CC Minutes - 02/27/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

accomplished with an amendment that would allow fencing for security purposes with a caveat that nothing could be done to impede airflow. Mr. Poling appreciated the points made regarding security and the limitations to minors. He asked if the City ordinance governing noise worked in this situation. Mr. McKerrow replied that there were two sections in the City code; one in Chapter 6 that was more related to land use code, development standards, or commercial/industrial uses, and there was a section regulating noise in Chapter 4, enforceable by the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He reported that staff had met with neighbors of The Old Pad and its owner. He related that the officer that attended indicated that there was not always an officer to respond, but it was important nonetheless to make the call to report the noise violation so that they could be tracked. Mr. Poling said if the council decided that smoking decks should be a certain distance from houses this clause should only apply to new establishments being built. He did not support “penalizing” bar owners who keep trying to do the right thing. He noted that the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) discussed the bills adopted in the 2007 Oregon State Legislature that go into effect in January, 2009, but indicated that staff anticipated clarification on the implementation of new regulations. He asked what staff was expecting in that regard. Mr. McKerrow responded that he had been in contact with staff from the State Public Health Division who had been given the assignment to develop the administrative rules. He anticipated that they would review the bill and then decide where it needed clarification, not unlike how something would be treated municipally. Mr. Poling preferred to wait to make changes locally until it was known what changes would come from the State. Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Poling. He noted that he never favored the ordinance in the first place. He believed the previous ordinance drove smokers outside so that they became a nuisance. He averred that additions to the current ordinance would make things worse. He felt that the ordinance, as it stood, had contributed to the closure of three establishments which resulted in a loss of jobs. Ms. Solomon inquired how many of the 27 complaints related to outdoor smoking areas in the past three years had been in regard to The Old Pad. Mr. McKerrow replied that two or three of the complaints had been about that establishment. He reviewed the changes to the Pad’s outdoor smoking area that had been implemented with iterations of the outdoor smoking ordinance. Ms. Solomon remarked that she did not hear many complaints regarding outdoor smoking. She was starting to wonder if this was more of a neighborhood issue that the council could possibly help involved parties to resolve. She noted the one meeting that had occurred and wondered if more meetings should be planned. She was not certain the ordinance should be amended in response to complaints about one establishment, adding that she supported waiting until changes made at the state level were known. Ms. Ortiz agreed that the council did not need to take action until what the state intended to do was known. She commented that the only change she had noticed with the advent of the ordinance was that people thanked her for helping to make it happen. She knew it was challenging to live next to an area with a lot of smoking and indicated her willingness to support changes in fence height or other alterations in order to ameliorate the situation. Mr. Zelenka felt it was important to recall why the ordinance was in place – it was a health issue. He averred that the whole point of requiring a space to be 75 percent open was to gain the airflow necessary to MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2008 Page 2 Work Session