■ From Page 7

The Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) classifies the size and design of an airport using the Airport Reference Code ( ARC ). The FAA categorizes aircraft by their Maximum Takeoff Weight and minimum approach speed on landing . Aurora ’ s ARC is B II . However , the airport can accommodate about 45 % of the Category C aircraft if they take off with only 60 % of their weight capacity . Category C aircraft have been operating at Aurora for over 20 years utilizing that practice . ODA argued that the plan did not “ permit ” a larger class of airplanes because they were already using it . The improvements proposed in the ODA ’ s Master Plan explained that the runway extension and facility modifications would accommodate nearly all business jets with ARC C-II and below that

could potentially operate at the airport . The plan also said that a longer runway would accommodate about 90 % of the business jets manufactured . So the plan , the court determined , would indeed permit a larger class of airplanes .

Oregon land use regulations specifically address the issue of a public facility “ permitting larger class of airplanes ” and the tests required to meet land use goals are much more demanding with that determination . By not accepting the ODA ’ s reasoning , the court instructed LUBA to examine the plan with a completely new lens . This size and frequency of jet traffic over our community is of critical importance to Charbonneau residents .

What now ?

The ODA will now make a determination on how to proceed . They can appeal the decision to the Supreme Court . They can appeal the decision back to the Court of Appeals ( this has already been done by the attorney for

the Airport Improvement Association ). They can withdraw the 2011-12 plan and start over . They can wait for LUBA to review the plan following the instructions laid out by the court , or they can modify the current plan with the changes needed to comply with state land use laws . Last month , the Oregon Aviation Board released a grant to the ODA for a “ modification ” of the 2012 Master Plan . The ODA began that process but with the court decision , that may be on hold . Once they start the actual planning process , it will take about 18 months and will include a Public Advisory Committee . The CCC Board sent a letter to the Director of ODA making our case for a seat on that committee . We have not yet heard back from the director .

The CCC Board of Directors has been consistent through the years in our position . The ODA should follow state law with their planning and also should allow CCC a “ seat at the table ” in future planning decisions . We are

about two miles from the end of the runway and certainly have a vested interest in the future of the airport .

We have supported the city of Wilsonville ’ s efforts to ensure that future planning and development of Aurora Airport meets both state law and state land use goals . In recent months , we have reached out to the supporters of the airport , including the group Positive Aurora Airport Management and the ODA , and have established a dialogue to discuss mutual opportunities to resolve our differences .

As COVID restrictions ease , we will invite representatives of the ODA to address our community and our concerns directly . It is not a violation for an aircraft to fly over Charbonneau . The Noise Abatement Procedure is a published guide for pilots to fly around Charbonneau for both take-off and landing . It is completely voluntary and is often at the discretion of the Control Tower and Portland area air traffic control ( TRACON ).