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

Home Browse Search

have added smoking areas within the past five years should not be required to comply with the new standards. Ms. Bettman spoke of the original intent to protect employees from second hand smoke and to accommodate businesses and patrons to smoke %ut of the rain." She noted that unfortunately, however, most of the constructed smoking areas are enclosed and employees are in the same predicament as before the Administrative Rule was adopted. Ms. Bettman suggested that the standards be tightened to protect the workers and then referred to the Upper Arlington, Ohio model as a good example. She added that if 75 percent of the smoking area was open to the air and a minimal enclosure was provided to protect people from the rain, such construction would suffice. She questioned if establishments other than food and beverage establishments in other municipalities have outdoor smoking areas. Ms. Osbom stated she was not aware of any such accommodations in other cities. Ms. Bettman reiterated that a ;;phase back" to less enclosure should be the intent to protect the workers. She further suggested a different approach to resolve this issue: make the smoking areas non-service areas and off-limits to employees so smokers can exercise their rights and employees would not be exposed. Ms. Solomon questioned the idea of allowing an outdoor smoking area in food and beverage establishments only. She suggested that if the City was going to allow such areas in food and beverage establishments, it should also extend the same accommodation to ~adults only" establishments such as bingo parlors. Ms. Solomon stated she favored outdoor smoking areas and if standards were refined, those establishments that have already built such areas should not be affected by the policy change. She concurred with Ms. Bettman's suggestion that an outdoor smoking area that does not provide services could be a pragmatic approach to this issue. Mr. Poling pointed out that a ;;no service" smoking area would still need to be monitored by employees. He said he favored designated smoking areas and that ;;adults only" establishments should be ;;piggy-backed" into the standards. With regard to minimum openings, Mr. Poling suggested walls and roofs may not resolve the issue and that some type of air flow should be considered. He concluded that the new standards should not apply to those establishments that complied with the original Administrative Rule and perhaps voluntary compliance with the new standards could be encouraged for those individuals. Mr. Kelly referred to air quality and reiterated there was a lack of accepted standards from the air quality profession. He speculated that if the air quality issue was fully researched, the council would discover there should be no outdoor smoking areas as there was no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Mr. Kelly then spoke to his concern that some establishments have not operated in good faith and essentially provided an indoor smoking area for their patrons. He repeated his suggestion that those establishments that complied in good faith should not be penalized. Ms. Ortiz suggested that establishments that have already built outdoor smoking structures should be allowed to maintain such areas as originally constructed; however, she suggested that if any remodeling occurred the new standards would take effect, i.e., a non-conforming piece until a building permit was sought. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 5 Work Session