Planning Commission
Regular MeetingEugene, OR · June 1, 2010
Minutes
MINUTES
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 recommenda-
tions 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.
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
MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 1
Joint Public Hearing of the
City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
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
accommodate 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 commis-
sions 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
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
MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 2
Joint Public Hearing of the
City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
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.
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
MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 3
Joint Public Hearing of the
City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
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.
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
MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 4
Joint Public Hearing of the
City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
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.
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.
MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 5
Joint Public Hearing of the
City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
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 develop-
ment 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
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
MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 6
Joint Public Hearing of the
City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
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 accommo-
date 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.
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.
MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 7
Joint Public Hearing of the
City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
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
environment, 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.
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 recom-
mend that the automobile parking not be expanded until usage numbers
demonstrated 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.
MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 8
Joint Public Hearing of the
City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
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
Planning 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 transporta-
tion 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.
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 Eu-
gene/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.
MINUTES June 1, 2010 Page 9
Joint Public Hearing of the
City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
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
Agenda
AGENDA
EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chamber, City Hall, 777 Pearl Street
www.eugene‐or.gov/pc Eugene, OR 97401
The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come
and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair‐accessible. For the
hearing impaired, FM assistive‐listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with
48 hours notice prior to the meeting. Spanish‐language interpretation will also be provided with 48
hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541‐682‐5481.
Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are available at 541‐682‐5119.
TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2010 – PUBLIC HEARING
(6:00 p.m.)
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions will hold a joint public hearing to consider
a proposed ordinance updating the Eugene Airport Master Plan, as a refinement to the Eugene‐
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (City File RA 10‐2, Lane County File PA 10‐5234)
Lead City Staff: Gabe Flock, 682‐5697
Public Hearing Format
1. Staff presentation
2. Open public hearing
3. Questions from the Planning Commission
4. Close public hearing
5. Planning Commission discussion/action
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
June 1, 2010
To: Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
From: Gabe Flock, City of Eugene Planning Division
Stephanie Schulz, Lane County Land Management Division
Subject: Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234)
ACTION REQUESTED
To hold a joint public hearing on a proposed ordinance for adoption of the updated Eugene Airport
Master Plan, as a refinement to the Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
Following the public hearing, the commissions will be asked to deliberate and make a recommendation
on the proposed adoption, to the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
BRIEFING STATEMENT
The proposed ordinance is subject to a public hearing and recommendation by the Eugene and Lane
County Planning Commissions. The commissions will follow the legislative procedures for their review
of the proposal. After holding the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commissions will
make a recommendation to the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners to
approve, approve with modifications, or deny the proposed ordinance. A subsequent hearing and
action by the City Council and County Board is anticipated for later this summer.
The professional consultants (Mead & Hunt) and Eugene Airport staff involved in the preparation of
the master plan update will provide an overview prior to the hearing, and will be available for
questions. City and County planning staff will also be available to assist with land use related
components of the master plan adoption process.
The updated Eugene Airport Master Plan which is the subject of this public hearing is available on the
City’s website for the Eugene Airport at: www.eugene‐or.gov (on the Eugene Airport home page, scroll
down and click on “Draft Master Plan Update” along the left‐hand column). Planning Commissioners
will also receive a copy of the master plan on disk. An executive summary is also attached for quick
reference.
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. As stated in the
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
PC AIS, p1
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
attached findings 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 addressed in the attached findings, 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 further demonstrate that adoption of the
Eugene Airport Master Plan update is consistent with the applicable local approval criteria for adoption
by the City and County 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.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND NOTICE
The Eugene Airport Master Plan Advisory Committee was established at the outset of the process
in 2006, to assist with the development of the master plan update. This 16‐member committee
included representatives from a broad cross‐section of the community being served by the Eugene
Airport. The 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.
Notice of this public hearing was sent to all officially recognized City neighborhood organizations, the
City of Springfield, Lane County, and community groups and individuals who have requested notice.
Notice of the hearing was also sent to interested parties including members of the Eugene Airport
PC AIS, p2
Master Plan Advisory Committee, and published in the Register Guard as required for legislative
actions.
As of the writing of this staff report, staff has not received any testimony in response to notice of the
public hearing. Any additional testimony received by staff in advance of the public hearing will also be
included in the record and forwarded to the commissions for consideration.
APPROVAL CRITERIA
Eugene Code (EC) 9.8424 requires that the following criteria 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 also require compliance with the following:
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 Planning Commissions are required to address the relevant approval criteria above in making the
recommendation to the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, for adoption of
the updated Eugene Airport Master Plan as a refinement to the Metro Plan. Preliminary findings
addressing compliance with these approval criteria are included as an exhibit to the draft ordinance,
and also attached for reference.
RECOMMENDATION
City and County staff recommend that following the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning
Commissions recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance. In the event an additional meeting is
needed for deliberation and action on this item, time is set aside for a joint Planning Commission
meeting on June 15, 2010.
ATTACHMENT
A. Draft Ordinance and Findings
B. Executive Summary of Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
PC AIS, p3
C. Vicinity Map
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For additional information, please contact Gabe Flock by telephone at 541‐682‐5697 or via email at
gabriel.flock@ci.eugene.or.us. The Lane County staff contact is Stephanie Schulz at 541‐682‐3958 or
via email at Stephanie.Schulz@co.lane.or.us.
PC AIS, p4
PC AIS, p5
AIS Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO. _________
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.
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 this Approved by the Mayor this
_____ day of ________________, 2010 _____ day of __________________, 2010
_________________________________ __________________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - Page 1 of 1
PC AIS, p6
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OF
AN UPDATE TO THE EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
(RA 10‐2 AND PA 10‐5234)
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
PC AIS, p7
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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
PC AIS, p8
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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 will then hold 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
PC AIS, p9
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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
PC AIS, p10
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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.
PC AIS, p11
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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
PC AIS, p12
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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
PC AIS, p13
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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
PC AIS, p14
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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
PC AIS, p15
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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
PC AIS, p16
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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
PC AIS, p17
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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
PC AIS, p18
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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.
PC AIS, p19
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) 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.
PC AIS, p20
Findings – Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (RA 10‐2 and PA 10‐5234) Page 14
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
Executive Summary
Prepared for
City of Eugene, Oregon
Prepared by
May 2010
PC AIS, p21
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) developed the airport master planning process to assist the
nation’s airports with expansion and improvement plans that meet aviation demand and safety
requirements. The Master Plan Update for the Eugene Airport (EUG) provides a development and
expansion framework for a 20-year planning period starting from base year 2006.
Plan Goals and Objectives
The goal of the Master Plan Update is to guide future airport development to meet future aviation
demand, and consider potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts. To achieve this goal, the
Master Plan Update includes the following elements.
• Demand, capacity, and facility requirements analysis – Based on the projections of aviation
demand, facility requirements were determined and compared to the existing capacity of the
airport facilities.
• Alternative plan concepts – Once facility needs were determined, alternative methods to meet
those needs were developed. These alternatives were evaluated against operational, financial,
environmental, and other feasibility-related criteria.
• Financial plan – A financial plan was developed that identified strategies and funding sources for
proposed capital improvements. Airport improvements are typically funded using a combination
of Federal grants (up to 95% of the funding can come from the Aviation Trust Fund, which is
derived from fees collected from users of the national aviation system), and local monies earned
through Airport operations.
• Airport Layout Plan – The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) was updated as a part of the planning
process. The ALP provides the official graphic representation of the Airport' s existing and
proposed facilities. Once the FAA approves the ALP, projects may be eligible for Federal grant
funding.
Many of the features described are depicted in an exhibit on the last page of this Executive Summary.
May 2010 1
PC AIS, p22
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
General Background
The FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) identifies over 3,300 airports significant to
national air transportation, and eligible to receive grants. The 2007-2011 NPIAS shows Eugene Airport
as a Non-Hub, Commercial Service, Primary Airport. The basic Airport service provider to the community
is Commercial Service – Primary. A Non-Hub commercial service airport accounts for less than 0.05
percent of total U.S. Passenger enplanements, but more than 10,000 annual enplanements. EUG has
historically been a Small Hub airport, accounting for between 0.05 and 0.25 percent of total U.S.
passenger enplanements, but it qualified as a Non-Hub in 2006. Eugene is the second busiest airport in
Oregon, behind Portland International Airport.
EUG’s service area includes Lane, Benton, Douglas, and Linn Counties. The service area is a function of
geography, and access to EUG and other commercial service airports. EUG’s service area extends
approximately 60 miles from the Airport, about one hour’s drive. The four counties’ proximity to Interstate
5 provides relatively easy access to the Airport. EUG is served by four scheduled passenger airlines:
Delta Connection, Horizon Air, Allegiant Air, and United Express. Daily scheduled service connects EUG
to 10 U.S. cities, by up to 23 departures and 23 arrivals.
May 2010 2
PC AIS, p23
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public Participation
Airport officials, community leaders, and the general public all play an important role in the master
planning process. A Master Plan Advisory Committee was appointed to assist in the preparation of this
Plan, and met regularly throughout the study period to ensure that a comprehensive, community based
perspective was incorporated into the project. The Advisory Committee was comprised of the following
individuals.
• Linda Ackerman – Airport Advisory Committee
• Dr. Harvey Birdseye – Lane Community College, Aviation Academy
• Ruthann Couch – Air Traffic Control Tower, FAA (retired)
• Steve Dignam – Lane County Planning Commission
• Ellie Dumdi – Former Lane County Commissioner, Junction City Resident
• Phillip Farrington – Peace Health
• Bruce Fisher – FAA Seattle Airports District Office
• Gabe Flock – City of Eugene Planning & Development
• Denny Guehler – Active Bethel Citizens
• Randy Hledik – Eugene Planning Commission
• Keir Miller – Lane County Land Management
• Paul Redhead – Airport Advisory Committee
• Jackie Robertson – Commercial Airline Pilot
• Steve Senderling – Airport Advisory Committee
• Claire Syrett – Airport Advisory Committee
• Andy Vobora – Lane Transit District
• Kurt Yeiter – City of Eugene Engineering/Transportation
Six committee meetings occurred at key points during the Master Plan Update. In the meetings, the
Consultant and Airport staff discussed Master Plan Update recommendations and solicited input and
questions from the Advisory Committee. Draft Plan documents were delivered to the Committee for
review, in advance of meetings for group discussion. Committee meetings were held in the Airport
Administration Office on: December 6, 2006; February 28, 2007; August 23, 2007; November 8, 2007;
August 13, 2008; and June 22, 2009. Committee meetings lasted approximately one hour, over lunch,
and consisted of Airport and Consultant staff presenting and discussing items with the Advisory
Committee. Exhibit boards were displayed to support discussion.
Four public informational meetings were held at key points during the Master Plan Update. In the
meetings, the Consultant and Airport staff presented the Master Plan Update recommendations, and
solicited input and questions from the general public. The public informational meetings were held in the
Airport Administration Office on: August 23, 2007; November 8, 2007; August 13, 2008; and June 22,
2009. Exhibit boards were displayed to support discussion.
May 2010 3
PC AIS, p24
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Projections of Aviation Demand
Existing and Historical Levels of Activity
The components of aviation activity that were evaluated included passenger enplanements, aircraft
operations, based aircraft, and air cargo volume. These levels are summarized in the following table.
Summary of Aviation Demand Forecasts
Passenger Aircraft Based Air Cargo
Year
Enplanements Operations Aircraft (lbs)
2006 actual 360,258 92,779 178 2,096,778
2011 412,873 83,796 205 2,538,810
2016 445,593 87,975 209 3,068,410
2026 557,736 102,179 220 4,416,957
Compounded Annual
Growth Rate 2.21% 0.52% 1.1% 3.8%
2006-2026
Passenger Enplanements
The Airport has scheduled and unscheduled passenger air service. Airline passenger enplanements (the
number of people that board a commercial aircraft) are recorded by service providers and forwarded to
the FAA. The number of enplanements is influenced by several elements including socioeconomic
factors, aviation trends, and ticket prices. Enplanements at Eugene Airport increased from 317,521 in
1997 to 360,258 in 2006.
May 2010 4
PC AIS, p25
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Peak Aviation Demand Characteristics
Since EUG, similar to many commercial service airports, must be designed to accommodate peak
demand in some categories, projecting future activity levels involves the projection of peak activity levels.
Peak aviation demand numbers are presented in the following table.
Peak Aviation Demand Characteristics
Passenger Aircraft Operations
Peak Factor Enplanements Commercial GA Military Total
2006 Annual 360,258 24,777 66,185 1,817 92,779
actual Peak Month 37,922 2,478 6,619 182 9,278
Peak Month Avg. Day 1,223 80 214 6 299
Peak Hour 306 20 53 1 75
2011 Annual 412,873 17,874 66,393 1,763 83,796
Peak Month 43,460 1,787 6,639 176 1,862
Peak Month Avg. Day 1,402 58 214 6 62
Peak Hour 350 14 54 1 16
2016 Annual 445,593 17,736 69,790 1,763 87,975
Peak Month 46,905 1,774 6,979 176 1,955
Peak Month Avg. Day 1,513 57 225 6 65
Peak Hour 378 14 56 1 16
2026 Annual 557,736 19,920 81,216 1,763 102,179
Peak Month 58,709 1,992 8,122 176 2,271
Peak Month Avg. Day 1,894 64 262 6 76
Peak Hour 473 16 65 1 19
May 2010 5
PC AIS, p26
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Facility Requirements
Runway 16R/34L
Runway 16R/34L is currently 8,009 feet long, which accommodates aircraft currently operating at EUG
and those projected through 2026. The ability to extend the runway to 9,200 feet has been developed as
part of previous Master Plans; this ability should continue to be preserved, so that the need can be
accommodated once it is justified.
Runway 16L/34R
Runway 16L/34R is currently 6,000 feet long. This 6,000-foot length accommodates the aircraft fleet for
which the runway was designed. However, situations may arise resulting in the primary Runway 16R/34L
being offline, making Runway 16L/34R the only available runway. It is expected that extending Runway
16L/34R from 6,000 feet to 6,500 feet will allow a greater range of air carrier aircraft to operate on the
runway. This will prevent scheduled commercial service from having to divert to other airports, when
16R/34L is not operational.
Taxiway system
EUG benefits from an elaborate taxiway system, including full parallels to both runways, a midfield
connector, and several routes to terminal areas. These taxiways provide direct access between the
terminal apron and runways. Some taxiways are not meeting current design criteria for the aircraft that
are operating at the Airport. Improvements can also be made to make the system more efficient as a
whole.
Passenger Terminal Area
The main passenger terminal area is the face of EUG to the local community. It is where the traveling
public comes to park their car, pick-up someone, or embark on a flight. The existing terminal building has
an area of approximately 89,000 square feet, and has ten aircraft boarding gates. In 2006 the terminal
accommodated approximately 360,258 enplanements. Based on the long-term forecasted passenger
enplanements of 557,736 annually, 14 gates (four additional) and 100,000 square feet (11,000 additional)
are expected to be required.
Other Terminal Areas
The Airport has four terminal areas (in addition to the main passenger terminal area): North Ramp, South
Ramp, East General Aviation Ramp (EGAR), and Hollis Lane Aviation Area. These areas are home to
airport and aircraft services, aviation-related businesses, and aircraft storage. Together they provide 37
box hangars, 130 T-hangar units, and 144 tie-downs. Facility analysis and requirements determined a
need for 20 additional box hangars, 20 additional T-hangar units, and two additional tie-downs. As each
of the four terminal areas has available space, the development should be distributed over the areas, as
best suited for the particular facility.
New developments are expected to be evaluated for the most suitable site, as they are introduced to the
Airport. It is expected that as hangars reach the end of their useful and economic lives, they will be
replaced with similar structures in their current locations.
May 2010 6
PC AIS, p27
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Facility
A new ARFF facility (under construction 2010) is needed to replace the existing facility (which has
reached the end of its useful functional and economical life), and to meet incident response time
requirements to each runway, which cannot be attained from the current facility with existing equipment.
Aircraft Deicing Facility Area
The aircraft deicing (and anti-icing) process involves the application of a liquid via pressurized spray. The
majority of deicing agent not adhering to the aircraft requires containment, collection, storage, and
disposal or treatment. The introduction of one central deicing ramp eases the application and handling of
the deicing agent, and reduces the number of ground support vehicles near the passenger terminal
relieving apron congestion during peak time periods. An additional benefit to one central location is that
the new facility could also serve as an aircraft washing location, further reducing activity and congestion
within the terminal area.
Miscellaneous Airside Facility Requirements
The existing aircraft fuel storage facility (fuel farm) is located along the entrance road to the North Ramp
area, Lockheed Drive, and consists of five above-ground fuel storage tanks. There is room for only one
additional fuel tank in the existing facility. The fuel farm must be accessible to tanker trucks delivering
fuel, and on-airport vehicles ferrying fuel to airfield ramps and aircraft. The location of the fuel farm
requires tanker trucks to travel the same roads as other traffic to reach the passenger terminal. Fuel
delivery and transfer between storage tanks can interfere with tenants and the public accessing the North
Ramp. Because of this, it is beneficial to relocate the fuel farm away from the passenger terminal area,
so that tanker trucks and fueling operations are removed from high concentrations of non-airfield traffic.
Automobile Parking
The Master Plan Update identified the following automobile parking needs: increase public automobile
parking stalls from 1,276 to 2,310 (additional 1,034 stalls); increase rental car ready/return parking stalls
from 144 to 245 (additional 101 stalls); and increase rental car service/storage stalls from 116 to 280
(additional 164 stalls). An increase is also expected for the overflow lot, from 585 to 872 (additional 287
stalls). Additional parking needs exist throughout the Airport to support aviation related businesses, other
terminal areas, and on-airport FAA offices.
Land Acquisition
The FAA recommends that an airport own or control land that associated with airport design surfaces.
There are two areas at the northern end of the Airport property that should be acquired. These areas are
within the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) for Runway Ends 16R and 16L. The RPZ is a design surface
at the end of the runway that is required to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground
and departing/arriving aircraft.
May 2010 7
PC AIS, p28
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Improvement Recommendations
Development Alternatives
The Master Plan Update process included an analysis of alternative methods to accomplish the
recommended airfield improvements. Alternatives were developed for each of the proposed major
projects, and these were evaluated to arrive at the preferred alternative for each element, and the Airport
as a whole. The alternatives evaluated included consideration of different locations on the airfield for
each facility, as well as different geometric layouts within the selected locations. The following are the
recommended improvements to be considered as needed.
Runway 16R/34L and Runway 16L/34R
The Master Planning process recommends continuing to preserve the ability to extend the Runway
16R/34L to 9,200 feet, and Runway 16L/34R to 6,500 feet. These extensions will allow a greater variety
of air carrier aircraft to operate on these runways, and prevent scheduled commercial service from having
to and divert to other airports when one runway is temporarily not in operation.
Taxiway system
Introduction of acute angle connectors north of Taxiway A4 and north of Taxiway A5 may help aircraft
arriving on Runway End 34L to quickly exit to Taxiway A. A connection north of Taxiway A5 would bridge
the runway with Taxiway P. These improvements would facilitate access between the primary runway
and the Hollis Lane aviation area.
Modification of the existing right angle connector B2, which bridges Runway 16L/34R with Taxiways C
and B, to two acute angle taxiways (one from Runway End 16L, one from Runway End 34R) connecting
to Taxiway C may provide better flow. This configuration is similar to the existing intersection of Taxiways
C, M, and P. Or, a new connector south of connector B2, to connect Runway 16L/34R to Taxiways B and
M may provide a similar pattern.
Other taxiway connections, besides acute angle, may also improve ground circulation. For example, the
introduction of a taxilane connecting the North Ramp to the EGAR would prevent aircraft from having to
enter ATCT-controlled movement areas, thereby reducing congestion, and freeing ATCT for other tasks.
Passenger Terminal Area
The main passenger terminal area should plan for additional gates through expanding existing Concourse
B to the southwest, and adding a new Concourse “C” to the northeast. This will extend the concourse
structure onto area currently used for ramp and terminal employee automobile parking, and into the old
ATCT and office building area. This option will also require the expansion of the terminal ramp to serve
the new gates. By introducing a new concourse, passengers are distributed over a greater area; more
space is provided for business development within the terminal.
May 2010 8
PC AIS, p29
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Other Terminal Areas
North Ramp - The North Ramp has space for two additional box hangars in between the existing
hangars. As the proposed ARFF facility is expected to be developed in this area, there is not room
for additional T-hangars. A taxilane connecting the North Ramp to the EGAR is being considered.
This taxilane would likely displace aircraft tie-downs, which could be relocated to the EGAR.
Additional area is available for automobile parking, and the expansion of aviation related businesses.
South Ramp - There is space for one additional box hangar in between the existing hangars, but
there is not room for additional T-hangars. Additional box hangars could be placed to the south of the
existing T-hangars, but would occupy space being reserved and intended for commercial
development.
East Ramp - The EGAR has room for 16 additional box hangars and 20 additional T-hangar units.
Many of the sites have been prepared with access taxilanes and utilities. There is also room to
expand the apron to the south. The EGAR is home to the only self-fueling facility for aircraft at EUG.
This is a well-utilized facility, and space for additional fueling activities and storage should be
preserved. EGAR currently has no fixed base operator (FBO – term for a pilot/aircraft service
provider); however space is available and should continue to be reserved for FBO hangars and
offices.
Coordinating the relocation of the Oregon Air & Space Museum to the EGAR area with the future
alignment of Douglas Drive may increase the museum’s attendance, and increase public awareness
as automobile traffic enters the airfield and passes the building. These properties provide good
opportunities for the Airport to provide a home for facilities which serve the community, and to make
best use of its non-aviation property by incorporating airport-compatible development.
Hollis Lane Aviation Area - The Hollis Lane Aviation Area has room for 14 additional box hangers.
Although there is space for T-hangars and aprons, the Hollis Lane Aviation Area is expected to be
developed with corporate hangars, each with a small apron adjoining the existing taxilane.
The existing Hollis Lane Aviation Area taxilane that accesses the hangar sites should be extended to
connect to Taxiway A. Long-term, the existing taxilane traveling north from Taxiway C, that ends
after connecting to the Hollis taxilane, should be extended to connect to Taxiway A. These
connections provide aircraft in the Hollis area efficient access to primary Runway 16R/34L. A taxiway
extension connecting Taxiway C and Taxiway A, or an ARFF vehicle access lane in the same
location should also be considered.
Many configurations for development can be accommodated depending on the requirements and
preferences of the proposed improvement.
May 2010 9
PC AIS, p30
EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Facility
The new ARFF facility (under construction 2010) site is the area south of Taxiway C, near the northern
end of the north terminal area. This location supports the required response time to the airfield.
Aircraft Deicing Facility Area
There are two potential locations for the deicing facility. One location is southwest of the main passenger
terminal building, on the south ramp. The other location is northwest of the main passenger terminal, at
the intersection of the terminal apron with Taxiway A. Both sites can likely accommodate Boeing 757-
size aircraft for deicing, and both can also function as an aircraft washing area. As deicing generally
occurs after passenger loading and before take-off, locating the deicing facility along the way to primary
Runway 16R/34L should prevent most aircraft from having to deviate significantly from the main taxiway
route.
Miscellaneous Airside Facility Requirements
The fuel farm would be better located in the south airfield area, which would allow fuel delivery vehicles to
exit Douglas Drive before entering the Airport circulation road. This will allow them to operate in an area
less concentrated with the traveling public. This new fuel farm will accommodate the existing fuel tanks,
and provide space for expansion to accommodate the forecasted demand. This location is also closer to
on-airport businesses that provides fueling, and closer to parking for aircraft fueling vehicles.
Automobile Parking
As passenger enplanements and aircraft operations at EUG are expected to increase, so is the
automobile parking. A single development scenario for expansion of automobile parking near the main
passenger terminal is presented. This is a refinement of previous plans to expand public and rental car
auto parking in phases. The rental car storage and service lot should be relocated to the south near the
air cargo operations, freeing up additional space for public parking within the existing main parking lot.
Additional spaces can be added to the existing overflow lot as demand increases.
Aviation related businesses and other terminal areas throughout the Airport have potential to increase the
number of parking spaces as demand increases. The FAA offices located at EUG also have space for
additional parking to support their operations.
Land Acquisition
As properties around the Airport become available, consideration should be given to land acquisition.
The RPZs for Runway Ends 16R and 16L extend onto parcels not owned by the Airport. Parcels in the
RPZ, and other parcels near runway ends, are candidates for acquisition, as Airport control of these
parcels allows for protection of aircraft operations, and for people and property on the ground. Acquisition
of parcels within the RPZ has historically been an FAA priority.
May 2010 10
PC AIS, p31
Eugene Airport Vicinity Map
HWY 99S
MEADOWVIEW RD
PR
AIR
IE R
HWY 99N
D
GREEN HILL RD AWBREY LN
Y
HW
99 N
E ENID RD
AIRPORT RD
AIRPORT RD
CLEAR LAKE RD
FIR BUTTE RD GREEN HILL RD
´
RY
ST
Eugene
ER
BODENHAMER RD NT
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
Approximate Property Boundary
Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to
change, and for general reference only.
April 12, 2010
PC AIS, p32
Get email alerts for Eugene
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.