Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

adoption ofthe motion 'vvas m~)re likely to ensure what W:lS eventually proposed w()uld be ad~)ptcd by the council. Nlr. Kelly said that it was often said that downtmvIl was everyone's neighborhood, but the "ERAC 'vvas not everybody, by a long shot." He said he respected the c~)mmittee's work. but it vvas primarily forIncd to consider urban rene,val district. issues, and it had "a particular kind of approach to it." Adding everyone's persp~~dive in a brief but deep outreach process would give the council a richer n:ux of approaches to accomplish the goa I of Illore closely aligning the goals of the code with the Dmvntown Plan. l\/lr. Pap0 noted his interest in having a publiC hearing eady in the process to hear what the puhlic thought about some of the items. 'fhe vote on the amendment to the motion wns a 4:<1 tie;M.s T"yloc Mr. Kelly, [vis. Belt- man, and Ms. Ortit: voting yes; Mr. Pape. iv1s. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and\fr. Pryor voting no. lvlayor Piercy east a vote in support of the mnendroent, and it p"ssed Oil a final vote of 5:4. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Standards for Outdoor Smokin~ Areas 1he council was joined by Kdi Osborn of the Planning and Deve1~)pment Department for the item. Ivls. Osborn reminded the council it requested an additional work session on the subject prior to the pubhc hearing scheduled on September 26. Ms. Osborn revicv,ed several issues that remained to be resolved. The fi.rst was, if uutdoor smoking area", '.vere to be allo'v\ied, where were they tp he al1mved') She said staff recommended they be allowed at establishments that scrve f{XX1 and beverages. She did not know how many such husmesscs 'vvere involved, but noted that the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLeC) indicated there were about 220 businesses in Eugene with on-prerlllSC liquor licenses. T'he second [S,""lle was if' outdoor smoking areas ",ere alkl\ved, hO\o\i open should thcy be'! lv1s. Osborn said that council's responses had beeu mixed, hut there seemed to be somc suppun for 50 per;.;ent \vall coverage. That. percentage wns included in the proposed ordinance. She acknowledged there was no scientific basis to that percentage. She noted that the ()rdinance attempted to address Side coverings and 'vvall coverings to nvoid sorne of the cOnftlsion that arose over the 75/25 percent rule, which \vas Hot clear as to what was allowed. The third issue was how to address ventilati{m.Ms. Osborn said staff had provided some examples of how the issue was addressed in British Columbia and at the State of Oregon, but had provided no recommendation that such systems he pruvided in outdoor smoking areas. Iv1s. Osbom discussed the issue of what happened to existing nutdoor smoking are"s i.f the council adopted new standards. She said that approximately 40 businesses had to secure a building penuit {\)r outdoor smoking areas while others were installed withnut permit because they required no structural changes. She said the ordinance suggested that after 12 months. all businesses must comply: alternatively, that penod could he shorter, longer, or such husinesses could be grandfathcred in as kgaJ nonconforming structures. Ms. Osbom bc1ie\'ed that most of the establishments that had secured permitswollld [(;quire another building permit to reach a 50 percent opennes~, standard. MrNUTES ----Eugene City Council Work Session September 12, 2005 Pagc 10