Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-29 - AGENDA REPORTS - TOBACCO CONTROL (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: / L"'.a J ap;rffen tiers of the City Council FROM: �`Caalh tanger DATE: September , 1993 SUBJECT: Tobacco Control BACKGROUND At the meeting of August. 24, 1993, the City Council directed staff to research Information relative to the Issue of sale and consumption of tobacco products in specified locations and to present that Information at the Study Session of September 29, 1993. Since the mid -1960's It has been clearly established that health risks exist for persons who directly consume tobacco products. Recent studies have recognized health risks associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke or second-hand smoke. Approximately 53,000 non-smoking Americans die each year from the effects of second-hand smoke as a contributing factor. The Environmental Protection Agency has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a Class A Carcinogen, a substance known to cause cancer In humans for which there Is no safe level of exposure. It Is estimated that approximately 22% of California's adults smoke cigarettes. 204,000 Californians quit smoking each year. At the same time, 109,500 California teenagers start smoking each year. To date, there have been at least 30 validated epidemiological studies of non-smokers' lung cancer from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. During the past thirteen years, the tobacco control Issue, as a health Issue deserving of local government attention has grown In prominence. Many local governments, responding to citizen concerns have adopted various forms of tobacco control ordinances. Currently, over 40 cities have ordinances which require both 100% smoke-free work places and 100% smoke-free restaurants. As of August, 1993, 284 Callfornla cltles have ordinances that restrict smoking or access to vending machines selling tobacco products. Many other cities are presently evaluating some form of tobacco control. Municipal governments have the authority to enact ordinances restricting consumption and sales of tobacco products. While this has led to a variety of ordinances throughout the state, cities have been able to respond to local community concerns and desires. Earlier this year, the California Legislature attempted to enact Assembly Bill 13 which would have enacted statewide, uniform work site tobacco restrictions while pre-empting local authority to enact any form of tobacco control ordinances. The bili was defeated. It is, however, anticipated that the Legislature will continue to receive pressure from the powerful tobacco lobby to Institute some forth of legislation preempting local authority in this subject area. Agenda Item: Tobacco Control Page Two The City Council has several options or combination of options which It may wish to evaluate. These range from not adopting any ordinance to Imposing a 100% ban on smoking in work places, public places and restaurants. Additionally, the Council may have an interest In focusing attention - . on vending machine sales of tobacco products, free tobacco distributions and community education programs. The City of Santa Clarita presently has a policy (III -10) which prohibits smoking within City owned facilities and vehicles except where specifically deslgnated,.such as outdoor patio locations. Santa Clarita Transit does not permit smoking on any of Its vehicles. The City presently does not restrict smoking In outdoor areas of City parks. City staff has not received any complaints from citizens utilizing City parks, even atclosequarter events such as the Summer Concert Series. Typically, cities enacting tobacco control ordinances begin by codifying policies to set a leading example for the community. Other government Jurisdictions, while not bound by such ordinances In their facilities, are encouraged to Join the municipal government In adopting no smoking regulations within their facilities. Approximately 85% of work places nationally have policies which govern smoking, These range from outright bans of smoking In the work place to designating separate smoking areas. In the cases of disputes between smoking and non-smoking co-workers, the rights of the non-smoker are often given preference. Proponents of work place restrictions argue that in the absence of separate ventilation systems with the power to remove smoke at the rate of generation, segregated smoking areas are Ineffective and do not eliminate the harmful health effects of second hand smoke. They also suggest that while some employers have taken voluntary action, others have not, potentially placing their employees in situation injurious to their health. Concerned workers often view their only option as finding another job in an ailing economy. They liken the need for government Intervention on this Issue to other actions which government has taken to ensure the health and safety of workers In private Industry. Opponents of work place restrictions cite intrusive government regulation and voluntary policies already In effect. California business also notes that while an argument can be made for smokers costing more in health insurance and workers compensation claims, establishment of 100% restrictions does not translate Into significantly reduced upfront dollar costs to employers In these two high cost areas. Many communities have enacted enclosed public place smoking restrictions. These usually Include lobby areas, elevators, Indoor theaters, museums and service lines. Restrictions In this category can also Include retail stores and private homes, only when used as a child care facility. Tobacco retailers, hotel rooms and private homes are not generally Included. The Valencia Town Center does not permit smoking anywhere within the enclosed area of the mall. State law prohibits smoking In grocery, retail food stores, public transportation and requires a minimum of 75 percent of enclosed transit depot space be designated smoke free. Tobacco Control Page Three While restaurants could be classified with the work place or public places categories, they are usually viewed as a separate classification. Most California restaurants contain specific smoking and non-smoking areas. While the Issue generally revolves around customer preferences, a new focus has emerged regarding the Impacts of second hand smoke on restaurant employees. Studies have shown that waitresses have the highest mortality of any occupational group as a direct result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Many restaurant workers do not have access to health care through their employers. Proponents of 100% smoking bans In restaurants cite the lack of real division between smoking and non-smoking areas. They further recount the lack of separate ventilation systems capable of removing smoke and carcinogens from the environment at the generated rate. Proponents point to the banning of smoking on airline flights of six hours or less where food is often served, and suggest that smokers can refrain from smoking during the time they are In an enclosed restaurant. Opponents of total restaurant smoking bans express concerns over lost business. Some local restaurants are concerned that they will lose business to establishments In the unincorporated area should the City enact such restrictions. They further cite excessive government regulation In an Industry which is already heavily regulated. Some restaurateurs note that smokers tend to spend a longer time In their facilities and this translates into additional dollars spent. City staff has Identified eight restaurants within Santa Clarita that do not permit smoking. Some of these decisions are clientele based, particularly those catering to families with children or senior citizens. Other restaurants reference the Impact of the economy on their business and believe that they cannot support any action which would cause them to lose even a single customer. Stand alone bars are usually exempt from smoking restrictions. Restaurants with bars provide special concerns. If the bar Is separate from the dining area with Its own ventilation system, It does not provide any problem. If the bar Is an Integral part of the restaurant adjacent to food service or dining areas It typically Is categorized In the smoke free zone. Some communities, when enacting a smoking ban, have created exemptions for separate bar areas with separate ventilation systems using a phased in approach. The owner Is given a fixed period of time to gain compliance. Private clubs, as a rule, enjoy exemptions to municipal smoking bans. The exemption only holds for those events where attendance Is limited to organization members and their guests. If public functions are held, then the ban would apply for the duration of the event. Ordinances exempting private clubs should specify a date that the club must have been in operation prior to the effective date of the ordinance and contain a clause which places the facility under the smoking ban upon sale or change of facility use. The final Issue which is an Integral element of any tobacco control discussion is the availability of tobacco products to minors. While California law prohibits the sale or distribution of tobacco products to persons under 18 years of age, many children have no problem obtaining these products via over the counter sales, vending machines and through free sample distribution. The Council may chose to address this Issue through restrictions on the placement of vending machines (i.e. not less than 10 feet from an entrance/exit), banning the distribution of free tobacco products In the City and through education programs targeted to tobacco retailers and minors. Research shows that just under 10% of children between the ages of 12 and 17 smoke regularly and that 80% of current California smokers started smoking before reaching 21 years of age. Tobacco Control Page Four The City of Santa Clarlta Is a charter member of the California Healthy Cities Project. The Healthy Cities Project encourages communities to undertake activities which focus on the enhancement of the quality of life in the community. The recently formed steering committee may provide an appropriate focal point for continued discussion of the tobacco control Issue and/or community education programs. During the past month, City staff has met or spoken with Santa Clarlta based smoking ban advocates, business leaders and restaurant owners and managers. Meetings were held with representatives of the Santa Clarlta Valley Chamber of Commerce and Canyon Country Chamber of Commerce to receive Input from the business community. City staff contacted over 50 local restaurants to request their participation In a meeting held on September 20, 1993. Only three representatives participated in the meeting. The restaurateurs did, however, represent a non- smoking restaurant, a restaurant which permits smoking and would like to continue to do so and a restaurant which will be eliminating smoking on weekends and holidays on a trial basis. They outlined a variety of viewpoints specific to their facilities and the Industry generally. Furthermore, staff has also been in communication with community residents advocating a tobacco control ordinance. Representatives of each of these entities have been encouraged to share their views with the City Council at the Study Session or via written or oral communication. The Council may wish to discuss more specific parameters which could be Included In an ordinance for purposes of continued discussion In the community. In the absence of specific proposals, staff believes that some people were hesitant to discuss the Issue In conceptual form, preferring to have a more specific proposal as the basis for discussion. RECOMMENDATION Receive staff report, community recommendations, discuss and provide direction to staff. GAC.MPM.tobacco.ss NWA rl Or No, : 1003 Snpf.ramho.r 27, 1993 Tony Roma'e 29.201 MrIgir: Mountain Pl<way Valencia, CA Deter Mranagor: fep.20 1003 9:©can r©i lea: Possibl.v City Van of flmr,lri.n( ter.. �.�■ r� ,llolioving in t.hm freo unLcarprioc.cyotgm, I supPort 'L'lte: r'tSlnu' r•a.nt: ownor's <irueir,inn to he "arnoking," "non uwuki.ne;," oaally r.rnnbivaLlun. I obJect motet strnnisou3ly Lu noisy 'Factions and e?0vA1'nnnn0:al Policiou i.nirin€4XS ant J:r-re<: Cnter`j1CJt;e. I am a nmokct.- will, Comers to your restaurant for lunnh. „anally wi.A.lt my daughtm.r and grandonn,- throo tiwem a W00k, spunding an avRr-ac'u of $30 per lunoh. jilrr.n i name full lunch. I nit, in the smoking isec:tion. Whon my husband and I cutue For dinnar, we r'ii. irl non-•t:moL.iM brJtreAlaaO h<; is n rtvu 5unrktu'. 1. nlno frnrirtently eAL lavida llurgor Kine, tt rtotT-yrgi+t.lug r::it<h- 1..1H11meint. It m"U"n no diff"rrnt:o to ren• if l.nuLafel; is '•:>l:ultiJlR;" or "non-•smokinr" T.P.' the decininn - madu by the rootmureant'. oxt'tctr. If 'I.h<x ni.ty of SunLu Clart.ta ortahl:ioben a Polity wliic-b pra. hi hi tri omoki ng i.n rentaur.•unL;� , I wi 1.1. no luuwr yurchune meals within the city limits. I shnnlrl hope i.hat. such :t bars i:a pannod; I would:br "furtred" to save, a considerable amournt of, Manny. T}ut city, of vourne, will lose T.hc small ruvc;filler. of my r,"l.ua LUX, You will lost; the considarT-ahlo amount. of my lunch ux.perldi.turco, "fill Lht , waitremu rtl.l.l luso her Ia••:;ll% ti -P. Ant(, if enough peopin fr l ,; I do, the waiCrus, w'0 l Ill- unemployed for. L%ck of htaeiinet3u. Sincerely. �• pp lirl tF'. A p.ttla Lwntl 29053 W. hanuasLear Rd. Lancani:or, CA 93530 oar City of Sun La Cl.arit4