MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, August 8, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Monroe (Chair) and Susan McLain (via the telephone)

Members Absent:  

Also Present:    David Bragdon and Bill Atherton

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Monroe called the meeting to order at 1:38 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 18, 2000, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Councilor Bragdon referred to page five of the minutes and said bus service complemented the Commuter Rail project, instead of complimenting it.

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 00-869A, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE 2000 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 96-647C AND ORDINANCE NO. 97-715B.

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, described the ordinance and said Tom Kloster, Transportation Program Supervisor, planned on providing some additional comments. The ordinance and Resolution No. 00-2969B (that would be discussed next) were companion actions to adopt the major RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) update. The process had been under way for some time. The ordinance would effectively adopt the plan that would implement RUGGO (Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives) and the 2040 Plan requirements that Metro was interested in from a regional point of view as well as the state transportation planning rule requirement. The ordinance also fundamentally focused on whether Metro should call their strategy the priority or strategic option, in order to implement the land use plans of the region.

Mr. Cotugno said the next resolution would adopt the federal component, which would not allow Metro planners to be as expansive and visionary. Instead, it was focused on a fairly conservative set of financial assumptions. Therefore, there was a fiscally constrained transportation plan that the federal version required and a larger system that was designed to meet the state and regional planning requirements. They were really all the same plan. One was a partial financial step and the second, was the fuller financial step that Metro wanted to achieve. The two ordinances it would amend (Nos. 96-647C and 97-715B), one was the large RTP ordinance and the second was a much smaller amendment to the functional plan and dealt with Title 2 parking. Therefore, they were all part of meeting the state’s TPR (Transportation Planning Rule) requirement. Most of it was in the RTP. However, there was a small piece related to parking that was not in the RTP. Therefore, it amended a different ordinance.

Mr. Cotugno said the transportation department went through a fairly exhaustive review and comment period. The actual action that would be adopted by the committee was contained in three documents: the draft RTP published in December 1999/January 2000, a summary of all the additional comments the department received after that time. Since the resolutions called for a 6-month comment period, the department recommended consolidating all the comments into a third document, an addendum document. On May 15, 2000, Metro opened the public comment period for the RTP and then closed it on June 29, 2000. The third document was a comment and response annotation of additional amendments that the department recommended should be adopted. Since there were three different documents all with base level first and then second sets of amendments, all the material would be condensed into a single, uniform, readable document once the changes have been finalized. He described a reflection of what Metro would be adopting.

However, Mr. Cotugno said there were also several subsequent activities that were necessary to complete the RTP process. Metro had to satisfy four additional approval steps before the RTP is finished. They had to demonstrate that the fiscally constrained federal portion of the RTP would meet air quality conformity standards. Once Metro adopted the federal portion of the RTP, the department would know what the specifics would be regarding projects and policies and how they would affect air quality emissions. Then, the department could examine the emission estimate travel models and produce the necessary analysis. If the strategy conforms the department would submit the strategy to the federal government for approval from transportation and air quality officials. If it does not, the department would adopt the necessary changes to achieve conformity. Metro also needed to receive from Oregon state transportation and LCDC (Land Conservation and Development Commission) authorities. Metro needed to present the RTP to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) to demonstrate the consistency of the RTP with their statewide transportation plan.

Mr. Cotugno said a series of findings that were part of the ordinance were also proposed for adoption. They were intended to address the state transportation planning rule requirements. Tom Kloster planned to describe them in detail later.

Mr. Cotugno described for Councilor Bragdon the meeting with the Washington County Business Coalition. The JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) requested a 30-day delay. The RTP was scheduled on their agenda for August 10, 2000. The JPACT wanted to examine the issue again before the Metro Council considered adopting the RTP on August 10, 2000. The department would monitor what happened at the JPACT meeting.

Councilor Bragdon said before the end of the public comment period in June 2000, Metro received a letter from business interests from the West Side of the region that requested that Metro delay adoption of the RTP. They wanted to express their concerns related to the funding gap and level-of-service policy issues. He, along with Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer; and Councilor McLain met with the group two weeks ago and heard their concerns. The businesses said they would help with the financing/funding gap issue, which was a positive development. The Metro delegation described some of the RTP alternatives and their financial consequences, and the development history of the plan, which was helpful for them. The meeting was the first step toward further discussions between business interests, generally, and Metro and other regional governments, though no decision was reached. Mr. Lohman from the Port of Portland developed language, incorporated in what Metro planned to consider for adoption, which would undertake to do that. It would provide direction for such discussions throughout the region.

Councilor McLain agreed with Councilor Bragdon’s comments. The West Side business interests were also concerned about congestion and level-of-service policies. The interests knew that the funding gap issue, regardless of the level-of-service concerns, was what would make or break any transportation proposal or plan. Both the government and the business delegations demonstrated their commitment to properly funding the plan.

Councilor Bragdon mentioned an additional element related to the federal process. The group was not aware of the federal mandates regarding a timetable and risking being out of compliance with federal clean air regulations.

Tom Kloster, Transportation Program Supervisor, referred to the series of findings in the green packet, JPACT Recommendations on RTP Public Comments, most of which the department wrote in the past two weeks. They tried to get them written earlier in the process to satisfy a request from the state. The state wanted to review the department’s findings and have an opportunity to provide Metro with feedback regarding whether they believed the department was making adequate findings to comply with the state transportation planning rule before the council adopted the RTP. The department met with them three times to discuss the entire process in detail and he believed Metro met the rule and all its provisions. However, the state wanted the department to demonstrate that in more detail than what was illustrated in the current set of findings, which were written by the department as a road map. They are designed to guide the reader toward the different documents, which respond to each part of the Transportation Planning Rule, for examination, instead of repeating the documents verbatim. At this point, the state was comfortable with that strategy. They spoke with the state earlier today. He felt the department had the complete legal record established to respond to all the questions in the rule. They committed to meet with the state following adoption of the RTP and planned to work with them through the acknowledgement process. The LCDC would approve the plan and respond to any outstanding questions they had in that process and make it a collaborative effort, which might result in minor amendments to the RTP. Any minor fine tuning amendments would go before JPACT by the end of the calendar year. Therefore, before Metro published a plan the state would make every effort to submit all the necessary fixes to the department so they could be completed and would comply completely with the state rule. That was the department’s primary focus regarding the regulatory review. The ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) also reviewed the document and had one issue, which the Metro transportation department planned to address through the OTC. They planned to ask the OTC to endorse one of the department’s level-of-service alternatives found in the plan. Other than that, ODOT basically endorsed the plan. Consistency between the RTP and the state highway plan was not a big issue.

Mr. Kloster mentioned the federal findings and referred to Exhibit D of the resolution. The federal was much less rigid and focused on the process the department used to adopt the RTP. They wanted to ensure that Metro had a specific financially constrained system. Many of the revisions in the document related to that concern from the federal government. Following the TPAC (Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee) meeting, they provided recommendations to the council and JPACT regarding how to amend the RTP. They included a new section that described the federal government’s concerns.

Mr. Kloster said the department talked to the state and planned to provide formal presentations to the OTC and LCDC early in Fall 2000. The goal would be to provide them with Metro’s perspective as well. There was more to the plan than compliance with the federal and state rules and guidelines. It also related to implementation of the larger 2040 Plan. The presentations would show the state how the RTP and the 2040 Plan were linked, so they could understand why Metro approached compliance with the state rule the way the agency did.

Mr. Cotugno cited LCDC in particular and said the presentation would represent one piece of the puzzle in Metro’s long-term campaign with the LCDC. He described the other steps that would be involved in implementing the 2040 Plan during the next 12 months.

Councilor Atherton asked about 4 additional steps to follow JPACT and council RTP approval.

Mr. Cotugno said one was federal air quality conformity, two was federal transportation approval (both federal highway and transit), and three was LCDC approval for the TPR and OTC approval for consistency with the State Highway and Transportation Plan.

Councilor Bragdon asked if there was a transportation component to the Goal 14 rulemaking.

Mr. Cotugno said yes but it was minimal. Part of the consideration regarding where the region could establish urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions involved availability or expansion of public services. Transportation was part of the public services component. He did not recall any special provision. However, in the Transportation Planning Goal 12 Rule government had to demonstrate consistency between the transportation and land use plan. Therefore, any UGB amendments that constituted a land-use plan change would have to demonstrate transportation adequacy. If the RTP were based on the current 20-year comprehensive plan, anything that extended that time horizon would require an extension of the time horizon for the transportation system also. Either some consistency or amendments would need to accompany Metro’s UGB amendments. But that was not part of Goal 14.

Councilor McLain asked about two amendments presented to Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) that dealt with changes suggested by the committee/council. One related to techniques for counting parking spaces.

Mr. Cotugno said the other related to UGB amendments on the south side of Sherwood and the coordination of that with the potential Tualatin-Sherwood Corridor.

Councilor McLain asked if Metro retained the same language presented at the last meetings.

Mr. Cotugno said the parking space issue went before MPAC. It involved removing the monitoring requirement. The JPACT recommended that one of the two monitoring requirements be restored. Local governments were required to report their permitting activity that represented an exception to Metro’s standards for parking. It restored 50 percent of the requirement and was included in the document that was given to the committee members at the meeting today.

Councilor Atherton said there was talk of a 6-month extension to examine the document and then move forward expeditiously to meet federal clean air act requirements. He asked how difficult the amendment process would be after the document was adopted. Should Metro take more time now to consider possible amendments or what until after adoption.

Mr. Cotugno said Metro adopted amendments fairly routinely, especially projects and funding actions. He cited the Commuter Rail conformity action that was scheduled on today’s agenda because the time was ripe. The department performed the studies and it was now appropriate to take action, in part, with an RTP amendment. The RTP was a regularly amended document.

Chair Monroe introduced amendments proposed by Councilor Atherton for addition to the RTP.

Councilor Atherton referred to the amendment document titled Atherton suggested livability protection amendments to 2000 RTP, Draft 4. (A copy of this document was included in the record of this meeting.) He requested that he also be able to make a recommendation to JPACT, if possible, that the amendments be added to the RTP. The first amendment dealt with clean air and measuring air quality closer to the roadways where people live (residents, pedestrians, etc.). He did not know what the federal air quality standards were, but he knew there were some new ones. He said air quality was known to be much worse closer to major arterioles than further away. He asked how the region should deal with that. He suggested Metro develop a different standard (than the federal standard) and be prepared to enforce it. It was a cost of growth.

Chair Monroe read Councilor Atherton’s proposed amendment regarding clean air.

Mr. Cotugno said regarding clean air issues Metro operated within federal transportation and air quality statutes. Therefore, the agency did what the federal government required. He said the

agency could probably do what Councilor Atherton suggested but the committee/council should consult Dan Cooper, Metro General Counsel, for a more definitive answer. He believed Metro

could adopt a stricter standard but the policy to date at the state and regional level had been to implement the federal requirements. The federal air quality standards required Metro to have an implementation plan that demonstrated how the agency planned to meet and maintain federal air quality standards for a 10-year period. That 10-year plan accounted for projected changes in emissions over time, usually growth in emissions caused by population growth, and had to be accompanied by actions taken to limit emissions to compensate for the growth and lower emissions to satisfy the standards.

Mr. Cotugno said there were two types of pollutants that were part of the standards: summer ozone and winter carbon monoxide. Summer ozone was an air shed-wide problem. It was monitored at the region’s down wind sites were the prevailing winds of the region as a whole takes the pollutants and measures the chemical reaction caused by heat and sunlight interaction with the pollutants. Regional transit, parking, bicycle and pedestrian programs were all actions that benefited the overall air shed situation. The federal standards also required Metro to create a plan that demonstrated the agency was taking actions in the affected localized areas to meet the air quality standards. Carbon Monoxide was not a regional air shed problem; it was a concentration problem. It dispersed fairly quickly from a concentrated location. There were two places with recorded carbon monoxide concentration violations in the region on a localized basis: 1) downtown, and 2) the SE 82^nd Avenue and Foster area. The DEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) had permanent monitors in those two locations to ensure the region does not violate. They also had portable monitors to identify other problem locations around the region that might develop. However, during the past 15-year monitoring period, none developed similar to the two places mentioned above that used to be hot spots. The emissions in those two areas are far below the previous violation levels and current standards. Therefore, the possibility of carbon monoxide violations in other areas of the region was remote because levels in the two hot spots were reduced significantly. Metro could set a tighter standard than the federal requirements. However, to date the agency concentrated on maintaining the federal standards.

Mr. Cotugno said the third test performed by the department was an environmental impact statement of any significant transportation project. It had two links to air quality. One, it was part of a regionally adopted, fiscally constrained, air quality conformed transportation plan and transportation improvement program. It was part of the plan Metro certified for air quality conformity purposes. If not, it had to be added to that plan and the work and the work to estimate vehicle emissions had to be done to be able to add it to that plan. He mentioned the Wilsonville/Beaverton Commuter Rail Project as an example. Two, the project also had to estimate localized emissions. If the traffic patterns changed in the localized areas it could change patterns of emissions in the concentration locations. If the predicted levels of emissions exceeded standards Metro would have to take corrective action. He mentioned the park-and-ride stations along the light rail lines. The traffic pulsed or the lots emptied at the same time. Lack of adequate traffic dispersion could result in carbon monoxide violations. Metro has taken steps to prevent that situation.

Councilor Atherton said the concern of many people is the request to increase density along certain transportation corridors. However, they question whether the air is safe to breathe there. They wanted to know why Metro was trying to include more people in an area where the air quality would be more degraded. He asked if Metro was comfortable with the current federal air quality standards. He asked if they could protect people in those localized areas. If not, Metro should address that problem.

Mr. Cotugno said there is significant research on the health effects of emissions at the national level that was constantly evolving. Thus, the standards have also been constantly evolving. It was a huge undertaking to link levels of emissions with levels of health effects by demographics, exposure levels, population mixes. The process was debated thoroughly and well beyond

Metro’s capacity. During the past 10 years the federal government has tightened the standards and required localities to revise their plans accordingly.

Chair Monroe asked him if regional air quality improved dramatically in the past 15 years.

Mr. Cotugno said the winter carbon monoxide concentrations had dramatically improved. The summer ozone concentrations also improved. However, the region has hovered very close to the standard for the past 7 or 8 years.

Chair Monroe asked what happened to the population during that time.

Mr. Cotugno said it increased significantly.

Chair Monroe asked if increased population necessarily had to result in increased air pollution.

Mr. Cotugno said the region has taken a variety of steps to compensate for the growing population to maintain low levels and/or reduce air pollution. And the causes of air pollution was not just increased population, the also included other economic and other sources.

Chair Monroe said the region would have to be vigilant to maintain the region’s air quality.

Mr. Cotugno said yes and it was a challenge.

Councilor Atherton said he recently read an article on carbon monoxide concentrations and hearing loss. He was concerned about this issue given the regional focus on a more compact urban form and the concept of concentrating population along the transportation corridors. He asked if Metro had the factual support that indicated they were doing the right thing. That was the point of the first amendment.

Councilor Atherton described the second amendment that proposed noise standards. He received frequent complaints about this adverse impact issue. The complaints had increased with increased growth and population.

Chair Monroe read Councilor Atherton’s proposed amendment regarding noise standards.

Councilor Atherton said the increase in noise levels in regional communities was one of the unfortunate bi-products of growth. It was dangerous, grossly affected people’s quality of life and could adversely affect their health. He intended to use his second amendment (a noise standard policy) to make two critical suggestions. One, that Metro would not create sacrifice areas where traffic was permitted to drive through neighborhoods. Metro knew they currently existed. The practice needed to be stopped. The use of sacrifice areas is especially dangerous with the current Metro strategy/policy to grow at the edge. Currently, some people drive through other’s neighborhoods but do not want anyone to drive through theirs. This practice usually created the sacrifice areas. He suggested Metro adopt and enforce a single noise standard throughout the region. It would help prevent sacrifice areas. Two, he said if noise associated with the transportation facilities throughout the region could not be mitigated it might be necessary to change zoning (to include construction of parkway areas, etc.) as part of the cost of growth. He said Metro knows the agency could design new facilities to reduce or eliminate the affects of noise. He cited Maywood Park and curved 32-foot noise walls constructed next to the freeways in Japan designed to mitigate noise. They took the issue seriously. Regional residents, especially those who live in the inner areas and along the major arterioles, were paying the price associated with increased noise levels caused by growth. This situation was not acceptable. He suggested the committee/council add a strong policy in the RTP that addressed the issue.

Mr. Cotugno said, similar to federal air quality standards, there were also federal noise standards with different levels for different types of receptors (parks and churches, residential, commercial and industrial, etc.) based on the nature of the land use. Again, similar to the federal air quality standards, Metro has focused on meeting federal noise standards. The difference was there was

no comprehensive evaluation of noise or development of a comprehensive regional strategy to handle noise, though there is one for air quality. There was noise analysis for individual projects as part of the project’s environmental impact statement (if required). If noise levels exceeded the standards he mentioned earlier, mitigation was required through a variety of methods (walls, building insulation, setbacks, etc.) The methods also required a cost-effectiveness test. Councilor Atherton’s amendment would extend noise testing beyond individual projects to include a much more comprehensive analysis of the whole system of existing transportation corridors, not just places where new projects were planned.

Mr. Cotugno said the character of the noise was quite different on arterioles than on freeways. The practice of evaluating the effects of noise associated with new projects has existed for the past 15 to 20 years. Therefore, anything built since then included noise walls. They can be seen throughout the region (Sunset, I-5 and Kruse Way, I-84, etc.) However, there are facilities that were built prior to the noise standards that would have associated unmitigated noise impacts. Plus, there were also certainly areas where development was added later to the area that was too close to the road. Metro had not examined the noise levels associated with either of those situations. The task was much more difficult to undertake with arterial roadways. It was not easy to construct walls along most arterioles because of property frontage. Building insulation was the only real noise mitigation that was possible. In either example it was a project driven approach. What he referred to was a much more comprehensive existing conditions evaluation. He referred to Councilor Atherton’s handout and provided a technical suggestion that Number 2, item d was not an appropriate RTP amendment. Instead, it was a budget action or unified work program action. The RTP did not deal with directions to unified work programs for other topics. It was more like a budget note. The rest of the amendments were policy oriented: Did the region want a policy for existing facilities or retain the policy that focused on new transportation projects.

Councilor Atherton wanted to know what he should tell his constituents who lived along I-205. Authorities constructed a 10-foot to 12-foot noise wall in that location. However, it is still too noisy to have a conversation in the front yard, not to mention the back yard. He cited one home in Clackamas County he visited where it was not possible to have a conversation inside the house. He asked why the federal standards did not prevent that situation.

Mr. Cotugno said he was not familiar with the specifics. He would have to research the issue and the circumstances that existed in that location.

Councilor Atherton said during the past 13 years that he has lived in his neighborhood in Lake Oswego the street he lives on has changed so dramatically. It was on the edge of the urban growth boundary. He said some of his neighbors were moving another put aircraft lead inside the walls of his home so he could sleep. He said the highway system in that area was a regional facility and increased noise and diminished air quality was a cost of growth that wasn’t covered. He asked Mr. Cotugno for suggestions because the current strategy did not work. That was why he suggested Metro set a standard, perform measurements with computer analysis and mapping of the noise levels. Unless the committee had something better to propose, what he suggested was a reasonable step, if Metro planned to make the land-use/ transportation connection and protect existing residents of the communities. It was a cost of growth that was not being covered.

Chair Monroe asked if any member of the committee was interested in moving to amend the RTP. Councilor Atherton was granted an opportunity to talk to the Chair of JPACT and possibly also make his case to JPACT on Thursday morning, August 10, 2000.

PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 00-869A

Chair Monroe announced the public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 00-869A. No one stepped forward. Therefore, he closed the public hearing.

Chair Monroe assigned Councilor Kvistad, Chair of JPACT, to carry the ordinance to the Metro Council.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2969B, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE 2000 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS THE FEDERAL METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

Mr. Cotugno said the resolution had already been covered.

Chair Monroe assigned Councilor Kvistad to carry the resolution to the Metro Council.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2978, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE PORTLAND AREA AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DETERMINATION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE 1995 RTP (RESOLUTION NO. 00-2969B) AND THE FY 2000 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RESOLUTION NO. 00-2950) TO INCLUDE THE WILSONVILLE/BEAVERTON COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT (REFERENCE RESOLUTION 00-2972B).

Mike Hoglund, Transportation Planning Manager, deferred the discussion to Mr. Cotugno.

Mr. Cotugno said last month, pending conformity, the committee considered an action to approve amending the Commuter Rail project plan. The department finished the conformity analysis. The actual ridership, compared to the total miles of travel in the region as a whole, was small numbers. They were all consistently decreases, not increases, due to the shift of travel from traffic to transit. It accounted for the increases in emissions surrounding park and ride lots associated with the issue. The process required the department to compare emissions to a budget by different milestone years (2005, 2015 and 2020 for summer and winter). All stayed within the thresholds established because they were reductions, not increases. Today also closed a 30-day public comment period, advertised in The Oregonian, for possible concerns regarding the methodology or conclusions reached by the conformity determination.

Chair Monroe announced the public comment period and hearing regarding the air quality resolution. No one stepped forward. Therefore, he closed the public hearing.

Chair Monroe assigned Councilor McLain to carry the resolution to the Metro Council.

5.  INFORMATIONAL UPDATE – INTERSTATE 5 TRADE CORRIDOR STUDY

Chris Deffebach, Principal Transportation Planner, introduced Dave Williams from the Oregon Department of Transportation, who planned to describe the information regarding the I-5 Trade Corridor Study. (Copies of the documents were included in the permanent record of this meeting.) She reminded the committee that the Oregon and Washington state departments of transportation led the project. Metro was working with them as a partner in the study.

Mr. Williams said the planning effort was based on the largess of the federal government. Congress created a program to respond to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) to address trade moving across the U.S./Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders. They expanded that to foreign trade. It is currently called the Borders and Corridors program. Interstate 5 was one of several corridors designated by Congress to be of strategic national importance. In Phase 1, they assembled a committee of political, business and civic leaders from both sides of the Columbia River. (He referred to the documents.)

Chair Monroe asked if the Hibus and Davis survey had been completed.

Mr. Williams said no. Actually, they were currently field testing the survey document. But it was very close to completion and dissemination.

Ms. Deffebach added more about the land-use component of the I-5 Trade Corridor Study. The two DOTs asked for Metro’s help with the evaluation process. The study would establish agreement among the parties regarding the affect of adding or not adding capacity on land-use patterns. The other key part of the land-use assessment was the effect of adding capacity could change depending on the policies established to manage that growth. The process would involve looking at the feasibility of modifying policies to make the additional accessibility that resulted from changes in the corridor, and change policies that affect that growth in ways that are more consistent with what the region was trying to achieve overall for their growth management goals. The affect on land-use is critical in the evaluation of a transportation corridor and would be a key part of the study. She referred to the chart in the document mentioned by Mr. Williams, and said they were in the process of forming a committee now that would examine the issue and reach agreement on a recommendation for the task force.

Councilor Bragdon said it was a great project but very complicated. He asked if there were also policy distinctions between different types of capacity.

Ms. Deffebach said yes. They had to take that into account as they look at the additional capacity in the corridor. Obviously, an HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane would have a different effect than general-purpose capacity. However, the committee would not explore every permutation of the design of the I-5 Corridor like the other committee. They planned to confine things to the broader types of capacity changes and how they affect land use.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURN

There being no further committee business, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 2:53 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Planning Committee meeting of August 8, 2000