CC Minutes - 09/12/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

employees of their rights through its administrative rules. Ms. Osborn clarified that City had addressed those situation when they arose. Mr. Pape expressed appreciation for the background information provided to the council, in particular the information from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), which indicated that complete separation and isolation of smoking rooms can control environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure in nonsmoking areas of the same building. He said the City should allow such areas if they were contained and ventilated in such a manner. Mr. Pape supported allowing existing smoking rooms to be grandfathered, noting that some establishments had spent considerable money on building permits to build outdoor smoking rooms just a short while ago. Ms. Ortiz commended the background information. She was glad that the original ordinance had been adopted and wished that the council could prohibit smoking everywhere, although she acknowledged that people had the right to smoke. She also did not want to have to force business owners to spend more money and wanted to see if there was a way to honor those owners who complied with the spirit of the law and constructed separate outdoor smoking facilities. Ms. Solomon echoed the comments ofMr. Pape and expressed concern about attempting to make any changes through the administrative rules. She thought any amendments to the original ordinance should be made through another ordinance so that there was a clear public process that allowed business establish- ments to make comments and offer input. Mr. Poling asked how many establishments applied for building permits to build a smoking area. Ms. Osborn said about 40 businesses had made such applications. Given the number of businesses in Eugene with liquor licenses, it was likely there were other establishments that probably had outdoor smoking areas that had not required a building permit or for whom business owners had not sought a permit. Mr. Poling asked if there was a way to give a break to businesses that had filed applications for a building permit previously, should the council decide not to grandfather such establishments. Ms. Osborn pointed out that her department was supposed to be 100 percent reliant on fees, and she deferred to the council on that issue. Mr. Poling suggested that staff needed to be clear at the public hearing that the proposed alternative language for nonconforming situations reflected in Attachment D could be further altered and changed. He said that those establishments that conformed to the original ordinance and spent the money needed to comply with an ordinance that was essentially forced upon them should be grandfathered in. If the smoking area was not used within a period of time or the ownership changed, that could make the business subject to the current code. Mr. Poling looked forward to hearing public testimony on the issue. Mr. Pryor said his first instinct was to make the changes through ordinance, but he had been persuaded that some of the less scientifically based and more creative changes could be better implemented through administrative rule. He did not want to short-circuit the public input process but thought that issue could be addressed. Regarding the issue of grandfathering, Mr. Pryor was concerned that those establishments who had "played by the rules" did not feel shortchanged or stuck with an additional expense. He suggested that a fee consideration or some sort of assistance be considered for those who complied to get them were they needed to be. He wanted to see some options in that regard. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 12, 2005 Page 12