Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to request the City Manager to revise Ad- <br />ministrative Rule 6.230 to implement new standards for outdoor smoking areas before <br />December 31, 2005, with provisions for a minimum 75 percent opening in wall planes for <br />such roofed areas without allowance for screens and similar side coverings over areas <br />counted as open. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated that her motion was more in line with the council's intent when the ordinance was <br />adopted that there be protected outdoor smoking areas; not that the area be a part of the bar. She stated <br />that Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCe) statutes required employees to provide service ifpeople <br />are out in such areas with their drinks; this would provide the greatest amount of protection in that <br />environment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly stated he would support the motion as the original intent was outdoor smoking areas and this <br />standard came closer to a common sense idea of what was "outdoor" than the current situation at some <br />businesses. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape indicated he had seen no empirical evidence that the ordinance and administrative rules now in <br />effect were not doing what the council intended four years ago to protect workers' health. He had not <br />received complaints from either workers or patrons but received complaints from business owners about <br />putting the ordinance into effect. He saw no clear reason to change what was currently in place and <br />encouraged the City to maintain better records on the details and nature of each complaint. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said she was inclined to support a 50 percent opening standard and referred to earlier <br />testimony to the council that there was no statistical data to support a 75 percent opening over a 50 percent <br />opening. She echoed Mr. Papes concern about how complaints were recorded and tracked to ensure their <br />legitimacy. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said in the absence of statistical evidence to support either standard she would err on the side of <br />safety. She would support a citywide ordinance to protect all people, not just those in particular <br />occupations. She said the council should take the lead in setting a standard for expectations for the City <br />and would support any steps that would help make Eugene smoke-free. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to read "...a mini- <br />mum of 50 percent..." <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman declared that the unfortunate aspect of revisiting the issue was that many people had lost the <br />sense of urgency heard from the community when the initial ordinance was adopted. She asserted that <br />many workers had come forward and begged the council for protection. She said councilors were not <br />medical experts and unable to track and analyze specific health impacts of secondhand smoke. She said <br />that medical experts confirmed the need to protect workers from the health hazards of secondhand smoke; <br />50 percent was still an enclosed area and would put workers in harm's way by requiring them to provide <br />serviCe. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor noted that the council had been discussing a 50 percent standard for some time and he did not <br />hear opposition to that standard in previous meetings and discussions. He recognized that any figure, <br />whether 25, 50 or 75, was an arbitrary number but he felt that there should have been more conversation <br />about a 75 percent standard before it was substituted for the 50 percent standard, which had been <br />extensively discussed. He was inclined to support 50 percent now, with the understanding that a different <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene City Council <br />Work Session <br /> <br />September 28, 2005 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />