Tobacco Documents Online

THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE 187.5 [ STREET. NORTHWEST WASHLNG~TON. DC 20006 202 457-4800 o BOO 424-.qB76 MEMOI~J~NDOM M. HURST MARSHALL Vice President May 19, 1987 To : From: Subj: W.E. Ainsworth Jr, Esq., Chairman Mr. Larry A. Bewley James R. Cherry, Esquire Edward J. Foster, ~quire M. Hurst Marshall~ Mr. John Kochevar Mr. Edward D. Kratovil Mr. Donald E. Mort Rancho Mirage, California/Situatlon Report Even though the action taken on May 7 by the city council was more favorable than the original proposal, the Rancho Mirage Restaurant & Merchants Association (RMRMA) continues to push for further amendments which it feels are more reasonable. Second reading is scheduled for Thursday, May 21 and time on the agenda for additional testimony has been requested. It is anticipated that a large number of tobacco supporters will be present. Enclosed for your review are the following: (I) Attachment 1 - A letter to the mayor and council members with an attachment outlining objectives to current ordinance. (2) Attachment 2 - A letter to Rancho Mirage businesses urging continued support. (3) Attachment.3 - (4) Attachment 4 - A May 14, 1987, press release. A letter to Mayor Sleaman asking for a meeting to discuss objections of RMRMA. I will keep you informed as to the outcome of these activities and the results of the second reading hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. MHM:sc Attachments CC: Dr. Paul C. Bergson Mr. Samuel D. Chilcote Jr. Mr. K.v.R. Dey Jr. Mr. Martin Ryan Haley Mr. Thomas Humber Mr. Murray Jones Mr. K. Michael Irish Mr. William Kloepfer Jr. Mr. Robert J. Lewis Mr. William A. O'Flaherty Ernest Pepples, Esquire Stanley L. Temko, Esquire State Activities Staff Tl19810041

RANCHO MIRAGE RESTAURANT & MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION 70-033 Hwy 111, Rancho Mirage 922/0 • (61g) 341 7493 On behalf of the Rancho HlraRe Restaurant and Herchants Association we, the association Board of Directors, wish t> express our disappointment that the council chose not to adopt our compromise position. While we are committed to continue to-~ock for sufficient public support th{s issue to achieve our poslt¢on, we still hope that you, as an elected representative of our community, will work with us. The ~ssue tar us continues co be one o~ legislatlve and economic parity wick our buslness compsttcors in surrounding clc~es. Ne ~irmly believe,.~d statistics :rom other cities like Beverly Hills support our claim, thsC th~ curcen~ proposal will have a negative impact on our business community and pl~ce us in an unfair competitive position with our neighboring cities. We do not want to be in ihe position of the Beverly Hills business co~m~unit~ ~hose documented b~slness losses continue ~o fall on their ctt7 councils' deaE ears, [acting that association to seek legal and elective recourse. Our membership continues to 8row and a 8eneral consensus amon8 members is that tits present proposal continues to present us with an unworkable solution, Nith continued support from the Chamber, llote£ and Hote£ Associa~ton and the Country Clubs, ee hop~ the council ~tll not Isolate ~rom its community, represen~atives. Ne believe it is a mistake tar our city council co consider so-ca~led "solutions" to this Issue from competitive business interests who do not speak for Rancho Htrnge. For your review we have attached our comments regarding the p~oposed ord~snue. We continue to seek a compromise ~olutlon~ similar to our stated position, ~ha~ will guarantee a smoke-free environment while also giving bustness the [lexlbillCy needed to mccomodate customers and employees who w~sh ~o smoke~ wherever possible. We hope you will meet with us in the near future to seek a viable ~olutlon. A~n Hutchins Ran Fletcher TI19810042

The Rancho Mirage Restaurant and Merchants Association continues to voice strong ob~ectlon ~o the proposed smoking restriction ordinance. Our concerns are as follows: Restaurant Res~rictions Io Section 3: Definitions d. The definition of the bar area to only include the area within 15 feet of ~he physical bar surface will certainly cause problems based on the physical layouts of certain restaurants and will not serve any purpose to supposedly separate smokers within the allowable bar area and non- smokers in the bar or lounge area beyond the 15 fee~ llmi~atlon. This is particularly so since many of our restaurants in comp1~ance wi~h the existing ordinance have already established their bar areas (cocktail lounges) as their smoking areas. Examples: Lord Fletcher's, Domlnlck~s, Medium Rare, e~c. What do you do w~h a physical configuration such as La Cave and Chaplins Bistro in order to supposedly facilitate the separation for health reasons? SOLUTION: If a restauran~ provides the necessary nonsmoking areas, which will now au~omatlcally include serving areas in bars and cocktail lounges, for non-smokers except as proposed in solu~io~ #2~ and are willin~ to say ~ha~ the remaining-area for smokers can be totally set up in the bar or cock, all'lounge, if ~hac is ~he res~auranteura choice, ~hen ~he 15 feat l~mi~at~o~ should be lifted and not required in that particular restaurant. CLARIFICATION: Bosh of our largest ho~els have comp~stely separate bar areas (cocktail lounges) and dining areas. Those being the Rancho Las Pa~mas Marriott and the Mission Hills Resor~ Hotel. We ha~e no~ seen plans as yet on ~he new Ritz-Carlton Ho~el but we could a~sums that it would be the same situation as the o~her two. The only food service in our two ~a~or ho~el bars (cocktail lounges) is at "Happy Hour Time" and that semite is only hors d'oeuvres. Thus~..the 15 feet llmitation should be removed- as a re~ulremen~ for chelr ~bar areas'. Section 6: Exceptions a. (6) ~. The two thirds non-smoking and oue third ~;mokin8 requiram~nt allows no ~lexlbillty a~ all for the restauran~ owner/operator for those floss when the reques~ for smoking sections may exceed ~he one third area allowed and may cause him/her to turn aw~r business when she non-smoking section may not be filled to capacity. ~LUTION: The ord±nance should be wrlt~en in such a way that sllows the restauranteur the [lexlbllIEy to use an al~ernative smok~n8 area ~or se~vlce as long as such area when added to the initial designated smoking area does not exceed 50Z of hls/her entire d~nln8 area on any 81ven nlght, ~he same rill hold true for the TI19810043

Section 6: Exceptions a. (2) 2. The requirement for all restauranceurs to inacall charcoal filtration systems in their escabllshmenta by December 31, 1987 is unfair, partlcularly co some of our newer and smaller 'eatab!Ishments and even for some of our larger establishments. Many will close shortly for one to three months for vacations and should not be forced to spend additional monies durlnE the slow time of year. SOLUTION: Let the restaurants agree co have their present pollutant levels checked by a qualified flrm such as "ACVA" to determine if Chelr present ventilation systems are adequat,~ an~ if not then require them co install the approprla~e (not ne~:esaarily charcoal) filtration systems in their des£gnated smoking areas, but allow them until February i, ~988 to do so, thus glv~n8 ':hem an adequate economic time frame to accumulate the funds. Section 6: Exceptions a. (6) 3. The requirement to post "tent" s~us on all non-smok±ng tables in our opinion w~ll create a "coffee shop look". SOLUTION: Approved designated nosmoking area be posted with standing s~gn(a) at entrance(s) to area. Require ~he restau~anteurs to remove ashtrays and ma¢ches from all non-smoking ~ables which they can replace if and when ~hose ~ab~es are required for use as an alternative area as outl~nad ~n Section 2. The agreed upon siEn in the lobby should suffice for the no~flcatlon of compliance. e Section 6: Exceptions a. (~) ~. The requirement for the seating layout ~:o ba displayed in the restaurant's lobby £s not practical ~ that ~he customer will rarely observe it or cannot use it for their choice of ~able location. $OL~TION: Have the restaurants agree to post a lobby or foyar siEn stating cha~ their restaurant complies w~th ~ha c~y ordinance requirement to provide pre-determlned smokln8 and non-smoklng ~reaa w~thln their dining areaa plus alternative areas ~hat guarantee the prlva~e rights of all diners and patrons concerned. Let the sign assure ~he customer of their right of choice. P~acea of Emp.loymenC 1. Section 6: Exceptions (,) ~. This requirement Co limit smokln8 in the workplace to a "second loun~e" of not more than 200 square feet, a ~0~ x 20~ separate room, in effect has no prac~icallty to Rancho Mirage buslnassas. We know of no general bus£ness in the c~.ty that maintains two separate lounges. This position also does not address the employers' concerns of malntalninE the flexlbillty co balance a workplace employees smoklnE polIcty w£th options which would allow employees ~d employera to smoke in various designated areas which would no~ be objected to by nonsmokers. -2- T!19810044

2o SOLUTION: Adopt a workplace reKulatlon slmilar to all other resulatlons in California which allow the designation of smokin8 areas within the workplace while 8ivln8 priority ~o the nonsmoker to declare their work, mee~In~ and eating areas smokefr~a if they ¢o wish. Section 6: Exceptions Based upon our above stated objecclons~ this section should be deleted. Also, while we do not object to requirements for adequate ventilation and filtration systems for smoking areas, a specific charcoal filter system requirement would cause many businesses who already have installed excellent filtration systems needles8 expense end could result in poorer air quality. -3- TI1981004-5