility.
Two other communities in the area allow private helipads on residential lands. Hunts Point
welcomes private helipads as a lifestyle choice and for the services they may provide in case of
emergency. Redmond allows properties with frontage on Lake Sammamish to have a helipad for
the use of a single aircraft. Other communities in the area do not allow helipads in residential
areas unless they are established and used for emergency purposes only.
Under RMC 4-3-090 L(l )b, Specific Use Regulations ofRenton's Shoreline Master Program,
residences along the lake front are allowed to use seaplanes. Seaplanes are limited to one per
residence, and for private use only. Thus, the ability to use aircraft along the waterfront is well
established. Additionally, many of the neighbors writing to the City in support of the specific
proposal for the establishment of a helipad last summer expressed the importance of maintaining
aviation uses for lake front properties. Aviation uses provide a number of potential benefits for
lake front property owners including: recreation, increased property values, entertainment,
transportation, and lifestyle enhancement. Allowing helipad use on residential properties abutting
Lake Washington is a natural extension of the provisions that allow sea plane useage.
The proposed zoning code change would allow hclipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with
an administrative conditional use permit. Helipad use would be restricted by a note on the
zoning use table that read:
Limited to one aircrafi per site. He/ipads allowed only abutting Lake Washington. Helipads
must be in conformance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines
for siting and design.
In addition, the permit would be subject to the standard conditional use review criteria in RMC
4-9-030, as described above. Neighbors would be given the opportunity to comment on each
specific hclipad proposal through this process. The Administrator also has the ability to
condition approval of the conditional use permit based upon such comments. Complying with
FAA and City of Renton provisions should ensure that helipad uses are safe and compatible with
surrounding land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: This proposed zoning code amendment does
not conflict with any of the goals, objectives, and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The
purpose of the Single Family Residential land use designation is to create quality neighborhoods
at urban densities. Throughout the City, different neighborhoods may have different factors that
contribute to a quality environment. For properties on Lake Washington, the ability to operate
aircraft for personal, recreational, and transportation purposes has always been an important
factor in the lifestyle choices and quality of the neighborhood.
CONCLUSION: Aircraft, in the form of seaplanes, are already allowed as accessory uses for
properties abutting Lake Washington. This code change would allow property owners to operate
either a seaplane or a helicopter from their property. Proposed helipads would have to meet all
FAA guidelines as well as the criteria for a conditional use permit under RMC 4-9-030 in order
to be approved. These measures should ensure that any helipads would be located in places that
are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses.
2
DATE:
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION
OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
January 16, 2008
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA08-004, ECF
APPLICATION NAME: 2007 Docket-Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: This zoning code amendment addresses the operation of helipads as an
accessory use to residences in the R-8 zone. The proposal would allow residential properties in the R-8 zone to have a
helipad for the operation of a single aircraft upon approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The Administrative
Conditional Use could only be approved if the property abuts Lake Washington, the helipad is approved by the FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration), and the proposal meets the requirements for conditional uses under RMC 4-9-030.
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined
that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and
zoning changes. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS
process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are
integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS.
APPLICATION DATE: January 14. 2008.
Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Zoning Text Amendment.
Location where application may be reviewed: Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
Department, Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing on these issues will be held before the City Council on a date to be determined.
Environmental Documents that evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist dated January 10, 2008.
Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: These non-project actions will be subject to the City's SEPA
Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate.
Proposed Mitigation Measures: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts
requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However. mitigation may be necessary and may be
imposed at the time of a site specific development proposal on the subject site.
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, Economic
Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 p.m.
on January 30, 2008. lf you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive
additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically
become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON: ERIKA CONKLING (425) 430-6578
I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If you would like to receive further information on the environmental review of this proposed project, complete this form
and return to: City of Renton, Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057. You must return this form to receive future information regarding the environmental
determination for this project.
File No./Name: LUA08-004, ECF I 2007 Docket -Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
NAME:
TELEPHONE NO.: __________ _
I
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
Patience Plano
1110 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Steve & Marcie Maxwell
PO Box 2048
Renton, WA 98056
Mike Lowry
3326 Park Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Robert Ziegler
922 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056
John Hempelmann
524 Second Ave Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104-2323
Chris Oppfelt
13028 NE 32nd Pl
Bellevue, WA 98005
Sharon Smith
5143 Ripley Lane N
Renton, WA 98056
Jeffery & Ling Hilton
5117 Ripley Lane N
Renton, WA 98056
Fred Crosetto
5025 Ripley Lane N
Renton, WA 98056
James & Cynthia Huse
5227 Ripley Lane N
Renton, WA 98056
--www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
Kelly Grace & Peter Spouse
3011 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Martin & Pegi Galster
2907 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Marc & Kaaren Pritchard
2807 Mountain View A venue N
Renton, WA 98056
Jim & Laura Morgan
3103 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Bruce & Regen Dennis
32333 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Lowell Anderson & Laurie Baker
P. 0. Box 78382
Seattle, WA 98178
Greg Boehme
6053 167th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
Walter Moore
5115 Ripley Lane N
Renton, WA 98056
David & Suzanne Thomas
5029 Ripley Lane N
Renton, WA 98056
Donald & Patricia Dana
5219 Ripley Lane N
Renton, WA 98056
A!l3/\V-09-00S-~
WOJ 0J.Ja1i.e·MMM --
@ AVERY@ 5150®
Monica Fix
3007 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Charles F. Conner
3001 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Gary & Helen Young
3115 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Roger & Marlene Winter
2731 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Thomas & Kathleen Dahlby
3217 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Richard Corbett
2811 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Kevin Iden
5121 Ripley Lane
Renton, WA 98056
Rick & Irene Willard
5031 Ripley Lane N
Renton, WA 98056
Matthew Flynn
5301 Ripley Lane N
Renton, WA 98056
Joseph Ioppolo
5201 Ripley Lane N
Renton, WA 98056
@09~5 l!Jeqe6 a1 zasmm
ap,de, a6e1psis ~ ia a6e,moq,iue uo,ssa.,dw1
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use A,very® TEMPLATE 5160®
Mark Hancock
PO Box 88811
Seattle, WA 98138
Bill & Debra Keppler
2805 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Vicki Richards
3605 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
Nabil Hamaeh
2908 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
Robert & Noreen Burr
3013 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Karen Wakefield
1101 N 27th Place
Renton, WA 98056
Lisa Lord
3307 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Kent Phillips
3119 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Daniel H. Johnson III
3233 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Randy Ritualo
701 N 30th Street
Renton, WA 98056
--www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
Jerry, Mary & Kelly Brennan
3405 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
Nancy Porter
3205 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
John Burroughs
2915 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Marsha Spengler
2902 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
William & Janice Stoneman
3101 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Kim Bowden
2227 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
R.C.B. Marshall
2909 Mountain View A venue N
Renton, WA 98056
Colleen Lindberg
3111 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
TomDahlby
3213 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Joan Rosling
I 023 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056
All:IAV-09-00S-~
wo,·,{Ja11e·MMM --
~ AVERY@ 516()®
Eddi Shaj ari
3009 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Darius Richards
718 N 30th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Richard Bisiack
2801 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Don L. Savoy
3015 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Greg & Karen Krape
1101 N 27th Place
Renton, WA 98056
Lori Larson
2727 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Martha C. Klingen
3014 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
James Reynolds
3004 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
R.L. Goetz
3209 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Karen Black
911 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056
@09~5 ii,ieqe6 a1 Z8S!l!lfl
ap1deJ a6e4a11s I? la a6eJJnoq!lUe uo1ssaidw1
. ' .
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 161h day of January, 2008, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing NOA and Environmental Checklist documents. This information was sent to:
Agencies
(Signature of Sender): g;~tlit,\ttwf
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF KING )
See Attached
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Judith Subia signed this instrument and
acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes m~,g_tj(med,\9. \he
instrument. .:.:>: · · · ', '','11 11
Dated: I -\"1 -c:>"6
Notary (Print): A!"'b-e.c Lynn Ho@,-,._cin
My appointment expires: c,) ~ l q ~I 0
LUAOS-004, ECF
Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
template -affidavit of service by mailing
-,, I =i -~
"'·· ,."•,J,.. J~
AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING
(ERC DETERMINATIONS)
Dept. of Ecology ' WDFW -Larry Fisher' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.•
Environmental Review Section 177512~ Ave NW, Ste 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer
PO Box47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 172'' Avenue SE
Olvmoia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092
WSDOT Northwest Region ' Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program •
Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172'' Avenue SE
PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers • KC Wastewater Treatment Division• Office of Archaeology & Historic
Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation*
Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer
PO Box C-3 755 201 S. Jackson St, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box48343
Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olvmoia, WA 98504-8343
Boyd Powers •
Dept. of Natural Resources
PO Box47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent
Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development 220 Fourth Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72'' Place Kent, WA 98032-5895
Newcastle, WA 98059
Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila
Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner Joe Jainga, Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
201 South Jackson Street, KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W 6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Tukwila, WA 98188
Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology --J'WA~ NOA 6}\~ Real Estate Services NW Regional Office
Title Examiner 3190 160~ Avenue SE
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
PO Box 34018
Seattle, WA 98124-4018
Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and
cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. •
template -affidavit of service by mailing
-
DATE:
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION
OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
January 16, 2008
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA08-004, ECF
APPLICATION NAME: 2007 Docket-Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: This zoning code amendment addresses the operation of helipads as an
accessory use to residences in the R-8 zone. The proposal would allow residential properties in the R-8 zone to have a
helipad for the operation of a single aircraft upon approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The Administrative
Conditional Use could only be approved if the property abuts Lake Washington, the helipad is approved by the FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration), and the proposal meets the requirements for conditional uses under RMC 4-9-030.
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined
that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and
zoning changes. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS
process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are
integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS.
APPLICATION DATE: January 14, 2008.
Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Zoning Text Amendment.
Location where application may be reviewed: Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
Department, Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing on these issues will be held before the City Council on a date to be determined.
Environmental Documents that evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist dated January 10. 2008.
Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: These non-project actions will be subject to the City's SEPA
Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate.
Proposed Mitigation Measures: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts
requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be
imposed at the time of a site specific development proposal on the subject site.
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Erika Conkling. Senior Planner, Economic
Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. WA 98057, by 5:00 p.m.
on January 30, 2008. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive
additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically
become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON: ERIKA CONKLING (425) 430-6578
I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If you would like to receive further information on the environmental review of this proposed project, complete this form
and return to: City of Renton, Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057. You must return this form to receive future information regarding the environmental
determinaUon for this project.
File No./Name: LUAOB-004, ECF / 2007 Docket -Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
NAME:
ADDRESS:----------------------------
TELEPHONE NO.:----------~
I
City of Renton
LAND USE PERMIT JAN I 4 2008
City of Renton
MASTER APPL I CAT I I"\ Kf>nomic Development,
WJl•hoods & Strategic Plannin
PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION
NAME: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: 2007 Docket-He/ipad
Zoning Code Amendment-
ADDRESS:
PROJECTIADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 98056
R-8 zone where it abuts Lake Washington
CITY: ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): NIA
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME: City of Renton EXISTING LAND USE(S):Single family residential,
recreational.
COMPANY (if applicable): EDNSP Department PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Same.
ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential (SFR)
CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
(if applicable): Same
TELEPHONE NUMBER 425-430-6588
EXISTING ZONING: Residential Eight Units Per Net Acre (R-
8)
CONTACT PERSON
PROPOSED ZONING (ff applicable): Same
NAME: Erika Conkling
SITE AREA (in square feet): NIA
COMPANY (if applicable): EDNSP Department SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED
FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING
ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way
THREE LOTS OR MORE /if annlicablel: n!a
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE (if applicable): n!a
CITY: Renton ZIP: 98058
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): nla
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: x6578 NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): n!a
econkling@ci.renton.wa.us NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): n/a
Q:web/pw/devsery/fonns/planning/masterapp.doc 01/10/08
Pf _.JECT INFORMATION conti id . .
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARD BUILDINGS (if applicable): n/a
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft.
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): n/a WETLANDS sq. ft.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft.
BUILDINGS (if applicable): n/a
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL Approximaterly 6400 ft. of shoreline along the Lake
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): n/a Washington which is a shoreline of the State.
NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if
applicable): nla
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE
NEW PROJECT (if applicable): nla
PROJECT VALUE: n/a
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): n/a
AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO
AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE
FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach leaal descriotion on seoarate sheet with the followina information included)
SITUATE IN THE SW Y. of Section 29, Township 24N, Range 5 East; E Y, of Section 31, Township 24N,
Range 5 East; NW Y. of Section 32, Township 24N, Range 5 East; NE Y. of Section 5, Township 23N, Range 5
East; WY, of Section 6, Township 23 N, Range 5 East.
TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
List all land use applications being applied for:
1. Environmental Checklist 3.
2. 4.
Staff will calculate annlicable fees and oostaae: $
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (Print Name/s) Rebecca Lind , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property
involved in this application or _x_ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing
statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Rebecca Lind
(Signature of OWner/Representative)
(Signature of Owner/Representative)
Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _________ _
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
01/10/08
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Renton Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to
consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact
Statement {EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the
quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the
agency identifies impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can
be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefiy, with the most
precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases,
you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need
to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write
"do not know" or "does not apply''. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary
delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can
assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal
or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your
answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant
adverse impact.
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS:
Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not
apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
For non-project actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in
the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal,"
"proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project. if applicable:
2007 Docket Item Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
2. Name of applicant:
City of Renton, EDNSP Department
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, 425-430-6578 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98055
4. Date checklist prepared:
January 10, 2008
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Renton
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
N/A
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected
with this proposal? If yes, explain.
N/A
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to this proposal.
None
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
Yes. The City Hearings Examiner will be reviewing an appeal of a Temporary Use Permit issued
to allow a property owner to operate a helipad for private use from his residence. The residence
is located in an area affected by this proposal.
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
City Council Action to approve the code amendment.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the
project and site.
This zoning code amendment addresses the operation of helipads as an accessory use to
residences in the R-8 zone. The proposal would allow residential properties in the R-8 zone to
have a helipad for the operation of a single aircraft upon approval of an Administrative Conditional
Use Permit. The Administrative Conditional Use could only be approved if the property abuts
Lake Washington, the helipad is approved by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), and the
proposal meets the requirements for conditional uses under RMC 4-9-030.
H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 2
B. ENVIRONMENT AL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
other ______ _
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Basically flat, becoming hilly to the east.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?)?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any
prime farmland.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Nol Applicable Non-Project Action
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. This proposal could allow the construction of helipads
on properties abutting Lake Washington, which may increase the amount of impervious
surface in this area. However, any increase in impervious surface would be reviewed in
conjunction with future project-specific action.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile,
odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. This proposal does not affect emissions, but there
may be slightly increase emissions from additional helicopter travel in the area. This
H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 3
' proposal does not affect the number of trips generated by aircraft, but may affect the
origin or destination of the trips.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
none
3. WATER
a. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Lake Washington abuts the proposed area affected
by the zoning code change.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Project specific proposals will be evaluated at the
time of application.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from
surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. The proposal does not affect the 100 year flood plain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
b. Ground Water:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 4
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. This area is already served by the City of Renton
water utility.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other
sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of
such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water
flow into other waters, If so, describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Any increase in impervious surface, and additional
need for stormwater control {If applicable) will be evaluated at the time of project specific
review.
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if
any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle types of ve
---1}@ uous tree: alder, ma le, aspen, o er
_.JJf._ er reen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
n/a: shn 16s >
n/g::-grass :>
---1}@ pasture
---1}@ crop or grain
---1}@ 1 pan s: cattail, buttercup, bull rush, skunk cabbage, o e
I,
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. This proposal does not affect the removal or
alteration of vegetation, however, with helipad development, some types of vegetation
may be removed on the landward side of the property. If so, this action will be subject to
evaluation during project-specific review.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
H:IEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 5
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known
to be on or near the site: Citywide but map and text amendments are non-project actions
Birds w , heron, eagle, songbirds, other n/a
Mammals: deer, ear, e , eaver, other __ __,n~/a,,__ _____ _
Fish: bass~erring, shellfish, other __ _,_n"'ias,.... ___ _
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Lake Washington is home to several species of
protected Salmon and Bald Eagles are know to nest in the vicinity.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk
of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this
proposal? If so, describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. The area is already served by emergency services.
H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 6
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Noise in the vicinity of this project includes: freeway
and traffic noises from automobiles, recreational uses including boating and other
watercraft, aircraft noise from seaplanes and aircraft taking off and landing at the Renton
Municipal Airport and/or Boeing site.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. There will be additional noise heard by the properties
in the vicinity of helipads allowed by this change in regulation.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None at this time. At the
time of project specific review, some conditions could potentially be placed on hours of
operation to control noise impacts.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. This area is currently in residential use, with Lake
Washington also used for recreational purposes by property owners and the general
public.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The site is zoned Residential Eight Units per Net Acre (R-8)
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
The Comprehensive Plan designation is Single Family Residential (SF)
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 7
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Lake Washington is considered a shoreline of the
state.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. The proposal does not affect allowed residential
densities or limit employment uses.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
b. Approximately how many units. if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. The project does not affect housing.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s}, not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
H:IEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 8
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Any lighting that may be required for helipad
operation will be subject to project specific review and the time of permit application.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Lake Washington is used for various recreational
purposes.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. This should not displace any recreational uses, but it
may allow additional recreational use of aircraft.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. This site is served by Lake Washington Blvd.
H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 9
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. This site is not served by public transit, the nearest
stop is more than a mile away.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?
If so, generally describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. This project would allow additional use of air
transportation.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. It is not clear that this proposal would produce
impacts to the number of aircraft trips generated, but it may affect the origin and
destination of some aircraft trips.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Helipads will follow Federal Administration Aviation
{FAA) guidelines for siting and design, and gain FAA approval to operate a helipad. This
should ensure the location is suitable for safe operation.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Helipads are limited to properties abutting the Lake
because the FAA does not allow aircrafts to approach landing facilities over residential
areas. This prevents crashes from occurring over residential areas, which could damage
life or property, and increase the need for emergency services.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action. Helipads could be used for emergency purposes to
evacuate sick or injured people in the vicinity.
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
H:IEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 10
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
C. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and
complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance
that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or
willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent:
Name Printed:
Date:
H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 11
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and
ro rams. You do not need to fill out these sheets for ro'ect actions.
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the
list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities
likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than
if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
This project should not increase any of these things. However, the regulation change could result
in additional helicopter traffic in this area. This could possibly increase localized emissions from
the aircraft (similar to the emissions from additional automobile usage). It will also increase the
amount of noise heard by neighbors in the vicinity of any future helipads.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Future helipad development
and use would be subject to review as an Administrative Conditional Use.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Not applicable. There is not likely to be any impact to plants, animals, fish or wildlife. Some
vegetation may be cleared to develop a hard surface for a helipad. This would be reviewed under
future project specific action. Furthermore, the amount that would be likely to be cleared would
not be subject to regulation by the City of Renton.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Not applicable.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or under study} for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness,
wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,
wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands?
Not applicable. This proposal does not affect those areas.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow
or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 12
Currently, Shoreline regulations allow the use of one seaplane per single family residence abutting
Lake Washington. This proposal would be compatible with that existing regulation, limiting
property owners to one aircraft per residence, but allowing both seaplanes and helicopters.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None. This
proposal does not impact other shoreline or land uses.
5. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities?
Not applicable, this is not likely to increase demands in any of the above areas.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
None.
SIGNATURE
Undersigned, the state, and I that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and
complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance
that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or
willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent:
Name Printed:
Date:
ENVCHLST.DOC
REVISED 6/98
a fM I Ii If (~0_ I) c(
· S(I,, PFf m4) Rthtce,Jt e, ),u{
&1 h, 1 'J I ,7 OU\)
H:IEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 13
Helipads Docket Item
---' -1
ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS DESIGNATIONS
USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R-R-RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD co co UC-UC-N2 H 10 14 R N1
L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES
Body shops P31 P31 P31 H31
Car washes p p p AD2 P22
Express transportation AD p AD2
services 0
Fuel dealers H59 p
Industrial engine or P31 P31 P31 transmission rebuild
Parking garage,
structured, commercial p p p p P20 P3 p p p P102
or public
Parking, surface,
commercial or public P3B P3B P3B P20 P3 AD
Park and ride, dedicated P105 P105 P105 P106 P105 P107 P105 P107
Park and ride, shared-P10B P10B P10B P10B P10 P108 p p p P106 P109 P107 p P107
use B
Railroad yards p
Taxi stand p AD AD
Tow truck operation/auto
impoundment yard
H59 p
Transit centers H3B H3B H3B p H20 p H38 p P103
L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES (Continued)
Truck terminals p
Vehicle fueling stations p p p p p P38
Vehicle fueling stations, p p p AD11 p p P3B
existing legal 0
Vehicle service and
repair, large AD p p
Page 1 of2
Helipads Docket Item
ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS DESIGNATIONS
USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R· R· RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD co co UC-UC-N2 H 10 14 R N1
Vehicle service and p p p AD2 AD2 p
repair, small
Wrecking yard, auto H59 H
Air Transportation Uses
Airplane manufacturing H59 p
Airplane manufacturing, AC AC accessory functions
Airplane sales and repair p
Airport, municipal p
Airport-related uses AC
11.viation-related uses AC
Helipads, accessory to AD1 H H38 H38 H20 H H H97 primary use 11
Helipads, commercial H H97
Page 2 of2
Nok-
A \'\I~
\) 'c:e I
C l'Jl 1-l~f '>
pe \'\~tt l'\j.
See-\
1) 0 C l(,l t ..\t=-
D fa'\ 0
4-2-070D RESIDENTIAL-8 DU/AC (R-8)
Uses allowed in the R-8 Zone are as follows·
USES:
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resource extraction/recovery
ANIMALS AND RELATED USES
,o,RiFRal tlssaaRaf\l (:!Q e, le,..,, sFRall aRiFRals pe, as,e)
.0.RiFRal RssaaRElf\l (4 e, lewe, FReaisFR aaiFRals pe, as,e)
ARiFRal tlssbaaa,y (FRa*iFRsFR el 1 laF!)e aAiFRal pe, as,e)
G,eate, asFRbe, el aaiFRals ~aa allewea aaese
Beekeeping
KeARels, tlelllly
Pets, seFRFRSA laesselaela, "~ le J ~e, awelliA~ sAil e, assiaess establislaFReRI
RESIDENTIAL
Detached dwelling
Flats or townhouses, no greater than 2 units total per building (existing legal)
Manufactured Homes
Manufactured homes, designated
OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS
Adult family home
Group homes II for 6 or less
Group homes II for 7 or more
Home occupations
SCHOOLS
K-12 educational institution (public or private)
K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing
PARKS
Parks, neighborhood
Parks, regional/community, existing
Parks, regional/community, new
OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Community Facilities
Cemetery
Religious institutions
Service and social organizations
Public Facilities
City government offices
City government facilities
Other government offices and facilities
1
TYPE:
H
P-#M
P-#M
P-#M
~
P#35
AG-#:J+
AG
P #19
p
P #19
p
p
H
AC#6
H #9
P#9
p
p
AD
H
H
H
AD
H
H
RETAIL
Eating and drinking establishments P#1
Horticultural nurseries H
ENTERTAINMENT ANO RECREATION
Entertainment
Cultural facilities H
Recreation
Golf courses (existing) p
Golf courses (new) H
SERVICES
Services, General
Bed and breakfast house, accessory AD
Day Care Services
Adult day care I AC
Adult day care II H
Day care centers H #25
Family day care AC
Healthcare Services
Medical institutions H
VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES
Park and ride, shared-use P #108
Helipads, Accessory to Primary Use AD
#111
UTILITIES
Communications broadcast and relay towers H
Utilities, small p
Utilities, medium AD
Utilities, large H
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Macro facility antennas AD#46
Micro facility antennas p
Mini facility antennas P#44
Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P#49
Monopole I support structures on private property H #45
Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD#45
Parabolic antennas -Large H #45
GENERAL ACCESSORY USES
Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, where not AC
otherwise listed in the Use Table
2
TEMPORARY USE
Model homes in an approved residential development: one model home on an existing lot P#53
Sales/marketing trailers, on-site P#53
Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P #10
Temporary uses P#53
4-2-080A
111. Limited to one aircraft per site. Helipads allowed only abutting Lake Washington.
Helipads must be in conformance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) guidelines for siting and design.
3
2007 DOCKET-HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
ISSUE: Should helipads be allowed in the R-8 zone (Residential-eight units per net acre)
along Lake Washington?
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to
residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an Administrative
Conditional Use Permit.
BACKGROUND: In summer 2007, the City was contacted by a person complaining
about a neighbor landing a helicopter in the residential neighborhood. Code compliance
officers investigated the claim and began working with the helicopter owner on this issue.
The helicopter owner applied for a Temporary Use Permit, to allow him to operate a
helipad on his property. In the course of processing this permit, the Development
Services division gathered comments from more than 50 interested parties. Although
some were opposed to the operation of a helipad in this area, the vast majority were in
favor of allowing this use.
The City of Renton zoning code regulates helipads used for commercial purposes, as well
as helipads which are accessory to a primary use. Accessory uses are activities that are
subordinate or incidental to the main use of the property. Usually the uses are related to
the main use, for example: outdoor materials storage for a manufacturing plant, a small
workshop or extra garage behind someone's home, a home daycare business, or a drive
through feature at a fast food restaurant or bank. Renton currently allows helipads as an
accessory use with a conditional use permit issued by the Hearing Examiner in the light,
medium and heavy industrial zones (IL, IM, IH), the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, the
Commercial Office (CO) zone, the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone, and the
Urban Center North 1 (UC-NI) zone. Helipads are currently prohibited in all residential
zones.
There are two types of conditional use permits issued by the City of Renton.
Administrative conditional use permits are reviewed by staff and forwarded to the Zoning
Administrator for final decision making. Hearing Examiner conditional use permits are
reviewed by staff and presented at a public hearing in which the Hearing Examiner makes
the final decision on approval or denial of the permit. Both processes require public
notification and comment and both processes are subject to review under the decision
criteria in RMC 4-9-030. These criteria instruct the reviewing official to consider the
following factors in deciding whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit and
include consideration of: compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, community need,
effect on adjacent properties, compatibility with the neighborhood, effects on traffic, and
the production of noise and glare.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the design, siting, and use of
helipads. Those who wish to establish a helipad, even for private use, must submit a
proposal to the FAA for review and approval. As part of the approval process, the FAA
conducts an aeronautical study to review safety issues and to ensure the helipad meets
I
applicable design criteria. FAA rules do not allow aircraft to approach landing spaces
over residential neighborhoods. As a result, only lake front properties would be
considered for possible helipad use. Furthermore, the FAA regulates the size ofhelipads
based on the size of aircraft that will land there. Even with the smallest size of
helicopter, only a few properties are large enough to accommodate an FAA approved
facility.
Two other communities in the area allow private helipads on residential lands. Hunts
Point welcomes private helipads as a lifestyle choice and for the services they may
provide in case of emergency. Redmond allows properties with frontage on Lake
Sammamish to have a helipad for the use of a single aircraft. Other communities in the
area do not allow helipads in residential areas unless they are established and used for
emergency purposes only.
Under RMC 4-3-090 L(l)b, Specific Use Regulations ofRenton's Shoreline Master
Program, residences along the lake front are allowed to use seaplanes. Seaplanes are
limited to one per residence, and for private use only. Thus, the ability to use aircraft
along the waterfront is well established. Additionally, many of the neighbors writing to
the City in support of the specific proposal for the establishment ofa helipad last summer
expressed the importance of maintaining aviation uses for lake front properties. Aviation
uses provide a number of potential benefits for lake front property owners including:
recreation, increased property values, entertainment, transportation, and lifestyle
enhancement. Allowing helipad use on residential properties abutting Lake Washington
is a natural extension of the provisions that allow sea plane useage.
The proposed zoning code change would allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8
zone with an administrative conditional use permit. Helipad use would be restricted by a
note on the zoning use table that read:
Limited to one aircraft per site. Helipads allowed only abutting Lake Washington.
Helipads must be in conformance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) guidelines for siting and design.
In addition, the permit would be subject to the standard conditional use review criteria in
RMC 4-9-030, as described above. Neighbors would be given the opportunity to
comment on each specific helipad proposal through this process. The Administrator also
has the ability to condition approval of the conditional use permit based upon such
comments. Complying with FAA and City of Renton provisions should ensure that
helipad uses are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: This proposed zoning code amendment
does not conflict with any of the goals, objectives, and policies in the Comprehensive
Plan. The purpose of the Single Family Residential land use designation is to create
quality neighborhoods at urban densities. Throughout the City, different neighborhoods
may have different factors that contribute to a quality environment. For properties on
Lake Washington, the ability to operate aircraft for personal, recreational, and
transportation purposes has always been an important factor in the lifestyle choices and
quality of the neighborhood.
2
CONCLUSION: Aircraft, in the form of seaplanes, are already allowed as accessory
uses for properties abutting Lake Washington. This code change would allow property
owners to operate either a seaplane or a helicopter from their property. Proposed
helipads would have to meet all FAA guidelines as well as the criteria for a conditional
use permit under RMC 4-9-030 in order to be approved. These measures should ensure
that any helipads would be located in places that are safe and compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3