Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/10/07 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall September 10, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum. She stated that there would be a community forum to provide members of the community to offer comments on the selection of the new City Manager on September 17. Jean Rubel , P.O. Box 5102, recounted that the councilors had spent time in the work session discussing issues of bias and conflicts of interest. She alleged that councilors claimed they could be impartial when considering McKenzie-Willamette Hospital’s proposal to relocate. Mayor Piercy interrupted Ms. Rubel and asked the City Attorney to address the issue. City Attorney Emily Jerome said the public hearing scheduled for October 23 would be a more appropriate time for this testimony if the matter related to the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital application. Ms. Rubel asserted that she wished only to address the process and not substantive issues. She asked if the City Attorney was going to request that she cease testimony. Ms. Jerome reiterated that the appropriate time to speak on this item was at the public hearing. She encouraged Ms. Rubel to submit her testimony in writing and staff would respond to it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Rubel asked if she was being denied her three minutes of public comment. Mayor Piercy responded that the City Attorney was the City’s legal staff and that there were rules they had to adhere to by law in regard to quasi-judicial issues. Ms. Rubel reiterated that her testimony had nothing to do with substantive issues. Mayor Piercy replied that it was her belief that if the testimony had anything to do with the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital application it could not be given at this time and would have to be provided at the public hearing on October 23. Ms. Jerome encouraged Ms. Rubel to call the City Attorney’s office or the City Manager’s Office on the following day for further information. Ms. Rubel opined that the process was “flawed and biased.” Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, stated that she had been with the Southeast Neighbors for four years and was now serving as the Vice President. She commended former Neighborhood Manager for the Community Services Division, Beth Bridges, for her dedication and hard work. She always found Ms. Bridges to be “warm and kind.” She predicted Ms. Bridges would be a “tough act to follow.” She conveyed her concern that the neighborhood program might now “fall apart.” She expressed her gratitude for Ms. Bridge’s hard work and said she would be missed. th Drix , 305½ 14 Avenue, asked how many eyes were there in Eugene and said the answer was all of them. He said we are all here in Eugene and a part of it. He related that he had attended the Burning Man Project and the Lane County Fair. He felt they were all a slice of life. He had attended the Eugene Celebration. He averred that the City of Eugene was blessed on many levels. He reiterated that the community would build on the two holes in the downtown by pooling resources and working together. Zachary Vishanoff , somewhere on Patterson Street, expressed concern regarding the older bridges around the country. He asserted that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had “culture problems” and things had “gone horribly wrong.” He believed that the bridges on the way to Springfield were beginning to crumble. He thought the council should talk about traffic calming in the University neighbor- hood less and should talk about forming “special teams” that were not affiliated with ODOT that could give MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 2 Work Session an independent analysis of the local bridges. He believed there were links between “big pork barrel projects” and transportation projects. He did not think ODOT was adequately assessing infrastructure. Joe Collins , P.O. Box 24411, said he had been disheartened that the first person giving comment had not been allowed to proceed. He continued his testimony in regard to his allegations that drug manufacturing was occurring in the condominium complex he resided in and his feeling that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) was not being adequately responsive. He related that he had contacted County Commissioner Peter Sorenson and Mr. Sorenson had responded with an offer to arrange a meeting with two members of the EPD. He decided it would not be in his interest to meet with people he “did not trust.” He felt they would use what he said against him if they could. Paul Moore , 2586 Potter Street, read a letter from Amy Gibson. She expressed concern that her children were being encouraged to ride their bicycles to school but she feared allowing them to ride on Crest Drive. She asked that the City put its “money where its mouth is” in regard to streets. Mr. Moore read from a petition signed by residents in the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard area. He related their support for an increase in bicycle facilities. He said they expected such facilities to be included in order to support the choice of bicycling as a transportation or recreational option. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for comments from the council. Councilor Clark said while he appreciated Mr. Collins’ dedication in bringing his concerns forward over time but he asked him to please refrain from impugning the character of the Police Chief. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone who testified for coming out. She also wished to convey her gratitude to Ms. Bridges for her service to the community. She had faith in the choices that had been made for who would follow in Ms. Bridges’ footsteps. She assured those concerned that the neighborhoods were in good hands. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 3 Work Session 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 25, 2007, Work Session - July 9, 2007, City Council Meeting - July 18, 2007, Work Session - August 8, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 4 Work Session 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Consumption or Possession of Alcohol in Public Places, and Amending Sections 4.190, 4.990, and 4.996 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Pro Tem Angel Jones asked Eugene Police Department (EPD) Captain Pete Kerns to provide a brief review of the proposed ordinance. Capt. Kerns recalled that staff had presented a registration scheme to be included as an amendment to the ordinance at a work session in July. He explained that pay-per-use parking lots could be provided an exemption to the public drinking ordinance on game days by registering, distributing handbills with rules, and by posting signage in the lots. He said with direction from the council staff some adjustments had been made to the map so that the area for the exception was limited only to the pay-per-use parking lots. He reviewed the map and explained which areas were included. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. th James Cunningham , 1190 West 26 Avenue, said he was “ashamed” of the City and the EPD for “advocating for public drunkenness.” He was also “ashamed” of the Mayor and council for considering the exemption to the ordinance. He stressed that it was well-known that alcohol was a dangerous inebriant. He believed the exemption for the Autzen Stadium lot should be revoked rather than expanding the exemption to others. He believed such an expansion would expose the City to lawsuits by relatives of innocent victims of drunken driving. He asserted that if any public drinking was allowed, it should be allowed everywhere. He urged the council to significantly strengthen the University of Oregon enforcement, should the exemption pass, and to require every driver leaving the parking lots to submit to a breathalyzer. He submitted his testimony in writing. Dick Mower , 768 Lochaven Avenue, co-chair of the Eugene Elks Antler Committee, stated that his organization held parking lot activities at the Willamette Institute of Science and Technology (WISTEC) and the John Serbu Youth Campus and had done so for approximately seven years. He said they received around $5,000 annually, all of which went into charities such as the Boys and Girls Club, the Mission family unit, St. Vincent DePaul holiday boxes, and disaster situations such as Hurricane Katrina. He related that Elks’ charities also supported the Oregon Eye Clinic and the Hearing and Speech Camps. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 5 Work Session stressed that what they wanted was to have the same opportunity as the Autzen Stadium lot. He felt that if people could drink there, then those activities should be allowed in other lots. He underscored that a loss of this money would be a blow to the charity. th Deborah Frisch , 3003 West 11 Avenue, registered her opposition to the amended exemption and supported deletion of the exemption for Autzen Stadium. She believed Ducks fans should be held to the same laws as everyone else. She expressed contempt for college and professional sports. She asserted that sports contributed to mindless “us and them thinking” and allowed people to tolerate “the carnage in Iraq.” Lois Harvick , 1865 Parliament Street, executive director of the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), said the council had the opportunity to send a message to the community that public safety took priority over an estimated 20 percent of the 60,000 Duck fans that consumed alcoholic beverages in and around Autzen Stadium during every home game. She stated that studies indicated that fear of being arrested deterred people from drinking to excess. She declared that existing problems related to excessive drinking, underage drinking, and drinking and driving would likely continue and increase but the perception that the behavior was acceptable put the community at an increased risk. She stated that MADD needed support for high visibility law enforcement. She asked the council to seek other solutions to the drinking and tailgating proposal. She urged the council to send a “loud and clear message” that the community deserved public safety to be a priority on game days and every day. She asked the council to help MADD with its goal of adding no more names to the memorial gardens for victims of drunken driving. Anne Pratt , 42000 Holden Creek Lane, Springfield, member of MADD, the Governor’s Advisory Committee on DUII, and Crime Victims United, said she lobbied for tougher Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) bills. She agreed with Ms. Harvick. She believed what was proposed only treated the legality and not the issue, which was that people left the tailgating area and drove on streets and highways under the influence of alcohol. She stated that 200 people were killed by drunk drivers in the State of Oregon and more than 17,000 people were killed in the United States annually. She related that her son had been killed by a drunk driver on September 18, 1998. She and her husband had spent the last four legislative sessions to strengthen intoxicated driver laws. She thought it was odd that the City of Eugene was considering expansion of the exemption zone for drinking. She believed drinking should be monitored by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) and law enforcement and not parking lot owners. She averred that expanding the exemption was a strike against public policy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Barbara Stoeffler , 2859 Tandy Turn, related that she had helped to found the Lane County chapter of MADD in Lane County 25 years ago. She was proud of local law enforcement. She said they worked hard to combat drunk driving. She felt there should be a way to use local enforcement officers to augment the officers who already worked on game days. She stated that she also worked with a group called Victims Against Drunk Driving, a Lane County DUII victim impact panel. She related that the speakers on the panel talk to groups of people who have been arrested for driving under the influence about the impacts that drunk drivers have had on their lives. She had observed an increase of persons drinking and driving which had resulted in an increase in the victim impact panels from 12 to 16 per year. Lloyd Henson , 2420 Wilbur Street, spoke on behalf of the Masonic Lodge. He related that he had helped to park cars there for ten years and he also helped to pick up bottles and cans. He stated that the OLCC representatives had come by to check and had never found rules to be broken. He felt the drinking had decreased. He stressed that the Masonic Lodge had not experienced problems, most people had designated drivers, and some left their vehicles behind and called a cab. He had not experienced disorderly conduct. He said the lodge put out a number of brochures that discussed drinking and the importance of having designated drivers and they posted signs at Capt. Kerns request. Zachary Vishanoff , somewhere on Patterson Street, found it strange that the EPD complained that it had a lack of funding and that it was costly to have officers working football games and dealing with the subsequent traffic and issues. He felt the EPD was making a request on behalf of the University. He thought the University should come and make the request and accept responsibility for anything that might go wrong. He suggested that the Student Council be consulted and recommended that in fairness the decision should wait until students were back on campus. David Sonnichsen , 2435 Skyline Boulevard, understood why the ordinance might be seen as expedient but he felt it was bad public policy. He had monitored the effect of games on park land and he felt that incidents of alcohol abuse had increased. He found it incongruous that football players were not allowed to drink but the followers of the games thought it was a part of the process. He wondered if fewer people would attend the games if they had to adhere to the same rules as the football players. He added that he thought it was crazy to allow people to remain and drink after games for two more hours before driving. He urged the council to oppose the ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 7 Work Session rd Bob Dougherty , 479 East 53 Avenue, supported the council’s endeavor to clean up the Autzen Stadium parking system. He noted that he also was a member of the Masonic Lodge. He said for the past two years the lodge had provided an alcohol consumption policy handout to every car that came into the parking lot. He related that the lodge required that each carload of people appoint a designated driver. He underscored that many people came to the lot who did not drink but would have a hot dog and chips and that sort of thing. He believed the alcohol consumption was reasonably limited. He stated that the lodge provided security throughout the lot and they coached the people who needed coaching. He acknowledged the opposing view but he thought customers in the lodge lot should be able to have an equal access to the stadium lot experience. Dan Williams , 3544 Black Oak Drive, represented the University of Oregon. He stated that the University actively participated for over a year in meetings with a number of people who were concerned with these issues. He felt the meetings had been helpful. He stressed that the University went to extensive lengths to make sure the tailgating was lawful. He conveyed the University’s support for the proposal, including the suggested amendment to reduce the impacted area. He stated that the University was willing to work to make the ordinance successful. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for council comments and questions. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone who testified. She cited a section of the ordinance that stated that “disorderly conduct will not be tolerated.” She asked if the City had that kind of language in any other ordinance. City Attorney Jerome replied that she was not aware of such language in other ordinances. Councilor Bettman asked what it meant. Ms. Jerome replied that the ordinance would require a handbill and signage indicating the parameters for behavior. Councilor Bettman said she would pose a substitute motion that would create equity for football games by eliminating the exemption for Autzen Stadium. She felt it was in the public’s best interest to regulate drinking. She averred that the City should uphold its law regardless of an entity’s financial position. She believed that the exemption was inequitable because the City did not allow public drinking for any of the other venues in the City. She believed that to entertain adopting the ordinance meant that people would have MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 8 Work Session to suspend their beliefs given that it was not a hypothetical issue that drinking and driving led to tragedy. She asserted that to think that people would drink more responsibly around a football game was “pretend- ing.” Councilor Zelenka thought Councilor Bettman raised a point regarding the other venues in Eugene for public events, which were required to obtain a license from OLCC. He asked what the OLCC requirements were and what it would take for all of the people who coordinated tailgating activities to acquire such a license. He wondered what the people who supervised the parking lots in which the activities occurred would have to do differently under an OLCC license than under the ordinance. He also wished to know what role OLCC played on game days in that area and what the difference in the liability that someone would have versus someone who had an OLCC license. Councilor Zelenka disagreed with the assertion that the ordinance would increase public drinking as he believed it already existed. He felt the question lay in whether the City should acknowledge and regulate it given limited police resources. Councilor Zelenka wanted to know if the ordinance could be limited to non-profit agencies. He requested statistics on the drunken driving arrests on game days versus regular Saturdays. He added his feeling that two hours of drinking after the game was likely too long. Councilor Bettman commented that people could show up four hours prior to the game and drink. She felt that once the exemption was granted the capacity to regulate the drinking was reduced. She reiterated her opposition to the ordinance, adding that if the area around Autzen Stadium was made to be consistent with the rest of the City it would make enforcement simpler. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 9 Work Session 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Municipal Court Sentencing Authority for Violations of Chapter 4 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Pro Tem Jones asked Wayne Allen, presiding judge for the Municipal Court, to present a summary of the topic. Judge Allen explained that Municipal Court did not have the authority to order a defendant to a more expensive alcohol education or anger management program. He averred that a judge should be able to send a person to anger management classes or a one day class on alcohol abuse for a fourth or fifth Minor in Possession (MIP). He noted the state court had the authority and in some cases it was mandated to require it. He said Municipal Court had spoken with the provider of alcohol education and it appeared that it would be possible to add a class. Councilor Bettman interpreted the wording in the ordinance to mean that the sentence or a portion of it could be suspended. Judge Allen replied that a sentence could inherently be suspended. He felt what was intended was to reduce a portion of a sentence rather than imposing a larger fine with the requirement that a class be attended. He noted that the MIP had a maximum penalty of $250. Councilor Bettman said she had an issue with the language. It sounded to her that a judge could merely suspend the sentence without any collateral action. She asked that the wording be reviewed before the ordinance came back before the council for action. Ms. Jerome ascertained from Councilor Bettman that her intention was to clarify the language so the ordinance would give the authority to reduce or suspend a sentence only in the case where collateral action such as an anger management class was being required. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, she closed the public hearing. Mayor Piercy ascertained that Councilor Bettman objected to taking action on the ordinance at the present meeting. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 10 Work Session 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Initiative and Referendum Procedures; and Amending Sections 2.972 and 2.981 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Pro Tem Jones stated that the ordinance would provide a process to ensure that practices were in line with the code. She asked City Attorney Emily Jerome to speak to the ordinance. Ms. Jerome stated that the ordinance would establish the number of signatures it would take to place a referendum on the ballot. She said currently the code required that the number of signatures be equal to 10 percent of all of the votes cast for all of the candidates for mayor in the preceding election. She related that historically it included all write-in votes. She explained that recently the Circuit Court had ruled that under the code language the City could only count those write-ins for people who intended to be candidates and who were eligible to be candidates. She stated the City Attorney’s understanding that it was not the City’s intent and that it was nearly impossible to administer for that definition. She said the proposed ordinance sought to respond the Circuit Court’s interpretation of Eugene Code 2.972 and would clarify that the City should count all votes for the office of Mayor. Ms. Jerome explained that the second issue addressed by the ordinance had to do with the current code requirement that if a valid petition was filed the City must generally hold an election at the next statutory election date. She said the current code did allow for an exception so that the council could hold an earlier election but it would not allow an exception to defer it to a later election. The ordinance would change it so that a later election would be allowed. Councilor Bettman asked why the council needed that level of discretion. Ms. Jerome replied that it could be costly to refer a petition to the next election in a case where no other local government in Lane County had anything for the ballot. She said it could also be something the council would want to balance with the importance of timeliness to act on a petition. She thought it could be the preference of a petitioner to have an item matched with other items in an election. Councilor Bettman commented that she was “astounded” to see this in the packet. She recalled the discussion about the issues with the referendum and the decision to put the gas tax on the ballot. She had not seen the latter issue come up. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 11 Work Session City Manager Jones stated that there were a number of items to be brought before the council and this was one of them. She sought to ensure the council had options in how to respond to this type of issue. Councilor Bettman asked to see the code issues that conflict with the State. She thought that if the council could have ultimate discretion over when an election occurred it could be another way to interfere with what people see as an important process of checks and balances. She noted that there was nothing in the packet that explained or justified this change or how it compared to the state statute. She said she needed more research before she could support the ordinance. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, she closed the public hearing. Mayor Piercy asked if it would be possible to constrain the ordinance to the item that the council had agreed upon in order to take action. Ms. Jerome replied that the council could only act at the present meeting if there were no modifications to the ordinance. Councilor Bettman said she was disappointed to see something she perceived to be substantive show up without a work session. City Manager Jones stated that she would take responsibility for this. She explained that she had thought there had been full communication with the council on the proposed ordinance. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel L. Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 12 Work Session MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 13 Work Session