Laserfiche WebLink
provide a safe working environment for the people who worked in those establishments. He related that he <br />also had heard a lot of compliments from people regarding the ordinance, especially people from out of <br />town. Regarding noise levels, he asked why if the code said 10 p.m.; there was no enforcement until 11 p.m. <br />Mr. McKerrow responded that the EPD may have changed this. He said it often could be a low priority for <br />the EPD. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked how a noise violation was treated when it came from a business; would it be issued to the <br />patrons violating the ordinance or would it be issued to the owner of the establishment. Mr. McKerrow <br />replied that civil penalties had been issued to business owners for violations of the smoking ordinance. He <br />was uncertain whether individuals were cited within a business establishment. He noted that if the noise <br />ordinance under Chapter 6 was violated, both the person responsible for the violation and the property <br />owner were notified. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka echoed comments regarding a requirement for higher fences. He also was not certain that <br />existing businesses should be made to meet further requirements. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy remarked that if this one situation was generating a lot of complaints then some extra effort <br />should be made to resolve it. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said the smoking ordinance was intended to protect people. She felt this particular issue was a <br />byproduct of the ordinance which was harming people’s health inadvertently. She also thought the noise and <br />litter were hazards to the neighbors’ mental health. She thought any time something was permitted, the <br />effects of a project on its surrounding neighborhood should be assessed. She added that she had heard many <br />complaints regarding the establishment in question. She averred that this was a nuisance and it was up to <br />the government to step in and take care of it. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor appreciated the conversation. He reiterated his support for leaving the ordinance as it currently <br />stood until the State’s actions were known. He noted his specific interest in formulating language that was <br />targeted regarding security fencing. Mr. McKerrow responded that the administrative rule had an allowance <br />for security fencing. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked how specific the language regarding the fencing could be. Mr. McKerrow replied that <br />the language could be very specific. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the council should look into instituting penalties for business owners. <br /> <br />Mr. McKerrow noted that Ms. Ortiz had mentioned “green buffers” and pointed out that a downtown <br />establishment had such a buffer, but had been disallowed from having tall vegetation as it had been <br />determined to violate the regulations governing air flow. Regarding Ms. Taylor’s comments pertaining to <br />the permitting process, he assured her that the applications were reviewed thoroughly to ensure they were in <br />compliance. He said occasionally they passed on advice to applicants based on past experience with <br />neighborhood conflicts. He related that in the case of The Old Pad there were no current violations at that <br />property which meant staff could provide advice but could not sanction the establishment. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked how a new business would be handled so that another problem such as the one in <br />question would not arise. Mr. McKerrow explained that presently if a permit came in for a smoking area the <br />City would apply all of the current outdoor standards and the administrative rule. He said at present there <br />was not a distance measure or a fence option. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2008 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />