Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Poling asked if the City would have room for negotiation in regard to potential mitigation costs <br />related to hazardous substances found on the site. Mr. Braud said yes, and indicated staff had discussed <br />the topic with the buyer. The City had not yet committed to anything. <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into a <br />purchase and sale agreement with Master Development for the disposition of the 858 <br />Pearl Street property consistent with the terms and conditions included in Attachment A. <br />The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br />A. ACTION: Adoption of an Ordinance Concerning Downtown Public Safety Zone; Amending <br />Section 4.874 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing a Sunset Date <br />The council was joined by Police Chief Pete Kerns, who reviewed the changes made to the Downtown <br />Public Safety Zone (DPSZ) ordinance since the public hearing the council held on the topic. City <br />Attorney Glenn Klein and Police Analyst Linda Phelps were also present to answer council questions. <br />Mayor Piercy acknowledged her own concerns about zones such as the DPSZ but appreciated the <br />revisions related to due process and the provision of advocacy services, which addressed some of those <br />concerns. <br />Mr. Clark believed the ordinance as currently written was legally defensible from a due process stand- <br />point. He had been satisfied with the ordinance as it existed, but acknowledged community concerns <br />about the issue of due process as it related to Section 4.876, and was willing to support deletion of that <br />section. He was pleased the revisions made it possible for the council to move forward with a greater <br />degree of unanimity. <br />Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Clark that making the ordinance more broadly acceptable to the community <br />was one of the tradeoffs the council faced. He had asked Municipal Court Judge Wayne Allen for input <br />regarding the deletion of the temporary exclusion, and the judge's response made Mr. Pryor feel <br />comfortable that the core of the ordinance was still in place, particularly with the addition of more <br />offenses. He suggested the ordinance could be amended in the future if it did not work. <br />Mr. Pryor spoke to the provision of advocacy services. He emphasized the importance of ensuring <br />accessibility to the legal system. He believed that many of those impacted by the ordinance would not be <br />familiar with the law, and while he did not want to assume the liability of giving them legal advice, he <br />believed they should be given assistance navigating the system. He thought the cost was reasonable. <br />Ms. Ortiz determined from Chief Kerns that staff proposed the ordinance expire in 18 months because he <br />believed that was when new downtown officer team would be deployed. <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Chief Kerns indicated that Municipal Court would manage the <br />contract for advocacy services. Responding to a follow -up question from Mr. Poling, Chief Kerns <br />anticipated that advocacy services would be provided by an organization such as Whitebird or St. Vincent <br />de Paul or by volunteers. The City would not add new staff or add to the duties.of existing staff to provide <br />those services. Mr. Poling asked if the advocates would be trained by the police or courts. He also asked <br />who would monitor their work to ensure they did not shift from advocacy to giving legal advice. Chief <br />Kerns said Municipal Court would be responsible for the contract and would oversee the work of the <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council December 8, 2010 Page 3 <br />Work Session <br />