Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

3. Permit System - Direct the City Manager to draft an ordinance establishing requirements for private property owners or managers that must be met in order to permit drinking at pay-for-use lots. This option would be limited to pay-for-use lots in a geographically defined area on game days for four hours before and two hours after each home collegiate football game. The City Council could also choose to direct the City Manager to develop these requirements following consultation with the affected property owners, the University of Oregon, and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). 4. OLCC Licensing - Amend the Eugene Code to prohibit property owners and managers from permitting and allowing drinking on unlicensed premises for which they are responsible. 5. Repeal Autzen Stadium Parking Lot Exceptions - Repeal Eugene Code Section 4.190 (4), which provides the exemption for the State-owned parking lots immediately adjacent to Autzen Stadium. Mr. Poling noted the long tradition of tailgating at Lane County and said he wanted people to be treated equally and fairly throughout the community. If the University of Oregon (UO) was exempted, he wanted to do the same for others who managed their own parking lots. He said many of the parking lots were run by nonprofit organizations that relied on the funding that renting the lots provided. The reduction of parking at Autzen Stadium forced people to go someplace else. He supported Option 3 but suggested that if it was not adopted, the council consider Option 5. Ms. Solomon did not think Option 5 was viable. She preferred to expand the exemption area. Referring to the nearby Chase Village apartments, Ms. Solomon asked if those residents violated the law when they invited their friends over to have a beer before the game. Captain Kerns clarified that the ordinance would apply to private property that was open to the public for a fee. Mr. Clark did not want to see unequal enforcement but he pointed out the department had responded to its perception of increased issues in the area. He thought the public saw the change in enforcement as a policy change. He supported Option 2 and expansion of the area upon which the 1984 rule applied. Mr. Pryor asked if Option 3 would apply to the University of Oregon (UO). Captain Kerns indicated the council would make that decision. Mr. Pryor asked how the permit would affect behavior “on the ground.” Kerns said the department’s concern was for people’s safety, minor use, and illegal sales. Tailgating at the UO represented the largest unregulated drinking event in Eugene, and the ordinance could bring some responsibility to bear on property owners; it could make the area a safer place. Mr. Pryor did not want to remove all controls from drinking in the area as it was his sense that the alcohol- related incidents were getting more frequent. He thought if that was the case it was in the City’s interest to figure out how to place an additional layer of responsibility on people. He asked if Option 3 was considered by staff as a way to impose additional responsibility or to restrict drinking. Chief Lehner said the idea behind the permitting system was to recognize that property owners were currently subletting parts of their property but taking a hands-off attitude toward what occurred. The permitting system was intended to encourage property owners to place a requirement on sub-lessees that they impose some requirements on the behavior of their tenants, such as not knowingly permitting minor use or alcohol sales. That would give the property owner the ability to turn down that business the next year if violations were committed. The property owner would not want to risk losing the revenue and the lessee would not want to lose the space, giving them an incentive to work together. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 3 Work Session