Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Pape said that when businesses complied in good faith, regardless of whether it had been expensive, <br />the council should be consistent and not place additional expense on an industry it had already burdened <br />in 2001. He had not seen anyone come forward to ask for additional protection. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that the motion would create a level playing field and provide help for modifica- <br />tions. She said that some of the outdoor smoking areas that had been built were basically extensions of <br />the facility. She would support the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz acknowledged those businesses that had gone smoke-free and did not have the opportunity to <br />provide an outdoor smoking area; she thought they should be applauded for their support of the council's <br />efforts. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pape's remarks about businesses that had gone to considerable expense to <br />comply with the existing ordinance. He said the changes that would need to be made under the new <br />standards could increase their expenses once again. He appreciated having smoke-free establishments and <br />felt the council should take into consideration the approximately 40 businesses that had gone to the time <br />and expense to comply with the original ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to substitute the following motion: Move <br />to request the City Manager to revise Administrative Rule 6.230 to implement new stan- <br />dards for outdoor smoking areas before December 31, 2005, with provisions for granting <br />of legal non-conforming status to existing outdoor smoking areas that were legally created <br />and comply with standards in effect on September 28,2005. The vote on the motion was <br />a 4:4 tied; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pape voting in favor, Ms. Taylor, <br />Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition <br />to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy explained she voted against the substitute motion because the effort in the original motion to <br />provide a year to comply and provide financial resources was responsive to those businesses that complied <br />with the existing ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said he would vote in favor of the motion as proposed, although he opposed the principle of <br />forcing change, in order to give those who took the time, effort and money to comply originally a break. <br /> <br />The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: West University Park Reconfiguration <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to execute a <br />property exchange agreement with Bob and Leslie Quinney as described above based on <br />the points of agreements from Attachment B. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the haste in taking action, which she felt did not benefit the <br />neighborhood so much as one developer. She could not support the provision that gave the Quinneys the <br />right to purchase the park in the future if it was sold. She was also concerned about too much lighting in <br />the park and felt a park was a place to have peace and quiet and not be bombarded by lighting. She <br />thought a park should be a place to eat and read a book in a quiet comer or talk to a loved one in the <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene City Council <br />Work Session <br /> <br />September 28, 2005 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />