Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lidz determined that Councilor Clark was essentially suggesting a closed loop. Councilor Ortiz indicated she did not support the inclusion of the additional properties. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Poling, and Solomon voting yes. Councilor Bettman said that no one was interested in banning all alcohol consumption on game days, but she was in favor of banning it in the parking lots around the stadium. She did not believe any drinking was allowed inside Autzen Stadium and suggested that was because the UO did not want to manage the problem, and it had been externalized outside the stadium for the EPD to manage. If the City considered it justifiable to prohibit public drinking in the community because it was hazardous, it was even more justifiable on game days when people wanted to get intoxicated. She opposed the motion strenuously and said it sent the wrong message to the public. People could watch sports without the expectation they would be able to drink and become intoxicated and then get into their cars and drive home. She said “we are making a big mistake.” Councilor Zelenka said that tailgating did not equal drinking and people could tailgate without drinking and still have a good time. The City was not supporting a no-holds barred approach to drinking, but instead acknowledging its limitations in regard to enforcement capacity and regulating the problem. If parking lot owners did not follow the regulations, their ability to operate would be taken away. Saturation patrols would continue to take place, but now parking lot owners would be responsible for enforcement. Councilor Taylor said the issue was a difficult one for her. However, she thought parking lots were the last places that drinking should be encouraged because people reached such lots in cars and had to drive away to leave them. She regretted that Councilor Bettman’s first motion had failed. She suggested that forcing people to stop drinking at the end of the game could result in people leaving all at once, thus compounding the problem. She opposed the motion. Councilor Poling endorsed the comments of Councilor Zelenka, saying the City was not creating new places where alcohol use was allowed because the use had been happening for some years. The City would continue to enforce its drinking laws. A prohibition was punishment for 99 percent of the people because of the one percent who could not control themselves. He noted the many people who occupied the area at one time and suggested that problems were similar to those that occurred in the city over a weekend in a more spread out area. He noted that many of the parking lot owners had already established rules and regulations similar to those in the ordinance and had done a good job in managing their lots. He supported the ordinance, pointing out staff indicated 40 more officers would be needed to enforce the prohibition rules on parking lots in and around the stadium in the absence of the exemption, which were officers the City did not have. Mr. Lidz clarified the motion on the floor to ensure the correct map was being discussed; he pointed out the suggested motion under council Option 2 accomplished what was desired, but the ordinance in the packet included the older version of the map. He suggested the council amend the motion to amend the map. Councilor Pryor and Councilor Taylor accepted the friendly amendment adding the phrase “As depicted on the map for 4.190(4)(b) appended to this chapter and amending this provision,” and language offered by Mr. Lidz: “by Coburg Road on the west, the Willamette River on the south, interstate 5 on the east, and Interstate 105 on the north.” Councilor Bettman suggested the council majority was legalizing illegal drinking. She pointed out the administrative civil penalty, which allowed for up to two violations in one year in a three-month period MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting