Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, June 19, 2008, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. An agenda for this meeting is also available.

Meeting Report

I. Welcome and Approval of the February 20 and April 17, 2008, Meeting Reports

The meeting of the Bi-State Coordination Committee was called to order by Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder at 7:30 a.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center 6th Floor Training Room, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:

Committee Members
Katy Brooks, Port of Vancouver Alternate Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor Jeff Cogen, Multnomah County Commissioner Shirley Craddick, City of Gresham Councilor Alternate Fred Hansen, TriMet General Manager Mary Legry, WSDOT Alternate Shoshanah Oppenheim, City of Portland Alternate Scott Patterson, C-TRAN Alternate Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner John Williams, City of Battle Ground Alternate Rian Windsheimer, ODOT Alternate
Staff and Interested Guests
Ed Barnes, Citizen Pete Capell, Clark County Danielle Cogan, Columbia River Crossing Andy Cotugno, Metro Doug Ficco, Columbia River Crossing Bob Hart, RTC Bill Hidden, Citizen Alan Lehto, TriMet Dean Lookingbill, RTC Dick Malin, Central Park Neighborhood Sharon Nasset, Citizen/ETA Philip Parker, Washington Transportation Commissioner Bart Phillips, Columbia River EDC Troy Rayburn, Clark County Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver. Karen Schilling, Multnomah County Paul Smith, City of Portland Mark Turpel, Metro John Williams, Metro Diane Workman, RTC

Chair Burkholder noted that at the April meeting, action was not taken on the February 20, 2008, Meeting Report, and it would be requested for approval along with the April 17 Meeting Report.

STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 20 AND APRIL 17, 2008, MEETING REPORTS AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED. MARY LEGRY AND SCOTT PATTERSON ABSTAINED.

II. Columbia River Crossing – Bi-State Coordination Committee Participation

Chair Burkholder referred to the distributed memorandum and draft resolution to the CRC Task Force from the Co-Chairs regarding the Task Force Recommendation on a Locally Preferred Alternative. It lists the LPA decision along with other issues that need to be considered. Their recommendation for the Task Force consideration was a replacement bridge as the preferred option; light rail as the preferred mode, and an alignment preference for the Clark College terminus. They also had a list of supplemental positions for future consideration. Chair Burkholder asked the committee if they were supportive of the recommendations from the Co-Chairs or if they had any additions or subtractions or other concerns.

Royce Pollard said that Vancouver City Council has already expressed their view based on the evidence to date. He said their preference is a replacement bridge with light rail. He said he was supportive of that. There was discussion of the terminus of the high capacity transit. Steve Stuart said that the Task Force doesn’t necessarily have to pick a terminus, but when the New Starts application is submitted, a terminus will need to be selected. C-TRAN has had discussions on the terminus. Mayor Pollard said that their transportation staff has made a recommendation to the City Council for Clark College as the terminus, but the Council has not yet embraced that.

Chair Burkholder asked if having the Task Force make a terminus decision was a critical piece of the process. He asked if the terminus was a critical piece of the DEIS process, or if that was something that could follow after the Vancouver action. Fred Hansen said it is a requirement of the LPA.

Steve Stuart said of the Task Force’s 39 members, a lot of them are not sponsoring agencies. They are neighborhood associations and others, and they will want to have some discussion on the issue. Chair Pollard said the Task Force can make a recommendation, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the Vancouver City Council will follow it.

Fred Hansen said the Task Force does not have to approve the LPA. The four bodies on either side of the river have to approve it. He said neither the Bi-State Committee nor the Task Force need to have that portion in, but the decision does have to be made at the time of the LPA.

There was discussion of the terminus decision. There was also the question of who puts together the LPA that everyone adopts because they need one that can go before every agency. Mr. Lookingbill said that would begin with whom ever makes the first decision. The others need to be the same or there is not agreement. The City of Vancouver will be first on July 7th. Chair Burkholder said that there needs to be some consistency. Andy Cotugno said it doesn’t need to be identical, but it does need to be consistent. He said JPACT can say something general about the alignment to the north is what they are endorsing; light rail that extends across the river into and through downtown Vancouver. Be silent on the specificity of exactly where it goes. That is not identical, but it is consistent. Rex Burkholder said everyone has an opportunity to question things on substance, but the form should be correct.

Fred Hansen said the LPA is a fairly general statement that references a document that is in fact the details, and that provides the coordination.

Steve Stuart said that as part of the decision making, City of Vancouver and C-TRAN and others on the Washington side will make the terminus decision that FTA requires us to do. It is just a matter of who leads.

Chair Burkholder referred to the list of other considerations. They were measures that have been raised by various governments and also citizens and other organizations about the next phase and how it is done that is consistent. Steve Stuart asked who wrote the document.

Doug Ficco said Henry Hewitt and Hal Dengerink were the motivators on the document. The bulleted list are concerns that people voiced at the Task Force meetings and also what they have heard from some of the public hearings. He said at the Task Force meeting they plan to go through each bullet. Chair Burkholder asked members for their input.

Andy Cotugno said he had concerns about the design of all the interchanges leading up to the bridge that there has been enormous attention to the bridge and the light rail, bus rapid transit question and not as much attention to the designs of all the interchanges leading up to it. He said there were three bullets on the list that he would like to add language to.

1. “Further study and analysis to determine the appropriate number of auxiliary lanes necessary for safety and functionality in the project area.”
2. “Continued work to design interchanges in the project area that meet safety and engineering standards and requirements of the FHWA, the departments of transportation for Oregon and Washington and the cities of Portland and Vancouver.” And
3. Continued work to ensure freight sensitive interchanges provide enhanced mobility.”

Mr. Cotugno said all three of those imply to him that if you are going to meet safety and engineering standards those interchanges are liable to get bigger. He said he thought there needed to be attention to whether or not they can get smaller. He would like to suggest that language be added to each one of those that says “consistent with minimizing impacts”. He said you should balance the engineering and safety standards with minimizing the environmental impacts. He said if it is a balancing of those two, it is the right thrust, but now as it is worded, it is not a balance. It is just to meet the standards.

Steve Stuart said that seemed consistent with what he had heard from Metro Council and the CTRAN discussion as well. He said it made sense to him as well. He said it is a cost containment and an environmental imprint issue as well.

Fred Hansen said those were the areas that he had wanted to touch on for his first point as well. He said he thought the issue around the third bullet is more significant than a simple one sentence as it is. He said it seems to be one that really has issues. He said it is partly how to be able to make the safety functionality, but really a question of is this through-put increasing capacity on it. He said that does need more analysis.

Mr. Hansen referred to the first two bullets on the second page of the considerations. He said they are around the carbon effects of this issue, and it does seem that with the issue of capacity, are we really increasing the capacity by the auxiliary lanes or are the auxiliary lanes really for functionality, safety and other things. He said it is also an issue of through-put.

Shoshanah Oppenheim said when looking at the “Be It Resolved...” section with the statement of recommendations from the six local sponsor agencies; she said it is the position of the City of Portland that the decision-making bodies really have an endorsement of the LPA. It is a much stronger statement rather than just recommendations to the Task Force. She said it is the City of Portland’s intention to put forth a letter that states that. Rex Burkholder said this issue came up in the Metro discussion as well. It is the idea of having a formal oversight body versus just advising individually from the various governments, a formal oversight body as an ongoing advisory group to this project in a formal sense. Steve Stuart added a decision-making group from the sponsoring agencies. Rian Windsheimer said that is similar to what Matt Garrett and Jason Tell have been saying when they testified to that at the hearing, which is a partnership. It is going to be a continued partnership. Chair Burkholder said there may be an amendment to the resolution to clarify that there should be a formation of a formal oversight body.

Steve Stuart said that he and Rex Burkholder penned a letter from the Bi-State Committee on a couple of options for that body. He said there has been a lot of discussion about an oversight committee. He said the more he thinks about it he asked what formal role the Bi-State Committee could play. He said six people who would otherwise not be at the table. This would have the two Ports, a small city representative from each side, Multnomah County, and Clark County. To keep those members around the table and actually moving forward in this project is going to be important. It is a long term process where we will need to attract dollars and resources and keep everybody on the same page. He said there is a higher level of input needed, and a higher level of decision making needed from sponsoring agencies that have financial authority, accountability, and responsibility for this project. He said he thought that the Bi-State Committee could perform their advisory function, but then be advisory to the sponsoring agencies, so a whole new layer does not have to be made, but at the same time it would recognize the other sponsoring agencies have a higher level of authority and responsibility.

Mayor Pollard said he agreed with Steve Stuart. He said the sponsoring agencies have direct responsibilities, but the Bi-State Committee has preformed a filtering, advisory, review of all things going on in our region. He said he thought that was an appropriate mission for them to continue that, and said he would support that kind of organization. Mayor Pollard apologized and said he had to attend another meeting and would have to leave.

Chair Burkholder said that having a formal organization would better reflect the Metro Council’s concerns and the City of Portland and others. Committee members agreed to having a formal body and recommending that the language better reflect that. Steve Stuart said the two Governors are about three drafts deep in a recommendation on this. He noted to the two DOTs that it would be nice to have that included in their discussions as far as how to move forward. He said they have been working on it. Rex Burkholder said he was appreciative of the fact that they had asked the Governors for this and are actually getting a response back. He said it is a part of the partnership.

Shoshanah Oppenheim said there were strong statements from the Planning Commission at the City of Portland that bridge design is of ultimate concern. She said that Sam Adams sits on the UDAG with Mayor Pollard. Ms. Oppenheim referred to the “Whereas” listed on design, and said that if there is the possibility of having stronger language there and also referencing the oversight committee, that would be much more attractive to the City of Portland in terms of supporting what the design commission has put forth. Chair Burkholder said design is referenced on the Project Consideration list in bullet number nine. He said if the City wants to draft language that pushes that a bit more. Jeff Cogan said he felt that they should. He noted the other language that they used stating the highest standards for light rail stations and world class bicycle facilities. Steve Stuart said that moving it from the list of concerns to the resolution alone brings it more attention.

Katy Brooks added in being sensitive to what Andy Cotugno said about the size and cost of the interchanges. She said from the Port’s standpoint, one can argue that you can get the same benefit from a smaller interchange, but she emphasized that some of the interchanges are going to have to be big because of the freight mobility issue. She said it needs to be thrifty and thoughtful in how the interchanges are designed, but some of the interchanges are to be designed for things other than cars. That may present some challenges. Fred Hansen said that goes back to the issue of land use. He said given that is what they do and design those for freight and then but big box retail nearby and thus the interchanges are used up by car traffic. Rex Burkholder said they were also talking about management. He said you could go with an interchange physically smaller, but have it designed or managed to emphasize freight. He said in a couple areas, that is the major use of those, having truck only lanes, bypass lanes, and other things that have been discussed, but we need to start using. He said that is the freight sensitive piece, and there are mechanisms we can use to do that.

Andy Cotugno referred to the list under “For Regional Consideration”, bullet number four Evaluating the effectiveness of a regional high occupancy vehicle system. He said he has never heard of anyone calling for evaluation of a regional HOV system. He wondered what the source of this is or the interest in this is.

Doug Ficco said this came about as a result of hearing a lot about a regional HOV system at the public hearings. He said they had heard of it from one of the Task Force Members as well. Mr. Ficco said C-TRAN had also expressed some interest in long HOV lanes, a mile or two long, a whole corridor.

Steve Stuart said according to the analysis that they have seen, by 2030 the northbound HOV lane that exists is full, and thus worthless. He said the whole purpose of an HOV lane is to move faster that the rest of the traffic. If you are not doing that, it no longer has any value. He said if it is going to fill up, and if it is just a single segment that is truly the only HOV segment in all of Oregon, then they will continue to hear from people about why it is here. Mr. Stuart said if we want to have an HOV lane that is functional, we need to start developing it as a system approach. Ultimately he said what C-TRAN Director Jeff Hamm has said is that if you are going to have this, lets talk about how you might have a system to make that work, so it is actually functional and meets the needs. Rex Burkholder said in their Regional Transportation Plan, they are actually looking at that as one of their scenarios. The question he said that Mr. Cotugno is raising is that there is nothing that says that is something that should be included. He asked if a statement should be added that says HOV should be part of the consideration of the project itself.

Scott Patterson added that Jeff Hamm has talked about it on occasion. He said there is a recognition as a part of this project, but it is really a separate issue. Dean Lookingbill said this point has been visited before. He said we may want to come back and visit it, but to have it be a part of this project discussion does not fit. It is a bigger discussion.

Chair Burkholder said this is just one piece of a major effort. There was further discussion of the concerns for regional consideration. Chair Burkholder said these are issues that have come up during the process that are important, but not part of the recommendation or the LPA. Steve Stuart said he did not see heavy transportation demand management strategies and instituting them listed, such as signal prioritization or ramp metering, and he thought it should be included.

Scott Patterson referred to the third bullet on the second page relating to a more detailed draft finance plan after the LPA. He said there was a lot of discussion about this at the C-TRAN Board meeting.

Rex Burkholder said in his discussion with Henry Hewitt on this process, he envisioned it, and Doug Ficco said it as well, that this is a recommended resolution and set of issues and he will walk through it. He said he has heard good suggestions today, and these should be brought forward during the discussion and ask for those amendments. Mr. Burkholder said this is to be an open process with a framework to work from, so let’s make sure we get a good document out of it. This is the goal of the Task Force Chairs.

III. Metro’s Urban Reserves – Coordination Recommendations

Chair Burkholder said a bill was passed in the last Legislature that set up a process for them to look at 50 year growth issues. He said the last urban growth boundary amendment process they went through was difficult. The issue was how they could improve that process. They got a two year extension on their urban growth boundary decision-making, so they had some time to go through it. He said a committee was set up that includes the three counties, Metro, and many others to look at how they will grow over a long period of time. Commissioner Jeff Cogen represents Multnomah County on that committee. Today, he would describe the process that he is involved in on the south side of the river, but also engage the folks on the north side of the river about how they could better coordinate and interact.

Commissioner Cogen said at the request of Metro and the three counties, the legislature is giving them an opportunity and create a pilot project to acknowledge some of the challenges that occur for the urban growth boundary expansion system. The program, which is for creating urban and rural reserves, is looking 50 years out and trying to decide what the region is going to look like and plan for it. It is a very different approach, and requires a lot of different types of considerations.

The way that it is set up, in order to be successful, the four governments that are involved, Metro, Multnomah County, Clackamas County, and Washington County, have to unanimously agree on what ever they do. They have been meeting for a number of months. The four governments have put together a Regional Steering Committee of advisors from all sorts of constituencies to help guide them in the process. He said essentially, they are first looking 50 years out and asking what that means. How many people will there be, how many jobs, and what are the needs? The next phase is how many of those people can they fit within their existing urban growth boundary. Then how much will have to go outside the boundary and where? In the process of doing this, a few things have emerged. One is the fact that these three counties and Metro do not actually constitute the entire region. He said they wanted to make sure that they were having discussions coordinating and collaborating with the rest of the region, SW Washington being a significant part of it. The very first thing they have done is to decide what the study area is, what they are considering. Mr. Cogen referred to the maps of the study areas and a timeline for the program included in the meeting packet. They essentially took the current urban growth boundary and extended it out five miles in every direction. This took in counties that are not in their jurisdiction along with the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. They removed these from the study area and made some other adjustments to come to the Proposed Urban and Rural Reserve Study Area. One of the advantages of this kind of process is to give certainty to land owners, and it gives an opportunity for better planning in terms of infrastructure development, etc.

Commissioner Cogen said the main reason for giving the overview is to engage in a conversation of how to all work together. He said they would like Washington jurisdictions to talk with the group about what their plan in growth expectations are. He said all are welcome to attend their Regional Steering Committee meetings that meet monthly. A presentation to the Steering Committee about what is going on in Clark County is welcome as well as a presentation from the Oregon folks in return. Commissioner Cogen said technical staff would like to work with technical staff in SW Washington to identify ways in which the jurisdictions are coordinating on growth. He said it was clear at some of the Steering Committee meetings that there is a sense among folks that there is no communication. He said it would be useful for them to get the technical staff together and identify the ways in which we are working together.

Rex Burkholder asked Steve Stuart how these connections could be met. He said he thought it would be good to have representatives of the Reserves Group to come to the Clark County Commission to discuss this as well as have a representative from the Clark County Commission come to the Reserves Group. The technical connection is really critical in sharing communication. Steve Stuart said from his commission’s standpoint, he has the go ahead to participate in their process and attend the Steering Committee meetings. He said it is a good thing to be involved in the process. Commissioner Stuart said what the Port is doing will have a big impact on the Regional Plan. He said their small cities are growing, and they also have a seat at the Bi-State Committee. It will be beneficial to bring all the different plans from both sides and look at them together and feed this back to the steering committees on both sides. Mr. Stuart said the Washington side looked at a population of 1 million, which is about a 50-year look. He said it would be a very valuable conversation.

Fred Hansen said it is under the big look of Metro, where they are really looking outside of the Metro boundary and looking at the travel patterns and how much is coming in from Yamhill County and various other things. He said this is happening in Clark County as well. He said with the price of gasoline, that has made it a lot less attractive. He asked how they were thinking for the Reserves issue in relationship to the travel patterns. Jeff Cogen said that is a factor that is being considered. He said they are looking at all sorts of various things that are going on, including where development is actually occurring, where employment is looking to go, what transportation is looking like, which is critical in habitat that needs protection, where high value agricultural lands are, and many more. They will clearly find transportation issues that are beyond the purview of the Urban and Rural Reserves setting. The idea is to have that information help inform us. Andy Cotugno said in the analysis process they are looking at different scenarios that they have talked with JPACT about. They are also looking at different land use scenarios including different places and amounts of urbanization through UGB expansion, but also different amounts of urbanization in the neighboring cities. They are looking at the interrelationship between how we grow inside our current boundary, where we grow through expansion, and how much growth goes to those neighboring cities. It was noted that the neighboring cities are a part of the process as well.

Rex Burkholder said he appreciated Clark County’s willingness to participate. Steve Stuart said he appreciated the offer.

IV. Public Comment

Sharon Nasset of Portland said that she was glad to hear that they will have an oversight committee for the Columbia River Crossing project. She asked if no one would represent the citizens. She felt the NEPA process had not been followed.

Chair Burkholder said possible future meeting topics include Regional Trail Program Coordination and Greenhouse Gas Update. He said if anyone had other suggestions for items to be brought to the committee, contact him or Steve Stuart. He said this is a good forum to share information and get feedback from different perspectives on things that have impact on the bi-state area.

The next Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting is scheduled for September 18, 2008, at Metro at 5:00 p.m. The meeting date was later moved to October 16, 2008, at Metro at 5:00 p.m.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 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.