Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman opposed the main motion, though she acknowledged that there was a lot in the plan that was very valuable in terms of data and the trends analysis. She thought the intent of utilizing federal money to alleviate homelessness and poverty "was great." She did not think the plan had received adequate scrutiny from the council given the budgetary authority and the changes to policy it invoked. Ms. Bettman predicted that CDBG funding would now be used to pave streets and alleys. She alleged that an "industry lobbyist" sat on the HPB and opined this was inappropriate. She averred that Roxie Cuellar, who represented the Lane County Home Builders Association, had talked about development standards playing a large role in the cost of a housing project, whether it was an affordable housing project or one for the private market. She suggested that Ms. Cuellar was lobbying to have the HPB identify the pre- application issues and raise those issues with staff, particularly those that could reduce costs. She thought Ms. Cuellar was "advocating for the industry using the leverage of the HPB." She felt the Consolidated Plan laid the groundwork for the predetermination and prejudicing of land use issues and because it was brought up through the Consent Calendar this would escape the scrutiny of the council. The vote on the main motion was a tie; 4:4; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Poling voting to approve and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted to ap- prove the Consolidated Plan as amended and the motion passed. Ms. Taylor requested that a work session be held on the Consolidated Plan when it next came up for approval. Mayor Piercy asked councilors to make a concerted effort to see what was coming up and to "get out in front of it." She averred that if an issue was something that needed greater consideration, bringing it up in advance would allow time to give it the appropriate amount of attention. B. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Standards for Police Uniforms; Adding Section 2.665 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing for an Effective Date City Manager Taylor stated that the Police Commission had brought this issue forward. He presented Police Commission member John Brown to the council to speak on it. Mr. Brown called the item "proactive and preemptive," rather than responsive. He said the commission observed some events in the community that supported passage of this particular ordinance. He cited a complaint filed with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) that an officer had been witnessed sleeping under a tree, but that officer had, in fact, been a security officer for a shopping facility. He related that he participated in numerous police "ride-alongs" and had witnessed arrests in the University of Oregon (UO) campus area involving both EPD officers and the University's Department of Public Safety (UO-DPS) officers. Feedback from those arrests, he related, indicated a public opinion that too many EPD officers responded to such arrests and that it was "overkill" when, in fact, there were both EPD and UO-DPS officers present. He averred that students could not tell one officer from the other. Mr. Brown stated that the inability citizens had to regularly distinguish private security officers from EPD officers created difficulties. He noted that in the downtown core alone, there were officers from five or MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 4 Work Session