Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/11/08 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon August 11, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that action on Item 4 on the agenda would be postponed as further work was required. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed procedures for providing comments. Mary S. Leighton , Normandy Way, Eugene, thanked councilors for their consideration of ways to address downtown public safety issues. She said that over 100 teenagers would be attending Network Charter School in the fall and she was concerned about the negative influence on those students of people in the downtown area who modeled behavior inimical to public interests. She suggested three changes that could improve life downtown temporarily while long-term solutions were identified: pass Mayor Piercy’s modified exclusion zone and implement it as soon as possible; improve patrolling of downtown by guides and police officers, and restore cleaning of sidewalks and alleys. th Rene Kane , West 14 Avenue, Eugene, Jefferson-Westside Neighbors’ chair, stated that neighbors joined with City staff and members of the Opportunity Siting Task Team to conduct neighborhood workshops to test ways that neighborhood character could be preserved while identifying the appropriate locations and processes for siting and design of denser housing development. She stressed that neighbors did not oppose all infill; they simply wanted it to be compatible. Pauline Hutson , Taylor Street, Eugene, founding member of Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit (3RT), expressed concern that Lane Transit District (LTD) might not be considering factual issues that 3RT had raised during the process to identify a West Eugene EmX route. She was concerned that planning was based on outdated data and did not factor in either peak oil or peak traffic counts. She urged the council to question recommendations from LTD regarding the West Eugene EmX alignment. th Ilona Kolezar , West 11 Avenue, Eugene, a member of 3RT and the West Eugene EmX Extension Corridor Committee, said that eight percent of the project design had been completed even though no locally preferred alternative had been chosen. She was concerned with the lack of coordination between the EmX and West Eugene Collaborative (WEC) projects. She distributed a copy of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between LTD and the City, and related materials, and urged that the council keep the provisions of the agreement in mind, particularly those related to the design issues on which LTD must defer to the City during the design phase of planning. She cited several provisions from the IGA and asked that the council inform LTD which alternatives it would consider and which it would not. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting Josef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , Taylor Street, Eugene, 3RT member, stated there was growing community thth preference for routing EmX to West Eugene along 6 and 7 avenues from the downtown station. He said th many respondents to a 3RT survey agreed the disadvantages of an EmX line on West 13 Avenue thth outweighed the advantages and preferred 6 and 7. He did not feel that LTD had adequately involved business in its planning and design activities. He pointed out the problems caused by the Eugene Code requirement that structures be built out to the curb, which created a conflict with LTD plans, and asked for a moratorium on the requirement. Azra Khalidi , Donald Street, Eugene, asked if the City had a plan for use of the Hynix building now that the company was leaving. She said the site comprised 20 to 30 acres and said the taxes paid by Hynix between 2000 and 2008 could not be compared to the capital gains and profit during that period. She noted that Councilor Taylor was the only one to oppose the location of a Hynix facility in Eugene. She suggested that the University of Oregon and Lane Community College use the Hynix building. th Deb Frisch , West 11 Avenue, Eugene, cited the history of the council’s action on vacation of an alley to accommodate the new University of Oregon basketball arena and described it as worrisome. She noted that EC 9.2160 was not on the list of minor code amendments. She did not think that the Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board (CRB) had changed anything in the Eugene Police Department. Carol Berg-Caldwell , Augusta Street, Eugene, spoke to the withholding of a citizen complaint from the Police Auditor, contrary to the voter-mandated ordinance. She said Police Chief Robert Lehner’s decision to withhold the file was upheld by City Manager Jon Ruiz. She said if the ordinance needed to be revised to address certain circumstances that should be done through the appropriate process and not the decision of one person. She urged the Police Chief and City Manager to listen to the community and be accountable for their mistake. th Melissa Mona , East 14 Alley, Eugene, said the proposed exclusion zone was not a new idea and had been used elsewhere to discriminate against certain people. She said the proposal was unconscionable and similar laws in jurisdictions had been struck down as unconstitutional. She did not think the issue was drugs; it was a complex problem related to people who were mentally ill and homeless. She said the City had failed to properly address mental illness or homelessness and the solution was not to sweep them out of sight. She said there was a civic duty to help those individuals. John Brown , Eugene, welcomed Mr. Ruiz to the community and commended his willingness to consider a number of points of view. He said the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) was an excellent resource for recruiting a new Police Auditor. He said that clean water was his passion and he was concerned about the City’s practice of blowing trash from the park blocks and downtown sidewalks into storm drains. He said that maintenance staff for the City parks had indicated the practice was due to a lack of financial resources. He preferred that no cleanup activities occur if they resulted in putting trash into the river. Chico Schwall , North Grand Street, Eugene, said he worked at the Shedd Institute and served on the WOW Hall board of directors. He said there were serious public safety problems in the downtown area, but the exclusion zone was not the solution and would not be considered if the people about to be subject to it were in any position to object. He said problems would not be solved by moving them, and suggested that the use of police resources should be examined. He asserted that he and the WOW Hall would be willing to work with the City to find a just and sustainable solution to the problem. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting Joe Collins , Eugene, criticized Chief Lehner’s withholding of a citizen complaint file from the Police Auditor and the District Attorney’s support of that action. He said the people of Eugene were concerned about trust issues with the Police Department. He acknowledged that there were good officers, but the department needed civilian oversight to avoid problems of the past. He objected to purchase of the Amazon Headwaters, which he said was supported by a minority of the community, and the granting of tax breaks for developments, which he said cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars. He said the council was pro development and redevelopment and homeowners were expected to pay the developers’ share of taxes. He noted that there would be a ballot measure requesting $35 million to improve streets and asked how much the City had budgeted and spent on streets in the last five or six years and what percentage of that amount had been spent on repairs. Claire Syrett , Adams Street, Eugene, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Oregon, spoke to the downtown public safety zone. She acknowledged that the proposed ordinance had been revised to address some of the concerns the ACLU had raised, but the ACLU was still opposed to exclusion zones on principle and had specific concerns about the proposal before the council. She said the ACLU opposed allowing an exclusion order to be issued through a civil procedure in which the court was not required to provide the defendant with legal representation; restrictions on a person’s movement should only be imposed by a judge in the context of a criminal case. She said the way in which variances were allowed for individual cases appeared to be constitutionally suspect and was concerned that the police would enforce the ordinance in a discriminatory manner on low income people and people of color. She cited examples from Cincinnati and Portland related to exclusion zones. She urged the council to adopt an approach to solving chronic problems in the downtown area that involved all stakeholders in seeking fair, effective and constitutional solutions. Liora Sponko , Lincoln Street, Eugene, chair of the WOW Hall board of directors, stated that the WOW Hall opposed the ordinance to exclude accused or convicted community members from downtown Eugene as it violated citizen’s rights and did not address neighborhood issues. She said it was the City’s collective responsibility to provide community spaces for everyone to enjoy. She said the ordinance did not address any of the fundamental problems of crime or homelessness. She said part of the WOW Hall’s mission was to be accessible to people of all ages and income levels and the ordinance would deny people that access and discourage patrons for fear of being accused and excluded because of age, appearance or other discriminat- ing factors. She asserted that the ordinance targeted low income and impoverished populations who did not have access to essential services. She said the City should provide more services and support to those populations instead of excluding them from downtown. Charles Dalton , Timberline Drive, Eugene, president emeritus of the Eugene/Springfield branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), spoke to the Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board (CRB). He said problems with the Police Department had existed for a long time and lack of trust was a factor. He said there was a critical need for transparency within the department in order to build trust with the community and it was necessary to have an independent Police Auditor and CRB that did not report to the City Manager. He submitted written comments that included recommenda- tions to the council. Tim Mueller , Arthur Street, Eugene, said he served on the Police Commission but was speaking as a private citizen. He was disappointed that the commission had not been asked to provide input on the exclusion zone ordinance. He cited statistics for 2007 which indicated a reduction in downtown crime and an increase in crime at Valley River Center. He expressed sympathy for Betty Snowden and others who experienced harassment downtown and appreciated the revisions to the proposed ordinance. He said those MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting causing problem downtown would just go elsewhere in the community and they needed help as much as scorn. He would be willing to support a bond measure for resources to increase policing downtown, and provide services for adult and youth, over one to fix potholes. Ruth Duemler , Fircrest Drive, Eugene, expressed disappointment over the use of a Taser on a protester, and the withholding of a file from the Police Auditor when the community had strongly supported having an auditor. She did not want to see the ordinance revised except as suggested by Councilor Bettman; the auditor needed to be in control of the process in order to build more trust. She said the exclusion zone sounded like Homeland Security was taking over. She recognized there were problems in the downtown area, but there were other ways to address them. She encouraged all citizens to visit the downtown area. Sylvia Furtick , Lorane Highway, Eugene, spoke in support of the strongest possible ordinance to eliminate vagrancy, vandalism and indecency which she felt were being condoned downtown. She said at one time it was common knowledge that good behavior would be rewarded and bad behavior punished, and the community should unite to establish ordinances that proved it was a civilized society that afforded protection to its citizens. She said those ordinances had to be enforced and first responders, when acting honorably, needed and deserved the community’s respect and cooperation. She said a community without law and order was a community without peace; a community got the behavior it was willing to tolerate. Betty Snowden , West Broadway, Eugene, said it was good the ACLU was now worried about people of color, but it would have been nice if they had been concerned about what had been happening to her downtown for the past 17 years. She thanked councilors Clark and Ortiz for their work on the exclusion zone ordinance and Mr. Ruiz for his recommendation to adopt Version C. She supported the pre- and post- conviction provisions as they were, and not the Mayor’s revision, as it was important to remove someone who was cited from the area until they went before a judge. She said it was not about singling out the homeless; it was about unacceptable behavior and repeat offenders. She gave examples of the offensive and racist treatment to which she was subjected on a daily basis and which were contrary to the principles put forth by the Eugene Human Rights Commission. She said no one should be subjected to that type of treatment and questioned why her rights were not being upheld by the community. Cassandra Snowden , West Broadway, Eugene, remarked on the comments of previous speakers about the rights of those who might be excluded from the downtown area. She questioned how the rights of downtown business owners and community members to feel safe downtown were being enforced. She said without the exclusion zone ordinance, downtown would continue to experience safety problems. She said the ordinance did not single out the homeless; consequences were based on bad behavior and would apply equally to someone in a business suit or summer dress. She said everyone had the right to feel safe and be free of harassment and racism. Laurel Fisher , Olive Street, Eugene, said she lived within walking distance of downtown for the past two weeks and had been coming downtown with a broom to clean the street. She recognized that it was not a cure for the problems, but hoped she would be joined in her efforts by others in the community who were concerned with downtown. She questioned why adults would stay away from downtown because of fear of young people. She said the behavior demonstrated downtown was commonplace on television. Lisa Warnes , Nectar Way, Eugene, thanked the City for purchasing the Green property and protecting a portion of the Amazon Headwaters. She echoed comments from earlier speakers who opposed the exclusionary zone ordinance as it seemed to be a solution earmarking specific people downtown, specifically MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting youth. She agreed that business owners should not have to tolerate harassment, but the solution should not violate civil rights or shift the problem to other areas in the community. Mr. Poling arrived at 8:25 p.m. th Samantha Chirillo , East 27 Avenue, Eugene, said there was no doubt that hate crimes needed to be prosecuted, but there was also an urgent need to build trust between the police and the community and that was a mutual responsibility. She said the Police Commission should have the opportunity to provide input on the exclusion zone ordinance. She said the ordinance was risky because the City had previously lost a court case, at significant cost, related to attempts to exclude someone from an area. She said the exclusion zone ordinance was particularly scary in consideration of the City’s relationship to Homeland Security, which directed police to target rally participants on May 30. She urged the council not to pass the ordinance. Jean Tate , Olive Street, Eugene, a downtown resident, spoke in support of the exclusion zone ordinance to help make downtown a safer place. She encouraged members of the audience to spend time in downtown as safety was increased when there were more people on the streets. Aaron Nelson , Alder Street, Eugene, expressed compassion and solidarity with downtown business owners who were dealing with vandalism, violence and racism. He questioned what effect the exclusion zone would have, other than giving police more reasons to harass people. He feared the people likely to be harassed fit the stereotype for drug users and homeless people, and the exclusion zone would lead to increased intimidation and only displace people to other neighborhoods rather than solve the problem. th Joe Alsup , West 38 Avenue, Eugene, said he was a Police Commission member, but speaking as a private citizen. He regretted the loss of Chris Beamud as the Police Auditor. He admired police officers and felt the chief was an honorable man, but it was a mistake to withhold a file from the auditor. He said the commu- nity had clearly expressed its desire for an independent auditor and hoped the council would express its support for the auditor office and Ms. Beamud’s efforts. Drix , Eugene, said that youth had always been downtown and many came from other communities to learn about life on the streets. He hoped that older people would come downtown to share their wisdom and help prevent inappropriate behavior and promote civility. Dr. James Dean , Braewood Lane, Eugene, said it was obvious that there were documented, serious, illegal behavioral problems occurring downtown and they affected Betty Snowden, other people and businesses, and educational institutions. He said the issue had been somewhat clouded by the preceding discussion. He suggested the issue was not an exclusion zone; it was the exclusion of individuals who harassed others and acted as criminals or racists and behaved in other deplorable ways. He asked the council to carefully consider the ordinance because the attacks must be stopped and the problem solved. Alex Brokaw , Sorrel Way, Eugene, said she worked in the downtown area. She noted the comments of an earlier speaker who identified transients being downtown as a complex problem. She said it might be a complex problem, but downtown business should not pay the entire price. She hoped that downtown Eugene would not turn into another Camden, New Jersey, which was considered one of the most dangerous cities in the country. She urged the council to pass the original ordinance proposed by Councilor Clark and to place and retain sufficient police downtown to enforce it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting Mike Quillin , Kismet Way, Eugene, said it seemed the Eugene police had recently begun taking pleasure in their power over citizens, and by resisting the actions and inquiries of the Police Auditor had, in fact, become dishonest. He said an initial positive experience with police when he moved to Eugene 14 years ago had been eroded in the intervening years. He said people should not be targeted on the basis of their appearance. He no longer taught his children to respect police officers as honorable people working for the public good, but in recent years taught them to avoid contact with the police unless absolutely necessary. He asked the council to make every effort to restore honor to the Police Department before establishing an exclusion zone. Kathy Gain , Harris Street, Eugene, said she was alarmed by the selective persecution that would likely occur in the exclusion zone. She found it curious that the zone was being proposed at the same time that Metro Housing was renting housing and commercial space next door to the WOW Hall, and questioned whether it was an attempt to get rid of it. She said the ordinance was unconstitutional and did not think taxpayers could afford the costs of legal challenges that would occur. She was puzzled that the ordinance targeted drug-dealing and possession and preferred that the police target more violent and serious offenses. She asked what would happen if someone had a medical marijuana card or musicians smoked pot on a break. She said an exclusion zone was preposterous and would make a joke of Eugene. She regarded marijuana as a beneficial plant which should not be covered under the Controlled Substance Act. David Hinkley , Lawrence Street, Eugene, commented that passing an exclusionary zone ordinance without the resources to enforce it was a waste of time. He said the Police Chief’s actions related to withholding a file appeared to be a cover-up and the ordinance was clear that any complaints about police employees were referred to the auditor. He did not feel the current ordinance needed to be revised; the existing rules needed to be followed. Majeska Seese-Green , Eugene, thanked the Mayor and councilors and everyone who helped to protect the Amazon Headwaters. She hoped that the exclusion zone ordinance would not be passed without major revisions. She felt that the issue of a missing complaint was extremely important and wondered why the file could not have been provided to the auditor with sensitive information redacted. She said the Taser incident and withholding of a file had resulted in a setback in public trust and increase in skepticism about the police review system. She said there should be no exceptions to the ordinance and hoped it would never happen again. Councilor Ortiz said passage of the exclusionary zone ordinance was about a crisis of safety downtown. She did not think the exclusion zone would solve all of the problems and was willing to consider anything that might help. She invited community members and community organizations to come downtown, get involved and contribute their suggestions. Councilor Taylor said she was totally opposed to an exclusionary zone. She thanked John Brown for his continuing efforts to promote clean water. Councilor Clark said it was a compliment to the community that so many people spoke on the subject of how to make people safer. He said the council was not perfect and would likely make some mistakes, but he hoped by the end of the meeting, it would take action to make conditions downtown better. He said while the purpose of the Police Auditor was to re-establish trust, that was a two-way street and there should be a willingness to extend trust and respect for the Police Chief’s judgment. He asserted his trust in Chief Lehner and felt his decision would be validated when all information was available. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting Regarding the Police Auditor, Councilor Poling said that the misstep in communication cited by one of the speakers was the fault of the council, which rushed to get the position established without considering some of the unintended consequences. He said there was no policy or procedure in place to handle a complaint from a City employee against the City Manager, a municipal judge or the Police Auditor. He said there was nothing in place to address the exception circumstances the chief cited with respect to the withheld file. He stressed his support for the Police Auditor position and thanked Ms. Beamud for her work establishing the program. He was willing to withhold judgment regarding the withheld complaint until all information was available and commended Chief Lehner for his management of the department. Councilor Bettman said it was not the details of a complaint that put people in jeopardy; it was the publication of those details, and the Police Auditor was required by ordinance to maintain confidentiality. She said there was no reason the auditor should not have immediately received a redacted file or one specifying why it needed to remain confidential. She said the problem was continuing resistance from the City administration to oversight of complaints involving police employees. She said the ordinance was put in place as a result of the Police Commission’s survey of the community, which revealed that people were afraid to make complaints. She stressed that under the City’s ordinance the Police Chief adjudicates complaints and imposes discipline; the auditor only provides oversight. Mayor Piercy pointed out that on September 15 the council would consider the issue of complaints against council employees. Councilor Zelenka agreed that the Police Auditor ordinance was clear that all complaints should be forwarded to the auditor and there were no exceptions. He said if the chief deemed it necessary, information could have been redacted. Councilor Clark said he saw many people who were victimized downtown and who experienced offensive behavior. He thanked Betty and Cassandra Snowden for speaking up. Councilor Bettman said development of the police auditor model took 18 months and went through multiple subcommittees and public forums, resulting in a comprehensive process consistent with community values. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of the June 9, 2008, Work Session; June 11, 2008, Work Session; June 18, 2008, Work Session; June 23, 2008, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of June 18, 2008 D. Appointment to Toxics Board Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the items on the consent calendar. The motion passed; 8:0. 3. ACTION: Minor Code Amendments Ordinance A: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Sections 9.0020, 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2450, 9,2630, 9.2683, 9.2740, 9.2741, 9.2751, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.3310, 9.3810, 9.3910, 9.5500, 9.6790, 9.6791, 9.7010, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205, 9.7230, 9.8320, 9.8430, 9.8555, and 4.330 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding a New Section 9.7007 to that Code; and Providing an Effective Date and MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting Ordinance B: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date and a Sunset Date Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4979, an ordinance concerning land use regulations. Councilor Clark said he understood that the amendments resulting from the Minor Code Amendment Process (MiCAP) were intended to be minor in nature and able to be adopted quickly without significant controversy or threat of litigation. He asked about the purpose of Exhibit A, Attachment B: Findings, which had been distributed at the meeting. Alissa Hansen, Planning and Development Department, said the findings were inadvertently omitted from the agenda packet and were an attachment to Ordinance B. She said they were the same findings presented to the council in July 2008. Councilor Clark expressed concern that putting the stormwater manual language into the code (MiCAP Topic #8) was, in fact, a land use action. He asked staff to elaborate on the finding that the supply or availability of buildable lands would not be impacted. Ms. Hansen replied that there was no Statewide Planning Goal 10 issue related to adding that provision of the manual to the code. She said that provision was already in existing regulations that applied to development currently. She said the amendment was suggested by a resident of the River Road/Santa Clara area and the neighborhood supported including it in the code. She said no additional protections were added; the amendment only took language from the manual that already applied to development and inserted it in the code. Councilor Clark said he had heard testimony during the public hearing expressing concern that taking an administrative rule, which could be easily modified, and placing it in code, created a much more cumber- some process for revisions. He felt that the amendment did have an affect on land supply, the extent of which was not yet known, and should be subjected to further research before action was taken. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to delete Section 17 from Ordinance A and direct the City Manager to send the issue addressed by the pro- posed Section 17, back to the Planning Commission for further review. Councilor Bettman stated she would not support the motion as she understood the drainage ditches were already protected under administrative rule and putting that into the code would not impact the land supply. She said using drainage ditches to manage stormwater was a beneficial practice that also reduced mainte- nance costs. Councilor Clark asked if lands that were subject to the current administrative rule were still listed in the inventory of buildable lands. Ms. Hansen said they were in the inventory. Councilor Clark pointed out that wetlands in West Eugene, which the community wished to protect, were also part of the inventory of commercial/industrial land. He favored respecting the character of the River Road/Santa Clara area and protecting the historic nature of dealing with stormwater, but he felt the City should be honest about that protection and take the subject lands out of the inventory of buildable lands. He was concerned that lands that were currently considered to be buildable were being made unbuildable. Ms. Bettman said the West Eugene wetlands plan slated property for protection with the caveat that it could be developed if the wetlands were mitigated. She gave the Hyundai/Hynix site as an example. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting The vote on the motion to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz and Zelenka voting no, and councilors Solomon, Poling, Pryor and Clark voting yes. The Mayor cast a vote against the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to retain the current limita- tion on the number of dogs permitted without constituting a “kennel” by: 1) Deleting the proposed replacement of the number 3 in the definition of “ken- nel” in Section 2 of Ordinance A so that the definition retains the following phrase: “premises on which three or more dogs over six-months of age are kept or maintained…” 2) Amending the new test proposed for EC9.2741(2)(a)5 in Section 8 of Ordi- nance A to replace the “3” with a “2.” 3) Deleting the proposed replacement of the number 3 in the definition of “non- commercial dog kennel” in Section 28 of Ordinance A so that the definition re- tains the following phrase: “premises where three or more dogs, over six- months of age, are kept or maintained…” Councilor Poling explained that his motion was responding to citizen concerns regarding neighbors with three or more dogs on their property. He saw no reason to increase the permitted number of dogs from two to three and noted the motion allowed fostering dogs on a temporary basis. Councilor Taylor opposed the motion. She said the proposed change was humane and gave examples of situations where marriage or a death in the family could result in a household having three dogs. Councilor Solomon recalled that the amendment was requested by kennel owners, who wanted the limit increased to three dogs. She was not certain of the implications of Councilor Poling’s motion. Ms. Hansen said the City did not define “dog keeping;” that was done through the definition of a “kennel,” which was defined as three or more dogs. She said if someone owned three dogs that could classify as a kennel, which was not allowed in a residential zone. The vote on the motion to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Pryor, Ortiz and Solomon voting no, and councilors Bettman, Zelenka, Poling and Clark voting yes. The Mayor cast a vote against the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend EC 9.7007(1)(a) at Section 19 of Ordinance A to provide: “Type II: 3-lot partitions, tentative subdivisions and tentative cluster subdivisions.” Councilor Zelenka said the requirement for developers to meet with the neighborhood if the proposal was 10 lots or more was irrelevant in more built-up parts of the City and by reducing the number to three, the desired outcome of more neighborhood input would be achieved. The motion to amend passed, 6:2; councilors Pryor and Solomon voting no. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to replace the text of the proposed Subsection 9.2751(1)(c) of Ordinance A with the following text: MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting “(c) For purposes of calculating net density[,]: 1. The acreage of land considered part of the residential use shall exclude public [property, including] and private streets and alleys, public parks and other public facilities. 2. In calculating the minimum net density required for a specific lot or development site, the Planning Director shall round down to the previ- ous whole number. 3. In calculating the maximum net density allowed for a specific lot or development site the Planning Director shall round up to the next whole number only for: a. A lot or development site that is 13,500 square feet or more in area; b. A lot or development site that is not abutting the boundary of, or directly across an alley from land zoned R-1; and c. Fractions of .75 or above. In all other circumstances the Planning Director shall round down to the previous whole number. 4. At the request of the developer, the acreage described in 1., above, also may exclude natural or historic resources. For purposes of this section, natural resources include those designated for protection in an adopted plan and the area within natural resources protection or con- servation setbacks that have been applied to the development site. For purposes of this section, historic resources include historic property and resources identified in an official local inventory as “primary” or “secondary.” It may also include additional natural or historic re- sources upon approval of the Planning Director.” Councilor Zelenka explained that his amendment would further limit the circumstances in which rounding up would occur by including development sites adjacent to an R-1 property. The vote on the motion to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Zelenka, Bettman, Tay- lor and Ortiz voting yes, and councilors Clark, Poling, Pryor and Solomon voting no. The Mayor voted in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to refer to the Infill Compatibility Standards project or to the Planning Commission the issues of whether the 18-month expiration period for PUDs is too long and whether the City is authorizing too many time-extensions of that expira- tion period. The motion passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Pryor and Poling voting no. The main motion as amended passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Poling and Solomon voting no. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4988, an ordinance concerning land use regulations related to building height transitions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka said neighborhoods were concerned about potential activities during the usual 30-day period prior to an ordinance going into effect and had indicated an interest in having the ordinance go into effect immediately. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to delete the text in Section 4 of Ordinance B and replace it with the following: “An immediate effec- tive date of this Ordinance is necessary in order to serve the important public pur- pose of ensuring that infill development in the affected area is compatible with the surroundings.” In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Ms. Hansen said that Ordinance B as drafted, contained only the amendment to building height transitions that was specific to the South University Neighborhood. She noted that the staff recommendation was to adopt that ordinance and send that topic, plus the topic of multi-family unit required parking to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for a more thorough review. She pointed out that the ordinance included an 18-month sunset date that would allow the infill project time to either determine the ordinance was sufficient or recommend changes. Councilor Solomon expressed concern with governing the City on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. Councilor Pryor said he supported the sunset provision and referral back to the infill project. The motion to amend passed, 7:1; Councilor Solomon voting no. Councilor Zelenka said the neighborhood areas affected by the ordinance were faced with unique issues that did not extend to other parts of the City. He said his next motion was intended to address the problem of multi-family development that included five- and six-bedroom units and that created large problems with parking as there were no longer just one or two cars per unit. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to add a new section to Ordinance B that included the text provided as Alternative B1 in Attachment C to the agenda item summary (AIS) and to replace the Goal 12 findings for Ordinance B with those provided as Attachment D to the AIS. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Ms. Hansen said the language in the ordinance would not be applied retroactively; it would only affect applications submitted after it went into effect. Councilor Bettman asked if the term “multi-family” could be changed to “multi-unit.” Ms. Hansen said the term appeared throughout the code, including the definitions section, and the change would be added to the list of ongoing code amendments. Councilor Solomon expressed concern with the message to owners who wanted to improve their property and enhance student housing. She said unless someone already had an application in progress they would likely wait 18 months to determine what the final outcome would be. She said the affect would be to stop the building of multi-family housing units in those areas of the City. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Pryor and Solomon voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting The main motion as amended passed, 6:2; councilors Clark and Solomon voting no. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to forward amendment topics #5, Building Height Transitions in South University Neighborhood Association, and #7, Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South University Neighborhood Associa- tions, to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as identification of long-term solutions. The motion passed, 8:0. 4. ACTION: Initiation of Metro Plan Amendment for River Ridge LTD/Jeffries This item was postponed. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Downtown Public Safety Zones; and Adding Sections 4.873, 4.874, 4.875, 4.877 and 4.878 to the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4985, an ordinance concerning downtown public safety zones (Version C). Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend Subsection (1) of Section 4.874 of the Ordinance to add Section 4.770 of the Eugene Code, 1971, (urination or defecation in public places) as a violation for which a person may be excluded. City Attorney Jerome Lidz confirmed that Councilor Pryor’s motion related to Version C, which was a hybrid of versions A and B and provided for exclusion prior to conviction of an offense for a smaller list of offenses; exclusion for other offenses would come only after a conviction in criminal court. He said Version C also expanded the exclusion zone by one square block on the west side, contained a sunset clause and created the additional offense of violation of the downtown public safety zone. Councilor Clark said his amendments were intended to address the specific intimidation and harassment that many people were experiencing downtown. Councilor Taylor stated her intent to vote against the ordinance and all associated amendments. Councilor Bettman said she would vote against each amendment. She preferred to consider only the post- conviction ordinance and then amend it to include certain other serious infractions. She would not support an ordinance that excluded people before they were convicted of a crime. Councilor Zelenka agreed that there were behavioral problems downtown, but noted crime was actually down. He said the treatment experienced by Betty Snowden was not acceptable, but it was unclear that the exclusion zone ordinance would accomplish that. He said more police were needed downtown and an underlying problem was the lack of resources in the Lane County criminal justice system. He felt the hate crimes ordinance the council was working on would be more effective in addressing racism, intimidation and MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting harassment. He said he was concerned with due process and that drugs were the root of many problems. He noted that exclusions would be made by a judge, not the police, and there were other examples of restricting people’s rights without a conviction, such as a restraining order. Reluctantly he could support Version C. Councilor Ortiz said she would support Version C and agreed with Councilor Clark’s amendment. She said the community had clearly expressed concerns about bad behavior and it was a difficult decision to adopt an exclusion zone, but there was a public safety problem downtown that had to be addressed. She appreciated the inclusion of a sunset clause. Councilor Clark asked if the crime rate was lower downtown. Chief Lehner replied that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime reports indicated that Part 1 crimes were down in most of the City, including downtown; however, other types of crimes were actually increasing in the downtown area. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman and Zelenka voting no. The council took a short break. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend Section 4.874(1) of the ordinance to add the offense listed in Eugene Code Section 4.110(2) (furnish- ing alcohol to a minor). The motion to amend passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend Section 4.874 of the proposed ordinance by moving the following offenses from Subsection (2) to Subsection (1): EC 4.726 (harassment); EC 4.729 (assault); ORS 163.165 (assault in the third degree); ORS 163.175 (assault in the second degree); ORS 163.185 (assault in the first degree); EC 4.730 (menacing); EC 4.731 (intimidation in the second degree); and ORS 166.165 (intimidation in the first degree). The motion to amend passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman and Zelenka voting no. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to include the following lan- guage as an uncodified section of the Ordinance: “Within two years from the effective date of this Ordinance: 1) The City Manager shall prepare a report of the activity recorded in the Down- town Public Safety Zone and provide that report to the Police Commission, and 2) The Police Commission shall review the report, obtain public input regarding the effectiveness of this Ordinance in reducing targeted incidents in the Down- town Public Safety Zone and provide a recommendation to the council regard- ing continued enforcement of this Ordinance. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Lidz explained that the term “uncodified” meant the language stood as an ordinance but was not in the code as it was a directive to the City Manager and not to the general public. He said a sunset clause was typically an uncodified section also. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to require the report after one year. Councilor Ortiz declined to accept the amendment as the report needed to be based on at least a year of data. The motion to amend passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to add a new Subsec- tion F to Section 4.875 that would require the officer to inform the cited or arrested person that they have the right to counsel and that if they cannot afford counsel at the hearing one will be provided. Councilor Zelenka said his motion would add due process by providing counsel to people who could not afford it when they went before a judge. He said that was a basic tenet of the judicial system. Councilor Clark asked if Councilor Zelenka’s motion would add time to the process. He said the hearing before the judge would be held within three to five days of the citation and he was not opposed to having the citing officer inform the person that they had that right, but was concerned that having the judge do so would automatically result in a continuance and he was opposed to that. Councilor Zelenka said the motion would apply at the time the officer issued a citation. Mr. Lidz said because it was not a criminal proceeding, it was not a constitutional requirement that someone be provided with appointed counsel; the issue was primarily one of resources. Councilor Solomon objected to the suggestion that people’s rights were being taken away and they were not being given what they were entitled to. She asked City Prosecutor Dan Barkovic to comment on the implications of the amendment. Mr. Barkovic said it would be extremely costly to provide at public expense a court-appointed attorney for a civil proceeding. He felt it would be a huge expense for the Municipal Court to add that to the pre-conviction exclusion. Councilor Bettman said she would make an exception and support the amendment because it restored some of the civil rights and due process citizens were afforded under the Constitution. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Chief Lehner said that the Miranda warning was given in cases of a custodial arrest where a statement that was potentially self-incriminating would be taken. Councilor Clark said he was concerned with the potential fiscal impact of the amendment on the City and while he supported due process as a part of constitutional rights, he likened the exclusionary zone to a stalking or restraining order that were civil proceedings intended to separate people to prevent problems and did not include appointment of counsel. Councilor Zelenka said he was troubled that someone’s rights could be taken away without affording them the knowledge that they had a right to counsel and the City would pay for that counsel. He did not feel the cost would be as great as predicted, but that should not be a factor in the council’s decision. He clarified that the City would pay for an attorney only if the person could not afford one. Councilor Taylor said she would also make an exception and support the amendment as it appeared that the ordinance would pass and the amendment would make it less unfair. She asked if it meant the person being MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting arrested or cited would have to be informed of their right to an attorney and that the City would pay if they person could not afford one. Mr. Lidz said that was his understanding of Councilor Zelenka’s motion. Councilor Poling agreed with Councilor Clark that the proceeding was similar to a show cause hearing for a restraining or stalking order and there was no constitutional right to have an attorney appointed in a civil proceeding. He could not support the amendment. Councilor Bettman stated that a stalking order did not apply to an entire area; it only applied to a person. She said the issue of no constitutional right to an attorney at a civil proceeding begged the question because a person could be punished at the civil proceeding before they had their day in court, where they did have a right to legal representation. She said the amendment provided due process and pointed out that all of the crimes listed in the ordinance were punishable by law. Councilor Pryor asked if there was a point at which traffic offenses would result in the City providing an attorney. He said there were now cases coming before Municipal Court that were relatively serious, but the City was not requiring that an attorney be provided. He asked if there were problems adjudicating those cases when people did not have representation. Mr. Barkovic said if a person was charged with a crime they were entitled to a court-appointed attorney at the outset; if the matter was a violation and not a crime there was no entitlement to an attorney appointed at public expense, although the person could hire their own attorney. He said that system has worked well and there was no ambiguity about who did and did not qualify for attorney representation at public expense. He said the offenses under the exclusionary zone were both crimes and violations, and if the underlying case was a crime, the person would be entitled to a court- appointed attorney. He noted that as the ordinance was drafted no one, regardless of the offense, would qualify for an attorney at public expenses for the show cause hearing before the court. In response to a question from Councilor Pryor, Mr. Barkovic said that in instances where the underlying offense was elevated to the status of a crime, the constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney would pertain, but that would not apply to the civil exclusion. Councilor Zelenka asked for clarification that legal counsel was not required under the ordinance until the trial, regardless of the seriousness of the offense, and officers were not required to tell the person they could have an attorney with them. Mr. Barkovic said that was correct. He said the officer was not required to tell the person receiving the notice of exclusion that they had the right to have an attorney at the hearing. He said the person could bring their own attorney, but would not qualify for an attorney at public expense. Mayor Piercy clarified that the judge would make the decision to exclude and the officer would only provide notice that an exclusion order could be entered against the person. She asked Mr. Lidz to discuss applicable decisions by the Oregon Supreme Court. Mr. Lidz said the court had considered a case related to exclusion from Portland’s no prostitution zone; the person who had been excluded was also charged with prostitution and argued that double jeopardy applied since they had already been subjected to criminal punishment through the exclusion. He said the court disagreed and found that the exclusion was a civil remedy and not a criminal prosecution. Councilor Clark offered a friendly amendment to allow the officer to give the per- son notice of their right to have an attorney at a civil proceeding, but not one pro- vided by the City. Councilor Zelenka declined to accept the amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting Judge Wayne Allen stated that people were informed in Municipal Court at the time of a hearing on any type of violation that they had the right to be represented by an attorney. He said providing an attorney at the hearing under the ordinance would be expensive, but it was a difficult issue because a person might say something at the hearing that could present a problem for them at trial. The motion to amend failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman and Zelenka voting yes. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to add a new Section F to Section 4.875 requiring that the officer inform the person that they have a right to counsel at the hearing. Chief Lehner said that the written notice could contain that information. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Mr. Lidz assured him that the motion would not change the council’s intent that the ordinance was a civil remedy and not a criminal punishment. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor and Solomon voting no. Councilor Taylor opined that the ordinance was unjust and unenforceable. She said the people who were excluded would not disappear and could cause problems elsewhere in the community. She sympathized with Betty Snowden. She said there were laws in place to address the offenses and the council should be discussing solutions to the problems, such as increasing the downtown police presence, using volunteers to help downtown, building a public restroom, providing shelter for the homeless and creating a center open to all youth. Councilor Bettman said she would not support the ordinance. She agreed there was unacceptable criminal behavior downtown, but could not support excluding people prior to conviction of a crime. She said the Police Department budget had been increased to address problems downtown and in urban parks, and asked how much money it would take for the police to respond to those issues. She felt there were many expenditures that were extraneous and the money could be put toward increasing patrol capacity. Councilor Zelenka said he could not support the ordinance as it was too broadly written as amended. Councilor Pryor said he did not want to have an exclusionary zone, but it was unconscionable what was happening to people downtown. He said it represented a collision between personal liberty and community good will and councilors would vote their conscience. He would reluctantly support the ordinance and hoped it would improve public safety in the downtown area. Councilor Taylor recommended that a committee of community members could be established to consider solutions to the problems downtown, instead of penalties. Councilor Clark expressed his appreciation for the thorough discussion of the issue. He did not see the ordinance as a solution for all of the problems downtown; it was a good first step. He asked Chief Lehner to respond by memorandum to Councilor Bettman’s question about what resources would be required to do an adequate job of community policing in the downtown core area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman clarified that her question was how much money it would take before the council stopped hearing there were not enough resources to answer calls. Mayor Piercy said it would take many strategies to assure safety downtown, including more people and activities downtown, better enforcement of the law, working to stop hate speech and community collabora- tion to make the downtown area a place people wanted to be. The motion as amended passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman and Zelenka vot- ing no. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting