CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:45 a.m. by Councilmember Richard McIver, Chair, Transportation Policy Board, and Councilmember Dave Somers, Chair, Growth Management Policy Board.

REPORT OF THE CHAIRS
Councilmember Somers welcomed Councilmember Scott Greenberg, City of Issaquah, who will serve as an alternate on the Growth Management Policy Board, representing King County Cities and Towns.

Councilmember Somers announced that he asked Deputy Mayor Connie Marshall representing Bellevue Metropolitan Center to serve as Vice Chair of the Growth Management Policy Board, and she has accepted.

Councilmember Richard McIver introduced Sumner Sharpe, who facilitated the discussion on the remaining key steps of developing a Destination 2030 plan. Councilmember McIver also pointed out the handouts for agenda items #5 and #7, which were at the members' places.

COMMUNICATIONS AND CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no comments or communications received.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Minutes of the Joint Transportation and Growth Management Policy Board meeting held December 14, 2000
2. Routine Amendments to the 2001-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT DESTINATION 2030
King Cushman provided an overview of the schedule and process for adoption of the Destination 2030 plan.

Mr. Cushman provided an explanation on a handout for agenda item #5a, titled Implementation Strategies: Incorporated into Integrated Investment and Finance Strategy. The paper identifies the 22 implementation strategies and where they could be incorporated into the investment strategies for the final plan. He noted that a larger, more detailed document is available.

Norman Abbott provided an update on the analysis of comments received on the Destination 2030 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). He noted that binders have been available for review at the last several Policy Board meetings and will continue to be available for future Policy Board, Executive Board, and General Assembly meetings throughout the Destination 2030 review and adoption process. Members who wish to have a complete copy should contact Sheila Rogers at the Regional Council office. He drew attention to a handout at members' places that included the table of contents for comments received and three bar charts which show the type of comments received, with support or opposition for the different alternatives, and types of concerns expressed in comments. The responses to comments will be included in the draft final environmental impact statement.

Mr. Abbott reported that the comments can be summarized into the following four broad areas:

1. Comments expressing a desire to see a broader and more aggressive mix of transportation improvements - roads, transit, non-motorized, and demand management - than was represented by alternatives in the DEIS.
2. Comments asking about or supporting/opposing individual transportation projects or activities (majority of comments).
   1. Comments questioning why a greater reduction in congestion cannot be achieved.
   2. Comments concerning how to select the most useful and cost-effective projects and how to pay for them. In response to least cost planning concerns, the public comment period was extended from October 20, 2000 closure date, until November 27, 2000. This extension generated 24 additional comment letters. People appear to be willing to pay for an improved transportation system and show support for transportation pricing and for increased taxes to pay for transportation projects.
   3. Comments questioning why some ideas were not included in the analysis contained in the DEIS. For example, regional commercial air capacity, a bus-only transit system, an I-605 freeway, and a bridge to Kitsap County via Vashon Island.
3. Comments expressing concern about a wide range of issues from modeling and data used in the document, to issues such as the Endangered Species Act, air quality, or asking for clarification of the graphics used in the document. He reminded the Policy Boards about the ad hoc subcommittee they formed in November to review data and modeling. These comments were generally answered in two ways: 1) the largest category were items that staff agree could be changed or accommodated and will be included in the final plan, and, 2) a lesser number of things that we cannot do within the schedule of this plan update, but are pursuing as part of a consultant contract to develop model improvements.
4. Comments expressing desire for a strong monitoring program and accountability/performance measures.

Matthew Kitchen reported on the progress and findings of the ad hoc subcommittee on investment and finance strategy, drawing attention to a summary of the work from the ad hoc subcommittee titled Destination 2030 Integrated Investment and Finance Strategy. He reported that the ad hoc subcommittee established an investment strategy framework in November, consistent with BRCT revenue recommendations and investment principles. In December, the policy boards advised the ad hoc subcommittee to defer a portion of unfunded projects that exceed the already ambitious BRCT level of future funding into the post-2010 period to keep them in the plan. The ad hoc subcommittee met later in December to further develop investment strategies consistent with the implementation strategies.

Mr. Kitchen highlighted the following key messages that came out of the work of the ad hoc subcommittee which include:

• The Destination 2030 investment strategy should focus on the transportation systems that operate at a regionally significant scale and support and influence the region's long-term growth, development and quality of life.
• Regional systems cannot be managed effectively without some significant ability to plan, prioritize, and implement change at a regional scale.
• A major new implementation strategy is the development of a regional fund that would include regionally approved revenue sources (one of the BRCT's recommendations).
• Clearly articulated roles and responsibilities, as well as greater accountability are important elements of a regionally managed fund.

The investment strategy, building on the recommendations of the BRCT, focuses on regionally significant facilities and programs, recognizes that long-term investment decisions respond to prices, reflects the region's greatest needs through an early action strategy, and emphasizes linking major investment decisions to performance.

The ad hoc committee developed a set of principles that were then used to begin to sort through, at the programmatic level, the kinds of investments that could be made and the way in which we could finance them. The investment principles include:

1. The highest priority should be to maintain, preserve, make safe, and optimize existing transportation infrastructures and services.
2. Investments that complete discrete elements of the transportation system, rather than employ a scattershot approach to system completion, should be emphasized.
3. Appropriate investments in all modes should be emphasized to provide an array of travel choices.
4. Transportation investments should be directly linked with measurable transportation, environmental and land use outcomes; and should support the achievement of regional benchmarks (including some alignment with benchmarks proposed by the BRCT).
5. Cost effective transportation options for addressing identified problems should be demonstrated and implemented.
6. Compact development of designated urban centers and high capacity transit station areas should be supported by transportation infrastructure investments.

The investment strategy emphasizes system preservation and management for greater efficiencies, and includes the objectives to: 1) maintain, preserve and improve safety on existing infrastructure, 2) invest in trip reduction programs, 3) preserve levels of transit and ferry service, 4) develop traveler information and management technology, 5) provide high occupancy vehicle priority, and 6) consider the use of market incentives to optimize transportation systems.

The investment strategy also includes early action recommendations to improve system capacity and performance in the first ten years, with investments above and beyond what is needed to maintain the systems now in place. They include:

• Addressing severe points of congestion
• Completing regional roadway systems
• Expanding transit services where the market is strong
• Supporting auto and passenger ferry service plans
• Expanding vanpool services
• Investing in a regional non-motorized network
• Supporting urban centers and high capacity transit station areas
• Investing in freight mobility
• Supporting state intercity rail program

Mr. Kitchen provided a brief summary of some of the policy guidance proposed to develop and approve major regional investments. This policy guidance includes:

• A corridor approach
• Evaluating full benefits and costs
• Identifying, minimizing and mitigating impacts
• Examining feasibility with a financing plan
• Developing a record of key agreements that document the understanding for successful corridor implementation
• Refining the process for Candidate/Approved status determination

Systematic performance and implementation monitoring is also recommended to refine programming decision-making processes to ensure desired results are reached, including: plan policy and growth monitoring, system performance monitoring, and financial strategy monitoring.

Mr. Kitchen then provided information on future funding, which included an assumption that regional investments will require some sort of regional funding. The set of funding tools available to us right now are not sufficient to make the kinds of investments that most of the region feels are essential. Consistent with BRCT recommendations, we are looking to develop additional tools to make those kinds of investments at the regional level in the future, and this requires clearly articulated roles and responsibilities at the local, regional, and state levels.

In the discussion that followed, Deputy Mayor Connie Marshall noted that the material describing this is too long and in too many pieces to readily comprehend. She suggested simplifying the information and allowing Policy Board members additional time to review the investment and finance strategy. She further recommended that the Policy Board should endorse the briefer summary document, which provides the essence of the investment strategy. Policy Board members requested that the ad hoc subcommittee be expanded and asked to work on a more complete Integrated Investment and Finance Strategy document and report back at the next policy boards meeting.

Councilmember Maggi Fimia suggested that the board should see costs and benefits, such as what kind of trips per mode are projected before and after pricing, and what kind of investments will be available for those different modes, before and after pricing.

Mark Weed expressed a concern that after we spend all this money it appears we are no better off. Commissioner Davis stated "We will not build our way out of congestion—until we set up market incentives that are different than they are know, we are never going to solve congestion and we are going to grow." Mr. Cushman explained in more detail the actual reduction in congestion that would take place with some of the alternatives. It is projected that the region's population will grow by 50 percent and auto trips will increase by 60 percent, potentially creating nearly two or three times the level of congestion today. However, the "action" alternatives examined show the future congestion expanding less than 5-10 percent, even with all the growth.

Peter Hurley suggested that the benefits associated with the investments that have been raised be presented to the ad hoc committee prior to the next meeting. If the ad hoc committee understands the consequences of the alternatives, the discussion will be more informed and then questions might allow us to move forward with greater consensus. Mr. Kitchen said that staff understood that direction from the board was to develop a preferred alternative that reflects a hybrid between the MTP Plus "A" and "B," and what is before the board is staff's attempt at showing what the early actions would be towards implementing that kind of preferred alternative. He noted that if staff did analysis of additional options for early implementation of a direction on a preferred alternative, it would require considerable additional modeling and analysis. Mr. Hurley requested that staff bring back the results of the analyses that have been done, which include results of the environmental impact statement to help the Board with understanding of the benefits as related to the expenses. There were a number of good questions and considerable discussion among Board members, culminating in agreement to have the expanded ad hoc subcommittee continue with its review.

Sumner Sharpe then led the board through the draft summary, Integrated Investment and Finance Strategy, which had been recommended for approval. In the discussion that followed, Councilmember Rob McKenna suggested including a financing reference to other shorter term revenue opportunities that didn't depend upon "pricing" and to work with staff to come up with the language for this.

ACTION: Policy Board members approved the draft investment strategy summary.

Sumner Sharpe led the board members through the remaining four implementation strategies previously considered on December 14, 2000. Several rewording suggestions were made with added discussion taking place on these. Considerable debate on taxing authorities and use of tax revenues took place, as well as debate on transit use. Councilmember Biskey stated that it is important to maintain maximum flexibility as decisions are made. Mr. Kitchen suggested that the Regional Council should be where the analysis can happen on a whole set of possibilities and then use that information to show the policy makers, who then show the public. Members of the board directed staff to summarize the rationale for plan recommendations at the next meeting. Councilmember Mike Creighton said that trying to absorb the volumes of information that have come out over the past several months in order to make smart decisions is like "trying to drink water from a fire hose."

CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
The implementation strategies included amendments made by Councilmember Vance related to Sea-Tac Airport and the Port of Seattle. The amendments would place a deadline on the Port of Seattle for resolving the sound mitigation issues with Highline School District and address some permitting issues. Considerable discussion took place on this topic with possible remedies considered for the Port and Highline School District. Commissioner Clare Nordquist reported on the results of the most recent negotiations and efforts made by Congressman Adam Smith to work with the Port and the Highline School District to help resolve this and provide the sound mitigation for Highline schools. Councilmember Vance noted that, although Highline School District has not had the community support to pass a bond issue in over 20 years, they will be required to do repairs other than the sound mitigation required by the Port when they open the building envelope for that part of the work. Since educational funds cannot be used for these purposes, Highline has asked the Port to pay for the other work. According to the Port officials, the FAA does not allow the funds to be used for these other items. Commissioner Nordquist promised to report back to the Policy Boards within six weeks and to provide a timeline that will back up the statements that negotiations are nearing an agreement between the Port of Seattle and Highline School District. Councilmember Chris Vance stated that he will again offer these amendments at the Executive Board meeting.

ACTION: Councilmember Vance moved to amend Item #14 of the Draft Destination 2030 Implementation Strategies to suspend planning for the third runway if the Port of Seattle and the Highline School District are unable to reach agreement on sound mitigation of the schools by the time of Destination 2030 adoption; it was seconded. The amendment failed, with a vote of 3 yea's to 10 nay's.

ACTION: Councilmember Vance moved to amend Item #21 of the Draft Destination 2030 Implementation Strategies to suspend plans for a third runway at Sea-Tac Airport if the Port has not obtained the necessary project-level approvals from the Washington State Department of Ecology by December 31, 2001; it was seconded. The amendment failed with a vote of 3 yea's to 6 nay's.

Refinements to Strategy #18, Regional Transit Service. Dialogue on this issue was lively, with many thoughtful suggestions for possible wording changes to the title. Members asked for comparisons to the BRCT's recommendations and had additional questions on how revenue would be generated.

Refinements to Strategy #11, "Candidate/Approved" Process for Major Investments and Programs. Policy Board members had earlier expressed concerns that changing the process could add significant and potentially unreasonable delays to an already complex process. One of the refinements added a least-cost planning; another refinement added language that said "Encourage development of corridor agreements," and a third proposed adding policy direction for the Regional Council to respect the authority of adopted local, regional and state plans which have successfully achieved "Approved" status, not allowing the Regional Council to revisit or reconsider this status. Deputy Mayor Marshall asked to table the item until the next meeting when the draft plan will be available to provide further clarification on both this issue and the Regional Transit Service issue.

OTHER BUSINESS
Councilmember Somers presented two plaques to prior Growth Management Policy Board Chair Charlotte Garrido in recognition of her service to the Growth Management and Executive Boards and as a valuable asset and leader for the region in the development and implementation of growth management strategies. Ms. Garrido thanked members of the Boards. She expressed the highest regard for regional governance and the work of the Regional Council. Ms. Garrido will be completing her PhD on Citizen Involvement in the Politics of Land Use Planning, and invited members to get in touch with her on the topic.

INFORMATION ITEMS
A paper indicating the status of topics for inclusion in the Draft Destination 2030 was provided for review by the Board members. The information includes a list of requirements, along with a status update for each.

Attention was drawn to two letters, one from the Tahoma Audubon Society and one from Donald Williams, requesting the Regional Council to revoke the "Approved" status for the SR-16/2nd Tacoma Narrows Bridge Project following a Washington State Supreme Court action which was reported in the letters as invalidating the public/private partnership agreement between the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and United Infrastructure Washington, Inc. Regional Council staff have requested further information from WSDOT as to the status of their review and follow-up efforts to address this issue. Additionally, Regional Council's legal counsel is reviewing the actions and further information on this subject will be presented at the February 8, 2001 meeting.