Item C: Standards for Outdoor Smoking Areas

Home Browse Search

The draft ordinance proposes that existing outdoor smoking areas that comply with the 25/75 rule in place since 2001 be required to comply with stricter openness standards within 12 months from the effective date of a new ordinance. This period will provide owners and managers time to prepare plans, obtain necessary permits and undertake the construction needed to meet the new standards. This component is likely to generate controversy because of the potential impacts on existing establishments; not all may be able to comply with stricter standards, depending on their layout and the space available. The council ultimately may choose to modify this provision and instead provide for some kind of legal, nonconforming status to existing outdoor smoking areas. If the council chooses to “grandfather in” existing outdoor smoking areas, one option would be to borrow concepts from Eugene Code Chapter 9- Land Use (EC 9.1200-1240). For instance, an outdoor smoking area could not be structurally altered in a way that increases its nonconformity with openness and other standards and extended discontinuation of use as a smoking area could result in loss of the legal, nonconforming status. Should standards address ventilation, air circulation or indoor air quality? During the May work session, there was some discussion about looking at standards that consider air circulation. As noted in materials previously provided to the Mayor and City Council, British Columbia and other jurisdictions across the continent have allowed installation of separately ventilated, structurally separated rooms for smoking as a compromise on a total smoking ban. But, according to an August 9, 2005, article in the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is preparing a report for the City of Vancouver on whether these rooms should be removed. They are looking at the impact of eliminating not only indoor smoking rooms, but also restricting or banning smoking on bar and restaurant patios and near the entrances of buildings. Aside from the mechanical systems some jurisdictions allow, City staff has been unable to find other air circulation standards that are clear, objective, and relatively easy to administer. According to the research assembled by Multnomah County, localized ventilation/exhaust systems can be effective in removing significant amounts of tobacco smoke, but removing smoke itself does not eliminate all of its potentially harmful byproducts. Such localized systems also require consistent smoker cooperation, such as placing cigarettes in and exhaling smoke toward special ashtrays. State regulations provide restrictive guidelines for ventilated employee lounges, but employees cannot be required to enter such areas. As this could not be guaranteed for outdoor smoking areas at Eugene’s bars and taverns, these guidelines do not appear to meet the council’s objectives. Installing a ventilation or circulation system may suggest that health risks have been reduced. While a well-ventilated area might be more comfortable for some, there aren’t agreed-upon standards for safe levels of tobacco smoke exposure. The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has revised its standards for tobacco smoke and ventilation to reflect its position that there is no effective ventilation system that will entirely mitigate the health risks of tobacco smoke exposure. Based on these findings, the draft ordinance does not propose air circulation standards. It also does not provide a method for bars and taverns to erect enclosed and ventilated smoking rooms, or suggest that employees wear special equipment or have an opportunity to exempt their employer from compliance. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050912\S050912C.doc