The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/13/2007 - Minutes . y�n , • �rr .��' 0 C1TY OF RENTON • '' � . MAR 0 5 2ao7 � Renton Airport Advisory Committee RECEIVED ��NTO February 13, 2007 aN C�RK'� OFFICE MINUTES The meeting was called to order by Chair Mike O'Halloran at 5:30 p.m. and the sign-in sheet was routed around the table. Items Discussed: I. Airport Issues Update Chair Mike O'Halloran opened the meeting and commented that there were some procedural items to be taken care of before going into the scheduled agenda items. He introduced Jennifer Jorgenson to the membership. Jennifer is a Secretary in the Transportation Systems Division. She will be responsible for recording the minutes for this and future RAAC meetings. Chair O'Halloran stated he takes full responsibility for pressing the membership for a final vote on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) alternatives. He wants the vote to be taken in the very near future. This brings up the matter of participation, such as how the voting procedure is to be implemented and how it should be presented. A discussion on this item will take place during the meeting at 6:45 tonight. Airport Manager Ryan Zulauf stated that the past minutes should be sent out soon. Chair O'Halloran briefly touched on the Mercer Island meeting that was conducted on January 29. He noted the public turnout was very impressive, with over 300 people in attendance. He stated that although it seemed acrimonious at first, things soon settled down and he felt the RAAC members were well received. Mr. O'Halloran noted that one of the highlights of the Mercer Island meeting was an information sheet that had been prepared by Diane Paholke and distributed to the public. Mr. O'Halloran would like each member to receive a copy. Ryan stated he would check to see if Diane has an electronic .pdf file he could obtain and distribute. Chair O'Halloran introduced Elliott Newman(Mercer Island) for the second item on the agenda. II. Review of Mercer Island January 29 Meeting Mr. Newman thanked the RAAC members for taking the time to attend the Mercer Island meeting. The meeting was recorded and a DVD copy of it is available for purchase from the City of Mercer Island for a nominal charge of$5.00. . � � f � Airport Advisory Committee Meeting February 13,2007 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Newman thought the meeting was a useful tool far the citizens of Mercer Island. He read a series of questions that were indicative of those generated during the meeting. Primarily, they would like to know more about the Airport's use. They are looking for information as to who and what types of businesses are leasing space on the Airport. The environmental comments centered on the noise impacts to the residents of Mercer Island. They are looking for a full environmental impact analysis to be completed. The concern with safety issues in the event of another aircraft mishap is the third major area of concern. Mercer Island would like any of the major environmental studies to take into account any national guidelines as opposed to the state's guidelines. Mr. Newman expressed hope that their questions would be taken seriously and given complete answers. Mercer Island would like a response in a month, or so. Bob Moran commented that he also attended the Mercer Island meeting. He thought that it was a good meeting with a good turnout. John Middlebrooks has a copy of the DVD. Councilmember Marcie Palmer explained that she also attended the meeting. She believes that it might be beneficial for the Mercer Island community to view our Council meetings, especially the Transportation/Aviation Committee segment. She went on to say that the City of Renton's web site was recently updated and it now has our local government access channe121 connected via live streaming video. Because of this, it is possible for members of the general public to view our televised Council meetings using the web site. Dina Davis echoed she has many of the same concerns as the Mercer Island people. Frank Marshall attended the Mercer Island meeting and felt they were well received. Mike Rice also attended the meeting. He stated that he was subjected to a hostile reception, even after the meeting was well underway. Councilmember Palmer commented on the meeting and noted the large turnout. She thanked everyone who took the time to attend as representatives of the RAAC, despite the obvious animosity. She went on to comment that it was obvious that these people had done quite a bit of research by the nature of the in-depth questions that were raised. In closing, she commended Ryan Zulauf for his presentation during the meeting. Chair O'Halloran introduced Airport Manager Ryan Zulauf for the third item on the agenda. C:\DOCUME—I�BWalton\LOCALS-1\Temp\GWViewer�2007 Feb 13 RAAC Minu[es.doc � � . , ��rr% Airport Advisory Committee Meeting February 13,2007 Page 3 of 8 III. LNAV WAAS Approach (LNAV stands for lateral navigation and WAAS is an acronym for wide area augmentation system.) Ryan briefly commented that Howard Wolvington had worked hard to prepare tonight's graphic presentation and he believes it will go a long way toward explaining the possibilities for improved landing patterns from the north, over Mercer Island. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Wolvington. Mr. Wolvington presented a PowerPoint slide show and discussed the differences between an ILS approach and a WAAS approach and the improved technology currently available. Peter Morton with SeaTec Consultants helped to explain the RNP process. ILS stands for an instrument landing system. This type of system transmits signals for horizontal and glide slope elevations. A survey in 1989 revealed obstacles on Mercer Island that would prevent an ILS from being implemented at Renton Airport. WAAS-approved receivers are needed in an aircraft to implement this type of system. Once an aircraft is equipped with the basic box, the cost for the software upgrade varies, but is generally in the neighborhood of$1,500 +/-. Mr. Wolvington went on to say that raising the level of glide slope would help reduce noise over Mercer Island and the FAA has agreed in principal that this could be done. In the interim, a step-down fix could be implemented when approaching from Mercer Island, as long as the craft is outfitted with a GPS receiver. Mr. Wolvington was asked what the next steps were in order to achieve this goal with the FAA. The ALP (Airport Layout Plan) needs to be updated, submitted and approved by the FAA. They are already on board with the concept. Approach lights are not required, but they are desirable. In essence, costs are minimal with improved outcomes for everyone—pilots, businesses and residents. How would this affect approaches from the south? There would be no difference from the current situation because the Boeing airfield traffic is in conflict with Renton's air space. Because of this, pilots coming from the south use only a visual or VFR approach. Ryan Zulauf explained there are some short-term items we can do now to improve the situation. RNP employs a curved approach down the east channel versus the WAAS/LPV approach. C:�DOCUME-1\BWalton\LOCALS-1\Temp\GWViewer�2007 Feb 13 RAAC Minutes.doc �,�,, , ' �rn� Airport Advisory Committee Meeting February 13,2007 Page 4 of 8 Colleen Turner—Would like to see the RNP. Diane Paholke—Agrees with this solution and would also like to see the RNP approach implemented. Elliott Newman—Would like to obtain a copy of the presentation. Dina Davis— Can the IFR approach be included in a Fly Friendly plan for jet traffic? Yes, it will be included in future publications. Marcie Palmer—What needs to be done to move forward on this? Ryan Zulauf stated the City must formally approach the FAA. He believes it would be more productive if we could partner with the City of Mercer Island for a combined effort. What is the likely timing required for this? By 2008, or maybe earlier, but the Airport Layout Plan needs to be completed. It was decided that a detailed schedule would be prepared in time for the next meeting. Marcie would like this item to be placed on the Council's Transportation/Aviation Committee agenda. Chair O'Halloran concluded this portion of the agenda and moved forward to the fourth item. IV. Process Check Councilmember Marcie Palmer thanked those in attendance and noted the absence tonight of representatives from Talbot Hill, Kennydale, North Renton and the West Hill communities. She stated that the overall short answer is that Council has no deadline at this point and that it is up to Mike O'Halloran as Chair, and this committee to formulate their recommendations. Council would like to see some financial modeling. She stressed the importance of the Airport remaining totally self-sustaining. The RAAC is tasked with reviewing the documentation they already have in hand to arrive at a preferred option that will be of the most benefit to the City of Renton. She cautioned that it has already been determined that to "do nothing"by merely converting the current empty spaces to tie-down usage will not sustain the Airport. Ryan Zulauf mentioned there are already more than four (4) acres of vacant tie-downs available on the Airport. Councilmember Palmer next explained that Council has been confused by the term "preferred alternative." Council has been under the impression that the RAAC had already voted and arrived jointly at the currently expressed Preferred Alternative that is under consideration. Once C:\DOCUME-1\BWalton\LOCALS-1\Temp\GWViewer�007 Feb 13 RAAC Minutes.doc „�. , , �w�r` Airport Advisory Committee Meeting February 13,2007 Page 5 of 8 she had explained that the RAAC had not yet voted, they wanted to know who preferred it. The term came from the consultants in charge of the Airport Layout Plan Study. They came up with it after carefully measuring the various alternatives against previously adopted City policies (the 2005 Airport Development Plan.) Because the RAAC has not yet voted on it, and to avoid further confusion, Councilmember Palmer has requested that the word "preferred”be removed from all future references to the Airport Layout Plan. Instead, each alternative should be considered by its numerical designation i.e., Alternative 1, 2, 3, etc. Only after the advisory vote has been taken and tabulated will the word"preferred"be used in conjunction with the RAAC's choice. In further explanation of the Process Check, she explained the direction to the Committee is to look at: where we are and how we move forward from here. She cautioned the Business Plan and City policies in the Airport Development Study will not be changed and we need to work within their parameters. Do not assume that she will vote. Will staff vote? We don't know. These are items for discussion at the next RAAC meeting and Mr. O'Halloran will be going over that in a few minutes. Council will be discussing the Airport and its progress during the upcoming Council Retreat in the next few weeks. Marcie will enlighten them during the discussions. She then opened the floor for questions from the members. Q. Who can vote? R. Mr. O'Halloran commented that this had already been addressed; we have a current list and this will be a main topic for discussion during the next meeting. Q. Why could we be forced to take on a tenant we don't want? Is it because of the assurances? R. Yes, it is because of the grant assurances. The Airport cannot discriminate against airport-related businesses. The lack of an officially recognized Airport Layout Plan is problematic and that's the main thrust behind the need to get this Committee to a vote. Q. How will the arrival of the Seattle Sonics in town figure into the financial outlook? Is there enough transient space for aircraft to handle the sports traffic? R. We just learned of the decision this afternoon and don't have enough data to complete a financial outlook in this respect. A former manager of Galvin Flying Services at Boeing Field responded that, typically, the Huskies bring in 4-7 general aviation aircraft and 3-5 small jet aircraft for a home game. The Renton Airport has available tie-down spaces to handle this additional traffic. Chair O'Halloran asked the Committee to think about what information is missing in order to take a vote on the ALP. C:\DOCUME-1\BWalton\LOCALS�I\Temp\GWViewer�2007 Feb 13 RAAC Minutes.doc • �,�,. , � w� Airport Advisory Committee Meeting February 13, 2007 Page 6 of 8 Four members stated they needed to see the financial analysis data. Others want to see the environmental impact statement completed. It was noted that the SEPA EIS couldn't be done until the decision on the preferred ALP has been made. Several others want to see the responses to the Mercer Islander's questions before they make any decisions. Mr. O'Halloran stressed the need for the Committee to move on and present the matter to Council in the near future, preferably arriving at a decision by the end of April's meeting. Is there a time limit for the FAA? No. The push will come from the private sector. Ryan again explained the need to make the Airport available to any airport-related uses, without discriminating against any one type of business. An FAA-approved ALP will allow the Airport more discretion in choosing which businesses they would lease to. In closing, the agenda items for the next RAAC meeting will be centered on getting to a vote. Things to consider are: How do you want to vote? By show of hands? By secret ballot? The RAAC will need to decide what to vote on—is one alternative superior to the others? Or, maybe a combination of two or more alternatives should be considered. Who will be allowed to vote? Decisions/Reco�nn:e�:dations: 1. No SEPA until we reach a decision. 2. Noise study—when? 1 I Action Item(s) � Person(s)responsible Due date � 1. Answers to Mercer Island's questions from the Jan. 29 meeting. 2. Financial modeling l I C:�DOCUME-1\BWalton\LOCALS-1\Temp\GWViewer�2007 Feb 13 RAAC Minutes.doc . ,w , , '„�,,' Airport Advisory Corrunittee Meeting February 13,2007 Page 7 of 8 Action Item(s) Person(s) responsible � Due date 3. Time table for LPV/WAAS approval by FAA. 4. Electronic copy of the Paholke paper. Diane Paholke Week of Feb. 19 5. Obtain the January 29 Mercer Island Peter Hahn Week of Feb. 19 DVD. 6. Copy of tonight's presentation to Ryan Zulauf Feb. 15, 2007 Elliott Newman. Open Items/For future age�zdas Voting decisions— Who? What? When? How? ATTENDANCE: Member Name Representin� Dina Davis Renton Hill/Monterey Terrace Bruce Fisher Airport Operations Specialist Greg Garner Member-At-Large—Primary Peter Hahn Deputy PBPW Administrator—Transportation Frank Marshall Airport Leaseholders—Alternate John Middlebrooks West Hill—Alternate Robert Moran South Renton—Primary Elliot Newman Mercer Island Michael O'Halloran, Chair Highlands—Primary Michael O'Leary Airport Leaseholders—Primary Diane Paholke Member-At-Large—Primary Marcie Palmer City Councilmember—Primary Mike Rice Airport Leaseholders—Primary Michael Schultz Renton Hill/Monterey Terrace—Primary Karen Stemwell Pilots Association—Alternate Colleen Turner Pilots Association—Primary C:\DOCUME-1�BWalton\LOCALS-1\Temp�GWViewer�007 Feb 13 RAAC Minutes.doc • ,�, . �rrr' Airport Advisory Committee Meeting February 13,2007 Page 8 of 8 Guests: Peter Morton Langley, WA Howard Wolvington Issaquah, WA Chuck Kegley Kirkland, WA Mark Hancock Seattle, WA Elizabeth Stevens Renton, WA C:\DOCUME-1�BWalton\LOCALS-1\Temp\GWViewer�007 Feb 13 RAAC Minures.doc � � C'sues� �i�n in � � �C)N R:AA� M�MBERS� G. a � � v Addres;t � Phone Inci�de ou �nai!address Sign—In � � P'tease rp int nanne `—` i City,S#ate,Zig T�l'�mber �mafl1�ist'� �' Yes/l�o ,_ ._ � I Sample,Joe 75839—364'"St 253 SSS-1212 Yes Na �oesamnle(�a,cstasi�.com. ��r�� ,� � puya�lup,i�VA 98352 � � � 3679 5��'' RD ot� e No ��}x�� .,--t41r�k. ��' .A. -, t � 3�.D 73 0! j� _.. � i �a��- �� `t'J G4�v4&'� ��d'260 .—__� /f � �',6JAtT �t fMPH� �5+4► YCS MNQ �'P�`l .../+ri��l � � � / 2,S�?E/•,�r zg� �r�iw.cv�sro��.A�2r'N+C�'�tNa.rr" c`'�, ��t�9 d��cutr�v��rad ��,�cf �✓,o �ga�7 "� . � Y I1'o G%�'� ��rl '�.. � rx� �� la� �� —.� a ��c� �RFv p sys«x'M s.�o,+a �, � L#lVc�K ��Gl� �R.asc��a I► wrt 9 Qa3�x�x�Sa2-SQ�GS Y� � � y �F-f+i+1, �'v^-.t`^,� ; . G�,t, �x �►�a�r 2�b39�7�� N�. ��.�"t��tc.�,� _ ��_ . � �A� �-��-' �� c� ��r�� .y.��1,l,ru y cJ es Na �'�?�Zlll��".1�pc.�ca�.! _ �' WJ4r 8'°S� ��=Z'�-a�T3 ,�- ` s Y�� _ . n . � �. Yes N'o �- :� � i '� 0 y Yes ldo ' r�i- � � Yes i�o _ .� � y Y� N . 'Yes No ___._____— � _. , Yes Nn � --� s Yes No � n � .. .. ,.,., Xes � __- -.. _. .� No -- � a � �� , Yes No � � � a a �--. ary�-�3v— j � r�- ��cF.1 ''-',�f�g� . a � ��A.AC Comrnittee lY.�ember Si�n Yn �1��to"7 � I13e�nb�r i�ame RepresentEog tViembership Emai�ou record ��y�n o Tr�� Banholz�.r,Al Wasi�ingtcm Filots Association TENTATN� alant�esther@ivame,c+�m � Gr�en Riv�r Chapler � � South Ren�on Alierna�e ' basuycmcrC�„�mail.cur� � � i Bonr�er,Roberl . ' _ Sostivell,Kurt Ai�or�I:caseh�jd� Alternafe aceaviaaoninc(a�halnaail.com �,, City Counait Mernbcr N/A tbriere�a ci.rentan.wa.�as "' Briere,Terri �Dale�stey(a�ci.renton.w�us � - n� Dale�stey,Suzanrye City De�a�tment R.eRresentafive � ' � ' Renton HilUMontcrey Alternate babndiaa�a comcast.ne� d�`�� -s � Davis,Dina Aitcana�e cofieendeatfu?,alumni.plu.edu s �` `-` Deal,Cc111een Ann Kenn,ydale � Fedor,Jan Boeiag . PrixnarY lan.v.feda ;a einR.cam +1 /� � � � Fisher,Bruc�e Airport(ypecaiio�Specxalist bftsherCa?ci.r+cnton.�va.us ��„a,�,�� '+-' � a � Freec,Beverly Talbot I�Ii I! A l t e rn a t e bevba gar r(,�hts#tnail.com r'? /.7 _„ ec s}� n�vlink.carn � ,A t'�'"��-+---- � � Manber-At-L�rge Pri�' � G�-�!.�^'� � � Ga�ner,Greg hahn�ci.renton.wa.e� i Halm,Peter P3anningBuildin�lPublic Warks p , � Johz�son,Pat� FAA Re�presentativc �'�� '� Keolker, Kaih�f Mayor ana�ex�der�Ci.renton.1va.us - o Lewis,Roger «'est�Iill Fri�atY loura��isn.com � KennydaFe P3rirnary mm,adeen.k.mand�o�i�.eom � � Mancit,Ivlartoen r �ry Airport Lr�halcl,ecs Attemat�e franklinmarshall{�a.comcast nei � � � c� Marshalt,Frank ' � �' � ?v ii d d ts brao k s,J a�n W'e s t H i l j A1tern.aic jmidbla r�,aol.cam � � Pcimsry shamrackkwo,{�a,,e�►tfihliuEr.net ��.- . �""' �--. � Mor�,Robert Soulh Rentan . TENTATIVB ezanetivmanC�hao.eom � �� . , � ; Newinan,Elli�t I+�er�e�r Ls�and ` � '� L}'Halloran,Mic�ael Fiig�iiands PrimscY/Chair mvohsllC�aol.cam - d � � mike wv�nc�li.com � �'�' �:�. � � h4ic�iiae� Ai�art Lea�sehotders Pr��tY � - �* � 4,�� eas Paholke,�iane : Member•At-Lar�c Primary profli�htavia�icminc�a.v�a.com , � � ,c�.rantan.wa,us �- P$lmer,Marcie � City Cnuncil M�mb�r PximazY P�'� : p�$��p8� City GQuncil Member dp�r.sson(a�ci.rent+�n.wa.us � � f+' ` Rice,Mike Airpart Leasebolders FrimaiY miker(a�pisiaZcree�com '��,e�� Alternate mhra�c,ornPusern.com Rogan,Mich�el Mernber At-Lar�t PrimacY si�utteri�� 'g��.corh � 1�� R�tkowski,Jec�nifer A�m Talfsot Hill Sc�iultz,Ivlichaet Rcn��o�►IiitUMonte�-ey Primary miketschuttz(a�,comcas3aaet .l�l�`/, � � . � Shambaugh,Jo� Sfiat�.Represen�a�ve Primary ' ""` = Slem�veil,I��ren Pilot�Associa�on Alternrnsie ks�emcoC�+��.�om �'`��:' c`'n Turner,Gnlleen calleea t�cn�r onicast.net �--0�L� ��/�".-�-..— Pilots Association P��T?' �------�� ,Vl�i�eId,Kc�u�►eth Nlembex�•At�Large A�tunaic � PBPW Adminasfirator �zimmerma�7{�.c3.renton,�va.us � Zimrn�rman,Cri"egg rze�.Iau�ci,ren€onw�.us =- Zu2auf,R��an AiaportMana�er o Zu��scker, Richard North Re�crn Alternate rieh�vicker��sn.com ~ 0 0 �-- i� 1 ,�� WI�` ' � �� Renton Airport Advisory Cammittee ��- 1�, ��7 , ..�;`,�� I,��C� ��'��'�'�r��i ��'a�� Item,�l�iscussed: , � � � .. ti . � �d�` ' ;r�,� `..` �� ` � - � ��'7'� � � �`'7 ',' ` I �; � ' `�,to �.t___��1l� �e1_.��'t�" • � j � �,�' �� ,��.- �: Il �.��.�_ ,� ,��.. �,� -- l , � , .. . _ �. , I °� 7 �--�, ��.�� —� � :�;s 2�`�'.�� » �� 'c ,�.�� I � Ir��-� ....��-�---- =.�`�� .. r { 1 /f /{ f / . � �,��_. % � ..�.�-��'; ��`�-- � �� 1 �� _ �,,�- . �=��. -- � _ �_ - . . � � � � -.r.r��,�"�:�` ,.. �—a � � , ,� , _r,��%��-�� , 4 �.�� I � ' � � � � ' � � 1 � I Decisions/Reconameyidatzons: f � I � � � I � I � � I J I ( Action Item(s) � Person(s) responsible i Due date � ( � � � � � I ( I I 1 I 1 I I f I ( � f Qpen ItemslFo�.future agendas i � � � � 1 � i � � I I � �t;sc back rf necessary— . . "V�✓ . • a"r'+ Renton Airport Advisory Committee Date: _��(�7 , Items Discussed: ^,c rr� , �i _ - ��'i—_JC� --__.... _..—._.... ___ _ --- _ _ �, . . �, :, r �." � � ._� , � . t . ._, ; _ � ° �'.�_ �� c� v .�". .C° ,. � • , _.� - . - ,, y �.._._.. ____ �� . ��`�� - ��.�.�G i �. � .F�t � '` � � #'� �- _ ,�� _ ,,�, . . �' � ,� �. ` h� "�a�:�l� � � �' " .>: � • - o .��- . _ � �° 7 , �f .,t"�A^`s` .e^` '� , 6.r+�. � I � -- .CPi�- a l t� , . .A•. — . • - ��_s � ,�.�` ' �_ C.L.�w� r:��-��--P`�,��1� � I�'/ .,,o'to� _ � I ` ` "� � .� .r.�. .c�F�s:�.U. �- _-��,r�t.a��1 r�r�v �'` .�, l �� _ � �,lv,�� ,_ r � �� /°? - ` � . �� .o��.c� . o � ,-t�: ��-f� �� _ �� ...:t „��-1.� ��r ,�`�",� ��r " < , W - _ � � � ,_ . I I I I I Decisions/Recommendations: � � � � � � � � _ __ . � � _ ____ _ � Action Item(s) � Person(s) responsible � Due date � � � � � � � � � � � � � I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Open Items/For future agendas ( � � � � � � � � � _ —Use back if necessary— � ��i��1�=�.��t.,.� ��'� �"'�� c� ��. ��;:. ' . �1 �.- �r r �. ,��r�r� � � ��...` �.�.� �,� r �� 't � �� ,,�`'� ... ,��``� _ �' �`.w.�' -�'�� .��"�'.� � U�d��'`..�'�;�.�.�. � ��.�- � ��... !� ,,,,��' �.�f�::�',�;� ��°�`;��...-:,��;��°°�`°��.< , � , � ��--� ��.�� , � �� i`�`� ' '��'�� '';"��"�t�"��-.�� : '�� .c�-'�. }` ��"�.�: ��,�� ,:�°��°�`�� , 4�� '`. ��.. t � ."� f � ��°� y �� ' �:��"'� �-�,��G.� , �� r. i..�� '.��i��..-. ��[ �,'4�.-� �/l✓"//4�0"^' fC �C `°a,,,.(�'�Y'�.41.��r� ��:.° � (.%'FCi•+'e, t,,'/j!�,f✓l�4.��..�+1'.��+�., ,� � �� ,' �,+� 9'� � �' ��,,��°'�`�'s o��. ��"'f ',, ��, �' �� '�.,�,,, �;�- � � � �,p � , ' � �� r� 1��Q��.�"t.�� +�`�-'-��"��'"�-`�--�.,�+:2Z�.J�y1�.� , y��"�,,,c.c�;� ��?'��''�'�'d� ��`""!'.��':�!'. ,� /r � � ��" .€��'�f�..,!!?..��.��/'.��,.,�'�`'�� '�..��`�.�` ..�� ,�� _�'� � �, �'',� f�� .�c��^� �� _..�.�� ;,C�1r��.�Z�"��.�� "��Z- �p `�� rfj!�/.��7..�,,.... �'7� G%� ��1�6�'""'�,,,� r � � . �,. • - '�' Renton Airport Advisory Committee r Date: ��o� /h�. C�41�� i%�2��=��'2� /..�/.�,<.�1.°?°'Q�l �2 ,��r'�f � � � '�,�;'�..��r - - - � . � � . Items Discussed: � „�,�/�-// /j�f� `-�' ;-�`' - ��=�'.'� —,. ,�,[� , ✓7.�/,�,��e��=�fi��a'�'' . r �� f _ - � ;k�? " ' .i`mn �',. . , , �,� - - I , � __... _ 1 � _ � .�� n ��- . . . � , ,, ,. � . . . . � �� ¢.:� . /t _ , __ _ Gt' � i A.'� /�. I �. � � I I l,(�/'�'Y�� ' �.f�,d,�! f..�d`i'�,� �._�":"� ��1�.,Q�s�pl�C�e'1 f I I � _ CJ m I � ay� �y ��c .�. �" .- �' r !�9♦ . �.�L3.J�-i�--�� R"A' �^"a ..' - �'` !.t�' I � ' i: _p I I I _ �� =�� ,�'c�a��_,�a� � ..��.�.��..�� ' I �� - _ I I `� �.�, � .�..�,� � ` �� --' - , _ - � �1 � _� ^ _, .. I I �� 1 Decisions/Recommendations: � � � � j 1 I � � 1 � Action Item(s) � Person(s)responsible � Due date � I I I 1 j I I 1 I j _ j 1 I _ I � __ l. _ 1 Open Items/For future a,�-endas � _ _ � I -- -- ---- -- -------- -----_ ----_ -- _ _ 1 I _ _ ___ _ __ 1 I _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 I __ — -- ___ _ l � __ ___ ___. _ 1 —Use back if necessary— °�^ �/ t �,�,,,� ,,,/' �- �`y��'� � �=��.,r�'+�`�/+�. c.� "�'`�'�' �-f`"�w'>,r�`�; (t"�""�*''� ,� � ��0 ,I�'��,�'-�,,,,��`{.�� L-'�' �. ��=�'��``"'�"J`l. � v��l�� '`,�.L` i;a,,�`<�z'`�f°�`'''��-�� L°'�"J`�� t,,G..�:�f�,�;�'�-,�, �/�+��` ` � . r a,4 (, l, r " � ( �'°�. ��•r�' �'" �!. '�� "``""_. ,, l�11�'��"�`f.:��'t��.��! ,fcs� t.�i:` a,.��`�"t' v'�•`-*� �{.t ,��'k.� �; �,�. �., �"°..� C,�7�..r � ^ �f t ,f, �� .,�.�"'�. '.��,,, . ,.st' 4d9.�4�.� d,�{�,�f{W- P C�G:� 4 C. `��-('- S �' ��i�"�``�'�` � �„�'��.�� _ � � ��. E �' �.�~'�,,�f�>�...e. .,� < ,�� `A ° /r � �j� ,�,� �, � 2.a�',�" £�� f - �«�� , i, ^ ,p`Ar.�•��^3'�°,p'°'l`f '�;".t. ...:,�,„� .�` ~!�Q 1�Gv�..�r+� k 1�2�-�,"""�- � ��° �". -�� j �///i�"�¢' F F ' a6.W� d� x '� 4`i��+.a.,a�` (,//1��1��'� ��. �' .�1 r�'�-�'�, �"'�'��'� �-`�"° r��`��'`�`�'� '��°.-..,�'�` j � , � '.��"�, �,��,� �a �,,.�+��,��` �,�.�t-;.��"�': �... . l-�10.� �µ ° `'� C�:( v� �`��L.G��.i�'��,i4r G��°" �•��' .,�'�'°t�� -�'�c,��-�� i'�� L4 ` �..C�`,�ll �-�-�`"��r,�� u�r��c��"-'�.��';..�.�l��'"�,�`' ��,`�;` ��f P._.�,,�� ,�,�.r..�r,��,�..� .��'. ,,,d��tti..:� ��'"✓ �� c,��, � .�� .�"Ls/�'�'��,�� . .�-, .��F��' L�o-� �a��.�� ,� * ` ,��.�� ;-�,r�,�.� .�`:� �',�`,� �;�� -�c�r��' ��'�.�.� �` �-��s� � �; ��.,, �.. ��`.��L,, �.-fL�r��P�'� �..��..r�'�.�. ..�'_ , -.�:c,.....`R. *°'��i`�., (.`�c�C.-�� :�� ." '��F��,C.��Q,ir'f r4��.,9,n� S� ..s"f" t'��.Ff,� �/ .�p{'j �n, ��V�,�,a-�� .,(9'^ 10,�..''i '` 7 \� � \f � ! �� ,_,t � `�,�.� �fe'��;�,�'c��'�.,f , ��'�:'-£�.��-� �il��'��er..e.sa-�- �C/n A, — �' J= � �. {�. � J ��m� ��1...,. rc�� -Q-n.. / ,�.1.,�'. .�' ��` ti,,�''�r�,. �.d;,c��:; ..�• //�"' p,� r `y�a ` a � p, ? r �r �r ';;�<��'�,�..,�A'/'`�t�W-�ftf}r-�,'.�:��.,��''� �,p ';� .,,,,�'� �/(�',�M!�"`- 0� �..t'�..�.!.f.'t'`_�_..,,�� Y� , .��'�""Ctp'� U f '�'° k �" r� �r 7��/�� - (r�c-,�`,l`>'}C� ./,' �:',',c""�v'--' �..y,�... 1'a: .�3"t�" �r: r ��.� "" .,�' ��`�,"3,,� °,^'y"' ^>u". , `.�;�� - r � ! ..�� ' � �' s-' `f. . �';�� '",�" , . . `N�,- �� .r.s. �,,.e ' �. ,�`r�°�9" ;�''�-°�' '.� ., .'`"� � . `.,.�' � f'"' ��' - r� .✓. '�'•,_ . , *,«.��` r � r�� J'r J "��,I.�" 3, . ti„ p1� t ��*�� , 9 �. �,..'� ,. G't. �� . �`e ."-a'. , ,. . - . �<.,� � �.�'.'..,:�J',;' ..rt ,. . . : .. , , . � ,�...•� �..,., �ij�%2a"�.�1/�'�, `.�,� - '" �r�"'� �� , P ,� . "`.:'��`•" �` t �� ,." _, �.a'%,�° t .��c ��r�i � ,'y i:,�, //y �,, c�f� /` � , ��-1'�� .��f][,ue",. ._..�et.��k��,.�`.� ' l.`F`.�° � ' ✓�i4,�� /' �'p'P�^!�' +j�g �� ,��'g, w S.A an. �+ f � � S J/,(� ''1 jg` � f d �� j� 4 .'}IF -� � [� P l.�'� i t>,t :�,�� 1-#: '� � i � �� , p {t? - ' , s.'�r .. . �. � �° J �� . , .. Wro:_, �,�'' . - :�`��.�.�'`� �- �'r}��' .c� \� }f� ns �^�r�� 'y�' y .� !1d� j4. i��✓��. . �d'`"�G'f� {�(�� µ��yf�:� r�� °/ r'Y„�`..Fa�`�'�1:�,:.i; -...^.-�'�a°_�'�..'�.'�,�,'��@. �_ . �, M �. ��-�.,� ..�c°�.._ �''°:� � ,, � , ;. . . � � - • `r.�' Renton Airport Advisory Committee t � Date: , c h' /�, �d�►,� ,.- �. , _- __ _ _ ___ _ _ /t P Items Discussed: � � �� ` ..�`��,�,,� �� , :N, �� '' ""'.�a^ ":i'"xr`.:lt'� .� � " r��./.,� i � i �, . . �. � ` -- � � 1 r .� ��v_ �r'' � � � ' '�' � ,� � , _ � -„ _ . p� ., I 4�'pi�;' U�G '" ,��.� / � � - .9 n � " p �ry _ �r 'F .d.sl��..�J "l._ .� ,1-•t ferw ^� -i-c R�""' � � ✓� . � 6 � � � -•�' i� ''� .I'� � �'� >F .., �_:�:�� >.�"'' .1� I , " ,•� 'e �.�,n`" " � s. � . � . .. _ _ . - - �, ��. � , ,. r,�� -� ,r;,,�. � �, � r.� . � v -�-� , . - _ . . - _ — --- � , - . ,, , � - � : �i� . ��a� �. , � ''� � �Q ,r'` 1�'.�t t � rc:�.�'i,�.1�1"'T . . _ _ -. , -- .� ��,,.- . t �,c� f$ r � � �� J��' .��,e��:�,l�a�/.fa-r� _��,*''.�� C.��?P k".��°� �"''° _ `�l5': L.t.�t": ��S � i4:' -- Decisions/Recomm endations: � _ _ _ � ` `'r`` ,�.,� � � � � ��y,�� r .— � � f��_ � ` Y �r.�#�:�.i�/_:-� v7?!I_�..1� �� I I � I I I I I � Actioiz Item(s) � Person(s) responsible � Due date � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1 � � � _l � � ( � _ � Open Items/For future a�endas � „ :�`�i� �t'dA.-��[ .�k�"{� ,�� .' � �t�1�F�a! _-'` _ - �, - , .. . _ ��trC�.li��l"� . . ----- —��'`�2/ --- _ -- ___ _ _ � � �Use back if necessary— a``_," 1' i �F�,' •,i'��' i �" a�" ,�a d - � .�.{�`;:�„-.�-��"�'�� .,r"�'I��"�.i.,fl'�_" �. L��.,� � � „��r� a,,,�.�� l c�.� :,.��r�t.tY �� ,,'.',�t�:..`l�� f �,�,�.��'� � , GCu�tr C �'{t�t't iall< '� �:��' ,�.� ' t �`�,.I""«;,_ :,mE``�f�`C ��-. 3 � �i`,,'� r�, `{�r�,.,� ,,/,,� "fw J1 � f / F;� ; �� ;: �°'- ' ��f `� -- _ ,.t d=��P#'t.f V� � .�::U.�tt'd'•_t'...,2��t'r�'�f c ,. �:.�., /� . � ,A`'�,.E,`_.�, �`� �. ��, F°��. ,��.�t4-��'��'��lc'�-��/- � � �, � , f . �G4Gc.`1,,,�'.,-s,.,��.t�("��-��1�-'1��'.�,.1 ;, �.'�'' e`_�.d.��7�G--�.2'�9''�-�'� r� � f ;' � �?r�.'+�,��"!=�'Ct�,��'+!��?�i�'`"�'.Y �s;�::�: .�`��...�` ��,�'�` �j�$��.;�!�``��`�� ,►�'��.�r'�.•C'.��?.. ��:�.r�ia `��°�,3�'�,.�`�-,�'`�� .Q`. �. - y� �r �� r"'�� ' � � *�`^°�£��-�"�:Z1,a../:°'�`�n�� ''��,. ,. « „ � � C,� �'� ` '�( ��.�+�'�'� — �- 7` � ,� �� ,:::� _.� .�,��c�.C� , �:`�' � °� � .: �,..�' _----- - ' '��;� �� .'�°" � � f�...�/� �� °�.. ,;;,��.��.� /j � ` � � a .�r` Gx,,,- �. � 1/ . � f f ! � � e ^�.,�;��"� ?�'��k"�� .t� A:,��p � �,,,��"''� 'P�i �� ;iV � ., � .� \�,;`f ��{ �, ,,� r �� ,�wc ��"�'"" � ��L�=�� , , � f��, ��.��f�(' .,�,%1'C �,��`�'`� Ta'�'�,/' �;,�,,. �� °� �� c-�'` �� ",�`,�`,��'��-c'''� , �'� • ��:— ,� _ �� , . � , / � C�. t,.��..f.l��o,�.�...-��/'�'�'�c�ti..�6�'?�.,�:�` �� ;��ft-� ,� ��.. ��-�` � _- ,�� ' �w� ...�� ">,�, � ;�� ;� ..��`�:t`��.�'�.:��{�� .�.� .�. �.� �° - . C��... r � ,., �j.�^� �,[i�� /v�'��^y}f/" g,, , ' r';� � 4.. t '�'�..f,�«�.-`w'�p1�.•�'� VO�J`^"" 6 I'/�j�, "'s.�,. i / F t Af � � / / t.' ,6' / /t ! ` �4 1✓� C'! ' �r!'�.,��{ti' '� f l..��:� :2 8� `�r C J" i„��G' F.��'�:.._ L/W`-'��t C,�""",,'i.,,�.('�4.^S'„ A V.W. / �,��_��) �' �' 4y t..f � f t.,, �,+„ { l,� ��„ �r�'-i�"�" 1 � � '.�., ^ `"� ` ��'S�"��1 �..��:�#��-- ��U"��"�t't'�.�',.�/� t:' -�1��',� �� ., � �� --f"' ,.- , � ;,--�� _�:� ��,�� ,�� `,;;� ,�'�� I� ��c� � " -� ..�'°,�,1c..�' ��} .� .:a� �,: ',�I '�;i�� „�� y„ '�, , . •,awc h • New A roach O t�ons pp p for the Renton Munici al . p ..� A1 ort � ByBernieandDianePaholke �/ho is Pro-Flight and what is Owners of Pro-Flight Aviation,Inc. 243 W.Perimeter Rd • Renton,WA9go5� the purpose of this document? proflightaviationinc@yahoo.com Bernie and Diane Paholke are residents of Renton and the owners of Pro-Flight Aviation. We have responsibly operated our Family owned business on the Renton Air- �'a��°'�`�� port since 1994. Pro-Flight is currently the largest of two � aviation service providers (FBO) on the Renton Airport. � We have submitted one of the three proposals to the City, at their request, for the creation and operation of what ``" " '°" S�°T T has been commonly referred to as the Jet Center. Of course, we feel our proposal is better than any other O, and we look forward to demonstrating our continued com- ; ,�., �� ,,,, mitment to the City and surrounding Communities ± , � "'� '- through our actions and forward-thinking approach. � .'. wR' ..�..�us We have assembled this and other documents as aids to �� the individuals concerned about the future direction of the Airport. We hope that this document will provide a _""` �"" =� better understanding of the various proposed changes to ' '°' � � the Renton Airport Instrument Approach. We feel effec- -•� °� � - tive communication is key to any discussion, and we want �' to position ourselves in this manner as the dialogs con- � ! tinue. If you have questions, feel free to ask us! The Aviation Community at the Renton Airport has his- torically worked with neighborhood groups to resolve noise related issues. Pro-Flight Aviation, as well as other - ' ,.� w.: airport users, want to be good neighbors. We are work- ing hard to improve the public's perception of what a "Jet Center" will mean to us all. The following discussion con- -_ -� �� cerning new procedures, helping to reduce noise, is a pro- active effort by the City, the Airport users, and neighbor- hood representatives to improve community relations. � • � � The Exi stin A ro ach g pp Official Name: RNAV (GPS) RWY 15 ee her 200 f t hig Mercer Island Lk.Washington Renton Airport Facts• • All airplanes come over the North tip of Mercer Island at 1600 feet. • Just South of I-90, they descend to 760 feet, as quickly as practical. • Upon reaching 760 feet, they level off and fly South to the airport. Weaknesses Strengths • 760 feet is only about 430 feet above • Already in place. Mercer Island • Prevailing weather conditions, even in Winter, • Pilots must"Throttle-up"in order to rarely require flying the approach all the way level out at 760 feet. down to 760 feet in order to see the runway. • This has the greatest noise impact from • Requires only common equipment on board the mid-island South. aircraft. • Most airplanes flying today are already equipped. Conclusion: This is a reliable approach that has served the Airport for many years. We believe it should be given a few, low cost, improvements in order to reduce amount of noise and the number of people exposed. These improvements would allow pilots to utilize technology already installed in many aircraft flying today. � � ' � The Ste -Down A roach p pp An Improvement to the Existing Approach � � 200 feet higher - Mercer Island Lk.Washington Renton Airport Facts• • All airplanes would come over the North tip of Mercer Island at 1600 feet. • Just South of I-90, they would descend to an intermediate altitude of 960 feet, as quickly as practical. • Upon reaching 960 feet, they would level off and fly South towards the airport. • Just Past the South Tip of Mercer Island, they would descend over the water to approximately 500 feet, and continue South to the airport. Advantages: Disadvanta�es: • Increases the minimum altitude over Mercer Island by 200 • Pilots must still "Throttle-up" feet, thus reducing noise. but at least they will be a couple • This will have the greatest reduction in noise impact from of hundred feet higher. mid-island South. • Pilots and airport users will benefit by actually descending 200 feet lower, over the water. • Can be used by most aircraft using the airport now. • NO changes to the Airport are required. • Modifications to the approach need to be done by the FAA but this is a relatively simple change. • Will not increase the number of take offs and landings. Conclusion: This relatively inexpensive improvement will benefit the greatest number of homeowners in the least amount of time. This also serves the Aviation Community by allowing lower approach altitudes over Lake Washington. � � . � The Gradual D e s c ent A ro ach pp A More Complicated Modification to the Existing Approach � �''''-�►�+-+r i Mercer Island Lk.Washington Renton Airport _ � Facts• • All airplanes would come over the North tip of Mercer Island at 2000 feet. • Just South of I-90, they would descend at a fixed rate until reaching an altitude of approximately 450 feet, over the water and continue to the airport. Advanta e�s�. Disadvanta�es: • By maintaining an even descent,the need to"Throttle-up" is • Steep glide path restricts use eliminated. to aircraft capable of slow • Minimum altitude over Mercer Island is increased by 200 feet at approach speeds (below 120 the lowest point. Increase will be greater towards the North end knots). of the Island. • The FAA will have to un- • Airplanes will be 600 to 700 feet above than the highest point dertake a fairly extensive on the South End of Mercer Island. They will be descendinE surveying and design pro- under minimum power. This will significantly reduce the ject to implement this ap- number of people affected and overall noise level. proach. Preliminary analy- • Pilots and airport users will benefit by actually descending 300 sis has already been pre- feet lower, over the water. sented to the FAA. • Can be used by many aircraft using the airport now. All VLJ's, medium turbo-props, and most business jets are already able to use it. • Will not increase the number of take offs and landings. Conclusion: This is an inexpensive, effective method to improve the approach in the eyes of pilots and homeowners alike. It will take longer to implement than the "Step-Down"approach but will improve noise conditions even more while still enhancing the airport environment. '�r� ` ' v"�` The "Curved" A roach pp �'�� `� A Whole New Approach called "RNP" � � .g ,� �� :.�: ,Yx<�,�; �K. r� ;��.,�, :�... ,� Facts• . °�'`� Ai lanes would fl South down the East Channel • rP Y � �`"°""� halfway between Mercer Island and Kennydale. "� � �` • They would make a series of small turns to remain mid-channel. ' • They would descend over the water to approximately , , ,,� ":�B°°"-2" 400 feet and continue to the airport. .� { � � � � � � � 'g�... _ �� ..�, � 4� � � `_, RlNTON.. � ``¢ 11IftVORT Advanta�es: Disadvantages: • Keeps aircraft over the water • Expensive equipment will be required on board the air- for the entire approach. This craft. shows great promise for noise • Specialized pilot training will be required. reduction. • Very few airplanes smaller than airliners, are currently • Pilots and airport users will equipped. benefit by descending lower • The current specifications for VLJ's do not include this than other approaches. special equipment. • Will not increase the number • The City will have to hire Professional Consultants to take offs and landings. design and implement this approach. Conclusion: This approach is based on emerging technology and costs may come down in the future. Although it shows great promise for noise reduction if implemented, it will only be economically viable for owners of jet and turboprop airplanes. Initially, this will be an expensive, under-utilized system that offers little benefit to the community. It is unlikely the City will develop this approach unless a Corporate Aviation Center is developed because the small,piston powered aircraft owners using the airport will not be able to support it, or need it. � • , � What to Do`? Approach Altitude Benefits to Benefits to Expense to Aircraft Over Neighbors Pilots Implement Able Mercer to Use Island EXISTING 400' STEP-DOWN GOOD! GOOD! MINIMAL! MOST! Reduces Noise for Lower Approach Requires only proce- Immediate 600' from Mid All Homeowners Minimum altitude dural changes to be Improvement Island South under the Approach over approved by the FAA. Path because air- Lake Washington Most aircraft could planes are higher. already utilize this im- provement. GRADUAL BETTER! GOOD! SMALL! MANY! DESCENT Reduces Noise even Lower Approach Requires procedural 600' over the more because air- Minimum altitude changes and surveying/ Immediate planes are Higher over engineering by the Impravement Highest Point and descending un- Lake Washington FAA. on South End der minimum power. Many aircraft could already utilize this im- provement CURVED BETTER! MINIMAL! EXPENSIVE! FEW! Descent over Lake Few airplanes Requires outside con- More aircraft will Longer-Term Washington has the using the Airport sultants and Airport be able to use it in Solution N/A potential to provide are equipped to funds to design and the next 10 to 20 Over the East noise reduction in the fly this type of maintain the approach. years. Channel future. approach Thousands of dollars worth of special equip- ment needed on board the aircraft. All these options benefit pilots and neighbors to some degree. The "Step-Down" approach and the "Gradual Descent" approach raise the altitude of aircraft over Mercer Island providing immediate relief to homeowners directly under the existing approach. The "Curved Approach" also gives them relief, but may move the noise to areas previously unaffected. Perhaps the most important thing to understand is that none of these options for the approach to Renton precludes any of the others. We at Pro-Flight believe that the only responsible choice is to pursue ALL these options. We also believe that they should be pursued in the order presented as this will provide the maximum reduction in noise, at the least expense, in the shortest amount of time. Implementation of any or all of these options will have ZERO effect on the number of operations at the Renton Airport. They neither encourage nor discourage traffic into and out of Renton. They ALL represent a significant improvement to our neighbors and citizens. � � � ' � �� Memo of Understanding O �� Regardin Air ort Issues � 9 p � O Cities of Renton & Mercer Island � � Background: RENTON is preparing an update of its Airport Master Plan. The City's contracted airport planning consultant has included in the draft Master Plan an option to add a corporate jet center to the businesses based at the Airport. Residents of Renton neighborhoods and of Mercer Island have expressed concern about the potential adverse effects of such a facility. The cities of RENTON and MERCER ISLAND believe it is in their mutual interest to work cooperatively and amicably to ensure that both Cities' interests are thoroughly considered; that any future development at the Airport is neighborhood friendly, consistent with FAA requirements, consistent with RENTON"S business plan, preserves the Airport as self-sustaining; and that residents of both Cities are appropriately informed about future development plans. Purpose of this MOU: Both Cities desire to build on their history of working cooperatively together to solve problems of mutual interest. To that end, the Cities agree on the following principles, and wish to express their intent to collaborate on tasks that will achieve these ends: 1. It is in each City's interest to act cooperatively with the other on potential airport development plans. 2. Both Cities have a responsibility to their citizens to fully understand the options available for airport development, and the potential impacts on residents and businesses. 3. Both Cities believe the best path to the optimal Airport development plan is a process that is understood by the affected citizens and considers their input. 4. Renton and Mercer Island have complementary capabilities and resources, and the skills to apply these in a collaborative effort. 5. Each City can assist the other in ensuring that the Airport development plan that is ultimately approved meets each City's objectives and is the best approach for the region. Actions Already Taken: The Cities have already made considerable progress working together to inform their communities of the options for airport development, and to identify the issues of greatest concern. • RENTON hosted informational meetings for MERCER ISLAND's Mayor, Deputy Mayor, executive staff and a community liaison. • RENTON has provided copies of all airport planning documents to Mercer Island elected officials, staff and community leaders. • RENTON printed special informational inserts on the Airport and the master planning process in the Renton Reporterfor broad public review. • RENTON modified its ordinance establishing the Renton Airport Advisory Committee (RAAC) to add a voting member from Mercer Island. • MERCER ISLAND appointed former Mayor Elliot Newman to represent the citizens of Mercer Island on the RAAC. He has actively participated in RAAC meetings and made timely reports to the Mercer Island City Council and residents. • The MERCER ISLAND Mayor and RAAC representative have written guest columns in the Mercer Island Reporter to keep citizens informed of airport planning activities and to express their appreciation for RENTON's cooperation. . . "�+ ' ``""' • The MERCER ISLAND City Council stated its objective in regard to Renton airport O development plans: "to minimize any incremental increase in noise over Mercer Island and � maximize the safety of Mercer Island citizens." • MERCER ISLAND and RENTON co-hosted a Mercer Island-wide community meeting, and � RENTON extended invitations to Mercer Island residents to attend open house and workshop � events in Renton. � • RENTON prepared and distributed an information folio, including answers to Frequently Asked Questions generated by Mercer Island residents. • RENTON provided advance notice of Boeing Field closures that might affect Mercer Island residents. • RENTON Airport staff has diligently and promptly responded to noise complaints from Mercer Island residents. • Executive and management staff of BOTH CITIES have met many times to share residents' concerns, discuss the best methods to keep citizens informed, and dete�mine the most productive approaches to continue RENTON's Airport master planning process. • Staff of MERCER ISLAND and RENTON have jointly met with the FAA to discuss changes in flight patterns at the Airport that may help to achieve both Cities' objectives and minimize noise impacts. Actions to be Taken: The Cities agree to move forward in a cooperative and collaborative fashion to examine Airport development options. To that end, the Cities agree to take the following actions: • BOTH CITIES will publicly describe this partnership through a joint press release issued to the Mercer Island Reporter, the Renton Reporter and other news media. • The Mayors of MERCER ISLAND and RENTON will prepare"op/ed"articles promoting this partnership and submit them for publication in their respective community newspapers. • The MERCER ISLAND representative to the RAAC and the RENTON Councilmember who is also a voting member of the RAAC will discuss with the RAAC membership the substance of this Memo of Understanding and the Cities' decision to proceed collaboratively. • MERCER ISLAND will provide RENTON with a summary of issues of concern to its residents that were raised at the community meeting held on Mercer Island on January 29, 2007. • MERCER ISLAND will identify key questions raised at the January 29 community meeting that remain unanswered and provide these to RENTON. Together the staffs of the Cities will determine which of these key questions can be satisfactorily answered at this time, and which require additional data. • By[date],with prior review and assistance from MERCER ISLAND on ways to disseminate, RENTON will provide answers to the questions that the staffs of the Cities deem appropriate to answer at this time. • The RENTON City Council will direct the RAAC to refrain from making a formal recommendation on Airport development until after results of an aircraft noise study are delivered &vetted with BOTH CITIES, and until the Cities concur on the best strategy for obtaining FAA approval of new flight path(s). • Staff of RENTON and MERCER ISLAND will develop a draft scope of work for a noise study to be conducted by a jointly-selected consulting firm. The Cities will seek an indication of interest from the firm Harris Miller Miller& Hanson based on the article by the firm's President Mary Ellen Eagan entitled "Using Supplemental Metrics to Communicate Aircraft Noise Effects" (Transportation Research Board /Nov. 10, 2006). • BOTH CITIES' staffs will propose an equitable cost-sharing arrangement for the noise study, and will submit to their City Councils a contract to retain the consultant. • RENTON will manage the noise study contract. • BOTH CITIES will host"Aircraft Noise 101" informational meeting(s)for their residents,where the selected noise study consultant will describe the firm's experience in analyzing noise impacts from airports similar to Renton's,the proposed methodology for the noise study and � , . � the nature and utility of results of that stud;, and will solicit participants' input on the scope of the noise study. • Upon receipt of the noise study results, staff of BOTH CITIES will meet and collaborate on the best way to use those results and to disseminate the results to affected residents and decision makers. • BOTH CITIES will host community meeting(s)at the conclusion of the noise study, at which time staffs of the CITIES will assist the noise consultant in presenting results and answering citizens' questions. • BOTH CITIES will work together with the FAA to study and implement modified flight paths (LVP/WAAS technology) in the current FAA work plan for Seattle-area airspace redesign that is due for publication in November 2008. • BOTH CITIES will work with the FAA to determine how best to gain approval and funding (if appropriate)for flight tracks that use the East Channel of Lake Washington to the optimum extent feasible. • Staff of BOTH CITIES will alert staff of the other if it appears that impediments have arisen or may arise that would interfere with the cooperation and collaboration contemplated by this Memo of Understanding and will work diligently to remove any such impediments. � Staff of BOTH CITIES will report to their respective City Councils on a regular basis on issues that arise in staff-level discussions on topics including efforts to minimize noise, design and implementation of new flight tracks, securing FAA cooperation (and funding)for new flight track technology, and additional City-to-City cooperative efforts needed to fulfill the objectives laid out in this Memo of Understanding. On behalf of the Mayors, Councils and staff of the cities of RENTON and MERCER ISLAND,the undersigned commit to collaborate on all of the above-described measures. We further agree to maintain the spirit of active assistance and cooperation as airport planning moves forward, and to continuously identify steps that can be taken jointly to achieve the best result for both communities and for the region. DRAFT Kathy Keolker, Mayor Bryan Cairns, Mayor City of Renton City of Mercer Island � �. . • �.�rr FAA Meetin� on Februarv 21, 2007 Renton and Mercer Island officials met with key FAA staff to discuss two primary topics: development of two new approaches and status of the airport master plan. At the FAA meeting we learned the following very important facts: 1. The FA.A regional staff will be receiving RNP training in 2007 which would allow it to provide important threshold information on the feasibility of RNP in Renton. This advice from FAA to Renton would be free of charge and would be important to have before any further investment in RNP development is made by Renton. 2. Contrary to what the city was led to believe before, the path to 3rd party development of RNP, and FAA approval, is not guaranteed. 3. The city will need to convince the FAA office that prioritizes RNP studies that Renton should be considered ASAP (may need the help of our Congressional delegation). 4. An improved instrument approach - LPV/WAAS -- which would apply to a very large percentage of General Aviation planes in Renton (Class A and B or possibly for other classes as well) can and will be approved by FAA no later than November 2008. S. The FAA is concerned with the delay in the ALP (aka Master Plan) and will not wait until the issue of RNP is resolved. The FAA expects a plan to be approved in the near future. Based on this information, we can conclude the following: 1. Continuing with the consultant proposal of RNP is not prudent at this time because of the uncerta.inties. 2. Without RNP the jet center proposal is pre mature. � v�,, , . rrrr" 3. By the end of 2007 we could get from FAA's newly trained staff some important advice on the potential for RNP. 4. We can still go ahead with a noise study and get information which would help with any plan options that have been provided in the ALP. Kev Governin� Policies for the Airnort: We believe that the city has considerable consensus on the following overarching principles: 1. The Airport has to be financially self-sustaining. 2. The mix of uses at the Airport will operate within the regulatory framework set by FAA. 3. Airport operations will be sensitive to neighborhood impacts, and will strive to minimize those impacts. 4. The mix of uses at the Airport will contribute to the City's Business Plan goals and objectives. Recommended Options for Proceedin�: 1. Review and clarify policies adopted in 2005 as part of the May 2005 Renton Municipal Airport Development Study. 2. Continue with financial analysis of the various layout options. 3. Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Mercer Island, outlining cooperative actions taken and those to be taken (information sharing, RA�C involvement, noise study, approach alternatives). 4. Continue with noise study, jointly with Mercer Island. 5. Find a way to satisfy FAA's direction to finish the ALP work in the near term. This may suggest that the area currently designated in one option as a corporate aviation center would be left as "a potential future aviation center" with no steps taken to implement it; or this area could be more vaguely labeled "undetermined use"; or the area could be designated for a different aviation use, and modified in the future. „w, . .�r� 6. Bring this new information together in very late 2007 or 2008. 7. Continue pursuing the LPV-WAAS approach development by FAA. 8. Formally ask FAA to develop an RNP (resource issue). 9. Review the 2005 Airport Development Plan. 10.Determine the role of the RAAC in this revised process. Other Issues A number of other compelling decisions have presented themselves. Given the regulatory framework from FAA, the city is obligated to giving serious considerations to any proposals that are made to the Airport. These include: ❖ Kenmore Air Proposal — length of lease ❖ Galvin Flying Service Pending Proposal Summary of Questions/Comments made at the Public Meeting held on Mercer Island on January 29, 2007 Use of the Airport  Want information on current business uses (land based)  Want data on current aircraft operations (typical day, busiest day, aircraft use)  Want data on future operations for each alternative being evaluated  If August 2006 were annualized, how will those number of operations compared to what are being used in the evaluations?  Explain why in the past traffic grew or diminished 15,000 to 20,000 operations a year?  What is the basis for the traffic growth of 1,300 operations a year?  Are there plausible or probable scenarios where traffic growth could return to 20,000 operations a year?  What is the current number of IFR approaches versus number of VFR approaches into the airport?  What are the projected percentage splits between IFR and VFR with the various alternatives?  What leverage do you have to encourage the migration of louder planes to quieter planes and how confident are you that the shift will actually occur?  It was stated that the Renton runway is too short for the jets that normally fly into Boeing Field, so there is no need to worry about them returning to Renton. However, for a few weeks these jets did use Renton Airport. So which is correct? Either the potential exists for the louder jets to return to Renton, or it doesn't.  What are the current number of jet arrivals and number of jet departures?  What are the projected number of jet arrivals and number of jet departures for each of the various alternatives?  What is the number of air traffic arrivals in the last 60-90 days?  How do noise complaints get resolved today?  What are the consequences for a violation? Environmental Impacts  What are current impacts (primarily noise)?  What will be environmental impacts for each alternative being evaluated?  Will the Airport undertake NEPA studies and if not, why?  Will impacts on Bald Eagle nesting sites on south end of MI be evaluated?  Will impacts on the two school and several parks in the south end of MI be evaluated?  Will Renton pay for any mitigation (acoustic suppression) needed at homes and schools? Flight Paths  Is it impossible to modify the runway to take off directly toward Seward Park and use the west part of the lake?  Will Renton go ahead with their plans to encourage and expand private jet use of the airport without altering the takeoff and landing heading over Mercer Island, over to the east of the Island? Why not obtain the new RNP flight track first?