Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/10/02 Item 10 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item -a- g� Meeting Date -97/250A- ITEM TITLE: Ordinance oO 8‘ Amending Chapter 8.22 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to regulation of smoking in public places and places of employment mum BEADING AND ADOPTION SUBMITTED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) At the June 19, 1984, City Council meeting, the Californians for Non-Smokers' Rights requested that the City Council adopt a No Smoking Ordinance similar to those adopted by the City and County of San Diego. Council referred the item to staff and requested that staff work with the Chamber of Commerce and appropriate boards and commissions in preparing a report. The Chamber of Commerce and the Resource Conservation Commission have both recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance similar to that adopted by the City of San Diego. In addition, Rohr and Ratner Corporations have both been consulted in regards to the ordinance and both have no objection to adoption of an ordinance similar to that adopted by the City of San Diego. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the attached ordinance which will regulate smoking in public places and places of employment. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At a September 10, 1984 workshop, the Resource Conservation Commission considered adoption of the attached ordinance. At its September 17, 1984, regularly scheduled meeting, the Resource Conservation Commission recommended that Council adopt the attached ordinance. DISCUSSION: It is well established in the scientific and medical communities that not only is smoking hazardous to the person who smokes, but so is second-hand smoke to non-smokers' health. Because of this, the City and County of San Diego both adopted ordinances which regulated smoking in public places and places of employment. On June 19, 1984, the Californians for Non-Smokers' Rights appeared before this Council and requested that Chula Vista adopt a No Smoking Ordinance similar to those adopted by the City and County of San Diego. At this point, all the cities in San Diego County with the exception of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, and Lemon Grove have passed ordinances similar to those adopted by the City and County of San Diego. However, the Cities of National City and La Mesa increased the restaurant exemption from 20 to 40 seats and the City of El Cajon excluded the workplace and will reconsider implementation of a no smoking ordinance in the workplace in January 1985, upon examination of the success within the City and County of San Diego. Californians for Non-Smokers' Rights expects that the Cities of Imperial Beach and Lemon Grove will adopt an ordinance by the first of January 1985. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 9L The ordinance as proposed was prepared by a citizens' group including members from the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce, San Diego Hotel/Motel Association, San Diego Restaurant Association, and the San Diego Chapter of Californians for Non-Smokers' Rights. The ordinance became effective for public places and San Diego City and County buildings in early 1983 and for all places of employment in the City and County of San Diego on July 1 , 1984. At this point, there appears to be no opposition to the ordinance and no particular problems with the ordinance within both the City and County. The major differences between Chula Vista's current ordinance (copy attached) and the proposed ordinance are in the following areas: 1. Current Ordinance. Prohibits smoking in certain public places: elevators, museums, galleries, and public transportation facilities; parts of City buildings; public meeting places; theaters; and health care facilities. Proposed Ordinance. Prohibits smoking in any public place unless designated as smoking permitted. Public places as defined include any enclosed area to which the public is invited or permitted, including but not limited to: retail stores; retail service establishments; retail food production and marketing establishments; restaurants; theaters; waiting rooms; reception areas; educational facilities; health facilities; and public transportation facilities. Private residences are specifically listed as not being public places. 2. Current Ordinance. Silent on places of employment. Proposed Ordinance. Prohibits smoking in places of employment unless designated as smoking permitted. Places of employment are defined as 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, conference rooms and employee cafeterias. Again, a private residence is not a place of employment. 3. The proposed ordinance prohibits smoking in public places or places of employment except in designated smoking areas. This changes the whole emphasis of our current ordinance, which instead designates certain areas which can be non-smoking. g 0 Page 3, Item ;W-"/ Meeting Date 10°- 4. The proposed ordinance discusses where smoking areas may be designated. Where smoking areas are designated, existing physical barriers and ventilation systems shall be used to minimize toxic effects of smoke on adjacent non- smoking areas. It shall be the responsibility of employers to provide smoke-free areas for non-smokers within existing facilities to the maximum extent possible, but employers are not required to make structural or other physical modifications to provide these areas. A policy that designates entire work areas as smoking areas is not a good faith effort. 5. Under the proposed ordinance, any facility or area may be designated in its entirety by the owner or the manager as a non-smoking facility or area. 6. Under the proposed ordinance, the posting of signs section becomes more explicit because of the addition of grocery stores and specific areas in the stores. It also indicates these signs must be posted in every room, building, or other place covered by the ordinance. These signs are available to employers from the American Lung Association. As indicated in the introduction to this agenda statement, the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has recommended to the City Council that the Council adopt a No Smoking Ordinance similar to that adopted by the City of San Diego. The Chamber's legislative committee specifically addressed changing the restaurant seating exemption from 20 to 40 and did not recommend that Council consider such a change. In addition, the Chamber of Commerce has requested that this office monitor any implementation problems and report back to City Council in six months to a year. It is recommended that the No Smoking Ordinance take effect in public places 31 days after the date of the second reading and adoption and in places of employment on January 1, 1985. The City and County of San Diego had it apply to City and County buildings prior to other places of employment, but this is not recommended for Chula Vista. The Director of Personnel is currently forming a task force of employees which will be made up of smokers and non-smokers, representatives from each department and representatives from the various employee associations. This committee would recommend what the policy for the City of Chula Vista as an employer will be in City workspaces which are not considered public places. In formulating this policy, the committee will use the pamphlet "Guidelines for Establishing a Smoking Policy-How and Why" prepared by the American Lung Association of San Diego and Imperial Counties, a copy of which is included in your agenda packet. When the committee has determined what their recommendations are in regards to a City policy, I will return to City Council for formal adoption of that policy. Individuals who have expressed an interest in regards to this ordinance as well as the Californians for Non-Smokers' Rights have been notified of this evening's Cit Council meeting and of m recommendation. DCB:fp 7�( t r < f' ,._ WPC 0525A _` � l..iiiu'rE