The Port and the City of Portland – jostling for position

I’ll have several reports for you from this morning’s City Council meeting – still in progress as I start writing this at 1:40 p.m. – looks like the morning session will run right on to the afternoon’s starting at 2 p.m. That’s not good for citizens or the City Council, to have so long in one sitting.

Anyway, there were several interesting items this morning. One I hadn’t expected to be anything more than a formality, was the Second Reading of the InterGovernmental Agreement (IGA) setting up a 34-month joint City and Port of Portland planning process titled Airport Futures. See previous comments on this topic last week.

The Port of Portland was created in 1891 by the Oregon legislature, to dredge a shipping channel from Portland to the Pacific Ocean. The Port owns several marine terminals, four airports (Portland International, Hillsboro, Mulino and Troutdale) and seven business parks. The nine-member Port of Portland Commission sets Port policy. Commissioners are appointed by the Governor of Oregon and ratified by the State Senate before serving four-year terms.

The Port asked the Council to delay their vote, so that Port Commissioners could review the change the Council made after the hearing last week, to add three more citizen representatives to the committee charged with making recommendations on the project. The Port now wants to add three more delegates of their choosing, one from each of Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties. Gee, you don’t suppose this is about the fair balance of power and stakeholders on the commitee, do you?

Attached (pdf) is the Port’s letter to the Council. Reading between the lines is quite humorous. One line in particular is heavy with underlying meaning: “The Port understands and respects the City Council’s need to ensure the City of Portland’s interests are represented in the land use process.” More gratifying than amusing was Commissioner Randy Leonard’s response to it this morning. “It concerns me that there seems to be some confusion on the part of the Port as to how we make land use decisions regarding the airport”, he said. He referenced the “understands and respects” line, and pointed out that the City’s interests aren’t just “represented” in the land use process. “We decide what happens in our code”, he said. He went on to outline the Council’s responsibilities when making quasi-judicial decisions that can be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals, making clear that the City Council isn’t bound by what the committee recommends regardless of its constituent members. He also stated specifically that approving a potential third runway will not be granted in this process, something the Port’s letter also clarifies. It says:

“The process will include an evaluation of two full build-out alternative developments for PDX (and various subalternatives), along with a no-build alternative. The two alternatives were selected as the preferred alternatives out of over 11 composite concepts evaluated in the 2000 PDX master plan.

• The Port will not be requesting City Council approval of the third runway in the City’s land use plan to be developed in this process. Before development of a third runway, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the new runway would be required and City Council would be asked to approve this land use action. However, we do think it is prudent to develop long range plans for PDX which give some consideration to where such a runway might go if and when it is needed. As a consequence, the PDX master plan update will include the third runway – just as it is in the current PDX master plan.”

I sincerely appreciated how these crucial issues were highlighted in today’s deferral of the vote on the IGA to June 27. Nice work, Commissioner Leonard. Ball’s back in the Port’s court.