Laserfiche WebLink
factor could be credited for the turnaround, the ban on dogs was an important piece of the solution. The <br />ban eliminated unattended dogs in the right -of -way, dog waste, and intimidating dogs. He did not think <br />that lifting the ban made sense. He suggested that the council consider extending the ban on dogs to <br />certain areas of downtown with similar exemptions. <br />Jim Antonini, 1515 Calistoga Court, general manager of Atiyeh Brothers, agreed with the remarks of <br />previous speakers. He did not want to return to the time before the ban on dogs and asked the council to <br />retain it. <br />Pete Peterson, 866 East 13 Avenue, owner of the Red Rooster Barber Shop, spoke of the conflicts <br />created by residents who walked their dogs on extra -long leashes and the intimidating behavior of <br />aggressive dogs and expressed concern that lifting the ban could aggravate that problem in the area. <br />Zachary Vishanoff, Ward 3, supported lifting the ban on skateboards in the area in question and <br />suggested that issue be separated from the issue of dogs as well as enforcement. He suggested the police <br />substation in the area had more impact that the bans. He asked the council to address each issue <br />separately because otherwise he believed the ordinance would be used for targeted law enforcement and <br />some skateboarders would be found acceptable while others would not. <br />Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called on the council for questions or comments. <br />Councilor Clark asked Council Coordinator Beth Forrest to poll the council for its interest in holding a <br />work session on extending the ban on dogs to downtown. <br />Councilor Ortiz believed there were no bad dogs, only bad dog owners. <br />Councilor Taylor suggested there were already laws to address the problems mentioned in testimony. <br />There were ways other than a ban to address the problems created by irresponsible dog owners. She did <br />not think that dogs were responsible for the problems the area experienced. She recalled that many <br />people testified against the ordinance when it was first proposed and many were female professors who <br />worked late at night and wanted to be able to have their dog with them, but could not walk through the <br />area in question, sometimes sending them down less safe routes. In addition, residents of the area had <br />friends who wished to visit at night and have their dogs with them for safety's sake but could not. <br />Councilor Zelenka recalled what the area was like in the mid -1990s and agreed with Mr. Hauser that no <br />single thing had changed the area. However, he saw no reason to lift the ban because it worked and <br />represented part of the solution. He was unsure about expanding the ban. <br />Councilor Brown expressed sympathy for the difficulties the University area businesses had experienced <br />in the past and was glad conditions had improved. He wondered if the ordinance could be modified to <br />accommodate visitors and people who worked at the UO at night as a compromise. <br />Councilor Farr asked that the council be provided with copies of the testimony the council received when <br />it initially considered the ordinance. <br />Councilor Poling agreed with the remarks of Councilor Zelenka. He thanked the business owners in the <br />district for "sticking it out" and suggested they were a vital factor in the success of the area. Councilor <br />Poling preferred to retain the ordinance in its current form. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council September 19, 2011 Page 2 <br />Regular Meeting <br />