CC Minutes - 09/28/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Papé questioned whether there was actually a problem with the outdoor smoking areas. He realized there could be problems related to compliance but was not certain that the existing ordinance failed to meet the need to protect workers and patrons in bars, taverns and restaurants. Mr. Pryor emphasized his interest in having the City do whatever it could to mitigate the costs of complying with new standards for those businesses that had, in good faith, created smoking areas that complied with the ordinance and standards created in 2000 and might now be forced to change. He urged the City to take measures to mitigate the time and costs involved for those businesses to come back into compliance. Mr. Poling, speaking to the motion, clarified that the legislative intent of ordinance revisions was to ensure there would be minor changes to bring the ordinance into alignment with the administrative rule and not to make principal changes in the ordinance. He asked how many establishments were in compliance with the existing ordinance. Ms. Osborn said that there were approximately 40 that had obtained permits to construct outdoor smoking areas. She said a strict reading of the State codes indicated that most businesses would require building permits to make the changes necessary to comply with stricter standards. Mr. Poling asked if any of the compliant smoking areas had been built without permits. Ms. Osborn replied that the City was not aware of any smoking areas that required permits but did not have them; however, some establishments did not create the type of area that triggered the requirement for a permit. She noted that the motions being considered by the council attempted to capture different suggestions from councilors to provide more specificity of direction if the administrative rule approach was used. Mr. Poling asked if the wording in the suggested motion B.4 in reference to the granting of legal non- conforming status meant those establishments would be grandfathered in and would not have to change as long as they were currently in compliance. Ms. Osborn agreed that was the intent of the language. Ms. Bettman said she would support the motion and stated her intent to offer motions on specific standards that would split the issues of phasing and grandfathering. She said the council intended to protect workers from the health dangers of secondhand smoke and the administrative rules that were enacted were inconsis- tent with that intent. She said that as long as the council was going to correct that problem it should provide full protection by returning to its position when the original ordinance was enacted, which was 75 percent open air for outdoor smoking areas. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling explained that if the motion passed, staff was directed to begin with the ordinance revision as proposed and the council would then have the opportunity to address specific changes to be added. City Attorney Jerome Lidz explained that there were at least three steps in the process: 1. A decision to proceed primarily by administrative rule with ordinance changes only to make lan- guage consistent; 2. If the answer was yes, what kind of suggestions should be made to the city manager for the adminis- trative rules; and 3. How the council wants to address non-conforming uses. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2005 Page 2 Work Session