Tobacco Documents Online

D;'F©RMATIO:7' DATE ISSIPED: January 20, 1984 REPORT NO. 8w-19 SUBJECT: NON-SMOKING ORDINAttCE' A City ordinance regulating smoking in indoor public places has been in effect s'ince January, 1!97'5. It was amended extensively to broaden its coverage in 1982 with the assistan~ce of an ad hoc com=ittee. Of these amendments, those related to "iadoor public places" took effect in January of 1983, and!those per- taining to indoor "places of employment" vill become effective July 1, 19'8L., The ordinance now covers virtually a11' retail sal'es aad service establish.- ments,, cultural institutions, public conveyances, heal!th, care facilities, food'& marketing,establishments and restaurants (where smoking sections are: alloved), and it requires the posting of advisory signs so the public will be aware where smoking is permittedl and vh re it is not. CaSi'fornians for Yonsmokers.' Rights an& the Lung Association of San Diego and Imperial Counties have supplied n,=erous signs free,of' charge to establish- ments upon request. This publ'ic sertirice has been hdghly, bbeneficial to the City and deserves to be acknowledged at this time. It has been our experience that a high percentage of smokers L•iil!l comply voluntarily with reasonable regulations andipromffnent signing, and this principle has been the focal point of the City"s efforts to promote public anareness and to seek voluntary compliance and c:a.rer- ation rather than to prosecute violations, except as a last resort. t7c t:ave coordNnated other public information efforts with the County Sheriff''s ©ffice: and~the Department of Health Services and have shared with the County t::e t cost of prepari'ag,, printing and' distributing informational brochures. The Res- taurant Association, as well as the Lung Association and Californians for Ncn- smokers' Rights, have been most cooperative and helpful in assisting,us vith the publ!i_ awareness camp:aisn. During 1983', 4e received and responded to 513' ccmplaints involving 38'9 est'abltshment's and answered 271 inquiries regarding the ordinance. We have a1Lo aallled information to commercial centers and civic o:=6anizations for distribution N Q Nr~ ~I 1~ to hundreds of'smaLl businesses. The Director of Ci't,izens! Assistance b Inform:;rion has talked personally with M' G19 reprr.sentatives of approximately 170 establishmenrs covered by the ordinance,, the ~ ~ ~..~. ~

large percentag¢ of whom represent small businesses. (Ofthe total'number of con- plaints. 60Z eoncerned!restaurants and 36Z retail sales and service -establ~:sh- ments.) C It is our experience that busineasew have: been willing, to cooperate and have! made sincere efforts to do so and that they are appreciative of the emphasis on public awareness and voluntary compliance. Eiowever, they have been warned that failure to make a reasonable effort to comply will resulit in referral to the City Prosecutor's office. In preparing this report, we requested comaents on the business comnu:.ity`s opinions of the impact of the ordinance from the Chamber o#Commerce, the Restau- rant Association„ the Bbtel-tiot,el Association and the United Federation of Smalli Businesses. If additional comments are receivedlprior to the Committee meeting;, we will share them with you. The only written response hasbeem from the Restau- rant Association. The Asaociat! ca states, "w'e have heazd very little, good or bad, about the non-smoking ordinance over the past several'months, which leads us to conclude that non-smokrrs and restaurants have come to terms with the new system andiare handling prob3ems informally..." This is especially encouraging since (a) as noted above, 601f of our cot:pl'simts pertai'n to restaurants, and (b) we have mailed out about 300 copies of the Restau- rant Association's highly supportive letter. Otherwise, ofthe many calls wei have received, we are aware of none alleging that the ordinance: or the administration of it works an uareasonable hardship on business in San IDlego. We believe that San Diego has achieved some e_asure ofrecognition in this regard as we have been; asked fcr advice by several other cities in San Diego County and, beyond. We have worked closely with Californians for Nonsmokers' Righ,ts, whic.h originally propoeed thei stronger regulations. and we believe our prograas have. this organization's full endorsement and support. Wi;,hin a, few days, a report will be issued di'scussing the City's experience with restrictions on smoking in indoor "places ofemplcymer.t" as directed by the Public Services & Safety Committee on October 13, 1982. 'Dhe,City Council expressad an interest in reviewiir.g the City's experience before the effective daict of t o: regulations pertaining to all indooT work places, which provision will go into effect as mentioned above this Jtsly 1. Respectfully sLbm.itted. J.Cki'Yi LOCKNC~JO,D Assistant City Har.arer S'. OP,Y.