hillsboro airport - port of portland · less populated areas of the community. hillsboro airport...

HILLSBOROAIRPORTCompatibility Study Update

PORT OF PORTLAND

HILLSBORO AIRPORTHillsboro, Oregon

COMPATIBILITY STUDY UPDATE

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

Prepared ByCoffman AssociatesAirport Consultants

In Association WithAngelo Eaton and Associates

andMark J. Greenfield

November 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTSPORT OF PORTLAND

HILLSBORO AIRPORT Hillsboro, Oregon

COMPATIBILITY STUDY UPDATE Final Technical Report Executive Summary COMPATIBILITY STUDY UPDATE POTENTIAL NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES ......................................ES-2 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES..........................................................ES-10 POLICY TECHNIQUES .............................................................................ES-14 REGULATORY TECHNIQUES .................................................................ES-15 EXPENDITURE TECHNIQUES................................................................ES-17 Chapter One INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1993 HILLSBORO AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY STUDY............................ 1-2 Operational Measures ............................................................................. 1-3 Community/Land Use Measures ............................................................ 1-6 AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................ 1-7 Federal Regulations ................................................................................ 1-7 State Regulations .................................................................................... 1-8 Local Regulations .................................................................................. 1-11

Chapter One (Continued) LOCAL LAND USE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH TRENDS ........................................................................... 1-18 Land Use Inventory............................................................................... 1-18 Residential Land Use and Growth Trends in the Study Area................................................................................. 1-20 Port of Portland Land Ownership......................................................... 1-22 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses.................................................................... 1-23 Urban Growth Boundary ...................................................................... 1-23 EXISTING AVIATION NOISE CONDITIONS ........................................... 1-24 FUTURE AVIATION NOISE CONDITIONS .............................................. 1-24 COMPATIBILITY MEASURES AT COMPARABLE GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS............................................................ 1-25 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1-33 Chapter Two AVIATION OPERATIONAL MEASURES POTENTIAL NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES ........................................ 2-3 Aircraft Operating Procedures................................................................ 2-6 Runway Use and Flight Routes ............................................................ 2-11 Facilities Development.......................................................................... 2-21 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES............................................................ 2-27 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 2-31 Chapter Three LAND USE MEASURES POLICY TECHNIQUES ................................................................................. 3-2 Comprehensive Plan................................................................................ 3-3 Coordination Agreements........................................................................ 3-4 Urban Growth Boundaries...................................................................... 3-5 Project Review Guidelines....................................................................... 3-6 REGULATORY TECHNIQUES ..................................................................... 3-7 Compatible Use Zoning ........................................................................... 3-8 Airport Compatibility Overlay Zoning ................................................... 3-8 Airport Use Zoning .................................................................................. 3-9 Development Regulations ..................................................................... 3-10 Building Codes....................................................................................... 3-11 Height Restrictions................................................................................ 3-11 Transfer of Development Rights ........................................................... 3-12

Chapter Three (Continued) Environmental Zoning .......................................................................... 3-13 Noise Disclosure Regulations................................................................ 3-13 EXPENDITURE TECHNIQUES.................................................................. 3-15 Property Acquisition.............................................................................. 3-15 Sound Insulation ................................................................................... 3-16 Purchase of Avigation Easements ........................................................ 3-16 Purchase Assurance .............................................................................. 3-17 Sales Assistance..................................................................................... 3-18 Development Rights Acquisition........................................................... 3-19 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 3-19 Chapter Four COMPATIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS LAND USE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................... 4-2 Land Use Management Recommendations ............................................ 4-3 AVIATION OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT.............................................. 4-7 Aviation Operational Management Recommendations ......................... 4-8 Program Management Recommendations ........................................... 4-18 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 4-22 TABLES ES-1 BASIC TYPES OF AVIGATION AND HAZARD EASEMENTS .............................................................ES-18 ES-2 POTENTIAL MEASURES TO BE GIVEN HIGH PRIORITY........................................................................ES-20 1A PERMITTED USES WITHIN SCFI ZONE................................... 1-14 1B 2003 LAND USES IN HILLSBORO AIRPORT STUDY AREA ............................................................................... 1-19 1C 2005 RESIDENTIAL LAND USES IN HILLSBORO AIRPORT STUDY AREA – CURRENTLY DEVELOPED ......... 1-20 1D NUMBER OF EXISTING (2005) DWELLINGS AND DWELLING TYPES IN HILLSBORO AIRPORT STUDY AREA ............................................................................... 1-20 1E VACANT RESIDENTIAL IN STUDY AREA AS PERCENT OF OVERALL HILLSBORO BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY (BLI)....................................................................... 1-21

Tables (Continued) 1F SIZE OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LANDS IN STUDY AREA BY CITY OF HILLSBORO LAND USE DESIGNATION ........................................................................... 1-21 1G POTENTIAL NUMBER AND TYPE OF DWELLING UNITS IN THE STUDY AREA.................................................... 1-22 1H SUMMARY OF NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES AT COMPARABLE AIRPORTS................................................... 1-26 2A SUMMARY OF 14 CFR PART 161 STUDIES ................................ 2-5 2B HELICOPTER PATTERN USE BY PRIORITY............................ 2-14 3A BASIC TYPES OF AVIGATION AND HAZARD EASEMENTS ............................................................... 3-17 4A HELICOPTER PATTERN USE BY PRIORITY............................ 4-12 4B POTENTIAL MEASURES TO BE GIVEN HIGH PRIORITY............................................................. 4-23 EXHIBITS ES-1 NBAA NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES................................... after page ES-4 ES-2 CURRENT HILLSBORO AIRPORT RUNWAYS ....... after page ES-4 ES-3 POTENTIAL NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE TRACKS.............................................. after page ES-8 ES-4 MASTER PLAN CONCEPT AIRSIDE ...................... after page ES-10 1A GENERALIZED ZONING/PLAN DESIGNATIONS IN THE HILLSBORO AIRPORT STUDY AREA.......after page 1-14 1B WASHINGTON COUNTY AND CITY OF HILLSBORO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS IN THE HILLSBORO AIRPORT STUDY AREA .....................after page 1-18 1C 2004 CITY OF HILLSBORO BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY HIGHLIGHTING RESIDENTIAL LANDS .........................................................................after page 1-22 1D POTENTIALLY NOISE-SENSITIVE USES IN THE HILLSBORO AIRPORT STUDY AREA .....................after page 1-24 1E 2003 NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS .......................after page 1-24 1F PROJECTED LONG TERM NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS ...........................................after page 1-24 2A NBAA NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES ..............................................................after page 2-8

Exhibits (Continued) 2B SCREENING ANALYSIS AIRCRAFT OPERATING PROCEDURES.....................................after page 2-12 2C POTENTIAL NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE TRACKS...............................................after page 2-16 2D SCREENING ANALYSIS RUNWAY USE & FLIGHT ROUTES ...................................................after page 2-20 2E MASTER PLAN CONCEPT AIRSIDE .........................after page 2-22 2F SCREENING ANALYSIS FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT.........................................................after page 2-28 2G SCREENING ANALYSIS IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ..............................................................after page 2-30 3A SCREENING ANALYSIS POLICY MEASURES ..........after page 3-8 3B SCREENING ANALYSIS – REGULATORY MEASURES .................................................................after page 3-14 3C SCREENING ANALYSIS EXPENDITURES MEASURES .................................................................after page 3-20 4A LAND USE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................after page 4-2 4B AVIATION OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................after page 4-8 Appendix A CITY OF HILLSBORO AND WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT Appendix B STATE REGULATIONS Appendix C MODEL PUBLIC USE AIRPORT SAFETY AND COMPATIBILITY OVERLAY ZONE FOR PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS WITH INSTRUMENT APPROACHES

Executive Summary

COMPATIBILITYSTUDY UPDATE

PORT OF PORTLAND

ES-1

PORT OF PORTLAND

In the 77 years since the first plane took off at the Hillsboro Airport, the community and the airport have changed dramatically. The Port of Portland (Port) assumed ownership of the airport from the City of Hillsboro in 1966. Since then, both the Port and the City have introduced measures over the years to keep aviation activity, when possible, over relatively less populated areas of the community. Hillsboro Airport has a long history of noise management dating back to the 1973 Airport Master Plan. The Hillsboro Airport (HIO or Airport), like most urban airports, can still occasionally be a source of controversy and conflict in the community. Concern about noise has risen as residential development has crept closer to the airport due to a tightly drawn urban growth boundary and increasing airport activity. New technologies have improved the noise characteristics of modern aircraft, but the overall fleet and number of operations at the Airport have grown since that time.

A range of aviation planning tools is available to tackle issues of compatibility. Airport master plans address compatibility at a very basic level by forecasting future aviation activity and estimating noise exposure from changes in aircraft operations. A formal "Noise Compatibility Study" prepared under Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) is a much more extensive project and is typically undertaken as a stand-alone effort at airports where significant noise exposure is occurring off-airport and on land with noise-sensitive development such as homes, schools, and hospitals. An airport compatibility study achieves many of the same objectives of a Part 150 study, examining many of the same strategies for controlling

COMPATIBILITYStudy update

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2

land use and aircraft operations. However, since it does not have to fol-low the rigid requirements of a FAR Part 150 Study, an airport compatibil-ity study can be tailored to the specific needs of a local airport and its sur-roundings. This Airport Compatibility Study Up-date revisited the noise management efforts and land use policies estab-lished for Hillsboro Airport in the 1993 Airport Compatibility Study, as-sessed measures put in place by the Port since 1993, and identified a num-ber of possible measures, policies, and procedures that could be implemented in the future to improve compatibility. Chapter One – Introduction and Background The first chapter of the Airport Com-patibility Study looked at the history of compatibility planning at Hillsboro Airport. It included an overview of airport compatibility regulations at the federal, state, and local levels and described land use development and growth trends in the Hillsboro area. Existing and future noise conditions at the airport were modeled using FAA protocols. Finally, compatibility pro-grams at airports similar in character to Hillsboro Airport were investigated to see if other airports had programs and strategies that could be effective. Chapter Two – Aviation Operational Measures The full range of potential noise abatement measures and implementa-

tion strategies for use at Hillsboro Airport were examined. The following screening criteria were used to evalu-ate each: • Financing/Value – What are the

costs and benefits involved with implementation?

• Feasibility/Acceptability – Is

the measure politically, socially, and financially feasible to imple-ment?

• Safety/Capacity – What are the

impacts on operational safety and the capacity of the airfield?

• Balance – Does the measure bal-

ance the needs of both the airport and community?

This evaluation determined whether or not a potential measure or strategy had a positive, neutral, or negative ef-fect. The evaluation is described on the following pages. POTENTIAL NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES A number of potential noise abate-ment techniques were identified based on research done relative to compati-bility measures at airports comparable to Hillsboro Airport. These techniques have the potential to either reduce the size of the noise contours or move air-craft-generated noise to other areas where it is less disruptive. All of the potential noise abatement measures discussed and examined below would be voluntary and the pilot would have the sole discretion to comply with such

ES-3

measures. These measures can be broadly categorized as: 1) aircraft op-erating procedures; 2) runway use and flight routes; and 3) facilities devel-opment. A. Aircraft Operating Procedures After looking at measures being used at other airports for mitigating air-craft noise, six (6) possible aircraft op-erating procedures that could be effec-tive at the Hillsboro Airport were evaluated. These included the follow-ing: • Reduced thrust takeoffs • Thrust cutbacks after takeoff (for jets) • Maximum climb departures • Minimum approach and pattern altitudes • Noise abatement approach proce-

dures • Limitations on use of reverse thrust during landings Based on the evaluation of these pos-sible measures, only two were selected to be carried forward to the final chap-ter of the Airport Compatibility study for implementation (thrust cutbacks and reverse thrust). Thrust Cutbacks after Takeoff (For Jets) - The National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) has prepared noise abatement takeoff and arrival procedures for business jets that have become an industry standard for such operators. There are two types of de-parture procedures: the standard pro-cedure and the close-in procedure. These are illustrated in Exhibit ES-1.

The NBAA standard departure proce-dure calls for a thrust cutback at 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and a 1,000 feet-per-minute climb to 3,000 feet altitude during acceleration and flap retraction. The close-in procedure is similar, except that it specifies a thrust cutback at 500 feet AGL. While both procedures effectively reduce noise, the locations of the reduction vary with each. Many aircraft manu-facturers have developed their own thrust cutback procedures. Neither NBAA procedure is intended to re-place the procedure recommended by the manufacturer and published in the aircraft operating manual. The standard NBAA or manufac-turer’s suggested close-in procedure that results in lower noise levels near the airport is better suited for the Hillsboro area given the distance of noise-sensitive uses from the runway ends. While the preceding discussion has focused on turbine-powered air-craft thrust reductions, piston-powered aircraft with constant speed propellers can also reduce noise output through power reductions and propel-ler pitch changes after takeoff. Piston-powered aircraft with constant speed propellers should be encouraged to re-duce takeoff power to climb power as soon as practical after departure and to reduce propeller revolutions per minute (RPMs) and propeller noise. Reverse Thrust Restrictions - Thrust reversal is routinely used to slow jet aircraft immediately after touchdown. Thrust reversers redirect the flow of the jet engine thrust toward the front of the aircraft and generate a consid-erable amount of noise that would not

ES-4

occur if wheel brakes alone are used. Limits on the use of thrust reversal can reduce noise impacts off the sides of the runways, although they would not significantly reduce the size of the noise contours. The goal of this is to voluntarily reduce the noise from re-verse thrust when aircraft land at HIO. Reverse thrust restrictions can significantly reduce landing safety margins on shorter runways and in-crease runway occupancy time. While the use of reverse thrust can reduce brake wear, newer generation brake pads are not prone to excessive wear when used by experienced aircraft owners. To be effective, this measure will require the construction of addi-tional exit taxiways on Runway 12-30. Additional exits, particularly high-speed exit taxiways, allow aircraft to exit the runway at a higher rate of speed compared to traditional exit taxiways that are oriented perpen-dicular to the runway centerline. The construction of up to four high-speed exit taxiways is currently scheduled for 2008. Recommendations: Three specific recommendations were developed for Hillsboro Airport from the potential aircraft operating proce-dures measures discussed above. These include: 1. Encourage the use of thrust cut-back after departure for jet aircraft. The NBAA close-in procedure is most applicable for departures.

2. Aircraft should avoid unnecessary overflight of urban residential areas below 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL).

3. Construct high-speed exits on Runway 30 as shown in the 2005 Air-port Master Plan to encourage pilots to limit the use of reverse thrust after landing. B. Runway Use And Flight Routes The pattern of land use around an airport provides clues to the design of aircraft arrival and departure corri-dors for noise abatement. By placing local air traffic over more compatible land uses via potential measures such as a runway use program, controlled touch-and-go/training activity, and modified departure and arrival corri-dors, noise impacts may be signifi-cantly reduced in those areas noted as being incompatible with airport opera-tions. Of the seven (7) such measures examined and evaluated, five (5) were included in the recommendations chapter and are described below. Runway Use Programs - Runway use programs for noise management en-courage aircraft to arrive and depart on specific runways in order to reduce overflights of noise-sensitive parts of the community. There are two types of runway use programs: rotational and preferential. Rotational runway use is intended to distribute aircraft noise equally off all runway ends. Preferential runway use programs are intended to direct as much aircraft noise as possible in one direction. In both cases it is typically the direction of aircraft departure that is of concern since this is when high power settings create the most amount of engine and/or propeller noise. Exhibit ES-2 notes those runways currently in use at the Airport.

Exhibit ES-1NBAA NOISE ABATEMENT

DEPARTURE PROCEDURES

1,000'

3,000'

END OFRUNWAY

LIFTOFF

BRAKERELEASE

AIRPORTBOUNDARY

STANDARD PROCEDURE

Maximum practical rate of climb at V2+20 KIAS to 1,000 feet AFL with

takeoff flap setting.

At 1,000 feet AFL, accelerate to final

segment speed (Vfs) and retract flaps. Power reduced to a quiet climb

setting while maintaining 1,000 FPM

maximum climb rate and airspeed not to

exceed 190 KIAS until reaching 3,000 feet AFL. If ATC requires

level-off prior to reaching 3,000 feet AFL, power must be reduced so as not to exceed 190 KIAS.

Above 3,000 feet AFL, normal climb schedule resumed with gradual application of climb

power.

500'

1,000'

3,000'

END OFRUNWAY

LIFTOFF

BRAKERELEASE

AIRPORTBOUNDARY

CLOSE-IN PROCEDURE

Maximum practical rate of climb at V2+20 KIAS

to 500 feet AFL with takeoff flap setting.


power.

At 1,000 feet AFL, accelerate to Vfs and retract flaps. Maintain

quiet climb power, 1,000 FPM climb rate and airspeed not to



At 500 feet AFL, power reduced to a quiet climb setting while maintaining

1,000 FPM climb rate and V2+20 KIAS until

reaching 1,000 feet AFL.

KEYNote: It is recognized that aircraft performance will differ with aircraft type and takeoff

conditions; therefore, the business aircraft operator must have the latitude to determinewhether takeoff thrust should be reduced prior to, during, or after flap retraction.

Source: National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA), "NBAA Noise Abatement Program," January 1, 1993.

AFL - Above field levelATC - Air traffic controlFPM - Feet per minuteKIAS - Knots, indicated airspeed

03M

P01

-ES

1-12

/14/

05

PORT OF PORTLAND

ES-5

Exhibit ES-2 Current Hillsboro Airport Runways A 1994 Memorandum of Understand-ing (MOU) between the Port and the FAA designates Runway 30 as the pre-ferred departure runway. This is an informal preferential runway use pro-gram that places a majority of the de-parture operations at the airport to the northwest of the airport over pri-marily agricultural uses and open space. The intent of the existing pref-erential runway use program is to minimize the use of Runway 12. A 1998 tower order places limitations on the use of Runway 12 for jet depar-tures. Consideration needs to be given to specifically limiting departures on

Runway 12 after the tower is closed. Some jet aircraft have departed Run-way 12 instead of Runway 30 as dic-tated by the runway use policy after the tower is closed. While the best means to ensure limited use of Run-way 2 is to have the tower not issue departure clearances for the runway, the tower is not open 24 hours per day, and pilots do not receive direct guidance during times the tower is closed. Continued pilot awareness and knowledge is needed to ensure compliance with the limitations on the use of Runway 12 after the tower is closed.

ES-6

The 1994 MOU between the Port and the FAA also identified Runway 2-20 as “a highly noise-sensitive runway” for which the “use of Runway 20 for takeoffs and Runway 2 for landings should be avoided unless wind or op-erational conditions dictate other-wise.” Preferential runway use pro-grams do not affect safety or capacity as the program allows for the use of runways based on wind conditions. Touch-and-Go Operational Changes - This activity consists of a pilot practic-ing takeoff and landings to the same runway end while staying within the aircraft traffic pattern. A touch-and-go involves an aircraft making a land-ing and then departing without exit-ing the runway. At many airports, touch-and-go operations are associated with primary pilot training, although this type of operation is also done by licensed pilots who practice ap-proaches to perhaps an unfamil-iar/new airport. Touch-and-go’s or multiple approaches are frequently done at Hillsboro Airport. In 2004, there were 152,531 local general avia-tion operations (generally involving multiple approaches or touch-and-go’s). Runway 2-20 is closed to touch-and-go operations between 2200 (10:00 p.m.) and 0600 (6:00 a.m.) local time. This measure is already a component of the noise abatement program at the airport. Touch-and-go activity at night is limited on Runway 2-20, which has been identified as “a highly noise-sensitive runway.” Helicopter Pattern Use - Hillsboro Airport has three helicopter training patterns referred to as Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie. Alpha pattern is located

to the west of the airport over a mix-ture of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses. Bravo pattern is located east of the airport over in-dustrial and residential land uses. Charlie pattern is located north of the airport over large undeveloped parcels and industrial and commercial land uses. To the north of Evergreen Road, Charlie pattern does extend over low-density residential associated with the agricultural land uses in that area, but compared to the Alpha and Bravo patterns, Charlie pattern has far fewer residential overflights. A November 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Hillsboro Airport Tower, the Port of Portland, and Hillsboro Aviation Inc., establishes a means of implementing specific measures to reduce helicopter training noise. The MOU states that helicopters can operate in the training patterns during daylight hours seven days per week. Helicopters must use the higher altitude fixed-wing pattern when flying after daylight. In addi-tion, helicopter training patterns are not to be flown on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, New Year’s Day, and Fourth of July. This MOU establishes areas of responsibility and operating parameters for the three patterns. It also states that no more than four helicopters can be flown at one time and no more than two patterns can be used at one time. Furthermore, the preferred training pattern is Charlie. Since HIO has so many aircraft opera-tions, many of which are by student pilots, the segregation of helicopter and fixed-wing traffic needs to con-tinue for safety reasons and to more

ES-7

efficiently control air traffic. The pri-ority for the use of Charlie pattern should be retained. The Charlie Pat-tern should be relocated to the east as shown in the 2005 Airport Master Plan once the parallel runway is con-structed. Departure Turns - A common noise abatement technique is to route de-parting aircraft over noise-compatible areas after takeoff. In order to be fully effective, the compatible corridor must be relatively wide and closely aligned with the runway so that turns over the area are practical. Two viable noise-compatible corridors exist for aircraft departing Hillsboro Airport. These noise-compatible corri-dors are located along the extended centerlines of Runway 30 and Runway 2 and are depicted on Exhibit ES-3. These corridors currently include large areas of open space or indus-trial/commercial land uses. A departure turn program directs air-craft to fly along the runway heading until reaching a designated landmark or distance from the departure runway end prior to turning on course. For Runway 30 (30L and 30R, once the parallel runway is constructed), air-craft flying during visual flight condi-tions could maintain runway heading until crossing N.E. Jackson School Road. During periods of inclement weather, pilots may not be able to visually identify crossing N.E. Jackson School Road after departing Runway 30. In such conditions, pilots could use distance measuring equipment (DME) in their aircraft, if available. For Runway 2, pilots could be asked to

fly to Evergreen Road before initiating any turns. These procedures could also be overlaid in the future with a series of waypoints to define an area navigation (RNAV) departure proce-dure for use during inclement weather. There are no viable departure corri-dors for aircraft departing Runways 12 (Runway 12L and 12R after the parallel runway is constructed) and Runway 20. The best method for com-patibility for departures on these runways is to limit use with the run-way use programs described earlier. Instrument and Visual Approaches - Approaches involving turns relatively close to the airport can sometimes be defined over noise-compatible corri-dors. These can be designed as either visual or instrument approaches. Vis-ual approaches offer a greater degree of flexibility regarding their final ap-proach courses. Visual approaches for smaller aircraft need a stabilized, straight-in final approach up to one mile. If large aircraft are involved, a longer straight-in final approach of at least two miles would be needed. Instrument approach procedures are a series of predetermined maneuvers established by the FAA, using ground-based navigational aids that assist pi-lots in locating and landing at an air-port during inclement weather condi-tions. Very little deviation from these set approach procedures is allowed. Visual and instrument approaches from the southeast to Runway 30 and from the southwest to Runway 2 lack a viable noise-compatible corridor.

ES-8

Small piston engine aircraft approach-ing Runway 2 and Runway 30 (Run-way 30L after the parallel runway is constructed) should be encouraged to maintain close-in final approaches. An instrument approach from the northwest to Runway 12 currently guides aircraft over compatible land uses. The 2005 Airport Master Plan recom-mends a straight-in instrument ap-proach procedure to Runway 30 to re-duce the number of flights over the City of Hillsboro west of the airport. Visual approach procedures with at least a one nautical mile final ap-proach over noise-compatible corridors could be encouraged for Runways 12, 20, and the proposed short parallel runway (12L). Recommendations: A total of 18 specific recommendations were developed for Hillsboro Airport considering the runway use and flight route measures discussed above. They are: 1. Continue the use of Runway 30

(Runway 30L after construction of the parallel runway) as the pre-ferred departure runway.

2. Continue limiting the use of Run-

way 12 for jet departures. Do not use Runway 12 for jet departures from 2000 to 0900 (8:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.) except when wind condi-tions are between 090 degrees clockwise 150 degrees (inclusive) at 10 knots or more. When the tower is open, requests for the use of Runway 12 will be considered for LifeFlight flights or other opera-

tions requiring priority handling, and if an undue delay will be in-curred during periods that the Hillsboro Tower is unable to pro-vide visual separation from oppo-site direction traffic due to re-stricted visibility conditions.


way 20 for departure and Runway 2 for arrival. Runway 2-20 should only be used when the wind is 10 knots or greater from a direction that is between 170 degrees and 230 degrees or 350 degrees and 050 degrees.

4. Designate Runway 12-30 (Runway

12R-30L after construction of the parallel runway) as the preferred runway for large aircraft (aircraft over 12,500 pounds) use. Request voluntary restriction on jet use of Runway 2-20.

5. Close runway 2-20 to touch-and-go

landings between 2200 and 0600 (10:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m.).

6. Maintain priority use of helicopter

patterns as defined in the Novem-ber 1, 2004, Memorandum of Un-derstanding (see Table 2B).

7. Develop helicopter reporting points

and arrival and departure routes that route helicopters away from noise-sensitive development.

8. Relocate the Charlie pattern and

landing area to the east once the parallel runway is constructed.

9. Request aircraft departing Runway

30 (Runways 30L and 30R after construction of the parallel run-

03M

P01

-ES

3-12

/14/

05

Highway 26

Highway 26

NW Shute Road

NW Shute Road

Cornell RoadCornell Road

Main StreetMain Street Baseline RoadBaseline Road

Highway 26

NW Shute Road

Cornell Road

Main Street Baseline Road

Evergreen RoadEvergreen Road

NE Jackson School RoadNE Jackson School Road

Evergreen Road

NE Jackson School Road

NORTH0 2,500 5,000

SCALE IN FEET

Airport Property Line

Future Parallel Runway

Departure Tracks

LEGEND

Date of Photo: 2000Date of Photo: 2000Date of Photo: 2000

30L

30R

2

20

12R12L

Exhibit ES-3POTENTIAL NOISE ABATEMENT

DEPARTURE TRACKS

Evergreen RoadEvergreen RoadEvergreen Road

NE Jackson School RoadNE Jackson School RoadNE Jackson School Road

2 nautical miles2 nautical milesfrom localizer asfrom localizer as

measured by DMEmeasured by DME

2 nautical milesfrom localizer as

measured by DME

Maintain runway headingMaintain runway headinguntil reaching 1,000' AGLuntil reaching 1,000' AGLMaintain runway headinguntil reaching 1,000' AGL


PORT OF PORTLAND

DME - Distance Measuring Equipment

AGL - Above Ground Level

ES-9

way) under visual conditions to maintain runway heading until reaching N.E. Jackson School Road.


30 under instrument conditions to maintain runway heading until reaching two nautical miles (as measured by distance measuring equipment [DME]) from the local-izer antenna.

11. Request the FAA change the Farm-

ington Three Departure Procedure to limit the left turn after depar-ture on Runway 30 until the air-craft has reached two nautical miles (as measured by distance measuring equipment [DME]) from the localizer antenna.


2 to maintain runway heading un-til reaching Evergreen Road.

13. Request aircraft maintain runway

heading until reaching 1,000 feet AGL for departures from Runway 12 (Runways 12L and 12R once the parallel runway is constructed) and Runway 20.

14. Continue the use of right traffic

patterns for Runway 2 and Run-way 30.

15. Once the parallel runway is con-structed, establish a right traffic pattern for Runway 30R.

16. Encourage close-in (less than one

mile) final approaches for Runways 2 and 30 (Runways 30L and 30R after construction of the parallel runway).

17. Establish a straight-in instrument approach procedure to Runway 30.

18. Limitation on midfield departures. C. Facilities Development Facility development for the purposes of noise abatement includes runway extensions, new runways, moving runway arrival/departure thresholds, acoustical barriers, and run-up enclo-sures. Of this total of six (6) possible facilities development options, only two (2) were selected for inclusion in this study’s recommendations based on results of the screening evaluation. They are: Runway Extensions and New Run-ways - New runways aligned with compatible land development or run-way extensions that shift aircraft op-erations farther away from residential areas are a proven means of noise abatement. Hillsboro Airport’s exist-ing runways generally line up with the undeveloped corridors to the north-west and northeast of the airport. Therefore, constructing a new runway or runway extension solely for pur-poses of noise abatement is not feasi-ble The new parallel runway has the ad-vantage of segregating small and large aircraft operations. This increases the capacity of the airfield and reduces de-lay. There is a small improvement in community noise exposure when air-craft spend less time waiting to take off and lingering in the traffic pattern waiting to land. This new runway will require the helipad associated with

ES-10

the Charlie pattern to be relocated far-ther northeast. Exhibit ES-4 depicts the new runway and the relocated Charlie pattern helipad. The new parallel runway and the future “Char-lie” pattern helipad are anticipated to reduce noise levels over dense residen-tial areas southwest and southeast of the airport. Constructing a parallel runway for small aircraft use will reduce the number of operations to Runway 30 (particularly the repetitive touch-and-go operations), and will allow for the traffic patterns to be more consistent and uniform as aircraft spacing does not have to meet the requirements of a wide variance in aircraft operating speeds. Run-up Areas and Enclosures - Engine run-ups are a necessary and critical part of aircraft operation and mainte-nance. Pre-departure run-ups are re-quired for all piston aircraft to ensure the safe operation of the engine and systems. These run-ups occur at the end of the runway and usually only occur for a few minutes. Run-ups are required for various aircraft mainte-nance operations as well. They are necessary to diagnose problems and test the effectiveness of recently com-pleted maintenance work. It is possi-ble for engine maintenance run-ups to be restricted by airport operators (i.e., time of day, location). Existing air-craft maintenance run-up noise im-pacts could be mitigated through the installation of a relocated run-up pad or enclosure. The Airport’s present maintenance run-up area is located at the Runway

12 end where an earthen berm has been constructed to absorb noise en-ergy during run-up. The 2005 Airport Master Plan recommended moving this maintenance run-up area from the north end of Taxiway A to a new location near the east end of Taxiway C. This will move aircraft run-up ac-tivity closer to the center of the airport and further away from noise-sensitive land uses. Exhibit 2E depicts the cur-rent and proposed run-up areas. Recommendations: Two specific recommendations were developed for Hillsboro Airport consid-ering the runway use and facilities de-velopment measures discussed above. They are:

1. Establish a maintenance run-up policy.

2. Relocate the maintenance run-

up area north of the Runway 20 end as shown in the 2005 Air-port Master Plan.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES The success of the noise abatement program requires a continuous effort to encourage and monitor program compliance, track and respond to noise complaints and develop and distribute information on the “Fly Friendly” pro-gram. All three of strategies are dis-cussed below and are included in the recommendations of this study.

PORT OF PORTLAND

N.E. 25th Ave.N.E. 25th Ave.N.E. 25th Ave.

MaxMaxStationStation

MaxStation

FairplexFairplexFairplex

Brookwood Parkway

Brookwood Parkway

Ever

gree

n Ro

ad

Ever

gree

n Ro

ad

Exhibit ES-4MASTER PLAN CONCEPT

AIRSIDE

03M

P01

-ES

4-12

/14/

05

Corn

ell R

oad

Corn

ell R

oad

Corn

ell R

oad

RUNWAY 12-30 (6,600' x 150')

RUNWAY 12-30 (6,600' x 150')

RUNWAY 12-30 (6,600' x 150')

240'

240'

240'

240'

240'

240'

390'

390'

390'

35'

35'

35'

390'

390'

390' 49

5'49

5'

495'

495'

495'

495'

700'700'700'

400'400'400'

400'400'400'

300'300'300'

240'240'240'

Existing Charlie PadExisting Charlie PadExisting Charlie Pad

35'35'35'

50'50'50'

CC

HH

CCCCCC

A1A1A1 A2A2A2

A3A3A3

A4A4A4

A5A5A5

A6A6A6

A7A7A7

AA

MM A8A8A8

AA

AAAAAA

AA

M

D

M

D

AA

BB

BB

FF

RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ultimate (4,200' x 100')



386'386'386'

235'

Shift

235'

Shift

235'

Shift

12R

30l

NORTH

0 1,000

SCALE IN FEET

LEGENDExisting Airport Property Line

Ultimate Airport Property Line

Potential Property Acquisition

Ultimate Pavement

Existing Runway Visibility Zone

Ultimate Runway Visibility Zone

Object Free Area (OFA)

Runway Safety Area (RSA)

Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)

Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ)

35' Building Restriction Line (BRL)

20' BRL

Glideslope Critical Area

Localizer Critical Area

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

ProposedProposedRunway 12L-30RRunway 12L-30R

(3,600' x 60')(3,600' x 60')

ProposedRunway 12L-30R

(3,600' x 60')

Training HelipadTraining HelipadTraining Helipad

151' Extension151' Extension151' ExtensionProposed Run-upProposed Run-up

Maintenance AreaMaintenance AreaProposed Run-up

Maintenance Area

Current Run-up ApronCurrent Run-up ApronCurrent Run-up Apron

AAAAAA

ES-11

A. Monitor Noise Abatement Meas-ure Compliance Monitoring compliance with the noise abatement measures involves check-ing periodically with airport users and the local tower manager regarding procedure usage. It may be necessary from time to time to arrange for noise monitoring, noise modeling, or flight track analysis to study issues that may arise in the future. Meetings between airport staff, air-port users, airport tenants, and pri-vate citizens may also be necessary. These meetings are beneficial as they allow airport staff to gain an under-standing of future potential issues and the success of the current noise abatement policies and procedures. Regular meetings between airport us-ers and the tower manager are benefi-cial as they allow the Port to gain a better understanding of the success of the current noise abatement policies and procedures and potential issues that may be of concern in the future. The Port has installed permanent noise monitors around the airport. Consideration could be given to en-hancing the noise monitoring system with a flight tracking system. When radar is installed by the FAA, individ-ual aircraft that show up on radar as a flight track can then be linked to spe-cific noise levels at the permanent noise monitors. The noise and flight track system would serve several objectives for the airport. The first objective would be to build confidence in the airport’s noise exposure modeling and noise abate-

ment efforts. Second, the permanent noise monitors could also be used to accurately determine the extent of the change in noise contours over the densely developed areas south and west of the airport where a significant number of noise complaints are gener-ated. Finally, the Airport would have the means to correlate specific aircraft noise events to noise complaints. Over time, this information could be used to further refine noise abatement meas-ures at the airport. This system could also be a valuable evaluation tool for existing noise abatement procedures. B. Tracking and Responding to Noise Complaints Tracking noise complaints can aid in understanding the geographic distri-bution of the public’s airport noise complaints. It should be noted, how-ever, that noise complaints by them-selves cannot be taken as a complete assessment of a noise problem. Many unpredictable variables can influence whether a person chooses to file a noise complaint. Some people who are annoyed may find it inconvenient or intimidating to call and complain. Others who decide to complain may be unusually sensitive to noise or may be especially anxious about aircraft over-flights. Unusual events, rather than a long-term situation, may also prompt a complaint. C. “Fly Friendly” Program A “Fly Friendly” program is intended to be a comprehensive outreach effort to educate all stakeholders in the air-port environs about noise abatement

ES-12

efforts. Generally, they are intended to open communication between the airport, airport users, and local resi-dents. These programs typically in-clude pilot guides and videos, regular pilot briefings, neighborhood meet-ings, and real estate agent seminars. The Port has established a Fly Friendly program that includes a pilot guide and distributes noise abatement information through the internet. The “Fly Friendly” program components applicable to pilot education can be expanded to include the following ef-forts: • Distribute a pilot guide describing

airport noise abatement informa-tion at Hillsboro Airport.

• Include the noise abatement poli-

cies in the FAA’s Airport/Facility directory.

• Include the noise abatement poli-

cies on the Port’s web page. • Post information signs and posters

in public areas at the airport iden-tifying the noise abatement pro-gram.

• Conduct meetings with pilots to

discuss safety and noise abatement procedures at the airport.

• Produce pilot educational materials

to educate pilots about the Port’s noise abatement program.

Recommendations: Nine (9) specific recommendations were developed for Hillsboro Airport

considering the implementation strategies discussed above. 1. Promote the Aircraft Owners and

Pilots Association (AOPA) Noise Awareness Steps for light aircraft.

2. Limit formation/multiple aircraft flights without the approval of the Airport Manager.

3. Install radar coverage to the sur-face at Hillsboro Airport.

4. Monitor noise abatement compli-ance, enhancing with flight track-ing once radar coverage is available at Hillsboro Airport.

5. Maintain the permanent noise monitoring system to monitor noise abatement compliance.

6. Maintain the system for receiving, analyzing, tracking, and respond-ing to noise complaints.

7. Continue the “Fly Friendly” pro-gram.

8. Establish a standing advisory committee of interested citizens and tenants to regularly review and discuss airport issues with Port staff.

9. Establish a public outreach pro-gram to discuss the noise abate-ment program with the general public to raise awareness and en-sure potential residents near the airport are aware of the location of the airport and the efforts under-taken for improved compatibility. Elements could include:

ES-13

a. Printed publications such as brochures and newsletters.

b. Public information meetings

with homeowners’ associations, citizen participation organiza-tions (CPOs), civic groups, local governmental meetings, etc.

c. Meetings with representatives

from the real estate industry. Chapter Three – Land Use Measures The FAA has established formal land use compatibility guidelines stating that residential land uses at or above the 65 day-night-level (DNL) are non-compatible land uses around airports. The DNL contour represents the av-erage noise level from all aircraft types over a year’s period of time. DNL is the accepted federal and state noise standard used to depict airport noise contours which serve as a juris-dictional boundary for federal noise funding participation. It is also the common jurisdictional noise measure used for local land use planning. In general, most land uses (including residential) are considered compatible below where average noise exposure is less than 65 DNL contour. These guidelines are also accepted as the ba-sis for land use planning in Oregon. However, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality goes one step further by requiring noise mapping of the 55 DNL contour for local land use planning purposes.

Various land use management meas-ures that could prevent or reduce the potential for future adverse effects of airport-generated noise on land uses near HIO were identified and then grouped into the following three broad categories:

1) Policy Techniques 2) Regulatory Techniques 3) Expenditure Techniques

While the purpose of the policy and regulatory techniques is to address ex-isting and guide future development, the expenditure techniques involve po-tential payments for mitigation assis-tance. All of the potential land use measures discussed and examined be-low would be voluntary in terms of the degree of implementation as dictated by local governing agencies responsi-ble for such controls/techniques. The following screening criteria were developed and applied to the broad range of potential land compatibility measures to help identify the most probable measures for implementa-tion. Financing/Value – What are the costs and benefits involved with im-plementation of this measure? Feasibility/Acceptability – Is the measure politically, socially, and fi-nancially feasible to implement? Consistency/Coordination – Does the measure ensure/allow for a coordi-nated planning process between Washington County, the City of Hills-boro, Metro, and the Port of Portland?

ES-14

Balance – Does the measure balance the needs of both the airport and community? Proactive – Does the proposed meas-ure minimize future increases of in-compatible development? Similar to what was done for the pos-sible aircraft operational measures, a rating system was developed and in-corporated into the analysis to easily identify whether or not a proposed land use measure had a positive neu-tral or negative, effect. POLICY TECHNIQUES Policy techniques that can be used to guide future development include:

• Addressing aviation in local comprehensive and transporta-tion plans

• Coordination Agreements • Project Review Guidelines • Urban Growth Boundaries

Of these, only the first three (3) policy techniques were recommended for in-clusion in the plan for implementa-tion. Comprehensive Plan - Comprehensive long-range planning addresses airport planning at the highest policy level and is important for land use compati-bility because it is the policy base for community development. The Port should work with Washington County and the City of Hillsboro to ensure each comprehensive plan reflects the compatibility measures needed for Hillsboro Airport. The Airport Layout

Plan should be adopted as part of the City of Hillsboro and Washington County comprehensive plans. Coordination Agreements - A coordi-nation agreement is an agreement be-tween multiple jurisdictions and other public agencies that are affected by an airport. Since aircraft operations at the Hillsboro Airport can affect land in the jurisdictions of both the City of Hillsboro and Washington County, a coordination agreement with both ju-risdictions may be helpful in planning effective land use compatibility meas-ures. A coordination agreement would define overall compatibility goals and objectives and, more importantly, roles and responsibilities for establishing policies to improve and maintain com-patibility, conduct planning, and de-velop land uses near the Airport. Project Review Guidelines - Planning commissions, planning agencies, and local governing bodies are oftentimes required to use their own judgment when making decisions on community development issues such as rezoning applications, variances, conditional use permit applications, subdivision applications, and proposed public im-provement projects. The exercise of this discretion, however, is con-strained by the legal requirements of the applicable ordinances. Where op-portunities exist for planning commis-sions, planning agencies, and govern-ing bodies to use their own discretion in the development review process, it may be appropriate to adopt project review guidelines that ensure a fuller consideration of airport noise and safety compatibility issues in their evaluations.

ES-15

The Port of Portland’s Long Range Planning & Noise Department staff receive notices of proposed land use actions, such as subdivisions, from lo-cal governments. These notices are reviewed to determine if the proposed development may have a compatibility issue with aircraft operating at the airport. A response from the Port may be triggered by the height of a pro-posed structure, a noise-sensitive use, landscaping that might result in a wildlife attractant, or the subdivision’s proximity to the airport. Written tes-timony is prepared and, if necessary, delivered to the reviewing body (for example, a local government’s Plan-ning Commission). In some cases, Port staff will request conditions of approval to mitigate the compatibility issue, such as noise disclosure state-ments or avigation easements. A checklist of airport land use com-patibility criteria could be developed, with recommendations for incorpora-tion into current review processes per-formed by city officials. This review process could be incorporated into any future coordination agreement. Recommendations: Four specific recommendations were developed for Hillsboro Airport consid-ering the policy techniques discussed above. 1. Update local government Compre-

hensive Plan to reflect the Pro-jected Long Term 55 DNL (i.e. year 2025) contour as the basis for noise compatibility planning.

2. Adopt elements required by OAR 660-013-0040 into local Transpor-tation System Plans (TSPs).

3. Establish a coordination agreement to formally establish and preserve airport land compatibility meas-ures for Hillsboro Airport and iden-tify responsibilities for implemen-tation of compatibility measures. Coordination agreements would also require certain airport-related compatibility issues to be ad-dressed when UGB expansion is being considered.

4. Establish airport-related project review guidelines for development with discretionary review processes such as plan amendments and zone changes. Determine a boundary within which the project review guidelines would apply.

REGULATORY TECHNIQUES Regulatory techniques are land use and development controls established through local legislation that are in-tended to reduce potential airport noise and safety compatibility issues. These techniques include:

• Compatible Use Zoning • Airport Overlay Zoning • Airport Use Zoning • Height Restrictions • Noise Disclosure Regulations • Development Regulations • Building Codes • Transfer of Development Rights • Environmental Zoning

ES-16

The first five (5) regulatory techniques noted above were identified as having significant potential for eventual im-plementation. These techniques are described in the following paragraphs. Compatible Use Zoning - The most common regulatory technique in air-port compatibility planning is to eliminate residential zoning from air-port-impacted areas. However, in making rezoning decisions, the im-pacts of the proposed zoning on the ad-jacent areas must also be recognized. Residents may strongly object to the intrusion of non-residential uses into their part of the community. Another zoning technique is to use conventional zoning to promote airport compatibility to reduce the potential number of future residents by reduc-ing the permitted housing densities near the airport. Compatible use zon-ing is helpful to protect the primary departure routes for the airport should the UGB be changed. Future zoning should consider the ultimate/projected 55 DNL contour and maintaining com-patibility in the primary approach and departure paths. Airport Overlay Zoning - Overlay zones apply special standards or guidelines “over” the top of “base” zones (which remain unchanged), thereby promoting land use compati-bility in a specified vicinity of an air-port through the application of special conditions or restrictions or by limit-ing or prohibiting certain land uses. To achieve land use compatibility, a model overlay zoning ordinance rec-ommends that certain land uses be ei-

ther allowed, limited or, prohibited in specific zones of airport influence in-cluding the airport direct impact area, the airport secondary impact area, the runway protection zone and approach surfaces. The model ordinance lan-guage in the Airport Land Use Com-patibility Guidebook should be consid-ered as part of the adoption process. Airport Use Zoning - In contrast to an airport overlay zone, an airport use zone applies to the airport itself, in-cluding adjacent expansion areas. An airport use zone is a separate zoning district for the airport, which has the advantage of creating a distinct area of influence for the airport. The City of Hillsboro does not currently have an airport use zone. Washington County does have a Public Use Airport Over-lay District, but it currently applies to Stark’s Twin Oaks Airport, not to Hillsboro Airport. The County will be doing its APR compliance for Hillsboro Airport in the near future. A decision to develop airport use zon-ing for the Hillsboro Airport is discre-tionary with the City of Hillsboro and Washington County. Since this zoning only addresses allowable airport uses, it has little compatibility benefit to the surrounding community other than clarifying the range of land uses al-lowed on the airfield so that potential residents can make informed buying decisions. Height Restrictions - Restricting the height of objects (i.e., buildings, tow-ers, trees) is one of the primary ele-ments for addressing airport land use compatibility and safety. Height re-strictions are used to preserve naviga-

ES-17

ble airspace. Height restrictions are required by state law to maintain a safe operating environment for air-craft. However, Statewide Planning Goal 5 may conflict with these height restrictions, as trees and other natural growth that may be protected through Goal 5 regulations may violate airport-related height restrictions. This con-flict should be resolved in local regula-tions. Noise Disclosure Regulations - Noise disclosure regulations, while not actu-ally land use regulations, are intended to ensure that prospective buyers of new or existing property are informed that the property is or will be exposed to potentially disruptive aircraft noise. The City of Hillsboro currently re-quires noise disclosure statements as part of all land use approvals for new or existing properties within the fu-ture projected 60 DNL contour con-tained in the “most current adopted Airport Master Plan.” In addition, land use approvals within the future projected 55 DNL contour are to be conditioned to require disclosure of po-tential noise impacts from airport op-erations. Washington County cur-rently has no such policy in place. Consideration should be given by Washington County to developing a similar process to that of the City of Hillsboro for requiring noise disclosure statements for unincorporated Wash-ington County developments that fall inside the airport’s influence area. Recommendations: Five (5) specific recommendations were developed for Hillsboro Airport considering the policy techniques dis-cussed above.

1. Establish compatible land use des-ignations within the Washington County Community Development Code for the approach and depar-ture areas north of Evergreen Road presently outside the UGB.

2. Establish Airport Overlay Zoning for Hillsboro Airport using the model overlay ordinance provided in the Airport Land Use Compati-bility Guidebook published by the Oregon Department of Aviation.

3. Establish an Airport Use Zone for the Hillsboro Airport, which would regulate on-site airport and air-port-related industrial, commer-cial, and other uses that may occur within and beyond the 2025 plan-ning horizon.

4. Amend development regulations to require noise disclosure statements and avigation and noise easements, if appropriate, to meet compatibil-ity standards adopted by the City of Hillsboro or Washington County. Determine the boundary in which these regulations apply.

5. Maintain existing height restric-tions within existing zoning ordi-nances and community develop-ment code. Update to reflect the Airport Airspace Drawing included in the 2005 Airport Master Plan

EXPENDITURE TECHNIQUES Land use management techniques re-quiring direct expenditures include the following:

ES-18

• Property Acquisition • Sound Insulation • Purchase of Noise and Aviga-

tion Easement • Purchase Assurance • Sales Assistance • Development Rights Acquisi-

tion Of these, only one (Avigation Ease-ment Purchase) was deemed worthy of carrying forward into the recom-mended plan for this study. This technique is described below.

Purchase Of Avigation Easements - Acquiring avigation or “hazard” ease-ments is another effective and rela-tively affordable method to help en-sure land use compatibility in the air-port vicinity. One benefit of ease-ments is that they are relatively per-manent (they “run with the land”), while other land use control measures, such as zoning code modifications, can be changed. Three types of aviga-tion/hazard easements are available depending on the situation and the type of land use control required (see Table ES-1).

TABLE ES-1 Basic Types of Avigation and Hazard Easements Easement Type Rights Acquired Model Avigation and Hazard Easement

1. Right of flight at any altitude above the approach surface. 2. Prevents any obstruction above approach surface. 3. Right to cause noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, and fuel particles. 4. Prohibits creation of electrical interference or unusual lighting. 5. Grants right-of-entry to remove trees, buildings, etc. above approach

surface. Limited Avigation Easement

1. Right of flight at any altitude above approach slope surface (20:1, 34:1, or 50:1).

2. Prevents any obstruction above approach slope surface. 3. Grants right-of-entry to remove any structure or growth above ap-

proach slope surface. Clearance Easement

1. Prohibits any structure, growth, or obstruction above approach slope surface (20:1, 34:1, or 50:1).

2. Right-of-entry to remove, mark, or light any structure or growth above approach slope surface.

Source: Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook

The Port may consider opportunities for purchasing additional avigation easements to protect the operational safety of the airport. Consideration could be given to comparing current easements with the model avigation and hazard easements included as an appendix to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook.

Chapter Four – Compatibility Recommendations The final chapter of the Airport Com-patibility Study summarized the rec-ommended measures to abate aircraft noise, control land development, miti-gate the impact of noise on non-compatible land uses, and implement

ES-19

and update the program All of the po-tential airport operational and land use measures discussed, examined, and recommended herein are volun-tary; the degree of implementation de-pends on the entity responsible for the particular measure or technique, whether it is pilots, the FAA, the Port, or local governing agencies. The Hillsboro Airport Compatibility Program is intended to provide the Port with a blueprint for improving the compatibility between aircraft op-erations and the community. These recommendations build upon the ex-isting and relatively mature noise management program for Hillsboro Airport. This program has assumed both the existing conditions at the air-port and the planned development of the airport as depicted on the 2005 Airport Layout Plan. Many of the measures and steps in this program require the cooperation of many dif-ferent individuals and organizations. For example, pilots will be responsible

for many noise management meas-ures, while any land use measures will have to be adopted by the local juris-dictions (City of Hillsboro and Wash-ington County). It will be necessary for the Port to continue to work with this broad range of individuals and groups to ensure a successful program. The portions of the program that can have the most immediate benefit and potential for immediate implementa-tion are related in the aviation opera-tional management measures. Table ES-2 summarizes the highest priority measures that should be coordinated as soon as possible with the FAA for implementation. This is not to imply that the other measures should not have focused efforts. To the contrary, each of the recommended measures requires continued focus for imple-mentation, especially those measures such as the addition of radar coverage and physical improvements, which re-quire the cooperation of the FAA and time to come to fruition.

ES-20

TABLE ES-2 Potential Measures To Be Given High Priority Recommended Measure 1. Encourage use of thrust cutback after departure for jet aircraft. 2. Aircraft avoid unnecessary overflight of urban residential areas below 1,000 feet AGL. 3. Continue use of Runway 30 as preferred departure runway. 4. Continue limiting use of Runway 12 for jet departures. Do not use Runway 12 for jet departures during 2000 to 0900 except when wind conditions dictate. 5. Continue limiting use of Runway 20 for departure and Runway 2 for arrival. 6. Designate Runway 12-30 as preferred runway for large aircraft. Request voluntary restriction on jet use of Runway 2-20. 7. Runway 2-20 closed to touch-and-go landings between 2200 and 0600. 8. Maintain priority use of helicopter patterns as defined in the November 1, 2004 MOU. 9. Request VFR aircraft departing Runway 30 to maintain runway heading until reaching N.E. Jackson School Road. 10. Request IFR aircraft departing Runway 30 to maintain runway heading until reaching two nauti-cal miles DME from the localizer antenna. 11. Request aircraft departing Runway 2 to maintain runway heading until reaching Evergreen Road. 12. Request aircraft maintain runway heading until reaching 1,000 feet AGL for departures from Runway 12 and Runway 20. 13. Encourage close-in (less than one mile) final approaches for Runways 2 and 30 (Runways 30L and 30R after construction of the parallel runway). 14. Develop helicopter reporting points and arrival and departure routes that direct helicopters away from noise-sensitive development. 15. Limitation of midfield departures. 16. Establish a maintenance run-up policy. 17. Promote the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Noise Awareness Steps for light air-craft. 18. Monitor noise abatement compliance, enhancing with flight tracking once radar coverage is available. 19. Restriction on formation/multiple aircraft flights without the approval of the Airport Manager. 20. Maintain permanent noise monitoring system to monitor noise abatement compliance. 21. Maintain the system for receiving, analyzing, tracking. and responding to noise complaints. 22. Continue the “Fly Friendly” Program. 23. Establish standing advisory committee to regularly review and discuss airport issues with Port staff. 24. Establish public outreach program to discuss noise abatement program with the general public.

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION ANDBACKGROUND

PORT OF PORTLAND

1-1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION& BACKGROUND

PORT OF PORTLAND

In the 77 years since the first plane took off at the Hillsboro Airport, the community and the airport have changed dramatically. In 1928, aircraft were still something of a novelty and Hillsboro was a rural farming community. Today, the City of Hillsboro is the fifth largest in the State of Oregon by population, and the Hillsboro Airport is the second busiest by number of operations (defined as either a takeoff or a landing).

The Port of Portland (Port), which owns the Hillsboro Airport, has introduced many measures over the years since it purchased the airport from the City of Hillsboro in February 1966 to keep aviation activity, when possible, over relatively less populated areas of the community. Likewise, a pattern of land use around the airport has emerged with large tracts in commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses that are not particularly noise-sensitive. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County's development standards include provisions to limit the height of structures in the airport vicinity to reduce risk to aircraft.

Nevertheless, the Hillsboro Airport, like most urban airports,is still a source of controversy and conflict in the community. Concern about noise has risen as residential developmenthas crept closer to the airport due to a tightly drawnurban growth boundary. New state planning goals havebeen adopted for the protection and enhancement ofwildlife habitat; however, they have been implemented

1-2

without full coordination with aviation wildlife management principals. New technologies have improved the noise characteristics of modern aircraft, but the overall fleet and number of opera-tions at the Hillsboro Airport have grown. A range of aviation planning tools is available to address issues of compati-bility. Airport master plans address compatibility at a very basic level (i.e., mapping average noise exposure); supplementary compatibility planning is usually necessary to ensure that lo-cal issues and strategies are incorpo-rated to the greatest extent feasible. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved Title 14 Code of Regu-lations (CFR) Part 150 Noise Com-patibility Study is a much more exten-sive project and is typically under-taken as a stand-alone effort at air-ports where significant noise exposure (i.e., the 65 day-night noise level [DNL] and above noise contours) is oc-curring off-airport and on land with noise-sensitive development. An air-port compatibility study achieves many of the same objectives of 14 CFR Part 150 noise compatibility studies. It examines many of the same land use and operational measures for compatibility, but since it does not have to follow the specific federal codes, an airport compatibility study, such as this study, can be tailored to the specific needs of a local airport and its surroundings. For example, in most cases a 14 CFR Part 150 noise compatibility study will only examine measures within the 65 DNL contour. For this Airport Compatibility Study Update, compatibility down to the 55 DNL contour will be examined consis-

tent with applicable Oregon regula-tions for noise compatibility planning. The Port adopted an Airport Compati-bility Study in 1993 to establish land use and noise mitigation measures to promote compatibility with Hillsboro Airport’s surrounding community. This Airport Compatibility Study Up-date is intended to review the noise management efforts and land use poli-cies established for Hillsboro Airport in the 1993 Airport Compatibility Study, review any measures put in place by the Port since 1993, and to identify any new policies and proce-dures that can be implemented in the future to improve the compatibility between the Hillsboro Airport and the local community. The remainder of this chapter will look at the history of compatibility planning at Hillsboro Airport; provide an overview of airport compatibility regulations at the federal, state, and local levels; describe land use devel-opment and growth trends in the Hillsboro area; describe existing and future noise conditions at the airport; and summarize compatibility pro-grams at airports similar in character to Hillsboro Airport. 1993 HILLSBORO AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY STUDY The Port of Portland’s first Airport Compatibility Study for the Hillsboro Airport was a comprehensive survey of dozens of operational and commu-nity/land use measures. Each meas-ure was evaluated for its ability to re-duce conflicts within the community.

1-3

However, at the end of the study, only a relatively small number of proposals fell into the category of being both fea-sible and effective enough to be rec-ommended for implementation. It is a useful exercise to reexamine some of those recommendations, their present status and consider whether they are still feasible and useful ideas for this study update. This is done in the fol-lowing paragraphs. OPERATIONAL MEASURES Construct Parallel Runway for Light Aircraft Description: Both the 1996 and 2005 Hillsboro Airport Master Plans rec-ommended a 3,600-foot runway for light general aviation aircraft use lo-cated east of Runway 12-30. This runway would segregate small slower aircraft from larger faster aircraft. This improves the efficiency of aircraft operations to the airport. The parallel runway would reduce many of the re-petitive touch-and-go training opera-tions currently occurring on the pri-mary runway (Runway 30). Segrega-tion of aircraft also helps to maintain uniform traffic patterns. Where air-craft of different speeds are operating to the same runway, some aircraft must extend flight paths to allow for proper separation between arriving and departing aircraft for safety. Implementation Status: The paral-lel runway is currently planned for construction between 2007 and 2011 in the 2005 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan. Prior to construction, this pro-ject must conform to the requirements

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a federal law. NEPA re-quires that the FAA examine the po-tential impacts of the proposed run-way against more than 20 environ-mental categories prior to providing grant funding assistance to the Port of Portland. Any impacts must be miti-gated prior to implementation. Identify Location and Need of Run-Up Areas and Necessary Noise Barriers Description: Evaluate locations on the airfield to provide aircraft engine run-up areas attenuated by earthen berms and/or other structures. Pro-vide an estimate of their relative effec-tiveness for attenuating noise-generated engine run-ups. Implementation Status: An earthen engine run-up barrier is available on the west side of the Run-way 12 run-up area. An additional run-up area north of the Runway 20 end has been identified in the 2005 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan. This new maintenance run-up area would need to be constructed concurrently with the extension of Taxiway C to Runway 20. Taxiway C is needed to provide access to the run-up location. Construct Training Helipad Description: Construct an on-airport facility for helicopter training. Known as the “Charlie” Pattern, it is intended to relieve current “Alpha” and “Bravo” Pattern workloads, which overfly noise-sensitive areas. The 1991 Air-

1-4

port Layout Plan (ALP) showed an in-terim helipad on the southeast end of the proposed light runway. Implementation Status: A helicop-ter landing site was constructed and put into service in October 2004 in the northeast corner of the airport to re-lieve training activities from helicop-ter patterns on the west (Alpha) and south (Bravo) sides of the airport. A Memorandum of Understanding and Letter of Agreement between the FAA, the Port of Portland, and helicopter operators addresses the use of the three patterns and establishes their operating parameters. Designate Preferential Runway(s) Description: Review existing run-way use guidelines that direct aircraft traffic over compatible land uses and modify them as necessary to reduce aircraft noise over noise-sensitive communities. Modify the existing memorandum of agreement between the Port and FAA to include Runway 2 as a “Preferred Runway.” Implementation Status: A Memo-randum of Agreement between the Port and the FAA has been created. Runway 30 is the designated calm wind runway and Runway 2-20 is classified as a “noise-sensitive” run-way. Review Airplane Arrival/Departure Procedures Description: Review existing ap-proach and departure procedures for

opportunities to avoid noise-sensitive land uses. Implementation Status: A pilots’ guide and noise abatement procedures have been developed for Hillsboro Air-port. The Port has worked with air-craft operators to transition to and from Hillsboro Airport over industrial areas and roads to the greatest extent practicable. Further review of the ar-rival/departure procedures will be completed as part of this Compatibil-ity Study Update. Restrict Touch-and-Go Operations Description: Touch-and-go opera-tions are repetitive arrival/departure events to the same runway in a closed traffic pattern. Limiting hours for touch-and-go operations can prevent noise exposure to residents at times when they are most likely to be in their homes. Implementation Status: Runway 2-20 has been designated as a “noise-sensitive” runway. Touch-and-go op-erations on Runway 2-20 between 2200 (10:00 p.m.) and 0600 (6:00 a.m.) local time are not authorized. Off-Airport Helicopter Training Area Description: Determine the feasibil-ity for creating a facility for helicopter training over a relatively unpopulated area at a site distinctly separate and remote from Hillsboro Airport.

1-5

Implementation Status: Analysis for this measure has not commenced. Establish Recommended Aircraft Operational Techniques Description: Establish a pilot train-ing program to raise awareness of noise abatement procedures for air-craft operating at Hillsboro Airport to reduce noise impacts within the com-munity. Implementation Status: This measure has been partially imple-mented, with the opportunity to ex-pand to include pilot briefings to edu-cate pilots and the distribution of lit-erature/maps to all Fixed Base Opera-tors (FBOs). Establish a Communication Program for Airport Users Description: Develop a wide variety of techniques to disseminate informa-tion to airport users such as a news-letter, airport tours, and informational meetings to keep airport users abreast of the wide range of airport issues. Implementation Status: Communi-cation with tenants and local and vis-iting pilots has been established via several methods: airport website with pilot information, pilots’ guide materi-als, annual public open houses, and quarterly tenant meetings.

Define an Environmental Capacity Based Upon Cumulative Noise Level Limits Description: Establish a target level of aircraft noise and formulate policies to achieve that level. Implementation Status: This measure has not been implemented. Restricting the capacity of the airport based upon a cumulative noise level would require an FAA-approved Part 161 Study as described in 14 CFR Part 161. A Part 161 Study is a cost/benefit analysis that builds upon a Part 150 study and is designed to compare the benefits and costs of a restriction. The benefits of the restriction are meas-ured by the reduction in population impacts within the 65 DNL noise ex-posure contour. The 65 DNL contour at Hillsboro Airport generally remains on airport property and does not en-compass residential dwelling units. Therefore, an FAA-approved Part 161 Study on capacity restriction is unlikely. Create an Airport/Planning Advisory Committee Description: Create a standing committee composed of representa-tives of local government, area resi-dents, community businesses, airport users, and FAA representatives to act as a forum on a broad range of airport issues.

1-6

Implementation Status: This measure has not yet been imple-mented. The Port has committed to assembling this committee which will consist of a balanced group of citizens and airport stakeholders to address a range of airport issues. COMMUNITY/ LAND USE MEASURES Establish a Community Communication Program Description: Develop a program for regularly communicating with com-munity stakeholders and the general public about airport issues. Implementation Status: Imple-mented with the opportunity for the program to continue to evolve and adapt. Community events include the Hillsboro Airport Annual Open House and Annual Air Show. Identify Measures to Achieve Compatible Land Uses in the Vicinity of Airport Description: Examine the existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of the airport to determine if they could be modified to prevent or limit incompatible development. Implementation Status: Port staff has consistently provided comments on land use/development applications before the City of Hillsboro that affect properties near the airport. Gener-ally, recommendations include buyer noise disclosure statements and/or

avigation easements. Occasionally, recommendations have included changing the underlying land use from residential to commercial or industrial because of significant concerns over compatibility. Explore the Adoption of an Airport/Noise Overlay Zone Description: Create airport-influenced land use districts in which building height, residential develop-ment, and water impoundments are limited to optimize compatibility with the airport. Implementation Status: No action has been taken by the City of Hills-boro to create an airport overlay zone. Requirements of the Oregon Airport Planning Rule now require local gov-ernments to adopt airport compatibil-ity measures into a future comprehen-sive plan. Establish Buyer Awareness Measures Description: Avigation easements (see also Approach Protection below), noise disclosure statements and buyer notification could be used to inform purchasers of land that an airport is nearby and that a potentially negative experience could result from aircraft noise and overflight. Implementation Status: Port staff has provided comment on land use/development applications affecting properties near the airport. Gener-ally, the staff recommends buyer noise

1-7

disclosure statements and/or avigation easements. Formalizing these re-quirements in the city zoning ordi-nance could streamline this process. Evaluate Feasibility of Fee Simple Title Purchase of Adjacent Property Description: Fee simple title acqui-sition of properties adjacent to the airport to assure that existing or pro-posed incompatible land uses are con-verted to acceptable designations. Implementation Status: The Port has made several land purchases for the protection of approach/departure areas and land for future aviation fa-cility development. While these ac-quisitions have the indirect benefit of buffering the airport from incompati-ble uses, the purchases have not been done for that reason. Acquire Approach Protection Easements Description: Evaluate the purchase or donation of permanent rights to aviate over specific properties, usually including the rights to fly, emit noise, light and emissions and restrict the height of development on the subject property. Implementation Status: The Port has made several land purchases for the protection of approach/departure areas and land for future aviation fa-cility development (see above). Noise and avigation easements have occa-sionally been obtained through land

development conditions of approval imposed by the City of Hillsboro. AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FEDERAL REGULATIONS The federal government, primarily through the FAA, has the authority and responsibility to control aircraft noise sources through the following methods: • Implement and Enforce Air-

craft Operational Procedures – These include pilot responsibilities, compliance with Air Traffic Control instructions, flight restrictions and careless and reckless operation of aircraft. Where and how aircraft are operated in the National Air-space System is under the sole ju-risdiction of the FAA.

• Manage the Air Traffic Control

System – The FAA is responsible for the control of navigable air-space. The agency reviews any proposed alterations in flight pro-cedures for noise abatement on the basis of safety of flight operations, safety and efficient use of naviga-ble airspace, management and con-trol of the national airspace and air traffic control systems, effects on security and national defense and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. At the local level, the Hillsboro Air Traffic Control Tower has the sole authority to di-rect the movement of aircraft

1-8

within the five-mile radius of the Class D airspace it controls.

• Certification of Aircraft – The

FAA has required the reduction of aircraft noise through certification, modification of engines, or aircraft replacement as defined in 14 CFR Part 36. FAA noise reduction regu-lations do not apply to military air-craft or aircraft less than 75,000 pounds, which includes many of the aircraft at Hillsboro Airport.

• Pilot Licensing – Individuals li-

censed as pilots are trained under strict regulations concentrating on safe and courteous aircraft operat-ing procedures, many of which are designed to lessen the effects of aircraft noise.

• Noise Compatibility Studies –

14 CFR Part 150 establishes pro-cedures and criteria for the evaluation of Noise Compatibility Studies.

• FAA Order 1050.1E, Environ-

mental Impacts Policies and Pro-cedures, establishes the 65 DNL contour as the threshold for in-compatible land use and for identi-fying significant impacts.

STATE REGULATIONS Oregon Statewide Land Use Program Goal 12: Transportation The State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) administer 14 statewide planning goals; all local governments

must incorporate these goals into their comprehensive land use plans. State-wide Planning Goal 12 addresses transportation and specifies that transportation networks within the state should be safe, convenient, and economic. This applies to both air passenger and air cargo systems. Compliance with this goal can be achieved by including a transportation element in local comprehensive plans that addresses state requirements for airport planning and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660, Division 12) The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) addresses the general topic of transportation planning, including airport planning. The noteworthy provisions of the TPR related to air-port planning are as follows: 1. OAR 660-012-0020(2)(e) requires

that local government transporta-tion system plans (TSPs) include an airport element.

2. OAR 660-012-0045(2) requires

that local governments adopt land use regulations consistent with state and federal requirements to protect airport facilities and corri-dors for their intended functions.

3. OAR 660-012-0045(2)(c) requires

that local governments adopt measures to protect public use airports by controlling land uses within airport noise corridors and imaginary surfaces, and by limit-

1-9

ing physical hazards to air naviga-tion.

4. OAR 660-012-0045(2)(d) requires

that local governments establish a process for coordinated review of future land use decisions affecting transportation facilities, corridors, or sites.

5. OAR 660-012-0045(2)(f)(D) re-

quires local governments to adopt regulations providing notice to pub-lic entities and agencies that they are protecting transportation facili-ties, corridors and sites for their identified functions. For the Hills-boro Airport, affected agencies would include at least the Port of Portland, the Oregon Department of Aviation, and Metro.

Airport Planning Rule (OAR 660, Division 13) The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted the Airport Planning Rule (APR) to refine the provisions for local government airport regulation con-tained in Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and the Transporta-tion Planning Rule. The APR estab-lishes a series of local government re-quirements pertaining to aviation fa-cility planning which, according to the rule’s purpose statement, “…are in-tended to promote a convenient and economic system of airports in the state and land use planning to reduce risks to aircraft operations and nearby land uses.”

The APR implements Oregon Revised Statutes 836.600 through 836.630. Under this section, plan and land use regulations requirements must “en-courage and support the continued op-eration and vitality of airports.” Aviation Facility Planning Re-quirements. The APR outlines facil-ity planning requirements for local governments related to the adoption of comprehensive plan and land use regulations for each aviation facility subject to ORS 836.600 through 836.630, including all required maps, uses, and projections for future facil-ity needs. Airport Safety Overlay Zone. The APR directs local governments to adopt land use regulations to carry out the requirements of the APR and requires that local governments adopt an Airport Safety Overlay Zone. The purpose of an Airport Safety Overlay Zone is to promote aviation safety by prohibiting structures, trees, and other objects of natural growth from penetrating airport imaginary sur-faces. Land Use Compatibility. The APR includes a list of the compatibility re-quirements for public use airports, outlining the actions local govern-ments must take to move toward compatibility. For example, actions include prohibiting new residential development and public assembly uses within the runway protection zone (RPZ) and limiting certain uses within the noise impact boundary (65 DNL). See Appendix C for a full list of the required Land Use Compatibility actions.

1-10

Airport Uses at Non-Towered Air-ports. Finally, the APR directs local governments to adopt land use regu-lations to allow a variety of uses and activities within airport boundaries for non-towered airports. It also al-lows local governments to authorize commercial, industrial, manufactur-ing, and other uses, in addition to those listed in OAR 660-13-0100, within the airport boundary where such uses are consistent with applica-ble provisions of acknowledged plans, policies, and statewide planning goals. This, however, does not apply to Hillsboro Airport since the airport has an FAA air traffic control tower. Noise Compatibility Planning OAR 340-035-0045 (DEQ) Noise Control Programs for Airports Section 340, Division 35 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) ad-dresses the Oregon Department of Environmental Qualities responsibili-ties for regulating noise. It pre-dates the Airport Planning Rule and uses stronger language to characterize the effects of airport noise. Noise Abatement Programs. Under this Rule, Noise Abatement Programs, or NAPs, may be required to achieve noise compatibility between an airport and its environs. These programs fo-cus on airport operational measures to prevent increased noise and to lessen existing noise levels. There are multi-ple ways to manage and diminish air-port-related noise and its impacts, in-cluding encouraging compatible land

uses and controlling and reducing the airport/aircraft noise impacts on com-munities in the vicinity of airports to “acceptable” levels (below 65 DNL). NAPs are required if the Airport Noise Impact Boundary (within or above the 65 DNL noise contour) includes a Noise-Sensitive Property and if the Commission finds that there is rea-sonable cause to believe that it is nec-essary to protect the health, welfare, or safety of the public. “Noise-Sensitive Property” is defined as “real property normally used for sleeping, or normally used as schools, churches, hospitals, or public libraries. Property used in industrial or agricultural ac-tivities is not Noise-Sensitive Property unless it meets the above criteria in more than an incidental manner.” The elements of a NAP as defined by OAR-340-035-045(b) can be found in Appendix B. Airport Noise Criterion. The Air-port Planning Rule establishes the Airport Noise Criterion as 55 DNL, which is lower than 14 CFR Part 150 (in which noise-sensitive areas are de-fined as 65 DNL and above). While DEQ requires areas from 55 DNL and above to be mapped for informational purposes, noise levels below 65 DNL are considered compatible land uses, and no mitigation is required. By keeping its master plan current and preparing supplementary noise management strategies, the Port has acted consistently with the require-ments for managing noise under this Administrative Rule.

1-11

Oregon Transportation Plan The Oregon Transportation Plan is the statewide plan for all transportation modes as designated under Goal 12. It is a guide for coordinating all trans-portation networks to ensure efficient and convenient access to the state’s transportation networks. Oregon Aviation Plan The Oregon Department of Aviation has adopted the 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan. The Oregon Aviation Plan is in-tended to provide guidance for the safe and efficient operation of a convenient and economically viable system of air-ports. Additionally, land use compati-bility efforts are to be made to reduce accident risks to aircraft operations and to land uses. Ideally, those efforts should be consistent with the Oregon Airport Compatibility Guidebook, which is described in the following paragraphs. Oregon Airport Compatibility Guidebook The Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook (Guidebook) was published in 2003 by the State of Oregon De-partment of Aviation to serve as a re-source for planners, local officials, and citizens regarding airport land use compatibility issues. It provides non-mandatory guidance about how local governments might implement land management techniques to improve airport land use compatibility. The Guidebook provides a comprehensive

picture of the issues surrounding land use compatibility topics. It includes summaries of the many federal and state regulations related to aviation and airport planning; a discussion of safety, environmental and noise-related issues; implementation meth-ods for preventative and corrective op-erational and land management tech-niques, as well as sample agreements, plans, and zoning ordinances (includ-ing model airport use ordinances and model airport safety and compatibility overlay ordinances addressing the re-quirements in ORS 836.600 et seq. and OAR 660, Division 13). The Guidebook is the primary source for the potential land management meth-ods referenced later in this document. LOCAL REGULATIONS Existing Land Use Planning Policies While the vast majority of the airport is located within the incorporated lim-its of the City of Hillsboro, the noise and land use compatibility impact ar-eas will affect a portion of unincorpo-rated Washington County. Therefore, both city and county regulations are relevant to this report. A summary of applicable regulations is included in this section. For reference, the actual local government policy and code lan-guage has been attached to this docu-ment as Appendix A. • City of Hillsboro Comprehensive

Plan • City of Hillsboro Zoning Ordinance

1-12

• City of Hillsboro Transportation System Plan

• Washington County Comprehen-

sive Plan/Transportation System Plan

• Washington County Community

Development Code City of Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan The Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan contains sections and policies that ad-dress development in the airport vicin-ity to a greater extent than the City of Hillsboro’s Zoning Ordinance. This section summarizes the pertinent or-dinance sections.

• Section 7: Air, Water, and Land Resource Quality

The policies in this section address the need to buffer high-impact land use activities, like airports, to minimize negative effects (i.e., noise). The Im-plementation Measures subsection calls for limiting land use designations within the future projected 60 DNL contour to industrial, commercial, and low-density residential uses. It also directs the city to avoid noise-sensitive uses, including high-density residen-tial, within the future projected 55 DNL contour, and medium-density residential development within the future projected 60 DNL contour. An-other implementation measure states that uses with high concentrations of people should be avoided in the air-craft approach zones. The section also refers to noise-disclosure conditions

that the city may require as part of the approval process for airport-related land use decisions located in the 60 DNL and 55 DNL contours.

• Section 10: Economy This section notes that land in the vi-cinity of the airport should be desig-nated for industrial uses in order to take advantage of the special services provided by the Port facility so that the airport can become more inde-pendent from Portland.

• Section 13: Transportation Section 13 prohibits land uses within airport noise corridors that are not noise compatible and that can cause physical hazards to air traffic. This section also promotes coordinating with the Port in the implementation of the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan and the creation of a runway protection zone (RPZ). Permitting incompatible uses is discouraged unless negative effects can be mitigated. The section also requires developers to inform the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) at the earliest opportunity of transportation system development projects that may affect their jurisdic-tional interests, to ensure identifica-tion of noise standards.

• Subsection H of Section 13: Airport Subsection H most comprehensively addresses the Hillsboro Airport and issues of land use compatibility. The Airport subsection states that the air-port shall be maintained and used as,

1-13

but not expanded beyond, the capabil-ity of a “general aviation reliever facil-ity.” A general aviation reliever facil-ity is defined as an airport designed to normally service aircraft up to the ex-ecutive jet level only and not intended for use by air carrier type equipment. Subsection H directs local ordinances to regulate for compatible land uses, height, landscaping, and industrial uses in the airport vicinity. • Section 15: Station Community

Planning Areas Density targets for the Hawthorne Farm/Fair Complex SCPA assume 45 persons per acre. This is a target set for compatibility with the Region 2040 Growth Concept. The city will strive to achieve this density target while recognizing the constraints posed by the RPZ. City of Hillsboro Zoning Ordinance Exhibit 1A illustrates the City of Hillsboro zoning districts located in the study area, which generally reflect Comprehensive Plan designations. This section identifies the zones lo-cated inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in the study area and summarizes airport-related regu-lations included in the zoning ordi-nance. • Zoning within the Study Area

(inside the UGB) A depiction of consolidated land uses from the Hillsboro Airport zoning map

is depicted on Exhibit 1A. This map shows that residential zoning is lo-cated south and southeast of the air-port. The Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities (PF) designation at the air-port location becomes the only Indus-trial (M-2) land in the study area. In-dustrial zoning is located adjacent to the airport on all sides and to the northeast. Commercial/office zoning is also located adjacent to the airport.

• Development Regulations in the Hillsboro Zoning Ordi-nance

Most of the zoning districts in the Hillsboro Zoning Ordinance (HZO) do not include development standards specific to the Hillsboro Airport. How-ever, the zones comply with the height limitations of state and federal airport regulations. The tallest building height allowed in the study area is 85 feet (in the M-P zone). Additionally, reflecting Comprehensive Plan poli-cies, land zoned single-family residen-tial will not be allowed to locate in the 60 DNL contour. Also reflecting city policy, the M-P and M-2 zones are re-quired to comply with current state air quality and noise statutes and rules as administered by the Oregon DEQ.

• Supplementary Provisions This section addresses exceptions to building height limitations, specifying that no structure or structural part shall exceed height standards estab-lished for the vicinity of the Hillsboro Airport by the FAA regulations.

1-14

• Significant Natural Resources Overlay District

To protect public health and safety, a Natural Resource Management Plan submitted by the Port could provide regulatory flexibility in addressing natural resource management issues. Port staff is currently undertaking a year-long effort to identify what types of wildlife frequent the Hillsboro Air-port and its immediate environs, and what is characterizing the habitat that attracts them. • Section 136: Station Commu-

nity Planning Areas (SCPA) Due to their close proximity to the Hillsboro Airport, the Station Com-munity zones contain specific regula-tions related to the airport. The Sta-

tion Community Fair Complex Institu-tional (SCFI) zone addresses airport-related development in particular, since part of the district is located in the airport RPZ (formerly clear zone). The SCFI zone recognizes unique land use constraints that should be applied in relation to the nearby airport. For example, the section provides an ex-ception to requiring a reduction of sur-face parking in favor of parking struc-tures, where it applies to the airport RPZ. Here, well-landscaped surface parking for large events and facilities for travel trailers and recreational ve-hicles is allowed. Table 1A summa-rizes those uses either permitted or otherwise in the SCFI zone. It should be noted that all development within this particular zone is to comply with applicable provisions of the Airport Planning Rule.

TABLE 1A Permitted Uses within SCFI Zone Use (P=Permitted Use, C=Conditional Use, N=Not Permitted) SCFI

General Industrial Uses N Light-Industrial Uses N Research, Development, and Testing Laboratories N Flex Space Uses N General Office P Office Related to Primary Use P Hospitals N Medical and Dental Offices, Outpatient and Clinical Facilities N Geriatric Care Facilities N Trade and Technical Schools, Colleges and Universities other than Major Institutions N

• Section 137: Development

Regulations for Station Com-munity Planning Areas

Development standards for the SCPAs are located in HZO Section 137. Sub-sections V and VI of this section limit certain properties to a maximum floor

area ratio (FAR) of 0.3. Section 137 also establishes minimum residential density for these properties within a Station Community Residential Dis-trict, within Review Area 6, as seven dwelling units per net acre and a maximum density of twelve dwelling

! !

!!

!

!

!

! MAIN

EVERGREEN

SUNSET

1ST

OAK

MEEK

CO

RN

ELIU

S PA

SS

SHU

T E

CORNELL

GLE

NC

OE

BR

OO

KW

OO

D

5TH

231S

T

BASELINE

10TH

JAC

KSO

N S

CH

OO

L

ALO

CLE

K

WEST UNIO

N

HELV

ETIA

HIL

LSB

OR

O

AMBERWOOD

RIVER

HORNECKER

DEN

NIS

SHUTE-SUNSET

HELVETIA-SUNSET

JAC

KSO

N S

CH

OO

L

BASELINE

SHU

TE

SUNSET

03SP

01-1

A-0

9/14

/05

Exhibit 1AGENERALIZED ZONING/PLAN DESIGNATIONS

IN THE HILLSBORO AIRPORT STUDY AREA

Source: City of Hillsboro (2005) 2005 Regional Land Information System.

0 2,500

1" = 2500'

LEGEND

! Existing Light Rail Stops

Urban Growth Boundary

Arterial Roads

Industrial

Low-Density ResidentialMedium-Density Residential

Study Area

Existing Light Rail MAX

EFU - Agriculture/ForestryAF5 - Agriculture/Forestry

Hillsboro Airport FacilitiesHillsboro Airport Property

Information Not Available

Commercial/Office

AF20 - Agriculture/Forestry

1-15

units per net acre. Finally, the section states that building height limitations identified in the Hillsboro Airport Compatibility Study supersede those of the FAA. The development standards of Section 137 apply to all of the SCPAs and ad-dress a range of standards. An excep-tion applies to the maximum residen-tial density, minimum FAR, and maximum building height for residen-tial development in the Hawthorne Farm/Fair Complex SCPA. The stan-dards in this section shall comply with applicable provisions of the Airport Planning Rule. • Section 142: Hawthorne

Farm/Fair Complex Stations Community Planning Area Supplemental Standards

This section of the HZO contains sup-plemental development standards for the Hawthorne Farm and Fair Com-plex Stations that specifically address the conflict between the objective to increase density around light rail sta-tions and the area’s proximity to the Hillsboro Airport. The Washington County Fair Complex Board of Direc-tors is seeking to develop the land at the Fair Complex into a year-round conference and entertainment facility. The purpose statement of this section acknowledges that land south of Elam Young Parkway is within the flight path safety zone of the Hillsboro Air-port. Consequently, the city must agree with the Port and the FAA that it is in the public interest to maintain the current low-density uses and zon-ing. However, the city, in effect, is leaving the door open for higher-

density development in the area if, for some reason, the Port and the FAA should change airport operations or if technology, safety improvements, or other mitigating circumstances arise which could allow for higher density development.

City of Hillsboro Transportation System Plan (TSP) In 2003, the City of Hillsboro com-pleted an update of its TSP. The TSP includes two airport-related policies. Goal 5, Goods Movement, includes the general policy directing the city to co-ordinate airport planning with the Port (Policy 2). Goal 1, Safety, includes a more specific policy (Policy 6) which addresses compatibility by prohibiting land uses within noise corridors that are not noise compatible. It also calls for avoiding the establishment of uses that are physical safety hazards to air traffic. It promotes the coordinated es-tablishment of the RPZ with Washing-ton County. Washington County Comprehensive Plan The Washington County Comprehen-sive Plan was amended in 2003 to ad-dress the state Airport Planning Rule. The Comprehensive Plan contains several airport-related policies, none of which directly address the Hillsboro Airport. The Comprehensive Plan is divided into several documents, in-cluding the Rural/Natural Resource Plan Element, Transportation System Plan, Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, and various com-

1-16

munity plans. The Rural/Natural Re-source Plan Element and the Trans-portation System Plan include land use controls for airports.

• Rural Plan Element Policy 5, Noise of the Rural Plan Ele-ment of the Comprehensive Plan, ad-dresses noise control around airports through six implementing strategies. The first strategy is to investigate the feasibility of undertaking a study of noise problems in the unincorporated area, and if the study reveals serious noise pollution problems, the airport will consider the feasibility of revising its existing noise regulations to control identified noise problems. The second ensures that land use decisions com-ply with DEQ noise standards (OAR 340-035-0045). The third and fourth strategies require amendments to the Community Development Code and to Community Plan elements of the Comprehensive Plan to minimize noise impacts. The fifth strategy deals with the location of sensitive land uses. The sixth and final strategy is to work to coordinate with DEQ, ODOT, and the Port of Portland when estab-lishing land use designations near airports. In addition, Policy 28, Airports states that, “It is the policy of Washington County to protect the function and economic viability of existing public use airports, while ensuring public safety and compatibility between air-port uses and surrounding land uses for public use airports and for private use airports identified by the Oregon Department of Aviation (DOA).” The county will adopt airport overlay con-

sistent with DLCD Airport Planning Rules and ORS Chapter 836 to imple-ment this policy. In addition, through this policy, the county will recognize Portland-Hillsboro airport as the ma-jor aviation facility in Washington County and an airport of regional sig-nificance. To promote its operation, the policy states that the county will coordinate with the City of Hillsboro to help ensure compatibility with sur-rounding land uses, and the Compre-hensive Plan will be updated to reflect any necessary changes resulting from this process. • East Hillsboro Community Plan The East Hillsboro Community Plan is part of the Washington County Com-prehensive Plan. The East Hillsboro Planning Area has been identified as part of the City of Hillsboro "Active Planning Area." Under the active plan concept, a city accepts planning re-sponsibilities for areas outside its cor-porate limits because the city feels the area will ultimately have to annex in order to receive urban services. Al-though some portions of the East Hillsboro Planning Area will have to rely upon the city for urban services, other portions can obtain the services for urban development required by the county urban growth management policies through service districts other than the city. Because of this possibil-ity for development in both the city and the county, the City of Hillsboro and Washington County have agreed to a joint planning process for the East Hillsboro Planning Area. The location of the East Hillsboro Area within the Hillsboro Urban

1-17

Growth Boundary reflects the close social and economic interrelationship between this Area and the City, and also recognizes the City's role and re-sponsibility as the employment and housing focus for the surrounding area. For these reasons, Hillsboro's planning efforts have traditionally in-cluded the East Hillsboro Area. While the East Hillsboro Community Plan does not include policies, it ad-dresses issues related to the airport and development in its vicinity. The area in the vicinity of the Hillsboro Airport is considered a Plan “sub-area” This area is bounded on the south, east, and west by the City of Hillsboro, and on the north by the Regional Ur-ban Growth Boundary along Ever-green Road. It also sits between two Hillsboro Airport runways. Because of this proximity to the Airport, and be-cause several parcels in the area are owned by the Port of Portland, the en-tire area is designated for industrial use. The Airport Sub-Area includes one specific “Design Element.” Commu-nity Plan Design Elements must be addressed as part of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process in Washing-ton County. The Airport Sub-Area Design Element (1) is as follows:

1. This area is identified in the Urban Planning Area Agree-ment (UPAA) as requiring an-nexation to Hillsboro to receive services for urban-level devel-opment.

• Transportation System Plan (TSP) Washington County adopted an up-dated TSP in December 2004; it con-tains language that generally ad-dresses land uses in the vicinity of airports. The Air, Rail, Pipeline, and Water Background element of the TSP describes Hillsboro Airport as a re-liever airport for Portland Interna-tional Airport, providing passenger shuttle service and serving the major businesses and industries, such as In-tel and Nike on the west side of the Portland Metro region. TSP policies mandate coordination with federal, state, and regional regulators, and transportation service providers to minimize noise impacts and land use conflicts. Washington County Community Development Code Washington County uses the land use designations defined in the Compre-hensive Plan to implement the Com-munity Development Code rather than creating separate zoning designations (see Exhibit 1B). The land use desig-nations that are located in the study area are the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), Agriculture and Forestry-5 (AF-5), and Agriculture and Forestry-20 (AF-20) districts. Land use controls with respect to these zones deal primarily with con-serving natural resources. Land uses in the EFU designation (Section 340)

1-18

are restricted to farm uses, as well as some non-farm uses that are statuto-rily authorized in EFU zones. The EFU designation is the most restric-tive designation in terms of allowed uses. Land may not be subdivided to less than 80 acres, unless specific cir-cumstances apply. The AF-20 (Section 344) designation is also intended for exclusive farm use, with many of the same use restrictions as the EFU district. However, land zoned AF-20 may also contain “mar-ginal” lands. These areas, only mar-ginally suitable for farm use, might allow special uses such as other farm and forest operations, wood lots, or de-tached dwellings. Land designated AF-5 (Section 348) has been parceled to a great extent and is not protected for farm use. It has a minimum lot size of five acres. The Community Development Code does not contain specific airport overlay zones that apply to the Hillsboro Airport. Section 387 (Public Use Airport Overlay District) and Section 388 (Public Use Airport Safety and Compatibility Overlay District) only apply to the Stark’s Twin Oaks Airport. Other airport-related regulations ap-pear throughout the code. For exam-ple, Section 106.10 contains airport-related definitions. Height regula-tions are imposed in each district (EFU, AF-20, and AF-5), citing FAA height restrictions as a development regulation. Section 430-7 in Special Uses addresses personal-use-only air-ports. Section 421 addresses airport-related uses in the Floodplain and Drainage Hazard area. Section 422,

Significant Natural Resources, in-cludes provisions related to airports for development within a riparian cor-ridor, water areas and wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat. Finally, no-ticing procedures for Type I, II, or III development actions outlined in Sec-tion 204 requires public notice when airport-related development is pro-posed on property within a Public or Private Use Airport Overlay District. Section 430-59, Heliports, notes that the county may allow heliport facili-ties subject to compliance with federal and state requirements, including DEQ noise control regulations for aeronautics. Finally, Section 430-145, Wineries, states that the city may also invoke regulations related to airport safety on wineries in certain districts. LOCAL LAND USE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH TRENDS This section uses collected data from the City of Hillsboro, Washington County, and the Port to assess poten-tial residential land use and growth trends in the study area. LAND USE INVENTORY The 2003 Land Use Inventory exam-ined the existing land uses, summa-rized in Table 1B, in the approxi-mately 7,000-acre study area both in-side and outside the current UGB. This table shows land use as a per-centage of the total study area. The percentages used throughout this in-ventory refer to actual developed land

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

03SP

01-1

B-0

9/14

/05

Exhibit 1BWASHINGTON COUNTY AND CITY OF HILLSBORO COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN DESIGNATIONS IN THE HILLSBORO AIRPORT STUDY AREA

Source: 2005 Regional Land Information System. City of Hillsboro (2005)

Note: Generalized Land Uses.

LEGEND



Arterial Roads

CommercialIndustrialPublic Facilities

Low-Density ResidentialMedium-Density Residential

FloodplainOpen Space

Study Area


SCPA Station Community Planning AreaEFU - Agriculture/ForestryAF5 - Agriculture/Forestry

Hillsboro Airport FacilitiesHillsboro Airport Property

AF20 - Agriculture/Forestry

0 2,500

1" = 2500'

1-19

uses, while the exhibits show overall land use designations. Vacant land ac-counts for 11.6 percent of the study

area. These vacant lands are primar-ily planned for industrial and me-dium-density residential.

TABLE 1B 2003 Land Uses in Hillsboro Airport Study Area

Existing Land Use

Number of Acres

Percent of Study Area Acreage

SFR - Single-family residential 1954.4 27.8% AGR - Agriculture 1789.4 25.5% PUB - Public facilities 867.4 12.3% VAC – Vacant 818.3 11.6% IND - Industrial 783.8 11.2% COM – Commercial 314.6 4.5% RUR – Rural Residential 289.5 4.1% MFR – Multi-family Residential 189.9 2.7% FOR – Forest 19.6 0.3% Total 7,026.8 100% Source: 2003 Regional Land Information System (RLIS) (Tax lot attributes land use [derived fromProperty Codes] and Acres [calculated from Area])

The Washington County and Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan maps, shown in Exhibit 1B, illustrate the intended land uses in the study area. The uses in Table 1B are derived from 2003 re-gional data (RLIS). Outside the UGB, the Washington County Comprehen-sive Plan determines the intended land uses for the study area. Land is generally specified as farmland, in-cluding Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Agricultural and Forestry-20 (AF-20) designations. Land shown on Ex-hibit 1A, designated as Agriculture and Forestry-5 (AF-5), has been granted an exception to State Plan-ning Goal 3, Agriculture, and Goal 4, Forestry, because it is parceled into smaller lot sizes. In sum, agricultural and rural land uses make up 29.6 per-cent of the study area. These areas (which in most cases include homes) should be taken into account when planning airport expansion because this type of land use can be noise-

sensitive. As portions of the study area currently outside the UGB are annexed, the city should make sure that they are not zoned residential. Industrial land use would be more ap-propriate for these areas. Inside the UGB, planned land uses primarily consist of low-density resi-dential, industrial, and commercial, with the surrounding light rail transit stations designated for multi-family residential. Single-family residential uses account for 27.8 percent, while multi-family residential uses account for 2.7 percent of land in the study area. The Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan designates the residential land inside the UGB as Residential Low Density (RL), Residential Medium Density (RM), and Residential High Density (RH). While the low-density residential land is located south and southeast of the airport, the medium and high-density residential land uses

1-20

are located around the light rail sta-tions, which are targeted for mixed-use development. RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND GROWTH TRENDS IN THE STUDY AREA For the purposes of the Hillsboro Air-port Compatibility Study Update, an analysis of existing residential devel-opment and expected growth trends is particularly important to provide a factual basis from which to determine

where future incompatible land uses are planned to occur and where miti-gation may be possible. Table 1C illustrates that the study area (Hillsboro portion) currently con-tains approximately 1,341 acres (or 19 percent) of land that is presently de-veloped in residential uses. This is based on data supplied by the City of Hillsboro staff from the City’s 2004 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). Please note that Table 1C shows resi-dential zoning, while Table 1D illus-trates existing land use.

TABLE 1C 2005 Residential Land Uses in Hillsboro Airport Study Area – Currently Developed*

Land Use Category (Zoned) Number of Acres Percent of Study

Area (Acres) Single Family Residential 1,154.4 Multi-Family Residential 186.9 Subtotal 1,341.3 19.1% Other Land Uses in Study Area 5,685.5 80.9% Total 7,026.8 100% Source: 2005 Regional Land Information System (RLIS) (Tax lot attributes land use [derived from PropertyCodes] and Acres [calculated from Area])

According to 2005 data supplied by the City of Hillsboro, the following dwell-

ing types currently exist in the study area.

TABLE 1D Number of Existing (2005) Dwellings and Dwelling Types in Hillsboro Airport Study Area

Dwelling Type (Actual) Number of Dwellings % Total Study Area Dwellings

Single Family Residential 8,421 62.6% Duplex 683 5.1% Triplex 78 0.6% Townhomes 371 2.8% Manufactured Dwelling 50 0.4% Condominium 408 3.0% Multi-family Development 3,419 25.4% Accessory Dwelling Unit 19 0.1% Total 13,449 100% Source: 2005 City of Hillsboro Address Data (Addresses attributes Description)

Based on data supplied by the City of Hillsboro staff from the 2004

Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), the study area (Hillsboro portion) contains

1-21

approximately 488 acres of buildable lands of all land use types. The defini-tion of buildable land includes both “vacant” and “committed” parcels. Committed parcels are those for which a development application has been submitted. As Table 1E and Exhibit 1C show, approximately 47 acres, or

roughly 10 percent of buildable land in the Hillsboro portion of the study area is zoned for residential use. Therefore, only 10 percent of the buildable land is expected to develop as residential uses within the 20-year planning horizon. Table 1F summarizes how these 47 acres break down by residential land use designation.

TABLE 1E Vacant Residential in Study Area as Percent of Overall Hillsboro Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI)

Land Use Designation Net Acres % Total BLI Residential (all types) 46.6 9.6 % Other 441.0 90.4 % Total buildable lands 488.0 100% Source: City of Hillsboro 2004 Buildable Lands Inventory

Zoning within the study area was de-scribed in an earlier section of this chapter, and the overall zoning for the City of Hillsboro was depicted on Ex-hibit 1A. However, to summarize, the vacant residential land in the study area consists primarily of Residential – Village (SCR –V) just north of the Hawthorne Farm Light Rail Stop. This accounts for over 50 percent of the study area’s total buildable resi-

dential land, with 25 acres. The A-4 (Multi-family Residential), R-7 (Single Family Residential), and R-10 (Single Family Residential) zones on an indi-vidual basis account for anywhere be-tween 11 and 14 percent of the vacant residential acres. The acreages of all designations in the study area consist-ing of vacant residential land are shown in Table 1F.

TABLE 1F Size of Vacant Residential Lands in Study Area by City of Hillsboro Land Use Designation

Land Use Designation and Description Net Acres % Residential Vacant Land A-1 - Duplex Residential 2.1 4.6% A-2 - Multi-Family Residential 0.5 1.1% A-4 - Multi- Family Residential 6.4 13.7% C-4 - Neighborhood Commercial 1.1 2.3% PUD R-7 - Single Family PUD 0.2 0.5% R-10 - Single Family Residential – 10,000 SF lots 5.3 11.5% R-7 - Single Family Residential – 7,000 SF lots 5.7 12.2% SCR-DNC - Downtown Neighborhood Conservation 0.2 0.3% SCR-LD - Station Community – Low Density 0.5 1.0% SCR-OTC - Station Community Orenco Station 0.2 0.4% SCR-V - Station Community Residential Village 24.5 52.6% Total Acres 46.6 100% Source: City of Hillsboro 2004 Buildable Lands Inventory

1-22

The above analysis shows that only a minimal amount of the vacant or committed land in the study area is likely to be developed as residential in the 20-year planning horizon. How-ever, looking only at the percent of acres can be somewhat misleading. To understand the implications of poten-tial development, one must examine the number of dwelling units that could potentially be developed on the vacant, residentially-designated lands. Table 1G shows that as many as 1,201 dwelling units could potentially

be developed in the study area based on current land use designations. The predominant land use district is the Station Community Residential Vil-lage (SCR-V), which promotes high density residential development at 40 dwelling units per acre. A more spe-cific description of the types of dwell-ing units is not available because the City’s 2004 BLI dataset does not code vacant land with all potential unit types. However, one can qualitatively extract the potential unit types from the assigned zoning designation.

TABLE 1G Potential Number and Type of Dwelling Units in the Study Area

Residential

Zone/ Description

Unit Type

Number of Dwelling

Units A-1 Duplex Residential Duplex and single family detached 27 A-2 Multi-Family Residential Multi-family dwellings 7 A-3 Multi-Family Residential Multi-family dwellings 5 A-4 Multi-Family Residential Multi-family dwellings 94 C-4 Neighborhood Commercial Multi-family dwellings above commercial 6 R-7 Single Family Residential – 7,000 SF lots

Single family detached and attached 41

PUD R7 Single Family PUD Single family detached and attached 1 R-10 Single family residential – 10,000 SF lots

Single family detached dwelling, duplexes meet-ing density

33

SCR-DNC Downtown Neighbor- hood Conservation

Multi-family dwellings, garden apartments, townhouses, single family attached and detached

2

SCR-LD Station Community – Low Density

Townhouses, rowhouses, duplex, attached duplex, single family detached and attached

4

SCR-OTC Station Community – Orenco Station

Single family detached 1

SCR-V Station Community – Residential Village

Mid-rise apartments, multi-family dwellings, gar-den apartments, townhouses and rowhouses, sin-gle family detached and attached, duplex, at-tached duplex

980

Total developable units 1,201 Source: City of Hillsboro 2004 Buildable Lands Inventory

PORT OF PORTLAND LAND OWNERSHIP Exhibit 1C shows the Port’s land ownership within the study area. In addition to the parcels at the north end of the north-south Runway 12-30,

the Port also owns an approximately 90-acre parcel along Evergreen Road, east of Jackson School Road, just north of the UGB. The Port also owns several parcels inside the UGB, east of the airport, with frontages on 264th and 268th Avenues. In addition, the

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

SUNSET

MAIN

CORNELL

EVERGREEN

1ST

OAK

S

SHU

TE

BR

OO

KW

OO

D

RIV

5TH

SBO

RO

231S

T

BASELINE

10TH

TUALATIN VA

HELV

E

JAC

KSO

N S

CH

OO

L

AMBERWOOD

ALO

CLE

K

206T

H

DEN

NIS

SUNSET-SHUTE

SHU

TE

BASELINE

JAC

KSO

N S

CH

OO

L

MAIN

EVERGREEN

SUNSET

1ST OAK

MEEK

CO

RN

ELIU

S PA

SS

S HU

TE

CORNELL

GLE

NC

OE

BR

OO

KW

OO

D

5TH

231S

T

BASELINE

10TH

JACK

SON

SCHO

OL

ALO

CLE

K

WEST UNIO

N

HELV

ETIA

HIL

LSB

OR

O

RIVER

HORNECKER

SUNSET

BASELINE

03SP

01-1

C-0

9/14

/05

Exhibit 1C2004 CITY OF HILLSBORO BUILDABLE LAND

INVENTORY HIGHLIGHTING RESIDENTIAL LANDS

Source: 2005 Regional Land Information System. City of Hillsboro (2005)

Note: Buildable Land Information is Not Available for Washington County.

LEGENDUrban Growth Boundary

Arterial Roads

! Light Rail Stops

Study Area

Low-Density Residential

Medium-Density Residential

Industrial

Commercial

Agriculture


Hillsboro Airport Facilities

Hillsboro Airport Property

0 2,500

1" = 2500'

1-23

Port owns a five-acre parcel located on 264th Avenue, east of the airport. NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES As noted in the summary of applicable state rules, noise-sensitive uses gen-erally include residences, schools, churches, hospitals, and libraries. A more specific definition of “noise-sensitive uses” is available in the sec-tion on OAR 340-035-0045. Exhibit 1D provides an illustration of poten-tially noise-sensitive land uses in the study area. Residential uses constitute the most pervasive noise-sensitive use in the study area. According to discussions with City of Hillsboro staff, the heli-copter training pattern “Alpha” flight path off the main airport runway crosses over a large residential zone west of the airport and north of down-town Hillsboro. Rural residential uses north of town are in the “Charlie” heli-copter training pattern flight path, as well as fixed-wing aircraft operating off the main runway. Finally, the resi-dential village at Dawson Creek coin-cides with the “Bravo” helicopter training pattern. While noise disclo-sures are listed in deeds of houses, in-creasing air traffic, especially the large helicopter training center on-site, is a potentially recurring point of conflict with homes in the study area. As illustrated in Exhibit 1D, a number of schools, libraries, and hospitals, as well as eight churches, are located in the study area. Tuality Community Hospital at 335 SE 8th Avenue in Hillsboro, a 167-bed healthcare facil-

ity, is the only hospital near the study area. The nearest library is the Shute Park Library. The Books by Rail Pub-lic Library is located outside the study area. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY In 2003, the Metro-defined UGB was expanded to include the “Shute Road Site,” 203 acres at the intersection of Shute Road and Evergreen Road. This site is located immediately northeast of the airport and will provide large industrial lots. In order to be approved for UGB expansion, the Metro Council required that this site be grouped into parcels no smaller than 50 acres and be developed with uses related to the high-tech industry. The City of Hillsboro planning staff indicated that AF-5 rural residential lots north of the airport might be can-didates for future inclusion into the UGB. This potential expansion, ear-marked in part to meet Metro’s identi-fied need for 2,700 additional indus-trial acres in the region, would also provide large industrial sites. This may be a remedy for conflicts that ex-isting rural residential uses currently experience with respect to the helicop-ter training center at Hillsboro Air-port. As illustrated in the “Vacant Lands” section below, the Hillsboro planning staff also reported that there are no significant vacant parcels within the City’s UGB, a fact that ex-plains the pressure to expand the UGB in this area. Land northwest of the airport and outside the UGB is currently designated exclusive farm use (EFU), which under state law is

1-24

the lowest priority for future inclusion in a UGB. EXISTING AVIATION NOISE CONDITIONS Exhibit 1E illustrates the existing (2003) noise condition at Hillsboro Air-port. These noise contours were de-veloped in conjunction with the 2005 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan. The shape and extent of the contours re-flect the underlying flight track and operational assumptions outlined in the Master Plan. The contours extend the greatest distance beyond the Runway 30 and Runway 12 ends, due to the higher number of aircraft utiliz-ing the longer of the two runways. The long, slender shape of the contour to the southeast of the Runway 30 end reflects the dominance of arrivals to Runway 30. The large number of de-partures on Runway 30 contributes to the wide and elongated 55 and 60 DNL contours associated with the Runway 12 end. The bulges on the west and east sides of the 55 DNL noise contour can be attributed to de-parture turns. The long, slender shape of the contour beyond the Run-way 20 end to the east can be attrib-uted to both small fixed-wing aircraft activity as well as helicopter opera-tions using the “Bravo” helicopter training pattern. The 70 and 75 DNL noise contours are contained completely on the existing airport property. In addition, virtu-ally all the 65 DNL contour is on exist-ing airport property with portions of the 55 and 60 DNL noise contours ex-tending beyond airport property. The

FAA and state compatibility threshold is 65 DNL for noise-sensitive land uses. There are no incompatible uses within the existing 65 DNL or greater noise contour. FUTURE AVIATION NOISE CONDITIONS Exhibit 1F depicts the projected long-term noise exposure contours for Hillsboro Airport. The long-term noise contours include the assumed use of a relocated Charlie helicopter training pattern that became operational in October 2004. The resulting contours of concern (65 DNL and greater) gen-erally remain on airport property. The projected future 65 DNL noise contour extends beyond Evergreen Road to the north, along the extended centerline of the shorter parallel run-way. Portions of the 65 DNL noise contour associated with the relocated Charlie Pattern landing area are also projected to extend beyond existing and future airport boundaries. These areas, however, are planned for indus-trial and commercial uses. Therefore, it is anticipated that no incompatible development would be located within the 65 DNL and greater noise contour. The size and shape of the contours are a function of the projected increases in aircraft operations, projected change in aircraft mix to include a slightly greater percentage of large business jet aircraft and the change in the loca-tion and use of the Charlie Pattern landing pads. The projected increases in the aircraft operations and changes to the mix result in the future 55 DNL and 60 DNL noise contours increasing

G

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

!

!

æ

ææ

æ

ææ

æ

! !

!!

!

!

!

! MAIN

EVERGREEN

SUNSET

1ST

OAK

MEEK

CO

RN

ELI

US

PA

SS

SH

UTE

CORNELL

GLE

NC

OE

BR

OO

KW

OO

D

5TH

231S

T

BASELINE

10TH

JAC

KS

ON

SC

HO

OL

ALO

CLE

K

WEST U

NIO

N

HEL

VETI

A

HIL

LSB

OR

O

AMBERWOOD

TUALATIN VALLEY

HORNECKER

DE

NN

IS

SHUTE-SUNSET

HELVETIA-SUNSET

SUNSET

BASELINE

JAC

KS

ON

SC

HO

OL

SH

UTE

TUALITY COMMUNITY

Henry ES

Jackson ES

Eastwood ES

Mooberry ES

Brookwood ES

JB Thomas MS

Evergreen MS

JW Poynter MS

Books by Rail

Hillsboro Public Library

Assembly of God Church

Iglesia Envangelica HispanaAll Saints Episcopal Church

Seventh Day Adventist Church

Seventh Day Adventist Church

Hillsboro Presbyterian Church

Christian Science Reading Room

03SP

01-1

D-1

2/14

/05

Exhibit 1DPOTENTIALLY NOISE-SENSITIVE USES

IN THE HILLSBORO AIRPORT STUDY AREA

Source: 2005 Regional Land Information System

LEGEND



HospitalsG

Schoolsk

! Libraries

Places of Worshipæ

Arterial Roads

Study Area

Residential Zoning


Hillsboro Airport Property

Hillsboro Airport Facilities

0 2,500

1" = 2500'

03M

P01

-1E

-6/9

/05

NORTH

LEGENDAirport Property Line

DNL Noise Contours

Exhibit 1E2003 NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS

PORT OF PORTLAND

757575

707070656565

606060

555555

0 2,000 4,000

SCALE IN FEET

High

way 2

6

High

way 2

6NW Shute RoadNW Shute Road

Ever

gree

n Ro

adEv

ergr

een

Road

Corn

ell R

oad

Corn

ell R

oad

SE Tu

alat

in V

alle

y Hwy

.

SE Tu

alat

in V

alle

y Hwy

.

Mai

n St

reet

Mai

n St

reet

Base

line

Road

Base

line

Road

High

way 2

6NW Shute Road

Ever

gree

n Ro

ad

Corn

ell R

oad

Brookwood Parkway Brookwood Parkway

SE Tu

alat

in V

alle

y Hwy

.

Mai

n St

reet

Base

line

Road

SE River R

oad

SE River R

oad

Ever

gree

n Ro

adEv

ergr

een

Road


Ever

gree

n Ro

ad


1212

2020

3030

12

30

22

20

03M

P01

-1F

-6/9

/05

NORTH

LEGENDAirport Property Line


Projected Long Term DNL NoiseContours

Exhibit 1FPROJECTED LONG TERM NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS

PORT OF PORTLAND

0 2,000 4,000

SCALE IN FEET

High

way 2

6

High

way 2

6NW Shute RoadNW Shute Road

Ever

gree

n Ro

adEv

ergr

een

Road

Corn

ell R

oad

Corn

ell R

oad

SE Tu

alat

in V

alle

y Hwy

.

SE Tu

alat

in V

alle

y Hwy

.

Mai

n St

reet

Mai

n St

reet

Base

line

Road

Base

line

Road

High

way 2

6NW Shute Road

Ever

gree

n Ro

ad

Corn

ell R

oad

SE Tu

alat

in V

alle

y Hwy

.

Mai

n St

reet

Base

line

Road

SE River R

oad

SE River R

oad

Ever

gree

n Ro

adEv

ergr

een

Road


Ever

gree

n Ro

ad


555555

606060656565

707070

757575

Brookwood Parkway Brookwood Parkway

1212R

3030l

12R1212L12L

22

202020

30l

3030R

30R

1-25

along the Runway 12, 30, and 2 ends. The shape of the contours along these runway ends is similar to the baseline contour, indicating that it is only the increase in operational levels and fleet mix which alter the contour, not a change in the use of the runway. The size and shape of the contour northeast of the proposed short paral-lel runway changes over time, due to the projected use and future relocation of the Charlie Pattern landing pads when the short parallel runway is con-structed. The projected long-term noise contours assume that the Char-lie Pattern landing pads are moved farther east, approximately 1,500 feet from the proposed short parallel run-way (currently the approximate loca-tion of the existing “Charlie” helicop-ter training/landing pads). At this dis-tance, the shape of the 55 DNL noise contour is influenced by the Charlie Pattern. Additionally, the hook on the 55 DNL noise contour north of Ever-green Road increases in size and changes in shape following the gener-alized Charlie Pattern flight paths. COMPATIBILITY MEASURES AT COMPARABLE GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS The noise abatement strategies of twelve airports with similar character-istics to Hillsboro Airport were evalu-ated. Some of these airports are clas-sified as reliever airports by the FAA (similar to HIO). Airports that have active helicopter pilot training schools were also selected to investigate vari-ous means of managing helicopter-generated noise. A majority of the

airports evaluated have completed a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study in the past ten years. Following is a list of the twelve airports reviewed and a summary of their operational and pro-grammatic noise abatement efforts. For those that have completed a Part 150 study, the year is indicated in pa-rentheses. • Camarillo Airport, Camarillo, Cali-

fornia (2001). • Chandler Airport, Chandler, Ari-

zona (2000) • Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport,

Fort Lauderdale, Florida (1997) • Hayward Executive Airport, Hay-

ward, California (1992) • Meadows Field Airport, Bakers-

field, California (1997) • Oakland Pontiac Airport, Pontiac,

Michigan (1999) • Riverside Municipal Airport, Riv-

erside, California (1997) • Scottsdale Airport, Scottsdale Ari-

zona (2005 pending FAA review) • Spirit of St. Louis Airport, Chester-

field, Missouri • Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New

Jersey • Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, Cali-

fornia • Williams Gateway Airport, Phoe-

nix, Arizona (2001)

1-26

Table 1H summarizes the noise abatement measures at these airports and compares them to the noise abatement measures in place at Hills-boro Airport (shaded column). A full

description of each element of the noise abatement program at each comparison airport is provided in the paragraphs following Table 1H.

TABLE 1H Summary of Noise Abatement Measures at Comparable Airports

Hil

lsb

oro

Cam

aril

lo

Ch

and

ler

Ft.

Lau

der

dal

e

Hay

war

d

Mea

dow

s F

ield

Oak

lan

d P

onti

ac

Riv

ersi

de

Mu

nic

ipal

Sco

ttsd

ale

Sp

irit

of

St.

Lou

is

Tet

erb

oro

Van

Nu

ys

Wil

liam

s G

atew

ay

Airport Operational Measures Prohibition of formation (multiple aircraft) takeoffs x x Discourage arrival and departure patterns over nearby noise-sensitive development

x x x x x x x x

Encourage use of NBAA Noise Abatement Proce-dures

x x x x x x x

Encourage use of AOPA Noise Awareness Steps by light single-engine aircraft

x x x x

Designate particular runway as preferred for noise abatement purposes (Runway Use Program)

x x x x x x x x x

Establish specific helicopter routes/training patterns to reduce overflights of noise-sensitive areas

x x x x x

Increase altitude of airport pattern procedures to decrease noise impacts and perceived safety con-cerns

x x x

Voluntary or Mandatory restriction of touch-and-go operations

x x x x x x

Established departure runs and arrivals to avoid noise-sensitive areas

x x x x

Helicopter arrival and departure procedures x x Voluntary limitations on Stage 2 aircraft x x Develop noise barrier to shield noise-sensitive areas x x x x x x Establish engine run-up location and time restric-tions

x x x x x x x

Program Management Measures Establish or maintain noise complaint tracking sys-tem

x x x x x x x x x

Publish a pilot guide to inform pilots of recom-mended noise abatement procedures

x x x x x x x

Install permanent noise monitors x x x Establish/maintain noise abatement advisory com-mittee to discuss noise issues and maintain commu-nication with the public

x x

Establish noise abatement officer x x Airfield signs to notify pilots of noise abatement procedures

x

Develop a public information program to distribute noise abatement information

x x

1-27

Camarillo Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • Prohibition of formation (multiple

aircraft) takeoffs and landings without prior authorization from Airport Director

• Discourage arrival and departure

patterns that route aircraft over nearby noise-sensitive develop-ments

• Require aircraft weighing over 80,000 pounds to use a particular runway to prevent low overflights of nearby residential areas

• Encourage use of National Busi-

ness Aviation Association Noise Abatement Procedures

• Encourage use of Aircraft Owners

and Pilots Association Noise Awareness Steps by light single-engine aircraft

• Designate particular runway as

preferred for noise abatement pur-poses

Program Management Measures: • Establish a noise complaint track-

ing system • Publish a pilot guide to inform pi-

lots of noise abatement recommen-dations and procedures and iden-tify noise-sensitive areas

• Acquire permanent noise monitors

to supplement portable noise moni-tors already in use

Chandler Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • Request departing aircraft reach

runway end before turning • Relocate heliport to reduce helicop-

ter noise impacts • Encourage use of Aircraft Owners


• Establish specific helicopter train-

ing pattern procedures Program Management Measures: • Maintain a noise complaint track-



Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport Noise Abatement Measures: Established informal nighttime pref-erential runway use program • •Voluntary restriction of jet use on

particular runway • Increase altitude of airport pattern

procedures

1-28

• Encourage use of National Busi-ness Aviation Association Noise Abatement Procedures



• Established voluntary restriction of

nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) touch-and-go operations

• Develop noise barrier along airport

perimeter • Establish engine run-up location

and time restrictions Program Management Measures: • Establish a noise abatement advi-

sory committee to discuss issues re-lated to noise and to maintain an ongoing dialogue with the public

• Employ a noise abatement officer

to manage noise complaints and educate pilots on the recommended noise abatement procedures

• Implement a permanent noise

monitoring system to monitor noise impacts and the effectiveness of noise abatement procedures

• Develop a public information pro-

gram to distribute information re-lated to the airport’s noise abate-ment efforts

• Install airfield signs to remind and

inform pilots about the airport’s noise abatement procedures

• Publish a pilot guide to inform pi-lots of the airport’s noise abate-ment program and recommended procedures

Hayward Executive Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • Discourage arrival and departure


• Stage 2 aircraft are requested to

coordinate with airport manage-ment, due to the proximity of the airport to residential areas

• Avoid overflights of residential ar-

eas unless absolutely necessary for safety reasons

• Increase altitude to decrease the

noise impact to the community • Climb as soon as possible since a

low-flying aircraft is perceived by the community as being dangerous

• Touch-and-go procedures prohib-

ited between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

• Establish helicopter training pat-

terns and landing areas. • Currently establishing preferred

helicopter arrival and departure procedures.

1-29

Meadows Field Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • Established voluntary nighttime

turbojet training policy to require operators to provide advanced no-tice of nighttime operations

Program Management Measures: • Developed a noise complaint track-

ing program Oakland Pontiac Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • Encourage use of National Busi-


• Established a voluntary reduction

of operations by Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds

• Construct a ground run-up enclo-

sure for business jets • Construct a noise barrier along the

airport perimeter Program Management Measures: • Continue noise complaint monitor-

ing system and community liaison program

• Publish a pilot guide to inform pi-


• Maintain noise advisory committee to evaluate noise abatement efforts on an on-going basis

Riverside Municipal Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • Established a preferential runway

use program • Specify location for IFR departure

turns to avoid overflight of noise-sensitive areas

• Designate training area for heli-

copter training pattern procedures to prevent training overflights of noise-sensitive areas



• Specify aircraft orientation for pre-

flight run-ups • Construct a noise barrier to shield

nearby noise-sensitive areas Program Management Measures: • Maintain a noise complaint track-



1-30

Scottsdale Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • Established a preferential runway

use program • Encourage Stage 2 aircraft to use

Runway 21 for landings and Run-way 3 for takeoffs to limit over-flight of nearby noise-sensitive ar-eas



• Prohibition of stop-and-go opera-

tions, intersection takeoffs, forma-tion and simulated single-engine takeoffs, and training go-arounds by multi-engine aircraft

• Discourage descents for practice

instrument approaches below 2,500 MSL

• Prohibit touch-and-go operations

between 9:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. • Prohibit run-up operations be-

tween 10:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. • Encourage use of Aircraft Owners


• Chart visual flight procedures to

provide pilots with minimum safe flying altitudes and paths on ap-proach

• Construct a ground run-up enclo-sure to attenuate noise impacts within 65 DNL noise contour

• Identify additional populated

places on Sectional Aeronautical Chart

• Obtained a Letter of Agreement on

helicopter operations, including preferred arrival and departure procedures

Program Management Measures: • Publish a helicopter pilot guide to

inform pilots of the recommended noise abatement flight paths and noise-sensitive areas

• Established a “Fly Friendly” pro-gram to educate pilots and respond to residents’ complaints about noise

Spirit of St. Louis Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • Stage 2 aircraft must use a speci-

fied runway between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

• Stage 3 aircraft are requested to

use a specified runway between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

• Pilots should avoid overflight of

noise-sensitive areas near the air-port



1-31

• Engine maintenance run-ups are prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. without airport permis-sion

• Establish minimum altitudes for

aircraft flying over residential ar-eas near the airport



• No touch-and-go operations in the

pattern that causes overflights of nearby residential areas

• Training aircraft should observe

noise abatement flight altitudes when operating over noise-sensitive areas

Teterboro Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • No jet-powered aircraft may oper-

ate at the airport without prior ap-proval of the airport manager

• No aircraft may operate at the air-

port if such operations shall result in emitted noise levels above levels prescribed by the Airport Rules and Regulations

• Stage 2 aircraft cannot operate at

the airport between midnight and 6:00 a.m.

• Operations by subsonic Stage 1

aircraft are prohibited

• Between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., aircraft operating at the airport on the specified runway cannot exceed 80 dB(A) during takeoff, as moni-tored by the airport noise monitor-ing system

• Takeoffs from specified runways

and helicopter routes originating at the airport cannot exceed 95 dB(A), as monitored by the airport noise monitoring system

• Jet and turbine run-ups are prohib-

ited on ramp areas • Piston aircraft run-ups, when posi-

tioned away from buildings and vehicles, may be conducted on ramp areas

• Aircraft conducting run-ups shall

contact the airport operations office for clearance

• All maintenance run-ups shall be

conducted between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Satur-day, or 12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday

• Aircraft conducting run-ups must

maintain a listening watch on the Teterboro Ground Control Fre-quency

• Preferred run-up locations are

specified by the airport • Established a voluntary curfew for

Non-Stage 3 compliant aircraft from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

1-32

• Established a voluntary curfew for all other aircraft between midnight and 6:00 a.m.

• Pilots are encouraged to use Teter-

boro Airport-specific noise abate-ment flight procedures based on NBAA noise abatement procedures

Van Nuys Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • Per Federal Aviation Administra-

tion Advisory Circular 36-3, Stage 2 aircraft are prohibited from de-parting between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (medical emer-gency and military flights are ex-empt)

• Touch-and-go operations are pro-

hibited between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

• Pilots will fly aircraft using noise

abatement techniques as outlined in manufacturers' operating manu-als or National Business Aviation Association Noise Abatement Pro-gram.

• Pilots will work to research com-

plaints from local residents regard-ing individual flights and to en-courage participation by other jet operators

• Voluntary compliance will help

forestall more drastic measures to reduce noise. Designate particular runway for all jet operations.

• The full length of the designated runway will be used for all jet de-partures

• Jet repetitive operations and pat-

tern flying/training are not permit-ted



Program Management Measures: • Noise complaint tracking program Williams Gateway Airport Noise Abatement Measures: • Designate calm wind runway for

preferential use • Designate specific runways for dif-

ferent types of aircraft (i.e., piston aircraft use Runway 12R-30L and large turbojets use Runway 12C/L-30C/R)







1-33

• Develop helicopter reporting points and departure routes to avoid over-flight of noise-sensitive areas

Program Management Measures: • Maintain noise complaint monitor-

ing system and community out-reach program

SUMMARY This chapter provided an overview of the 1993 airport compatibility pro-gram at Hillsboro Airport, described airport compatibility regulations at the federal, state, and local levels, de-

scribed land use development and growth trends in the Hillsboro area, described existing and future noise conditions at the airport, and summa-rized compatibility programs at air-ports similar in character to Hillsboro Airport. The next two chapters iden-tify potential airport operational and land use management techniques that could be used to improve the overall compatibility between Hillsboro Air-port and the local community. Those chapters are followed by a final chap-ter which details the specific opera-tional and land use measures the Port should pursue for increased compati-bility.

Chapter Two

AVIATION OPERATIONALMEASURES

PORT OF PORTLAND

2-1

CHAPTER TWO

AVIATIONOPERATIONALMEASURES

PORT OF PORTLAND

Hillsboro Airport has a long history of noise management dating back to the 1973 Airport Master Plan, where noise exposure was first modeled and airfield design began to reflect concerns about compatibility. This chapter takes a fresh look at the current compatibility measures as well as measures that have been implemented at other airports listed in Chapter One. This chapter identifies the full range of potential noise abatement measures for possible use at Hillsboro Airport.

In coordination with a Technical Advisory Group (TAG), screening criteria were developed and applied to the broad range of potential noise abatement and compatibility measures included in this chapter to identify the most probable measures for implementation. This screening criterion includes:

• Financing/Value - This criterion identifies cost consider- ations involved with implementation of the measure. This criterion also examines the value of the measure. This can be viewed as the cost-effectiveness of the measure as wellas the timing of benefit derived from the measure. Generally speaking, measures that can be implemented in short order have a greater value than those requiring a longer period to implement or realize benefits. For those operational measures requiring pilot cooperation to ensure success, value is also measured in terms of the likelihood for imple-

2-2

mentation by those in the flying community.

• Feasibility/Acceptability – This criterion examines whether the measure is politically, socially, and financially feasible to implement. For example, in order to be imple-mented, the measure must be con-sistent with local, state, and fed-eral laws. For capital projects, the likelihood for federal funding assis-tance is also identified. Most im-portantly, this criterion identifies whether or not a measure would be acceptable to pilots and then im-plemented. Measures that require pilots to change typical operating procedures or can be viewed as un-safe are generally not accepted or implemented by pilots.

• Safety/Capacity – This criterion examines the impacts on opera-tional safety and the capacity of the airfield. Measures which de-grade safety, or are viewed to de-grade safety, will not garner accep-tance or implementation by pilots. As detailed in the 2005 Airport Master Plan, the Hillsboro Airport already operates beyond its annual service volume or capacity. Nega-tive attributes of operating beyond capacity include increased opera-tional costs to aircraft owners, in-creased air emissions due to the ex-tra flight time, and increased noise. Any measure implemented should not degrade the capacity of the air-port. Finally, the measure must conform to existing air traffic con-trol regulations and airspace des-ignations for safe flight.

• Balance – This criterion considers whether the measure balances the needs of both the airport and com-munity. For example, the measure needs to ensure the operational freedom of the airport to meet the needs of air travelers and air com-merce, but the measure must also consider the quality of life expecta-tions of the local community and reduce to the extent practicable the negative byproducts of air com-merce, primarily noise.

A rating system has been developed and incorporated within this analysis to assist the reader in easily identify-ing whether the proposed measures have a compatibility impact/benefit. The color-coded system identifies whether the measure, when consider-ing the specific criteria individually, has a negative, neutral, or positive compatibility impact/benefit. Red is used to connote a negative impact; yel-low, a neutral impact; and green, a positive benefit. Consider the rating of a measure us-ing the financing/value criterion. Consider that the measure would have only small administrative costs to im-plement (generally a positive rating), but has limited value due to the poten-tial for the measure not to be imple-mented by pilots (negative). In this example, the positive aspects of the low costs to implement and negative impacts of pilots’ acceptance results in a neutral rating. A similar logic has been applied to each measure and cri-terion in this analysis, resulting in appropriate ratings.

2-3

POTENTIAL NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES A list of potential noise abatement techniques was developed from the summary of research on compatibility measures from comparable airports identified in Chapter One and Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 150. These techniques have the potential to either (1) reduce the size of the noise contours or (2) move the noise to other areas where it is less disruptive. Any of the potential noise abatement measures described within this chap-ter would be voluntary and the pilot would have the sole discretion to com-ply with these measures. Pilots are afforded this opportunity by regula-tion that grants them the authority to determine the safe operation of their aircraft (14 CFR Part 91, General Op-erating and Flight Rules). Enforcing noise abatement measures and im-plementing aircraft restrictions re-quire the specific approval of the Fed-eral Aviation Administration (FAA). By federal law, this requires strict compliance to 14 CFR Part 161, Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Ac-cess Restrictions. 14 CFR Part 161 was created by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) of 1990. In ANCA, Congress not only estab-lished a national phase-out policy for Stage 2 (turbojet aircraft manufac-tured before 1976) aircraft above 75,000 pounds, but it also established analytical and procedural require-ments for airports desiring to estab-lish noise or access restrictions on

Stage 2 or Stage 3 (turbojet aircraft manufactured after 1976) aircraft. Regulations implementing these re-quirements are published in 14 CFR Part 161. 14 CFR Part 161 requires the follow-ing actions to establish a local restric-tion on Stage 2 aircraft: • An analysis of the costs and bene-

fits of the proposed restriction and alternative measures.

• Publication of a notice of the pro-

posed restriction in the Federal Register and an opportunity for comment on the analysis.

While implementation of a Stage 2 aircraft operating restriction does not require FAA approval, the FAA does determine whether adequate analysis has been done and all notification pro-cedures have been followed. For restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft, Part 161 requires a much more rigor-ous analysis as well as final FAA ap-proval of the restriction. Before ap-proving a local Stage 3 noise or access restriction, the FAA must make the following findings: • The restriction is reasonable, non-

arbitrary, and non-discriminatory. • The restriction does not create an

undue burden on interstate or for-eign commerce.

• The restriction maintains safe and

efficient use of navigable airspace.

2-4

• The restriction does not conflict with any existing federal statute or regulation.

• The applicant has provided ade-

quate opportunity for public com-ment on the proposed restriction.

• The restriction does not create an

undue burden on the national avia-tion system.

Hillsboro Airport has voluntary proce-dures for noise abatement. Efforts to mandate or enforce voluntary proce-dures with fines or penalties would be considered an access restriction and would require an approved 14 CFR Part 161 study. The success of the noise abatement program is depend-ent, to a certain extent, on pilots im-plementing the operational measures identified in this chapter. Based on the FAA's interpretations of 14 CFR Part 161, the regulations do not apply to restrictions proposed only for aircraft under 12,500 pounds. Be-cause these light aircraft, which in-clude small, single engine aircraft, are not classified under Part 36 (as are Stage 2 or 3 aircraft), the FAA has concluded that the 1990 Airport Noise and Capacity Act was not intended to apply to them (see Airport Noise Re-port, Vol. 6, No. 18, September 26, 1994, p. 142). Very few Part 161 studies have been undertaken since ANCA. Table 2A summarizes the studies started after ANCA was enacted. The FAA approval of a restriction on aircraft activity would depend on the

noise abatement benefit of the restric-tion at noise levels of 65 DNL or higher. As shown previously in Chap-ter One, there are currently no incom-patible land uses in the existing 65 DNL contour at Hillsboro Airport. Furthermore, the projected long term activity in the 65 DNL contour does not include any incompatible devel-opment. Since the 65 DNL or higher noise con-tours are expected to remain free of incompatible development, operating restrictions are unlikely to be ap-proved by the FAA. Therefore, while theoretical restrictions could be con-sidered, they are unlikely to be im-plemented at Hillsboro Airport. Oper-ating restrictions that will not be con-sidered further in this study include: • Nighttime curfews and operating

restrictions. • Landing fees based on noise or

time of arrival. • Airport capacity limitations based

on relative noisiness. • Noise budgets. • Restrictions based on aircraft noise

levels. The potential noise abatement meas-ures that are discussed and examined in the pages to follow are broadly cate-gorized as aircraft operating proce-dures, runway use/flight routes, and facilities development.

2-5

TABLE 2A Summary of 14 CFR Part 161 Studies Year Airport Started Ended Cost Proposal, Status Aspen-Pitkin County Airport Aspen, Colorado

N.A. N.A. N.A. The study has not yet been submitted to FAA.

Kahului Airport, Kahului Maui, Hawaii

1991 1994 $50,000 (est.)

Proposed nighttime prohibition of Stage 2 aircraft pursuant to court stipulation. Cost-benefit and statewide impact analysis found to be deficient by FAA. Airport never submitted a complete Part 161 Study. Suspended consideration of restric-tion.

Minneapolis-St. Paul Interna-tional Airport Minneapolis, Minnesota

1992 1992 N.A. Proposed nighttime prohibition of Stage 2 aircraft. Cost-benefit analysis was defi-cient. Never submitted complete Part 161 study. Suspended consideration of restric-tion and entered into negotiations with carriers for voluntary cooperation.

Pease International Tradeport Portsmouth, New Hampshire

1995 N.A. N.A. Have not yet submitted Part 161 study for FAA review.

San Francisco International Airport San Francisco, California

1998 1999 $200,000 Proposing extension of nighttime curfew on Stage 2 aircraft over 75,000 pounds. Started study in May 1998. Submitted to FAA in early 1999 and subsequently with-drawn.

San Jose International Airport San Jose, California

1994 1997 Phase 1 -$400,000 Phase 2 - $5 to $10 million (est.)

Study undertaken as part of a legal set-tlement agreement. Studied a Stage 2 restriction. Suspended study after Phase 1 report showed costs to airlines at San Jose greater than benefits in San Jose. Never undertook Phase 2, system-wide analysis. Never submitted study for FAA review.

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (Now known as Bob Hope Airport)

2000 Ongoing Estimated cost is be-tween $2 and $4 mil-lion.

Proposed curfew restricting all aircraft operations from 10:00 p.m. to 7 a.m. FAA issued comments on the preliminary Part 161 analysis and the study was stopped.

Naples Municipal Airport Naples, Florida

1999 2003 Estimated cost of $1.0 to $1.5 million for consulting and legal fees due to litigation.

Enactment of a total ban on Stage 2 gen-eral aviation jet aircraft less than 75,000 pounds. The airport began enforcing the restriction on March 1, 2002. FAA has deemed the Part 161 study complete; how-ever, FAA has ruled that the restriction violated federal grant assurances. Cur-rently going through appeals process.

Van Nuys Airport Van Nuys, California

2004 Ongoing N.A. Proposing to prohibit Stage 2 aircraft from the airport and establish a curfew for Stage 3 aircraft.

Los Angeles International Air-port Los Angeles, California

N.A. N.A. N.A. The study has not yet begun. The purpose of the study will be to prohibit east depar-tures from 12:00 a.m. to 6:30 a.m.

N.A. - Not available. Sources: Telephone interviews with Federal Aviation Administration officials and staffs of various airports.

2-6

AIRCRAFT OPERATING PROCEDURES Summarized below and described in some detail in the paragraphs to fol-low are several possible aircraft oper-ating procedures that, if implemented at Hillsboro Airport, may reduce the adverse effects of airport-generated noise to the surrounding community. • Reduced thrust takeoffs • Thrust cutbacks after takeoff (for

jets) • Maximum climb departures • Minimum approach and pattern

altitudes • Noise abatement approach proce-

dures • Limitations on use of reverse

thrust during landings Reduced Thrust Takeoffs A reduced thrust takeoff for jet air-craft involves takeoff with less than full power (thrust). A reduced power setting is used throughout both takeoff roll and climb. Evaluation Use of the procedure depends on air-craft weight, weather, wind condi-tions, pavement conditions, and run-

way length. Since these conditions vary considerably, it is not possible to safely mandate the use of reduced thrust takeoffs. Business jet aircraft operating at Hillsboro Airport must use standard departure thrust due to the warmer weather experienced in the region from late spring to early fall. Efforts to encourage the use of reduced thrust takeoffs are generally not accepted by pilots due to a belief that the measure adversely affects safety margins. Therefore, this meas-ure is unlikely to be implemented by pilots and aircraft operators. Fur-thermore, there is no readily available means to determine compliance with this measure, even if it was imple-mented. Thrust output cannot be measured outside the aircraft. It should be noted, however, that Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) jet engines calculate the pre-cise thrust needed for takeoff by con-sidering aircraft weight and atmos-pheric conditions. At times, this can be less than full power. Therefore, to a certain extent, this measure is al-ready in use at the airport by air-planes outfitted with this new tech-nology. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No, as this procedure is not generally accepted by pilots. In addition, there is no uniform standard for implemen-tation, and it is difficult to measure compliance.

2-7

Thrust Cutbacks after Takeoff (For Jets) As a service to the general aviation industry, the National Business Air-craft Association (NBAA) prepared noise abatement takeoff and arrival procedures for business jets. Since that time, this program has virtually become an industry standard for op-erators of business jet aircraft. There are two types of departure procedures: the standard procedure and the close-in procedure. They are illustrated in Exhibit 2A. The NBAA standard departure proce-dure calls for a thrust cutback at 1,000 feet above field level (AFL) and a 1,000 feet-per-minute climb to 3,000 feet altitude during acceleration and flap retraction. The close-in procedure is similar, except that it specifies a thrust cutback at 500 feet AFL. While both procedures are effective in reduc-ing noise, the locations of the reduc-tion vary with each. The standard procedure results in higher altitudes and lower noise levels over down-range locations, while the close-in pro-cedure results in lower noise near the airport. Many aircraft manufacturers have developed their own thrust cut-back procedures. Neither NBAA pro-cedure is intended to replace the pro-cedure recommended by the manufac-turer and published in the aircraft op-erating manual. Evaluation Some airports have defined voluntary special thrust cutback departure pro-cedures; however, this is not generally

accepted by the industry. Aircraft op-erators fear the consequences of a pro-liferation of airport-specific proce-dures. As the number of procedures increase, it would become more and more difficult for pilots to become pro-ficient at all of them and still maintain comfortable safety margins. It would be similar to asking motorists to com-ply with a different set of braking and acceleration procedures at every inter-section in the city. In any case, safety requires that the use of thrust cut-backs in any given situation must be left to the discretion of the pilot based on weather conditions and operational characteristics of the aircraft. The standard NBAA or manufac-turer’s suggested close-in procedure that results in lower noise levels near the airport is better suited for the Hillsboro area given the distance of noise-sensitive uses relative to the runway ends. While the preceding discussion has fo-cused on turbine-powered aircraft thrust reductions, piston-powered air-craft with constant speed propellers can also reduce noise output through power reductions and propeller pitch changes after takeoff. Piston-powered aircraft with constant speed propellers should be encouraged to reduce takeoff power to climb power as soon as prac-tical after departure, and to reduce propeller revolutions per minute (RPMs) and propeller noise. Takeoff power reductions and increases in propeller blade pitch are recom-mended for most of these types of air-craft to reduce engine stress and pro-long engine life.

2-8

Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes, as some turbine-powered aircraft already use this measure at the air-port. This is generally accepted and implemented by pilots in lieu of re-duced thrust departures. Pilots of pis-ton-powered aircraft with constant speed propellers also reduce power and propeller RPM after departure. Maximum Climb Departures Maximum climb departures can help reduce noise exposure over populated areas some distance from an airport. This procedure requires the use of maximum thrust with no cutback on departure. Consequently, the poten-tial noise reductions in the outlying areas are at the expense of significant noise increases closer to the airport. Evaluation The use of maximum climb or best an-gle departure procedures can, in some cases, help to reduce noise exposure over populated areas some distance from the airport. Noise-sensitive land uses exist fairly close to the airport to the south and southwest. As a result, if this procedure were to be used, the potential noise reductions in the outly-ing areas would be at the expense of noticeable increases in noise to resi-dential areas closer to the airport. Therefore, this procedure is not appli-cable to Runway 12 or Runway 20. Low-density residential is located north of Evergreen Road. Due to the location of residential uses off each

runway end, a thrust cutback proce-dure as described earlier is more ap-propriate at Hillsboro Airport. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. Thrust cutback is more appropri-ate for Hillsboro Airport considering the residential development off almost every runway end at the airport. Minimum Approach and Pattern Altitudes A minimum approach altitude proce-dure would entail an air traffic control requirement that all positively-controlled aircraft approach at a speci-fied minimum altitude until the air-craft must begin its descent to land. This would affect only those aircraft that are a considerable distance from the airport and are well outside the noise exposure contours. Accordingly, increases in approach altitudes gener-ally result in only very small reduc-tions in noise levels away from the airport environment. This measure would also have the effect of increas-ing the traffic pattern altitude. Evaluation Currently, the pattern altitude at Hillsboro Airport is 1,204 feet above mean sea level (MSL), which is 1,000 feet above the airport’s established elevation of 204 feet. Generally speak-ing, a doubling of the altitude of air-craft within the traffic pattern or cir-cling approach (to 2,204 feet MSL)

Exhibit 2ANBAA NOISE ABATEMENTDEPARTURE PROCEDURES

1,000'

3,000'

END OFRUNWAY

LIFTOFF

BRAKERELEASE

AIRPORTBOUNDARY

STANDARD PROCEDURE

Maximum practical rate of climb at V2+20 KIAS to 1,000 feet AFL with

takeoff flap setting.

At 1,000 feet AFL, accelerate to final

segment speed (Vfs) and retract flaps. Power reduced to a quiet climb

setting while maintaining 1,000 FPM

maximum climb rate and airspeed not to




power.

500'

1,000'

3,000'

END OFRUNWAY

LIFTOFF

BRAKERELEASE

AIRPORTBOUNDARY

CLOSE-IN PROCEDURE

Maximum practical rate of climb at V2+20 KIAS

to 500 feet AFL with takeoff flap setting.


power.

At 1,000 feet AFL, accelerate to Vfs and retract flaps. Maintain

quiet climb power, 1,000 FPM climb rate and airspeed not to



At 500 feet AFL, power reduced to a quiet climb setting while maintaining

1,000 FPM climb rate and V2+20 KIAS until

reaching 1,000 feet AFL.

KEYNote: It is recognized that aircraft performance will differ with aircraft type and takeoff

conditions; therefore, the business aircraft operator must have the latitude to determine whether takeoff thrust should be reduced prior to, during, or after flap retraction.

Source: National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA), "NBAA Noise Abatement Program," January 1, 1993.

AFL - Above field levelATC - Air traffic controlFPM - Feet per minuteKIAS - Knots, indicated airspeed

03M

P01

-2A

-5/1

2/05

PORT OF PORTLAND

2-9

would achieve a noise reduction of only four to six decibels. The human ear can normally discern a distinction of three decibels. Raising the pattern altitude, however, would have the negative effect of enlarging the traffic pattern as aircraft would have to ex-tend each leg of the traffic pattern to climb to, or descend from, the in-creased altitude. This could place re-petitive operations over areas that do not regularly experience operations from the traffic pattern. Larger traffic patterns and higher altitudes would also tend to decrease airspace capacity as the aircraft would take longer to descend or climb. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. This would cause a potential deg-radation of airspace and airfield ca-pacity as aircraft would take longer to climb or descend. The need to lose ad-ditional altitude would increase the size of the traffic pattern. This could place repetitive operations over areas that currently do not experience regu-lar activity. This could also interfere with the implementation of other compatibility measures addressing the visual and instrument approaches to the airport. It should be noted that the current Port noise abatement policy does re-quest pilots maintain a minimum alti-tude over residential areas. A 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Port and the FAA stipulates that “aircraft should avoid unnecessary overflight of the urban residential areas to the south and

west below 1,000 feet.” Maintaining an altitude 1,000 feet above the high-est obstacle within 2,000 feet of the flight path is stated in 14 CFR Part 91.119, Minimum Safe Altitudes: Gen-eral; therefore, this is a requirement that all pilots must comply with. Noise Abatement Approach Procedures These procedures include the minimal use of flaps in order to reduce any air-frame noise, the use of increased ap-proach angles to keep aircraft higher on approach, and two-stage descent profiles, which can keep aircraft higher on the approach during the first stage of the descent. A two-stage descent profile involves a complex fi-nal approach to the airport where one portion of the final approach is flown at a higher altitude to remain higher over noise-sensitive land uses. Evaluation Approach procedures to reduce noise impacts were attempted in the early days of noise abatement, but are no longer favorably received. All these techniques raise safety concerns be-cause they are non-standard and re-quire an aircraft to be operated out-side its optimal safe operating con-figuration. Hillsboro Airport’s preci-sion approach path indicators (PAPIs) on Runway 12-30 and visual approach slope indicators (VASI) on Runway 2-20 are all set to a 3-degree approach slope angle. Increasing the approach slope angle above the standard 3-degrees would require higher sink

2-10

rates, which can reduce pilot reaction time and erode safety margins. Some of these procedures (i.e., the minimal use of flaps), have actually been found to increase noise because of power ap-plications needed to arrest high sink rates. Two-stage descent profiles are difficult to implement at airports such as Hillsboro that accommodate a high percentage of visual approaches. PAPI and VASI are ground-based navigational aids which provide visual descent path guidance. These systems can only be configured to identify a single descent path. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. These procedures are generally not accepted within the industry as they raise safety concerns and may in fact increase noise in some instances (reduction in the use of flaps). It is not practical to consider a two-stage de-scent profile for an airport such as Hillsboro that accommodates a major-ity of visual approaches to landing. Limitation on Use of Reverse Thrust During Landing Thrust reversal is routinely used to slow jet aircraft immediately after touchdown. This is an important safety procedure that has the added benefit of reducing brake wear. Limits on the use of thrust reversal can re-duce noise impacts off the sides of the runways, although they would not significantly reduce the size of the noise contours.

Evaluation The goal is to voluntarily reduce the noise from reverse thrust when air-craft land at Hillsboro Airport. Thrust reversers redirect the flow of the jet engine thrust toward the front of the aircraft. Reversing the power in this way slows the aircraft when on the ground. The use of reverse thrust is within the pilot’s discretion/control and is based on stability and safety. It is also based on runway conditions, landing conditions, and weather condi-tions once the aircraft is on the run-way. Reverse thrust restrictions can significantly reduce landing safety margins on shorter runways and in-crease runway occupancy time. While the use of reverse thrust can reduce brake wear, newer generation brake pads are not prone to the wear once experienced by aircraft owners. To be effective, this measure will require the construction of additional exit taxi-ways on Runway 12-30. Additional exits, in particular high-speed exit taxiways, allow aircraft to exit the runway at higher rates of speed than do traditional exit taxiways (those ori-ented perpendicular to the runway centerline). Four such exit taxiways are planned for Runway 30 in the 2005 Airport Master Plan. The addi-tion of these taxiways should encour-age pilots to use reverse thrust on landing less frequently. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. A reduction in the use of reverse thrust can have a noticeable reduction

2-11

in noise from each turbine-powered aircraft landing. However, a reduction in the use of reverse thrust is only practical with the construction of addi-tional high-speed exit taxiways to Runway 30. The construction of up to four such high-speed exit taxiways is currently scheduled for 2008. Aircraft Operating Procedures Summary Exhibit 2B summarizes the results of the aircraft operating procedures screening analysis. This analysis, us-ing the color-coding system and crite-rion described earlier in this chapter, supports the conclusions and recom-mendations of the preceding text. Of the six (6) aircraft operating proce-dure measures examined, two (2) have been carried forward for inclusion in the compatibility study recommenda-tions summarized in Chapter Four (thrust cutback and limitations on the use of reverse thrust during landing). Three (3) specific recommendations have been developed for Hillsboro Air-port from the aircraft operating proce-dure measures discussed above. These include: 1. Encourage the use of thrust cut-

back after departure for jet air-craft. The NBAA close-in proce-dure is most applicable for depar-tures.

2. Aircraft should avoid unnecessary

overflight of urban residential ar-eas below 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL).

3. Construct high-speed exits on Run-way 30 as depicted on the 2005 Airport Layout Plan to encourage pilots of jet aircraft to limit the use of reverse thrust after landing.

RUNWAY USE AND FLIGHT ROUTES The land use pattern around the air-port provides clues to the design of ar-rival and departure corridors for noise abatement. By redirecting air traffic over compatible land uses via poten-tial measures such as a runway use program, controlling touch-and-go/ training activity, and modifying de-parture and arrival corridors, noise impacts may be significantly reduced in noncompatible areas. These meas-ures are described in the following paragraphs. As shown previously in Chapter One, Hillsboro Airport is surrounded by a mixture of commercial/industrial and residential uses. Additional commer-cial/industrial development is pro-posed north of the airport. Runway Use Programs Runway use programs for noise man-agement refer to the use of selected runways by aircraft. There are two types of runway use programs: rota-tional and preferential. Rotational runway use is intended to distribute aircraft noise equally off all runway ends. Preferential runway use pro-grams are intended to direct as much aircraft noise as possible in one direc-tion.

2-12

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 8400.9 describes national safety and operational criteria for es-tablishing runway use programs. It defines two classes of programs: for-mal and informal. • A formal program must be defined

and acknowledged in a Letter of Understanding (LOU) between FAA's Flight Standards Division and Air Traffic Service, the airport proprietor, and the airport users. Once established, participation by aircraft operators is mandatory. Formal programs can be extremely difficult to establish, especially at airports with many different users.

• An informal program is an ap-proved runway use system which does not require the LOU. Infor-mal programs are typically imple-mented through a Tower Order and publication of the procedure in the Airport/Facility Directory. Par-ticipation in the program is volun-tary.

Evaluation The 1993 Hillsboro Airport Compati-bility Study recommended Runway 2 and Runway 30 as preferred departure runways. A 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Port and the FAA designates Runway 30 as the preferred departure runway. This runway is used approximately 90 percent of the time. This is an infor-mal preferential runway use program. Although it is recognized that there are scattered residential uses north of Evergreen Road, the preferential run-

way use program places a majority of the departure operations at the air-port to the northwest of the airport over primarily agricultural uses and open space. Departures from Runway 2 also fly over compatible industrial, office, and agricultural land uses. Runway 2 is used approximately five percent of the time. Making the cur-rent informal preferential runway use program into a formal mandatory runway use program would require all the users at the airport to sign a MOU that mandates the runway use pro-gram. Given the number of different airport users, pursuing a formal run-way use program would be very diffi-cult. The intent of the existing preferential runway use program is to minimize the use of Runway 12. The departure path of this runway extends directly over dense residential land uses. A 1998 tower order places limitations on the use of Runway 12 for jet depar-tures. Specifically, when the tower is open, jet departures are limited be-tween the hours of 0600 (6:00 a.m.) and 0900 (9:00 a.m.) and 2000 (8:00 p.m.) to 2200 (10:00 p.m.), except when the wind is greater than 10 knots from 090 degrees to 150 degrees, when the aircraft is a LifeFlight heli-copter or other operation requiring priority handling, or when undue de-lay would be incurred during periods when the tower cannot provide visual separation from opposite direction traffic during restricted visibility con-ditions. Consideration needs to be given to specifically limiting departures on Runway 12 after the tower is closed.

04S

P12

-2B

-8/1

9/05

Reduced Thrust Takeoffs

Compatibility Impact/Benefit

This criterion evaluates the costs associated with implementing the measure. Generally, lower costs, or lower comparative costs, are better. Time and efficiency are also included as part of this criterion. The measure should not duplicate existing measures already in place.

No direct cost to implement. Could be implemented in the short term as part of the Noise Abatement Program. Value of procedure is limited as this procedure is not generally accepted by pilots.

A takeoff for jet with less than full thrust. A reduced power setting is used throughout both takeoff roll and climb.

Procedure is not generally accepted by pilots. No industry-accepted consensus for implementation. New technology FADEC jet engines calculate the precise thrust needed for takeoff. At times, this is less than full power.

Reductions in takeoff thrust may reduce noise levels, which can improve noise levels near the airport. However, since this procedure in not generally-accepted, reductions in takeoff thrust may not materialize as pilots may choose not to use this procedure.

This criterion looks at whether it is politically, socially, or financially feasible to implement the measure. For example, in order to be feasible the measure must be consistent with local, state, and federal law and pilots must be willing to implement.

This criterion looks at whether the measure would degrade or increase airfield safety and capacity and whether the measure has an impact on airspace management and control.

The measure should consider and balance the needs of both the airport and the community.

Include in CompatibilityStudy RecommendationsPOSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE

Without industry standard, only an arbitrary standard could be developed. Reducing takeoff thrust can reduce the safety of aircraft departures by extending takeoff runs and allowing less power during this critical phase of flight.

No. This measure is not generally accepted by pilots. New technology FADEC jet engines only allow the pilot to use the amount of thrust necessary for each particular departure. At times, this can be less than full power.

No direct cost to implement. Could be implemented in the short term as part of the Noise Abatement Program. Already in common use at Hillsboro Airport. Many jet operators reduce thrust after takeoff according to the manufacturer prescribed procedures.

A reduction in thrust after lift-off and a positive rate of climb has been established.

Generally accepted and implemented by pilots in lieu of reduced thrust departures. The NBAA has developed and recommends two different procedures for jet aircraft. The standard procedure is most applicable to the use of Runway 30, while the close-in procedure is most applicable to Runway 12.

Reduces noise emissions after takeoff, which can reduce the overall noise environment for the airport.

Does not affect capacity or safety as long as manufacturer guidelines or NBAA guidelines are followed.

Yes. This procedure is already in use at the airport and has widespread support in the industry.

No direct cost to implement. Could be implemented in the short term as part of the Noise Abatement Program. Value of procedure is limited as thrust cutbacks after departure are generally preferred by pilots.

Maximum climb departures can help reduce noise exposure over populated areas some distance from an airport. The procedure requires the use of maximum thrust with no cutback on departure. Consequently, the potential noise reductions in the outlying areas (due to the higher altitude) are at the expense of significant noise increases closer to the airport.

The thrust cutback procedure is generally more accepted and implemented.

Close-in residential development is adversely impacted by a maximum performance departure climb.

No impact of safety or capacity.

No. The cutback after takeoff is generally more accepted by pilots. Close-in residential development exists to the south and east of the airport. Therefore, this procedure is not applicable to Runway 12 or 20. Low-density residential is located to the north. Therefore, thrust cutback is more appropriate for Runway 30 and Runway 2, especially for turns to the south.

No direct cost to implement. Value is limited as it does not apply to VFR traffic which constitutes the majority of aircraft operating at Hillsboro Airport.

All positively-controlled aircraft approaches should be conducted at a specified minimum altitude until the aircraft must begin its descent to land. Mostly affects only those aircraft that are a considerable distance from the airport and are well outside the noise exposure contours. Generally speaking, a doubling of the altitude of aircraft within the traffic pattern or circling approach would achieve a noise reduction of only 4 to 6 decibels.

Requires the approval and implementation by the FAA. Must be balanced with other airspace control needs for the region. The Hillsboro ATCT does not specify or control the traffic pattern altitude.

While overflights of land uses farther away from the airport would benefit from the higher altitude, a higher approach altitude would increase the size of the traffic pattern and cause aircraft to extend their descent paths to lose the additional altitude.

Could decrease airspace capacity. Pilots are commonly allowed to descend and fly at their own discretion during good visibility conditions to maximize capacity. A higher altitude requires longer to descend and extends the traffic pattern.

No direct cost to implement. Could be implemented in the short term as part of the Noise Abatement Program. Value of procedures are limited as they are generally not accepted by pilots.

The procedures include the minimal use of flaps in order to reduce airframe noise, the use of increased approach angles, and two-stage descent profiles to keep aircraft higher on approach.

Generally not accepted by pilots. Changes in the use of flaps on approach changes the expected flight characteristics of the aircraft. Increased approach angles can affect passengers due to the quicker descent rates and changes the expected flight charac-teristics of the aircraft. Two-staged descent profiles are hard to implement for piston-powered aircraft.

Reductions in approach noise can improve the noise impacts near an airport, but can impact pilot control and safety.

Each of these procedures is non-standard which can lead to pilot error.

No. Minimum approach altitude reduce airspace and airfield capacity. This measure extends the size of the traffic pattern. It is recommended that the Port continue to encourage aircraft to maintain 1,000 feet above urban residential land uses.

No. These procedures are not accepted by the industry. Can degrade safety by leading to pilot error.

No direct cost to implement. Could be implemented in the short term as part of the Noise Abatement Program. Value of procedures are limited unless high speed exits are constructed at the airport. High speed exits allow the aircraft to exit the runway at a higher speed, which can reduce the amount of reverse thrust used.

The goal is to voluntarily reduce the noise from reverse thrust when aircraft land at HIO. Thrust reversers redirect the flow of the jet engine thrust toward the front of the aircraft. Reversing the power in this way slows the aircraft when on the ground. The use of reverse thrust is the pilot’s discretion/control and is based on stability and safety. It is also based on runway conditions, landing conditions and weather conditions, once the aircraft is on the runway.

There is no general industry standard for a reduction in the use of reverse thrust.

Does not directly reduce the noise exposure contours for the airport. Can reduce single event noise exposure.

Exiting the runway quicker improves airfield capacity. Using less reverse thrust would require aircraft to stay on the runway longer. With high speed exits, aircraft would use less reverse thrust to slow to a safe exit speed. Shorter runways require reverse thrust to ensure the aircraft can be slowed on the runway.

Yes. The planned high speed exits could encourage pilots to reduce the amount of reverse thrust used after landing.

EVALUATION CRITERIONBalanceFeasibility/Acceptability Safety/CapacityFinancing/Value

AIRCRAFT OPERATING PROCEDURES

Thrust Cutback After Takeoffs (jet aircraft)

Maximum Climb Departures

Minimum Approach and Pattern Altitudes

Noise Abatement Approach Procedures

Limitations On Use of Reverse Thrust

KEY

FADEC - Fully Automated Digital Electronic ControlNBAA - National Business Aviation AssociationVFR - Visual Flight RulesATCT - Airport Traffic Control TowerFAA - Federal Aviation Administration

Exhibit 2BSCREENING ANALYSIS

AIRCRAFT OPERATING PROCEDURES

PORT OF PORTLAND

2-13

Some jet aircraft have departed Run-way 12 instead of Runway 30 as dic-tated by the runway use policy after the tower is closed. While the best means to ensure lim-ited use of Runway 12 is to have the tower not issue departure clearances for the runway, the tower is not open 24 hours per day. The decision to fund the operation of the tower for a full 24 hours per day rests with the FAA and is based, in part, on the number of overnight operations. Continued pilot awareness and knowledge is needed to ensure compliance with the limita-tions on the use of Runway 12 after the tower is closed. The 1994 MOU between the Port and the FAA also identified Runway 2-20 as “a highly noise-sensitive runway” for which the “use of Runway 20 for takeoffs and Runway 2 for landings should be avoided unless wind or op-erational conditions dictate otherwise. As a general rule, Runway 2-20 will be used only when the wind velocity is 10 knots or greater from a direction that is between 170 degrees and 230 de-grees or 350 degrees and 050 degrees.” Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. An informal runway use program is already in place at the airport. Preferential runway use programs do not affect safety or capacity as the program allows for the use of runways based upon wind conditions. The ex-isting program directs the majority of departures to the north and northeast

away from high-density residential development south and southwest of the airport. Touch-and-Go Operational Changes Touch-and-go activity consists of an aircraft practicing takeoffs and land-ings to the same runway end and stay-ing within the aircraft traffic pattern. A touch-and-go involves an aircraft making a landing and then departing without exiting the runway. The air-craft follows a rectangular flight pat-tern after departure back to the land-ing runway end. At many airports, touch-and-go operations are associated with primary pilot training, although this type of operation is also done by licensed pilots practicing approaches. Evaluation Touch-and-gos or multiple approaches are frequently done at Hillsboro Air-port. In 2004, there were 152,531 lo-cal general aviation operations (gen-erally involving multiple approaches or touch-and-gos). The touch-and-go operations were done mainly by fixed-wing, piston-engined aircraft. Run-way 2-20 is closed to touch-and-go op-erations between 2200 (10:00 p.m.) and 0600 (6:00 a.m.) local time. An outright restriction of fixed-wing touch-and-go activity would likely be disapproved by the FAA because there are no incompatible land uses within either the current or projected 65 DNL contour.

2-14

Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. This measure is already a com-ponent of the noise abatement pro-gram at the airport. Touch-and-go ac-tivity at night is limited on Runway 2-20, which has been identified as “a highly noise-sensitive runway.” Helicopter Pattern Use Hillsboro Airport has three helicopter training patterns: Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie. Alpha pattern is located to the west of the airport over a mixture of commercial, industrial, and residen-tial land uses. Bravo pattern is lo-cated east of the airport over indus-trial and residential land uses. Char-lie pattern is located north of the air-port over large, undeveloped parcels and industrial and commercial land uses. To the north of Evergreen Road, Charlie pattern does extend over low-density residential associated with the agricultural land uses in that area. However, compared to the Alpha and Bravo patterns, Charlie pattern has far less residential overflights and im-pact. Charlie pattern was recently

commissioned to reduce residential noise impacts under the Alpha and Bravo patterns. A November 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Hillsboro Airport Tower, the Port of Portland, and Hillsboro Aviation, Inc., establishes a means of implementing specific measures to reduce helicopter training activities. The MOU states that helicopters can operate in the training patterns during daylight hours seven days per week. Helicop-ters must use the higher altitude fixed-wing pattern when flying after daylight. In addition, helicopter train-ing patterns are not to be flown on Christmas Day, New Year’s Day, Fourth of July, or Thanksgiving Day. The MOU establishes areas of respon-sibility and operating parameters for the three patterns. The MOU states that no more than four (4) helicopters can be flown at one time, and no more than two (2) patterns can be used at one time. It also states that the pre-ferred training pattern is Charlie. Table 2B outlines the helicopter training pattern priority.

TABLE 2B Helicopter Pattern Use By Priority Hillsboro Airport Number of Helicopters in the Pattern (Limit to 4 Total) Pattern 1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority 4th Priority Alpha 0 1 0 2 Bravo 1 0 2 0 Charlie 3 3 2 2 Source: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Hillsboro Airport Tower, Port of

Portland, and Hillsboro Aviation, Inc., November 2004.

2-15

Evaluation The established helicopter traffic pat-terns segregate helicopter and fixed-wing traffic. This increases airfield capacity. While the Charlie traffic pattern encompasses some low-density residential land uses, it also includes a greater area of open space and indus-trial and commercial land uses than the Alpha or Bravo patterns and has far fewer residential impacts. An out-right restriction of activity would likely be disapproved by the FAA be-cause there are no impacts within ei-ther the current or forecast 65 DNL contours. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. The segregation of helicopter and fixed-wing traffic needs to continue at the airport due to the number of op-erations of both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. The Charlie pattern en-compasses compatible industrial, commercial and open space. There are far fewer residential homes and im-pacts than the Alpha and Bravo pat-terns. The priority for the use of Charlie pattern should be retained for these reasons. Industrial and com-mercial land uses should be planned for the area under the Charlie pattern in the future. The Charlie Pattern should be relocated to the east as shown in the 2005 Airport Master Plan once the parallel is constructed. This will push the Charlie pattern far-ther east over industrial and commer-

cial land uses and farther away from the existing low-density residential land uses located on Evergreen Road, 273rd Avenue (Eggman Road), and 268th Avenue (Sowell Road). Rotational Use Of Helicopter Patterns The intent of a rotational use program for helicopter patterns would be to dis-tribute noise equally between all three patterns. This would be similar to a rotational runway use program as de-scribed above. This involves develop-ing a criterion to define the maximum number of daily operations within a pattern or the number of hours the pattern may be in operation each day. The airport’s current (and any future) helicopter training operators or the airport traffic control tower (ATCT) staff would have to monitor the amount of time each pattern is used and make efforts to balance operations between the three patterns. Evaluation Wind conditions and the level of traffic in the patterns may not allow for the equal distribution between patterns. Of primary concern with this measure is that rotating use of the patterns would shift more activity back to the Alpha and Bravo patterns. This would increase noise over concentrated resi-dential areas. The Charlie pattern was implemented to reduce the noise levels over these areas.

2-16

Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. Rotating helicopter traffic back to the Alpha and Bravo patterns is con-trary to the very reason the Charlie pattern was established. While the Charlie pattern does encompass some low-density residential development, this pattern has far fewer residential impacts than the Alpha and Bravo patterns and encompasses more in-dustrial and commercial land use and open space. Departure Turns A common noise abatement technique is to route departing aircraft over noise-compatible areas immediately after takeoff. In order to be fully effec-tive, the compatible corridor must be relatively wide and closely aligned with the runway so that turns over the area are practical. Evaluation Two viable noise-compatible corridors exist for aircraft departing Hillsboro Airport. These noise-compatible corri-dors are located along the extended centerlines of Runway 30 and Runway 2. As shown on Exhibit 2C, these corridors currently include large areas of open space or industrial/commercial land uses. From a compatibility per-spective, these corridors assist in en-suring compatible departure routes for approximately 95 percent of the de-parture operations at the airport as these corridors align with the primary

departure runways as detailed in the runway use program discussed above. While immediately after departure, aircraft are located over a compatible corridor, turns to the east and south can cause aircraft to overfly residen-tial areas at lower altitudes. To en-sure pilots have sufficient time to gain altitude before turning to the south or east over residential areas, a series of visual and instrument departure turns have been recommended. A departure turn program directs air-craft to fly along the runway heading until reaching a designated landmark or established distance from the de-parture runway end prior to turning on course. For Runway 30 (30L and 30R once the parallel runway is con-structed), aircraft during visual flight conditions could maintain runway heading until crossing N.E. Jackson School Road. After crossing N.E. Jackson School Road, the aircraft could then make the turn to their en-route course. During periods when inclement weather may not allow pi-lots to visually identify crossing N.E. Jackson School Road when departing Runway 30 (30L after the parallel runway is constructed), the pilots could identify crossing N.E. Jackson School Road using distance measuring equipment (DME) in their aircraft. Jackson School Road is approximately two nautical miles from the localizer antenna located behind the Runway 30 end. For Runway 2, pilots could be asked to fly to Evergreen Road before initiating any turns. These proce-dures could also be overlaid in the fu-ture with a series of waypoints to de-

03M

P01

-2C

-8/1

9/05

Highway 26

Highway 26

NW Shute Road

NW Shute Road

Cornell RoadCornell Road

Main StreetMain Street Baseline RoadBaseline Road

Highway 26

NW Shute Road

Cornell Road

Main Street Baseline Road

Evergreen RoadEvergreen Road


Evergreen Road


NORTH0 2,500 5,000

SCALE IN FEET

Airport Property Line

Future Parallel Runway

Departure Tracks

LEGEND

Date of Photo: 2000Date of Photo: 2000Date of Photo: 2000

30L

30R

2

20

12R12L

Exhibit 2CPOTENTIAL NOISE ABATEMENT

DEPARTURE TRACKS

Evergreen RoadEvergreen RoadEvergreen Road

NE Jackson School RoadNE Jackson School RoadNE Jackson School Road

2 nautical miles2 nautical milesfrom localizer asfrom localizer as

measured by DMEmeasured by DME

2 nautical milesfrom localizer as

measured by DME



PORT OF PORTLAND

DME - Distance Measuring Equipment

AGL - Above Ground Level

2-17

fine an area navigation (RNAV) depar-ture procedure. To assist in formalizing this procedure for instrument flight rule (IFR) depar-tures, the Farmington Three depar-ture procedure could be revised to re-quire aircraft to fly the two nautical miles as measured by DME from the Hillsboro localizer when departing Runway 30. There are no viable departure corri-dors for aircraft departing Runway 12 (Runway 12L and 12R after the paral-lel runway is constructed) and Run-way 20. The land uses under the ex-tended centerline of these runways in-clude a mixture of commer-cial/industrial and open space; how-ever, there is also considerable resi-dential development. The best method for compatibility for departures on these runways is to limit their use us-ing the runway use programs assigned above. When departures are neces-sary for any of these runways due to wind conditions, pilots should climb to 1,000 feet AGL as soon as practical while maintaining runway heading before initiating a turn to their en-route course. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. Exhibit 2C depicts the proposed noise abatement departure tracks for Runways 2 and 20. Consistent with current noise procedures, departures on Runways 20 and 12 would be lim-ited to the extent practicable based on prevailing wind conditions. Aircraft departing these runways would con-

tinue on runway heading until reach-ing 1,000 AGL when turns to their en-route course could be made. Instrument and Visual Approaches Approaches involving turns relatively close to the airport can sometimes be defined over noise-compatible corri-dors. These can be defined as either visual or instrument approaches. Vis-ual approaches offer a greater degree of flexibility regarding their final ap-proach courses. Since these ap-proaches follow a “see and avoid” methodology, pilots can visually avoid noise-sensitive areas. This allows for approaches that can be designed to avoid certain areas using visual ground references. Visual approaches for smaller aircraft need a stabilized, straight-in final approach up to one mile. If large aircraft are involved, a longer straight-in final approach of at least two miles would be needed. Instrument approach procedures are a series of predetermined maneuvers established by the FAA that use ground-based navigational aids to as-sist pilots in locating and landing at an airport. Nonprecision instrument approaches and circling approaches provide the pilot with course guidance information only. Precision ap-proaches provide both altitude and course guidance. Evaluation At Hillsboro Airport, visual and in-strument approaches from the south-

2-18

east to Runway 30 and from the southwest to Runway 2 lack a viable noise-compatible corridor. Shifting the approach path would result in overflights of existing noise-sensitive areas south of the airport. Even with the advent of advanced navigational technology, the relative closeness of incompatible land uses to the airport prevents the avoidance of these areas when using an instrument approach or larger aircraft are using the run-way. Therefore, some overflight can-not be avoided. However, for small piston engine air-craft with lower approach speeds, close-in (less than one mile) final ap-proaches are possible. Small piston engine aircraft approaching Runway 2 and Runway 30 (Runway 30L after the parallel runway is constructed) should be encouraged to maintain close-in fi-nal approaches. For Runway 2, this could involve aircraft making the right turn from base to final over the com-mercial development southwest of the Cornell Road/N.E. 25th Street intersec-tion. For Runway 30, this could in-volve small aircraft making their right turn from base to final south of the Brookwood Parkway/Cornell Road in-tersection. An instrument approach from the northwest to Runway 12 currently guides aircraft over compatible land uses. The Runway 12 Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach is a straight-in precision instrument ap-proach. Hillsboro Airport also has two other published nonprecision instru-ment approach procedures. The 2005 Airport Master Plan recom-mends a straight-in instrument ap-

proach procedure to Runway 30 as this is the prevailing runway in use. An instrument approach to Runway 30 would reduce the number of over-flights of the City of Hillsboro west of the airport. Currently, aircraft ap-proaching the airport from the south on an instrument flight plan and re-quiring the use of an instrument ap-proach procedure must overfly the City of Hillsboro to access the Runway 12 ILS. An instrument approach to Runway 30 would eliminate this prac-tice. Visual approach procedures with at least a one nautical mile final ap-proach could be encouraged for Run-ways 12, 20, and the proposed short parallel runway (12L). One nautical mile straight-in approaches to Run-ways 12R (after the construction of the parallel runway), 20 and 12L would keep aircraft over noise-compatible corridors. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. Small aircraft should be encour-aged to conduct short final approaches to Runway 2 and Runway 30 to avoid direct overflights of dense residential development. Larger, faster aircraft require longer final approaches and sometimes wider approach paths; therefore, they will not be able to avoid some overflight of dense residen-tial development. One mile or greater final approach segments should be utilized for Runways 12 (12R after the short parallel runway is constructed), proposed Runway 12L, and Runway 20.

2-19

A straight-in instrument approach to Runway 30 will reduce the number of overflights of those portions of the City of Hillsboro west of the airport for air-craft approaching from the south and requiring the use of an instrument approach procedure. Intersection Departures Intersection departures refer to air-craft beginning their takeoff roll from a point other than the runway, usually at a taxiway intersection. While these operations are usually undertaken to reduce taxi time, such operations can help centralize departure noise on the airfield. Evaluation Intersection departures can inhibit aircraft from safely departing the air-port. These operations are further jeopardized by the hot weather experi-enced in the region from late spring to early fall, which increases runway length requirements. In addition, residents located off the departure end of the airport would likely be impacted by greater levels of aircraft noise, since aircraft have a shorter distance in which to gain altitude prior to leav-ing the airfield. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. Intersection departures are dis-couraged as they tend to increase noise and can be unsafe when tem-

peratures increase, causing runway length requirements to increase. Runway Use and Flight Routes Summary Members of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) suggested that consid-eration be given to defining specific approach and departure paths for helicopters. This is a common proce-dure at airports with significant levels of helicopter and fixed-wing traffic, such as Hillsboro Airport. These pro-cedures, implemented through a letter of agreement, define specific compati-ble arrival and departure paths to and from primary landing areas on the airport. They reduce controller work-load as the helicopter pilot is in-structed to follow a specific path to or from the airport and needs no further instruction. Defined approach and departure paths allow for the efficient ingress and egress from the airport as the development of the procedures is focused on the most efficient means of ingress/egress. Effective procedures, if implemented, could reduce the num-ber of helicopters which must hold over residential development south of the airport while waiting for clearance to land. The Port should convene a separate working group comprised of individual helicopter operators and interested citizens to consider the most efficient means of helicopter ac-cess and egress. Exhibit 2D summarizes the results of the runway use and flight routes screening analysis. This analysis, us-ing the color-coding system and crite-

2-20

rion described earlier in this chapter, supports the conclusions and recom-mendations of the preceding text. Of the seven runway use and flight route measures examined, five have been carried forward for inclusion in the compatibility study recommenda-tions which are summarized in Chap-ter Four. A total of 18 specific recom-mendations have been developed for Hillsboro Airport considering the run-way use and flight route measures dis-cussed above. These include: 1. Continue the use of Runway 30

(Runway 30L after construction of the parallel runway) as the pre-ferred departure runway.


way 12 for jet departures. Do not use Runway 12 for jet departures from 2000 (10:00 p.m.) to 0900 (9:00 a.m.) except when wind con-ditions are between 090 degrees clockwise 150 degrees (inclusive) at 10 knots or more. When the tower is open, requests for the use of Runway 12 will be considered for LifeFlight flights or other opera-tions requiring priority handling or if an undue delay will be incurred during periods that the Hillsboro Tower is unable to provide visual separation from opposite direction traffic due to restricted visibility conditions.


way 20 for departure and Runway 2 for arrival. Runway 2-20 should only be used when the wind is 10 knots or greater from a direction that is between 170 degrees and

230 degrees or 350 degrees and 050 degrees.

4. Designate Runway 12-30 (Runway

12R-30L after construction of the parallel runway) as the preferred runway for large aircraft (aircraft over 12,500 pounds) use. Request voluntary restriction on jet use of Runway 2-20.

5. Runway 2-20 closed to touch-and-

go landings between 2200 (10:00 p.m.) and 0600 (6:00 a.m.).

6. Maintain priority use of helicopter

patterns as defined in the Novem-ber 1, 2004, Memorandum of Un-derstanding (see Table 2B).

7. Relocate the Charlie pattern and landing area to the east once the parallel runway is constructed.

8. Develop helicopter reporting points

and arrival and departure routes that route helicopters away from noise-sensitive development.


30 (Runways 30L and 30R after construction of the parallel run-way) under visual conditions to maintain runway heading until reaching N.E. Jackson School Road.


30 under instrument conditions to maintain runway heading until reaching two nautical miles (as measured by distance measuring equipment [DME]) from the local-izer antenna).

04S

P12

-2D

-9/1

5/05

Runway Use Programs

Touch-and-Go Operational Changes



No direct cost to implement. Already a component of the Noise Abatement Program. Value is high as unnecessary departures over high density residential land use is minimized.

Informal preferential runway use program already in place at the airport. Runways 2 and 30 preferred for departure. Most departures conducted on Runway 30. Existing MOU limits departures on Runways 12 and 20.

The preferential program is controlled by a 1994 MOU between the Port and ATCT.

Departures over high density residential are minimized. The most compatible departure contours are located to the north and northeast of airport.





Does not affect safety or capacity. The existing program allows for the use of Runways 2 and 12 when dictated by wind conditions.

Yes. Already a component of the noise abatement program at Hillsboro Airport.

No direct cost to implement. Value of existing procedure is positive as repetitive operations over high density residential are limited at night on Runway 2-20.

Touch-and-go activity consists of an aircraft practicing takeoff and landings to the same runway end and staying within the aircraft traffic pattern. A touch-and-go involves an aircraft making a landing and then departing without exiting the runway. Touch-and-go operations are not authorized on Runway 2-20 between 2200 (10:00 p.m.) and 0600 (6:00 a.m.) local time.

Already a component of the Noise Abatement Program. The existing limitation on the use of Runway 2-20 reduces this activity over the high density residential development near the airport.

Most touch-and-go activity is planned to be relocated to the parallel runway after construction to maximize airfield capacity. The traffic pattern would be located to the northeast over compatible industrial land.

Yes. Already a component of the noise abatement program at Hillsboro Airport. Retain the limitation on the use of Runway 2-20 between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

The training patterns and landing areas are already in place. Value is positive as the priority for operation places most helicopters in the Charlie Pattern, which has more compatible land uses.

Hillsboro Airport has three helicopter training patterns: Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie. The Alpha and Bravo patterns are located over high-density residential development. The Charlie Pattern was commissioned in October 2004 to move more helicopter operations over more compatible industrial land and lower density residential land uses.

A November 2004 MOU between the Hillsboro Airport Tower, the Port of Portland, and Hillsboro Aviation, Inc., established a means of implementing specific measures to reduce helicopter training noise.

The Charlie Pattern was established as it contains the most compatible land uses of the three helicopter training patterns at the airport.

The helicopter training patterns segregate helicopter and fixed wing traffic. This increases airfield capacity.

Yes. The segregation of helicopter and fixed wing traffic needs to continue at the airport due to the number of total operations conducted at the airport. The Charlie Pattern includes a greater area of open space and commercial and industrial uses than the Alpha and Bravo patterns and has far fewer residential impacts. The priority should be for use of the Charlie Pattern.

Value is limited as the Charlie Pattern was established to reduce impact under the Alpha and Bravo patterns.

The intent of a rotational use program would be to distribute noise equally between all three patterns. This involves defining how long a period may be in operation each day or defining a priority system for pattern use.

No system in place to define pattern of use. Wind conditions and the level of traffic in the patterns may not allow the equal distribution between patterns.

While the intent of this measure would be to evenly distribute operations between each pattern, this measure would place more activity in the Alpha and Bravo patterns. The Charlie Pattern was established to reduce the impacts to the high-density residential development under the Alpha and Bravo patterns.

A system of segregating fixed wing and helicopters at the airport needs to be in place to maximize capacity. This would not change that system so there is no impact on capacity or safety.

No. Rotating a greater percentage of helicopter traffic back to the Alpha and Bravo patterns would be contrary to the reasons why the Charlie Pattern was established.

No direct cost to implement. Could be implemented in the short term as part of the Noise Abatement Program.

Intersection departures refer to aircraft beginning their engine spool-up and takeoff role from a point, usually a taxiway intersection (intersection takeoffs) other than the runway end. While these operations are usually undertaken to reduce taxi time, such operations can help centralize departure spool-up noise on the airfield.

Procedure is generally not accepted by pilots. No industry-accepted consensus for implementation.

While takeoff noise is moved away from the departure end of the runway, departing aircraft are generally lower after takeoff which could affect land uses under the takeoff path.

A reduction in takeoff length reduces safety should the aircraft need to abort the departure.

No. This measure is not generally accepted within the industry as it reduces takeoff length. Safety is compromised when the takeoff distance is reduced.

No direct cost to implement. Visual approach recommendations are already a component of the Noise Abatement Program. Current pilot's guide recommends close-in turns (less than one mile from the runway end) for Runways 2 and 30.

Approaches involving turns relatively close to the airport can sometimes be defined over noise-compatible corridors. These can be defined as either visual or instrument approaches. Visual approaches offer a greater degree of flexibility regarding their final approach courses. Since these approaches follow a "see and avoid" methodology, pilots can visually avoid noise-sensitive areas.

Any new instrument procedure would need to be established be the FAA. Visual noise abatement approach paths enjoy considerable acceptance in the industry.

An instrument approach to Runway 30 could reduce the number of instrument flights over the City of Hillsboro. Aircraft approaching from the south must now pass over the City to land on Runway 12.

Minimal impact on capacity or safety.

Yes. Encourage the FAA to implement an instrument approach to Runway 30. Close-in (less than one mile) final approaches recommended for Runways 30 and 2 which have close-in residential development.

No direct cost to implement. Could be implemented in the short term as part of the Noise Abatement Program. Value of procedures is high as aircraft are directed away from noise-sensitive areas.

This involves routing departing aircraft over noise-compatible areas immediately after takeoff.

The use of departure turns enjoys considerable acceptance in the industry.

Directs aircraft away from noise-sensitive areas.Minimal impact on capacity safety.

Yes. As proposed, visual departures from Runway 30 would not turn until reaching N.E. Jackson School Road. Aircraft departures under Instrument Flight Rules would not turn until reaching two nautical miles as measured from the localizer antenna. Visual departures from Runway 20 would not turn until passing Evergreen Road. There are no compatible departure corridors off Runway 12 or Runway 20 which would limit overflights. Therefore, the use of these runways should be limited to the extent practicable.

EVALUATION CRITERIONBalanceFeasibility/Acceptability Safety/CapacityFinancing/Value

RUNWAY USE & FLIGHT ROUTES

KEY

MOU - Memorandum of UnderstandingATCT - Airport Traffic Control Tower

Helicopter Pattern Use

Rotational Use of Helicopter Patterns

Departure Turns

Instrument and Visual Approaches

Intersection Departures

Exhibit 2DSCREENING ANALYSIS

RUNWAY USE & FLIGHT ROUTES

PORT OF PORTLAND

2-21

11. Request the FAA change the Farm-ington Three Departure Procedure to limit left turns after departing Runway 30 until the aircraft has reached two nautical miles (as measured by distance measuring equipment [DME]) from the local-izer antenna).


2 to maintain runway heading un-til reaching Evergreen Road.

13. Request aircraft maintain runway

heading until reaching 1,000 feet AGL for departures from Runway 12 (Runways 12L and 12R once the parallel runway is constructed) and Runway 20.

14. Continue the use of right traffic

patterns for Runway 2 and Run-way 30.

15. Once the parallel runway is con-

structed, establish a right traffic pattern for Runway 30R.

16. Encourage close-in (less than one

mile) final approaches for Runways 2 and 30 (Runways 30L and 30R after construction of the parallel runway).

17. Establish a straight-in instrument

approach procedure to Runway 30. 18. Limitation on intersection depar-

tures. FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT Facility development for the purposes of noise abatement includes runway

extensions, new runways, moving runway arrival/departure thresholds, acoustical barriers, and run-up enclo-sures. New runways, runway exten-sions, and moving runway thresholds do not, in and of themselves, reduce the amount of noise energy emitted from the airport; they only shift noise from one location to another. Acousti-cal barriers and run-up enclosures can reduce ground noise levels by absorb-ing and blocking some of the noise en-ergy emitted from aircraft. Runway Extensions And New Runways New runways aligned with compatible land development or runway exten-sions that shift aircraft operations far-ther away from residential areas are a proven means of noise abatement. New runways are most effective where there are large compatible areas near an airport and existing runways are aligned with residential areas. Evaluation Hillsboro Airport’s existing runways generally line up with the undevel-oped corridors northwest and north-east of the airport. Constructing a new runway or runway extension solely for the purposes of noise abate-ment would not be feasible at this time. The 1993 Airport Compatibility Study recommended a short 3,600-foot paral-lel runway and a new helipad to in-crease efficiency. The 2005 Airport Master Plan concurred with these rec-

2-22

ommendations. A new runway 700 feet northeast of and parallel to Run-way 12-30 is planned. This new run-way is planned to be 3,600 feet long and will be used primarily for small fixed-wing aircraft. The Runway 30R traffic pattern would have right turns, while Runway 12L would have left turns. This would place the traffic pattern to the east/northeast over the lesser developed areas containing commercial and industrial land uses, open space, and low-density residen-tial development. The traffic patterns for the existing Runways 12-30 and 2-20 are planned to remain unchanged. For Runway 12-30, this keeps the traf-fic east/northeast of the airport. The new parallel runway has the ad-vantage of segregating small and large aircraft operations. This increases the capacity of the airfield and reduces de-lay. This segregation of aircraft al-lows for more uniform traffic patterns as aircraft of the same capability and speeds will use the same pattern and not require significant differences in spacing. The new parallel runway will require the helipad associated with the Char-lie pattern to be relocated farther northeast. Shifting the helipad north to accommodate the parallel runway will move the Charlie pattern farther away from concentrated residential developments southwest and south-east of the airport. Exhibit 2E de-picts the new parallel runway and re-located Charlie pattern helipad. The new parallel runway and the dis-tant-future “Charlie” pattern helipad are anticipated to reduce noise levels

over the dense residential areas lo-cated southwest and southeast of the airport. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. Construct a parallel runway for small aircraft use. This reduces the number of operations to Runway 30, in particular the repetitive touch-and-go operations, and allows for the traffic patterns to be more consistent and uniform as aircraft spacing does not have to meet the requirements of a wide variance in aircraft operating speeds. Relocate the Charlie pattern landing area when the parallel run-way is constructed. This will move the Charlie pattern to the east over open space and industrial/commercial land uses. Remote Helicopter Operating Area This measure considers moving heli-copter training operations away from Hillsboro Airport. This could either involve the construction of a new land-ing area or the use of another existing airport site. Developing a new helicop-ter operating area would require the purchase of land in a remote area away from future residential develop-ment and the construction of a suit-able landing pad. Evaluation The majority of current helicopter training operations are conducted

PORT OF PORTLAND

N.E. 25th Ave.N.E. 25th Ave.N.E. 25th Ave.

MaxMaxStationStation

MaxStation

FairplexFairplexFairplex

Brookwood Parkway

Brookwood Parkway

Ever

gree

n Ro

ad

Ever

gree

n Ro

ad

Exhibit 2EMASTER PLAN CONCEPT

AIRSIDE

03M

P01

-2E

-5/1

9/05

Corn

ell R

oad

Corn

ell R

oad

Corn

ell R

oad

RUNWAY 12-30 (6,600' x 150')

RUNWAY 12-30 (6,600' x 150')

RUNWAY 12-30 (6,600' x 150')

240'

240'

240'

240'

240'

240'

390'

390'

390'

35'

35'

35'

390'

390'

390' 49

5'49

5'

495'

495'

495'

495'

700'700'700'

400'400'400'

400'400'400'

300'300'300'

240'240'240'

Existing Charlie PadExisting Charlie PadExisting Charlie Pad

35'35'35'

50'50'50'

CC

HH

CCCCCC

A1A1A1 A2A2A2

A3A3A3

A4A4A4

A5A5A5

A6A6A6

A7A7A7

AA

MM A8A8A8

AA

AAAAAA

AA

M

D

M

D

AA

BB

BB

FF




386'386'386'

235'

Shift

235'

Shift

235'

Shift

12R

30l

NORTH

0 1,000

SCALE IN FEET

LEGENDExisting Airport Property Line


Potential Property Acquisition

Ultimate Pavement

Existing Runway Visibility Zone

Ultimate Runway Visibility Zone

Object Free Area (OFA)

Runway Safety Area (RSA)

Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)

Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ)

35' Building Restriction Line (BRL)

20' BRL

Glideslope Critical Area

Localizer Critical Area

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

ProposedProposedRunway 12L-30RRunway 12L-30R

(3,600' x 60')(3,600' x 60')

ProposedRunway 12L-30R

(3,600' x 60')

Training HelipadTraining HelipadTraining Helipad

151' Extension151' Extension151' ExtensionProposed Run-upProposed Run-up

Maintenance AreaMaintenance AreaProposed Run-up

Maintenance Area

Current Run-up ApronCurrent Run-up ApronCurrent Run-up Apron

AAAAAA

2-23

away from Hillsboro Airport. Opera-tor estimates conclude that 60 percent of helicopter activity takes place at other regional airports away from Hillsboro Airport. The construction of a new helicopter-only training site is not likely to be eligible for federal funding assistance. A project of this nature would need to reduce incompatibilities within the 65 DNL contour. As described in Chapter One, there is no incompatible devel-opment within the existing or pro-jected 65 DNL contour at Hillsboro Airport. While moving the helicopter training operations to an outlying facility would reduce noise impacts under the current helicopter training pattern, there would be increased impacts be-tween Hillsboro Airport and the re-mote site as well as at the new site. Moving the location would also require property acquisition, environmental clearance, and airspace clearance. An agreement between the Port and helicopter users to utilize the remote facility would also be necessary. An agreement of this type may be prob-lematic as it would increase training costs and decrease efficiency for the users. Without an agreement, the Port would not have the authority to require helicopter operators to use a remote landing area. The use of a re-mote landing area would be voluntary. Consequently, if a viable remote area were available, it’s unknown whether or not it would be used.

Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. Based on operator estimates, the majority of helicopter operations are already being conducted away from Hillsboro Airport. Federal funding as-sistance is unlikely for such a project as there are currently no incompati-bilities within the 65 DNL contour. The use of the remote helicopter area would have to be on a voluntary basis. Voluntary use of a remote site may be problematic as it would increase the cost to the user. While moving the helicopter training operations to an outlying airport or new training site would reduce noise impacts under the current helicopter training pattern, there would be increased noise im-pacts between Hillsboro Airport and the remote site. This can impact new areas that are not subject to aviation noise at this time. Displaced and Relocated Thresholds A displaced threshold involves the shifting of the touchdown zone for landings further down the runway. A relocated threshold involves shifting both the touchdown point and the takeoff initiation point (i.e., original runway end is completely moved). These techniques can promote noise abatement by effectively increasing the altitude of aircraft at any given point beneath the approach. The amount of noise reduction depends on the increase in altitude which, in turn, depends on the length of the dis-placement.

2-24

Evaluation The current master plan recommends a 238-foot relocation or shift of the Runway 2 end to the northeast and a 151-foot extension to the relocated Runway 20 end. When combined, the runway shift and extension will pro-vide aircraft departing to the south-west a total of 389 feet of additional distance to gain altitude before over-flying residential land uses located south and west of the airport. Shifting Runway 2-20 to the northeast will provide the necessary length for both existing and future aircraft to operate on this runway in the safest manner possible. This shift will also provide the visual distances required to meet FAA design standards for safe aircraft operations during those hours air traf-fic controllers do not occupy the tower. There is an added benefit of this shift that allows aircraft to be slightly higher on approach to the Runway 2 end and closer to compatible indus-trial land uses when departing from the same end. Exhibit 2E also depicts the shift and extension of Runway 2-20. Shifting or extending Runway 12-30 to the northwest away from residential areas is not feasible because of the lo-cation of Evergreen Road. Evergreen Road has already been shifted north to provide proper runway safety areas per federal guidelines. Additional shifting of Evergreen Road would re-sult in 90-degree turns or closure of a portion of Evergreen Road.

Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. Runway 12-30 cannot be shifted to the north away from noise-sensitive land uses. The Runway 2-20 thresh-old relocations are being done to meet safety standards. Acoustical Barriers Acoustical barriers, such as noise walls or berms, are intended to shield areas from the noise of aircraft power-ing up for takeoff and rolling down the runway. They are ineffective once the aircraft lifts off. It is also possible to use the orientation of on-airport build-ings to provide a noise barrier to pro-tect nearby residential areas from noise. Noise walls act best over rela-tively long distances, and their bene-fits are greatly affected by surface to-pography and wind conditions. The effectiveness of a barrier is directly re-lated to the distance of the noise source from the receiver, the distance from the barrier itself, as well as the angle between the ends of the berm and the receiver. While noise walls and berms can at-tenuate noise, they are sometimes criticized by airport neighbors because they obstruct views. Another common complaint is that airport noise can be-come more alarming, particularly noise from unusual events, because people are unable to see the source of the noise.

2-25

Evaluation At Hillsboro Airport, noise berms or walls would be largely ineffective for the attenuation of aircraft noise. East, west, and south of the airport, existing industrial and commercial develop-ment is located between the departure ends of Runways 12-30 and 2-20 and noise-sensitive development. Given the compatible development and dis-tance between the noise-sensitive de-velopments around the airport, there are no suitable areas for the effective placement of such a barrier. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. FAA safety standards preclude locating the barrier close enough to the runway end to be effective. Run-up Areas and Restrictions Engine run-ups are a necessary and critical part of aircraft operation and maintenance. Pre-departure run-ups are required for all piston aircraft to ensure the safe operation of the engine and systems. These run-ups occur at the end of the runway and usually only occur for a few minutes. Run-ups are required for various air-craft maintenance operations as well. Engine run-ups are a necessary part of aircraft service and maintenance. They are necessary to diagnose prob-lems and test the effectiveness of maintenance work. Engine mainte-

nance run-ups may be restricted by airport operators. These restrictions, when they apply to run-ups as a sepa-rate function from the takeoff and landing of the aircraft, do not appear to need special FAA review or ap-proval under 14 CFR Part 161. (See Airport Noise Report, Vol. 6, No. 18, September 26, 1994, p. 142.) They are, nevertheless, subject to other le-gal and constitutional limitations on unjust discrimination, undue interfer-ence with interstate commerce, or con-flict with FAA grant assurances. Ex-isting aircraft maintenance run-up noise impacts could be mitigated through the installation of a relocated run-up pad or enclosure. If con-structed, it will be essential to estab-lish policies for the use of that facility. Maintenance run-up activity occurs frequently at Hillsboro Airport. The present maintenance run-up area is located at the Runway 12 end where an earthen berm has been constructed to absorb noise energy during run-up. Relocating a run-up area can be effec-tive in reducing the impacts of aircraft run-up noise. Moving the designated run-up area toward the center of the airport, farther away from noise-sensitive uses or behind structures such as aircraft hangars, can reduce noise impacts. In recognition of the concerns over maintenance run-up activity, the 2005 Airport Master Plan recommended moving the current maintenance run-up area from the north end of Taxiway A to a new run-up area located on the east end of Taxiway C.

2-26

Evaluation The implementation of restrictions that would curtail pre-departure en-gine run-ups could hinder airport op-erators and safety and would likely face litigation. A pre-departure run-up is essential activity to ensure the safety of the aircraft before departure and is usually conducted at the run-way end. Therefore, no type of restric-tions should be considered for this type of activity. Currently, there are several busi-nesses that perform aircraft mainte-nance at Hillsboro Airport. These op-erations involve both jet and propeller-driven aircraft and range from partial to maximum power. Maintenance run-ups are currently permitted at the run-up pad located at the north end of Taxiway A adjacent to Runway 12. Residential areas west of the current run-up pad have raised concerns over aircraft run-up noise from this loca-tion. The 1993 Airport Compatibility Study recommended the evaluation of differ-ent locations for aircraft run-ups. The existing Master Plan recommends the relocation of the run-up pad to the east end of Taxiway C adjacent to Runway 20. This will move aircraft run-up activity closer to the center of the airport and further away from noise-sensitive land uses. Exhibit 2E depicts the current and proposed run-up areas.

Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. The maintenance run-up area should be relocated near the Runway 20 end as proposed in the 2005 Airport Master Plan. The Port should develop a maintenance run-up policy detailing when and how maintenance run-ups are conducted on the airport. Run-Up Enclosure An engine run-up enclosure is a spe-cial kind of noise barrier which can be appropriate at airports with extensive aircraft engine maintenance opera-tions. Run-up enclosures are designed so that aircraft can taxi or be towed into them. The structures are de-signed to absorb and deflect noise gen-erated by the run-up, thus reducing noise levels emanating from such ac-tivities at the airport. Evaluation Run-up enclosures are generally con-sidered when there are multiple daily maintenance run-up activities, par-ticularly those occurring at night or in the early morning hours. Setting limi-tations on when maintenance run-up areas can be used is an effective method of controlling run-up activi-ties.

2-27

Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. The number of maintenance run-ups is presently low at the airport and varies greatly. This level of activity would not support construction costs. FAA grant funding is uncertain since there is not incompatible development in the existing or future 65 DNL con-tour. Facilities Development Summary Exhibit 2F summarizes the results of the facilities development screening analysis. This analysis, using the color-coding system and criterion de-scribed earlier in this chapter, sup-ports the conclusions and recommen-dations of the preceding text. Of the six facilities development measures examined, three have been carried forward for inclusion in the compatibility study recommendations which are summarized in Chapter Four. Two specific recommendations have been developed for Hillsboro Air-port considering the runway use and flight route measures discussed above. These include: 1. Establish a maintenance run-up

policy. 2. Relocate the maintenance run-up

area north of the Runway 20 end as shown in the 2005 Airport Mas-ter Plan.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES The success of the noise abatement program requires a continuous effort to encourage and monitor program compliance, track and respond to noise complaints, and develop and distribute information on the “Fly Friendly” pro-gram. These strategies are discussed below. Monitor Noise Abatement Measure Compliance Monitoring compliance with the noise abatement measures involves check-ing periodically with airport users and the local tower manager regarding procedure usage. It may be necessary from time to time to arrange for noise monitoring, noise modeling, or flight track analysis to study issues that may arise in the future. Meetings between airport staff, air-port users, airport tenants and private citizens may also be necessary. These meetings are beneficial as they allow airport staff to gain an understanding of future potential issues and the suc-cess of the current noise abatement policies and procedures. Evaluation The Port has held meetings with air-port users and the local tower man-ager in the past to disseminate noise

2-28

abatement information. Regular meetings between airport users and the tower manager could be consid-ered in the future. These meetings are beneficial as they allow the Port to gain a better understanding of the success of the current noise abatement policies and procedures and potential issues that may be of concern in the future. The Port has also installed permanent noise monitors around the airport. Consideration could also be given to enhancing the noise monitoring sys-tem with a flight tracking system. It is important to note the limitations on the noise data because currently there is only limited radar coverage at the Hillsboro Airport facility. Currently, noise events can be identified but they cannot be tied to a specific aircraft event because the radar data is not available. When radar is installed, individual aircraft that show up on radar as a flight track can then be linked to specific noise levels at the permanent noise monitors. The noise and flight track system would serve several objectives for the airport. The first objective would be to build credibility in the airport’s noise exposure contours and noise abate-ment efforts. Second, the permanent noise monitors could also be used to accurately determine the extent of the change in noise contours over the densely developed areas south and west of the airport where a significant number of noise complaints are gener-ated. Finally, the airport does not have the means to correlate specific aircraft noise events to noise com-plaints. By implementing this system, the airport would be able to determine

the type of aircraft, the noise level generated, and the flight pattern used by the aircraft that prompted the noise complaint. Over time, this in-formation could be used to further re-fine noise abatement measures at the airport. This system could also be a valuable evaluation tool for existing noise abatement procedures. The installation of an Airport Surveil-lance Radar system at Hillsboro Air-port is the responsibility of the FAA. The Port maintains this as a high pri-ority improvement for the Airport; however, the FAA will decide if and when a radar system is installed. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. This is already occurring at the airport. This measure is most effec-tive with radar coverage. The instal-lation of a radar system by the FAA would facilitate tracking and identifi-cation. Tracking and Responding to Noise Complaints Tracking noise complaints can aid in understanding the geographic distri-bution of the public’s airport noise complaints. Noise complaint informa-tion can also be helpful in understand-ing when changes to the operational procedures or aircraft fleet mix are creating new noise impacts in the air-port area. It should be noted, how-ever, that noise complaints by them-selves cannot be taken as a complete assessment of a noise problem at an

04S

P12

-2F

-9/1

5/05

Exhibit 2FSCREENING ANALYSIS

FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT

Runway Extensions & New Runways



Construction costs can be significant. Value is high as approach and departure operations can be moved away from noise-sensitive uses. Rated positive for HIO as the parallel runway would reduce the number of operations to Runway 30.

The Master Plan identifies a new small-aircraft-only parallel runway to address capacity concerns. This will move most touch-and-go operations to the northeast side of the airport, which is near compatible industrial and low-density residential. Existing runways are already aligned with compatible land use to the north and northeast where most departures are conducted.

The parallel runway is eligible for FAA grant funding and has been approved, in concept, by the Port Commission (future approval will be necessary as the project gets closer to implementation).

The parallel runway traffic pattern would be located further to the northeast over open space, industrial property, and low density residential uses. No new runways needed as the existing runways are aligned with the primary compatible approach and departure corridors.





The parallel runway increases capacity and segregates larger business aircraft from smaller piston-powered aircraft. Does not reduce operations; moves them to a new location.

Yes. The parallel runway will segregate small and large aircraft operations. This can reduce the number of operations to Runway 30 and allows for traffic patterns to be more consistent and uniform as aircraft spacing does not have to change to wide variances in aircraft operating speeds (which currently occurs to Runway 30).

Remote Helicopter Operating AreaConstruction costs could potentially be high. No site has been identified. Value is limited as it is uncertain whether any users would voluntarily move operations to a site further away. This increases the cost to the operator. Some level of training operations are already being conducted away from Hillsboro Airport.

This considers moving helicopter training operations away from Hillsboro Airport. This could either involve the construction of a new landing area or the use of another existing airport site.

Users of the remote training area would have to so voluntarily. The Port could not force any user to use such a facility. Federal funding is unlikely as there are currently no incompatible developments within the 65 DNL contour.

While moving a portion or all of the existing helicopter training operations from Hillsboro Airport to a remote site would reduce noise exposure near Hillsboro Airport, noise would increase along the travel route to the new training site and the training site.

Does not affect the capacity or safety of operations at Hillsboro.

No. The majority of helicopter training is currently being conducted remotely. Some helicopters which cannot operate in the existing training patterns due to capacity limitations must use other airports. Existing operators cannot be forced to use a remote training area. It would transfer noise to another area which may not have existing noise exposure.

Displaced & Relocated ThresholdsConstruction costs can be significant. Value is high as approach and departure operations are moved further away from noise-sensitive uses.

This includes moving thresholds away from residential or other noise-sensitive development.

Runway threshold locations/displacements are eligible for FAA grant funding.

Shifting thresholds away from residential or noise-sensitive development can improve balance.

Generally no impact on capacity or safety.

No. Runway 12-30 cannot be shifted to the north away from noise-sensitive uses due to existing physical constraints. The Runway 2 threshold is planned to be relocated 238’ feet northeast to meet safety standards at the airport in the 2005 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan.

Run-Up Areas & RestrictionsConstruction costs can be significant. Value is high as restrictions on maintenance run-up activities can be implemented in the short term.

Maintenance run-up activity occurs at Hillsboro Airport. The present maintenance run-up area is located at the Runway 12 end where an earthen berm has been constructed to absorb noise energy during run-up. The Master Plan identifies an alternate area on the east side of the airport north of the Runway 20 end.

The Port has the full authority to designate the time of day maintenance run-ups can occur and their location on the airport. Construction of the new run-up area is eligible for FAA grant assistance.

Limitations on the time of day maintenance run-ups occur and their location on the airport can reduce the impacts of these activities.


Yes. The Port should establish a maintenance run-up policy that limits these activities to a certain period during the day. The Master Plan identifies a new run-up area near the center of the airport at the Runway 20 end.

Run-Up Enclosures

Acoustical Barriers

Cost is high. The number of maintenance run-ups is governed by the type of maintenance activities on the airport and vary greatly in time and duration. Limited maintenance activities occurring now.

An engine run-up enclosure is a special kind of noise barrier which can be appropriate at airports with extensive aircraft engine maintenance operations. The structures are designed to absorb and deflect noise generated by the run-up, thus reducing noise levels off the airport.

Since there is no incompatible development within the 65 DNL contour, FAA grant funding may not be available for construction.

Run-up enclosures can reduce the noise emissions during a maintenance run-up activity.


No. The number of maintenance run-ups is presently low at the airport and varies greatly. This may not support the construction for the enclosure. FAA grant funding is uncertain. The relocation of the runway area and a run-up policy provide quicker solution to maintenance run-up concerns.

EVALUATION CRITERIONBalance

PORT OF PORTLAND

Cost is high. Value is limited to the distance between the runway ends and noise-sensitive development. Acoustical barriers are most effective the closer the noise source is to the barrier. FAA design standards preclude placing the barrier close to the runway.

A berm or wall to shield areas from noise of aircraft departures or landings.

Since there is no incompatible development within the 65 DNL contour, FAA grant funding may not be available for construction.

Effective at attenuating departure spool-up noise but does not reduce noise after lift-off. Acoustical barriers are most effective the closer the noise source is to the barrier. FAA design standards preclude placing the barrier close to the runway.


No. FAA safety standards preclude locating the barriers close enough to the runway end to be effective.

Feasibility/Acceptability Safety/CapacityFinancing/Value

FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT

2-29

airport. Many unpredictable variables can influence whether a person chooses to file a noise complaint. Some people who are annoyed may find it inconvenient or intimidating to call and complain. Others who decide to complain may be unusually sensi-tive to noise or may be especially anx-ious about aircraft overflights. Un-usual events, rather than a long-term situation, may also prompt a com-plaint. Evaluation The Port currently has a system of re-cording and responding to noise com-plaints. In addition to recording and filing complaints, it is important for the airport management to respond to complaints, even if it is not possible to take remedial action. The Port is in the process of updating the current noise monitoring and flight track sys-tem which will include an integrated noise complaint monitoring feature. The Port currently has a Geographical Information System which could be further expanded to perform noise re-lated analysis. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. This is already occurring at the airport. Consistent evaluation of the noise abatement program is needed to ensure success.

“Fly Friendly” Program A “Fly Friendly” program is intended to be a comprehensive outreach effort to educate all stakeholders in the air-port environs about noise abatement efforts. Generally, they are intended to open communication between the airport, airport users, and local resi-dents. These programs typically in-clude pilot guides and videos, regular pilot briefings, neighborhood meetings and real estate agent seminars. Evaluation The Port has established a “Fly Friendly” program that includes a pi-lot guide and distributes noise abate-ment information through the inter-net. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. A “Fly Friendly” program has several components, some of which are directed at reducing noise through pi-lot education and others which are in-tended to raise the awareness of cur-rent and potential residents about the existence of the airport and measures in place to reduce noise impacts. The “Fly Friendly” program compo-nents applicable to pilot education can be expanded to include the following efforts:

2-30

• Distribution of a pilot guide de-scribing airport noise abatement information at Hillsboro Airport. The guide should include an aerial photo showing the airport and the surrounding area, pointing out noise-sensitive land uses and pre-ferred noise abatement procedures. It could also include other informa-tion about the airport that pilots would find useful. The guide should be suitable for insertion into a Jeppesen manual so that pilots will be able to conveniently use it.

• Inclusion of the noise abatement

policies in the FAA’s Air-port/Facility directory.

• Inclusion of the noise abatement

policies on the Port’s web page. • Post information signs and posters

in public areas at the airport iden-tifying the noise abatement pro-gram.

• Conduct meetings with pilots to

discuss safety and noise abatement procedures at the airport.

• Production of pilot educational ma-

terials to educate pilots about the Port’s noise abatement program.

Implementation Measures Summary Exhibit 2G summarizes the results of the implementation strategies screen-ing analysis. This analysis, using the color-coding system and criterion de-scribed earlier in this chapter, sup-

ports the conclusions and recommen-dations of the preceding text. All three implementation measures have been carried forward for inclu-sion in the compatibility study rec-ommendations which are summarized in Chapter Four. Nine specific rec-ommendations have been developed for Hillsboro Airport considering the implementation measures discussed above. These are: 1. Promote the Aircraft Owners and

Pilots Association (AOPA) Noise Awareness Steps for light aircraft.

2. Limitation on formation/multiple

aircraft flights without the ap-proval of the Airport Manager.

3. Install radar coverage to the sur-face at Hillsboro Airport.

4. Monitor noise abatement compli-

ance, enhancing with flight track-ing once improved radar coverage is available at Hillsboro Airport.

5. Maintain the permanent noise

monitoring system to monitor noise abatement compliance.

6. Maintain the system for receiving,

analyzing, tracking, and respond-ing to noise complaints.

7. Continue the “Fly Friendly” pro-

gram. Implement the following to notify pilots of the noise abatement program:

a. Distribution of a printed pilot

guide describing the noise abatement policies established in this study. Provide separate

04S

P12

-2G

-8/1

9/05

Exhibit 2GSCREENING ANALYSIS

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

Monitor Noise Abatement Measure Compliance



The Port already has staff positions dedicated to noise management at all Port-owned airports thereby requiring continued administrative costs for this effort. Value is high as consistent evaluation is needed to ensure success.

Monitoring compliance with the noise abatement measures involves checking periodically with airport users and the local tower manager regarding procedure usage. It may be necessary from time to time to arrange for noise monitoring, noise modeling, or flight track analysis to study issues that may arise in the future.

Radar coverage is needed to implement flight tracking. Improving radar coverage is the sole responsibility of the FAA.

Monitoring the noise abatement program ensures the program maintains the balance created by implementing the operational procedures.






Yes. Already occurring to a certain extent with the permanent noise monitoring system. The installation of radar coverage by the FAA would greatly facilitate tracking and identification.

Tracking & Responding to Noise ComplaintsThe Port already has staff positions dedicated to noise management at all Port-owned airports thereby requiring continued administrative costs for this effort. Value is high as consistent evaluation is needed to ensure success.

Tracking noise complaints can aid in understanding the geographic distribution of the public's airport noise complaints. Noise complaint information can also be helpful in understanding when changes to the operational procedures or aircraft fleet mix are creating new noise impacts in the airport area.

The Port has GIS, which can be expanded with mapping and trend analysis.

Monitoring the noise abatement program ensures the program maintains the balance created by implementing the operational procedures.


Yes. Already occurring at the airport. Consistent evaluation of the noise abatement program is needed to ensure success.

"Fly Friendly" ProgramThe Port already has elements of a "Fly Friendly" program. The Port has staff positions dedicated to management at all Port-owned airports and for outreach thereby requiring continued administrative costs for this effort.

A "Fly Friendly" program is intended to be a comprehensive outreach effort to educate all stakeholders in the airport environs about noise abatement efforts. Generally, they are intended to open communication between the airport, airport users, and local residents. These programs can include pilot guides and/or videos, regular pilot briefings, neighborhood meetings, and real estate agent seminars. The Port has established a "Fly Neighborly" program that includes a pilot guide and distributes noise abatement information through the internet.

Pilots generally comply with noise abatement programs as long as they are aware of the program.

The public's input into noise abatement is necessary to defining the program and tracking its success. Pilots must have easy access to the noise abatement program so they can comply with the program's intentions.


Yes. Elements already in place at the airport. Outreach to pilots is necessary to ensure adequate knowledge of noise abatement procedures. The public needs to understand the efforts of the Port in addressing noise abatement.

EVALUATION CRITERIONBalance

PORT OF PORTLAND

Feasibility/Acceptability Safety/CapacityFinancing/Value

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

2-31

publications for fixed-wing and helicopters.

b. Inclusion of the noise abate-

ment policies in the FAA’s Air-port/Facility directory.

c. Inclusion of the noise abate-

ment policies on the Port’s web page.

d. Post information signs and

posters in public areas at the airport identifying the noise abatement program.

e. Conduct meetings with pilots to

discuss safety and noise abate-ment procedures at the airport.

f. Production of pilot educational

materials to educate pilots about the airport’s noise abate-ment program.

8. Establish a standing advisory

committee of interested citizens and tenants to regularly review and discuss airport issues with Port staff.

9. Establish a public outreach pro-

gram to discuss the noise abate-ment program with the general public to raise awareness and en-sure potential residents near the airport are aware of the location of the airport and the efforts under-taken for improved compatibility. Elements could include:

a. Printed publications such as brochures and newsletters.

b. Public information meetings

with homeowners’ associa-tions, citizen participation organizations (CPOs), civic groups, local governmental meetings, etc.

c. Meetings with representa-

tives from the real estate in-dustry.

SUMMARY This chapter identified and evaluated the range of potential aviation opera-tional measures that could be imple-mented to improve compatibility be-tween the Hillsboro Airport and those communities immediately surrounding it. Those measures that had merit for implementation were selected follow-ing a rigorous screening analysis and considering input from the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) focused on air-port operations. This chapter identi-fied the final aviation operational pro-cedures resulting from the selected measures. Chapter Four examines the implementation schedule and priori-ties for the recommended compatibil-ity procedures and measures identified in this chapter.

Chapter Three

LAND USE MEASURESPORT OF PORTLAND

3-1

CHAPTER THREE PORT OF PORTLAND

This chapter evaluates various land use management measures that could possibly prevent or reduce the potential for future adverse effects of airport-generated noise. These land use management tools can be grouped into three categories:

While the purpose of the policy and regulatory techniques is to address existing and guide future development, the expenditure techniques involve potential payments for mitigation assistance. The following sections will give a brief overview of various airport land use management techniques and an evaluation of the benefits of each technique for Hillsboro.

In coordination with a Technical Advisory Group (TAG), screening criteria have been developed and applied to the broad range of potential land compatibility measures included in this chapter to identify the most probable measures for implementation. This screening criterion includes:

•

land usemeasures

1) Policy Techniques2) Regulatory Techniques3) Expenditure Techniques

Financing/Value - This criterion identifies cost consider- ations involved with implementation of the measure. This criterion also examines the value of the measure. This can be viewed as the cost-effectiveness of the measure as well as the timing of benefit derived from the measure. Measures that can be implemented in short order have a greater value than those requiring a longer period to implement or realize benefits.

3-2

• Feasibility/Acceptability – This criterion examines whether the measure is politically, socially, and financially feasible to implement. For example, in order to be imple-mented, the measure must be con-sistent with local, state, and fed-eral laws. For capital projects, the likelihood for federal funding assis-tance is also identified. Most im-portantly, this criterion identifies whether or not a measure would be acceptable to pilots and imple-mented.

• Consistency/Coordination –

This criterion looks at whether the measure ensures or allows for a co-ordinated planning process be-tween Washington County, the City of Hillsboro, Metro, the State of Oregon Department of Aviation, the Federal Aviation Administra-tion (FAA), and the Port of Port-land. Each one of these entities has a role in ensuring the long-term compatibility between the op-eration of the airport and the local communities.

• Balance – This criterion considers

whether this measure balances the needs of both the airport and com-munity. For example, the measure needs to ensure the operational freedom of the airport to meet the needs of air travelers and air com-merce, but the measure must also consider the quality of life expecta-tions of the local community and to reduce, to the extent practicable, the negative byproducts of air commerce, primarily noise.

• Proactive – This criterion consid-ers whether the proposed measure will minimize future increases of incompatible development.

A rating system has been developed and incorporated within this analysis to assist the reader in easily identify-ing whether the proposed measures have a compatibility impact/benefit. The color-coded system identifies whether the measure, when consider-ing the specific criteria individually, has a negative, neutral, or positive compatibility impact/benefit. Red is used to connote a negative impact; yel-low, a neutral impact; and green, a positive benefit. The following provides an illustrative example of how this coding system has been used in this analysis. Consider the rating of a measure using the fi-nancing/value criterion. Consider that the measure would have only small administrative costs to implement (generally a positive rating) but has limited value due to the potential for the measure to be implemented (nega-tive). In this example, the positive as-pects of the low costs to implement and negative impacts of value result in a neutral rating. A similar logic has been applied to each measure and cri-terion in this analysis, resulting in appropriate ratings. POLICY TECHNIQUES Policy techniques that can be used to guide future development include:

3-3

• Comprehensive Plan • Coordination Agreements • Urban Growth Boundaries • Project Review Guidelines

It is important to note that the FAA has established formal land use com-patibility guidelines stating that resi-dential land uses at or above the 65 day-night-level (DNL) are non-compatible land uses around airports. The DNL contour represents the av-erage noise level from all aircraft types over a year’s period of time. DNL is the accepted federal and state noise standard used to depict airport noise contours which serve as a juris-dictional boundary for federal noise funding participation. It is also the common jurisdictional noise measure used for local land use planning. In general, most land uses (including residential) are considered compatible below the 65 DNL contour. These guidelines are also accepted as the ba-sis for land use planning in Oregon. However, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality goes one step further by requiring noise mapping of the 55 DNL contour for local land use planning purposes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Comprehensive long range planning addresses airport planning at the highest policy level and is important for land use compatibility because it is the policy base for community devel-opment. Long range comprehensive planning provides a framework for fu-ture land uses. Through a Compre-hensive Plan, acknowledged by the

State Department of Land Conserva-tion and Development (DLCD), local governments show that they conform to the statewide planning goals, in-cluding Goal 12 (Transportation), which calls for “a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.” To comply with the Transportation Planning Rule or TPR (OAR 660 Divi-sion 12), local jurisdictions are re-quired to adopt transportation system plans (TSPs). A TSP includes analysis and alternative plans for each element of the transportation system, includ-ing airports. Planning for local air-ports is generally addressed as part of an “Air” element, unless it is ad-dressed through a stand-alone Airport Master Plan. To comply with the Air-port Planning Rule (APR) and statu-tory requirements in ORS 836.600 through 836.630, and to ensure airport land use compatibility, public-use air-ports should adopt an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and map as part of the TSP or individual airport master plan. The ALP must examine existing condi-tions, existing and future land use compatibility issues and conflicts, pro-posed actions, and the jurisdiction(s) responsible for the plan’s implementa-tion. The preventive technique of incorpo-rating airport planning into adopted comprehensive plans and TSPs is usu-ally not too controversial, especially when an airport is in an undeveloped area. It is also a relatively low-cost method for airport planning because comprehensive plans have to be up-dated as part of state periodic review requirements. During periodic review, local governments must take steps to

3-4

comply with requirements in the APR, including adoption of measures that ensure land use compatibility. Evaluation Sections 7, 10, 13, and 15 of the City of Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan address airport compatibility. These sections include policies targeted at reducing noise impacts to noise-sensitive land uses, establishing noise corridors to specify areas over which aircraft should fly, defining the level of service that the airport should not exceed, and defining density targets for develop-ment near the airport. An in-depth discussion of these elements can be found in Chapter One. In 2003, Washington County amended its Comprehensive Plan to address the state Airport Planning Rule. The most significant change was the addi-tion of Policy #42, Airports, stating that, “It is the policy of Washington County to protect the function and eco-nomic viability of existing public use airports, while ensuring public safety and compatibility between airport uses and surrounding land uses for public use airports and for private use air-ports identified by the Oregon Depart-ment of Aviation (DOA).” In addition, Policy 5, Noise, was amended to fur-ther address the general location of noise-sensitive uses in the vicinity of airports and coordination of land use designations near airports. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County have both recently updated their TSPs. These documents include policies that support airport develop-

ment. However, these documents do not address the Hillsboro Airport in depth, and both jurisdictions rely on the Airport Master Plan to compre-hensively address planning for the fa-cility. With the Port Commission adoption of the Hillsboro Airport Mas-ter Plan and supporting documenta-tion in early June 2005, the city and county will have adequate long-range planning in place to support airport development for the next 20 years. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. The Port should work with Washington County and the City of Hillsboro to ensure each comprehen-sive plan is reflective of the compati-bility measures needed for Hillsboro Airport. The Airport Layout Plan should be adopted as part of the City of Hillsboro and Washington County comprehensive plans. COORDINATION AGREEMENTS As stated in the Oregon Land Use Compatibility Guidebook (Guidebook) developed by the Oregon Department of Aviation, a coordination agreement is an agreement between multiple ju-risdictions and other public agencies that are impacted by an airport. This is the case with the Hillsboro Airport operations, which currently encom-passes both the City of Hillsboro and Washington County. A coordination agreement ensures that the effort to establish or preserve airport land use compatibility is efficient and effective. It also identifies responsibilities for

3-5

the implementation of other compati-bility measures, such as noise abate-ment programs and height restric-tions. Evaluation There is no Coordination Agreement between the City of Hillsboro, Wash-ington County, and the Port of Port-land to cooperatively manage airport planning and compatibility. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. A cooperative approach to com-patibility is necessary due to the multi-jurisdictional setting of Hills-boro Airport. A coordination agree-ment would define overall compatibil-ity goals and objectives and, more im-portantly, roles and responsibilities for establishing policies to improve and maintain compatibility, conduct plan-ning, and develop land uses near the airport. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES Urban growth boundaries (UGBs) are intended to provide a 20-year reserve of land for future urban development. They include lands that are, or can be, served by urban public facilities and services, and that are suitable and necessary for future urban expansion. The UGB at Evergreen Road is also the boundary between the City of Hillsboro and Washington County. It is a fairly dramatic separation of low-intensity uses (such as farming and

large-lot residential) from the urban development inside the city. Evaluation While the Portland Metro UGB is in place just north of the study area, it has not limited the development of in-compatible uses from encroaching into the vicinity of the Hillsboro Airport. In fact, UGB policies may be partially responsible for the high-density in-compatible development to the south and west of the airport as the UGB tightly controlled residential growth and expansion. Conversely, the UGB is also partially responsible for protecting the primary departure path for the airport. As noted in Chapter Two, over 90 percent of aircraft departures are conducted to the north and northeast of the airport. These departure paths are primarily over land not allowed for urban growth by the UGB (Runway 30) or areas formally in the UGB that are now being developed for compatible uses (Runway 2). The UGB near Hillsboro Airport is ex-pected to be under review by Metro in 2007. At that time, Metro may con-sider moving the UGB. There are cur-rently no specific plans for the use of the property should the UGB be changed, although discussion has been given to planning for compatible uses near the airport. Should the UGB be changed, compatible land uses will need to be planned for this area. The recently approved Measure 37 could allow incompatible development

3-6

not allowed by the UGB. Measure 37 creates a claim for compensation for the enactment or enforcement of a land use regulation if the land use regulation restricts the use of property and has the effect of reducing the fair market value. Under this measure, state and local governments have a choice to: 1) pay compensation to the landowner and continue to apply and enforce land use regulations; or 2) modify, remove, or not apply (“waive”) the regulation to allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner acquired the prop-erty. Should the city or county pursue option 2 described above and settle a compensation claim, it is possible for residential or other noise-sensitive land uses to be developed within the UGB. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. While the UGB has provided some level of protection from noise-sensitive land uses within the primary departure paths for the airport, it is likely that the UGB will change near the airport. As this land is annexed into the UGB and the City of Hillsboro from Washington County, it would be extremely beneficial to the airport if it were planned and developed for com-patible uses such as industrial devel-opment. Measure 37 could allow in-compatible land uses outside the UGB.

PROJECT REVIEW GUIDELINES Planning commissions, planning agen-cies, and local governing bodies are often required to use their own judg-ment when making decisions on com-munity development issues such as rezoning applications, variances, con-ditional use permit applications, sub-division applications and proposed public improvement projects. The ex-ercise of this discretion is constrained by the legal requirements of the appli-cable ordinances. Where opportunities remain for planning commissions, planning agencies, and governing bod-ies to use their own discretion in the development review process, it may be appropriate to adopt project review guidelines that ensure consideration of airport noise and safety compatibility issues in their evaluations. Evaluation The Port of Portland’s Aviation Plan-ning & Noise Management Depart-ment staffs receive notices of proposed land use actions, such as subdivisions, from local governments. These notices are reviewed to determine if the pro-posed development may have a com-patibility issue with aircraft operating at the airport. This may be due to the height of a proposed structure, a noise-sensitive use, landscaping that might result in a wildlife attractant, or the

3-7

subdivision’s proximity to the airport. Written testimony is prepared and, if necessary, delivered to the reviewing body (for example, a local govern-ment’s Planning Commission). In some cases, Port staff will request conditions of approval to mitigate the compatibility issue, such as noise dis-closure statements or avigation ease-ments. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. A checklist of airport land use compatibility criteria could be devel-oped, with recommendations for incor-poration into current review processes performed by city officials. This re-view process could be incorporated into any future coordination agree-ment. Policy Techniques Summary Exhibit 3A summarizes the results of the policy measures screening analy-sis. This analysis, using the color-coding system and criterion described earlier in this chapter, supports the conclusions and recommendations of the preceding text. Four specific recommendations have been developed for Hillsboro Airport considering the policy measures dis-cussed above. These include:

1. Update local government com-prehensive plan to reflect the Projected Long Term 55 DNL contour as the basis for noise compatibility planning.

2. Adopt elements required by OAR 660-013-0040 into local Transportation System Plan (TSPs).

3. Establish a coordination agree-ment to formally establish and preserve airport land compati-bility measures for Hillsboro Airport and identify responsi-bilities for implementation of compatibility measures. Coor-dination agreements would also require certain airport-related compatibility issues to be ad-dressed when UGB expansion is being considered.

4. Establish airport-related project review guidelines for develop-ment with discretionary review processes such as plan amend-ments and zone changes. De-termine a boundary within which the project review guide-lines would apply.

REGULATORY TECHNIQUES Regulatory techniques are land use and development controls established through local legislation that are in-tended to reduce potential airport noise and safety compatibility issues. These techniques include:

• Compatible Use Zoning • Airport Overlay Zoning • Airport Use Zoning • Development Regulations • Building Codes • Height Restrictions • Transfer of Development Rights • Environmental Zoning • Noise Disclosure Regulations

3-8

COMPATIBLE USE ZONING The most common regulatory tech-nique in airport compatibility plan-ning is to eliminate residential zoning from the airport impacted area. These parcels are then rezoned to a compati-ble land use such as industrial, com-mercial, or open space. In making rezoning decisions, the im-pacts of the proposed zoning on the ad-jacent areas must also be recognized. Problems can arise in situations where vacant land being considered for com-mercial or industrial zoning is near an established residential area. The residents may strongly object to the intrusion of non-residential uses into their part of the community. Another zoning technique is to use conventional zoning to promote airport compatibility to reduce the potential number of future residents by reduc-ing the permitted housing densities within the airport impacted areas. Evaluation Development related to airports is ad-dressed throughout the Hillsboro Zon-ing Ordinance (HZO). Most of the zon-ing districts do not directly address aircraft noise impacts on development for the Hillsboro Airport. However, the zones comply with the height limi-tations of state and federal airport regulations. The tallest building height allowed in the study area is 85 feet (in the M-P zone). Additionally, reflecting comprehensive plan policies, land zoned single-family residential will not be allowed to locate inside the

60 DNL contour. Also, reflecting city policy, the M-P and M-2 zones are re-quired to comply with current state air quality and noise statutes and rules as administered by the Oregon Depart-ment of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. Compatible use zoning is neces-sary to protect the primary departure routes for the airport should the UGB be changed. Future zoning should consider the ultimate/projected 55 DNL contour and maintaining com-patibility in the primary approach and departure paths. AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY OVERLAY ZONING Off-site airport overlay zoning is re-quired by the Airport Planning Rule (APR) (OAR 660-013-0070, 0080) and by the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) (OAR 660-012-0045(2)(c)). In general, overlay zones apply special standards or guidelines “over” the top of “base” zones, which remain un-changed. The purpose of an airport overlay zone is to promote land use compatibility in a specified vicinity of an airport through the application of special conditions or restrictions, or by limiting or prohibiting certain land uses. Limitations might apply to building height, uses that could be hazardous to airport navigation such as glare, as well as noise-sensitive uses such as residential. A model or-dinance for such an overlay zone (de-

04S

P12

-3A

-9/1

5/05

Exhibit 3ASCREENING ANALYSIS

POLICY MEASURES

Comprehensive Planning

Coordination Agreements

Urban Growth Boundaries

Airport-Related Project Review Guidelines



No direct cost to implement. Coordination agreements are valuable because they officially recognize the importance of coordination in working towards land use compatibility.

Could be administrative costs for amendments and changes to the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive planning is valuable because it defines long term land use patterns around the airport.

The local communities primary policy document for defining future land uses.

Coordination agreements between multiple agencies can ensure that the effort to establish or preserve airport land use compatibility is efficient and effective. Agreements identify roles and responsibilities for the implementation of other compatibility measures, such as noise abatement programs and height restrictions.

The UGB provides a 20-year reserve of land for future urban development. The UGB generally defines areas of low-density (most agricultural) uses from high-density urban uses. The UGB near Hillsboro Airport has maintained the primary departure corridors free of incompatible development. Expansion of the UGB along the Evergreen Road will likely be for industrial uses which would be compatible with airport uses. Measure 37 could allow incompatible development to occur outside the UGB.

Comprehensive planning is required by state law and has already been implemented.

Effective comprehensive planning goals can achieve balance between local governments goals, the Port of Portland's goals and community goals. Significant amendments to comprehensive plans require extensive public involvement.

The comprehensive plan defines future land use patterns 20 years into the future. It is a very proactive document.

This criterion looks at whether it is politically, socially, or financially feasible to implement the measure. For example, in order to be feasible the measure must be consistent with local, state, and federal law.

This criterion looks at whether the measure ensures or allows for a coordinated planning process between Washington County, City of Hillsboro, Metro, and the Port of Portland. Coordination is important so that adopted measures are implemented uniformly in the different jurisdictions.


The measure should minimize future increases of incompatible land uses.

While notice requirements for land use actions in Oregon counties are outlined under ORS 215.415 Sections (6) and (7), a coordination agreement would go further in defining roles and responsibilities.

Rated positive as coordinating development planning and implementation with the Port and local communities is the essential reason for the measure.

A coordination agreement would provide balance in terms of defining roles and responsibilities of the various agencies involved in maintaining airport-related land use compatibility.

Coordination agreements can be proactive when they apply to undeveloped areas, such as that currently north of the UGB in Washington County.

Yes. A cooperative approach to compatibility is necessary due to the multi-jurisdictional setting of Hillsboro Airport. Defines methods to include the Port in the planning process and defines goals, objectives, and roles and responsibilities.

No. There is likely future changes to the UGB near Hillsboro Airport. The 2005 change in the UGB in response to the LCDC remand will continue to protect the primary departure paths for the airport with the addition of industrial land. The 2007 UGB expansion is less certain as residential as well as industrial areas will be included. The City of Hillsboro is likely to support industrial development in this area however. Measure 37 may allow for incompatible land uses regardless of whether the UGB is expanded or not.

Yes. Should be incorporated into any future coordination agreements.

Include in CompatibilityStudy RecommendationsPOSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE

Neutral. Process is mandated by law. Metro has programmed cost for UGB review. Local jurisdictions are responsible for concept planning.

Rated neutral as the UGB near Hillsboro Airport is expected to be under review in 2005 and again in 2007. Changes in the UGB boundary in 2005 would change the open/agricultural land uses to industrial uses in the primary departure routes for the airport. While zoning may be compatible, Measure 37 may allow housing. The 2007 UGB change could include incompatible residential uses.

Informal review and consideration currently taking place between the Port, City of Hillsboro, and Washington. Formal guidelines could become part of the coordination agreement.

By state law, governmental coordination is required for any UGB changes. A coordination agreement could be used to include the Port’s need for compatibility in the consideration of any UGB changes.

Review guidelines apply to each local jurisdiction only and generally not coordinated actions.

UGB amendments indirectly address balance.

Project review guidelines create balance by allowing property in the vicinity of the airport to be put in productive community use while also developing for compatibility.

When rural areas are annexed into the UGB, concept planning, or a determination of the future land use and transportation system, is required. Therefore, it is a proactive measure.

Project review guidelines ensure development considers compatibility issues for the airport.

While each community adopts their own comprehensive plan based on local goals and objectives, comprehensive plans can address consistency/coordination between multiple jurisdictions like Metro, Hillsboro and Washington County, and even the Port of Portland.

Yes. The Port should work with local communities to ensure each Comprehensive Plan is reflective of the compatibility measures needed for Hillsboro Airport. The Airport Layout Plan should be adopted as part of the Hillsboro and Washington County comprehensive plans. The Airport Master Plan should be adopted as a supporting document.

Project review guidelines that ensure consideration of airport noise and safety compatibility measures in local jurisdiction development decisions.

No direct cost to implement. While compatibility is best defined when making zoning and land use decisions, it is also important to consider at the time of actual construction. Rated positive as it allows compatibility to be considered as a condition of development project approval.

EVALUATION CRITERIONFinancing/Value Feasibility Consistency/Coordination Balance Proactive

POLICY MEASURES

PORT OF PORTLAND

3-9

scribed below) is included as Appendix C to this report. The model overlay zone provides no-tice requirements and height limita-tions to avoid airspace obstructions and it recommends land use compati-bility measures relating to the follow-ing issues:

• Noise • Glare • Outdoor Lighting • Industrial Emissions (smoke,

dust, steam) • Communications Facilities and

Electrical Interference • New Residential Development

and Public Assembly Facilities Near Airports

• Landfills • Water Impoundments • Wetland Mitigation, Creation,

Enhancement and Restoration • Nonconforming Uses • Avigation Easements

To achieve land use compatibility, the model ordinance recommends that cer-tain land uses be either allowed, lim-ited, or prohibited in specific zones of airport influence including the airport direct impact area, the airport secon-dary impact area, the runway protec-tion zone, and approach surface (see Appendix B). Overlay zones may also specify interior noise levels if certain uses are allowed in concert with more stringent building codes. Evaluation A comprehensive off-site Airport Com-patibility Overlay Zoning district has

not been adopted by the City of Hills-boro or Washington County for Hills-boro Airport. The Washington County Development Code, Section 388, Pub-lic Use Airport Safety and Compatibil-ity Overlay zone, applies to Stark’s Twin Oaks Airport, not to Hillsboro Airport. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. The model ordinance language in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook should be considered as part of the adoption process for the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan. AIRPORT USE ZONING

In contrast to an airport overlay zone, an airport use zone applies to the air-port itself, including adjacent expan-sion areas. An airport use zone is a separate zoning district for the air-port, which has the advantage of cre-ating a distinct area of influence for the airport. It can give the airport a better opportunity to expand for air-port-dependent and related uses such as airport runways, hangars and ter-minals, fixed base operator facilities, flight instruction, aircraft servicing and maintenance, aircraft sales and rentals, and also airport-compatible industrial, commercial, or recreational activities. The City of Hillsboro does not currently have an airport use zone. Washington County does have a Pub-lic Use Airport Overlay District (County Development Code Section

3-10

387) but it applies to Stark’s Twin Oaks Airport, not to Hillsboro Airport. A model ordinance for a “Public Use Airport Zone” is included as an appen-dix to the Guidebook. It recommends a range of uses that can be permitted outright, permitted under prescribed conditions (i.e., if certain standards are met), or permitted as conditional uses within the Public Use Airport Zone. Evaluation An Airport Use zone that would allow certain uses outright on airport prop-erty has not been adopted by the City of Hillsboro or Washington County for Hillsboro Airport. The APR requires local governments to update local or-dinances for compliance at periodic re-view. However, the APR provisions addressing uses permitted at public airports do not apply to towered air-ports. Consequently, a decision to de-velop airport use zoning for the Hills-boro Airport is discretionary with the City of Hillsboro. Since this zoning only addresses allowable airport uses only, land uses adjacent to the airport use zone can still be incompatible. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. Airport use zoning can prevent conditional uses and gives certainty to adjacent land owners to future use of airport property. Consideration could be given to adopting the model ordi-nance included as an appendix to the

Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Development regulations set stan-dards for site planning, lot layout, and the design of utilities and public im-provements. They can encourage compatible development near an air-port by requiring public officials to consider aviation impacts during the development review process. These regulations could include noise at-tenuation requirements or specify the location and density of proposed de-velopments. Development regulations can help pro-tect the airport from aircraft noise-damage lawsuits while providing no-tice to potential buyers of nearby properties by requiring, as a condition of development approval, the dedica-tion of noise and avigation easements and non-suit covenants in high-noise areas. The development review process is an ideal time to provide noise disclosures, secure easements, and require the re-cording of covenants. In this way, subdivision regulations could be used to support airport compatibility over-lay zoning. Evaluation The City of Hillsboro does not cur-rently have development regulations that contain language specific to at-tenuating noise impacts.

3-11

Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. The airport overlay zone can bet-ter address compatibility issues. Lim-ited residential development opportu-nities remain within the study area. BUILDING CODES Building codes regulate the construc-tion of buildings, setting standards for materials and construction techniques to protect the health, welfare, and safety of residents. Codes address structural concerns, ventilation, and insulation, each of which can influence a building’s noise attenuation capa-bilities. Building codes commonly ap-ply to both new construction and ma-jor alterations. Evaluation The City of Hillsboro has adopted state building codes that cannot be changed locally. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. Local communities cannot change state building codes. HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS Restricting the height of objects (i.e., buildings, towers, and trees) is one of the primary elements for addressing airport land use compatibility and safety. Both the APR and TPR re-

quire that such standards be estab-lished. Height restrictions are used to preserve navigable airspace within the 14 CFR Part 77 “imaginary surfaces” in the airport vicinity. If an object or structure (i.e., building, tree, utility, or communications facility) penetrates any of these imaginary surfaces, it is considered to be an obstruction to air navigation. Part 77 forms the basis for these regulations and also requires notification to the FAA of proposed construction. Evaluation Currently, the City of Hillsboro and Washington County both impose air-port-related height limitations. The City of Hillsboro requires that, in gen-eral, buildings must comply with the 14 CFR Part 77 regulations regarding height, but the zoning code does not mention specific heights. In the City of Hillsboro’s Station Community Planning Areas (SCPA), the maximum building height requirements cur-rently defer to the 1993 Hillsboro Air-port Compatibility Study. It is rec-ommended that this section be up-dated upon adoption of the current Hillsboro Airport Compatibility Study. Section 137 of the Hillsboro Zoning Ordinance also addresses SCPAs, re-quiring maximum heights “to be in conformance with applicable provi-sions of the Airport Planning Rule (OAR 660 Division 13).” Each of the Washington County zones includes language requiring confor-mance with FAA regulations, stating that, “No structure or structural part shall exceed height standards estab-

3-12

lished for any airport in the county es-tablished in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Regulations ....” Additional height limitations are not needed, though the City of Hillsboro and Washington County should be aware of the poten-tial conflict between the specific height restrictions imposed by 14 CFR Part 77 and the implementation of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources). Specifically, trees that may be protected through local Goal 5 regulations may violate airport-related height restrictions. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. Height restrictions are required by state law to maintain a safe operat-ing environment for aircraft. How-ever, Statewide Planning Goal 5 may conflict with these height restrictions, as trees and other natural growth that may be protected through Goal 5 regu-lations may violate airport-related height restrictions. This conflict should be resolved in local regulations. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Land ownership includes a bundle of rights pertaining to use of the prop-erty. These include rights of access, mineral rights, limited rights to the airspace above the land, and rights to develop the land. Transfer of devel-opment rights (TDR) is based on the premise that each right has a market value. The rights can be sold without relinquishing the property.

The concept of transferring develop-ment rights was developed to preserve environmentally-important areas without having to buy them with pub-lic funds. The process begins by des-ignating sending and receiving zones. The sending zones are areas where environmental preservation and minimal development are desired. The receiving zones are areas where additional development is proffered. Development rights, measured in de-velopment density, are assigned by the zoning ordinance. The rights are pur-chased from landowners in sending zones. Developers in the receiving ar-eas can use the rights to build at higher densities than normally al-lowed by the zoning ordinance. In this way, the public can benefit from pre-serving environmentally-valuable land, the owner of that land can be paid for preserving it, and developers can reap greater profits. In rapidly growing areas with large amounts of vacant land, TDR can be an effective tool for airport land use compatibility planning. With minimal costs to the taxpayers, it can neatly deal with the problem of land within high-noise zones when there are no practical alternatives to residential development. Evaluation TDR programs have been relatively untested in the arena of airport land use compatibility. Programs are most commonly associated with the preser-vation of agricultural lands or other natural resources. Thus, this land use management technique has not been

3-13

implemented at the Hillsboro Airport or as part of the planning strategy at other airports in Oregon. TDR pro-grams are not considered to be effec-tive due to the already high densities for construction in communities due to the UGB. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. This is not used for airport com-patibility in Oregon due to the already high density land uses as a result of the UGB. ENVIRONMENTAL ZONING Special zoning regulations to preserve environmentally-sensitive areas or protect development from environ-mental hazards can also promote land use compatibility near airports. Floodplain overlay zoning, which re-stricts or prohibits development in all or part of the floodplain, is the most common form of environmental zon-ing. Other environmental zoning regulations may include steep slope zoning, which requires low develop-ment densities and special construc-tion standards, wetland preservation zoning limiting densities and the de-sign of drainage facilities, and ground-water recharge zones limiting building density and lot coverage. All can be used to restrict the development of noise-sensitive uses in environmen-tally-sensitive areas that are also im-pacted by aircraft noise.

Evaluation The City of Hillsboro zoning ordi-nances do not include environmental zoning districts that apply to airport noise. A similar result could be achieved with the use of airport over-lay zoning discussed previously. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. Limited, if any, opportunities ex-ist within the Hillsboro Airport study area. NOISE DISCLOSURE REGULATIONS Noise disclosure regulations, while not actually land use regulations, are in-tended to ensure that prospective buy-ers of new or existing property are in-formed that the property is or will be exposed to potentially disruptive air-craft noise. It is not uncommon around even the most active airports for newcomers to report having bought property without having been in-formed about airport noise levels. Some jurisdictions recommend disclo-sure of airport proximity as part of residential real estate transactions and lease or rental agreements for all residential property within the air-port’s environs (i.e., that area which can be more specifically defined). A common concern associated with this technique is that it may have the ef-

3-14

fect of “scaring off” potential home buyers and thus slow down the real estate market in areas that are within the required disclosure boundary. In 2004, the State of California enacted such legislation. California requires disclosure to take place in the follow-ing ways:

• At the time of land division no-tice, applicants must include in the public notice a specific no-tice disclosing that the property is within an airport influence area.

• Common interest development declarations recorded after January 1, 2004, must include this same notice.

• Disclosure companies and other experts who prepare natural hazard disclosures will be re-quired to include the notice in their reports, and such reports will be deemed "substituted dis-closures" in compliance with the Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement law.

Evaluations The City of Hillsboro currently re-quires noise disclosure statements as part of all land use approvals for new or existing properties within the fu-ture projected 60 DNL contour con-tained in the “most current adopted Airport Master Plan.” In addition, land use approvals within the future projected 55 DNL contour are to be conditioned to require disclosure of po-tential noise impacts from airport op-erations. Washington County cur-rently has no such policy in place.

Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. Consideration could be given by Washington County to developing a similar process to that of the City of Hillsboro for requiring noise disclosure statements for unincorporated Wash-ington County developments that fall inside the airport’s influence area. Regulatory Techniques Summary Exhibit 3B summarizes the results of the regulatory measures screening analysis. This analysis, using the color-coding system and criterion de-scribed earlier in this chapter, sup-ports the conclusions and recommen-dations of the preceding text. Of the nine regulatory measures ex-amined, five have been carried for-ward for inclusion in the compatibility study recommendations which are summarized in Chapter Four. Five specific recommendations have been developed for Hillsboro Airport consid-ering the regulatory measures dis-cussed above. These are:

1. Determine future compatible land use designations for areas of Washington County north of Evergreen Road that will apply upon annexation into the UGB.

2. Establish Airport Safety and Compatibility Overlay Zoning for Hillsboro Airport using the model overlay ordinance pro-vided in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook pub-lished by the Oregon Depart-ment of Aviation as a guide.

Airport Compatibility Overlay Zoning

Compatible Use Zoning

Airport Use Zoning

Airport-Related Subdivision Regulation

Building Codes for Noise Attenuation

Height Restrictions

Transfer of Development Rights

Airport-Related Environmental Zoning

Fair (Noise) Disclosure Regulations


04S

P12

-3B

-8/2

9/05

Exhibit 3BSCREENING ANALYSIS - REGULATORY MEASURES


No direct cost to implement. Since there is very little vacant land within the study area in the City of Hillsboro, there are not many opportunities for changes in zoning. Should the UGB boundaries change, it will be important to define compatible zoning in the primary approach and departure corridors.

This relates to the local communities implementing compatible zoning near the airport. Decisions on airport-related land uses, including plan amendments, can be tied to specific review guidelines and overlay zoning.

Ensuring compatible land uses in the airport vicinity is a requirement of the Airport Planning Rule. Rate neutral since the local community is given notice and the opportunity to participate in determining any zone changes or plan amendments.

Compatible use zoning applies to each local jurisdiction and is generally not a coordinated action. However, it is good practice for a County that might have land annexed into a neighboring City to notify them of any new zoning.

Compatible use zoning balances the needs of local government, the airport owner, and the property owner by allowing for open participation in discretionary land use decisions.

Zoning largely determines the land use pattern in the airport vicinity. Therefore, careful zoning for compatibility can effectively prevent future incompatible land uses.

No direct cost to implement. This measure has long term benefits and could be developed to address the redevelopment of existing parcels of land in the future and any future annexations of rural lands into the UGB.

An airport compatibility overlay zone applies to the land in the vicinity of the airport, not including the airport site. The purpose is to promote land use compatibility by limiting or prohibiting certain land uses and through the application of special development standards.

An Airport Compatibility Overlay zone is a requirement of the State Airport Planning Rule. Implementing this rule would make the local government consistent with state law.

This does not duplicate any existing land use measures. This zoning would require coordination between Metro, Washington County, City of Hillsboro, and Port of Portland.

Defining the types of land uses around the airport can create balance between community growth and livability issues, along with the need for the airport to fulfill its function as an important transportation link.

This measure could prevent future incompatible land uses.

Yes. The Land Use Compatibility Guidebook includes a sample Airport Compatibility Overlay zone that could be used for Hillsboro Airport.

No direct cost to implement. Address compatibility between the airport and any adjacent property uses. Value is limited for Hillsboro Airport since it does not address adjacent property where incompat-ibilities could still exist.

An airport use zone is a separate zoning district for the airport, which has the advantage of creating a distinct area of influence for the airport. However, land uses adjacent to the airport use zone can still be incompatible.

State law does not apply to towered airports such as Hillsboro Airport. However, this measure can eliminate conditional use permits.

Goal 2 requires coordination. Give adjacent land owners certainty over land use of airport property.

While this measure would not prevent incompatible development near the airport, it does give adjacent land owners notice of future uses of airport property.

Yes. Airport use zoning could prevent conditional uses and give certainty to future use of airport property.

No direct cost to implement. An airport overlay zone would be a much more efficient way of applying development standards to areas impacted by the airport.

Subdivision regulations set standards for site planning, lot layout, and the design of utilities and public improvements. They can encourage compatible development near an airport by requiring public officials to consider aviation impacts during the development review process. These regulations could include noise attenuation requirements or specify the location and density of proposed developments.

Building codes regulate the construction of buildings, setting standards for materials and construction techniques to protect the health, welfare, and safety of residents.

Amending subdivision regulations would duplicate the airport overlay zone.

Goal 2 requires coordination. Can be used to define land use densities and patterns in the area around the airport. However, limited residential development remains within the study area.

Can be used to proactively develop compatible land uses outside the UGB. However, very little vacant residential land exists in the vicinity.

No. The airport overlay zone would better address compatibility issues. It would also supersede any standards applying to areas impacted by the airport. It is not necessary to amend the City's subdivision regulations. Also, limited residential development remains within the study area.

No direct implementation costs. Measure already in place.

Restricting the height of objects (i.e., buildings, towers, trees) is one of the primary elements for addressing airport land use compatibility and safety.

Required by the Airport Planning Rule and Transportation Planning Rule. Height restrictions are already in place in the City and County.

Goal 2 requires coordination. The height restrictions already in place ensure a safe operating environment for aircraft.

Yes. Required by state law. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County should be aware of the potential conflict between the specific height restrictions imposed by 14 CFR Part 77 and the implementation of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources). Specifically, trees that may be protected through local Goal 5 regulations may violate airport-related height restrictions.

No direct cost to implement. Rated lower since the City of Hillsboro is mostly developed near the airport and there are not many opportunities for changes in zoning.

Special zoning regulations to preserve environmentally-sensitive areas (wetlands, wilderness area) or protect development from environmental hazards can also promote land use compatibility near airports.

Already several environmental/recreational areas established near the airport.

Changes to any environmental regulations would require coordination between Metro, the City and the County.

Can be an effective measure when natural conditions allow for this protection. However, many environmental areas are commonly used for recreational purposes which can sometimes be affected by airport activity.

Is effective in limiting incompatible uses.

No. Limited, if any, opportunities within the Hillsboro Airport study area.


This criterion looks at whether the measure ensures or allows for a coordinated planning process between Washington County, City of Hillsboro, Metro, and the Port of Portland. Coordination is important so that adopted measures are imple-mented uniformly in the different



POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE

No direct cost to implement. Ensures property owners are aware they are near an airport. Value is limited as it does not directly prevent potential impacts. However, buyer awareness can prevent potential unwanted impacts.

Fair disclosure regulations, while not actually land use regulations, are intended to ensure that prospective buyers of new or existing property are informed that the property is or will be exposed to potentially disruptive aircraft noise.

The City of Hillsboro has required as part of development conditions in the past.

This measure does not address government coordination/consistency.

Buyer awareness can prevent potential unwanted impacts as notification to potential residents with a sensitivity to aircraft noise may result in them choosing to locate in a different area.

Buyer awareness can prevent potential unwanted impacts as notification to potential residents with a sensitivity to aircraft noise may result in them choosing to locate in a different area.

Yes. Disclosure of the proximity to the airport is important for future land development.

Land ownership includes a bundle of rights pertaining to use of property. These include right of access, mineral rights, limited rights to the airspace above the land, and rights to develop the land. Transfer of development rights (TOR) is based on the premise that each right has a market value. The rights can be sold without relinquishing the property.

No.

Yes. Compatible use zoning is necessary to protect the primary departure routes for the airport should the UGB be changed. Future zoning should consider the ultimate/projected 55 DNL contour and maintaining compatibility in the primary approach and departure paths.


REGULATORY MEASURES

PORT OF PORTLAND

No.

The City of Hillsboro has adopted state building codes that cannot be changed locally.

Not used for airport compatibility in Oregon due to the already high density land uses as the result of the UGB.

Include in CompatibilityStudy Recommendations

The City of Hillsboro and Washington County should be aware of the potential conflict between the specific height restrictions imposed by 14 CFR Part 77 and the implementation of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources). Specifically, trees that may be protected through local Goal 5 regulations may violate airport-related height restrictions.

3-15

3. Establish an Airport Use Zone for the Hillsboro Airport, which would regulate on-site airport and airport-related industrial, commercial, and other uses that may occur within and beyond the 2025 planning horizon.

4. Amend development regulations to require noise disclosure statements and avigation and noise easements, if appropriate, to meet compatibility standards adopted by the City of Hillsboro or Washington County. Deter-mine the boundary in which these regulations apply.

5. Maintain existing height re-strictions within existing zoning ordinances and community de-velopment code. Update to re-flect the Airport Airspace Draw-ing included in the 2005 Airport Layout Plan.

EXPENDITURE TECHNIQUES Land use management techniques that include direct expenditures in-clude:

• Property Acquisition • Sound Insulation • Purchase of Noise and Aviga-

tion Easement • Purchase Assurance • Sales Assistance • Development Rights Acquisi-

tion PROPERTY ACQUISITION Fee simple acquisition of land is com-monly used by an airport property

owner to acquire property prior to its development for conflicting uses. It is also an effective method for resolving existing compatibility problems. With fee simple acquisition, an airport owner purchases designated property in its entirety (the structures as well as air and other land ownership rights), which allows them to develop or maintain the property in a manner compatible with the airport. FAA grants are sometimes available to help purchase priority properties (in accordance with the process outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5100-17, Change 3). It is recommended that the property owner hold fee simple ti-tle on all the property under the run-way approach and departure areas, including all land within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Evaluation Property acquisition was reviewed as part of the 1993 Hillsboro Airport Compatibility Study. The Port has made several land purchases for the protection of approach/departure areas and land for future aviation facility development. While these acquisi-tions have the indirect benefit of buff-ering the airport from incompatible uses, the purchases are seldom done for that reason alone. The Port of Portland currently owns almost 100% of the land lying beneath the airport’s RPZs and is encompassed by the 65 DNL and greater noise contours at Hillsboro Airport. Only very small portions in the airport’s northwest quadrant are not currently owned by the Port. This ownership pattern will

3-16

help reduce the level of incompatible land uses near the airport. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. The airport already owns all the property within the significant 65 DNL contour and all FAA-defined safety areas. Federal grant assistance is not likely outside the 65 DNL con-tour. SOUND INSULATION Dwelling units and other noise-sensitive buildings can be acoustically-treated, or sound-insulated, to reduce interior noise levels. Sound insulation can typically improve the outdoor-to-indoor noise ratio of a structure by five to ten decibels. Sound insulation may involve thermal insulation and weath-erproofing, the baffling of vents and mail slots, the installation of solid core wooden doors or foam-core steel doors, the installation of acoustical windows with special noise attenuation charac-teristics, and the installation and year-round use of air conditioning and ventilation systems. Fresh air circulation or air condition-ing systems are necessary if the full benefits of sound insulation are to be realized. These systems allow win-dows and doors to be closed through-out the year, thereby limiting the amount of noise experienced within the structure.

Evaluation The City of Hillsboro does not pres-ently have a residential sound insula-tion program to reduce airport noise impacts. Generally, sound insulation programs apply to areas in and above the 65 DNL noise contours, which is also the FAA threshold for residential land use compatibility. Currently, there are no residential units or other noise-sensitive uses within the 65 DNL noise contour. It is unlikely that federal funds would be available to offset the costs of implementing a sound insulation program for areas below the 65 DNL noise contour. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. The airport already owns all the property within the significant 65 DNL contour and all FAA-defined safety areas. Federal grant assistance is not likely outside the 65 DNL con-tour. PURCHASE OF AVIGATION EASEMENTS Acquiring avigation or “hazard” ease-ments is another effective and rela-tively affordable method to help en-sure land use compatibility in the air-port vicinity. The easement would be purchased by the Port of Portland to obtain rights to use or restrict the use of nearby land. For example, an easement might be used to compen-

3-17

sate a property owner for substantial noise impacts or to gain access to a site to remove obstructions, such as tree trimming. The easement might be purchased to allow flights over the property, not exceeding certain noise levels. One benefit of easements is that they are relatively permanent (they “run with the land”), while other land use control measures, such as zoning code modifications, can be

changed. It is also important that easements be monitored and enforced when property changes hands, to en-sure that new owners understand and respect the restrictions associated with the easement. As Table 3A from the Guidebook illustrates, three types of avigation/hazard easements are available depending on the situation and the type of land use control re-quired.

TABLE 3A Basic Types of Avigation and Hazard Easements

Easement Type Rights Acquired Model Avigation and Hazard Easement

1. Right of flight at any altitude above the approach surface. 2. Prevents any obstruction above approach surface. 3. Right to cause noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, and fuel particles. 4. Prohibits creation of electrical interference or unusual lighting. 5. Grants right-of-entry to remove trees, buildings, etc. above approach

surface. Limited Avigation Easement

1. Right of flight at any altitude above approach slope surface (20:1, 34:1, or 50:1).

2. Prevents any obstruction above approach slope surface. 3. Grants right-of-entry to remove any structure or growth above ap-

proach slope surface. Clearance Easement

1. Prohibits any structure, growth, or obstruction above approach slope surface (20:1, 34:1, or 50:1).

2. Right-of-entry to remove, mark, or light any structure or growth above approach slope surface.

Source: Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook

Evaluation To ensure safety and reduce hazards, the Port has obtained avigation ease-ments for the Hillsboro Airport. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations Yes. Where possible, the Port may want to consider opportunities for pur-chasing additional avigation ease-ments to protect the operational safety of the airport. Consideration could be

given to comparing current easements with the model avigation and hazard easements included as an appendix to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook. PURCHASE ASSURANCE Purchase assurance programs are in-tended to assure homeowners in noise-impacted areas that they will be able to sell their property for fair market value. Generally, such programs ap-ply to areas within and above the 65

3-18

DNL noise contour. The airport pro-prietor would acquire the property if the homeowner was unable to sell it. The airport would then sell the home and retain an avigation easement af-ter making sound insulation im-provements. Purchase improvements are most ap-propriate where there is a widespread concern that homeowners might have difficulty selling homes because of noise intrusion. They are also appro-priate where the noise levels are not so severe as to make the neighborhood unlivable, or where it is impractical or otherwise inappropriate to acquire and clear neighborhoods. A purchase assurance program allows the airport to address the concerns of people who are very annoyed by air-craft noise and who desire to leave the neighborhood without financial loss. Evaluation The Port of Portland does not have a purchase assurance program related to Hillsboro Airport. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. There are no residential proper-ties within the 65 DNL noise contours, which makes it unlikely that such a program will be needed in the future.

SALES ASSISTANCE A sales assistance program supple-ments any bona fide purchase offer up to an amount equal to the fair market value of the property. These programs are typically structured like a pur-chase assurance program, except that the airport never takes title to the property. The airport guarantees the property owner of receiving the ap-praised value, or some increment thereof, regardless of the final sale price that is negotiated with the buyer. In order to prevent collusion between the buyer and seller, to the detriment of the airport, the airport must approve the listing price for the home and any reduction of that price. In return for participation in the pro-gram, the airport could require the property owners to sign an avigation easement. Evaluation Hillsboro Airport does not have a sales assistance program for residential properties near the airport. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. There are no residential proper-ties within the 65 DNL noise contours, which makes it unlikely that such a program will be needed in the future.

3-19

DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ACQUISITION As discussed previously, land owner-ship involves a bundle of rights asso-ciated with a piece of property that al-low the owner to develop it to the ex-tent permitted by government regula-tions such as zoning, health and safety laws, and environmental laws. A property owner can sell the develop-ment rights to a piece of property. A similar legal instrument is a restric-tive land use easement. Purchase of this type of easement can extinguish the rights to develop the property, rather than transfer them to another owner. This distinction is important when the intent is to totally prevent the possibility of future development. The purchase of development rights of restrictive land use easements is ap-propriate when there is insufficient legal justification to use zoning to pre-vent non-compatible land uses or where there is strong local opposition to the use of zoning. Purchase of de-velopment rights can assure that in-compatible development is not allowed while keeping the property in private ownership and in productive use. Evaluation Hillsboro Airport does not have a de-velopment rights acquisition program. Include in Compatibility Study Recommendations No. There are no residential proper-ties within the 65 DNL noise contours, which makes it unlikely that such a program will be needed in the future.

Expenditure Techniques Summary Exhibit 3C summarizes the results of the expenditure measures screening analysis. This analysis, using the color-coding system and criterion de-scribed earlier in this chapter, sup-ports the conclusions and recommen-dations of the preceding text. Of the six regulatory measures exam-ined, one has been carried forward for inclusion in the compatibility study recommendations which are summa-rized in Chapter Four. The specific recommendation developed for Hills-boro Airport considering the expendi-ture measures discussed above is as follows:

1. Acquire noise and avigation easements as needed to ensure land use compatibility.

SUMMARY There are a variety of preventative and corrective techniques available to the City of Hillsboro, Washington County, and the Port of Portland re-lated to the Hillsboro Airport to help ensure land use compatibility. A com-bined approach that includes policy, regulatory, and expenditure tech-niques will provide the widest range of opportunities to improve compatibility of the airport with the surrounding community. Such an approach is also likely to be the most successful, since much of the property in the vicinity of the Hillsboro Airport is inside the UGB and built-out with residential uses.

3-20

(Page left blank intentionally)

04S

P12

-3A

-8/1

9/05

Exhibit 3CSCREENING ANALYSIS

EXPENDITURE MEASURES

Property Acquisition

Sound Insulation

Avigation Easement Purchase

Purchase Assurance



There can be high administrative and construction costs for the airport owner associated with implementing a sound insulation program.

This measure is costly for the airport owner to implement. However, in the case of Hillsboro Airport, the Port of Portland already owns the land within the DNL 65 contour and within all FAA surfaces.

An airport property owner can purchase property in its entirety in order to ensure that it is developed and maintained with compatible land uses. It can also be an effective method for resolving existing compatibility problems.

Dwelling units and other noise-sensitive buildings can be acoustically-treated or sound-insulated to reduce interior noise levels.

Avigation or "hazard" easements would be purchased by the Port of Portland to obtain rights to use or restrict the use of nearby land.

Does not apply. Does not directly address balance. It also takes the property off the tax roles, so the local government loses existing tax revenue.

This measure proactively eliminates incom-patible land uses.


This criterion looks at whether the measure ensures or allows for a coordinated planning process between Washington County, City of Hillsboro, Metro, and the Port of Portland. Coordination is important so that adopted measures are implemented uniformly in the different jurisdictions.



Funding for sound insulation programs is uncertain. Though federal grants are normally available, they are not likely for properties outside the 65 DNL contour.

Does not apply. Does not directly address balance. However, it does reduce interior noise levels.

This measure lessens the impact on incompatible land uses, and can be proactive or reactive.

No. The airport already owns all the property within the significant 65 DNL contour and all FAA safety areas. Federal grant assistance is not likely outside the 65 DNL contour.

Yes. Some easements may be needed in the future to ensure obstruction protection.

No. There are no residential properties in the 65 DNL contour, which makes it unlikely that such a program is needed in the future.

Include in CompatibilityStudy RecommendationsPOSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE POSITIVENEUTRALNEGATIVE

While costly to implement, the value is positive. The easement is not as expensive as land acquisition and the easement becomes permanent with the land.

Funding for the purchase of avigation easements is uncertain. Though federal grants are normally available, they are not likely for properties outside the 65 DNL contour.

Funding for purchase assurance programs is uncertain. Though federal grants are normally available, they are not likely for properties outside the 65 DNL contour.

Does not apply.

Does not apply.

This measure can prevent potential unwanted impacts as property owners are notified of their proximity to the airport and of measures put in place for compatibility.

Purchase assurance addresses the property owner's needs, the jurisdictions' needs, and the airport owner's needs.

If implemented, the purchase of avigation easements by the Port of Portland would be a proactive way to eliminate incompatible land uses.

A purchase assurance program would proactively make it more attractive to own land near the airport.

No. The airport already owns all the property within the significant 65 DNL contour and all FAA safety areas. Federal grant assistance is not likely outside the 65 DNL contour.

Purchase assurance programs are intended to assure homeowners in noise-impacted areas that they will be able to sell their property for fair market value. Generally, such programs apply to areas within and above the 65 DNL noise contour.

Rate low as it is costly to implement. The airport already owns all the property within the significant 65 DNL contour and all FAA safety areas.

Sales Assistance No. There are no residential properties in the 65 DNL contour, which makes it unlikely that such a program is needed in the future.

Funding for sales assistance is uncertain. Though federal grants are normally available, they are not likely for properties outside the 65 DNL contour.

Does not apply. Does not directly address balance. Similar to purchase assurance, a sales assistance program would make it more attractive to own land near the airport.

A sales assistance program supplements any bona fide purchase offer up to an amount equal to the fair market value of the property.

Very costly to implement. The airport already owns all the property within the significant 65 DNL contour and all FAA safety areas.

Development Rights Acquisition No. There are no residential properties in the 65 DNL contour, which makes it unlikely that such a program is needed in the future.

Funding for the acquisition of development rights related to Hillsboro Airport is unlikely. Though federal grants are normally available, they are not likely for properties outside the 65 DNL contour.

Does not apply. Development rights acquisition does balance needs as it allows the private property owner to be compensated for limiting incompatible land uses on certain properties.

This measure has the potential to eliminate incompatible land uses.

Land ownership involves a bundle of rights associated with a piece of property that allows the owner to develop it to the extent permitted by government regulations such as zoning, health and safety laws, and environmental laws. A property owner can sell the development rights to a piece of property.

The acquisition of development rights can be a costly way to limit incompatible development.


EXPENDITURE MEASURES

PORT OF PORTLAND

Funding for property acquisition around the Hillsboro Airport is unlikely. Though federal grants are normally available, they are not likely for properties outside the 65 DNL contour. It is not necessary, however, because the Port of Portland already owns the land within the DNL 65 contour and within all FAA surfaces.

Chapter Four

COMPATIBILITYRECOMMENDATIONS

PORT OF PORTLAND

4-1

CHAPTER FOUR PORT OF PORTLAND

The updated Compatibility Study for Hillsboro Airport includes measures to abate aircraft noise, control land development, mitigate the impact of noise on non-compatible land uses, and implement and update the program.

The objective of the compatibility planning process thus far has been to improve the compatibility between aircraft operations and noise-sensitive land uses in the area, while allowing the airport to continue to serve its role in the community, region, state, and nation. This chapter has two elements that are aimed at satisfying this objective.

•

•

COMPATIBILITYRECOMMENDATIONS

The Land Use Management Element includes measures to moderate noise impact on future land use development in the airport environs evaluated in Chapter Three, Land Use Measures.

The Aviation Operational Management Element includes those noise abatement policies and procedures arising from the consideration of a full range of potential noise abatement measures evaluated in Chapter Two, Aviation Operational Measures. This section also includes those procedures and documents for implementing the recommended noise abatement measures, monitoring the progress of the program and updating the compatibility study.

4-2

LAND USE MANAGEMENT These land use recommendations fo-cus on limiting further incompatible developments in areas north of the Hillsboro Airport. Over 90 percent of aircraft departing Hillsboro Airport do so to the northwest or northeast off Runway 30 and Runway 2, respec-tively. Currently, the extended depar-ture paths for these two runways in-clude a mixture of open space, com-mercial/industrial land uses, and ar-eas of low-density residential use. The existing urban growth boundary (UGB), which extends along Ever-green Road north of the airport, has provided some protection for these primary departure paths in the past by limiting noise-sensitive develop-ment. However, changes to the UGB are expected to be considered in 2006 and 2007. This could lead to future urban development in this area. It is essential that effective land use meas-ures be put in place for UGB expan-sion that recognizes and preserves compatible operational corridors for Hillsboro Airport, should the UGB be expanded. This is essential to ensur-ing compatibility for the majority of departure operations. While the current UGB has limited noise-sensitive development within the primary departure corridors of Hillsboro Airport, it has, to a certain extent, contributed to the high-density development surrounding the airport to the south, west, and east. These areas of high-density residential de-velopment have been cause for the ma-jority of recent airport operational and community conflicts and concern.

Measure 37, approved by Oregon vot-ers in May 2004, may also play a role in airport compatibility planning. This measure allows some long-time property owners to exercise the same development rights they had at the time they purchased their land. The implementation of Measure 37 will need to be closely monitored by the Port of Portland since it could allow incompatible noise-sensitive develop-ment inside or outside of the UGB. There are only approximately 46 acres of undeveloped residential land (with the development potential for ap-proximately 1,200 units) within the Hillsboro portion of the study area as defined in Chapter One. The Wash-ington County portion of this study area contains areas of open space, ag-ricultural uses, and some residential development, as it is currently outside of the UGB. It is important that Washington County consider the op-eration of the airport in any future de-velopment in these areas. Noise dis-closures, the granting of avigation easements, and construction stan-dards that reduce interior noise levels can improve compatibility with air-craft operations. The recommended land use compati-bility measures for the Hillsboro Air-port study area are presented on the following pages and summarized on Exhibit 4A. Included on the exhibit is a brief description of each recom-mended measure, the proposed timing of implementation, and the entity or entities responsible for implementing each measure. The Short Term period refers to the first five years of the pro-gram (2006-2010), the Intermediate

04S

P12

-4A

-9/1

4/05

Exhibit 4ALAND USE MANAGEMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS

ELEMENT TIMINGLEAD

RESPONSIBILITY

NextComprehensivePlan Update

City of HillsboroWashington County

Short Term Port of PortlandCity of HillsboroWashington CountyMetro

Port of PortlandCity of HillsboroWashington County

Short Term

Next UGBReview

Washington CountyCity of HillsboroMetro

Short toIntermediatePeriod

Short toIntermediatePeriod

Washington CountyCity of Hillsboro

Washington CountyCity of Hillsboro

On-going Washington CountyCity of Hillsboro

Update local government Comprehensive Plans to reflect the Projected Long Term 55 DNL contour and study area in this document as the basis for noise compatibility planning.

Maintain existing height restrictions within existing zoning ordinances and community development code. Update to reflect the Airport Airspace Drawing included in the 2005 Airport Layout Plan.

Amend land use and development regulations to establish noise disclosure requirements, and avigation noise and overflight easements, if appropriate, to meet compatibility standards adopted by the City of Hillsboro or Washington County. Determine the boundary in which these regulations would apply.

Establish Airport Safety and Compatibility Overlay Zoning for Hillsboro Airport using the model overlay ordinance provided in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook published by the Oregon Department of Aviation as a guide.

Establish airport-related review guidelines for development with discretionary review processes such as plan amendments and zone changes. Determine a boundary within which the project review guidelines would apply.

Determine future compatible land use designations for areas of Washington County north of Evergreen Road that will apply upon annexation into the UGB.

Establish a coordination agreement to formally preserve airport land compatibility measures for Hillsboro Airport and identify responsibilities for implementation of compatibility measures. Coordination agreements would also require certain airport-related compatibility issues to be addressed when UGB expansion is being considered.

1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

8.

9.

On-going Port of PortlandAcquire noise and avigation easements as needed to ensure land use compatibility.

10.

KEY: UGB - Urban Growth Boundary

PORT OF PORTLAND

Upon approval ofthe ALP by theFAA

City of HillsboroWashington County

Adopt elements required by OAR 660-013-0040 into local Transportation System Plans (TSPs)

2.

Short Term Port of PortlandCity of HillsboroWashington County

Establish an Airport Use Zone for the Hillsboro Airport, which would regulate on-site airport and airport-related industrial, commercial, and other uses that may occur within and beyond the 2025 planning horizon.

7.

4-3

Term refers to the next five year pe-riod (2011-2015) and ), and the Long Term period comprises years 10 through 20 (2016 through 2025). LAND USE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Update local government Com-

prehensive Plans to reflect the projected Long Term 55 DNL contour and study area in this document as the basis for noise compatibility planning.

Description. Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-035-0045, Noise Con-trol Program for Airports, addresses the Oregon Department of Environ-mental Quality responsibilities for regulating noise. This rule establishes that noise-sensitive land uses should not occur within the 65 Day-Night Noise Level (DNL) contour. As de-tailed in Chapter One, no noise-sensitive land uses occur in the exist-ing or projected 65 DNL contour. However, this rule also recognizes that incompatibilities can occur outside the 65 DNL and that the 55 DNL contour should be mapped and considered in land use decisions. The projected Long Term 55 DNL contour should be used as the Port considers develop-ment of the parallel runway, the shift of Runway 2-20 to the northeast, a projected increase in operational lev-els, and anticipated changes in air-craft mix to include a greater percent-age of business aircraft use. These physical developments are not consid-ered in the existing (Year 2003) noise contours but are in the Long Term 2025 contours.

Implementation Actions. This policy would be established independently by the City of Hillsboro and Washington County through amendments to their respective comprehensive plans. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected to occur between 2006 and 2010 during an update to the City of Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan and Washington County Comprehensive Plan/Transportation Plan. 2. Adopt elements required by

OAR 660-013-0040 into local Transportation System Plans (TSPs).

Description. This measure includes adopting the elements required by OAR 660-013-0040 including policies, maps, needs analysis, and other re-quirements into City and County TSPs. Most of this information is in-cluded in the 2005 Hillsboro Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Implementation Actions. City and County would individually adopt ele-ments required by OAR 660-013-0040 including policies, maps, needs analy-sis, and other requirements as a sup-porting document to their TSPs. The ALP would be adopted individually by the City of Hillsboro and Washington County through an amendment to their respective TSP. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected to occur between 2006 and 2010.

4-4

3. Establish a coordination agreement to formally estab-lish and preserve airport land compatibility measures for Hillsboro Airport and identify responsibilities for implemen-tation of compatibility meas-ures. Coordination agreements would also require certain airport-related compatibility issues to be addressed when UGB expansion is being con-sidered.

Description. The Oregon Depart-ment of Aviation recommends the use of coordination agreements to define land use compatibility planning roles, responsibilities, and measures for an airport, especially an airport such a Hillsboro Airport, which is located within a multi-jurisdictional setting. A coordination agreement would formal-ize many of the ongoing informal coor-dination and notification processes that currently take place between the Port, the City of Hillsboro, Washing-ton County, and Metro, and also pro-vide detail on specific compatibility measures. Implementation Actions. The Port would initiate the development of a coordination agreement with the City of Hillsboro, Washington County, and Metro. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected to occur between 2006 and 2010. 4. Establish airport-related re-

view guidelines for develop-ment with discretionary re-

view processes such as plan amendments and zone changes. Determine a bound-ary within which the project review guidelines would ap-ply.

Description. Situations may arise from time to time where proposals are filed for development near the airport that may change existing uses or zon-ing. The adoption of special project review criteria specifically addressing airport land use compatibility needs would provide guidance to land use decision-makers as they review project proposals. Implementation Actions. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County would adopt formal airport-related re-view guidelines for Hillsboro Airport. This may include the entire airport study area depicted on Exhibit 1A in Chapter One. Discretion on the area subject to these review guidelines is reserved until after the City of Hills-boro and Washington County have implemented Compatible Overlay Zon-ing. The boundaries of Compatible Overlay Zoning are not known at this time. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected to occur between 2006 and 2010. 5. Determine future compatible

land use designations for ar-eas of Washington County north of Evergreen Road that will apply upon annexation into the UGB.

4-5

Description. Changes to the UGB may be considered as soon as 2007. Should the UGB be expanded, it is imperative that compatible land uses be considered since over 90 percent of departures currently occur to the northwest or northeast of Hillsboro Airport using Runway 30 and Runway 2, respectively. Implementation Actions. This in-volves a cooperative planning effort between the City of Hillsboro, which would take jurisdiction over any prop-erty outside the UGB, Washington County, which currently could prevent noise-sensitive land uses that occur through a Measure 37 application, and Metro when allowing the change to the UGB. Timing. During the next UGB review which may be as soon as 2006. 6. Establish an Airport Safety

and Compatibility Overlay Zone for Hillsboro Airport us-ing the model overlay ordi-nance provided in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook published by the Oregon Department of Avia-tion as a guide.

Description. The Airport Planning Rule (OAR 660-013-0070, 0080) and the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0045(2)(c)), require an airport overlay zone that promotes safety and land use compatibility in a specified vicinity of an airport. These state rules also require the application of special conditions or restrictions by

limiting or prohibiting certain land uses. Since this is overlay zoning, cer-tain conditions (such as outdoor light-ing, glare) can be placed on existing uses and limitation area placed on any future changes to those land uses. Implementation Actions. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County will need to individually develop and adopt an Airport Safety and Compati-bility Overlay Zone. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected to occur between 2006 and 2010 and perhaps beyond. 7. Establish an Airport Use Zone

for the Hillsboro Airport, which would regulate on-site airport and airport-related in-dustrial, commercial, and other uses that may occur within and beyond the 2025 planning horizon.

Description. Airport Use Zoning for Hillsboro Airport would be a separate zoning district that only applies to the airport itself and defines specific air-port-dependent and related uses that could occur on the airport. The Air-port Use Zone would require confor-mance with the Airport Safety and Compatibility Overlay Zone described earlier. A model Airport Use Zone that is consistent with federal and state law is provided in the Oregon Land Use Compatibility Handbook. Implementation Actions. The City of Hillsboro would adopt an Airport Use Zone for Hillsboro Airport.

4-6

Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected to occur between 2006 and 2010. 8. Amend development regula-

tions to establish noise disclo-sure requirements as well as avigation noise and overflight easements, if appropriate, to meet compatibility standards adopted by the City of Hills-boro or Washington County. Determine the boundary in which these regulations would apply.

Description. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County would amend their respective land use and devel-opment regulations to support the relevant requirements of its Airport Safety and Compatibility Overlay Zone. This would apply to all new de-velopment and will ensure that these issues are addressed even if no rezon-ing actions are required prior to land use approval. Implementation Actions. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County would adopt revised land use regula-tions. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected to occur between 2006 and 2010 and perhaps beyond. 9. Maintain existing height re-

strictions within existing zon-ing ordinances and commu-nity development code. Up-date to reflect the Airport Air-

space Drawing included in the 2005 Airport Layout Plan.

Description. Both the City of Hills-boro and Washington County should strengthen limits on the height of ob-jects near the airport to ensure the safe operation of aircraft. While the Airport Safety and Compatibility Overlay Zone can address height limi-tations within the boundaries of the Overlay zone, height restrictions are generally considered for an area much larger than would be considered in the overlay zoning. The FAA recommends height and hazard zoning based upon 14 CFR Part 77. The imaginary sur-faces identified in Part 77 extend for more than two (2) miles from the air-port’s six (6) existing and proposed runway ends and helipad operating surfaces. The 2005 Airport Layout Plan (ALP) includes a new runway, eastern helipad, and runway exten-sion that change the airport airspace environment for the airport and the area that should be considered for height and hazard protection. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County should use the Airport Air-space Drawing in the 2005 ALP draw-ing set as a basis for considering height limitation surrounding the air-port. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County should be aware of the poten-tial conflict between the specific height restrictions imposed by 14 CFR Part 77 and the implementation of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources). Specifically, trees that may be protected through local Goal 5 regulations may violate airport-related height restrictions.

4-7

Implementation Actions. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County would adopt the Airport Airspace Drawing as contained in the approved 2005 Airport Layout Plan as the basis for determining the location of future height restrictions. Timing. This is an existing measure already being implemented. 10. Acquire avigation easements

as needed to ensure land use compatibility.

Description. While the Port cur-rently owns almost all property within the 65 DNL contour for Hillsboro Air-port, the Port may consider it neces-sary in the future to acquire avigation easements to protect the operating en-vironment of the airport. This could include easements that allow the Port to maintain trees in compliance with 14 CFR Part 77 height limitations. Implementation Actions. The Port would purchase avigation easements as needed. Timing. To be implemented as needed. AVIATION OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT This section describes both existing and new measures recommended to abate aircraft noise emissions. Each

aviation operational measure is sum-marized on Exhibit 4B. Included on the exhibit is a brief description of each recommended measure, the pro-posed timing of measure implementa-tion, and the entity or entities respon-sible for implementing each measure. The Short Term period refers to the first five years of the program (2006-2010), the Intermediate Term refers to the next five-year period (2011-2015), finally the Long Term period com-prises years 10 through 20 (2016 through 2025). Any of the potential noise abatement measures described within this chap-ter would be voluntary and the pilot would have the sole discretion to com-ply with these measures. According to 14 CFR Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, pilots are granted the authority to determine the safe operation of their aircraft. The role of the Port’s Noise Management Office is to educate pilots about these recom-mended measures, track compliance, and act as an advocate in promoting the use of these procedures among airport tenants and airport users (both those based at the airport and those that frequent it on a regular basis). The approval and implementation of any of the noise abatement procedures included in the following text will need to be done with concurrence of the FAA. The Port will need to initiate the concurrence with the FAA by coor-dinating with the FAA Northwest Mountain Region Airports District Of-fice.

4-8

AVIATION OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Encourage use of thrust cut-

back after departure for jet aircraft. NBAA close-in pro-cedure most applicable for de-partures.

Description. The Port should ac-tively encourage jet operators to use the National Business Aviation Asso-ciation (NBAA) close-in noise abate-ment departure procedure or equiva-lent quiet-flying procedures developed by aircraft manufacturers. The NBAA close-in procedure involves the man-agement of thrust, flap settings, speed, and climb rate to reduce noise quickly after takeoff (a complete de-scription of the procedure can be found in Chapter Two). Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the “Fly Friendly” program publica-tions such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Direc-tory, and information signs and post-ers located in public areas of the air-port. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010. This recom-mendation must first receive concur-rence from the FAA to ensure it is consistent with federal law. 2. Aircraft should avoid unnec-

essary overflight of the urban

residential areas below 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL).

Description. The Port should con-tinue to encourage pilots to maintain higher altitudes when transitioning over the urban areas near the airport. This recommendation is a component of the existing “Fly Friendly” program for the airport and included in the ex-isting Pilot’s Guide and on the Port web page. Maintaining an altitude 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2,000 feet of the flight path is stated in 14 CFR Part 91.119, Mini-mum Safe Altitudes: General; it there-fore, is a requirement that all pilots must comply with. Implementation Actions. Since this is an existing policy, no specific im-plementation actions are necessary. The Port should continue to reflect this policy in the “Fly Friendly” pro-gram and in future published Pilot’s Guides. Timing. It is recommended that this existing policy continue. 3. Construct high-speed exits on

Runway 30 as depicted on the 2005 Airport Layout Plan to encourage pilots to limit the use of reverse thrust after landing.

Description. Reverse thrust is a pro-cedure which a pilot can elect to use or not use after landing his or her air-craft. The procedure involves the use of reverse thrust to slow the aircraft but it can also increase noise emis-

04S

P12

-4B

-9/1

5/05

ELEMENT TIMINGLEAD

RESPONSIBILITY ELEMENT TIMINGLEAD

RESPONSIBILITY

Short Term Port through the NoiseManagement Office

Encourage use of thrust cutback after departure for jet aircraft. NBAA close-in procedure most applicable for departures.

1.

On-going Port through the NoiseManagement Office

Aircraft should avoid unnecessary overflight of the urban residential areas below 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL).

2.

Short Term Port through the NoiseManagement Office andPilots

Construct high speed exits on Runway 30 as depicted on the 2005 Airport Layout Plan to encourage pilots to limit the use of reverse thrust after landing.

3.


Continue the use of Runway 30 (and Runway 30L after construction of the parallel runway) as the preferred departure runway.

4.


Port through the NoiseManagement Office

Runway 2-20 closed to touch-and-go landings between 2200 (10:00 p.m.) and 0600 (6:00 a.m.).

8.


Request aircraft departing Runway 2 to maintain runway heading until reaching Evergreen Road.

15.


Request aircraft maintain runway heading until reaching 1,000 ft. AGL for departures from Runway 12 (Runways 12L and 12R once the parallel runway is constructed) and Runway 20.

16.

On-going Port/FAA/HillsboroAviation, Inc.

Maintain priority use of helicopter patterns as defined in the November 1, 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (see Table 4A).

9.

Short TermRequest aircraft departing Runway 30 (Runway 30L and 30R after construction of the parallel runway) under visual conditions to maintain runway heading until reaching N.E. Jackson School Road.

12.

Port through the NoiseManagement Office

Short TermRequest aircraft departing Runway 30 under instrument conditions to maintain runway heading until reaching two nautical miles (as measured by distance measuring equipment [DME]) from the localizer antenna.

13.

FAA


Continue the use of right traffic patterns for Runway 2 and Runway 30.17.

Long TermRequest the FAA change the Farmington Three Departure Procedure to limit the left turn after departure on Runway 30 until aircraft have reached two nautical miles (as measured by distance measuring equipment [DME]) from the localizer antenna.

14.

On-goingContinue limiting the use of Runway 20 for departure and Runway 2 for arrival. Runway 2-20 should only be used when the wind is 10 knots or greater from a direction that is between 170 degrees and 230 degrees or 350 degrees and 050 degrees.

6.


Port through the NoiseManagement OfficeFAA by clearance

Continue limiting the use of Runway 12 for jet departures. Do not use Runway 12 for jet departures during the hours between 2000 (8:00 p.m.) to 0900 (9:00 a.m.) except when wind conditions are between 090 degrees clockwise to 150 degrees (inclusive) at 10 knots or more. When the tower is open, requests for the use of Runway 12 will be considered for a Lifeguard flight or other operation requiring priority handling, and the pilot requests Runway 12 for departure and if an undue delay will be incurred during periods that the Hillsboro Tower is unable to provide visual separation from opposite direction traffic due to restricted visibility conditions.

5.

Establish a maintenance run-up policy. Short Term Port through the NoiseManagement Office

22.

Relocate the maintenance run-up area north of the Runway 20 end as shown in the 2005 Master Plan.

IntermediateTerm

Port23.

Install radar coverage to the surface at Hillsboro Airport. IntermediateTerm

FAA26.

Monitor noise abatement compliance, enhancing with flight tracking once radar coverage is available at Hillsboro Airport.

On-going Port27.

Maintain permanent noise monitoring system to monitor noise abatement compliance. On-going Port28.

Maintain the system for receiving, analyzing, tracking and responding to noise complaints.

On-going Port29.

Establish a standing advisory committee of interested citizens and tenants to regularly review and discuss airport issues with Port staff.

Short Term Port31.

On-going PortContinue the "Fly Friendly" Program. Implement the following to notify pilots of the noise abatement program:a)

b)c)d)

e)

f)

Distribution of a printed Pilots Guide to include the noise abatement policies established in this study. Provide separate publications for helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.Inclusion of these noise abatement policies in FAA's Airport/Facility directory.Inclusion of these noise abatement policies on the Port's web page.Post informational signs and posters in public areas at the airport identifying the noise abatement program.Conduct meetings with pilots to discuss safety and noise abatement procedures at the airport.Production of pilot educational materials in a variety of formats to educate pilots about the noise abatement program.

30.

Short Term PortEstablish a public outreach program to discuss the noise abatement program with the general public to raise awareness and ensure potential residents near the airport are aware of the location of the airport and the efforts undertaken for improved compatibility. Elements could include:a)b)

c)

Printed publications such as brochures or newsletters.Public information meetings with homeowners' association, citizen participation organizations (CPOs), civic groups, local governmental meetings, etc.Meetings with representatives from the real estate industry.

32.

Exhibit 4BAVIATION OPERATIONAL

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

PORT OF PORTLAND

IntermediateTerm

PortRelocate the Charlie Pattern and landing areas to the east once the parallel runway is constructed.

10.

Designate Runway 12-30 (Runway 12R-30L after construction of the parallel runway) as the preferred runway for use by large aircraft (aircraft over 12,500 pounds). Request voluntary restriction on jet use of Runway 2-20.


7.

Develop helicopter reporting points and arrival and departure routes that route helicopters away from noise-sensitive development.

Short Term Port, FAA, helicopteroperators

11.


Once the parallel runway is constructed, establish a right traffic pattern for Runway 30R.18.


Encourage close-in (less than one mile) final approaches by small aircraft for Runways 2 and 30 (Runways 30L and 30R after construction of the parallel runway).

19.

Long Term FAAEstablish a straight-in instrument approach procedure to Runway 30.20.

Limitation on intersection departures. Short Term Port through the NoiseManagement Office

21.

Promote the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Noise Awareness Steps for light aircraft.


24.

Limitation on formation/multiple aircraft flights without the approval of the Airport Manager.


25.

4-9

sions during landing. High-speed ex-its are taxiways oriented at an acute angle to the runway; these allow air-craft exiting the runway to do so at higher rates of speed compared to right-angled exit taxiways. While ex-iting the runway at these higher speeds reduces delay to landing air-craft, a high-speed exit can also en-courage pilots to reduce the use of re-verse thrust. Implementation Actions. The exit taxiways are eligible for FAA grant assistance. The Port should apply to the FAA for grant funding to construct up to four (4) high-speed exit taxiways on Runway 30 as depicted on the 2005 Airport Layout Plan. Timing. This project is programmed for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2008. 4. Continue the use of Runway

30 (and Runway 30L after con-struction of the parallel run-way) as the preferred depar-ture runway.

Description. A 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Port and the FAA designates Runway 30 as the preferred departure runway. Runway 30 is used approximately 90 percent of the time. Although it is recognized that there are residential uses north of Evergreen Road, the preferential runway use program places a majority of the departure op-erations to the northwest of the air-port over primarily agricultural uses and open space.

Implementation Actions. Since this is an existing policy, no specific im-plementation actions are necessary. The Port should continue to reflect this policy in the “Fly Friendly” pro-gram and in future published Pilot’s Guides. Timing. This existing policy should be continued. 5. Continue limiting the use of

Runway 12 for jet departures. Do not use Runway 12 for jet departures during the period from 2000 (10:00 p.m.) to 0900 (9:00 a.m.) except when wind conditions are between 090 de-grees clockwise 150 degrees (inclusive) at 10 knots or more. When the tower is open, re-quests for Runway 12 will be considered for a LifeFlight or other similar operations re-quiring priority handling, and the pilot requests Runway 12 for departure and if an undue delay will be incurred during periods that the Hillsboro Tower is unable to provide vis-ual separation from opposite direction traffic due to re-stricted visibility conditions.

Description. No optimal corridor for departures to the south exist. There are considerable noise-sensitive land uses along the extended Runway 12 centerline. Consistent with past poli-cies to improve the compatibility of operations and limit the occurrence of aircraft noise over residential and

4-10

other noise-sensitive land uses south of the airport, the use of Runway 12 should be limited. A 1998 Tower Or-der places limitations on the use of Runway 12 for jet departures when the tower is open. A number of citizen complaints have arisen from the use of Runway 12 after the tower is closed between the hours of 2200 (10:00 p.m.) and 0600 (6:00 a.m.). This rec-ommendation attempts to address these late night departures by specify-ing that Runway 12 should not be used at night. While the best means to ensure limited use of Runway 12 is to have the tower not issue departure clearances for the runway, the tower is not open 24 hours per day. The deci-sion to fund the operation of the tower for a full 24 hours per day rests with the FAA and is based, in part, on the number of overnight operations. Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the “Fly Friendly” program publica-tions such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Direc-tory, and information signs and post-ers located in public areas of the air-port. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010. This recom-mendation must first receive concur-rence from the FAA to ensure it is consistent with federal law. 6. Continue limiting the use of

Runway 20 for departures and Runway 2 for arrivals. Run-way 2-20 should only be used

when the wind is 10 knots or greater from a direction that is between 170 degrees and 230 degrees or 350 degrees and 050 degrees.

Description. A 1994 Memorandum of Understanding between the Port and FAA identifies Runway 2-20 as “a highly noise-sensitive runway” for which the “use of Runway 20 for take-offs and Runway 2 for landings should be avoided on a voluntary basis unless wind or operational conditions dictate otherwise”. Similar to Runway 12, there are considerable noise-sensitive land uses along an extended runway centerline southwest of the airport. Implementation Actions. Since this is an existing policy, no specific im-plementation actions are necessary. The Port should continue to reflect this policy in the Fly Friendly program and in future published Pilot’s Guides. Timing. This existing policy should be continued. 7. Designate Runway 12-30

(Runway 12R-30L after con-struction of the parallel run-way) as the preferred runway for use by large aircraft (air-craft over 12,500 pounds). Re-quest voluntary restrictions on the use of Runway 2-20 by jet aircraft.

Description. Runway 2-20 is consid-ered a highly noise-sensitive runway due to its proximity to noise-sensitive land uses. This recommendation, along with the previous recommenda-

4-11

tion, attempts to limit the use of Run-way 2-20, particularly for larger turbo-jet aircraft. The intent is to limit the use of Runway 2-20 to small piston-powered aircraft who need to use this runway due to wind conditions. Lar-ger business aircraft can successfully land on Runway 30 even when wind conditions favor the use of Runway 2 or Runway 20. Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the Fly Friendly program publications such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Directory, and information signs and posters lo-cated in public areas of the airport. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010. This recom-mendation must first receive concur-rence from the FAA to ensure it is consistent with federal law. 8. Runway 2-20 closed to touch-

and-go landings between 2200 (10:00 p.m.) and 0600 (6:00 a.m.).

Description. Due to the highly noise-sensitive status of Runway 2-20, this existing Port policy was intended to limit the use of Runway 2-20, particu-larly at night after the tower is closed. This policy would limit the use of this runway for training purposes at night on a voluntary basis since the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower is not currently occupied 24 hours a day.

Implementation Actions. Since this is an existing policy, no specific im-plementation actions are necessary. The Port should continue to reflect this policy in the “Fly Friendly” pro-gram and in future published Pilot’s Guides. Timing. This existing policy should be continued. 9. Maintain priority use of

helicopter patterns as de-fined in the November 1, 2004 Memorandum of Un-derstanding

Description. Hillsboro Airport has three helicopter training patterns: Al-pha, Bravo, and Charlie. The Charlie pattern encompasses compatible in-dustrial, commercial, and open space. There are also far fewer residences underlying this pattern compared to the number of persons lying beneath the Alpha and Bravo patterns. A November 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Hillsboro Airport Tower, the Port of Portland, and Hillsboro Aviation Inc., establishes a means of implementing specific measures to reduce helicopter training noise. The MOU states that helicopters can operate in the training patterns during daylight hours seven days per week. Helicopters must use the higher altitude fixed-wing pattern when flying after daylight. In addi-tion, helicopter training patterns are not to be flown on Christmas Day, New Year’s Day, Fourth of July, or Thanksgiving Day.

4-12

The MOU establishes areas of respon-sibility and operating parameters for the three patterns (see Table 4A). The MOU states that no more than four helicopters can be flown at one time and no more than two patterns

can be used at one time. The MOU also states that the preferred training pattern is Charlie. The priority for the use of Charlie pattern should be retained for these reasons.

TABLE 4A Helicopter Pattern Use By Priority Hillsboro Airport

Number of Helicopters in the Pattern (Limit to 4 Total) Pattern 1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority 4th Priority

Alpha 0 1 0 2 Bravo 1 0 2 0 Charlie 3 3 2 2 Source: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Hillsboro Airport

Tower, Port of Portland, and Hillsboro Aviation, Inc., November 2004. Implementation Actions. Since this is an existing policy, no specific im-plementation actions are necessary. The Port should continue to reflect this policy in the “Fly Friendly” pro-gram and in future published Pilot’s Guides. Timing. This existing policy should be continued. 10. Relocate the Charlie Pattern

and landing areas to the east once the parallel runway is constructed.

Description. The existing Charlie Pattern landing area is located where the future parallel runway (Runway 12L-30R) is planned. The Charlie Pat-tern landing area should be located further east as depicted on the 2005 Airport Layout Plan. This allows the ground track of the training pattern to

extend further east over compatible open space and industrial/commercial land uses. This may also allow for this pattern to avoid overflying residential properties located north of Evergreen Road. Implementation Actions. This pro-ject is eligible for FAA grant assis-tance (both land acquisition and de-velopment costs). The Port should ap-ply to the FAA for grant funding to re-construct the Charlie Pattern landing area after the parallel runway is com-pleted. Timing. This project is included in the Airport Master Plan Intermediate Term Planning Horizon (2011-2015). 11. Develop helicopter reporting

points and arrival and depar-ture routes that route helicop-

4-13

ters away from noise-sensitive development.

Description. The intent of this rec-ommendation is to define arrival and departure procedures for helicopter aircraft so as to avoid the overflight of noise-sensitive areas to the extent practical. Designating arrival and de-parture routes reduces controller and pilot workload by having predeter-mined courses and routes and can be used to sequence helicopters to and from the airport. Effective procedures can be used to eliminate the holding of helicopters over residential areas south of the airport to sequence land-ings and arrivals. Implementation Actions. The Port should initiate a process to define ap-propriate compatible helicopter arrival and departure procedures. This may ultimately culminate in a formal memorandum of agreement between helicopter operators, the FAA, and the Port. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010. 12. Request aircraft departing

Runway 30 (Runways 30L and 30R after construction of the parallel runway) under visual conditions to maintain runway heading until reaching N.E. Jackson School Road.

Description. This procedure is rec-ommended to allow pilots to avoid overflying noise-sensitive residential land uses west of the airport at lower

altitudes. When pilots extend their departure further north before turn-ing, they are able to gain additional altitude before turning to the south or east. This also reduces the potential for early turns over residential uses north of Evergreen Road, east of the extended Runway 30L and Runway 30R centerlines. Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the “Fly Friendly” program publica-tions such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Direc-tory, and information signs and post-ers located in public areas of the air-port. Timing. For planning purposes, the recommended departure turn for Runway 30 is projected for implemen-tation between 2006 and 2010. The recommended departure turn for Runway 30R would be implemented after construction of the parallel run-way. These recommendations must first receive concurrence from the FAA to ensure it is consistent with federal law. 13. Request aircraft departing

Runway 30 under instrument conditions to maintain runway heading until reaching two nautical miles (as measured by distance measuring equipment [DME]) from the localizer an-tenna.

Description. This allows for opera-tional management measure #12 de-scribed earlier to be utilized when the

4-14

crossing of N.E. Jackson School Road cannot be visually verified due to limi-tations on forward visibility or low cloud layers. Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the “Fly Friendly” program publica-tions such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Direc-tory, and information signs and post-ers located in public areas of the air-port. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010. This recom-mendation must first receive concur-rence from the FAA to ensure it is consistent with federal law. 14. Request the FAA change the

Farmington Three Departure Procedure to limit the left turn after departure on Run-way 30 until the aircraft has reached two nautical miles (as measured by distance measur-ing equipment [DME]) from the localizer antenna.

Description. The Farmington Three Departure Procedure is used by air-craft on instrument flight rule (IFR) flight plans when departing the air-port to south. The departure proce-dure facilitates air traffic control by reducing controller workload and ex-pediting departures. This procedure is used during both visual and poor weather conditions. This recommen-dation would place the same limita-tion as operational management

measures #12 and #13 on those air-craft issued this departure procedure. Implementation Actions. The Port should coordinate with the FAA to in-corporate these changes to the appro-priate departure procedure and charts. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2016 and 2025. This recom-mendation must first receive concur-rence from the FAA to ensure it is consistent with federal law. 15. Request aircraft departing

Runway 2 to maintain runway heading until reaching Ever-green Road.

Description. Similar to operational management measure #12 described earlier, this procedure is recom-mended to allow aircraft to gain more altitude over a compatible corridor be-fore turning to the south or east over noise-sensitive land uses. Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the “Fly Friendly” program publica-tions such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Direc-tory, and information signs and post-ers located in public areas of the air-port. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010. This recom-mendation must first receive concur-rence from the FAA to ensure it is consistent with federal law.

4-15

16. Request aircraft maintain runway heading until reach-ing 1,000 feet AGL for depar-tures from Runway 12 (Run-ways 12L and 12R once the parallel runway is con-structed) and Runway 20.

Description. No optimal corridor for aircraft departing Runways 12 (Run-way 12L and 12R after the parallel runway is constructed) and Runway 20 exist today. The land uses under the extended centerline of these run-ways include a mixture of commer-cial/industrial and open space. How-ever, there is also a considerable amount of residential development. The best method for compatibility for departures on these runways is to limit use of the runway as defined in the use programs discussed above. When departures are necessary for any of these runways due to wind con-ditions, pilots should climb to 1,000 feet AGL as soon as practical while maintaining runway heading before initiating a turn to their enroute course. Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the Fly Friendly program publications such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Directory, and information signs and posters lo-cated in public areas of the airport. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010. This recom-mendation must first receive concur-rence from the FAA to ensure it is consistent with federal law.

17. Continue the use of right traf-fic patterns for Runway 2 and Runway 30.

Description. The traffic pattern de-fines the route that aircraft will follow when landing to the runway. For right traffic patterns, aircraft com-plete a series of right turns to landing. For Runway 30, this maintains the traffic east of Runway 12-30, avoiding the overflight of dense noise-sensitive land uses to the west, while the right traffic pattern for Runway 2 main-tains the traffic south of Runway 2-20. While there are considerable noise-sensitive land uses south of Runway 2-20, small aircraft should be able to maintain a close pattern to the airport over the Fair Complex and avoid noise-sensitive land uses. Implementation Actions. Since this is an existing policy, no specific im-plementation actions are necessary. The Port should continue to reflect this policy in the “Fly Friendly” pro-gram and in future published Pilot’s Guides. Timing. This is an existing policy which is recommended to continue. 18. Once the parallel runway is

constructed, establish a right traffic pattern for Runway 30R.

Description. Similar to the existing right traffic pattern to Runway 30, this would maintain aircraft to the east of the runway, avoiding the over-flight of dense noise-sensitive land uses to the west.

4-16

Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the “Fly Friendly” program publica-tions such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Direc-tory, and information signs and post-ers located in public areas of the air-port. Timing. This would be implemented after the construction of the parallel runway, which is currently pro-grammed in the 2005 Airport Master Plan for FFY 2010. 19. Encourage close-in (less than

one mile) final approaches by small aircraft for Runways 2 and 30 (Runways 30L and 30R after construction of the paral-lel runway).

Description. At Hillsboro Airport, visual approaches from the southeast to Runway 30 and from the southwest to Runway 2 lack an optimal noise-compatible corridor. However, for small piston engine aircraft with their lower approach speeds, close-in (less than one mile final approaches) are possible. Small piston engine aircraft approaching Runway 2 and Runway 30 (Runway 30L after the parallel runway is constructed) should be en-couraged to maintain close-in final approaches. For Runway 2, this could involve aircraft making the right turn from base to final over the commercial development southwest of the Cornell Road/N.E. 25th Street intersection. For Runway 30, this could involve small aircraft making their right turn from base to final south of the Brookwood

Parkway/Cornell Road intersection. Large aircraft require longer straight-in final approaches of at least two miles. Implementation Actions. Since this is an existing policy, no specific im-plementation actions are necessary. The Port should continue to reflect this policy in the “Fly Friendly” pro-gram and in future published Pilot’s Guides. Timing. This is an existing policy which is recommended to continue. 20. Establish a straight-in instru-

ment approach procedure to Runway 30.

Description. The 2005 Airport Mas-ter Plan recommends a straight-in in-strument approach procedure to Run-way 30 as this is the prevailing run-way in use. An instrument approach to Runway 30 would reduce the num-ber of overflights to the City of Hills-boro west of the airport. Currently, aircraft approaching the airport from the south on an instrument flight plan and requiring the use of an instru-ment approach procedure must overfly the City of Hillsboro to access the Runway 12 ILS. An instrument ap-proach to Runway 30 would eliminate this practice. Implementation Actions. The Port should coordinate with the FAA to de-velop this approach procedure. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation in the Long Term between 2016 and 2025.

4-17

21. Limitation on intersection de-partures.

Description. Intersection departures refer to aircraft beginning their engine spool-up and takeoff role from a point other than the runway end, usually a taxiway intersection. Since aircraft begin their takeoff closer to the depar-ture end of the runway, residents lo-cated along the departure route are impacted by greater levels of aircraft noise, since aircraft have a shorter distance in which to gain altitude prior to leaving the airfield. Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the “Fly Friendly” program publica-tions such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Direc-tory, and information signs and post-ers located in public areas of the air-port. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010. This recom-mendation must first receive concur-rence from the FAA to ensure it is consistent with federal law. 22. Establish a maintenance run-

up policy. Description. Extended run-ups are required after select aircraft mainte-nance operations are done to aircraft powerplants. This is done to ensure reliability and confirm the complete-ness of the repair work. To reduce the impact of these run-ups, the Port should establish a policy detailing

when the activities can take place (time of day) and their location on the airport. This policy should consider limiting maintenance run-ups between 1900 (7:00 p.m.) and 0800 (8:00 a.m.) daily. Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should es-tablish this written policy and incor-porate into lease agreements with the tenants. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010. 23. Relocate the maintenance run-

up area north of the Runway 20 end as depicted on the 2005 Airport Layout Plan.

Description. The present mainte-nance run-up area is located near the Runway 12 end where an earthen berm has been constructed to absorb noise energy during run-ups. Relocat-ing a run-up area can be effective in reducing the impacts of aircraft run-up noise. In recognition of concerns over maintenance run-up activity, the 2005 Airport Layout Plan recom-mended moving the current mainte-nance run-up area to a new area lo-cated on the east end of the future Taxiway C near the center of the air-port. Implementation Actions. This pro-ject would be eligible for FAA grant assistance. The Port should apply to the FAA for grant funding to relocate the maintenance run-up area. Taxi-way C needs to be constructed before

4-18

this run-up area is constructed to pro-vide necessary access. Timing. This project is included in the Airport Master Plan Intermediate Term Planning Horizon (2011-2015). 24. Promote the Aircraft Owners

and Pilots Association (AOPA) Noise Awareness Steps for light aircraft.

Description. AOPA encourages quiet and neighborly flying by distributing generalized noise abatement proce-dures for use by propeller aircraft. Most of the steps provide guidance on pilot technique when maneuvering near noise-sensitive areas. The steps also encourage cooperation with air-port staff on noise abatement issues. It is not possible to predict how often these procedures would be used, so it is not possible to quantify their effects on noise. Nevertheless, any use of these procedures will help the overall noise conditions around the airport. Consequently, airport staff should en-courage their use. Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the “Fly Friendly” program publica-tions such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Direc-tory, and information signs and post-ers located in public areas of the air-port. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010.

25. Limitation on forma-tion/multiple flights without the approval of the Airport Manager.

Description. Formation flights in-volve two or more aircraft flying in close proximity to each other while maintaining separation visually. Mul-tiple flights involve aircraft departing in close succession to each other while maintaining minimal separation. These activities can increase noise ex-posure. Implementation Actions. The Port Noise Management Office should in-clude this recommended procedure in the “Fly Friendly” program publica-tions such as the Pilot’s Guide, Airport web page, FAA Airport/Facility Direc-tory, and information signs and post-ers located in public areas of the air-port. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2006 and 2010. This recom-mendation must first receive concur-rence from the FAA to ensure it is consistent with federal law. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The success of these aviation opera-tional management measures requires a continuing effort to monitor compli-ance and identify new or unantici-pated problems and changing condi-tions. Seven measures to monitor the success of these aviation operational management measures are recom-mended for Hillsboro Airport. The

4-19

Port, as airport operator, is responsi-ble for implementing these measures. They are discussed below and summa-rized in Exhibit 4B. 26. Install radar coverage to the

surface at Hillsboro Airport. Description. Hillsboro Airport cur-rently does not have radar coverage to the surface. Therefore, most aircraft operating in the traffic pattern or be-low cannot be tracked by radar. Ra-dar can be an important tool for track-ing noise abatement compliance. With radar, the altitude and ground track of aircraft can be verified. Additionally, the registration number can be corre-lated to the aircraft so that aircraft owners can be contacted if they do not follow noise abatement procedures. This follow-up is an important compo-nent to ensure that pilots are aware of the program and how to comply. It should be noted that the noise abate-ment procedures are voluntary. The Port cannot require operators to com-ply with these measures nor place any fines or other penalties for noncompli-ance. Generally, pilots will comply with reasonable noise abatement pro-cedures. Where they do not, friendly reminders and education can help spread the word and increase compli-ance rates. Implementation Actions. Installing radar at Hillsboro Airport is the re-sponsibility of the FAA. The Port should continue to work with the FAA to ensure the appropriate priority is placed on radar coverage at the air-port and their planning for such im-

provements in the region remains fo-cused on Hillsboro Airport. Timing. For planning purposes, this is projected for implementation be-tween 2011 and 2015, although this improvement could occur earlier should the FAA receive funding. 27. Monitor noise abatement com-

pliance, enhancing with flight tracking once radar coverage is available at Hillsboro Air-port.

Description. The Port should moni-tor compliance with the aviation op-erational recommendations. This will involve checking periodically with Airport users and the local Tower Manager regarding compliance with the procedures. As discussed above, once radar is available, actual flight tracks can be monitored. . Implementation Actions. No spe-cific implementation actions are re-quired other than those discussed in the description of this measure. Timing. This should be done as nec-essary. 28. Maintain a permanent noise

monitoring system to monitor noise abatement compliance.

Description. The permanent noise monitors located near Hillsboro Air-port continuously monitor the noise generated by aircraft operations. As more data is obtained through this

4-20

program, the noise monitoring system can be used to compare and evaluate the overall noise environment for the airport. This can establish trends and allow the Port to determine if changes to the noise abatement program are necessary. This information can also be used in the future when preparing new noise exposure contours to verify the assumptions and results of com-puter noise modeling. Implementation Actions. This is an existing activity. No special imple-mentation efforts are required. Timing. This is an ongoing measure. 29. Maintain the system for re-

ceiving, analyzing, tracking and responding to noise com-plaints.

Description. The Port currently has a system of recording and responding to noise complaints. In addition to re-cording and filing complaints, it is im-portant for the Port to respond to complaints, even if it is not possible to take remedial action. The Port should continue to map the noise complaints to see if any geographic patterns emerge which may deserve special at-tention. Complaints are only an imperfect in-dicator of noise problems. The ten-dency of an individual to file a com-plaint depends on many personal variables, including sensitivity to noise, feelings about the aviation in-dustry, and expectations about overall neighborhood livability. Recognizing that complaints do not always clearly

reveal the existence and scope of noise problems, staff should nevertheless periodically analyze the complaint re-cords. If the geographic pattern of complaints or the causes of complaints indicate that consistent problems ex-ist, the Port should investigate and, if possible, seek corrective action. Implementation Actions. This is an existing activity. No special imple-mentation efforts are required. Timing. This is an ongoing measure. 30. Continue the “Fly Friendly”

Program. Implement the following to notify pilots of the overall noise manage-ment program: a. Distribution of a printed

Pilot’s Guide to include the noise abatement poli-cies established in this study. Provide separate publications for helicop-ters and fixed-wing air-craft.

b. Inclusion of these noise abatement policies in FAA’s Airport/Facility di-rectory.

c. Inclusion of these noise abatement policies on the Port’s web page.

d. Post informational signs and posters in public ar-eas at the airport identi-fying the noise abatement program.

e. Conduct meetings with pilots to discuss safety and noise abatement pro-cedures at the airport.

4-21

f. Production of pilot edu-cational materials in a variety of formats to edu-cate pilots about the noise abatement pro-gram.

Description. This is the cornerstone of the noise abatement program, as pilots must be educated on the in-tended noise abatement program and how they can comply with the re-quirements of the program. The methods to inform pilots of the noise abatement measures are described above. Implementation Actions. No spe-cific implementation actions are re-quired other than those discussed in the description of this measure. Timing. Following FAA concurrence on the noise abatement techniques listed in this chapter. For planning purposes, this is expected to occur in 2006. 31. Establish a standing advisory

committee of interested citi-zens and tenants to regularly review and discuss airport is-sues with Port staff.

Description. Regular communication between the Port, airport users, ten-ants, and the community will be nec-essary to ensure a successful compati-bility program. This forum is in-tended to establish a standing com-mittee of interested citizens and ten-ants to regularly review and discuss wide-ranging issues at the airport.

Implementation Actions. Establish-ing an advisory committee consisting of a broad cross-section of airport ten-ants, users, and the community. Con-ducting regular meetings. Timing. For planning purposes, this committee is planned to be formed in 2006. 32. Establish a public outreach

program to discuss the noise abatement program with the general public to raise awareness and ensure that potential residents near the airport are aware of the lo-cation of the airport and the efforts undertaken for im-proved compatibility. Ele-ments could include: a. Printed publications such

as brochures and news-letters.

b. Public information meet-ings with homeowners’ associations, citizen par-ticipation organizations (CPOs), civic groups, lo-cal governmental meet-ings, etc.

c. Meetings with represen-tatives from the real es-tate industry.

Description. This program has sev-eral components which are intended to raise the awareness of current and po-tential residents about the existence of the Airport and airport noise. This can be considered an extension of the advisory committee described earlier where information about the operation

4-22

of the airport is provided to a broader audience. This program can be used to gain feedback and foster involvement in the program. An essential compo-nent of this measure is working with home owners, real estate agents, and potential home buyers about Hillsboro Airport operations and its presence in the community. Implementation Actions. No spe-cific implementation actions are re-quired other than those discussed in the description of this measure. Timing. This should be done as nec-essary. SUMMARY The Hillsboro Airport Compatibility Program summarized in this report is intended to provide the Port with a blueprint for improving the compati-bility between aircraft operations and the community. These recommenda-tions build upon the already existing and mature noise management pro-gram for Hillsboro Airport. This pro-gram has assumed both the existing conditions at the airport and the planned development of the airport as depicted on the 2005 Airport Layout Plan. Many of the measures and steps in this program require the cooperation of many different individuals and or-ganizations. For example, pilots will be responsible for many noise man-agement measures, while any land use measures will have to be adopted by the local jurisdictions (City of Hills-boro and Washington County). It will be necessary for the Port to continue

to work with this broad range of indi-viduals and groups to ensure a suc-cessful program. Each of these measures has different implementation schedules, priorities, and actions. For example, the land use measures will require dedicated cooperation with the City of Hillsboro and Washington County and may take several years to come to fruition as the specifics of the measures are consid-ered. Some of the aviation operational management measures require physi-cal improvements to the airport (i.e., exit taxiways, parallel taxiway, a new runway). It will take time to arrange capital funds and to commit adequate resources to tackle the required design and construction efforts. A program for funding and implementation of such capital improvements is shown in the 2005 Airport Master Plan, Chap-ter Seven. The portions of the program that can have the most immediate benefit and potential for immediate implementa-tion are related in the aviation opera-tional management measures. Table 4B summarizes those measures that should be given high priority in im-plementation and coordinated as soon as possible with the FAA, pilots, and local citizens for enactment. This is not to imply that the other measures should not have focused efforts. To the contrary, each of the recommended measures requires continued focus for implementation, especially those measures which require the coopera-tion of the FAA and time to come to fruition (i.e., the addition of radar cov-erage and physical improvements).

4-23

TABLE 4B Potential Measures To Be Given High Priority

Recommended Measure 1. Encourage use of thrust cutback after departure for jet aircraft. NBAA close-in pro-

cedure most applicable to departures. 2. Aircraft should avoid unnecessary overflight of the urban residential areas below

1,000 feet above ground level (AGL). 3. Continue the use of Runway 30 (Runway 30L after construction of the parallel run-

way) as the preferred departure runway. 4. Continue limiting the use of Runway 12 for jet departures. Do not use Runway 12 for

jet departures during the period from 2000 (10:00 p.m.) to 0900 (9:00 a.m.) except when wind conditions are between 090 degrees clockwise 150 degrees (inclusive) at 10 knots or more. When the tower is open, requests for Runway 12 will be considered for a LifeFlight or other similar operations requiring priority handling, and the pilot re-quests Runway 12 for departure and if an undue delay will be incurred during periods that the Hillsboro Tower is unable to provide visual separation from opposite direc-tion traffic due to restricted visibility conditions.

5. Continue limiting the use of Runway 20 for departure and Runway 2 for arrival. Runway 2-20 should only be used when the wind is 10 knots or greater from a direc-tion that is between 170 degrees and 230 degrees or 350 degrees and 050 degrees.

6. Designate Runway 12-30 (Runway 12R-30L after construction of the parallel runway) as the preferred runway for large aircraft (aircraft over 12,500 pounds) use. Request voluntary restriction on jet use of Runway 2-20.

7. Runway 2-20 closed to touch-and-go landings between 2200 (10:00 p.m.) and 0600 (6:00 a.m.).

8. Maintain priority use of helicopter patterns as defined in the November 1, 2004 Memorandum of Understanding

9. Request aircraft departing Runway 30 (Runways 30L and 30R after construction of the parallel runway) under visual conditions to maintain runway heading until reach-ing N.E. Jackson School Road.

10. Request aircraft departing Runway 30 under instrument conditions to maintain run-way heading until reaching two nautical miles (as measured by distance measuring equipment [DME]) from the localizer antenna.

11. Request aircraft departing Runway 2 to maintain runway heading until reaching Ev-ergreen Road.

12. Request aircraft maintain runway heading until reaching 1,000 feet AGL for depar-tures from Runway 12 (Runways 12L and 12R once the parallel runway is con-structed) and Runway 20.

13. Encourage close-in (less than one mile) final approaches for Runways 2 and 30 (Run-ways 30L and 30R after construction of the parallel runway).

14. Develop helicopter reporting points and arrival and departure routes that direct heli-copters away from noise-sensitive development.

15. Limitation of intersection departures. 16. Establish a maintenance run-up policy.

4-24

TABLE 4B (Continued) Potential Measures To Be Given High Priority

Recommended Measure 17. Promote the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Noise Awareness Steps

for light aircraft. 18. Monitor noise abatement compliance, enhancing with flight tracking once radar cov-

erage is available at Hillsboro Airport. 19. Restriction on formation/multiple aircraft flights without the approval of the Airport

Manager. 20. Maintain permanent noise monitoring system to monitor noise abatement compliance. 21. Maintain the system for receiving, analyzing, tracking, and responding to noise com-

plaints. 22. Continue the “Fly Friendly” Program. Implement the following to notify pilots of the

noise abatement program: a. Distribution of a printed Pilot’s Guide to include the noise abatement policies

established in this study. Provide separate publications for helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.

b. Inclusion of these noise abatement policies in FAA’s Airport/Facility directory. c. Inclusion of these noise abatement policies on the Port’s web page. d. Post informational signs and posters in public areas at the airport identifying

the noise abatement program. e. Conduct meetings with pilots to discuss safety and noise abatement procedures

at the airport. f. Production of pilot educational materials in a variety of formats to educate pi-

lots about the noise abatement program. 23. Establish a standing advisory committee of interested citizens and tenants to regu-

larly review and discuss airport issues with Port staff. 24. Establish a public outreach program to discuss the noise abatement program with the

general public to raise awareness and ensure potential residents near the airport are aware of the location of the airport and the efforts undertaken for improved compati-bility. Elements could include:

a. Printed publications such as brochures and newsletters. b. Public information meetings with homeowners’ associations, citizen participa-

tion organizations (CPOs), civic groups, local governmental meetings, etc. c. Meetings with representatives from the real estate industry.

Appendix A

CITY OF HILLSBORO AND WASHINGTONCOUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND

DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT

PORT OF PORTLAND

A-1

Appendix A

City of Hillsboro and Washington County Comprehensive Plan and Development Code Text

Source/Section Policy/Regulation Text City of Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan Section 7. Air, Water

and Land Resource Quality.

(F) Land use activities which result in conflicting impacts on the air, land, or water should be separated and/or buffered to minimize the negative effects of the conflicting activities.

(IV) Implementation Measures.

(13) Other than the existing public facility and open space designations, land use designations within the future projected LDN 60 contour contained in the most current adopted Airport Master Plan shall be limited to industrial, commercial and low density residential. (Added by Ord. No. 3344-7-82 and Amended by Ord. No. 5021/4-01.)

(14) The location of service facilities such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes; public assembly; and high-density residential development shall be avoided within the future projected LDN 55 contour contained in the most current adopted Airport Master Plan.

(15) Medium density residential development shall be avoided within the future projected LDN 60 contour contained in the most current adopted Airport Master Plan.

(16) Land uses which create high concentrations of people shall be avoided within the aircraft approach zones.

(17) Land uses approvals within the future projected LDN 60 contour contained in the most current adopted Airport Master Plan shall be conditioned to require hold-harmless clauses, including noise disclosure statements. Land use approvals within the future projected LDN 55 contour contained in the most current adopted Airport Master Plan shall be conditioned to require disclosure of potential noise impacts from airport operations.

Section 10, Economy (B) Industrial land use. Industry in Hillsboro was located primarily south and west of the central business district in an area bounded by the Oregon Electric and Southern Pacific Rail lines. This area was laid out in urban lots within the usual street grid system, with existing industry being interspersed with both residential dwelling and commercial establishments. This has made expansion of existing industry and establishment of new industry difficult and prevents efficient industrial development patterns from occurring in this area. In addition, industrial use west of the central business district detracts from the visual appearance of retail areas and inhibits business expansions in this direction. Therefore, if Hillsboro is to become economically less dependent on Portland and other cities, then sufficient land must be designated industrial in other parts of the Hillsboro Planning Area and sufficient public facilities and services made available to attract industry and allow for the development of efficient industrial land use patterns.

A-2

Source/Section Policy/Regulation Text

(1) Land in the vicinity of the airport should be designated for uses which will take advantage of the special services provided by the Port facility.

Section 13,

Transportation

(A) Safety. (6) Do not permit land uses within airport noise corridors that are not noise compatible and avoid the establishment of uses that are physical hazards to air traffic at the Hillsboro Airport. The airport is a resource to the community. Coordinate with the Port of Portland on the implementation of the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan and overlay Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) designations on the City zoning map. Work with the Port of Portland to establish a partnership, which addresses impacts. Avoid permitting future uses in the airport noise corridors that would be significantly impacted by allowable airport noise levels, unless such impacts can be effectively mitigated.

(E) Goods Movement. (2) Coordinate with the Port of Portland in planning for the Hillsboro Airport.

(3) Encourage continued use and development of rail and air transportation facilities. Coordinate with rail and air transportation service providers regarding safety and operational compatibility with surrounding uses.

(F) Livability. (4) Avoid potential adverse environmental impacts associated with traffic and transportation system development through facility design and system management. Inform the DEQ, EPA, Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands of transportation system development projects that may affect their jurisdictional interests at the earliest opportunity to ensure identification of project-related environmental issues and to ensure compliance with federal and state air, water, wetland and noise standards. Design transportation systems that promote efficient use of energy.

(H) Airport. (1) Definitions (i) General aviation reliever facility. An airport designed to normally service aircraft up to the executive jet level only and not intended for use by air carrier type equipment.

(2) Policies (i.) The airport shall be maintained and used as, but not expanded beyond the capability of, a “general aviation reliever facility.” The City shall encourage and work with airport authorities to decrease airport-related problems to a level compatible with surrounding land uses and the urban area. (ii) Adequate open space and tree planting shall be provided around the airport where necessary to reduce the noise impact of airport operations on surrounding residential areas. Airport open space shall be included in the City’s greenway system. (iii) The City shall encourage the use of properties adjacent to the airport for industrial parks, related commercial activities and community facilities in order to maximize airport services and provide a buffer for surrounding

A-3


residences. (iv) The height and occupancy of structures within the approach zones to the airport shall be regulated to reduce hazard to aircraft and the public.

(J) HILLSBORO AIRPORT.

(1) The City shall support implementation of the current Hillsboro Airport Master Plan.

(2) Should it be necessary to update the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan, the City shall participate in the process.

Section 15, Station Community Planning Areas

(IV) Hawthorne Farm/Fair Complex SCPA Policies

(A) The Hawthorne Farm/Fair Complex SCPA is designated as a “station community” in the Region 2040 Growth Concept. Overall density targets of 45 persons per net acre are anticipated under this regional designation. The City will strive to achieve this density target, while recognizing the constraints to increased densities posed by the airport clear zone and largely established patterns of business park and single family neighborhood development.

(C) A specific Fair Complex Institutional Zoning District shall apply to publicly owned property located north of the Fair Complex light rail station, east of NE 28th Avenue, south of Cornell Road, and west of the airport clear zone. Phased development of events facilities is encouraged to support the master plan for the Fair Complex adopted by the Washington County. Board of Commissioners. The Fair Complex Institutional District is intended to encourage convention and conference centers, public recreational facilities and sports playing fields, facilities for indoor and outdoor educational displays and exhibits, and facilities for related events and activities that can support and benefit from proximity to the Fair Complex light rail station.

City of Hillsboro Transportation System Plan Goal 1, Safety Policy 6 Do not permit land uses within Airport Noise Corridors that are

not noise compatible, and avoid the establishment of uses that are physical hazards to air traffic at the Hillsboro Airport. The airport is a resource to the community. Coordinate with the Port of Portland on the implementation of the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan and overlay Runway Protection Plan (RPZ) designations on the City zoning map. Work with the Port of Portland to establish a partnership, which addresses impacts. Avoid permitting future uses that in the airport noise corridors that would be significantly impacted by allowable airport noise levels, unless such impacts can be effectively mitigated.

Goal 5, Goods Movement

Policy 2 Coordinate with the Port of Portland in planning for the Hillsboro Airport

City of Hillsboro Zoning Ordinance

A-4


Section 62 M-2 Industrial Zone

(4) Any use or operation shall comply with current state air quality and noise statutes and rules, as administered by the Department of Environmental Quality. (Added by Ord. No. 3343/7-82.)

Section 72 M-P Industrial Zone

(1) Air Quality and Noise. All uses and operations shall comply with current state air quality and noise statutes and rules, as administered by the Department of Environmental Quality. (Amended by Ord. No. 3343/7-82.)

Section 127, Planned Unit Development

2. Building Height. The Planning Commission may grant an exception to the applicable height requirements for a specified and defined area within the PUD, based on findings that: (Added by Ord. No. 3889/12-89.) c. The proposal complies with the Federal Aviation Administration's Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77; and

Section 94. Exceptions to Building Height Limitations.

(2) In order to assure safe airport operation, no structure or structural part shall exceed height standards established for the vicinity of the Portland-Hillsboro Airport by the Federal Aviation Administration's Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77.

Section 136, Station Community Fair Complex Industrial (SCFI)

N. Station Community Fair Complex Institutional (SCFI) The SCFI District may be applied to property containing at least thirty (30) acres owned by one or more public entities and/or private parties and assembled into a mixed use development centered around public entertainment, amusement, and sports participation. The focus of development in the District is on facilities accommodating activities including, but not limited to, the Washington County Fair, conferences, conventions, expositions and trade shows, in a variety of open-air facilities and enclosed buildings. Hotels, restaurants, and specialty retail establishments are encouraged in the District. Sports and entertainment facilities including, but not limited to, arenas, rinks, aquatics centers, cinemas, theaters, and usable open space designed to accommodate sports fields and outdoor athletic activities are also allowed. Up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the District may be used for high density residential, mixed use residential and live-work units, as identified in the Concept Development Plan required for the phased development of the District. Development in the District shall be designed to take advantage of the unique multi-modal opportunity provided by the adjacent LRT and bus transfer station, park-and-ride facility, and pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby neighborhoods. The Concept Development Plan shall emphasize the following features: compact, high density mixed use development; multi-story structures where compatible with the intended use and the constraints of the nearby airport; buildings and internal circulation oriented to the adjacent light rail station site; a strong focus on pedestrian-sensitive design of buildings, facilities and linkages; and a reduction in surface parking in favor of parking structures, except in the airport clear zone where well landscaped surface parking for large events and facilities for travel trailers and recreational vehicles to accommodate event vendors and visitors (and other low density uses) are allowed. (Amended by Ord. No. 4545/4-97.)

Section 137. Development Regulations for

V. MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, AND ANCILLARY DWELLING UNITS 8. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the minimum density

A-5


Station Community Planning Areas

of residential structures constructed within a Station Community Residential District on properties within Review Area 6, as identified in Figure 7 and in Table 5 of the Hillsboro Airport Compatibility Study (May 1993), shall not be less than 7 dwelling units per net acre and the maximum density shall not exceed 12 dwelling units per net acre.

VI. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIOS 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the floor area ratio of non-residential structures constructed on properties within Review Area 6, as identified in Figure 7 and in Table 5 of the Hillsboro Airport Compatibility Study (May 1993), shall not exceed 0.3.

X. MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS 4. In the event a maximum building height permitted by Table 1 or by this subsection as applied to a specific building site conflicts with that specified in the Hillsboro Airport Compatibility Study (May 1993), and the Federal Aviation Administration continues to certify the need for such a height restriction, the Hillsboro Airport Compatibility Study shall supersede and control.

Section 142: HAWTHORN FARM / FAIR COMPLEX STATIONS COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS

II. PURPOSE These community-specific design standards reflect the City's goals and objectives for the Hawthorn Farm/Fair Complex SCPA as described in the Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan. Where the design standards of this Section specifically conflict with those contained in Sections 138, the standards of this Section shall prevail. Because Hawthorn Farm Business Park is substantially developed with few lots remaining vacant, a major shift in development regulations or design standards would be disruptive to the established design and character of the Park. Consequently, special consideration has been given throughout Sections 136, 137, 138 and 142 to minimize adverse impacts on Hawthorn Farm while maintaining the basic principles of increased density and enhanced pedestrian orientation near the Hawthorn Farm LRT station. The land south of Elam Young Parkway is within the flight path safety zone of the Hillsboro Airport. Consequently, even though land owners in this area would like to increase density and land use intensity, the City must agree with the Port of Portland and the Federal Aviation Administration that it is in the public interest to maintain the current low density uses and zoning. However, if the Port and the FAA should change airport operations or if technology, safety improvements or other mitigating circumstances arise, the City would welcome the opportunity to rezone the area to a higher density, mixed use residential village befitting its location near the Hawthorn Farm LRT Station. The Fair Complex, the Washington County Fair Board and the Washington County Fair are institutions in transition. As the County Seat, Hillsboro is proud to be the host community for the Washington County Fair. At the same time, the Fair Board recognizes it must use the land more efficiently and intensely throughout the year. To achieve that objective, the Fair Board, Washington County Board of Commissioners, the City of Hillsboro and the Port of Portland are seeking to develop the land into a year-round conference and entertainment facility. Such a facility would accommodate the Fair, but would also host numerous other indoor and outdoor events, be the site of a

A-6


convention hotel with exhibit space, and perhaps provide an indoor sports arena and cinema. In order to help finance the program, a portion of the land may be used for residential purposes. The provisions of Sections 136 through 138 and Section 142 accommodate this vision.

IV. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

C. Minimum and Maximum Residential Densities and Ancillary Dwelling Units The Standards of Section 137 shall apply except that: 1. All residential development within this District shall comply with applicable provisions of the State “Airport Planning Rule” (OAR 660 Division 13).

D. Minimum Floor Area Ratios The Standards of Section 137 shall apply except that: 1. All non-residential development within this District shall comply with applicable provisions of the State “Airport Planning Rule” (OAR 660 Division 13).

H. Minimum and Maximum Building Height Requirements The Standards of Section 137 shall apply except that: 1. All development within this District shall comply with applicable provisions of the State “Airport Planning Rule” (OAR 660 Division 13).

Washington County Comprehensive Plan POLICY 5,

NOISE: It is the policy of Washington County to support efforts to control noise and attempt to limit the adverse impacts of noise.

Policy 5 Implementing Strategies

a. Investigate the feasibility of undertaking a study of noise problems in the unincorporated area, and if the study reveals serious noise pollution problems, will consider the feasibility of revising its existing noise regulations to control identified noise problems.

b. Comply with Department of Environmental Quality noise standards.

c. Include provisions in the Community Development Code to minimize adverse impacts of noise.

d. Consider noise-generating sources and noise-sensitive land uses in the Community Plan elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

e. Discourage the location of service facilities such as schools, hospitals,

nursing homes, public assembly and high-density residential development within the year 2000 LDN55 and LDN 60 contours.

f. Coordinate with the Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Transportation and the Port of Portland when establishing land use designations near airports.

Policy 42, Airports It is the policy of Washington County to protect the function and economic

viability of existing public use airports, while ensuring public safety and compatibility between airport uses and surrounding land uses for public use airports and for private use airports identified by the Oregon Department of Aviation (DOA).

A-7


a. Adopt and implement Airport Overlay Districts consistent with LCDC Airport

Planning Rules and ORS Chapter 836 in order to: 1. Protect public use airports by regulating land uses in designated areas surrounding the Portland-Hillsboro and the Stark’s Twin Oaks airports based on adopted airport master plans or evidence of each airport’s specific level of risk and usage. Prevent the installation of airspace obstructions, additional airport hazards, and ensure the safety of the public and guide compatible land use. Limit uses in specific noise impact and crash hazard areas that have been identified for each specific airport. To a lesser degree, protect the function and economic viability of the Skyport airport, which was not identified pursuant to ORS 836.600 but which the County recognizes as an established privately owned public use airport and thus requiring regulatory measures to promote safety.

b. Recognize the Portland-Hillsboro airport as the major aviation facility in Washington County and an airport of regional significance. To promote its operation, the County shall coordinate with the City of Hillsboro to help ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. The Comprehensive Plan will be updated to reflect any necessary changes resulting from this process.

c. Work with airport sponsors to coordinate with the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) in promoting FAA-registered flight patterns and FAA flight behavior regulations in order to protect the interests of County residents living near airports;

d. Maintain geographic information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport Overlay Districts and provide timely updates;

e. Participate in and encourage the adoption of master plans for all public use airports and, at a minimum, an airport layout plan for the remaining DOA recognized airfields in Washington County;

f. Discourage future development of private landing fields when they are in proximity to one another, or where they are near other public airports and potential airspace conflicts are determined to exist by the FAA or the DOA.

Washington County Transportation System Plan Air, Rail, Pipeline

and Water Background

Air transport in Washington County consists of two public use airports.1 The larger of these airports, the Hillsboro Airport, operated by the Port of Portland, is a general aviation airport acting as a reliever airport for Portland International. Aircraft at the Hillsboro Airport are limited to small engine and business class aircraft providing passenger shuttle rather than air cargo service for some of the major industries in the area. Plans to expand Hillsboro Airport in the future include the purchase of additional land for expansion and the addition of a third runway to accommodate increasing demand.

17.1 Coordinate planning and development of air, rail, pipeline and water

1 Private use airports are not a required element of a transportation system plan (OAR 660-012-0020{2}{e}).

A-8


transportation service with federal, state and regional regulators and transportation service providers to ensure the safety of operations as well as environmental and noise compatibility with surrounding land uses.

17.2 Coordinate with service providers to ensure that existing facilities are

protected from encroachment by incompatible land uses and to minimize land use conflicts where future expansion is needed.

Washington County Development Code 106 Definitions 106-10 Airport

106-10.1 Aircraft 106-10.2 Airport Direct Impact Area 106-10.3 Airport Elevation 106-10.4 Airport Imaginary Surfaces 106-10.5 Airport Noise Impact Boundary 106-10.6 Airport Sponsor 106-10.7 Approach Surface 106-10.8 Conical Surface 106-10.9 Department of Aviation 106-10.10 FAA 106-10.11 FAA's Technical Representative 106-10.12 Heliport 106-10.13 Horizontal Surface 106-10.14 Obstruction 106-10.15 Other than Utility Runway 106-10.16 Primary Surface 106-10.17 Public Assembly Facility 106-10.18 Runway 106-10.19 Runway Protection Zone 106-10.20 Significant 106-10.21 Transitional Surface 106-10.22 Utility Runway 106-10.23 Visual Runway 106-10.24 Water Impoundment

340 EXCLUSIVE FARM USE DISTRICT (EFU)

340-8.3 Height: C. No structure or structural part shall exceed height standards for any airport in the County established in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Regulations.

340-6 Prohibited Uses 340-6.4 The location of service facilities which house groups of people and

public assembly facilities in airport approach zones. These facilities shall be avoided within any existing June 1983, Airport year 2000 LDN fifty-five (55) contour.

344 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST DISTRICT (AF-20)

344-9.3 Height: C. No structure or structural part shall exceed height standards established for any airport in the County established in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Regulations.

A-9


348

AGRICULTURE AND FOREST DISTRICT (AF-5)

348-6.3 Height: D. No structure or structural part shall exceed the height standards established for any airport in the County established in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Regulations.

348-5 Prohibited Uses 348-5.4 The location of service facilities which house groups of people and

public assembly facilities in airport approach zones. These facilities shall be avoided within any existing June, 1983 Airport Year 2000 LDN fifty-five (55) contour.

387

PUBLIC USE AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT

CURRENTLY THIS ONLY APPLIES TO STARK’S TWIN OAKS AIRPARK

388 PUBLIC USE AIRPORT SAFETY AND COMPATIBILITY OVERLAY DISTRICT

CURRENTLY THIS ONLY APPLIES TO STARK’S TWIN OAKS AIRPARK and in the future to airports that a) have visual approaches and b) are identified as needing protection by the ORSs

430-7 Airports 430-7 Airports, Personal Use Personal use airport or heliport facilities, including associated hangers, maintenance and service facilities, may be permitted as a special use in certain districts outside of the airport overlay districts, subject to the following standards. Facilities in areas that are specifically designated for airport use (i.e., within Public Use Airport Overlay District or Private Use Airport Overlay District) shall be subject to the regulations outlined under those Sections. Personal use airports and heliports, in addition to appropriate approval of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Oregon Department of Transportation Aviation (DOA) and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), shall be subject to the standards of the Community Development Code.:

430-7.1A. The use shall be restricted, except for aircraft emergencies, to the owner, and on an infrequent and occasional basis, to his/her invited guests; and commercial aviation activities shall be restricted to those in connection with agricultural operations outside the UGB;

430-7.2B. Aircraft based on the site shall be limited to those owned or controlled by the owner of the airstrip;

430-7.3C. Exceptions to the activities permitted under Section 430-7.8 may be permitted through wavier action by the Department of Aviation in specific instances;

A-10


430-7.4D. A personal use airport lawfully existing as of September 13, 1975, shall be recognized and allowed to continue subject to any applicable regulations of the Department of Aviation, or any conditions stipulated by the County during the airport’s review as a special or conditional use;

430-7.5E. To avoid noise sensitive areas, limitations may be placed on personal use facilities to reduce negative impacts with regard to such things as noise, frequency of activity, type of operation and aircraft, hours of operation and traffic patterns.

430-59 Heliport

Heliports may be allowed subject to compliance to all Federal and State requirements including DEQ noise control regulations for aeronautics. Personal use heliports shall comply with the requirements of Section 430-7.8.

430-145 Winery 430-145.1 A winery, as described by ORS 215.452, may be permitted in the EFU and AF-20 Districts subject to the following standards: E. Standards imposed upon a winery shall be limited solely to each of the following for the sole purpose of limiting demonstrated conflicts with farming or forest practices on adjacent lands:

(3) The Review Authority shall also apply, when applicable, the standards of Sections 421 (Flood Plain and Drainage Hazard Area Development), Section 422 (Significant Natural Resources), and other standards regarding geologic hazards, airport safety, and other regulations for resource protection acknowledged to comply with any statewide planning goal respecting open spaces, scenic and historic areas and natural resources.

421, FLOOD PLAIN AND DRAINAGE HAZARD AREA DEVELOPMENT

421-4 Uses and Activities Permitted Through a Type I Procedure 421-4.9 Authorized airport related activities within the Public Use Airport Overlay District, as identified in section 387-4

421-5.16 Creation or restoration of wetlands, including wetland mitigation, creation, enhancement and restoration within public use airport approach surface areas and airport direct impact boundaries, pursuant to section 388-9.

CDC Section 422, SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCES,

422-3 Criteria for Development 422-3.3 Development Within a Riparian Corridor, Water Areas and Wetlands, and Water Areas and Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Habitat: (10) All public use airport related uses and activities allowed pursuant to Section 387-4. (11) Wetland mitigation, creation, enhancement and restoration within public use airport approach surface areas and airport direct impact boundaries shall be allowed upon demonstration of compliance with the requirements of Section 388-9.

A-11


CDC Section 204, NOTICE OF TYPE I, II OR III DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS

204-1 General Provisions For notice purposes for airport-related development actions within Public and Private Use Airport Overlay Districts, the boundary of the subject notice area shall be the limits of the associated Airport Safety Overlay District, or Airport Safety and Land Use Compatibility Overlay District (whichever is applicable)

204-3 Type II Actions 204-3.1 A public notice of pending review shall be mailed to: (4) When airport-related development is proposed on property within a Public or Private Use Airport Overlay District, property owners within the associated Airport Safety Overlay District, or Airport Safety and Land Use Compatibility Overlay District (whichever is applicable).

204-4 Type III Actions 204-4.2 The notice of public hearing shall be mailed to: (5) When airport-related development is proposed on property within a Public or Private Use Airport Overlay District, all property owners within the associated Airport Safety Overlay District or Airport Safety and Land Use Compatibility Overlay District (whichever is applicable).

Appendix B

STATE REGULATIONSPORT OF PORTLAND

B-1

STATE REGULATIONS This section includes an in-depth discussion of the State Regulations related to Airport Noise, expanding on the summary provided in Chapter 1. OREGON STATEWIDE LAND USE PROGRAM GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION The State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) administers 14 statewide planning goals which all local governments must incorporate into their local comprehensive land use plans. Statewide Planning Goal 12 addresses transportation and specifies that transportation networks within the state should be safe, convenient, and economic. This applies to both air passenger and air cargo systems. Compliance with this goal can be achieved by including a transportation element that addresses state requirements for airport planning and compatibility with surrounding land uses. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) was adopted by the State of Oregon’s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in 1991. It addresses more generally the topic of transportation planning, including airport planning. Four provisions of the TPR are noteworthy. First, OAR 660-012-0020(2)(e) requires that local government transportation system plans (TSPs) include an airport element that identifies the location of public use airports, including all areas within imaginary surfaces and other areas covered by state or federal regulations. Second, OAR 660-012-0045(2)(c) requires that local governments adopt land use regulations consistent with state and federal requirements to protect airport facilities and corridors for their intended functions. These include measures to protect public airports by controlling land uses within airport noise corridors and imaginary surfaces and by limiting physical hazards to air navigation. Third, OAR 660-012-0045(2)(d) requires that local governments establish a process for coordinated review of future land use decisions affecting transportation facilities, corridors, or sites. Finally, OAR 660-012-0045(2)(f)(D) requires local governments to adopt regulations providing notice to public entities and agencies providing transportation facilities and services of applications within airport noise corridors and imaginary surfaces that affect airport operations. For the Hillsboro Airport, affected agencies would include at least the Port of Portland, the Department of Aviation, and Metro. AIRPORT PLANNING RULE OAR 660-Division 13 (DLCD), Airport Planning Rule

B-2

The Airport Planning Rule (APR) was adopted by LCDC to refine the provisions for local government airport regulation contained in Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and OAR 660 Division 12 (Transportation Planning Rule or “TPR”). The APR establishes a series of local government requirements pertaining to aviation facility planning, which according to the purpose statement “…are intended to promote a convenient and economic system of airports in the state and land use planning to reduce risks to aircraft operations and nearby land uses.” The APR implements Oregon Revised Statute 836.600 through 836.630. Section-0030 “Preparation and Coordination of Plans” requires local governments to adopt comprehensive plan and land use regulations for airports consistent with the APR and ORS 836.600 through 836.630. All adopted comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements must be coordinated with acknowledged transportation system plans of affected cities, counties, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). They must also be consistent with the Oregon Department of Aviation’s adopted Aviation System Plan and coordinated with affected state and federal agencies, local governments, special districts, and airport sponsors. Finally under this section, plan and land use regulations requirements must “encourage and support the continued operation and vitality of airports” as required by ORS 836.600 et seq. Section-0040, “Aviation Facility Planning Requirements,” outlines facility planning requirements for local governments related to the adoption of comprehensive plan and land use regulations for each aviation facility subject to ORS 836.630. The list of requirements includes provisions that local governments adopt maps showing the locations of (1) the airport boundary; (2) existing and planned runways, taxiways, aprons, tie-down areas, and navigational aids; (3) existing and planned buildings and facilities; and (4) safety zones, compatibility zones, and existing noise impact boundaries identified pursuant to OAR 340, Division 35. Additional requirements include adopting a projection of aeronautical facility and service needs, as well as provisions for airport uses not currently located at the airport or expansion of existing airport uses. The following criteria determine whether the expansion of existing airport uses or the establishment of uses not currently located at the airport may be allowed: ▪ The projected need for such uses ▪ Economic and use forecasts supported by market data ▪ Whether the uses can be supported by adequate public and transportation services and

facilities ▪ Whether they can be sited such that they do not create a hazard for aircraft operations ▪ Whether uses can be sited in a manner that is compatible with existing and planned land uses

surrounding the airport ▪ Whether they are consistent with the applicable provisions of acknowledged plans, policies,

and regulations Additional requirements for airport planning include providing a description of the types and levels of public facilities and services necessary to support development located at or planned for the airport (including transportation facilities and services). Local governments must request that the airport owner provide the economic and use forecast required by the APR.

B-3

Section -0050, “Implementation of Local Airport Planning,” directs local governments to adopt land use regulations to carry out the requirements of the APR. Section-0070, “Local Government Safety Zones for Imaginary Surfaces,” requires that local governments adopt an Airport Safety Overlay Zone to promote aviation safety by prohibiting structures, trees, and other objects of natural growth from penetrating airport imaginary surfaces. Finally, Section 660-13-0080, “Local Government Land Use Compatibility Requirements for Public Use Airports,” includes the heart of Division 13, a list of the compatibility requirements for public use airports. According to the APR, local governments must take the following actions to move toward compatibility:

Prohibit new residential development and public assembly uses within the runway protection zone (RPZ);

Limit the establishment of uses identified in the FAR Part 150 land use compatibility guidelines table within a noise impact boundary that has been identified pursuant to OAR 340 Division 35;

Prohibit the siting of new industrial uses and the expansion of existing industrial uses where either, as part of regular operations, would cause emissions of smoke, dust, or steam that would obscure visibility within airport approach corridors;

Limit outdoor lighting for new industrial, commercial, or recreational uses or the expansion of such uses to prevent light from projecting directly onto an existing runway or taxiway, or into existing airport approach corridors except where necessary for safe and convenient air travel;

Coordinate the review of all radio, radiotelephone, and telephone transmission facilities and electrical transmission lines with ODOT aeronautics division;

Regulate water impoundments consistent with the requirements of ORS 836.623(2) through (6); and

Prohibit the establishment of new landfills near airports, consistent with DEQ rules. The remainder of the APR includes Section 660-013-0100, “Airport Uses at Non-Towered Airports,” which directs local governments to adopt land use regulations to allow a variety of uses and activities within airport boundaries for non-towered airports, and Section 660-13-0110, “Other Uses in the Airport Boundary,” which allows local governments to authorize commercial, industrial, manufacturing and other uses in addition to those listed in OAR 660-13-0100 within the airport boundary where such uses are consistent with applicable provisions of acknowledged plans, policies, and statewide planning goals. Finally, Section 660-13-0140, “Safe Harbors,” discusses alternative ways for local governments to address certain requirements in the APR. Under this section, portions of acknowledged comprehensive plans, land use regulations, Airport Master Plans, and Airport Layout Plans adopted by the local government as mandatory standards or requirements shall be considered adequate to meet requirements of the APR unless they are contrary to provisions of ORS 836.600 to 836.630. Noise Compatibility Planning OAR 340-035-0045 (DEQ) Noise Control Programs for Airports

B-4

This administrative rule recognizes that noise pollution caused by Oregon airports threatens the public health and welfare of citizens residing in the vicinity of airports. Noise Abatement Programs, (programs designed to achieve noise compatibility between an airport and its environs) primarily focus on airport operational measures to prevent increased noise and to lessen existing noise levels. NAPs also analyze the effects of aircraft noise emission regulations and land use controls. There are multiple ways to manage and diminish airport related noise and its impacts, including encouraging compatible land uses and controlling and reducing the airport/aircraft noise impacts on communities in the vicinity of airports to “acceptable” levels (Below DNL 65). The Rule establishes the Airport Noise Criterion as 55 DNL, which is lower than 14 CFR Part 150, which recognizes noise sensitive area as 65 DNL and above. While DEQ requires areas from DNL 55 dBA and above to be mapped for informational purposes, noise levels below 65 DNL are considered acceptable and no mitigation is required. Section (2) of the rule requires any airport that obtains funding to develop an Airport Master Plan to submit for DEQ approval an existing noise impact boundary and projected noise impact boundaries at five, ten, and twenty years into the future. NAPs are required if the Airport Noise Impact Boundary (within or above the DNL 55 noise contour) includes a Noise Sensitive Property. “Noise Sensitive Property” is defined as “real property normally used for sleeping, or normally used as schools, churches, hospitals or public libraries. Property used in industrial or agricultural activities is not Noise Sensitive Property unless it meets the above criteria in more than an incidental manner.” A Noise Abatement Program will be required if Noise Sensitive Property is identified within the Airport Noise Impact Boundary, and the DEQ Commission has reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The determination of “reasonable cause” is based upon the following criteria: ▪ Present or planned airport operations cause or may cause noise impacts that interfere with

noise sensitive use activities such as communication and sleep to the extent that the public health, safety or welfare, is threatened;

▪ The noise impacts will occur on property presently used for noise-sensitive purposes, or where noise-sensitive use is permitted by zone or comprehensive plan; and

▪ It appears likely that a feasible noise abatement program may be developed. General elements of a Noise Abatement Program include the following (for a complete listing see OAR-340-035-045[b]): ▪ Maps of the airport and its environs, and supplemental information, providing specific noise

contours from the Noise Impact Boundary at five, ten, and twenty years in the future, all existing noise-sensitive property in the Noise Impact Boundary, present zoning and comprehensive land use plan permitted uses and related policies, physical layout of the airport including runways, location of present and future flight tracks, and number of aircraft flight operations used in the calculation of the airport noise levels.

B-5

▪ An airport operational plan designed to reduce airport noise impacts at Noise Sensitive Property to the Airport Noise Criterion to the greatest extent practicable (see OAR-340-035-045[b] for methods to obtain reductions).

▪ A proposed land use and development control plan, and evidence of good faith efforts to protect the area within the airport Noise Impact Boundary from encroachment by non-compatible noise-sensitive uses and to resolve conflicts with existing unprotected noise-sensitive uses within the boundary (see OAR-340-035-045[b] for potential actions).

OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Oregon Transportation Plan is the statewide plan for all transportation modes as designated under Goal 12. It is a guide for coordinating all transportation networks to ensure efficient and convenient access to the state’s transportation networks. OREGON AVIATION PLAN The Oregon Department of Aviation has adopted the 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan. The Oregon Aviation Plan is intended to provide guidance for the safe and efficient operation of a convenient and economically viable system of airports. Additionally, land use compatibility efforts are to be made to reduce accident risks to aircraft operations and to land uses. Ideally, those efforts should fall in line with the Oregon Airport Compatibility Guidebook which is described in the following paragraphs. OREGON AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY GUIDEBOOK The Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook (Guidebook) was published in 2003 by the State of Oregon Department of Aviation to serve as a resource for planners, local officials, and citizens regarding airport land use compatibility issues. It provides non-mandatory guidance about how local governments might implement land management techniques that will improve airport land use compatibility. The Guidebook provides a comprehensive picture of the issues surrounding land use compatibility topics. It includes summaries of the many federal and state regulations related to aviation and airport planning, a discussion of safety, environmental and noise-related issues, implementation methods for preventative and corrective operational and land management techniques, as well as sample agreements, plans, and zoning ordinances (including model airport use ordinances and model airport safety and compatibility overlay ordinances addressing the requirements in ORS 836.600 et seq. and OAR 660, Division 13). The Guidebook is the primary source for the potential land management methods referenced later in this document.

Appendix C

MODEL PUBLIC USE AIRPORT SAFETYAND COMPATIBILITY OVERLAY ZONE

FOR PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS WITHINSTRUMENT APPROACHES

PORT OF PORTLAND

C-1

Model Public Use Airport Safety and Compatibility Overlay Zone for Public Use Airports with Instrument Approaches

.010 Purpose. The purpose of this overlay zone is to encourage and support the

continued operation and vitality of public use airports with instrument approaches by establishing compatibility and safety standards to promote air navigational safety at such public use airports and to reduce potential safety hazards for persons living, working or recreating near such public use airports. [ORS 836.600; ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070; OAR 660-013-0080]

.020 Definitions. [ORS 836.605; ORS 836.623(6); OAR 660-013-0020; OAR 660-013-

0070(1)(a), (b); OAR 660-013-0080(1)(a)]

Airport. The strip of land used for taking off and landing aircraft, together with all adjacent land used in connection with the aircraft landing or taking off from the strip of land, including but not limited to land used for existing airport uses.

Airport Direct Impact Area. The area located within 5,000 feet of an airport runway, excluding lands within the runway protection zone and approach surface.

Airport Elevation. The highest point of an airport's usable runway, measured in feet above mean sea level.

Airport Imaginary Surfaces. Imaginary areas in space and on the ground that are established in relation to the airport and its runways. Imaginary areas are defined by the primary surface, runway protection zone, approach surface, horizontal surface, conical surface and transitional surface.

Airport Noise Impact Boundary. Areas located within 1,500 feet of an airport runway or within established noise contour boundaries exceeding 55 Ldn.

Airport Secondary Impact Area. The area located between 5,000 and 10,000 feet from an airport runway.

Airport Sponsor. The owner, manager, or other person or entity designated to represent the interests of an airport.

Approach Surface. A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. A. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and it

expands uniformly to a width of:

a. 2,000 feet for a utility runway having a non-precision, instrument approach;

C-2

b. 3,500 feet for a non-precision instrument runway, other than utility, having visibility minimums greater than three-fourths statute mile;

c. 4,000 feet for a non-precision instrument runway, other than utility, having

visibility minimums at or below three-fourths statute mile; and

d. 16,000 feet for precision instrument runways.

B. The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of: a. 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 feet outward for each foot upward for all utility

runways; b. 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 feet outward for each foot upward for all non-

precision instrument runways, other than utility; c. 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 feet outward for each one foot upward, with an

additional 40,000 feet at slope of 40 feet outward for each one foot upward, for precision instrument runways.

d. The outer width of an approach surface will be that width prescribed in this

subsection for the most precise approach existing or planned for that runway end.

Conical Surface. A surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.

Department of Aviation. The Oregon Department of Aviation, formerly the Aeronautics Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation.

FAA. The Federal Aviation Administration.

FAA's Technical Representative. As used in this ordinance, the federal agency providing the FAA with expertise on wildlife and bird strike hazards as they relate to airports. This may include, but is not limited to, the USDAAPHIS-Wildlife Services.

Height. The highest point of a structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth, measured from mean sea level.

Horizontal Surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is: (A) 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility.

C-3

(B) 10,000 feet for all other runways. (C) The radius of the arc specified for each end of a runway will have the same

arithmetical value. That value will be the highest determined for either end of the runway. When a 5,000 foot arc is encompassed by tangents connecting two adjacent 10,000 foot arcs, the 5,000 foot arc shall be disregarded on the construction of the perimeter of the horizontal surface.

Non-precision Instrument Runway. A runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or area type navigation equipment, for which a straight-in nonprecision instrument approach has been approved, or planned, and for which no precision approach facilities are planned or indicated on an FAA approved airport layout plan or other FAA planning document.

Obstruction. Any structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth that penetrates an imaginary surface.

Other than Utility Runway. A runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by turbine driven aircraft or by propeller-driven aircraft exceeding 12,500 pounds gross weight.

Precision Instrument Runway. A runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities that provide both horizontal and vertical guidance, such as an Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Precision Approach Radar (PAR). It also means a runway for which a precision approach system is planned and is so indicated by an FAA-approved airport layout plan or other FAA planning document.

Primary Surface. A surface longitudinally centered on a runway. When a runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway. When a runway has no specially prepared hard surface, or planned hard surface, the primary surface ends at each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The width of the primary surface is:

(A) 500 feet for utility runways having non-precision instrument approaches,

(B) 500 feet for other than utility runways having non-precision instrument

approaches with visibility minimums greater than threefourths statute mile, and

(C) 1,000 feet for non-precision instrument runways with visibility minimums at or below three-fourths statute mile, and for precision instrument runways.

Public Assembly Facility. A permanent or temporary structure or facility, place or activity where concentrations of people gather in reasonably close quarters for purposes such as deliberation, education, worship, shopping, employment, entertainment, recreation, sporting events, or similar activities. Public assembly facilities include, but are

C-4

not limited to, schools, churches, conference or convention facilities, employment and shopping centers, arenas, athletic fields, stadiums, clubhouses, museums, and similar facilities and places, but do not include parks, golf courses or similar facilities unless used in a manner where people are concentrated in reasonably close quarters. Public assembly facilities also do not include air shows, structures or uses approved by the FAA in an adopted airport master plan, or places where people congregate for short periods of time such as parking lots or bus stops. Runway. A defined area on an airport prepared for landing and takeoff of aircraft along its length.

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). An area off the runway end used to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended runway centerline. The inner width of the RPZ is the same as the width of the primary surface. The outer width of the RPZ is a function of the type of aircraft and specified approach visibility minimum associated with the runway end. The RPZ extends from each end of the primary surface for a horizontal distance of: (A) 1,000 feet for utility runways. (B) 1,700 feet for other than utility runways having non-precision instrument approaches.

(C) 2,500 feet for precision instrument runways. [NOTE: the outer width of the RPZ is specified by airport type in OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 4]

Significant. As it relates to bird strike hazards, "significant" means a level of increased flight activity by birds across an approach surface or runway that is more than incidental or occasional, considering the existing ambient level of flight activity by birds in the vicinity. Structure. Any constructed or erected object which requires location on the ground or is attached to something located on the ground. Structures include but are not limited to buildings, decks, fences, signs, towers, cranes, flagpoles, antennas, smokestacks, earth formations and overhead transmission lines. Structures do not include paved areas.

Transitional Surface. Those surfaces that extend upward and outward at 90 degree angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of seven (7) feet horizontally for each foot vertically from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces to the point of intersection with the horizontal and conical surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surfaces which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at a 90 degree angle to the extended runway centerline.

C-5

Utility Runway. A runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight or less.

Visual Runway. A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, where no straight-in instrument approach procedures or instrument designations have been approved or planned, or are indicated on an FAA-approved airport layout plan or any other FAA planning document.

Water Impoundment. Includes wastewater treatment settling ponds, surface mining ponds, detention and retention ponds, artificial lakes and ponds, and similar water features. A new water impoundment includes an expansion of an existing water impoundment except where such expansion was previously authorized by land use action approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance.

.030 Imaginary Surface and Noise Impact Boundary Delineation. The airport elevation,

the airport noise impact boundary, and the location and dimensions of the runway, primary surface, runway protection zone, approach surface, horizontal surface, conical surface and transitional surface shall be delineated for each airport subject to this overlay zone and shall be made part of the Official Zoning Map. [NOTE: Airports utilizing best management practices should include direct and secondary impact boundaries in this list.] All lands, waters and airspace, or portions thereof, that are located within these boundaries or surfaces shall be subject to the requirements of this overlay zone. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0040(8); OAR 660-013-0070(1); OAR 660-013-0080(1)]

.040 Notice of Land Use and Permit Applications within Overlay Zone Area. Except as

otherwise provided herein, written notice of applications for land use or limited land use decisions, including comprehensive plan or zoning amendments, in an area within this overlay zone, shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation in the same manner as notice is provided to property owners entitled by law to written notice of land use or limited land use applications. [ORS 836.623(1); OAR 738-100-010; ORS 215.416(6); ORS 227.175(6)]

A. Notice shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation when

the property, or a portion thereof, that is subject to the land use or limited land use application is located within 10,000 feet of the sides or ends of a runway:

B. Notice of land use and limited land use applications shall be provided within the

following timelines. 1. Notice of land use or limited land use applications involving public hearings shall be provided prior to the public hearing at the same time that written notice of such applications is provided to property owners entitled to such notice. 2. Notice of land use or limited land use applications not involving public hearings shall be provided at least 20 days prior to entry of the initial decision on the land use or limited land use application.

C-6

C. Notice of the decision on a land use or limited land use application shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation within the same timelines that such notice is provided to parties to a land use or limited land use proceeding.

D. Notices required under Paragraphs A-C of this section need not be provided to the

airport sponsor or the Department of Aviation where the land use or limited land use application meets all of the following criteria:

1. Would only allow structures of less than 35 feet in height; 2. Involves property located entirely outside the approach surface; 3. Does not involve industrial, mining or similar uses that emit smoke, dust or steam; sanitary landfills or water impoundments; or radio, radiotelephone, television or similar transmission facilities or electrical transmission lines; and 4. Does not involve wetland mitigation, enhancement, restoration or creation.

.050 Height Limitations on Allowed Uses in Underlying Zones. All uses permitted by the

underlying zone shall comply with the height limitations in this Section. When height limitations of the underlying zone are more restrictive than those of this overlay zone, the underlying zone height limitations shall control. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070]

A. Except as provided in subsections B and C of this Section, no structure or tree, plant

or other object of natural growth shall penetrate an airport imaginary surface. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070(1)]

B. For areas within airport imaginary surfaces but outside the approach and transition

surfaces, where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surfaces such that existing structures and permitted development penetrate or would penetrate the airport imaginary surfaces, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet in height.

C. Other height exceptions or variances may be permitted when supported in writing by

the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA. Applications for height variances shall follow the procedures for other variances and shall be subject to such conditions and terms as recommended by the Department of Aviation and the FAA.

.060 Procedures. An applicant seeking a land use or limited land use approval in an area

within this overlay zone shall provide the following information in addition to any other information required in the permit application: [NOTE: where uses otherwise allowed outright become "limited" under this ordinance, the local government needs to identify the applicable administrative review process.]

C-7

A. A map or drawing showing the location of the property in relation to the airport imaginary surfaces. The Planning Department shall provide the applicant with appropriate base maps upon which to locate the property.

B. Elevation profiles and a site plan, both drawn to scale, including the location and height

of all existing and proposed structures, measured in feet above mean sea level.

C. If a height variance is requested, letters of support from the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA.

.070 Land Use Compatibility Requirements. [Option 1 – Minimum Requirements] Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall comply with the requirements of this chapter as provided herein. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660- 013-0080]

A. Noise. Within airport noise impact boundaries, land uses shall be established

consistent with the levels identified in OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 5. A declaration of anticipated noise levels shall be attached to any subdivision or partition approval or other land use approval or building permit affecting land within airport noise impact boundaries. In areas where the noise level is anticipated to be at or above 55 Ldn, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of a noise sensitive land use (real property normally used for sleeping or as a school, church, hospital, public library or similar use), the permit applicant shall be required to demonstrate that a noise abatement strategy will be incorporated into the building design that will achieve an indoor noise level equal to or less than 55 Ldn. [OAR 340-035-0045(1)(d), (4)] [NOTE: FAA Order 5100.38A, Chapter 7 provides that interior noise levels should not exceed 45 decibels in all habitable zones.]

B. Outdoor Lighting. No new or expanded industrial, commercial or recreational use

shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces except where necessary for safe and convenient air travel. Lighting for these uses shall incorporate shielding in their designs to reflect light away from airport approach surfaces. No use shall imitate airport lighting or impede the ability of pilots to distinguish between airport lighting and other lighting.

C. Glare. No glare producing material, including but not limited to unpainted metal or

reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of structures located within an approach surface or on nearby lands where glare could impede a pilot's vision.

D. Industrial Emissions. No new industrial, mining or similar use, or expansion of an

existing industrial, mining or similar use, shall, as part of its regular operations, cause emissions of smoke, dust or steam that could obscure visibility within airport approach surfaces, except upon demonstration, supported by substantial evidence, that mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions will reduce the potential for safety risk or incompatibility with airport operations to an insignificant level. The

C-8

review authority shall impose such conditions as necessary to ensure that the use does not obscure visibility.

E. Communications Facilities and Electrical Interference. Proposals for the location of

new or expanded radio, radiotelephone, and television transmission facilities and electrical transmission lines within this overlay zone shall be coordinated with the Department of Aviation and the FAA prior to approval. [NOTE: See the additional safeguards set out in the Best Management Practices alternative below. The Department of Aviation highly recommends those safeguards.]

F. Use Prohibitions in RPZ. Notwithstanding the underlying zoning, the following uses

are prohibited in the RPZ.

a. New residential development.

b. 2. Public assembly facilities.

G. Landfills. No new sanitary landfills shall be permitted within 10,000 feet of any airport runway. Expansions of existing landfill facilities within these distances shall be permitted only upon demonstration that the landfills are designed and will operate so as not to increase the likelihood of bird/aircraft collisions. Timely notice of any proposed expansion shall be provided to the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA, and any approval shall be accompanied by such conditions as are necessary to ensure that an increase in bird/aircraft collisions is not likely to result.

OR… .070 Land Use Compatibility Requirements. [Option 2 – Best Management Practices]

Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall comply with the requirements of this chapter as provided herein. [ORS 836.619; ORS 836.623(1); OAR 660-013-0080]

A. Noise. Within airport noise impact boundaries, land uses shall be established

consistent with the levels identified in OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 5. A declaration of anticipated noise levels shall be attached to any subdivision or partition approval or other land use approval or building permit affecting land within airport noise impact boundaries. In areas where the noise level is anticipated to be at or above 55 Ldn, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of a noise sensitive land use (real property normally used for sleeping or as a school, church, hospital, public library or similar use), the permit applicant shall be required to demonstrate that a noise abatement strategy will be incorporated into the building design that will achieve an indoor noise level equal to or less than 55 Ldn. [NOTE: FAA Order 5100.38A, Chapter 7 provides that interior noise levels should not exceed 45 decibels in all habitable zones.]

C-9

B. Outdoor Lighting. No new or expanded industrial, commercial or recreational use shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces except where necessary for safe and convenient air travel. Lighting for these uses shall incorporate shielding in their designs to reflect light away from airport approach surfaces. No use shall imitate airport lighting or impede the ability of pilots to distinguish between airport lighting and other lighting.

C. Glare. No glare producing material, including but not limited to unpainted metal or

reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of structures located within an approach surface or on nearby lands where glare could impede a pilot's vision.

D. Industrial Emissions. No new industrial, mining or similar use, or expansion of an

existing industrial, mining or similar use, shall, as part of its regular operations, cause emissions of smoke, dust or steam that could obscure visibility within airport approach surfaces, except upon demonstration, supported by substantial evidence, that mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions will reduce the potential for safety risk or incompatibility with airport operations to an insignificant level. The review authority shall impose such conditions as necessary to ensure that the use does not obscure visibility.

E. Communications Facilities and Electrical Interference. No use shall cause or create

electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between an airport and aircraft. Proposals for the location of new or expanded radio, radiotelephone, and television transmission facilities and electrical transmission lines within this overlay zone shall be coordinated with the Department of Aviation and the FAA prior to approval. Approval of cellular and other telephone or radio communication towers on leased property located within airport imaginary surfaces shall be conditioned to require their removal within 90 days following the expiration of the lease agreement. A bond or other security shall be required to ensure this result.

F. Limitations and Restrictions on Allowed Uses in the RPZ, Approach Surface, and

Airport Direct and Secondary Impact Areas. The land uses identified in Table 1, and their accessory uses, are permitted, permitted under limited circumstances, or prohibited in the manner therein described. In the event of conflict with the underlying zone, the more restrictive provisions shall control. As used in this section, a limited use means a use that is allowed subject to special standards specific to that use.

C-10

TABLE A-1: LIMITATIONS & RESTRICTIONS ON ALLOWED USES

KEY: P = Use is Permitted L = Use is Allowed Under Limited Circumstances (see footnotes) N = Use is Not Allowed

RPZ 1

Approach Surface 8

Direct Impact Area

Secondary Impact Area

Public Airport L 2 L 9 P P Residential N L 10 L 14 P Commercial N L 9 L 15 P Industrial N L 9 P P Institutional N L 9 L 15 P Farm Use P 3 P 3 P 3 P 3 Roads/Parking L 4 P P P Utilities L 5 L 5 L 5 L 5 Parks/Open Space L 6 P P P Golf Courses L 7 L 7 9 L 7 L 7 Athletic Fields N L 9 L 14 P Sanitary Landfills N N N N Water Treatment Plants N N N N Mining N L 11 L 11 L 11 Water Impoundments N N 12 N 16 N 16 Wetland Mitigation N L 13 L 13 L 13

Source: Model Public Use Airport Safety And Compatibility Overlay Zone (Visual and Instrument Approach Airports), ODA

Notes: 1 No Structures shall be allowed within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Exceptions shall be made only for structures

accessory to airport operations whose location within the RPZ has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. 2 In the RPZ, public airport uses are restricted to those uses and facilities that require location in the RPZ. 3 Farming practices that minimize wildlife attractants are encouraged. 4 Roads and parking areas are permitted in the RPZ only upon demonstration that there are not practicable alternatives. Lights,

guardrails, and related accessory structures are prohibited. Cost may be considered in determining whether practicable alternatives exist.

5 In the RPZ, utilities, powerlines and pipelines must be underground. In approach surfaces and in airport direct and secondary impact areas, the proposed height of utilities shall be coordinated with the airport sponsor and Department of Aviation (ODA).

6 Public assembly facilities are prohibited in the RPZ. 7 Golf courses may be permitted only upon demonstration, supported by substantial evidence, that management techniques

will be utilized to reduce existing wildlife attractants and avoid the recreation of new wildlife attractant. Such techniques shall be required as conditions of the approval. Structures are not permitted within the RPZ. For purposes of this document, tee markers, tee signs, pin cups and pins are not considered to be structures.

8 Within 10,000 feet from the end of the primary surface of a non-precision instrument runway, and within 50,000 feet from the end of the primary surface of a precision instrument runway.

9 Public assembly facilities may be allowed in an approach surface only if the potential danger to public safety is minimal. In determining whether a proposed use is appropriate, consideration shall be given to: proximity to the RPZ; density of people per acre; frequency of use; level of activity at the airport,; and other factors relevant to public safety. In general, high density uses should not be permitted within airport approach surfaces, and on residential structures should be located outside approach surfaces unless no practicable alternatives exist.

10 Residential densities within approach surfaces should not exceed the following densities: (1) within 500 feet of the outer edge of the RPZ, 1 unit per acre; (2) within 500 to 1,500 feet of the outer edge of the RPZ, 2 units per acre; (3) within 1,500 to 3,000 feet of the outer edge of the RPZ, 4 units per acre.

11 Mining operations involving the creation or expansion of water impoundments shall comply with the requirements of this document regarding water impoundments.

12 Water impoundments are prohibited within 5,000 feet from the edge or end of a runway. 13 Wetland Mitigation required for projects located within an approach surface, the airport direct or secondary impact area

shall be authorized only upon demonstration, supported by substantial evidence, that it is impracticable to provide mitigation

C-11

outside of these areas. Proposals for wetland mitigation shall be coordinated with the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation, the FAA and the wetland-permitting agencies prior to the issuance of required permits. Wetland mitigation shall be designed and located to avoid creating a wildlife hazard or increasing hazardous movements of birds across runway and approach surfaces. Conditions shall be imposed as are appropriate and necessary to prevent in perpetuity an increase in hazardous bird movements across runway and approach surfaces. See section 0.90 of Appendix D or E for the best management practices for airports located near significant wetlands or wildlife habitat areas.

14 Within the transitional surface, residential uses and athletic fields are not permitted. 15 Within the transitional surface, overnight accommodations, such as hotels, motels, hospitals and dormitories, are not

permitted. 16 See section .08 of Appendix D or E prohibiting or regulating water impoundments within 5,000 or 10,000 feet of the end or

edge of a runway.

.080 Water Impoundments within Approach Surfaces and Airport Direct and Secondary

Impact Boundaries. Any use or activity that would result in the establishment or expansion of a water impoundment shall comply with the requirements of this section. (ORS 836.623(2); OAR 660-013-0080(1)(f)]

A. No new or expanded water impoundments of one-quarter acre in size or larger are

permitted:

a. Within an approach surface and within 5,000 feet from the end of a runway; or b. On land owned by the airport sponsor that is necessary for airport operations.

OR… [for airports where it can be demonstrated with substantial evidence that new water impoundments would result in a significant increase in hazardous movements of birds across runways or approach surfaces, taking into consideration mitigation measures or conditions that could reduce safety risks and incompatibility] [ORS 836.623(2)(b), (c); ORS 836.623(4), (5)]

A. No new or expanded water impoundments of one-quarter acre in size or larger are permitted within 5,000 feet from the end or edge of a runway.

B. The establishment of a new water impoundment one-quarter acre in size or larger

between 5,000 and 10,000 feet of a runway outside an approach surface and between 5,000 feet and 40,000 feet within an approach corridor for an airport with an instrument approach may be permitted only upon determination that such water impoundment, with reasonable and practicable mitigation measures, is not likely to result in a significant increase in hazardous movements of birds feeding, watering or roosting in areas across runways or approach surfaces. [NOTE: FAA Part 77 discourages water impoundments within 50,000 feet of a runway within an approach surface.] [ORS 836.623(2)(c); OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 1, Section 3(b)(C);]

a. Process. An application for approval of a new water impoundment shall be

considered utilizing the review process applied to applications for conditional use permits. In addition to the parties required by law to be mailed written notice of the public hearing on the application, written notice of the hearing shall be mailed

C-12

to the airport sponsor, the Seattle Airports District Office of the FAA, the FAA's technical representative, and the Oregon Department of Aviation. a. Prior to filing its application, the applicant shall coordinate with the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation, and the FAA (Seattle Airports District Office) and FAA's technical representative regarding the proposed water impoundment, its short and long term potential to significantly increase hazardous movements of birds feeding, watering or roosting in areas across runways or approach surfaces, and proposed mitigation.

i. For water impoundments individually or cumulatively exceeding five (5)

acres in size on the subject property, the applicant shall prepare a draft bird strike study as provided in subsection .2 of this section. The airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation, and the FAA and FAA's technical representative shall have 45 days to review the study draft. Their comments shall be included and addressed in a final bird strike study.

ii. For water impoundments that do not individually or cumulatively exceed

five (5) acres in size on the subject property, the bird strike study requirements in subsection 2 of this section may be reduced or waived upon agreement by the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation, and the FAA and FAA's technical representative if the applicant can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation, and the FAA and FAA's technical representative that the proposed water impoundment, with appropriate short and long term mitigation, will not result in a significant increase in hazardous movements of birds feeding, watering or roosting in areas across runways or approach surfaces. As used herein, "appropriate mitigation" means small-scale measures of proven reliability that can be applied in perpetuity and that the applicant has the financial resources to support.

b. An application shall not be deemed complete for land use review purposes until

the applicant has filed with the Director the final bird strike study addressing comments from the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation, and the FAA and FAA's technical representative. When no bird strike study is required, the application shall not be deemed complete until the applicant has filed with the Director correspondence or other proof demonstrating agreement among the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation, and the FAA and FAA's technical representative that no bird strike study is required.

c. Bird Strike Study. A bird strike study required under this section shall contain at

least the following information:

i. A description of the proposed project, its location in relation to the airport and the bird strike study area, which shall include at least the project site, the airport property, all lands within 10,000 feet from the end or edge of

C-13

the airport runway, and other surrounding habitat areas which form the local bird ecosystem.

ii. A description of bird feeding, watering and roosting habitats in the bird

strike study area, including discussion of feeding behavior and food sources and identification of loafing, watering, roosting and nesting area locations.

iii. A description of existing and planned airport operations and air traffic

patterns and any available history of bird strike incidents.

iv. Wildlife surveys and documentation of existing bird species, populations, activities and flight patterns in the bird strike study area. The surveys shall address bird species and their composition; bird population estimates and densities per unit area; feeding behavior; food sources; seasonal use patterns; frequency of occurrence; location of loafing, roosting and nesting areas; and analysis of the relation of bird flight movements to airport traffic patterns and navigational safety. The airport sponsor shall provide approach and departure air space information up to five statutory miles from the airport.

v. An evaluation of the anticipated effects of the proposal on the population

density, behavior patterns, movements and species composition of birds within the bird strike study area and of the impact of these effects on air navigation and safety considering possible mitigation.

vi. Identification and evaluation of proposed and alternative short and long

term mitigation measures that would prevent a significant increase in hazardous movements of birds feeding, watering or roosting in areas across runways and approach surfaces that otherwise might result from the proposed use. The evaluation shall discuss the proven reliability of proposed measures, their effectiveness over both the short and long term, their costs, and the applicant's financial ability to assure their perpetual implementation, i.e. ongoing implementation for as long as a potential bird strike hazard persists.

vii. Such other information as is recommended by the FAA's technical

representative or is required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of subsection .3 of this section.

d. Required Findings. The determination whether a proposed new water

impoundment, with reasonable and practicable mitigation measures, is likely to significantly increase hazardous movements of birds feeding, watering or roosting in areas across runways or approach surfaces shall be based upon the proposal's potential, both in the short term and in the long term, to significantly increase bird strike hazards to air navigation, and the appropriateness, effectiveness and

C-14

affordability of proposed mitigation measures or other conditions needed to reduce bird strike hazards. In determining compliance with this standard, the findings shall address each of the following factors:

i. The demonstrated overall effectiveness and reliability of proposed

measures and conditions, in both the short and long term and under similar circumstances and conditions, to avoid a significant increase in bird strike hazards to air navigation. Experimental measures or measures not based on accepted technology and industry practices shall be considered ineffective, inappropriate and of unproven reliability.

ii. The economic, social and environmental impacts of proposed measures to

the neighboring community and the affected natural environment.

iii. The applicant's ability to pay for necessary short and long-term mitigation measures, including fallback measures that may be required if initially proposed mitigation measures prove ineffective, and to assure the perpetual implementation of those measures for as long as a potential bird strike hazard persists. An applicant's failure to demonstrate its financial ability to assure the perpetual implementation of necessary and appropriate measures shall render those measures unreasonable and impracticable for purposes of the application.

iv. The applicant's ability to accurately monitor the effectiveness of

mitigation over time.

v. The potential impacts to navigational safety and air travel if the applicant cannot perform necessary mitigation measures or maintain those measures in perpetuity, or if those measures prove to be ineffective at avoiding a significant increase in bird strike hazards to air navigation.

vi. The applicant's reclamation plan.

e. Mitigation Measures and Approval Conditions. A decision approving an

application shall require, as conditions of approval, all measures and conditions deemed appropriate and necessary to prevent in perpetuity a significant increase in hazardous movements of birds feeding, watering or roosting in areas across runways and approach surfaces.

i. Only customary measures based on accepted technology and industry

practice may be considered and imposed as approval conditions.

ii. Serious consideration shall be given to all measures and conditions recommended by the Department of Aviation and the FAA and FAA's technical representative. Generally, such measures and conditions shall be attached to a decision approving an application unless findings are

C-15

adopted, supported by substantial evidence, demonstrating why such measures and conditions are not necessary to reduce bird hazard impacts resulting from the water impoundment to an insignificant level.

iii. A decision to approve shall require from the applicant a performance bond

or other form of secure financial support. Such bond or security shall be in an amount sufficient to assure perpetual implementation of appropriate and necessary mitigation measures for as long as a potential bird strike hazard persists.

iv. A decision to approve shall require appropriate monitoring of the

effectiveness of mitigation over time. Upon request, monitoring data and reports shall be made available to the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation, and the FAA and FAA's technical representative. The decision shall allow for modifications to approval conditions should existing mitigation measures prove ineffective at preventing a significant increase in hazardous movements of birds feeding, watering or roosting in areas across runways and approach surfaces. Modifications to approval conditions shall be considered utilizing the review process applied to applications for conditional use permits.

f. Exemptions. The requirements of this section shall not apply to:

i. Storm water management basins established by an airport identified under

ORS 836.610(1).

ii. Seaplane landing areas within airports identified under ORS 836.610(1). .090 Wetland Mitigation, Creation, Enhancement and Restoration within Approach

Surfaces and Airport Direct and Secondary Impact Boundaries.

A. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section .080, wetland mitigation, creation, enhancement or restoration projects located within areas regulated under Section .080 shall be allowed upon demonstration of compliance with this requirements of this Section.

B. Wetland mitigation, creation, enhancement or restoration projects existing or approved on

the effective date of this ordinance and located within areas regulated under Section .080 are recognized as lawfully existing uses.

C. To help avoid increasing safety hazards to air navigation near public use airports, the

establishment of wetland mitigation banks in the vicinity of such airports but outside approach surfaces and areas regulated under Section .080 is encouraged.

D. Applications to expand wetland mitigation projects in existence as of the effective date of

this ordinance, and new wetland mitigation projects, that are proposed within areas

C-16

regulated under Section .080 shall be considered utilizing the review process applied to applications for conditional use permits and shall be permitted upon demonstration that:

a. It is not practicable to provide off-site mitigation; or b. The affected wetlands provide unique ecological functions,such as critical habitat

for threatened or endangered species or ground water discharge, and the area proposed for mitigation is located outside an approach surface.

E. Wetland mitigation permitted under subsection D. of this Section shall be designed and

located to avoid creating a wildlife hazard or increasing hazardous movements of birds across runways or approach surfaces.

F. Applications to create, enhance or restore wetlands that are proposed to be located within

approach surfaces or within areas regulated under Section .080, and that would result in the creation of a new water impoundment or the expansion of an existing water impoundment, shall be considered utilizing the review process applied to applications for conditional use permits and shall be permitted upon demonstration that: .

a. The affected wetlands provide unique ecological functions, such as critical habitat

for threatened or endangered species or ground water discharge; and b. The wetland creation, enhancement or restoration is designed and will be

maintained in perpetuity in a manner that will not increase hazardous movements of birds feeding, watering or roosting in areas across runways or approach surfaces.

G. Proposals for new or expanded wetland mitigation, creation, enhancement or restoration

projects regulated under this Section shall be coordinated with the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation, the FAA and FAA's technical representative, the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW), the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as part of the permit application.

H. A decision approving an application under this Section shall require, as conditions of

approval, measures and conditions deemed appropriate and necessary to prevent in perpetuity an increase in hazardous bird movements across runways and approach surfaces.

.100 Nonconforming Uses.

A. These regulations shall not be construed to require the removal, lowering or alteration of any structure not conforming to these regulations. These regulations shall not require any change in the construction, alteration or intended use of any structure, the construction or alteration of which was begun prior to the effective date of this overlay zone.

C-17

B. Notwithstanding subsection A. of this section, the owner of any existing structure that has an adverse effect on air navigational safety as determined by the Department of Aviation shall install or allow the installation of obstruction markers as deemed necessary by the Department of Aviation, so that the structures become more visible to pilots.

C. No land use or limited land use approval or other permit shall be granted that would

allow a nonconforming use or structure to become a greater hazard to air navigation than it was on the effective date of the overlay zone.

.110 Avigation Easement. Within this overlay zone, the owners of properties that are the

subjects of applications for land use or limited land use decisions, for building permits for new residential, commercial, industrial, institutional or recreational buildings or structures intended for inhabitation or occupancy by humans or animals, or for expansions of such buildings or structures by the lesser of 50% or 1000 square feet, shall, as a condition of obtaining such approval or permits, dedicate an avigation easement to the airport sponsor. The avigation easement shall be in a form acceptable to the airport sponsor and shall be signed and recorded in the deed records of the County. The avigation easement shall allow unobstructed passage for aircraft and ensure safety and use of the airport for the public. Property owners or their representatives are responsible for providing the recorded instrument prior to issuance of building permits.

KANSAS CITY(816) 524-3500

237 N.W. Blue ParkwaySuite 100

Lee's Summit, MO 64063

PHOENIX(602) 993-6999

4835 E. Cactus RoadSuite 235

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Airport Consultants

hillsboro airport - port of portland · less populated areas of the community. hillsboro airport...

Documents