MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, January 16, 2001

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Rod Monroe (Vice Chair), Bill Atherton,

 Rex Burkholder, Carl Hosticka, Susan McLain

Members Absent:  David Bragdon

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. He also described the new committee. Chair Park requested brief, regular updates from associated committees, including JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation), Natural Resources Committee and WARPAC. He wanted to keep the Metro internal agency lines of communication open.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 5, 2000, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 5, 2000, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 01-3025, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR THE PRIORITIES 2002 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (MTIP) UPDATE.

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, said the Metro Transportation Department was at the point in the biennial cycle where they initiated a transportation funding allocation process. The department established the process and criteria, and upon adoption by the Community Planning Committee, the department planned to solicit for projects to consider funding through the process. He mentioned the federal flexible funds that Metro and JPACT received and allocated. The current set of allocation decisions would be consolidated into an overall MTIP that would be considered for adoption in approximately September 2001. It would add decisions regarding other federal funds that flowed into the region (either through the Federal Transit Administration and Tri-Met, or the Federal Highway Administration and the Oregon Department of Transportation) to the decisions made regarding the current funding, which Metro had the discretion to allocate. He focused on the Metro piece. The department planned to consider allocating a total of $38 million, or approximately half of what was available form the last round 2 years ago ($75 million). Due to the reduced amount, TPAC (Transportation Policy Advisory Committee) recommended keeping the allocation process as simple as possible and using the base package of projects left unfunded during the last round as the starting point for the current round of funding.

Mr. Cotugno referred to information contained in the meeting packet. He said the Metro Council might have some possible amendments.

Councilor Monroe referred to the document Resolution No. 01-3025, MTIP Allocation Process and Review Criteria, which described three MTIP amendments recommended by Councilor Bragdon. He also referred to the document Substitute Amendment #1, which contained substitute language for Amendment #1. (Copies of both of these documents can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Councilor Atherton seconded the motion given the size of the Community Planning Committee.

Councilor Burkholder wanted to know the difference between a public hearing by a local jurisdiction and a review by a governing body in an open meeting, and the need for a change.

Councilor Monroe said some of Metro’s local government partners expressed concern about be required to have a separate full-blown public hearing. Different local governments operated in different ways. He wanted to make sure whatever the jurisdictions did was open to the public. If so, they would have the ability to operate according to their normal procedures and Metro would not dictate one particular way to conduct an open process.

Councilor McLain also tried to determine the difference between the two. She asked if he suggested the public have the opportunity to attend the meeting but not an opportunity to speak.

Councilor Monroe the local jurisdiction would have the authority, as long as they held some type of meeting that was open to the public, to manage that particular meeting, not Metro.

Councilor McLain asked the Metro legal staff if the public would have an opportunity to speak.

Larry Shaw, Metro Senior Assistant Counsel, said the amendment was silent regarding that issue. However, it was explicit regarding its open meeting status and thus was subject to the open meetings law that required notice, an agenda with minutes of the meeting, etc.

Councilor McLain said the original language followed Goal 1 and ensured citizen participation. She was not sure how the substitute language did.

Chair Park asked whether it was the intent of the substitute language to ensure the public notification and an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, or to ensure local jurisdictions voted in support of a project. He asked how that related to the open meetings laws.

Mr. Shaw said the substitute language provided more flexibility to the local jurisdictions in terms of how they conducted the public participation. The word participation did not appear in the substitute language. The jurisdiction would only be required to consider the list of projects at a public meeting that was open to the public, complete with all the public meeting requirements (notice, agenda and minutes). There could be a middle ground. The word public hearing in the original language sometimes meant specific things in local charters. It could trigger time limits and other regulations. Therefore, to achieve flexibility and ensure the extra public participation element, the substitute language could add language that was open to public comment. Then, Metro would not use buzzwords that would limit flexibility. If the original language intended to not have public comment required, that was how it read currently.

Councilor Monroe said some of Metro’s local government partners expressed concern regarding the degree to which Metro dictated the process they should use. The substitute language was sufficient. It ensured the public would be notified of the meeting at which the decision would be made, in a meeting open to the public (whether a regular or special meeting) and would let the local elected officials decide the degree to which they sought and allowed citizen participation in the process. They would bare the responsibility not Metro. He did not believe Metro should dictate the process to the degree of detail described in the initial language. The substitute language would ensure an open process. Metro needed to be very careful in that regard.

Councilor Burkholder wanted Metro to achieve two goals with the language: 1) ensure that local elected officials (not just staff) approved the project list, 2) provide the opportunity for public review and input regarding the list. He favored any language that accomplished those two goals.

Councilor Hosticka referred to the second of the Process Goals in Exhibit A in the meeting packet. He asked if the Council was adding to that the requirement of a review by the governing body at a meeting that was open to the public. He asked if the Council was giving further definition to what broad-based citizen participation meant.

Chair Park said that was correct.

Councilor McLain agreed with councilors Burkholder and Hosticka. However, the Council needed to make a choice regarding the words that best insured participation by the citizenry. She was not convinced the language in the second amendment accomplished that goal. To ensure that Metro would not harm individual jurisdictions’ codes was fine. However, the language said the jurisdictions only had to let the public in the door. That was not what Metro meant. It was not dictating to local jurisdictions to meet state goal #1 or require that any funding Metro approved would involve an acceptable public participation process. Those were the two goals she wanted to meet. She planned to vote for the language that did both, not just one.

Councilor Atherton suggested a solution. He asked if a local jurisdiction adopted its recommendations by resolution if that covered all the issues regarding public hearings, participation and accountability that Councilor Burkholder mentioned.

Chair Park said he believed the Council understood Councilor Atherton’s concept. He asked Mr. Cotugno if Councilor Atherton’s suggestion would fit the local jurisdictions’ time frames.

Mr. Cotugno said even with the added month the entire time frame would be tight for the local governments because they would complete a local process to determine what they wanted to apply for. Then they had to schedule, notice, etc. of the time period for consideration of adoption. They only had 2 ½ to 3 months. The amendment would prevent Metro from getting caught up in local procedures that require time. He mentioned the Council adopted public participation requirements that governed Metro’s process and anything local governments introduced into Metro’s process. Those guidelines emphasized public involvement in the projects of local governments, not the list of priorities they would be submitting. The amendments would go beyond what Metro had already adopted as public participation requirements.

Councilor Atherton said resolutions had a different time-line than local ordinances. They did not require long lead times and multiple readings, and could be adopted in a more timely fashion.

Mr. Cotugno said some local governments indicated that filing anything for their council had an 8-week time frame. The jurisdictions’ procedures varied.

Chair Park mentioned Wood Village as one example of variation.

Councilor Atherton seconded the motion.

Councilor McLain seconded the motion.

PUBLIC HEARING

Barbara Wilson, 12820 SW 20^th Ct., Beaverton, OR 97008, referred to the proposed widening of Sunset Highway (Highway 26). She also mentioned the list of other projects published in an article in The Oregonian. Ms. Wilson lived in Beaverton, worked for Intel and used light-rail between Beaverton and Hillsboro every day. Before light-rail she used Highway 26. She was not sure if Metro was considering using the $38 million or $12 million request to widen Highway 26. Ms. Wilson was aware of the problems on Highway 26 but did not support using the money to widen that road. She knew her opinion was politically unpopular. When freeways were widened they became more convenient for cars and invited more cars. This resulted in gridlock and the addition of more lanes that perpetuated the cycle. She referred to the conditions in Anaheim, California with 16 lanes of gridlock. The transportation money should be used to fund alternative types of transportation (improving bus service, light-rail along Highway 26, etc.) She opposed projects that encouraged use of additional cars, which would lead to additional pollution and contribute to global warming. Intel built Jones Farm 5, a new building. Ms. Wilson mentioned 1,700 additional employees who moved into that building this week with 1,700 more cars on Highway 26. She did not favor that transportation strategy. Ms. Wilson referred to the list of projects in the newspaper that encouraged trails. The Committee should seriously consider those projects. She mentioned the Lake Oswego Willamette Shoreline Trails project, and a proposed park and ride in Wilsonville. Transportation funding should be used for those types of projects. The Committee should forget about widening the Sunset Highway.

Greg MacPherson, 7430 SE 27^th Ave., Portland, OR 97202, also advocated alternative transportation modes, particularly the OMSI (Oregon Museum of Science and Industry) to Springwater connection. It was left over from the last round of the funding process because that alternative transportation mode did not receive sufficient funding to complete the connections. One leg was included in the last round of funding from OMSI to the Sellwood Bridge. However, the connection from there south and east to connect to the Springwater Corridor was still a missing link. An expenditure of a few dollars from the current pot of money would provide a wonderful connection to transform localized recreational facilities into an effective regional transportation mode. He realized it was a process-oriented hearing. Therefore, he focused on process and said he supported the resolution before the Committee and Amendment #1 that required a public hearing by the local jurisdictions. They should make the decisions regarding what was submitted in a public process. He was concerned about Amendment #2 and the opportunity to substitute projects, particularly if in combination with Amendment #1 Metro adopted a version of the language that did not require a public hearing. Projects that had already been thoroughly discussed in a public forum, such as the projects on the existing list, should not be removed from consideration by a jurisdiction without going through a public process. He urged the Committee to adopt Amendment #1 as proposed and restrict the new project submissions to less than five as long as they are considered during a public process. Finally, he strongly endorsed the addition of the language in Amendment #3. He focused on the reference to alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs). He said that was a major goal of the region.

Chris Smith, 2343 NW Pettygrove St., Portland, OR 97210, represented Citizens for Sensible Transportation (CST), and was co-chair of his neighborhood transportation committee and a member of the City Club’s Density Study Committee. He mentioned the re-weighting of the 2040 Plan goals. He emphasized the crucial importance of free speech and opening to the public a process that he said until now was not open to the public. Often staff submitted projects without concurrence from policy makers in the jurisdictions. As a member of CST, the weights for the 2040 Plan goals should reflect moving people not cars. He supported the 2040 Plan development patterns because they reduced the number of trips that were necessary, shortened the trips that did occur and allowed more trips to occur by alternate transportation modes. The CST supported all those goals. As co-chair of the transportation committee in Northwest Portland, the NWDA, his organization supported the 2040 Plan goals because they provided development patterns that preserved neighborhood livability. Therefore they should retain a high weighting. The NWDA board voted last night to officially support that position. As a member of the City Club’s Density Study Committee, he suggested placing density were there was not already a lot of existing residential development (the River District, North McAdam, targeted centers of density and along transit corridors). The 2040 Plan criteria supported that. Therefore, from all three of those perspectives he urged the Committee to support the re-weighting.

Frank Orem, 5025J Foothills Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97034, represented the Sierra Club, and the Metro TPAC’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Subcommittee, and expanded on previous public input. The process of identifying construction projects for transportation was not necessarily the best approach to solve the region’s transportation problems. He referred to cost per mile figures for car travel. He asked for the information before but never got an answer. Estimates ranged from 60 cents - $3 per mile. The public paid for most of that. The region would probably not consider transportation projects that provided the same mobility for a total cost of approximately 20 cents per mile. Most of the project dollars in the 150 percent project list supported more SOV travel. They would result in travel costs significantly greater than 20 cents per mile. He referred to research by Lenny Anderson, head of the Swan Island MTA, which indicated that carpools provided equivalent transportation for commuters at 20 cents per mile. He asked why the region considered only transportation options at 60 cents instead of 20 cents per mile. There was an array of cheaper transportation alternatives based on better land use and TDM measures that were not being considered and had no sponsor. He suggested Metro do three things. Metro should give cost effectiveness heavy weight in the selection criteria. Metro should insist that TPAC and the TDM Subcommittee develop a comprehensive set of alternative projects and programs that would provide mobility consistent with the 2040 Plan Growth Concept that would be more cost effective than the current project list (particularly the auto related items). Metro should consider the results of those alternative projects.

Ross Williams, 1220 SW Morrison, Portland, OR, represented the Coalition For a Livable Future and CST, and expanded on the comments he made on December 5, 2000 at the Metro Transportation Planning Committee meeting. In terms of local decision-making, the CST defined its mission as helping citizens create better communities with less traffic. They tell neighborhood residents they are the experts on their community and their participation was critical to achieve the best decision. That was also true regarding the choice of projects. Jurisdictions ranged in terms of their involvement in transportation issues (Multnomah County versus other jurisdictions). The citizens and their input needed to be included in a public process. Project compatibility with 2040 Plan growth concepts was a very important criterion. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions considered what was most likely to be funded instead. The real challenges for the 2040 Plan were not in Portland but instead in Gresham, and Washington and Clackamas counties.

Larry Mills, 1406 N Winchell, Portland, OR 97217, represented the Kenton Action Plan, and said a lot was happening in his town center neighborhood (the largest between downtown Portland and Clark County, Washington) now and in future. He cited future plans for light-rail, an urban renewal district and a downtown historic district designation that was pending. He said whatever they did to improve the downtown Kenton business district had to be a cooperative approach. They were talking with everyone, including the city of Portland, the Portland Development Commission (PDC), Tri-Met and Metro. They planned some impressive revitalization efforts. A couple of years ago they began to develop a plan for the neighborhood. They performed some market studies and worked with the PDC to develop planning strategies. They also worked with the Portland Bureau of Planning for the past 18 months and developed a document (the Kenton Downtown Plan) that was adopted by the Portland City Council last month. They were organizing and moving forward. One of the first things they planned was a main street development on Denver Avenue connected to light-rail and revitalization of the business district adjacent to the station location. He asked for Metro’s support and planned to provide updates in the future.

Lenny Anderson, 4567 N Channel Ave., Portland, OR 97212, represented the Swan Island Transportation Management Association as the Project Manager, said the public needed to be welcome and involved in an open process. He referred to Amendment No. 3 and 2040 Plan criteria. The regional transportation funding pot was approximately $200 million. Approximately 20 percent should be reserved for transportation alternatives, based on the 80 percent reserved to construct only road projects. Key criteria should be maximum access at a minimum cost and at reduced vehicle miles traveled. Industrial centers, or Employment and Freight Movement centers, were critical opportunities. Swan Island had a 30 percent mode split in the late 1970s because of investments in transportation options. Swan Island was currently below 10 percent. They had a lot of opportunity to regain what they had. They made some progress. Currently, 300 people a day travel from light-rail to Swan Island. He referred to the map of other industrial areas and said there were no connections for the #12 bus in Sherwood or the #96 bus in Tualatin. There was minimal transit connection to the industrial area in Clackamas County. Targeted investments would do two things: 1) take SOVs off the road and 2) create road capacity for freight. A 1997 study by Kittleson indicated that the percentage of freight traffic was 16 percent in the a.m. and 7 percent in the p.m. at peak hours. The congestion on Going Street was not caused by freight, but by automobiles. The region needed to make targeted investments in the key employment centers. That goal should be weighed as heavily as possible because it provided a huge bang for the buck.

Dave Stewart, 4012 SE 51^st St., Portland, OR, represented the CST, and urged the adoption of language that would maintain and reinforce priority for projects that directly reinforced and helped implement the regional 2040 Plan. He discouraged the adoption of language that would do otherwise. He participated in the city of Tigard’s Washington Square Regional Center Study. The first phase ended in June 2000. The process was contentious but productive, and brought a lot of people together. It also reached a consensus regarding what that major regional center should look like. In the process they identified the need for local connectivity (a local street system that currently did not exist, connection of existing cul-de-sacs that were abundant, and connectivity fly-overs of Highway 217 that would connect the large numbers of employers on one side with the destinations on the other side to prevent gridlock). They developed a lot of good ideas that required funding to become reality. A couple of their items were on the base list. However, there were many others that were not. He cited the lack of funding for connectivity across Highway 217. The same situation existed in the Clackamas Town Center area. The region needed to focus the money where the public process had been completed and they know what the answers will be and that they will be cost effective.

Barbara Walker, 1891 SW Hawthorne Terr., Portland, OR 97201, said she was confused and was not sure whether to vote for or against the issue. She supported Amendment No. 3. She also supported Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 but only with the caveat put forth by Councilor McLain that if the money was distributed by Metro it was not inappropriate to ask that public testimony be involved in the review of the projects submitted to Metro. The Council should not ignore its responsibility to the public. The MTIP was a small percentage of a larger package of funds. In that was a very small percentage reserved for funding alternative transportation. It was peanuts in the regional transportation budget. Historically, it was very difficult for the alternative transportation projects submitted to compete against the major highway projects, which had a lot of support but also had an opportunity to secure funding from another source. The purpose of the alternative transportation federal funding was to add something that was not being provided in the traditional transportation funding package. She asked the Committee to put the alternative transportation money where its mouth was. In every jurisdiction, in every document, government touted alternative transportation (bicycles, pedestrian trails, all forms of transit). However, government transportation decisions did not reflect its stated goals and values. Government should examine that issue and not be untrue regarding its transportation strategy.

Jim Howell, 3325 NE 45^th Ave., Portland, OR 97213, represented the Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates (AORTA), and asked the Committee to establish priorities that supported the 2040 Plan. There was a need for a multi-destinational transit system, which would get commuters to their jobs, downtown and the regional centers, that would achieve the goals. The current transit component of the RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) did not achieve that. However, it could be modified during the next few years to do that. The region did not have a good connecting transit system between regional centers. However, the region needed one. The most cost-effective way to achieve that would be to use existing infrastructure, instead of building new infrastructure. Two types of infrastructure were under-utilized in the region: 1) approximately 100 miles of existing rail line that was not being used for passenger service, though it could be, and 2) the freeway system. Very little public transit used the freeway system. However, in a very cost-effective way it could inter-connect with frequent bus service to the regional centers. He opposed not only widening Highway 26 but also any funding for engineering studies regarding Highway 26. It was one of the corridors that could be used effectively for public transit but it is not. Maybe Highway 26 would be more suitable for a branch of the existing Westside light-rail line. In the interim, the region could at least operate some buses in that corridor. There was no bus service there. Studying freeway projects was a waste of money because it was counter-productive to the goals of the 2040 Plan.

CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Councilor Monroe said Metro would ultimately determine, in 6-7 months, which projects would receive funding. Two years ago, when Metro completed the process the agency had $75 million dollars. The vast majority of the projects that Metro funded supported the 2040 Plan. He believed every project funded by the scarce federal dollars should support the 2040 Plan. Approximately half of the $38 million was CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) funding. Federal requirements limited CMAQ funds to projects that reduced vehicle miles traveled, air pollution and supported forms of alternative transportation (transit, bicycle, pedestrian, boulevard design, transit oriented development, etc. projects). All the money should be subject to those requirements. There were other funding options that could be used to finance freeways and major road projects. A 20-year old state requirement stipulated that all state highway funds had to be spent constructing or maintaining roads. Only a very small amount of that funding could be used for alternative transportation (bicycle ways placed alongside highways). Therefore, all the minor federal discretionary money should be used for alternative transportation.

Councilor Monroe said the 2040 Plan was a process of planning a higher quality of life for more people in the future. Alternative modes of transportation were crucial to the success of the 2040 Plan. He planned to ensure that the plans Metro received from the local jurisdictions supported the 2040 Plan and reaching those goals.

Councilor Monroe said today Metro was discussing process. Metro councilors dealt with more than one constituency. There was the constituency that elected him, the constituency of the regional population. As the only elected regional government in the nation, there was also the constituency of the elected local government officials of the 24 cities and 3 counties in the region. Metro and the local governments had to cooperate. There was a higher level of cooperation and consensus between governments in the Portland region than anywhere else in the nation because of the elected regional government. However, Metro had to respect its local government partners and their different ways of achieving the same desired result (support for the 2040 Plan goals), and allow them some say in the process.

Councilor Monroe said in the past Metro let them operate independently. In certain situations, staff made decisions, regarding planned project submissions that were not open to the public. Metro wanted to ensure that did not happen. Instead, the agency wanted to ensure there was sunlight on the process at the beginning and the end with public hearings scheduled every step of the way. That was what they designed the amendments to accomplish.

Chair Park referred to a letter Councilor Monroe received from David Ripma (Councilor, city of Troutdale) of the East Multnomah County Transportation Committee and suggested it should become part of the public record.

Councilor McLain supported the three amendments in the document. It was a good package of criteria and process for evaluating and funding the transportation projects. She was more comfortable with the original wording in Amendment #1. She supported the JPACT Chair (Councilor Monroe) and the representation of 3 councilors at JPACT by saying that if there was better language than what was submitted as an alternative she would support it provided it accomplished two things: ensure 1) that the local jurisdiction formally placed the projects before the public and 2) the public had an opportunity to participate in the process. If those goals were met, she would not be concerned about the wording. The original language accomplished that. The substitute language did not. Currently, she planned to vote for the original language rather than the substitute language, but would consider any alternative language they might offer.

Councilor McLain said Metro was considering the criteria and process. It was extremely important that the agency clearly indicated the types of projects it wanted on the list and awarded this type of funding. The second amendment accomplished that by ensuring equity for the local jurisdictions. They needed the flexibility to get what they needed on the project list. However, Metro also wanted to ensure that all the regional governments had the ability to update the list.

Councilor McLain referred to the third amendment. The region did not care what the project was if it supported the 2040 Plan and the goal of an interconnected, multi-modal transportation system that helped foster complete communities and neighborhoods.

Councilor Atherton suggested a friendly amendment to substitute Amendment #1 that he believed would satisfy Councilor Monroe, and address the concerns of councilors McLain and Burkholder: “Submitting the list of projects by adopted resolution will meet this requirement.”

Councilor Monroe did not object. However, he asked Mr. Cotugno if the requirement of a resolution would create difficulties for any of the regional jurisdictions.

Mr. Cotugno said Councilor Atherton suggested using the alternative language but wanted to also indicate that doing it by resolution was acceptable to Metro.

Councilor Atherton seconded his own friendly amendment to Amendment #1.

Councilor McLain could not accept that a local government would not need a public process for a resolution process. The additional language would mean they agreed they needed some type of public review. She said that was fine.

Chair Park wanted to make sure it was not a requirement that they ensure a public process by resolution but it would satisfy the concern raised by Councilor Bragdon and others.

The Council said yes.

Chair Park proposed moving all three amendments at once.

Councilor Atherton thanked those who provided public input today. The proposed amendments addressed all the concerns the public brought before the Council. He urged an aye vote.

Councilor Burkholder agreed with Councilor Atherton’s appreciation for the important input provided by the public. Metro could use the funding to achieve 2040 Plan goals and communities that were whole and functioned well for all residents. The transportation system was a critical piece. He was happy with Metro’s message for the future and urged an aye vote.

Councilor Atherton seconded the motion.

Councilor Burkholder thanked staff for rewriting the staff report with the clear decision points.

Chair Park said JPACT planned to consider the issue at their next meeting on January 18, 2001. The Metro Council also planned to vote on the issue on January 25, 2001. There would be an opportunity to provide public testimony regarding the process at that meeting.

Chair Park thanked the public for their input.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 01-3026, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (MTIP) TO APPROVE TRI-MET’S FY 01.

Mr. Cotugno said the resolution amended the existing MTIP program, but it did not adopt a process to amend the MTIP. He referred to information contained in the meeting packet.

Councilor Burkholder seconded the motion.

Councilor McLain considered the resolution a process and housekeeping issue Metro had to address, and followed the agency’s rules and the rules of the federal government. Therefore, it was important that Metro adopted the necessary changes.

Chair Park assigned Councilor Monroe to carry both resolutions to a meeting of the full Council.

5.  2000-2025 PORTLAND-VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS

Mr. Cotugno referred to two documents from Dennis Yee, Metro Senior Economist, 1) 2000-2025 Regional Forecast and 2) Economic Report to the Metro Council: 2000-2025 Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area Economic & Demographic Projections, Employment, Population & Households, Income & Wages. (Both of these documents can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) He referred to the state requirement that Metro maintain a 20-year land supply. The agency determined how it would do that. However, there was an emphasis for accommodating as much of that 20-year demand within the existing boundaries as efficiently as possible to minimize how much expansion was necessary. Therefore, there were a variety associated issues regarding where and how much to expand the boundary. The starting point for all those questions was the size of the demand (forecasted growth, targets the agency aimed for, etc.) and the Regional Forecast. Mr. Yee developed his own models based on input from other sources (federal, state and local) for the forecast. It was necessary that Metro develop its own capability to forecast because the other forecasting sources Metro used were not distinct enough to the region. Metro drew from the forecasting expertise of other agencies. However, Mr. Yee’s Regional Forecast was tailored to Metro’s economy. The real region that accounted for the correct economic relationships and the connection between people and jobs was actually a 5-county region. That was what the Regional Forecast started with. Metro planned to make further decisions in the future regarding how much of the 5-county forecast was the agency’s responsibility to provide for within Metro’s urban growth boundary (ugb).

Chair Park asked Mr. Cotugno to list the five counties.

Mr. Cotugno said Clark County in Washington, and Clackamas, Multnomah, Yamhill and Washington Counties in Oregon. The sixth county would be Columbia.

Mr. Yee said the counties followed the federal Office of Management and Budget statistics developed by the President’s Office. He referred to the provisional, draft forecast presented to the Committee, which required adoption by the Metro Council. Then, they planned to move forward and coordinate with the state of Oregon forecast, which state law required. Following Council adoption the forecast would remain provisional because later they planned to find interactions between land-use and transportation that could impact overall regional growth. The forecast began a process and provided the overall big pie for how much growth the region could foresee during the next 25 years. However, there were factors that could limit that growth. They planned to include those factors in the process, and also complete the process of policies that affected land-use and transportation. The process was important for many reasons. The information was necessary for the RTP, travel modeling (to identify additional transit and alternative mode opportunities), Metro Periodic Review of urban growth boundary amendments and complete communities issues. The forecast would provide concrete technical information. The forecast and Metro Council decisions also affected decisions made by electric, water, sewer and other utility providers. He referred to his Regional Forecast.

Chair Park mentioned probabilities and looking backward at the confidence index. He asked about the accuracy of their trend analysis. He asked if the center portion he was referring to fell within that category 90-95 percent of the time.

Mr. Yee said yes. He provided the numbers that they assumed he’d adopt. For the blue line they assumed over 50 percent of the time they would be correct. For the green and red he figured from 10-15 percent. That reserved 5-10 percent for a possible recession. It was approximately 90 percent for the ranges. That changed periodically. He referred to his presentation.

Councilor Burkholder asked if others outside the forecast group concurred with Mr. Yee’s positive assessment of oil prices. It seemed very optimistic given all the political factors involved.

Mr. Yee said the forecast was reviewed extensively at the WEFA national level. Councilor Burkholder was correct. Others would disagree with the assessment. He supported the forecast (of the national forecast) as an entire package, which seemed to hold together well. Oil prices was not a statistically significant variable for the region. There were other variables, such as productivity and interest rates, that were more significant. However, oil prices was an important variable for the nation as a whole. That was why he showed it. He did not intend to discount problems experienced in the region. He referred to his presentation.

Councilor Monroe mentioned exchange rates and the regional economy, and asked if it referred to the value of the United States dollar versus other major currencies.

Mr. Yee said yes. It was the exchange rate versus the 18 largest trading partners. It was a trade-weighted index that was adjusted for inflation.

Councilor Atherton mentioned construction and the graph that showed a 4.3 percent increase from 1990 – 1999. The next five years showed a 1 percent decrease. He asked Mr. Yee to rationalize that with his forecast.

Mr. Yee said construction, fueled by the region’s rapid population growth and high-tech investments, accounted for the 4.3 percent increase. Construction was a share of the total number of jobs at well over 6.5 percent. In all economists view that was an unsustainable percentage. As the economy slows it would shed some construction growth rate. Construction, as a share, would begin to grow slower than the overall total region. The point: the region could not expect to see $10 billion - $12 billion of high tech investment or a 2.5 – 4 percent annual population growth every five years that fueled the construction. Therefore, he tried to use the forecast to engineer something that over the long run would achieve a more sustainable construction employment level. In the near term it would decline a bit. However, after 2005, construction would rebound to try to maintain the historical average of construction.

Chair Park referred to high-technology jobs and asked if they were possible to identify whether the region was getting an increase in higher- or lower-end positions. It would be interesting.

Mr. Yee said the data could not make that distinction. There was no systematic administrative record of that data. However, if they were high tech jobs the anecdotal evidence indicated that even if someone had a low-end high-tech job they still earned as much as the average citizen.

Councilor Burkholder referred to a slide and asked if there was any way to determine where the people worked. He asked whether they were home-based jobs or office staff.

Mr. Yee said yes they knew who a partial segment of the people were, what they do and where they worked. They took data from the state employment security file, which every employer was required to submit as part of unemployment insurance taxes, which contained information about their employees. A lot of attorneys, accountants, medical professionals, etc. worked from their homes. Therefore, Mr. Yee and staff could estimate where these people work.

Councilor Burkholder asked how the growth in self-employment, if a lot of it was home-based, affected transportation planning.

Mr. Yee said it had an affect, which was why they included those statistics in the forecast.

Chair Park mentioned relative wealth in the region and asked how it compared to other regions of the country. He asked if the region would stay ahead of or drop behind the curve.

Mr. Yee said per capita income growth slipped a bit because the region’s population growth outpaced the region’s ability to generate income. Presently, the region was ahead of the nation and ahead of Oregon. However, the forecast indicated the gap was narrowing over the long run.

Chair Park cited an increase in high-tech, better jobs, a decrease in the resource-based economy. However, there was also a decrease in the relative state of the region’s economic power compared to other regions of the country. Parts of the forecast did not add up. He sited Portlanders’ ability to buy homes compared to new arrivals who would have more buying power. That would put Portlanders at a disadvantage. He hoped they would examine that because it would get to the heart of the question regarding whether the region could maintain the quality of what it was trying to put together. Plus, if the region could, he asked whom it would benefit, the region or others moving to the region for the high-paying jobs.

Mr. Yee said the trend they observed was more wealthy people in the 75 years old plus range. He did not wish to comment on social engineering.

Councilor Burkholder asked if the comparisons were adjusted for inflation. He saw a flattening of the middle class and associated implications.

Mr. Yee said yes, they were pegged to 1990 dollars.

Councilor Hosticka asked if projections for households were based on the existing household composition overlaid on the population or on projected changes in the household composition.

Mr. Yee said yes, he based the initial starting point on what was experienced locally. However, then he used the United States Census Bureau’s estimates of household formation by age to construct the household scenario and totals.

Councilor Burkholder noticed that as housing prices rise, more people tended to live in a household for economic reasons. He asked if there was a technique to track that situation.

Mr. Yee said not directly. Indirectly they modeled the impact of housing prices on the amount of migration. Therefore, they measured the fluctuation in housing prices in terms of the total number of households, but not the composition (whether it was a big or small household).

Mr. Cotugno said Mr. Yee’s forecast extended from the old forecast. It pushed the old 20-year demand level at 2017 that would extend it to 2025. Metro needed to actually base its ugb decisions on 2022. However, the agency added a 5-year increment to the picture that had to be accounted for in Metro’s land-supply analysis. The population, based on the old forecast and their actual experience during the past 5-years, was right on the money. Therefore, all Metro was doing was adding 5 more years. However, they underestimated the employment forecast, which grew faster than they accounted for. Therefore, they added 5 years and were catching up with the under-estimate they performed for the last 5 –years. There was the double effect of employment growth and the 5-year extension.

Mr. Cotugno said the next step should be for Metro to take some action within the next several months to establish a date for completion of the periodic review based upon x number of household, population, employment, growth, etc. It should be treated as an interim approval step. The agency would adopt everything at the end of the ugb process, which would include all the findings that accounted for both the supply and demand sides. How well the agency was meeting the supply side was the end of the process. However, there should be a provisional step to identify what the agency was attempting to achieve. That way Metro could get people to address the demand side independent of how well the agency was accommodating on the supply side. Metro could allow it to be a follow along next step in the process. That was his suggestion.

Mr. Cotugno said currently the agency was in a review process. The 20-year land supply had some prerequisites based upon the best available information. There was some discretion in some of the assumptions within a certain bounds. A decision regarding the target was significant.

Councilor McLain said it was healthy to take advantage of opportunities to deal with the demand and supply issues separately. She said Metro did that the last time. She said many people entered the demand cycle and demand product to fit it to their supply needs, like they fit the criteria to the projects they wanted to approve from the project list. She believed the Metro Council could provide stability and goals by triggering the RUGGOs conversation regarding the regional goals and objectives the Council agreed upon, and how they wanted the neighborhoods to look. She wanted the Council to talk about livability, connections, integrations and carrying capacity, not just a demand number. His suggestion was fine as long as it addressed that concern. She mentioned e-commerce and the Internet. There needed to be more discussion regarding what interconnectedness meant. She also mentioned housing for schoolteachers and college professors, and schools and colleges on the Internet. The configurations could be very different in 5 years. She considered the discussion extremely important.

Councilor Atherton cited a projected growth rate for the Portland region to double in 41 years. He asked how the region justified a growth curve twice as rapid as the national growth curve (80 years). He mentioned the affect of growth for immigration on the region’s quality of life and transportation infrastructure. Some communities had enough growth. He wanted to know how that was factored into the equation. He did not see those issues included in the forecast.

Councilor Hosticka said the Council needed to use the forecast to prevent the status quo conditions from continuing for the next 40 years. It established a baseline for action.

Mr. Cotugno said it was a good answer. However, he would modify it by saying it was not just an estimate based upon continuing status quo regional practices but it was based on regional practices relative to what the rest of the United States, or what California did. Oregon’s fortunes were the reverse of California. It was the regions position relative to its neighbors. He suggested Councilor Atherton pose his question as whether the region exhausting its infrastructure was better or worse than Seattle, San Francisco or Los Angeles. He asked if the region was consuming its infrastructure faster than its neighbors. Mr. Cotugno did not believe so. Instead, the region was on a similar plane. When analyzing transportation issues, their condition was worse with greater limitations. He asked whether the region would become more attractive for both employment and migration relative to its neighbors, not just as its own single entity.

Chair Park suggested those people with questions meet with Mr. Yee for follow-up discussions.

6.  UPDATE – ORDINANCE NO. OO-882C, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN, ORDINANCE NO. 97-715B, REGARDING HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCLUDING POLICY SECTION 1.3 AND AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN TITLES 7 AND 8, ORDINANCE NO. 96-647C. – DISCUSSION

Mr. Cotugno said Ordinance No. 00-882C would adopt the affordable housing strategy, both through an amendment to the Metro Regional Framework Plan and an amendment to the Metro Functional Plan. The MPAC (Metro Policy Advisory Committee) considered the ordinance at their last meeting on November and recommended the Committee adopt the ordinance with the two amended plans with three additional amendments. He referred to the document Affordable Housing – Additional Comments and Responses, January 10, 2001. (A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) The handout started with Comment 23 because the ordinance, as written, already addressed the first 22 comments the Metro Transportation Department received through December 2000. The handout contained comments they received after December 2000 and after the Committee/Council discussed the ordinance at its December 2000 meeting. The MPAC agreed with the staff recommendation to not adopt an amendment relative to Comment 23, but agreed to adopt the recommended amendment for comments 24, 25 and 26. They provided clarification. Comment 24 acknowledged a “more” realistic goal rather than a realistic goal. It was an improvement but did not achieve everything. Comment 25 incorporated an acknowledgement of the magnitude of the problem. It was information that was produced with the affordable housing strategy. Comment 26 acknowledged when the local government compliance step was constituted to be finished. The answer was when the local government governing body considered and acted on the issue. Metro asked them to consider certain measures. It was their decision and responsibility to report to Metro how they used those measures, and whether they worked or did not work.

Councilor McLain was pleased the staff captured the first 22 comments and provided good responses so the Metro Committee/Council could consider the goal of the person who suggested the amendment. They could also consider the response from the Metro staff. Then MPAC and the Council could review what impact it would have on the policy document. The last two or three described by Mr. Cotugno were very different. Portland Mayor Vera Katz and Lisa Naito from Multnomah County supported a few during the Christmas break. Not everyone had seen all the related information. She complimented the staff’s handling of the process. She added it was very important, whether in reference to the Metro Regional Framework Plan or RTP, that the staff ensured that all the councilors had an equal understanding of what the amendments and the staff changes meant for the policy document. She did not disagree with the staff actions or the finished product. However, there was an opportunity to message the process similar to JPACT. Sometimes the Council was not fully briefed regarding the work performed by the staff and an advisory committee, and therefore could not back track if there is a disagreement, and resolve a problem involving an important public issue. She mentioned problems with MPAC and their own rules. She planned to support all the amendments. However, the wording of Comment 26 – “Compliance with this subsection is achieved when a city or county undertakes and completes its consideration of the plan or ordinance amendment.” Could result in confusion if elected officials change during the amendment process. She said the language referred to the process at the local jurisdictional level, not at Metro. It did not involve Metro’s review of whether the local jurisdictions were in compliance with the Metro functional plan. That was important. The conversations by the people who proposed the amendments and interests outside the MPAC meeting were not very productive toward Metro’s overall compliance and reporting goal. The agency would end up having to enforce the language. If it suited them at this point it was fine. The Metro legal staff indicated it did not compromise the agency’s responsibility for review. However, the work was done late and Metro was doing the best it could with the information.

Councilor Burkholder said no action was requested. It was just an opportunity to review the ordinance. Now that the Committee had seen the information, he was comfortable with the motion to place the ordinance on the Metro Council agenda for further discussion and action.

Chair Park suggested that route for anyone interested in whether the Metro Council favored or opposed to the ordinance. However, it would be fine if the Committee moved it forward.

Michael Morrissey, Senior Metro Council Analyst, described the process recommendation from MPAC. Chair Park had a draft letter from Lisa Naito, addressed to Councilor Bragdon, which indicated the action that MPAC took. A councilor could move one or all of the amendments on January 18, 2001 or it would be a recommendation that was not adopted by the Committee.

Councilor McLain was comfortable with that process. The committee needed to hear the staff report and discuss the issue today. She was comfortable that the amendments were ready for adoption and the Committee planned to vote with the Council on January 18, 2001.

Chair Park decided not to forward a motion to do so.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor McLain said she would be ready at the next Community Planning Committee meeting to report what happened at the WARPAC meeting. She asked if it should be oral or written.

Chair Park said if it was lengthy he preferred it in writing with a short oral summary. That would also be true for the other subcommittee chairs. He wanted to maintain open lines of communication. There was a lot of information to cover in a short period of time. He wanted to use the forum to foster communication and avoid surprises.

Councilor McLain planned to provide a short one-page update and comments at each meeting.

There being no further business for the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 5 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Public Record

Metro Community Planning Committee meeting of January 16, 2001

Testimony cards

Lenny Anderson  Chris Smith

Jim Howell    Dave Stewart

Frank Orem    Barbara Walker    

Greg MacPherson  Ross Williams    

Larry Mills    Barbara Wilson