Loading...
SR-040808-7Cc7_~ ~;Yof City Council Report Santa MonicaW City Council Meeting: April 8, 2008 Agenda Item: 7~. To: Mayor and City Council From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Subject: Ordinance Amending The Outdoor Smoking Ordinance To Make Restaurant Owners And Managers Liable Under Certain Circumstances, Reduce The Amount Of Fines, and Prohibit Smoking On Library Grounds; and Informational Update On Anti-Smoking Legislation Of Other Cities Including Multi-Unit Residential Areas, Tobacco Retailer Licensing, and Non-Binding Resolution Regarding Pharmacy Sales Of Tobacco Recommended Action Staff recommends that Council introduce for first reading the attached proposed ordinance. Staff also seeks Council direction for possible additional areas of tobacco regulation as described below. Executive Summary The proposed ordinance would amend the City's anti-smoking ordinance to create liability for business owners and managers who knowingly allow smoking in outdoor dining areas; require signage at outdoor dining areas; reduce the fines for all violations of the ordinance from $250 to $100 for first violations; and prohibit smoking on all Library grounds. There is no significant cost associated with the proposed ordinance; the periodic undercover inspections by staff at outdoor dining areas would not involve Police Department personnel. The report also provides information requested by Council on anti-smoking legislation adopted by other cities in three other areas: multi-unit residential housing; tobacco retailer licensing; and anon-binding resolution recommending that pharmacies not sell tobacco products. Background Following public discussion at its meeting of December 11, 2007, Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amending the City's anti-smoking ordinance to create liability for business owners and managers who knowingly allow smoking in outdoor dining areas; and to prohibit smoking on all Library grounds. Council directed staff to research 1 possibilities of reducing the fine structure of the ordinance and of requiring signage at outdoor dining areas as part of this same amendment. (A copy of the December 11, 2007 staff report is attached as Attachment B.) Council also directed staff to provide information on anti-smoking legislation adopted by other California cities in three other areas: multi-unit residential housing; tobacco retailer licensing; and anon-binding resolution recommending that pharmacies not sell tobacco products. Discussion Proposed Ordinance Business Liability In Outdoor Dining Areas Pursuant to Council's direction the proposed ordinance would make business owners and managers liable for knowingly or intentionally allowing smoking at outdoor dining areas. The proposed standard (knowingly and intentionally allowing smoking) is identical to that of the state law that applies to indoor workplaces, Labor Code Section 6404.5. Staff also recommends including a requirement that outdoor dining areas include no- smoking signs sufficient to apprise all diners of the law. The three Los Angeles-area cities that have imposed similar requirements, all require such signage. Calabasas requires that signs be conspicuously posted at each entrance and include letters of at least one inch in height or the universal no-smoking symbol. Burbank requires that signs be conspicuously displayed including multiple signs as appropriate for larger areas to ensure that signs be readily visible to all diners. Beverly Hills has a similar requirement to Burbank's. Signs are considered helpful to both education and enforcement of no-smoking rules at outdoor dining areas. They both alleviate the need for enforcement and facilitate private enforcement (one diner informing another of the law) and enforcement by employees. 2 Reduction of Fine Amount Staff recommends that the fine for violations of the ordinance be reduced from $250 to $100 for first violations; and that subsequent violations within one year be fined at $200 and $500 respectively. This recommendation is based on two factors. First, City Attorney and Police Department staff have received complaints from some cited individuals that the $250 fee is disproportionately high, especially when taking into account the mandatory penalty assessment that the court adds in every criminal case (2.6 times the base fine plus $20), which increases the actual amount paid in some cases to $920. Second, staff has researched the fine structures of other Southern California cities' anti-smoking laws and confirmed that most cities have the $100-200- 500 fine structure for violations within one year (for example, Calabasas, Beverly Hills and Burbank). This is also the fine structure of the state law that prohibits smoking at indoor workplaces. A base fine of $100 is still relatively high for an infraction. Also, those three cities and the state law all provide that the initial base fine be up to $100, and not a mandatory amount of $100. Council could consider whether to make the $100 base fine mandatory; or whether the fine should be "up to" $100, $200 and $500. In any event, staff believes that it would enhance the efficacy of the overall ordinance if the fines were reduced. Smoking On Library Grounds In light of complaints from the public and staff at the Main Library, Council directed staff to add all Library grounds to the list of locations where smoking is prohibited in the ordinance. Library and legal staff believe that the prohibition should include a "curb to curb" approach which would protect all ramps, walkways, and other common areas at the City's libraries. 3 Information On Additional Areas Of Regulation Multi-Unit Residential Areas Since the December 11, 2007 Council meeting, several cities have updated or formalized their smoking laws covering multi-unit residential areas: Calabasas: Prohibits smoking in all common areas and directs landlords to create designated outdoor smoking areas. Declares secondhand smoke a public nuisance. In multi-building complexes, requires 80 percent of buildings (not units) to be completely smoke-free by 2012. Oakland: Prohibits smoking in all common areas and directs landlords to create designated outdoor smoking areas. Requires owners to designate and disclose all smoke-free units to prospective tenants and condominium buyers. Belmont: Prohibits smoking in all multi-unit housing including apartments and condominiums. Units which do not share a floor or a ceiling with another unit are exempt.-The housing portion of the ordinance will not take effect for 14 months so that current leases can expire and new leases be prepared. Belmont is the only city to date to prohibit residential smoking this broadly. (The city does not have a rent control law.) Staff has also organized a chart showing the measures that have been taken to date by other local governments in California covering residential smoking. (See Attachment C.) The following is a summary of those laws: • Ten California cities have regulated smoking at residential locations. • Six cities have prohibited smoking at outdoor residential common areas; of these, three cities allow or require property owners to designate outdoor smoking areas. • Four cities have declared second-hand smoke a public nuisance. This can facilitate legal actions against smokers in some situations. 4 • Three cities have no-smoking requirements for certain future multi-unit residential construction. • Two cities require owners to disclose to prospective renters or condominium buyers which units allow smoking and which do not. Two concerns raised at the previous Council meeting were preserving rent control tenants' rights and educating landlords about potential legal measures to protect tenants from second-hand smoke while not infringing on smoking tenants' legal rights. Some have voiced a concern that anti-smoking laws might be used by some landlords to evict rent-controlled tenants. Others have voiced a concern that smoking might be considered a "housing service" for which a tenant would be entitled to compensation for removing, and which could create eviction protections in a tenant. "Housing service" is defined as any "benefit [or] privilege ...connected with the use or occupancy of any rental unit." City Charter §1801(d). It is an open question whether a tenant's right to smoke might be construed as a housing service. In any event, there are numerous options for potential residential smoking regulation that would not impact the rights of existing tenants. Staff has received approximately 25 complaints and inquiries from the public on this issue in the past year. Some tenants have complained that their health (or their children's) is being damaged by other tenants' smoking and they have requested action by the City to address this problem since no current law directly covers this conduct. These inquiries appear to be increasing in recent months. In addition, staff is informed by S.A.F.E:, a local anti-smoking organization focused on residential smoking, that there are other similar complaints in the City. Regardless of whether Council directs any regulatory action in this area, staff recommends that Council direct staff to conduct public education for landlords, tenants and others in this area to clarify existing rights, responsibilities, and options. 5 Tobacco. Retailer Licensing An increasing number of California local governments are adopting tobacco retailer licensing ordinances. These laws are intended to help reduce the sale of cigarettes to minors. Although state law already imposes criminal fines for such sales, that law has not appreciably reduced the incidence of the illegal sales. Licensing is seen as a more powerful -and cost-free -way to address the problem. The ordinances require all sellers of tobacco products in a city to pay an annual fee of between $200 and $600 that in turn pays for the administration and enforcement of various requirements aimed at reducing sales of tobacco to minors. The most common requirements of these laws (in addition to prohibiting sales to minors) are banning mobile sales of tobacco products and requiring sales clerks to request proof of age when the customer appears to be below a certain age. They are enforced through inspections and undercover operations. Violations result in various lengths of suspension of the license -meaning the retailer cannot sell tobacco .products during that time. Most cities mandate the eventual revocation of the license for multiple violations within afive-year period. Enforcement is typically handled by various combinations of the police department, code enforcement, and (by contract) County health departments. To date, more than fifty local governments in California have adopted tobacco retailer licensing laws. In 2006, 15 new cities added such laws (including .Burbank, Glendale and Davis); in 2007, 13 more cities did so (including Carson, Santa Ana and Riverside). Attachment D is a summary of the requirements of tobacco retailer licensing laws adopted by selected California cities in recent years. Resolution Encouraging Pharmacies Not To Sell Tobacco Products The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and the American Lung Association are encouraging local governments to adopt non-binding resolutions that encourage all local pharmacies to stop selling tobacco products. Hospitals have 6 stopped selling tobacco products. By far the largest number of pharmacies that still sell cigarettes are the major chains (Rite-Aid, CVS, Longs, etc.). If Council were to adopt such a resolution, the American Lung Association would send a letter to each pharmacy in the City advising them of the resolution Alternatives As to the proposed ordinance, Council could consider alternatives to reducing the initial fine from $250 to $100. These include keeping the fine as it is; or using an accelerated schedule for subsequent fines only for businesses (in outdoor dining areas). Council could also consider whether to make a $100 fine a mandatory or maximum figure. As to the libraries, Council could consider a more limited scope of the area covered. As to the three areas of new information provided here, Council could consider various amendments to the City's anti-smoking ordinance as described above Public Outreach Staff (including City Attorney and City Manager personnel) plan to conduct a major new public education campaign for the overall outdoor smoking ordinance, preferably to coincide with the adoption of the proposed ordinance. The City Manager has approved new funding to pay for this campaign. Staff has released a Request for. Proposals for the potential design and help with implementation of this campaign. Staff also continues to work closely with the Police Department and various business groups to coordinate the enforcement and education of the ordinance. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions Adoption of the proposed ordinance would have no substantial financial impact. Added enforcement of the outdoor dining area provision would involve periodic staff time for undercover inspections. However, since direct confrontation and citation would not be necessary, no involvement of Police Department personnel with this aspect of the 7 ordinance is expected. As to the Library provision, staff expects that most enforcement will be through informal means; and that required police involvement would be minor. Prepared by: Adam Radinsky, Head, Consumer Protection Unit Attachments: A: Proposed Ordinance B: December 11, 2007 staff report C: Chart of other cities' residential smoking regulation D: Select summary of tobacco retailer licensing laws Approved: Mars Jone outrie City orne 8 Forwarded to Council: F:\CityAttorney\MuniLaw\ConsumerProtection\Smoking2007project-ord 1 std raft040808 City Council Meeting: April 8, 2008 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) (City Council Series). AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING CHAPTER 4.44 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE ON SMOKING TO MAKE RESTAURANT OWNERS AND MANAGERS LIABLE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, REQUIRE POSTING OF NO SMOKING SIGNS, REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FINES, AND PROHIBIT SMOKING ON PUBLIC LIBRARY GROUNDS WHEREAS, the November 2006 amendment to the outdoor smoking ordinance prohibited smoking in outdoor dining areas but did not create any liability for business owners; and WHEREAS, since November 2006 staff has received numerous complaints of customers smoking at outdoor dining areas at local restaurants; and WHEREAS; in many of these cases the business owners responded to staff's inquiries by stating that the current law does not require owners to enforce the no- smoking rule or make them liable, and they refused to make an effort to curtail the illegal smoking at their outdoor patios; and WHEREAS, visual surveys in late 2007 found that smoking was still occurring at a substantial number of outdoor dining areas in Santa Monica; and 1 WHEREAS, making owners, operators .and managers liable will increase the effectiveness of the outdoor smoking law since they can control the conduct at their private establishments; and WHEREAS, making owners, operators and managers liable for smoking at outdoor dining areas will make it easier to enforce the ordinance through undercover inspections since no confrontation with patrons or citations of patrons will be necessary; and WHEREAS, making owners, operators and managers liable for smoking at outdoor dining areas will help level the playing field for local restaurants by assuring that none can cater to a smoking clientele; and WHEREAS, making owners, operators and managers liable for smoking at outdoor dining areas will bring Santa Monica into uniformity with the other nearby cities that ban smoking at outdoor dining areas; and WHEREAS, many other California cities, including three in Los Angeles County that impose liability on businesses for smoking at outdoor dining areas require the posting of prominent no smoking signs; and WHEREAS, the posting of no smoking signs in outdoor dining areas will facilitate the enforcement of the law by patrons as well as employees; and WHEREAS, staff has received complaints from some cited individuals that the current $250 fee for violations of the ordinance is disproportionately high, especially when taking into account the mandatory penalty assessment that the court adds in every criminal case; and 2 WHEREAS, most California cities impose initial fines of $100 for violating outdoor smoking ordinances, with fines increasing to $200 and $500 respectively for subsequent violations, as does the state indoor workplace smoking law; and WHEREAS, the public and Library staff have complained about chronic second- hand smoke adjacent to the Main Library. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 4.44 of the Santa Monica .Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 4.44 REGULATION OF SMOKING Section 4.44.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases, as used in this Chapter or in any other applicable law regulating smoking, shall have the following meanings: (a) Dining area. A non-residential location where food or beverages are served by a business or routinely consumed by customers. This includes but is not limited to .restaurant or bar seating areas and patios.. (b) Service area. A place where people use or wait for services provided by a private or government entity. This includes but is not limited to bus stops, ATM lines, information kiosks and theater lines. 3 (c) Smoke or smoking. The carrying or holding of a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, or any other lighted smoking product or equipment used to burn any tobacco products, weed, plant, or any other combustible substance: Smoking includes emitting or exhaling the fumes of any pipe, cigar, cigarette, or any other lighted smoking equipment used for burning any tobacco product,-weed, plant, or any other combustible substance. Section 4.44.020 Prohibitions. (a) Smoking in Specific Locations It shall be unlawful to smoke in the following places° (1) Any elevator; (2) Any public park; (3) Any public beach; (4) Anywhere on the Santa Monica Pier; except in designated areas; (5) Any outdoor service area; (6) Inside any public building (as that term is defined in Government Code Section 7596); (7) Any outdoor dining area; (8) Within twenty feet of the entrance, exit or open window of any building open to the public; (9) The Third Street Promenade; 4 (10) Any Farmers Market.-; (11) The grounds of any public library. (b) Disposal of Smoking Waste. No person shall dispose of any cigarette, cigar or tobacco, or any part of a cigarette or cigar, in any place where smoking is prohibited under this Chapter, except in a designated vvaste disposal container. (c) Liability of Businesses. No business owner, operator or manager shall knowingly or intentionally allow smoking in an outdoor dining area that is under his, her or its control. (d) Posting of Signs: Every business that owns or controls an outdoor dining area covered under subsection (a)(7) shall post one or more prominent signs in conspicuous locations to apprise users of the prohibition of smoking in that outdoor dining area. Multiple signs must be provided as needed for larger areas to ensure that signs are readily visible to all users of the area. {E} (Enforcement and Penalties. (1) Infraction. A violation of this Section is an infraction and shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars for the first violation: two hundred dollars for a second violation within one year; and five hundred dollars for a third and subsequent violations within one year. 5 (2) Nonexclusive Remedies and Penalties. Punishment under this Section shall not preclude punishment pursuant to Health and Safety. Code Section 13002, Penal Code Section 374.4, or any other law proscribing the act of littering. Nothing in this Section shall preclude any person from seeking any other remedies, penalties or procedures provided by law. (3) Business Owner Liability. Section 4.44.030 Sale of tobacco by vending machine or other mechanical device or out of package. (a) Purpose. The City Council finds cigarette smoking and other tobacco use by minors to be a continuing problem with grave public health consequences. Studies show that the vast majority of adult smokers began as teenagers, and that teenagers who begin using tobacco before the age of fifteen eventually have much higher cancer rates than non- tobacco using teenagers. In recognition of -the Surgeon General's conclusion that nicotine is as addictive as cocaine or heroin, action is needed to curtail the easy access of minors to cigarettes and other tobacco products. The purpose of this Chapter is to implement a strict and enforceable system to prevent the illegal sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products to minors. (b) Vending Machines. On or after May 1, 1991, no person shall sell or dispense cigarettes or other tobacco products by vending machine or any other device that automatically sells or dispenses tobacco products. 6 (c) Out of Package Sales Prohibited. It is unlawful to sell cigarettes out of the manufacturer's package or without required health warnings. SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court- of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed. this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequeritly declared invalid or unconstitutiohal. SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official. newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption APPROVED AS TO FORM: v~ M RSH NES M UTRIE C Atto n 7 c7~ ;tYof City Council Report Santa Monica City Council Meeting: December 11, 2007 Agenda Item: 8-A To: Mayor and City Council From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Subject: Request For Council Direction To Draft An Ordinance Amending The Outdoor Smoking Ordinance To Make Restaurant Owners And Managers Liable Under Certain Circumstances And Update On Other Local Anti-Smoking Efforts Recommended Action Staff recommends that Council give direction on a possible amendment to the anti- smoking ordinance to create liability for business owners and managers who knowingly allow smoking in outdoor dining areas. Executive Summary The existing no-smoking ordinance prohibits smoking in outdoor dining areas but does not hold businesses responsible. Staff has received numerous complaints of continued smoking at outdoor dining areas, and has learned that some restaurants knowingly allow these violations to occur. Making owners and managers liable for smoking at outdoor dining areas, as other jurisdictions have done, likely would- correct the problem. Staff requests direction. to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration which would make this change. There is no significant cost associated with such an ordinance; the periodic undercover inspections by staff would not involve Police Department personnel. Discussion Business Liability And Outdoor Dining Areas The City's most recent outdoor smoking ordinance became effective in November 2006. It prohibited smoking at all outdoor dining areas in the City, among other locations. Since that time staff has received more than two dozen complaints of customers smoking at outdoor dining areas of local restaurants. In many of these cases, the business owners responded to staff's inquiries by stating that the current law does not require owners to enforce the no-smoking rule or make them liable; and they have refused to make an effort to curtail the illegal smoking at their outdoor patios. The continuing problem of smoking at some outdoor dihing areas is also evidenced by the fact that the Police Department issued 19 citations to smoking restaurant patrons in the first eight months of this year. Additional anecdotal evidence and staffs own observations confirm that smoking continues at a number of local outdoor dining areas. Staff seeks Council direction on potentially making businesses liable ih such situations, for several reasons. First, it would help effectuate the outdoor dining area law. Although overall public compliance with the 2006 ordinance has been good and educational efforts have been effective, outdoor dining areas have proved more difficult to enforce due to the non-cooperation of some businesses. Once businesses are responsible, staff expects that overall compliance by smokers with the law will increase since businesses can readily control the conduct at their private establishmerits. This is what happened with Staffs enforcement of the statewide indoor smoking law that became effective in bars in 1998. Also, owner and manager liability would. be less disruptive to diners and easier to enforce through undercover inspections (as it is with local indoor bars) since neither confrontation with nor citations of patrons will be necessary. Second, business liability would help- level the playing-field for local restaurants by assuring that none can cater to a smoking clientele. Third, creating business liability would bring Santa Monica into uniformity with the other three local cities that ban smoking at outdoor dining areas. Beverly Hills (effective October 1, 2007), Burbank and Calabasas all impose liability on the businesses in such cases. In order to ensure fairness to owners and operators, staff recommends using the same standard as state law (Labor Code Section 6404.5) for imposing owner liability for 2 smoking: only those businesses that "knowingly or intentionally allow" smoking would be liable.. Thus, for example, if a customer lights up before a waiter has had a chance to notice or respond, the owner would not be liable. Fairness could also be ensured in other ways, including the manner of implementation. Staff suggests an enforcement plan similar to its enforcement of the statewide indoor workplace law in local bars and restaurants: an initial written notice to all affected businesses and publicity in the news media, followed by undercover inspections and, when appropriate, prosecutions.. Public Outreach Staff conducted outreach on this issue by holding an informational public meeting on September 17, 2007. Invited to the meeting were the local Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association (CRA), the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the local Business Improvement Districts including the Bayside Corporation. The CRA has indicated its non-opposition to creating business liability. Staff also is planning a second informational meeting for restaurant owners, BIDs, and others interested in the proposed amendment. Alternatives Council could consider other means to assure that business owners do not allow smoking at outdoor dining areas. One way would be for staff to continue to respond to individual complaints by urgingvoluntary compliance from restaurants, and for police officers to continue to cite individual smokers at dining areas. However, staff believes, based on past experience with enforcing the statewide indoor smoking law in local bars, that creating owner liability would be the fastest, most efficient, and fairest way to achieve the goal of reducing smoking at outdoor dining areas. 3 Update On Other Local Anti-Smoking Efforts In the past Council has asked staff to monitor anti-smoking developments in other cities. In recent months several California cities have addressed the issue of multi-unit residential smoking The City of Oakland recently approved at first reading an ordinance that requires owners of multi-unit residential properties to disclose to prospective tenants and purchasers where any smoking-permitted units are located. The ordinance also prohibits smoking at all indoor and outdoor common areas of multi-unit residential properties; and allows owners to create designated outdoor smoking areas. The Calabasas City Council on October 3, 2007 requested further staff review of other cities' residential smoking laws but reached a consensus to require in the future that 80 percent of the buildings in multi-building residential complexes be completely smoke- free, while grandfathering in all existing smoking tenants. The Council plans to reconvene on the issue in November 2007. The City of Belmont approved at first reading an ordinance which among other things requires no smoking in all multi-unit housing including condominiums. Units which do not share a floor or a ceiling with another unit are exempt. The housing portion of the ordinance will not take effect for 14 months so that current leases can expire and new leases be prepared. The ordinance will be complaint driven and the city will enforce. The City of Temecula recently adopted an ordinance which requires that every apartment building of ten units or more set aside 25 percent of contiguous units as non- smoking. Market rate buildings have eight years to comply; senior housing buildings have five years to comply. 4 Staff is not recommending that Council act in the residential arena at this time but will continue to monitor the actions of other cities. Recommendations Staff recommends that Council. give direction as to how best to effectuate its anti- smoking policies at outdoor dining areas and suggests a direction to amend the existing ordinance to create liability for businesses in certain situations as described above. Financial Impacts And Budget Actions Adoption of an ordinance such as that discussed above would have no substantial financial impact. Added enforcement of this provision would involve periodic staff time for undercover inspections. However, since direct confrontation and citation would not be necessary, no involvement of Police Department personnel with this aspect of the ordinance is expected. Prepared by: Adam Radinsky, Head, Consumer Protection Unit Approved: Marsha Jones Moutrie City Attorney Forwarded to Council: P. Lamont Ewell City Manager 5 ATTACHMENT C MATRIX OF LOCAL SMOKEFREE HOUSING POLICIES March 2008 City of Oakland December 2007 The city passed an ordinance that prohibits smoking in enclosed and unenclosed places. Each violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100.00 for the first violation; $200.00 for the second violation within a year; and $500.00 for each additional violation within one year. For enclosed areas this applies to all new and existing multi-housing common areas. All landlords in multi-housing complexes are required to disclose to prospective tenants whether smoking is permitted in the unit to be rented and which units are designated smoking units and the smoking policy for the complex. All sellers of condominium units are required to disclose to prospective buyers respectively whether smoking is permitted in the unit and the smoking policy for the complex. For unenclosed places smoking the. prohibition applies to multi-housing commons areas, except the landlord may designate a portion of the outdoor areas of the premises as a smoking area. Smoking areas must be located at least 25 feet from any indoor area where smoking is prohibited; must not include and must be at least 25 feet from outdoor areas primarily used by children, including but not limited to, areas improved or designated for play or swimming; must be no more than 25 percent of the total outdoor area of the The ordinance is enforced by the City Administratior or his or her designee. A private citizen may bring legal action to enforce this chapter _ j _ Chart provided by the Center for Tobacco Policy & Organezing. Updated by Paula Rockenstein ofahe Santa Monica Ciry Attorneys Office March 2008 ?t;~ohhrnunlt".f0aieihas ed! _,..:,>,~ . :M oj'~'zAyCsaans':. ,.~,':.,, `.'. ... premises of the multi-housing complex. It must have a clearly marked perimeter and must be identified by conspicuous si ns. ~.., enfo~ge>tXi~lntiProX[srons.,..:a .... ?' .. :; ,. .. ' . ,_:,fa -....... ~ ., , . City of Belmont .The city passed an ordinance that Each violation is an infraction subject to a $100 fne. Violations are also October 2007 prohibits smoking in all new and existing subject to civil action brought by the city, with a fine of between $250 apartments and condominiums that and $1000. share a common floor and/or ceiling. For current tenants who smoke, there is a This ordinance can be enforced by any peace officer or code 14 month grace period during which enforcement offcial. time they are still allowed to smoke in their unit. The city attorney can also bring a civil action to remedy violations, including nuisance abatement proceedings, code enforcement The new law also requires every lease of proceedings or suits for injunctive relief. a unit where smoking is prohibited to contain language that states the unit is nonsmoking and that other tenants in the building may enforce the no- smoking lease term. The same grace period of 14 months applies to the new lease terms for current tenants who smoke. Landlords are not required to enforce the new no-smoking lease terms nor are they required to evict a tenant who smokes in a nonsmoking unit. The ordinance also declares secondhand smoke a nuisance. Finally, the ordinance bans smoking in indoor and outdoor common areas, with landlords allowed to create designated smoking areas that meet certain restrictions (i.e. 20 feet away from i entrances and windows). i City oLTemecula This city passed an ordinance that Violations of this ordinance are enforceable by the city and subject to ' May 2007 requires landlords to designate 25 penalties outlined in the Temecula municipal code. ' percent of their units as non-smoking in ' all new and existing multi-unit residences ' with 10 or more units (it does not apply to condominiumsj. These non-smoking units must be grouped together horizontal) and vertical) and in a _ z, _ Chart provdded by dhe Center for Tobacco Poddcy & Organizing. Updaaed by Paula Rockensdein of the Sancta Monica City Attorneys Offue March 2008 r~omrrlunC .~~?a~c~Psis;;?d... ~ ?.. l,- ,'J~f~aa~~tkzyisFOas~ +F,,.,...,, :, „ , ,,,,,,!;r,,',y ~EdF#~ti~T#t~ tr it Nislan .~.:`i . t .,.~.~.!~~.... a i.~',3 _,..,,:.. ~ e~,~.,_::.. t:~.: separate building to the maximum extent possible. For new multi-unit housing, landlords must submit a floor plan to the city that identifies the smoking and non-smoking units within six months of enactment of this ordinance. Landlords of existing multi-unit residences must submit d floor plan to the city that identifies the smoking and non-smoking units within one year. Landlords have up to five years to actually designate these units as non- smoking and may apply for up to three, one-year extensions to comply, with the exception of senior housing. This ordinance also prohibits smoking in all indoor, and outdoor common areas for all multi-unit residences (any residence with two or more units). County of Sacramento This resolution encourages property April 2007 owners of multi-unit rental housing to designate at least 50 percent of their units as non-smoking or to make whole buildings within amulti-unit housing complex smokefree. Property owners that do so will be publicly recognized by the Board of Supervisors. City of Thousand Oaks The City of Thousand Oaks adopted a March 2007/ September 2004 policy requiring developers of new publicly-assisted rental housing to set aside one-third of the new units as non- smoking units. In March 2007, the city updated this policy to require that two-thirds of newly constructed publicly assisted rental housing and one-half of new supportive housin be smokefree. _ 3 _ Chart provided by Phe Center jar Tobacco Policy & Organizing. Updated by Paula Rackenstein of the Santa Monica City Attorneys Office March 2008 4^gminil~t. tAai~,P~ ged ~ ~._'_>,::.' ~, City of Sacramento December 2006 ,IlA~1~f:krvXisFQn~' .. ?....`::'. i ..r ... ,.:a ~ : ~ This resolution encourages property owners of multi-unit rental housing to designate at least 25 percent of their units as non-smoking or to make entire buildings within amulti-unit housing complex smokefree. Property owners that do so will be publicly recognized by the City Council ~°@~ferrl~xif.~~yt{§t~n~...,. ~ .,:.: ..r?' , ;, .,.° ,....,'.,:.i.., _~~~! ',:~. ~?s _~.., , City of Emeryville The ordinance bans smoking in indoor Enforcement will be handled by the City Manager. Citizens can register December 2006 and outdoor common areas of multi-unit a complaint with the City Manager to initiate enforcement. housing. The ordinance also declares secondhdnd smoke a nuisance, which allows a citizen to take private legal action. However, the ordinance states that the city cannot be a party in that legal action orhave legal action brought against it for non-enforcement of the smoking ordinance. Further, it states that no owners, managers, or employers who operates premises controlled by the smoking restrictions can be found guilty or held liable for the nuisance rovisions. City of Rancho Mirage The City Council adopted a smoking Residents can make complaints to the Housing Authority. December 2006 policy for the Rancho Mirage Housing Authority. This policy prohibits smoking in outdoor common areas in the Housing Authority's three senior affordable housing residential complexes. The policy would also prohibit smoking within apartment units for the Santa Rosa Villas and any.future senior residential complexes. All new residents of the other two existing senior residential complexes will be prohibited from smoking in their units, but people that already live in those two complexes will be allowed to smoke in their units until they move. _ 4 _ Chart provided by the Centerjor Tobacco Palicy & Organizing. Updated by Paula Rockenstein of the Santa Monica City Attorneys Office March 2008 : , r.. '.~~m[nur~4. {[kat~ff?~isse~7 ... ,. :=.a... City of Dublin September 2006 fyllao~,t`r~t~lsit~ ~, ~ , '~, a - ... ~.._~...,; ., This ordinance declares secondhand smoke a nuisance. ~n ~ I , ~ s ,:, ~r~~rr~eDt=f'#ay3sl~1~ .,a ,..:,.:: .<~ Pe_s.:.:e. ..., ri, . i,~.u., ., E.;.y The city passed a separate ordinance to state that the city will not spend any money or staff resources for the enforcement of this ordinance. City of Calabasas As part of a broader secondhand smoke The city prosecutor, city attorney, peace officer, or city code February 2006/February 2008 ordinance, the city prohibits smoking in enforcement offcer may enforce the provisions in this ordinance. The all indoor and outdoor common areas in ordinance requires business owners to enforce these provisions in their multi-unit housing (lobbies, hallways, establishments. Citizens of Calabasas can also report any violations of swimming pools, outdoor eating areas, the law to the code enforcement unit. play areas, etc). The ordinance declares that exposing The ordinance also allows any member of the public to sue another others to secondhand smoke is a public person to enforce these provisions. nuisance. In February of 2008, the City of Enforcement of the smoking ordinance for multi-unit residences is Calabasas modified their current similar to the enforcement of the noise laws. smoking ordinance to include additional areas to be added to the multi-housing If anon-smoking tenant violates their lease by smoking, they are area. These areas requires: subject to potential non-renewal. If a landlord receives two written complaints from different individuals about anon-smoking unit tenant *at least 80% of apartment buildings to smoking, the tenant may be subject to eviction at the discretion of the be permanently designated as non- landlord.. smoking units by January 1, 2012. According to the California Apartment Association of Los Angeles, the average turnover rate for apartments in Calabasas is currently 3-4 years. *Landlords to submit an initial annudl report by July 1, 2008 to the City detailing the number and location of non-smoking and smoking buildings until the required minimum 80%non-smoking buildings have been determined. *Permits up to 20% of buildings to be designated by landlords as smoking building and allows smokers currently in rental units to be " randfathered" in. _ 5 _ Chart provided by the Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing. Updated by Paula Rockenstein of the Santa Monica City Attorneys Office March 2008 _. a rrliuis {dgte,~*ai~~e~#'1 .. :.!a...,, ,Mcipr`P[aylsitSit fit.,.... €; ~F,~ ~ , :~ri~ ...: ,~,:` t ,,~ `,' ~~ ; ~ :.,Enfarp'IamerlltR'~~isCAn , :'I !'.~ ... m. Upon proper notification to their . .. , .._ ,.. ,. , landlord, smoking unit tenants will be permitted to continue smoking inside their units even if they are residing in a building designated smoke-free. Relocating to smoke-free or smoking building is completely voluntary. *all multi-unit apartment residences, balconies, porches, and patio's to be smoke-free. *Iandlordq to create outdoor designated smoking areas for smokers *leases for non-smoking units to contain a clause stating that smoking is prohibited in the unit and that it is a material breach of the lease to violate the terms of the ordinance. Landlords will be required to provide potential tenants with a floor plan identifying the location of smoking units, non-smoking units and any designated smoking areas. City of Santa Barbara The Housing Authority of the City of Residents can make complaints to the Housing Authority. November 2005 Santa Barbara adopted a policy that prohibits smoking in all 36 units of the Vista La Cumbre senior housing complex. This prohibition applies to smoking inside the units as well as on balconies. Residents are allowed to smoke in a designated area outside the building and residents who formerly smoked in their units were not grandfathered in, meaning they had to stop smoking in their units as soon as the policy became effective. City of Madera The City Council approved asmoke-free Residents may make complaints to the site manager. Au ust 2002 olic of the Madera Housin Authorit . _ (_ Chart provided by the Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing. Updated by Paula Rockenstein of the Santa Monica City Attorneys Office March 2008 The Madera Housing Authority adopted a policy to transition two of three senior housing buildings to be smokefree. New residents moving into buildings A and C at Yosemite Manor will not be allowed to smoke in their units or on their patios. Smokers that already reside in buildings A and C would be allowed to continue to smoke in their units but must keep their door to the hallway closed when smoking. Current and future residents of building B would still be allowed to _ '] _ Chart provided by the Center far Tobacco Policy & Organizing. Updated by Paula Rockenstein of the Santa Monica Ciry Attorneys Office March 2008 ATTACHMENT D Tobacco Retailer Licensing Laws Adopted By Selected California Cities Date City Revocation Enforcement Rules Annual fee 9/07 Glendale 3 viols. in 5 yrs Police, code Check ID $225 enf.- if look 27 8/07 Davis 4 viols. in 5 yrs D.A., enviro. Clerk must $348 be 18 2/07 Burbank 3 viols. in 5 yrs Police Check ID $235 if look 27; clerk must be 18 11/06 Carson 5 viols. in 3 yrs Sherrif, code $500 enf. 10/06 Sta Ana 4 viols. in 5 rs Police, health $635 9/06 Concord -- Police Check ID $160 if look 27 5/06 Riverside 4 viols. in 5 yrs Health Check ID $350 if look 18; clerk must be 18 9/05 L.A. -- Health $208 3104 Sacramento 4 viols. in 5 yrs Police, code $300 enf. 2/04 Pasadena 3 viols. in 5 rs Police $211 All cities ban the mobile sale of tobacco products. Additional documents available for review in City Clerk's Office.