Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/1988 Meeting (2) e e e e - M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Council Chamber--City Hall February 22, 1988 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Freeman Holmer (after 7:45 p.m.), Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Robert Bennett. The adjourned meeting of February 17, 1988, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. PUBLIC HEARING: NO CRUISING ORDINANCE City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Sergeant Tom Mason of the police traffic team presented the staff report. He reviewed problems that had occurred in areas popular for cruising and enforcement tactics that had been attempted. He said liThe Gut" on South Willamette Street traditionally had required more officers than any other location in the city, and problems continued in the form of nuisances, such as noise, congestion, and litter, as well as more serious threats to property and personal welfare. Mr. Mason said traffic control signs installed in response to a petition received in May 1987 had provided immediate relief to the area, but problems then had shifted to other areas. He said no-cruising ordinances had been successful in many cities, and he reviewed the proposed ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. Mr. Mason described a recent attempt to move cruisers to West 11th Avenue and said cruising activity had dropped off during the winter months, resulting in no impacts elsewhere for police. He said the ordinance addressed a specific problem that police officers had not been able to give the community relief from, and it was not their intent to interfere with persons who had purposeful and legitimate activities. He reviewed enforcement plans and exclusions. Mr. Mason said no guarantees existed that liThe Gut" would remain on West 11th Avenue, and in light of its failure there this winter, he believed the activity would return to South Willamette, which was largely a residential area. He said the Eugene Department of Public Safety believed the anti-cruising ordinance would provide an effective tool to deal with the problem. Ms. Ehrman asked about the process that would be used to identify violators. Mr. Mason said lap computers would be used to enter license MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 1 numbers of as many vehicles as possible. He added that costs of the ~ ordinance would include that equipment and signing. Responding to a question from Mr. Miller, Mr. Mason said the ordinance would attempt to control traffic flow but did not address trespassing, loitering, or litter. e Ms. Wooten expressed concern about the enforcement process and whether it would be selective. Mr. Mason said officers would enter the license numbers of as many vehicles as possible, and the computer would identify those that had passed an area designated as congested more than two times in a two-hour period. Ms. Wooten said it had been reported that a majority of about 1,100 citations last summer had been issued to cruisers, and she asked why the ordinance would be a more effective deterrent. Mr. Mason said citations and attempts at voluntary compliance did not send an effective message that the presence of cruisers created problems. Ms. Wooten asked about the impact of the ordinance in terms of the number of officers and the costs of enforcement. Mr. Mason said the traffic team consisted of five motor officers and one supervisor, who either were dedicated to liThe Gut" or used elsewhere, and required training would be minimal. Ms. Schue asked about publicity and implementation of the Portland ordinance. Mr. Mason said publicity of the ordinance in Portland had resulted in significant voluntary compliance, eliminating the need for enforcement, and it was hoped that results in Eugene would be similar. e Mr. Rutan asked about results in other communities. Mr. Mason said the success of ordinances in other communities generally depended on tactics and vigor of police in educating citizens and on follow-up with appropriate enforcement. e Ms. Bascom asked whether the threat of impoundment of the vehicle was considered an effective deterrent in other cities. Mr. Mason said enforcement would be the first response, and impoundment would occur only for second violations on the same date. He said the penalty was presumed to be a deterrent. Mr. Mason also said warnings would be posted on signs, and a third pass through the area would constitute a violation. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. Tim Clements, 2136 McMillan, owner of the Glenwood Restaurant on South Willamette Street, spoke in support of the ordinance. Mr. Clements said he wanted to call attention to several issues. He said he agreed that a lack of alternatives existed, and he did not oppose cruising, but he opposed interference with people's livelihoods and the enjoyment of their residences. Mr. Clements said he favored efforts to bring about alternatives, rather than conventional enforcement, which had resulted in multitudinous citations and enforcement expenses. Mr. Clements said he had personal experience with and bills for litter clean-up, vandalism, and theft, which seemed to occur only on Friday and e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 2 e e e e e Saturday nights. He said refuse left on Saturday and Sunday mornings indicated lots of drinking and use of other drugs, and he felt that the proper alternatives were not being offered. Mr. Clements said he favored redirecting police resources into things like car meets, dances, and access to social situations for youth. He said the ordinance would provide police with a tool to control activities that interfered with his business during regular hours. Mr. Clements said he would like to keep his business open later than he now was able because of the traffic on Willamette Street that limited customer access. He said he therefore supported the ordiance as the best idea he had seen presented so far. Chris Peterson, 1852 Charnelton, representing the Friendly Area Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the ordinance. Mr. Peterson said the group was not feeling particularly friendly of late. He noted that a task force since 1977 had looked at ways of dealing with cruising problems and of encouraging responsible behavior. He said the City had spent thousands of dollars on signing, sanitation facilities, educational, and other measures, but problems continued. He said enforcement of existing laws already required as much as 40 percent of police resources and that did not seem to be working. Mr. Peterson said that about half of those cruising liThe Gut" were non-residents, and many were adults. He reported that vandalism was worsening and becoming more violent. He also said noise and air pollution of hundreds of slowly moving cars was creating health problems for residents. He asked whether spending $25,000 on police for the area was justified when the City was faced with a rising crime rate and financial problems. Mr. Peterson suggested that proponents of cruising organize and supervise alternative social activities that had been suggested, such as creating a weekend parade route for cruisers or a cabaret for those under 21 years old. He added, however, that he thought it would be naive to assume that either option would result in automatic compliance, as experience over the past ten years had shown. He said alternative approaches had been tried and exhausted, and this was the last one. He said he thought the ordinance would a permanent motivation for change; voluntary efforts had not worked. Mr. Peterson said he thought it was a sad sign of the times that the unlimited right to drive one's car was more important than providing a safe and healthy area in which to raise families. He said the neighborhood group viewed the ordinance as similar to zoning ordinances in regulating activities for appropriate areas. "perhaps somewhere in Lane County there is an appropriate area for cruising--upper Willamette Street is not it," he said, and he urged passage of the ordinance. Gloria Timmons, 2825 Elinor Street, representing the Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC), spoke in support of the ordinance. She noted that the committee comprised representatives of various neighborhood groups, of 4J and Bethel School Districts, and of the business community. At its January meeting, the committee had voted to support the adoption and enforcement of a no-cruising ordinance in Eugene, with eight members MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 3 e e e e e in favor, two members opposed, and two members abstaining. Ms. Timmons said the following issues related to cruising had been addressed by PSAC: 1) Officer deployment--She said five officers were assigned to liThe Gut" and twelve officers were assigned to other parts of the City, which amounted to 41.5 percent of officers unavailable for other duties; 2) Costs of gut enforcement, which amounted to $25,000 annually, not including overtime; 3) Difficulty with traffic flow and passage of emergency vehicles through congested areas; 4) Impact on youth as victims; 5) Quality of life for businesses and residents in the area, particularly the perceived fear by elderly residents; and 6) Increased violence, vehicle and property damage. Ms. Timmons said she hoped that in making its decision, the council would give serious consideration to the issues addressed by the committee-- those of crime and of limited law enforcement resources. Terry Shelton, 1350 Goodpasture Island Road, spoke in support of keeping crulslng open. Mr. Shelton said he had been cruising for many years, and he thought a problem existed, but something else was needed besides closing down the activity. He said he and his family enjoyed cruising and cars as a hobby, and he favored some other solution. Deb Hibler and Jim Hibler, 85160 Larson Road, submitted requests to speak in support of keeping cruising open, but they did not testify. Joe Loew, 620 West Quinalt, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Loew said he was a student and had cruised liThe Gut". He said he did not deny that problems existed, but he did not think this ordinance was the answer. He said the ordinance would unfairly penalize people who were not cruisers but who were making repeat trips, for example to the store. Mr. Loew said Portland was not similar to Eugene because Portland had other activities for teens and others interested in cruising, which Eugene did not offer. Mr. Loew said he thought compromise was in order and could result in a more effective solution that would not stifle teenagers and put them lion hold" until they were adults. He said he thought any alternative would involve some problems, and the community should decide on the best one. Mr. Loew said he considered himself average, but he never had received or heard about any printed material or information. He also said it was claimed that half of the cruiser were adults, but in his experience it was difficult to define "adult," because everyone had the same interest at heart. He said help was needed to organize a compromise, perhaps such as a cabaret. Richard E. Belz, 573 Sterling Court, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Belz said he was a cruiser, too, "even though 11m 37." He said he represented Oregon Classic Chevy Club International, which had 27,000 members worldwide, and he was a Eugene homeowner and businessman. He said he thought the issue went beyond Eugene, and he urged consideration of the image that would be presented to surrounding MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 4 e e e e e communities and to the rest of the state by this decision. Mr. Belz said the right decision needed to show leadership by protecting the rights of all citizens, those who were cruising as well as those who lived in the area. He said the community also needed to consider the image presented to the rest of the world in protecting the right of citizens to free movement. Ronnie M. Graham, 1202 President Street, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Graham said he was employed by a local bakery and was president of the Inter Car Club Council of the Eugene-Springfield area, a coalition of 24 auto sports clubs in the area, with more than 3,000 family members. He said the organization's purpose included preservation and enhancement of classic autos and the conduct of motor sport activities. Mr. Graham said the group recognized fully the problems faced by neighborhood residents, businesses, and law enforcement personnel as related to activity on South Willamette Street and on West 11th Avenue and fully supported the enforcement of existing laws to control these problems. He said the group also recognized, however, that cruising had been a vital part of Americana for nearly 40 years and would continue to be as long as automobiles were built to satisfy our egos. He added he was willing to guess that most of those present had at one time or another participated in this uniquely American activity, either to show off a car or to search out companionship. Mr. Graham said the Eugene anti-cruising ordinance was similar to laws passed in Portland; Seattle; Kent, Washington; and various eastern cities. He said information from nationwide clubs indicated that such ordinances did not stop cruising, but merely served to disperse the activity to other pocket locations, which further complicated law enforcement efforts. Where negative or criminal behavior occurs with cruising, such ordinances tended only to drive the activity underground. He said he was reminded of a statement that at least when kids were cruising, their whereabouts were known and they could be watched. He said the group believed that, in the interests of our community, youth, and the general public, such a philosophy deserved careful consideration by members of the council. Mr. Graham expressed concern about the broad discretionary power that such ordinances placed in the hands of police officers, giving individual officers rights to declare emergencies, close certain streets to cruising activity, and to begin discriminate distribution of citations. He said identification of cruising could allow selective enforcement, and he was concerned that officers would become overzealous with the "protect" portion of their motto and to forget about the "serve" portion. Mr. Graham said most ordinances defined cruising so liberally that it would apply to people who went to the store, forgot to collect their change, and later returned. He said activity in and around Autzen Stadium, MacArthur Court, and community events also could constitute cruising problems. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 5 e e e e e Mr. Graham said crulslng had been and would continue to be a part of the American lifestyle. He said cruising had survived a 40-year history of ordinances designed to abolish such activities, and it would continue to survive. He said such blanket ordinances only served to disperse activity to other locations. Over its history, the best law enforcement solution to cruising problems had been the active presence of police patrols that fairly removed troublemakers through existing traffic, trespass, liquor, drug, or noise laws. When the cruising problems centers around youth, Mr. Graham said the best solution was to assign officers who had an interest in youth and who could gain their respect, with the ultimate goal of providing leadership that would encourage youth to police their own activity. Mr. Graham said cruising was an integral part of the car club activities, which were conducted not only for the enjoyment of its members, but also to preserve and share part of history with the general public. He said passage of an anti-cruising ordinance would severely restrict the club1s activities. He reported dramatic increases in interest in classic autos, and he said organized cruises in many communities had become annual events, with significant economic impact. In Roseburg, for example, he said merchants indicated that the annual "Cruise-in" was second only to Christmas in revenue produced. He also noted that every year, car enthusiasts from allover the country gathered in Eugene-Springfield and enjoyed cruising. In July 1988, he said the owners of 1955 through 1957 Chevrolets would gather in the community, attracting more than 1,000 participants for five days, and he expressed concern about the impact on tourism of an ordinance that would prohibit cruising. Mr. Graham said the members of his organization recognized the existence of problems with cruising on South Willamette and West 11th, but they did not feel passage of a blanket, anti-cruising ordinance was the answer. He said the organization was willing to offer its time, expertise, and money to work with the police department and local youth to find a viable solution to the problem. He added that he did not feel the punishment for the ordinance fit the Ilcrime." Chuck Edwards, 275 Rustic Place, said he owned an auto repair service and was co-chair of the Pacific Street Machine Association, which also was affiliated with the Inter Car Club Council and was more than willing to help in finding a solution to problems. Mr. Edwards said the problem on liThe Gut" was multi-faceted, and the problem with the ordinance was that it addressed only one symptom, rather than all of the causes that combined to create problems. Dealing with these causes, he said, would better enable dealings with people. The problem was not cars or cruising, but the people, he said, and until people were dealt with effectively, problems would not be solved but would remain. Mr. Edwards said it was a fallacy to think that stopping people from cruising would stop the problems. Mr. Edwards also said those who conducted themselves in an orderly and lawful manner on the road resented the implication that everyone was responsible for all of the problems happening on "The Gut." He said he MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 6 thought so many people were present tonight to show that they were ~ responsible and that the ordinance would not work. Mikal Krummel, 2424 Charnelton, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Krummel said his interest and background in liThe Gut" were drawn from several years of participation on liThe Gutll Task Force and on the Juvenile Crime subcommittee of the Eugene Crime Action Task Force. He said he also lived near Willamette Street, and he, too, had been affected by vandalism, noise, and speeding on his street, yet he was here in opposition to an anti-cruising ordinance. e e e e Mr. Krummel said his involvement on liThe Gut" Task Force, as well as his long-standing participation in the youth service community in Eugene, confirmed his notion that youth involvement fostered the most positive change in a community. He said he felt better participation and cooperation could be gained by doing something with people rather than doing something to them. Mr. Krummel reiterated a priority recommendation of the Crime Action Task Force, stating that lIattractive alternative activities to undesirable behavior (i.e., drug use, disorderly conduct, and vandalism) should be available for youth in order for adolescent crime to decrease." He said Recommendation No.1 stated that, in order to create a safer environment in this community for youth, the City needs to identify those areas of the city that are disproportionately affected by youth crime and those areas that provide inadequate recreational resources for youth (an area in which he believed liThe Gutll qualified), and resources should be targeted to these areas. He said Recommendation NO.3 had addressed the need to recognize liThe Gutll as an area heavily affected by youth, and The Gut Task Force, the Youth Commission, the police, and other elements of the City should continue efforts to control liThe Gutll situation and to provide safe and attractive alternative activities to gut users. Mr. Krummel said he today had spoken to a group of high school journalism students, who had conducted a survey of students on the cruising issue. He said he had been interested in hearing their feelings about the ordinance and about projected impacts on the city if the ordinance were passed. He said students had responded that the ordinance was "stupid, unfair, a ripoff, most kids don't abuse liThe Gut,1I there won't be anything else to do, and the City doesn't really care about how young people feel in this community.1I Mr. Krummel said students had predicted that passing the ordinance would not eliminate cruising in the city, that kids would start hanging out in other locations, that liThe Gutll would move to Co burg Road, the Glenwood Strip, Springfield, or further out West 11th. If liThe Gutll did not relocate completely, he said students predicted dispersement to locations throughout the community, the hills, and the parks. They also recognized that the community had a drug abuse problem, and they predicted that more kids would start using drugs because of boredom and that larger and more frequent parties on weekends would result in youth driving while intoxicated. Mr. Krummel said students also had suggested that complaints about vandalism and disorderly conduct would spread to all areas of the city, kids would MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 7 e e e e e become more rebellious, and crime would increase. He said the most frightening impact, which he had heard expressed several times, was the anticipated rapid increase in vandalism citywide. Mr. Krummel said proponents of the ordinance had argued that problems would be eliminated by eliminating cruising. He said he suspected it was more true that problem behaviors might be eliminated in specific neighborhoods, but they were likely to spread citywide. Cheryl E. ZWillinger, 892 West 23rd Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Commission on the Rights of Youth and in opposition to the ordinance. She referred to a memo submitted by the commission, and she reviewed major points of the memo. She said cruising-related problems should not be addressed in isolation of addressing the recreational and social needs of young people; current resources did not address the need for Friday- and Saturday-night recreation for teenagers, both in-school, or who supported themselves. Prior to the adoption of an ordinance, the commission felt that City needed to work with other jurisdictions, the private sector, and area youth to develop a comprehensive plan aimed at creating alternatives. Ms. Zwillinger said the City had failed to provide recreational resources for young people, and "The Gut" had met that need. She said it was unreasonable to assume that if cruising were taken away, young people would IIjust disappear or go home and play parcheesi .11 Ms. Zwillinger asked about the impact of the ordinance. She said no evidence existed that the ordinance would reduce crime, and it might only be displaced. Crime could increase because of further youth alienation and frustration, she added. She asked about the message that would be sent to young people by passage of the ordinance and said the response from many young people and parents was that the policy was anti-youth. She said the City could face increased costs if activities spread to other nei ghborhoods. Portland I s "Gut" had moved outside the city, and kids had started hanging out in parks, she said. She added that dropping liThe Gutll into another jurisdiction could create further friction between governments, and if liThe Gutll moved to an unincorporated area, less police protection would be available to young people. Ms. Zwillinger said the City could suffer short- and long-range economic losses as young people decided to spend their money elsewhere and as Eugene became known as a community that was unresponsive to young people's needs. She said the problems with cruising had been recognized by the commission and by young people, and that was the reason for the move to a non-residential area on West 11th. She said the youth commission felt that banning cruising without creating alternatives was short-sighted and wrong. Jon Silvermoon, 892 West 23rd Avenue, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Silvermoon said he was a member of the youth commission, and the commission recognized that young people should be held accountable for any destructive or law-breaking behavior they might exhibit. However, he said, it was not cruising that affected the safety MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 8 e e e of the entire city; rather it was the criminal activity of frustrated and alienated young people in the absence of positive and meaningful social and recreational alternatives. If those needs continued to go unaddressed in the city, he said delinquent behavior would continue to occur, whether in a cruising area, city parks, the downtown mall, or dispersed throughout the city. That was the reason for the recommendation in favor of developing a comprehensive plan to meet those needs, he said, and the City's commitment of staff and budgetary resources for that should occur before passing any type of anti-cruising ordinance. Mr. Silvermoon said the youth commission had been working for several months through its Positive Recreation Subcommittee, and it had performed community networking with programs like the At-Risk Youth Consortium. He noted that Salem provided four nightclubs for teenagers, while Eugene had none. He said the commission felt that development and implementation of such a plan would reduce crime on liThe Gutll and throughout the city, it would contribute dollars to Eugene's economy as young people sought recreational services, it would further the economic goal of making Eugene a regional service center, it would increase the attractiveness of Eugene as a place to live and locate a business, it would show Eugene as a city that cared about its younger citizens, and it would show that Eugene was working to make itself a safe city for people to live and work in. Mr. Silvermoon said banning crulslng without first creating social recreational alternatives was a simplistic and somewhat brutal tactic. He said he trusted that the City Council could provide the effective, creative, compassionate, and far-seeing leadership to create alternatives and to do something more meaningful than that. Paul Hafner, 2233 West 28th Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Hafner said that although liThe Gutll had been a problem in recent years for people living in the area, he felt that the proposed anti-cruising ordinance was not a good solution. He said its enforcement would help to reduce noise and other pollution in the area, but not everyone who cruised liThe Gutll was there to cause trouble, and it was unfortunate that the only solution proposed so far allowed everyone, whether they were causing trouble or not, to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. He said cruising as defined by the ordinance was so general that it would apply to people who were not cruising. He said examples of unintentional violations were not rare and coula occur otten. Mr. Harner said he felt that the law was too general, and no solution was better than a bad solution. He suggested at least holding further discussion before using such extreme measures. He said he felt he had a right to move about freely, whether cruising or just going to the store, as long as he was not harming anyone. He also said he agreed it was likely that crime would shift to other locations or that more destructive behaviors than cruising would result. J. R. Ellis, 777 Pearl, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Ellis said he worked for the Eugene Police DeDartment, which was not unanimous in its support for the ordinance. He said he had worked with the traffic team on South Willamette Street. Mr. Ellis said he felt a tactic that had worked well had been for the two officers assigned to the area to MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 9 e call a meeting in an area parking lot to explain the rules of "The Gut," as had been done in 1986. Mr. Ellis said the ordinance was not workable, and patrols would not be increased during the evening hours when needed. He said that last summer, only two or three officers had been assigned to the area, and they had not been in the area at all times. He said the same amount of enforcement would be needed to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Ellis also said he had worked nights for the past three years, and he had noticed that since cruising on South Willamette this winter had ceased, the activity normally associated with that area already had been dispersed throughout the city, notably to Hendricks Park and to businesses on Coburg Road, West 11th, and in Santa Clara. He said he and some other members of the department felt that passage of the ordinance would be a mi stake. David Eddington, 3480 Chaucer Way, spoke in opposition. He said he thought the council needed to look at the image that the ordinance would portray to the state and the country, and what it would say was that Eugene was a community that was not responsible to its young people. He said problems affecting teens today, such as use of alcohol and other drugs, would not be solved, but displaced. e Mr. Eddington said he was concerned about the impact of the ordinance on liberty and on the right to free access to public facilities created for use by ALL citizens. He said the ordinance would infringe on those rights and would make Eugene appear regressive, rather than progressive. He said he wanted Eugene to be a friendly place, where people would not be hassled by police for driving back and forth twice in a two-hour period, adding that prohibiting six or seven passes might be a little more realistic. David Fidanque, 1679 Willamette Street, spoke on behalf of the Lane County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and he noted that a memo had been distributed in packets. Mr. Fidanque said the group's primary concern was the issue of discriminatory enforcement, and he had heard nothing tonight to lessen his concern. He said that even if lap computers were used at first, citations and enforcement eventually would occur on a random and haphazard basis. He said a number of examples of unintentional violations had been mentioned by previous speakers, and he offered another, in which a vehicle might be loaned to someone who was unaware of the routes previously driven by a different driver. He said the ordinance would apply to the car, not to the same driver, and it did not require mental culpability, so ignorance was not a defense. Mr. Fidanque said he believed the important point for the City Council to recognize was that the solution lay in using practices that had worked in the past on liThe Gut," namely assigning officers who wanted to be there working with young people and who were willing to walk along the street to prevent violations of open container or other laws. He said creative solutions had worked in the past and could work again. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 10 e Crystal Shope, 860 River Loop No.1, spoke for cruisers and against the ordinance. She said the main problem she saw with closing liThe Gut" was increasing drug use by teenagers in the Eugene-Springfield area. Ms. Shope said many activities had been closed recently, such as drive-ins, and she did not think the ordinance was a good idea. Brad Perkins, 1590 Mill or 37 West 13th Avenue, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Perkins expressed his support for the youth commission and its four-part planning process. He said he thought the group had put in a lot of effort to try and resolve the issue. He also said he supported the youth who had been seeking an alternative such as shifting the location to West 11th. He said he was not sure why problems continued at that location, since the area was mostly non-residential. Mr. Perkins said he did not think the community could solve a social issue by changing the face of the problem, because causes went much deeper than that. He said he hoped the council would review and consider the recommendations from the youth commission. Donnie R. Hedlind, 2285 West 29th Avenue, spoke for cruising. Mr. Hedlind said he had helped to initiate the move to West 11th Avenue, and he thought it had worked well, except for problems with littering. He said that if litter could be controlled, he thought that location would work well. He also said he had talked to many young people who stated that because they had nothing to do, they partied, and if they had someplace to go and something to do, they wouldn't party all the time. e Nancy J. Reynolds, 1858 University, submitted written comments in opposition to the ordinance: lilt is repressive and anti-youth; we're sending the wrong message to our young people." Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. Mr. Mason responded to testimony. He said it was not the intent of the Police Division to send the message that youth were not liked or wanted. He said criminal conduct was not required for problems to occur, but complaints now included noise, air pollution, and traffic congestion, which were not acceptable to residents and businesses in the area. He noted that a disproportionate number of officers had been assigned to liThe Gut" and said such concentrated deployment was not an effective tactic Tor serving the entire community. Mr. Mason said the issue of unintentional violations would require the assistance and support of citizens in the area. He said it was not the intent or the policy of the police division that enforcement occur in a random or haphazard manner, and areas would be designated by the police chief based on the number of complaints and problems in an area. He said officers did enforce alcohol laws on South Willamette Street. He also said the move to West 11th Avenue had caused significant problems, such as litter and requiring early closures, for business owners, and the Department of Public Safety was concerned about mixed speeds and traffic congestion in that area. e Ms. Ehrman asked whether the issue of cruising was being addressed by the Cops-in-the-Schools program. Ms. Wooten also asked about the involvement MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 11 e of local youth. Mr. Mason said students had reported that cruising was not a desirable activity among local youth. He said officers had worked with gut activities, were aware of problems, and could discuss it with students. He said no organized program had been attempted because the profile of cruisers did not appear to match that of local high school students. Ms. Wooten asked whether police had noticed increased litter and vandalism throughout the city since cruising had dropped off this winter. Mr. Mason said he had not heard any comments from officers and could not confirm or deny that. Ms. Bascom asked whether interference litter, noise, and complaints ceased. would designate congested areas based activities. with crulslng would be necessary if Mr. Mason said the police chief on information about current Mayor Obie asked about alternative activities, whether it was better to contain cruising in one area, and concerns about more destructive behaviors resulting from the ordinance. Mr. Mason said it was not the function of the police to provide alternative activities, and that should be addressed in some other fashion. Mr. Gleason said the central location in the city provided an attraction, which resulted in nuisances. e Mayor Obie asked about the profile of cruisers. Mr. Mason said police information was based on enforcement contacts and therefore included only violations, which he said coincided with perceptions of officers. He said that among Eugene residents, 47.9 percent of violators were 18 or older, and 56.2 percent were juveniles; of those cited from outside Eugene, 52.1 percent were adults, and 43.8 percent were juveniles. He added that half of violations had been given to Eugene residents. Ms. Wooten asked whether a majority of adult cruisers were under 21. Mr. Mason said his observation was the majority of cruisers were from 18 to 22 or 23 years old. Mr. Miller asked about ways to focus on specific behaviors. Mr. Gleason said the task force and the community had attempted campaigns and literature, but many people felt those efforts had produced little impact. He also said four or five traffic circulation patterns had been tried. Responding to Ms. Bascom's question, Mr. Mason said the City had not been involved in the recent move to West 11th Avenue, nor had the petition submitted in 1987, regarding prohibition of left turns on Willamette Street. He said the shift in location had been initiated by cruisers and a flyer. Ms. Wooten asked about a lack of recreational alternatives, adding that she thought more than one under-21 club had opened last summer. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 12 e Mr. Mason said he had observed no impact on cruising as a result of those clubs. He said cruising did seem to depend on weather, outside events, and holidays. Ms. Wooten said she had heard concerns about the lack of activities for several years while interviewing applicants for the youth commission, and she asked about the City's responsibility in that area. Mr. Gleason said a number of activities were provided at Autzen Stadium, the Hult Center, and by athletic and recreational programs, for which he saw no radical changes in funding. He said he thought cruising involved a limited population that would not necessarily be served by alternative activities. Ms. Wooten said she would vote against the ordinance. She said she did not think cruisers had the right to use South Willamette Street as a playground, but she believed the proposed ordinance was too burdensome and onerous, not even-handed, and the fines were too great. She suggested a different structure for the ordinance and that the council refer the issue to the Joint Parks and the Cultural Affairs Commissions for ways of providing significant and bonafide alternatives. CB 3023--An ordinance concerning traffic congestion thorough- fares; adding a new Section 5.155 to the Eugene Code, 1971; amending Section 5.990 of that code; and declaring an emergency. e Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Ms. Schue said she had several concerns about the issue, which she had been involved with for nine years. She said she was interested in providing a contained location for cars in a safe and agreeable area, she was concerned about impacts on neighborhoods, and she favored recreational alternatives for youth but was dubious about whether they would solve the problem. She said she did not like the ordinance's prohibition of three passes, which she thought was minimal, and she thought the fines were too high. She suggested reworking the ordinance. Mr. Miller expressed concern about the rights of homeowners and businesses. He said he thought it was the responsibility of the City to provide resources to curb problems and to enforce stiffer penalties, but he was not comfortable with the ordinance. He said he favored focusing on destructiveness and enhancing patrols if necessary. He urged representatives of car clubs to work with the youth commission on alternative activities. He expressed concern about impacts of litter, businesses closing early, congestion, and noise and said he saw a need to seriously address unacceptable behavior. e Ms. Bascom said she was concerned about effective use of police resources and about the disproportionate number of officers being used on liThe MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 13 e Gut.1I She said she thought it was worth trying an innovative approach for a test year or for one summer. She added that she did not believe the City had the luxury of continuing without a better solution. Mr. Holmer said he favored the ordinance because he thought it was the responsibility of the City to protect individual liberty and property, both of which were challenged by misuse of liThe Gut.1I He said that if activity was corrected, designation of a congested area would not be necessary, and he thought the ordinance was a reasonable effort to address the problem and was the best plan being offered. Ms. Ehrman thanked speakers for attending the hearing, which she said she had found one of the more informative. She said she did not support the ordinance, because she thought negative behavior by some, rather than cruising itself, was the problem. She said she was sympathetic to neighborhood concerns, but signs had been installed, and she favored waiting until summer to see what happened. Ms. Ehrman said she disagreed with the fines imposed by the ordinance, and she did not expect that continued work on the ordinance would persuade her to support it. She said she would like the youth commission and others to continue to work on the problems, adding that while problems might be dispersed in the short term, she thought they would boomerang in vandalism and other impacts throughout the rest of the community. Ms. Ehrman added that she believed costs of the ordinance would grow and selective enforcement would occur because it would be impossible to enforce equally. e Roll call vote; the motion carried 7:0. Council Bill 3023 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. approved and given final passage. failed 2:5, Councilors Holmer and Councilors Ehrman, Miller, Rutan, nay. Bascom, that the bill be Roll call vote; the motion Bascom voting aye; Schue, and Wooten voting Mayor Obie complimented speakers and said cruisers had won the vote tonight, and they would win on South Willamette Street, by playing by the rules. The meeting was recessed for a five-minute break at 9:20 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE EUGENE BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN e City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Diane Bishop of the Public Works Department presented the staff report. She said the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan had been adopted in 1975 and was reviewed annually by the Bicycle Committee. She said the committee recommended no changes to the plan but had received three requests from citizens. She said two of the requests for funding priorities would be considered in future Capital Improvements Program lists, and the third request, for a short neighborhood connector, had been tabled by the Bicycle Committee. She said connectors generally were not included on the master plan because of MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 14 e e e the small segments served. Ms. Bishop said the Bicycle Committee requested that the City Council accept the plan with no changes. Mr. Holmer asked whether the Bicycle Committee had looked at the impact on bike paths of Valley River Center and new developments in that area or whether the committee had any plans to examine those impacts during the coming year. Ms. Bascom said residents of the condominiums on the east river bank had called asking when the path would be installed. She said easements had been obtained, and further review would be acceptable to the committee, but her impression was that the committee would reach the same conclusion, that the connection was very important for the city. Mr. Rutan said the City was looking at potential development in the Delta Ponds area, and one problem was putting a bike path through the wetlands area or perhaps installing a bridge. He said he thought the amount of development that had occurred and was occurring in the area would make it worthwhile for the Bicycle Committee to keep a close watch on that portion of the bike path. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to adopt the recommendation of the Eugene Bicycle Committee. Roll call vote; the motion carried 7:0. Ms. Ehrman suggested that the committee examine whether an annual review was needed or whether every other year might be sufficient. III. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE SIGN CODE BOARD OF APPEALS City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. John Weber of the Public Works Department presented the staff report. He said the amendment would replace the Sign Code Board of Appeals with a hearings official in the appeal process, a change that was in keeping with the council's policy on streamlining planning and development applications and procedures. He noted that the zoning appeal process had been changed to a hearings official approximately three years ago, and this amendment would make the two processes identical. Mr. Weber said the City averaged one or fewer sign appeals per year, the council subcommittee supported the amendment, and the City Manager's Office had held further appointments to the sign board for council action. He said the members of the sign board did not support the amendment, and the Citizen Involvement Committee and the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Weber said the Planning Commission had asked staff to look into the possibility of expanding the role of the Building Codes Advisory Committee (BCAC), to include input on sign code matters. He said the Building Division had found that the present structure of the BCAC would MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 15 e permit such input. The Planning Commission also had recommended that the Citizen Involvement Committee review the appeal process in about one year to see if it was working well. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. e Kevin Jones, 1678 West 7th Avenue, representing Jones Signs Systems, spoke in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Jones said he had not intended to speak tonight, because several other people had spoken against the amendment at the Planning Commission, but the commission had referred the issue to the council as if no one had spoken at all. He said the Sign Code Board of Appeals had voted to maintain itself, contrary to information being presented by a staff member to another group across town at the same time. He said everyone against this change felt that some form of review by a group of peers that represented the interests of the citizens of Eugene should be maintained. He said the change would not benefit citizens, save money, or speed up the hearings process. He said the process being used previously had worked well when the City had maintained the board as it was supposed to. He said the City, not the Sign Code Board, had failed in its duties. He said the change would give the City complete control of the process from application to appeal, it would eliminate citizen involvement in the deCiSion-making process for the sake of convenience and consolidation with the process currently being used for land use issues. Mr. Jones said signs were a unique medium, and he did not understand how better decisions would be made by one person rather than by several people, as was done with juries. He said he hoped the council would consider the impact of the amendment on the business people and industries that would be affected by the regulations. He said he wished the City would have requested input from the sign industry and had chosen to work with them, rather than alienating them from the process. He said he was willing to work on a compromise solution, and he felt the council should consider that option. Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. Ms. Wooten referred to statements in staff notes and asked whether they implied that special privileges were being exhibited by the Sign Code Board of Appeals or other appeal bodies such as the Construction Code Board of Appeals. Mr. Reed said that a few years ago, the City Council had given staff greater authority to grant variances, and the number of variances had not decreased, but they now could be granted by staff, rather than by the board. He said criteria for variances had been established, and staff findings would be reviewed against those criteria in the Hearings Official process. He said staff felt that review was better performed by a professional who was trained in law to review the ordinance and to apply the facts to the criteria than for a lay body to weigh those facts against the criteria in the ordinance. The process also would save staff time for writing the findings, he added. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 16 e Mr. Miller asked how the Hearings Official would handle questionable issues of law. Mr. Reed said that concern was being addressed by a periodic report to the Planning Commission and the council that discussed problems or oversights in the code. CB 3024--An ordinance concerning the Sign Code Board of Appeals; amending Sections 2.103, 2.391, 8.670, 8.765, 8.802, 8.804, 8.805, and 9.510 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Sections 8.800 and 8.801 of that code; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried uanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 3024 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19536). IV. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL REPORT ON EUGENE'S FUTURE LIBRARY e City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item and recommended that the council accept the report. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to accept the Final Report, Eugene's Future Library, dated February 10, 1988, prepared and submitted by the Future of Our Library Committee. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. V. FINDINGS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL/ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR CAMEO ESTATES (CONTRACT #87-01) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item and said staff was available to answer questions. C8 3025--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and sanitary and storm sewers to serve Cameo Estates and area between Gilham Road to 300 feet east of Sarah Lane, from 2,000 feet North to 1,300 feet north of Crescent Avenue (Contract #87-01). Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 17 - unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried uanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 3025 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote, all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19537). VI. FINDINGS AND MINUTES OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL/ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR 25TH PLACE CUL-DE-SAC (CONTRACT #87-16) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. CB 3026--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and storm sewers located in 25th Place cul-de-sac from 200 feet west of Hilyard Street to Hilyard Street (Contract #87-16). e Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to approve the Hearings Official findings, recommendations, and minutes of February 9, 1988, and that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Ms. Bascom said the cul-de-sac was located in Ms. Schue's ward and across the street from her ward. She said neighbors had waited a long time for completion of the project so that dust would not blow onto them, and she had been pleased to see the project completed. She said she was sorry to see that the issue had raised a furor with two of the owners and noted that the increase from the expected $40 to the actual $70 was enormous. Ms. Bascom suggested addressing some of the Hearings Official IS comments. Les Lyle of the Public Works Department said a number of procedures had been implemented to make sure that no further confusion occurred in the information provided to property owners about future projects. He said one reason for the initial estimates had been to provide a general idea of costs, which had been based on averages for a number of other projects. Because this project was small, with a limited amount of frontage to bear the costs, they had exceeded averages. Mr. Lyle said property owners had been invited to attend a hearing prior to award, and no response had been received. He said owners had attended the most recent hearing, and a number of comments had been received about notification and cost distribution. He said City actions conformed to code requirements, and staff would continue to strive to provide information and clear understanding to oroperty owners. Mr. Lyle said procedures being implemented to address those concerns included notifying e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 18 e e e property owners when projects were initiated, designed and bid, and continuing to reiterate and enhance processes for notification and distribution of assessments. Ms. Schue said she thought the difference in estimated costs was the biggest problem, and she suggested making estimates more accurate if they were provided at all. Mr. Lyle said estimates would be expanded to include a possible range of costs. Mayor Obie requested that the City Manager report back on steps to be taken in response to the letter from the Hearings Official. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 3026 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19538). Ms. Schue thanked Ms. Ehrman for serving as chair of the Future of Our Library Committee. Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ?...~, M;~l D. Gle n City Manager (Recorded by Leslie Scales) mncc022288 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 19