Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Papc expressed apprccmtion for the background itlf~)rmation provided to the council, in particular the infpnnatlOn from the American So~~icty of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAF), \vhich indicated that complete separation and isolation of smoking room~, can control environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure in nonsmoking arcas of the same building. He said the City sh~)uJ.d allo\v such areas if they \vcre contained and ventilatcd in such a manner. ?v1r. Pape supported nllowing existing smoking rooms to be grandLlthered, noting that some establish- mentshad spent considerable moncy on building permits to build outdoor smoking rooms just a short \vhilc ago. Ms. Ortiz commended the background information, She "vas glad that the original ordinance had been adopted and wished that the council could prohibit smoking every",,.-here, a1th~)ugh she acknowledged that people had the right to smoke. She also did not want to have to force bustness o\.....ners to spend more Inoney and wanted to see if there Vi/as a way to honor those Cl\vners \vho complied with the spirit of the law and constructed separate omdoor smoking facilities. Ms, Solomon echoed the comments of Mr. Pape and cXDressed concern about attenlDtinr,: to mah, anv .. -"- .. ~~. ,.I changes through the administrative rules. She thought any amendments to the original ordinance ~~hould be made through another ordinance so that therc \vas a dear public process that aUo'vved business establislmlems t() make COl:nrnents and offer input. i"vIr. Poling asked h~)\v many estahlishments applied fix building pem1its to build a smoking area. Tvis. Osborn said about 40 businesses had made such applications. Gi yen the number of bus messes in Eugene with liquor licenses, it was likely tbere \vere other establishments that probably had outdoor smoking areas that had not required a building permit or for whom business O\vners had Hot sought a pennit. Mr. Poling asked if there was a 'Nay to give a break to businesses that had filed applications f()r 8 building permit previously, should the council decide not to grandfather such establishments. ivls. Osborn pointed out that her departrnent \vas supposed to be 100 percent reliant on fees, and she defelTed to the council on tbat Issue, Mr. Ppling suggested that staff needed to be dear at the public hearing that the proposed alternativt: lang1lage for noncont~mning situations ret1ected m Attachment D could be fmiher altered and changed. He said that those establishments that confclrmed to the original ordinance and spent the money needed to comply with an ordinance that was essentially forced upon them should be grandfat.hered in. If the smoking arca was not mcd within a period of time or the ownership changed, that could make the business subject to the cun-em code. Mr. Poling looked f();ward to hearing public te~~timony on the issue. JVIr. Pryor said his first instinct was to m8ke the changes through ordinance, hut he !lad been persuaded that. some of the less scientifically based and more creative changes could be better implemented through administrative rule. He did not 'Jiant. t.o short~circuit the public input process but thought that issue could be addressed. Regarding the issue of grandl~llhering, Mr. Pryor was concerned that those establishments \vho had "played by the rules" did llot feel shotichanged or stuck with an additional expense. He suggested that a fee consideration or some SOli ,jf assistance be considered fe,r those who complied to get theln were they needed t~) be, He \vanted to see some options in that regard. Ms. Bettman s:ud she had initially favored making changes through an ordinance, but had some concerns about legal issues that she wanted to discuss with legal counsel more fully. She asked if the council could hold an executive session prior to the public hearing. MINUTESuuuEugene City Council IN ork Session September 12, 2005 Page 12.