 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, May 24, 2001, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Port of Vancouver, 3103 NW Lower River Road, Vancouver, Washington. An agenda for this meeting is also available.
The meeting of the Bi-State Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor, at 7:30 a.m. at the Port of Vancouver, 3103 NW Lower River Road, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Charlie Hales, City of Portland Commissioner
Fred Hansen, Tri-Met General Manager
Chris Lassen, City of Gresham Councilor
Dave Lohman, Port of Portland (Alternate)
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region One Manager
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region AdministratorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Chris Deffebach, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Pete Capell, Clark County
Michelle Danley, Governor Locke’s SW Washington Representative
Kate Deane, ODOT
Evan Dust, Clark County
Bob Hart, RTC
Steve Iwata, City of Portland
Michael H. Kepcha, Citizen
Beckie Lee, Multnomah County
Tom Markgraf, Citizen
John McConnaughey, WSDOT
Burr C. McCutcheon, The Reflector newspaper
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Phil Selinger, Tri-Met
John Southgate, Portland Development Commission
Gail Spolar, C-TRAN
Deb Wallace, WSDOT
Dave Williams, ODOTCRAIG PRIDEMORE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 16, 2000 AND JANUARY 25, 2001 MEETING REPORTS AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROYCE POLLARD AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chris Deffebach introduced Mary Gibson and Scott Drumm from the Port of Portland, and Ethan Seltzer from Portland State University Institute for Metropolitan Studies. Their presentation includes results for phase 1 and 2 of the Regional Industrial Land Studies, and outlines the research proposed for phase 3. Bart Phillips, Columbia River Economic Development Council President, will give his agency’s insights on Clark County’s industrial land conditions. Chris pointed out that this is a three-part study. In the first phase, focus groups were interviewed to help identify land use needs and environmental interests. In the second phase, the industrial land supply and availability were inventoried, as well as identifying land use development constraints (i.e. slope and soil conditions). The third phase of the study looks at how to make land available for industrial development.
Mary Gibson introduced herself as the senior land use planner at the Port of Portland and project manager for the regional industrial land use study in the first two phases. Her presentation provided background on work done in phase 1, identified the regional study partners and outlined the next steps for phase 3. Mary distributed the “Regional Industrial Land Study for the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area” handout.
Mary further explained the three-phase program, identified the participating partners in the study, and presented reasons, objectives and findings for the study. In phase 3, additional members were added to the partnership and management advisory committee.
Next, Scott Drumm, Senior Research Associate at the Port of Portland, presented phase 2 of the study. He reported that in phase 2, they used the focus groups’ findings from phase 1. On the supply side, the study group created an industrial land supply database that contains a variety of characteristics (i.e., availability, size) on each land parcel in order to qualify the land supply. On the demand side, they developed an analysis of the region’s land needs based on economic forecasts, job projections, and job and building density. The starting point for the supply analysis was to identify vacant, designated industrial land within the region’s urban growth boundaries. The study expanded for a broad area, to reflect the region as the market would. The industrial land supply was classified into four tier categories (A – D) with A being ready to develop B, C and D with increasing levels of development constraints. The study results include 1) an industrial inventory of buildable acres in each tier classification, 2) buildable acres by county, 3) number of parcels by size (acres) and location, and 4) supply and demand issues. Since the data used for this study was collected in 1999, the available land supply has changed. The chart shows that Multnomah and Washington counties have the largest supply of industrial land in the region. The study also shows that there is a shortage of medium and large size parcels within the six-county region. Over 80% of the land supply are in parcels smaller than 10 acres. There are only four sites larger than 50 acres.
Fred Hansen asked if the study gave recommendations on how many large parcels each county should have, as well as typical patterns of development? Scott said the study didn’t give this information and added that this was a policy issue. In phase 3, they will look at industrial site location requirements by different industry types. Dave Lohman commented that a set-up for a policy discussion could include the kind of employers we want to attract to the region. Scott added that each year commercial mixed-use development encroaches on industrial land. This happens at the rate of about one in two hundred acres per year. Dave Lohman said that in some counties, land use zoning is not exclusive to industrial, but rather a mixture of industrial and commercial.
Scott said in order to discuss the demand analysis, we first need to define “What is an industrial job?” For the purpose of this study, industrial jobs are defined as those jobs located on industrial lands (excluding retail office and commercial uses), including traditional economic sectors associated with industrial land (i.e., manufacturing, transportation and wholesale trades) and some non-traditional sectors (i.e., software, research, data processing, auto repair). Rex Burkholder questioned the possibility of utilizing multi-story buildings to improve floor area ratio for the non-traditional jobs (except auto repair), versus a typical industrial, one-story building in a spread-out facility. Scott added that in terms of demand forecast, the study group looked at job density and floor area ratios.
Fred Hansen asked that according to Tier A – D classifications, how constrained is the Tier B land supply and how available is Tier B land to be moved into Tier A? Scott answered that this is addressed in phase 3.
Scott explained that phase 3 revisits the demand assumptions and availability of the land supplies. Three key implications grouped from these study results are: 1) the region’s job growth over the next 20 years may not be as great as Metro is projecting. The region’s job projections are based on the assumption that the land supply can accommodate jobs. The study’s results suggest that this may no longer be the case here in the region; 2) the land supply lacks the diversity in size and geographic location to meet market demand; 3) infill and brownfield redevelopment to meet market demand, simply due to scarcity, is minimal. The group decided phase 3 was necessary for additional analysis.
Ethan Seltzer, director of the Institute for Metropolitan Studies, explained phase 3 of the study. Ethan said that Fred Hansen’s last question, what it takes to move land to a higher state of readiness —is what phase 3 is about. The question is how available is Tier B, C, or D land? Also, all potential additions to the industrial land supply involve significant public policy questions and commitments. In phase 3, the group wants to study the following: 1) revisit demand assumptions, and employment density; 2) what it takes to move land to higher degrees of readiness. What are the costs and issues associated with this? The study will sample land parcels around the metropolitan area (including Clark County).
Ethan said RLIS expects the consultant team will begin work in February; a draft in early summer; final report by late summer; and public presentation of the results in September and October. Ethan asked for questions.
David Lohman added that it is not intended that the group get involved in policy discussions. Furthermore, it would be difficult for them to do so in that there is so much disagreement within the group on policies. The group did reach common ground in agreeing that it would be useful to provide everyone with the same set of accurate data to begin with in order to have good policy discussions.
Craig Pridemore pointed out to Bart Phillips that the numbers in today’s report are significantly different from the CREDC Industrial Land Analysis report that he received about a month ago. Bart said that in comparing the two reports, they weren’t that vastly different; however, there are some definitional issues that changed things. Scott Drumm added that Tier A plus Tier B is about the same total amount of acres in both studies.
Chris Deffebach said that Bart Phillips; President of Columbia River Economic Development Council was invited to attend today’s meeting. The Columbia River Economic Development Council is a group that works actively in marketing industrial land in Clark County. Bart provides an additional prospective from what the market is asking for.
Craig Pridemore commented that after the group’s study at the end of the year, the difference between whether we have 16,000 or 880,000 acres of industrial land available is a significant difference. Ethan Seltzer explained that it really depends on how you handled parcels 10 acres or smaller. Bart added that the study done in phase 2, looked at the 10-acres or smaller parcels and included those in the Tier A category. The CREDC didn’t include the smaller parcels. Anything under 10 acres is not considered to be prime property. Ethan Seltzer explained that land available for industrial development or constrained in the Tier B category is about the same amount of total acres; it depends on how you see the land being used. The study done for phase 2 was a market-based analysis. It was based on market activity, and the history of market activity. In phase 3, the group is not going back to revisit the supply question, but rather to figure out how to make land that is less ready for development—more ready.
Craig Pridemore asked, “Is the challenge we face, to make more land available inside the growth boundary?” Ethan added whether you’re comfortable with the idea that 10 acres or less in not prime—this is an issue that you will have to grapple with.
Fred Hansen commented that through the last decade, this nation has analyzed and debated the fact that we are moving substantially faster toward a service economy than manufacturing. Ethan Seltzer said that employment density looks a lot different in industrial land today. The notion of what the employment densities will be, will have a huge impact on projections for industrial land use. This indicates that we still have a relatively high percentage of unemployment in this region in manufacturing. This region, however, has managed to hold onto their manufacturing base unlike other metropolitan areas. The way industrial land is used today is much more diverse than 20 years ago (or even 10 years ago).
David Lohman commented that Andy Cotugno’s presentation last night to MTAC, included updating Metro’s employment forecast and covered many of the questions asked today.
Mayor Royce Pollard said one of the policy issues that this group will have to address is misuse of industrial lands. By building up, rather than building only one- or two-story buildings, 10 acres can become a very valuable piece of industrial land.
Fred Hansen said he wants to understand better how the group is identifying tier properties. Scott Drumm explained that the group’s analysis has not been able to include the potential that exists from landowners rethinking the use of their properties. There may be other things going on in the market that may create new opportunities for land to come onto the market, too.
Andy Cotugno said in doing an assessment of how much land we will need for the UGB and maintaining the 20-year land supply, we have factored in an assumption that a certain portion of new jobs and new housing is done through redevelopment based upon past experiences of the last five or six years. Scott Drumm added that they have had close cooperation with Metro’s Data Resource Center, which sits on the management committee and provides data that the consultants depend on. The data provided is compatible so that it can be folded into Metro’s inventory. Mary Gibson said they have a set of maps available that show how each parcel is categorized.
Dave Mercier asked, do you think there is a need for a phase 4 in the study? Or will you have sufficient data at the end of phase 3? Scott Drumm said that at the next stage, the region needs to talk about policies. This next set of questions probably needs to be done in a public setting. He added that this work is pointing to a series of decisions that must be made for this region to be able to move ahead. This could be a phase 4.
Rod Monroe said that—in regards to Mayor Pollard’s earlier comment to encourage more efficient use of industrial land—often this requires some public investment. For example, if we expect industrial lands (ten acres and less) to be used, there may be some restrictions on the amount of employee parking provided on site. Better transit infrastructure may need to be required for that site. Policies may need to be made to encourage or subsidize a business to provide free transit passes and to discourage employees from using private automobiles in an area that is restricted and has limited amounts of parking. Policies may need to be made for alternate travel modes and to encourage businesses to build up not out. This may involve some public investment or public-private partnerships. We don’t have to continue to do things as we have done them before. Phase 4 may have to happen in order to answer some of these questions.
Ed Barnes asked if the study for Washington and Oregon considered the gravel pits and big holes in the ground as industrial land? These land parcels are being considered in the study.
Rod Monroe thanked the group for their report. He said that the committee might want the study group back for another report after they have completed phase 3.
John Southgate with Portland Development Commission and Steve Iwata with the City of Portland Transportation distributed several handouts with information on the Interstate MAX Station Revitalization Strategy and the Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Area. John Southgate said they have been involved in the station revitalization for the Interstate Corridor MAX line. He said there was strong support for investing in light rail in north Portland. There was much community involvement to look at the options. The decision was made to put the new light rail line up Interstate Avenue and was a cost-effective way of providing transit service and for eventually crossing the river to Vancouver. Two large issues of the process are community involvement and gentrification and displacement. There has been an extensive public outreach effort on the Interstate project. It was noted that the purpose of urban renewal is to revitalize communities that face such challenges as vacant and under-utilized property, need for additional housing and job opportunities, and lack of streets, parks or other infrastructure. The basic idea behind urban renewal is future tax revenues pay for revitalization efforts. The City Council, acting on the recommendations of a community-based advisory Committee and Portland Development Commission (PDC) draws a line around an area (the urban renewal boundary) and identifies improvements within that area (the urban renewal plan). Subsequently, the city issues urban renewal bonds to pay for the identified improvements. As property values increase in the district due to new investment, the rise in property tax revenues is used to pay off the urban renewal bonds. A community-based advisory Committee was developed. Mr. Southgate said the Portland City Council adopted the Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Plan in August 2000. Both the Council and PDC view urban renewal as a major opportunity for community revitalization in North and Northeast Portland. Urban renewal will also be a source of funding for the City’s $30,000,000 share of the Interstate light rail line scheduled for completion in late 2004.
Steve Iwata referred to the handout Briefing: Interstate MAX Station Revitalization Strategy. Mr. Iwata highlighted the corridor concept. The Interstate MAX is about 5.6 miles long from the Rose Quarter up to the Expo Center. There are ten stations, and they are focusing on five of those stations. The Kenton Station is at the north end and the Albina Station is at the south end of the corridor. The travel time from the Expo Center to the Pioneer Square station downtown is 27 minutes. He said they are now in the process of preparing a final report and highlighted some of the possibilities and opportunities for redevelopment in the corridor.
Mr. Iwata briefly characterized the facility itself, as to where the tracks and stations are and some of the issues/opportunities in the corridor on the Interstate MAX line. He noted the cooperation and coordination of businesses impacted by the line including Fred Meyer and Texaco. He said that the Texaco station at the corner of Interstate and Lombard plan to redevelop their station to be “transit friendly” by moving the pumps to the back of the property and moving the convenience store to the front to allow the planting of trees and easy pedestrian access along the sidewalks.
Fred Hansen said that for the Washington people in attendance, an important take away message out of this is that the public investments that were served by the Interstate MAX alignment of $350 million, and $300 million of urban renewal totals about $650 million of public investments leveraged by $92.5 million local investments. This is fairly significant in terms of what they have been able to accomplish and move this forward. The process of involving the public is exciting but the real message is that they have been able to implement not just transit but also the urban form in a very fundamental way leveraging in a considerable amount of other public investments. That is something he hopes can be duplicated in other places.
Dean Lookingbill said for Washington it has been a very active year and the driver behind that activity is a two-year effort by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation. This was a group of high level political and business leaders across the state that said we need to do transportation differently. They set forward recommendations. The key issues in their recommendations say we need to look at our governance issues, look at more revenue, and look at how to add capacity to our transportation system. This set the stage for a legislative session that focused on transportation. Our first special 30-day session ends today. No action has come out of the House or the Senate at this point and no current law budget has come out for transportation. This speaks to the type of task that they are trying to undertake. Mr. Lookingbill said he thought the transportation discussion has shifted in terms of the Washington Legislature. They are now talking about regionalism and letting regions have better control and more decision-making in regard to projects. The state has also said they can no longer fund all of the state transportation system needs by themselves. They are looking at the Puget Sound area and their massive projects. They are saying they need the regions to help them. Mr. Lookingbill said on the revenue side, the Governor has put out a package of about $10 billion over ten years and on the regional side about another $8 billion to compliment that totaling about a $17 -$18 billion package being discussed over the next ten-year period. This discussion goes back to the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation. Options being considered include a possible 2% sales tax on transportation items, and a possible vehicle license fee increase.
Don Wagner said he believes that we will go into another 30-day session. He noted that 30 days is a maximum amount of days for a special session. He said both proposals seem to have similar issues, both for SW Washington tend to be about a $1 billion increase in revenue, and both seem to be heavily in the Clark County I-5/I-205 corridors. Both packages do identify a Columbia River crossing in the I-5 corridor as one of those major issues that we have to address. Which has over half of the revenue to this region being tied up in those corridor projects. Mr. Wagner said in regard to the findings of the I-5 Partnership, the funding does not preclude what the project is, transit oriented crossing, highway oriented or a combination of the two.
Fred Hansen asked if that $1 billion was from the state/local pot of funds. Mr. Wagner said he believes that $1 billion is the state portion. In Washington, state dollars are state and federal dollars. Mr. Hansen said then the local dollars are separate and could be that same amount. Mr. Wagner said they could be.
Andy Cotugno distributed handouts of the 2001 Oregon Transportation Investment Act and a list of the Region 1 Bonding List. He said revenue increase proposals include raising car and truck titling fees and the DMV fee to be transferred back to State Highway fund. The combination produces a capacity to do a $400 million bonding program. The total revenues would be $70 million statewide for the year. He said there is not a list as of yet but referred to the Bonding List that was adopted two years ago. There will be a new process to approve projects depending on the outcome of the bills. Mr. Cotugno said there is also interest in Oregon to look at the regional level.
There were no citizens wishing to comment.
Chris Deffebach distributed a proposed list of meeting dates for the next year. The meetings would be held six times a year, on the Fourth Thursday of the month from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and alternate between Metro and the Port of Vancouver for locations. One exception would be in November with the holiday, move to the fifth Thursday. Members were in agreement of the schedule to begin in September at Metro. A corrected schedule of meeting dates for the next year would be mailed out.
The next Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting will be on September 27, 2001, at Metro.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|