Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/11/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon December 11, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the City Council to order. A.Work Session: Joint Meeting with Police Commission The council was joined by Police Commissioners Munir Katul, Angie Sifuentz, Floyd Prozanski, Richard Hursey, Tim Laue, Carla Newbre, and John Brown. Dr. Katul, commission chair, introduced other commissioners present and briefly reviewed the order of the commission's presentation to the council. He thanked the council for the joint meeting opportunity. Dr. Katul provided background on the formation of the commission, which first met in August 1999. He said the commission was unique and was navigating uncharted waters. People had many differing expectations of the commission, and he was proud the commission was able to keep focused given those expectations. Dr. Katul briefly overviewed commission activities in the last year. He noted two items added to the commission's work plan during that time: an evaluation of a new police headquarters and review of proposed prostitution deterrence ordinances. Dr. Katul noted the commissioners' participation in the observer and mediation programs, in police ride-alongs, and reported that nine of eleven members had graduated from the Citizens Police Academy. He said that the commission had learned to be less ambitious in its work plan, and hoped to be more realistic in the future about the time estimates for accomplishing its goals. Commissioners had agreed not to address any City ordinances unless specifically asked to do so by the City Council or as part of a regular work plan item. Dr. Katul stated that the commission would review its work plan time table and determine whether adjustments were needed at its upcoming January meeting. He suggested the council may want to review the structure and membership of the commission in the future. Dr. Katul commended the support the commission received from the staff and City Council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Hursey provided an overview of the commission's work on the department's crowd control policies, emphasizing the complexity of the effort. He briefly discussed the four crowd control policies considered by the commission: 1) video tape policy, 2) field force policy, 3) public assemblies and demonstrations policy, and 4) civil disturbance policy. He announced that the commission anticipated completing the crowd control policy review in the next few months and would request a work session with the council to review the results. Mr. Prozanski provided information about the Use of Force Committee, reporting it had been formed because of concerns about the department's use of pepper spray. He discussed the committee's objectives and its activities to this point. He reported that the committee held a public forum the previous week, which had gone well. The committee would submit its final report to the full commission by May 2001. Mr. Prozanski said the committee process allowed the commission to do greater analysis of selected topics and helped it keep to its schedule. Mr. Laue reviewed the commission's plans for studying community policing and briefly noted elements of community policing already in place, such as CAHOOTS. He indicated the commission's recommendations in this area would come directly to the council. Mr. Laue noted a reduction in police personnel over the last ten years and said that the City did not have the resources to fully implement community policing at this point. Retirements and the fact that one- third of the force had been hired in recent years also affected the City's ability to implement the program as the concept called for community familiarity on the part of officers. He said the concept of community policing was a moving target and no one seemed to know what it was. Mr. Laue asked the council to consider its own concept of community policing. He wanted to bring the idea of partnership both to the community and the police and to return to a time when citizens were comfortable when the police were present. Dr. Katul noted the commission's close work with the Human Rights Commission and said more coordination was planned for the upcoming year. The commission also planned to do some follow-up work on the Hobson Report. He hoped the commission could forward a recommendation on policies related to civil disturbances and the use of force to the council in May 2001. He invited questions. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the commission review the meeting minutes from past council and Budget Committee meetings to gather suggestions for community policing. A lot of discussion had occurred about what community policing could be, and about individual councilor's goals for community policing. She wanted to honor the work that had already occurred and to build upon it. Ms. Nathanson said the City could not expect community cooperation with the police on "big projects" or serious crimes if there had been a lack of attention to the "small stuff," or quality of life issues. She cited the fact police did not take reports of small incidents or attempt to track crime patterns as examples of her comments. Mr. Meisner said it had been a pleasure being part of the commission. He said the commission faced challenging and complex issues. Mr. Meisner noted his support for the committee process, saying it had been a useful tool for the commission. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Meisner indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson regarding the need for response to quality of life problems. Speaking to Mr. Laue, Mr. Meisner endorsed Ms. Nathanson's suggestion. He did not think that there was an absolute, unchanging definition of community policing. Mr. Meisner said that the public perception of the police had changed over time, and there was no sense of community connection with the police as fellow members of the community. He felt overcoming that was at the head of community policing. He said he did not care if police were at every neighborhood meeting. He wanted them to be in the neighborhoods meeting the neighbors. Mr. Kelly thanked the commissioners for their willingness to serve. He believed the slip in the commission's schedule was both understandable and unfortunate because "time marches on and incidents happen." Mr. Kelly said that the commission was not an incident review body, but incidents informed policy discussions. He suggested that if the commission did not look at incidents, it would have academic discussions that had no connection to the real world. Mr. Kelly said that he had spoken with Chief Jim Hill about the police's role in protests. He said that it was different from other police work because of the tradition of protest in America. He thought it important the commission considered policies through that filter. He suggested the use of force policy might be a place to differentiate between protests and nonprotests because of the political and democratic undercurrents of the issue. Mr. Rayor thanked the commission for its work. He suggested that the commission was another way for the public to offer the City comment. He considered the commission an element of community policing. Mr. Rayor believed the commission had a role in evaluating the success of various City ordinances, such as the special response fee ordinance. Mr. Rayor asked how the communities that have been sensitized to the police could be encouraged to talk to the council and commission. Mayor Torrey said that everyone had an opinion about what community policing was, and he appreciated that Mr. Laue included after-school programs in the definition. He said that the lack of police response to simple livability issues like vandalism and car clouts was also of concern to him. Mayor Torrey wanted to know what the public expected and wanted in terms of service, and suggested the commission conduct a gap analysis of the service system and the gaps in that system. Mayor Torrey suggested a definition of community policing would be helpful to avoid the impression the City was chasing a moving target. Dr. Katul appreciated Mr. Kelly's comments about the use of incidents to inform the commission in its decision making. He said the commission was sensitive to what happened in the MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 3 Work Session community and did not want to sit in an ivory tower and have discussions with no connection to reality. Dr. Katul noted the commission's close connection to the Human Rights Commission, which provided another avenue to address policy questions related to complaints about specific incidents to the Police Commission. He said the issue was complicated by a lack of staff resources and by the tight work plan time line. Dr. Katul did not think the commission had completely resolved the issue. Mr. Prozanski briefly described the commission's efforts at reaching out to the community, which included a Web site, status reports, and press releases as appropriate. Responding to Mr. Kelly's comments, Mr. Prozanski said the commission recognized the special situation raised by protests while also recognizing that such events made up five percent of the incidents where the use of force was applied. The commission was working to ensure its policies were applicable to more than one setting, while examining whether there should be different guidelines for the use of force in police response to protests. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Dr. Katul's remarks about the commission's approach to incidents. He said that the commission took incidents into account as it formulated its work plan and reviewed police policies. Responding to Mr. Rayor's comments, Mr. Meisner said it was important that the commission was recognized as an input point for the community, but he did not want to create false expectations that the commission would investigate personal situations or allegations. Mr. Meisner said that the commission had made recommendations related to video taping that were forwarded to and adopted by the department; it intended to forward its recommendations related to use of force to the commission and council. He reminded the council of the motion it adopted the previous year, which called for the commission to make recommendations to the police chief and City Council. He asked how the commission decided what should go to the department and what should go to the council. City Manager Jim Johnson suggested that as part of the work plan approval process, the council determine what policies it wished to review. Mr. Laue had not anticipated the council would want to discuss all the commission's policy recommendations, adding that the issue was up to the council. He thought the council should be informed of any commission recommendations regarding policy. Mr. Prozanski agreed with Mr. Laue, adding he had expected that the two council representatives would be aware if the council wanted to review a policy. If that was not the case, he suggested the council establish a process by where it could review commission recommendations. Ms. Newbre said the commission was still evolving and had just firmed up its own processes at its August retreat. She said council feedback on the issue would be helpful. Mr. Meisner clarified that he did not mean the council would have a work session on every commission recommendation, but he thought that should be an option. He acknowledged Ms. Newbre's remark that the commission was evolving. He thought that future issues might be of more concern to the council than the video taping issue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Dr. Katul determined that Mr. Meisner wanted the council to approve some of the commission's recommendations prior to the department adopting them. Mr. Johnson suggested that staff highlight the policy recommendations of the commission as they were developed in the council's meeting packet and if three or more councilors wanted a work session, one could be scheduled. Mr. Kelly endorsed that approach. Ms. Taylor thought the council should be more involved than merely being informed of the commission's recommendations. She discussed a National League of Cities presentation about a Boston community policing program and said it sounded to her like her idea of community policing, which was police being there to help people. The system was a cooperative one, with police, school leaders, church leaders, social workers, parents, and students working together. She said ideally, the police would be everywhere, and people would know who they are and go to them for help. Ms. Taylor did not think that required more money, just a different way of doing things. She thought that the police should get out of their cars and walk, bus, and bicycle around. Mr. Pap~ referred to page 13 of the packet, which included the powers and duties of the commission. He believed that item 5, To assist the City Council in balancing community priorities and resources by advising it on police resource issues, addressed some of the council's concerns. He urged the council to allocate more resources to implementing the recommendations of the commission. Mr. Pap~ acknowledged the work of Dr. Katul and said Dr. Katul was intelligent, committed, and resourceful. He thanked Dr. Katul for his fine leadership. Returning again to the subject of the use of force and protest, Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Prozanski's remarks about the small number of such incidents in comparison to other situations. However, he reiterated that the police response in such cases was different from other police responses and could require specific guidelines. He offered a specific example of a protest incident where a protester resisted an order to disperse. He said he did not have a solution to offer the commission but thought the issue worth examining in the context of the use of the force continuum. Regarding the video taping policy, Mr. Kelly agreed with those in the community who thought the policy was overly broad and said he hoped it would be revisited by the commission. He cited as an example of his concern the videotaping of June 18 protest participants as they entered the park. Regarding the council representatives on the commission, Mr. Kelly said that those councilors could provide one perspective but the commission should not assume they represent the entire council. Mr. Rayor said he had attended several meetings of the Independent Police Review Project and urged the commission to reach out to that group. Mayor Torrey expressed concern that the use of force continuum be given much commission review and that it be clear to the public about the implications of the continuum. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to approve the Police Commission Fiscal Year 2001 Work Plan. The motion passed, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to approve the commission request to no longer review City ordinances related to police issues, unless the ordinance is related to a topic that is already part of the commission's work plan, or unless the council specifically requests the commission to review the ordinance. Ms. Nathanson was happy to make the change reflected in the motion but wanted to know next year if the procedural change caused a problem. Mr. Pap~ said he would grudgingly support the motion because of resource and time constraints. He concurred with Ms. Nathanson's suggestion. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Pap~ and also endorsed Ms. Nathanson's suggestion. He said the motion was a result of the commission's concern about the potential it would be asked to review all ordinances. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Dr. Katul reassured Mr. Kelly that the Use of Force Committee was very sensitive to the issues he had raised about the use of force continuum and the tradition of democratic protest. Dr. Katul appreciated the clarification offered by Mr. Kelly regarding the council liaisons to the commission and asked if the other councilors agreed. Mayor Torrey suggested that the council would not be unanimous on the topic. He said he had tried to ensure in his appointments that diverse points of view were represented on the commission. He thought the commission had functioned well because of that diversity. Mr. Brown emphasized the importance of adequate staffing and staff training. He said that the council should also keep in mind the economic aspects of the commission's work. He said that community policing was directly related to the quality of life issues the council had raised as well as to the success of the Land Use Code Update. One could not have people in a compact urban environment unless they felt safe. Responding to Mr. Rayor's comments, Ms. Newbre said she had attended a meeting of the Independent Police Review Project and attempted to make herself accessible to the activist community. Mayor Torrey thanked the members of the Police Commission. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 6 Work Session B.Work Session: Initiation of Amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), and Draft TransPlan Related to the West Eugene Parkway (Oregon Department of Transportation) Mr. Rayor recused himself from the item because his engineering firm had done preliminary design work on the West Eugene Parkway and would probably be involved in the project in the future if the amendments were initiated and adopted. He left the meeting. The council was joined by City Attorney Jerome Lidz, Traffic Engineer David Reinhard, Planning Director Jan Childs, and Oregon Department of Transportation (©D©T) Regional 2 Manager Robert Pirrie for the item. Ms. Childs noted that Carl Wieseke and Jim Cox from ©D©T, Jay McRae from CH2M Hill, and Paul Thompson of Lane Council of Governments were also present to answer questions. Ms. Childs introduced the item, which was a request from ©D©T on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management and the Federal Highway Administration that the council initiate the proposed plan amendments to facilitate the construction of the West Eugene Parkway. By way of clarification, Ms. Childs said that initiating the amendments did not imply council support for the amendments, but merely allowed the public process to begin. Because the federal partners indicated that the council's action was required to issue a record of decision, a decision not to initiate the amendments meant no part of the project could go forward. Regarding the ©D©T request to amend the draft TransPlan to include the entire West Eugene Parkway project in the 20-year list, Ms. Childs said staff had questions and reservations about the request and wanted time to determine whether it was a firm requirement. Mr. Reinhard pointed out the approved and modified parkway alignment and phases of the project on a map mounted on the wall. Ms. Childs noted the State goal exceptions requested for the lands to the west of Greenhill Road. She clarified that plan amendments were not required for Unit l-A, only for the future phases of the parkway. Mr. Pirrie noted the history of the West Eugene Parkway included in the meeting packet and emphasized the goals and objectives of the parkway and the operational needs related to access and safety. He said that a lot of staff time and public meetings had been spent on the issue and many people had made comments about the project and taken positions on the parkway. He invited council questions. Mayor Torrey said it was his understanding that if the council did not initiate the plan amendments requested, the project would go away. Mr. Pirrie concurred. Mayor Torrey asked where the money in the State Improvement Program would go if the project was eliminated. Mr. Pirrie said that the money would be reallocated through the existing State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process. The Oregon Transportation Commission would have the final say on how the funding was allocated. There was no guarantee the money would remain in the region. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Childs said that the committee studying the improvements at Beltline and I-5 had considered improvements costing both more and the same as the amount estimated in TransPlan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Childs clarified that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was requesting the project be included in TransPlan, rather than ODOT. Ms. Bettman asked why the project was not included in the context of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan amendments the council just considered. Ms. Childs said that the issue was one of timing. She reminded Ms. Bettman that the plan amendments had started four years ago, and the modified project alignment had not been identified in time for inclusion in the amendments package. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the impact on the TransPlan project list if all phases of the West Eugene Parkway were included in TransPlan, Mr. Reinhard said the impact would be to eliminate virtually all other State projects because no money would be left for high-priority ODOT projects. Mr. Pirrie said that the impact would amount to reprioritizing the projects in the constrained TransPlan list. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Pirrie if the FHWA requirement was negotiable. Mr. Pirrie did not know. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Pirrie confirmed that approximately $17 million was available for State projects in Region 2 on a biennial basis; the project in question was a modernization project that added capacity. Mr. Pap8 asked if the modified project alignment was consistent with the 1986 vote. Mr. Reinhard said the City Attorney had advised that minor shifts were within the route approved by the voters. Mr. Meisner did not think the 1986 vote approving the parkway with 80 percent of the voters casting a vote in favor of the facility should govern the council's actions now as "votes were a snapshot in time at a particular time." He did not think funding the project simply to keep the dollars in the region made sense. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Pirrie to speak to the issue of project need. Mr. Pirrie referred to the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on page 80 of the meeting packet and reviewed the project objectives. Those objectives included the provision of a major access- controlled east-west connecting arterial for intra- and inter-regional travel through the western half of Eugene between Highway 126 to the west and Interstate 105 and Interstate 5 corridor to the east, improvement of access to the west Eugene industrial area, provision of a better link between residential areas and downtown to support orderly and planned growth, relief of congestion and improvement of safety on West 11th Avenue by removing most intra- and inter- regional traffic and some local traffic from the most hazardous section of West 11th Avenue, and implementation of the regional roadway system as envisioned in TransPlan. Mr. Meisner asked if ODOT had any intentional actions planned to remediate traffic conditions on West 11th Avenue, such as lane blockages or signage, or was the parkway a capacity-building process predicated on the hope that traffic would move. Mr. Reinhard anticipated signage but not lane closures, given that TransPlan still envisioned that West 11th Avenue would remain an arterial street. He said the parkway was not intended to relieve traffic to make West 11th Avenue a quiet, friendly street, but rather to prevent gridlock, given planned land uses. Ms. Nathanson said that for those living in west Eugene, West 11th Avenue was not working fine. The project had been projected to bring relief to West 18th and West 11th avenues. The project MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 8 Work Session was not designed to make West 11th Avenue a residential street. The street now is so congested it is unsafe and commercial access to properties along the street is difficult. Ms. Nathanson said that the parkway's alignment was changed to reduce environmental impacts. She said that now, rather than bifurcating the area, the alignment was moved over to the railroad tracks, which already created a barrier across the natural area. Ms. Nathanson said that it would have been nice if the SEIS had proceeded more quickly. She said that the project seemed to only intermittently make progress, and it was as though someone had locked it in a desk for six months at a time. She said that ODOT's progress on the project had been incredibly slow, and her inquiries were stonewalled. She questioned whether FHWA made the request to include the project in TransPlan, or if ODOT asked that it do so. Ms. Nathanson said that she was suspicious of the process, and did not think that its failure would be because Eugene did not try to do a good job. Mr. Kelly said it was almost not worth talking about putting the entire project into the 20-year constrained TransPlan project list because so many other projects would be displaced. He pointed out that the joint adopting officials had moved an additional $38 million dollars of State projects into the plan, and he did not know how that was to be managed. Until there was clarity about the FHWA requirement, Mr. Kelly did not want to spend more money and staff time initiating plan amendments. Mr. Kelly reminded the council that the modeling referred to indicated that the first phase resulted in an eight percent reduction in peak period congestion on West 11th Avenue in 2015. He did not think that would make much of an impression on the community. He was interested in knowing what the modeling indicated about the impact of the first phase of the parkway on West 18th Avenue. Mr. Kelly agreed that the railroad tracks provided some separation now but said he would like feedback from the wetlands staff about the differing nature of the impacts from the proposed highway and the railroad tracks. Mayor Torrey said he hoped the council did not find reasons not to proceed with the amendments. He did not think the council should ignore the 1986 vote given the high percentage of voters favoring the parkway proposal and the fact many residents on the west side were concerned about traffic in that area. He further noted the impact of proposed Bus Rapid Transit on West 11th Avenue, and questioned how that impact could be handled in the absence of the parkway. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Pirrie confirmed that almost all the right-of-way had been purchased for Phase 1. Mayor Torrey pointed out a new Home Depot and Walmart were proposed for construction on West 11th Avenue, and suggested the council keep that in mind. He said that the plan for the parkway had been in place for a long time and if the council did not move the amendments forward the funding would be lost. He thought that would affect the council's ability to get community support for other traffic projects. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Pirrie about the City's ability to negotiate with the FHWA regarding the inclusion of the parkway in TransPlan. Mr. Thompson reported on discussions between LCOG and FHWA staff about using an approach that FHWA had used in Medford. FHWA staff did not MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 9 Work Session see that the approach was applicable in this instance. Mr. Thompson anticipated that FHWA staff would be present at the council's Wednesday work session. Ms. Bettman did not think the voters would support the West Eugene Parkway now knowing it would displace all other projects in TransPlan. She also thought other things had changed since the vote on, including the discovery of extensive wetlands in the area of the alignment. Ms. Bettman did not agree with invoking a 14-year old vote in favor of the parkway because of all the other issues that had come to the forefront since then. People had not been aware of the value of wetlands at the time of the vote. Ms. Bettman noted that the 8 percent reduction in congestion was not a reduction from the present level of congestion, but a reduction from the worst case congestion scenario in the future. Ms. Bettman said there were other less costly strategies the City had not looked at to relieve congestion and improve safety on West 11th Avenue. She stressed the importance of retrofitted access management on the street to reduce conflicts between automobiles and between automobiles and pedestrians. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 10 Work Session