Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Ordinance on Airport Master Plan ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Public Hearing: An Ordinance Adopting an Updated Eugene Airport Master Plan, a Refinement Plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan); Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date (City File RA 10-1, Lane County File PA 10-5284) Meeting Date: September 14, 2010 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Gabe Flock www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-5697 ISSUE STATEMENT The Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners will hold a joint public hearing on adoption of the updated Eugene Airport Master Plan, as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). Subsequent action on the proposed ordinance by the City and County is scheduled separately. BACKGROUND The current update to the Eugene Airport Master Plan replaces earlier versions as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). The purpose of this plan is to provide guidance regarding specific airport functions including commercial aviation, general aviation, and airport-related commercial and industrial services associated with the airport. This update which is required by the Federal Aviation Administration will serve as a development guide for the airport to meet aviation demand through the planning horizon of 2026. It provides guidance related to possible airport facility improvements, financial and business planning, and land use and project coordination. Unlike the adoption process for the 1999 Airport Master Plan, the current update does not include or require any amendments to the Metro Plan or other locally adopted plans such as TransPlan. No changes to existing land use designations, zoning, or adopted policy are proposed. The need for joint City and County adoption of the updated master plan stems from the location of the Eugene Airport outside the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB), but within the Metro Plan boundary. As a matter of Metro Plan policy, the airport is located outside the UGB to protect aviation functions from incompatible development, as well as to reduce airport-related impacts on development within the UGB. Due to this location, land use regulations for the airport property are under Lane County jurisdiction, and adoption of the refinement plan for this City-owned facility necessarily includes both governing bodies. The joint adoption is also appropriate as the updated Eugene Airport Master Plan will replace the existing plan, which was also adopted jointly. The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public hearing on June 1, 2010, to consider the proposed update to the Eugene Airport Master Plan. No public testimony was received and joint deliberations occurred the same night, after the public hearing was closed. After deliberations, both Planning Commissions voted to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with no changes Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100914\S100914A.doc (see Attachment A). The findings supporting approval are attached as an exhibit to the ordinance (see Exhibit B of Attachment A), and the minutes of the joint Planning Commission hearing and deliberations are also attached as background information (see Attachment B). The updated Eugene Airport Master Plan which is the subject of this public hearing is available on the www.eugene-or.gov City’s website for the Eugene Airport at: (on the Eugene Airport home page, scroll down and click on “Draft Master Plan Update” along the left-hand column). Councilors and commissioners will receive a copy of the master plan on disk. This document will be included as Exhibit A to the proposed ordinance. For ease of reference, an executive summary of the updated master plan and a vicinity map are also attached (see attachments C and D). Otherwise, a full set of record materials, including a color hard copy of the updated Eugene Airport Master Plan will be made available at the hearing and in the City Council office for reference. RELATED CITY POLICIES Eugene Code requires that the adoption of a refinement plan update be consistent with the Metro Plan and Statewide Planning Goals. Consistency with the Metro Plan and Statewide Planning Goals is addressed in the supporting findings which are attached as an exhibit to the implementing ordinance. COUNCIL OPTIONS This is scheduled for a public hearing only. At the time of deliberations and action, the City Council may consider the following options: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance. 2. Adopt the proposed ordinance with specific modifications as determined by the City Council. 3. Deny the proposed ordinance. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION This item is scheduled for a public hearing only. Following the public hearing, the City Manager will make a recommendation to be included in the council packet for action on this item. The City Council’s deliberation and action on this item is currently scheduled for September 27, 2010. The Lane County Board of Commissioners is scheduled for separate deliberation and action the following day, on September 28, 2010. SUGGESTED MOTION No motion is suggested as deliberation and action is currently scheduled for September 27, 2010. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft City Ordinance and Findings B. Joint Planning Commission Minutes from June 1, 2010 C. Executive Summary of Eugene Airport Master Plan Update D. Vicinity Map Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100914\S100914A.doc FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Gabe Flock, Senior Planner Telephone: 541/682-5697 Staff E-Mail: gabriel.flock@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100914\S100914A.doc A ATTACHMENT ORDINANCE NO. _________ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN UPDATED EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, A REFINEMENT PLAN OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITANAREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN); ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; ANDPROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Eugene Airport Master Plan set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby adopted to supersede and replace the provisions of the Eugene Airport Master Plan adopted as a refinement plan to the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan by Ordinance No. 19730. Section 2. Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit B in support of this action. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall not become effective until the Lane County Board of Commissioners has taken action identical to the action taken by the City of Eugene in Section 1 of this ordinance. Passed by the City Council thisApproved by the Mayor this _____ day of ________________, 2010_____ day of __________________, 2010 _________________________________ __________________________________ City RecorderMayor Ordinance - Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT B FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OF AN UPDATE TO THE EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN (RA 10-2 AND PA 10-5284) Introduction The original Mahlon Sweet Field Master Plan was initially prepared for the airport in 1979 and adopted by the City in 1980. A major update of the Eugene Airport Master Plan was then adopted in 1990, by Lane County and the City of Eugene, to replace the Mahlon Sweet Field Master Plan. The 1990 Airport Master Plan was developed to respond to problems with runway length and capacity, and to assure continued improvements to air service that would meet the needs of Eugene, Lane County and the surrounding areas served by the airport. The 1990 master plan developed the initial concept for re-configuring the airfield into a parallel runway design which has since been implemented. Subsequently, the 1999 Airport Master Plan update was adopted in 2000, to replace the 1990 master plan. It assured that aviation needs within the Airport’s service area would continue to be met by providing projections for facility demands and financial resources, and included a variety of recommendations for facility renovation and development. Actions related to the 1999 update included land use designation changes and rezoning to accommodate expansion of airport uses, development of a new parallel runway, realignment of Greenhill Road, and a variety of other airport improvements such as upgrades to the passenger terminal building and parking area expansion. The current update to the Eugene Airport Master Plan replaces earlier versions as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). The purpose of this plan is to provide guidance regarding specific airport functions including commercial aviation, general aviation, and airport-related commercial and industrial services associated with the airport. As stated in the plan goals and objectives, the current master plan update focuses heavily on the refinement of “landside” components (such as future development of airport-supporting commercial services) and ways to make the airport more financially self-reliant, but also includes improvements within the existing airport boundary to accommodate the Eugene Airport’s projected aviation demands. This update uses 2006 as the base year for data and analytical purposes and serves as a development guide through the planning horizon of 2026. Unlike the adoption process for the 1999 Airport Master Plan, the current update does not include any amendments to the Metro Plan or other locally adopted plans such as the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (Transplan). No changes to existing land use designations, zoning, or adopted policy are proposed. The current update does include recommendations for a variety of airport improvements that will accommodate the Airport’s needs into the future, some of which will require further research and analysis to determine the need and timing for any future Metro Plan amendments or zone changes in the vicinity. Those recommendations are further addressed in the findings below and it is emphasized that any specific Metro Plan amendments or zone changes necessary to implement the recommendations of the Eugene Airport Master Plan will Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 1 require additional public process and formal adoption by the affected jurisdiction(s) in the future. As addressed in the findings below, the current update of the Eugene Airport Master Plan is consistent with the process and regulations established for airport planning and administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA). The master plan update follows the process set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150-5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, and complies with the State’s airport planning regulations including applicable Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs). The findings below further demonstrate that adoption of the Eugene Airport Master Plan update is consistent with the applicable local approval criteria for adoption as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The need for joint City and County adoption of the updated master plan stems from the location of the Eugene Airport outside the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB), but within the Metro Plan boundary. As a matter of Metro Plan policy, the airport is located outside the UGB to protect aviation functions from incompatible development, as well as to reduce airport-related impacts on development within the UGB. Due to this location, land use regulations for the airport property are under Lane County jurisdiction, and adoption of the refinement plan for this City-owned facility necessarily includes both governing bodies. The joint adoption is also appropriate as the updated Eugene Airport Master Plan will replace the existing plan, which was also adopted jointly. Approval Criteria and Evaluation Eugene Code (EC) 9.8424 requires that the following criteria (in bold) must be met for adoption of the updated Eugene Airport Master Plan, as a refinement to the Metro Plan: (1)The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following: (a)Statewide Planning Goals; (b)Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan; (c)Remaining portions of the refinement plan. (2)The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: (a)An error in the publication of the refinement plan. (b)New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal. (c)New or amended community policies. (d)New or amended provisions in federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan. (e)A change in circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted. Lane Code (LC) criteria at LC 12.060, for approval of a refinement plan amendment, are also included below: The Refinement Plan amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Metro Plan. The findings below address consistency with the applicable approval criteria in support of Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 2 adoption. Statewide Planning Goals -- EC 9.8424(1)(a) and LC 12.060 Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City of Eugene and Lane County have acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. Adoption of this update to the Eugene Airport Master Plan, as a refinement of the Metro Plan, does not amend the citizen involvement program of either jurisdiction. The process for reviewing this refinement plan update complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and surpasses the requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions. Beyond the locally required public notice and hearings which are described below, an Airport Master Plan Advisory Committee was established to assist with the development of the master plan update, including representatives from a broad cross-section of the community being served by the Eugene Airport. The 16-member committee met six times over the course of approximately 2½ years between 2006 and 2009, to review and provide input on the master plan as it was developed. In addition, four public participation workshops were held during the course of developing the master plan update. The City of Eugene and Lane County implement Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of the proposed adoption be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration of the proposed adoption began with a joint public hearing by the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions. The joint Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed adoption was duly noticed to the City of Springfield, Lane County, community groups and individuals who have requested notice. The City also mailed notice of the proposed refinement plan update to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, in accordance with State statutes. Notice and opportunity to comment was also provided to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), all neighborhood groups officially recognized by the City, and other interested parties including members of the Eugene Airport Master Plan Advisory Committee. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the Register Guard newspaper. The Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners also held a duly noticed public hearing to consider adoption of the Eugene Airport Master Plan, prior to final action by each local jurisdiction. These notice requirements and public hearing processes, in addition to the work of the Airport Master Plan Advisory Committee, have afforded ample opportunity for public input and involvement consistent with the State’s citizen involvement provisions required by Goal 1. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Under Goal 2, the Metro Plan serves as the area’s comprehensive, policy framework plan. The current update to the Eugene Airport Master Plan replaces earlier versions as a refinement to the Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 3 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), and is found to be consistent with the policy framework already established by the Metro Plan, and related adopted plans including Transplan. As required by the approval criteria for adoption of this refinement plan update, findings regarding consistency with the relevant provisions of the Metro Plan are provided later in this evaluation. The proposed update also follows applicable procedures for coordinated adoption by the local governing bodies including the City of Eugene and Lane County. In addition to its status as a component of the overall comprehensive planning framework, the master plan update is also required to meet FAA requirements for aviation planning and remain eligible for FAA funding for needed Airport improvements. As in the past, the current master plan update was developed consistent with the FAA guidelines for Airport master plans and also accounts for numerous aviation standards relating to airport operations safety, noise and compatibility with surrounding land uses contained in applicable FAA Federal Aviation Regulations. The current update is also consistent with state airport-related objectives outlined in the Oregon Aviation Plan and promulgated through the state’s adopted Aviation System Plan (ASP) and related statutes and administrative rules. ORS 836.610, Airports and Landing Fields, requires that local comprehensive plans and land use regulations accommodate airport zones and uses for certain publicly owned and privately owned public use airports. Pursuant to OAR 738-090-0030, the Eugene Airport (a.k.a. Mahlon Sweet Field) is listed as one of the publicly owned airports registered, licensed, or otherwise recognized by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Oregon Aviation Department (ODA). For airports so listed, ORS 836.610 requires that comprehensive plans be consistent with the provisions in ORS 836.616, which establish rules for airport uses and activities, and ORS 836.619, relating to state rules establishing safety and compatibility standards of land uses near airports. The Airport Planning Rules contained in OAR 660, Division 13 implement ORS 836.600 through 836.630 and Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation. These rules establish parameters for airport planning to support the vitality and economic function of airports and their host communities. As stated in OAR 660-013-0010(1): The policy of the State of Oregon is to encourage and support the continued operation and vitality of Oregon's airports. These rules are intended to promote a convenient and economic system of airports in the state and for land use planning to reduce risks to aircraft operations and nearby land uses. OAR 660-013-0030 requires that local plans for airport operations and development be consistent with the state’s adopted ASP. The current master plan update serves as the local aviation plan consistent with the ASP, under the requirements of ORS 836.600 through 836.630 and applicable OARs. Beyond consistency with these statutory requirements, the current update complies with applicable FAA regulations as described in the master plan update. Under the state’s Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0065(1) and (3)(n) permit expansions or alterations of public use airports on rural lands when such improvements do not permit service to a larger class of airplanes, and preclude the need to take an exception to Statewide Planning Goals under the standards outlined in Goal 2. The current master plan update Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 4 does not include any improvements are proposed that would permit service by a larger class of airplanes and no goal exceptions are required. Conformance with the state’s Transportation Planning Rule will be further addressed below as part of the findings relative to Goal 12. Further, as noted elsewhere in this evaluation, adoption of the current master plan update as a refinement to the Metro Plan remains consistent with, and does not include any additional plan amendments to the Metro Plan or other locally adopted plans such as Transplan. The following policy language from the Metro Plan Transportation Element (Policy F.30, Page III-F-12), is particularly relevant under Goal 2: Support public investment in the Eugene Airport as a regional facility and provide land use controls that limit incompatible development within the airport environs. Continue to use the Eugene Airport Master Plan as the guide for improvements of facilities and services at the airport. The current update does include recommendations for a variety of airport improvements that will accommodate the Airport’s needs into the future, some of which will require further research and analysis to determine the need and timing for any future Metro Plan amendments or zone changes in the vicinity. Those recommendations are further addressed in the findings below and it is emphasized that any specific Metro Plan amendments or zone changes necessary to implement the recommendations of the Eugene Airport Master Plan will require additional public process and formal adoption by the affected jurisdiction(s) in the future. As such, the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 2 as it relates to updating a refinement to the Metro Plan and does not create internal inconsistencies with the Metro Plan. Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. The prior 1999 Airport Master Plan adoption included Metro Plan amendments to re-designate parcels from Agricultural use on the Metro Plan diagram to Government and Education and to Airport Reserve. At that time, analysis required by Goal 3 was provided for the affected parcels which were re-designated to accommodate airport use and no Goal exception was required pursuant to OAR 660-012-0065(1) and (3)(n). Adoption of the current master plan update does not include any changes to existing Agricultural land use designations in the surrounding area, and OAR 660-012-0065(1) and (3)(n) allow airport improvements contemplated in the master plan update without the need for a Goal exception. The current master plan update does consider impacts related to noise from airport operations and possible impacts from surrounding land uses on aviation safety. Existing and proposed airport improvements are compatible with agricultural uses per standards set forth in OAR 660-013-0040, et seq; ODOT’s Oregon Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidelines; and relevant Metro Plan policies and local ordinances. As such, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 3 and will not otherwise affect Metro Plan compliance with this Goal. Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 5 Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands. There are no parcels within the airport boundary or surrounding area currently designated as Forest Land. Also, as found during the prior 1999 Airport Master Plan process, even if forest resources were feasible in the subject area, such uses could be considered incompatible with airport operations given height restrictions and air safety standards. Adoption of the current master plan update does not include any changes to existing Forest Land use designations, and OAR 660-012-0065(1) and (3)(n) allow airport improvements contemplated in the master plan update without the need for an exception to Goal 4. As such, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 4 and will not otherwise affect Metro Plan compliance with this Goal. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. Adoption of the current Eugene Airport Master Plan update does not include any plan amendments that would affect Goal 5 resources. The following administrative rule (OAR 660-023- 0250) is applicable to post-acknowledgement plan amendments concerning Goal 5: (3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if: (a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5; (b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or (c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area. Adoption of the Eugene Airport Master Plan update as a refinement to the Metro Plan will not create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, a plan or a land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5. Adoption of the master plan update will not allow any new conflicting uses or amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Therefore, adoption does not trigger the need to consider Goal 5 pursuant to OAR 660-023-0250(3). The only Lane County Goal 5 waterway identified in the vicinity traverses the boundary of the site near its southwest corner and is not impacted by any of the recommendations in the master plan update. To the extent that construction of future airport improvements contemplated in the master plan update may impact other jurisdictional wetlands in the area, as discussed in Chapter 3, Alternative Plan Concepts, avoidance and minimization alternatives have been considered. Some of the wetland areas considered in alternative development scenarios for the airport have Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 6 already been filled and mitigated through past permitting. Prior to any development in areas not already delineated or filled, further wetlands analysis and delineation will be required. If wetlands are in fact present, then state and federal wetlands regulations and permitting processes will need to be satisfied before construction, in addition to any related County requirements. As such, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 5 and will not otherwise affect Metro Plan compliance with this Goal. Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water and land from impacts from those discharges. The proposed refinement plan update does not amend the metropolitan area’s air, water quality or land resource policies. Future development recommended in the updated master plan will be required to comply with all local, state, and federal regulations regarding land, air, and water discharges and emissions. To the extent that any of the future airport improvements within the updated master plan may create additional impacts to air, water or land resources, state and local permitting processes will ensure that discharges do not exceed allowable standards. The updated Eugene Airport Master Plan otherwise demonstrates that future development can be reasonably expected to comply with applicable environmental laws. As such, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 6 and will not otherwise affect Metro Plan compliance with this Goal. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and property from natural hazards such as floods, landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis and wildfires. The updated Eugene Airport Master Plan is consistent with Goal 7 because the only identified potential natural hazards are areas within the 100-year floodplain located inside the airport boundary, and future development proposed must comply with local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to building and construction relative to floodplain areas. Limited areas within the airport boundary are in the 100-year floodplain (Zone A). These areas are associated with drainages carrying runoff to the Clear Lake Channel and Amazon Canal system at the periphery of the airport within runway protection zones and other areas not scheduled for immediate development and currently have no operational impacts. If future development were to impact any areas within the 100-year floodplain, it would be subject to applicable regulatory standards and local permitting requirements for floodplain development to ensure life and property is adequately protected. The airport is too far from the ocean and significant landforms to be subject to natural disasters or hazards such as landslides or tsunamis. Although much of western Oregon is subject to potential earthquake hazards, detailed fault locations have not been mapped for the subject area. Future Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 7 construction recommended in the updated master plan will be subject to current earthquake standards contained in allocable building codes and will therefore pose minimal risk associated with potential earthquakes. Other potential hazards, such as severe winter storms and wildfires can also be mitigated at the time of development based on accepted building codes and building techniques. As such, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 7 and will not otherwise affect Metro Plan compliance with this Goal. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. The updated Eugene Airport Master Plan is consistent with Goal 8 because there are no public parks and no land within or near the Eugene airport boundary that are zoned or designated for park use. The nearest public park, Golden Gardens Park, is located approximately 2.1 miles from the airport (driving distance to the park is 3.2 miles). The nearest developed public park is Lane County's Orchard Point Park, located at the northeast edge of Fern Ridge Reservoir, approximately 5.5 miles west of the airport. None of the proposed development at the airport for the 20-year planning period requires the use or acquisition of publicly owned park or recreation area. As such, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 8 and will not otherwise affect Metro Plan compliance with this Goal. Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens. Statewide Planning Goal 9 calls for the provision of “adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.” The current update of the Eugene Airport Master Plan is consistent with Goal 9 because proposed improvements will continue to enhance the viability of the Eugene Airport which supports the area’s economic vitality as Oregon’s second largest airport. It is identified in the state’s adopted Aviation System Plan (ASP) as a Level 1 commercial service airport, the most significant type within the state’s system of public airports. The improvements proposed in the current master plan update will assure that necessary facilities will be available to support airport functions through 2026, and consequently the area’s economic development needs. These economic development needs are identified in two functional refinements to the Metro Plan, the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study and the Eugene Commercial Lands Study. The studies provide the currently adopted inventories and policy recommendations relative to the economic development aspects of industrial and commercial lands within the Eugene UGB, consistent with Goal 9 and related ORS and OAR requirements. Neither study identified land within the airport boundary for inclusion in the metro area’s inventory of industrially or commercially designated lands. This is because both studies focused on sites within the UGB and the fact that the Government and Education designation allows for limited airport related industrial and commercial development as a matter of Metro Plan policy. Since adoption of the Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 8 master plan update does not include any land within the UGB, nor any change to existing land use designations (particularly no conversion of industrial or commercial use to another designation), no additional analysis is required under the implementing provisions of OAR 660-009-0010. The current Eugene Airport Master Plan update is otherwise consistent with state policy governing local government airport regulations. ORS 836.600 states: In recognition of the importance of the network of airports to the economy of the state and the safety and recreation of its citizens, the policy of the State of Oregon is to encourage and support the continued operation and vitality of Oregon’s airports. Such encouragement and support extends to all commercial and recreational uses and activities described in ORS 836.616(2). Because the Metro Plan, the ASP, and state policy acknowledge the airport’s role in meeting the area’s economic development objectives, the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 9, and approval will not affect Metro Plan compliance with this Goal. Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing units. The administrative rule for Statewide Planning Goal 10 (OAR 660 Division 8) states that “the mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs projection. Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan designation.” The comprehensive plan map for the City is the Metro Plan land use diagram. The 1999 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Study (RLS) is acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 10 and its administrative rule. The subject property was not included in the adopted RLS supply analysis, and the current Eugene Airport Master Plan update is consistent with Goal 10 because it does not change the status or designation of any land currently designated for residential use. Nonetheless, it is notable that the master plan update thoroughly considers two operational issues that relate to the compatibility of nearby housing or residential uses and the airport: safety and noise. The FAA establishes safety rules regarding airspace safety within airport environs through Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. Part 77 establishes safety zones around runways to preclude the location of structures or other land uses that would create obstructions or pose undue hazards to air navigation. The two- and three-dimensional “imaginary surfaces” created in Part 77 are codified through requirements outlined in OAR 738-0070 and local codes (Lane Code and Eugene Code). Additional runway protection zones at and near the ends of runways are defined by the FAA relative to airport design criteria to assure safe and efficient airport operations. These imaginary surfaces and runway protection zones are described and depicted in the master plan update. In the event of any extension of runway protection zones or changes to protected airspace as described in Chapter 6 of the master plan update, additional analysis is necessary to Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 9 determine the extent of any needed changes to local zoning and plan designations. Future property acquisition and land use designation changes may also be necessary to accommodate extended runway protection zones in the future. The master plan update recommends a detailed analysis of existing land use protection measures and what changes may be needed to accommodate future airport improvements, prior to implementation. Another compatibility issue between the airport and residential development pertains to noise impacts. FAA regulations define acceptable noise exposure contours as measured in yearly day- night average sound levels (DNL). The FAA and other federal agencies establish 65 DNL as the threshold considered as a significant noise impact. Through OAR 340-035-0045, the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regards DNL between 60 and 55 as significant. DEQ establishes 55 DNL as a threshold for study of planning and zoning measures to limit noise exposure and recommends specific mitigation when noise impacts are greater than 65 DNL. As depicted and described in Chapter 6 of the Plan Update, there is a significant decrease in the amount of single family housing parcels within the 55 DNL contour in 2026, with 117 less affected parcels than in 2006. Within the 65 DNL contour for 2006, there are four single family home parcels and one mobile home parcel. This number decreases to three home parcels in 2026. The reduction in the size of noise contours is primarily due to a change in military aircraft that will operate at the airport. As such, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 10 and will not affect Metro Plan compliance with the provision of needed housing pursuant to Goal 10. Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The Eugene Airport is currently served by the full range of urban services through previous exceptions allowing such services to be extended to the airport outside of the UGB and as provided for in the Metro Plan Public Facilities and Services Element (Policy G.26, Page III-G-12). Findings in the Metro Plan also confirm that the area of the airport designated Government and Education on the Metro Plan diagram receives municipal water, wastewater, fire and police services. Proposed improvements in this area would therefore be served by extension of currently available key urban services. The City of Eugene provides wastewater sewer facilities to the airport as well as police and fire protection. The City’s Airport Rescue and Firefighting station is supplemented by response as necessary from the Lane Rural Fire Protection District. Other services are provided by other local and regional utilities. Water service is provided by the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB), and EWEB and the Emerald People's Utility District both provide electrical service to the airport. Telecommunications services are provided by Qwest and Lane Council of Governments. Natural gas is provided by Northwest Natural. On-site storm water runoff is controlled by piped and open channel drainage systems in the area. Adoption of the master plan update will not require new services beyond those currently available Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 10 to serve airport and airport-related functions. Furthermore, extension of services for future development to meet the demands outlined in the master plan update is wholly consistent with the Metro Plan and prior City determinations. In addition to the demonstration made through the above findings, an exception from Statewide Planning Goal 11 is not necessary based upon OAR 660-012-0065(1) and (3)(n). As previously described, these administrative rules preclude the need to take an exception to Goal 11 (and Goals 3, 4, and 14) if the proposed amendments do not permit service to a larger class of airplane. The current master plan update does not include any amendments to land use designation or proposed improvements through the planning horizon of 2026 that would permit service to a larger class of aircraft than is currently provided. As such, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 11 and will not affect Metro Plan compliance with the Goal. Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is implemented at the local level. The TPR states that when land use changes, including amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, will significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government must put in place measures to assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of those transportation facilities. As previously described, adoption of the current master plan update does not include any amendments to the Metro Plan, adopted land use designations or existing zoning. No changes are proposed to the functional classification of any roadways serving the airport. Adoption of the updated refinement plan is not anticipated to reduce any existing transportation facilities below accepted levels of service or otherwise significantly affect any transportation facilities as outlined in the TPR. Unlike the prior adoption of amendments to implement the 1999 Airport Master Plan, the current master plan does not include any new planned transportation facility projects or major roadway realignments requiring formal plan amendments. Consistent with OAR 660-012-0065(3)(n), the proposed airport improvements recommended in the updated master plan do not permit service to a larger class of airplanes. As noted in Chapter 3 (Section 2.2. Design Standards), the Eugene Airport will continue to accommodate the Boeing 737- 300 aircraft which has an FAA Airport Reference Code (ARC) of C-III. The current air carriers at the Eugene Airport use smaller regional jet aircraft, and although not currently as common as in the past, the Boeing 737 has long been used as the critical design aircraft. To the extent that future airport improvements may result in additional motor vehicle traffic impacts, County traffic impact analysis requirements will be addressed as development and permitting occurs. As the current master plan update is consistent with OAR 660-012-0065 as well as other OARs Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 11 within the state Transportation Planning Rule and ORS, adoption is consistent with Goal 12 and will not affect Metro Plan compliance with the Goal. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy. The current master plan update is consistent with Goal 13 because the proposed airport development will strengthen the substantial investments made in the existing airport, enhance the viability of air transportation for people and goods proximate to the state’s second largest population center, and offer an alternative to potentially less fuel-efficient transportation alternatives. The recommendations contained in the master plan update will support a vital airport serving the air cargo, air mail, and commercial and general aviation needs of Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and the greater Eugene Airport service area. In meeting the updated master plan’s demand projections and facility capacity requirements, considerable energy will be conserved from export passengers and air freight to more distant airfields, including Portland International Airport. Using alternative airports to meet commercial and general aviation demands and transporting air freight, mail, and cargo to more distant airfields by other transportation modes (i.e., truck or rail) for shipping would result in far greater energy use and contravene the above Goal. As such, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13 and will not affect Metro Plan compliance with the Goal. Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Goal 14 requires that comprehensive plans provide for orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses, and the establishment of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) around incorporated cities to assure compact and efficient urban growth inside the UGB and protection of rural resources outside of it. Findings included in the Metro Plan Transportation Element (Page III-F-11) specifically note that he Eugene Airport is located outside the UGB to protect it from incompatible development as well as to reduce airport-related impacts on development within the UGB. It also notes that the area of airport designated government and education on the Metro Plan diagram receives municipal water, wastewater, fire, and police services. As previously discussed with respect to Goal 11, adoption of the master plan update will not require new urban services beyond those currently available to serve airport and airport-related functions. Furthermore, extension of services for future development to meet the demands outlined in the master plan update is wholly consistent with the Metro Plan and prior City determinations. Metro Plan Policy F.30 also supports the use of the Eugene Airport Master Plan as the guide for improvements of facilities and services at the airport. As previously noted, OAR 660-012-0065(1) and (3)(n) preclude the need to take an exception to Goal 14 because the proposed improvements do not permit service to a larger class of airplanes. As such, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with Goal 14, and will not affect Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 12 the Metro Plan compliance with the Goal. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The Eugene Airport is not within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 15 is not relevant, and adoption of the master plan update will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 15. Goal 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources: There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources in proximity to the Eugene Airport. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and adoption of the master plan update will not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19. Metro Plan Consistency -- EC 9.8424(1)(b) and LC 12.060 The Metro Plan serves as the area’s comprehensive, policy framework plan. The current update to the Eugene Airport Master Plan replaces earlier versions as a refinement to the Metro Plan, and is found to be consistent with the policy framework already established by the Metro Plan. As previously discussed, adoption of the updated master plan is supported by a variety of Metro Plan policies including the following from the Transportation Element (Policy F.30, Page III-F-12): Support public investment in the Eugene Airport as a regional facility and provide land use controls that limit incompatible development within the airport environs. Continue to use the Eugene Airport Master Plan as the guide for improvements of facilities and services at the airport. As stated previously, unlike the adoption process for the 1999 Airport Master Plan, the current update does not include any amendments to the Metro Plan or other locally adopted plans such as the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (Transplan). No changes to existing land use designations, zoning, or adopted policy are proposed. The current update does include recommendations for a variety of airport improvements that will accommodate the Airport’s needs into the future, some of which will require further research and analysis to determine the need and timing for any future Metro Plan amendments or zone changes in the vicinity. It is emphasized that any specific Metro Plan amendments or zone changes necessary to implement the recommendations of the updated Eugene Airport Master Plan will require additional public process and formal adoption by the affected jurisdiction(s) in the future. Based on the available information and findings above, adoption of the current master plan update is consistent with the Metro Plan and will not otherwise make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent, as required. Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 13 Refinement Plan Criteria -- EC 9.8424(1)(c) and (2) Adoption of the current Eugene Airport Master Plan update will entirely replace earlier adopted versions and there are no remaining portions of prior plans to be addressed under EC 9.8424(1)(c). The need for adoption of the updated refinement plan is based on federal and state and local requirements for coordinated aviation planning. Consistent with EC 9.8424(2)(b), new inventory information contained in the master plan update, concerning airport facilities and projected demand, supports the recommendations for future improvements to accommodate the Eugene Airport’s needs through the planning horizon of 2026. Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10-2 and PA 10-5284) Page 14 ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Council Chamber, City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene June 1, 2010 6:00 p.m. EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jeffrey Mills, Vice Chair; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, William Randall, Lisa Warnes. LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Lisa Arkin, Chair; Robert Noble, Vice Chair; George Goldstein, Tony McCown, Nancy Nichols, Dennis Sandow, John Sullivan. Ms. Beierle called the Eugene Planning Commission to order. Mr. Noble called the Lane County Planning Commission to order. Commissioners and staff introduced themselves. I. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Eugene Airport Master Plan Update Eugene File RA 10-2 Lane County File PA 10-5234 Lead Staff: Gabe Flock, City of Eugene Stephanie Schulz, Lane County Ms. Beierle said the purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing on a City initiated request to consider a proposed ordinance updating the Eugene Airport Master Plan, as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). She said after the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commissions would make recommendations to the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners (BCC) to approve, approve with modifications or deny the proposed ordinance. A subsequent public hearing and action by the City Council and BCC was anticipated for this summer. MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 1 Joint Public Hearing of the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions Mr. Flock explained the role of the commissions was to make recommendations to elected officials on the plan. He introduced Tim Doll, Eugene Airport Manager, and project consultant Damon Smith with Mead and Hunt, Inc. Staff asked the Planning Commissions to deliberate this evening and develop a recommendation for elected officials unless there was a need for a follow-up meeting. He directed commissioners to a document entitled Eugene Airport Master Plan Update Executive Summary, May 2010. He noted the adoption included no formal land use designation changes, or rezoning, but rather spoke to the potential future for those actions based on further study in relation to timing of various improvements that may be proposed. This was a functional refinement plan that would replace previous versions of the Airport Master Plan. He noted the 1999 master plan update involved land use designation changes related to an airport expansion, acquisition of additional properties, development of the parallel runway and realignment of Greenhill Road, all of which required additional indepth plan amendments. Mr. Flock stated the master plan update included several improvements to the airport to accommo- date demand over the planning horizon until 2026. The requirement for the master plan was established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). State statutes required local adoption of the plan to protect against incompatible land uses. Joint action by the two commissions was required because the airport was located outside the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB) and within in the Metro Plan boundary. The land use regulations were under County jurisdiction while the facility was owned by the City and involved the City as a partner in the Metro Plan. He iterated an extensive public process, going back to establishment of an advisory committee in 2006, had led to this public hearing. No testimony had been received in response to the public notice for this hearing, but comments had been received today from Mark Bernard, Senior Planner, Lane County Public Works Transportation Planning, copies of which were distributed to commissioners and would be included in the public record. Mr. Noble stated he had previously been, but was no longer, employed by the City of Eugene at the airport. He knew and had worked with the applicant and consultants. He was the Executive Director of the Airport Management Association of which Mr. Doll was a member. He had not discussed this project with Mr. Doll and had had no contact with the consultants since his employment. He did not believe he had a conflict of interest and his contacts would not impact his ability to make an impartial decision. Tim Doll, Eugene Airport Director, explained the FAA required airports that accepted federal funding to undertake a master planning process, with updates approximately every ten years. The airport master plan was a planning document used by airport managers as a guide, including feasibility analysis, for a twenty year period to meet future capacity commitments. A master plan advisory committee consisting of seventeen members held six meetings in addition to four public meetings that provided opportunities for public input. Damon Smith, project consultant, explained Mead and Hunt, an aviation consulting firm had been working with the City since 2006 on this project. He reviewed the Eugene Airport Master Plan Update Executive Summary, May 2010. He explained the existing facility and properties owned by the City, coupled with the anticipated forecasts for a twenty year period impacted facility requirements necessary to support expected growth, had been identified. He reviewed identified MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 2 Joint Public Hearing of the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions improvements explained on pages 8-10 of the executive summary. Mr. Smith responded to comments and questions from commissioners. In response to a question from Ms. Nichols, Mr. Smith explained that the number of proposed new parking spaces was increasing at a higher rate than the anticipated number of passengers, to meet industry trends and to meet peak period demands. He noted more people traveled on holidays and summer vacation times, generating surges in airport activity. Mr. Doll added an increased business market tended to consist of one person per vehicle opposed to two or three family members traveling for leisure travel. Mr. Hledik noted airspace surfaces, runway protection zones, noise contours and other regulatory measures uses had been identified. He asked if any of those regulations changed significantly in the updated plan such that they would impact the land uses within the UGB. Mr. Smith said with the current pavement configuration and with the addition of pavement, there were changes to accommodate the safe movement of aircraft which extended approximately ten miles off each end of the runway. Two extensions had been identified, one during a previous master plan update, and the requisite airspace previously protected. Mr. Smith explained extension of the east runway to the south required protection of additional airspace. The runway protection zone extended approximately ½ mile off each runway end. Two parcels had been identified for acquisition on the north side that were needed for the runway protection zone, which was an area identified by the FAA for the purpose of land use compatibili- ty. The parcels identified for acquisition to accommodate the runway protection zone were necessary for the existing runway configuration as well as the future runway configuration, and the action was not driven by a change in the runway configuration. Mr. Smith stated the airport master plan update illustrated noise contours for the future. The land use chapter of the document contrasted current noise contours with expectations twenty years in the future. The contours assumed the fleet in the future would consist of newer planes which would have a lower noise volume due to quieter planes. However, a significant contributor to noise contours was military aircraft which used the Eugene Airport for training and were not subject to the same noise regulations as commercial aircraft. Mr. Duncan asked if consideration had been given to extending the runway to the south to preclude impacting Fiddlers’ Green, which would be a considerable acquisition. Mr. Smith responded the acquisition involving Fiddlers’ Green was necessary for the current runway configuration, and the extension to the runway was to the south. Thus, acquisition of the Fiddlers’ Green parcel was necessary regardless of whether or not the runway was extended. Mr. Doll stated the FAA was looking at the Fiddlers’ Green acquisition as a low priority at the present time, but that could change in the future. Any change would be brought to the Planning Commission. MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 3 Joint Public Hearing of the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions Mr. Noble suggested the conditions that would impact the proposed property acquisitions were currently compliance uses as agriculture land and aircraft use. He asked if that would allow time to make the acquisition through a controlled process so that it did not become a non-compliant use. Mr. Smith said the bulk of the Fiddlers’ Green property was a golf course, which generally complied with airport activity because it did not have large concentrations of people, fuel storage or other hazardous uses. However, there was a building that was heavily used by the public and had a significant amount of activity, which could be interpreted as an incompatible use based on FAA regulations. The FAA was familiar with the issue. The building was in operation when the runway was built and the FAA chose not to require acquisition of the building at that time. He noted the land would not become less expensive, and the airport did not have control over how the land was used. It was up to the zoning and good will of the property owner to maintain activities that were compliant with the airport. Mr. Sullivan stated that Lane County was dealing with several UGB changes throughout the county. He noted Junction City was about to undergo an expansion to accommodate a new state hospital and prison, and asked if the Junction City Planning and Building Department had been an integral part of the planning process for the Eugene Airport and understood how a ten mile fly zone would impact the new uses and any UGB changes in the future. Mr. Doll responded that staff had been in contact with Junction City on the hospital and prison parcels, as well as water towers, in relation to air space issues. He assured commissioners that Junction City would not be impacted by extension of the runway since that extension would be south of the airport. Mr. Belcher understood additional flights were anticipated in the future. He pointed out additional flights were predicted in 1998, but there were 25 percent fewer flights today than in 1998. He had seen no indication of what percentage of the current capacity was in use. He thought there was plenty of room in the parking lot and the concourse, and questioned the need for expansion. Mr. Doll said the FAA based facility requirements on capacity for peak travel times, and during peak travel times, the airport had insufficient parking, requiring use of the overflow lot. When looking at concourse expansion, he observed airlines were notorious for wanting to fly at the same time to enable them to get into their hub and spoke systems to allow passengers to reach connecting flights. Thus, the majority of the outgoing flights departed during a two hour period in the morning. Under the current configuration, seven flights departed from six gates during that period, and there was insufficient capacity for additional flights during that two hour period to meet passenger demand. Mr. Smith said an additional consideration was related to what type of experience the owner and operator of the airport wanted to provide to its customers. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Doll estimated the parking lot was full at least two times per year. MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 4 Joint Public Hearing of the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions Ms. Arkin stated the Lane County Planning Commission was charged with looking at the growth patterns of many types of cities in Lane County as well as addressing regional transportation issues. She asked why there was a need to increase parking while also looking at the expansion of Junction City facilities for a state hospital and state prison in close proximity to the airport. The Planning Commission had been discussing the role of public transportation in moving people between Eugene and Junction City along Highway 99. She asked what provisions had been made for public transportation, how active Lane Transit District (LTD) had been in the discussions, and if more could be done along the lines of what Portland had done to make it easy to use public transportation, reducing the need for driving and parking. Mr. Doll explained LTD had not been receptive to expanding bus transportation to the airport, feeling the only people who would use that service to the airport would be employees rather than the general public. Staff would continue to talk with LTD. He added the majority of passengers, especially business travelers, wanted to drive and needed to park. Although the proposal showed new parking facilities, it would only be added when the demand called for it. It was not financially prudent to have unused parking. Mr. Smith added at the national level, as well as in Eugene, it was not easy to change behavior. If people wished to drive to the airport, lack of parking would not necessarily discourage them from driving to the airport. They were more likely to park on the grass or to drive to another airport where parking was available. The amount of parking recommended by the FAA for a facility similar to that of Eugene correlated with the number of people and the number of cars expected in the future. Ms. Nichols opined cell phone lots appeared to be efficient although they may not make money. Mr. Doll responded staff had evaluated a cell phone lot, noting they had been popular in airports nationwide. The popularity had started to fall off. There were already areas outside of the terminal area along the road sides where people parked waiting for flights to arrive. Construction of a cell phone lot would require maintenance, and the use would not justify maintaining the facility. Many cell phone lots at airports the size of Eugene were being converted to other uses. Mr. Smith added there was space for a cell phone lot at the Eugene Airport if the demand warranted it. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Noble explained there was a financial element of the master plan update, which may not be related to anticipated growth or capacity, but rather how the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) would be managed. Mr. Nystrom noted the CIP was updated bi-annually. Mr. Doll stated the airport had a five year capital improvement program mandated by the FAA, which was used to help generate the City’s bi-annual CIP as well as support grant funding. Mr. Smith noted not all of the improvements would be borne by the City. Many, including hangers, taxiways and ramps would be borne by the developer of the facility. MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 5 Joint Public Hearing of the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Doll said a combination of passenger facility charges and local airport bond funding would be used to pay for concourse expansion. Airlines paid for some of costs of terminal building construction. Mr. Noble asked if thought had been given for airport related industrial development in the current master plan update. Mr. Smith stated there had been an assessment of whether the airport had surplus land available for uses other than the operation of the airport. There was some land available for industrial and commercial uses but the zoning was not currently compatible. It would be up to the City, the airport and a willing developer to continue to look for suitable developments. Mr. Sullivan asked if airport staff had had a opportunity to consider the suggestion from the Lane County Transportation Planning staff that a transportation impact analysis (TIA) may be required as part of a future development proposal pursuant to the airport master plan update. Mr. Bernard clarified the use of the word “may” was in Lane Code Chapter 15. A TIA may be waived by the Lane County engineer or their designee in a case where there was a finding of no significant impact on the County road system. The word “may” was inserted to make it clear that the County engineer could waive the TIA requirement. It was unclear what the major development would be in the future in the airport area, and this seemed a good way to deal with those unknowns. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Flock concurred that any planning effort related to runway expansion would require a coordinated planning effort with other jurisdictions. This effort had not yet been undertaken. Mr. Noble noted the City’s current Envision Eugene planning process may or may not look at an expanded UGB. He opined the timing of an analysis prior to the conclusion of that effort seemed appropriate and asked if it would be considered. Mr. Flock thought that such an effort would be appropriate, noting the Metro Plan policy that called for siting the airport outside the UGB to protect against incompatible development had prompted the overarching discussion identifying the airport as an area to be discussed. He encouraged the airport staff to engage in that process. Ms. Arkin observed the master plan update executive summary noted carriers were relying on smaller airplanes and asked if the trend was to move to smaller aircraft. She had heard on numerous occasions that people liked to fly into the Eugene airport because of the manageable size and unique character of the airport, while many people did not like to fly into Portland or SeaTac. She emphasized the importance of maintain the airport’s character. Mr. Doll addressed the need to extend the runway because of the aircraft mix. He noted one commonly use regional jet was probably the least efficient airplane in service today and had a difficult time with runways shorter than 6,000 feet. The MD-80 currently used by Allegiant Airlines could not use the shorter runway if the outside temperature was over 80 degrees due to MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 6 Joint Public Hearing of the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions weight limitations. When temperatures reached 80 degrees, Allegiant Airlines had to remove passengers from the airplanes and the airport had to reimburse the airlines for empty seats. He stated the friendly character of the airport was beneficial when recruiting airlines to fly into the Eugene Airport. He explained it was against federal law for the airport to restrict the type of aircraft that could use the airport. Due to the size of the community, the airport would always be a smaller airport, which would encourage maintaining the friendly environment. Mr. Smith concurred there was a trend toward regional aircraft, which were not as efficient as they would appear to be. It was unlikely that the airport would propose extending the runway lengths since they were required to go through a justification process to encourage the FAA to support the expansion. The intent was to illustrate the need for the longer runway to accommodate aircraft currently flying into the Eugene Airport. Ms. Warnes observed the Envision Eugene process would likely extend into 2011. She asked if the airport master plan update process could wait until Envision Eugene was completed since it impacted so many communities. Mr. Nystrom said the Envision Eugene process would likely impact evaluation of lands within the UGB expansion rather than those within the existing UGB. The areas under discussion would likely be at the extreme edges of the cone shaped airspace protection area for the airport. Planning staff had preliminary conversations with airport staff regarding the Envision Eugene process and would coordinate acquisition of lands within the City. The area covered by the airspace protection zone consisted of a large swath of west Eugene and the master plan area was likely already covered. Ms. Beierle opened the Eugene Planning Commission public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Mr. Noble opened Lane County Planning Commission public hearing at 7:03 p.m. There was no one who wished to offer public testimony. Ms. Beierle closed the Eugene Planning Commission public hearing. Mr. Noble closed Lane County Planning Commission public hearing. Ms. Beierle called for questions from commissioners. Ms. Schultz stated there was a diagram of the safety overlay zone on page 6A, exhibit 6-3, in plan, which illustrated how extensive the airspace overlay zone extended. Ms. Beierle opened the floor to deliberations. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. Warnes, moved to remove the recommen- dation that the automobile parking be expanded until actual usage num- bers demonstrated the current facility reached capacity more often than a few times a year. MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 7 Joint Public Hearing of the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions Mr. Hledik understood parking standards for peak periods were established by the FAA. Mr. Smith responded that parking would be driven by demand and determined by the City and the airport. The FAA did not regulate parking. He opined parking would be expanded when there were more passengers and peak periods were reached more than a few times a year. Mr. Doll added the plan served as a guide related to parking expansion and was not currently in the airport’s five year CIP. Parking would not be expanded until a demand existed. Mr. Nystrom suggested including qualifying language in the master plan that would serve as a trigger for looking at parking, so that the whole plan would not have to be reopened to address one issue. Mr. Goldstein observed that people who drove 65 miles from the coast did not want to take a chance that parking would be available when they arrived at the Eugene Airport. He asked how the subjectivity of the issue should be evaluated. Mr. Doll said the history and patterns of parking had been evaluated as part of the master plan update process. The number of people dropped off curb front by friends and relatives, by taxi cabs, and shuttle busses had been evaluated. There was still a big demand for parking spaces and when the lots filled up, people missed their flights and the next time they traveled, they may fly out of the Portland rather than the Eugene Airport. The Eugene Airport was currently retaining approximately 52 per of its passengers and was making every effort to keep more people from driving to Portland for departures. Mr. Goldstein was more comfortable with more parking and speculated that the peak was reached two times per year. He noted the cost of asphalt was increasing rapidly and suggested it would be cost effective to pave parking spaces now rather than later. He asked if the projected increase in air cargo would increase truck traffic. Mr. Doll explained the increase in air cargo was related primarily to Federal Express and United Parcel Service overnight package delivery services and would not increase truck traffic. Mr. Noble had observed when parking was tight, more people were dropped off, resulting in two trips to the airport rather than one when parking was available. The last parking expansion was done to meet the number of times the overflow lot was used. The parking lot was built to City standards, with tree wells and irrigation, with sensitivity to esthetics and shading of the environ- ment, resulting in costs up to 30 percent higher. As mentioned this evening, the airport served as a gateway to the area, and was one element of how customers were treated. While the motion on the table was a Eugene Planning Commission motion, he would not support removing the parking requirement from the plan, since it was only a plan. The FAA would look at whether the airport identified properties for future uses, which did not mean they would be built immediately, but rather in the future when the demand warranted. MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 8 Joint Public Hearing of the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions Mr. Belcher said he lived in Eugene and never parked long term at the airport, and it had no value to him. While it may be wise to buy land to expand capacity at a later time, it was foolish to buy land when it was not known if it would be needed in the future. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Ms. Warnes, modified his motion to recommend that the automobile parking not be expanded until usage numbers demon- strated the current facility reached capacity more than ten times a year. Mr. Mills said he flew frequently and had been in dozens of airports throughout the country. The welcoming aspect, which included parking, was important to the success of the airport. He would oppose the motion. Mr. Randall agreed with Mr. Mills. He opined that while reaching capacity two times a year was not enough, ten times a year was too many and would hurt the airport. The motion failed 1:6, with Commissioner Belcher voting in favor of the motion, and Commissioners Beierle, Duncan, Hledik, Mills, Randall, and Warnes against the motion. Mr. Noble, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Lane County Plan- ning Commission approve the Eugene Airport Master Plan Update and forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for adoption. Mr. Sullivan suggested that the commission highlight trigger points for parking to the BCC. Mr. Noble suggested the trigger points be noted as a concern for the BCC. Ms. Arkin found it unacceptable that LTD would not participate in providing public transportation to the airport. She asked that the commission’s recommendation to the BCC include language to draw attention that no viable public transportation was available for the airport. Mr. McCown stated that Andy Vobora from LTD served on the advisory committee. Mr. McCown understood that LTD had not commented it would not participate in providing public transportation to the airport, but rather had found the service was not sustainable. Mr. Noble agreed with Mr. McCown, noting LTD had offered the service on a trial basis in 2003 and there had not been enough demand for the service, with an average of only one passenger per day. He asserted there needed to be enough demand to support the service. Other public transportation options tried included a rideshare program supported by the airport. Taxi service was available. Ms. Arkin asserted the community’s sensibilities around public transportation had grown since 2003 and it was important to let the community know the service was available. She was concerned about voting yes on the motion because she saw no priority setting and saw the master plan as a blank check. MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 9 Joint Public Hearing of the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions The motion passed 6:0:1, with Commissioners Goldstein, McCown, Ni- chols, Noble, Sandow, and Sullivan voting in favor of the motion, no one voting against the motion, and Commissioner Arkin abstaining from vot- ing. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved that the Eugene Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance updating the Eugene Airport Master Plan as a refinement to the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, City File RA 10-2. Mr. Belcher would vote against the motion because there was no compelling argument to expand the terminal or parking. The motion passed 5:2, with Commissioners Beierle, Duncan, Hledik, Mills, and Randall voting in favor of the motion and Commissioners Belcher and Warnes voting against the motion. Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions adjourned at 7:30 p.m. (Recorded by Linda L. Henry) MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 10 Joint Public Hearing of the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions Û«¹»²» ß·®°±®¬ Ê·½·²·¬§ Ó¿° l Û«¹»²» Ó·´»­ ððòîëðòëï ß°°®±¨·³¿¬» Ю±°»®¬§ Þ±«²¼¿®§ Ý¿«¬·±²æ ̸·­ ³¿° ·­ ¾¿­»¼ ±² ·³°®»½·­» ­±«®½» ¼¿¬¿ô ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ½¸¿²¹»ô ¿²¼ º±® ¹»²»®¿´ ®»º»®»²½» ±²´§ò ß°®·´ ïîô îðïð