Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

“(2) The FY06-09 MTIP, Exhibit B, as modified by the reprogramming of the WEP to FY09...” Ms. Bettman asked if this meant that ODOT would stop working toward the record of decision. Mr. Schoening reiterated that the motion would request that ODOT not conclude the NEPA process, which was the record of decision, prior to the end of the collaborative process. Ms. Bettman asked if this meant that ODOT would continue to work on the process. Tom Schwetz, Transportation Program Manager for the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), explained that postponing the completion of the NEPA process would imply that they would continue to work toward the drafting of the record of decision. He said this still had to be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for its approval. He thought ODOT would be asked to defer sending the final draft of the record of decision to the FHWA for approval. Mr. Schoening pointed out that the motion requested that ODOT include the results of the collaborative process as part of the NEPA process. Ms. Bettman asked if this meant the results would automatically be implemented. City Manager Taylor responded that it depended on the nature of what the consensus recommendation that arose from the collaborative process. In response to further questioning from Ms. Bettman, Mayor Piercy stated that the hope was for people with various points of view to come together and arrive at a configuration that would be acceptable. Ms. Bettman found the language regarding the acceptability of the result to be vague. She asked what would happen if the result was a modified route through West Eugene. Mr. Schoening replied that if it met the existing purpose and need of the current Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), it could move forward within the NEPA process. He said if it was outside of the issue and need, it would trigger a new environ- mental process. Mr. Kelly added that it would also have to be included in a subsequent RTP or MTIP if it was different than the project that was currently in the MTIP. Mr. Klein stated that other steps “in addition to ODOT” would be required if it was too far outside of the alignment approved by the voters in 1986. If that was the case, a new vote would be required for the City of Eugene to participate in the project. Also, if the proposed route was outside the alignment in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP), it would require amendments to that plan, which the council would have to approve. He underscored that there were a number of steps that would have to be taken if the project was different from what ODOT had been analyzing thus far. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Kelly and Mayor Piercy for working through this process. She indicated she would support the motion when it was put on the table. Mr. Kelly pointed out that one way or another the process would have to be affirmed by the jurisdictions of the MPC. He observed that there would be no collaborative process without the MPC. Mr. Pryor stated that the transportation problem in west Eugene had to be resolved. He supported the WEP, but it had been stalled for 20 years. He remained supportive of what the WEP could do. He believed in collaboration but felt there should be limits on what it could do. He averred that the process could not “go on endlessly” nor could it be prohibitively expensive. He wanted to be clear in the resolution that there would be a placeholder on the money. He also wished to ensure that the collaborative process was truly th collaborative. He recalled that a significant collaborative process had been used in the project to widen 6 MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 8 Work Session