Laserfiche WebLink
would be an exclusion order, but not the order itself. Mr. Kelly expressed confusion as staff had <br />previously indicated that officers issued the order. A memorandum from Chief Hill had discussed <br />the need to be able to exclude individuals immediately. He asked if staff was saying, "Oh, we <br />were only kidding." Mr. Kelly said he wished there was a more forthcoming answer. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she previously requested a recommendation from the Eugene Police <br />Department regarding the possible extension of the exclusion area boundaries. Version A of the <br />ordinance extended the boundary from the north boundary of 11th Avenue from Lincoln to Oak <br />streets. She asked for staff input on why a smaller extension was not proposed. Using a map of <br />downtown, Lt. Roberts identified the downtown mall and the area on 10th Avenue in front of the <br />Lane Transit District (LTD) property and Broadway Place apartments as the area proposed for <br />inclusion. He said that the staff recommendation was based on the location of the businesses in <br />question in relationship to the downtown mall and Broadway. Lt. Roberts had attempted to <br />simplify the extended area's boundaries to the degree possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Lt. Roberts explained that LTD already had <br />the ability to exclude people from its property. LTD used that tool extensively now. The area in <br />question was not an area of concern to Eugene Police Department staff because of that fact. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend the motion to <br /> expand the boundary to the south margin of 10th Avenue, including the <br /> sidewalk from Oak Street to the eastern margin of Lincoln Street. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he did not generally like exclusion ordinances because they penalized people before <br />they went to trial for the underlying offense. The data provided by staff in April had convinced him <br />to support the tool as long as the mall was a closed mall. He could only rationalize the use of the <br />tool on the mall where the streets and alleys were closed to automobiles, which reduced visibility. <br />He could justify the use of the tool on Broadway, but he questioned applying it to streets that <br />were indistinguishable in form and function from one another. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the amendment. He was satisfied that the problems on the south side of <br />10th Avenue were similar to those experienced on Broadway. The area north of Symantec and the <br />Broadway Place garages were also a problem. He pointed out that similar exclusion ordinances <br />exist in the parks as a tool to address criminal activity. Extending the boundaries a block to the <br />west and across the street did not trouble him. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Lidz said that generally, staff interpreted "street" <br />as used in the ordinance to include the sidewalks. He further clarified that the mall was defined <br />as Broadway plus portions of the adjacent alleys. The amended definition was intended to clarify <br />the boundaries and make them more clear to the citizens and police. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that she agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks and was uncomfortable in setting aside <br />the area, but she thought downtown had unique problems because of the mall, and that mall <br />problems were spilling over into other places. If the City moved forward with opening Broadway, <br />she thought it would see more problems until construction was complete; when the street was <br />reopened, there would be enough increased auto/pedestrian use to dilute the effect of those who <br />were acting illegally or improperly, which would create a better overall atmosphere, and then the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 20, 2001 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />