Laserfiche WebLink
improvements explained on pages 8-10 of the executive summary. Mr. Smith responded to <br />comments and questions from commissioners. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Nichols, Mr. Smith explained that the number of proposed new <br />parking spaces was increasing at a higher rate than the anticipated number of passengers, to meet <br />industry trends and to meet peak period demands. He noted more people traveled on holidays and <br />summer vacation times, generating surges in airport activity. <br /> <br />Mr. Doll added an increased business market tended to consist of one person per vehicle opposed <br />to two or three family members traveling for leisure travel. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik noted airspace surfaces, runway protection zones, noise contours and other regulatory <br />measures uses had been identified. He asked if any of those regulations changed significantly in the <br />updated plan such that they would impact the land uses within the UGB. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith said with the current pavement configuration and with the addition of pavement, there <br />were changes to accommodate the safe movement of aircraft which extended approximately ten <br />miles off each end of the runway. Two extensions had been identified, one during a previous <br />master plan update, and the requisite airspace previously protected. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith explained extension of the east runway to the south required protection of additional <br />airspace. The runway protection zone extended approximately ½ mile off each runway end. Two <br />parcels had been identified for acquisition on the north side that were needed for the runway <br />protection zone, which was an area identified by the FAA for the purpose of land use compatibili- <br />ty. The parcels identified for acquisition to accommodate the runway protection zone were <br />necessary for the existing runway configuration as well as the future runway configuration, and the <br />action was not driven by a change in the runway configuration. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith stated the airport master plan update illustrated noise contours for the future. The land <br />use chapter of the document contrasted current noise contours with expectations twenty years in <br />the future. The contours assumed the fleet in the future would consist of newer planes which <br />would have a lower noise volume due to quieter planes. However, a significant contributor to noise <br />contours was military aircraft which used the Eugene Airport for training and were not subject to <br />the same noise regulations as commercial aircraft. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan asked if consideration had been given to extending the runway to the south to preclude <br />impacting Fiddlers’ Green, which would be a considerable acquisition. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith responded the acquisition involving Fiddlers’ Green was necessary for the current <br />runway configuration, and the extension to the runway was to the south. Thus, acquisition of the <br />Fiddlers’ Green parcel was necessary regardless of whether or not the runway was extended. <br /> <br />Mr. Doll stated the FAA was looking at the Fiddlers’ Green acquisition as a low priority at the <br />present time, but that could change in the future. Any change would be brought to the Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 3 <br />Joint Public Hearing of the <br />City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions <br /> <br />