495 P.3d 1267
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- In October 2011 the Oregon Aviation Board (board) adopted an Aurora State Airport Master Plan; a modified 2012 version of the plan (with a different preferred alternative and ALP) is in the administrative record.
- The board did not adopt land-use compatibility findings until 2019, when it concluded the Master Plan complied with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan (MCCP) and, alternatively, with statewide goals.
- The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) in the 2012 Master Plan depicts a 1,000-foot runway extension, a stopway, and portions of a taxiway that extend beyond current airport (P) property across Keil Road onto adjacent land zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU).
- Petitioners (cities, neighbors, and land-use groups) appealed to LUBA arguing the 2011 plan that the board actually adopted was missing from the record, that the plan proposes development on EFU land, and that statutory and rule exemptions relied on by respondents were inapplicable.
- LUBA upheld the board, relying on post‑2011 testimony and ORS 836.642 / OAR 660‑012‑0065(3)(n) to conclude the plan did not propose EFU development, that airport uses are "rural" as a matter of law, and that certain airport expansions do not permit service to a "larger class of airplanes."
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded: LUBA erred by excluding the 2011 plan from the record, erred in concluding the Master Plan did not propose development on EFU land, misapplied ORS 836.642, and misinterpreted OAR 660‑012‑0065(3)(n).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Record inclusion: whether the 2011 Master Plan that board considered had to be in the record before LUBA | Schaefer/ cities: the exact document the board had on Oct 27, 2011 must be in the record | Respondents: the 2012 Master Plan in the record includes the 2011 plan or only 2019 proceedings matter | Court: LUBA erred — no evidence 2012 plan includes 2011 version; 2011 materials the board considered must be in the record |
| EFU development: whether the Master Plan proposes airport improvements on EFU land | Petitioners: ALP in the Master Plan depicts stopway/taxiway extending onto EFU land, so the plan proposes EFU development | Respondents/LUBA: ALP is not design‑level; testimony shows board did not intend to build on EFU land | Court: ALP is the authoritative depiction of proposed improvements; the ALP shows development onto EFU land; remand required to reassess MCCP/Goal compliance |
| ORS 836.642: whether statute classifies Aurora uses as rural for land‑use purposes | Petitioners: ORS 836.642 does not change how uses are classified as urban vs rural; it subjects pilot programs to statewide planning requirements | Agency/ LUBA: statute’s pilot program implies Aurora is "rural" and thus airport uses are rural | Court: LUBA misconstrued ORS 836.642; statute does not reclassify airport land uses or exempt them from land‑use tests |
| OAR 660‑012‑0065(3)(n): whether Master Plan alterations "permit service to a larger class of airplanes" (thus requiring a goal exception) | 1000 Friends / Schaefer: the plan increases ARC and runway length and thus authorizes service to a larger class (approach speed, MTOW, wingspan/tail height) | Board/LUBA: "larger class" means physically larger airplanes (wingspan/tail) and airport already serves such planes, so rule applies and no exception needed | Court: LCDC intended "larger class" to mean a more inclusive class (variety of approach speeds, MTOW, wingspans); "permit" means authorize service by increasing design standards — the plan permits service to a larger class; LUBA erred applying the rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346 (standard for reviewing LUBA's substantial evidence determinations)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (statutory interpretation principles)
- 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 301 Or 447 (distinguishing rural and urban uses in land‑use law)
- Stop the Dump Coalition v. Yamhill County, 364 Or 432 (farm‑impacts test under ORS 215.296)
- Lane County v. LCDC, 325 Or 569 (LCDC rulemaking must not be less restrictive than statute)
- Rogue Advocates v. Jackson County, 282 Or App 381 (review scope and standard of review of LUBA orders)