My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 05/29/07 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:24:48 PM
Creation date
5/24/2007 10:04:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/29/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Pryor did not think it was staff’s intent to provide an unfair advantage to the UO. Chief Lehner said at <br />this time, staff did not know how much of the ordinance could be legally applied to the UO and what the UO <br />might volunteer to do by way of compliance with the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz noted that generally, the City enforced general criminal laws on UO property and did not require <br />the UO go through the permitting process. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz supported either Option 2 or 5. She thought people needed to be accountable and noted she had <br />no idea what happened there until she attended a game, and “then she was appalled.” It seemed to her like it <br />was a big party, and that was okay. She wanted the City’s laws applied equally, and wanted to see a permit <br />approach as opposed to an expanded area approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka thought there was a problem related to disorderly conducts on the part of a minority of males <br />from 30 to 50 who did not appear to think the rules applied at Saturday football games. He was concerned <br />about unequal enforcement between the UO and adjacent property owners. He did not favor Option 5 and <br />thought the expanded area was “just punting.” He found the right balance in Option 3 as it placed <br />responsibility back on the property owners. He wanted to include the UO in any approach selected and <br />wanted the UO to police its back yard in the same manner as everyone else. <br /> <br /> Mr. Poling noted that Option 3 also included the expanded area. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling pointed out that the council action only directed the manager to proceed to a public hearing, <br />which provided time for additional input. He added that he did was not a proponent of repealing the UO’s <br />exemption; he wanted to be fair. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling commended EPD staff for the work it did controlling the situation at the UO in light of how <br />many people attended football games. <br /> <br />In fairness to those who tailgated at UO games, Mr. Poling pointed out that the council was discussing a <br />very few number of the people who participated in tailgating each week. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling noted his concerns about the fees and permitting necessary for Option 3 and indicated he wanted <br />to hear more. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said the council frequently discussed cultural events during meetings, but he was unaware of any <br />other cultural event in Eugene that drew more than 60,000 people. He said that if the City chose to proceed <br />with changing that, it should proceed with caution. He continued to support Option 2, noting the reduction <br />on parking available at the UO that was not envisioned in the 1984 ordinance. Option 2 merely took the <br />City back to that time. He feared that the City would chip away at nonprofit organizations’ fund raising <br />mechanism by imposing fees. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought fees would be complicated and difficult to enforce but she wanted to do more thinking <br />about the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor acknowledged the additional complication created by Option 3 and said he would want to know if <br />the UO would participate; if not, the option was moot and he would be inclined to support Option 2. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon asked what requirements a private property owner would be signing on to, and what would be <br />considered a violation. She also asked if the fees that would be collected would generate enough revenue to <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.