HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/1992 13 A K E R S F I E L D
Patricia M. Smith, Chair
Patricia J. DeMond
Lynn Edwards
Staff: Trudy Slater'
Larry Lunardini
AGENDA
LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE
Monday, April 13, 1992
12:00 Noon
City Manager's Conference Room
1. Risk Management (Dale)
2. Council Elections - Change Dates
3. Correspondence from City of Tehachapi Requesting
Resolution Supporting a Kern County Planning Commission
4. Correspondence from Kern County Child Abuse Council
Regarding Pledge to Kern County's Children
5. Smoking Citywide Ordinance
6. Set Next Meeting
MEMORANDUM
April 13, 1992
TO: J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: CLAIMS ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 1992
I am attaching the Claims Activity Report for the month of
March 1992. The Claims Activity Report replaces the previous
report entitled Claims For Damages and Personal Injuries.
The Claims Activity Report will include, by department or division,
the following information for the current month:
1) Summary of claims activity;
2) New claims filed;
3) Claims closed or settled;
4) Claims with Complaints filed or Summons received.
Please review and comment on any recommended changes to the format
of the report.
cc: City Council
Lawrence Lunardini
Michael Allford
Jerry Weber
MEMORANDUM
April 10, 1992
TO: J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: CLAIMS ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 1992
The claims activity during the month of March 1992 was a result of actions in
the following City Departments/Division:
NEW
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION CLAIMS FILED FILES CLOSED COMPLAINTS FILED
Police 6 3 0
Fire 1 2 0
Sanitation 3 2 1
Streets 6 2 2
Parks 4 2 0
20 12 3
The new claims .filed during the month of March 1992 resulted in the following
types of damages:
CITY THIRD PARTY INJURIES
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION PROPERTY DAMAGE PROPERTY DAMAGE INV(1LVED
Police 2 4 1
Fire 0 1 0
Sanitation 0 3 0
Streets 1 4 2
Parks 1 , 2 2
4 14 5
CLAIMS FILED DURING THE MONTH OF MARC}{
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Laveda Ulrich, 4008 Thoreson Court, DOL: 6/12/90;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by personnel of the Police
Department Property Room destroying property owned by the claimant.
J. Andrew Kehe, 3100 Ashe Road, #120, DOL: 9/4/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when an unattended Police
Department vehicle rolled into the claimant's vehicle.
Tracey Hall, 1718 Buena Vista Street, DOL: 2/21/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligence of a Police
Department officer allowing his unattended vehicle to roll into the
claimant's vehicle.
Donnie Wriggle, 11101 Highway 178, DOL: 12/7/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Police Department
officer damaged claimant's door while attempting to apprehend a
suspect.
Ed Rodgers, P.O. Box 1431, DOL: 3/14/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by a contract dispute between
the City and the claimant.
Augusto Nelson, a minor, by guardian Charlott Hicks, 5327 Auckland
Avenue, Apt. 3, North Hollywood, DOL: 11/23/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the City not providing
adequate police protection at a Bakersfield College football game
wherein the claimant was injured in a fight.
Page 3 . ~- ~,
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Manuel Vasquez, 2341 Norwalk Street, Delano, DOL: 3/6/92;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Fire Department
vehicle sideswiped the claimant's vehicle.
SANITATION DIVISION .
Wayne Jett, 3900 Erin Court, DOL: 2/3/92;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when the claimant backed his
vehicle into a Sanitation Division bin.
Harry Goh, 2913 Beech Street, DOL: 2/21/92;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Sanitation Division
vehicle backed into the claimant's fence.
Kerry Hawkins, P.O. Box 41238, DOL: 2/17/92;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Sanitation Division
vehicle scraped the claimant's parked vehicle.
STREETS DIVISION
Central Cardiology Medical Clinic, c/o 1675 Chester Avenue,
4th Floor, DOL: 1/92;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the City allowing a sewer
line to plug up and overflow onto claimant's property.
Ronald Anderson, 'Sr., 5093 Easton Drive, DOL: 3/2/92;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligence of a
Streets Division sweeper operator who collided with the claimant's
vehicle.
· Page 4 _ ~.. · · ·
Delia Rea Guerrero, 1225 Oregon Street, DOL: 1/31/92;
Claim is for damages allegedly ca6sed when a Sewer Maintenance
· vehicle backed into claimant's parked vehicle.
Linda Crawford, 1311 "L" Street, DOL: 2/4/92;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the claimant driving off
a City street in a construction site.
John Purcell, 3405 Truman Avenue, DOL: 3/2/92;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when the claimant stepped
into a hole on a City street.
Golden Empire Transit, Transit Ways, Inc. and Joyce Rosales,
c/o 5201 California Avenue, Suite 420, DOL: 8/14/90;
Claim is for indemnification against the City arising out of a Kern
County Superior Court action involving an injury on a City street
when plaintiff was struck by a GET bus.
PARKS DIVISION
Peppermill II Partners, 4100 Easton Drive, Suite 1, DOL: 8/30/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Parks Division vehicle
hit claimant's block retainer wall.
Carolyn Brown, 4013 Marilyn Place, DOL: 9/29/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when the claimant tripped and
fell over an offset in elevation between a park picnic table slab
and glass.
Frederick 'Estrada, 2918 McCall Avenue, DOL: 12/27/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a tree. branch fell onto
~a City employee's vehicle.
Page 5 '~
Aurelia Moreno, 537 Isabell Road, DOL: 2/1/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused when the claimant tripped
over a tree root located between.the curb and sidewalk.
CLAIMS CLOSED/SETTLED AND DELETED FROM THE LOSS RUN DURING THE
MONTH OF MARCH
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Marsha Lesle and Evan Richard Aldrich, DOL: 6/7/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the false arrest of the
claimants by Police Department officers. Closed - no court
filings.
Sonya Roselie Garcia, DOL: 7/13/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the use of excessive force
by a Police Department officer. Closed - no court filings.
Jennifer Marie Vara, DOL: 7/13/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the use of'excessive force
by a Police Department officer. Closed - no court filings.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Jewell Lou Dean, DOL: 7/4/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the use of excessive force
by a City firefighter. Closed - no court filings.
Carlos Garcia, DOL: 6/8/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligent operation of
a Police Department vehicle. Closed - no court filings.
Page 6
SANITATION DIVISION
Michael Garcia, DOL: 1/14/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligent operation of
a City Sanitation Division vehicle. City settled case for $6,000.
Don Charpentier, DOL: 3/14/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligent operation of
a City Sanitation Division vehicle. City settled case for $575.
STREETS DIVISION
Madeline Barkworth, DOL: 4/14/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligent condition of
a City sidewalk. Closed - no court filings.
John Jaime, DOL: 6/10/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligent condition of
a City street. Closed - no court filings.
PARKS DIVISION
Lisa Bryant, DOL: 7/5/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligence of Park
Division employees. Closed - no court filings.
T.W. Jamison, DOL: 6/3/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligence of Park
Division employees. Closed - no court filings.
Earline Smith, DOL: 6/6/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligence of a Parks
Division employee. Closed - no court filings.
Page 7
CLAIMS WITH RESULTING COMPLAINT AND/OR SUMMONS FILED DURING THE
MONTH OF MARCH
SANITATION DIVISION
Jose Espericueto, DOL: 1/20/91;
Sanitation vehicle and claimant's vehicle collided. The City
collected damages on our vehicle from claimant's employer, Bowen
Tools. A formal claim was not filed. Complaint only.
STREETS DIVISION
Deborah Sheerer, DOL: 8/11/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligent maintenance
of the City bicycle path near the 24th Street bridge construction
site. Complaint only.
Shaun Welch, DOL: 3/2/91;
Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the negligent design of a
City street. Complaint only.
cc: City Council
Lawrence Lunardini, City Attorney
City Clerk's Office
Newsmedia File
~:~_~-
CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
MEETING OF: 03/11/92
REFERRED TO: LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE LUNDARDINI & SLATER
ITEM: RECORD# 9968
Correspondence with resolution from City of
Tehachapi requesting Kern County Board of
Supervisors reestablish a Kern County Planning
Commission and requesting other Kern County City
Councils to adopt similar resolutions. (Smith)
ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
MOTION TO REFER TO LEGISLATIVE AND'LITIGATION
COMMITTEE. APPROVED.
BACKUP MATERIAL ATTACHED: YES
DATE FORWARDED BY CITY CLERK: 03/12/92
STATUS:
PLEASE ENTER THE STATUS INTO THE PRIME COMPUTER
COUNCIL REFERRAL TRACKING~SYSTEM AS PROGRESS IS MADE.
'REX A'- .MASON . LA VONNE O. BOOTH
Counalwoman
TEX R SHEHAN ,'~a'tO~ ALFRED M. DAMIAN
Pul:::c Works Su~ennt~nOe~! . ,' ~u'~3e~' Counolman
Fire C~' ; · KELCY~ENS
' Co~a~
CHRISTOPHER GRIMES
R~E 8. CORD-FRENG ~WRENCE M C~K
Ci~ T-e~r Ci~ ~inis~a~r
~THRYN L KOSKI
Ci~
Feb~a~ 20, 1992_:'
HOnorable Mayor Medders
and Ci,ty Council Me.ers
City of Bakersfield
~akersfield, CA 93301
Honorable Mayor Medders and City Council Me. ers,
Attached is a resolution adopted by the Tehachapi City Council
urging the Kern County Board of Supe~isors to reestablish a Ke~
Co~ty Planning Commission and re~esting other Ke~ Cowry City
Co~cils to adopt similar resolutions.
~e Tehachapi City Council believes that with the increasing
pressures for gro~h and development affecting Ke~ County, a
Co~:y wide planning agency separate from the ~ard of Supe~isors
is needed to assure that ade~ate oppo~unity is made available for
citizen concerns to be heard and to reco~end that development and
gro~h take place in a manner that will address and mitigate the
s~s/antial ·impacts of such gro~h.
~e Tehachapi City Council re~ests that you join wi~ them
pursuing ~is issue by adopting similar resolutions and that this
be an agenda item ~or the ne~ meeting of the Kern Cowry
Association of Cities for further discussion.
Sincerely,
~or
115 SOUTH ROBINSON STREET * TEHACHAPI, CALIFORNIA 93561-0668 · (805) 822~2200
MAILING: P. O. BOX 668 · TEHACHAPI, CALIFORNIA 93,581-0668 · FAX (805) 822-8559
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 9 :~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEHACHAPI URGING THE KERN COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO REESTABLISH A I~:1~1 COUNTY
PLANNING COHHISS ION
WHEREAS, in 1981 the Kern county Board of Supervisors
eliminated a separate appointed County Planning commission and
appointed the Board of Supervisors to act in the role oft he County
Planning Body to expedite the processing of Planning issues and;
WHEREAS, over the past ten years there have been
increasing proposals' for large scale, high density urban ~ype
projects in unincorporated areas, distant from municipal type
infrastructure and;
WHEREAS,'under present procedures the general public has
little opportunity to review and comment on such proposed
developments prior to major decision commitments being made and;
WHEREAS, there has been substantial controversy of
projects being approved by the Boardof Supervisors over objections
made by citizens and;
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that Kern county will continue
to be an area proposed for high density urban type projects and;
WHEREAS, citizen concern withths impacts of development
on the environment, street systems, school facilities, water
supplies, drainage control, wastewater facilities and solid waste
disposal are real and deeply felt.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tehachapi City
Council hereby urges the Kern County Board of Supervisors
reestablish a Kern County' Planning Commission to receive and
consider citizens' concerns and to make independent recomendations
to ~he Board of supervisors on County Planning issues; and
BE 'IT ~ RESOLVED that the Tehachapi'City Council
requests that other City Councils of'-Kern County adopt similar
resolutions urging the Board of Supervisors reest~blish a Kern
County Planning Commission and;
That the City Clerk transmit a copy of this resolution to
all other City Councils in Kern County.
PASSED ARD ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Tehachapi at a regular meeting this 18th day of February, 1992 by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Blair, Booth, Damian, Owens, Smith
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
City of Tehachapi, California
ATTEST:
KAT~YN ~OSKI, ~ity Clerk of the
City of Tehachapi, California
i hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Tehachapi
at a regular meeting thereof held on February 18, 1992.
KAT~ I~I(OSKI, City Clerk of the
City of Tehachapi, California
AT COUNCIL MEEZING OF
~VENCOUNSELING CENTER
March 9, 1992 730 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(805) 327-47!
Pat ~ith ~ (805) 327-4700
Bakersfield. CA 93301 ..
· Dear Ms.
~e Kern Child. Abuse Prevention ~uncil and the child Abuse Network
are pleaSed co inform you thac 1992 commemorates the ~uncil's 15Ch anniver-
sary as Kern County's children's advocacy network. ' We, at Chis time,
rededicaCe our resources, both financial and human, to the council's mission,
of preventing child abuse and neglect through advocacy, education and
~e children's advocates of Kern ~unty have a vision, a dream for our
child citizens. In support of our dream we individually and collectively
make a promise to guide planning into the second century. ~e word plebe
has been chosen because it implies'commitment and a looking ~rward to the.
future. ~ have selected words and phrases to cover the breadth of children's
needs. Our hope is that this pledge, with ~he endorsement of many individuals
and groups, will provide a reference point for specific ef~rts by Kern ~unty
leaders in years to come..'
~, plebe co ensure chat our children:
o will be loved and nutured' . ·
o will be nourished and sheltered from harm
o will be allowed to grow and florish in a safe'place among those
who care
o will live free of exploitation, abuse and
o will receive adequate health care
o will be educated in mind and developed in body
o will be prepared to accept responsibility and consequences ~r
their actions
o will be prepared to assume a productive role in socieCy
Finally, we plebe co guard our children's liberty, rights and dignity.
~ invite you to join us by signing the attached commitment to our
plebe.
Sincerely,
dith 'O'.Hare Newman
Executive Director
· A United way Agency
PLEDGE TO KERN COUNTY'S ClIILDREN
The childre.'s advocaces o~ Kern County }~nve a vision, ~ dream ~or our
child citizens, in support 06 our ¢lre,~m .'we ...~ndividu,~lly mid collectJvely
mn~o n prom.~so to guide p.l,~r~ing into tho s~cor~d century. ~7~o word pl~dgo
has been chosen* because it' implies commitment and a lookin8 forward to ~ho
future. We have selected words and phrases to cover the breadth of children's
needs. Our hope is ~hat this pledRe, with the endorsemen~ of many individuals
and ~roups, will Provide a reference point for specific efforts by ~ern County
leaders in years to come.
We pledge to ensure that our children:
o will be loved and augured : .'
~ will be nourished and sheltered from harm :
o. will be allowed to ~row and florisb in ~ safe place amon~ ~hose
who care
~ will live free of exploitation, abuse and ne~lec~
o will receive adequate healtl; care
~ will be educated in'mind and developed in body
o will be prepared to accep~ responsibility and consequences, for
their actions
o will be prepsred to assume a productive role in society
Fin~lly, we pledge to ~uard our children's liberty, ~i~hts ~nW diRnityi
NAME ADDRESS
Ofl~ce of the Mayor
of ~ ~ of
11111' /
~,nnn ~- League of California Cities
II~.k d~ SACRAMENTO, cA 95814 · (916) 444-5790
C. alifomia Cilies ~
WOrk Together
Sac:raaten[o ~ CA.
Apz'il 8~ 1992
City. Manager's Office
1501 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA. 93301
805/326-3767
SUBJECT: Tobacco regulation ordns.
NOTE: Any ordinances enclosed should be reviewed by the City Attorney for
curr~nt validity.
REMARKS:
Sincerely,
Joan Hogan.
JQH:mm
Enc. (10) III-B-2-i
If we can provide further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, ATTN: Librarian
1400 K Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA. 95814
The following Oddinance was passed by'the Long and frequented by employees during the normal B~ This Section shall not apply to any portion of 3. Separate enclosed areas designated by the
Beach City Council on August 6, 1991. This course of their employment where clerical, Such theater, auditorium or other enclosed facility employer for smoking.having separate ventilation
Ordinance replaces .the 1985 Ordinance,_ and is now professional, manufacturing, business services or during any period of tiaa when it 'is [eased or such that air fro~ the smoking area is-exhausted
in effect, other normal and custoe~ry activities of the entity rented to any person or entity for exclusively directly outside and not recircu[ated within the
are performed or where other work is done at that private use. building or .mixed with the genera[ dilution
CIIAPTER 8;68 Location. ~orkp[ace includes, but is not Limited C. This section shall not apply to public t o coy ventilation for the building.. ~indows which-open
· ~S~IOI[IBG 1# PIJ~LIC PEACES to, spaces in office building, medical office areas in which there is no food servedand in ~n~c~ to the outside shall, not be deemed to co~p[y with
waiting rooms, Libraries, museums, employee there are no service Lines. this provision.
8.68.010 IKJEi~SE ~ Fi#1)I#I~S - - Lounges, conference roo~ and employee cafeterias. &. A private enc[oseduorkp[a~e occupied
The City Council finds that the Smoking of A private home is not a workplace. 8.68.070 S#OICIMG PEOiIIBITED - I~J~LIC EESTRO0~5 exclusively by smokers, even thOugh such a
tobacco, or any other weed or plant, is a medically- J. "Smoking"*means the combustion of any cigar, Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in 13u~[~c workplace may be visited by nonsmokers, excepting
documented danger tohea[th and rnateria[ annoyance, cigarette, pipe, or any similar article, using any restrooms, places.in ~ich smoking is prohibited by the fire
inconvenience, discomfort and a health hazard to form of tobacco or other combustible substance in marshall or by other Law, ordinance or regulation.
those who-are present in confined spaces, and in any form. 8.68.080 S#O[I#G PRO#IBITED - IlaXX~ SERVICE LI#ES 5. Bars es defined in Section 8.68.020.
order to serve public health, safety and we[fare, Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in indoor E. The provisions of Sections 8.68.090 and
the declared purpose,of this Chapter'is to prohibit · 8.68.030 S#OI(IMG PROIlIB[TED- ELEVATORS service Lines in .~hich ~3re than one person is 8.68.100 shall govern the public access areas of
the smoking of tobacco,.or any other weed or plant, Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful within giving or receiving-services .of any kind. such facilities; however,, such employers shall
in public places and p[aces 'of employment as stated elevators in buildings generally used by and open otherwise comply with provisions .of this Section
and required in this 'Chapter. to the public, including elevators in office, hotel 8.68.090 SIll]KING PRO#IBITED - EATI#G ESTABLISHNENTS 8.68.110.
and mu[tifami[y buildings. Smoking is prohibited and is un[awful in every
8.68~1~0 DEFI#ITIO#$ publicly or privately owned coffee shop, cafeteria, 8.68.120 POSTI#G OF SlC, IIS REgtIIRED
The following words and phrases, whenever used. in 8.68.0~0 S#OKI#G PROHIBITED - #OSPITALS AIB) HEALTH short-order cafe, Luncheonette, sandwich.shop, soda Except where other signs are required, whenever
this Chapter, shall be constructed as defined in CARE FACILITIES fountain, restaurant, or other eating establishment 'in this Code smoking is prohibited, conspicuous
this Section:. A. In public areas of health care facilities and serving .food except for any portion of such signs shall be posted so stating, containing all
A. "Bar" moans an area which is devoted to hospitals, as defined in Section 1250 of the facility which is utilized for bar purposes; capital Lettering not Less than one inch in height
serving of alcoholic beverages and in which the California Health and Safety Code, including provided, however, this prohibition shall not apply on a contrasting background. It is the duty of the
service of food is only incidental to the waiting rooms, public hallways, Lobbi. es, and coe~on to any such establishment maintaining a contiguous owner, operator, manager, or other persons having
cons~nption of such beverages. The provisions of dining areas, alt smoking is prohibited, no smoking area of not Less than two thirds of both control of such -room, building, or other place
this Chapter shall not apply to such Location. / B. "Staff and Visitor Smoking 'Prohibited" signs the seating capacity and the floor space in .~hich where smoking is prohibited, to post such signs or
8. "City facitit~-aaans any enclosed structure shat[ be conspicuously posted in public areas of customers are being served, excluding from said to cause such s'igns to be posted..
~herever owned or used by the City of Long Beach health care facilities, ca[cuLat.ions any portion of such facility which is
for its operations or activities. C. Smoking by the occupants of private rooms may- Located outdoors and any portion of such facility 8.68.1]OSTEUCTUi[AL NOOIFICATIOHS #OT EE~UIEE])
C. "EmpLoyee"maansanyparson who is empLoyedby be permitted in hospitals and nursing homes where which is utilized for bar purposes; further A. It shall be the responsibility of employers-to
any employer for. direct or indirect monetary wages al[ occupants of such private rooms are smokers, provided, however, that this prohibition~sha[[ not provide smoke-free areas for nonsmokers within
or profit. Health care facilities shall make a reasonable apply to any rooms which are being used for private existing facilities to the aaximumextent possible,
O. "Employer" aaans any parson who employs the effort to ascertain the preference of individual functions, but only NhiLe any such room is used for but employers are not required to incur any expense
services of any person other than himself or patients and assign rooms according[y, such private functions. At the request of a to make structural or other physical modifications
herself, patron, the patron shall be seated in a nonsmoking in providing these areas.
E. "Enclosed" aaans closed in by a roof and four 8.68.050 SI~3KI#G PROHIBITED - PUBLIC NEETI#G ROONS area if available. B. Nothing in this Chapter shall require the
walls with appropriate openings for ingress and Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in public owner, operator, or manager of any theater,
egress but does not include areas coe3non[y aaeting rooms, hearing tooths, conference rooms, 8.68.100 S#OI~I#G PROIi]BITED - RETAIL FOOl) auditorium, health care facility, or any bui[di'ng,
described as public Lobbies. chambers and places of public assembly in ~hich PI[~INJCTIOH AI~ NAREET]#G ESTABLISHNE#TS facility, structure, or business, to incur any
F. "Notion Picture'Theater. aaans any theater .public business is conducted, ~hen the public Smoking is prohibited and unlawful in any retail expense to make structural or other physical
engaged in the business of exhibiting motion business requires or permits direct participation . food marketing estabLishaants including grocery modifications to any area or workp[-ace.
pictures, or observation by the general public, stores and supermarkets. C. Nothing in this Section Shall relieve any
G. "Public PLace. aaans any enclosed area to person from the duty to post signs or adopt
which the public is invited or in which the public i '8.68.060'SI~KING PROHIBITED - THEATERS AND 8.68.110 REGULATION OF S#OKING IN THE WORKPLACE policies as required by this Chapter.
is permitted, including, but not limited to, retail NJI)ITOHItJNS A. Smoking is prohibited in alt work places in
stores, retail service establishments, retail food '~ A. Smoking is prohibited and is un[awful in every the City of Long Beach as defined in Section 8.68.140 AI)NINISTRATIOH AI~ E#FORCENE#T
production and marketing establishments, pubLic[.y or privately o~ned theater, auditorium, or 8.68.020 (1). A. The no smoking ordinance established by this
restaurants, theaters, waiting rooms, reception other enclosed facility which is open to the pub[ic B.. Smoking is prohibited in conference and Chapter shall be administered by the Departaant of
areas, educational facilities, health facilities for the primary purpose of exhibiting any motion meeting rooe~, classrooens, auditoriums, restroorns,. Health and Human Services.
and public transportation facilities. A private ; picture, stage drama, musica[ recital, athletic medical facilities, hallways, elevators, employee B. Any person may register a complaint for an
residence is not a "Public PLace.. event, or any other performance or event; Every Lounges, and coe~non areas, alleged non-compliance with this Chapter with the
#. "Service Line" means an indoor Line or area in owner, .manager or operator of such theater, C. In cafeterias, Lunchrooms and other designated Department of Health and Human Services.
which persons await service of any kind, regardless auditorium, or other enclosed facility used for the eating areas, a No Smoking area of not [ess than
of whether or not such service involves the ; purposes stated herein, shall post signs t~o-thirds of both the seating area and square 8.68.150 EXENPTIO#$
exchange of money. Such service shat[ include, but conspicuously in the Lobby stating that smoking is footage shall be maintained. Any o~ner or manager of a business or other
is not Limited to, sales, providing information, prohibited within the theater, auditorium, or O. This Section is not intended to regulate establishment subject to this Chapter may apply to
directions, or advice and transfers of money or facility, and in case of motion picture theaters, smoking in the following places and under the the City Health~ Officer for an exemption or
goods. : such information shall be shown upon the screen for following conditions: modification to any provision of this Chapter due
I. "~orkp[ace. ~eans any enclosed area of a ! at Least five seconds .before showing feature motion 1. A private home which may serve as a workplace, to unusual circumstances or conditions.
structure or portion thereof occupied by any entity pictures. 2. Any property owned, leased or used by govern- A. Such exemption shall be granted only if the
Nan[al agencies other than the City of Long Beach. City Health Officer finds from the evidence
presented b~ the applicant for exemption at'a 8.~8.200 RETALIAT%0~ *For 'more information call:
public hearing that th'e applicant cannot comp[y' -#o person shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in
,ith 'provisiorls of this Chapter for which an any other manner retaliate against any employee-or CITyOF
exeml~tion is requested without-incurring expenses applicant exercising any right or privi Lege created -Long Beach i
for structural 'or other .physical modifications, by this Chapter. Department of Health
other:than-posting signs, tO buildings and and Human Services
structures. -' .. I ? LONG BEACH
B. The applicant for an exemption sha[L pay Handatory compliance with Section 8.68.170 shall i Tobacco 'Education Progra):-
concurrent with the application, the fee, as .not be required prior to the ninety first day I 983-1893
prescribed by'resolution of the City Council, to fo[towing enactment of this section. ! 427-7421
cover cost 'of the hearing and noticing of the I '1 SMOKING
hearing. · . CHAPTER 5.]0
8.68.1~0 CITY FACILITIES . VENDING 14ACHINES
· ! ?he following serv±ces
There shaLL be no mking in 8ny "City FaciLity" 5.:~0.020 REGULATION OF VEm]IIG PIACH]MES I ava±3a~le ~rom the ¢±ty of ~ OEDINANCi='
as d~fined .in Section 8.68.0Z0 B notwithstanding A. Each and every operator shaLL be charged with
any exception or exeflption contained in any other the duty and responsibility of coflq~tiance with. the I T,on~ Beach~ ?obacco l~.~catio~
provision of this Chapter, except section 8.68.060. fo[ Lowing: ~ Program:
1. Except as hereafter set forth, those persons ., NO. C-6916
8.68.171D TO~ACCO PEOOUCTS.DISTRIBUTION in direct management, supervision or control of the
A. No person or entity shall sell or otherwise machine in the place of operation shall exercise · Provide information &
dist'rikxJte any cigarette or other tobacco product such observation, direction and restraint over the referral regarding T,ong
unless such cigarette or tobacco product is in the machine .necessary to prevent any person under the
manufacturer's ,original package with all. required , age of eighteen years from procuring .or purchasing Beach smoking cessation
health warnings., the product thereof, programs
B. No person or entity'~sha[[.distribute or 2. Each machine shall be located 'or placed in
furnish withou~ charge or cause, or authorize operation within clear and unobstrUcted line of
distribution or furnishing of any cigarette or sight, but in no event more than fifteen feet from · Provide a$$i-c:tance and
other tobacco product in any public place or at any the position of an adult employee responsible for ~nformat~oTi to T.ong Beach mmm
event 'to which, the public is invited -un[ess such ~ supervision of the machine, tJhere a machine cannot -work$ites regarding
activity is authorized in a permi, t for staging of a be supervised, as required in this section, it may
special event which 'is subject to revocation-for be operated if equipped with. a remote control implementation of smoking
vic[at'ion of the requirement of Subsection A of device which enables a responsible adult to permit ordinance
this Section or where such ,tobacco products are single item individual purchases by persons over ~.mmmmmm C I'TY 0 F
distributed to minors, eighteen years of age upon request. ~lm~mm
,. T,e..ov,.,o. o, s.,, .o, · :0 .000 ------ LONG
to pri.vate functions or nightclubs, where minors offices or other places of employment which do not presentations to T,ong Beach ~m~l~mmmmmmmm~~
are not presbnt and Such distribution is authorized employ minors and are not open to the genera[ community agencJ, e$t schools mmm~~
subsections 1 and 2. and clinics to include:
8.68;180 BILLBOARD'ADVERTISING 4. Each machine shall bear, in a conspicuous and
No person Or entity shall place, establish, keep, visible place, a valid license decal issued by the - Tobacco use prevention
maintain or locate any advertisement for any City of Long Beach. -- Policy implementation
tobacco product on any billboard within five S. No license or permit which authorizes nor
hundred feet of or so oriented that the message permits the installation or maintenance of any -- Health consequences of
portion of-the sign is visible from any school, machines which dispenses any tobacco product in any smoking and benefits of
child care center, nursery.school, hospital, place location other than those described in Section A.
of worship or'recreational facility, above sh~[l be issued or renewed, quitting
' ' c. Compliance with the 1991 amendments of this - Cessation and relapse
8.68.190 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES section shall not become mandatory until the ninety prevention services
Any person .or entity violating any provision of first day after enactment of the subject amendment.
this Chapter iS guilty of'an infraction, and upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of
not [ess than Fifty. Dollars-for a first violation.
Fines for successive violations shall be set bythe .._ AUGUST
Court but shall 'not be [ess than, the fine for the
first offense unless the Court -finds unusual
circu~nstances to exist, tJhere a party has been
convicted of violation of provision o+ this 1991
Chapter, the City Prosecutor may file and prosecute
any subsequent vi~)[ation of"the same provision as LonaBeach
either an infraction or a misdemeanor. " DepartrnentofHea]th&HurnanServices
MAJOR SMOKING ORDINANCES
REQUIRING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTS BE 100% SMO [EFREE
CITY~ D^TE~ DESCRIPTION:
Aspen, CO 1985 Eliminates sm. eking in restaurants and limits it in bar~.
Telluride, CO 1988 Smoking section in restaurants must be physically separated
and have independent ventilation systems..
:
Snowrnass, CO 1989 Eliminates smoking in all restaurants except in sections that
are physically separated and independently ventilated.
Lodi, CA 1990 Eliminates smoking in all restaurants.
San Luis Obispo, CA 1990 Eliminates smoking in all restaurants and barn.
Sacramento, CA 1990 Eliminates smoking in all restaurants and public and private
workplaces. Phasing in restaurant restrictio? by May 9,1992.
Grass Valley, CA 1990 Phasing in restrictions to completely eliminate smoking in
restaurants by November 15, 1992.
Bellflower, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in restaurants.
Auburn, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in restaurants and bars in restaurant dining
areas, and all workplaces.
Nevada County, CA 1991 Phasing in provisions to eliminate smoking in restaurants.
W~nut Creek, CA 1991 Phasing in provisions to eliminate smoking in all restaurants
and workplaces.
Paradise, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in workplaces, all' restaurants and bars
attached to restaurants. Ballot referendumsCheduled for 1992.
Oroville, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in all restaurants and' attached cocktail
lour~ges. On held pending outcome of:tobacco industry
referendum drive. ~
Roseville, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in ail restaurants and bars within restaurant
dining areas, and all workplaces. Bar areas in new restaurants
must be smokefree or in a separe,~ely-ventilated room.
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite d · E~erkeley, California 94702 * (415) 841-3032/, FAX (415) 841-7702
Colfax, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in all restaurant~ and bar~ with restaurant
dining areas, and in workplaces.
Visalia, CA 1991 Phasing in 100% restaurant ban by April, 199:~. On hold
pending ballot referendum.
Palo Alto, CA 1991 Phasing in 100% restaurant and workplace smoking restricitom.
contra Costa Cn .ty, CA 1991 100% restaurant and workplace smoking re. strictions.
El Cerrito, CA 1991 100% restaurant and workplace smoking restrictions.
Los Gatos, CA 1991 Phasing in 100% restaurant and. wOrkplace smoking restrictions
by the end of 1992.
Martinez, CA 1991 Phasing in 100% restaurant and workplace smoking restriCtions.
Flagstaff, AZ 1991 Smoking in restaurants to be eliminated by. July'of 1993.
$olano County, CA 1991 Workplaces must be completely smokefree. :Restaurants must
be smokefree by 1997.
El Dorado Court ,ty, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in workplaces except restaurants.
Lathrop, CA 1991 Smoking eliminated in all restaurants. Workplaces must
completely phase out smoking by January 1, 1993.
San Mateo County, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in all workplaces except restaurants.
Placer County, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in ail workplaces except restaurants.
Placerville, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in all workplaces except re~tauranl~.
Whittier, CA 1991 100% workplace and restaurant restrictions will phase in by
July 1, 1993.
Pinole, CA I99o, Eliminates smoking in all workplaces except restaurants.
ORDINANCE' NO. 90-05 %
ADOPTED BY THE SACRAMENTO CITY COUNCIL
ON DATE OF OCT 0 9 1990,
AN. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 37 OF THE
SACRAMENTO CITY CODE, RELATING TO
SMOKING CONTROL
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE C. ITY OF SACRAMENTO:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 37 of the Sacramento City. Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
· . CHAPTER 37
Clean Indoor Air and Health Protection Ordinance
§ 37.01 Purposes.
The City Council hereby finds as follows: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
determined that tobacco smoke is a major source of indoor air pollution, and the Surgeon
General's 1986 report on the Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking concludes that
exposure to tobacco smoke places healthy nonsmokers at increased risk for developing lung
cancer. Other health hazards of involuntary smoking include respiratory infection,
bronchoconstr/ction, and bronchospasm. While all members of the population are truly at
increased risk due to exposure to sidestream tobacco smoke, it constitutes a special health hazard
for children, the elderly and people w/th chronic lung disorders.
The Surgeon General labels smoking "the largest single preventable cause of death and disability
for the U.S. population."
Employees subject to prolonged exposure to sidestream smoke .in the workplace have been found
in scientifically conducted studies to experience a loss of job productivity and some have been
forced to take periodic sick leave because of reactions to second hand smoke; Furthermore,
studies have shown higher costs to the employer are associated with smoking in the workplace due
to increases in absenteeism, accidents, costs of medical care, loss of productivity, and cleaning and
1
FOR CITY CLERK USE ONLY
"~" !400 K s~ree~
, '".,, · DATE ADOPTED: OC]' 0 9 1990
~aerame~to, Cal~orma 9,581,1
I~ET.D'IIN ~' 2 W,~.EK~
maintenance requirements. A recent scientific study has reported that sidestream smoke from
tobacco may cause a significant amount of cardiovascular disease in the United States and that the
number of deaths from this cause may exceed the deaths caused by lung disease associated with
sidestream smoke. Smoking in public places and workplaces is a major cause Of fires and damage
to merchandise and equipment as well as costly maintenance and repairs to furniture' and fixtures.
The health care costs produced by smoking-related ailments and diseases constitute a heavy and
avoidable financial drain on our community.
More than three-quarters of Sacramento residents are nonsmokers and the number of nonsmokers
is steadily increasing. Opinion surveys show that a majority of both nonsmokers and smokers
favor restrictions on smoking in public places and places of employment'.
Air pollution caused by smoking is an offensive annoyance and irritant. Smoking results in serious
and significant physical discomfort of nonsmokers and constitutes a public nuisance in public
places and workplaces.
§ 37.02 Authority.
This chapter is enacted pursuant to the provisions of Section 25946 of the Health and Safety Code
for the purpose of restricting and regulating smoking in public places and in places of work in
order to reduce the hazards and nuisance which smoking causes to those who are involuntarily
exposed.
§ 37.03 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, those terms identified in this section shall, unless the context indicates
otherwise, be ascribed the meaning contained herein.
(a) Bar.
The'term "Bar" means an area which is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages
for consumption on the premises, in which the serving of food, if any, is incidental
to the consumption of alcoholic drinks. The dining area of a restaurant utilized
primarily for the serving and. consumption of food shall not constitute a Bar, even
though alcoholic beverages may be served therein.
(b) Commercial Enterprise - Non-profit Entity - Person.
[Operators of Public Places]
The term "Commercial Enterprise" means any business entity formed for profit
ma 'king purpos6s, including professional corporations and other entities under which
legal, medical, dental, engineering, architectural, or other professional services are
2
FOR CITY CLERK USE ONLY
90-051
ORDINANCE NO.:
DATE ADOPTED: OCr O 9 1990
'delivered, and also any person charged with the responsibility of controlling conduct
in behalf of the Enterprise upon any premises regUlated by this chapter.
The term "Non-Profit Entity" shall mean any corporation, unincorporated association
or other entity created for charitable, philanthropic, educational, character building,
political, social or other similar purposes, the net proceeds from operations of which
are committed to promotion of the objects or~ purposes of the organization and not
to private gain, together with any person charged with the responsibility of
controlling conduct in behalf of the Entity upon any premises regUlated by the
provisions of this chapter.
A public agency is not a "Non-Profit Entity" within the meaning of this Section.
The term "Person" means any natural person; pannership,' corporation;
unincorporated association, joint venture, business trust, joint stock company, club,
or other organization.of any kind, except the City of Sacramento or any other public
agency.'
(c) Enclosed Area.
The term "Enclosed Area" means all space between a floor and ceiling which is
served by a common heating, ventilating and air conditioning sy.~tem and is enclosed
'on all sides by solid walls or windows (exclusive of door or passageways) which
extend from the floor to the ceiling, including all space therein screened by partitions
which do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid, "office landscaping," or similar
structures.
(d) Members of the General Public.
The term "Members of the General Public" means shoppers, customers, patrons,
patients, students, clients and other similar invitees of a Commercial Enterprise or
Non-Profit Entity; and excludes employees thereof, sales representatives, service
repair persons and persons delivering goods, merchandise or services to a
Commercial Enterprise, Non-Profit Entity or the City of Sacramento.
(e) Office.
The term "office" means an area enclosed by walls containing a desk, table or similar
furnishings for clerical, administrative or supervisory work, a complex of such
enclosures and a building containing such enclosures, whether or not the building is
utilized primarily for other purposes such as retailing, wholesaling or storage, or
manufacturing, together with all hallways, stairways, elevators, escalators, restrooms,
lobbies, waiting rooms, reception areas, entry areas, and conference rooms within or
3
FOR C rV CL _RK USe or Lv
ORDINANCE NO.: 9 0'"' 0~1
DATE ADOPTED: O(~T 0 9
associated with the complex of such enclosures, including: (i) legal, medical, dental,
engineering, accounting, counseling and other professional offices; (ii) insurance, real
estate, ticket, collection agency, and other offices where business services are offered
to or goods or services are offered to or may be ordered by or may be paid for by
Members of the General Public; and (iii) offices to which Members of the General
Public are admitted in order to promote the objects or purposes of the Non-Profit
Entities.
(f) Restaurant.
The term "Restaurant" means any coffee shop, cafeteria, luncheonette, soda fountain,
fast food service and other establishment where cooked or otherwise prepared food
is sold to Members of the General Public for consumption on the premises. The
term does not include a cafeteria or lunchroom defined as a "workplace" by
subparagraph (3) of subsection (i), whether or not Members of the General Public
incidentally frequent the facility.
(g) Smoking.
The term "Smoking" means lighting, inhaling, exhaling or burning any pipe, cigar,
cigarette, weed or plant, or carry/ng any lighted pipe, lighted cigar, lighted cigarette,
lighted weed, lighted plant or other ignited combustible substance .in any manner or
in any form.
(h) Tobacco Store. .
The term "robacco Store" means a place utilized primarily for the sale to Members
of the General Public at retail of tobacco products or accessories and in which the
sale of any-other products is merely incidental.
(i) Workplace.
The term "Workplace" means any enclosed area which is occupied by two or more
employees of a Commercial Enterprise, Non-Profit Entity or the City' of Sacramento
including but not limited to places:
(1) Utilized for: (i) the manufacturing, processing, assembly, maintenance
or repair of any products, goods, equipment, tools, appliances, furnishings or
other object;' or (ii) the physical storage for purposes of wholesaling, future
utilization for operational purposes, or future transfer preceding consumption
or other utilization of any products, goods, merchandise, materials, supplies,
equipment, tools, appliances or furnishings;
4
FOR CITY CLERK USE ONLY
so-o l
ORDINANCE NO.:
DATE ADOPTED: OCT 0 9 1990
(2) Utilized or operated for a purpose described by sections 37.05 through
37.19 and from which Members of the General Public are excluded;
(3) Utilized as a union hall, cafeteria, lounge, lunchroom, restroom,
conference room, training room, lecture room or classroom primarily for the
use or benefit of employees.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this definition, a private residence including either an attached
or detached garage shall not constitute a workplace, except when the residence serves as a licensed
day care facility for children.
§ 37.04 Smoking Prohibitions, Public Places.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it is unla~wful for any Member of the General Public
or any other person including an employee to smoke in the Public Places named and described
in sections 37.05 through 37.19 and other Public Places similarly situated, including but not limited
to the following Enclosed Areas:
a. Common work areas occupied by employees performing clerical, technical,
administrative or other business or work functions;
b. Merchandise display areas, checkout stations, and counters and other pay stations;
c. Hallways;
d. Restrooms; '
e. Escalators, elevators and stairways;
f. Lobbies;
g. Reception areas;
h. Waiting rooms;
i. Service lines;
j. Classrooms, meeting or conference rooms, or lecture halls; and
k. Other places in which Members of the General Public congregate for service or
otherwise frequent.
5
FOR CITY CLERK USE ONLY
9'0-05
ORDINANCE NO.:
DATE ADOPTED: 0el 0 9 1990
§ 37.05 Stores.
The prohibitions contained in section 37.04 above shall be applicable to: (i) the enclosed common
areas of Shopping Malls; (ii) automobile dealerships, furniture or other showrooms for the display
of merchandise offered for sale at retail; (iii) grocery, specialty, department and other stores which
sell goods or merchandise at retail, and (iv) service stations, stores or shops for the repair or
maintenance of appliances, shoes, or motor vehicles, barbershops, beauty shops, cleaners and
laundromats, video game, pool hall and other amusement centers, and other similar establishments
offering services or products to Members of the General Public.
§ 37.0(5 Banks.
The prohibitions contained in section 37.04 shall be applicable to banks, including savings and loan
associations, credit unions and other similar institutions which offer financial services to Members
of the General Public.
§ 37.07 Hotels/Motels.
The prohibitions contained in Section 37.04 shall be applicable to hotels and motels in which
guests typically rent lodging for continuous periods less than thirty days. Smoking is permissible
m rental rooms and in on-premise restaurants, bars and other areas as provided in Sections 37.13,
37.21(b) and 37.21(e). The availability of nonsmoking rooms will be prominently posted in the
lobby sign2in area. The rooms so designated will be posted as smoking prohibited and ash trays
removed. Customers seeking accommodations will be routinely advised of the availability of
nonsmoking rooms. ·
§ 37.08 Terminals.
The prohibitions contained in section 37.04 shall be applicable to depots and other terminals
utilized by Members of the General Public for the purpose of being transpOrted upon or departing
from airplanes, tra!ns, buses and tax/s.
§ 37.09 Buses and Taxis.
Smoking by either passengers or operators'shall be prohibited within buses, taxicabs and all public
transit conveyances operated by or licensed by the City.
§ 37.10 Theaters.
The prohibitions contained in section 37.04 shall be applicable to theaters, including motion
picture theaters, meeting halls and auditoriums where motion pictures or live theatrical musical
or dramatic productions are made to an audience consisting of Members of the General Public
assembled for the purpose of witnessing the performance or presentation; provided that neither
6
rou C TV CLEU USe ONLY
ORDINANCE NO.: 9~'"'05~
~ DATE ADOPTED: OCT 0 9 1990
this section nor section 37.04 shall be construed to prevent smoking by performers in connection
with a stage production or by persons making a presentation concerning addiction to tobacco or
other drugs.
§ 37.11 Recreational Facilities.
The' prohibitions contained in Section 37.04 shall be applicable to enclosed areas of sports
pavilions, gymnasiums, exercise rooms, health spas, boxing arenas, swimming pools, roller and ice
skating rinks, bowling alleys and other similar places where Members of the General Public
assemble to either engage in physical exercise, participate in athletic competition or witness sports
events.
Smoking is prohibited at all times within the seating areas of an enclosed arena and in the
surrounding open concourses where food and beverages are dispensed.
Smoking may be allowed in enclosed on-site Restaurants, subject to the provisions of Section
37.i3, and in enclosed on-site Bars. ~
§ 37.12 Recreation Halls.
The prohibitions contained in Section 37.04 shall be applicable to those areas of recreation halls
and other similar facilities where Members of the General Public .play bingo or cards, dance or
engage in recreational, character-building or cultural .activities which are designated as
nonsmoking.
An owner, manager or operator of a recreation hall shall designate not less than 50 percent of the
main activities area of such facility not including restrooms, lounges and kitchens as nonsmoking.
Commencing Aug-ust 9, 1991, an owner, manager or operator of a recreation hall shall designate
not less than 75 percent of the main activities area of such facility not including restrooms, lounges
and kitchens as nonsmoking. Commencing.May 9, 1992, the owner, manager or operator of a
recreation hall shall designate the entire premises of such facility including rest. rooms, lounges
and kitchens as nonsmoking. Signs shall be posted in the manner prescribed by Section 37.23. It
shall not constitute a violation of this chapter to smoke in a location where smoking has been
author/zed by this chapter.
The provisions of this section shall not be construed to in any manner restrict or otherwise impair
the authority of an owner, manager or operator to increase the non-smoking area of a recreation
hall.
§ 37.13 Restaurants.
Within all restaurants, the prohibitions contained in Sect/on 37.04 shall be applicable to lobbies,
waiting areas, rest. rooms and those dining seating areas which are designated as nonsmoking.
7
Foa c rv us - ON,¥
ORDINANCE NO.: 9')~'U~lld
DATE ADOPTED: gini' 0 9 199g
The owner, manager or operator of a restaurant shall designate not less than 50 percent of the
available customer seating as nonsmoking. Commencing August 9, 1991, the owner, manager or
operator of a restaurant shall designate not less than 75 percent of the available customer seating
as nonsmoking. Commencing May 9, 1992, the owner, manager or operator of a restaurant shall
designate all available customer seating as nonsmoking. The owner, manager or operator of the
restaurant shall post signs as prescribed by Section 37.23 and remove all ashtrays from tables
lodated in the nonsmoking areas. Where a bar shares the same Enclosed Area with the restaurant,
the Bar seats must be counted with the restaurant seats in determining the total number of
nonsmoking restaurant seats. The owner, manager or operator shall post a notice at the restaurant
entrance that a nonsmoking section is available. It shall not constitute a violation of this chapter
to smoke in a location where smoking has been authorized by this chapter.
The provisions of this section shall not be construed to in any manner restrict or otherwise impair
the authority of an owner, manager or operator to increase the nonsmoking seating in a restaurant
or bar..
§ 37.14 City Buildings.
Smoking is prohibited in all City buildings.
§ 37.15 County Courthouse.
The prohibitions contained in section 37.04 shall be applicable to the County Courthouse including
Jury Lounges and Jury Deliberation Rooms.
§ 37.16 Places of Exhibition.
The prohibitions contained in section 37.04 shall be applicable to libraries, museums, aquariums,
galleries, convention hails and similar facilities where Members of the General Public assemble -
for the purpose of viewing the exhibition of art, artifacts, objects of historical or cultural
significance, products, merchandise, equipment, appliances or services.
§ 37.17 Hospitals.
The prohibitions contained in section 37.04 shall be applicable to hospitals, rest and convalescent
homes, medical clinics, physical therapy facilities and other places where medical, dental,
psychiatric or counseling services are delivered to Members of the General Public. Operators of
facilities treating psychiatric or chemically impaired patients may permit smoking by patients in
designated areas provided the medical director of such facility has determined in writing that the
practice is beneficial for the recovery or treatment of such patients and that the practice will not
interfere with the recovery and treatment of nonsmoking patients, and provided that adequate
nonsmoking areas are made available for nonsmoking patients. Neither this section nor section
8
FOR CITY CLERK USE ONLY
ORD N^NC - NO.: 90--0. 1'
DATE ADOPTED: OCT 'O 9 1990,
37.04 shall be construed to prevent smoking in locations or otherwise under conditions in which
smoking is expressly authorized by or under statutes or administrative regulations applicable to
such licensed facilities.
§ 37.18 Schools.
The prohibitions contained in section 37.04 shall be applicable to any school or educational
institution operated by a Commercial Enterprise or Non-Profit Entity for the purpose of providing
academic classroom instruction, trade, craft, computer or other technical training, or instruction
in dancing, artistic, musical or other cultural skills.
The prohibitions contained in section 37.04 shall be applicable 'to public school facilities when
school district management authorizes their use by Members of the General Public other than
students.
§ 37.19 Day Care FacilitieS.
The prohibitions contained in section 37.04. shall be applicable to private residences during the
time when such residences are operated as licensed, day care facilities for children.
§ 37.20 Smoking Prohibitions, Workplace.
Smoking is prohibited in enclosed Workplaces of Commercial Enterprises, Non-Profit Entities and
all City owned and managed buildings including but not limited to open office areas, shared
offices, private offices, hallways, restrooms, escalators, elevators, stairways, lobbies, reception
areas, and waiting rooms, classrooms, meeting or conference rooms, and auditoriums.
On-site cafeterias, lunchrooms and lounges shall be deemed 'workplaces and smoking prohibited
therein, whether or not such facilities are open to Members of the General Public.
Each Commercial Enterprise, Non-Profit Entity and the City shall comply with these smoking
prohibitions and be responsible for their implementation in the workplace, and "No smoking" signs
shall be posted in the manner prescribed by section 37.23.
§ 37.21' Places Where Smoking Permissible.
Smoking may be permitted in all locations where smoking is not prohibited by this Chapter,
including the following locations:
a. A private residence, including an attached or detached garage, whether or not the
residence is utilized for office or other business purposes, except when such residence
is operated as a licensed day care facility for children.
9
FOR CITY CLERK USE ONLY
ORDINANCE NO.:
DATE ADOPTED: OCT 0 t990.
b. Bars.
c. Tobacco stores, whether operated as a separate business entity or as a physically
separated facility within a department store or other business entity.
d. Private clubs during events attended exclusively by members of the organi ,zation and
their invited guests and from which Members of the General Public are excluded.
e. Within conference/meeting rooms, public and private assembly rooms, banquet
rooms, dining rooms or areas of restaurants, hotels and motels, while these places
are occupied for private functions to which only persons specially invited are entitled
to attend and from which Members of the General Public are excluded.
f. In any enclosed place wherein this ordinance specifically permits smoking,
notwithstanding the fact that such location is a workplace.
It shall not constitute a violation of section 37.04 for a person to smoke in a location where
smoking has been authorized in the manner prescribed by this section.
The fDregoing places are not considered workplaces subject to the provisions of section 37.20.
Employers will, however, attempt to find a reasonable alternative accommodation where feasible
for nonsmoking employees who do not wish to be assigned to work in a smoking permissible area.
Notw/thstanding any provision in this Ordinance which permits smoking in a place of employment,
any nonsmoking employee may object to his or her employer about smoke in his or her workplace.
The employer shall attempt to reach a reasonable accommodation, insofar as possible. If an
accommodation which is satisfactory to all affected nonsmoking employees cannot be reached
within a particular workplace, the commercial enterprise, nonprofit entity or city who employs
the nonsmoking employees shall formulate, promulgate and implement restrictions or prohibitions
upon smoking in a manner which accommodates the reasonable preferences and needs of the
nonsmoking employees in relation to the nuisance and health impacts of the smoking upon the
nonsmokers. The area in which smOking is prohibited shall be posted by "No Smoking'' signs in
the manner prescribed by the provisions of section 37.23.
§ 37.22 Exemption Procedures.
Any owner or manager of a business or other establishment subject to this chapter may apply to
the Chief of the Environmental Health Division for an exemption or modification to its provisions.
Exemptions may only be granted on (1) a showing by the petitioner of significant financial
hardship due to compliance, or (2) the proposed implementation of an alternative approach or
technology which would provide equivalent protection from the health hazards of sidestream
smoke.
10
FOR CITY CLERK USE ONLY
90-051
ORDINANCE NO.:
DATE ADOPTED: 00'[ 0 9 19~0,
An application for exemption will be accompanied by a reasonable fee to cover the cost of
preparation for the hearing, and the application will include any data required by the Division.
The Division will review the application and submit it, with recommendations, for hearing by the
Sacramento Environmental Commission. The applicant will be entitled to present evidence at the
hearing, which will be scheduled within sixty (60) days of the receipt of the application.
The Commission will, after taking into consideration the testimony received at the hearing, issue
its findings and recommendations within twenty (20) days of the completion of the hearing. The
Division will complete procedural action on the application and notify interested parties within
twenty (20) days of its receipt from the Commission.
The applicant may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within thirty (30) days
of receipt of the action notification by the Division. -Upon appeal, the City Council will set a
hearing, within sixty (60) days and make a final determination at that hearing.
§ 37.23 'Posting Requirements.
Each owner, operator, manager or other person having control of an establishment or facility
within which smoking is regulated by this chapter shall conspicuously post in every place where
smoking is prohibited "No Smoking" signs with letters not less than one inch in height (or the
international "No Smoking" symbol consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette
enclosed in a red circle with-a red bar across it).
An owner, operator, or manager of a building wherein, pursuant to these regulations, there is no
smoking permitted in any space in the building may limit the "No Smoking" postings to first floor
entrances and exits and to the elevator lobby areas of all other floors.
Motion picture theaters shall show upon the movie or live action screens for at least five seconds
prior to the showing of each feature motion picture the message that smoking is prohibited within
the audience seating and other areas as specified.
Hotels and Motels will prominently post in the lobby a sign notifying patrons of the availability of
nonsmok/ng accommodations. The rooms so designated will be posted as nonsmoking rooms and
ashtrays removed.
§ 37.24 Retaliation Prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for a Commercial Enterprise, Non-Profit Entity or City to retaliate against
any Member of the General Public or an employee or applicant for employment of the enterprise,
entity or City because such Member of the General Public, employee or applicant seeks
enforcement of the provisions of this chapter or otherwise protests smoking by others.
11
FOR CITY CLERK USE ONLY
90-0. 1'
ORDINANCE NO.:
DATE ADOPTED: 0[~T 0 9 1900
§ 37.25 Violation - Smoking or Posting.
Any person who violates the prohibitions contained in sections 37.05 through 37.19 and any person
who violates section 37.23 by failing to post the signs or take the other actions required by this
section shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable in the manner hereinafter prescribed.
Fines for the crimes made infractions by this section shall be levied in the amounts prescribed by
Section 36900(b) of the Government Code, as that section may hereafter be amended or
renumbered.
§'37.26 Retaliation Remedies.
Violation of any of the provisions of section 37.24 or 37.26 shall be remedied through civil action
filed in a court of competent jurisdiction for injunctive or other appropriate relief.
§ 37.27 Enforcement.
It shall be the responsibility of the Chief of the Environmental Health Divisiori, Sacramento
County Department of Environmental Management to enforce, in behalf of the City, the provisions
of this chapter. The Chief shall be authorized to prosecute, in the name of the City, pursuant to
the provisions of Sections 25132 and 39600 of the Government Code, civil actions for the recovery
of fines for violations of this chapter made infractions by section 37.25 for violations of sections
37.05 through 37.23.
In the performance of the enforcement responsibilities assigned by this chapter, the Chief of the
Environmental Health Division shall:
a. Establish a telephone number through which all complaints by citizens relating to
violations of this chapter may be directed or referred;
b. Reduce such complaints to writing, and analyze the frequency and volume thereof
in relation to alleged violations of this chapter by or at particular establishments or
facilities;
c. Conduct an on. site inspection of any establishment or facility with respect to which
the nature and volume of complaints suggests long-standing and pronounced
violations of any of the provisions of this chapter;
d. Provide to the owner, operator or manager of any such establishment or facility a
copy of the provisions of this chapter and such advisory assistance to rectify future
violations as may be necessary to achieve compliance with the provisions of this
chapter;
12
FOR CITY CLERK USE ONLY
90-05
DATE ADOPTED: OCT 0 9 1990
e. Follow up such investigation and advice with a written directive explaining in detail
the steps required in order to achieve future compliance with the provisions ~)f this
chapter; and
f. If the violations do not cease following the expiration of a reasonable period of
time, commence civil actions for the recovery of infraction fines pursuant to the
provisions of section 37.25 or request commencement of a civil proceeding by the
County Counsel pursuant 'to the provisions of section 37.26 as may be appropriate.
The Environmental Health Division shall affirmatively seek the support and cooperation of other
local public agencies, such as Fire Protection Districts, to provide information, assistance and
zdvice in the enforcement of the provisions of this. chapter, during the conduct by any of such
agencies of on-site inspections of establishments or facilities.
The provisions of section 37.~4 shall'not be remedied by either the Chief of Environmental Health
or any other County or City official. Any' Member of the General. Public, an employee or
applicant for employment may, pursuant to the' provisions of section 37.26, commence in his or
her name a civil action for injunctive relief, monetary damages or other appropriate relief against
a person who violates section 37.24 pursuant to the provisions of section 37.26. A Member of the
General Public or employee shall also be authorized to individually commence a civil action
pursuant to the provisions of section 37.26 for injunctive relief, monetary damages or other
appropriate relief for the purpose of remedying any other violation of the provisions of this
chapter.
DATE PASSED FOR PUBLICATION: October 2, 1990
DATE ENAC'FED: October 9, 1990
DATE EF~;"E~: November 9, 1990
ATTEST:
VALERIE BUR, WES
CITY Ct ,FmC
13
FOR CITY CLERK USE ONLY
90'-05
ORDINANCE NO.:
DA1EADOPTED: 0CT 09 1990j
I~/?1
ORDINANCE NO. 2558
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHITTIER REGULATING SMOKING IN PUBLIC
PLACES, RESTAURANTS AND PLACES OF
EMPLOYMENT, AND REGULATING THE DISTRIBUTION
OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS THROUGH VENDING
MACHINES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHITTIER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Chapter 8.30 of the Whittier Municipal Code is hereby added to
the Whittier Municipal Code which shall state as follows:
Chapter Requlation of Smokinq in Public Places
SECTIONS: 8.30.010 Purpose and Findings
8.30.020 Definitions
8.30.030 Regulation of Smoking in City-Owned
Facilities and Vehicles
8.30.040 Prohibition of Smoking in
Designated Enclosed Places
8.30.050 Prohibition of Smoking in Places of
Employment
8.30.060 Smoking in Hotel and Motels
8.30.070 Smoking - Optional Areas
8.30.080 Posting Requirements
8.30.090 Cigarette Vending Machines
8.30.100 Violations
8.30.110 Enforcement
8.30.120 Nonretaliation
8.30.130 Other Applicable Laws
8.30.140 Governmental Agency Cooperation
8.30.150 Exemptions
8.30.010 Purpose and Findings.
In enacting this Ordinance, the City Council of the City of Whittier hereby finds,
determines and declares that:
a. Studies have shown breathing secondhand smoke to be a significant
health hazard for several populations, including elderly people, individuals with
cardiovascular disease, individuals with impaired respiratory function, asthmatics,
and those with obstructive airway disease.
b. The Surgeon General of the United States found that secondhand smoke.
is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy non-smokers.
c. The Surgeon General further found that the simple separation of smokers
and non-smokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate,
the exposure of non-smokers to environmental tobacco smoke.
d. Non-smokers who suffer ill effects in breathing secondhand smoke may
experience a loss in job productivity because of reactions to secondhand smoke.
e. Studies have shown a majority of travelers prefer non-smoking sections
in airplanes, buses and trains.
f. Smoking is a potential cause of fires, and smoking residue on
merchandise and fixtures causes loss to businesses.
The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health and welfare by
regulating smoking in public places and places of employment and to strike a
reasonable balance between the needs of persons who smoke and the need of
non-smokers to breath smoke-free air; and to recognize that where these needs
conflict, the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority.
8.30.020 Definitions.
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this ordinance, shall be
construed as hereafter set out, unless it shall be apparent from the context that
they have a different meaning.
a. Bar means an area which is devoted to the serving of alcoholic
beverages and in which the service of food is only incidental to the consumption
of alcoholic beverages. The term. "bar" shall not include an adjacent restaurant
dining area where meals are being served. There must be adequate physical
separation between the bar and the adjacent restaurant dining area to prevent
smoke from filtering to the food service area. If there is not adequate separation,
then the bar is considered part of the restaurant seating for the purposes of this
ordinance.
b. Employee means any person who is employed by any employer in
consideration fOr direct or indirect monetary wages or profit.
c. Employer means any person, partnership, corporation, or other .entity
including a municipal corporation, who employs the services of more than one
person.
d~ Enclosed means closed in by a roof and four walls with appropriate
openings for ingress and egress.
e. Place of Ernployr~ent means any enclosed area including, but not limited
to, work areas, employee lounges, conference rooms, employee cafeterias,
restrooms and any other rooms or areas utilized under the control of an employer
which employees normally frequent during the course of employment. A private
residence is not a place of employment except when it serves as a licensed day
care facility for children.
f. Restaurant means any Coffee shop, cafeteria, luncheonette, soda
fountain, fast food service and other establishments where cooked or otherwise
prepared food is sold to the public. The term does not include a cafeteria or
lunchroom defined as a "place of employment" as stated above whether or not the
general public incidentally frequents the facility.
g. Sports ,4rena means sports pavilions, gymnasiums, health spas, boxing
areas, swimming pools, roller and ice rinks, bowling alleys and other similar places
where members of the public assemble to engage in physical exercise, participate
in athletic competition, or witness sports events.
h. Smoking means the carrying or holding of a lighted pipe, cigar, or
cigarette of any kind, or any other lighted smoking equipment or the lighting or
emitting or exhaling the smoke of a pipe, .cigar, or cigarette of any kind.
8.30.030 Regulation of Smoking in City-Owned Facilities and Vehicles.
All enclosed facilities and vehicles owned by the City of Whittier sl~all be ,,,
designated as non-smoking areas.
8.30.040 Prohibition of Smoking in Designated Enclosed Places.
Smoking shall be prohibited in the following places within the City beginning
July 1, 1992, unless otherwise noted:
a. Enclosed'areas available to and customarily used by the general public
and all businesses patronized by the public including, but not limited to, retail
stores, hotel and motel lobbies, pharmacies, banks, and offices.
b. All restaurants subject to the following:
1. commencing July 1, 1992, the owner, manager or 'operator of a
restaurant with more than 20 seats or more than 200 square feet of customer
seating area shall designate not less than 75% of the available customer seating
as non-smoking;
2. commencing July 1, 1992, the owner, manager or operator of a
restaurant with 20 seats or less, or with 200 square feet or less of customer
seating area, shall designate all available customer seating as non-smoking.
3. commencing July 1, 1993, all available customer seating shall be
designated as non-smoking.
Any restaurar~t that elects to designate a non-smoking area pursuant to
subparagraph (1) above may change the boundaries of the smoking/non-smoking
areas at its discretion, provided that at all times the designated non-smoking area
shall remain a contiguous area that contains no less than 75% of the seating
capacity of the restaurant until July 1, 1993.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict an owner, manager or
operator of a restaurant from expanding the non-smoking section area from the
date of enactment of this ordinance until July 1, 1993.
¢. Waiting rooms, hallways, wards, and semi-private rooms, of health
facilities including, but not limited to, hospitals, clinics, physical therapy facilities,
doctors' offices and dentists' offices shall also be subject to the provisions of
Section 8.30.050 of this, ordinance regulating smoking in places of employment.
d. Elevators,.public restrooms, indoor service lines, and buses and other
means of public transit under the authority of the City, while within the boundaries
of the City.
e. Public areas of museums and galleries.
f. Enclosed theaters, auditoriums, and halls which are used for motion
pictures, stage dramas, musical performances, ballets, other exhibitions, or other
events open to the general public, except when smoking is part of any such
production.
g. Retail food marketing establishments, including grocery stores and
supermarkets, except those areas of such establishments set aside for the purpose
of serving food and drink, restrooms and offices, and areas thereof not open to
the public, which may be otherwise regulated by this ordinance.
h. Sports arenas and convention halls, except for pool halls; and bowling
centers subject to the following:
1. commencing .July 1, 1992, the owner, manager or operator of a
bowling center shall designate not less than 50% of the bowling center area as
non-smoking.
i. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any owner, operator,
manager or other person who controls any establishment described in this section
may declare that entire establishment as a non-smoking establishment.
8.30.050 Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Employment.
a. It shall be the responsibility of employers to provide smoke-free areas for
non-smokers within existi'ng facilities to the maximum extent possible, but
employers are not required to incur any expense to make structural or other
physical modifications in providing these areas.
b. Between' July 1, 1992, and July 1, 1993, employers must establish the
following policies at places of employment:
1. Prohibition of smoking in conference and meeting rooms,
classrooms, auditoriums, restrooms, medical facilities, hallways and elevators.
2. Any employee in a place of employment shall be given the right to
designate his or her immediate work area as a non-smoking area and to post the
same with an appropriate sign or signs, to be provided by the eml~loyer.
(i) In any dispute arising under this smoking policy, the rights
of the non-smoker shall be given precedence.
3. Provision and maintenance of a separate and contiguous non-
smoking area of not less than 75% of the seating capacity and floor space in
employee cafeterias, lunchrooms and lounges.
c. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (a) of this sec1~ion, every
employer shall have the right to designate any place of employment or portion
thereof as a non-smoking area.
d. Commencing July 1, 1993, smoking is prohibited in all places of
employment with more than five employees including, but not I'imited to, open
office areas, shared offices, cubicles, private offices, hallways, restrooms,
escalators, elevators, stairways, lobbies, reception rooms, waiting areas,
classrooms, meeting or conference rooms, auditoriums, on-site cafeterias,
lunchrooms and lounges.
e. All employe~s shall comply with these non-smoking provisions and shall
be responsible for tl~eir implementation in their places of employment. Employers
with five employees or less are exempt from the July 1, 1993, requirements for
complete smoking prohibition, but shall continue to comply with interim
requirements commencing July 1, 1992.
f. "No Smoking" signs shall be posted in the manner prescribed in Section
8.30.080.
8.30.060 Smoking in Hotels and Motels
Fifty percent of the guest rooms in any hotel or motel shall be maintained as fixed
non-smoking rooms. Smoking shall be regulated in other areas within hotels and
motels pursuant to Sections 8.30.040 and 8.30.070 of this ordinance.
8.30.070 Smoking-Optional Areas.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance to the contrary, the
following areas shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this chapter:
a. Private residences, whether or not the residence is utilized for office or
other business purposes, except where such residence is utilized as a licensed day
care facility for children "and during such time as the residence is used as a day
care facility;
b. Retail stores that deal exclusively in the sale 'of tobacco and smo~,ing
paraphernalia;
c. Bars, where there is adequate physical separation between the bar and
any adjacent restaurant dining area to prevent smoke from filtering into the food
service area. If there is not adequate separation, then the bar is considered part of
the restaurant seating and will be governed by Section 8.30.040 of this ordinance.
d. Enclosed banquet rooms or conference rooms located in restaurants or
hotels or motels which are used by individuals or groups for the purposes of
private ~unctions may be areas in which smoking is permitted if the host of such
function prefers; and
e. Pool halls.
8.30.080 Posting Requirements.
a. "Smoking" or "No Smoking" signs, whichever are appropriate, with
letters of not less than 1" in height or the international "No Smoking" symbol
(consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red
circle with a red bar across it) shall be clearly, sufficiently and conspicuously
posted in every building or other place where smoking is controlled by this
chapter, by the owner, operator, manager or other person having control of such
building or other place.
b. Until July 1, 1993, every restaurant.regulated by this ordinance will have
posted at its entrance a s!gn clearly stating that a non-smoking section is available,
and every customer shall be asked his or her seating preference if a host or
hostess is employed to seat patrons.
c. Every theater owner, manager, or operator shall post signs
conspicuously in the lobby stating that smoking is prohibited in the theater or
auditorium, and in the case of motion picture theaters, such information shall be
shown upon the screen for at least five (5) seconds prior to the showing of each
featured motion picture.
d. Every hotel and motel shall have signs posted conspicuously in the lobby
and registration area which state that non-smoking rooms are maintained and are
available; rooms designated as being non-smoking shall have signs designating
such restriction conspicuously placed within the room.
8.30.090 Cigarette Vending machines
Beginning July 1, 1992, coin-operated cigarette vending machines may not
be located in any area open to the public or in businesses patronized by the public
excluding bars and other places which restrict minors.
8.30.100 Violations.
a. It shall be unlawful for any person who owns, manages, operates or
otherwise controls the use of any premises subject to the restrictions of this article
to fail to: properly post signs required hereunder; properly set aside "No Smoking"
areas in restaurants until July 1,. 1993; or comply with any other requirements of
this chapter.
b. It 'shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area restricted by the
provisions of this chapter.
c. It shall be unlawful for any employer, owner, operator, manager or
person in charge to permit smoking in the area or establishment under his or her
control.
8.30.110 Enforcement.
a. Enforcement shall be implemented by the City Manager or his or her
designee.
1. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance
shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to the following penalties:
a warning for the first offense;
$100 for the second offense in the same year; and
$300 for the third and subsequent offenses in the same year.
b. Any citizen who desires to register a complaint hereunder may initiate
enforcement with the City Manager or his or her designee.
c. Any owner; manager, operator or employer of ~any establishment
controlled by this article shall have the right to. inform persons violatin~ this article
of the appropriate provisions thereof.
d. Notwithstanding the above, a private citizen may bring a legal action for
nuisance to enforce this chapter.
8.30.120 Nonretaliation.
No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in any manner retaliate
against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or
applicant exercises any rights afforded by this chapter.
8.30.130 Other Applicable Laws.
This article shall not be interpreted or construed to permit smoking where it is
otherwise restricted by other applicable laws.
8.30.140 Governmental Agency Cooperation.
The City Manager, on behalf of the City, shall request other governmental
agencies having facilities within the City to establish local operating procedures in
cooperation with this ordinance. The City Manager shall, urge Federal, State,
County agencies and school districts to enforce their existing smoking regulations
and to voluntarily comply with this ordinance.
8.30.150 Exemptions
Any owner or manager of a business or other establishment subject to this
Chapter may apply to the City Manager or his or her designee for an exemption or
modification to any provision of this ordinance due to unusual circumstances or- ·
conditions. The City Manager may designate a Review Committee composed of
/
one staff member and two community representatives to consider exemptions and
enforcement issues on an individual case basis.. The decision of the City Manager
or his or her designee shall be final. ·
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Whittier Municipal Code or appendices
'thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent
necessary to affect the I~rovisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 3. Should any provision of this ordinance be determined to be
invalid or unconstitutional, all other provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect as approved.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the
passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to. be published
once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This ordinance
shall become effective thirty days from its adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 19th day of November, 1991.
Thomas K. Sawyer,
ATTEST:
G~.rJ:rude L. Hill, City Clerk
CITY OF WHITTIER )
) SS
STAT'E OF CALIFORNIiA )
I, Gertrude L. Hill, City Clerk in and for the City of
Whittier, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and
correct copy of Ordinance No. 2558, adopted by the City Council of
the City of Whittier in regular session, Tuesday, the 19th day of
November, 1991 and same was passed by the following vote:
AYES: H.M. Rahder R.F. Woehrmann
M. D. Claxton R.L. Henderson
T. K. Sawyer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the City of Whittier
this 20th day of November, 1991.
G~RTRUSE L. HILL, Cit~ Clerk
Published according to law: November 27, 1991
cert
COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 10/7/91
ITEM NO.
TOWN OF LOS GATO$
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 2, 1991
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COI~NClL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER~~
SUBJECT: Consideration of a draft Smoking Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Move to waive the reading of each Ordinance. (This requires unanimous vote of the Council
members present);
2. Request that the Clerk read the title of each Ordinance;
3. Move to introduce the Draft Ordinances. (Attachments 1 and 2)
On March 4, 1991, the Town Council directed staff to amend.the smoking ordinance to prohibit smoking in
all eating establishments, medical care facilities, any building open to the general pubtic and to regulate
smoking in the work place. On June 17, 1991, the Council considered a draft ordinance and directed staff
t° modify the proposed ordinance as follows:
1. Hotels and motels shall designate two thirds of their hotel rooms non-smoking.
2. Closed banquet and conference rooms in hotels shall have designated no smoking areas.
3. The work place shall have physically separated and ventilated lunch and break rooms where
smoking is permitted. '
4. All outside seating areas in connection with entertainment or speaking performances shall be non-
smoking.
5. All formal outdoor eating areas shall be non-smoking.
6. Smoking shall be prohibited in all bars.
7. The penalty for violating the smoking ordir~ance shall be an infraction.
8. Prohibiting vending machines by separate ordinance.
On July 17, 1991, the Council continued this matter at the request of the Chamber of Commerce and*the
Downtown Merchants Business Association.
(Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY..: LEE E. BOWMAN
Planning Director
10/2/91 4:10 pm
LEB:KH: lkJ F11e
L].6\ cnc 1 rpt · \ smok ~ ng
Attachments: (See Page 3 for list of Attachments)
~: (See Page 3 for Distribution list)
Reviewed by: _~L,,_Attomey ~Clerk Finance ~Treasurer
COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO:
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Consideration of a draft Smoking Ordinance
October 3. 1991
DISCUSSION:
During the last two months the Chamber of .Commerce, the Downtown Merchants Business Association and
the community proponents for a strong smoking ordinance have met several times and worked together to
resolve the issues. The restaurant, lodge, and bar owners (the most active within the Chamber regarding
this issue), would prefer not amending the existing ordinance. However, if the Council wishes to change
the smoking ordinance, the Chamber discussed with staff changes the restaurant lodge and bar owners
(RI.B) can accept. The proponents of a strong no smoking policy have indicated they are willing to accept
some of the RIB owners recommendations.
The matrix below demonstrates the differences between the Council's proposed amendments (June 17,
1991) (Column 1), the acceptable changes to the RIB owners (Column 2) and the compromises the
proponents can accept (Column 3). The proposed amendments recommended by staff (and summarized
in Column 1), is a product resulting from changes directed by Council at their March 4, and June 17, 1991
meetings. The only change that was recommended by Council that has been omitted from the proposed
ordinance is the regulation of separate bars.
ProI;)OSed Amendments bv RLB Owners Proposal Compromises Acceptable to
C0~ncil Ex(;:eot Reoulation of the Proponents
Serrate Bars
(Staff Recommendation)
Any restaurant and any Smoking shall be permitted in
1. No smoking in all restaurant with bar that allows bar areas of restaurant. There
restaurants and all restaurants smoking is required to provide shall be a designated non-
with bars. 50% of its seating for non- smOking area.
smokers. (current ordinance)
Smoking shall be prohibited in
dining area at the following
rate:
50% until 12/31/91
75% until 12/31/92
100% as of 1/1/93
2. Hotels/motels shall Hotels/motels shall designate Same as RLB owners.
designate 2/3 of their rooms a portion of their rooms as
as non-smoking, non-smoking. The number
shall be determined by the
business owner.
3. Closed banquet and Only if requested by the Same as RIB owners.
conference rooms shall have booking agency.
designated non-smoking
areas.
4. All outside seating Shall be left to the discretion Same as RIB owners.
· areas in connection with of the land owner or sponsor.
entertainment or speaking
performances shall be non-
smoking.
5. All outdoor seating for Outdoor seating shall have' Same as RIB owners.
restaurant shall be non- designated no smoking
smoking, sections.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Consideration of a draft Smoking Ordinance
October 2, 1991
Proposed Amendments bv RLB Owners Proposal Compromises AcceDtable to
Council Exceot Re~3ulation of the Proponents
Separate Bars
(Staff Recommendation)
6. Maintenance of a No change. Propose a separation between
contiguous no-smoking area smoking and non-smoking
In lunch/break rooms, areas including separate
Smoking areas shall be entrances.
physically separated and
ventilated.
7. Cigarette vending Cigarette vending machines Permitted in bars and 'in areas
machines shall be prohibited, shall be permitted in bars. · where access is limited to
those persons 21 years or
older.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds may be needed for enforcement and education. Specific amounts are not known.
ATTACHMENTS:
1, Draft smoking cirdinance.
2. Draft cigarette vending machine ordinance.
3. Chamber of Commerce submittal. '
4. Eleven letters supporting proposed amendments.
5. Three letters opposing proposed amendments.
DISTRIBUTION:
Dr. David Weissman
Chamber of Commerce
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING SECTION 17-6 oF THE TOWN CODE
REGARDING THE REGULATION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN:
SECTION I
Sections 17-6, 17-6.5 and 17-7 of the Town Code are hereby repealed in their
entirety.
SECTION II
Section 17-6 of the Town Code is added to read as follows:
Section 17.6 Regulation of Smoking in Public Places and Places of Employment.
A. Findings and Purpose
Numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor
air pollution, and that breathing secondhand smoke is a cause of disease, including lung
cancer, in nonsmokers. At special risk are elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular
disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those
with obstructive airway disease; and
Health Hazards induced by breathing second-hand smoke include lung cancer, heart
disease, respiratory infection, decreased respiratory function, .bronchoconstriction, and
bronchi-spasm.
Accordingly, the Town Council finds and declares that the purposes of this ordinance
are (1) to protect the public health and welfare by Prohibiting smoking in public place~ and
places of employment; and (2) to guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free
air, and to recognize that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the
desire to smoke.
C11\CNCLRPTS\7-15~'6B.PI-.N
ATTACHMENT
B. Definitions
For the purposes of this Article, the following definitions shall apply:
1. Bar
A place not accessory to a restaurant which serves' alcoholic beverages for
consumption on-site to the general public in 'which the serving of food is incidental
to the consumption of such beverages.
2. Eating Establishment
Any restaurant, coffee shop cafeteria, soda fountain, cafe or other
establishment primarily engaged in serving food, or serving food and beverages to
the general public.
3. Employee
Any person who is employed by an employer in consideration for direct or
indirect monetary wages or profit.
4. Employer
Any person or corporation including public agencies who employ§'the services
of an individual person for compensation for services to be rendered.
5. Enclosed Public Place
All public space enclosed on all sides by walls, partitio ,ns, windows, or similar
barriers (exclusive of ingress/egress) open to the general public, including but not
limited to retail buildings, restaurants, theatres, museums, art galleries and similar
structures.
6. No Smoking Sign
A sign in letters not less than one inch in height printed on a contrasting
background which states that smoking is not allowed or a sign which displays the
international no-smoking symbol consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning
cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it.
7. Medical Care Facility
Any. health facility as defined in Section 1200 or 1250 of the Public Health
and Safety Code, or any facility in which a physician provides health care to patients.
Cl I\CNCLRPTS\7-15~6B.PLN 2
8. Public Building
Any building or portion thereof owned or leased by the Town or any local
government entity subject to Town zoning requirements.
9. Retail Tobacco Store '
A retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products 'and
accessories and in which the sale of other prodUcts is only incidental.
10. ' Smoking
The act of inhaling/exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted tobacco product
or by-product including cigarettes, cigars, pipes that burn tobacco or other plant
material.
11. WorkPlace
Any enclosed area under the control of a public or private employer which
employees normally frequent during the course of employment, including but not
limited to work areas, employee lounges and restrooms, conference and class rooms,
employee cafeterias and hallways.
C. Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places
1. Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed public places open to the general
public within the Town of Los Gatos including but not limited to the following
places:
'a. Elevators
b. Public Buildings
c. Medical Health Facilities
d. Eating establishments
e. Retail stores (except retail tobacco stores)
f. Theaters, Auditoriums, Museums and Art Galleries
g. Hotels and motels (Except one-third of the private hotel rooms shall
be designated for smokers)
2. Smoking shall be prohibited in the following outdoor areas:
Cl I\CNCLRPTS\7-15~6B.PLN 3
a. Seating being used in connection with public events including
entertainment, speaking performances, ceremonies and pageants.
b. Seating provided by eating establishments
D. Regulation of Smoking in the Private Workplace
1. Within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance, each employer shall
adopt, implement, and maintain a written smoking policy relating to smoking in the
work place which shall contain at a minimum the following:
a. Prohibition of smoking conference and meeting rooms, classrooms,
auditoriums, restrooms, hallways, and elevators.
b. Provisions and maintenance of a contiguous no-smoking area of not
less than two-thirds of the seating capacity and floor space in each cafeteria
or lunchroom. Smoking areas shall be. physically separated and separately
ventilated.
c. Provisions and maintenance of a contiguous no-smoking area of not
less than two-thirds of the seating capacity and floor space in each employee
lounge or, at the discretion of the employer, where there is more than one
such lounge in any one building, not less than one-half the number of such
lounges and not less than one,half the square footage of such lounges.
Smoking areas shall be physically separated and ventilated.
d. Any employee in the private work place shall be given the fight to
designate his or her immediate area as a non-smoking area and to post it with
appropriate signs or sign. The policy adopted by the employer shall include
a definition of the term immediate work area which gives preferential
consideration to nonsmokers.
e. In any dispute arising under the smoking policy, the rights of the
nonsmoker shall be given precedence.
E. Exceptions
C~ 1 \CNCLRPTS\?-15~6B.PLN 4.
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to restrict smoking in the following
areas, except as described below:
1. Retail Tobacco Stores
2. Private Residences (except when used for family day care)
3. Closed banquet,, conference or meeting rooms of hotels, motels and
lOdges except that a no smoking area must be provided for non-
smokers
4. Any property owned or leased by other governmental agencies which
is not subject to the Town's zoning' authority
5. Bars
F. Posting Signs
1. No Smoking signs shall be clearly and conspicuously posted in every building
or other place where smoking is regulated by this Article, by the owner, operator,
manager or other person having control of such building or other place.
2. Every restaurant shall have posted at .every entrance a conspicuous no
smoking sign.
G. Smoking-- Penalties
1. Any person who violates this Article by failing to post signs or failing to
establish policies and procedures, is guilty of an infraction and subject to a civil
penalty of $100 and the cost of enforCing this chapter which shall include all costs,
staff and attorney time. Such persons shall be deemed to have committed a separate
' offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of this
Ordinance is committed or permitted.
2. Any person who smokes where smoking is prohibited when signs are posted
in the required manner is guilty of an infraction.
C11\CNCLRPTS\7-15#6B.PLN
SECTION III
This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after the date it is adopted. Within 15 days after
this Ordinance is adopted the Town clerk shall cause it to be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the Town.
This Ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos on ,1991 and adopted by the following vote as an
ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos on ,1991.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
AT'FEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CAHFORNIA
C 1 I\CNCLRPTS\7-15~6B.PLN 6
oRDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS PROHIBITING THE USE OF
CIGARETTE ORTOBACCO VENDING MACHINES IN PUBLIC PLACES
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN:
SECTION I
Section 17-7 of the Town Code is added to read as follows:
Section 17-7 Regulation of cigarette and tobacco product vending machines
A. Findings
The Surgeon General of the United States and the American Heart
Association has released information that shows approximately 60 percent of
all smokers become addicted before their 14th birthday and that more than
3,000 teenagers become regular smokers everyday.
The Town Council finds that the availability of cigarettes and tobacco
products marketed through vending machines promotes the use of tobacco
products among minors, contrary to existing State Laws which prohibit the
sale or distribution of tobacco products to persons under the age of 18.
Therefore, the Town Council finds it necessary to enact this ordinance to
recognize sUch laws and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
B. Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation or other entity to place,
install or maintain or control any vending machine or any other machine or
device designed for the. dispensing, distribution or sale of cigarettes or other
tobacco products in any public place within the Town of Los Gatos.
Cl0\ORDS\VENDING
ATTACHMENT.
For the purposes of this chapter, "public place" is defined as any area to
which any members of the public are invited, or in which any members of the
public are permitted, including, but not limited to, public transportation facilities,
reception areas, restaurants, restaurant/bar combinations, bars, retail stores, retail
service establishments, retail food production and marketing establishments,
waiting rooms, service clubs, public or private cafeterias, or any workplace or work
areas.
C. Penalties
Any person who violates this Article is subject to a civil penalty of $100 and the
cost of enforcing this chapter which~shall include all costs, staff and attorney time.
Such person shall be deemed to have Committed a separate offense for each and
every day during any portion of which any violation of this Ordinance is
committed or permitted.
SECTION II
This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after the date it is adopted. Within 15 days after
this Ordinance is .adopted, the Town Clerk shall cause it to be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the Town
Cl0\ORDS\VENDING 2
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Los Gatos on ,1991, and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance
of the Town of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on.
,1991.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ATI'EST: ~
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
C10\ORDS\VENDING 3
ORDINANCE 1880
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING SECTION 17-6 OF THE TOWN CODE
REGARDING THE REGULATION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES ''
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
SECTION I
Sections 17-6, 17-6.5 and 17-7 of the Town Code are hereby repealed in
their entirety.
SECTION II
Section 17-6 'of the Town Code is added to read as follows:
Section 17.6 Regulation of Smoking in'Public Places and Places of Employment.
A. Findings and Purpose
Numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to
indoor air pollution, and that breathing secondhand smoke is a cause of disease,
including lung cancer, in nonsmokers. At special risk are minors, elderly
people, pregnant women, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals
with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with
obstructive airway disease.
Health Hazards induced by breathing second-hand smoke and being in smoking
environments include lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, decreased
respiratory function, birth defects, bronchoconstriction, and bronchi-spasm.
Accordingly, the Town Council finds and declares that the purposes of this
ordinance are (1) to protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking
in public places and places of employment; and (2) to guarantee the right of
nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air, and to recognize that the need to breathe
smoke-free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke'
B. Definitions
For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions shall apply:
1. Bar
A place not accessory to an eating establishment which serves
alcoholic beverages for consumption on-site to the general public in which
the serving of food is incidental ~o the consumption of such beverages.
2. Eating Establishment
Any restaurant, coffee shop, cafeteria, soda fountain, cafe or other
establishment primarily engaged in serving food and/or beverages to the
general public.
3. 'Eating Establishment Bar
A place located in the same building as and accessory to an eating
establishment which serves alcoholic beverages for consumption on-site to
the general public in which the serving of food is incidental to the
consumption of such beverages:
(a) which is ventilated by a separate system with direct external
exhaust; and
(b) is negatively pressured; and
(c) either;
(i) is physically separated from the eating area by a barrier
of solid construction in which any opening is equipped with
self closing doors.which prevent the passage of smoke when
closed; or
(ii) in the opinion of the Director of Building Services, has
incorporated sufficient alternative precautions to prevent
smoke from entering other areas.
4. Employee
Any person who is employed by an employer in consideration for direct
or indirect monetary wages or profit.
5. Employer
Any person or corporation including public agencies who employs the
services of an individual person for compensation for serVices to be
rendered.
6. Enclosed Public Place
A public space enclosed on all sides by walls, partitions, windows,
or similar barriers (exclusive of ingress/egress) open to the general
public, including but not limited to retail buildings, restaurants,
theatres, museums,'art galleries and similar structures.
7. No Smoking Sign
A sign in letters not less than one inch in height printed on a
contrasting background which states that smoking is not allowed or a sign
which displays the international no-smoking symbol consisting of a
2
pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle
with a redbar across it.
8. Medical Care Facility
Any health facility as defined in Section 1200 or 1250 of the Public
Health and Safety Code, or any facility in which a physician provides
health care to patients.
9. Public Building
Any building or portion thereof owned or leased by the Town or any
local government entity subject to Town zoning requirements.
10. Retail Tobacco Store
A retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products
and accessories and in which the sale of other'products is only incidental.
11. Smoking
The act of inhaling/exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted tobacco
product or by-product including cigarettes, cigars, pipes that burn tobacco
or other plant material.
12. Workplace
Any enclosed area under the control o~ a public or private employer
which employees normally frequent during the course of employment,
including but not limited to work areas, employee lounges and restrooms,
conference and class rooms, employee cafeterias and hallways.
C. Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places
1. Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed public places open to
the general public within the Town of Los Gatos including but not limited
to the following, places:
a. Elevators
b. Public Buildings
c. Medical Health Facilities
d. Eating establishments:
(i) after January 1, 1992 in all but 25% of the seating
(ii) after January 1, 1993 in all seating
e. Retail stores (except retail tobacco stores)
f. Theaters, Auditoriums, Museums and Art Galleries
g. Hotels and motels
2. Smoking shall be prohibited in the following outdoor areas:
a. Seating being used in connection with public events including
entertainment, speaking performances, ceremonies and pageants.
b. Seating provided by eating establishments
D. Regulation of Smoking in th~ Private Workplace
1. Within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance, each employer
shall adopt, implement, and maintain a written smoking policy relating to
smoking in the work place which shall contain at a minimum the following:
a. Prohibition of smoking in conference and meeting rooms,
classrooms, auditoriums, restrooms, hallways, and elevators.
b. Provisions and maintenance of a contiguous no-smoking area of
not less than two-thirds of the seating capacity and floor space in
each cafeteria or lunchroom. Smoking. areas shall be physically
separated and separately ventilated.
c. Provisions and maintenance of a contiguous no-smoking area of
not less than two-thirds of the seating capacity and floor space in
each employee lounge or, at the discretion of the employer, where
there is more than one such lounge in any one building, not less than
one-half the number of such lounges and-not less than one-half the.
square footage of such lounges. Smoking areas shall be physically
separated and ventilated.
d. Any employee in the private work place shall be given the right
to designate his or her immediate area as a non-smoking area and to
post it with appropriate signs or sign. The policy adopted by the
employer shall include a definition of the term immediate work area
which gives preferential consideration to nonsmokers.
e. In any dispute arising under the smoking policy, the rights
of the nonsmoker shall be given precedence.
E. Exceptions
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to restrict smoking in the
following areas, except as described below:
1. Retail Tobacco Stores
2. Private Residences'(except when used for family day care)
3. Closed banquet, conference or meeting rooms of'hotels,~ motels and
lodges except that a no smoking area must be provided for non-
4
smokers
Any property owned or leased by other governmental agencies which
is not subject to the Town's zoning authority
5.Bars
6.Eating Establishment Bars
7.Private hotel and motel rooms
(i) after January 1, 1992, a maximum of 50% may be dedicated as
smoking rooms;
(ii) after January 1, 1993, a maximum of 33 1/3% may be dedicated
as smoking rooms.
F. Posting Signs
No Smoking signs shall be clearly and Conspicuously posted in every
building or other place where smoking is regulated by this Section, by the
owner, operator, manager or other person having control of such building
or other place.
G. Smoking -- Penalties
1. Any person who violates this Section by failing to post signs or
failing to establish policies and procedures, is guilty of an infraction
and subject to a civil penalty of $100 and the cost of enforcing this
chapter.which shall include all costs, staff and attorney time. Such
persons shall be deemed to have committed a separate offense for each and
every day during any portion of which any violation of this Ordinance is
committed or permitted.
2. Any person who smokes where smoking is prohibited when signs are
posted in the required manner is guilty of an infraction.
SECTION III
This Ordinance takes effect January 1, 1992. Within 15'days after this
Ordinance is adopted the Town clerk shall cause it to be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the Town.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Los Gatos on November 4, 1991 and adopted by the following vote as
an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos on November 18, 1991.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Joanne Benjamin, Steven Blanton,
Brent N. Ventura, Mayor Eric D. Carlson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: /s/ Eric D. Carlson
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
CLERK.OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
o Smoking Stir~cy
An analysis of San Luis Obispo's smoking o~inanc:.
by
Raymond Colman
Darficl Stubbs
Dr. Allen K. Serd¢
Polfical Science 462
Table of Contents
Overview .........................................................................................................
..~
IL Competing
Interests ...................................................................................... 3
IlL Survey
' Results .................................................... : ............................................ 9
IV. Analysis of Survey Results ....... : ................................................................ 12
V.
Summary ................................ ~ .................................................. ~ .....................
.24
-1-
Oveawicw
55m survey on San Luis Obispo's smoking ordinance was conducted by Raymond Colman
and Daniel Stubbs, political science majors az California Polytecknic State University, under the
'supervision of Professor Allen tC Settle. The survey was designed to be a "srmp-sho~" of local :7'.
public opinion in October 1990 before the approaching November eleclions. The phone n,~rnbers
of two-hundred diffe~nt individuals wcrc sclccued at random. Rcspon~nts wcrc asked to voice
their opinion on San Luis Obispo's smoking ordinance (ordinance #1172) as well as their opinion
On the San Luis Obispo City Council. Individuals below eighteen ~ears of age were excluded from
the survey. Hopefully this survey will be used by politically active citizens to effect the policies of
the city in which they reside. Since the scope of the city's smoking ordinance and policies in
general have been so broad, it is ,mHkety that individual lives will remain unaffected.
On August 2, 1990 the most comprehensive no-smoking ordinance., in the United Smms
went intn effect. The ordinance was passed by the San Luis City Council by a vote of four to one.
The ordinance r~ces it a violation of c/ty law to light up a cigm~t~e in any indoor place that is olin
to the public, including bm'sand restaurants. San Luis Obispo's smo~ng ordinance is the only
one to date to exclude smoMng in bars and restore-ants. Penalties for individ,,.l~ cited for smoking
in public range from one-hundred dollars for a fu'st offense, to five hundr~-dollars for the third
offense during a one-ycm' p~'iod. Responses to San Luis Obispo's smoking ordinance range
from an "outrageously draconian law" which should be stricken from the books to "clean air at
Compedng Interests
San Luis Obispo's smoking ordinance received support from various sources. Noteworthy
individuals in support of the smoking ordinance were Vice Mayor, Senyy' Relss; local .delegate to the
American Medical Association, Dr. Stephen PLanscn; and city amomcy, Jeff Jo~enson. Jcn'y
Re;ss initiated the push for a no-smoking ban because he felt that it would set an imporr~mt
precedent which other cities Would follow. In R¢iss's opinion, if San Luis 0bispo could prove
that it was economically feasible to operate a no-smoking ordinance, then it would not be long
before other cities enacted legislation of their own. Offe~g a great de~ of support and'medical
knowledge to Jerry. Re/ss was Dr. Stephen Hansen.
Dr. PIansen has prepared a twelve step plan to organize a smoking ban in your city.
1.)Work with a courageous lawmaker who has expressed inmmst in this topic-the key is ~
the municipal/county/state responsibility for the health and welfare of its citizens.
2.)Obtn~n a copy of the San Luis Obispo ordinanCe (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights,
2530 San Pablo Avenue, suite J, Berkeley, 'CA 94702, 415-841-7702) and discuss it with local
city attorney..
3.)Emphasize that environmental smoke as a health b~rd, although known for some ,~me,
has only relatively recently been documemed thorougJmly. This is new is new knowledge and
necessitates a new amitude. Although the Surgeon General's report on smoking is over 25 years
old this year, the Surgeon general's report on .second-hand smoke is Only 4 years old. Tobacco
smoke is a Group A carcinogen. (This is the group of EPA-labeled substances known to cause
cancer in humans. It includes benzene, asbestos, vinyl chloride, and other's, but eh EPA says that
-3-
indoor tobacco smoke csuscs more cancer than all of the other Group A carcino§ens put to§ether!)
Ch/ldren of smokers have twice thc lun§ cancer rate than children of nonsmokers, and nonsmoldng
wives of smokers have 130% mom lung cancer than nonsmoking wives of nonsmokc.'s.
4.)Work with voluntary agenc/es such as American Heart Assoc/ation, American Lung
Association, American Cancer Society, Medical Societies, and Auxiliaries as well as hospital
staffs. Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights is a Particularly good resource.
5.)Conduct an informal poll of workers most affected by the proposed changes-ask their
opinions and encourage them to tell their stories at the public hearings if possible, or in letters to
the lawmakers if not. There are some powerful advocates for a smoke-free workplace in every
town--people with poignant stories about symptoms, ~llness, and time I°st form work due to
indoor tobacco smoke-related exacerbation of aller~es, asthma, and lung conditions.
&)Meet with reporters and editorial staffs of newspapers, radio, and T.V. stations.
Consider a press release empha.~zing the seriousness of thi.~ problem and that it it rime for a new
attitude in the spirit of good will Write letters to the editors. Be low key and use humor when
you can-there's a lot of material out there.
7.)Provide Chamber of Commerce and other business groups with documentation of the
Aspen, Color'ado experience. (a 1986 law that was the most restrictive until SLO's became
operative 8-2-90). There was an across-the-board improvement in economic indicators in Aspen
following this ordinance. It should be noted that Aspen Competes with many.other resorts for
customers. Their ordinance remains on the books. This inforr~ation is available from Americans
for Nonsmoker's Rights. Employers also benefit from reduced employee time off for illness and
from reduced insurance costs, and reduced maintenance and repair costs related to c/garctg-caused
damage to the physical sun'oundings.
8.)Write and phone and meet in person individ,'~lly with the lawmakers early in the'process -'---
and ask for their support. Emphasize the evolution of our knowledge in rh~s regard and how
enlightened, ~tsy, and beneficent is this vote form the health and welfare or their constituents.
Thank them for their support.
9.)Atmnd each public comment hearing and ~/ve facts and other reasoned testimony.
~~ ~at ~o~ ~ses ~ly ~d ~ not r~ov~ =ff~vely ~d is o~ re=~ by
who f~ ~
~= help of ho~i~ m~ s~s-ps~ ~t ~ey ~d~ ~= ~os~ m= ~ously, =d
~e ~i~ ~ yo= m~mony.
~g logo ~m ~e~ 1~
"Smoke ~ no joke". Non-mem~
10.)Emphasize to all that these laws are supported by the vast majority of people when
fully explained. The City of San Luis Obispo reassigned the staff person delegated to the
implementation of this ordinance because she had nothing to do. These ordinances are self-
enfoming when there has been adequate public debate and publicity, and appropriate signs are
posted. (We don't have "smoke police" in theaters, churches, ak'planes, buses, hospitals, trains,
etc., and we don't need them in workplaces, food or dfir~Idng establishments either.)
11.)At all ~mes remember that smokers are vi~m~, too. Their addiction costs them dearly
in teams of money, health, friends, business, and social opportunities. Few smokers haven't tried
to stop, and fewer still want their tobacco smoke pollution'to harm others. The real malefactor here
.Americans yearly and costs us an estimated $52 billi°n in health ~ and lost productivity
annua.I.ly. (One pack-dally smoker~ live abo. u~'six-ycar~ less than nonsmokers.) In only the past
few years, tobacco use is up 75% world-wide due to vigorous adv~ising and unscrapulous f
addiction of young people. It of~n r~kas only one pack of cigarettes to addict a new teenage
smok~. Someday we~l decide as a society that the slavery of tobacco ~articdon is an inl~nsic evil
which should be outlawed like other forms of slavery. Until then, laws to protect minors and
nonsmokers will be an important responsibility of government.
12.)Your oppesition will come from one source-tobacco companies and their allies-the
tobacco addicts and those who make money from them. In San Luis Obispo, RJ. Reynolds
"Acdon Alert" letters were sent to homes and businesses, as~ng smokers to argue that their
"rights' (to contacSnam other people's air) were being violated, and to threa~n economic
reml~tion.1 Tobacco company advocates arrived from New York and North Carolina and helped
formuhte obtnse rhetoric. I-I~ppily, the local newspaper publishedJ, he story about the m,iliug, and
people ~ a good laugh a~ the tobacco compa.uies' expense. The City Council vote was 4-1 for
clean air and against thc drug pushers!
Dr. Hansen was also presented with an award a~ the American Medical Associat/on meeting
in Atlanta, Georgia on November 15th, 1990 for his work on the smoking ordinance. Dr. Hansen
presented the findin~ of our survey at that meet/rig. ]'eft ;rorgenson, the city's attorney also
backed the smotdng ordinance, c/ting the public's health, safety and welfare. Interesfmgly,
admitted smoker, Peg Pinard, a San Lais Obispo City Councilwoman, voted in favor of the
ordin~ce.
N-merous individuals and organizatio, ns opposed the smoking ordinance. Noteworthy
individuals opposed to the smoking ordinance were C~!it'ornia Restaurant Associaion President,
Dennis Barney and San Luis Obispo City Mayor Ron Dunin. The San Luis Obispo Cb~,~ber of
Commerce also opposed the smoking ordinance, as did the P.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
Cb~vnber of Commerc= cxc=utiv¢, Dave Garth~ explained that the re~on~ for their proposal to have
restaurants and bars go to a seventy percent smoke free, and a thirty tx~'ccnt Smoking areas was to
protect local business which were afraid that tourists would ~4rnply go elsewhere. The San Luis
Obispo City Council never considered the C'b~rnber's of proposal as viable due to enforcement
compl/cadons. P,.~r. Reynolds Tobacco Company sought to prevent the smoking ordinance by
c~rculating three-hundred letters urging smokers tn take action tn protect their rights. California
Restaurant Association President De~r~i~ Barney cited the reduction in Beverly IT. fils restaurants"
profits during the period in which they had a similar ordinance.
In response to those who were opposed to the smoking ban on the grounds that it would
hurt local business, M~ggie Cox, the government liaison to the Chamber of Commerce, said thc
smoking ordinance has not hut/businesses as'much as they first thought. In the fu-st month of the
smoking ordinance, city officials have only reccive, d five compia;nts.' Thc CM~ Artrn;n;.q~fions
officer, John Dunim who is responsible for enforcing thc ordinance Ires stressed voluntary
complianc~.
-7-
Survey Results'
The following dam sets are the two-hundred r~sponses ~rhered in the sm'vey of San Luis
Obispo City residents. The questions that were asked to generate each set of data/s also/.ncluded.
1.)How cio you fee! about the City of San Luis Obispo's smo~n§ ord/nance?
XI: Smok Ban
B,~,. E!ement: Count: Percent:
I i For 1147 73.5 -Mode
2 i Against 47 23.5
3 Dent know 6 ;3
2.) Do you smoke?
X2: You Smoke?
Bar: Element: Count: Percer~'t: '
'
No 160 80 -Mode
3.)Do you believe that the smoking ban should stay in effect, even if it is de=knental to local
businesses?
X3: Good Idea
Bar'. E]s,nent: Count: Percent:
1 Yes I107 !53.5 -Mede
2 No 84 142
3 Dent Knew 9 1
4.5
you for the issuance of citations for smoking violations?
X4: Enforcemt
=,~. E!ement: Count: Percent:
1 Yes 11 01 150. 5 -Mode
2 No 83 41.5
3 Dent know 1 6 8
5.)Do you believe that San Lois Obispo's smoking ban is a violation of an'~d.i.~d~.Is rights?
X$: Private Rte .
Bar: Element: Count: Percent:
1 Yes 79 39.5
2 No 119 59.5 -Mode
3 Dent know 2 1
60 Arc you satisfied in gencrM with thc policies passed by the San Lois Obispo City Council?
X6= Council ok?
Bar: Element: Count: Percent:
1 Yes 8 g 44.5 -Mode
2 No 74 37
3 Dent know 137
18.5
I
7.)Did you vote in the last San Leis Obispo City election?
X7: vote
E!s,,,~nt.' Count: Percent:
lYes i114 ~ 157 -Mode
No i84 42
Don't Know 12
1
8.)Are you re~stered to vote?
XS: Reg to Vote
Count: Percent:
1 Yes 147 73.5 -Mode
2 No 50 25
3 Dont know 3 11.5
9.) What age category are you in?
~ount: .=ercent:
1 Under 25 54 27
2 Twenty five-45 46 23
3 Forty five-60 46 23
4 Over 60 54 27
· 10.) What is your sex?
X~IO: Sex-
Bar: Element: Count: Percent:
Analysis of Survey Results
When. analyzing our dam se:s, and de~d~g which tables should be compm'ed, we tried to
select those comparisons which said something abeut the San Ln/s Obispo electorams and their
opinion of ctm:nt policies and government actions.
When comparing those people in favor of the smoking ordinance with those people who
smoke, we expected to find non-smokers largely in support of the city's ordinance, with smokers
su:ongly opposed. (As expec'~d, 82.5% of the non-smokers polled wer~ in favor of the smoking
ordinance while 14.38% were opposed and 3.12% did not have an opinion. Surprisingly, 37.5%
of the smokers r~sponding wer~ in favor of the smoking ordinance, while 60% w~ opposed.
Percents of Column Totals
Yes No Totals:
· Fdr 37.5% 82.5% 73.5%
Against 60% 14.38% 23.5%
Dont know 2.5% 3.12% 3%
Totals: 100% 100% 100%
When comparing people for and against the smoking ban with whether cr mot they felt the
smoking ordinance should bc maintained even if it hurt local businesses, we expected to s~ a
decline in the number of individuals in support of the smoking ban in the face of economic losses.
Surprisingly, 96~.6% of the people in support of the smoking ban suptxn'md it ~ven if it wcr~ bad
for local businesses.
Percents of Column Totals
Yes Ho )ent Knew Totals:
For 96.26% 41.67% 100% 73.5%.
Against 3.74% 51.19% 0% 23.5%
Dent knew 0% 7.14% 0% 3%
Tetals: 100% 1 00% 100% 100%
When respondents were asked it' they fek that because no smoking in public places was a
city ordinance, should it be strictly enforced, going so far as to hand out rickets or even arresrin§
viola:ors, 84.16% of the individ,,~]~ in favor of strict enforcement were also in favor of the
smoking ban. Reasons cited by those who were for the b~n, but did not back strict enforcement
ranged from thc' opinion.that thc.police department should'be doing something beret with the~ Hmo
to smoking isn't that big of a deal. Surprisingly, 36. i4% of those people opposed the smoking
ban we~ in favor of strict enforcement. Most of these people responded that since it was an
ora~nance it should be su'ictly enforced or that they didn't usually Smoke in public anyway, so it
Percents of Column ¥otais
Yes Ho Dent know. Totals:
For 84.16% 61.45% 68.75% 73.5%
Against 12.87% 36.14% 25% 23.5% '
Dent know 2.97% 2.41% 6.25% 3%
Totals: 1 00% 100% 100% 100%
When we compm-v~ those people who wer~ for ~e smo~g ban with whether or not they
felt k w~s a viohdon of priYaze righu, 94.96%' of the people in suppor~ of the.smo~g ban felt k
was not a violation of individual rights. Of thc people who fek iz was a vi°lazion of privat~ rights,
53.16% were agminst thc smoking ordinance.
Percents of Column Totals
Yes No Dont know Totals:
For 40.51% 94.96% 100% 73.5%
Against 53.16% 4.2% 0% '23.5%
Dont know 6.33% .84% 0% 3%
Totals: 100% 1 00% 100% 100%
When we compared individuals who were for the smoking ban with whether or no: they
supported the city council as a whole, 89.89% of individuMs in fay ..or. of the ordimmce were also
generally suppordve of the city council. Of the peOPle who were ,,-h~ppy with the city council,
' 48.65% supported the smoking ban, while 4-4.59% wer~ ag~-~ the ordinance as well as non-
supportive of .the council.
Percents of Column Totals
Yes No Dont know Tot=Is:
For 89.89% 48.65% 83.78%. 73.5%
Ag=,inst 8.99% 44.59% 16.22% 23.5%
Dont know 1.12% 1~.76% 0% 3%
Totals: 1 00% 100% 1 00% 100%
V~nen we compared fndividtmls'who were fn support of the smoking ordinance with
whether or not they had voted in the last ~ty ctccdon, 69.3% of vodng individuals were in favor of
the ordinance while 27.19% of voters wer~ against. Of the r~spondents surveyed who did not
vote, 79.76% were in favor of the smokin§ ordfnmuce, whilc i7.86% were not.
Percents of Column Totals
Yes No Don't Know TotAls:
For 69.3% 79.76% 50% 73.5%
Against 27.19% 17.86% 50% 23.5%
Dont know 3.51% 2.38% 0% 3%
Totals: 1 00% 100% 100% 1 00%
When looking at support for the smoking ordinance in comparison with age groups, people
under twenty-five, twenty-five to forty-five, and those over sixty all approved of the ordinance by
at least a seventy percent margin, 75.93%, 73.9I%, and 77.78% respectively. Interestingly, those
pcopl~ bet'ween the ages of fo ,rv.y-five and sixty only approved at 65.22%. Possibly this is due rn
the fact that more people between those ages smoke than .among other age groups.
Percents of Column Totals
Under 25 Twenty fiv...Forty five... Over 60 Totals:
For 75.93% 73.91% 65.22% 77.78% 73.5%
Against 20.37% 19.57% 34.78% 20.37% 23.5%
Dont know 3.7% 6.52% 0% 1.85% 3% '
Totals: 1 00% 100%. 100% 100% 100%
Vv'hen we ¢~mine.,d how men and women stood on the smokin§ ban, we wer~ not
surprised to f'md that both sexes approved of the orri~anc~. Males approved .ar. the mm of
mad females approved at the rote of 71.59%. Since 73.5% of the people surveyed were for the
ordinance, we did not expect to find a wide split ~mong the sexes.
Percents of Column Totals
Male Female Totals:
For 75% 71.59% 73.5%
Against 22.32% 25% 23.5%
Dont know 2.68% 3.41% 3%
Totals: 100% 100% 100%
' When we compared those people who'smoke with whether or not they felt that the smot4,~g
orfl;,~ance should be strictly enforced, only 16.83%'of the people Who smoked felt the ordinmace
· should be strictly enforced. On the other hand, 83.17% of the people surveyed who did not
smoke, felt thaz the smoking o~;,~ance shOuld be strictly enforced...
Percents of Column Totals
Yes No Dont know Totals:
Yes 16.83% 26.51% 6.25% 20%
No 83.17% 73.49% 93;75% 80%-
Totals: 100% 100% 100% 100%
When we compared those individuals %,ho smoke with whether or not ~ey felt k was a
violation of individual rights, not surpr~gly, 92.4~% of non-smokers did not feel that it was a'
violation of'individual rights. Surin'isin~y thou~, only 39.24% of smokmm surveyed, fc!t that the --
smo~_,ng ordinance was a violadon of their individual rights.
Percents of Column Totals
Yes No. Dont know Totals:
Yes 39.24% 7.56% 0% 20%
No 60.76% 92.44% 100% 80%
Totals: 100% 100% 100% 100%
In ask/ng thc question (Do you bcl/cv¢ thc smoking oral/hartco to be a violation of your
privam rights7), we expeaed those who wer~ in favor of the ordinance would answer no. Those
respondents who thought the ban to be a. violation of ch~ir ~ghu we cxpect~,,d to disagree with thc
smoking ban. The pr/vate ri~ts question was asked in conjUnc~on with the question about how
the public generally felt about the City Council. The majority of those polled were opposed to the
policies in general of the City Council. Only 26.97% of those who thought the ban to be a
violation of their r/~,=hts agreed in general with the policies passed by the council. Furthermore,
73.03% of those who did not believe the ban to be a violation of their private fights agreed with the
policies of the council. Of those who did not approve of the council 58.11% believed the ban to be
a violation of theft' rights.
Percents of Column Totals
Yes No Dont know Totals:
Yes 26.97% 58.11% 32.43% 39.5%.
No 73.03% 40.54% 64.86% 59.5%
Dont know 0% 1,35% 2.7% 1%
Totals: 1 00% 100% 100% 100%
Looking further into thc private rights question, we wanted to s~ il' r.h¢ respondents had
dSffc,,'ing views in relation with whether they voted or not. Our expectations for this question were
that we figured that thosc who did not pardc/pam in thc last ¢lcczion would ~ mom in agreement
with thc ban duc to their apa~y at election t~rnc. Those who voted in thc last election we be2icve, d
would be mor~ aware of thc ordSn~nc¢'s broa~ SCOl~ and WOuld ~ mom likely to fe~l it violated
their privam rights. Tho rcsuIts showed thc majority, son~ 65.48% of those who did not yom, felt
thc ban did not violate their rights. As we predicted, only 56.14% of thos~ who voted in thc last
city-wide election lek the'ban to be in violation of the/r rights'
Percents of Column ~'otsis
Yes No Don~ Know Totals:
Yes 42.11% 34.52% 100% 39.5%
No 56.14% 65.48% 0% 59.5%
Dont know 1.75% 0% 0% 1%
Totals: 100% 100% 100% 100%
Ge. nde= seemed to have made little c~iff~--ence in the way respondents felt about the private rights
question. Both men and women seemed overwh ~e!min~y opposed to the idea that the smoking ban
was a violation of any rights.. 61.61% of the men polled felt thax the ban did not infzinge upon
they private fights. 56.82% of the women also felt the same way.
Percents of Column Totals
Male Female Totals:
Yes 37.5% 42.05% 3g.5%
No 61.61% 56.82% 59.5%
Dent know .89% 1.14% 1%
Totals: 100% 100% 100%
In our sample only 77 percent of the eligible voters exercised the~z right. 21 percent of the
respondents that were eligible to vote chose not to do so on election day.
Percents of Column Totals
Yes No Dent knew Totals:
Yes 77.55% 0% · 0% 57%
No 21.77% 100% 66.67% 42%
Don't Know .68% 0% 33.33% 1%
Totals: 100% 100% 100% 100%
Since our sample was so well represente~ in each of the four age groups, we expected to
find an increased ~umber of individuals voting as age increased. It was our assimaption'tha~ as age
\ ,
increases so does political activity. Our hypothesis proved correct. In the under twenty-five.
category, 40.74% of the respondents had vow. xL while in the twentT-five to for:y-~ve r.a~gory ~
47.83% of the individuals polled had voted. In the age group between forty-fi, ye and sixty,
65.22% of responding individuals had voted in the last election. Of those people over the age of
sixty, 74.07% had voted in the last city election. These results confirmed our hypothesis that older
individuals turn out to vote with greater. ~equency.
Percents of Column Totals
Uoder 25 Twenty fiv... Forty five... Over 60 Totals:
Yes '40.74% 47.83% 65.22% 74.07% 57%
No 57.41% 52.17% 32.61% 25.93% 42%
'Don't Know 1.85% 0% 2.17% 0% 1%
Totals: 100% 1 00%. 100% 100% 100%
Gender seemed to play no part in the way people voted. The percentages of men and
women voting.in our sample were very close, showing that neither sex was more laqcely than the
other ~o vote.
Percents of Column ;l'otals
Male Female Totals:
Yes 59.82% 53.41% 57%
No 39.29% 45.45% 42%
Don't Know .89% 1.14% 1%
Totals: 100% 100% 00%
With your dissaisfac:ion in elecmd officials inu-'ea.mg we decided to cross refu--~.~ce those
who voted with those who did not with the way they felt about thc City Council. It should be
mentioned that at the time of this survey, anti-incumbent sentiment was sweeping across the nation
because of indecision about the national budget. National indecision plus the confusion of some
twenty-eight initiatives combined to anger the C~]ifornia elec',m'ate before the upcoming November.
1990 elections. Voter backlash hit the city and county of San Lais Obispo.
Of the respondents who voted, ~.3.82% believed that the city council ~ not doing an
effective job, while 55.06% felt that the city council was doing a good job in genre'ak Some
possible reasons for the decline in city council popularity could stem from the ongoing drought in
San Luis' County which has forced the council to make the di~cult decision of raising water rams.
The town has also been engaged in m~merons debates as to whether or not to control growth in San
Luis Obispo. The factions for and against have drawn serious campaign lines and the debate is
fierce. Any decSsion made by the council in these areas is likely to upset large n, mhers of
individuals.
Percents of Column Totals
Yes No Oont know Totals:
Yes 55.06% 68.92% 37.84% 57%
No 43.82% 29.73% 62.16% 42%
Don~ Know 1.12% 1.35% 0% 1%
Totals: 100% 100% 100% 100%
Since We unveiled a Iow level of voter sari.fraction with the city council, the next logical set
was to look at What age group represented the largest nnmber of individuals wt~o were not
satisfied. Our results showed surprising trends. Of those under the age of twenty-five, 53.7% ~
believed that the council was all right. In the twenty-five to forty-five category, the majority or
43.48% did not support'the city council. In the forty-five to sixty a§e group, opinions were even,
with 41.3% oppos .e~i, and 41.3% in support. In the over sixty a§e group, 40.74% were opposed,
and 40.74% in favor, while i8.52% rem~,~ed undec4ded. The results show tha~ those under
twend/-five, who are the most likely not to vote, were the most sa~fied with the city council.'
Percents of Column Totals
Under 25 Twenty fir... Forty five... Over $0 Totals:
Yes 53.7% 41.3% 41.3% 40.74°/° 44.5%
No 24.07% 43.48% 41.3% 40.74% 37%
Dont know 22.22% 15.22% 17.39% 18.52% 18.5%
Totals: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Since San Luis Obispo's smoking ordinance went into eff~t, there have only been eight
complaints fled with thc cky admin/strator, John Dunn as of Decemt:~' 1, 1990· Since thc
induction of the smoking ordin~mce, compliance has been unexpectedly high, with no fines lev/ed
to date. Local businesses and c/rizens seem to find compliance easier than originally thought.
By inidatkng the no-smoking ordinance, San Luis Obixpo took a bold startd on an
individuals fight to a smoke free environment. Individuals responsible for San Leis Obispo's
ordinance, such as Jerry Reiss, and Dr. Stephen I-tansen hope that other c/ties nation-wide will
follow the example se: by San Leis Obispo. San Luis Obispo's c/tizem'7 mSlX>nded quite
positively to the ordk~ce, with 73.5% of the individuals pol/ed in our survey responding
favorably. Re~onse rates like this lead us to believe that public opinion nation-wide is for a
smoke-free environment.
For c/ties interested in enacting smelting legislation of their o~wn., we recommend obtaining
a copy of the San Leis Obi.cpo orainance, through American's for Nonsmokers' Rights, at 2530
San Pablo Avenue, suite J, Berkeley, CA 94702. Ob~g a copy of Dr. Stephen Hansen's
Anatomy of an Ordinance, by writing to Dr. Stephen I-~anmn, 1235 Osos St San Leis Obispo,
'Ca. 93401, as wel/as contacting San Luis Obispo City Attom¢7, Jcffforgenson.
It is our hope ~at t/tis survey will be of help to other c/tics in deciding as to whether or not
they would likc to kfidate smoking lcg/sladon of their own. Hopefiflly thc resources and data listed
above w/II al.low you to take the steps necessary for a smoke-fi'ce environment.
MAJOR LEGISLATION REST~C~NG
'CIGARE~ ~NDING MAC~NES IN THE
Ordinanc~ $e&roly Limiting Cigam~e Vending Machi~:'
Allentown, PA Elk Grove, IL. Red Wing, MN
Ann Arbor, MI ~ Flushing, MI Rochester Hills, MI
Anoka, MN Framlngham, MA - San Francisco, CA
· Austin, MN Gillet, WA . San Marcos, CA
- Berkeley, CA Gillette, WY . San Mateo C6unty, CA
Bernards Township, N] Grand Fork~, ND , Santa Cruz, CA
Bethlehem, PA Hutchinson, MN , Santa Cruz County, C.A
Big Lake, MN' Houston, TX . Santa Rosa, CA
Blaine', MN Jac~on, MN Sartell, MN :
Bowie, MD Kasson, MN · Scotts Valley, CA
Brookline, MA King County, WA Seattle, WA '
Buffalo Grove, IL - Lafayette, CA S~0revi~w, ~
Cannon Falls, MN Leomimter, MA Snohomish C~unty, WA
- Capitola, CA · Loma Linda, CA 5olano Countyj CA
Concord, MA , Manteca, CA St, Paul, MN ~,
Champlin, MN Marquette County, MI Sterling Heights, MI
Charleston, IL Minneapolis, MN Takoma Park) MD
Chicago,,IL Montgomery County, PA · Ttburon, CA !
- Contra Costa County, CANew Brighton, MN Uwchlan, PA
'-'"Deer River, MN New York, NY o Walnut Creek, CA
Delano, MN Oakland County, MI West Goshen,,PA
Dennis, MA , Palo Alto, CA West St. Paui,iMN
District of Columbia ~ Paradise, CA , West Sacrame'nto, CA
· Duarte, CA , Petaluma, CA Westchester'Borough, PA
Duluth, MN Pittsburgh, PA - Whittier, CA '
East Lansing, MI Preston, MN Woodridge, I,L '
Easttown, PA Raleigh, NC Worthin~on, MN
, El Cerrito, CA
Utah Hawaii
* These typically ban vending machines everywhere except bars and other adult o. nl.y facilities.
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite O * Berkeley, California 94702. (415) 841-3032 / FAX (415) 841-7702
· ~
*DEL NORTE COUNTY EL DORADO COUNTY
Ms. Adele J. Sandry Virginia Powell
Health Educator Program Manager
Del Norte County Tobacco Tobacco Use Prevention PrOgram
Use Prevention Program E1 Dorado County Health Department
909 Highway 101N. 279 Placerville Drive, Suite E
Crescent City, CA 95531 Placerville, CA 95667
(707) 465-3360 (916) 621-6116
(707) 465-1470 FAX # (916) 621-4658 FAX #
*FRESNO COUNTY GLENN COUNTY
Mr. Mike Brand, M.P.H. Ms. Sharon Gibbs
Health Education Consultant Tobacco Control Program
Tobacco Control Program , Glenn County Health Services
Fresno County Department of Health 242 North Villa
P. O. Box 11867 Willows, CA 95988
Fresno, CA 93775 (916) 934-6582
(209) 445-3276 (916) 934-6592 FAX #
(209) 445-3370 FAX #
HUMBOLDT COUNTY IMPERIAL COUNTY
Ms. Peggy Falk ' Ms. Betty Mullendore
Health Education Program Manager Tobacco Control Coordinator
Humboldt County Heal th Department County of Imperial Heal th Department
529 I Street 935 Broadway
Eureka, CA 95501 E1 Centro, CA 92243
(707) 445-6200 (619) 339-4469
(707) 445-7328 FAX # (619) 352-9933 FAX #
INYO COUNTY KERN COUNTY
Ms. Sharon Rose Annalee Frisbie, M.P.H.
Tobacco Control Program Coord. Tobacco Control Program
Inyo County Health Department Kern County Health Department
P. O. Drawer H 1700 Flower Street
Independence, CA 93526 Bakersfield, CA 93305-4198
(619) 872-3733 (805) 861-363.1
(619) 872-3193 FAX # ".~. (805) .861-2018 FAX
KINGS COUNTY LAKE COUNTY
Ms. Paul'a Ayres, M.S.N.M.P.H. Jerry Street
Tobacco Control Project Director Health Administrator
Kings County Dept. of Public Health Lake County Health Department
330 Campus Drive 922 Bevins Court
Hanford, CA 93230 Lakeport, CA 95453-9780
(209) 584-1401 (707) 263-2241
(209) 582-0927 FAX # (707) 263-1662 FAX #
0 I T I S
~y ~nne Klink
you can not have missed it~California's massive public
health experiment aimed at tobaCCO control, Those pointed
billboards reminding us all that smoking.kills have now
been joined by overwhelming figUres on the*effects of secondhand
smoke. The public is aroused, and when that happens, they tum
for help to their city officials. California cities have responded with
ordinances and policies that were thought impossible a short five
years ago. Today, more than 180 of California's 463 cities have
some form of city-sanctioned smoking control. See "Where
Califomia Cities Stand On Smoking Regulation" (on page 6) for
details on results of a recent League of Califomia Cities survey
on smoking regulation in California Cities.
~nne Klin~ is Project Coordinator for the California Smo~e-Free Cities Pro~ect. 3
WESTE~ CITY, JUNE 1991
Smoke-Free Cities, Continued
THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH
The Healthy Cities model, developed · Protecting the physical result, the city, which is the
under the auspices of the World Health environment through develo'l> only municipality to be selected
Organization and now in place in hun- ment of an integrated waste man- for a competitive grant award,
dreds of cities around the globe, provides agement program; received $150,000 to develop and
an integrated approach to enhancing the · Improving public safety through a targeted implement a Worksite Tobacco Control
health of a c~ by focusing on a process for Project. Small commercial businesses (with
community improvement. Resident partici- effort to curb youth-oriented drug and gang
pation in determining health and health- activities; fewer than 100 employees) are provided
services to encourage workers to stop
related needs as well as devising and · Offedng adult literacy and English-as-Second- smoking and support for creating a smoke-
implementing solutions is the cornerstone Language programs to provide, residents with free environment.
of the Healthy Cities approach. The public the skills that allow them to improve their
The Healthy Cities Project sponsors
and private sectors of the community are physical, mental and social health;
also vital partners in this process. California Smoke-Free Cities as a targeted,
' · Developing an educational campaign about issue-specific approach to public policy
In California, translating the model into real- AIDS targeted to business and industry; issues. It provides a catalyst for cities to
ity is the goal of the California Healthy Cities· Implementing injury preVention programs, in- develbp, health promotion strategies that
Project. Since'1988, the Project has sup- have an impact on the quality of life of their
ported several California ~;ities to become cluding seat belt-use and water safety; and residents. Funded by the Department of
"living laboratories" to demonstrate how · Promoting independent living for thosewith Health Services through revenues generat-
healthy city environments can be created in long-term care needs, through'increased co- ed by Proposition 99, California Smoke-Free
our state, ordination of existing social services and con- Cities is a statewide effort to help munici-
California's Healthy Cities are a diverse struction of a Adult Day Health Care facility, pal leaders and health officials develop and
implement tobacco control strategies.
group of municipalities, both large and Using its local Healthy Cities project ~ cre- Project services include training programs,
small, affluent and disadvantaged, located ating a "Tobacco Free City" -- as a spdng- technical assistance, and ec~ucational mate-
acrossthe state. The local health concerns board for expanding community activity, rials. Contracted by the' Western
they address are as diverse as the charac- Rohnert Park successfully competed for a Consortium for Public Health, the partners
ter of the communities they serve. Their grant from the Department of Health in this venture are the League of California
efforts include: Services' Tobacco Control Section. As a Cities, the California Healthy Cities Project,
The survey was one of the first activities
Independent financial consultants serving, tmdertaken by the League as a parmer in
Californ ia rn u n icipalities, the california Smoke-Free Cities Project.
The project is ~unded by a grant adminis-
Clients Served: Financing For: tered by the Westei'n Consortium for
Public Health through the California
· San Diego · Assessment Healthy Cities Project. Funds were made
· Orange · Mello-Roos possible by Proposition 99 revenues and
administered through the California
· San Francisco · parking Department of,Health Services. That 25-
· Riverside · Redevelopment cents-a-pack tax Californians voted for so
· Sacramento · Infrastructure overwhelmingly in November 1988 has
funded an unprecedented amount--S156
· Inyo · Leasing million the first year and a half--for tobac-
co education programs--and from an
unprecedented source--a public vote.
EVENSEN DODGE,INC. The public knew what it Wanted: help
with a major public health problem. But
Suite 430 Suite 5o0 perhaps only city officials realized how
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 San Francisco, CA 95104 clearly tobacco control was a p. olic-v issue
714/545-1212 415/955-2675 '
limothy I. Schaefer Richard Moral~ for cities..Many already had tobacco con-
Cheryl E. Yanagida trO] policies and ordinances. A 1989 nation-
4 wide study of local ordinances done by
LEAGUE OF' CALIFORNIA CITIES
California, San Francisco. With the effects Council members who are longtime smok-
e I I I [ S P R O I [ C T of involuntary smoking convincingly docu- ers support limiting youth access to
ment?d, cities acted to protect employees, cigarettes and often support bans on smok-
residents, local young people. The survey ing in city facilities and other enclosed
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and the tells the story, places accessible to the public. Members of
Health Officers Association of California. Some additional information has the public who smoke often support
emerged from more informal sources, smoke-free restaurants because they elim-
A priority of many Healthy Cities' initiatives from telephone calls about the survey, from inate occasions for discourtesy and conflict.
is the empowerment of citizens who -- for League training meetings, from California Employees who smoke often support
reasons of poverty; Iow levels of education Healthy Cities Project workshops, from smoke-free workplaces for the same rea-
or English language skills -- may lack the requests for information, from reports sons. Restaurant owners accept restrictions'
knowledge, skills and opportunity to about hearings on proposed ordinances. Continued on page 32
improve their own health.
The California Healthy Cities Project assists
cities by external
· identifying sources of funds and
program resources, ' ' L.~ L~ []
· sponsoring statewide conferences and I-'1 r-J r"l
regional meetings,
· distributing the "Connections" newsletter
and other information, Information systems Management and Capital planning
· establishing linkages between persons with evaluation, design finandal audits and management
similar interests, and and implementation
· providing a resource guide to support local
city efforts to improve health and ,ivability.=-dlEeNsr&YouNc
To loam how your city can benefit, contact:
California Healthy Cities Project, 714 P
Street, P.O. Box 942732, Sacramento, Calif-
Americans for Nonsmokers Rights for the
United States Department of Health and Economic analysis Litigation support Cost containment
Human Services showed that nearly half of and operations
all local ordinances were from California improvement
cities. Since the passage of Proposition 99
the momentum has increased and the
trend has consistently been in the direction
of increased restriction. Local action on CONSULT WITH US
tobacco control is an inspiring example of
how quickly and flexibly cities can respond
to an issue which, though widespread, is / ,
Studies about the dangers of involuntary
smoking (breathing smoke from others' : 3
cigarettes) are relatively recent and the
are impressive. A report from the
Surgeon General of the United States lists it
as the third leading cause of preventable
death, after smoking and alcohol. For Southern California Sacramento San Frandsco
every eight who die from the effects of Larry Seigel Joe Hill Fred Brousseau
smoking, one dies from the effects of sec- (714) 252-2402 (916) 443-6756 (415) 951-3000
ondhand smoke, according to researcher
Stanton Glantz of the University of 5
WESTERN CIT'L IUNE 1991
~ H w R !~ I~ A L I F O R N I A
RE. StILTS OF LEA61]E SURVEY
O ne of the first activities of the The second most frequent subject listed Recent ordinances do not merely limit but
California 'Smoke-Free Cities by cities with tobacco control is restricting ban smoking and apply not only to restau-
partnership was a compre- smoking in restaurants--82 percent of the rants but to "enclosed public places"
tobacco control ordinances cited, defined to include retail stores, elevators,
henSive survey asking every cry What appears to be far more significant lobbies, meeting rooms, transit vehicles,
about tJ~ status of tobacco coil- than the increased numbers of smoking even sports facilities. (Did you know that
trol there. The survey went out regulations, however, is the consistent any amount of spittin' and scratchin' there
in two parts: one to city man-
agers about tobacco control in
general and one to city clerks
asking about the specifics of the ASAMPLER OF RECENT
city's tobacco regulation. After
a series of critiques and field · The very latest--as Of May 7, 1991,
tests, the survey was mailed in city council of Paradise voted unanimousl/
December 1990. to eliminate smoking in enclosed public
places including restaurants and work-
The first evidence of how strongly people places. The next city in Butte County to
feel about tobacco controlwasthe extraor- consider a similar ordinance will be
dinarily high rate of return. Seventy-eight Oroville. This type of go-for-it trend really
percent of dty managers and 86 percent of About twelve began to pick u p after the City of Lodi
city clerks responded, percent of cities adopted a similarly strict ordinance in June
Forty percent of California cities have with ordinances reported 1990. And, although it-was put to a refer-
tobacco control, up from 34 percent in just that they Were considering endum the following November,the voter~.
two short years. The most common regula- revisions~all aimed affirmed the ordinance by a vote of 60 per*
ton cited by respondents with some form ~ at strengthening cent to 40 percent.
of tobacco control was city-owned facilities, the .ordinance. · San Luis Obispo took a slightly different
Sometimes smoking there was regulated approach wl~en it became the first city to
by administrative policy, sometimes by eliminate smoking in public places including
short and explicit ordinance, sometimes not only restaurants but bars as well.
explicitly included in comprehensive ordi- ·
nances, but titles interested in tobacco con- * Sacramento actopted the first ordinance in
trol recognize that charity begins at home. trend to Stricter and broader limits on the the country which prol~ibits smoking entirely
use of tobacco in public. About twelve per- in all worRpiaces. The ordinance, which aisc
(A matrix of California ordinances listing cent of cities with ordinances reported that requires restaurants to go smoRefree withir
the provisions of each is being prepared and they were considering revisions~all aimed 18 mont~s, was mocteled after one recently
will be ready th~ summer. Inquiries indicate at strengthening the ordinance, passed in Sacramento Coun'o/that phases in
that it will be useful far beyond California. Ordinances from the early eighties typ- a complete restaurant smoking ban over
Meanwhile, the League has samples of all ically provided for nonsmoking sections in three years. The county ordinance, however,
the ordinances mentioned and many more, restaurants of certain threshold sizes and
all available for the asking. Contact the several cities had ordinances or policies
League library at [916] 444-5790.) about smok!ng at council meetings.
6
I'1 N
GN TOBACCO ORDINANCES
may be o.k. but A's games at the Oakland allowed phase-in periods. And not every And nearly as many cities limit smoking in
Coliseum are smoke-free except for two, restaurant ordinance exempts bars. San private sector workplaces as limit restau-
limited sections. That's A's policy.) Nego- Luis Obispo is out in front of the pack--the rant smoking. Twenty-seven percent pro-
tiations over ordinances have taken a first city to include bars in its ban on vide no exemption for small businesses.
new direction with the result that recent restaurant smoking. Some ordinances have changed from pro-
compromises have not diminished the In view of recent workers compensation viding that workplaces which are visited
size of nonsmoking areas but have cases which have paid claims based on by the public be smoke-free to requiring
that, all workplaces be smoke-free, even
lounge areas and private offices occupied
by smokers.
Attention has moved beyond smoking
'OCAL ACTIVITI ES restxiction to other forms of tobacco con-
trol. (Even the tobacco industry says they
support limiting youth access to tobacco.)
faces an upcoming referendum. It is already against the law to sd] tobacco
· Following the lead of Grass Valley, Nevada products to minors, but a vending machine
County recently enacted an ordinance calling does not ]mow a minor's money from any-
for 100 pement smoke-free workplaces and one' e]se's. The North Bay Rea]th Re-
a phased-in elimination of smoking in sources Center, a community-based pro-
restaurants. And on the heels of Walnut ject operat~g in four Bay Area counties,
Creek's enacting smoke-free policies for has demonstrated through STAM? (Stop
restaurants and workplaces and severely lirn- Seven cities Tobacco Access for Minors Projec0 how
iting the sales of cigarettes through vending have restricted easily kids can buy cigarettes. Out of 176
machines, Contra Costa County and tobacco vending machines stores in Sonoma County that sell tobacco,
.Alameda County's tobacco control coalitions to bars and three more childrenwere able to purchase tobacco in
are attempting to persuade all cities within 68 percent of the stores. The "success"
' the respective counties to adopt ordinances have banned them rate was almost 100 percent with vending
that would not only ban smoking in restau- altogether, machines. In the city of Napa, children
rants and workplaces but would also limit were able to purchase tobacco 62 percent
sales of cigarettes through vending ma- of the time and were successful with vend-
chines. Ordinances restricting sales by ven~L lng machines 100 percent of the time.'
lng machines are currently under considera- · Seven cities have restricted tobacco vend-
tion in Berkeley, Davis and San Francisco, working in an environment where smok- lng machines to bars and three more have
and ordinances eliminating sales through lng is permitted, the most significant banned them altogether. Halfofthevending
vending machines have already been passed change for local governments may be machine ordinances have been enacted
in Rancho Mirage, Vallejo, and Watsonville. expanded workplace restrictions. Hardly since 1989. Billboards advertising dgaret~es
· Banning distribution of free samples of any nonsmokers feel pressured to remain may not be placed within 500 feet of a schoo]
tobacco products is the focus of current eight hours in a restauram or hallway, but ~ Long Beach. Three cities reported ba~s
consideration in Los Angeles. they do have to work. LLmiting smoking in' on free disU'ibution of cigarette samples.
city-owned workplaces is the most popular When managers from dties with tobacco
form of tobacco control--90 percent of con~'ol ordinances were asked about fac-
cities with tobacco control ordinances. Continued on page 32
7
WESTERN Cra', JUNE 1991
Smoke-Free Cities, Continued from page 5
that include other local businesses and do immediate service, restaurants are espe- ornia Restaurant Association has testified
not single out restaurants. 'cially sensitive to variations in market con- during a hearing on the Walnut Creek
Although the public health proble~n ditions. Recognizing the declining popular- ordinance that its members would agree
posed by involuntary smoking is wide- ity of smoking-only 21 percent of adult to 100 percent smoke-free requirements,
spread, regulation and its enforcementis a asking that restaurants not be singled out
matter of local police power, i.e. the author- but that all enclosed places open to the
ity to regulate behavior. Furthermore, for public be similarly regulated. The
practical reasons and for reasons having to Association also conditions its assent on
do with the very nature of community-level uniform, statewide regulation.
self governance, local government author- Only local regulation can adequately
ity is probably the best effective authority reflect local conditions and provide the
for tobacco regulation in' most cases. City flexibility and responsiveness necessary to
government can not eliminate smoking educate merchants, as well as customers.
among its constituents, as it can not elimi- Rohnert Park, a northern California city of
nate drinking, but it can protect residents 35,000 has received a grant from the
from the public effects of both and its lead- California Department of Health Services
ers may feel a special responsibility to pro- through funds made available by the pas-
tect community young people, sage of Proposition 99 to implement a pro-
To address the problem of tobacco use by gram specifically designed to assist small
kids, local authorities have legislated restric- Residents have retail businesses in complying with tobac-
lions on the locations of billboards advertis- turned to city hall co regulation..
lng cigarettes, and on the locations of vend- for help because it is Perhhps the strongest argument for
lng machines selling cigarettes. Vending accessible and local action in this policy area is the spe-
machine regulations effectively address the responsive, because cial strength of the ties between local res-
issue of youth access and'are relatively eas- Concerned citizens idents and their community government.
ily enforced through business licenses, know they will Residents have turned to city hall for help
Other than tobacco producers and sell- be heard there, because it is accessible and responsive,
ers themselves, the business perceived to because concerned citizens know they
be the most visibly impacted by smoking will be heard there. By contrast, testimo-
regulation is probably the restaurant · ny from tob-acco industry lobbyists at
industry, an essentially local industry. The local heatings and industry-funded news-
restaurant industry, including its franchise paper advertisements to oppose pro-
operators, is composed of local outlets posed local ordinances seem out of place
which individually are small businesses,. Californians still smoke--and the difficul- and even offensive. Flaunt your bucks?
employing local people and serving large- ty of maintaining smoke-free nonsmoking Not in my hometown!
ly local residents, licensed and inspected sections, many individual restaurant own-
by local government personnel. Because ers have voluntarily made their businesses ·
their primary product is a customized and smoke-free. A representative of the Calif-
)
Where California Cities Stand On Smoking Reg~lation, Continued from page 7
tors that influenced adoption, more than 75 terns will be available: Are certain features of co control to be published this summer. All
percent ranked commitment of council as tobacco regulation associated with titles of a will be useful information but the big mes-
more significant than any other of fourteen certain size, region, or economy? What are sage is .already out--California cities are
possible factors. Information about the the patterns between groups of survey ques- rolling their own tobacco control and the
health effects of smoking ranl~ed second tions? Are some kinds of ordinances linked whole world is watching.
with 63 percent and support from con- to certain adoption dynamics? Complete sur-
stituency third with 55 percent, vey information, together with the matrix of
Further study of the survey is still being local ordinances, case studies, and other data
conducted. Eventually information about pat- will be included in a reference work on tobaC- .I
32 ~.
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
Enjoy Dining at the Following Smoke-Free Restaurants:
BAKERSFIELD ROSEMARY'$ FAMm¥ C~AMER¥ KERNVILLE , TAFT ·
2737 "F" Street 395-0555
THE BURGER HUT 6401 White Lane 833-8166 CHILLY WILLIE'S ALL IN THE SANDWICH SHOP
1112 19th Street 323-1084 - STARS THEATRE RESTAURANT -! 1117 Kernville Road 376-4559 700 Kern Street 765-4143
BUSY BUNS 324 Bernard Street 325-6100
, :SUENA VISTA GOLF SHop
4400 Ashe Road, No. 217 833-2879 SUB STOP LOST HILLS 10256 Golf CoUrse Road 763-5124
CARL'S JUNIOR RESTAURANTS ' 2592 Brundage Lane 324-8137 JENO'S MEXICAN FOOD
CARL'S JUNIOR 215 Center Street 763-1251
All eight locations TCBY YOGURT SHOPS '21937 Highway 46 797-2542
5149 Ming Avenue 397-8229
COURTSIDE AT LAURELGLEN
3501 Mall View Road 871-9230
6901 Ming Avenue 833-3541
TOO FAT SANDWICH SHOPS MOJAVE TEHACHAPI
4 M'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT
5011 Stockdale Highway 832-9050 S.ILO. DELI, BAKERY AND CATERING
2830 Niles Street 873-7922 1825'"F" Street 324-3567 CARL'S JUNIOR 1121 Valley Blvd., Suite D 822-8089
FRUGATFI'S WOOD PIRED PI?7.A 15900 Sierra Highway 824-2858
600 Coffee Road 836-2000 WARRIOR'S DEN
' BUTTONWILLO W -.~ 2~3 South Curry Street 822-7624
THE GARDEN SPOT ~ RIDGECREST
3320 Truxtun Avenue 323-3236 CARL'S JUNIOR YOGURT PLAZA
20640 Tracy Avenue 764-6302 AL & REED'S I08 E. Tehachapi Blvd. 822-0823
THE GUILD HOUSE ALL NATURAL ICE CREAM
GOURMET LUNCHEONS · ~0 N. China Lake Blvd., No. C-I 371-1771
i 90s i Sth St,~et 32~-S47~ D ELAN O WA SC O
~CARL'S JUNIOR
THE IVY RESTAURANT ' ',230 S. China Lake Blvd. 375-7233 TACO BELL
1804 Chester Avenue 325-9725 TACO BELL 2t415 Highway 46 '824-9433
~ 1640 High Street 725-1571 ~' ·
!TACO BELL
JAKE'S ORIGINAL TEX-MEX CAFE "201 S. China Lake Blvd. 371-3349
1710 Oak Street 322-6380
co,,ntywiae surwd conaucted by the Kern County
PEPE'S POLLOS SHAFTER
4158 California Avenue 327-1378 Tobacco Free Coalition in February 1992. If you know of
2641 Oswell Street, Suite B 872-7100 EDIE'S GERMAN DELI ~ smoke-free restaurant which should be included in our
16241 Askin Drive 242-7282 ;GIOVANNI'S ORIGINAL pI?7.A ~xt publication, please contact the T~'Education
RACHEL'S MANDARIN HOUSE ~AND PASTA COMPANY Program of the Kern County H~alth Department at (805)
325 East 21st Steer 324-2665 ' ~.30 Walker Street 746-2000 ~61-3631.
The,Kern County Tobacco Free Coalition SMOKE-FREE DINING IN DID YOUKNO W?
serves' as. the focal point for promoting
communityawareness and education KERN COUNTY
regarding tobacco use and environmental
tobacco smoke. ~* The simple separation of smokers
:. ~ ~ ,~.~,' ~' . and nonsmokers in the same air
:,' ~'~'~,'ii~::'~'.'~':df!':. :. :,: , KernCounty boasts an abundance of fine restau- space does not eliminate exposure
;~:;'; :'TOBaCCO-EDUCATION PROGRAM : ," ~ '"~ ~ /~" , h palate. The restaurants printed in this guide offer of nonsmokers to environmental
'~ ,. (805) 861-3631 '~ ""~ ' , i" ~'~' , you the finest dining experience possible by tobacco smoke, according to the
eliminating smoke from their environments. Here's 1986 U. S. Surgeon General's
CALL US: what some local restaurant owners say about
'- smoke-free dining: Report.
~ If your restaurant is smoke free 'In my business we have one objective: to create the ~' Tobacco smoke is the leading
and we'll add it to our next guide. ' nicest environment possible for 100 percent of our
customers. Since only 25 percent of the population cause of indoor air pollution.
~ If you have any questions or smokes, that minority should not create an unpleasant, Environmental tobacco smoke
comments about restaurants listed, smo~ environment for the 75 percent majority.' contains more than 4,000 chemical
- Ralph Fruguglietti
Frusatti's Wood Fired Pizza and compounds, 43 of which are
· Giovanni's Original Pizza & Pasta Company known to cause cancer, according
to the Environmental Protection
'We are proud to be a 100 percent nonsmoking facility!'
- Carol Ann Bianco Agency.
Courtside at Laurelglen
DRAFT -Involuntary smoking is a cause of
· '" ofcust~ re,~-t~ ~ ~'t ~.r ~t~z,in~ disease, including lung cancer, in
~o~ e~r ~.' healthy nonsmokers, reports the
I1 ;i1 - Rosemary De Marco U.S. Surgeon General.
" ~(I "s=o~,~ ~ ~ ~.ter~.a/uct~ to the ~tt~/oo~ ~ Research conducted at the Univer-
"1 ~,,t=osp~ ~ ~t T~ C,.rde~ Spot. I'~ ne~, sity of California at San Francisco
[7~ ~ Many, many time~ I have cu~on~r$ come np and thank showed that environmental to-
~ [,'~ me for having a no-smoking atmosphere.' bacco smoke kills more than 53,000
- Alex Wilson nonsmokers in the United States
' each year.
This brochure was made possible by funds received/xom ~ITY ~P~bdAC{E~'$ OFFiO~ ~I have a deli/restaurant and bemuse of the fresh meats
the Tobacco Tax Health Protection Act of 1988, Proposition · - and cheeses I am slicing there is no smoking in my place. ~' The Environmental Protection
99. People like it very much. ~
4/92 .... -Edie Gawron Agency has classified secondhand
Edie's German Deli smoke a Class A Carcinogen like
, Your Tobacco Tax Dollars at Work asbestos, radon and benzene.
THE TOBACCO FREE COALI ON OF KERN COUNTY
1700 Flower Street
Bakersfield, CA 933054198
805 / 861-3631
April 3, 1992
The Honorable Patricia M. Smith
Chairperson, Legislative and Litigation Committee~
Bakersfield City Council ~~gH~
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Councilmember Smith:
The Tobacco Free Coalition of Kern County was pleased to learn
that the subject of a city-wide smoking ordinance has been
referred to your committee by councilman Mark Salvaggio.
Our coalition, of course, is very supportive of such a document,
and we are asking that we be able to meet before the committee as
you consider this ordinance. It is our firm belief that the
"climate is right" for the introduction and adoption of such a
piece of legislation, particularly in light of all the recent
studies which show in excess of 40,000 people per year are dying
from the effects of second-hand smoke. People are now realizing
that this is a health issue, not a "rights" issue.
It is also our understanding that Bakersfield, our "All American
City"r is the last major city in California without any kind of
public smoking ordinance!
We are including some background information on the subject for
your information. He appreciate your willingness to discuss this
issue, and want to assure you that our coalition (comprised of
many local agencies, organizations and individuals) is striving
to serve the best interest of the citizens of our community, and
is open to compromise and negotiation as this process moves
forward.
(Continued)
Hon. Patricia M. Smith
4-3-92 (Page 2)
Thank you for your attention in this matter, and we look forward
to your response.
half of the Tobacco Free Coalition,
~6hn.~'vC~ye ' Bonnie Mahan
/American Heart Association
American Cancer %ocietv
Richard ~alion fnnale_e Fris~l MPH
Kern County Dept. of Health
Amebean /~n~A~sociation
Kern County Medical Society
Auxilary
JRC/dh:tcc:4/3/92
cc: Honorable Patricia J. Demond
Honorable Lynn Edwards
Lawrence Lunardini, Esq., City Attorney
J. Dale Hawley, City Manager
THE TOBACCO FREE COALITION OF K~RN COUNTY
1700 Flower Street
B~kersfield, CA 933054198
805 / 861-3631
March 24, 1992
Mark,
Here is the packet of information promised with the position paper on top.
Hope this is helpful in our efforts. Your concern in this matter and help through the process
is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Annalee
THE TOBACCO FREE COALITION OF I~RN COUNTY
1700 Flower Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305-4198
805 / 861-3631
POSITION PAPER FOR CITYWIDE SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE IN BAKERSFIELD
The effects of environmental tobacco smoke--also known as secondhand or sidestream smoke--
are a major concern for all Bakersfield citizens. The smoke from other people's cigarettes has
long been regarded as an unpleasant irritant, but not until recently has environmental tobacco
smoke (ETS) received attention as a health hazard. The health consequences of smoking have
long been understood. In 1990, 430,000 American smokers died from lung cancer, heart disease
and other tobacco-related diseases. Smoking cigarettes is the most important preventable cause
of death for Americans.
However, research conducted by Dr. Stanton Glantz and Dr. William Parmley at the University
of California San Francisco, showed that ETS kills more than 53,000 nonsmokers in this country
each year, making it the third leading cause of preventable death in the country. Furthermore,
a scientific advisory board of the Environmental Protection Agency unanimously concluded that
ETS is a Class A carcinogen like asbestos, radon and benzene. In other words, ETS is a
substance known to cause cancer in humans and there is no safe level of exposure.
ETS is a public health hazard which deserves the attention of Bakersfield citizens. According
to the U. S. Surgeon General, the simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same
air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to ETS.
Unfortunately, the ventilation equipment installed in most restaurants and workplaces simply
does not remove'the smoke adequately since the standards established by the American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers treat tobacco smoke odor as an
irritant rather than a health risk.
Cities and counties throughout California are taking action against this public health threat by
enacting ordinances which restrict smoking in workplaces, restaurants and other public places.
In 1990, San Luis Obispo adopted an ordinance which eliminates smoking in restaurants and
bars. Lodi passed a similar ordinance that same year which prohibits smoking in restaurants
alone. In 1991, another valley agricultural community, Visalia, passed a 100 percent smoking
ban for restaurants which will be phased in by April of 1993. To date, 26 California counties
and cities have enacted no-smoking ordinances.
Ordinance Position Paper
Page Two
Many restaurateurs hesitate adopting smoke-free policies in their own establishments for fear that
they will lose business to restaurants which allow smoking. They maintain that an ordinance
will be fair to all restaurants in the area. Some restaurant owners say a smoke-free ordinance
would hurt business in the entire community and they point to other cities in California which
allegedly 10st business after an ordinance was passed. However, laws that eliminate smoking
in restaurants have no effect on business, according to a new study from the University of
California, San Francisco. After analyzing the sales tax receipts from San Luis Obispo, Lodi,
Bellflower and Beverly Hills, the researchers concluded that, if anything, smoke-free ordinances
actually lead to a slight increase in the share of total retail sales for restaurants in those areas.
A citywide smoke-free ordinance will firmly establish Bakersfield as a progressive leader in
eliminating indoor air pollution. ETS is now known as more than just an irritant--it poses a
considerable risk to public health. Given the above evidence, a no-smoking ordinance is not
likely to adversely affect business in Bakersfield. Indeed, a smoke-free ordinance will enhance
Bakersf~eld's status as an All-America City by demonstrating that our community truly cares
about the health and well being of its citizens. Therefore, the Tobacco Free Coalition of Kern
County proposes a no-smoking policy for all public buildings in the city of Bakersfield.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA..-.HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
714/744 p STREET
P.O. BOX 942732
BACKGROU~
CALZFORNZA'S PROGRAlt
California's voters approved the Tobacco Tax and Health
Promotion Act of 1988 (Proposition 99) which added a 25 cent
tax to each pack of cigarettes sold in the state. Revenues
from this additional tobacco tax are spent on tobacco-related
research, health education, and health care. Twenty percent
of the taxes generated were earmarked for health education
efforts aimed at the prevention and reduction of tobacco .use.
These funds are jointly administered by the California
Department of Health Services (DHS) and the California
Department of Education (CDE). The combined efforts of these
agencies and others are directed toward achieving the
ambitious goal set by the Legislature of reducing tobacco
consumption by 75 percent in the state of California by the
year 1999.
The tobacco health education campaign launched by TCS includes
funding for a state implemented media campaign, local health
departments, competitively selected regional and
community-based projects, as well as an extensive evaluation
of the entire tobacco education campaign.
a. LOCAL LEAD AGENCIES
California's 61 county and city health departments were
legislatively designated as local lead agencies (LLA's)
anO are charged with organizing and supporting a local
tobacco control coalition; providing comprehensive
tobacco control planning for the community; and
providing a coordinated information, technical
assistance, referral, outreach, and service system to
prevent and reduce tobacco use. The coalition's purpose
is to assist in the development, implementation, and
coordination of tobacco control efforts at the local
level.
-4-
2. EP[DEFIZOLOGZC AND PREVALENCE DATA
Tobacco use is the single most Preventable cause of death and
disease, yet 21.2 percent of California's adult population
continue to smoke, and as much as lg.4 percent of the adult
population in California's rural northern counties use
smokeless tobacco.
A myth perpetuated bythe tobacco industry is that tobacco use
is an adult choice. However, research data indicate quite the
opposite. The Surqeon General's Report ¢n Smoktno and Heal~
noted that gO percent of those currently smoking started
before the age of 20. In California, an estimated 200 youth
start smoking every day, with experimentation primarily taking
place between the ages of 11 and 14, and the critical period
for determining lifelong smoking habits occurring when a child
nears the seventh grade.
Tobacco use is a serious problem with 42,000 deaths attributed
to its use annually in California alone. However, the health
risk from tobacco smoke goes beyond that of the direct user.
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) contains many of the toxic
agents present in mainstream smoke and is classified as a
Class A Carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Reviews of epidemiologic studies by the Surgeon General and
National Research Council and others estimate the risk of lung
cancer to be approximately 30 percent greater for a nonsmoker
living with a smoker compared with a nonsmoker living with a
nonsmoker. The research also indicates a possible association
between exposure to ETS and an increased risk of heart disease
among nonsmokers. Based upon its review of the research, the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
determined that ETS is potentially carcinogenic to
occupationally exposed workers and issued a recomnendation in
June of 1991 that employers should minimize occupational
exposure to ETS by using all available preventive measures.
While exposure to tobacco smoke can be dangerous for adults,
it is especially so for children. Children have been shown to
absorb more nicotine from ETS than adults, they are exposed
'over a longer period of time, and their developing respiratory
systems may be especially vulnerable to toxic damage.
Children of parents who smoke have an increased prevalence of
respiratory symptoms (cough, sputum, wheeze) and increased
frequency 6f bronchitis, pneumonia, and chronic ear
infections.
-7-
/
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The potential effect of local ordinances requiring smoke free restaurants on
restaurant revenues is an important consideration for restaurateurs themselves and cities
which depend on sales tax revenues to provide city services.
To assess thc effects of such ordinances on rcstauranta, we obtained data from thc
California State Board of Equalization on taxable restaurant sales from January 1, 1986,
'through the June 30, 1991, for the communities of Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Lodi, and San
Luis Obispo, where 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances were in force, as well as similar
communities (L,akcwood, Los Angeles, Woodland, and Ataw. adero) where no such
ordinances were in effect.
These data were analyzed using a multiple linear regression econometric model,
including year (for the underlying time trend), quarter (for seasonal adjustment) and a
variable to indicate whether or not an ordinance was in force at the time.
We analyzed:
· Total restaurant sales
· Restaurant sales as a fraction of total retail sales
· Restaurant sales in cities with smoke free restaurant ordinances versus a
comparison city that had no such ordinance.
This analysis showed:
· The presence of a 100% smoke free restaurant ordinance had no significant
effect on total restaurant sales in any community.
· The presence of a 100% smoke free restaurant ordinance was associated with
a small, but statistically significant, increase in the fraction of total retail sales
that went to restaurants. (Restaurant sales increase from about 13% to about
14% of total retail sales when a smoke free restaurant ordinance was in
force.)
· The presence of a 100% smoke free restaurant ordinance had no significant
effect on the ratio of restaurant sales in communities with such an ordinance
compared with matched control communities which had no such restrictions.
· The effects of a 100% smoke free ordinance were sirm'lar on all categories of
restaurants, defined by the kind of alcoholic beverages (if any) were served.
There is no evidence to support the common claim, first made in Beverly Hills, that
smoke free restaurant ordinances reduce business by 30%. The overall conclusion from
these da,.a is that 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances do not adversely affect restaurant
sales within a community or lead to a shift in patronage to restaurants in communities with
no such ordinances. If anything, 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances make restaurants
more competitive for retail sales dollars.
The Effect of Ordinancee Flequirtng Smoke Free Restaurants
on Restaurant Salee in Celifomi.
Un~em~ o{ Celifon~, San Fmnciaco Usa R. A. Sm~, BA
1368 Suttet ~treeL 11~ Floor
San Frm'K:m:O,.~ 941O9
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER 2
~zcu~t cc~mrn~ amaJm P.O. BOX 2134
~ INGLEWOOD. CA 90305
ecrm aO,,.E~a ~O
m~ March 11, 1992 (~3) ~9.~
~ ~ (213) 757.11~
~s~ To: Robert Adler, ~ D.
~.u President, California Chapter 2, ~
~~. From: Paul Fleiss, MD, Chair, Environmental Hazards
~ Co~ittee
~~ Re: Resolution - Children and Second-Hand Smoke
~.~ WHEREAS, Second-hand cigarette smoke has been demon-
~~-o strated to be a health hazard for children, increasing
~~"~ the morbidity of asthma, otitis media, and upper respi-
(8~) ~
~.~ ~ER~S, cigarette smoking by adults in ~he presence of
(~,g~*~ children may significantly injure the child by inad-
~~"~ verten/ burns, and may influence the child to follow
c-~..~ the adult example,
~t ~ L~ UD
~~; ~HE~EAS, ?he ~oney used ~o purchase s~o~in9 ~erisls
(~3)
~~.0 could be pu~ to better use to the benefi~ of children,
m~a RESOLVED, That the American Academy of Pediatrics
~,~ reco~ends parents not smoke ~n ~heir homes when chil-
~'~ dren are
c~3),~ present, and encourage them to stop smoking
~B ~,..D completely,
~.~-~ RESOLVED, That the American Academy of Pediatrics
~~~ reco~ends smoking of any substance not be pe~itted by
~. law in any public place where children are allowed
~C ~.MD
~~.MD
~T~I ~.MD
-. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE on
LABOR and EMPLOYMENT
TERRY B. FRIEDMAN, Chairman
.3ta~e Caa~to~ ,=os~ Cffice =_ox 942849 Sacramemo, CA 94249-0001 ~916) 445-2657
Thursday, February 13, 1992
- Con=act: Karin Caves
Phone: 445-4956
AB 2667, a bill to ban smoking in all enclosed work~laces, was
introduced today by Assemblyman Terry Friedman (D-Los Angeles.)
"Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death
in the United States," said Friedman, who chairs the Assembly
Committee on Labor and Employmen:. Researchers recently have
estimated that secondhand exposure to cigarette smoke causes
37,000 deaths a year from hear% disease and 16,000 deaths due =o
various forms of cancer.
"The tobacco indus=fy will argue =hat there is no proven health
hazard from environmental tobacco smoke," Friedman said. "But 'a
federal Judge recen=ly forced disclosure of secret =obacco
indus=fy documents, which he said show that industry 'may be the
king of concealment and disinforma=ion.' The Surgeon General, the
Environmental Pro:ection'Agency and =he National Research Council
all recognize tha~ exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a
workplace health hazard. The most effective and leas= costly way
=o prevent exposure in the workplace is =o prohibit smoking."
In the past, opponents of local smoking ordinances have argued
that such regulation should be s~a=ewide. "I hope the foes of
local ordinances will join with me in this s=atewide effor~ 'to
pro%eot-Californians from the effects of secondhand smoke at
work," Friedman said.
KC:6:92
District Office
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849 14144 Ventura Blvd.. No. 100
Sacramento. CA 94249-0001 Shelman Oaks. CA 91423
,(~ m ~=..~? r8181 501-8991
Other people's smoke -
Can other people's tobacco smoke rake years off your life? [s All the compounds in mamsa'~am smoke that d,~nage the
"passive smoking" really just another form of active smoking? heart have been found in sidesu'eam smoke as well. Secondhand
lndeed, exper~snowrankitasthethirdleadingcauseofprevent- smoke contmns carbon monoxide, for ex~mple, which rater-
able deaths in this country, exceeded only by active smoking feres with the blood's ability to carry, oxygen and thus. over
and alcohol. An estimated ,16.000 to 54.500 nonsmoking time, candecr~a.seoxygensupp[ytotheheartmuscle:md~mpa~r
Americans die each year from the effects of passive smoking: funcuonintkisandothertissue. Both mainsu-eam and sidestre:h'n
'3.060 to -l.000 from lung cancer, l'l.000 to 17.000 from other smoke directly damage the cells that line the heart ~d blood
cancers, and 32.000 to 3.,t.900 from heart disease. Last spring, vessels and thus contribute to atherosclerosis (clogged ~'~enes ).
in a dr'ah report reviewing years of scientific studies, the U.S. Recent research has demonstrated that smoking m~kes the
Envtronmen~l Protection Agency (EPA) classified environ- pla~,-lets, which cause blood clots, clump together and thus
mental tobacco smoke, also called secondhand smoke, as a increa.ses the risk of heart a~ack. Inhaling smoke seems to have
cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers and of a wide range, of the worst effecu on people who ~L~ady have heart or lung
respiratory, disorders in children. These findings were in turn disorders, as well as on children, whose bodies are still growtng.
examaned by a panel of expert, who c~rne under some criocal Even for a healthy nonsmok~, living with a spouse ~ ho
fire for ties to the tobacco indusu'y. Nevertheless the pane[ smokes increases the risk of cancer and heart disease: and
endorsed the report The final statement will be issued later th. is there's some evidence tha~ children and adolescents exposed to
year. secondhand smoke may also have a g'reater risk for these
While the new EPA report does not discuss passive smoking diseases lair in life. Passive smoking has also been shown to
as a cause of heart disease in nonsmokers, Dr. Suxnton C. rtantz have adverse eff~ts on the exercise capability of healthy adults.
and Dr. William ParmleY of the University of San Francisco Nonsmokers need prot~-~Jon from secondhand smoke. De-
Medical School recently reviewed the evidence for EPA and spite the welcom~ downward a'~nd in tobacco use m this
published their conclusions. Though most people associate counu'y, about 30% of Americans still smoke, lighting up half
smoking with cancer, passive smoking accounts for 10 times as a u'illion cigarettes each year. Domestic airline flights, govern-
many deaths from heart disease each year as from lung cancer, merit buildings, and many o0~*r public places have been de-
In addition, children whose parents smoke iparticularly if the clared off-limits for smoking. But if you live with a smoker or
mother smokes)have a higher prevalence of bronchitis, pneu- work next to one, you probably get mo~ than just a whiff
monia, wheezing, coughing, and middle car disease. The lungs of secondhand smoke.
of young children whose mothers smoke may not grow and If smoke gets in your eyes
develop properly, leading to reduced lung function, wDon't rely on a~' f'dter~ and so-called smokeless ashtrays.
How nonsmokers smoke They won't filter out the toxins in smoke.
Recent investigations have shown that passive smoking (also eSet aside a smoke-free zone in your home and persuade
called involuntary smoking) works in different ways fl'om household smokers to respect it.
active smoking. Mainstream smoke, filtered through the ciga- eNeedless to say, it's better to be polite, but don't be afraid
retie and inhaled by the smoker, is highly concentra~J: the to speak up. "Please don't smoke" is always a valid request.
toxins it contains occur in comparatively large particles. Some aEvery worker has a fight to a smoke-free enviromnent. Join
particles are deposited in the mouth and may be swallowed, with others to achieve a smoke-ft~e workplace. Ask colleagues
others go into the.larger airways of the lungs. Sidest~am at work not to smoke. Show them this azticle. Be f'u'm but sym-
smoke, which is what comes off the b .m'mn.~ end of the. pathetic. Maybe they need encouragement to quit. You can
cigarette, is one component of secondhand smoke, along with work in your ~ommumty. too. for passage of local laws against
exhaled smoke. What comes off the bunting end actually con- smoking. You can get information from Americans for Non-
tainshigheramountsof.thecompoundsthaltendtocausecancer smokers Rights in Berkeley (415-MI-3032) and from your
and heart disease than what the smoker inhales. And although local chapter of the American Cancer Society or the American
the smoke is more diluted, thet, e compounds occur in smaller Lung Association.
particles and. though the pa.~ive smoker breathes less smoke, elf you ate an employer, consider starting a bonus s? ~tem
the small panicles tend to settle deep in the lungs, where it takes for people who quit smoking. Work with your employ ee~. Post
longer for them to clear. They slowly dissolve in the lung tissue information about smoking-cessation groups. Set up nonsmok-
and then enter the bloodstream and lymph Ussue. Nicotine ing areas, or declare the whole workplace a nonsmokung zone.
byproducts can be detected in the bodies of passive as well as The University of Ca~iforma at Berkeley has taken t~e
active smokers. Of course, active smokers inhale both kinds of step: it recently declared that smoking is not perrrutteO ~n
smoke, building or even in outdoor dining or sports facilmes.
WelJness i~tter, October
Reprinted permission of: University of California, Berkeley
Wellness Letter, ~ Health Letter Amsociates, !992.
MAJOR SMO~NG ORDINANCES
REQUIRING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTS BE 1~% SMOKEFREE
~ DAT~ ~ES~~ON:
Aspen, CO 1985 Eliminates smo~ng ~ resta~ ~d limi~ it in b~.
Tellu~de, CO 1988 Smo~ section ~ testators must be Physic~ly sep~ated
~d have independent ventilation systems.
Snowmass, CO 1989 Eli~nates smo~ng in all ~sta~ts except tn sec~ons that
are physic~ly sep~ated ~d independently ven~lated.
Lodi, CA 1~0 Elevates smo~g in all restaur~.
S~ Luis Obispo, CA 19~ Eliminates smo~ng in ~1 resta~ ~d ba~.
Sacr~ento, CA 1~ Eliminates smo~g in ~1 restauran~ and public ~d private
workplaces. Phasing in resta~t resections by May 9, I ~2.
Grass V~ley, CA 1~ P~ing in restfictiom to completely eSmlnate smo~ng in
resta~ts by Novem~r 15, 19~.
Bellflower, CA 1~1 Eli~nates smo~ng in restaur~.
Auburn, CA 1991 ~i~t~.smc~ng in r~ta~ ~d b~ ~ r~ta~t di~
~eas, ~d ~1 workpla~s.
Nevada Count, CA 1991 Phasing in provistom to eSminate smo~ng in restaur~.
W~nut Creek CA 1~1 Ph~ing in provisions to e~minate smo~ tn all restaur~
~d workplaces.
Paradise, CA 1~1 EleVates smo~g in workpla~s, ~ restauran~ ~d bars
attached to restaurants. B~lot referendum scheduled for 1992.
Oroville, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking In workplaces, all restaurants and attached
cocktail lounges. On held pending outcome of tobacco industry
referendum drive.
Roseville, CA 1991 Eliminates smoking in all restaurants and bars within restaurant
dining areas, and all workplaces. Bar areas in new restaurants
must be smokefree Or in a separately.ventilated room.
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite d * Berkeley, California 94702 · (415) 841-3032 / FAX (415) 841-7702
PROTECTING NONSMOKERS FROM SECONDHAND SMOKE
· Secondhand smoke kills 53,000 nonsmokers in the U.S. each year, maldt~g it the third leading cause of
preventable death in the country. For every eight smokers the tobacco industry kills, they take one
nonsmoker with them. (Glantz, Stanton A., Ph.O., andW. Pafmley, MD, 'Passive Smoking and Heart Disease,"
AHA Circulation, Vol. 83, No. 1, January 1991) '
· The Environmental Protection Agency has classified environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) a Class A
C_.arcinogen--a substance known to cause cancer in humans for which there is no safe level of exposure.
(EPA Review Dralt, Health Effects of Passive Smoking, 1990)
· The simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not
eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke, {The He,a/th Conseqoences of
Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the U.S. Surgeon General, 1986. Emphasis added.)
· Environmental tobacco smoke meets the criteria of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration
(OSHA) for classifying substances as potential occupational carcinogens. For that reason, both the En-
vironmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health recommend
that smoking be eliminated in all workplaces, or be restricted to private rooms that have a separate
ventilation system which is exhausted directly outside. (EPA Review Draft, Health Effects of Pas.siva
Smoking, 1990; and Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace, NafionaJ Institute fo(' OccUpational Safety
and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: June 1991)
· Over 500 Communities in the U.S. have enacted ordinances restricting smoking in'workplaces,
restaurants, and other public places. To date, 19 communities completely eliminate smoking in all
Workplaces, and 25 eliminate smoking in all restaurants. (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights)
· Total smoking bans have been voluntarily established in 34% ofw0rkp!a_ces, compared, with 7% in 1987
and 2% in 1986. Another 34% restrict smoking in all common areas. As a result, morale has improved
by 69%. ('Smoking in the Workplace: 1991 ,' Bulletin to Management, Bureau of National Affairs, August 29,
· Ventilation standards established by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeratiog, and Air Condition-
ing Engineers (ASHRAE) treat tobacco smoke odor as an irritant, rather than as a health risk, These
standards are designed to remove the odor rather than the carcinogens and other toxins, Ventilation
systems would need to be improved 270 times in typical buildit~gs to reduce caner risks to accepted
federal standards would create a virtual windstorm indoors. {'SmokinglnthoWor~ace:Ventilation,' Smoking Poi:y:
Ouestfons a, nd Answe~, Na~orte] Cance~ Institute.) 3.92
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J, Berkeley, California 94702 · (415) 841:-3032 / FAX (415) 841-7702
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 100% SMOKEFREE RESTAURANT ORDINANCES
There is no data from any city that has passed a 100% smokeffee restaurant ordinance to support t~bacco industry
claims that such ordinances Iced to a decrease in restaurant business. Sales tax data from cities with smokcfree
ordirtanccs show that these ordinances have no negative economic impact on restaurants.
· Aa analysis of sales tax receipts from the California cities of san Luls Obispo, Lodl, BeBfiower arid Beverly
l-fills found that 100% smokcfree restaurant ordinanee~ have had no effect on restaurant sales, either in absolute
terms or in comparison with similar cities without a 100% ordinance. If anything, the presence of a smokefree
restaurant ordinance slightly increased the share of total retail sales that went to restaurants. (Gtan~
'The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smokefree Restaurants on Restaurant SaJes ~n California' University of California San
Francisco, I~stitute for Health Policy Studies, March, 1992)
~, Bellflower, CA: Aa indcpcndent tax revenue consultant analyzed City sales tax receipts for thc first full quarter
with the 100% sraokefree restaurant ordinance in effect. Sales for dine-in restaurants increased slightly from
$3,93a,000 to $4,290,000 compared to the prior year. This slight increase matched the trends observed for other
municipalities in thc area. (H~ndertnet, aa Llamas and Associates, (31endora, GA, Nowm0er 8,
4, San Lub Obbpo, CA: Restaurant and hotel sales tax receipts for the first two quarters of 1991 (after adoption
of thc ordinance) were higher by 7.6% when compared to sales tax receipts for this same category during the first
two quartets of 1990 (prior to adoption of the ordinance), contrary to Tobacco Institute claims of a 26% decrea.~
in restaurant sales after the 100% ordinance went into effect. The local Chamber of Commerce has publicly
confirmed that the ordinance "has not harmed most local businesses." A poll of San Luis Obispo residents, taken
after the ordinance was implemented, found that 75% of residents supported the ordinance--including 37.5% of
smokers. (Sen Lul~ Oblepo City Co,,nail ¢orraspondance, january 29, 1992 and Ma'ch 9, ~992)
4, Beverly Hilts, CA: The tobacco industry convinced thc C{ty Council to weaken its 100~ smokefree restaurant
ordi~a~ce on thc basis of unsubstantiated claims that bus[ness dropi:~..d 30% t~cause of the ordinance. A recent
study by researchers at the Univcrsity of California, San Francisco found that, contrary to iad~try claims, there
was no drop in restaurant sales during the time the 100~ ordinance was in effect. (Glantz and Smith, 'The Effect
of O~dinancas Requiring Smokef~ee Restaurants on Restaurant Sales In California" UnNerslty of California San Francisco,
Institute for Health Policy Studies, Much, 1992)
4, ~pea~ CO: Monthly studies conducted by the Aspen Resort Association found that tots! retail sales,
~estaurant~, actually increased after the City's 100~ smokefree ordinance weal into effect, A study conducted
by ~h¢ Az~rd?it~n Envi~r~me~taI Health. Department found broad Support for the ordinance among restaurants,
and retailers, and"no negative effect iubusiness whats°ever'" {Aspon Resort Association, '~ualnass Updata,' Oclo0*r
1986 through March 1987; Aspen/Pal(In Envlronmenta~ Health Department, Novamb~ Rg, 1
4, '['~¢ California Cafe Restaurant Corporation, after implementing a nonsmo~Jag policy in its 11 rcst~uranl~
throughout California, rccciv~ written and verbal comments running at least 30 to 1 ia favor of the policy. The
?reside nt ~cports that the nonsmoid~g policy has had a positive effect on their bu. siness. (Robert Freeman, President,
California Cafe Corporation, correspondence, February 17, 1~92)
4, la lcd?, ot Ibc 2.8 ~rcent of America~ who smoked, 20 percent chose to sit in the no~smo~ng section o{ a
~cstauraat, {1987 Gailup auwey for the National Restaurant A~ociation)
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J · Berkeley, California 94702 · (415) 841-3032 / FAX (415) 841-7702
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING
ELIMINATING SMOKING IN RESTAUP~NTS
Why is tt important to eliminate smoking tn restaurants?
For waiters and waitresses, restaurants are a workplace. Although many employers have taken steps to protect
employees from secondhand smoke, waiters and waitresses are still exposed during their workday and still need
to be protected.
llow great a risk is secondhand smoke?
A recent study conducted by Dr. Sca'neon Olantz and Dr. William Parsley at the University of California, San
Francisco, determined that 53,000 nonsmokers die each year from secondhand smoke. The Environmental
Protection Agency has declared secondhand smoke to be a Class A Carclnogen---a carcinogen like radon,
asbestos, and benzine which is definitely known to cause cancer in humans and for which there is no safe level
of exposure. The U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health, and every other
agency that has investigated secondhand s'moke has determined that it presents great health risks and exposure
should be avoided.
Are the health risks for employees la restaurants any greater than for employees in other workplaces?
Tile concentration of smoke in restaurants in significantly greater than in typical workplaces. The Environmental
Protection Agency's calculations of health risk assume seven workers per 1,000 square feet in the average
workplace, with two of the seven being smokers. In restaurants, the average capacity is 35 people per 1,000 square
feet, with 10 of thcm being smokers. Even with higher ventilation requirements, the concentration of smoke in
rcstaurants vail be two to five times higher than in the typical workplace. Many nonsmokers have successfully
sued for workers' compensation benefits and the right to a smokefrce workplace. In restaurants, many
nonsmoking employeeshav¢ come down with smoking-related diseases as a result of their working environment.
In one case in Sauselito, a nonsmoking vegetarian waiter was awarded an $85,000 out-of-court settlement after
suffering a heart attack from exposure to secondhand smoke in the restaurant where he worked for five years.
Aren't nonsmoking patrons protected from secondhand smoke when they sit in nonsmoldn$ sections?
They will be protected only if the smoking sections is in a separate room with a completely separate ventilation
system. Few restaurants are set up this way. Most smoking and nonsmokiug sections are next to each other, and
air can move freely between them, carrying smokc with it. Vcntilation syslcms can also carry smoke from room
to room even if the rooms arc physically separated. The U.S. Surgeon-General has stated that separate sections
' do not eliminate the risk of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Restaurant owners claim that their current ventilation systems adequately protect.nonsmokers. Is that
true?
I'4o, it isn't. Restaurants are ventilated in accordance with standards established in thc earl y !980s by the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)--staudards which were heavily
influenced by the tobacco industry. The ASI--I~A.E standards treat secondhand smoke as au irritant rather than
a health risk. They are designed to remove time odor of smoke, but do not remove: all of the eanee£-causing agents.
Tobacco smoke contains thousands of chemicals, many of which are colorless and odorless. Just because you
cannot see or smell smoke does not mean you are not at risk,
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J · Berkeley, California 94702 · (415) 841-3032 / FAX (415) 841-7702
Couldn't restaurant owners simply Improve their ventilation systems instead of going smoktfree?
If restaurants are concerned about cost, this is the last thing they would want to try. To reach a level where the
risk of an employce contracting cancer is acceptable by federal standards (one chance in 100,000 of getti~ thc
disease), thc amount of ambient carcinogenic tar would have to be no higher than. 7'3 microgram for every cubic
meter of indoor air. Since the average level of measurable in American restaurants is currently 202 ndcrograms
per cubic meter, ventilation effectiveness would have to be increased 270-fold to reach that level. This is
technologically impractical. Improving the effectivcness of ventilation systems is not cheai:r, the EPA estimates
it costs one dollar per square: foot per year just to double ventilation performance. Thus, a 5,000-square-foot
restaurant would spend $3,000 each year (in 1990 dollars) to marginally improve air quality at a level far short
of a 270-fold improvement..Am ordinance requiring stronger ventilation systems would bankrupt restaurants and
would be impossible to enforce. Remember, it costs nothing to prohibit smoking.
Restaurant owners claim that they would lose business under this ordinance, representing a great
economic hardship, isn't that true?
There is no evidence that restaurant ordinances of this magnitude hurt business. Over twenty similar ordinances
have passed throughout the country. Aspen, Colorado implemented a 100% smokefrce restaurant ordinance in
June of 1986. An independent study conducted by the Aspen Resort A~sociation shortly thereafter found that
business improved after thc ordinance went into effect. In San L, uis Obispo, California, the local Chamber of
Commerce--which originally opposed its smokefree restaurant ordinance--has now admitted that the ordinance
"has not hurt moat local businesses." The city of Bellflower, California, analyzed sales tax data for the first full
qume'tar after their smokefree restaurant ordinance was implemented. They found that business in restaurants
increased compared to the previous months and the same quarter the year before. The city was also able to
determine that restaurants who claimed to lose business actually began to lose business before the ordinance went
into cffect. Although restaurant owners fear that smokers will go to neighboring cities or stop dining out if
smokcf, ree legsliation is adopted, only 21% of adult Californians are smokers, and a recent poll commissioned
by the California Restaurant A.~sociation found that 30% of all smokersprefernonsmokingsections in restaurants.
Furthermore, several cities in the Bay Az'ca have already adopted similar ordinances, and many others will be
introduced in the next few months, making it unlikely tl3at smokers will travel to other areas to dine out. Any loss
of business from smokers is expected to be minimal, and will bt offset by increased business from nonsmokers
who avoid smoky restaurants. All the evidence, includingevery independent, empirical study of 100% smokefree
restaurant ordinances, shows that restaurants do not suffer as a result of these ordinances.
Aren't these ordinance expensive for cities to Implement?
Smoking pollution control ordinances of all types have demonstrated to be easy and inexpensive roi' local health
departments or city official s to en force. In fact, citi es report that thc newest 100% smokcfree restaurant ordinances
are even caster to enforce because there is no ambiguity in how to implement smoktfree policy. Furthermore,
to the extent-that these ordinances may coincidentally reduce smoking in the community, these ordinances may
actually save cities money. The San Francisco Department of Public Health, using data provided by the California
Department of Health Services, determined that if a 100% smokefi'¢c ordinance reduced smoking in San
Francisco by only 1% (a conservative estimate), the City would sav¢$2,$47, I32 e~hyear that would otherwise
bt spent on treating smoking-related diseases.
February $, 1992
II I I I I I
· ?
Ban bad for bus ne s.
~ Smokeless eateries do better, stud,~t sags.,'
n~
on [k,e.~et~oSt~ff 13.9 l,ercent after the laws
in. ~ ~at p~Mbk smoMng want
in ree~uranta don't hu~ bull. ~ o~r~ fin~O held for.
au- ne~, according to a new s~dy .all ~ of rescuing, includ-
es. ~m UC San ~an~s~. lng ~se that se~e no ~hol,
~h, Researchers fount that if tho~ that ~e only ~r and
,er. an~hing, new n0.tmokin~ or.
~n~ces lead to a slight in. t~,fliquor.
~ i~ cre~e ~n ~stauran~' shoe of ~aid l hat no-smoking ordi-
ed. to~ re~ sales.
an ~e ~he~ ~nlyz~ da- n~ces r~uce restaurant busi-
'eh. ta from the state Board ,f ness by 25 per~nt.
aaa E~aBzat~n on t~ble restau- Don Smi~, o~er of Mom's
ran~ s~ ~om Janu~ 1986 ~e~' ~hen, went 30 da~
~ June 1991 for Beverl~ Hffis.
eat Be~flower, ~ and San
~eal Obis~, wMch have had smoke. Hall hy de,ag the ban. His
~me ~e res~urant or~nanc~ for restaurant was going out
the up to 20 mon~s, busint.~, he said, ~ cus~men
for ~ey found that in the four chose r~ur~
ci~i~s, restaurant' share of ~- ing~uni2es.
~r a ~ ~l sal~ in~ea~ ~om Of the new study, 5mi~h
bet ~ avera~ of 12.7 pe~ent to sgd:'lt'sadamn~e."
RESTAURANT OWNERS WHO WOULD SUPPORT A SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE
I. Maria DiTomasco
Owner
JOSEPH'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT
3013 "F" Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
322-7710
Ms. DiTomasco said she will sign a petition but does not have the time to appear before
city council.
2. Joe and Teresa Munoz
Owners
CASA MUNOZ
1736 Union Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93305
861 - 1625
They Will sign a petition.
3. Guy Ceresa
Owner
BRINKS DELI & FINE WINE
3803 Ming Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93309
398-8525
Mr. Ceresa will sign a petition and appear before city council if he has the time.
4. Gilbert Blevins
SPENCER'S RESTAURANT
10437 Rose. dale Highway
Bakersfield, CA 93312
589-0658
Mr. Blevins will sign a petition and appear before city council.
5. Kevin J. Green
Manager
COURTYARD AT MARRIOTT'S
3601 Marriott Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308
324-6660
Mr. Green will sign a petition and appear before city council if his supervisor says it is
all right.
11. Richard A. May
Owner
CLARK'S COFFEE SHOP
8101 East Brundage Lane
Bakersfield, CA 93307
366-2277
Mr. May will sign a petition and appear before city council.
12. James and Linda Baize, Robert O. Martin
MARTIN'S
Kern County Fairgrounds
Bakersfield, CA 93304
393-7834
Mr. and Mrs. Baize along with Mr. Martin will sign a petition.
13. Linda Bower
Manager
MCDONALD'S - VALLEY PLAZA
2701 Ming Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93304
398-1027
Ms. Bower will sign a petition.
14. Richard Pazko
General Manager
PETER PIPER PIZZA
1505 Columbus Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
872-5177
Mr. Pazco will sign a petition.
15. Reuben Cruz
Manager
MEXICALI RESTAURANTS
Office: 419 Baker Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
327-4218
Mr. Crews will only sign a petition for a countywide smoke-free ordinance.
16. Curtis Harmon
General Manager
CHUCK E. CHEESE'S PIZZA
3760 Ming Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93309
397-7855
Mr. Harmon will sign a petition and appear before city council.
17. Olen Arnold
Owner
BURGER KING RESTAURANTS (14)
2222 Niles Street
P. O. Box 6069
Bakersfield, CA 93386
871-7114
Mr. Arnold will sign a petition and appear before city council.
18. Clifford Smith
Manager
CASK 'N CLEAVER
3500 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
325 -9200
Mr. Smith will sign a petition.
19. Patrick Beck
PATRICK'S RESTAURANT
3401 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
321-9584
Mr. Beck will sign an ordinance and appear before city council.
OURS...
Banning a health hazard
~ onsiderable attention will be
[ . focused on the coastal com-
mi~'m~ty of San Luis Obispo
n~w that it has ~ the nation's
toughest smokin8 ban. Will it suc,.
ceet in di.scoura~ an addictive
a~i physically destructive habit, or
will economic preasures cause the
ct~ a'e/rumbli~ that business is
su~ering since the ordinance took
dfect last week. Others fear out-of-
tim~n trade will be adversely affect-
-_- The law prohibits smoking In
~e~!osed public areas, including tt~
f . Offenders wRl face fines d Francisco. that estimate passive
o~ tl~ first offense, ~ for ~ smoke causes 10 times as many
~ ~xl ~ fo~ the third. Smok- deaths trom heart disease as deatl~
o~tstde on the streets and in city As long as cigarettes remain
ut ' legal for adults, those who smoke
the law, restrictive as It
may well become the model for struction o~ ~ own bodies in their
out ~ nation. It seems clear that ment entities obvlo~ hsve no busl-
The federal Environmental Protec- ness imposing r--~trtctions. But
separates smoker's rights from in enclosed public places where
tlxise who do not smoke, smokers have no right to endanger
'-'Those who complain about the the health of others with secondhand
ban and its possible effects on busi- smoke, lJ~bilit~ looms as a factor to
ness can't ignore the fact that the be considered.
EPA recently categorized second- San Luis Obispo is right to pro-
hand smoke -- the smoke that non- tect Its nonsmoking citizens who
smokers Involuntarily Inhale -- as a constitute a maiority. Sooner or
Ctass-A carcinogen, the worst level later all cities are going to face the
of cancer-causing agents, reality that smoking no longer can
The designation was backed by be considered only as a self-
an EPA study that concludes sec- destructive habit. It has been elevat-
ondhand smoke causes 3,800 lung ed by the EPA. in essence to a
Cancer deaths in the United Statespublic-health hazard and as such
each year. Even more shocking are should be restricted by responsible
findings by researchers at UC San governments.
B4 Tl~rs.. Jo~e 2~. 1990
°'smoke-free' America
The Environmental Protection tion of studies about environmental
Agency is close to declaring tobacco smoke show that it causes
s~cond-hand tobacco smoke, cancer among nonsmokers.
the smoke inhaled involuntarily by though only ~ percent of the adult
nonsmokers, a human carcinogen. If population smokes, the study said,
and when that designation becomesthere are detectable levels of cot/n-
official by the federal agency, there the, a product d nicotine, detected
will be no valid arguments left for in the blood, saliva and urine of
smokers who claim it's nobody percent to 7~ percent of nonsmokers
eLse's business i/they puff in public, tested. Each year, about 130,000
people will die of lung cancer, about
In a draft study yet to be scien- 8~ percent of which is attributed
tifically validated, the EPA says directly to smoking.
that passive tobacco smoke kills arid Scientific evidence supports an
estimated 3,800 people ~_the United official EPA carcinogen brand on
States each year thr~cU~e lung can- passive smoking, and that will have
cer. And two resea rs at the
University of Calffo~ at San Fran- a profound impact on American life.
Companies, especially those who
cLsco told the World Conference on pay health insurance premiums, will
Lung Health in May that second- have Justification to declare a total
hand smoke can be blamed for ban on smoking in the work place.
$2,000 annual deaths from heart Many companies now restrict
disease, smoking to designated areas and
What sta~cian Stanton Glantz closed offices. But pasave smoke is
alid cardiolog/,g Dr. William Parm- released when office doors are
ley found ts that passive smoking is one. ned. and smoke drifts from des-
responsible for at least 10 times*u~'~ areas into the lungs of non-
many deaths from heart diseases u smokers. Companies could face
deaths from lung cancer, liability ff a "carcinogen" is permiI-
The EPA draft rePOrt adds new ted to permeate the office atmo-
impetus to earlier slsrms on the sphere.
· dangers of passive smoke by the The same could be said of res- .
U.S. surgeon general and the Nation- taurants, theaters, stadiums, pubUc
al Academy of Sciences. buildings and modes of transporta-
Predictably, the Tobacco Insti- tion....,~ .
tute down-played the EPA report as .We 'are moving toward the
"statistical manipulations lacking in. "smoke-free" society predicted by
scientific support." former U.S. Surgeon General C.
The EPA report said an evalua- Everett Koop. . ·
Americans for Nonsmokers' Righ~
2530 San Pablo Avenue
Berkeley, California 94702 '~'
(415) 8,11-3032
MODEL SMOKING POLLUTION CONTROL ORDINANCE
Sec. 1000. Title
This article shall be known as the Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance.
Sec. 1001. Findin~ and Pu .rpose
The City Council does hereby find that:
Numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor
pollution; and
Reliable studies ]~h ye, .shown that breathing second-hand smoke is a cause of disease, includin~
t lung cancer, in ea~my nonsmokers. At special risk are elderly people, individuals wit~'
cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respi.mtory function,
' asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease; and
"~-" dt .
Health Hazards induced by breathing second-hand smoke include lung cancer, heart
! respLratory infection, decreased exercise tolerance, decreased respiratory function, broncho-
constriction, and bronchospasm; and .:';~.-~..
Accordingly, the City Council finds and declares that the purposes of this ordinance are (1) to
protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in pubUc places ia
i designated smoking area~, and by regulating smoking in places of emi,lo)anent; aexc~
strike a reasonable balance between the needs of persons who smok~e and the need
nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free a~r, and to recognize that, where these needs conflict, the
I need to'b?ea~he-s~n~Sk~--free-atr-shaU h~,-e p~oi-ity ...... :..~
~ Sec. 1002. Definitions
I The following words and phrases, whenever used in this article, shall be construed as defined
in this section:
~..
" 1. "Bar" means an area which is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for
consumption by guests on the premises and in which the serving of food is only
......' incidental to the consumption of such beverages. Although a restaurant may contain a
~~. bar, the term "bari' shall not include the restaurant dining area.
3,,
'' -'** ' in .e.e.e.e~" .means any. sole proprietorship, partnership, joint 'venture, corpoJ'a'tJ~n *0'r~'~
:. .~¥. 2. 'B. us
~.'!ii om. er,. ,m.~sm.ess entity formed tot profit-making purposes, indudine retail*
~,~:~... esta..r)us, nments where goods or services are sold as well as ~rofessiona!
,,ha other e .t,es ,here ega . medical, denta , en ineerin'g, a dect rai%-;
professional services are delivered.
~.,.t .....?,~: ..
~:...~ .: 3. "Dining Area" means any enclosed area containing a counter or tables upon which
- meals are'served.
-I.' ..
.... ...:. ',; '., ~-~,, -,' -
....
-l- ';" :" !'.-*'~E:'~' -'' ' ~':'"
. , .:. ~'.i,:,~,,?~'~...-.~.'- -..
4. "Employee" means any person who is employed by any employer in the consideration'
for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit, and any person who volunteers his or
her services for a non-profit entity.
$. "Employer" means any person, partnership, corporation, including a municipal
corporation, or non-profit entity, who employs the services of one or more individual
persons.'
~ 6. "Enclosed Area" means all space between a floor and ceiling which is enclosed on all
sides by solid walls or windows (exclusive of door or passage ways) which extend
.? fi'om the floor to the ceiling, including all space therein screened by partitions which
" 'do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid, "office landscaping" or similar structures.
7. "Non-Profit Entity" means any corporation, unincorporated association or other entity
created for charitable, philanthropic, educational, character building, political, social or
other similar purposes, the net proceeds from the operations of which are committed to
the promotion of the objects or purposes of the organization and not to private
financial gain. A public agency is not a "non-profit entity" within the meaning of this
aection.
& 'Place of Employment" means any enclosed area under the control of a public or
~ private employer which employees normally frequent during the course of
employment, including` but not limited to, work areas, employee lounges and
r~stroorns, corderence and classrooms, employee cafeterias and hallways.
&.A private residence is not a "place of employment" unless it is used as a child
care or health care facility.
.. b. The dining area of a restaurant is not a "place of employment."
-[....- ....
9.
"Public
Place"
means any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the
public ts permitted, including but not lixnited to, banks, educational facilities, health
~ [aciltties, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food
....... l;n'oduction and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores,
· x: theatres and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a "public place."
',10. "Restaurant" means any coffee shop, cafeteria, sandwich stand, private and public
~chool ca/eteria, and any other eating establishment which gives or offers for sale food
to the public, guests, or employees, as well as kitchens in which food is prepared on the
~rernises for serving elsewhere, including catering facilities, except that the term
restaurant" shall not include a cocktail lounge or tavern if said cocktail lounge or
tavern is a "bar" as defined in section 1002 (1).
11. "Service Line" means any indoor line at which one (1) or more persons are waiting for
or receiving service of any kind, whether or not such service involves the exchange .of
~IZ"Smoking" means inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette,
weed, plant or other combustible substance in any manner or in any form.
~3. "Sports Arena" means sports pavilions, gymnasiums, health spas, boxing arenas,
~vtrnrning pools, roller and ice rinks, bowling alleys and other similar places where
' members of the general public assemble either to engage in physical excercise,
parttdpate in athletic competition or witness sports events.
Sec. 1003. Application of Article to City-Own~ Facilities
All enclosed facilities owned bv the City of shall be subject to the provisions of
this ar'tide.
Sec. 1004. Prohibition of Smoking in Public Place,;
A. Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed public places within the City of
, including, but not limited to, the following places, and with the
following exceptions:
1. Elevators.
2. Buses, t~¢abs, and other means of public transit under the authority of tl~
City of , and ticket, boarding, and waiting areas of public transit
depots.
3. Res~roorns.
4. Service lines.
5. Retail stores .....
6. All areas available to and customarily used by the general public in ~11
businesses and non-profit entities patronized by the public, i. ncluding but not
limited to, attorneys' offices and other offices, banks, hotels and motels.
7. Restaurants.
8. Public areas of ac~ariums, galleries, libraries and museums when open to the
public.
9. Any facility which is primarily used for exhibiting any motion picture, stag~,
drama, lecture, musical recital or other similar performance, except when
smoking is part of a stage production.
Sports arenas and convention halls.
10.
11. t~fl~i room, chamber, place of meeting or public assembly, including school
. uomgs .under the control of any board, council, commission, committee,
t co. tt.m, or age.cies or the Oty or any politi l
oo~ --me State outing such time as a public meeting is in progress, to the extent
such place is subject to the jurisdiction of the City._
IZ Waiting rooms, hallways, wards and semiprivate rooms of health fadlities,
including, but not limited to, hospitals, clinics, physical therapy facilities,:~
doctors' offices, and dentists' offices.
13. Common areas in apartment buildings, condominiums, retirement facilities,
and nursing homes.
14. Polling places.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any owner, operator, manager or
other person who controls any establishment or facility may declare that entire
establishment or facility as a non.smoking establishment.
Sec. 1005. Re_~ulation of Smokin_~ in Places of Employment
A. It shall be the responsibility of employers to provide a smoke-free workplace for all
employees, but employers are not required to incur any expense to make structural or
other physical modifications.
B. Within 90 days of the effective date of this article, each employer having an enclosed
place of employment located within the city shall adopt, implement, make known and
maintain a written smoking policy which shall contain the following requirements:
Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed facilities within a place of
employment without exception. This includes common work areas,
auditoriums, classrooms, conference and meeting rooms, private offices,
elevators, hallways, medical facilities, cafeterias, employee lounges, stairs,
restrooms, vehicles, and all other enclosed facilities.
C.The smoking policy shall be communicated to all employees within three (3) weeks of
its adoption.
D.All employers shall supply a written copy of the smoking policy upon request to any
existing or prospective employee.
Sec. 1006. Where Smgkin_~ N~)t Re_l.nalated
A.Notwithstanding any other provision of this article to the contrary, the following areas
shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of ~his article:
1. Bars.
Private residences, except when used as a child care or health care facility.
3. Retail tobacco stores.
4. Restaurants, hotel and motel conference Or meeting rooms and public and
private assembly rooms while these places are being used for private functions.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any owner, operator, manager or
other person who controls any establishment described in this section may declare that
entire estabLishment as a non.smoking establishment.
Sec. 1007. Posting of Si_~'~s
A. "No Smoking" signs or the international "No SmoCking" symbol (consisting of a pictorial
representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it)
shall be clearly, sufficiently and conspicuously posted in every building or other place
where smoking is regulated by this article, by the owner, operator, manager or other
person having control of such building or other place.
B. Every theatre owner, manager or operator shall conspicuously post signs in the lobby
stating that smoking is prohibited within the theatre or auditorium, and in the case
motion picture theaters, such information shall be shown upon the screen for at least
five (5) seconds prior to the 'showing of each feature motion picture.
C. Ever)' restaurant shall have posted at every entrance a conspicuous sign clearly statin~
that smoking is prohibited.
~:~. '1008. Enforcgmgnt
I A. Enforcement of this article shall be implemented by the Department of Health [or the
City Manager].
I B. Any citizen who desires to register a complaint under this chapter may initiate
enforcement with the Department of Health [or the City Manager].
C. The Fire Department or the Health Department shall require, while an establishment is
undergoing otherwise mandated inspections, a "serf-certification" from the ownel',
manager, operator or other person having control of such establishment that ~I1
requirements of this article have been complied with. ,
D. Any owner, manager, operator or employee of any establishment regulated by ~
,t article may inform persons violating this article of the appropriate provisions thereof.
I E. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, a private citizen may bring legal
action to enforce this article.
Sec. 1009. Violations an~ P~nalti~
I A. It shat] be unlawful for any person who owns, marusges, operates or otherwise controls
the u.se of any premises subject to regulation under this article to fail to comply with
any of its prov'isions.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area where smoking is proh~ited
'~: by the provisions of this article.
-2- C. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of an infraction,
~< punishable by:
.~,. 1. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation.
Z A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation of this
~: .' article within one (1) year.
.; 3. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each'additional violation of
this article within one (1) year.
Sec. lO10. Nonr~talta0Or~
bio person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire or in any manner retaliate against any
..~ .::,.' · employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant exercises any
right to a smokefree environment afforded by this article.
SeC. 1011. Other ^pplicoble Laws
This article shall not be interpreted or construed to permit smoking where it is otherwise
restricted by other applicable l~ws.
Sec. 1012.. Severability
If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this article or the application thereof to an)'
person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such in'validity shall not affect the other
provisions of this article which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
apphcation, and to this end the provisions of this article are declared to be severable.
Sec. 1013. Effective Date
This article shall be effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption, and shall
be reviewed within one year of its effective date.
I
i
I