Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

majority position on House Bill 2164, and asked to have the remaining items removed from tonight's action and brought back to the council on February 28, 2005. Councilor Kelly recalled that the practice for split votes in the past was that they were brought to the council as highlighted items in the Agenda Items Summary, but were not voted upon separately unless there was a motion to pull them. Mayor Piercy noted no support for Councilor Pap6's request. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Motorized Transportation Devices and Most Assisted Scooter Sales; Amending Sections 4.990, 5.010, and 5.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding New Sections 4.979 and 5.160 to that Code City Manager Taylor introduced Sergeant Derel Schulz from the Eugene Police Department (EPD), and asked him to briefly describe the proposed motorized transportation and assisted scooter sales ordinance. Sgt. Schulz identified himself as the supervisor for the traffic enforcement unit of the EPD. He reviewed the timeline and process for development of the ordinance and noted that a motorized transportation device (MTD) was exempt from the provision if it was used as a mobility aid by a person with mobility impairment, used by a person with express permission from the City, or used by a City employee or agent in the course of City business. Sgt. Schulz said there are numerous State laws that govern the devices, and explained that the proposed ordinance would address problems that are unique to Eugene: Ban motorized transportation devices from all City-owned off-street paths. · Prohibit use of motorized transportation devices in a manner that disturbed the peace. · Require merchants to make certain disclosures related to the sale of motor-assisted scooters. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Sue Wolling, 85219 South Willamette Street, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance, because it reflected the public's comments on the issue last fall. She said most people had testified in support of significant restrictions on the use of motorized scooters on the bicycle paths, noting people objected to the noise, speed, fumes, and recognized that the police had no ability to enforce a nuance-complicated ordinance. She said although people had a difficult time identifying exactly what they objected to about the scooters, the scooters were motorized vehicles invading a space that had always been a refuge from motorized traffic, a haven of people-powered transport. She asserted that the bicycle paths were special places, and one of the best things about living in Eugene. Kurt Jensen, 1672 Happy Lane, speaking in support of the proposed ordinance, affirmed Ms. Wolling's comments. He said the bicycle paths were designed and built for non-motorized use that provided a wonderful outdoor experience to thousands of people every week that would be degraded if MTDs were allowed. He added that the paths provided opportunity for a wide range of activities that had a common MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session