 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
The Portland Planning Commission continued its review of the draft Portland International Airport Master Plan last month. PPC members showed sympathy for private property owners who might be adversely affected by new environmental regulations, less for business leaders who appeared to ask for a lengthy study of the concept
LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
As reported last month (“On a wing and prayer, airport master plan lands,” July 2010), a 30-member Public Advisory Group (PAG) completed its work in late May on a 25-year master plan for the airport.
PAG is part of Airport Futures, the effort between the city of Portland, Port of Portland, and the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan community to create an integrated long-range development plan for PDX. Among other things, the plan calls for specified traffic improvements on access routes to accompany new development and expansion, a new and permanent citizen advisory committee to monitor operations and act as a forum for issues, and mandated environmental mitigation-most of it on Government Island and the Columbia Slough-to accompany new development.
One of the least discussed items in the plan has proved to be its most contentious in the review so far: the imposition of new environment-related restrictions on new development on private land adjacent to the airport.
According to planner Jay Sugnet of Portland's Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, 472 properties have natural “resources” worthy of protection. Fellow planner Mindy Brooks told the Commission last month that this includes 1,270 acres of industrial property, 150 acres of residential property, and four golf courses: two public (Broadmoor and Colwood Golf Courses) and two private (Columbia Edgewater Country Club and Riverside Golf and Country Club).
The planners emphasized that any existing buildings, and any existing residential and commercial activities, could continue indefinitely. There would be restrictions on new development within 50 feet of “the top of the bank” of any identified riparian resource. They readily admitted that their maps of these resources may be less than totally adequate, and that they have tried to meet with any owners who think they have an issue. Virtually all of those who testified last month acknowledged that the planners had been accessible and helpful. Not all of them felt this settled the issue.
Ron and Sally Beck own a seven-acre horse farm in the East Columbia neighborhood. Sally claimed that in the last 15 years much of their property becomes “wetlands” for part of the year. The problem, she said, is that Freightliner has paved over the former Merritt Farms property and failed to provide adequate mitigation, producing vastly more runoff and flooding on adjacent properties. Under the proposed restrictions, Ron said, “We can't even put up fences” on much of the property. The couple said they need more time to straighten out the issues.
Another property owner, Bruce Campbell, offered a different perspective. While “there may be minor issues here and there,” he said, he personally was “contacted in a timely fashion,” and “the whole process was very transparent.” Beyond this, he said, “I'm willing to take whatever hit in property values is necessary. We have a biological and ethical duty to make right the mistakes of the past. We owe a debt to the natural world to do the right thing. Without the natural world, we don't have a future; that's not the poet in me, it's the scientist.”
At the first hearing, PAG member Maryhelen Kincaid, interim chair of East Columbia Neighborhood Association, said that she and other PAG members didn't realize how much private property would be affected by the plan. Last month another PAG member, Fred Stovel of the Rose City Park neighborhood, contradicted this. The proposed environmental restrictions are being done as part of the city's updating of its environmental resource inventory, he said, and he and others were informed that this was “not subject to negotiation.” He conceded the initial outreach left something to be desired.
Kincaid herself conceded that staff has been working with local property owners to resolve issues, but she said these owners want assurances that adequate adjustments are in fact made. “They want to understand the decision whether they like it or not,” she said. There should be a delay “but not a long one,” she said. “You can have an infinite number of meetings, and at the end someone will still stand up and say he never heard about it.”
The Commission had planned to wrap up all remaining business at its July 27 meeting, and then to disband and be replaced by a new Planning and Sustainability Commission in the fall. Based on the testimony of the Becks and others, they agreed to schedule one more session, for August 10. Some people present considered even this inadequate.
Bernie Bottomly of the Portland Business Alliance and Corky Collier of the Columbia Corridor Association complained that the restrictions would have a major effect on new industrial development planned for the area, and asked for more time to review the restrictions. The Commission needs to provide “time for people to explore and understand the implications” of the regulations, Bottomly said. “Metro has proposed that more jobs be developed in the city, and there's an expectation that this area will have significant development. There is already an identified shortage of industrial land. We made a choice to have greater (development) impacts within the Urban Growth Boundary in order to protect what's outside it. If we don't allow that development, the only thing that can give is the number of jobs we produce.”
Collier added that while waiting until Aug. 10 is “a nice gesture, consider the complexity of the issues. This is a major issue; does anyone here doubt that? This is the sort of thing we would normally spend two years on.” He added, “This is not about protecting the [Columbia] Slough.” Everyone agrees this should be done, he said, but it is unlikely that anything done 50 feet from the bank will affect the waterway.
This testimony did not get a sympathetic response. Commission member Chris Smith said, “It's fine to take the time to get the maps right, but if the delay is for argument I'm less enthusiastic. Maintaining the Urban Growth Boundary doesn't mean sacrificing all the resources within it.”
Commission member Irma Valdez asked, “What would be the point of delay, and why does it have to take until October?” Referring to Campbell, she said, “I just heard a very articulate gentleman say he's willing to sacrifice for environmental goals.” She told Collier, “I want a good faith listing of what the issues are, or I won't support any extension. I'd encourage people with issues to try to resolve them with staff now, because I'll be looking to decide this on Aug. 10.”
The Airport Futures Web site is www.pdxairportfutures.com/pdxairport_ftrs_home.aspx. Late note: The hearing date was later changed to 6 p.m. Aug. 24.
 |
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home