01/28/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

re Councilman Murray asked whether the police were encountering specific crimes con- nected with the carrying of such weapons. Police Chief answered that there were not many, however they were receiving many complaints of intimidation. He pointed out that another reason for requesting adoption of the ordinance was to update and clarify existing regulations. He confirmed Mr. -Murray's statement that it was more to curb overt taunting or threatening. In answer to Councilman McDonald, the Chief said that possession of a switchblade if activated by a spring device was in violation of State law as well as City ordinance. Mr. Long explained that the ordinance addressed itself to carrying such knives in public places rather than to their use on private property or in the course of one's employment. Councilwoman Campbell asked about enforcement, wondering whether there would be a problem with regard to people coming into the City from other areas. And whether dis- play of these weapons was because of ban on carrying concealed weapons. Police Chief answered that considerable publicity would be released to make the citizenry aware of the restrictions inside the City. As with any new regulation, warnings would be issued in first violations. He said the prohibition of carrying concealed weapons was probably the reason knives were being carried openly. Councilwoman Beal thought the proposed ordinance a good one. She felt its purpose was to prevent an alarming or threatening appearance to people in the community. Manager explained that the ordinance primarily was to clarify for legal purposes and for the citizenry and to spell out for those allowed to sell knives, etc., the legitimate and illegal uses. e Mr. Powelson pointed out specific sections of the ordinance to which he took-exception and said he thought there should be some way to take care of concerns of people using certain types of 'weapons in hunting, or as pocket knives. 0853 Vote was taken on the motion for second reading. Motion defeated, Councilmen Williams and Hershner voting aye; Councilmen McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood voting no, and the bill was held over for second reading. F. Amending City Code re: Subdivisions and Land Partition Ordinance re:Subdivisions and related Code changes - Recommended by the Planning Commission to bring the subdivision code into conformance with State code (S.B.487 and H.B.2607). Council members were briefed on the proposed ordinance in meeting with the Planning Commission on January 21/ 1974. Councilman williams wondered whether the emergency session of the Legislature scheduled for February 11/ 1974 would modify this action. Manager explained that the problem of disclosure to be considered by the Legislature was not pertinent to this ordinance. Comm 1/23/74 Pub Hrng '. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Wood, to schedule the ordinance for public hearing at the January 28 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission recommended on December 17, 1973. Manager explained provlslons of the proposed ordinance, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members. Public hearing was opened. Bill Briot, 308 East 50th Avenue, executive officer of the Eugene/Springfield Home- builders Association, ~sked about the fee schedule for subdivision applications. John Porter, planning director, explained that fees were set out in resolution form (ReSOlution No. 2250 below) to be adopted after passage of the new subdivision rules. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Council Bill No. 438 - Repealing Sections 9.005 through 9.150 of City Code (present subdivison ordinance) and adopting new land division ordinance adding Sections 9.005 through 9.090, and amending Sections 2.350, 9.254, 9.552, 9.560, and 9.562, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. ~r_ 0863 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. He~shner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcqll vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16971. / t~ 1/28/74 - 5