CC Minutes - 02/23/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman was prepared to support the ordinance. She asked that the language in Section 6.230 referring to polling places be stricken, given that the citizens of Oregon now all vote by mail. She thought it might be appropriate to look into expanding the 25-foot buffer to include all publicly owned buildings when the ordinance was revisited to include language defining outdoor smoking areas. She underscored that the original intent of the issue was to protect people and foster workplace safety. She did not consider an outdoor smoking area to be an outdoor drinking area. She felt that once people were drinking in the outdoor area, service would be required and the intent of the ordinance was defeated. Speaking to the issue of the current administrative rule, Ms. Bettman asked if there was a way to stave off a plethora of permit applications for the development of outdoor smoking areas by bars and restaurants seeking to build prior to the potential imposition of stricter parameters. Ms. Taylor said the main reason for the ordinance was to protect people's health and she supported it. She agreed that it was unfair to employees to make them serve and clean up after patrons in outdoor smoking areas. She also thought it manifested unfair competition given that some establishments did not have the room to install an outdoor smoking area. Ms. Taylor asked if it would be possible, given that action would not be taken at the current work session, to vote on both the buffer and on standards for outdoor smoking areas when the ordinance was rescheduled for consideration. City Manager Taylor opined that it would be cleaner to get the 25-foot buffer adopted and return with new language to govern construction of outdoor smoking facilities. Ms. Osborn asked if Ms. Taylor meant that the council would be voting on standards for outdoor areas and, if so, whether she thought there should be another public hearing. Ms. Taylor indicated she did not think another public hearing was necessary because one had been held on the non-smoking ordinance in January. City Manager Taylor recommended that a public hearing be held because the people who could be affected by changes to outdoor smoking area standards had not been noticed prior to the last public meeting. Ms. Taylor asked if people with existing outdoor facilities would be grandfathered in. City Attorney Jerry Lidz responded that the construction and land use might be grandfathered in, but he did not think the use of the space as a smoking area was grandfathered since this was a form of regulation for the public health. He said given the amount of State regulation in this area, there were some legal issues concerned with the changes the City Council might make. He recommended further legal research. Mr. Pap~ supported the ordinance as proposed. He realized that the council was trying to protect non- smokers and employees from second-hand smoke. While he did not have a concept that people would not be drinking in the outdoor areas, he had not considered that people might be serving drinks to patrons in them. Regarding the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) requirement that employees enter the areas in the case of emergencies, Mr. Pap~ asked how such emergencies were defined. Ms. Osborn replied that the OLCC did require visibility for those areas in which drinking occurred and that employees be able to go in should an incident require them to. Examples of such incidents included deterring minors from drinking or interrupting an altercation between patrons. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 2 Work Session