Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Doll said a combination of passenger facility <br />charges and local airport bond funding would be used to pay for concourse expansion. Airlines <br />paid for some of costs of terminal building construction. <br /> <br />Mr. Noble asked if thought had been given for airport related industrial development in the current <br />master plan update. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith stated there had been an assessment of whether the airport had surplus land available <br />for uses other than the operation of the airport. There was some land available for industrial and <br />commercial uses but the zoning was not currently compatible. It would be up to the City, the <br />airport and a willing developer to continue to look for suitable developments. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan asked if airport staff had had a opportunity to consider the suggestion from the Lane <br />County Transportation Planning staff that a transportation impact analysis (TIA) may be required <br />as part of a future development proposal pursuant to the airport master plan update. <br /> <br />Mr. Bernard clarified the use of the word “may” was in Lane Code Chapter 15. A TIA may be <br />waived by the Lane County engineer or their designee in a case where there was a finding of no <br />significant impact on the County road system. The word “may” was inserted to make it clear that <br />the County engineer could waive the TIA requirement. It was unclear what the major development <br />would be in the future in the airport area, and this seemed a good way to deal with those unknowns. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Flock concurred that any planning effort related to <br />runway expansion would require a coordinated planning effort with other jurisdictions. This effort <br />had not yet been undertaken. <br /> <br />Mr. Noble noted the City’s current Envision Eugene planning process may or may not look at an <br />expanded UGB. He opined the timing of an analysis prior to the conclusion of that effort seemed <br />appropriate and asked if it would be considered. <br /> <br />Mr. Flock thought that such an effort would be appropriate, noting the Metro Plan policy that <br />called for siting the airport outside the UGB to protect against incompatible development had <br />prompted the overarching discussion identifying the airport as an area to be discussed. He <br />encouraged the airport staff to engage in that process. <br /> <br />Ms. Arkin observed the master plan update executive summary noted carriers were relying on <br />smaller airplanes and asked if the trend was to move to smaller aircraft. She had heard on <br />numerous occasions that people liked to fly into the Eugene airport because of the manageable size <br />and unique character of the airport, while many people did not like to fly into Portland or SeaTac. <br />She emphasized the importance of maintain the airport’s character. <br /> <br />Mr. Doll addressed the need to extend the runway because of the aircraft mix. He noted one <br />commonly use regional jet was probably the least efficient airplane in service today and had a <br />difficult time with runways shorter than 6,000 feet. The MD-80 currently used by Allegiant <br />Airlines could not use the shorter runway if the outside temperature was over 80 degrees due to <br /> <br />MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 6 <br />Joint Public Hearing of the <br />City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions <br /> <br />