BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOSEPH SCHAEFER, CITY OF AURORA, CITY OF WILSONVILLE, 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON, and FRIENDS OF FRENCH PRAIRIE, Petitioners, and CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Intervenor-Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE AVIATION BOARD and OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, Respondents, and AURORA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, BRUCE BENNETT, WILSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC., TED MILLAR, TLM HOLDINGS, LLC, ANTHONY ALAN HELBLING, and WILSONVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Intervenor-Respondents. LUBA Nos. 2019-123/127/129/130 PETITIONER CITY OF WILSONVILLE’S PETITION FOR REVIEW September 21, 2020 Counsel appear on the following page. Joseph Schaefer Lucinda D. Jackson 15140 Park Ave NE Rachel E. Bertoni Aurora OR 97002 Oregon Department of Justice 503.819.4764 1162 Court St NE Petitioner Salem OR 97301 503.947.4530 Sara Kendrick Attorney for Respondents Kendrick Law, LLC 317 Court St NE Ste 203 Eric S. Postma Salem OR 97301 Bittner & Hahs PC 503.369.8323 4949 SW Meadows Rd Ste 260 Attorney for Petitioner Lake Oswego OR 97035 City of Aurora 503.228.5626 Attorney for Intervenor-Respondent Andrew Mulkey Wilsonville Chamber of Commerce Rural Lands Staff Attorney 1000 Friends of Oregon Wendie L. Kellington 133 SW 2nd Ave Ste 201 Kellington Law Group Portland OR 97204 PO Box 159 503.497.1000 x138 Lake Oswego OR 97034 Attorney for Petitioners 1000 Friends 503.636.0069 of Oregon and Friends of Attorney for remaining French Prairie Intervenor-Respondents Stephen L. Madkour Scott A. Norris Nathan Boderman Marion County Legal Counsel County Counsel PO Box 14500 Clackamas County Salem OR 97309 2051 Kaen Rd 503.588.5220 Oregon City OR 97045 Attorney for Amicus Curiae 503.655.8362 Marion County Attorneys for Intervenor-Petitioner Clackamas County Page i 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. STANDING ................................................................................................... 1 3 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................... 1 4 A. Nature of the Challenged Decision and Relief Sought ......................... 1 5 B. Summary of the Arguments ................................................................... 2 6 C. Summary of Material Facts .................................................................... 4 7 1. Aurora Airport Master Plans ............................................................ 4 8 2. Findings of Compatibility and Compliance...................................... 6 9 D. Statement of Board’s Jurisdiction ......................................................... 9 10 III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERRORS ................................................................ 9 11 A. First Assignment of Error: Respondents Adopted Findings for a 12 Master Plan Never Adopted, in Contravention of Goal 2 and Their Own 13 Land Use Regulations, Attempting to Affirm Eight Years Later ............... 9 14 1. Statement of Preservation .................................................................. 9 2. Standard of Review ............................................................................. 9 15 3. Argument ........................................................................................... 10 16 a. The 2011/2012 Master Plan Was Never Adopted .......................... 10 17 18 b. 2011 Meetings .................................................................................... 11 19 i. September 15, 2011 PAC Meeting ................................................ 11 20 ii. October 27, 2011 OAB Meeting ................................................. 12 21 c. 2012 Revisions to Alleged Adopted 2011 Master Plan .................. 14 22 d. 2019 ODA Letters and Agenda ........................................................ 16 23 24 e. 2019 ODA Adoption or Affirmation of Master Plan ..................... 19 25 26 WILSONVILLE’S PETITION FOR REVIEW City Attorney’s Office / City of Wilsonville / 29799 SW Town Center Loop E. / Wilsonville OR 97070 / T: 503-570-1507 F: 503-682-1015/ Page ii 1 B. Second Assignment of Error: Respondents Failed to Make Findings 2 of Compatibility and Compliance Contemporaneous With Consideration 3 of the Master Plan .......................................................................................... 19 4 1. Statement of Preservation ................................................................ 19 5 2. Standard of Review ........................................................................... 19 6 3. Argument ........................................................................................... 19 7 C. Third Assignment of Error: Findings Did Not Consider Wilsonville 8 or Clackamas County Comprehensive Plans .............................................. 21 9 1. Statement of Preservation ................................................................ 21 2. Standard of Review ........................................................................... 21 10 3. Argument ........................................................................................... 21 11 D. Fourth Assignment of Error: Respondents’ Adopted Findings and 12 Master Plan Do Not Comply with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals .. 26 13 1. Statement of Preservation ................................................................ 26 14 2. Standard of Review ........................................................................... 26 15 3. Argument ........................................................................................... 26 16 a. Respondents Erred in Failing to Make Findings Regarding 17 Statewide Goals 2, 5, 6, 7, and 13 ............................................................ 26 18 i. Statewide Goal 2 – Land Use Planning ........................................ 27 19 ii. Statewide Goal 5 – Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic 20 Areas, and Open Spaces ........................................................................ 28 21 22 iii. Statewide Goal 6 – Air, Water, and Land Resource Quality . 28 23 iv. Statewide Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and 24 Hazards ................................................................................................... 29 25 v. Statewide Goal 13 – Energy Conservation .................................. 30 26 WILSONVILLE’S PETITION FOR REVIEW City Attorney’s Office / City of Wilsonville / 29799 SW Town Center Loop E. / Wilsonville OR 97070 / T: 503-570-1507 F: 503-682-1015/ Page iii 1 b. Respondents Failed to Make Adequate Findings Based on 2 Substantial Evidence for Statewide Goals 1, 3, 11, 12, and 14 ............. 30 3 i. Statewide Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement ...................................... 31 4 ii. Statewide Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands .................................... 33 5 iii. Statewide Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services ................. 35 6 7 iv. Statewide Goal 12 - Transportation .......................................... 36 8 v. Statewide Goal 14 - Urbanization ................................................ 38 9 IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 39 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WILSONVILLE’S PETITION FOR REVIEW City Attorney’s Office / City of Wilsonville / 29799 SW Town Center Loop E. / Wilsonville OR 97070 / T: 503-570-1507 F: 503-682-1015/ Page iv 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239 (2011) ....................... 28, 30 4 Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth v. Metro, 179 Or App. 12 (2002) ......... 31 5 Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue, 356 Or 282 (2014) .................................... 23 6 County of Morrow v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 178 Or App 329 (2001) ........ 23 7 Heiller v. Josephine County, 23 Or LUBA 551 (1992) ...................................... 31 8 Horning v. Washington County, 51 Or LUBA 303 (2006) ................................ 18 9 Krueger v. Josephine County, 17 Or LUBA 418 (1989) ............................. 26, 27 10 Restore Oregon v. City of Portland, 301 Or App 769 (2020) ..................... 28, 30 11 Shadybrook Environmental Protection Association v. Washington County, 12 4 Or LUBA 236 (1981) .................................................................................... 27 13 South of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v. Board of Com’rs of Clackamas 14 County, 280 Or 3 (1977) .................................................................................. 31 15 West Side Rural Fire Protection District v. City of Hood River, 16 43 Or LUBA 612 (2002) .................................................................................. 20 17 Statutes 18 ORS 192.640(1) .................................................................................................. 12 19 ORS 197.015(10)(a)(B) ........................................................................................ 9 20 ORS 197.180 .................................................................................................. 6, 10 21 ORS 197.180(1) .................................................................................................... 6 22 ORS 197.825(1) .................................................................................................... 9 23 ORS 197.830(2)(b) ............................................................................................... 1 24 ORS 197.835(8) ............................................................................................. 9, 18 25 ORS 197.835(9)(b) .................................................................................