HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-08-004_Report 1AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
County of King )
Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states:
That on the 201h day of May 2008, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed
envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to
the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition.
Signature:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _jj2__ day of_+-Jtt:...,.{l--'ft~V1--,--' 2008.
I
Application, Petition or Case No.:
Public in and for e State of Washington
ing at f!-&vz l~ , therein.
\
Helipad Zoning Code Amendment Appeal
LUA 08-004
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record.
HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT
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
The following 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 Apped,
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 ofa 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 341
1, 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 I 0. 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 of Fish 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 Appeu.
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 Fis 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 of Natural 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 to 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 ofhelipads
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 Appe~.
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 73 Ts 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 mend 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 permitted 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.
SEP A Helipad Zoning Appea,
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
SEP A 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 ofa 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 determined
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
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appe~.
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.
I I. 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 offuel. 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:
1. 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. (1) "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
SEPA Helipad Zoning Appea,
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 20th day of May 2008.
TRANSMITTED THIS 20'• day of May 2008 to the parties of record:
Karen Black Patience Plano Kelly Grace & Peter Spouse
911 N 34th Street 1110 N 34th Street 3011 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Monica Fix Steve & Marcie Maxwell Charles F. Conner
3007 Mountain View Ave N P0Box2048 3001 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Mike Lowry Marc & Kaaren Pritchard Gary & Helen Young
3326 Park Avenue N 2807 Mountain View Ave N 3115 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Robert Ziegler Jim & Laura Morgan Roger & Marlene Winter
922 N 34<• Street 3103 Mountain View Ave N 2731 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Joan Rosling Martin & Pegi Galster John Hempelmann
1023 N 34th Street 2907 Mountain View Ave N Caimcross & Hempelmann, P.S.
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 524 Second Avenue, Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Robert Burr Dan Savoy Marsha Spengler
3013 Mountain View Ave N 3015 Mountain View Ave N 2902 Lk. Washington Blvd. N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
R.C.B. Marshall Eddi Shajari Martha C. Klingen
2902 Mt. View Avenue N 3009 Mt. View Avenue N 3014 Lk Washington Blvd. N
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 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 Krapc
1101 N 27'" Place
Renton, WA 989056
Tom Dahlby
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 98138
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 30'" Street
Renton, WA 98056
John Burroughs
2815 Mt. View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
TRANSMITTED THIS 20'" day of May 2008 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire
Darius Richards
718 N 30'h 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 mnst be filed iu
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 j udgrnent, 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
SEP A Helipad Zoning APP--·
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 N, 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 in 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.
; Erika Co,1kling -Catalano letter response -~~-~-"-------------
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Ms. Conkling,
"charlie Conner" <chasbone 1@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. faa .gov/about/office_ org/h ead quarters_ offices/ AEP /noise _I evels/m
edia/helicopter_appendix_ 10.xls>.
This site lists noise data for a Boeing MD 520 N helicopter. At the time of
rny 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
Page 1
I E.rika Co~lkling -Catalanoietter response
-·-·-·· -· ··-···--·-.
cc: Mr. James Catalano, Mr. John Hempelmann, Ms. Peggy Gallster.
Encl:
<http://www.faa.gov/about/office _ org/headqu a rte rs_ offices/ AEP/noise _levels/m
edia/helicopter_appendix_ 1 Q_xls>
Catalano Email of January 22, 2008 1 :44 PM
CC: <jim@arguspacific_com>, <jhempelmann@cairncross.com>
--·----·1
______________ Page 2 I
: Erika Co~kling -FW: Sound attenuation at di ··nee ---
From:
To:
Date:
CFC <cfc@connerhomes.com>
"'econkling@ci.renton.wa.us'" <econkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
05/04/2008 1 O: 15:02 PM
Subject: FW: Sound attenuation at distance
this is one of the enclosures that belongs with the letter i sent from my
corneas! address regarding Mr. Catalanos letter to you of May 1, 2008. you
can print the other from this link:
http://www. faa .gov/abouUoffice _ org/headq uarters _ offices/ AEP /noise _I evels/ me
dia/helicopter_appendix_ 1 O.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 2Dlog(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.
Page 1
AIRCRAFT NOISE DATA FOR U.S. CERTIFICATED HEL!COPTF-RS
(14 CFR PART 36, APPENDIX H)
(FROM AC 36-lH APPENDIX 10; NOVEMBER 15, 2001)
E:\'G['\'E DAT A MAIN ROTOR
MANUFACTURER MODEL MTOW MLW MFR. MODEL 1\0. MFR. MODEL BLADES DIA(FT.)
AGUSTA A\09E 6.28 6.28 PRATT&WHID/EY 206C 2 AGUSTA 4 36.00
AGUSTA AH>9E 6.28 6.28 TURBOMECA ARRllJS 2Kl 2 AGUSTA 4 36.00
AGUSTA A\09K2 6.28 6.28 TURBOMECA ARRIEL !Kl 2 AGUSTA 4 36.00
BELL HELi TEXTRON 206L-4 4.45 4.45 ALLISON 250-CJOP I BELL I !ELI TEXT 206-015-001-107 2 37.00
BELL HELi TEXTRON 230 FXD SKD GR 8.40 8.40 ALLISON 250--CJOG/2 2 BELL HELi TEXT 222-018-501-\01 2 42.00
BELL HELi TEXTRON 230 RTR WIii. GR 8.40 8.40 ALUSON 250-C30Gl2 2 BELL HEU TEXT 222-018-50!-!01 2 42.00
BELL HELi TEXTRON 412HP 11.90 11.90 PRATT & WHrTJ\'EY PT6T-3E 2 BF.LL HEU TEXT 412-015-300-!09 4 46.00
BELL IIELl TEXTRON 412 SP 11.90 11.90 PRATT&WI-HTNEY PT6T-38 2 BELL HELi TEXT 412-015-300-109 4 46.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 412EP 11.90 11.90 PRATT&Wll!TNEY l'T6T<m 2 BELL HEU TEXT 412-015-300-109 4 46.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 427 6.00 6.00 PRATT&WHITNEY P\\'2070 2 BELL HELi TEXT 427-015-001-125 4 37.00
BELL HEU TEXTRON 427 6.35 6.35 PRATT&Wll!TNEY PW2070 z HELL HELi TEXT 427-015-001-125 4 37.00
BELL HELi TEXTRON 430 9.00 9.00 ALUSON 250-C40B 2 BELL I !ELI TEXT 430-015-001-10 ! 4 42.00
BOElNG MD520N 3.35 3.35 ALLISON 250-C20R/2 I MCDONNELL DOUG 369[)11102-503 5 27.35
EHi Ell 101/300/500 31.50 31.50 GE CT7-6A 3 5 61.00
EUROCOPTER AS 3321.2 20.20 20.20 TURBOMECA MAKII.A IA2 2 4 53.10
EUROCOPTER AS 350 B2 4.96 TURBOMECA ARRIEL 101 l AEROSP A TI ALE 355A3 [.0001 3 35.07
EUROCOPTER AS 350BA 4.63 4.63 TURBOMECA ARRIEL lB I 3 35. 10
EUROCOPTER AS 355 N 5.60 5.40 TURBOMECA ARRIUS IN4M 2 EUROCOPTER S"!"ARFLEX 355A340004-00 3 35.60
EUROCOPTER AS 355F2R 5.29 5.29 ALI .ISO:'>! 250-ClOF 2 3 35.10
EUROCOPTER AS 355N 5.60 5.60 TURBO:\{ECA ARRlUS 3191M 2 3 35.10
EUROCOPTER AS 365~2 9.37 9.37 TlJRBO::vlECA ARR[EL lC2 2 4 39.20
EUROCOPTER BK1l7B2 7.39 7.39 LYCOiv11NG I.TS· !01-750Bl 2 ' 36.10
ElIROCOPTER BK 117CI 7.39 7.39 TURBOMECA ARR!EL IE2 2 4 36.10
SIKORSKY S-76A STC:568NE 10.80 10.80 ·1 URBOMECA ARfUEL IS 2 SIKORSKY 7(, l 50-9000, (19 ! {)() 4 44.00
SIKORSKY S-76C l l.70 I l.70 TCRBOMEC1\ ARRIEL lSl 2 SIKORSKY 7(, 150-09 l ')')-~ 1 4 44.00
SIKORSKY S-76C+ (PLUS) I l .70 1 J.70 TURBOMl:C'A ARRIEL 2Sl 2 SIKORSKY 7615\J-09100·~1 4 44.00
Page 1
AIRCRAFT NOISE DATA FOR U.S. CERTIFICATED HELICOPTERS
(14 CFR PART 36, APPF.NDJX H)
(FROM AC 36-111 APPENDIX 10; NOVEMBER IS, 2001)
TAIL ROTOR NOISE LEVEL {EPNdH}
MFR. MODEL BLADES DIA(FT.) FO TO AP STAGE NOTES
AGUSTA 2 6.60 90.8 9l.4 9!.4
AGUSTA 2 6.60 90.9 91.8 93.J 2
AGlJSTA 2 6.60 89.1 91.7 91.1
BELL HELi TEXT 206-016-201-127 2 5.40 85.2 88.4 90.7 2
BELL HEU TEXT 222-016-001-107 2 6.83 90.5 89.1 94.2 2
BELL HEU TEXT 222-016-00 l-107 2 6.83 90.8 89.1 94.2 2
BELL r [ELI TEXT 2 L2-010-750-105 2 8.60 93.4 92.8 95.6 2
BELL HELi TEXT 212-010-750-105 2 8.60 93.4 93.2 95.6 2
BELL HELi TEXT 2l2-0l0-750-105 ' 86() 93.4 92.8 95.6 2
BELL HEU TEXT 427-016-00]-109 2 5.67 89.1 88.0 91.2 2
BELL I !ELI TEXT 427-016-001-109 2 5.67 89.0 88.5 91.2 2
BELL HE!.I TEXT 222-016-001-111 ' 6.90 91.6 92.4 93.8 2
MCDO'.'INELL DOUG NOTAR 80.2 85.4 87.9
13.10 93.1 97.6 99.5 2
4 10.40 93.2 94.2 96.5 2
AEROSP A TIALE 355A!2.003l OR0040 2 6.LO 87.1 89.8 91.4 2
6.10 86.8 91.l 91.3 2
EUROCOPTER J50A33-0008-03/04 ' 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
II J.60 91.0 93.J 96.1 2
6.40 90.8 90.0 96.0 2
6.40 89.7 90.6 96.0 2
SIKORSKY 76101-0.51()1-041 8.00 92.8 92.5 95.6 2
SIKORSKY 7610 l-fJ5 5P 1-04 I " soo 93.2 96.0 97.7
S!KORSKY 76101-05501-041 " 8.00 91.6 93.9 96.1 2
•
Page 2
February 21, 2008
Re: Changing code for Heliports in Renton
ERC Committee Recommendations for Heliport Ordinance DNS
File #LUAOS-004, ECF
To Hearing Examiner, City of Renton
Dear Mr. Kaufmann,
l-{f:::Cb'Vt:u
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-43.21 C.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
Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns.
~~ <~At4_//.·
Pegi Galstef.,...
2907 Mt. View Ave. N.
Renton, Way. 98056.
· Bellevue Helicopter Regulations
Pegi Galster
From: MJackson@bellevuewa.gov
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:34 PM
To: lumar1992@att.net
Subject: Bellevue Helicopter Regulations
Land Use Code Section 20.20.450 Helicopters.
A. Heliports -General Requirements.
Page I of3
I. In addition to the decision criteria in LUC 20.30B.140, 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 primary 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 Regulation
approach the operation.
10. Touchdown Pads.
Page 2 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.10.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 of this 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 of the 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 Regulation 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, frre and law
enforcement are exempt from the permit requirements of this subsection. (O_rd,_5683, 6-26-06, § 8; Ord.
5477, 10-20-03, § I; Ord. 5475, 10-20-03, § 6; Ord. 4029, 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 91/103/129)
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
Type of Operation Number of Accidents
Aerial Annlication 260
Aerial Observation 100
Business 125
Executive/Coroorate 20
Ferrv 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
Cateaorv of Operation Enaine Tvne
Air Taxi/ Rotorcraft
Commercial External-Load Agricultural
{FAR Part 1351 IFAR Part 1331 {FAR Part 137) Unknown Reciprocatino 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%
Aerial Application
11.8%
Other Work Use
8.4%
Business r s.7%
/ Executive/Corporate
/ ----0.9%
\
\ Ferry
'------1.4%
Instructional
15.3%
NASDAC
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6510
D Cash
,D(check No. / 3 't X
Description: It ..,;,;/o (
j ,
Funds Received From:
Name
Address
City/Zip ' . I l
/-C..v II t 10: I .
C /
D Copy Fee
D Appeal Fee
Receipt 1053
Date
D Notary Service
D _________ _
Amount$ 75, 00
----
Citizens to Council -Conner Heliport
From: "'Cheryl Evans'<cherylevans@terhunehomes.com>"
<cherylevans@terhunehomes.com>
To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: Mon, May 5, 2008 12:42 PM
Subject: Conner Heliport
Dear Council Members,
I have provided a copy of the letter I have sent to Mayor Law below for your reference on this issue.
Thank you all for your time in reading it, as well as serving on the council. Your efforts are greatly
appreciated in our community.
Sincerely,
Cheryl K.Evans
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I reside at 1102 35th Street North in Kennydale/Renton. Further, as a residential custom home builder,
my company has built in multiple locations in Kennydale/Renton, specifically on Lake Washington Blvd.
and Mountain View Avenue North, and directly next to Mr. Conner's property (Monica Fix's residence -
3007 Mountain View North).
At no time have I or my crews experienced any disruptions from Mr. Conner's use of his helicopter, to
include low flying, hovering, early take offs, noise issues, etc. I have found him to be extremely
consciousness of his neighbors, more so than any neighbor could ask, both as a neighbor and the pilot of
a helicopter. He has been forthright with owning the helicopter, its uses, and travel times. I also happen
to run on Lake Washington Blvd. in the early mornings between 6:30am and 7:30am, approximately five
times a week. I have never seen or heard Mr. Conner's helicopter during these early morning hours. I
have however heard and seen news helicopters flying toward the freeway, and north, as well as sea
planes, and lawn mowers during these hours.
I am saddened by the few community members who have seen fit to make what I believe to be unfounded
accusations as to Mr. Conner's flight patterns. In addition, if his immediate neighbors to the North and
South do not have complaints regarding his home heliport, and the noise issues, I find it hard how others
can complain as these are the individuals with maximum exposure. I also see the complaints transitioning
towards Mr. Conner's personal ability to own and operate a helicopter, which essentially is not the issue at
hand; however, it seems by some of the comments I have read this has become a personal argument.
I support the zoning code amendment to allow private heliports in the Kennydale area. The individuals
who own property with this availability should be able to have the right to full use of their properties,
whether it is to have a personal heliport or not.
Thank you for your time and your dedication as Mayor.
Sincerely,
Cheryl K. Evans
Terhune Homes, Inc.
253-854-8500
Page 1
. Citizens to Council -Conner Heliport Page2
CC: <cherylevans@terhunehomes.com>
Citizens to Council -Message status -unde 1ble
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Mailer-Daemon@mail1.ci.renton.wa.us>
<Council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Mon, May 5, 2008 12:09 PM
Message status -undeliverable
The attached file had the following undeliverable recipient(s):
nomuraqdan@yahoo.com
Transcript of session follows:
Command: Data ...
Response: 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account
(nomuraqdan@yahoo.com) [OJ -mta106.mail.re4.yahoo.com
--
Page 1
....... ------
Citizens to Council -Councilmembers
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"'Sara Blackstone'<Blackstonesara@yahoo.com>" <Blackstonesara@yahoo.com>
<council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Mon, May 5, 2008 8:54 AM
Council members
I am a resident of kennydale and I object to any variance that would allow construction and use of a
helicopter landing/parking site in Kennydale. This is because facilities already exist in the puget sound
area that serve helicopters. Project number/Name: LUA08-004, ECF/helipad Zoning Code Amendment.
Thank you for consideration.
This email request originated from the following link:
http://www.rentonwa.gov/governmenVdefault.aspx?id=3212
CC: <Blackstonesara@yahoo.com>
Citizens to Council -Councilmembers
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"'Jeanne & Winston Wicomb'<jwicomb@yahoo.com>" <jwicomb@yahoo.com>
<cou ncil@ci .renton. wa. us>
Mon, May 5, 2008 8:35 AM
Councilmembers
Please note that we are adamantly opposed to Charlie Conner (and others) being granted a Heliport Use
Permit. There is already too much sky noise in Kennydale with the Renton airport. We will continue to
rally forces to oppose this.
Jeanne & Winston Wicomb
1313 N 27th Ct
Renton WA 98056
This email request originated from the following link:
http://www.rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212
CC: <jwicomb@yahoo.com>
Page 1
-----
Citizens to Council -Councilmembers
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"'V.L. Kapetan'<vlkapetan@aol.com>" <vlkapetan@aol.com>
<council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Mon, May 5, 2008 8:26 AM
Councilmembers
I urge you to reconsider the granting of Conner Heliport Temp. Use Permit. This sets a dangerous
precedent and is totally inappropriate to the safety and serenity of our neighborhood.
This email request originated from the following link:
http://rentonwa.gov/govern ment/default.aspx?id =3212
CC: <vlkapetan@aol.com>
Page 1
• Citize_ns to Coun_cil -Councilmembersl!'_elip
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"'Victoria Kapetan'<vlkapetan@aol.com>" <vlkapetan@aol.com>
<council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Mon, May 5, 2008 8:21 AM
Council members/Heliport
I urge you to reconsider the granting of Conner Heliport Temp. Use Permit. This sets a dangerous
precedent and is totally inappropriate to the safety and serenity of our neighborhood.
This email request originated from the following link:
http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212
CC: <vlkapetan@aol.com>
Page 1
Citizens to Council -Helicopters
' --------
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"'Keith Brush'<keithbrush@hotmail.com>" <keithbrush@hotmail.com>
<council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Mon, May 5, 2008 8:21 AM
Helicopters
I do not want to take up much of you time with this silly subject that a few jelouse people are geting riled
up about. But if the daily news and traffic helicopters doesnt bother them then a few take offs and landings
of Conners machine shouln't either. I live on 35th street
This email request originated from the following link:
http://rentonwa.gov/government/default. aspx?id =1082
CC: <keithbrush@hotmail.com>
Page 1
Citizens to Council -~e: Conner Cl<lysseyl
From:
To:
Denis Law
Brian Sabey
>rt May 6th hearing
Date: Mon, May 5, 2008 8:10AM
Subject: Re: Conner Odyssey Heliport May 6th hearing
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm forwarding your message to the City Council.
Denis Law
»> "Brian Sabey" <bsabey@comcast.net> 5/3/2008 1 :29 PM »>
Dennis,
This note is to voice our full support to amend the current zoning code to
allow private heliports, specifically for the Conner's home. I fully
support the right the Conner's should have to travel to and from their home
with a vehicle of their choice.
The reason we live on the lake is to watch, enjoy, all of the activity the
lake brings. On a daily basis, Seaplanes loaded with tourist, Lear Jet's,
helicopters practicing dropping water for forest fires, not to mention all
of the marine activity, is what draw's us to live near the lake. We love
the activity, the progress, we do not support more barriers to others who
have worked hard in life to make it to the next level. Especially for a
family who has, in my view, helped transform Renton to a first class city
over the years.
My family is 3rd generation Renton. My Mom grew up in Bryn Mawr and the
family still owns those houses also.
Thanks for your consideration,
Brian & Kristen Sabey
5021 Ripley Ln N #304
Renton, WA 98056
CC: Citizens to Council; Julia Medzegian
Page 1
--·· --·--
Citizens to Council -Councilmembers
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
'"Dan Nomura'<nomuraqdan@yahoo.com>" <nomuraqdan@yahoo.com>
<council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Mon, May 5, 2008 6:13 AM
Councilmembers
I live in lower Kennydale and strongly opposed to helicopters landing anywhere in a residential
nieghborhood, INCLUDING MINE. I've been willing to put up with your promises to address future traffic,
overcdrowding and noise issues, but this is going way to far. Do not allow helicopters permits!! Make then
land at the airport.
This email request originated from the following link:
http://rentonwa.gov/government/defau1t.aspx?id=3212
CC: <nomuraqdan@yahoo.com>
Page 1
Citizens to Council -Heliport Permits/Kenny
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"'Bob & Beth Lange'<belan_ 4@yahoo.com>" <belan_ 4@yahoo.com>
<council@ci .renton. wa. us>
Sun, May 4, 2008 9:54 AM
Heliport Permits/Kennydale
We do not want the City of Renton to approve Heliport pads at private residences in the Kennydale
neighborhood. We have experienced the arrival and departures of helicopters at lakeside locations and
the noise is a level above all the existing noise from seaplanes and traffic helicopters. This neighborhood
already has to tolerate a high level of aircraft noise. We certainly see no reason why a select few of
private homeowners should disturb the majority of homeowners when there is state-of-the-art facility at
Renton Airport.
Thank you
This email request originated from the following link:
http://rentonwa.gov/governmenUdefault.aspx?id=3212
CC: <belan_ 4@yahoo.com>
Page 1
Citizens to Council -Councilmembers
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"'Mark Maher'<concretetraining@msn.com>" <concretetraining@msn.com>
<council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Sat, May 3, 2008 5:45 PM
Councilmembers
Dear Council, I live in Kennydale, near the lake. I cannot believe you are considering heliports on private
property near here. Sound travels extremely well in this area. To think our nice quiet neighborhood would
be subjected to this, is unbelievable. Especially, when there is a perfectly good airport 5 minutes away.
Rich people are already privileged with wealth, why should the council give them additional privileges at
the expense of the rest of the voting citizens? Stop the noise!
This email request originated from the following link:
http ://rentonwa.gov/governmenVdefault. as px?id =3212
CC: <concretetraining@msn.com>
Page 1
-------
Citizens to Council -Conner Odyssey Helip ;,'!y6th heari_ng
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"'Brian Sabey'<bsabey@comcast.net>" <bsabey@comcast.net>
<council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Sat, May 3, 2008 1 : 13 PM
Conner Odyssey Heliport May 6th hearing
This note is to voice our full support to amend the current zoning code to allow private heliports,
specifically for the Conner's home. I fully support the right the Conner's should have to travel to and from
their home with a vehicle of their choice.
The reason we live on the lake is to watch, enjoy, all of the activity the lake brings. On a daily basis,
Seaplanes loaded with tourist, Lear Jet's, helicopters practicing dropping water for forest fires, not to
mention all of the marine activity, is what draw's us to live near the lake. We love the activity, and
progress, we do not support more barriers to others, who are have worked hard in life to make it to the
next level. Especially for a family who has, in my view, helped transform Renton to a first class city over
the years.
Brian & Kristen Sabey
5021 Ripley Ln N #304
Renton, WA 98056
CC: <bsabey@comcast.net>
Page 1
Marcie Palmer -re: helicopter noise
From: <kapx2@comcast.net>
To: <mpalmer@ci.renton.wa.us>, <rcorman@ci.renton.wa.us>,
<dpersson@ci.renton.wa.us>, <tbriere@ci.renton.wa.us>, <kparker@ci.renton.wa.us>,
<gtaylor@ci.renton.wa.us>, <rzwicker@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: Mon, May 5, 2008 11 :40 AM
Subject: re: helicopter noise
I have a concern regarding the noise level that will be created if helicopters are allowed to land & take off
from the lake shore in Kennydale. The occasional helicopter that fiies over our home to report that news or
transport someone in an emergency is just that, occasionally.
We have lived a half block up from the lake for 20 years and I have lived on 35th Street all my life. The
noise of the Boeing jets, the sea planes, & the occasion Leer jet or helicopter is manageable at this time,
we don't need anymore noise.
We have an airport just down the street from the homes that want to land their helicopters. Land at the
airport and take your boat to your waterfront home.
The City of Renton listened to the residents on the south end of Mercer Island, regarding noise, but they
don't want to listen to the families that live in Kennydale part of the City of Renton.
Would this request of been heard any differently if this had just been someone without so much money? I
also find it hard to believe that someone that is from Renton (the developer making this request) would
want to ruin what we have here in Kennydale.
Please deny the Helipad Zoning Code Amendment. Thank you in advance for taking the time to listen to
my concerns.
Beth Ann Perry
1011 N. 35th St.
Renton, WA 98056
425-255-2243
kapx2@comcast.net
-----
Page 1
. -"·--·-----
M~_cie Pa~mer -Helipad Support ~_?:onin_(l ' Amendment Allowing Private Heliports
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
RANDY RITUALO <rlritualo@msn.com>
<dlaw@ci.renton.wa.us>
Sat, May 3, 2008 9:14 AM
Helipad Support & Zoning Code Amendment Allowing Private Heliports
Honorable Mayor Denis Law and Renton City Council Members: Please find attached our letter in support
of Charlie Connor & Anne Simpson's quest to be able to fly their helicopter to and from their residence.
Regards, Randy
CC: <cfc@connerhomes.com>
Page 1
i _Marcie_l'_almer -c_~arlie Connor ?uppot l:P )5022008.doc
Via e-mail
May 3, 2008
Randy & Linda Ritualo
701 North 30" Street
Renton, WA 98056
Denis Law, Mayor City of Renton
Marcie Palmer, Renton City Council Person
Randy Corman, Renton City Council Person
Don Person, Renton City Council Person
Terri Brier, Renton City Council Person
King Parker, Renton City Council Person
Greg Taylor, Renton City Council Person
Rich Zwicker, Renton City Council Person
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Support for Zoning Code Amendment Allowing Private Heliports
Support for Charlie Connor & Anne Simpson
Dear Elected Officials:
We are writing to lend our support to Charlie Connor and Anne Simpson in their quest to
be able to fly their private helicopter to and from their Renton residence.
I grew up in Renton, attended Renton schools, have lived in Renton all ofmy life with the
exception of a temporary absence from the city of Renton while attending college. Linda
and I have had a Renton address for thirty-two of the almost thirty-three years we have
been married either in unincorporated King County or in the city limits. We have owned
and operated a business in the city of Renton since 1985.
We currently reside at the corner of North 30'h& Lake Washington Boulevard. We have
lived at this location for eight years. We live directly east of Charlie Connor and Anne
Simpson's residence. Our property lines are within one thousand feet of the
Connor/Simpson residence. Only Lake Washington Boulevard, a few bushes, a railroad
track and Mountainview Boulevard separate our property from the Connor/Simpson
property. We have an unobstructed view of the Connor/ Simpson property.
-
PagEl 1
--------------------.------~------·--·" ""-----------------------------------------
.Marcie Palmer ~lie _co.m10r Sup . Letter 05022008.doc
Denis Law, Mayor City of Renton
Renton City Council Members
Re: Support for Zoning Code Amendment Allowing Private Heliports
Support for Charlie Connor & Anne Simpson
May 3, 2008
Page -2-
We purchased our current home site for the view of the lake. We enjoy the various
activities on the lake which provides us with a view that is constantly changing. We have
owned other property that has had views of the lake and the Renton airport. It is hard for
us to understand why anyone who is bothered by air traffic would live near an airport.
We find nothing that goes on the lake offensive or bothersome. We enjoy the constant
changes to the landscape all year round.
Linda was bed ridden from June 30, 2007 until October of 2007 with a broken ankle and
fractured pelvis. Even with the close proximity of our home to the Connor/Simpson
residence and our unobstructed view of the Connor/Simpson residence Linda was never
bothered by the sound of the arrival or departure of Mr. Connor's helicopter during that
five month span.
We have attended or watched the various hearings regarding the private heliport issue
before the various city government bodies. We have listened to people who reside in
lower Kennydale voice their concerns and objections to allowing private helicopters on
lake front properties. We have read letters to the editor of the Renton Reporter expressing
concerns of allowing a private helipad at the Connor /Simpson residence. It is amazing to
us that people who live farther east away from the Connor/Simpson residence then we do
have witnessed either the arrival or departure of Mr. Connor's helicopter more than we
have. To this day we have seen the arrival of Mr. Connor's helicopter only once, a Friday
afternoon in November of2007. We are further amazed that individuals who live
between Lake Washington Boulevard and the 405 freeway hear Mr. Connor's helicopter
as often has been reported when we have not heard it but only once on that Friday
afternoon in November. We hear aircraft activity constantly either from the Boeing
plant, the airport, float plains, traffic copters, etc. It is part of the landscape. This comes
with living near Lake Washington and the 405 Freeway.
We are all aware with the traffic congestion caused by the 405 freeway that traffic
helicopters hover above the Kennydale area constantly. The traffic copters are much
louder than the copter we witnessed arriving at Mr. Connor's residence. In light of the
flight path Mr. Connor is required to take, which according to the FAA is over the lake, I
question those who complain about the noise supposedly caused by Mr. Connor's
helicopter. Mr. Connor's helicopter never flies over lower Kennydale either on his arrival
or departure.
Marcie Palmer -Charlie Connor Suppot Le 5022008.doc
..... -----------------
Denis Law, Mayor City of Renton
Renton City Council Members
Re: Support for Zoning Code Amendment Allowing Private Heliports
Support for Charlie Connor & Anne Simpson
May 3, 2008
Page -3-
We further disagree with those individuals who voiced concern over the environment and
wildlife. We have witnessed no decline in the existence of bald eagles, blue herrings,
raccoons, squirrels etc. The eagle's nests that are in the cotton wood and madrona trees
directly behind the complainant's property were there when we moved in eight years ago
and are still occupied.
The issue of public safety is always a concern. Accidents due happen. But the FAA has
addressed the public safety issue by restricting Mr. Connor's flight pattern on his
departure and arrival to be limited to be only over Lake Washington. Mr. Conner is not
allowed to fly over the homes located in the Kennydale area. Furthermore, I am
convinced that a person of Mr. Connor's stature places high priority on safety issues for
himself as well as the public. I am further convinced that there is no ooe more aware of
air traffic safety than Anne Simpson, a commercial airline pilot.
The issue of having too many helicopter pads if Mr. Connor is allowed to operate his
from his home is ludicrous. My understanding is that anyone in the City of Renton who
lives on Lake Washington is allowed to have a float plain at their residence. I walk Lake
Washington Boulevard daily between the north entrance of Coulon park to the old Barbie
Mill site. 1 see one float plane parked at a lake front residence. Why is not there more
float planes parked on the residential shore line in Renton? Furthermore, there are a
limited number of shoreline properties on the lake wide enough and large enough to
accommodate a private helipad within the rules established by the city and the FAA.
There are no other helipads on Lake Washington that is governed by the City of Renton.
Pure logic tells me that allowing one helipad in the Renton jurisdiction will not generate
many more.
Pegi Galster is one of the citizen's voicing her objection to allowing the Connor/ Simpson
helipad based on reasons cited in this letter. I have met Ms. Galster when she attempted
to stop brush cutting and tree trimming on vegetation located on Burlington Northern
property directly behind her property and in front ofmy property. We had received a
legal permit to have the brush cutting and tree trimming done by a licensed contractor.
Pegi Galster is one of the fortunate few lake front property owners. It is unfortunate that
Pegi Galster has NYMB Y, (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome. Pegi Galster needs to learn
that she owns one lot on Lake Washington. Until she owns everything around her,
Page 3
Marcie Palmer -Charlie C:ormor Sup · Letter 05022008.doc
------~-------··--
including air space, she should just be a law abiding, permit obtaining, when required,
citizen like the rest of us.
Denis Law, Mayor City of Renton
Renton City Council Members
Re: Support for Zoning Code Amendment Allowing Private Heliports
Support for Charlie Connor & Anne Simpson
May 3, 2008
Page -4-
In closing being a former government employee, a business owner and a citizen I hate to
see waste of government resources. It is unfortunate that city resources have to be spent
to allow a few misinformed uneducated objectors of the issue to voice their opinion.
We unequivocally support the zoning code amendment allowing private heliports and
support a decision allowing Charlie Connor and Anne Simpson to fly their helicopter to
and from their home.
Respectfully yours,
Randy & Linda Ritualo
.. Pag~4 •
1 Statement of Peggi L. and Martin F. Galster before the City of Renton
2 Hearing Examiner, 6 May 2008, in the matter of Decision of Non-
3 Significance published 9 February 2008, Helipads Zoning Code
4 Amendment, LUA 08-004.
5
6 It is our contention that the above-referenced DNS was granted in error, for the following
7 reasons:
8
9 1.) The Environmental Review Committee Report (ERCR) associated with this DNS
IO contains a number of errors:
11 a.) In Section 2, Public Safety and Emergency Services, the ERCR states that,
12 as a result oflimiting the approach to the helipads to air space over Lake
13 Washington:" .... any aviation accident involved with take-off or landing
14 of the aircraft is likely to occur on the operator's property or over the
15 Lake, and not on neighboring properties." This statement ignores two
16 facts: First, that a helicopter using a shoreline lot helipad will be airborne
17 much closer to neighborhood property and structures than any seaplane,
18 which must take-off and land a prescribed distance offshore, or any
19 aircraft utilizing Renton Airport. This will expose the neighborhood to
20 b'Teater risk from any loss of control of the aircraft, or from debris
21 associated with a crash or mechanical failure. Second, while the
22 proponents of this zoning code amendment offer assurances that
23 helicopters which suffer in-flight failures can be brought safely to earth
24 under control, the NTSB database on helicopter accidents contains a long
25 record of aircraft returning to earth out of control and in a location and
26 attitude other than that intended by the pilot during initial response to the
27 failure. The record shows this spatial uncertainty could easily exceed the
28 distance between a helipad and neighboring structures, which could be
29 (and in present case, is) less than 100 feet. In addition, the record contains
30 a number of incidents in which a post-failure auto-rotation landing
31 resulted in deflection of the still-spinning main rotor with sufficient force
32 to sever the tail boom. This could easily scatter debris at high velocity
Page 1 of6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
.
outside the property line of the lots affected by the proposed ordhance
/\
change, even if the pilot is able to bring the machine to earth in within
those property lines. In ignoring the operating differences between
currently allowed aircraft types and helicopters, and in ignoring the
documented record of what can happen when helicopters experience
failures, the ERCR makes a material misrepresentation of the public safety
issues involved. (Attachment 1-A to 1-G) is provided as a small but
representative sample of the NTSB database.
b.) In Section 3, Shoreline Areas, the ERCR states that" ..... construction ofa
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 ..... " In fact, a helipad was built within a shoreline buffer in 2006
without such a variance (or the required review), and a helicopter operated
from that pad at first without any permit, and then under TUP LUA 07-
097, again without an approved Shoreline variance. The ERCR and
C.
accompanying Environmental Checklist repeatedly tites project-specific
review as the process point at which environmental issues will be
addressed, and yet the City failed utterly to do so in this case. The ERCR
should have noted that the project-specific review process currently in
place was demonstrably inadequate, and withheld a DNS recommendation
until such time as adequate process could be identified and implemented.
c.) In Section 4, Wildlife, the ERCR sites a 1993 paper by James W. Watson
titled "Responses of Nesting Bald Eagles to Helicopter Surveys" to
conclude that " ... .it does not appear that helicopter operations in particular
adversely impact Bald Eagles" (see LUA 08-004 File). This conclusion
ignores a broad theme admitted through-out the paper, best summarized
on pp 176 by "The greater sensitivity of eagles to close helicopter
approaches (<450 m) (1,476 feet), are evident in my study where 53% of
eagles responded to helicopters near the nest tree. Close airplane
approaches ( <500 m ) resulted in only 7% responses near the nest tree "
And further, on pp 173, that "Helicopters elicited greater responses; >40%
Page 2 of6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
of eagles responded to helicopter approaches at distances < 3,050 m" ( 1.89
miles). And further, on pp 177, that "Bald eagles from several populations
had lower response rates to fixed-wing aircraft than to survey helicopters
at similar distances." Finally, on pp 175, "At eagle-helicopter distances
> J 20 m (greater than 393 feet) there were ... more than expected attacks
on the helicopter ... " If the ERC reached their conclusion from the
Management Recommendations and Summary section of the paper, they
failed to note for the record, or indicate if their conclusion was considered
in light of the fact, that the author (Watson) had a clear vested interest in
the continued use of helicopters for Eagle surveys.
d.) In Section 5, Noise, the ERCR states:
I.
11.
"The City of Renton ..... does not have jurisdiction to regulate
the flight paths of aircraft" a fact that we are confident is
understood by all parties. What the City does have
jurisdiction to regulate is where (and if) in residential
neighborhoods aircraft are allowed to take-off and land,
provided any such site meets FAA' airspace use
requirements. The FAA regulates size and other attributes of
a helicopter landing area itself and approaches, but does not
address the appropriateness of the site from a noise or safety
standpoint, which is specifically left to local control. This
distinction is glossed-over by the statement above, as it has
been in numerous other instances through-out this civic
discussion.
The ERCR also states: "As each residence is allowed one
seaplane, this proposal does not increase the potential for
aviation related noise for neighboring property owners." The
logic of that statement is arguable\ but what cannot be
argued is that the statement i!,'llores the fact that take-off
... And directly contradicted by Section 7(b)(2) of the Environmental Checklist for this proposed action,
which states: "There will be additional noise heard by the properties in the vicinity ofhelipads allowed by
this change in regulation."
Page 3 of6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
111.
power and the attendant engine and rotor noise for a
helicopter operating at the shoreline is applied much closer to
people, structures and property than that of a seaplane taking
off the prescribed distance offshore. It further ignores the
sole apparent piece of noise "research" performed by the
City, present in the public record in form of the 28 September
2007 e-mail from Seth Geiser to Elizabeth Higgins
(Attachment 2), in which is noted that the mean decibel level
for seaplanes is lower than the mean for helicopters.
The ERCR also states: "However, the proposal requires that
the helipad use be approved by conditional use permit. One
12 of the decision criteria for conditional uses under RMC 4-9-
13 030 is an evaluation of noise." As the City failed to
14 meaningfully evaluate noise impacts prior to granting a
15 Temporary Use Permit, how can that same process be
16 considered adequate for a Conditional Use Permit proposed
17 for the Zoning Code Amendment to which the DNS refers?
18 As in (1-b) above, the ERCR should have noted that the
19 project-specific review process currently in place was
20 demonstrably inadequate, and withheld a DNS
21 recommendation until such time as adequate process could be
22 identified and implemented.
23 Paragraphs 1-(a), -(c) and-(d) above clearly indicate the ERCR mistakenly applied the
24 concept of similar use when considering the operation of helicopters and seaplanes from
25 the shoreline as essentially the same, and relying so heavily upon this misrepresentation.
26 For this reason, the DNS should be withdrawn, and the Threshold determination process
27 re-initiated.
28
29 2.) Under SEP A regulation WAC 197-11-030 (2): "Agencies shall to the fullest
30 extent possible ( emphasis added): ( c) Prepare environmental documents that are
31 concise, clear, and to the point, and supported by evidence that the necessary
Page 4 of6
1 environmental analyses have been made." (emphasis added) And (f)" Encourage
2 public involvement in decisions that significantly affect environmental quality."
3 The public record does not contain the evidence required by 2( c ), and the timing
4 and extent of public notifications made by the City in regards to this issue
5 demonstrate a less-than full embrace of the requirement in 2(f).
6
7 3.) Under WAC 197-11-330(3): "In determining an impacts significance (WAC 197-
8 11-794), the responsible official shall take into account the following: (c) Several
9 marginal impacts when considered together may result in significant adverse
10 impact. (e) A proposal may to a significant degree: (iv) Establish a precedent for
11 future actions with significant effects, involves unique and unknown risks to the
12 environment, or may effect public health and safety." ( emphasis added).
13 a.) Evidence that the ERC failed to account for cumulative impact is provided
14 in the Environmental Checklist Section 5( c) ( among others), where the
15 question as to whether the site is part of a migration route is responded to
16 with the ubiquitous "Non Applicable Non-Project Action". This implies
17 that the City intends for this question to be answered as part of a project-
18 specific review, for multiple potential actions all within a mile and a half
19 of each other. This seems illogical, and has the added danger of potentially
20 having one approved helipad de-facto allow follow-on projects to by-pass
21 this element of environmental review due to precedent.
22 b.) If there was a thoughtful discussion of precedent and effects on public
23 health and safety that considered both sides in the public record, this
24 reader was unable to locate it.
25
26 4.) Under WAC 197-l l-340(3)(a) "The lead agency shall withdraw a DNS if: (iii)
27 The DNS was procured by misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure." We
28 contend that the paragraphs l through 3 above make a case that this standard for
29 withdrawal has been met, and the City of Renton should respond accordingly.
30
31
Page5of6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
. ,/ /;{/. /
__ ._4'~. C::L5h.c:.t-...-=-..c:.·L.c:·'-I--,.c_, L:/f,"-,,""·-"f?("-. '--'-·~.._, ____ Martin F. Galster
I .. /
?
Page 6 of6
FTW03LA066
NTSB Identification: FTW03LA066.
1--',v.s = /A
Page 1 of 1
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Mana__ge_ment
Divis.ion
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, December 22, 2002 in Fritch, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/30/2004
Aircraft: Hughes 369E, registration: N5234Y
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
The helicopter was damaged during a forced landing after a loss of engine power while in cruise flight.
The 14, 700-hour pilot stated that at 5, I 00 feet MSL, the generator warning light illuminated. The pilot
switched the generator "OFF" and back "ON" in an attempt to reset it, and was unable to reset the
generator. The pilot then recycled the circuit breaker to try to reset the generator, and was still unable to
reset the generator. The pilot pulled the generator circuit breaker and aborted the flight. Approximately
15 minutes after the generator failure, the engine out light illuminated and an audio warning came on,
engine and rotor RPM started to decay and the pilot initiated autorotation. The auto re-ignition light
illuminated during autorotation, but the engine would not spool back up to normal RPM. The pilot
continued with the autorotation to a small clearing. During the final phase of the autorotation the pilot
performed a cyclic flare to increase rotor RPM and arrest forward movement. The pilot leveled the
helicopter a few feet off the ground and pulled the collective to arrest descent, at that point rotor RPM
decayed and the helicopter dropped four feet AGL. The helicopter spun approximately 180 degrees from
the original heading and impacted the ground nose first, on a heading of 30 degrees. Examination of the
generator revealed that its drive-end bearing had failed. Bearing cage pieces fell out during disassembly.
A Pc air leak test was performed and a air was detected emanating from the Pc air tube from the power
turbine governor (PTG) to the engine fuel control unit (FCU). The tube was fractured approximately
90% circumferentially just above the coupling nut that attaches the tube to the FCU. A new Pc air tube
( same part number) was installed and the engine was operated in a test cell. The engine was operated in
accordance with the model 250-C20B Production Test Specifications. With the engine in the standard
test configuration, response times were within normal limits and the engine met all performance
parameters. Further metallurgical examination of the Pc tube revealed evidence of fatigue.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The loss of engine power due to the failure of the generator input drive-end bearing, which resulted in
excessive vibrations that induced a fatigue fracture of the Pc line leading to the engine fuel control unit.
A contributing factor was the lack of suitable terrain for the forced landing.
Ft1l_l narrative available
Index for Dec2QP2 I Imiex Q.f_111.onths
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev _id=20030130XOO J 34&key= I 1/22/2008
. BF090LA075
NTSB Identification: BF090LA075 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 43582.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, September 14, 1990 in PRESTONBURG, KY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/30/ l 992
Aircraft: HUGHES 369E, registration: N50075
Injuries: 3 Serious.
!_) N .) ¢I /P
Page 1 of 1
THE PL T REPORTED THAT ABOUT 30 MINUTES INTO THE EN ROUTE PORTION OF THE
FLIGHT, THE ENGINE LOST POWER HE DID AN AUTOROTATION AND UNSUCCESSFULLY
TRIED TO LAND IN A FIELD, BUT THE ACFT COLLIDED WITII TREES SHORT OF IT. THE
PL T STA TED THAT THE AUX TANKS WERE FULL AND THE MAIN TANK GAGE
INDICATED 90 LBS (14 GALS) WHEN THE POWER LOSS OCCURRED. HE REPORTED THAT
THE AIRCRAFT WAS FLOWN ABOUT 1.9 HRS SINCE IT WAS LAST REFUELED. THE MAIN
AND AUX TANK CAPACITY, RESPECTIVELY, ARE 64 AND 20 GALS. EXAMINATION OF
THE ENGINE DID NOT DISCLOSE EVIDENCE OF ANY :MECHANIAL MALFUNCTION.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
THE LOST OF ENGINE POWER FOR UNDETERMINED REASONS.
Indexfor Sep129Q I Index of months
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev _id=20001212X24203&key= 1 1/22/2008
.1J,Nu /C..
SEAOOLA170 Page 1 of 1
NTSB Identification: SEAOOLAI 70 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management
Qjy_isiQ_n
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Friday, August 25, 2000 in COOLIN, ID
Probable Cause Approval Date: 7/2/2001
Aircraft: Hughes 369E, registration: N570CA
Injuries: 3 Uninjured.
Shortly after takeoff, the engine lost power. The pilot initiated an emergency running landing, which
resulted in the main rotor blades contacting and subsequently severing the tail boom during the landing
phase. The engine and associated components were inspected. The turbine outlet temperature (TOT)
indicating system was inspected to verify calibration, which is to be calibrated inspected during all 300-
hour inspections. The test revealed that the TOT indicated on the cockpit gage was below actual engine
outlet temperatures, and that lower than actual TOT readings provided to the pilot via the cockpit TOT
gage may have resulted in numerous operations being conducted in higher temperature ranges than that
authorized by the Pilot's Flight Manual and/or the engine manufacturers temperature limitations. The
engine teardown inspection confirmed that the failures and stress ruptures found throughout the engine
turbine assembly components were a result of high temperature engine operation above 2000F.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The turbine outlet temperature indicating system was out of calibration. Factors included improper
maintenance calibration, which resulted in the over temperature of the turbine assembly.
Full narrative available
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev _id=20001212X21874&key= I 1/22/2008
LAX90LA171
NTSB Identification: LAX90LA171 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 43631.
14 CFR Part 133: Rotorcraft Ext. Load
Accident occurred Thursday, May 10, 1990 in FIREBAUGH, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/23/1992
Aircraft: HUGHES 369E, registration: N5217N
Injuries: I Uninjured.
VA/<..J /J)
Page 1 of 1
THE HELICOPTER LOST ENG POWER AND LANDED HARD. THE PL T REPORTED HE HAD
JUST COMPLETED RELEASING AN EXTERNAL LOAD. THE HELICOPTER WAS ABOUT 125
FEET AGL IN A CLIMBING LEFT TURN WHEN THE PL THEARD A LOUD BANG. THE PL T
ENTEREDAUTOROTATION. THEPLTNOTEDTHATTHEMAINROTORRPMWASLOW
AND WAS UNABLE TO REGAIN ANY MAIN ROTOR RPM BEFORE THE LANDING FLAIR. AT
TOUCHDOWN, THE MAIN ROTOR BLADES FLEXED DOWNWARD AND SEVERED THE
TAILBOOM. THE THIRD STAGE COMPRESSOR HAD FAILED, DAMAGING THE REMAINING
STAGES OF THE COMPRESSOR. THE COMPRESSOR CASE PLASTIC WAS ERODED. THE
ENG HAD UNDERGONE MAJOR MAINTENANCE AT 1,774.5 HOURS WHICH REQUIRED THE
REMOVAL OF THE TURBINE SECTION. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE ENG
LOGBOOKS OF THE COMPRESSOR SECTION BEING INSPECTED AT 1,750 HOURS AS
REQUIRED BY THE MANUFACTURER. THE ENGINE MAINTENANCE MANUAL WARNS
EROSION WILL CAUSE DAMAGE TO COMPRESSOR BLADES AND VANES.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
FAIL URE BY COMPANY MAINTENANCE TO PERFORM A MANDATORY COMPRESSOR
SECTION INSPECTION THAT RESULTED IN THE UNDETECTED EROSION OF THE
COMPRESSOR VANES AND ENGINE FAIL URE. CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACCIDENT WAS
THE FAIL URE OF THE PILOT TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE MAIN ROTOR RPM AT CRITICAL
ALTITUDE.
Index for_Ma_y 1990 I Indexofmontb_:;
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev _id=20001212X23173&key=l 1/22/2008
DFW07LA061
DN-5 ;.[ Pagelofl -
NTSB Identification: DFW07LA061.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Man.llg_ement
l)ivisio11
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, January 27, 2007 in Fulshear, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 9/27/2007
Aircraft: Hughes 269A, registration: N8503A
Injuries: I Minor.
The owner of the helicopter reported that a cylinder had been replaced and he asked a pilot to conduct a
short test flight after he completed the cylinder "brake-in" process. The pilot reported that the helicopter
experience a large yaw and lost power while at 500 feet above the ground. The pilot was forced to clear
ground obstacles during the autorotation which resulted in a loss of main rotor rpm. The helicopter fell
vertically from 50-feet, resulting in a hard landing. There was no fire. Al! three main rotor blades were
destroyed and the tail boom separated from the airframe. Ten gallons of aviation fuel were drained from
the helicopter prior to recovery. No discrepancies were found with the airframe of the engine that could
have contributed to the reported loss of engine power. The reason for the loss of engine power could not
be determined. The pilot held a private pilot certificate, and had accumulated a total of 1,200-hours, with
80-hours in rotorcraft, of which 40-hours were in the same make and model helicopter. Weather was not
a factor.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The loss of engine power for undetermined reasons. A contributing factor was the lack of suitable terrain
for the forced landing.
Full narrative available
Index for Jan2007 I Index of months
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev _ id=20070223X00218&key= I 1/22/2008
MIA07CA004
NTSB Identification: MIA07CA004.
.1)/i./C I ,cc
Page I of I
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management
Division
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, October 11, 2006 in Key Largo, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/31/2007
Aircraft: Hughes OH-6A, registration: N810SB
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
The pilot stated that he maneuvered the helicopter to the southeast corner of Ocean Reef so the
passenger, a photographer, could take photos of a house at the water's edge. The helicopter was in a
steady hover over the water with the nose towards the north. The winds were from his left, from the
west, at about 10 knots. There were no abnormalities noted with the helicopter's power. He increased left
pedal to bring the nose of the helicopter more into the wind to smoothen it out from the effects of the
winds on the tail rotor. Suddenly the helicopter started an un-commanded turn to the right. He applied
full left pedal, reduced collective, and initiated forward flight. The helicopter continued the right turn.
After several rotations and close to the water he initiated an auto-rotation from about 10 feet above the
water. He used collective to cushion the contact with the water. The helicopter came to rest on its right
side in about 7 feet of water. The passenger stated that while doing aerial photography at about 150 feet
above sea level, the helicopter started spinning and spiraling down. They hit the water soon thereafter. A
representative for the helicopter's manufacturer, with FAA oversight, examined the helicopter. No
abnormalities were found with the helicopter's flight control system. All damage noted to the helicopter
was consistent with a water impact. The FAA Aeronautical Handbook\F AA-H-8083-21-Rotorcraft
Flying Handbook\Chapter I I-Helicopter Emergencies\Systems Malfunctions\Unanticipated Yaw\Loss
of Tail Rotor Effectiveness states that an unanticipated yaw is the occurrence of an uncommanded yaw
rate that does not subside of its own accord and, which, if not corrected, can result in the loss of
helicopter control. This uncommanded yaw rate is referred to as loss of tail rotor effectiveness (L TE)
and is not related to an equipment or maintenance malfunction and may occur in all single-rotor
helicopters at airspeeds less than 30 knots. It is the result of the tail rotor not providing adequate thrust
to maintain directional control, and is usually caused by either certain wind azimuths (directions) while
hovering, or by an insufficient tail rotor thrust for a given power setting at higher altitudes.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's inadvertent encounter with a loss of tail rotor effectiveness during hover in a crosswind wind.
F11ll_narrative available
Index for Oct2006 I Index of_monJhs
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev id=20061115X01675&key=l 1/22/2008
NYC06LA122
NTSB Identification: NYC06LA122.
.l),vS
Page 1 of 1
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS ). Please contact Records Management
Divisio11
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 28, 2006 in Mattituck, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: I 1/29/2007
Aircraft: Hughes 369HS, registration: N9244F
Injuries: 2 Minor.
While aggressively maneuvering over the shore and ocean, below 100 feet above ground level, the
helicopter experienced a total loss of engine power. The pilot entered an autorotation, and activated the
float system. The helicopter impacted the water in a level attitude, but with enough forward speed to
become submerged and then bounce 15 to 18 feet back into the air. The helicopter impacted the water a
second time, but this time inverted. Both occupants egressed the submerged helicopter, and were
rescued shortly after reaching the surface. A postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed main
rotor blade damage consistent with a loss of power; however examination of the engine and powertrain
were inconclusive.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
A loss of engine power due to undetermined reasons.
Full narrative available
Ind.ex foLM!!y20Q6 I Indexof months
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev _id=20060607X00689&key=l 1/22/2008
ITuabeth Higgins -Re: Heliport -. -··-----·--·····--·-------
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Hi Elizabeth,
Seth Geiser
Higgins, Elizabeth
09/28/2007 9:37:19 AM
Re: Heliport
Here's the info that I was able to find, and I can provide the sourcing if needed:
Helicopter= 80-102 dba, depending on size and design
Seaplane= 65-92 dba
Train= 90-105 dba
Light Traffic 100/t= 50 dba
Motorboat= 82-90 dba
As for personal aircraft, I wasn't able to find much, Most of what I found was either small airplanes or
jetpack ideas that seem unlikely. Here are a couple that might be helpful:
http://www.skywalkervtol.com/
h tip:/ /www. en n. com/2003/TE CH/interneUO 1 / 16/flyin g. machine/index. html
Seth Geiser
City of Renton -Development Services
425-430-7214
•
<~1--)~-0/
u ,~it~ .. ,;
+ ""~,; •. + ..a,£ 'Q _-N r~ Denis Law, Mayor
-c:>F REN"J'ON
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
1.:.:N'f0;)' ------------------------------
March 11 , 2008
Joan Ros ling
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:
By agreement of all parties, the appeal hearing for above referenced matter has been
rescheduled for Tuesday, May 6, 2008. The SEP~ 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,
lt_a1{ cyd71rc-/'lJ
Nancy Thompson
Secretary to Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
cc: Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney
Neil Watts, Developmeni Services Director
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Charles Conner, Owner, Applicant
John Hemplemann, Attorney for Applicant
All Parties of Record
1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057 -(425) 430-6515
~ Tl1is oaoercontains 50% recvdPrl material .10% n=tcnn,:;111nPc
AHEAD OF T!IF. CURVE
•
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,
crrv OF osENTOil!
FEB 2 2 2Q08
RECEiVED
CITY CLERK'S OF!"!CE
;: Z{p /,w ~
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
yo-u for your tim~ and attention to my concerns.
'r!9"'-' .a /'J ... ~
Pegf Galstef-
2907 Mt. View Ave. N.
Renton, Way. 98056.
•
,
'
Bellevue Helicopter Regulatior ·
Pegi Galster
From:
Sent:
To:
MJackson@bellevuewa.gov
Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:34 PM
lumar1992@att.net
Subject: Bellevue Helicopter Regulations
Land Use Code Section 20.20.450 Helicopters.
A Heliports -General Requirements.
Page 1 of3
1. In addition to the decision criteria in LUC ;!0.30B. 140, 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 Regula ·
approach the operation.
10. Touchdown Pads.
Page 2 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.10.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 of this 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 of the 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 Regulatio· 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 ofthis subsection. (Ord. 5683, 6-26-06, § 8; Ord"
5477, 10-20-03, § l; O_nL-5475, 10-20-03, § 6; Ord,'1Q22, 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
Cateoon of Operation
Air Taxi/ Rotorcraft
General Aviation (FAR Commercial External-Load Agricultural
Enoine Type
Year Total Accidents Part 91/103/1291 IFAR Part 135) (FAR Part 133) (FAR Part 1371 Unknown Reciprocating Turbo Shaft• Unknown
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 Operation Number of Accidents
Aerial Aoolication 260
Aerial Observation 100
Business 125
Executive/Corporate 20
Ferrv 31
Instructional 338
Other Work Use 185
Personal 399
Positionino 132
Public Use 227
Unknown 394
Source: NTSB Database
Data as of: February 28, 2002
23
20
16
15
17
10
11
10
11
15
17
165
Public Use
10.3%
19 27 19 132 99 2
9 32 11 122 67 9
12 22 11 116 70 25
17 25 5 94 76 13
16 24 10 100 105 15
11 24 3 84 76 4
15 21 6 77 98 6
15 15 3 82 80 12
13 24 3 103 87 13
12 25 2 80 106 27
8 25 1 81 93 57
147 264 74 1071 957 183
Breakdown of NTSB Helicopter Accidents by Type of Operation
1990 • 2000
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
g;:ash
JXCheck No._J_,_3::........:_9 '-L-6_
Description:
Funds Received From:
Name
Address
City/Zip
D Copy Fee
D Appeal Fee
Receipt 1053
Date
D Notary Service
D _________ _
Amount$ 7:5, 0 {)
me:
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, 2007 DOCKET
PROJECT NllMBER: LUAOB.-004, ECF
LOCATION: THIS IS NOT A SITE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL, BUT THE REGULATION WOULD ONLY
CHANGE FORR.s PROPERTIES WITH FRONTAGE ON LAKE WASHINGTON.
DESCRIPTION: AMEND THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW HELi PADS AS A.N ACCESSORY USE IN THE R-8
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 environmental delenn!n;,.tion must be filed in writing on or bafonl 5:00 PM on February 25, :1008,
Appeals must b<I filed in writing tog~ther with the raquirod Sr~.00 •pplicat!on fee with: Hearing Enmlner, City of
Renlon, 1055 South Grady Way, Rentor. WA 98057. Appaals lo the Examiner are govemad by City of Ranfon
Municipal Code Sadlon 4-6-110.8. Additional informaUon regarding the appul process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clcrk"s Office, (4251 430-651 0
IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND
ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATlOK PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,
STRATEGIC PLANNING DIVISION AT (425) 430-6575.
00 NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification.
CERTIFICATION
, on the 7 't "'-day of~ , n , ~
-
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 POR Letter and ERC Report documents. This information was sent to:
Parties of Record
(Signature of Sender): gj~.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF KING )
Dated: &>-6 -o~
See Attached
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 1 023 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 Box2048 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 147th 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 MeadowAveN 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 510 Seneca Ave NW Renton, WA 98057
Ann & Bernie Moskowitz 8251 South 121st Street Seattle, WA 98178
02/05/2008
Denis Law, Mayor
February 5, 2008
CITY F 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 letter 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 43.21 C.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,
fu~:.W,L,r
Senior Planner
-------l-05_5_S_o_u_th_G_r_ad_y_W_a_y ___ R_e_nt_on-,-W-a-,h-i-ng-to-n-98_0_5_7 ______ ~
@ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer
AHEAD OF THE 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
Helipad 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 nse 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 (footprint):
Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross).
Total Building Area GSF:
NIA
NIA
NIA
---------------
Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issne a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
PART ONE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following enviromnental (SEPA) review addresses only those project
impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environn1cntal 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 hy 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 commcntsfrom 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 arc addressed for clarification.
ERC Report 08-004.doc
City of Renton P!B!PW Departm
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AA~, DMENT, 2007 DOCKET
Report ofFebruaiy 4, 2008
1. Hazardous Materials
Envi. · ta/ Review Committee Staff Report _
LUA08-004, 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. I .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. Pnblic 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 hclipad
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 helipad 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 Departme,.
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMEN ENT, 2007 DOCKET
Report ofFebmary 4, 2008
Enviro, I Review Committee Staff Report
LUAOB-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. 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 ofwatercrafl: 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: I 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" ww,v.nonoise.org!librarylnpreport/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 inunediate 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 lawmnowcfs 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 ofaircrafl:. 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 Kennydalc Hill 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 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 t1ot increase the potential for aviation related noise for neighboring property
owners. Ilowever, the proposal requires that the helipad use be approved by conditional use pemtit. 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 OR-004.doc
City of Renton PIBIPW Departm
HELIPAD ZONING CODE A~_ DMENT, 2007 DOCKET
Report of February 4, 2008
Envi ,ta/ Review Committee 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
noise.
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, 1055 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): (~~t~
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 :Q9
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 39015172"' Avenue SE
Olvmoia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092
WSDOT Northwest Region • Duwamish Tribal Office • Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program •
Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717W 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-3 755 201 S. Jackson St, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box48343
Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Boyd Powers •
Dept. of Natural Resources
PO Box47015
Olvmoia, 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 ofTukwila
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 0 CITY F RENTON
+o~"·""''k f~~. • Economic Development, Neighborhoods and
Strategic Planning
~~N?fo~;,--D-e_n .. i,_L_•w_._M_a~y-o_r ___________________ .;A;;;l ... ex;;.;.P ... ie ... ts ... c ... h .. , A...;.;dm;;;;;;in;;;i;;;st ... r ... at ... o ... r_ ......
February 5, 2008
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 4 7703
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 A111endment, 2007 Docket
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA 08-004, ECF
LOCATION: This is. not a site specific proposal, bnt the regulation would only change
· for R-8 properties·with frontage on Lake Washington.
DESCRJ:PTION: 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 ip writing tog~ther with the required $75.00 application fee
with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the
Examiner are governed by City of Renton Munifipal 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.
'7:2i'i1ZV
Erika Conkling
Senior Planner
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division
WDFW, Stewart Reinbold
David F .. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources
WSDOT, Northwest R,egion
Duwamish Tribal Office
Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance)
Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program
US Army Corp. of Engineers
Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Enclosure
~-----'---------~----------'---------~-.~. N .TON ....
1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98057
@ Th~ p:tpercontains 50% recycled material, 30% pClst consu~r
AUEkD OF THE CURVE
. .
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
LEAD AGENCY:
LUA08-004, ECF
City of Renton
Helipad Zoning Code Amendment, 2007 Docket
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
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 wil.1 not act on this proposal fo[ fourteenc(14) days. · ·
Appeals of th<! environmental dl)lerminaticm rnu!iJbe filed in writinfj on or before 5:.00 PM on February 25, 2008.
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $7!5.00 application ·fee with:.Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98.057. Appeals to the Examiner ace governed by City of Renton Municipal Code
· Section 4-8-110.B, Additional information regarding the appeal process·rYl<!Y be'obtained from the Renton City C.lerk's
Office, (425) 430-6510. ·
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Terry.Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services
February ij, 2P08\c.
J.·'·\>'·'.·'.·
February 4.,. 2008
=---·· •-•-· i/'1-!oi (i)~~ Datel · · I. David Daniels, FireChJ-'
· Ffre Depart t
Date
'21lt/oe
Date \ ..
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICATION NUMBER: LUAOS-004, ECF
APPLICANT: City of Renton
PROJECT NAME: 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
Date
<f?/y/08
Date
~~106
Date I
ERG
REPORT
City o, Renton
Department of Planning / Building / 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: LUAOS-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).
I 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 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.
ERG Report 08-004.doc
City of Renton PIE/PW Departmenl
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENJ
Report of February 4, 2008
1. Hazardous Materials
NT, 1007 DOCKET
Environ · · 'Review Committee Staff Report
LUAOS-004, ECF
Page 2 of 4
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 permanently removed in order to meet
with FAA approval for clear approach to a helipad site, even if the helipad 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 AMEN/
Report of February 4, 2008
NT, 2007 DOCKET
Environ · Review Committee Staff Report
LUAOS-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 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 AME!VL
Report of February 4, 2008
{T, 2007 DOCKET
Environ • Review Committee Staff Report
LUAOB-004, ECF
Page 4 of 4
concerns can be reviewed and mitigated at a project specific level if they are anticipated to be above the
anticipated level ofneighborhood 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
noise.
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, 1055 S. Grady Way,
Renton WA 98057.
ERC Report 08-004.doc
City of on Department of Planning I Building I Publi rks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:
APPLICATION NO: LUAOS-005, ECF
APPLICANT: Citv at Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Commercial Office Residential Zone
Amendment
SITE AREA: CITYWIDE
LOCATION: CITYWIDE
COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 8, 2008
DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 25, 2008
PROJECT MANAGER: Anaie Mathias
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO
JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX
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 More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housina
Air Aesthetics
Water Liaht!Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities .
Animals Trans rtation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
8. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
~ Of/l_Q /U)prvJ~ !Z>~;&!J
We have reviewed this application wdh 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.
••
Wild!. Soc. Bull. 21,171-178, 1993
RESPONSES OF NESTING BALD EAGLES TO
HELICOPTER SURVEYS
JAMES W. WATSON, Wa8hington 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
leucocephalus) 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 prcxluctivity
surveys of bald eagles.
STUDY AREA AND METHODS
I summarized records from the literature reporting
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 1 observer was
present to record productivity information. Surveys were
flown 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 a voiding 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 1:12,000
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 flush). 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 post:B.ush 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, 1 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 197 4:109-114, 139-
142). Additive effects of factors on flwh 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; ;e: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
aircraft distance Encounter
Study ,,,.. (m) n % n % n % locationb
Fraser et al. (1985) FW <200 3,118 93 2 0 230 7 FA.NS
McGarigal et al. (1991) FW <500 26 84 5, 16 FA
Dames and Moore (199l)d FW <915 233 59 162 41 2 I NS
Bowerman (1991) FW <1,000 19 86 3' 14 NS
Grubb and King (1991) FW <2,000 1,541 72 551 26 39 2 NS
P.N.E.S. (1986)'
This study
Dames and Moore ( 1991 )d
Grubb and King (1991)
P.N.E.S. (1986)'
• FW -6x00-wing, H -helicopter.
'' FA -foraging area, NS -nest site.
< Flllllh and alert responses combined.
FW <3,050 143
H <450 128
H <915 0
H <2,000 381
H <3,050 6
88 20' 12 FA
48 45 16 97 36 NS
0 I 100 NS
53 259 36 79 II NS
60 4' 40 FA
'
1 Dames and Moore, BeUingham lot. Airport bald eagle behavior study: 15 through 29 July 1991. Seattle, Wash. Job 00395-005-020. 33pp.
• Paci&c Northwest Envi:roomental Services, Effec~ of jet aircraft activity on bl,,ld eagles in the vicinity of Bellingham Int. Airport. Bellingham, Wash. 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
dose 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 only Flushed
Encounter
distance (m) " % n %
<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 Wild/. 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(%)"
distance
{m) " £R.' " S.R. Incremental Cumulative
<30 0 -1.67 6 +1.56 100 100
30-60 29 -0.87 43 +0.83 60 82
61-90 46 +0.67 42 -0.63 48 67
91-120 30 +1.18 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~). + = disturba:nce rate greater than e!lpected, --disturbance rate less than e11pected.
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 (i = 102 m, SE = 7.7, n =
97) was influenced by 6 factors (Table 5). Ea-
gles flushed at greater distances from the heli-
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 arid level " •.. " • • • C' p,
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 distarice (m).
b Disturbance rate -no. disturbed/no. encountered.
' Log-likelihood statistic, 3-dimeruional model.
I
V
Table 5. Factors influencing the distance at which
nesting bald eagles flushed from helicopters in north-
western Washington, 1989-1991.
Flush dista.nee (m)
KW or MW• Factor
and leveJ n ' 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 10 116 20
>60 18 180 15
Helicopter activity
Move 53 35 3 2.10 (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= Knl.!ikal-Wallistest for3 level variables, MW= Mann-Whitney V
test for 2-]e,.d 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
(x = 16, SE = 3.3, n = 27). Sixty-three percent
of these birds flushed after 10 seconds.
Postflush behavior varied with encounter
distance (x' = 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 hack 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. Postilush behaviors of bald eagles in response to helicopter surveys in northwestern Washington, 1989-
1991.
Circle or soar Evade Attack To 11est
E11oou11ter
distance (m) n S.R.• S.R. n S.R. n S.R.
<60 20 + 1.29 4 -0.66 I -1.76 2 -0.71
60-120 20 -0.70 14 + 1.80 5 +0.09 3 -0.97
>120 14 -0.41 2 -J.58 5 +0.01 7 +!.87
• Standardized residuals (observed -expected/expected~), + = behaVWI' more frequent than expecteJ, -= 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 (Pandlon ha/iaetus)
in Idaho usually flushed within 50 m of heli-
copters.
Interpretation of disturbance rates and Hush
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 Hedged/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
he conducted with the least impacts on eagles
and should maximize observer safety by main-
taining flight approach distances of ~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 ~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 ~ 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.
LITERATURE 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. 0., 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. 0LENDORFF. 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. Wildl. 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., JR., AND J. G. KING. 1982. Bald eagle
(Alaska). Pages 5lh51 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 population 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.
lsAAo;, F. B., R. G. ANTHONY, AND R. J. ANDERSON.
1983. 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. Wildl. 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. POSTUPALSKY,
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. Rapto, Res. 25'49-62.
---, AND s. K. SHERROD. 1973. Advantages and
disadvantages of the use of rotor-winged aircraft
in rapt or surveys. Raptor Res. 7 :97-104.
ZAR, J. H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 620pp.
Received 17 July 1992.
Accepted 11 December 1992.
Associate Editor: Flather.
I
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircrat"l Ovc1tlights on the Nmional Park .. Page [ uf 43
CHAPTERS
EFFECTS OF OVERFLIGHTS ON \VILDLIFE
5.1 Introduction
In 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 concern to wildlife managers responsible for protecting populations,
and to private citizens who feel it is unwise and/or inappropriate to disturb
wildlife. Two types of overflight activities have drawn the most attention with
regard to their impacts on wildlife: 1) 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 flights over wild animals may
cause physiological and/or 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 rn
overflights could interfere with 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, f'e\V studies have addressed the indirect consequences. Such
consequences may or may not occur, and may be detectable only through
long-tenn studies.
http:/ i ww w .uunu i sc. u rg/Jibrary inpreport/chapt cr5 _ htm 0 l .'25. 2008
'.\'PC Libraty: Chapter 5 of Repmt on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the J\iational 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 aircraf\(Burger 1985, Dolbeer et al. 1993); flushing of birds
from nests or feeding areas (Owens 1977, Kushlan 1979, Bnrger 1981,
Anderson and Rongstad 1989, Belanger and Berad 1989, Cook and Anderson
1990); alteration in movement and activity patterns of mountain sheep (Bleich
et 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 mature1 "l it is possible to draw the conclusion that
impacts to wildlife populations arc occurring from low level aircraft
overflights. This assertion is supported by numerous studies incloding the
following:
1. 50 CFR Part 17.3
P1~evious Ch,mter
Top_of Chapter 5
T.able ... of Contents
Return to N_fC Librau
Retun1 to NPC HQmePag_c
5.1
• ( decreased calf survival of woodland caribou (Harrington and Veitch
]mp:.:/ w w w .nunu ise. org/1 ibrary inprcport/ chapter5 .htm 0 l/25/2008
NPC Librmy: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park Page 3 of43
1992)
• disturbance to wintering snow geese documents the effects on
staging/wintering subgroup (Belanger and Beard 1989)
• 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
"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 sonnd 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 formally 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. nono ise.org/library /nprep01t1chapter5 .htm 01!25!2008
NPC: L1bra1y: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ove1f1ights on 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 et 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 showu that stress induced by other types of disturbance produces
long-term, deleterious effects on the metabolism and hormone 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.nonoisc.org/libra1y/nprepo11/chapter5.htJn 01125120-08
•
NP(· Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overl1ight.s 011 tht' NLJ.Lional Park ... Page 5 of43
1979). Hearing 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 not such responses cause hann
is unknown. Effects may be synergistic, as when combined with
natural events such as har.-:h vvinters or water shortages.
5.3 Behavioral Responses to Aircraft Overflights
Behavioral responses of wild animals to overflights nearly always 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 are more likely to respond in a certain manner than are
others. However, even within a species, individual animals vary. Documented
variations betv,/een individuals may be due to differences in temperament, sex,
age, prior experience with aircraft, or other factors. For these reasons,
anecdotal information about one animal's response to an overflight is not
useful for drawing conclusions for that or any other species. Often. animals
exhibit very subtle and seemingly minor behavioral responses to ovcrllights.
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 shmv 11 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).
Vlhen 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
reports1 mostly from national wildlife refuges, of waterbirds flying, diving or
swimming away from aircraft (e.g. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). This
is apparently a widespread and common response. Bird flight responses are
usually abrupt, and whole colonies of birds often flush together. Disturbed
http:// \VWW. nonoi se. orgilibraryinpreport/ chapters .htm 01,25:2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 ofRepott on Effect-; of Aircraft Overfllghts on the National Park ... Page 6 of 43
mammals will run a\.vay from overflight paths. Table I lists behavioral
responses to overflights that have been documented during studies and
incidental observations.
l"op_ cif Chapter:..)
Tahlc <!!." Contrn1ts
Return to NPC' Library
Return to Nl'C Home Page
5.3
This table was gen~'rated from a review of puhlished literature on the subject.
Reports varied widely in how information was gathered. Aircraft 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 1 illustrates, only a handful of the thousands of animal species in the
United States have been studied for their responses to overflights. Also, a
disproportionate number of studies have concentrated on ungulates such as
caribou and bighorn sheep. Carnivorous mammals have been virtually
ignored, as have marine mammals, small mammals, and bats. Birds are 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
distrihution of species representation is likely a result of two factors: I)
researchers acknowledge that some species are more susceptible to harm than
are others, and have allocated efforts accordingly; and 2) some animals are
easier to study than others.
Generally, fish have not been considered at risk from aircraft disturbance.
Because most fish and other aquatic organisms live entirely below the surface
of the wakr, 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 water, on shore. Data on behavioral responses
of marine mammals to aircraft: overflights are scarce. However, a study at
http: //www _ nonoise. org/1 ibratyinpreport/ chapter5 .htm Ol/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ove1i1ights 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 et al. 1987). 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 information 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 aircrafl overflights described above are direct, or
immediate, responses. Biologists and others are concerned that indirect effects
of these responses may have harmful 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 effects, such as habitat
avoidance, have been detected (e.g. McCourt et al. 1974, Schweinsburg
1974b, Krausman et al. 1986). Large-scale consequences such as pennanent
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/library/nprepmt/ chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park ... Page 8 of 43
Jable of Contents
Return to NPC Library
Return to NPC HQm~J'ii_g_e
Table 5.1. General responses hy specific animal species to aircraft overflights
~!Response IIAir-.z I Flig~t Reference
craft Alt. le=a====9'--=======-'L=---"=====~
Large
Mammals
Pronghorn Accelerated heart rate EJ 500 Workman et al.
1992a
Run short distance J 5000
I Bolt and mn H 100
No response H 150-400 Luz & Smith
1976
Stop feeding, tense
muscles
Run
~ No response. /M11[ <3000111.amp 1989 I
l____J Mmor behavwr changes l__J . ,
Bighorn Accelerated Heart rate E I 5000 Workman et al.
Sheep 1992b
W 100
H 100
Decreased food intake H --Stockwell et. al.
while feeding 1979
(interruption)
Take more steps while
http://www.nonoise.org/libra1y/npreport/chapter5.htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircroft Ovclilights on the National Park .. Page 9 of 4J NPC Ltbrmy Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa .. Page lO of43
]feeding II I 'L
No response
1EJ
1640-Mac Arthur et al.
4920 11979
Accelerated heart rate I
490-660 I Run
No response [] ''~!Fm' '9SO Minor behavior changes
Leave area
ILeave area IDI 160-650IIBieich et al.
11990
INo response FW 100-990 Krausman &
Hervert 1983
Interrupt nomrnl
activities
i
' Run< 330 feet
I
Run .62-1.2 miles
IRun > l mile
IDD
Horejsi 1975 I
I
Kiger 1970 I,
Desert Mule No movement oc-1 Krausman et al.
Deer 1986 I
Move< .6 mile to new
habitat
C Accelerated heart rate LJ 5000 Workman et al.
1992c
100-500
Congregate together LJD McCullough ' I
1969 I
Watch aircrafl II ]Run;,;;; IIH I --JHorejsi. 1975 I
Mountain II React "adversely'' nn Ballard 1975
Goat
I
]]May abandon areas II I
jRun away IIH I --jHorejsi 1975 I
Are "terrified"
DD
Chandwick 1973
Vay abandon areas
Dall Sheep No response [J[ Nichols 1972
Get "excited!!
Do not abandon habitat r=--, EJLl Feist et al. 1974
Schweinsburg
1974a
Alann behavior
LJD
Linderman 1972
Crowd together --
!React nseverely" IIH I --JAndersen 1971 I
Gray Wolf Initially fright response, LJD Burkholder 1959
(scatter, run), later
accept
Grizz I y Bear !Run
ILJD
Harding & Nagy
:Hide
1976
11 Mild 11 behavior [L1 Ruttan 1974
' response
I
Run away
Run in "panic" [T J Pearson 1975
Hide (may associate
aircraft with capture)
Interrupt activity, leave EJ >1000 McCourt et al.
area 1974a
200-500
Rilll towards cover
.
Klein 1973
200-500
http: / www.nonoise.org/1 ibrary/nprep01t1 chapters. htm 0 l/25-'2008 http: ., :www. nonoise. orgilibrmy /npreporV chapters. htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ovciflights on the National Pa... Page 11 of 43 NPC Ltbra1y: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 12 of 43
!Bison IIN o reseonse IIMJ II --IIF razi er 1 972 I
No response DD Fancy 1982
Run 1 mile
Run 5 miles
IRemdeer I Crowd together, panic LJ~ Ericson 1972
<100
!Runaway IEJD Slaney & Co.
Ltd. 1974
L] Move short distance DD Bergerud 1963
Rarely leave area
No response
1:w I
200-500 Klein 1973
Panic, flee 200-500
Walk, trot, gallop away m Gunn et al. 1985
Momentarily stop
feeding
LJ Minor changes in [J <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 ll~D Harrington &
Veitch 1992
Panic and escape (]~ 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
11:w II :::1
Calef et al. 197 6 Walrus aircraft
Shift body position
Brief startle response MJ 100-500 Harrington &
Veitch 1973
Run for 8-27 seconds H I 00-500
No effect on daily
activity
No effect on distances
traveled
Leave rocks, enter ocean
Harbor Seal, Leave rocks, enter ocean DL00 Speich et al.
1987
Northern Sea
Lion
IRaptors I
Bald Eagle* No response H --White & Sherrod
Mothers and calves not DD Miller &
separated Broughton 1973
IRun away from area IEJD Valkenburg &
I Davis 1985
I II II
1973
Golden Eagle Panic, frantic escape
Peregrine No effect on raising
Falcon young
http://www.nonoise.org/libra1y/npreport/chapter5.htm 01/25/2008 http://www.nonoisc.org/library /nprepo1t/ chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overllights on the National Pa .. Page 13 of43
Gyrfalcon I
Rough-legged I
Hawk
Peregrine
Falcon*
11 Minimal response 1
'
Alarm behavior
Coopers Hawk
"Fly from perch or nest
Common II Black Hawk No effect on raising
Harris' Hawk
Zone-tailed
Hawk
Red-tailed
Hawk
Golden Eagle
Prairie falcon
young
LJ I
MJ II <980ljEllis et al. 1991
i
I
'
i
I
!Osprey I No effect on raising DD-, Canie1: &
I young . Melqmst 1976
Rarely leave nest :.·[JW c-lPoole 1989
No effect on raising i H --
young I
Northern INo response !MJio-Jackson et al.
!Harrier L_J_"_ 1977. I
Peregnne No response D[ <20001 Ritchie 1987
Falcon
11 Se'vere'1 response
'r1,;;,;,;;m n, .. ,, I" "' .... 1 ----
Alert behavior
http:// www . nono i sc. org/li hrnry / npn: po 1i/c hapter 5 . !nm
I
'
'.>UU-,JP latt 1975
1000:
Platt and Tull
soo-111977
(J],"2.'i.'2001'5
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 14 of 43
'I No nest abandonment 1000
11
!I No effect on daily
activity patterns
May avoid returning to
breed in following years
Prairie Falcon IF!ush from perches
IIDD
Craig & Craig
1984
Red tailed No response DD Craig & Craig
Hawk 1984
Flush from oerches
Golden Eagle INo response
IDD
Craig & Craig
1984
Fe1ruginous INo response
IEJ[:j
White &
Hawk Thurlow 1985
Red-tailed Flush from nests [C Anderson et al.
Hawk 1989
No effect on raising
young
!Waterbirds I
Brant No response FW 0-500 Ward & Stehn
1989
Emperor Alert behavior 1-1 1-500
Geese
Flight
Canada Geese
Oldsquaw*_ Swim away nc Ward& Sharp
1974
Surf Senter Dive into water
No response
Oldsquaw* Escape H I 00-750 Gollop et al.
1974a
Surf Seater Alert behavior
Dive into \Vat er
http:,';' ww w .nono ise. org:'1 ibrary/npreport/chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Rep011 on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 15 of 43 NPC Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa... Page 16 of 43
Flock together LJ J Change activity budgets
(resting, feeding,
sleeping)
l _J"'=•, El<J Owens 1977
Widespread 11 panic 11
Lost feeding time
Migrating No reaction D~J Lamp 1989
ducks*
Minor behavior changes
(various
species) Flush from lakes
Ducks and Fly away FW --Schweinsburg
geese~ 1974a
Swim away
Brant* Flushmg from nests D 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
Tufted Puffin* No response MJ >500 Speich et al.
1987
Abandon some lakes for
Brant Wing-flapping MJ <500
>4 days
Canada goose Arouse from sleep m Lamp 1989
Alert behavior
Call
Double-Flush from perches
crested
Cormorant Abrupt departure of area
Common
Murre
Trupeter Swan Stop activity; head up m Henson & Grant
2000 1991
Flush from nests 1-l
C
Seek cover in tall D ,~,oo Shandruk &
vegetation McCormick
500 1989
Cygnets crowd together
Snail Kite No response DD Snyder et al.
1978
Watch aircraft
~ Panic and escape area
1:w II <(gg~11Henry 1980
I
Glaucous Gull
l'M>T= May disrupt breeding LJ super-Austin et al.
some 1970
May cause hatching
failure
Crested Tern Scan sky [Jj Brown 1990
1000
Alert behavior
Startle and escape
White Pelican Stampede, panic DD Bunnell et al.
1981
Eggs lost, abandoned,
eaten
II II II II
http: ii ww w. nonoi se. org/l ihrary /nprep011/chapt er5. htm 01/25/2008 http:// ww w .nonoise. org/library/npreport/ chapter5 .htm 0 l/25/2008
NPC Library. Chapter 5 of Report on Effei.:ts of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa Page 17 of43
!Herring Gui I I o effect on breeding
I No response
Flush from nests
Eggs broken, lost, eaten
Canle Egret* IINo effect on colony
establishment
Double-
crested IINo effect on colony size
Comorant
No effect on nesting
Great Blue llbehavior
Heron
Great Egret
·1No effect on breeding
I success
White Ibis
LJLJBurger 1981
D super-
some
MJ <500IIB1ack et al. 198411
Oldsquaw* I rlush up and away fi-om IIH
lake
--11Christiansen &
Yonge 1979
Scaup species
Redhead
Canvasback
Snow Goose IIRaise head
Crowd together, call
Stop feed
Fly away ( return in 5
min.)
FW
H
--11Davis & wisely
1974
INo response IIMJ ]] <3000]ILamp 1989
Minor behavior changes
Flush, circle over, depart
or land a_g_ain
hup:., / www _ nun ui:; e. org/l i brary /npreport/ chapt er5 .hlm
I ----,I
0 li25/2008
~PC Library: Chapter 5 of Repm1 on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 18 of 43
!]Leave lake area l]FW 11 9s-9soollspind1er 19s3 I
IFlush from lakes
11:JI ;ggol Salter & Davis
1994
Kittiwake* Stay on nest (no r1J Dunnell 1977
response)
Northern
Fulmar
Brunnich's No response [J 0.5-3 Fjeld et al. 1988
Guillemot* miles
Flush from nests distant
Kittiwake
No egg or chick losses
Snow Goose*_ Flush H --Edwards et al.
1979
Canada Goose
Purple
Gallinule
Northern
Pintail
American
Coot
Pacific Eider Eo response IDD Johnson et al.
1987
Great Egret* Flush fi-om nest, return FWH 395 Kushlan 1979
<5 minutes
Snowy Egret
Louisiana
No response
Heron
]Songbirds I
Lapland No avoidance of nest rn Gollop et al.
Longspur sites 1972
Nestlings died
http: ii w w w .nonuise.org/library/npreport/chapter5 .htm Ol.125/2008
NPC Lihra1y: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overtl1ghcs on the National Pa.. Page 19 of43
loame birds I I II I
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
5.5-5.ll
Iop of1,l)apterj_
Table of('ontents
Return to_NPC_Library
Return_t9 NPC ):lonw.l',ig_~
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. org/1 ibrary /npreport/chapter5. htm 0 l/2512008
NPC Librnry: Chapter 5 of Repo1i on Effects of Aircraft Overtlights on the National 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), at 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 adults 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.nonoise.org/libraiy/npreport/chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NP(' Librmy Chapter 5 of R.cprnt on Effects of Aircraft Ovciilights on th~ National Pa. J\ige 2 l of 43
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, whether the exposed nests arc 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 hirds flush from nests
Jop_Qf Ch<iptcr. _5
Tabl_c of Contents
[{ct11rn to '-Jl'C: Library
Rctµ.n.1. _to "N".PC H()lrn.~ .Pa_ge
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, connorants, and murres, for example, kick eggs from nests v.rhen they
tlush during disturbance, and eggs are lost, broken or eaten by predators.
These events have been documented to occur on several national wildlife
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 overflights 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, 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, snowy 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://www. 110110 ise. org/l ihrary/nprcpmt/ chapter) .htm 01/25/2008
NPC I.ihrary: Chapter 5 of Rcpmi on Effects of Aircraft Ove1flights on the National Pa Page 22 of43
not knovm whether 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, however, suggests that supersonic overflights might cause large-scale
losses. In 1969 low-altitude supersonic aircraft overflights of the Dry Tortugas
dming the nesting season were suspected to cause a massive hatching failure
for sooty terns (Austin et 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
overflights 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 left the area after repeated
overflights by a military helicopter (Gladdys 1983). On the other hand, once
eggs are 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. Although 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.
lop of(,_'hapte_r-5
IabJe .. o.fCom,n1s
ll,et~m to NPCLibrarv
Return to NPC Home.Page
5.4.3 Energy Losses
5.13
Panic reactions and escape responses to overflights can be energetically
http: iiwww.nonoise.org/library /npreportichapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Rep01t on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 23 of 43
11 expensive1t 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 \Vhen 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 are 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 are 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 l 989a,b), the otherused 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://www.nonoise.org/libmry/nprepmt/ chapter5. htm Ol/25/2008
NPC Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overtlights 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).
5.14
Top ofC:hapter 5
Table of Contents
Return to NP( Librm:y
Return to NPC Home Page
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 1991 ), and one found that they did
http://www.nonoise.org/library /nprcpo1t/ chapter5 .hbn 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Rep011 011 Effects of Aircraft Ovcitlights on the National Pa.. Page 25 of 43
(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 were infrequent.
It is not knov..'n ho\v many other species avoid areas used by aircraft.
\Vaterfowl biologists and national wildlife refuge managers have expresst:d
concern about how waterfowl use of open water and emergent wetland
habitats is disrupted 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 retm11 to ambient. On the other hand, several
refuges have reported that some waterfowl species have been completely
driven off by frequent aircraft activity. Belanger and Bedard's (l 989a.b) study
on snow geese energetics and disturbance showed a significant drop --50
percent in the number of geese using feeding grounds on days follov .. --ing
aircraft disturbance. \Vaterfc)\vl using lakes in Canada were displaced for
several <lays \vhen disturbed by light aircraft overflights (Schwcinshurg et al.
1974b). \\'intering sandhill cranes leave feeding and loafing areas (resting
areas) for extended periods \Vhen low-altitude overflighLs take place over
Cibola and Imperial Wildlife Refuges (USFWS 1993). Wood storks may also
abandon habitat in response to overflights (USF\VS 1993 ). Observations by
refuge h-iologists suggest that the endangered Palila Bird in Hawaii
underutilizes a sizable portion of its critical habitat hecausc of low-altitude
milita1y 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.
Vv'ildlifo refuge and national park managers are also concerned because game
animals are sometimes chased from parks and refuges into areas where they
may be hunted. This has been documented in several refuges and one national
park 4 (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 are sensitive 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: iiwww .nono ise. orglJibrary/nprepurtichapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Report 011 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.
Top of Chapter 5
Teble o_r Contents
Re_tum_to_NPC.Librarv
Return tQ ]\l'C 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
<lam aged aircraft. Military aircraft arc most vulnerable 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, snch 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.
http :ii www.nonoise.org1 library/nprepmt/chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Rcp01t on Effects of Aircraft Ove1tlights 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 Stimulus
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 aircraft. A farther 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
bTfeatly 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 identified 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). It is unlikely that one overflight altitude exists
that is sufficient for avoiding disturbance to all animals while not necessarily
imposing undue restrictlons on pilots. For instance, a 5,000 foot minimum
altitude may avoid disturbance to all species, but may not
http://www.nono i sc. org/libratyinprcport/ chapter5. htm 01/25/2008
NPC Libraty: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 28 of 43
Top of Chapter 5
Table of Contents
R5;:tllmt0Nl'C Library
Return 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://www.nonoise.org/library /npreport/ chapter5. htm 0 t/2512008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 ofRepott on Effects of Aircran Ovelilights on the National Pa. Page 29 of43
that greater percentages ofbrant 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 ground level (AGL),
while light, fixed-wing aircrafl could pass over at 500 feet AGL before
generating a similar response (Gollop et al. 1974b ). In addition to their engine
and 11 rotor-wash11 sound, helicopter flight patterns may contribute to
disturbance. Brant (Henry 1980), reindeer (Ericson 1972), caribou (Calef and
Lortie 1973, Miller and Gunn 1977), pronghorn, elk, bighorn sheep
(Workman ct al. 1992a, 1992b, 1992c), and Dall sheep (Andersen 1971) all
have been documented to show a more extreme panic response when
helicopters fly 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
In 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 v ... ,ith those that were naive. In
Top ot Chapter )
Tableor Co11te111s
Return to NPC Library
Return to NPC Ht,me Page
5.17
many cases, experienced animals \Vere more tolerant of aircraft, shO\ving less
extreme responses than naive animals.
http: , / www _ non oise. org/! i brnry /nprepm1/ chapter5 .htm CJ L'25, 2008
NPC Libra1y: Chapter 5 ofRepoit on Effects of Aircraii Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 30 of 43
For animals to become desensitized to sound, 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 support the idea that animals'
tolerances of aircraft overflights increase with exposure, even when
overflights have been frequent. For example, bran!, 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).
Conclusion 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, but not among all species.
http: :: www .110110 ise .org / libra1y/ nprepo1v' chapter5 .htm 0 l/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 ofRepo1t on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 3 l of 43
5.6 Biotic Factors that Influence 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 to 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.Qp of Chapter 5
Table of Contents
Retul1]\o NPC Librarv
Rel:J!m..to .. NPC .. Homc.Pa_ge
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: i /ww w .nonoi se. org/ library :n prepmt/ chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: 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 permanent 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 canse them. It is very difficult to quantify
small decreases in the snrvivorship 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/libr.uy/npreport/chapter5 .htm 01/2512008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Eft\'cts of Aircraft Overflights on tlic National Pa. Page 33 of43
Top of Chapter 5
Table of Contents
Return to NPC Library
Return to NPC llome Page
5.19
Figure 5.1 Animal Responses to Low-Altitude Aircraft Overflights
5.20
Top ofChanlIT_;i
Jal>le of Cm11ents
Return to NPC Library
Return toNPCHome i';\g~
ar!ltude
t
hortror.tol ~ca
11ight mJQuenei,,
~lgh!~Hd
,i1g11 p(71etf1
.-...... -,-
"~
~
hnp:., / www nuno i sc. org/1 ihrary/nprcpmt/ cha pr cr5 .htm
lerrQln fypD
""""" hcbltot fl;IQNl"Qi
Oli25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 ofRepoit on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 34 of 43
Figure 5.2 External Factors that Influence Animal Responses to Overflights
T,,p of Ch,rpWr 5
Table of Contents
Return to NPC Librm:y
Return to NPC Home Page
5.21
Long-tern1 effects are difficult to detect also because they may occur
infrequently. This is due, in part, to the fact that most studies are short-term,
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-term effects.
Many biologists have published reports on the effects of the use of aircraft to
survey animals. In most cases, overflights do no harm (Carrier and Melquist
1976, Kushlan 1979) because normal 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
determined, 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 harm.
5.8 Overflight Impacts on Endangered Species
There are 98 species on national park lands that have been identified as
http: ii www .nonoise.orgilibrn1y/nprepurt/chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Libraiy: Chapter 5 of Rep011 on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the J\ational Pa.. Page 35 of 43
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 information 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 harm.
However, observations do indicate that some species are susceptible to
disturbance and subsequent harm. The grizzly bear, for example, has been
noted to panic and flee areas from overflights in nearly all cases where they
have been observed (see 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
s 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 further habitat loss to these species, since they cannot
simply "relocate".
5. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Olympic National
Park, to Acting Associate Director, Operations, National Park Service.
Top of Chapter 5
Table of Contents
Ret\!rn to NPC Library
Return to NPC Home Page
5.22
http://www.nonoise.org/library /nprepo11/chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Llbra1y: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ove1flights 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 courts. 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
is occuning.
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 of long-term 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://www.nonoise.org/library/nprepo1t/chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library Chapter 5 of Repo1t on l:'.ffecls of Aircn1h Overflights on the :\at1onal Pa . Page 3 7 of 43
and energy budgets of animals have not been identified. forest birds at this
park also stop calling or Oee from local habitat, as noted by biologists
monitoring songbird behavior. Biologists speculate that bird beha,·ior is
modified because their calls are interrupted, hence territories 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 other.vise use because of overflights by military
jets and helicopters. 7 Similar impacts to raptors have b<;en reported from
Glacier National Park. There, overflights are suspected of disrnpting nesting
and foraging activities of hald eagles, golden eagles and falcons. Biologists
arc concc>rncd about possible
6. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park, to Acting Associate Director, National Park Service.
7. Pers. comm., Robert McDaniel, Superintendent, Congaree Swamp National
Monument, to D. Gladwin, Stema Fuscata Inc. 1994.
Top of Chslpl.er .5
T~b!e .. o.fContrnt,
Return to NP_CLibraJ"y
Retumto NPC Home Page
5.23
impacts to raptorn that use corridors through the park for migration.~ Colonial
seabirds have been seen flushing in response to overflights in Olympic
National Park as well.9 Other birds that may suffer harm 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.nonoise.org/library/nprepoti/chapter5 htm QJ.'25i2008
'\PC Library Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 38 of 43
grizzly bears observed in remote areas of Glacier National Park showed a
11 strong11 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 are 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
arc likely, as animals are chronically interrupted from important life-
maintenance activities.
Several efforts to solve disturbance problems have been initiated by park
personnel in recent years. Monitoring low-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 lo address problems themselves or to offer mitigation strategies. At
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, staff have been negotiating a voluntary
agreement with 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.
http://www.nonoise.org/library/nprep01t/ chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ovcrtlights 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.
Top of Chapter 5
Table of Contents
Ret11rn .. to_NPC.Library
Return to NPC Horn<;J''U,e
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 he inferred.
5.10 Development oflmpact 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. (1991) 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 Jiwww . nonoise. org/librmy/nprc:poit/ chapter5 . htm 01/25/2008
NPC Librnry: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overtlights 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 altimde,
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 conununities 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 determining 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 ..
Tor of Chapter 5
Table of Contents
5.25
http:// www.nonoise.org/libra1)' /npreport/ chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chap,cr 5 of Report on FffCcts of Aircraft Ovedlights on the National Pa. Page 41 of 43
Return to NPC Library
Return to NPC){ome Pa_g,c,
Low impacts
• Non-breeding animals of concern are present in low numbers.
• Hahitat is not critical for survival and not limited to the area targeted for
overCTight 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 without interference with
feeding, reproduction, or other activities necessa1y for survival.
• No serious concerns arc expressed by state or federal fish and wildlife
officials.
A1oderate impacts
• Breeding animals of concen1 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 with activities necessary to survival are
expected on an occasional basis.
• Mortality and interference are not expected to threaten the continued
existence of the species in the area. State and federnl officials express
some concen1.
High impacts
• Breeding individuals are present in relatively high numbers, and/or
animals are present during particularly vulnerable life-stages.
• Ilabitat targeted for overflights has a history of use by the species during
critical periods, an<l this habitat is somewhat limited to the area targeted
for overflight use; animals cannot go else\vhere to avoid impacts (animals
can rarely 11 relocate11 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 smvival of the species.
• State and federal wildlife 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 i se. org/1 ibra1y/nprep011/chapter5 .htm 0 I -'25:2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overt1ights on the National Pa.. Page 42 of 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 NI'S 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 NI'S use the levels of impact listed to "trigger"
actions to eliminate or reduce such impacts. In general, the NI'S would regard
situations consistent with "low impacts'1 to warrant monitoring, while
situations that represent 11 moderate impacts 11 or 11 high impacts" would require
pursuit of solutions.
5.11 Summary
A wide range of impacts (disturbances) to wildlife due to aircraft overflights
have been reported in the literature. There are many reports of behavioral
responses in animals, these responses are highly variable depending on the
type of study, the species under consideration, spatial and temporal
parameters, and other broad ecosystem characteristics.
Top of Chapter 5
Table of Contents
Return. t.o..N!'C Library
Retun1 __ to__NPC .Home Page
5.26
Indirect effects on wildlife such as accidental injury, energy 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 are still needed to better assist land managers in
substantiating the effects on population subgroups.
htt11: ii www _ nonoisc. o rg/library/nprepo1Vd1apter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library·: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Oveitlights on the National Pa.. Page 43 of 43
It is certain that some impacts do occur under certain circumstancet:. 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.
Next Cl.llipter
Top of Chapter 5
Table of Content_s_
5.27
NPC Library Law Library N0ise News Hearing Resources Quietnet Search Ask Us Support
http: //www .nonolse. org/libra1y /nprepo,t/ chapter 5 .htm ()]/25/2008
~a Conkling =~007-Docket:Helipad Zc, 1 C:ode Am"endment-LUA08-004, ECF, Nr'' .; of Application and Proposed De@egin:11 I
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-LUAOB-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
[Enka Conkling -RE: Plan~ing Commissio p~t Re9arding LUA 08-004ECF a11d_ MDN"·-~-------~---
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Thanks Erika,
CFC <cfc@connerhomes.com>
'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 MDNS
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>
------~Page 1J
•
Erika Conkling -Planning Commission input Regarding LUA 08-
004ECF and MONS
Page 1 of7
---------------------------
From: CFC <cfc@connerhomes.com>
To: 'Erika Conkling' <EConkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 01/30/2008 1 :00 PM
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}OOOOl.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/eis 121896.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:
http://www.faa.gov/abouUoffi<;:e 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} 00001.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:
• 110 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} 0000 l .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} 0000 l.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 7 of7
Renton Wa. 98056
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI .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\GW} 00001.HTM 01/30/2008
Erika Conkling
Senior Planner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Wa 98057
IECEIVED
Larry Fisher JAN 3 O zoof anuary 28, 2008
Department of Fish and Wildlife
1775 12th 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 10, 2008 which lists NIA 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 43.21C) 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 of Fish and Game.
During this same public meeting, the neighbors of the current violator named many instances where
eagl,es, h~rons, and king fishers are seen. This means that in their own words they live in a eagle habitat.. ---
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
1~
Tom Rosling
1023 N34th Street
Renton Wa.
98056
Subj:
Date:
From:
To:
heliports
1/29/2008 12:47:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
Jfrosling
EConkling@ci.renton.wa.us
!'age I or 1
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 C~t know that he was building a heliport at
that time. So these reports and assessments were circu~b/ Mr Conner by his non disclosure of this
facility. I strongly request that these repo~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!! 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
""' K<mayda> "'"hbo•ood '""""""'" Yoora Trulv '°'" '"°"'"" q--~ ~
Start the year off right. Easy ways to sta_y in shape in the new year.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 America Online: Jfrosling
I
January 30, 2008
Land use number LUAOS-004, ECF
Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
Ms. Erica Conkling:
JAN 3 0 2008
City of Renton
economic Development,
Neighborhoods & Strategic Plannlng
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?
•• 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 Jive 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 of737'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% of my 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' self...Ahead of the Curve. I simply request that due diligence be given
to the above concerns before issuing your determination.
Than}.s1for your consideration ofmy concerns:
·< p/ . / ~-? -, '-. ?~ 7 ..,. ' 'i<--c cZ..,, . f "-
Pegi Galste
• 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 R8 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}OOOO!.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} 0000 l .HTM 01/29/2008
City of. ,_ ... on Department of Planning I Building I Public .. _rks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPL I CA TION1,RE'IIFI/Y.. SHEET
i! --·-. ---
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1=,N., COMMENTS DUE: JANUA~y·i ,,;, \.. ·"J L;; u·
APPLICATION NO: LUAOB-004 DATE CIRCULATED: JANUA~Y 1k 200& •..
I
' ·~ w "" ' b 2008 APPLICANT: Citv of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika '.onklimn
I ;
PROJECT TITLE: Helioad Zonina Code Amendment ,,,,\. _____
SITE AREA: N/A PLEASE RETUR 1 1 ccv1eW SFIEfe'fTo -·--..
' \ I
r
LOCATION: R-8 ZONE WHERE IT ABUTS LAKE JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOciR.SOC--'
WASHINGTON
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Allow helipads as an accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an
Administrative Conditional Use Penmit.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Element of the
Environment
Earth Housinn
Air Aesthetics
Water Uaht!Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use utilffies
Animals Trans""'riation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/
Natural Resources
Historic/Cultural
PreseNalion
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
?l,-,,;s~ ;.2....,~;_.;
;:; ,,., e: v,, /11
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
Probable Probable More
Minor Major lnfonnatlon
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
I
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 ofa
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:\ctty memos\[ua08-004 helipad zoning code ammcndmcnt.doc
City of on Department of Planning I Building I Publi rks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REv1Ew1NG DEPARTMENT, POnl!i ~
APPLICATION NO: LUAOB-004
APPLICANT: Citv of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Heliaad Zonina 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
i "" '.· " r,.: '~
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW S~~§tJgvlSION
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 Mora
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housin,.,
Air Aesthetics
Water LiahVG/are
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transnorlation
Environmental Health Public SeNices
Energy! Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
~OIJE:
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
\-} ev-..e..__..
We have reviewed this application with parlicular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where adddional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. ~ q ~
----"Dat~4-=-'-l-j ~---
City of, m Deparlment of Planning I Building I Pub/Jc ks
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 Conklinq
PROJECT TITLE: Helioad Zoninq 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
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major lnfonnation
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housinn
Air Aesthetics
Water Lioht!Gfare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transrlortation
Environmental Health Public SeNices
Energy/ Histodc/Cuftura/
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
~ ~ /JOA/Y77pu:-io ±J IM/0
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
~ CvU<--tUJ d"VnfJadS 13 e [,a
We have reviewed this applicalion with parlicufar 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.
~d&«d
Signature of Director or Authbrized Representative Date fl
DATE:
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION
OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
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 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.
r:omments 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 98051, 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 !ike 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
I
City of on Department of Planning I Building I Pubh rks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:
APPLICATION NO: LUAOB-004
APPLICANT: Ci of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Code Amendment
SITE AREA: Ni A
LOCATION: R-8 ZONE WHERE IT ABUTS LAKE
WASHINGTON
COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 30, 2008
DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, 2008
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Allow helipads as an accessory to resident,a
Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable
Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major
Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts
Earth Housina
Air Aesthetics
Water Liqht!Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transoortation
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
More
Information
Necessary
We have reviewed this application with part.icular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where ad "tio I information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
r-11-of'
Date
City of ton Department of Planning I Building I Pub/ rks
EN VI R O NM EN TA L & D E V EL OP MEN T A PPL I CA TI O N RE VIE W SHE E T
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Trµ~~ .
APPLICATION NO: LUAOS-004
APPLICANT: Citv of Renton
PROJECT TITLE: Helioad Zonina 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 JAN 1.
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW slf~e1'1CfoG,•, ,:,IU/
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 Mo,e Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housina
Air Aesthetics
Water Linht!Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Trans,.,...,rtation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLJCY-RELA TED COMMENTS
I\Je'V"-
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
I,..)~
We have reviewed this application with parlicular 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.
DATE:
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION
OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
January 16, 2008
LAND USE NUMBER: LUAOB-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 woutd 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 not:ffication 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
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 I 2007 Docket -Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
NAME: ~-----=~"-=0'-"· C""Y1,,~~-,j.-f?,_,_,,:?YM"'--'--'-'-----'k@'-""-S'=-ef_L==-A.!"'-q-"",__ _______ _
ADDRESS IC,23~ N, 2Y!' f>"t: BBAJ1~
TELEPHONE NO. '=f;2S_,.--2,? 6 -37Lf/
City of on Department of Planning I Building I Pub/i rks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:
APPLICATION NO: LUAOB-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
t .... ~--"' l
DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, 2008
PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklina JAN : .
PLEASE RETURN REVIEW sH~t-fi~¥a 1
, ,u,,
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 Mora
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housina
Air Aesthetics
Water Liaht!Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transoortation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy! Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with parlicufar attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas w: additional information is neede to properly assess this proposal.
f/t I /t J& rg
Date
City of on Department of Planning I Building'J'Pub/1 rks
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 RECEI
DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, 2008
PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin
ITY 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 Major lnformaUon
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housinn
Air Aesthetics
Water LiahtlG/are
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transoortation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
arlicular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have i
ded to properly assess this p pasal.
Date
I,
DATE:
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION
OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
January 16, 2008
LAND USE NUMBER LUA08-004, ECF
APPLICATION NAME 2007 Docket-Hel1pad Zoning Code Amendment
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: Th s zonirg code all1Pndrru;n\ addresses the oµeratior of hel,p~ds as a.a
accessory use to res,dHrll:<-s 1n lhe R-8 zone fhe proposal would al:ow residential prope~1es ,n lhe R-8 ,on .. to liase a
hcl,pad for tne operat,on of a s,ngle aircr:,fl upon approval of an Adm:111slral1•1e Cond,t>on~I Use Perm,I TJ,., Admirnstrat,ve
Cond,t1onal .use could only be approvoo ,r Iha properly abuts I ake Wash,nglon the hel1p.1d ,s appm,c,d t,y the FAA
(Fe<Jeral Avictton Adm,rn,t,al1on1 and lhe proposal meets the ,~,1uirernenls for cond1l«:,rial uses uncer RMC 4-\HJ:.JO
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As :he Lea,: Ag,<1sc)". Uie City of C(er,ton has det~rrt,:ned
Iha: s1gr,f,cant cnwonmental ,mp~c:ts are unlikely tc resull Imm t.~e pmpn,~,J Corr.r,rehe"s1,e Pian ariencnrnnts ~nd
zon,n~ c1ar.~es T/".erefor~. a, P~'""lled under t~e RC\1\1 43.21C '.10. :he l.,ty of Re~tcn ,1 us,n~ t'1e Ootinnal DNS
process to give r,ol1ce thal a DNS 1s likely lo be ,ssued. Comment pennd, fur the proJecl and the proposed DNS ~re
:nlegratcd into a s,ngle comni~rit perrod There will be no comm~nl pwin,J fu,low,ng the ,swance of lhe Threshul,J
Oeterm,nat1cn of No~.Signifn:,m<e~ [DNS't A 14-oay app~al period w,11 fc,llo·N t~e 1ss~ance of tne ONS
APPLICATION DATE: January 14. 200$
Permits/Review Requested: Ero,ironment;,I 1:;EPA) Re'. ew, Znn,ng Te,1 AncemJment
Location where application may be reviewed: E~Amom,c Deve,opment NeighbPrhoods an,J St,~legic 1-'lanr,n~
De;,arl/'1ent. S:r~le,:,•c P!ann1ng ll1·,1s1on, 105~ South Grady Way. Renton WA 98057
PUBLIC HEARING: A public Deann~ on tl,o;,se rssues will tie held ~fore lhe C,ty l.nimc11 en a dale :o be determ,n«d
Environmental Documents that evaluate the Proposed Project. ~1w,r 0 r,,11enlal Checkl s1 dJICd Jan.i>irv '. o. <OU8
Dev~lopmen1 Regulation~ Used Fo.r Project Mi1igat1on: Theso non-project~, tif/11~ 'Mil be su:i1ect 10 tho C,1v s SFPA
Orrlir ance and Oe·,elopme~t Regulations ~11<1 ulher appl1cat>le ccd~s and re,8uld1Hns ~s appr;;m;,te
Proposed Milig_ation Mea~ures: The ar;,lys1s ot the pmpo~,al dn~s r.al re•eal any ~d,·erse enwnnnierotal 1rc,pacts
requ1nnA m1t1gation .abme and beyond e~,st,n~ code pro'.·,s,on, Howe·,e,. m·toganon may be necessHry and rrJy be
imposed at lhe time of a ~,le spec1f1c develooment proposal or, \he subJect site
Comme11\s cm lhe abos·e app;icJ!ion must oe SEJbrro,lted 111 writing to Erika Con,! ng, Sernor p anner. Economic
Deve1npn1ent Ne1ghborCoods ~nd Strawgk Pl~nr1m9 Di,·1s1on 1055 :;out~ G'ady W;,,, R«nlo,. WA 9$057, ty 5:00 Pm
or, January 30_, 2008. If ycu ~ave quest""'~ about tris propos;il or ,·.ish lo'"' mnde a party of record and mce,v~
aCd~1onal not,hcat·on b'; mall contact ll,e Pm.eel ManJger Aryone w·rn submits .w1llen rnmmcnts will a,.1n 111 ~1,cally
become a pa,ty of record ~nd w.li he nn1,f1«<1 ol any dec·s1on 01 ihs pro1ect
CONTACT PERSON: ERIKA CONKLING (425) 430-6578
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If you would like lo receive lurtt,e, 1nlormat,an on the environment:,! review of lh1s proposed project, cump,ele tn,~ form
and return ta City ol Renluri. Economic °'9ve:opmcnl, Ne,ghborhuuds, and S_lr.:ilegic Planning, 1055 South Grady Way
Rentan,_WA 98057 Yov must return this form ro receive future informal1on regarding rhe environmental
determmaUon for this project.
FIia No.!Name: LUA08-004, EGF I 2007 Docket -Helipad Zoning Cada Amandment
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NO
CERTIFICATION:r,S
~K~/'.~f 5~=o~· 1--61,,,~=~~__,....,,---, hereby certify that g· f copies of the above document
were posted by me in conspicuous places or nearby the described property OR,''"~'N1~1111,11 ............... '() .. \..., p/ 1-,. ..... ,,
DATE:___,t7f---'lf..,.,.,,4rh-+r--\~
-{\, '.'•114.'!,J/, ,_5 -... i,t' ...._,1 SIGNED: ~v = -· " , ~
{/ :c""· ,. '""· . ·-;~ -,.• ·:: :t. i::
ATTEST· Subscnbed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residmg:in :, • .. ~ 1 <f! 1, .,a . ~ _:: :
ti) {l__c.., ~~-L~i.ln {t= , 7 dayof....!_~_.-,oa:::, ... ,,1,,;1.;e~,,,,·!,,~~---·· NO~i~is~t~o/
I 1111,,"''''"
, on the
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENTPLANNING 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): ~~~lJl-
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 mEl._A.00.~\lilltlJe
instrument. ~:.-;::': .... ·,_';.,. .,! .-;-.t.::-1r\/~1,,
-er ·. ~ -=~-·' z -•,' ' ; ,··,Jy. ·, . , ~ ::: ~:... '.. '.. . .,,._ Dated: 1-ll-OS
r the Sate of W_ashin§tor:.
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
301
h (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
econ kl i ng@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 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 arc 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. Hclipads are
currently prohibited in all residential zones.
There are two types of conditional use permits issued by the City of Renton. Administrative
conditional usc 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 pem1it 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 ofhclipads.
Those who wish to establish a hclipad, 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 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 of helipads 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 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.
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 hclipads 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: LUAOB-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
determination for this project.
File No./Name: LUAOB-004, ECF I 2007 Docket -Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
NAME: -------------------------------
ADDRESS:----------------------------
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
@09~S @AllaJ\V ~
--www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
~ AVERY@ 5150®
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 Avenue 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 167thAve 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
All3A1f·09-008-~
WO)'..tlal\e"MMM --
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 A venue 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~S weqe6 a1 zasmin
ap1de, a6e4,~s ~ la a6e,,noq1iue uo,ssaJdw1
Jain and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
Mark Hancock
PO Box 88811
Seattle, WA 98138
Bill & Debra Keppler
2805 Mountain View A venue 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
@09~s @All:IAV \!1
WWW.dYli::TY.\.UI 11 -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
310 I Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Kim Bowden
2227 Mountain View Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
R.C.B. Marshall
2909 Mountain View Avenue 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
1023 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056
All3/\V-09-00IN
WOJ"Ala/\e"MMM --
~ AVl:RY'® 5160""
Eddi Shajari
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 weqe6 a1 zasmm
ap1deJ a6e,p;,s ~ 1a a6e,,noq11ue uo1ssa.idw1
r
•
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 16th 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 See Attached
(Signature of Sender): q~-
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 free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes me[,tti(>ned,\9. the
instrument. _ _,,,:o: _., .,, "<'. ·111 11 .:::-~-.,. ', ,,
-n.: z =.: . -·~ --z;. .. . , ... .,,. 7~
he Sate of Wasnio9.tQJ1 . §
--
Notary (Print) :_,_A=rnb~c,IC!..,,rL-_.L .. v¥J.n.i.n<-1--,&UM-1:®::i:,_l"'N,=l&ccD.,__...:.\4,;.,.ir.,;\,.,, .... :::..:'."+i!I ... A "-.-1'.
0
,.s;o""""'d,.;;o::,,~ ... =-
My appointment expires: ..,~10 ... 10 T
71,;.:x~·,,,,11 "~"~'''~"$"
OI -,. •/111 OF WAS'rl\,.""
Ii\\\\\\\"'''
LUAOB-004, ECF
Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
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 177512~ Ave NW, Ste 201 Attn; Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer
PO Box47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 172'' Avenue SE
Olvmnia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092
WSDOT Northwest Region • Duwarnish 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 Box48343
Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olvmoia, WA 98504-8343
Boyd Powers •
Dept. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olvmnia, 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
-Jlw~ NDA 6}1~ Real Estate Services NW Regional Office
Title Examiner 3190 1601h 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: LUAOB-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 ($EPA) 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
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: LUAOB-004, ECF 12007 Docket· Helipad Zoning Code Amendment
NAME: -----------------------------
ADDRESS ----------------------------
TELEPHONE NO.: __________ _
City of Renton
LAND USE PERMIT JAN 1 4 2008
City of Renton
MASTER APP LI CATl n. l{fmomic Development,
VJll'Jl'hoods & Strategic Plannin
PROPERTY OWNER($) PROJECT INFORMATION
NAME: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: 2007 Docket-Helipad
Zoning Code Amendment-
ADDRESS:
PROJECT/ADDRESS(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-
CONT ACT PERSON
8)
PROPOSED ZONING (if 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): n!a
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: x6578 NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): nla
econkling@ci.renton.wa.us NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): nla
Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 01/10/08
p ,JECT INFORMATION cont ad
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): n/a
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE
NEW PROJECT (if applicable): n/a
PROJECT VALUE: n/a
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): nla
AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO
AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE
FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following 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; NEY. 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 aoolicable 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/platu1ing/masterapp.doc
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that -,c--,-,---~~~-~~
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 briefly, 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, 425-430-65781055 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):
NIA
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. ENVIRONMENTAL 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.
Not 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 fiow? Will this water
fiow 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 elation found on the site:
n/a I uous tree: alder, ma le, aspen, o er
n/ er reen tree: fir. cedar, pine, other
n/~ shn 16s =>
n/tl'. grass :>
__JJ@ pasture
__JJ@ crop or grain
__JJ@ 1 pan s: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, o e
__JJ@ s: wa er I y, ee grass,
__JJ@ other types o vege a 10n
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:\EDNSP\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"-/a~----
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:IEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 6
. .,
2) Proposed measures lo 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 laking 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 lime. Al the
lime 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.
Nol 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?
Nol 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:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Enviromnental Checklist.doc 8
, .
Not Applicable Non-Project Action.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. Whal type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would ii 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 lime 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:IEDNSP\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:\EDNSP\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 l v. 200 'u
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 ii 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 confiict 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
(uh IIHH--lA. f)ld
H:IEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\Helipads\Environmental Checklist.doc 13
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
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, P38 P38 P38 P20 P3 AD commercial or public
Park and ride, dedicated P105 P105 P105 P106 P105 P107 P105 P107
Park and ride, shared-P108 P108 P108 P108 P10 P108 p p p P106 P109 P107 p P107 use 8
Railroad yards p
-axi stand p AD AD
!Tow truck operation/auto H59 p impoundment yard
-ransit centers H38 H38 H38 p H20 p H38 p P103
L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES (Continued)
-ruck terminals p
~ehicle fueling stations p p p p p P38
Vehicle fueling stations, p p p AD11 p p P38 existing legal 0
Vehicle service and AD p p repair, large
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
11.irport-related uses AC
Aviation-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'\\~
V~ I
cwu1.,~e)
jX l\utt t'lj.
SeL :
1) o liUJ ...U::.
6fa;\O
4-2-0700 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
ARiFAal h"saaaaF)' (2G e, lsws, sFAall aaiFAals pe, asrn)
l',RiFAal h"saaRSf\l (4 e, lews, FAeai"FA aaiFAals pe, as,e)
/1,RiFAal A"6B8R6Fy (FAaXiFA"FA el 1 la,ye aRiFAal PBF 8GF8)
G,eate, """'""' el aaiFAals thaa allewea atleve
Beekeeping
Ksaasls, 11etltly
F!els, 69FAFA9R A9"S8A9l6, "P le :J peF awelliAij ""it 9F tl"siaess estalaliSl1FABRI
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#35
AG-#3+
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 AND 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
4-2-0SOA
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, Ill), the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, the
Commercial Office (CO) zone, the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone, and the
Urban Center North 1 (UC-Nl) 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
1
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 of helipads
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 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. 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 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