My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3A - Minutes Approval
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 04/11/05 Mtg
>
Item 3A - Minutes Approval
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:07:31 PM
Creation date
4/7/2005 8:39:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/11/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Bettman was prepared to support the ordinance. She asked that the language in Section 6.230 <br />referring to polling places be stricken, given that the citizens of Oregon now all vote by mail. She thought <br />it might be appropriate to look into expanding the 25-foot buffer to include all publicly owned buildings <br />when the ordinance was revisited to include language defining outdoor smoking areas. She underscored <br />that the original intent of the issue was to protect people and foster workplace safety. She did not consider <br />an outdoor smoking area to be an outdoor drinking area. She felt that once people were drinking in the <br />outdoor area, service would be required and the intent of the ordinance was defeated. <br /> <br />Speaking to the issue of the current administrative rule, Ms. Bettman asked if there was a way to stave off <br />a plethora of permit applications for the development of outdoor smoking areas by bars and restaurants <br />seeking to build prior to the potential imposition of stricter parameters. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said the main reason for the ordinance was to protect people's health and she supported it. <br />She agreed that it was unfair to employees to make them serve and clean up after patrons in outdoor <br />smoking areas. She also thought it manifested unfair competition given that some establishments did not <br />have the room to install an outdoor smoking area. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if it would be possible, given that action would not be taken at the current work session, <br />to vote on both the buffer and on standards for outdoor smoking areas when the ordinance was resched- <br />uled for consideration. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor opined that it would be cleaner to get the 25-foot buffer adopted and return with new <br />language to govern construction of outdoor smoking facilities. <br /> <br />Ms. Osborn asked if Ms. Taylor meant that the council would be voting on standards for outdoor areas <br />and, if so, whether she thought there should be another public hearing. Ms. Taylor indicated she did not <br />think another public hearing was necessary because one had been held on the non-smoking ordinance in <br />January. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor recommended that a public hearing be held because the people who could be <br />affected by changes to outdoor smoking area standards had not been noticed prior to the last public <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if people with existing outdoor facilities would be grandfathered in. City Attorney Jerry <br />Lidz responded that the construction and land use might be grandfathered in, but he did not think the use <br />of the space as a smoking area was grandfathered since this was a form of regulation for the public health. <br />He said given the amount of State regulation in this area, there were some legal issues concerned with the <br />changes the City Council might make. He recommended further legal research. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 supported the ordinance as proposed. He realized that the council was trying to protect non- <br />smokers and employees from second-hand smoke. While he did not have a concept that people would not <br />be drinking in the outdoor areas, he had not considered that people might be serving drinks to patrons in <br />them. <br /> <br />Regarding the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) requirement that employees enter the areas in <br />the case of emergencies, Mr. Pap6 asked how such emergencies were defined. Ms. Osborn replied that the <br />OLCC did require visibility for those areas in which drinking occurred and that employees be able to go in <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.