Laserfiche WebLink
not presuppose a court decision or limit the judge. The judge, a disinterested party, would <br />determine whether the criteria for exclusion were met. He emphasized that the commission had <br />worked to ensure that the excluded individual received due process. Lt. Kerns added that a <br />judge can exclude a person from an area upon conviction. The optimal exclusion period would <br />begin after being established by a judge after arrest and end at conviction, but that could be up to <br />six months or longer, depending on whether the individual appeared in court. Lt. Kerns said that <br />the proposed exclusion period brought it closer to the likely time a person would appear in court. <br />Mr. Prozanski noted the one-year option available to the court if a person was convicted. He said <br />that the commission had discussed several time exclusion periods and agreed on the 90-day <br />period. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor referred to Attachment B of the meeting packet, the draft ordinance establishing the <br />floating cruising zone, and suggested that the term "his/her" be eliminated in the first line of (4). <br />He asked about the reference to a "traffic congestion thoroughfare," suggesting that the concept <br />of congestion was not necessarily applicable in this instance. He suggested that staff review the <br />ordinance and consider adding the phrase "or other reason." City Attorney Glenn Klein said that <br />staff would review that issue and respond to Mr. Rayor's comments at the public hearing. Mr. <br />Prozanski noted that the commission had based the current ordinance on the ordinance <br />addressing cruising on Willamette Street. The ordinance provided for flexibility in the prohibited <br />hours that would be posted. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly recognized the seriousness of the problem for area residents and hoped the ordinances <br />would make a difference for them. He thanked the commission and task force for its work. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the link between drug addiction and prostitution was striking, and he appreciated <br />giving people the opportunity to go through drug court, but he was concerned that without <br />treatment facilities the approach would be useless. He said that he wanted staff to return with <br />other positive steps the council could take to ensure treatment was available outside of <br />supporting Lane County's grant request. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly hoped the exclusion zone was used against both the johns and the prostitutes. Lt. <br />Kerns indicated that was the intent. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly appreciated the change to the sections related to the exclusion zone and show cause <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Referring to the variance section on page 5 of the ordinance, Mr. Kelly said he hoped the <br />definitions section included mental health needs as well as physical health needs. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ praised the process used to develop the ordinances. He hoped that the council would <br />see more such processes. He also hoped the exclusion zone did not merely move the problem <br />around, and suggested it was a situation of making the best of a bad situation. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if the current budget included funding to support the ordinance. Lt. Kerns <br />responded that the department committed $10,000 in matching funds for the grant being sought <br />by Lane County. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor expressed concern that the exclusion zone could shift the problem of prostitution and <br />cruising to another location. She did not generally favor zones excluding certain individuals, such <br />as the ban on skateboards and dogs on 13th Avenue. Ms. Taylor did not want to penalize <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />