Tobacco Documents Online

0 CITY f.?F BAeN JO819, CALlFOIalVfA an /10/!TM Ftrm $T1ltET./1ooY .oo sm JoK u-tlfoRwA Kiw oEPMRiLEHr of NEK3HOONM000 MSElrvAT1oN Ms. Sylvia Jutila, Cf;airperson American Cancer Society' Humboldt-Del Norte Ur9it 2107 Harrison Ave. Eureka, CA 95501 Dear Ms. Jutila: August 16, 1985 This is in response to your letter of July 22, 1985 requesting the City of San Jose's experience relative to enforcement of its smoking regulations. The City has adopted several Smoking Ordinances since October 1980 as follows: Date of Adoption Description October 14, 1980 Prohibited smoking in elevators, public health facilities, theaters, auditoriums, pavilions, retail stores, eating establishments and required the posting of "No Smoking" signs in all areas covered by the ordinance. June 9, 1981 Amended previous ordinance to exclude cocktail lounges and bars, excluded eating establishments having an occupied capacity of less than 100, and required that 30% of an eating establishment's floor area be provided. November 27, 1984 Ftequired employers to establish and maintain a smoking policy in baorkplaces. The following are answers to the questions posed in your letter of July 22, 1985: 1. The Department of Neighborhood Preservation's Code Compliance Division enforces the City's Smoking Ordinance on a complaint basis only. Due to limited staff resources, complaints are handled by mailing form notices to alleged violators (see attached notice). If the complainants report that the notices have not achieved compliance, infraction citations may be issued to violators. 2. Enforcement costs have been minimal since most complaint response is a clerical function. It is estimated that the smoking regulations have cost the City less than $80.00 per month. C G~ 3. The population of San Jose is approximately 700,000. C~1 ~ Cr~ N I I -27

. 0 Ms. Sylvi'a Jutila, Chairperson Ameriican Cancer Society August 16, 1985 Page 2 4. Adoption of the City's smoking regulatiions resu3tedlin surprisingly few actual complaints. With adoptiion of the June 9, 1981 ordinance, our Code Compliance Division received seven complaints in the first six months. In all!of 1982,,24 complaints were receivedl(all from a, singlee complaiinant)'. In 1'9'83, a total of'six complaints were received. The Code Compliance Division experienced an increase iin number of'inquiriesf and,complaints with adoption of the November 27, 11984 ordinance. In the first month, approximately 50 complaints and 1!50 inquiries were received. The Code Compliance Divisiion, in subsequent months, routinely receives about five complaints per month. 5. The Code Compliance Division anticipated heavy public response upon adoption of San Jose's Smoking Ordiinances and took steps to deal witK the expected onslaught. The ordinances received heavy news media coverage intended to i~nform the public of the provisions of the ordinance, penalties for non- compliance,, etc. The entire Code CompTiance staff of 28'persons was briefed on how to deall with calls and the field staff was directed to remain in the office. The expected crush of calls never materialized and the staff returned to normal duties. The prepared notices have proven very effective in deaTing1with complaints and our informational pamphlets (copy attached) effectively respond to ' inquiries. The Code Compliance Division has, to date., had!to issue only one citation for non-compliance. 6. After the initial increased activity upon adoption, of our smoking regullations, the number of complaints and iinquiries quickly, 1'evel'ed off and do not now constitute a significant worklload. 7. The San Jose City Attorney's Office has not rendered'an opinion relating to the smoking regulations. I hope that your questions have been answered sufficiently for your needs. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Douglas G. Barlcw, Chief, Code Compliance Division, at (408) 277-4527. Sincerely, RITA HARD'IiN„ Director N, Neighborhood Preservation OI RH/[ GB/aky ~ Enclosures (~7 ~ cc: Les White ~'. . . Cj f? I I,-28