HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/2019 - Minutes
Renton Airport Administration Office
Clayton Scott Field and Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base
616 West Perimeter Road, Unit A, Renton WA 98057 425-430-7471
1
Renton Airport Advisory Committee Meeting
Master Plan Landside Alternatives
Tuesday, June 25, 2019, 5:30pm – 7:50pm
Attendees: RAAC members; Airport tenants; Ryan Orth, EnviroIssues (facilitator); Ryan Hayes,
Mead & Hunt (via Skype); Casey Boatman, Airport Business Coordinator; Councilmember
Randy Corman; Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator; Jim Seitz, Transportation
Systems Director; Will Adams, Airport Engineer; Susan Campbell-Hehr, Airport
Administrative Support
Introductions: Marleen Mandt, RAAC Chair, introduced Ryan Orth with EnviroIssues as the
meeting facilitator
Review Process and Schedule
Purpose of the meeting and process is to review feedback for eventual packaging of
alternatives and/or feedback, as determined by the RAAC, to provide to City Council for
their decision
To-date, 130 responses were received from the online survey
Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator, provided an update on the schedule for
the City’s selection of a landside alternative
o Delay bringing landside alternatives to the Committee of the Whole to allow time for
tenants, RAAC members, and stakeholders to do a full review of the alternatives
o FAA’s grant completion deadline for the Master Plan grant is September 30, 2019
o Stressed importance of gathering input from the stakeholders in the decision -
making process, rather than meeting grant deadlines
Additional feedback and discussion anticipated between now and next RAAC meeting on
August 13, 2019
Renton Airport Administration Office
Clayton Scott Field and Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base
616 West Perimeter Road, Unit A, Renton WA 98057 425-430-7471
2
Review of Landside Alternatives
Ryan Hayes and Ryan Orth presented the overview and review of alternatives, as
presented in the Landside Alternatives Analysis chapter
Alternatives Review
o Area 1
Existing/Minimal
No change to land use
Hangars penetrate object free area
Can apply for modification to standards
Alternative 1
Modification to standards for hangar building in object free area
o Area 2
Existing/Minimal
No change to land use
Alternative 1
Reconfigure land use of Apron B to shift industrial aviation south
and move general aviation (GA) from south to north end
o Area 3
Existing/Minimal
Minimal land use change
Modification to standards for southeast taxilane
Alternative 1
Reconfigure to allow object free area along taxilane
Alternative 2
Optional reconfiguration to allow object free area along taxilane
o Area 4
Existing/Minimal
No change to land use, except to remove hangars from object free
area
Alternative 1
Relocate River Hangar building A and Boeing’s compass rose to
outside of the object free area
Alternative 2
Land use change of GA (currently east tiedowns) to industrial
aviation
o Seaplane Dock Area
Alternative 1
Expand seaplane parking and relocate dock to outside object free
area
Modification to standards for launch ramp
Alternative 2
Renton Airport Administration Office
Clayton Scott Field and Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base
616 West Perimeter Road, Unit A, Renton WA 98057 425-430-7471
3
Acquire adjacent property (trailer park) to add seaplane parking
Landside Alternatives feedback refinement
Ryan Orth, EnviroIssues, presented comment themes received through the online
survey and other comments. Comment themes are captured in the overview matrix
document; detailed comments by alternative and topic are available in the
supplemental information. Ryan Hayes provided additional context to several of the
comment themes.
Area 1
o Concern: over removing buildings and apron service roads
o Response: buildings and apron service roads cannot remain in ROFA unless
the City applies for a modification to standards with the FAA
o Concern: runup apron being eliminated
o Response: this is more applicable to the Airside Alternative, and there is an
option to use bypass taxiways to accommodate runups
Area 2
o Concern: depth of apron after meeting standards is not enough for new model
large jet lengths
o Response: the City can apply for a modification to standards for hangars that
penetrate the ROFA and stall depth in Apron B
o Concern: relocating Perimeter Road
o Concern: under Alternative 1, the City has no specific development proposal for
the Leven hangars
o Concern: run-up area
o Concern: balance of number of hangars; net gain/loss
Area 3
o Concern: under Alternative 1, there is a lack of value in different types of
hangars (number and type)
o Concern: difficulty in servicing seaplanes from southeast end
Area 4
o Concern: relocating River Hangars and Compass Rose outside of the ROFA
o Concern: Doug Barritt, River Hangar tenant, raised the concern of many River
Hangar pilots that there are many hangared planes that are owned by multiple
pilots (some have 50 members) and replacing the existing River Hangar A
building with a smaller one will displace several of these planes and their pilots;
interpretation - the loss of one hangar equates to the loss of many pilots
o Concern: John Carson, Sky Signs (banner tow operator), raised his concern with
eliminating River Hangar A and replacing it with a smaller hangar. This could
displace him, and without a hangar to store his banner tow planes in he will have
to close his business.
o Response: Councilmember Randy Corman commented that Council wants to
get details, and identify all operational and monetary losses to consider
requesting modifications to standards. He pointed out that there are a lot of
Renton Airport Administration Office
Clayton Scott Field and Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base
616 West Perimeter Road, Unit A, Renton WA 98057 425-430-7471
4
steps being looked at to protecting landings, even though most large jet
operations are only takeoffs. The City will look at the comprehensive loss of
tiedowns and hangars, and Councilmember Corman urged Airport users to
quantify their anticipated losses, including implied or indirect losses.
o Concern: Rob Spitzer commented that the City should exhaust remedies with
the FAA first. Nothing is set in stone and there is room for negotiation. The
alternatives are a wholesale change to the Airport, designating dramatic changes
to the seaplane facilities which is a historic facility. The landside alternatives
effectively eliminate the seaplane facility. He continued to comment that
removing the large general aviation base for just a couple hundred takeoffs by
the large jets is not okay, and that there is no good choice between Landside
Alternative 1 or 2. Rob requested that the City go to the FAA and find a solution
to balance general aviation with large jet operations. There is the potential loss
of land connection to the seaplane base, which is the connection that makes the
Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane base very unique.
o Concern: Rashell Rosenkranz, Green River Chapter-WA Pilots Association
President, reiterated Rob Spitzer’s concerns of the effects of the design standard
changing from class B to D-III. “Airports expected to accommodate single-engine
airplanes normally fall into Airport Reference Code A-1 or B-1. Airports serving
larger general aviation and commuter-type planes are usually under Airport
Reference Code B-II or B-III. Small to medium-sized airports serving air carriers
are usually Airport Reference Code C-III, while larger air carrier airports are
usually Airport Reference Code D-VI or D-V,” (http://aireform.com/faas-airport-
reference-codes/).
o Concern: Carroll Martell, River Hangar tenant (Hi-Line Flying Club), commented
that in the past when the FAA required design standard changes, during early
military operations, the FAA was questioned on how the Airport could meet the
standards without causing large impacts to operations.
o Concern: John Carson, Sky Signs Banner Towing, turns out pilots who go on to
become airline pilots as a direct result of the training they receive
o Concern: Rashell Rosenkranz, Green River Chapter-WA Pilots Association
President, commented that the Airport was chosen for emergency operations
earlier this year, because of its unique land runway and water runway
connection
o Concern: Acquisition of the parcel north of the Airport depicted in Seaplane
Area 2, may not be possible because the land is not within the City of Renton
limits
o Concern: Shane Carlson, Northwest Seaplanes Inc, has been a seaplane operator
at the Airport for 30 years and is concerned that the tenants have to “choose
their fate” with Landside Alternative 1, or Landside Alternative 2, and that these
two alternatives were put together without consulting with seaplane operators.
The seaplane base’s current configuration had already gone through a rigorous
process in the late 1990’s when the dock was redesigned, which took multi ple
Renton Airport Administration Office
Clayton Scott Field and Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base
616 West Perimeter Road, Unit A, Renton WA 98057 425-430-7471
5
years to complete and took into consideration the prevailing winds and currents
that affect a seaplane operator’s ability to safely dock and depart the dock
system. Neither Alternative 1, nor Alternative 2, take the prevailing winds into
consideration in their preliminary layout, and would cause a significant reduction
or even loss of the use of the seaplane base in its entirety.
o Concern: Eric Vasilik, River Hangar tenant, stated his concern as a new pilot and
River Hangar tenant, that if hangars are eliminated there is no other place for
pilots to keep their planes in the region. It is not just a matter of relocating, but
it means selling the planes and no longer flying. He feels that he is very
fortunate to have found a hangar at Renton after searching for space at the
other airports in the area, because the other airports have such limited storage
for general aviation. Boeing Field has priced their hangars to cater to corporate
and cargo jets.
o Concern: Doug Barritt, River Hangars, suggested that t he City continue allowing
the use of River Hangar building A for aircraft storage until the replacement
building is finished, to eliminate displacement of hangared aircraft.
Questions and responses (participants shared additional comments and questions;
responses are noted where given)
o Question: Rob Spitzer, AOPA, asked what is driving the class change from B to D -III
o Response: Ryan Hayes responded that the annual operations maximum limit for
a certain size aircraft is 500 (takeoffs landings) and then the FAA requires the
airport to upgrade to meet standards for that size aircraft , and Renton has
exceeded that limit
o Question: Karen Stemwell, AOPA, asked how many annual operations the Airport
has above the 500 threshold.
o Response: Ryan Hayes responded that the total annual large jet operations is in
the 700 – 800 range, so Airport operations have exceeded the 500 threshold by
200-300 annual operations
o Question: Jeanne DeMund, Kennydale, asked if there is a waiver process with the
FAA?
o Question: Rob Spitzer, AOPA, asked if the City has formally appealed the FAA’s
requirement to upgrade the Airport’s the classification?
o Question: Rob Spitzer, AOPA, asked about the displacement of the seaplane facility
o Response: Ryan Hayes responded that the Landside Alternatives diagram is a
high-level design, and the proposed seaplane dock system has not been
developed in this phase of the Master Plan project; that is scheduled during the
Airport Layout Plan phase
o Question: Melody Kroeger, Renton Hill, asked what the associated revenues and
expenses are for each alternative, and what the net change is in hangar space for
each
o Question: Stephen Ratzlaff, Washington Seaplane Pilots Association, asked for the
consultant to quantify net loss to the seaplane facility
Renton Airport Administration Office
Clayton Scott Field and Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base
616 West Perimeter Road, Unit A, Renton WA 98057 425-430-7471
6
o Question: Matt Devine, Talbot Hill, asked how the landside alternatives would have
changed if the City had selected Airside Alternative 4 instead of 5
o Question: John Carson, Sky Signs Banner Towing, asked how he can continue
operating his banner towing business once his hangar is eliminated
o Response: Gregg Zimmerman responded that the FAA is giving the City one year
to resolve the River Hangar A building relocation, but it sounds like the City will
have to explore the modification to standards process
o Ryan Hayes clarified that the entire airfield reconfiguration is done unde r the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the hangars won’t need to be
removed until the EIS is complete in five to eight years.
o Question: Jeanne DeMund, Kennydale, asked for data relating to dollars and asked
if the City will take a second look at the Airside Alternative with economic data
included? She also asked if the FAA funds property acquisitions.
o Response: Gregg Zimmerman, responded that the City looked at the
comprehensive impacts to the rest of the City; the large difference in the
number of parcels needing to be acquired under each alternative, the
downtown development plan, and transportation plans to convert downtown
2nd and 3rd Avenues to two-way streets. The City felt the south shift would be
detrimental to these plans. FAA grant funding can be used for property
acquisition.
o Response: Councilmember Randy Corman, added that City staff provided a
recommendation and it was not an easy call for Council to select an airside
alternative, and there are challenges to using eminent domain. The Council
wants the FAA to look at extending to the north first, but having the shift to the
north clarified will make property acquisition, and possibly eminent domain,
necessary if the north shift fails during the EIS. Councilmember Corman also
agreed that as an existing airport, the City can apply to the FAA fo r a
modification to standards.
o Question: Will the information on impacts to the neighborhoods be provided before
a decision is made?
o Response: Gregg Zimmerman responded that the EIS is an exhaustive process
and impacts to the neighborhoods will be a major focus
o Question: Rick Lentz, River Hangar tenant, asked if the City will question the FAA’s
requirement to change the design standard.
o Question: Rick Lentz also asked how many large jets, versus corporate jets, make up
the operations count, and urged the City to consider the good safety record the
Airport has had for many years
o Question: Melody Kroeger, Renton Hill, asked if all alternatives are contingent on
the class change to D-III
o Response: Ryan Hayes responded that the Renton Airport is a federally funded
airport and the requirement is that it meet FAA standards, otherwise the FAA
can pull grant funding
Renton Airport Administration Office
Clayton Scott Field and Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base
616 West Perimeter Road, Unit A, Renton WA 98057 425-430-7471
7
o Question: Rashell Rosenkranz, Green River Chapter-WA Pilots Association, asked
how the FAA is funding the design standard changes from class B to class D-III
o Question: Eric Vasilik, River Hangar tenant, asked how many related jobs are lost as
a result of choosing either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2
o Question: James Mahoney, City Hangar tenant, asked if there are different losses
between the City and Airport businesses
o Question: John Carson asked why the old Kaynan hangars are not being used for
aircraft storage
o Response: Gregg Zimmerman responded that the results of a structural survey
conducted when the City took ownership of the buildings concluded the
buildings to be unsafe
Councilmember Randy Corman appreciates all of the comments and would like to
collect as much detail from this meeting as possible, including how many new pilots
won’t be trained. He understands the tenants’ and air port users’ desire to not have to
choose between two alternatives that will eliminate seaplane operations and drastically
reduce pilot training opportunities
Action Items:
o Mead & Hunt to provide financial impact of alternatives
o Mead & Hunt to provide net change in hangar space for each alternative
o Mead & Hunt to provide net change in seaplane facility space
o Airport Tenants and Users to provide details of direct and indirect operational and
monetary losses to their operations as a result of either Alternative 1 or 2
o Mead & Hunt will revise the survey to Airport tenants and users that categorizes the
quantities of the impacts
Next Steps
Project team will coordinate on quantification of alternative effects. Immediate work
will focus on quantifying net change in hangar space, net change in seaplane facility
space, and estimates of financial impacts.
Project team will solicit additional feedback and data on Categories of Impacts from
RAAC and airport tenants to incorporate in the summary materials. This may come in
the form of a supplemental survey between now and the RAAC meeting on August 13,
2019. Potential categories identified by participants include:
o Loss of Airport revenue from elimination of hangar leases
o Loss of on-airport aviation business
o Loss of business to off-airport businesses, such as hotel and transportation
o Loss of pilot training opportunities and flight instruction jobs (Seaplane Scenics,
BEFA, Pro-Flight Aviation, Aviation Training Center, Rainier Flight Service)
o Loss of aviation mechanics
o Loss of aviation refuelers
o Impact/loss of hangar space
o Impact/loss of tiedown space
Renton Airport Administration Office
Clayton Scott Field and Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base
616 West Perimeter Road, Unit A, Renton WA 98057 425-430-7471
8
o Sunk cost for recent projects like Taxiway B reconstruct and recently replaced
Boeing North Bridge
o Direct and indirect job loss and direct and indirect economic impact
o Impact on 737 production
o Loss of historic seaplane base as a result of significant capacity reduction
o Higher rental rates for tenants in rebuilt hangars may cause higher paying
tenants (corporate owners) to out-price general aviation pilots
o Impact to Boeing Field and Seatac airspace
o Loss of Angel Flights and Medivac
Project team will repackage comments after receiving further feedback, including
categories of concern and share for review and discussion at the August 13, 2019, RAAC
meeting.
Closing Remarks
Councilmember Randy Corman does not want to have a vote to select the landside
alternative at this meeting. Instead, he wants the City to approach the FAA about
options other than choosing one of the two alternatives. He encouraged tenants and
Airport users to send letters to the FAA with this request, with the City’s support. He
continued, stating that the group needs to show due diligence and also let the FAA know
how the class change specifically impacts their operations.
Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator, reiterated that it is difficult for the
RAAC to choose one alternative over the other, considering each has equally negative
impacts to the Airport operators (choosing the lesser of two evils). He recommended
that the RAAC put together a determination that the membership cannot choose either
landside alternative until specific issues are resolved, and to include a list of the specific
issues that need to first, be put in place.
Meeting Adjourned