CC Minutes - 05/24/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman interjected her next question, asking when the WEP could “show back up in the MTIP.” Mr. Schoening reiterated that the intent would be to push the WEP to FY09 in order to allow for the collabora- tive process. Ms. Bettman declared that the resolution did not say that. Mr. Klein cited the section of the resolution, Attachment A in the AIS, in which it stated the following under “Be it resolved”: “(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 NEPA 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 9 Work Session