Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSmoking Ordinance - Ordinance 2819 - adopted 02-18-1986 1 #?Pa rG/ �L REQUE%., FOR CITY COUNCIOIACTION Date January 9, 1986 G Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers 601 Submitted by: 3 Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator 6-1�.� ( � 0V Prepared by: Patricia A. Dapkus, Administrative Aide ��� �, C 1SL "� � SMOKING ORDINANCE Subject: 1500 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] .Yes /KNew Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: Statement of Issue In response to Council's request, attached, is a draft ordinance to establish a policy with regard to smoking within the City of Huntington Beach. The purpose being to set forth the heretofore neglected rights of the non-smoker. Recommendation Approve the ordinance as submitted with responsibility for administration to rest in the Department of Development Services. Analysis In light of the increasing data presented by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the medical community, it is believed that there is sufficient medical evidence to support reasonable and sensible protection for the non-smoker against the irritation and potentially harmful effects of other people's smoke. Based on information from other cities with similar ordinances, it is expected that there will be little or no cost to enforce such an ordinance since once in effect most concerns have voluntarily complied. This will, of course, depend on how active an enforcement program the city decides to undertake. It should be mentioned that most other cities have not found a need to prosecute cases under their smoking ordinances. Alternate Action 1. Modify ordinance to include or exclude areas of enforcement. 2. Disapprove the need for a smoking ordinance. Funding Source None necessary. Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Copy of Surgeon General's Statement 3. Three tables which break down the areas covered and penalties issued under other area cities' smoking ordinances PD:paj PIO 4/84 ORDINANCE NO. 2819 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTIONS 13 .52.030 THROUGH 13 .52 .050; AND ADDING THERETO NEW CHAPTER 9 .08 REGULATING SMOKING IN PUBLIC AREAS AND WORK PLACES The City Council. of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Sections 13 .52 .030 through 13 .52 .050 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 2 . The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto new Chapter 9.08 to read as follows: 9.08.010 Purpose and findings . The city council finds there is ample evidence that smoking tobacco in any form is a real danger to the general health and an irritation, inconven- ience , and discomfort to persons in enclosed areas . In order to serve the public health, safety and welfare, the declared purpose of this chapter is to promote a policy of nonsmoking and to regulate smoking in any building or establishment fre- quented by the public or where numerous persons are employed. 9 .08.020 Definitions . Words and phrases used in this chapter shall ave t e ollowing meanings unless from the con- text a different meaning is apparent: (a) "Employee" shall mean any person who performs a ser- vice under any appointment or contract of hire or apprentice- ship, express or implied, oral or written excepting persons excluded by California Labor Code section 3352 . (b) "Employer" shall mean any person, partnership, or cor- poration ( including private, nonprofit and governmental ) having not fewer than four persons performing services and receiving compensation therefor . (c) "Places of employment" shall mean any building, struc- ture, or portion thereof, under the control of a private or public employer, where employees are present to perform a ser- vice, and members of the public may come to be served. t a 1 . (d) "Smoking" shall mean and include inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted smoking equipment for tobacco, or any other noxious weed or plant. 9.08.030 Elevators--Smoking prohibited. No person shall smoke in any elevator in any building open to the public in- cluding, but not restricted to, elevators in office, hotel , and multifamily buildings. 9.08.040 Hospitals and health care facilities--Smoking prohibited. a No person s all smoke in any area, except those designated and posted for such purpose, of any hospital and health care facility, as defined in California Health and Safety Code section 1250. (b) Every publicly or privately-owned hospital and health care facility shall assign patients rooms or wards, according to individual preference, and no nonsmoking patient shall be placed in a room or ward which has been designated for patients who smoke. 9 .08.050 Meeting rooms--Smoking prohibited. No person shall smoke in any hearing room, conference room, chamber or any place where public business is conducted, and to which mem- bers of the public are admitted, whether as participants or observers. 9.08.060 Theaters and auditoriums--Smoking prohibited. No person shall smoke in any publicly or privately-owned theater , auditorium or similar facility, designed and used for motion picture shows and stage productions, including but not re- stricted to musicals, concerts, recitals, operas, and sporting events , except the lobby, and business or work areas barred to the public. Every person who owns, manages, or has control of a theater, auditorium, or facility used for the purposes stated herein, shall post signs conspicuously in the lobby informing the public that smoking is not permitted inside such theater , auditorium, or facility. In the case of motion picture the-, aters , such information shall be displayed on the screen for not less than five (5) seconds before the beginning of the fea- ture film. 9.08.070 Public restrooms--Smoking prohibited. No person shall smoke in any public restroom. 9.08.080 Eating establishments--Smoking in Any person owning, managing, operating or having control of an eating es- tablishment or restaurant which has an approved occupant load- of more than fifty (50) persons shall provide and maintain a nonsmoking section of not less than 25 percent of the enclosed area for seating patrons which is not part of a patio or out- 2 . door eating area, or that portion of the premises utilized pri- marily for the sale of alcoholic beverages . The requirements of this section shall not apply to any room or rooms in a res- taurant or eating establishment which may be. re.served for pri- vate functions. 9.08.090 Employer compliance. As evidence of good faith comp lance, an employer with our (4) or more employees, shall meet the following criteria: (a) Within 120 days after the effective date of this chap- ter , an employer shall adopt, implement and maintain a no smoking policy, containing a definition of "immediate work area, " which insofar as practicable, shall make reasonable pro- visions for nonsmokers and smokers . Such policy shall be posted in appropriate locations throughout the work place, and copies thereof furnished to all employees . (b) An employee may request, based on the employer ' s pol- icy, that his or her immediate work area be designated non- smoking. Nonsmokers shall be given preference, and may lodge a complaint with the employer with respect to pollution by to- bacco smoke of his or her immediate work area. The employer shall, using existing ventilation, walls, temporary separations and partitions, make every effort to resolve any problem be- tween nonsmoking and smoking employees . (c) If an employer finds that the floor plan for a busi- ness does not provide sufficient relief for nonsmoking em- ' ployees, he may, when practicable, reassign such nonsmokers to other locations, enlarge the area in which smoking is prohib- ited, or take any other reasonable measure to eliminate or re- duce the effect of tobacco smoke on nonsmokers. 9.08.100 Exceptions . The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any business conducted from a private home, or any private work area occupied exclusively by persons who smoke, except where smoking has been prohibited by the fire marshal pursuant to statute, ordinance or other regulation. 9.08.110 Sign requirement. Whenever , under the provisions of this chapter, the posting of a sign is required, the owner, manager, or other person in charge or control of a building, room, or other place where smoking is prohibited, shall place or cause to be placed conspicuous "NO SMOKING" signs with capi- tal letters not less than one inch in height on a contrasting background. 9.08. 120 Structural modification not required. (a) All employers shall to the extent possible provide no-smoking areas for nonsmoking personnel, but shall not be required to incur - a z 3 . any expense to make alterations or modifications to an existing structure. (b) No owner , operator , or manager of any theater, hospi- tal, health care facility, business, building,, _or structure shall be required to incur any expense to alter or modify an existing area or work place for the benefit of nonsmokers. 9.08.130 Prohibitions . (a) No employer , owner, operator, manager , or person in c arge or control of any place of busi- ness, hospital or health care facility, or theater or place of entertainment shall fail to establish and post a written smoking policy on the premises, or fail to place conspicuous "no smoking" signs in appropriate areas, and insofar as practi- cable, shall fail to comply with the requirements of this chap- ter . (b) It shall be unlawful for any person wilfully to de- stroy or mutilate any sign which prohibits smoking. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any posted nonsmoking area. 9.08.140 Violation--Penalty. Any person who violates or . wilfully tails to comply with any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an INFRACTION, and upon conviction thereof t shall be subject to the following: (a) For the first offense, a fine not to exceed fifty dol- lars ( $50) ; (b) For the second offense, occurring ninety (90) days after the first offense, a fine not to exceed one hundred dol- lars ($100) ; (c) For the third offense, occurring ninety (90) days af- ter the second offense, a fine not to exceed one hundred dol- lars ($100) ; and (d) Thereafter a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dol- lars ( $250) shall be paid each day, or portion thereof, during which an offense occurs. 9.08.150 Public nuisance--civil remedy. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter may be declared a public nui- sance hereunder, and the city attorney may proceed to abate the same by filing a civil action in a court of competent jurisdic- tion. SECTION 3 . If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to .g t 4. 3 } be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portions thereof, and amendments thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sec- tions, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions, or amendments be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The provisions of this ordinance insofar as they are substantially the same as existing provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code relating to the same subject matter shall be construed as restatements and continuations and not as new .enactments. SECTION 5 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of i Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of February 1986. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk �"�lity Attorney INITIA D APPROVED: r- 4k City _Admi strat ahb; 1/23/86 1157L/86-115 f ,. 5. ' Ors' No. 2819 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) _ COUNTY OF ORANGE ) s s: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) _ 1 I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, "qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of February 19 86, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of February 19 86 , and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green NOES: Councilmen: MacAllister, Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California r r • HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER of COMMERCE ° SEACLIFF VILLAGE, 2213 MAIN, # 32 HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA 92648 • TELEPHONE (714) 536-8888 tsas-tgee EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE President SPENCER C.SHELDON Sheldon Consulting Services Vice President January 27 , 1986 KLAUS GOEDECKE Automobile Club of Southern California Vice President JERRY HOLM Tokai Bank Mrs. Ruth Finley, Mayor Pro Tem Vice President HAYDEETILLOTSON City of Huntington Beach Creative Decor Concepts Group 2000 Main Street ViceRRY VrnSHA President LRRY Huntington Beach, CA 92648 A The Broadway Chief FinancialOHicer Dear Ruth: ERIK LUNDQUIST Certified Public Accountant Executive Vice President At the January 23 Board of Directors meeting, the JOYCERIDDELL proposed draft ordinance regulating smoking in Past President DALE L-DUNN public areas and work places for the City of Huntington Savings BLoan Huntington. Beach was passed by a majority vote. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Although members .of .the Board expressed some ART viles& Esoc.i concern about government intrusion into our Atiles 8 Assoc.insurance rHoMAsBCND private lives, they felt comfortable that the Dentist provision dealing with smoking in the workplace BARRYBUSSIERE and in restaurants did not impose an unreasonable Real Estate by McVay burden on our members. CHRIS CLAWSON McDonnell Douglas Astronautics BILL COMPTON We thank you for giving us the opportunity to Southern California Edison Go. review the draft and we will keep abreast of ROD.DavisSConsultants.Inc. Robert D.D the ordinance as it progresses through the PHILPINGLEE approval process. Liberty National Bank ANes TtoBusinessMa,azine We' d appreciate being kept up to date on the issue Business and if changes occur, would like to have sufficient �'Ts Dove Security Specialists time to respond. ROXANNE NICKEL-O'MALLEY Fabric Protection.Inc. Please advise when ordinance is scheduled to come DON PANKHARD Donald M.Pankhard.CLU before City Council. BROOKE PLUNKED Plunkett Insurance S i nc e l y PHIL PRYNE , Weiser Lock FRANK RICHMOND Francois' LEWSZALLAY S e er C. Sheldon Lovko Sales Co ROBERT TERRY r e i d e n t Terry Buick STAN TKACZYK SCS:kb Rainbow Disposal Company CAROLE ANN WALL President-Women'sDivision cc: Charles Thompson, City Administrator DON WALTER Security Capital Corp. ROGER WORK The Huntington Beach Co. ROBERT ZINNGRABE Delma Corporation POO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTri HUMAN SERVICES '''"•. The Surgeon eon General of the Public Health Service Rockville MD 20857 DES Ms. Pat Dapkus J� Administrative Assistant ��.\• Office of the City Administrator L _ - City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - Dear Ms. Dapkus: Thank you for your letter requesting my opinion about passive smoking and available data on the subject. I believe that there is all the medical evidence necessary to support reasonable and sensible protection for the nonsmoker against the irritation and potential harm that comes from other people's smoke. I am enclosing a copy of a statement that I presented before the Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services, Cornmittee on Governmental Affairs, relating to passive smoking and other materials which summarize some of the potential health hazards associated with this critical health concern and reasons for implementing smoking restrictions. This information should be of assistance to you and the Office of the City Administrator as you seek to establish smoking policies in the City of Huntington Beach. Sincerely yours, C. Everett Koop, M.D. Surgeon General Enclosures s i • I , O ® GC � [ � � 1 1 1 U: ® STATEMENT OF C. EVERETT ROOPP K.D. SURGEON GENERAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE. POST OFFICE ~ ' AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL. AFFAIRS - U.S. SENATE OCTOBER Hr© Chairm&no Members of the Comittee: I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss S. 1440® the Nonsmokers Rights Act Of 1985- At the outset® I will defer to the General Services Administration regarding Federal facilities management policy and whether this bill as dragged® is the best approach from th,&t standpoint. My expertise is in the field of public health and I would like to express my views with respect to the health of persons in the workplace. ✓ For the past 15 years the Public Health Service (PHS) has 7� supported the re®uction of nonsmokers exposure to ambient tobacco smoke. For example a component within the PHSv the Indian Health Services as part of its cmphasis on dis.aase prevention and health promotion has recently adopted a policy that all IHS patient care facilities should be rmokrfree environments. Nonsmokers, as you are probably aware* make up over two-thirds of our adult population. Increasingly® this majority has become more and more vocal concerning their right to breath air that is free of pollutants emitted from burning tobacco. As this majority finds existing administrative procedures for settling workplace grievances unsstisfactory. they are turning to the courts for relief. I believe such procedures for protection Of nonsmokers rights to be adequately justified in the' scientific li terature® Y would like to briefly summarise the Public Health SerVice°s current understanding Of the scientific evidence which we feet justifies restrictions or smoking. O 2- The health effects of cigarette smoking have been known or suspected for Lover SO years. it was not until the 1950s, how- ever, that a number of well designed epidemiological studies conclusively demonstrated an association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer as well a►s"with other cancers. The scientific base linking smoking to various chronic diseases is now overwhelming, totalling over 50,000 studies. This evidence led scientists to begin to suspect that tobacco smoke emitted . into the air of enclosed indoor environments may too have an effect on health. in the 1970s, investigators began to turn their attention to the possible health effects of passive smoking. The early research designs looked primarily at artificial environments and centered on measuring chemical constituents such as carbon monoxide, tars, benzopyrene, nicotine and other substances found in tobacco smoke. In many . studies the environments were strictly controlled laboratory, exposures. W% know today that cigarette smo ke contains over 4,000 known constituents, some four dozen of which are known carcinogens, tumor promoters or_ initiators. Many of these constituents are found in side-stream smoke in greater concentrations than are found in mainstream smoke. game of these are illustrated in Table to l ®3- Tar, the fraction of tobacco smoke that is usually associated with the carcinogenic process, is 70 percent higher in side-- stream that mainstream smoke. Carbon monoxide is 2.5 times greater, ammonia 73 times, benxopyrene 3.4 times, and nicotine 2 .7 times greater in side-stream .smoke than in mainstream smoke. Side--stream smoke is released into the ambient air, resulting in - dilution. Nonsmoker (and smoker) exposure is dependent upon the amount of smoke generated, the volume of ambient air, and the type and amount of ventilation of the occupies space. while absorption of smoke constituents by nonsmokers in smoked filled spaces has not been completely characterised, a recent Jap snese report- by matsukura, Taminato and associates usfng urinary cotinine levels at a marker for exposure, found that some heavily exposed nonsmokers actually absorbed. the equivalent of one to two cigarettes per day. Contaminants from tobacco smoke are found everywhere in homes, office# morksites, and other places where people are permitted to +mok®e Sometimes levels of these constituents are higher than are allowed ter in national air quality standards. Repace and Lowrey, in their 1980 study, found Excessive bevels of particulate matter from tobacco woke in every one of -the 19 different environments where smoking was taking place. Short-term concentrations exceeded levels of National Ambient Air Quality Standards by 9 factors ranging from 1.2 to 10 and more (figure l) . Differences in the carcinogenicity of side-stream and mainstream smoke may also exists Wynder and Hoffmann found side-stream smoke condensate to be more tumorigenic per unit weight in mouse skin assays than mainstream awoke condensate. The rationale and concern for the possible health effects of passive smoking is well founded in the epidemiological litera- ture on active smoking which has consistently noted a strong dose-response effect. Dafr ,the major prospective studies has doeumented' a gre.8tak than four-fold excess riak of lung cancer for those smokers consuming nine or fewer cigarettes f daily smoking increases Sao does the lung daily'; As the level o cancer death rate. figure 2 extracted from the American Cancer Society study of over l million men and women followed pro- spgctively for 12 years illustrates the dose-response effect for four levels of daily cigarette consumption. A doze-response effect has also been observed by the length of time one has amokede an earlier age of initiation, depth of Inhalation, and other variables. In short, the greater the overall exposuret the greater the health risk. i i one study (white and ffrobe) conducted among nonsmoking adults exposed to ambient tobacco smoke noted a decrease in small airways function equivalent to thalobsssservesd in light smokers. This study population consisted oC nonsmoking adults who did not live with smokers but were exposed to cigarette smoke at the workplace. won*mokera who are exposed to tobacco Smoke in the air, absorb nicotine,carbon monoxideo and other constituents, as do smokers, although, as would be expected, in asmalle±r amounts. The amounts they absorb are dependent on the extent and length of exposure and the quality of ventilation. In the 1582 Surgeon General' s Report on the health-consequences of smoking ants cancer, three epidemiological ss3tudiesss were cited that dealt with passive smoking and cancer. The findings of these sstudiess, one each in Japan, the United States, and Greece, Indicated that nonsmoking wives of smoking husbands experienced higher lung cancer ratesthan wives of nonsmoking husbands. In the studies from Japan and Greece the differences were sstssstisss- tically sssignificant® while the differences in the United States study were not. In the past threes years, however, many additional studies haVe been published (Tables 2). of the 15 studies published -to date which have examined than link between passssivea smoking and cancer, only three have not shown a f statistically saignificaant positive correlation between the two. Two additionaal studies, soon to be publis$shod, are purported to also show a strong positive correlation between passive smoking exposure and an increased risk for lung cancer. More recently, studies have also indicated that nonsmokers may also be at risk for developing coronary heart disease resulting from exposure to ambient tobacco smoke. Surveys conducted by the Department of Health and Duman Services, the American Cancer Society® and even the Tobacco Institute show that the majority of people, smokers as well as nonsmokers, favor reasonable restrictions on smoking in public places. In fact, these surveys indicate strong public sentiment favoring the restriction of public smoking. In the survey ._` � • conducted by the Tobacco Institute, the majority approved Svc segregatingsmokersin every one of the public places tested, including trains, airplanes, busses, theaters, eating esstaablisah- menus, and in work-places and off ices. Three dozen Stastess have enaactsd legislation that controls, restricts, or prohibits smoking in public places- Many of the lamas address select circum3taancess such was elevators while Many others have enacted 'Comprehensive Cleaan Indoor Air Actss®® This legislation has not been enacted for reasons of fire or oaf®ty,per sae, but to protect the rights of the nonsmoker to breathe clean air. i s7® Legislation affecting smoking in the workplace has been enacted in nine states: California# Hawaii# and Alaska address only nonsmoker worker rights for state employees# however# Minnesota# Utah# Nebraska and Connecticut and this year Maine and Now Jersey address the rights of all nonsmoking employees in the workplace. Locally# hundreds of communities have proposed or enacted similar legislation. The legislation, as proposed by Senator Stevens# parallels actions taken by several large corporations, including the Hoeing Company of Seattle# Aetna Life and Casualty Company and others that have instituted measures whereby smoking is not banned but permitted only in designated areas in the workplace. As was stated in the 1982 surgeon General's Report ®The Health Consequence of Smoking: Concert* "Any health risk resulting from involuntary smoke exposure is a serious public health concern because of the large number of nonsmokers in the population who are potentially exposed. therefore# for the purpose of preventive medicine, prudence dictates that nonsmokers avoid exposure to second-hand smoke to the extent possible.® Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to respond to questions. ' o . TABLE 1 . particulate Phase Constituents of Cigarette Smoke �� Ratio of Sidestrearn Smoke (SS) to Mainstream Smoke us as us mms 140 Mg L7 ®ulnolire 1.7 ve 11 1.4 mg 2.4 Mothylquin 011n" a.7 pg 11 water 10a pg i s Aniline 3W ng 30 Toiusn® 02 I-W�h n 2 n 30 stigmasterol �.�inobipt�t*li a no $1 Total phytosterols 130 Yg 32 bg 3 trot 2D.150`tg Le Hydrazine estechol 130.280 pg 0.7 W-Wig eounO 1W22D ng 10 Naptha�lene "Vg 16 NNK 1 mg 27 MethyinaphOWOM® 2.2 pg 28 Nicouns pyrang M200 pg 3.6 lei ne 2�4 Vg 3•4 ' Gas Phase Constituents of Cigarette Smoke Ratio of Sidestream Smoke (SS) to Mainstream Smoke S) �As Ill+sMs us s 13ioxide MW mg &I WitroWn (NN)catwn ®0pg 73 Carbon Wl 1 20 ff* l Meth* 1.3 UQ &I hydrogen cyanift 120 pg &0 JvAt�r►e 27 u • U ACOtonitrlle 32 l9 10 ROW* props" mg 4.1 "in@ 24 pg 13 L4athyleWWWO mgI.1 &+ioollns 23 pg 2B Methylluran vg &4 SMnylpyridins 1 pq pMionaldehyda 40 Vg 2A Don*thylni leg 27 W250 pg HlUospymAdine A�toete1W4WPg MURC .AcWted tm brunmnWat.a W IM a i TABLE 2 fiftummary of studies on passive smoking and cancer W .32 1 Statistically �, Study�. Risk Ratio Significant Size --Work 223 F Casa control Chan (1979) Bong Kong 0.85 — 52,000 F, 17,000 RA Prospective fillips (1980) USA 2.4F, t.5AA �� 180,000 F Prospective Garfinkel (1981) USA 1.2 Hirayaona (1981) Japan 1.81F, 2.9M F, M 90900o F, 2090W M Prospective (1981) Greet® 2.4 F � los 302 F Case control s�, 2.t F F �� �, 15s F case control (1983)Corm USA 2.o . Gillis(t983) Scotland 3.2M, 1.0F NO 8 M, ® F case control I°lirayae� (1983) Japan 2.3-3.4 .-- 28 F •• . Prospective Hi (1983) Japan 1.4-1.9 — 200 F Prospective Knoth (1983) Germany 3.0 — 39 F Case control K�(1983) Hong Kong — — 120 F Case control control Kabst(1 43 ) USA 1.4M, 0.9F M M, 9T F case Miller(1984) USA 9.9 F 8 F Case control R (1994) USA 1.7 — 180,0� F Reanalysis Sandier(1985) USA 1.7-4.6 lid, F 420 Nl, F Case control Sandier(t985) USA 2.0 M, F 34 M, F Case l Garfinkel (1985) USA 2.1 fn� Vim t4v :-.4 141,- tM jvIl Ni E t Health Retail Service Public Museums& Food Private Community Population Restaurants Theaters Facilities Stores Lines Meetings Libraries Markets Workplaces Brea 32,500 50+Occup. 25$ Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Irvine 80,100 40+ Occup. 25% Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Laguna Beach 18,450 40+ Occup. 25% Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Long Beach 381,800 50+ Occup. 25% Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Los Angeles 3,144,800 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Newport Beach 66,100 20+ Occup. No% Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Tustin 43,028 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yorba Linda 36400 1/3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Co. of Orange 294,900 50+Occup. 20% Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No H. B. Proposed 180,000 50+ Occup. 25% Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes AREAS SPECIFIED WITHIN THE WORKPLACE Meeting Designate Workplace Community Cafeteria Restroom Elevators Rooms Hallways Own area Regulated Not specified Brea Not specified Irvine Laguna Beach 50% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Office workplace only. Long Beach* 50% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not specified Los Angeles* 2/3 Yes Yes No No No Not specified Tustin Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* *Non-smoking except where designated Yorba Linda 50% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not specified County Public buildings. County of Orange Type of How Community Violation Enforced by: Initiated Penalties Brea Infraction Posting- Code enforcement By Complaint $100-Ist violation Smoking in Posted area- Police only $200 - 2nd violation $500 -for each additional violation in a year Irvine Infraction Posting-Code enforcement By Complaint only Penalties to be decided by the court. Smoking in posted areas-Police Laguna Beach Infraction Police-Community relations Restaurants by inspection Penalties to be decided by court. all others-by complaint at this time. Long Beach Infraction Health Department Environmental By complaint. They did $ 50 -Ist violation Health. a self mailing. $100 -2nd violation $300 -each additional violation Los Angeles Misdemeanor _City Attorney By Complaint only Non-posting a misdemeanor carries a $500 fine or 6 months in prison. Smoking in a posted area is an infraction with fines similar to other area cities. Newport Beach Infraction Police By complaint only Penalty to be decided by courts. Tustin Infraction Director of Adminstrative Services By Complaint ony* $ 50 -per day Ist violation $100 -each additional violation Yorba Linda Misdemeanor Code Enforcement By complaint only* $100 -per incident $200 per second incident. $500 Maximum per day additional County of Orange Infraction Posting-Environmental or fire. By complaint only. $100 per day. Smoking in posted area- Sheriff Paul Paver 834-6948 *Information packets were sent out by the local Chamber explaining the new ordinance and implementation theory. Type of How —Community Violation Enforced by: initiated Penalties Brea Infraction Posting- Code enforcement By Complaint $100 -Ist violation Smoking in Posted area-Police only $200 - 2nd violation $500 - for each additional violation in a year Irvine Infraction Posting- Code enforcement By_Complaint only Penalties to be decided by the court. Smoking in posted areas-Police Laguna Beach Infraction Police-Community relations Restaurants by inspection Penalties to be decided by court. all others-by complaint at this time. Long Beach Infraction Health Department Environmental By complaint. They did $ 50 -Ist violation Health. a self mailing. $100 -2nd violation $300 -each additional violation Los Angeles Misdemeanor City Attorney By Complaint only Non-posting a misdemeanor carries a $500 fine or 6 months in prison. Smoking in a posted area is an infraction with fines similar to other area cities. Newport Beach Infraction Police By complaint only Penalty to be decided by courts. Tustin infraction Director of Adminstrative Services By Complaint ony* $ 50 -per day Ist violation $100 -each additional violation Yorba Linda Misdemeanor Code Enforcement By complaint only* $100 -per incident $200 per second incident. $500 Maximum per day additional County of Orange Infraction Posting-Environmental or fire. By complaint only. $100 per day. Smoking in posted areh- Sheriff Paul Paver 834-6948 *Information packets were sent out by the local Chamber explaining the new ordinance and implementation theory. CALIFORNIANS FOR /ft"Ic Mt - onQ,mo ay. Ih-L Stanton A Glantz,Ph.D. Mce Pmsiderft ORANGE COUNTY AFFILIATE (714) 533-4490 David Bums,M.D. Virginia Emster,Ph.D. P.O. Box 1543, Santa Ana, CA 92702 Daniel H.Lowenstein Hcnvard Mitchell February 3, 1985 Raymond L."I isberg,M.D. treasurer TO: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL Irene Peterson Ed" W BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: 'CALIFORNIANS, FOR NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS P( 6&Oct Wan Bilotsky Die L t 4 - Roger Diamond SUBJECT: PROPOSED SMOKING ORDINANCE d" Af Michael P.Erikson,Sc.D. Robert Fries /'h-7 d,at tic Peter Hanauer This memorandum presents a number of technical comments John Holtzclaw Philip R.Lee,M.D. and recommendations relating to the language of the draft Paul L.Loveday ordinance. In preparing these comments , we are attempting Merrill J.Matchett to serve as a legislative resource, and have suggested Andrew McGuire alterations regardless Of whether they will make the E.Richard Mertz,Ph.D. ordinance more Or less restrictive of smoking. We will John Nevora,M.D. Edward O'Dwyer reserve our advocacy comments to oral testimony. Nan Schnur,Ph.D. Lowell Young 1 . DEFINITION OF PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT. HONORAM BOARD RECOMMENDATION: In Section 9 .09 .020 (Definitions) Ansel Adams Willorn E.Bloomfield,Sr. paragraph c, we suggest changing the words . . . and members President.Web Service Co. � of the public may come to be served." to "including those Lester Breslow,M.D.,M.P.W. areas where members of the may c ubli come to be served. flo " .,. tessor cr Public Health.UCLA P y Clarence Jonas DISCUSSION: The draft language could be interpreted to Allan K.Jonas J.Michael McCloskey mean that only those areas of a workplace where members of Ezecutve Director.Sierra Club the public may come to be served would be defined as a James P.McLoughlin lace of employmen t. Pass Residentdent P United food&Commercial Workers Union Local 428 UnusPouling 2. ROOM ASSIGNMENTS IN HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CARE FACILITIES. Nobel Laureate Arthur Rock RECOMMENDATION: In Section 9 .080..040 (Hospitals and health StanleySheinbaum care taciiitles--Smoking prohibited) , we suggest replacing Mervyn F.Silverman,M.D.,M.P.H.Director of Health.San Francisco paragraph b with the following language which is used in Jesse L.SteiMeld,M.D. several existing smoking ordinances: Every publicly or U.S.Surgeon General,1969-1973 privately-owned hospital and health care facility shall. Luther Terry,M.D. U.S Surgeon General.1961-1965 make a reasonable effort to determine individual preference Executive Director and to assign patients placed in rooms occupied by two or MichoelC.Grimes,J.D. more patients according to the patients nonsmoking or Leglslafhre Director smoking preference." Charles Mawson DISCUSSION: The draft language requires that "no nonsmoking patient 11 be placed in a room Or ward which has been designated for patients who smoke." This could cause undue administrative difficulties in cases where a patient is admitted to a hospital in a condition in which it is impossible to determine his or her smoking preference or when space is temporarily unavailable in a room or ward designated as smoking.. The suggested language would allow more flexibility in complying with the ordinance while still providing adequate protection for nonsmoking patients . 3. MEASUREMENT OF NONSMuKING SECTION IN RESTAURANTb: RECOMMENDATION: In Section 9.08 .080 (Eating establishments-Smoking in) , we suggest replacing the words "enclosed area" with /1seating capacity" as the means for measuring the size of the nonsmoking section. DISCUSSION: The required nonsmoking portion of the enclosed area or or space may be difficult to measure and does not necessarily represent an equal portion of the seating capacity which is presumably what was intended to be measured in the requirement for a nonsmoking section. 4. EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE. RECOMMENDATION: In Section 9.08.090 (Employer compliance) , we suggest replacing t e sentence "As evidence of good faith . . . meet the following criteria:" with "An employer who makes good faith efforts to develop and promulgate a policy regarding smoking and nonsmoking in the workplace shall be deemed to be in compliance with this section, but an employer who knowingly omits any of the following minimum elements of a policy . shall not be deemed to be in compliance:" DISCUSSION: The draft language seems to be incomplete. It does not make it clear that an employer may be deemed in compliance with the ordinance by meeting the required criteria and not in compliance if the criteria are not met. As to the reference to an employer having four or more employees ,- this is included in the definition of an employer in Section 9.08.020 (b) , and it is not necessary to repeat it here unless it is desired to do so for clarity. 5. PREFERENCE TO NONSMOKERS. RECOMMENDATION: In Section 9.08 .090 (Employer compliance) ,.paragraph b, we suggest clarifying what preference is to be given to nonsmokers by changing the second sentence to read: //Protection of nonsmokers from tobacco smoke shall be given preference, and nonsmokers may lodge a complaint . . . immediate work area." DISCUSSION: The draft language could be interpreted to give nonsmokers preference in matters not related to the implementation of the smoking policy such as sick leave or work assignments , which clearly is not the intent. 6. MEASURES TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE THE EFFECT OF TOBACCO SMOKE ON NONSMOKERS . RECOMMENDATION: In Section 9.08 .090 (Employer compliance) paragraph c, we suggest the adoption of the language of the Newport Beach Ordinance: 11If , due to the proximity of smokers , size of the work area, poor ventilation or other factors, the no smoking designation of an employee's immediate work area does not significantly reduce the extent to which smoke effects nonsmoking employees , the employer shall, when practicable, make additional accommodation be reassigning such nonsmokers to other locations , enlarge the area in which smoking is prohibited, or take any other reasonable measure to eliminate or reduce the effect of tobacco smoke on nonsmokers . DISCUSSION:' ""here are many factors other than the floor plan of a business which may affect the way tobacco smoke affects the nonsmoking employees , and they should be allowed- to bt taken into account when determining whether or not to make additional accommodations for nonsmokers. 7. CONTENT OF "NO SMOKING SIGNS: RECOMMENDATION: In Section 9.08 . 110 (Sign requirement) , we suggest adding at t e end the words "and/or the international No Smoking logo; and also containing the designation °H.B.M.C. 9.08 ' or other indication that smoking is prohibited by law." DISCUSSION: Signs required by the proposed ordinance should, clearly indicate at smoking is prohibited by law, and not simply by policy of the place posting the sign. This will help encourage compliance, and will give notice to noncompliers . The international No Smoking logo (red circle and slash through a cigarette) should be permitted as an alternative to a sign with lettering, and the choice left 'to the person responsible responsible for each facility. 8. PROHIBITIONS . RECOMMENDATION: In Section 9.08. 130 (Prohibitions) , we suggest replacing 4 the last an with an "or90. DISCUSSION: Grammatical correction. Nathan C. Eason 6192 ;`Melds Drive Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 February 13, 1986 Huntington Beach City Council j C/O City Clerk City Hall `qi 2000 Main St, 1 " n Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �2 LA 9 c Y P n VIA Dear Sirs This is to inform you that we strongly support the enforcement of a non-smoking Ordinance in this city. It has been proved that a voluntary proposal does not work. I, myself, an strongly affected as I suffer from ophthalmic migraine, and cigarette smoke will trigger an attack. I have friends who surfer from emphysema which is a life threatener. Several restaurant managers have told me, when I request a non-smoking area - Don Jose on Adams Street is one restaurant- that it can only be successful under a city ordinance. Thanking you for your considerati.on ,.for those of us who-have been suffering for years- by though ess smokers, Sincerely, M. Veronica Eason 1\1athan C. Eason