RTC

Bi-State Transportation Committee

Metro

Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, October 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 June 27, 2002 Meeting Report

The meeting of the Bi-State Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Craig Pridemore, at 7:32 a.m. at Metro, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Those in attendance follow:

Committee Members
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Steve Iwata (alternate), City of Portland
Phil Selinger (alternate), Tri-Met
Eric Holmes, City of Battleground, City Manager
Chris Lassen, City of Gresham Councilor
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Dave Williams (alternate), ODOT Region One
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region Administrator
Bill Wyatt, Port of Portland Executive Director
Staff
Andy Cotugno, Metro
John Cullerton, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Francine Floyd, Metro
Interested Guests
Kate Deane, ODOT
Patrick Lee, Clark County
John McConnaughey, WSDOT
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Sharon Nasset, NPBA
Edward Barnes, WSDOT Commissioner
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland
Mike Clark, WSDOT
Leonard W. York, Port of Vancouver
Fred Eberlee, ODOT

Chair Pridemore asked for approval of the June 27, 2002 Meeting Report. The Meeting Report was approved as written.

II. Port of Vancouver, Columbia Gateway Master Plan

John Fratt discussed what was important to the Port of Vancouver and to the region. (“Protecting our Future” was handed out at the meeting). The great thing about our region is the Columbia River; the tragedy about it is the state line in the Columbia River. What they are doing at Columbia Gateway is something for the entire region. The future of this region depends on the strength of the economy. The Columbia River is important to trade in both Washington and Oregon. It takes more than a waterway to keep trade flowing. It also takes a thriving, growing industry to produce materials for that trade.

Industrial land is “an endangered species” in our region. According to the 1999 regional industrial land survey---there are only 4,800 acres of land available for new industry in the Bi-State region. Minimum land needs are estimated to be 4,165 acres. 1,643 acres are in SW Washington. The Port of Vancouver’s Columbia Gateway offers a unique opportunity for marine and industrial development in this area. It consists of 1,094 acres—all under the Port’s ownership. It is easily accessible by roads and rail, as well as by river. Utilities and technology infrastructures are readily available. There’s been some public disagreement over the plans for the Columbia Gateway—although this land is already zoned for marine and industrial development—and has been since 1986

John Fratt gave a slide presentation on the “Columbia Gateway – The Future of Our Region” including the Columbia Gateway Key Facts and Objectives. There are 13,000 acres in the Vancouver lowlands. The Port bought about 500 acres of land known as the Ridgeport Dairy (purchased in 1967) for future marine terminal development. In 1989, the Port sold that property to the US Fish and Wildlife when the current Gateway property became available. This 500-acre site is now incorporated into the 5,100-acre Ridgefield Wildlife Preserve.

Parcels 3, 4, 5 of the Columbia Gateway make up the largest undeveloped parcel of marine and industrial land in single ownership in our region. Parcel 3 is the only location in Clark County with enough deep draft river frontage to support marine terminal, industrial development. This property is prime real estate for future marine and industrial areas. Washington is the most trade dependent state in this country and Oregon is close behind. We have excellent, natural and human resources. In order to nurture those resources and the industries they support—there needs to be room to grow.

The current comprehensive plan for Clark County estimates a need for 2,400 industrial acres. The development on one side of the river affects the potential for development on the other side. As new industries grow, other businesses depend on and support those industries. Businesses bring new jobs, jobs bring new customers and additional tax revenues.

Both states (Washington and Oregon) need to proceed in developing our natural resources. Based on the Port’s existing facilities, it is estimated that 5,400 jobs could result from the development of Columbia Gateway. Those 5,000 new family-wage jobs, in our current economy, sound good. The Columbia Gateway development needs the encouragement and support of the entire region. Today, over 40,000 residents commute from Clark County to Oregon for employment (information from I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership studies). The planning for Columbia Gateway has been underway for the past 10 years. A master plan is nearing completion. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be released early next year. Currently, several alternatives are carefully being considered for specific development.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 are being considered. These are not the final alternatives and they are being worked on as we speak. The alternatives are consistent with the Port’s mission to provide economic benefit. It is imperative that Columbia Gateway becomes a reality in this region. The region needs the growth and benefits that the Columbia Gateway can bring.

Larry Paulson thanked John Fratt for presenting the agenda item this morning. Mr. Paulson said that this has been a project “in progress” for some time. It provides a particular opportunity with the combination of marine and industrial capacity—all located on one block of land. By doubling the size of the Port of Vancouver over the next five to ten years, it would provide an opportunity to potentially double the number of jobs in Clark County.

Mr. Paulson said that John Pratt mentioned earlier the four items that were in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). There will be some changes as we continue to look at this more closely. He anticipates that we will have a comment period, time to respond to those comments, and then conduct hearings (probably December or January), followed by a selection as a result of that process. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be completed in about the first quarter of next year. Does that mean we are done with the process? No, this is followed by a subarea plan that takes another two or three months. Next, followed by the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process for land use. They have been working on this for a number of years—nine years in a more formal sense.

Phil Selinger commented that with the new housing located in the north and east of Clark County, and a heavy job concentration in the west—there’s a bit of an infrastructure challenge there as well. He asked whether this was being addressed.

Mr. Paulson explained that he anticipated that this would be part of the discussion. There are transportation issues that they are trying to address with the City of Vancouver.

Rod Monroe asked whether there has been any discussion of a Bi-State Port Authority somehow emerging from the two Ports—due to their common interests and needs. He said there are Bi-State and Multi-State Port Authorities in the New York City area. He wondered if there had been any discussion of creating such an authority in this region and if that would help streamline some of the issues between the Ports on either side of the Columbia River.

Mr. Paulson said he gets asked that question fairly regularly. The Port of Vancouver and the Port of Portland, as well as other ports on the Columbia River do have some cooperative efforts in motion. In particular, the Port of Portland and the Port of Vancouver have shared resources over the years. The Port of Vancouver actually leases a floating dock through the Port of Portland. The Port of Vancouver does some limited, joint marketing with the Port of Portland. There has been some discussion about ways to work together and coordinate our efforts better, including rationalization of assets. How much is enough? Mr. Paulson said they have jointly worked with Metro on cargo forecasting. With the Port of Portland, they have done an economic analysis together. Mr. Paulson added that the Columbia River is not only a geographic boundary, but also a political boundary.

Rod Monroe explained that we are one economic region. Our competition is Puget Sound, San Diego, Oakland, Long Beach, Vancouver/British Columbia, etc. He said we should view it that way and do all we can to strengthen this economic entity on the Columbia River between the Ports. If we can do that through greater cooperation, whatever the political structure is, then he would be strongly in favor of that.

Craig Pridemore said that one of the advantages of this committee has been talking about the regional transportation system and how those things partner. Our greater recognition has been in talking about land use and economic development issues—which leads us into the next agenda item.

III. Bi-State Coordination Accord

Dean Lookingbill introduced the memo regarding the Bi-State Coordination Accord (included in the meeting packet).

He outlined the agenda item regarding the Bi-State Coordination Accord into three parts as follows:

Mr. Lookingbill said that it had been about five months since the Task Force made their recommendation. Important points for discussion include the following: 1) review of I-5 Task Force recommendations for the Bi-State Coordination Accord; 2) state the framework/principles---the intergovernmental agreement that speaks to creating the new Bi-State Coordination Committee; 3) if there is agreement on those principles, then we could go through a process with legal counsel for developing an intergovernmental agreement; 4) finally, and most important, how the Bi-State Transportation Committee recommends moving the Bi-State Coordination Accord forward.

Mr. Lookingbill said that the memo provides a summary of Attachment D. Included with the memo was the full text of “I-5 Bi-State Coordination Accord” (Attachment D) which he briefly explained as follows:

Mr. Lookingbill referred to the first section regarding the Accord Purpose and listed the goals/principles including: the region functions as one economic marketplace; meet the travel demands in the I-5 Corridor; provide balance of modal options in the I-5 Corridor; the region’s land use systems, transportation and economic development impact each other—we need to discuss approaches and implement strategies. We need to realize the best use of our capital investment in the I-5 Corridor ensuring that the development in the corridor brings the highest paying jobs, and economic development activity that brings secondary and third level additional services and jobs.

He said the second section specifically spoke to protecting the I-5 Corridor and laid out suggestions on how to do that. The third section addressed how to create the Coordination Committee and their role. The fourth section included actions and issues of major Bi-State Significance.

Mr. Lookingbill said the task before the Bi-State Transportation Committee today was to move toward identifying the framework or principles for an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). He added that importantly, the IGA needed to restate the need and purpose of the Accord. This would then go back to both RTC and Metro. There might be a final pass through this Committee for a final agreement on the draft and endorsement. Between RTC and Metro---the Committee could get full agreement of what would be included in the IGA. That would then go out to the Accord signatories. In theory, what they do by signing it, would be to agree to the IGA.

Dean Lookingbill asked Andy Cotugno for further explanation.

Andy Cotugno commented as follows:

Andy Cotugno explained that the IGA to create an organization is more about the committee’s roles and responsibilities, and members. He said this is what the Committee should focus on now. The work program will come later. He added that there are some “checks and balances” in the original I-5 Accord. Certain projects won’t go forward until there’s consultation with the Bi-State Coordination Committee. Therefore, it’s imperative that we get this Committee going, in order to have a Bi-State Coordination Committee to refer these issues to—so those projects can then meet the spirit of the overall I-5 strategy.

Chair Pridemore added that one of the best things this Committee could do was to communicate what’s going on. There has been a lot of discussion on the Washington side regarding the Bi-State Accord. At public meetings with communities and groups, they have been able to address some of these concerns and issues. The draft recommendations of the Accord were receiving broad support on the Washington side of the river.

Eric Holmes reported some of the suggestions that came out of the last RTC meeting. One suggestion was a modification to the composition of the consulting committee—so it’s more balanced to represent interests on both sides of the Columbia River. He said there was a growing comfort on the principles; however, there were still some reservations about the details of the scope and scale. Some of the words being consistently acknowledged mean different things to different people. Getting a clear understanding across the board is needed. He said they were soliciting a more formal response from other small cities in Clark County and would present their findings later to RTC and the Bi-State Transportation Committee.

Craig Pridemore said that the expectation is that when we put this all together and come up with the final proposals, each of the city councils would go through their own process, then sign the signatories to the agreement. It’s an awkward situation because—on the Oregon side, the geographic area covered is within the City of Portland’s jurisdiction. On the Washington side, it goes through Clark County and numerous cities. Although some cities don’t currently have any part of I-5, they are likely to in the future. Therefore, there are lots of groups to work through. There are concerns on whether geographic representation will be adequate.

Rod Monroe addressed Chairman Pridemore, saying that we had been talking about this for months. He recalled that it had been about a six-month process to get the Bi-State Committee up and going, too. This is a very important step in the process. He liked the work that Dean Lookingbill was doing and the scaling back on some specifics. Particularly, it is important that we do not have to determine right now—all of the added members. New members will need to be added, but the Accord doesn’t specify exactly who they would be, whom they would represent, or how many would be needed. Leaving those questions open allows us to move in the direction of getting the Accord approved. Mr. Monroe asked if there was a timeline. He said it would be an appropriate time to make the recommendation at the next Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting. Then the recommendation would go to Metro, to RTC, and then to Clark County. Once those three entities have accepted the Accord, then it would go to the local jurisdictions for their review and, hopefully, their acceptance by signing on. Once that process is completed, we could discuss what new members to add. Hopefully, the Bi-State Coordination Committee would be operating before next summer.

Craig Pridemore commented further on the process and timeframe to get this committee up and going. A concern was to ensure that all jurisdictions be represented at the Bi-State Coordination Committee, and not be dominated by either Washington or Oregon. Finding this balance is important. Rod Monroe said that in the spirit of cooperation, it could be worked out. He said he would like to establish a tentative timeline and follow it. Rod Monroe suggested that Andy Cotugno, Craig Pridemore and himself get together and work out a tentative timeframe to move forward on. Timelines can always be stretched and changed; however, it’s good to have a guideline to start with.

Rod Monroe reported that Metro is in the process of refining transportation priorities in preparation for contact with congressional delegation next Spring. The DEIS process on Delta Park is underway and would be completed in the next year or year and a half. Although there‘s not a huge rush, the sooner we can get the Bi-State Accord “nailed down” the better.

Craig Pridemore commented that with the existing structure and the directions given by RTC and JPACT to the Bi-State Committee, along with the recommendations from I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership—we do have the essential framework. Dean Lookingbill said they could take that framework and work with legal counsel to draft an intergovernmental agreement. Craig Pridemore said that it was a good idea to start the draft process as soon as possible in order to get it out to the interested jurisdictions so that they could begin reviewing it. Rod Monroe said he would be happy to make himself available to meet with the Washington representatives as is needed in this process.

Craig Pridemore added that overall, the process was moving forward extremely well.

IV. I-5 Partnership Study TDM Recommendations

Dave Williams referred to the letter addressed to the Bi-State Transportation Committee from Don Wagner and Kay Van Sickel (handed out at the meeting) regarding TDM/TSM recommendations. He summarized the request for consideration of the I-5 Task Force recommendations for a commitment to increase TDM/TSM efforts in the I-5 Corridor and throughout the region. These I-5 Task Force recommended TDM/TSM actions were listed in the letter and attachment. Mr. Williams said the two DOTs (WSDOT and ODOT) would work together on a scope of work and budget that would be presented at a later date.

In addition, further work would be done on the current action items—I-5 Corridor Focused (see letter attachment “Recommended TDM/TSM Actions”). Mr. Williams said they would come back to the Bi-State Committee with those TDM projects that could proceed immediately. Furthermore, on the Oregon side, the MTIP is being updated which is a funding opportunity for some of the recommendations listed on the attachment. So both of these products would be coming back to the Committee. Meetings are set up with the DOTs, TriMet and C-Tran who operate the TDM programs. They plan to sort out what appears to be the short list of projects that could go ahead today; figure out the project costs; report this information back to the Bi-State Committee; and then give this information to all the jurisdictions that actually make those funding decisions.

V. Update: Metro’s UGB Expansion and Clark County’s GMA Process

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, said they were currently in hearings on a decision package in for the Metro Council. That decision package includes a number of pieces. The obvious one that gets most of the attention is the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion. There are a number of pieces that lead up to the UGB Expansion. It’s important to pay attention to the pieces along the way. First and foremost is how much growth do we expect to see in the region? How much do we expect to see in our UGB? How does that compare to what we already have in our UGB?

Mr. Cotugno explained the projected capture rates for the Oregon portion of the region and for Clark County. Under Oregon State law, we cannot simply assume that Washington is going to restrict housing growth. We would have to base it on demonstrated action. Since the Washington side isn’t through their process yet, we don’t know where they are “going to land.” This lead us back again to that Bi-State Accord question—we don’t really have an agreement over how we coordinate these issues. We are in a final decision process. Currently, the proposal is to proceed on the basis of a 68% dwelling unit capture rate. Metro has forecasted that we will capture about 75% of the jobs. Is the Columbia Gateway going to change or tilt that balance? If we need to size our UGB on the basis of the 75% capture rate, we need 10,000 acres of industrial land that we don’t have.

Mr. Cotugno referred to the two maps (displayed at the front of the room) as follows:

Besides expansion of the urban growth boundary, another issue we are dealing with is more efficient use of the land inside our present UGB in order to minimize how much we need to expand our UGB. Two regulations being considered in order to change how land is used inside our current UGB are: 1) a recommendation that there be more aggressive development incentives so that we achieve the higher level of development in centers through redevelopment and higher densities. In May, we went through a ballot measure that said Metro wouldn’t require increased density in neighborhoods—but very intentionally—didn’t want to make that restriction in centers. Metro wants to see greater levels of development in centers. The sizing of the residential expansion has been reduced based on an expectation that we get to higher levels in those centers, and 2) a recommendation to restrict what could develop on industrial lands that currently remain inside the UGB. We do have almost 5,000 acres of industrial land; however, we need 10,000 acres. Historically, almost 40% of that would be used for non-industrial purposes (i.e., retail, office, churches and schools). Regulations are now being considered that would limit the kind of development on industrial lands, so that industrial lands are preserved for industrial purposes. We are proposing a limit on commercial 20,000-sq. ft. development. Currently, we have a limit of 50,000-sq. ft. buildings and no more than 5% retail in an industrial area. We are proposing limits on offices so that the industrial land is preserved for industrial purposes, instead of commercial development. If adopted, it would reduce the 5,600 acres needed, and then we might come closer to meeting the need with this expansion.

Patrick Lee, Clark County, referred to the handout, Summary of Alternatives (“Clark County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan Update”) that is presently being considered. In terms of a general timeline for their process, up to now, the big push had been to develop the alternatives. They were ready to begin the transportation modeling to compare the alternatives, then develop a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). They want to have the DEIS out by the first quarter of 2003 for public comment. The major effort coming out of the process of DEIS review would be formulating a preferred alternative which they want to do in the spring 2003. Planning Commission hearings are scheduled for the summer and on toward the fall. It will probably take a year to 13 months until there is final action on this plan. By Washington State’s growth management laws, the question of urban growth boundary sizing needs to be addressed in this review.

The “Summary of Alternatives” (page 1) gives a range of alternatives developed to address some of those needs. For example, the additional population expected to be accommodated ranges from approximately 126,00 to 171,000 new people through 2023. Mr. Lee gave an overview of the summary of alternatives in relation to population growth, job growth, land development for new jobs and homes, urban growth area expansion. There is much variation in the listed alternatives. The information developed in the DEIS would be important in helping to identify the best course of action. Although the focus of discussion has been around the urban growth boundary issue, they do have an underlying vision of our existing Comprehension Plan, which had been reviewed by their Steering Committee. Generally, it had been agreed to continue pursuing a center’s concept in downtown Vancouver. Other centers are focusing around the downtown areas of smaller cities. Some of the same concepts are built in, in terms of land use, inside a boundary—as Metro has built into their framework plan. Obviously, there’s nothing of the same scale of downtown Portland in Clark County. However, The Round in Beaverton, for example, would be of similar scale. Within the County, cities have been reviewing their own comprehensive plans. Many of them have identified opportunities within their existing city limits to make some land use changes. There are lots of activities going on in Washington State.

Mr. Lee said there had been a lot of public process that’s been involved because of where they are at this point. Also there’s more to come before final decisions are made. In the fall of next year 2003, they expect a final decision.

VI. Public Comment

There was no public comment.

VII. Fall Meetings and Agenda Items

The next Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting was scheduled for November 21, 2002, at the Port of Vancouver. Dean Lookingbill mentioned two agenda items for the next meeting as followed: 1) to provide a draft intergovernmental agreement, and 2) to discuss the joint transportation issues that are on the table as the delegation goes to Washington DC to Congress in the Spring 2003—with “fingers crossed” that Congress will actually be talking about these issues by then.

The January 23, 2003, Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting will be held at Metro.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 a.m.

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 ©1992-2009, Regional Transportation Council, All Rights Reserved.