Item 2A - Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

helpful and possibly lead to a full collaborative process. She said in addition to the individuals named by Mr. Carlson, representatives from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Bureau of Land Management would also participate on the facilitator selection panel. She said that once the facilitator completed the assessment report, a decision would be made about whether facilitated stakeholder meetings were appropriate. She thanked federal and regional partners and interested community members for their cooperation and hoped it was the beginning of a sincere effort to find solutions. Mayor Piercy solicited questions and comments from the council. Mr. Kelly commented that not only was there no formal vote at the last MPC meeting but he was not certain that everyone left with the same understanding of what would happen next. He said a majority of MPC members demonstrated a begrudging willingness to listen to the next step. He felt the terms “facilitated discussion” and “collaborative process” should be clarified as only a collaborative process was likely to produce a result on which a majority could agree. He said that a facilitated discussion did not demand the same degree of participation. Mayor Piercy said the institute regarded a collaborative process as one that had no end date specified, participants worked on an issue until some type of agreement was reached, and ideally everyone felt that at least some of their interests had been met. She said that was not the process currently being considered. Mr. Pryor was pleased that seven transportation projects were moved forward. He expressed concern as a Ward 8 representative about the timelines for the new process given that the WEP debate had been going on for 20 years. He asked if there was any estimate for how long the new direction might take as traffic problems in west Eugene continued to increase on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. He said that whatever happened should happen quickly. Mayor Piercy said that FHWA intended that the process would be completed by December 2006 and would make a record of decision on the environmental impact study (EIS). Mr. Pryor asked what the results of the record of decision might be. Mayor Piercy said the record of decision would conclude with a build or no-build determination on the WEP. She said a no-build determina- tion could precipitate a new discussion. Ms. Bettman said she could not support the suggested motion as stated. She said the council directed its MPC representatives to not move forward with an MTIP and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that contained the WEP but the current MTIP and STIP both contained the WEP and new projects as well. She said the council asked intergovernmental partners and community organizations to commence a process to design and build transportation projects in west Eugene to address congestion, safety and operation for all modes. She said instead she saw a long process that was not collaborative but rather a facilitated dialogue that was not different from the old processes. She asked if the alternatives for solving West Eugene transportation issues within the current environmental review process would be constrained by the purpose and need. Mr. Carlson replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bettman asked if the breadth of the assessment report would also be constrained by the purpose and need. Mr. Carlson replied that it would be but noted the assessment was more about whether there was willingness on the part of all parties to proceed with a discussion of alternatives than it was about the project itself. He indicated the alternatives would address the purpose and need of the EIS. Ms. Bettman stated that currently the only thing that would satisfy the purpose and need of the EIS was the WEP and if the process was constrained by the purpose and need in the existing EIS there was only one MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 9 Work Session