Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - unsigned - 1992-06-15 - Special1 06/15/92 City Council, Special Meeting Council Chambers Redding, California June 15, 1992 5:23 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Moss with the following Council Members present: Anderson, Arness Kehoe and Moss. Council Member Dahl was absent. Also present were City Manager Christofferson, Director of Public Works Galusha, Director of Planning and Community Development Perry, Assistant City Attorney Calkins, Housing Manager Maurer, Associate Planner Morgon, Housing Supervisor Garrity, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Secretary to the City Council Rudolph. SHASTA COUNTY'S PROPOSED SMOKING ORDINANCE (E-020-010) Mayor Moss stated that the purpose of this special meeting is to receive public comment regarding Shasta County's Proposed Smoking Ordinance. In light of the medical evidence provided to Council at its June 2, 1992, meeting, he requested that the audience avoid redundancy. He related that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors has requested Council to act in an advisory capacity and provide comment and suggested changes with regard to the proposed ordinance. The following individuals expressed support of the proposed ordinance: Dr. Stephen Plank, Shasta County Health Officer Russ Northrup, Manager of Payless Drug Store, 1400 Market Street Alexa Singer-Telles, 468 Rio Street, Redding Mike Brown, 384 Woodcliff Drive, Redding Michael Arnold, 2231 Oakridge Drive, Redding Joanne Mazzone, P.O. Box 555, Shasta John Di Perry, President of Redding Branch, American Heart Association Steven Creson, 2070 N. Bechelli Lane #12, Redding Kathy Estes, 5805 Beaumont Drive, Redding Penny Moulton, 4198 Diane Street, Redding Lois Cushnie, 3825 Appalachian Way, Redding Tom Arias, 4175 Meander Drive, Redding Lynda Scheben, 12771 Encanto Way, Redding Dr. Michael Cleary, Mercy Medical Center Linda Helmer, 77 Spruce Court, Anderson Alan Kone, 12484 East Fork Road, French Gulch Robert Hill, 3043 Placer, Redding Jean Campfield, 1200 Douglas Lane, Redding Sue Levier, 7049 River Drive, Redding Terry Baker, 10405 Dasha, Redding Following is a summary of comments expressed in support of the ordinance: - Federal and State legislature has not addressed the health concerns relative to smoke; therefore, it is the responsibility of local government, at all levels, to exercise their responsibility and authority to protect public health. - Approximately 75 percent of the adults in this community do not smoke. - According to State Board of Equalization data, restaurant and bar business, in areas which have similar established ordinances, has not diminished. - Payless Drug Store on April 1, 1992, mandated that Payless properties become smoke-free environments, including those properties which are leased. To date, no negative comments have been received from the public. - The ordinance does not regulate smokers, but protects the health and safety of the majority of Shasta County residents. - Non-smokers tend to frequent smoke-free restaurants, as no-smoking sections do not eliminate second-hand smoke. - Businesses which allow smoking are subjecting their employees to a hazardous substance. - Smoking is not a free market issue, but rather a public health issue. - Studies do not take into account the amount of business which might be generated as a result of the proposed ordinance. - With proper signage, the ordinance is self-enforcing. Over time, the public will recognize it is not acceptable to expose others to tobacco smoke. 2 06/15/92 - Adoption of the proposed ordinance will send a clear message that government recognizes that second-hand smoke is a health hazard. - Studies indicate that any decline in business reported in communities with smoke-free ordinances can be attributed to accounting practices, economic factors, and competition. - The tobacco industry is utilizing its financial influence to place pressure on legislative bodies regarding the regulation of smoking. - Smoking related workers' compensation claims are increasing. - The proposed ordinance provides a level playing field, as all businesses are affected in the same manner. - Some children have chronic respiratory problems because of living in a smoking environment. The proposed ordinance sends a message to children that government does care about the future of their health. - Children are imitators and the less smokers seen in public places, the less chance children will develop smoking habits. - Surveys at Mercy Hospital indicate that patients support its smoke-free environment. - Smoke aggravates asthma and bronchitis conditions. 3 06/15/92 - Individuals who are cancer survivors, or work with cancer patients, do not want their experiences unnecessarily placed on non-smokers by subjecting them to second-hand smoke. - When smoking ordinances are placed on the ballot, the tobacco industry goes into those communities, spending large sums of money, lobbying against the ordinances. - Second-hand smoke studies are based on home studies; however, it is proven that many individuals spend as much time at their work site, as they do their home. - In communities with a similar ordinance, no economic downturn in convention business has been realized. In addition, the ordinance does not regulate smoking at private functions. - Bingo parlors in the cities of Sacramento and Lodi have not seen a decrease in bingo players due to the establishment of similar ordinances. - Smoking is an addicting drug which can lead to harder drug usage. The following individuals expressed opposition or concern to the proposed ordinance: David Grabeal, representing Redding Hotel/Motel Association George Santilena, Shasta Chapter of California Restaurant Association Don Conley, 1455 Arroyo Manor, Redding Donald Barber, 13336 Tierra Oaks Drive, Redding Colin Davis, 1112 Peregrine Way, Redding Armando Velincia, 100 Hilltop Drive, Redding Bob Wilder, 25596 Del Wood, Palo Cedro, owner of Amigos Restaurant Sue Richards, 2687 Valley Lane, Redding Clay Newman, The Tropics, 2555 Market Street, Redding Barbara Rayburn, 2229 Jewell Lane, Redding Jerome Bullert Ken Downs, 2071 Alta Vista Way, Redding Following is a summary of comments expressed in opposition or concern to the proposed ordinance: - Hotels and motels feel that the ordinance will affect their ability to attract major convention business. - The proposed ordinance requires a business owner to enforce the ordinance or be subject to a fine. - The proposed ordinance and the current ordinance should be reviewed and necessary modifications made to reduce the economic impact while still offering a healthier environment. - California Restaurant Association supports the establishment of laws directing the regulation of smoking in all public places throughout the State of California, without exclusion or exception. Until that time, the Association opposes the regulation of smoking in restaurants, while urging the restaurant industry to respond to consumer preferences by voluntarily establishing non-smoking sections. - Time would be better spent on education, rather than government intervention. - Potential problems are created for restaurants with locations throughout the state, as well as travelers who are not familiar with local ordinances. - Smoking bans do affect restaurant business. - Most non-smokers already have favorite restaurants which they will continue to patronize. - To date, all studies pertaining to second-hand smoke have been conducted in the home. - Restaurant profit margins are already low and cannot afford even a slight reduction in business. - Individuals indicating there will be no enforcement problems, are not the ones who will be dealing directly with the customers. - The current ordinance works and offers a freedom of choice. - Government is imposing too many regulations. - Air conditioning systems in homes are not comparable to those of businesses. - Smokers working in smoke-free environments patronize restaurants during their breaks and lunch hours to smoke. - Unless otherwise posted, the existing smoking ordinance, for all intensive purposes, bans smoking. David Gibson, Executive Director of the Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce, indicated that the Chamber of Commerce spent considerable time reviewing the proposed ordinance. Because of the valid arguments presented on both sides, the Chamber of Commerce was unable to take a position on the issue. He 4 06/15/92 suggested that Council recommend the placement of this issue on the November ballot. Council Member Kehoe viewed this issue as having four essential aspects: (1) Medical consideration; (2) Economics; (3) Government - He acknowledged that many residents resist government intervention; however, there are some situations where legislators have an obligation, specifically with regard to public health and safety; and (4) Jurisdictional Aspect - If the County opts to implement the proposed ordinance, it should be on a County-wide basis. Council Member Kehoe also indicated that if Council recommends the adoption of the proposed ordinance, the following areas should be addressed: (1) Section 8.45.030, Subsection A, Numbers 1 and 2 - It is not appropriate for the City to take a position on this item as it applies only to the County; (2) Section 8.45.110, Subsection D - He has concern over an individual or entity being able to commence a civil action to remedy any violation of any regulatory or 5 06/15/92 prohibitory provision of this chapter; (3) Section 8.45.060, Subsection A, Number 3 - He indicated that clarification is needed as to whether conventions are considered private functions. Council Member Arness did not endorse recommending that the proposed ordinance be placed on the ballot. With the exception of possibly one individual, he commented that no one present argued that smoking is hazardous to health. He favored recommending the proposed ordinance to the County. Council Member Anderson expressed concern for certain businesses, such as the Casino Club, and questioned whether specific consideration might be allowed in certain areas. Since a state-wide ordinance does not appear feasible, he favored the ordinance being county-wide. He suggested that the wording in Section 8.45.110, Subsection D, regarding an individual or entity commencing a civil action to remedy a violation, be removed. He supported endorsing the ordinance to the County with the noted concerns. He commented that if the County adopts the ordinance and the City starts making its own modifications, the playing field will no longer be level. Mayor Moss related that the City has an obligation to provide a recommendation to the County on the proposed ordinance, as it represents half of the County's population. Because many of the City's codes and ordinances are directed at the protection of public health and safety, Council has the responsibility of addressing smoking, as it is a legitimate public health issue. He too expressed concern regarding Section 8.45.110, Subsection D, regarding an individual or entity commencing a civil action to remedy a violation. He opined that a strong anti-smoking ordinance could be developed allowing some exclusions. It could be written in such a way that a restaurant has the option of choosing to be either smoking or non-smoking; thereby, providing freedom of choice for both the owner and the patrons. Because of their already low profit margin, the ordinance, as it is written today, would cause some bars and restaurants to close. He favored the endorsement of the ordinance, but specified that some provision needs to be made for the bars and restaurants. In response to Mayor Moss, Assistant City Attorney Calkins related that the County could place the proposed ordinance on the ballot in one of two forms: (1) An initiative, which if passed, automatically creates a law and any future amendments would require the vote of the people; or (2) Advisory - If a majority votes in favor of the ordinance, the Board of Supervisors could then follow the vote and adopt the ordinance. He clarified that if the County adopts the ordinance, it becomes part of the City's code by reference. Council, by either resolution or ordinance, could then amend the ordinance either in whole or part. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member Arness, to encourage the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to accept the proposed smoking ordinance as written with the following exceptions: (1) Took no action on Section 8.45.030, Subsection A, Numbers 1 and 2 re Prohibition of Smoking in County Buildings and Enclosed Public Places; (2) Delete Section 8.45.110, Subsection D re Enforcement; (3) Clarify Section 8.45.060, Subsection A, Number 3 re Where Smoking Not Regulated; and (4) Requested the Board of Supervisors to address possible solutions concerning the impact the proposed ordinance may have on the restaurant and bar businesses within the community. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - Anderson, Arness, Kehoe and Moss Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - Dahl ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 8:36 p.m., Mayor Moss declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: _________________________________ Mayor 6 06/15/92 ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk