Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/1981 Meeting ; M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council City Council Chamber October 12, 1981 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Councilors Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Cynthia Wooten, and Emily Schue. ABSENT: Mayor Gus Keller. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Gretchen Miller. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS I A. Consideration of Parade Permit Ordinances and Administrative Rules Revision (memo, ordinances, and administrative rules distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Les Swanson, City Attorney. e Mr. Swanson stated that this matter has been before the council previously. Suggestions were made for changes in the ordinance and those changes have now been made. The memo from the City Attorney, dated October 1, 1981, which was distributed to the council, outlines the changes which have been made. They are: definition of "parade" has been changed to define it more tightly; an exclusion has been entered for a parade group of people which remains on side- walks and which does not use streets; there are a couple of changes regarding the basis for permit denial--where participants are likely to cause violence based upon reasonable information and some of the other grounds have been deleted--and, regarding permit revocation, those grounds have been modified to refer primarily to imminent threats of violence, to refer to the fact that a request to disband a parade has been refused, or that there has been actual violence caused by parade participants, or that there has been significant deviation in route. Additionally, the insurance requirements have been dropped because of advice from the Risk Manager that the purchase of insurance is available at fairly minor cost and the insurance requirements pose difficulty in the drafting of the ordinance because of causing problems with exercising First Amendment rights. Public hearing was opened. Mike Goldstein, 848 West 10th, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild. He had expressed serious concerns at the previous public hearing with the draft of the ordinance that was being considered at that -' time. The new draft is a significant improvement over the former draft, and if MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1981 Page 1 parades must be regulated by ordinance, the suggested ordinance seems to fall e within the parameters of acceptability. He has outlined some suggestions in a letter which was delivered this afternoon. He thanked the City Attorney's office and the City Council for all the work they have put into this measure and the consideration they have taken, as well as their responsiveness. However, there are still suggestions he would like to have considered. Every provision in the ordinance is directed toward some reasonable and legitimate objective, but there are concerns toward four provisions as to the way they are drafted, since they may be susceptible to overly broad or dangerous enforcement. The proposed changes are: 1) The last sentence of 5.05 (3) be changed to "...reli- able information shows that the parade organizers intend to cause or condone violence during the course of the parade." The reason for this proposed change is that some participants might not have knowledge or consent from the organizers to act in certain ways and it would be unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to deny a parade permit to organizers because a group of individuals may be hostile to their interests. This would allow parade organizers to be held to a higher level of accountability; not only would they not be allowed to cause violence, they would not be allowed to condone violence. Other participants who are not organizers would be covered by the section in the ordinance which deals with protecting public safety; 2) the second change relates to route or time change on the matter of traffic congestion. They would suggest that 5.505 (4) be changed to "whether the parade is likely to interfere substantially with the flow of traffic by causing excessive traffic congestion for a long period of time and this congestion cannot be alleviated by reasonable efforts to redirect traffic"; 3) the third change deals with permit revocation. They would suggest that Section 5.520 (b) be replaced by two sections: "and violence has been caused or condoned by parade organizers" and "actual violence that endangers e public safety has been caused by parade participants and public safety cannot be protected without revocation of the permit"; 4) the final suggestion deals with Administrative Rule 6. They would suggest that exclusion of use of principal arterial streets be limited to Monday through Friday, since those are the days of heavy traffic congestion. Larry Ross, 1236 Kincaid, stated that he is representing the American Civil Liberties Union. He would like for the council to postpone final consideration of this ordinance. The notice mailed October 1, 1981, to Drew Smith at ACLU was not received until this morning because he was out of town. This draft does not respond to several issues which concerned the council at the last meeting. Council had requested alternatives. Councilor Obie wanted to know why there are parade permits for political parades. There are no responses to either of these requests. The ordinance has not been changed. The only- significant revisions which he has been able to discover relate to changes in the administrative rules regarding insurance. The issue seems to be one of promoting freedom of expres- sion of speech. The City should be willing 'and has an obligation to support freedom of expression and they should be willing to undertake costs, whether people can afford the costs or not. This should be subsidized just as much as civic buildings and other items of public benefit. To impose burdens of cost seems to discriminate against those who have money, and that is not permissible by the First Amendment. The grounds for permit denial because of a possibility of violence being caused to parade participants are still a problem. The main e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1981 Page 2 I concern is dealing with causes that are unpopular and will invite violence to e their members. The more unpopular the cause, the more hazardous the health and safety of the participants will become. This is exacerbated by the requirement that parade leaders be identified by badges so they will be marked as targets, especially if the parade is for an unpopular cause. Freedom of expression of ideas should be encouraged, particularly when those ideas are unpopular. Popular ideas really do not need protection. They would hope this item would be deferred so they could provide alternative legislation. Marion Malcolm, 795 Willamette, stated that she is from Clergy and Laity Con- cerned. She agrees with Mr. Goldstein that this draft is an improvement. The changes are compatible with the right of citizens to peaceful assembly. She shares the reservations which Mr. Goldstein enumerated. With regard to 5.520 (permit revocation), in Eugene, there has been a long history of peaceful protest. There have been provocateurs in some cases operating here in Eugene. This section, as now written, could play into the hands of provocateurs or a couple of stray individuals who did not share the goals and aims of the parade as designed by the organizers. The wording suggested by Goldstein would probably solve that problem if there is a clause which states that the permit should be revoked "only if there is a threat to public safety and that that threat has not been able to be contained." Bob Goldin, 110 Mayfair Lane, stated that he is from the Coalition for Social Justice. He endorsed the suggestions made by Malcolm and Goldstein and appre- ciates the improvements. They would like to be kept informed of any continuing changes which may occur. They plan to put together a large march and rally on November 7, 1981, to deal with the issue of Ronald Reagan's economic and social e policies and they would hope to see some of the council there. This is an important and ongoing issue and they appreciate the work that has been done so far. They would hope that the changes would be made so that the ordinance is protective of civil liberties. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith asked for staff response to the suggestions given in the testimony. Mr. Swanson responded that he had received a copy of Mr. Goldstein's letter today and reviewed the suggestions. In regard to directing the ordinance to the organ- izers rather than the participants, organizers must realize that parade benefits and risks will both have to be accepted. Staff is concerned that Mr. Goldstein's suggestions would inject more subjective standards into the ordinance. Violence is violence, and the police can enforce on an individual basis if instances are of an individual nature. However, if individual enforcement does not stop violence, 'then officers must do what is necessary to protect the public safety. He is concerned that changes suggested for Section 5.505 (4) would introduce a number of criteria and cause it to be more subjective than the current draft. He does not feel this is an improvement. In regard to permit revocation, his comment would be the same in regard to the violence factor. In response to Mr. Goldstein's fourth suggestion, staff would recommend that Sundays be excluded and the council could amend that section of Administrative Rule 6. Ms. Smith asked if the staff recommendation for Rule 6 would still include Saturday. Mr. Swanson stated that that would be up to the council, but sometimes Saturday traffic can be heavy. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1981 Page 3 Ms. Smith asked Mr. Goldstein what he means by "long period of time." Mr. e Goldstein responded that that could be interpreted as a number of minutes or other interpretations. Police frequently enforce to the maximum sense of a rule and this will allow enforcement if there are many cars for only a few seconds. The important part of this suggestion is that II congestion could not be alle- viated by resonable efforts to redirect traffic." Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Swanson what his concern is with changing the word "parti- cipants" to "organizers." It is impossible to know prior to an event if parti- cipants will or will not be violent. Mr. Swanson stated that he is concerned about protection of the First Amendment rights of the organizers. There must be reliable information and it must show that they intend to cause violence, not that there is a possibility for violence to occur. If reliable information is received, it would be prudent to delay or revoke the permit until the facts can be determined as to whether or not the parade can be carried out safely. Staff feels this would be more judgmental. Ms. Wooten asked what would happen if a police sergeant had heard that someone would be making trouble. She asked if that information would cause revocation. There could be idle threats or someone trying to stop the parade. Mr. Swanson responded that if there is knowledge of someone planning to cause trouble this would not cause revocation of the permit since that would be trouble caused by a participant. This does allow for a judgment call, but that will always be the case. Mr. Lindberg added that it is clear that judgment calls will have to be made but he is concerned about the ACLU's concerns. In Skokie, Illinois, there were anti-parade organizers who did do violence. He feels in Section 5.520 it should state that this would occur if public safety is being threatened and the violence cannot be contained. Ms. Schue added that she is concerned about "intend to cause violence." She e feels it should be changed to state lito be violent or to participate in violence." Mr. Swanson stated that if a parade would not be permitted because someone may approach the participants, then that would be a clear violation of the law. They could state "intend to engage in violence." CB 2310--An ordinance concerning parades; amending sections 5.500, 5.505, 5.510, and 5.520 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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, and to amend the language of Section 5.505 (3) and (2) to state "...intend to engage in violence..." and to change Administrative Rule 6 to include the language "except on Sun- days." Ms. Smith stated that she feels it is inappropriate for a council-of-the-whole to draft and redraft language and this could be changed later. Ms. Wooten added she would like to see this item delayed again. She feels strongly about the wording of participants rather than organizers. She also feels the traffic congestion section should be more definitive, which would make it easier to focus on. She noted support for the work done by Chief Packard but indicated that she would vote against the motion. Mr. Obie stated that if one voted against the motion, then it would not take- effect immediately. The other e option would be to begin another draft. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1981 Page 4 . . Discussion of procedure continued. - Ms. Miller stated that she would like to see this item considered tonight as minor adjustments could be made later. The attorneys and others have worked diligently on this draft and this may be one of the few potentially constitu- tional parade ordinances in the country. However, she would like to change "participants" to "organizers" and add Mr. Goldstein's language regarding Section 5.520. If a person engaging in violence can be stopped, then he should be, but if not, then police can disperse the crowd. This would be the case in situations where there is a chance for substantial public harm. There are sometimes a few people in others' gatherings who cause violence. Ms. Miller moved to amend, seconded by Ms. Wooten, Section 5.505 (3) substituting "organizers" for "participants," Section 5.520 (b) substituting "organizers" for "participants," and Section 5.505 (c) adding Mr. Goldstein's suggestions and sub- sequent renumbering of following subsections. Roll call vote on the amendment; motion carried, 6:2, with Councilors Hamel and Obie voting no. Roll call vote on the amended motion; motion carried, 7:1, with Councilor Obie voting no. CB 2383--An ordinance concerning activities on streets and sidewalks; amending Section 4.860 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. "-e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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; motion carried 7:1 with Councilor Obie voting no. B. Rezoning: Property located on the south side of Franklin Boulevard, and the west side of Glenwood Boulevard, and the southeast side of Glenwood Boulevard from County M-1 Limited Industrial and M-2 Light Industrial District to City M-2 Light Industrial District (City of Eugene: Glenwood Boulevard) (Z 81-12) (map and' background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning. Mr. Croteau stated that this is an area near Franklin Boulevard which was annexed in 1976. At that time, the City did not have a policy for concurrent rezoning with annexation. This is to rectify that mistake and staff is recom- mending M-2 zoning. Ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest were requested. Mr. Hamel stated that he has a conflict of interest because of his association with Mr. Fisher and therefore would abstain. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. 'Ie MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1981 Page 5 ~ CB 2384--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County M-1 Limited . Industrial and M-2 Light Industrial District to City M-2 Light Industrial District for property located on the south side of Franklin Boulevard, the west side of Glenwood Boulevard, and the southeast side of Glenwood Boulevard. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of September 1, 1981, be adopted by reference thereto; 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; motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Hamel abstaining. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, with Mr. Hamel abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18884. II. PAYMENT OF BILLS AND CLAIMS (distributed) Res. No. 3592--A resolution authorizing the payment of bills and claims for the period September 29, 1981, through October 7, 1981. . Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the reso- lution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3593--A resolution authorizing the payment of bills and claims for the period October 7, 1981, through October 12, 1981. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the reso- lution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimous)y. The meeting was adjourned to October 14, 1981. Respectfully submitted, _._.~-"...-. Micheal D. Gleason Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:cm/CM23a1 " MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1981 Page 6