The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem C: Crest Drive Neighborhood Context Sensitive Solutions Process ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Crest Drive Neighborhood Context Sensitive Solutions Process Meeting Date: May 8, 2006 Agenda Item Number: C Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5378 ISSUE STATEMENT The council will receive an update on the development of a Context Sensitive Solutions Process for identified sections of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street within the Crest Drive Neighborhood. The council will also be requested to direct the City Manager to implement the Context Sensitive Solutions Process in anticipation of a General Fund appropriation of $240,000 in FY07. BACKGROUND On January 24, 2005, the City Council held a work session to review and discuss the principles of context sensitive design and options for moving forward with the design of street improvements for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street in the Crest Drive Neighborhood. At the work session, there was general agreement that doing nothing was not a viable option and that the issues around street design should be addressed prior to addressing the issue of street classification. At a subsequent work session on June 29, 2005, the City Council agreed with the City Manager’s recommendation to direct staff to work with the Crest Drive neighborhood to develop a context sensitive design process for the identified sections of Crest, Storey and Friendly. As directed, elements of the process will include objectives and goals, a decision-making model, public involvement and outreach strategies, interested parties and stakeholder group identification and schedule. Since June 2005, Public Works transportation planning staff has been working closely with a transportation subcommittee of the Crest Drive Citizen Association (CDCA) to respond to City Council direction. The Crest Drive Neighborhood Context Sensitive Solutions Process is underway following the convening of a Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT). The CDCT includes 21 representatives selected by a transportation subcommittee of the Crest Drive Citizen Association, and includes property owners on the identified streets in the study area, at-large neighborhood representatives, a transportation planning staff member from Public Works Engineering Division, and the City Engineer. On March 9, the CDCT held the first of three scheduled meetings designed to develop group agreements focusing on parameters for decision-making, communications, and meetings for a context sensitive design solutions (CSS) process for the identified sections of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street. The group agreement development and consensus training was facilitated by volunteer facilitators Josh Reckord and Bill Kentta. Concurrent to the group agreement workshops, a L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060508\S060508C.doc subcommittee of the CDCT conducted a facilitator search process, and conducted interviews to select a facilitator to work with the group for the duration of the CSS process. The group completed the selection process, conducted candidate interviews, and made a recommendation to the full CDCT to hire Margot Helphand, of Helphand & Associates. On April 20, the CDCT held the first meeting of Crest Drive Neighborhood CSS process, facilitated by Margot Helphand. At that meeting, the group agreement process was completed, including agreements on CDCT communication. It is anticipated that the group will formally sign the completed group agreement at its May 4 meeting. At that time, the group will also begin framing the project work plan, which will include the development of a comprehensive public involvement process to reach a broad range of stakeholders, including property owners, residents of the Crest Drive neighborhood, transit users, bicyclists, and the general public. On April 24, 2006, the City Manager presented the FY07 Proposed Budget to the Budget Committee. The FY07 Proposed Budget includes a General Fund appropriation of $240,000 for implementation of the Crest Drive Neighborhood Context Sensitive Solutions process. The portion of the appropriation allocated to the Context Sensitive Solutions process would be funded by the City. The portion of the appropriation allocated to the engineering and design normally associated with a street improvement project would be incorporated into a future local improvement district. At the May 8, 2006, City Council work session, Public Works transportation planning staff will provide a summary of the process developed by the CDCT for the Crest Drive Neighborhood CSS process, and will provide an overview of the context sensitive solutions principles framing the process. RELATED CITY POLICIES The Arterial and Collector Street Plan, along with the Local Street Plan, focus on the continued development of a multi-modal street system for the city of Eugene that accommodates all users of the transportation system. Together, these two plans provide an essential set of tools to help the City implement key aspects of the transportation-related policies contained in the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan), and the Growth Management Study. These policies promote livability by maintaining and enhancing mobility and safety for all modes of surface transportation, including automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit vehicles, emergency responders, and freight vehicles. COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may: 1. Direct the City Manager to implement the Crest Drive Neighborhood context sensitive solutions process in anticipation of a General Fund appropriation of $240,000 in FY07. 2. Direct the City Manager to not implement the Crest Drive Neighborhood context sensitive solutions process. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council direct him to move forward with the implementation of a context sensitive solutions process within the collaborative framework developed L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060508\S060508C.doc by the Crest Drive Community Team. The process will honor the group agreements and decision- making model developed by the Crest Drive Community Team, and will include the development and implementation of a project work plan, public involvement plan, and design development for a preferred street design for Crest, Storey and Friendly. The City Manager will provide an update to the council on the process implementation during development of alternative street design options, and prior to the development of a preferred alternative. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to direct the City Manager to implement the Crest Drive Neighborhood Context Sensitive Solutions Process in anticipation of a General Fund appropriation of $240,000 in FY07. ATTACHMENTS A. CDCT Project Development Process Flow Chart B. Context Sensitive Solutions Working Definition C. Map of the CDCT Context Sensitive Solutions Project Area D. CDCT Process Training Workshop Summaries FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner Telephone: 541-682-5378 Staff E-Mail: lisa.a.gardner@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060508\S060508C.doc CDCT Design & Recommendation Process Project Management Plan InputProject DefinitionDecision Technical Community & Issue Identification Assessment of Data Agency Involvement Plan Evaluate Data Collection Alternatives Stakeholder Input: Building City Standards & -Neighbors, Agreements Regulations - Property Owners, - Emergency Services, Building CDCT - Transit, AgreementsRecommendation -Greater Community -CDCA Develop Council Decision Alternatives ATTACHMENT B Context sensitive solutions (CSS) is a collaborative, interdisciplinary project development approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting while maintaining safety and mobility for all users, and reflecting community needs. The goal of CSS is to create early, open, honest, and continuous communication and sharing of information and knowledge throughout the design process. ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D M9,2006 ARCH Public Works Engineering City of Eugene CDCT REST RIVE OMMUNITY EAM rd 858 Pearl St 3 Floor Eugene, Oregon 97401 PTW#1 ROCESS RAINING ORKSHOP (541) 682-5727 (541) 682-5598 FAX S UMMARY Introduction This memo provides a recap of the first Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT) meeting which was held on Thursday, March 9, at the Washington Park Community Center. The meeting was attended by three City Employees; Mark Schoening, Lisa Gardner, and David Roth. It was facilitated by Josh Reckord and Bill Kentta, who will also facilitate the next two meetings (March 23 and April 6). Nineteen of the twenty-member CDCT and three alternates attended the meeting (see attached sign in sheet, pg 5). Following participant introductions, Josh and Bill described the agenda for the evening, which included the following activities: 1.Whole group activity: Describe your connection to Crest Drive, “What makes it special?” 2.Whole group activity: “Successful groups are… Their meetings are…” 3.Break 4.Breakout Groups: a.Meeting Mechanics b.Communication c.Decision Making 5.Breakout group presentations, group discussion and showing of support for concepts 6.Next Steps During each activity, public minutes were taken capturing ideas, discussion, and questions posed by participants. The following section presents notes captured during each activity. Describe Your Connection to Crest Drive: “What makes it Special?” Participants were asked to describe to the rest of the group things they liked about living in the Crest Drive neighborhood. Responses varied from one word descriptors, to illustrative statements about the neighborhood. In general, statements included the following: ?? Peace and quiet Wooded/forested area ?? Long-term residents Recreational opportunities (hiking, ? walking, running, cycling) Historical significance ? ? “Unconventional environment: roads Nearby nature are like deer trails” ? Close to town (Eugene) ? “Country in the city” ? “Near Eugene, but still very natural” ? In the hills Page 1 of 27 Successful groups are… Their meetings are… Participants were first asked to write in descriptors for these two statements on handouts provided by Josh and Bill. Once the handouts were completed, participants were asked to share what they wrote with the whole group. Handouts were collected after the meeting and notes were recorded while participants shared their thoughts. Notes follow. Successful Groups Are… ?? Respectful of all Common vision ?? Productive Clear decisions ?? Focused Know when a decision is made ?? Cordially Value all ideas ?? Innovative Transparent ?? Active Collaborative ?? Engaged Open ?? Efficient Thorough ?? Considerate Receptive ?? Organized Recognizing of best ideas ?? Dedicated Accomplish goals ? Aligned with a common goal(s) Their Meetings Are… ?? Fun Focused ?? Productive Punctual ?? Organized Short ?? Balanced Calm ?? Outrageous Engaging ?? Efficient Inclusive ?? Guided by an agenda Interesting ?? Not dominated by a few Defined responsibilities ?? Timely Stay on track ?? Effective Idea sharing ? Eye opening Breakout Groups Meeting Mechanics Group This group discussed how committee meetings would be designed. Topics included meeting agendas, meeting times and participant roles. Notes follow. 1.Public Minutes and Miscellaneous Notes a.“Share the Air” b.Need clear understanding of roles c.Forum for input (public) should occur less frequently than every meeting d.Do meetings have themes? e.Agenda may have expectations of products and inputs/outputs f.Time option: thumbs up/down for support g.Feedback time Page 2 of 27 2.Agenda a.The group agreed that an agenda was necessary for each meeting and shall be made available one-week prior to the next meeting b.The agenda shall provide the outline and focus for that meeting with specific time allotments for each agenda item c.The agenda will provide starting and ending times for each meeting as well as the location of the meeting 3.Time a.Maximum duration for meetings shall be 90 minutes b.Meetings will be regularly scheduled for the same day/time each occurrence c.Time will be provided for public comment at the beginning of meetings 4.Roles a.A convener shall be assigned/voted for/volunteered for. The person(s) assuming this role will set the agenda and call for agenda items b.A public minutes recorder is needed c.A “Gate Keeper” is needed to keep track of time Communication Group This group discussed how communication to and from the committee will be managed. The committee needs to develop a mechanism for communication with the greater community, the city, neighborhood groups, and other organizations. Notes follow. 1.Public Minutes (surveyed): a.Dedicated public comment time at start of meeting b.Written, email, web-based comment opportunities, phone contact [periodic] c.Communication w/ broader community through mailings (TBD in public involvement plan) d.Dedicated web page for Crest Drive and City pages w/ links e.Dedicated email list for the Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT) f.Street-specific comments directed to street leaders or street reps (and at-large members) g.Street leaders (and at-large members) report input/feedback at the beginning of meetings h.Communication mechanisms identified to full neighborhood mail out at all meetings i.Communication with full board j.Synthesize public minutes for electronic distribution to CDCT list and webpage (also make physical, non-electronic copies available) k.Explore Metro-Vision options l.Utilize Wayne Morse Ranch Bulletin Board for info-sharing 2.For further consideration: a.Facilitator Selection (with notification to CDCT) i.Street leader ii.Crest Drive Citizens Association (CDCA) chair iii.At-large member b.Viper Group: planning group Page 3 of 27 Decision Making Group This group discussed how decisions would be made. Options included majority vote, super majority, sufficient consensus, or consensus models. They discussed the process of consensus building and also discussed what roles would be assumed during the decision making process. 1.Consensus Decision Making Model a.Consensus does not mean unanimity. It does not mean everyone gets his/her first choice. Rather, it means that everyone is sufficiently in favor of an idea that no one will be an obstacle in carrying it out (no one will sabotage the decision) b.Everyone understands the issues and can paraphrase it c.Everyone contributes resources and shares info d.Everyone can “go along” with an idea (if not for perpetuity- at least for a trial period of time) e.If consensus cannot be reached. The discussion is automatically recycled for more information f.Note: Each person can say: “I believe I have been heard and understood” g.Note: The essential vehicle for testing for consensus is the survey- a non-binding opportunity for participants to speak and be heard and to share information Breakout Group Presentations After the breakout sessions finished, the group rejoined to listen to brief presentations made by representatives of each breakout group. The entire committee was then surveyed on their level of support for the content of their proposals. Results follow: 1.Consensus Decision Making a.Group was surveyed about their level of support for the consensus decision making model Level of Count Support:1a 5 19 4 4 3 2 2 1 2.Meeting Mechanics a.Meeting Time and Schedule b.Agenda Setting Level of Level of Support: Count Support: Count 2a 2b 5 11 5 16 4 9 4 3 3 3 5 2 2 1 1 3 Page 4 of 27 3.Communication a.Survey was on items (1a) through (1l). Further consideration of items (1m) and (1n) is necessary. b.Existing facilitator committee plus at-large representative shall continue with the interview process (street leader, at-large member, CDCA Chair, and City Staff person) Level of Support: Count 3a & 3b 5 7 4 6 3 5 2 1 1 Next Steps Josh and Bill ended the group discussion to stay within the allotted meeting time and wrapped things up by discussing next steps for the Crest Drive Committee Team 1.Facilitator interview process will continue with the existing team in addition to John Rude (at- large member) 2.Josh and Bill will go over the public minutes and bring a summary back to the next meeting th 3.An agenda is needed for the next meeting by Thursday, March 16(Sent out) 4.The agenda will include: a.Time for reaching agreement on meeting mechanics b.Time for reaching agreement on communication c.Report from facilitator interview group d.Item on “Solutions” What does it mean and what does it look like? e.Discussion of assumptions (baggage) Page 5 of 27 th March 9 Meeting Attendance Name Address City State Zip Phone Email Ginny Starling Eugene OR 541-683-2512 bgstarling@comcast.net Bill Starling Eugene OR 541-683-2512 bgstarling@comcast.net Cathryn Treadway 2820 Friendly Eugene OR 97405 541-689-7410 ctreadway@hotmail.com Cris Jacobson 3280 Whitten Dr Eugene OR 97405 541-344-9924 criswebb@aol.com Don Neet 3436 Storey Blvd Eugene OR 97405 541-687-0792 dneet@pacinfo.com Francina Verrijt Lorane Eugene OR 541-344-3735 fuerrist@pacinfo.com Frank Calciano 975 Crest Eugene OR 97405 541-485-3680 frank@claciano.com Fred Lorish 897 West 36th Ave Eugene OR 97405 541-341-3993 florcsh@comcast.net Hal Huestis 2856 Friendly Eugene OR 97405 541-345-7286 huestisbayley@msn.com James McDonald 570 Crest Drive Eugene OR 97405 541-683-6027 ecobuilder1@earthlink.net Jim Reed 893 West 37th Eugene OR 97405 541-344-7985 james_reed@comcast.net John Rude 1207 Courtney Eugene OR 97405 541-342-6427 john@agedynamics.com Lyndell Wilken 3065 Whitbeck Eugene OR 97405 541-343-3080 lwbicycle@yahoo.com Mary Rowland 2975 Friendly St Eugene OR 97405 541-345-4195 mmrowland@comcast.net Meg Stewart-Smith 346 Crest Drive Eugene OR 97405 541-913-5464 msdesign5@comcast.net Paul Farkas 1268 Courtney Eugene OR 97405 541-485-0859 farkas5@comcast.net Sherie Hawley 3484 Storey Blvd Eugene OR 97405 541-913-2730 sheriehawley@comcast.net Steve West 3025 Friendly St Eugene OR 97405 541-344-9347 Steven Hecker 2990 Friendly St Eugene OR 97405 541-954-1161 shecker@uoregon.edu Tina Gryc 895 Crest Dr Eugene OR 97405 541-345-2281 tinagrye@yahoo.com *Carmen Bayley 2856 Friendly Eugene OR 97405 541-345-7286 huestisbayley@msn.com *Christine Donahue 2988 Madison St Eugene OR 97405 541-683-8220 christinedonahue@msn.com *Kathy Saranpa 3015 Friendly St Eugene OR 97405 541-687-7199 ksaranpa@comcast.net *Kim O'Brien 2990 Friendly St Eugene OR 97405 541-485-3533 kobrien@uoregon.edu Not in Attendance Desiree Rogers joncrogers@earthlink.net *Alternate Members Page 6 of 27 M23,2006 ARCH Public Works Engineering CDCT REST RIVE OMMUNITY EAM City of Eugene rd 858 Pearl St 3 Floor PTW#2 Eugene, Oregon 97401 ROCESS RAINING ORKSHOP (541) 682-5727 (541) 682-5598 FAX S UMMARY Introduction This summary provides a recap of the second Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT) meeting which was held on Thursday, March 23, at the Washington Park Community Center. Nineteen members of the CDCT and two alternates attended the meeting (see attached sign in sheet, pg 7). David Roth from the transportation planning team in the Public Works Engineering Division recorded meeting notes. The meeting was facilitated by Josh Reckord. The agenda follows: Warm Up 7.: “What do we remember from two weeks ago?” Continue Building Group Agreements 8.: Decision-making, meeting mechanics, and communication Activity 9.: Assumptions and Inferences, “Building a Wall” Activity 10.: Cards on the Table - What interests do we bring to the process? What do we need for a decision? 11. Introduction to Solution Requirements Next Steps 12. Debrief 13. Public minutes were taken throughout the meeting and are combined with comments submitted by participants. Warm Up: “What do we remember from two weeks ago?” Participants were asked to share what they remembered from the previous meeting. In general, comments included the following: ? Appreciation for positive energy and attitudes during the meeting wrap-up ? Appreciation for positive energy throughout the entire meeting ? Found the consensus building process interesting ? Liked the consensus building process and instruction module ? Appreciated the discussion about unique characteristics of the Crest Drive neighborhood ? Thought the group spent a lot of time on process ? Enjoyed hearing resident’s histories in the Crest Drive neighborhood Page 7 of 27 Following the group comment period, Josh Reckord provided two comments regarding last week’s meeting. First, he noted the group will need to develop a “support group” to carry out administrative tasks and work directly with the chosen facilitator throughout the process. Second, he appreciated the group process and the participants’ positive attitudes. During this time, a suggestion was made to use th more visible name plates as opposed to small name tags. City staff will bring nameplates to the April 6 meeting. Two questions were asked during this item. ? Question: Why does the group need time limits for agenda items? Answer: The allotted time for agenda items is necessary to keep the meetings moving o forward smoothly. It was also suggested that if additional time was needed, it could be scheduled into the following meeting agenda. ? Question: What is a “Support Group”? Answer: The support group would assist with administrative, communication, and o scheduling tasks throughout the entire process. Continue Building Group Agreements This item was a continuation of building group agreements from the previous meeting. Josh introduced the item and then opened it up for questions and comments from participants. Comments, questions and answers follow: Decision-Making ? Comment: There was interest in information and discussion about other methods of group decision-making (in addition to the consensus model). Response: The group may use the consensus model to decide to change the decision- o making process at any time. ? Question: “Doesn’t the consensus model require starting from a question?” Answer from Josh: Not necessarily, there are multiple definitions for consensus-building. o ? Question: “Why does the group have to spend time on the process?” Answer 1: The group decided to go this route. o Answer 2: We first needed to work out agreements on how to work together as a group. o Answer 3: This is a compromise to get all the interests at/on the table. o Answer 4: The process will require more time initially, however will be more efficient in o the long run. It is important to get decision-making agreements out of the way first. Answer 5: The neighborhood group passed a motion to use this process. o ? Comments: The group needs a method/process of information sharing and communication with committee members absent from previous meetings. Alternates also need to be in the information loop. All participants, including alternates, will be included in the distribution list. Response: A motion was made to create the information sharing method/process. o ? Question: What other methods of decision making are there besides consensus? Response: Simply majority, majority, unanimity, plurality, etc… The group can make o this decision using consensus. ? Question: Will there be veto power? If so, it must be written into operating rules. ? Discussion: The group discussed the consensus building process with Josh. Josh clarified that in a consensus building process, one person’s veto cannot stop the process. He noted that further clarity would be provided during the “Interests” discussion. Page 8 of 27 Level of At this point, Hal surveyed the group to determine their support for using consensus Count Support building to make decisions. The results are shown on the right. 5 9 4 6 3 1 2 1 Immediately following this survey, several clarifying questions were asked. ? Question: Who are the voting members? Response: The whole committee including City staff. o ? Question: Can the decision making process be changed later on? Response: Yes, if the group makes this decision using a consensus process o ? Question: Please succinctly describe/explain consensus? Response: “We build decisions, we don’t decide them.” o Response: Consensus means if someone disagrees, they come forward to the next o meeting with an alternate proposal. ? Question: What if the City doesn’t agree? Response: The City cannot override adopted mandates. These boundaries will be o discussed in the next meeting. Following these clarifying questions, the group was surveyed with a show of thumbs-up, thumbs-down to indicate support for using the consensus model for decision-making. The results were: 20 thumbs-up and 0 down, indicating strong support for the consensus model. Meetings and Communication Participants discussed meeting agendas, duration, scheduling, start and end times, and the potential for including allotted public comment time into agendas. Notes from the discussion follow: ? Several participants were concerned that 1 ½ hours was an inadequate amount of time for meetings ? Some suggested that 2 hours would be more appropriate and productive ? Several participants were concerned about meetings going beyond 2 hours ? Some were also concerned that bi-weekly meetings would be too frequent; monthly meetings or a more flexible schedule was suggested ? Participants preferred a regular day for meetings and most agreed that Thursdays would work best After the discussion, participants were surveyed on meeting duration, schedule, and agenda. The results follow: Level of Count 1) “Regularly scheduled meeting shall be 2 hours in duration.” Support 5 20 4 3 2 1 Page 9 of 27 Level of Count 2) “Regularly scheduled meetings shall occur on Thursdays, every two weeks.” Support 5 18 4 2 3 2 1 3) “Meeting agendas shall be distributed one-week in advance and shall be posted on the City website.” Level of Count Support 5 20 Building an Assumption/Inference Wall 4 This activity was designed to surface any preexisting assumptions or inferences 3 participants are bringing to the process. As defined by Josh, 2 ? 1 To assume is to take for granted as truth without verification ? To infer is to draw a conclusion about something you do not know on the basis of something you do know Following a group discussion about assumptions and inferences, participants recorded their own assumptions and inferences about the Crest Drive Area Transportation Study on note cards which were taped to the wall. These statements follow: ? “If we don’t lose hope, and if we keep working, we will get the streets we want, and our process will become the model for all of Eugene” ? “The members of our group live in our neighborhood not to develop/speculate (their property), but because they want to live in the neighborhood” ? “Neighbors don’t trust the city” ? “No good will come of this process” ? “All three streets & groups from three streets want what’s best for all three streets & the residents on each- they aren’t just focused on their street” ? “The roads will be redone in the Crest Neighborhood” ? “The Crest/Friendly Area Neighbors don’t want their neighborhood to change” ? “The street improvements will invite more, and faster traffic” ? “The cost will be astronomical” ? “The struggle between neighborhood groups and the city will be ongoing” ? “Most people in this group want minimal impact to the streets” ? “The road will be raised in front of my house and I will lose my view & my trees, because Gary McNeel said the intersection will be raised” ? “A collector street will increase traffic” ? “Majority of residents in the Crest Drive neighborhood want the streets improved” ? “The city wants to pave paradise” ? “Our problems cannot be solved with the same level of thinking that created them” ? “I infer this process can work” ? “I assume that the city staff will interpret all regulations with as much latitude as they feel they can within their professional boundaries” Page 10 of 27 ? “I assume that everyone here want minimal street change” ? “I assume all of the trees in my right of way will be cut down” ? “I assume that there are people here who want no development or change to the streets” ? “All economic development is undemocratic” ? “I assume that committee members represent the area’s general attitude about street development” ? “Everyone wants to have the streets fixed” ? “There will be conflict with the city over street width and sidewalks” ? “Impact of street improvement on environment are key issue of discussions” ? “Property values will decrease with improved roads” ? “This process will result in an assessment so astronomical that I will lose my house, then I will have to move in with my mother and my life will be over” ? “I assume a ‘better’ road that is slow, bicycle & pedestrian friendly, safe & beautiful, will be the outcome of our collaboration with the City of Eugene” ? “I infer we will not be able to choose the improvements we want without getting the ones we don’t want” What Interests do we Bring to the Process Josh described the difference between positions and interests; Positions are concrete whereas Interests are made up of needs, desires, concerns, and fears. “Focusing on interests, not positions, leads you to choices and options that could never be considered if you only focus on concrete positions.” Participants were broken into four small groups to brainstorm individual and group interests. Notes from the small group discussions follow: ? Needs Breathing o Safe place to walk o Place to dump Stormwater o Having a say o A refuge, tranquility o Affordable place to live o Place to put a car o Design options o Preserve nature o Provide transportation options o Creative engineering o Traffic-slowing mechanisms o Neighborhood distinctiveness o ? Desires Maintain narrow road beds o Not change atmosphere o Allow all three streets to have their own character- allow each street to design own street o Put environment and people before cars and cut-through traffic o Control traffic speed o Slow roads, preserve historic landscape, scenic roads, scenic views, private craftsmanship o Preserve all trees o Page 11 of 27 ? Concerns Process will break down before we get to the design process o Decision-makers outside the process will affect our work with this group o Our input is valued and actually will be part of the decisions made o No game playing o Operate in an environment of honesty and trust o The group might become polarized o We get the views of the entire neighborhood represented o ? Fears Fear of change in the neighborhood ambiance o Fear of more and faster traffic o Fear for health and safety of neighborhood wildlife o Fear of loss of tree canopy o Fear of empty wallets o Fear of streets being realigned too close to our homes o Fear of loss of social access because of street barriers o Fear of pitting neighbor against neighbor/street against street in street placement o decisions Fear of loss of rural feel o Fear the city council won’t support our results o Moving Forward Participants were asked to comment on whether they thought progress was made and to provide any other comments regarding the process. Comments written on note cards are included here: ? “Thanks for anticipating what this group will need to successfully complete our task (particularly re: city staff). Yes, I see us moving along. I sense that city staff is moving into the zone where they are positive about this process, Thanks.” ? “We moved forward. I was uncomfortable after the last meeting, feel more comfortable now.” ? “Good combination of process and substance tonight. Got us through rough spots to decisions. Good time management.” ? Meeting was a little less positive that the last, bit more muddled. Very important issue raised- not allow people that haven’t come to last meeting to take too much time with getting caught up or second guess decisions.” ? “We moved forward slowly, I feel” st ? “Moved forward some. Too much re-hashing of last week’s agenda the 1 hour. Need to get started on time. People who have been absent from a previous meeting need to read minutes and consult with a fellow member prior to meeting.” ? “Feels good.” ? “Yes, we moved forward. So far, there is more trust in the group than I expected.” ? “Question: why can’t Storey/Crest/Friendly benefit from simply letting the Blanton Rd. model apply?” ? “We need some skills for dealing with members who seem to be so distrustful of anything/everything going on that they threaten to derail the process.” ? “We made progress, but so much depends on what the city says must be done next meeting. Can we by consensus stop or redirect the musts?” Page 12 of 27 ? “This process is working for me and has brought better understanding for me in regards to the decisions that will be made.” ? “Tough to move forward. Attendance is lower this week, my group is not here.” ? “Slow beginning, but once we got on task we moved forward. Good meeting.” Next Steps th The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 6 at 7:00pm at the Washington Park Center. 5.The agenda will include: a.Debrief of previous meeting b.Solution Requirements c.Setting the stage for moving forward d.Presentation by City Staff of mandates/ordinances e.Clarification of communication mechanisms f.Alternative name/title for the “viper” group g.Group responsibilities Page 13 of 27 March 23 Sign In Sheet Present Name Address Phone Email Ginny and Bill 541-683- Starling 2512 x bgstarling@comcast.net 541-689- 7410 x Cathryn Treadway 2820 Friendly ctreadway@hotmail.com 541-344- x Cris Jacobson 3280 Whitten Dr 9924 criswebb@aol.com 541-687- Don Neet 3436 Storey Blvd 0792 dneet@pacinfo.com 541-344- x Francina Verrijt Lorane 3735 fverrijt@pacinfo.com 541-485- x Frank Calciano 975 Crest 3680 frank@calciano.com 897 West 36th 541-341- Fred Lorish Ave 3993 florish@comcast.net 541-345- x Hal Huestis 2856 Friendly 7286 huestisbayley@msn.com 541-683- James McDonald 570 Crest Drive 6027 ecobuilder1@earthlink.net 541-344- Jim Reed 893 West 37th 7985 james_reed@comcast.net 541-342- x John Rude 1207 Courtney 6427 john@agedynamics.com 541-343- x Lyndell Wilken 3065 Whitbeck 3080 lwbicycle@yahoo.com 541-345- 4195 x Mary Rowland 2975 Friendly St mmrowland@comcast.net 541-913- x Meg Stewart-Smith 346 Crest Drive 5464 msdesign5@comcast.net 541-485- Paul Farkas 1268 Courtney 0859 farkas5@comcast.net 541-913- x Sherie Hawley 3484 Storey Blvd 2730 sheriehawley@comcast.net 541-344- x Steve West 3025 Friendly St 9347 541-954- x Steven Hecker 2990 Friendly St 1161 shecker@uoregon.edu 541-345- x Tina Gryc 895 Crest Dr 2281 tinagryc@yahoo.com x Bruce Wild 931 Lorane Hwy. 541-345- *Carmen Bayley 2856 Friendly 7286 huestisbayley@msn.com 541-683- *Christine Donahue 2988 Madison St 8220 christinedonahue@msn.com 541-687- x *Kathy Saranpa 3015 Friendly St 7199 ksaranpa@comcast.net x *Clyde Nielson 541-485- x *Kim O'Brien 2990 Friendly St 3533 kobrien@uoregon.edu x Mark Schoening mark.a.schoening@ci.eugene.or.us x Lisa Gardner lisa.a.gardner@ci.eugene.or.us x David Roth david.f.roth@ci.eugene.or.us Page 14 of 27 A6,2006 PRIL Public Works Engineering CDCT REST RIVE OMMUNITY EAM City of Eugene rd 858 Pearl St 3 Floor PTW#3 Eugene, Oregon 97401 ROCESS RAINING ORKSHOP (541) 682-5727 (541) 682-5598 FAX S UMMARY Introduction This summary provides a recap of the third Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT) Process Training Workshop, held on Thursday, April 6, at the Washington Park Community Center. Fifteen members of the CDCT and two alternates attended the meeting (see attached sign in sheet, pg 11). David Roth from the transportation planning team in the Public Works Engineering Division recorded meeting notes. The meeting was facilitated by Josh Reckord and Bill Kentta. The agenda follows: Warm Up 14.: “Think-Pair-Share” Elevator Conversation: What is the Crest Drive Road Committee’s responsibility to the City of Eugene as a whole? Building Operational Agreements 15.- continued a.Back-up decision making process b.Communication i.Information in ii.Information out c.Facilitator selection process (moved to start of meeting) d.Ongoing support group for process e.What do people need- logistical support? Presentation of Process Steps 16. a.Setting the stage b.Presentation c.Clarifying questions Next Steps 17. a.Meeting April 20th Debrief 18. Introduction & Update Before starting with agenda items, Fred Lorish provided the group with an update of the facilitator selection process. Fred explained that the VIPER group had met twice and interviewed two potential facilitator candidates over the past two months. Following the second meeting and interviews, a candidate was selected by the group. Margot Helphand was selected as the facilitator for the CDCT Context Sensitive Solutions process. Fred introduced Margot to the committee after discussing the selection process. Page 15 of 27 Warm Up: “Think-Pair-Share” Activity Bill and Josh instructed participants to think and reflect on the following question: “What is the Crest Drive Road Committee’s responsibility to the City of Eugene as a whole?” Participants were then asked to answer as if a neighbor or acquaintance asked them about the CDCT process in a casual conversation. Participants were paired for discussion. Responses follow: Page 16 of 27 ? To present ideas ? To communicate, openly and honestly, and to reach consensus on a street design ? This is our opportunity to work with the city- we are more responsible to the neighborhood than to the entire city ? We are responsible because of the “pioneering” aspect of this project ? Our responsibility is to come up with a Context Sensitive Design process for the city ? First, we are to come up with an appropriate design for the neighborhood streets. Second, we are responsible to say “no” if we disagree with the design. Third, we have a commitment to the city to see this through. ? To reach consensus ? We are responsible to the City at large, the neighbors, and those who drive through the neighborhood. To the City, we will create a model process. To the neighbors, we will ensure livability. To those who drive through, we will create safe roads. ? Our responsibility is to be collaborative and representative of the neighborhood. We are not one single voice, but rather a representative voice. ? To come up with design preserving the neighborhood characteristics while considering design standards. ? To uphold neighborhood integrity in the context of CSS ? To become an example for the City and the nation During the sharing portion of this exercise, a question was posed by one of the committee members. “Out of the scarce available resources dedicated to other projects in the city, how much is being dedicated to this project?” Bill and Josh recommended that this question be addressed during the City of Eugene’s informational presentation later in the meeting. Building Operational Agreements- Continued This item was a continuation from the two previous meetings. The committee was asked to first consider and discuss implementing a back-up decision-making process. Back-up Decision-Making Process Bill addressed comments and questions raised at the previous two meetings in regard to choosing consensus as the model for decision-making for the Crest Drive Process. He noted that in comparison to other decision-making models such as parliamentary voting, consensus requires more up-front time and resources, while greatly reducing implementation time. On the other hand, parliamentary voting requires little up-front time, yet requires much more time and resources for implementation. Bill also noted that using consensus provides the City Council with a better understanding and a clearer picture of the committee’s progress. It shows the Council the level of support for items discussed and deliberated. He also noted that building consensus oftentimes begins with a question. “Is there support for….?” Margot noted that she desired having a backup decision-making process to the consensus model. She mentioned that this could simply take the form of a minority report or the inclusion of two separate options. A group discussion followed: Question: “How will the neighbors be involved in decision-making?” Response: “Through an established communication process.” Page 17 of 27 Comment: “We don’t have the right to make decisions without involving the greater neighborhood.” Comment: “Our role is that of an advisory body- we will make a recommendation.” Comment from Josh: “You are a recommending body. The communication process and roles must be clearly defined from the beginning.” Comment: “Since each street is represented, members of the CDCT will have an efficient means of communication by going door-to-door to talk with neighbors.” Question: “What if one person disagrees? How does this affect the consensus process?” Response from Josh: “Sometimes that dissenting person must compromise.” Response from Bill: “That person ethically must counter propose or stand aside, in other words, ‘put-up or shut-up’.” Response from Margot: “The facilitator might ask what it would take for that person to move forward with the group. That single person cannot block the process though.” Response: “It is an opportunity to contribute to the group process.” At this point, the conversation shifted to the role of alternates on the CDCT. Josh: We need to determine if alternates have decision-making authority when their committee member is absent. Question: “Should alternates have decision-making power?” Josh: “It is the responsibility of the committee member to inform the alternate.” Comment: “Alternate must attend successive meetings to be involved.” Comment: “Alternate is responsible for getting information and staying up to date from their committee member.” Margot: “I’m partial to the idea of just having the committee vote.” Comment: “There may be many different reasons why an alternate would fill in.” Margot: “Having alternates as non-voting members may help build commitment among committee members.” Bill: “In my experience, alternates will generally ask permission to vote. The more difficult question is whether you will allow votes in absentia.” Question: “What is the role of the alternate?” Response: “To replace the permanent member if they leave, or to fill in for that member while they are absent and to collect information for them so they can make an informed decision.” Response: “They have a vested interest.” Josh: “The group is 22 members in addition to the facilitator.” Question: “Don’t the alternates have a responsibility to be here?” Question: “Is the alternate a voting member?” Response: “What we need is consistency of participation.” Comment: “You cannot make heavy demands on an alternate and then prohibit them from voting.” Comment: “How about this, alternates can vote if they attend all meetings.” Response: “As an alternate, I’ll be here as much as possible, but when it comes to voting, I think I’d vote the same as my committee member.” Page 18 of 27 At this point, Bill introduced two options: Option A: “Alternates may ‘vote’ assuming they are current with issues and informed” and Option B: “Alternates may not vote.” Discussion continued. Comment: “We could clear up some of this discussion by simply requiring a quorum to be present for decision-making.” Question: “What is the role of the alternate?” Comment: “We should eliminate alternates and just use a quorum system.” Response: “We would have to go back to the CDCA to change rules.” Comment: “Option B is similar to having no alternates.” Comment: “Alternates should not be forced to attend all meetings.” After a brief discussion about the role of alternates, the committee was instructed to indicate support for the following options. Voting results follow: Option A: “Alternates may ‘vote’ assuming they are current with issues and informed.” (17) Option B: “Alternates may not vote.” (3) Option C: “Eliminate alternates.” (1) Following the vote, committee members were asked to show support using the 5-1 consensus model. Option A passed with the addendum that “Alternates only vote when their permanent member is absent.” Shortly thereafter, the committee was polled for support of the 16/22 person quorum. The quorum rule requires that 16 of the 22 original committee members must be present for the meeting to proceed and for decisions to be made. The committee supported the quorum rule unanimously. More discussion follows. Question: Will there be a schedule to indicate when voting decisions will occur? Response: There will be a roadmap for the process and there will be a sense for when a vote occurs. I’d hate to send people home when a quorum is not present. Comment: As long as the alternates are informed, they should vote. Question: Can we change these rules through consensus if we think the alternate is ill informed? Comment: Flexibility in the schedule is important Comment: It would be convenient to know well ahead of time when the committee will not have meetings scheduled for planning around members’ vacation time. Communication Following the discussion on decision-making, Bill asked committee members to quickly brainstorm ideas for getting information in and out of the CDCT (to and from the greater neighborhood). Sticky notes were collected for inclusion in the public minutes. These are the initial ideas and suggestions: In Out Collection box at Wayne Morse Ranch Door to door contact with residents on street Direct conversation with committee member(s) Word of mouth, CDCA meetings, newsletter & mailings Door to door canvass for important issues CDNA newsletter/meetings Post info at Wayne Morse Ranch Council/neighborhood newsletter Page 19 of 27 Committee members’ duty to examine code & CDCA Website other factual documents Public testimony at the beginning of each City Website, CDCT website meeting Questionnaire Public forums for/in the neighborhood Website Neighborhood newsletter articles/updates Email, single email for entire committee Register Guard article, Press release Conversation with CDCT members Email, email from CDCT street leaders, email listserv Invite targeted people to this group Large neighborhood meetings Open house event, workshops Personal communication with an assigned list of neighbors regarding our plans Survey: Face to face, Mailed, Public Forum Mail outs and survey of affected property owners Street Meetings Face to face, door to door Send questions & concerns through street reps Monthly updates at CDCA meetings Keg Party Monthly RG report Neighborhood “Living Room” chats Door to door contact with residents on street Any method that an individual can use to provide input Support Group Josh introduced the concept of a support group and described the currently named VIPER group which was involved in finding and recruiting street leaders as well as selecting a facilitator for the process. Discussion about the need for a support group follows: Josh: I feel strongly about the need for a support group and I would first pose the question, “Is the VIPER group willing to continue?” Question: What is the role of this group? Response: They are like a steering committee and they are there to bounce ideas off of and to assist with meeting logistics. Josh: They are a partnership between the facilitator and the committee. Question: Why can’t you do these things openly at the meeting? Response: These things include mechanical help, support, and the role of sounding board. It may include tasks such as printing fliers and gathering materials. Margot: This group would be very helpful. Most of the time the next meeting agenda would be determined by the previous meeting discussion and this group would be there to serve as a tool to make this clear and accurate. Response: This group adds transparency and provides a way to vet ideas and to creates a n effective communication mechanism After some discussion, Bill polled using thumbs up/down to measure support for keeping the VIPER group together throughout the process. One thumb was down, which sparked more discussion. Page 20 of 27 Comment: This should be a public process- I feel that the facilitator was chosen without an appropriate open process. Response: This is a time to establish the rules for moving forward. Response: Main concern is that it hasn’t been done yet. Comment: The VIPER meeting is not open to public comment because it that may inhibit its function and role as a support group. It must be nimble and flexible and will help get info out. Margot: It will assist with agenda planning and act as a sounding board. Comment: With too much structure, the group will be unable to fulfill its function. Comment: Nothing should be hidden. Comment: We must commit to getting information to all committee members regularly and to have an open notification process. Comment: An atmosphere of openness would serve to eliminate negativity The committee was polled on the following two questions: 1) Should the VIPER group continue with current members, and 2) Are the members willing? 1)Poll showed broad support, the VIPER group will continue to act as support for the facilitator 2)All members agreed to continue except for Kathy Saranpa Immediately after discussion and polling on the support group, a suggestion was made to provide some kind of structural organizing method for the duration of the process. City Staff offered to provide each member of the committee with a binder to store and organize material from meetings. Committee members indicated that the City should provide 10 to 12 binders and include one to be stored at the Wayne Morse Ranch so the public has access to the information. City Staff will bring binders to the next CDCT meeting. Presentation of Process Steps City Staff followed with a presentation on Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), the CDCT Process, and existing local and federal design guidelines and standards. Lisa presented a definition of CSS as: Context sensitive solutions (CSS) is a collaborative, interdisciplinary project development approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting while maintaining safety and mobility for all users, and reflecting community needs. The goal of CSS is to create early, open, honest, and continuous communication and sharing of information and knowledge throughout the design process. Two follow-up questions were asked: Question: What is the project website? Response: It can be found by going to the City of Eugene homepage > Public Works > Projects, click “Crest Drive.” You will find links to several CSS and CSD resources there. Question: Where has CSS been done in Eugene? Page 21 of 27 Response: It has not been done to this extent before, however examples of CSS in Eugene rdth include River Avenue, 3/4 Connector, and to some extent Broadway. In many ways, CSS is the latest buzzword for good planning practices. Lisa also presented a visual diagram of the CDCT process. It is include on page 7. Following discussion on CSS and the CDCT process, Mark Schoening presented exiting local and federal design guidelines and standards. Handouts describing these standards and guidelines are included on pages 8-10. He discussed the difference between standards and guidelines as: ? Standards : The minimum considerations when designing a street. ? Guidelines : Should consider, however they are not absolute. Question: Can we revisit the question raised earlier- What are the resources being used for this project? Response: This is a prioritized project by the City Council. City Staff requested funding of $240,000 for the entire CDCT process. That does not include road repairs. Question: Will the CDCT see the budget request? Response: Probably not the details because it was submitted over 6 months ago. Question: Is there any flexibility in the budget? Response: Yes, some. Question: Will any of the $240,000 be assessed to the property owners? Response: Money from the general fund will cover some of this cost; however some may be assessed to property owners. City Staff’s presentation and CDCT follow-up questions were stopped at 9:00pm, the end of the scheduled meeting. Committee members were instructed to record any additional comments so they could be recorded in the notes. These questions and comments follow: ? How about input from outside professionals involved in Context Sensitive Design? ? We would like a breakdown of the $240,000. Is there a management fee and others fees? ? Is it true that if my driveway faces a sidewalk, we will not be assessed for a new roadway? ? What does a “collaborative interdisciplinary project development approach” mean? ? If the slope of a street is too severe to be safe for a person in a wheelchair, are the same standards stuck to anyway? ? Add CDCA to the stakeholder list on the visual diagram of the CDCT process. Page 22 of 27 ion CDCT Design & Recommendation Process Project Management Plan Input Project Definition Decision Issue Technical Community & Assessment of Data Agency Identification Involvement Plan Data Evaluate Collection Alternatives Stakeholder Input: Building City Standards -Neighbors, Agreements & Regulations - Property Owners, - Emergency Building CDCT Services, Agreements Recommendat - Transit, -Greater Community Develop Council -CDCA Alternatives Decision Page 23 of 27 Guidelines and Standards Handouts (pg 8-10) CITY OF EUGENE Arterial & Collector & Local Street Plan Policy – Maintain and enhance mobility for all modes of surface transportation, o including automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit vehicles, emergency responders and freight vehicles. Design Guidelines – general statements about factors that should influence street o design Design Standards – specific and required minimum design conditions o Criteria for Exceptions – exceptions to design standards can be justified through o consideration of the following: Topography or slope constraints; o Significant trees or other vegetation; o Other natural resource constraints, including wetlands, wildlife habitat, o etc.; Historic resources; o Insufficient right-of-way, and inability to obtain additional right-of- o way at reasonable cost and within a reasonable time frame for the project; Adopted Council policies, including those found in neighborhood o plans FEDERAL Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ? Policy - Civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination against people who have disabilities. Designing and constructing public facilities that are not usable by people who have disabilities constitutes discrimination ? ADA Guidelines for the Right of Way – Draft regulations #2 Page 24 of 27 MINIMUM STREET DESIGN STANDARDS a.Pavement Width – The minimum pavement width would be 20 feet based upon two 10-foot travel lanes. The minimum travel lane width of 10 feet is based upon the urban service providers dependent on the street system including emergency responders, public transit, and garbage and recycling services. Many of the vehicles providing these services measure 9-1/2 feet from mirror to mirror. b.Sidewalk - The minimum standard is a sidewalk on at least one side of every new or reconstructed street. The sidewalk would be a hard stable surface, physically separated from the travel lane. This is consistent with the standards of the Access Board, a federal agency with the authority and responsibility to develop accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The minimum unobstructed width of a sidewalk is five feet. This provides sufficient room for two pedestrians to walk side by side or to pass one another. This is one foot wider than the minimum of four feet established by the Access Board. c.Traffic Calming – Crest, Storey and Friendly are the primary routes for emergency responders. Therefore, the traffic calming options for the three streets include: Roundabouts Traffic Circles Raised Crosswalks Curb Extensions Parking Bays Chicanes Raised Medians Pavement Surface Angled Slow Modification Point with Median Landscaped Midblock Neckdown Speed Tables Roadway d.Curbless Street – Although fairly simple in design, a curb provides multiple functions for a street including conveyance of drainage, stability to the edge of pavement, physical barrier separating the street from sidewalk and a vertical surface necessary for a street sweeper to be effective. In developing a curbless design, these multiple functions are addressed by numerous design elements including a drainage swale with an underlying perforated pipe, a flush concrete edge, and a setback sidewalk. The effectiveness of a street sweeper cannot be addressed by an additional design feature in a curbless street design. Page 25 of 27 Public Improvement Design Standards Design Standards – Street, Sidewalk, Bikeway, Access Way 1.Traffic Impact Analysis 2.Design Speeds, Rate of Vertical Curvature, and Safe Site/Stopping Distances 3.Vertical and Horizontal Curves 4.Grades 5.Intersections 6.Asphalt-Concrete Pavement Design 7.Grade Breaks 8.Minimum Gutter Grade 9.Minimum Valley Gutter Grade 10.Maximum Length of Gutter Flow 11.Curb Grades on Short-Radius Curves 12.Curb Height 13.Sidewalk Grading Type 14.Curbside Sidewalks or Sidewalks on One Side of Street 15.Curb Return Radii 16.Driveway Aprons 17.Driveway Adjustments 18.Barricades 19.Property Owner Permission 20.Street Centerline Location 21.Minimum Centerline Radius 22.Street Taper Lengths 23.Private Streets 24.Street Lights 25.Super Elevation 26.Curb Grade Below 100-year Flood 27.Curb and Alley Grade Design 28.Street Crown 29.Traffic Control Devices 30.Half-street Construction 31.Pedestrian/Bicycle Ways 32.Parking Bays Page 26 of 27 Date: April 6, 2006 Crest Drive Community Team Sign In Sheet Name Phone Email ?? Calciano, Frank 541-485-3680 frank@calciano.com ?? Farkas, Paul 541-485-0859 farkas5@comcast.net ?? Gardner, Lisa 541-682-5378 lisa.a.gardner@ci.eugene.or.us ?? Gryc, Tina 541-345-2281 tinagryc@yahoo.com ? Hawley, Sherie 541-913-2730 sheriehawley@comcast.net ?? Hecker, Steven 541-954-1161 shecker@uoregon.edu ? Huestis, Hal 541-345-7286 huestisbayley@msn.com ?? Jacobson, Cris 541-344-9924 criswebb@aol.com ? Lorish, Fred 541-341-3993 florish@comcast.net ?? McDonald, James 541-683-6027 ecobuilder1@earthlink.net ?? Neet, Don 541-687-0792 dneet@pacinfo.com ?? Reed, Jim 541-344-7985 james_reed@comcast.net ? Rowland, Mary 541-345-4195 mmrowland@comcast.net ?? Rude, John 541-342-6427 john@agedynamics.com ?? Schoening, Mark 541-682-5243 mark.a.schoening@ci.eugene.or.us ?? Starling, Ginny and ??Bill 541-683-2512 bgstarling@comcast.net Stewart-Smith, Meg 541-913-5464 msdesign5@comcast.net ? Treadway, Cathryn 541-689-7410 ctreadway@hotmail.com ?? Verrijt, Francina 541-344-3735 fverrijt@pacinfo.com ?? West, Steve 541-344-9347 ?? Wilken, Lyndell 541-343-3080 lwbicycle@yahoo.com ? *Bayley, Carmen 541-345-7286 huestisbayley@msn.com ?? *Donahue, Christine 541-683-8220 christinedonahue@msn.com ? *Nielson, Clyde ? *O'Brien, Kim 541-485-3533 kobrien@uoregon.edu ? *Saranpa, Kathy 541-687-7199 ksaranpa@comcast.net ?? *Alternates Page 27 of 27