Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/28/09 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 28, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. Eugene Police Department (EPD) Chief Pete Kerns briefed the council on a recent EPD incident during which a suspect had been tasered. Chief Kerns described the incident for the benefit of the Council. After the incident the officer did exactly what we expect of them. They reported the use of force through their chain of command to me. Chief Kerns noted he had spoken and shared details of the incident with City Manager Jon Ruiz, Mayor Piercy and Councilor Brown regarding the incident and that EPD Patrol Captain Rich Stronach had also conferred with Police Auditor Mark Gissiner. Chief Kerns noted that Mr. Gissiner had recently classified the tasering incident as an allegation of misconduct requiring an EPD Internal Affairs investigation, which subsequently prohibited Chief Kerns and any other EPD personnel from sharing any further details regarding the incident with the public. Chief Kerns noted that the EPD Internal Affairs investigation regarding the tasering incident would proceed through normal channels and that Mr. Gissiner would have the same level of investigative access as the EPD’s Internal Affairs personnel. Chief Kerns hoped that all relevant parties involved in the incident could be interviewed expediently and believed that the investigation might ideally be completed within the next 60 days. Chief Kerns noted that Mr. Gissiner and the City’s Civilian Review Board (CRB) would have adjudicative decisions to make regarding the investigation once it had been completed. Chief Kerns assured the Council that the CRB would have exactly the same information made available to them as was made available to himself, and Mr. Gissiner. Chief Kerns recognized that the tasering incident would attract a great deal of public attention and believed that the EPD and the City had been much more transparent and forthright regarding the incident and subsequent administrative procedures than in other similar instances. Chief Kerns stated for the benefit of the Council that he had the authority to initiate administrative investigations into use of force incidents and would be willing to do so if necessary. He further reported that the use of force administrative reviews did not restrict the release of information to the public in the same manner as EPD Internal Affairs investigations into allegations of misconduct did. Chief Kerns noted that the EPD, from the recent tasering incident, had learned the value of notifying certain members of the community so that appropriate levels of transparency and oversight could be maintained. Chief Kerns believed it was far better for himself, the EPD, the Eugene City Council, the media, and the community at large when he could be as candid and forthcoming as possible regarding use of force incidents. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 28, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Chief Kerns, responding to a question from Mr. Polling, noted that the restrictions on the release of information to the public regarding Internal Affairs restriction were imposed at the State level. Chief Kerns, responding to a comment from Mr. Polling, confirmed that the Internal Affairs investigation regarding the incident had been prompted solely by the EPD and not by anyone involved in the incident or any members of the community. Chief Kerns further noted that the EPD had received no official public complaint regarding the incident. Mr. Poling commended Chief Kerns and the EPD for their efforts to proactively respond to the incident and to any associated public concerns regarding the incident. Mr. Poling believed that the EPD’s actions regarding the matter indicated that City’s police oversight policies and practices were working well. Chief Kerns, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, restated that the Internal Affairs investigation had been initiated by Mr. Gissiner. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Gissiner to explain the processes the CRB used to investigate allegations of misconduct. Mr. Gissiner believed, according to his cultural interpretations of the persons involved, it was unlikely that the suspect involved in the tasering incident would file a complaint of their own accord and initiated the investigation into the matter when in fact the suspect had not done so. He hoped that the EPD Internal Affairs investigation and the associated CRB process would be completed relatively quickly and hoped that the community and City leaders would show patience and understanding in that regard. Mr. Zelenka again asked Mr. Gissiner to describe the processes the CRB used to investigate allegations of misconduct. Mr. Gissiner responded that the CRB was empowered to classify, on the recommendation of the Police Auditor, investigations of misconduct as community impact cases. He noted he was not sure if the community impact case designation process as it was currently being used was the most efficient manner in which to address investigations of misconduct. Mr. Gissiner, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the CRB did not set police policies but rather made recommendations to the Police Commission regarding the same. Ms. Taylor believed the City Council should set police policies rather than the City of Eugene Police Commission. Ms. Taylor asked why the investigations regarding the Ian Van Ornum tasering incident had taken so long to complete. Chief Kern responded that the Van Ornum investigation had been unusually prolonged due to the fact that criminal charges had been associated with the suspect in that case and that the review policy in effect at that time had been to suspend any investigations of misconduct until all associated criminal charges with the incident had been resolved. Mr. Gissiner added that he and his colleagues were determined to complete the investigation into the most recent tasering incident as quickly as possible. Mr. Gissiner, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, commented that the CRB was currently comprised of mostly new members and that Kate Wilkinson was the only founding member currently serving on that committee.. Ms. Taylor maintained that the number of new members considerably weakened the CRB. Ms. Piercy appreciated Chief Kerns and Mr. Gissiner’s comments and thanked them for the opportunity to ask them questions and provide feedback. She requested that they prepare comments for release to the public reflecting the information and comments they had just offered. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 28, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka commented that police oversight policies had been revised since the Ian Van Ornum incident to provide for investigations of misconduct concurrent to criminal charges and prosecutions. He further hoped that no criminal charges would be associated to the most recent tasering incident so that the Internal Affairs investigation process could proceed quickly and unrestricted. Mr. Gissiner offered that the prosecutor in the Ian Van Ornum criminal case had been vocal in his opinion that any administrative investigations be postponed until the completion of all associated criminal charges. Mr. Zelenka commented it was up to the District Attorney to decide if criminal charges would be filed in a police matter. Chief Kerns corrected Mr. Zelenka and noted that it had been the Chief of the EPD’s decision, in consultation with the District Attorney, to file criminal charges in the Ian Van Ornum case. Mr. Clark noted he had been meeting regular with Mr. Gissiner to discuss public relations and other matters related to the police oversight responsibilities of his office. He maintained that the public had certain misperceptions regarding the CRB’s authority and disciplinary powers, and looked forward to greater clarification and public education efforts in that regard. Ms. Piercy thanked Mr. Gissiner and Chief Kerns for their comments. A. WORK SESSION: Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA) Mr. Ruiz recognized the recent discussions surrounding the ECLA process and noted that the Council and reminded the Council that additional staff research had been requested regarding the various methodologies used in the ECLA process as well as regarding the legal requirements of House Bill 3337. He further reported that specific dates for acceptance and adoption of the ECLA findings were also being considered. Mr. Ruiz commented that staff was proposing a motion to meet multiple objectives regarding the ECLA process. He noted that the staff motion had been endorsed by the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, the Homebuilders Association, Paul Conte, and other parties. He further noted the motion had been drafted to foster positive policy discussions regarding various land use issues in Eugene. Mr. Clark hoped the staff recommended motion would allow the EcoNorthwest consulting group to continue assisting the City in refining the ECLA data. Mr. Ruiz offered his assurances that EcoNorthwest would continue to be used in that regard and believed that Associate Planner Jason Dedrick and his colleagues would continue to work with EcoNorthwest throughout the process. Mr. Poling noted he had no serious concerns regarding the staff recommended motion and complimented Mr. Clark for his diligence and leadership regarding the Council’s review of the ECLA process. Mr. Zelenka hoped that any specific dates prescribed by the staff recommended motion would be realistic and allow for a definitive completion timeframe for the ECLA process. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification regarding the “approval of the draft ECLA Supply and Demand Estimate” listed in the recommended motion. Deputy City Attorney Emily Jerome answered that the motion if passed would enable staff to bring back a resolution to the Council that would specifically set out that the Council was not adopting the ECLA findings but would instead be accepting the preliminary ECLA work product while it continued to refine the ECLA data through April of 2010. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Jerome believed that that motion and subsequent resolution would satisfy the requirements of HB 3337. Ms. Jerome hoped that the Council would by April of 2010 have reached an agreement regarding how the various policy recommendations and strategies revealed by the ECLA data would be implemented. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 28, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Jerome noted that the Homebuilders Association which had co-sponsored HB 3337 had also endorsed the staff recommended motion. Mr. Zelenka believed more immediate investigations were necessary regarding various elements of the analyses involved in the ECLA process and hoped that such issues might be resolved before the Council adopted the ECLA findings or implemented any policies recommended therein. Ms. Piercy commented that, in her conversations with various homebuilders and community members, she had recognized significant concern regarding the ECLA data and how it might be applied toward any future land use policy decisions. She appreciated the divergent viewpoints that had been brought to the discussions by various members of the community and hoped that the Council might reach a consensus regarding the matter so that they could move forward. Ms. Taylor stated she would not support the staff recommended motion so long as it contained the word “approval” as she believed such language might be misinterpreted as a tacit approval of the recommendations from the ECLA process. Ms. Piercy clarified for Ms. Taylor that the recommended motion did not say that the Council would express approval of any ECLA policy recommendations but provided for further information regarding the ECLA process to be bought before the Council in December. Ms. Taylor asked why the Council even needed to pass a motion regarding the ECLA process. Mr. Ruiz responded that staff was responding with the motion to requests from a variety of parties for more time to review the various ECLA methodologies and to determine a date certain for the Council to definitively adopt the findings of the ECLA process. Mr. Clark reminded Ms. Taylor that Council in a previous work session had approved a motion for staff to return with a timeline for adoption of the ECLA findings. He noted that the staff recommended motion under discussion would provide for such a timeline. Mr. Clark believed the timelines prescribed in the staff recommended motion represented an acceptable compromise to him regarding the adoption of the ECLA findings. Mr. Clark hoped the Council would have the opportunity before their winter break to review and respond to the questions and comments made to staff by the CAC before the Council initiated the broader public process of refining the ECLA data. Mr. Ruiz responded that there would be one or two more Council work session meetings regarding the ECLA process before the winter break. Ms. Piercy recognized the prevalent belief that people wanted more time to review certain aspects of the ECLA process. Mr. Ruiz noted that neighborhood representative Paul Conte had reviewed the language of the staff recommended motion and had offered his endorsement regarding it. Mr. Brown noted his support of the staff recommended motion but suggested if it might be helpful to change any instances of the word “approval” in the motion to “acceptance.” Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Brown’s suggestion and felt that it might lead to a greater consensus regarding the matter. Ms. Jerome noted she had conferred with City Attorney Glen Kleine regarding the language of the staff recommended resolution and believed that it could be revised according to Mr. Brown’s suggestion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 28, 2009 Page 4 Work Session The Council members and staff briefly discussed various potential revisions to the language of the staff recommended motion regarding the ECLA process. Mr. Zelenka envisioned a process similar to the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) review process for any future policy discussions regarding the ECLA process before April of 2010. Mr. Ruiz noted he had not been involved in the WEP process but hoped that whatever review process was employed would lead to robust conversations and a strong consensus on any land use policies or strategies affected by the ECLA process. Ms. Jerome, responding to a comment from Mr. Pryor, hoped that Council would agree that the staff recommended motion prescribed a complete document from which to proceed with additional elements of the ECLA process and which would also satisfy the December 31, 2009 deadline listed in HB 3337. Mr. Pryor concurred with Ms. Jerome’s assessment and hoped that any additional time used to review the ECLA methodologies would be used constructively. Ms. Taylor believed the current ECLA figures for redevelopment and other land use issues did not have a solid foundation and believed that revisions to the language of the staff recommended motion were necessary to prevent any inappropriate adoption of any elements of the ECLA process. Ms. Piercy reiterated that as presented the staff recommended motion did yet not call for the adoption of any specific land use policies but rather provided for additional time for staff and Council to review certain outstanding issues related to the ECLA process. Mr. Clark suggested that the language “present the City Council for their consideration” be added to the staff recommended motion so that it might accommodate Ms. Taylor’s concerns. Mr. Clark hoped that the current refinement process surrounding the ECLA process would be viewed as an effort to create a strong consensus regarding local land use issues. Mr. Zelenka briefly reviewed the various language revisions that had been discussed by staff and Council members. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to present the City Council for their consideration with a proposed resolution in December 2009 that expresses: 1) the City Council’s acceptance of the draft ECLA Supply and Demand Estimates; and 2) the City Council’s commitment to conclude its review of the ECLA Supply and Demand Estimates for final approval in April 2010 and take the necessary actions for the City Council to adopt a Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by the end of February 2011. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Dedrick introduced EcoNorthwest Lead Consultant Terry Moore and noted that he would be available for questions after his presentation. Mr. Dedrick presented an update on the ECLA process and noted that while some data had been finalized other data elements needed further refinement. He proceeded to outline a variety of ECLA product and project components for the benefit of the Council. He further noted he would also be detailing elements of the Capacity Analysis involved in the ECLA study. Mr. Dedrick noted staff was currently scheduled to present additional data to the Council regarding the ECLA process at their November 9, 2009 work session meeting. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 28, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Dedrick presented various Residential Capacity Analysis statistics for the benefit of the Council. Mr. Dedrick described elements of the Baseline Analysis Variations table included in Council’s agenda item summary materials and further detailed in the Variations section of Mr. Dedrick’s presentation. Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Dedrick for his presentation and for the volume of work undertaken by both the City staff and EcoNorthwest consulting group. Mr. Dedrick, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, stated that the 34,500 acres listed as the total area under consideration in the ECLA process did not only describe City property but rather represented the total acreage within the UGB. Mr. Clark believed that the practical applications of the second and third baseline variations as described in Mr. Dedrick's presentation severely impacted the Jefferson Westside area. He further suggested that the second and third baseline variations might ultimately provide for the wholesale annexation of the River Road and Santa Clara areas. Mr. Moore responded that the exact nature of how density would be affected in those areas had yet to be determined. Mr. Clark emphasized the importance of protecting heritage neighborhoods such as the Jefferson Westside area and hoped that the baseline assumptions would take such matters into consideration. Mr. Clark further opined that his constituents would not favor the levels of density and potential annexations described in the second and third baseline variations. Mr. Pryor appreciated the flexibility of policy provided by the baseline variations and believed that concurrent discussions of land use policies and the baseline variations would benefit the community. Mr. Moore responded to Mr. Pryor's comment and noted that the baseline variations related to the ECLA process could be justified based on assumptions the Council made with respect to changes in market conditions and other factors. Ms. Piercy noted that Paul Conte and other representatives from the Jefferson Westside area had actively demonstrated where they believed that increased density could occur. Ms. Solomon thanked Mr. Dedrick for the information provided in his presentation materials. Mr. Zelenka asked how the baseline variations related to the ECLA process would be applied to the ECLA findings that the Council was expected to review in December. Mr. Dedrick expressed that the baseline variations represented a point of departure for discussions on how the City's land needs might be effectively addressed. Mr. Dedrick, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, confirmed that the baseline variations the Council accepted in April of 2010 might ultimately be somewhat different from those that they reviewed in December of 2009. Mr. Dedrick, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that any development planned for the River Road and Santa Clara areas could easily be built into the baseline variations. Ms. Ortiz hoped that the baseline variations and other elements of the ECLA process might be used to demonstrate to the community how and were positive increased density might occur. Ms. Piercy agreed with Mr. Ortiz's comments and believed that the ECLA process should ultimately be used to determine the types of development that people actually wanted rather than what they did not want. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 28, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Clark warned against including non-incorporated land as potentially buildable, particularly with respect to the River Road and Santa Clara areas. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Dedrick if he could provide precise figures on the amount of acreage in the River Road/Santa Clara areas inside the UGB that was not City property. Mr. Dedrick responded that he would be able to provide that information. Ms. Piercy thanked Mr. Dedrick and Mr. Moore for their presentations. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 28, 2009 Page 7 Work Session