07/14/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IV. DISCUSSION/OTHER ITEMS e A. Testimony from Al Urquhart Ms. Wooten asked staff to respond to Mr. Urquhart's communication of last Friday. Mr. Sercombe said he had not analyzed that yet, adding that he expected adoption of a periodic review recommendation to be postponed until later this month, and staff meanwhile would prepare a response to Mr. Urquhart's comments. Mr. Sercombe said he thought Mr. Urquhart raised some appropriate issues about Goals 15 and 5 and about whether changes had occurred that required examination as part of a periodic review. He added that more findings probably were needed. Ms. Bascom said she thought an issue that might need to be addressed was the expanding of requirements for Greenway management. Ms. Bishow said the last page addressed use management cri teri a for Wi 11 amette Greenway goals and contained reference to the current City efforts to amend codes to better address those criteria. B. Free Tobacco Samples Ms. Schue asked Mr. Sercombe to expand on his concerns regarding the issue of free tobacco samples. Mr. Sercombe said the ordinance as proposed would single out a particular product and attempt to prohibit any communication to the public about that product. He said the City Attorney's office review suggested that the ordinance could encounter problems from the Oregon or the U.S. Constitutions, because it was based on the content of the communication. Mr. Sercombe said the Tobacco Institute raised that issue in a letter the City e had received about a month ago. He said the ordinance might be defensible, but he suggested that it wo u 1 d raise serious legal issues if passed as written. Mr. Sercombe said the City Council in the next week or two could proceed with a public hearing on the ordinance as drafted, it could abandon efforts to pass the ordi nance, or it could direct staff to seek ways of broadening the ordinance to eliminate the content-based restrictions. He added that the legal issues were similar to those raised in discussions of the panhandling and solicitation ordinances. Mr. Sercombe explained that commercial speech no longer was considered outside the protection of the First Amendment, but the amount of protection offered was uncertain. He also said the Oregon Constitution could be interpreted more broadly than the U.S. Constitution, and recent cases in Oregon had allowed no restrictions whatsoever on the content of speech. Responding to Ms. Schue1s question, Mr. Sercombe said some actions, such as giving away products or discount coupons, could be considered forms of speech. Responding to Mr. Hansen's question, Mr. Sercombe said tobacco samples had been di stributed about three years ago near the mall. He sa i d permits currently were required for any commercial activity on the mall. Ms. Bascom said she thought complaints had involved giving away tobacco near schools, and e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session July 14, 1986 Page 6