Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

provision in Chapter 4 of the code and did not apply to any other code section. He reported that if one were to apply for a greenway permit one must satisfy several criteria that were generally intended to apply to property closer to the river. He was unsure how the criteria would be applied if someone applied for a permit for the site in question. He concurred with Mr. Farr that the site was inside the greenway. Mr. Farr asked about regulations related to dumping in the greenway. City Attorney Klein confirmed there were regulations related to dumping in the greenway, but he had not yet had time to research whether there was a regulation that applied to the property in question. Mr. Pryor spoke to the question of what happened when the proposed exemption expired. He said he was willing to be patient if the exemption led to something other than more camping, which he did not consider a desirable outcome. He said drawing attention to a problem was not solving the problem; it was merely a first step. There must be a next step. He suggested the extension gave the community an opportunity to craft an effective, productive, and worthwhile next step. He wanted the City to work with Occupy Eugene on the next step before the exemption expired. Mr. Clark considered the exemption granted to Occupy Eugene a monumentally bad idea. He believed the council had created the potential for what he thought were very real life, health, and safety problems as well as some environmental problems. He noted that photographs of the site showed stacked firewood and asked if it was legal to have open fires in Washington-Jefferson Park. Mr. Clark pointed out it would soon get colder and he questioned if open fires would be allowed or if campers would have heaters in the tents that might cause health or safety issues. Mr. Clark noted the presence of several large signs at the site and asked if Occupy Eugene was also exempted from enforcement of the Sign Code. He observed that the City had gotten “pretty hard core” with some other parties about Sign Code violations. Mr. Clark said the unequal application of the law concerned him a great deal, as did the fact that the encampment created the appearance of a “Hooverville” at an entrance to the community. City Manager Ruiz reminded the council that if chose to pass the motion it would only be exempting Occupy Eugene from the camping ordinance; all other ordinances continued to apply, including violations of the Sign Code and drinking in the parks. Mr. Clark asked City Attorney Klein to confirm that the placement of very large oversized signs in Washington-Jefferson Park created a violation of the Sign Code. City Attorney Klein did not know if those signs constituted a violation and said he would meet soon with staff to discuss a complaint about signs on the site that had already been filed. He anticipated the City would enforce the code for violations caused by Occupy Eugene in the same manner it enforced the code for other entities. Mr. Clark questioned who was responsible for the sign, the individual who placed it or Occupy Eugene. City Attorney Klein was unsure and believed the issue was complicated by the fact the property was owned by the State and leased by the City. Ms. Ortiz supported the motion. She described a recent tour she took of the encampment, noting the presence of portable toilets and fact the encampment had a temporary kitchen permit. She believed that Occupy Eugene was monitoring its own problems. She said that Occupy Eugene was a microcosm of society and contained both those who obeyed the law and those who did not. Ms. Ortiz suggested the encampment would reduce interactions between the police and the homeless. She wished Occupy Eugene well. Ms. Ortiz was glad to hear there would be follow-up regarding the Sign Code. She acknowledged it was illegal to burn inside the city limits and Occupy Eugene needed to follow the rules in that regard. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2011 Page 2 Work Session