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

Home Browse Search

to write their concerns, especially if they are an employee of an establishment that allows outdoor smoking. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for an excellent agenda report. He echoed Ms. Taylor's comment that the ordinance was enacted to protect the health of employees who do not have the same free choice as patrons. Mr. Kelly noted that the ordinance was also enacted to allow smokers who patronize taverns to smoke as long as they do not harm the health of employees. He stated that he could support an ordinance that would allow outdoor smoking areas in food and beverage establishments only. In terms of standards, Mr. Kelly referred to the model adopted in Upper Arlington, Ohio as a partial solution to this issue but cautioned there may be potential "wiggle room" around the wall specifications. Mr. Kelly referred to iron railings and latticework and suggested that such borders may be acceptable if they would they not hinder air circulation. He further suggested that the new standards be retroactive with a "phasing in" period so that establishments that have made a concerted effort to build a true outdoor area would not be adversely affected in a major way. Ms. Ortiz agreed with the points expressed by Mr. Kelly and added that establishments that sell cigarettes should be able to offer outdoor smoking areas. Additionally, she stated her preference for either a roof or walls, but not both, as ventilation was critical. Mr. Pryor spoke of the collision of individual rights and community rights. He said if the goal was to protect employees, the council should move forward in that vein. Mr. Pryor opined that businesses that until now complied with the ordinance in good faith should not be penalized if new standards were adopted. He then referred to ventilation systems and questioned if the issue was (1) an open area, or, (2) no smoke in the air. Mr. Pryor pointed out that if the air does not move, second-hand smoke would be present. He cautioned the council that if the City Manager was directed to prepare an ordinance, air circulation/quality should be considered. Mr. Pap~ concurred that the ordinance was indeed passed to protect employees; however, he pointed to the fact there was no State law at the time the ordinance was adopted and maintained that protection of smokers was also a factor. He questioned if there was a concern with the current ordinance. Ms. Osborn referred to the Hearings Official ruling, noted earlier, which stated that the Administrative Rule, as currently written, was not sufficiently objective and therefore made enforcement difficult. She added that the City has been giving conflicting messages to businesses as to the type of construction that would be allowed and that these businesses want clarification and assurance that the City would not take a different enforcement path in the future. Ms. Osborn then spoke of public health advocates who believe that the 25-percent standard does not provide adequate ventilation and a safe atmosphere. She said that complaints have been lodged periodically around this issue, especially in the winter season when violations of the order occur more frequently. Ms. Osborn read language from the Administrative Rule which stated in part "...provide no more than 75-percent closed area and provide for the free-flow o fair..." ." and noted that the City does not so define. In conclusion, she referred to the information in the AIS which states there were no agreed-upon standards for safe levels of tobacco smoke exposure. Mr. Papd stated that the City Council should move forward on this issue and limit the language to food and beverage establishments only. Additionally, he suggested that those establishments that MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 4 Work Session