Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/08/98 Meeting MINUTES Eugene City Council City Council Chamber--City Hall June 8, 1998 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Farr, Tim Laue, Bobby Lee, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Betty Taylor, Ken Tollenaar. The June 1, 1998, meeting of the Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.; Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. i. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed guidelines for participating in the Public Forum. Nick Antone, Jr., 512 Honeysuckle Lane, stated that he was a lifelong resident of Eugene. He read sections of material he had received from the Salvation Army entitled "Working Miracles Every Day." He said he did not believe the City had been responsive to the needs of the under- privileged. He said he opposed the closing of the Downtown Mall, supported placing a flag on Skinner Butte as a memorial for veterans, and supported establishing a police review committee. Nick Urhausen, 2858 Warren Street, said he was concerned regarding the City's policy of providing health insurance for domestic partners of employees because there had been no public or City Council involvement in the decision. He said he preferred that senior services be fully supported and that he believed the State legislature should determine policies regarding health insurance. Faddah Wolf, 520 West 13th Avenue, stated that he believed proposed ordinances related to the downtown mall created an "us versus them" sentiment. He said such thinking was short-term, would not work, and would create increased challenges of existing rules. He said he did not believe the proposed ordinances addressed basic problems of the mall such as business closings. He suggested that a longer-term view would engage in community-building. Darren A. Fox, 4562 Souza Court, stated that he was a US military veteran and described his experience on seeing the American flag in Somalia. He said he believed a flag on Skinner Butte would be an honorable memorial for veterans who had given their lives in the service of their country. He submitted a petition supporting his position signed by 160 persons. Charlotte Petersen, 1210 Pearl Street, said that she believed there were many who opposed placing a flag on Skinner Butte but had not shown their opposition in public meetings because the proposal had not been well publicized, because many did not believe it would ever happen, and because they feared speaking their views would be considered unpatriotic. She said she did not believe the American flag was a symbol of comfort for all people and recounted her personal MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 1 7:30 p.m. experience with large patriotic symbols. She also described memorials which she had visited in other countries. John Wayne McCulloch, Post Office Box 25552, was not present when he was invited to speak. Jori Belcher, 1190 West 17th Avenue, stated that the public hearing held by the City Council regarding renewal of the ordinance that revised the camping ban had not included an amendment that changed the sunset date of the section related to sleeping on streets in industrially zoned areas. He said he believed a second public hearing was required to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the amendment. He said the amendment would force unacceptable behavior into residential areas, to which he was opposed. David Hinkley, 1308 Jefferson Street, said that he agreed with Mr. Belcher that the previous public hearing regarding renewal of the camping ban revision had assumed there would be either renewal of the entire ordinance or its repeal. He said he believed the ordinance should not be considered by the council in its amended form. Polly Nelson, Post Office Box 50426, stated that she represented the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) of Oregon. She said her organization believed council action on proposed ordinances related to the Eugene downtown mall should be postponed until appeal processes regarding a similar Portland ordinance were complete. She said her organization opposed the proposed exclusion ordinance because its sanction was imposed without due process of law. She said the ACLU was also concerned about the Eugene camping ban. She said that if the City continued the ban, it should provide shelter and other long-term solutions to the problem. Pat Fart, 5238 Sugarpine Circle, stated that he was speaking as a resident of the Bethel-Danebo area. He said citizens of that area regularly felt they received a lower level of service than those in other areas of the City. He said he believed progress in countering such an attitude was impaired by a recent article in The Register-Guard regarding construction of a new football stadium by the Eugene 4J School District. He said he hoped area media would improve in their efforts to include the Bethel-Danebo area in the City. John Hubbird, 888 West 8th Avenue, stated that he supported extension of the ordinance permitting camping in Eugene. He said the elements related to use of religious institution parking lots and resident backyards were working well. He said he believed businesses in industrially zoned areas had a responsibility for the homeless and that difficulties for them created by the ordinance could be corrected by establishing limited densities and other changes. Bob Roundly, 476 East Broadway, discussed philosophical concepts of law, constitutions, and amendments to constitutions. He said he believed all citizens should keep laws, the US Constitution, and justified amendments. Misha Seymour, 1313 Lincoln Street #306, referred to a recent area newspaper article which reported that the US Army had used nerve gas on defectors. He said the action was similar to proposed ordinances limiting access to the downtown mall. He expressed concern that public rest rooms in the Washington-Jefferson Park had no latch and suggested that such neglect violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He also expressed concerns about objections to the effects of homeless camping and Enterprise Zone tax incentives provided to Hyundai Corporation, lighted tennis courts at Roosevelt Middle School, the lack of benches on MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 2 7:30 p.m. 13th Avenue, and the number of police officers employed by the City of Eugene. He said he objected to the imposition of a curfew on the downtown mall and placing a flag on Skinner Butte. Paul Prensky, 933 East 29th Avenue, stated that he believed the Eugene camping ban should be lifted and that only a few members of the City Council had a hopeful vision for the future. He suggested that the Human Rights Commission be empowered to mediate disputes between homeless campers and businesses in the industrially zoned areas of the City. Cary Thompson, 970-1/2 Van Buren Street, said that he believed a decision regarding a flag on Skinner Butte should be postponed until more public input had been provided. He said he was concerned about any flag proposal which added "light pollution" to the night sky. He recommended that a period of time be provided for rest and reflection about the issue. Rod Huey, 90292 Shore Lane, stated that he believed adoption of the ordinance permitting sleeping in vehicles on streets in industrially zoned areas was a disservice to businesses in the west section of the City. He said he objected to the council accepting responsibility for persons who did not accept responsibility for themselves. He reviewed information he had previously provided regarding taxes, fees, and payrolls of his business in the area. He also discussed what he called documented confrontations, incidents, and thefts in the area since adoption of the ordinance. George Boehnke, 2040 Willamette Street, stated that he was a lifelong resident of Eugene. He said he believed amending ordinances was part of the job of the City Council. He reported that, in the 1940s, Skinner Butte was bare of trees and that the JuniorAmerican Legion had planted those which were now growing to maturity as a war memorial. He said he believed a flag should be added to the summit of the butte to memorialize veterans. He suggested that it was time to "honor authority and question diversity." Larry Bute, Post Office Box 24031, invited employers to contact him with offers of jobs. He said he believed it was a good thing to fly the American flag. He said he believed the Eugene camping ban violated the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. He said he believed the camping ban ordinance was originally adopted in opposition to protestors of American involvement in the Vietnam War. John C. Dustin, 2101 West 10th Avenue, stated that he was the owner of a automotive service business near Broadway in west Eugene. He said that he faced problems from persons camping on the streets every day and that they were negatively affecting his ability to continue to do business. He described experiences of perceived danger by employees and customers, of vehicles not moved for long periods of time, and of trash and sanitation issues. Thomas Holme, Post Office Box 437, Williams, Oregon, 97544, described recent societal changes as similar to those of the Middle Ages. He suggested that businesses treated employees fairly until they are able to eliminate them through technological efficiencies. He suggested that there would be increasing numbers of homeless persons in the future and noted that a sizeable number of homeless were poets and artists. V. Start, 1430 Willamette Street #556, stated that he lived in a vehicle which he parked in the industrially zoned area of Eugene. He commented on the duty of Americans to personally resist unnamed oppressions. He said he believed there were 12 varieties of unconstitutional behavior in contemporary society. MINUTES-Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 3 7:30 p.m. Brian Simonitch, 208 East 2nd Avenue, stated that he was a US military veteran and respected the American flag, but that he believed the flag proposed as a veterans memorial atop Skinner Butte was garish and unnecessary symbolism. He quoted Samuel Johnson: "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." Ellen Klowden, 1093 East 25th Avenue, stated that she was a social worker and had been an assistant case worker at White Bird for nine months. She said she had become acquainted with persons who declined to seek social and medical services because it would require that they admit they were homeless. She said the experience had convinced her that homelessness should be decriminalized. She said she also believed the proposed mall closure ordinance was an infringement on the civil rights of citizens. Joel Wayne London, Bertelson Road and West 7th Avenue, stated that he was a peacetime veteran of the US military and was homeless. He requested that the council help the homeless help themselves by extending the proposed camping ordinances, that the homeless not be forced into desolate areas with inadequate sanitation facilities, and that dumpsters be provided for disposal of trash by persons sleeping in vehicles in industrially zoned areas. He said that he did not appreciate that business owners had threatened to shoot persons sleeping in cars. Robert Williams, 355 West 2nd Avenue, stated that he had come to Eugene as a student and had stayed because he was attracted to the support it provided for disabled persons. He described experiences with police in which he said officers were abusive and suggested that police be given training in problem-solving techniques. Ronnie Chase, 1430 Willamette Street #188, stated that he was concerned about many issues in Eugene. He said he lived in his truck, but did not consider himself homeless. He said he had a job, paid taxes, and did volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity. He said he understood the concerns of business in industrially zoned areas and urged that all allegations of misconduct be investigated. Lou Shackelford, 1012 West 4th Avenue #3 --was not present when 'invited to speak. Mayor Torrey determined there was no one else present wishing to speak and closed the Public Forum. II. ACTION: ORDINANCES CONCERNING THE DOWNTOWN MALL Senior Management Analyst Janice Bohman reviewed council consideration and public comment regarding two ordinances concerning the downtown mall. She described the intended effects of the ordinances, how they were similar to ordinances in effect in other areas of the City, and changes which had been made to them since they were initially considered by the council. She noted that if the ordinances were enacted, a revenue source for the cost of signage required would need to be determined since the previous practice of using Urban Renewal District resources for such expenses was no longer possible. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bohman stated that the proposed ordinance providing for closure of the mall between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. did not include a clause providing for MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 4 7:30 p.m. its repeal on a date in the future because it was enacted as an amendment of an already existing ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Tollenaar, City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that postponing enactment of the ordinances related to the downtown mall until legal challenges to similar City of Portland ordinances were resolved had not been deemed necessary because those under challenge were significantly different that the Eugene proposals. Ms. Bohman added that the Portland ordinances covered larger areas and, in some cases, excluded persons from areas needed for access to employment and public services. Mr. Laue said he was concerned about double jeopardy issues in relation to the exclusion ordinance. Mr. Klein replied that the City Attorney's Office did not believe there was a constitutional double jeopardy problem with the proposed ordinances because the police-issued order of exclusion provided for a hearing before a municipal judge. City Manager Jim Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4653, an ordinance excluding law violators from the Downtown Mall; adding a new Section 4.874 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and providing an automatic repeal as of March 31, 1999. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4653, with unanimous consent of the council, be read a second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. The motion was adopted unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4653 by number only. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4653 be approved and given final passage. Mr. Lee read regulations currently in force on the downtown mall and stated that he believed there was a curfew law restricting the hours youth could be unsupervised in public places. He said he believed the proposed ordinance created unnecessary additional restrictions on the use of the mall. He described concerns about youth on the mall as societal issues which could not be solved with legislation. He suggested that it would be more realistic to increase social services for youth such as the summer recreation programs which had been created at the Lane County Fairgrounds. Ms. Taylor stated that she agreed with Mr. Lee that there were already more regulations and laws than could be enforced. She said she was concerned that those who were excluded from the mall would go elsewhere and that there would be increased, not reduced, requirements for police services. She said she was also concerned that there was not adequate jail space to put people who broke the law. In response to a series of questions from Mr. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Klein explained that the proposed ordinance did not apply to violations of mall regulations read by Mr. Lee; that it included a "sunset clause" requiring that the council take action to extend its continuance beyond March 31, 1999; and that it provided for constitutionally required due processes through providing for a hearing before a municipal judge. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 5 7:30 p.m. Ms. Swanson Gribskov stated that she believed the proposed ordinance had been improved by changes made to it since it was initially presented to the council. She said she would support the ordinance because it was intended to protect youth on the mall from adult predators. Mr. Tollenaar stated that he would also support the ordinance. He emphasized that the ordinance did not target youth, but was aimed at adults who exploited the tendancy of youth to congregate on the mall. Mr. Farr stated that his initial uncertainty about how to vote on the proposed ordinance had been resolved by determining who it was designed to protect and address. He said that those who did not break the law had nothing to be concerned about from approval of the ordinance. Mayor Torrey referred to discussions held during an earlier council study session regarding the Municipal Court and suggested that, if court hearings for the proposed ordinance followed patterns for other offences, approximately 90 percent of those cited would fail to appear. He pointed out that early jail releases were required by the matrix system imposed on the Lane County by a federal judge. He said he supported the proposed ordinance because it provided quick consequences for illegal actions. He said he agreed that the proposed ordinance was not aimed at youth and that he hoped those who would be excluded from the mall would go somewhere else where there were fewer children. Mr. Lee stated that he agreed the proposed ordinance had been improved since it was initially presented to the council, but that he was concerned that removing predators from the mall would allow them to seek out youth in other areas of the city. He said he believed such persons should be incarcerated. He said he believed downtown merchants did not want youth to congregate on the mall, even though they would not admit to such an attitude. He said that if the ordinance was approved by the council, he would distribute leaflets to homeless youth informing them that the downtown mall was the safest place in town. Ms. Taylor stated that she was not convinced that the ordinance would accomplish any positive purpose because predator types would always find a way to carry out their negative activities. She suggested that it might be better to concentrate such people in a single location. In response to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Johnson explained that the proposed ordinance directed that notices of exclusion be issued to persons committing criminal offences. Mr. Laue said he believed the proposed ordinance was an innovative approach, allowing street crime to be dealt with in an effective way, but that he would not vote to approve it because it did not provide appropriate presumption of innocence because notices of exclusion could be issued on the basis of allegations. Ms. Nathanson said that she agreed with councilor comments that there are ample laws and regulations, but that she did not believe the proposed ordinance added to them because it used what was already against the law as the basis for exclusion from the mall. She said she believed the ordinance sought to exclude specific behaviors by specific individuals and could encourage modeling of positive behavior to youth. The motion to approve Council Bill 4653 was adopted, 5:3, with Mr. Laue, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Taylor voting no, and became Ordinance 20121. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 6 7:30 p.m. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4654, an ordinance concerning the downtown mall; and amending Section 4.680 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4654, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. The motion was adopted unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4654. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4654 be approved and given final passage. In response to a question from Mr. Lee, Police Chief Hill explained that Oregon law imposed a curfew between midnight and 4 a.m. on unsupervised youth under the age of 18. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to amend Council Bill 4654 by adding a section to provide that the ordinance would be repealed automatically on March 31, 1999. Ms. Taylor stated that she favored the "sunset clause" to require a review of the mall closure proposal. In response to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Klein stated that language could be added to the bill as directed by the motion which would repeal only the portion of Section 4.680 related to closure of the mall. Mr. Fart stated that he would support the amendment because he believed the downtown mall was different than other parks of the City. The motion to amend was adopted, 7:1, with Mr. Tollenaar voting no. Mr. Klein stated that adoption of the amendment had changed the original motion from being for final passage to approving its first reading and that a unanimous vote of the council was required to enable its final adoption at the current meeting. The motion to approve the first reading of amended Council Bill 4654 was adopted, 7:1, with Mr. Lee voting no. Mr. Lee stated that, out of courtesy to the will of the council, he would change his vote on the motion to yes, providing a unanimous vote. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider amended Council Bill 4654 by number only. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that amended Council Bill 4654 be approved and given final passage. The motion was adopted, 7:1, with Mr. Lee voting no, and became Ordinance 20122. Mayor Torrey declared a five-minute recess in the meeting at 9:15 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 7 7:30 p.m. II1. ACTION: WAR MEMORIAL FLAG ON SKINNER BUTTE Public Works Maintenance Principal Landscape Architect John Etter stated that the Agenda Item Summary regarding a war memorial flag on Skinner Butte provided a recommendation for council action which staff considered a compromise between a proposal offered by a citizen and taking no action. He said it had been offered as a point at which to begin discussion. Ms. Taylor moved to table consideration of a war memorial flag on Skinner Butte. Ms. Nathanson requested to speak on a point of order and asked if the motion recognized the difference between tabling an action indefinitely and tabling an action to a date certain. Mayor Torrey determined there was no member of the council willing to second the motion of Ms. Taylor and declared that it was not under consideration. Ms. Taylor reviewed a series of arguments favoring and opposing creating a war memorial flag on Skinner Butte, as follows: · Citizens will enjoy such a memorial. / Many citizens would enjoy the butte without the flag. · Such a memorial will express appropriate honor for veterans. / A flag would be more appropriate at the existing veteran's memorial on the butte, raising and lowering it daily would be an expression of patriotism for those who want a flag to honor veterans. · Seeing the proposed flag could not be avoided. / Seeing the proposed flag could not be avoided. · The cost of the proposed memorial will be contributed to the City / A contribution does not permit the use of public property for personal desires. Ms. Taylor said that other arguments against placing a flag on the Butte included that it did not meet a goal of the City Council, did not satisfy an important community need, and the location would not disappear if not immediately used. She suggested that 30 years of community conflict over the previous war memorial on the butte should be given time to subside before raising similar issues. She also suggested that council consideration of the matter was not well-timed because citizens were distracted by graduations, vacations, and during the period of the flag hearing were distracted by the shooting incident at Thurston High School. She said there were many other controversial issues facing the community and that consideration of suggestions for using Skinner Butte should be postponed. Ms. Nathanson said that public testimony that suggested that some citizens were reluctant to speak their views regarding the proposed flag on Skinner Butte out of a fear of having their patriotism unfairly judged was true for those on both sides of the argument. She said she regretted that some who had testified regarding the proposed flag had implied that a positive vote on the issue was the only way to prove the sincerity of the council's position that removing the cross was not intended to be disrespectful of veterans. She said the issue was more concentrated on a proposal of a specific individual versus utilizing a public process to develop a proposal for a Skinner Butte memorial. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 8 7:30 p.m. Ms. Nathanson said that she supported appropriate display of the flag and that she considered her reaction to the current proposal to be a design issue. She said she was willing to approve a replacement for the cross, but that the current proposal was unacceptable and that the current meeting did not allow time to fully consider other options. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she believed all members of the council were concerned with how to express honor and appreciation for military veterans and the flag, but that she believed the current proposal was too large for Skinner Butte. She proposed that consideration be given to relocating the current granite veteran's memorial to the top of the butte, and adding a modest flag pole of the size located at City Hall with a flag that could be displayed on particular ceremonial occasions. Ms. Swanson Gribskov moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to develop additional options for a war memorial on Skinner Butte for consideration by the City Council, including moving the granite veteran's memorial with a flag pole to the summit; and that the matter be rescheduled for consideration by the council after development of the options. Mr. Lee described the experience and recognition of the importance of the American flag by his family and suggested that all citizens be given an opportunity to express their views on the proposed war memorial flag on Skinner Butte through a referendum vote. Mr. Meisner said he was concerned that public support and opposition to the proposed war memorial flag was becoming divisive to the community. He reported that he had received threats of violence if he opposed the placement of a flag on Skinner Butte. He said he hoped the council could develop a solution to the issue which would benefit the entire community. He said he believed there was a need to be respectful of freedoms for which veterans fought the wars of the nations. Ms. Taylor said that she was not prepared to support any proposal for developing a war memorial on Skinner Butte and that she believed the entire community should be part of any decision which was made. Mr. Farr said that he believed the council had removed the cross from Skinner Butte because it did not represent everyone in the community and that the council needed to find a different symbol to place there which did represent everyone. He described the experience of his family as emigrants to the United States and said that the flag represented, for them, a symbol of freedom from oppression. He said he favored placing an acceptably sized flag on the butte to symbolize freedom and that he did not believe such an expression was blind patriotism. Mr. Tollenaar stated that he agreed with the sentiments of most who had spoken and that he was surprised at the controversy which had risen in response to the proposed war memorial flag. He said he agreed that the flag was an ambiguous symbol and meant different things to different people. He said he was impressed with a statement made by a representative of the Eugene Rotary Club that any flag on the butte should be consistent with the value the location had as a viewpoint of the City. He said he would support the motion to enable consideration of additional options for the butte. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 9 7:30 p.m. Mr. Farr said that he believed the US flag was a symbol of the promises of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, not of perfection. He said he did not expect everyone to agree with him, but that he would not vote for the motion in order to express his support for the proposal. He suggested that, if alternative options are proposed, consideration should be given to including an eternal flame and/or provisions to fly flags of the sister cities of Eugene on the butte. Mayor Torrey said that he was disappointed that agreement could not be reached regarding placement of a flag on Skinner Butte. He said public testimony and other input to councilors suggested that opposing views were not being respected. He said he hoped the council could discover a solution to the concerns raised regarding use of the butte for a memorial to veterans which would include display of a flag. Ms. Swanson Gribskov pointed out that her motion included incorporating display of a flag, but that she had meant that it encourage staff to explore all options. Ms. Nathanson reviewed elements which she said should be considered in making a decision regarding the proposed war memorial flag on Skinner Butte. Ms. Taylor said that she would oppose the motion because she wanted additional public input before considering any options. The motion to direct the City Manager to develop additional options for a war memorial on Skinner Butte was adopted, 6:2, with Mr. Farr and Ms. Taylor voting no. IV. ACTION: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING OVERNIGHT SLEEPING IN SPECIFIED AREAS; PROVIDING EFFECTIVE AND EXPIRATION DATES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Housing and Neighborhood Development Section Manager Richie Weinman referred to a revised version of the ordinance authorizing sleeping in specified areas to be considered by the council distributed at the beginning of the meeting. He explained that the Council Committee on Homelessness and Youth had revised the proposal to provide for an automatic repeal of the section authorizing sleeping on streets in industrial zoning districts on August 31, 1998. He said the intention was for the committee to review alternatives to the section and present a replacement recommendation before the council took its summer recess from meetings. Mr. VVeinman said that the issues involved in the proposed ordinance defied easy solution. He reviewed several of the issues and concluded that it was difficult to legislate solutions to social problems. In response to a question from Mr. Tollenaar, Mr. Weinman explained that 24 religious institutions were currently involved in allowing persons to sleep overnight in their parking lots, but that some had requested that only families be referred to their location and that there was occasionally less than full utilization of the available space in the program. He said that the agency coordinating the program anticipated that additional institutions would be involved in the program when it was renewed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 10 7:30 p.m. Mr. Fart reviewed considerations given to the ordinance by the Council Committee on Homelessness and Youth. He said members were committed to developing a recommendation for the council which would solve problems created by allowing overnight sleeping on streets in industrially zoned areas. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4656, an ordinance authorizing sleeping in specified areas; providing effective and expiration dates; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4656, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. The motion was adopted unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4656 by number only. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4656 be approved and given final passage. Mr. Lee stated that it was important to recognize the positive values brought by elements of the ordinance under consideration related to allowing persons to sleep in the parking lots of religious institutions and in the back yards of residences. He said he believed the committee would provide a helpful revision of the section of the ordinance related to sleeping on streets in industrially zoned areas. Mr. Meisner said that he would support the motion because be believed allowing citizens to sleep in vehicles was a solution to a portion of the problems faced by some homeless persons, but that the entire "housing ladder" needed to be addressed. He said he was concerned that it was reported that there were no problems associated with camping allowed in residential areas by the ordinance. He said there was a great deal of illegal camping in residential areas that was not dealt with satisfactorily. He said he expected that police would respond when complaints regarding such illegal camping were presented and suggested that the council might consider establishing an enforcement priority policy for police. Ms. Taylor asked if a public hearing was required before the council adopted the amended ordinance proposal. Mr. Klein replied that a public hearing was required before adoption of an ordinance, but that an additional public hearing was not required if the ordinance was amended after its public hearing. Ms. Taylor stated that she believed a public hearing should be held on the amended ordinance proposal. She said she did not believe that the ordinance provided a solution to homeless issues, that impacts on wetlands resulting from camping should be considered, that the State and other local governments should be involved in seeking a solution to issues related to homelessness, that homeless persons needed shelters not the ability to sleep on the street, and that the ordinance should be proposed for adoption for a single year. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to provide that the automatic repeal of the ordinance take place on June 30, 1999. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 11 7:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey determined that no member of the council wished to second the motion of Ms. Taylor and declared that it was not under consideration. Mr. Fart pointed out that the proposed ordinance was automatically repealed in two years, but that it also mandated a review of its effectiveness in one year. He also pointed out that Eugene was the only city in Oregon which banned camping on its streets. Ms. Nathanson said that she appreciated the proposed 60-day repeal of the section of the ordinance related to sleeping on streets in industrially zoned areas, but hoped that an acceptable change to it could be proposed in a shorter time. She said that without significant changes in that section, enforcement would be impossible. She said that she believed that mediation between business operators and those sleeping in vehicles on streets near their locations would not be effective. She suggested that issues related to concentration of vehicles in specific areas, elimination of litter and sanitation problems, and enabling enforcement of the ordinance be addressed by the committee in its recommendation to the council. Mayor Torrey said that he believed the Eugene camping ban was a part of the problem faced by the proposed ordinance. He said he did not believe the ban was able to be enforced. He said Eugene had done more than any other city in Oregon to deal with concerns for homeless persons, that it was not appropriate to expect the business community to be the only one to deal with the issues, that the ordinance was not intended to be an opening to full-time camping on public streets, and that he did not believe the issue would disappear. Mr. Fart stated that he had been informed that a single individual was responsible for a significant number of the complaints received about persons sleeping in vehicles harassing business employees and customers. He said he hoped the committee could include a focus on behavioral problems associated with the ordinance. Ms. Nathanson said she agreed that it was important to acknowledge the successful elements of the proposed ordinance. She said she was concerned for those who slept in vehicles. She said she would like to determine if 24 hours was an appropriate limit to place on such persons staying in a single location. The motion to approve Council Bill 4656 was adopted unanimously, 8:0 and became Ordinance 20124. Mayor Torrey announced that several councilors had requested permission to leave the meeting. Mr. Lee and Ms. Nathanson left the meeting at 10:10 p.m. V. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ORDINANCE ADOPTION: EXCEPTION OF PATRON USER FEE AND AMENDING SECTION 3.810 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Mr. Johnson stated the staff report regarding the ordinance had been included in the Agenda Item Summary distributed to councilors. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 12 7:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Mayor Torrey determined there was no one present wishing to testify regarding the proposed ordinance and closed the public hearing. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4657, an ordinance concerning patron user fees; amending Section 3.810 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4657, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number, and that enactment be considered at this time. The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4657 by number only. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4657 be approved and given final passage. The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0, and became Ordinance 20125. Mayor Torrey determined there was consensus to adjust the order of the remaining items on the agenda. VI. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ORDINANCE ADOPTION: CONCERNING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE REPORTING FEE INTEREST AND PENALTIES, AND DECLARING AND EMERGENCY Mr. Johnson stated the staff report regarding the ordinance had been included in the Agenda Item Summary distributed to councilors. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Mayor Torrey determined there was no one present wishing to testify regarding the proposed ordinance and closed the public hearing. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4655, an ordinance implementing Amendment IV to the Eugene Charter of 1976; providing for interest and penalties for unpaid fees due May 1, 1998, under Charter Amendment IV and Resolution 4558; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4655, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number, and that enactment be considered at this time. The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4655 by number only. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 13 7:30 p.m. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4655 be approved and given final passage. The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0, and became Ordinance 20123. Mr. Meisner left the meeting at 10:20 p.m. VII. PUBLIC HEARING: ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE CALLING AN ELECTION TO SUBMIT A MEASURE AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF EUGENE TO ESTABLISH A CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD Council Services Manager Mary Walston stated that the public hearing was scheduled to receive input regarding a proposed ordinance calling for an election to submit a charter amendment to voters which would create a change in the role and authority of the City Manager and City Council authorizing the council to appoint a citizen review board to consider allegations of police misconduct. She said the amendment would also allow the council to employ staff to assist the board. She said that the council was tentatively scheduled to vote on the proposed ordinance on June 22. Ms. Taylor stated that she was concerned that the lateness of the hour had encouraged some members of the public to leave and asked if it would be possible to re-schedule the hearing on a different day. Ms. Walston replied that re-scheduling the hearing would not create difficulty in the scheduling of the proposed election at the time of the November general election. Mr. Fart pointed out that, although many had left the meeting, many other members of the public had remained, anticipating that they would testify at the hearing and that it should be held out of respect of for their faithfulness. Ms. Swanson Gribskov suggested that the hearing be held, but that an additional opportunity be provided to receive public testimony on the ordinance be provided. Ms. Taylor stated that the suggestion of Ms. Swanson Gribskov would satisfy her concerns. Mayor Torrey asked, if two public hearings were held, would individuals speaking at one be prevented from speaking at the second. Mr. Klein replied that the council had established no guideline regarding such an eventuality. He suggested that the council determine whether it would permit such double testimony before beginning the hearing. Mayor Torrey determined that there was consensus that citizens should be permitted to present testimony at the current and any future public hearing held regarding the ordinance under consideration. Mr. Johnson suggested that it be pointed out that testimony in the hearing should be directed at the proposed ordinance and not the establishment of a citizen review board because the council had already unanimously expressed support for submitting the issue to voters. Mayor Torrey added that he was not aware of a single councilor opposed to placing such an ordinance on the ballot. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 14 7:30 p.m. Mr. Tollenaar said that he believed there would be ambiguity in the minds of voters regarding the amending the charter as proposed. He said the ordinance would remove legal restrictions to having the City Council establish a citizen review board, but did not establish such a board. He suggested that consideration be given to changing language in the proposal related to establishing a board from permissive to directive. He said if the proposed technical revision to the charter in the ordinance was turned down by voters, it would be difficult for the council to establish a citizen review board within the current provisions of the charter. Mr. Laue stated that he believed it would be important to notify those who had indicated they wished to testify at the public hearing but were not present of the re-scheduled additional date for it. Mayor Torrey determined that, in the light of the lateness of the hour and the number of persons who had requested to present testimony, speakers would be limited to two-minute presentations. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Jayson Jones, No Address Provided, stated that he had attended meetings of the External Review Advisory Committee. He said he did not believe members favored establishing a citizen police review process with personnel appointed by the City Manager. He said he believed the process would require budgetary support, but that a great deal of the administrative support discussed he considered administrative bureaucracy. Ron Chase, 1775 West 14th Avenue, said that he believed the External Review Advisory Committee had worked hard to retain the authority of the Police Chief and protect the constitutional rights of police officers in its recommendation about a review process. He said the proposal was not radical and was an idea whose "time had come." He said he believed further implementation of community policing practices in Eugene could bring increased conflicts with citizens. He said the proposed review process was not anti-police. He urged the council to support placing the charter amendment on the ballot. Elaine Green, 803 Sundance Street, stated that she was chair of the External Review Advisory Committee. She said she believed the proposed charter amendment and ordinance calling a special election accurately reflected the wishes of the committee. She said she recognized the risk of putting the amendment proposal before voters and the trade-off of utilizing currently available procedures for forming a police review process. Charles Dalton, 1040 Lamplight Lane, stated that he supported establishing a police review process because it would make it easier and safer for the police to do a good job. He said it would eliminate a level of divisiveness in the community. He said the cost of the proposed program would be less than those incurred from litigation which could result from not having it in place. He said he also favored the process because it would give police an opportunity to say, "I'm sorry." Nicola Calvert, 41 North Adams Street, was not present. James Johnston, Post Office Box 10455, said he was resentful that the public hearing was being held at such a late hour and that speakers were limited to two minutes. He said many who MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 15 7:30 p.m. wished to testify were employed and needed to leave the meeting. He reviewed a series of arguments favoring and opposing creating a police review process, as follows: · Too expensive. / The identified cost was a pittance in comparison to property tax incentives given the private development community. The process would permit citizens to participate in an important element of government. · Too cumbersome. / The proposed process is a group of volunteers monitoring government activities. The administration of the process is important. · Unnecessary. / Will consider at next public hearing. Max J. Groesbeck, 315 Vernal Street, stated that he had been a citizen of Eugene for 47 years and had begun to participate in civic meetings since the June 1, 1997, incident. He said that he saw no reason to create a police review process because the police were hired to do a job and the City Manger was hired to oversee and control the police. He said he believed the issue of police review had been raised by those who object to the status quo. Nick Urhausen, 2858 Warren Street, stated that he had attended public Police Forums and some meetings of the External Review Advisory Committee. He said he did not believed development of a police review process was required, but that he was willing to allow the proposal to go to voters because he did not believe it would pass. Craig Miller, 1275 West 17th Avenue, suggested that the Berlin Wall was similar to a philosophical barrier which existed between those who supported and opposed development of a police review process. He said he believed the increasing population of the City was responsible for its increasing problems. He said he believed developing a police review process was important for the future. William Lindquist, Post Office Box 5101, was not present. Polly Nelson, Post Office Box 50426, stated that she represented the Eugene chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. She said her organization supported placing the charter amendment on a ballot because it believed establishing a police review process would result in better policing. She also said her organization was concerned that, at some time in the future, consideration be given to incorporating police policy review with the proposed review process for complaints against police. Misha Seymour, 1313 Lincoln Street #306, stated that he believed citizen police review was badly needed because police are fallible. He discussed the police Rapid Deployment Unit, Special Weapons and Tactics Unit, and police actions at the June 1, 1997, incident. He said that he believed police should be gentle and empowering, but that some in Eugene were out of control. Brian Simonitch, 208 East 2nd Avenue, stated that he had attended meetings of the External Review Advisory Committee and was opposed to establishment of any citizen police review process. He recounted his experience as a Lane County youth corrections officer and said that he believed all monitoring of public officials was ineffective. He said he did not believe the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 16 7:30 p.m. proposed process could ever adequately representative of the community and would become a platform for the disaffected. Charlie Toiles, 550 East 46th Avenue, was not present. Trish Binder, 10 Crest Drive, stated that she was sad speakers were being allowed only two minutes after being made to wait through the entire meeting. She said County Commissioner Steve Cornacchia had been defeated in his recent bid for re-election because voters had remembered he reduced the amount of time allowed during public hearings. She said a police review process was needed because she believed citizen freedoms were being eroded. Kristin Stiegler, 524 Van Buren Street, said that he favored a citizen review process because he had no faith in the police and the internal review process currently in place did not work. He said he believed the June 1, 1997, incident proved there were police renegades. He said he did not believe the proposed cost of the review process was too high in comparison to the cost of other public/private investments. Greg McLauchlan, 2401 West 22nd Avenue, was not present. Ellen Klowden, 1093 East 25th Avenue, was not present. Bernardino De La Torre, 2615-1/2 Adams Street, was not present. Martin Champion, 1430 Willamette Street #597, expressed appreciation to the council for the public hearing, but said that he believed the issue of police review deserved consideration at a more reasonable hour. He said the proposed process was a good example of democracy because it involved citizens in decisions about the welfare of the community. He said a police review process would provide unbiased information about complaints against the police. Beth Medler, 4441 Fox Hollow Road, stated that she had worked on establishing external police review since before the June 1, 1997, incident. She said she had submitted copies of previous testimony she had given regarding such processes and that this was the first opportunity she had had to testify regarding it before the council, but that she would not be able to present her prepared remarks and was very upset. She provided her telephone number and asked councilors to call her for additional information. Faddah Wolf, 520 West 13th Avenue, stated that he believed citizen police review should be placed on the ballot. He said that he was sad that some adopted an apologetic attitude toward police. He also that he liked having police officers present, but that they were people and that some were good and some were bad. Randy Prince, Post Office Box 927, was not present. Paul Prensky, 933 East 29th Avenue, stated that he would speak a second time at the next public hearing related to police review. He said that he had worked on the issue since 1993 and that he had adopted an adversarial position for political reasons stemming from the June 1, 1997, incident. He said he hoped something positive would come from community consideration of the recommendation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 17 7:30 p.m. Lou Shackelford, 1012 West 4th Avenue #3, was not present. Rex Stevens, 1640 Ridgley Boulevard, recommended that the council vote to submit the proposed charter amendment to establish a citizen review process to voters. He said citizens were taking to the streets to test the durability of the current social structure and that a review process was needed to evaluate the police. Bo Arian, 3785 Pine Canyon, was not present. Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris Street, was not present. Mayor Torrey determined there was no one else present desiring to testify and closed the public hearing. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Dan Lindstrom) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 18 7:30 p.m.