Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, January 24, 2002, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Metro Regional Center, Room 370 A and B, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. An agenda for this meeting is also available.

Meeting Report

I. Welcome and Approval of November 29, 2001 Meeting Report

The meeting of the Bi-State Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Craig Pridemore, at 7:39 a.m. at Metro, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Those in attendance follow:

Committee Members
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner Fred Hansen, Tri-Met General Manager Chris Lassen, City of Gresham Councilor Dave Lohman, Port of Portland (Alternate) Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor Arch Miller, Port of Vancouver Commissioner (Alternate) Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region One Manager
Staff
Andy Cotugno, Metro Chris Deffebach, Metro Dean Lookingbill, RTC Francine Floyd, Metro
Interested Guests
Edward Barnes, WTC Kate Deane, ODOT Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland Sam Imperati, ICM Inc. Evan Dust, Clark County Kevia Jeffrey, Multnomah County Mary Legry, WSDOT Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver Karen Schilling, Multnomah County Phil Selinger, Tri-Met Deb Wallace, WSDOT Dave Williams, ODOT Ethan Seltzer, Portland Institute of Metropolitan Studies Todd Chase, OTAK Consultant

CHAIR CRAIG PRIDEMORE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 29, 2001 MEETING REPORT AS WRITTEN. SINCE THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE MINUTES, MR. PRIDEMORE DECLARED THE MINUTES STAND AS APPROVED.

II. Regional Industrial Land Study, Phase III

Chris Deffebach introduced Ethan Seltzer (from the Portland Institute of Metropolitan Studies) who, about a year ago, gave a report to the Bi-State Committee on the Regional Industrial Land Study Phase 1 (series of interviews to gain a sense for the industrial needs) and Phase 2 (inventory of supply and demand). Ms. Deffebach explained the Phase 2 conclusion was that much of our industrial land supply is constrained by a variety of factors. The purpose of Phase 3 was to examine those constraints and to better understand the constraints and costs. Ethan Seltzer and Todd Chase (consultant for OTAK, Inc.) were at the meeting to present the findings from Phase 3: Regional Industrial Land Study. There were several reasons this issue was brought back on the agenda for the Bi-State Committee. Transportation access is a significant factor in making industrial land available. The supply of land is also an important issue to our region, in terms of 1) expansion to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and 2) how we accommodate supply and meet the demand for industrial land. Additionally, the study points out the importance to work together as a region, in order to address our industrial land needs. Ms. Deffebach concluded that for these reasons, this report was relevant for the Bi-State Committee.

Ethan Seltzer explained that his Power Point presentation was a report on study findings including: 1) the background and objectives of the study; 2) supply and demand issues; 3) Phase 3 case studies done in order to try to understand what it takes to make land more ready for industrial development; and 4) ideas that could be implemented in the region to advance the quality base for industrial land that we have already.

Mr. Seltzer’s presentation also included the following:

• RILS Sponsors and MAC (Management Advisory Committee) Members.
• RILS Background.
  Phase 1 began with a series of interviews with people concerned about industrial land in the region. What was found in that phase was a need to really understand what the supply was. There was actually no comprehensive inventory of industrial land in the region at that time.
• RILS Phase 2 Findings (Land supply and demand 1999 to 2020) – How much can we depend on constrained land? Comparison of Supply and Demand.
• Constrained Land Criteria (Parcels that include one or more of the following features: lack of urban services; wetlands, title 3 buffers, marine/aviation use; land banking; intolerable LOS; brownfields; natural hazards.
• Industrial Employment Sectors makeup of Industrial Land demand.
• RILS Phase 2 Conclusions: Unconstrained supplies depleted in 7-9 years (sooner in some areas); three-quarters of supply is constrained; many of the parcels are less than 10 acres in size. The consequence of not addressing supply issues, could result in the loss of some economic activity in the region.
  Phase 2 was an in-depth inventory of industrial lands in Clark, Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas, and Columbia Counties, and the Newburg area in Yamhill County. Essentially what was found was that the supply included about 2,400 acres of land that was ready to develop; about 6,800 acres that was zoned industrial, but were constrained. So three-quarters of the supply was in some kind of constraint. The demand study that was done in Phase 2, found that over a 20-year period, there might be a demand for as much as 6,300 acres. Comparing the supply and demand in Phase 2, the conclusion was that we had lots of land that could be industrial but was not ready for industrial development.
• RILS Phase 3 Objectives: Analysis of constrained lands inside and outside UGB/UGA.

Ethan Seltzer said there would not be a Phase 4 to this study. He added that it is time to do something about industrial land, not just study industrial lands.

Todd Chase continued the presentation with industrial development trends, and case studies. He explained that on the demand side, they wanted to recheck some of the findings from Phase 2 in order to confirm that the demand was as projected, given all the changes in the global environment, commerce and industry. Mr. Chase talked about Phase 2 and Phase 3 and the progress made in each of these phases including:

• Portland-Vancouver Regional Employment (6 Counties, 2025 Forecast). He stated that growth trends look favorable here in this area.
• Industrial Demand Conclusion. The study confirmed how much net buildable vacant industrial land the region will require.
• Site Requirements are Diverse (labor force, clusters, utilities and land price are all-important; relative importance varies by industry; mix of parcel sizes is needed).
• Parcel Size Analysis (2025 Forecast): Big Demand for Small Parcel (88% of total demand – three acres or less); market is addressing 3-11 acre segment; big parcel demand is not being addressed (need about 15 large parcels – 50 acres); also need land for business Partnerships.

Todd Chase emphasized that we need to understand what regional issues to address, regarding the problems of potential industrial shortfall. His studies found a big demand for small parcels (less than 3 acres). The market appeared to be addressing that sector of the demand segment. For the medium sector (3- 11 acres), the market appeared to also be addressing this segment (at least for the next 10-15 years). He added, that for the larger users (requiring over 50 acres of land), they expect the potential for at least 15 larger users in the next 25 years. Currently, there are about three unconstrained parcels (50 acres or larger) in our six-county area (one parcel in Columbia County, and two in Clark County).

Rod Monroe asked if they did any work on the distribution of where those 15 sites were needed in the region? Where do these parcels need to be sited? Mr. Chase said they didn’t take the study to that level of detail. He explained that through the policy recommendations, the local jurisdictions would help determine where they think those sites should be. He added that the location should probably be five miles of an interstate.

Todd Chase explained the industrial development case study results including:

• What’s included in constrained land costs? Extraordinary development costs; what it takes to rectify constraints (special grading, wetland mitigation, collector roads, land assembly); on or off site.
• Inside UGB/UGA Case Studies (Conversion Cost Per Acre): graph. West Coast Paper, Ridgefield, 97th Avenue site, Columbia Gateway, Glenn Oak Industrial Park, Holman area were specific sites graphed (six sites) with conversion cost per acre.

Fred Hansen asked if those costs (on the graph) were to assemble the property, as opposed to costs for other constraints that needed to be rectified. Todd Chase answered, yes. He continued the presentation.

• Inside UGB/UGA Case Studies: General Conclusions: Big range in conversion costs; return on investment is key; uncertain permitting process = risk; transportation is leading cost item; local, political and land use issues.
• Outside UGB/UGA Case Studies: Conversion Cost per Acre (graph for the four areas: Scappoose, Stafford, SW Damascus, Damascus).
• Conversion Cost Per Industrial Job (graph).
• Outside UGB/UGA Case Studies: General Conclusions.
• Conversion Cost Per Acre Similar to Inside UGB/UGA Case Studies; site size and location affects costs; large sites address needs for the large employers.
• RILS Case Studies (inferred conclusions): public land assembly is needed.
• Preliminary Policy Strategies:
  • Strategies to Deal with Ownership Constraints.
  • Strategies to Deal with Environmental and Land Use.
  • Strategies to Deal with Infrastructure. What kind of programs could be implemented to help tie job growth to transportation and infrastructure investments?

Fred Hansen asked, is it generally that the constraint is not enough capacity in the line (i.e., in the treatment plant for a water supply system) or is it the infrastructure of running the lines to the facility? Todd Chase answered, “both.”

Ed Barnes said that there should be mention in the report on the constraints of the lack of legislative action, since both Oregon and Washington have had difficulty with funding. Mr. Barnes said there should be mention in the report that it is necessary to get money from legislature.

Ethan Seltzer continued the presentation, highlighting the following:

• Overriding Strategies: Create Clear Regional Economic Development Strategy that Identifies: Industrial and job growth objectives; location of strategic industrial areas; role of subareas within region; infrastructure requirements; funding/financing sources; implementation entities; benchmarks for tracking success.

Mr. Seltzer explained what should be involved in how a site is determined. The region needs to face up to where they are going.

• Closing Thoughts: industrial development is important; there’s no easy or quick fixes; a coordinated strategy is long overdue.
• Open Discussion: create regional strategy; preserve strategic sites for industrial development; link public investment with Economic Development.

Serena Cruz asked if Portland Development Commission (PDC) was actively using and thinking on the data and findings from this study? Ethan Seltzer explained that PDC was in the process of developing their own strategy. PDC and Hillsboro have been leaders in land assembly, which is a major issue. The City of Portland has been good on creating and sustaining industrial sanctuaries. Some jurisdictions are better than others at setting aside industrial land and saving those sites for industrial use. Every jurisdiction is doing something, but lacks cohesion.

Fred Hansen talked about issues on high-tech employment. High tech employment has gone from 3% to 6%, but the amount of that 6% in payroll in this region is about 15%. Not all jobs are equal. Some higher paying jobs have been created. Are we looking forward or backward, as far as industrial land? Ethan Seltzer said, both. Mr. Seltzer said that manufacturing has done very well in maintaining employment in this region. If you look back at the history of Silicon Valley, people figured something would happen there and making investments accordingly. It’s a reflection of adopting a strategy and sticking with it. If we know there are certain things we want in the region, now is a good time to plan.

Fred Hansen asked, how much of large parcel industrial land (the most needed and hardest to assemble) are we frittering away of that valuable resource? Todd Chase explained that usually the parcels that are rezoned (at the request of the owner) because there are constraints on the site or extraordinary costs associated with developing the sites or opportunities to put more jobs on the site because of changes in public facilities. Mr. Chase answered Mr. Hansen’s question saying, about 150 acres per year.

Dave Lohman commented on forecasting rather than backcasting. Regarding jobs provided by manufacturing companies; sites need to be located near major transportation corridors.

Mary Legry talked about the new economy. She commented that the discussion emphasized manufacturing and assumes there is still manufacturing that won’t move to the third world. Our economy has reached a level of sophistication whereby, in this country we will do very little manufacturing. Mr. Seltzer added, we classify this work as manufacturing; however, it may actually be research and development jobs. Todd Chase commented on manufacturing, and research and development jobs---abroad (third world countries) as well in the states. Ethan Seltzer emphasized that it is important to be prepared.

Chris Deffebach said our growth in the 80s and 90s came with some forethought and groundwork during the 70s. The growth we’ve had didn’t come without some strategy thinking beforehand. It’s time to think of a new strategy. Craig Pridemore asked, how do we plan a regional strategy? Who in this region has the ability to pull everyone together on both sides of the river to talk about a regional strategy? This is a concern that we need to address.

Ethan Seltzer pointed out that the “Regional Industrial Lands Study” (three phases and appendices) can be obtained at the College of Urban & Public Affairs – PSU’s website: www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/

III. Working Draft Recommendations for I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership

Kate Deane presented this agenda item, referencing the “I-5 Partnership Update” on page 4, which listed the working draft recommendations. Ms. Deane reported that the task force issued their working draft recommendations on December 11. The draft recommendations had also been out for public review. On January 29, the task force would take action to adopt those draft recommendations, possibly with some revisions. Kate Deane briefly stated the working draft recommendations. She pointed out a recommendation of considerable importance, listed in “Other Recommendations” as: do not widen I-5 to four, through lanes in each direction between the Fremont Bridge (in Oregon) and the I-205 Interchange (in Washington).

Ms. Deane referred to pages 6 and 7, listing “Work for January through June 2002.” She explained that these were questions to be addressed the first part of this year. Kate Deane said they plan to wrap up this project with some directives to the Bi-State Committee, JPACT and RTC regarding: 1) how do you implement this plan? 2) what do you prioritize? 3) what are the promising and likely financing tools for such an ambitious plan?

Rod Monroe referred to page 5, regarding the language on land use. He had asked that the sentence be redrafted, because at the last RTC Board meeting there were some expressions of concern.

Fred Hansen agreed that the wording be changed on page 5 of the “I-5 Partnership – Working Draft Strategic Plan Recommendations for Public Review” (Part VI: Land Use; a. Working Draft Recommendations: 2. “ . . . jurisdictions and agencies must have a documented, . . .” ). “Must” needed to be changed, due to a heightened political sensitivity. Kate Deane clarified that this was something that would be brought to the task force. Ms. Deane explained that the publics’ statements around the issue of land use, has garnered recent media attention. Because of that heightened, political sensitivity, she planned to recommend that the language in VI. a. 2. “must have a documented, . . .” be changed to “need to agree on a documented, . . .” She also assured Fred Hansen that the above would be revised at the next task force meeting on January 29.

Craig Pridemore said that currently we don’t have a mechanism in place to do any of this land use stuff. We have the Bi-State Committee that was formed as a transportation committee. He said we frequently talk about the link between transportation and land use issues. Mr. Pridemore thought that it would be worth putting on the table for discussion as to what the purpose of the Bi-State Committee is. Mr. Pridemore listed several other questions as followed: 1) Should this committee be expanded to deal with transportation and land use issues? 2) Should we develop some other Bi-State organization with the blessings of Metro? 3) Should there be a larger Bi-State committee to address land use, transportation and economic development?

Craig Pridemore said it was worth talking about what this committee should be responsible for. Whatever goes into the “Working Draft Strategic Plan Recommendation” should also include these concerns in order to ensure that the strategic plan is followed through with.

David Lohman acknowledged that this was a major planning effort, with many issues addressed. The fact that we were really addressing the needs and looking at projects that address those needs was encouraging. He commented that it sounded like there was going to be more attention in taking care of commerce, in terms of freight and mobility. The next big challenge is funding sources for those projects. Craig Pridemore commented that he recently met with Senator Murray. She was very positive that if there is state money made available, then the amount of transportation dollars capable of coming into this region is great.

Fred Hansen said one thing that comes up, is an arterial-type bridge that would serve the neighborhood. If you look at how industrial lands are protected, he said that an arterial-only type of bridge (a local access bridge) would compound the problems that we are seeing on the industrial land side. Is there a way to understand this, in terms of that issue? Chris Deffebach asked Mr. Hansen what he meant by compound. Do you mean increase the land value such that they would develop not as industrial? Mr.Hansen answered, or that it would encourage a local access that would be more commuter-type use and would be attractive for non-industrial uses. Chris Deffebach answered, it could do that. She said the industrial development generally needs regional access. Access to a freeway functioning well is helpful. If you provide something that is local access only and isn’t well designed for goods movement per truck travel, then you won’t be supporting industrial development to the same degree. Serena Cruz asked, wouldn’t you move traffic off the freeway?

Lynne Griffith asked, weren’t we supposed to have some study or additional information on the trip patterns? Will that information come out of this? Kate Deane said, yes and added that they have the information about the freight, and truck travel versus commuter travel. It’s not where they are going; rather more general information on truck trips.

Fred Hansen added that, if we said that industrial land was an important element to our long-term economic development, then what would that say about the type of bridge mentioned above? With more analysis, it will help decision-makers be able to look closely at these issues.

Arch Miller commented that one of the first steps was the upcoming Coast Guard meeting on March 5 regarding the relocation of the turntables from the railroad bridge. If the plan is to put a truck bridge between the Ports, then it doesn’t make sense to build it high enough to clear the shipping channel at the Port of Vancouver for only a few hundred trucks per day (or even a thousand trucks per day). The use of that railroad bridge is key. If we rebuild the railroad bridge to move the turntable, then it is also logical to rebuild the bridge to accommodate trucks as well as trains. Craig Pridemore added that this is worth noting. Mr. Pridemore said that Congressman Baird’s staff has been very active during the past year, working on the Trumann-Hobbs money.

Craig Pridemore said the task force was scheduled to meet, review and adopt the recommendations. He asked, if this committee was planning to meet to address these issues again next month? Chris Deffebach said it would be useful for the Bi-State Committee to meet again at the end of February because of the significance of these I-5 recommendations and issues surrounding the land use agreement.

Kate Deane suggested that if anyone wanted to discuss any of these issues prior to the task force meeting on January 29, to contact one of the task force members.

IV. Public Comment

There was no public comment.

V. Future Agenda Items and Meeting Dates

The next Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting will be held on February 28, 2002 at the Port of Vancouver.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 a.m.

(The next meeting was later rescheduled for March 28, 2002 at the Port of Vancouver).

More Information

Dean Lookingbill Transportation Director, RTC 360-397-6067

Andy Cotugno Transportation Director, Metro 503-797-1763

Send mail to webmaster@rtc.wa.gov with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright ©1992-2008, Regional Transportation Council, All Rights Reserved.
This page was last updated January 16, 2008.