HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/1990, 1 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SMOKING ORDINANCE O �IP141111 city f sari -as � MEETING DATE:
0O�'�ry REM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorne
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Smoking Ordinance
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce to Print an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.16 of the
San Luis Municipal Code prohibiting smoking in certain public
places.
DISCUSSION:
Background: At the May 1, 1990 City Council meeting, the City
Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amending Chapter
8.16 of the Municipal Code to prohibit smoking in most enclosed
public places, specifically including restaurants and bars.
Attached for Council consideration is a proposed ordinance which
would extend the City's current smoking regulations to prohibit
smoking in the following areas not currently regulated:
1. Libraries.
2. Clinics, physical therapy facilities, doctors' offices
and dentists' offices.
3. Retail stores, including retail service establishments,
retail food production and marketing establishments,
retail, grocery and drug stores.
4. Areas available to the public in professional offices,
other offices, banks, hotels and motels.
5. Restaurants and bars.
In addition, the definition of "work place" has been amended to
apply to all public and private employers within the City. (A.
legislative draft of the proposed revisions is attached for your
information as attachment "A".)
Analysis:
The growing awareness of the health risks of smoking and the
mounting evidence linking passive exposure to tobacco smoke with
adverse health consequences (as set forth, for example, in the 1986
U.S. Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking) suggests that
Agenda Report
Page Two
the City is well within its basic police power to regulate smoking
in enclosed public places in order to promote the public health,
safety and general welfare, if such regulations have as their
primary purpose to protect nonsmokers from the health consequences
of involuntary tobacco smoke exposure. At the same time, any
ordinance regulating smoking must have a reasonable basis in health
and safety concerns and should be reasonably suited to achieving
the goal of reducing the exposure of nonsmokers to second-hand
smoke. Thus, an ordinance imposing a total ban on smoking in
public may be held to be unreasonable as over-broad if compliance
with the ordinance does not serve to reduce the exposure of
nonsmokers to second-hand smoke. The proposed ordinance provides
for specific instances in which smoking is not regulated, either
because the exposure to second-hand smoke is minimal, the health
risks have not been clearly established, or the activity involves
a purely private function. The exemptions include the following:
1. Private residences, except when used as a child care or
health care facility.
2. Hotel and motel rooms rented to guests.
3. Retail tobacco stores.
4. A private enclosed office work place occupied exclusively
by smokers even though such an office work place may be
visited by nonsmokers.
5. Any area exterior to the building in which the
establishment or facility is located.
6. Any enclosed rooms in an establishment or facility which
are being used entirely for private functions.
CONCURRENCES:
Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for administration and
enforcement of the smoking ordinance rests with the City
Administrator's Office, this report has been reviewed by and
concurred in by the CAO.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is anticipated that the long-term fiscal impact of amending the
smoking ordinance will be low, as compliance has traditionally
relied primarily upon public information and "self-enforcement."
However, additional staff time will be required for education and
/'*z
Agenda Report
Page Three
enforcement. until the public becomes familiar with the new
regulations.
Given the comprehensive nature of the proposed revisions, it is
anticipated that a significant amount of staff time will initially
be required. The Administration Department will have lead
responsibility for implementing the new regulations. Given the
high level of interest already shown in this matter, staff
anticipates a fairly intensive investment of time during the first
2-4 months following implementation. Staff time will primarily be
invested in publicizing the new regulations and resolving
complaints. Based on experience in other cities, complaints and
inquiries will be fairly high during the early weeks following
implementation and will subside as the public and regulated
businesses become more aware of their respective obligations.
In terms of staffing for "self-enforcement," during the summer
months, Administration typically employs a college intern on a 40-
hour per week basis to complete smaller, short-term projects. With
the adoption of additional smoking regulations, the focus for this
summer's intern will be the smoking ordinance. The intern will be
assisted and supervised by Administrative Analysts and the
Assistant CAO. The specific individual is someone who has been
working as a part-time intern during the school year, and who
possesses excellent communication and interpersonal skills. This
approach will allow for proper attention to smoking ordinance
implementation without affecting other priorities. At the
conclusion of the summer, the number of complaints and inquiries
should be at a level low enough to be handled by the Administrative
Analysts without significant work load impact.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are numerous alternatives to the proposed ordinance,
including no action, in which case the current ordinance would
remain in effect, or specific exemptions for particular types of
business. However, given the strong direction of the City Council
; at its May 1, 1990 meeting, alternatives to the proposed ordinance
are not recommended.
JGJ/sw
Attachments:
Attachment "A" (Legislative Draft)
Ordinance
/-3
, � r
Legislative Draft #3
Chapter 8.16
SMOKING PROHIBITED IN
CERTAIN AREAS
Sections:
8.16.010 Purpose.
8.16.020 Definitions.
8.16.030 Prohibition in certain public
places.
8.16.040 Regulation of smoking in the
workplace.
8.16.050 Posting of signs.
8.16.060 Compliance.
8.16,070 Violation--Penalty.
S.iS.bs6 Wh®re smokiag..aa�ry,�r�gu�a�s
severabit
8.16.010 Purpose.
Because smoking of tobacco or any other weed or plant is a
positive danger to health and a cause of material discomfort and
a health hazard to those who are present in confined places, and
in order to serve public health, safety and welfare, the declared
purpose of this' chapter is to prohibit the smoking of tobacco or
any other weed or plant in certain areas which are used by or open
to the public. (Ord. 1048 § 1 (part) , 1985)
8.16.020 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following words shall
have the following meanings:
1 .�,;�.... " ar'� Tae s 2171 a7rea W i ch S t" 8Y#S ii fG ' e
s �':a1-ft
alcohblsc beverages .tsar Oor�sumptidh��� 'gusts on the �7�e7n�ses 87i►c
of such. b2v'sr��e� �
g4. "Employee" means any individual who receives remuneration
, for services performed within the city.
B. "Employer" means any person, partnership or corporation
who employs the services of an individual person or persons.
. "Smoke" or "smoking" means and includes the carrying of
a pipe, cigar or cigarette of any kind which is burning, or the
igniting of a pipe, cigar or cigarette of any kind which is
burning.
U
Attachment "A"
B. "Service line" means an indoor line or area where persons
await service of any kind, regardless of whether or not such
service involves exchange of money. Such service shall include,
but is not limited to, sales, giving of information, directions or
advice, and transfers of money or goods.
estauran 'r >ra+earh;s sny caffee satrpx +caaterla,:
luncheonettIS, tavern, ' eocktagloune, earidtach stand, sada
l+ountain, private and public eohotal oafetera or sating
establishment, an any other eatltsgstabli5hnent otganiztori�F
olub, ir�al�ding veterans' c�.ub, baard�nghouse ax guesthouse# �rhi+
gives; or offers for sa�.e food tcf the ptabl;ic, +guests, at�#t6F r�r
ett�ployees as weal as �sitohens wh�.ch pod .�s prepared:. Asn tea
premises. for serving: elsewber�,: Ai3�Cl�.idu�g...Gat���nt� facillt �s..
G. "Retail Tobacco Store" means a retail store utilized
primarily for the sale of tobacco products and accessories and in
which the sale of other products is merely incidental.
. "Workplace" means any interior space under the control
of a public or private employer +n which five or mere employees
normally frequent during the course of employment, including, but
not limited to, work areas, employee lounges, conference rooms, and
employee cafeterias. A private residence is not a workplace under
this section. (Ord. 1048 § 1 (part) , 1985)
8.16.030 Prohibition in certain public places.
Smoking shall be prohibited in the following places:
A. Elevators, museums,
r' 3 ">€ galleries ublic
::...........................w.r P
- transportation facilities open to the public and service lines of
establishments doing business with the general public;
B. Waiting rooms, sleeping rooms or public hallways of every
private or public health care facility, including, but not limited
to hospitals, p137n3oS, >}�hysioal u> a ppb arll3t .....":tlt7ctAzs
offices, nand �3ent2stst> icflre provided further, that this
prohibition shall not preventV the establishment of a separate
waiting room in which smoking is permitted, as long as there also
exists a waiting room in the same facility in which smoking is
prohibitedn beck spaCa race o Health° acilt" es txs�c dor t
irsr more pati entsy smak�n.. shall be prahi ...... unless all patents
�r�thin the 'reale'are s3nolcers 8hd ,request �� tzrit �tg upon. the heal:t�#
pziwabe
icar+e �acal:ity's admal:saion fcr�as tC be <.p18C „ a ro wY�exe
ung is permitted.
t'66�9'j
C. All buildingsl� tfl"es rytto t . s
n:r..:. :..
.....aoccupied;:.,...:.,,;.
by city staff, owned or leased by the city, or otherwise operated
by the city, except in areas which the city administrator may
designate as smoking areas.
The city administrator may designate a smoking area only if
the area involved:
1. Is not regularly open to the public; and
2. Does not require major room or building modifications; and
3. Is not regularly occupied by nonsmokers.
In any dispute arising under the smoking area designations
made by the city administrator under this chapter, the rights of
the nonsmoker shall be given precedence.
D. Within any building not open to the sky which is primarily
used for or designated for the purposes of exhibiting any motion
picture, stage drama, lecture, musical recital or other similar
performance whenever open to the public, except smoking which is
a part of a stage performance, including all restrooms, euee=: Let
smelting may be aN 1—ift #c'"°a#% an area commonly referred to as
a lobby if st��+#,--1ni,rl -- rtj«= } ��-
le
area;
speetater
E. Within all public areas in every retail "'< # ttclieJ>w>
but �;tt l.iznitec� to, reta�� service asts��,� aeri�.s:� �;<:��ta��:�. fr�a
Iroductr5n and i�arketalYc essnents: ;: [ eFai3,hg�cy:
taxes
F. All restrooms open for public use;
G. Within every restaurant Wr"i'd'N' having an eeeupied
eaPa8AY ef fifty or mere person
shall n8t apply-where—apaxt a€- the—e4fling azea sufflejent—te
satisfy all ptiblie requests for seating 4:M-a--Reaei-ng area
pasted and Maintained as etteh ail aLueft.
H. All areas in a laundromat open to and available for use
by the public. (Ord. 1048 § 1 (part) , 1985)
W3�ha7n nc custom"a?:'iiy tzsei ""b i
general pu3a is i all businesses and lnonprofit +extt3ties patzonized
bit the. public, ,�ncludirig,,but not ii��.ted tnk�,�rr���ss3�3n$�,:.?�i; iC
nd r�t3ter effices bax►ksotes and xaat "
k.
bfiotwithstarac��xtg arty thezJ'px""a�/333 s;] s;" s 'set; cnr envy
'Owner, J operator, manager or cthe person < t#tt� .ontrols aisY
establishment or facility descrbn this, secticir . iaaymJ decrr
that entice x
establis'h>re��
8.16.O40 Regulation of smoking in the workplace.
Each employer who operates a workplace in the city shall,
within sixty days of the effective date of the ordinance codified
in this section, adopt, implement and maintain a written smoking
policy which shall contain, at a minimum, the following provisions
and requirements:
0
A. Any nonsmoking employee may object to his or her employer
about smoke in his or her workplace. Using already available means
of ventilation or separation or partition of office space, the
employer shall attempt to reach a reasonable accommodation, insofar
as possible, between the preferences of nonsmoking employees and
smoking employees. However, an employer is not required by this
section to make any expenditures or structural changes to
accommodate the preferences of nonsmoking or smoking employees.
B. If an accommodation which is satisfactory to all affected
nonsmoking employees cannot be reached in any given workplace, the
preferences of nonsmoking employees shall prevail and the employer
shall prohibit smoking in that workplace. Where the employer
prohibits smoking in a workplace, the area in which smoking is
prohibited shall be clearly marked with signs.
C. The smoking policy required by this section shall be
announced within three weeks of adoption to all employees working
in workplaces in the city and posted conspicuously in all
workplaces in the city under the employers jurisdiction.
D. This section is not intended to regulate smoking in the
following places and under the following conditions within the
city:
1. A private home which may serve as a workplace;
2. Any property owned or leased by a state or federal -J
governmental agency. (Ord. 1048 § 1 (part) , 1985)
£. �tOtwithstand rzg any b h �rovisic r� tai h 8 ec' OM BVD
ensployer shall, have tie right to des�.gnate any pl:ac�,;af �mp�oy�ne�n�.,
or anx �artion.,therepf� asN.a �resmokln� . e8
8.16.050 Posting of signs.
Signs which designate smoking or no smoking areas established
by this chapter shall be conspicuously posted in every room,
building or other place so covered by this chapter. The manner of
such posting shall be at the discretion of the owner, operator,
manager or other person having control of such room, building or
- other place so long as clarity, sufficiency and conspicuousness are
` apparent in communicating the intent of this chapter.
a�t�--e ee�eat 14neow (Ord. 1948 § 1 (part) , 1985)
8.16.060 Compliance.
A. The city administrative officer or his designated
representative shall be responsible for compliance with this
chapter as to facilities which are owned, operated or leased by the
city. The finance director shall provide each business license
applicant with a copy of this chapter.
B. The owner, operator or manager of any facility, business
or agency within the purview of this chapter shall comply with the
provisions of this chapter. Notice of these regulations shall be
given to all applicants for a business license. Such owner,
operator or manager shall post or cause to be posted all no smoking
signs required by this chapter and shall not allow service to any
person who violates this chapter by smoking in a posted no smoking
area.
C. Any place of employment conducted or operated without
compliance with the provisions of Section 8.16.0440 of this chapter
applicable thereto shall be and the same is declared to be a public
nuisance. whenever there is reason to believe such public nuisance
exists, any affected employee or any resident. of the city, in his
or her own name, may maintain an action in equity to abate and
prevent such nuisance and to perpetually enjoin the employer from
maintaining or permitting it. Upon the granting of equitable
relief, in whole or in part, by a .court of competent jurisdiction,
an employer determined to be in violation of Section 8.16.040 of
this chapter shall be liable for the attorney's fees, as may be
determined by the court, incurred by the party bringing the action.
D. The city administrative officer or his designee may
enforce Section 8.16.040 of this chapter by either of the following
actions:
1. Serving notice requiring the correction of any violation
of that section; or
2. Requesting the city attorney to maintain an action for
injunction to enforce the provisions of Section 8.16.0440 of this
chapter, to cause the correction of any such violation, and for
assessment and recovery of a civil penalty of such violation,
including attorney's fees.
E. Any employer who violates Section 8.16.040 of this chapter
may be liable for a civil penalty, not to exceed five hundred
dollars, which penalty shall be assessed and recovered in a civil
action brought in the name of the people of the city. Each day
such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall
constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. Any
penalty assessed and recovered in an action brought pursuant to
this subsection shall be paid to the finance director of the city.
F. In undertaking the enforcement of Section 8.16.040 of this
chapter, the city is assuming an undertaking only to promote the
general welfare. It is not assuming any duty or obligation, nor
is it imposing any duty or obligation on its officers and
employees, nor it is liable in money damages or otherwise to any
person who claims that (1) the city or one of its officers or
employees breached any such obligation, and (2) the breach
proximately caused injury. (Ord. 1948 § 1 (part) , 1985)
8.16.070 Violation--Penalty.
Any person who violates any provision of Section 8.16.030 or
8.16. 040 of this chapter by smoking in a posted no smoking area,
or by failing to post or cause to be posted a no smoking sign
required by this chapter, or by serving any person who violates
this chapter by smoking in a posted no smoking area, is guilty of
an infraction, and is subject to punishment as provided for in
chapter 1.12 of this code. (Ord. 1048 § 1 (part) , 1985)
rotw�thspra+ sism` of thth
�ontra�y, the �rl�.o�ting axeas,,Sba�, +�t,.b�sub�+���o,;,tl�s s�}ak�aag
P
ri
........:.:.ro _..,r....v;:;.,..:.,.,:o;,..,:.:ye....y.r.: .,,,:+:::,:•;+::»:!tt•+:8^;r;n:::.::::!:.,...x;:vate res3deh+aes, exc� t henµu�es get chid a
health care fda i ',�
3i0tel and motel rooms ttiP$ o et : >
3. Retaxi tobacco sto'rn «.
4 private enclosed office wtdrkple ticcuier excsiv
y smokers, even though suc2 a ziffia+s workpla xaay h
visited by nonsmokers.
5« Any area extex3.or ` to tit' "<"'bui'l� g $ ��° w'b,�.�t<un>the
As
. establishment ox' faos2.it� �s locatedw ... �",":..":.
�+. x..An]r e�elased rooms its an estabiishmen�. .or facility � ��
are being ssedhtx( 2 for..priatetrs '
8.16,OStt`.Beverabll
tip any provision, . spi ten+ a "cr pazac�r$p off " h i
chapter or the eppiicatas�nithereaf to any per8an cr ciz+0umstanc+ s
Shall be held invalid, .. shall not . ffe t the cthe
provss.i S of this chapter which can be g ven ffeot wathaut the
invalidprovision or 8pplioatioh, and to this end t}�ezxaysun
.> .,...... »x
t�f :this:chapter„pare dec�.ersd to be :se�+ez�b�:�u.=
.••x.,:. .nn.v.. .xv..w.x, S .....vh nv..lxw:.+.wn.w.vxww,wnw.x
�- 9
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.16 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING SMOKING IN
CERTAIN PUBLIC PLACES
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that:
(a) Numerous studies have found that tobacco is a
major contributor. to indoor air pollution: and
(b) Reliable studies have shown that breathing
second-hand smoke is a significant health
hazard for several population groups, including
elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular
disease, and individuals with impaired
respiratory function, including asthmatics and
those with obstructive airway disease; and
(c) Health hazards induced by breathing second=
hand smoke include lung cancer, respiratory
infection, decreased exercise tolerance,
decreased respiratory function ,
bronchoconstriction, and bronchospasm; and
(d) Nonsmokers who suffer allergies, respiratory
disease and other- ill-effects of breathing
secondhand smoke may experience a loss of job
productivity or may be forced to take periodic
sick leave because of such adverse reactions;
and
(e) Numerous studies have shown that a majority of
both nonsmokers and smokers desire to have.
restrictions on smoking in public places and
places of employment; and
(f) Smoking is a potential cause of fires, and
cigarette and cigar burns and ash stains on
merchandise and fixtures cause. losses to
businesses.
(g) The purposes of this .ordinance are (1) to
protect the public health and welfare by
prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places
open to the general public and by regulating
smoking in places of employment; and (2) to
strike a reasonable balance between the needs
of persons who -smoke and the need of non
smokers to breathe smoke-free air, and to
recognize that, where these needs conflict,
the need to breath smoke-free air shall have
priority.
/-/0
o
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 8.16, Smoking Prohibited in Certain Areas,
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 8.16
Smoking Prohibited in Certain Areas
Sections:
8.16. 010 Purpose.
8.16.020 Definitions.
8.16.030 Prohibition in certain public
places.
8.16.040 Regulation of smoking , in the
workplace.
8. 16.050 Posting of signs.
8. 16.060 Compliance.
8.16. 070 Violation--Penalty.
8.16.080 Where smoking not regulated.
8.16.090 Severability
8.6.010 Purpose.
Because smoking of tobacco or any other weed or plant is a
positive danger to health and a cause of material discomfort and
a health hazard to those who are present in confined places, and
in order to serve public health, safety and welfare, the declared
purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the smoking of tobacco or
any other weed or plant in certain areas which are used by or open
to the public. (Ord. 1048 § 1 (part) , 1985)
8.16.020 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following words shall
have the following meanings:
A. "Bar" means an area which is devoted to the serving of
alcoholic beverages for consumption by guests on the premises and
in which the serving of food is only incidental to the consumption
of such beverages.
B. "Employee" means any individual who receives remuneration
for services performed within the city.
C. "Employer" means any person, partnership or corporation
who employs the services of an- individual person or persons.
D. "Smoke" or "smoking" means and includes the carrying of
a pipe, cigar or cigarette of any kind which is burning, or the
igniting of a pipe, cigar or cigarette of any kind which is
burning.
E. "Service line" means an indoor line or area where persons
await service of any kind, regardless of whether or not such
service involves exchange of money. Such service shall include,but is not limited to, sales, giving of information, directions or
advice, and transfers of money or goods.
F. "Restaurant" means any coffee shop, cafeteria,
/_/I.
luncheonette, tavern, cocktail lounge, sandwich stand, soda
fountain, private and public school cafeteria or eating
establishment, and any other eating establishment, organization,
club, including veterans, club, boardinghouse or guesthouse, which
gives or offers for sale food to the public, guests, patrons or
employees as well as kitchens in which food is prepared on the
premises for serving elsewhere, including catering facilities.
G. "Retail Tobacco Store" means a retail store utilized
primarily for the sale of tobacco products and accessories and in
which the sale of other products is merely incidental.
H. "Workplace" means any interior space under the control of
a public or private employer which employees normally frequent
during the course of employment, including, but not limited to,
work areas, employee lounges, conference rooms, and employee
cafeterias. A private residence is not a workplace under this
section. (Ord. 1048 § 1 (part) , 1985)
8.16.030 Prohibition in certain public places.
Smoking shall be prohibited in the following places:
A. Elevators, museums, libraries, galleries, public
transportation facilities open to the public and service lines of
establishments doing business with the general public;
B. Waiting rooms, sleeping rooms or public hallways -of every
private or public health care facility, including, but not limited
to hospitals, clinics, physical therapy facilities, doctors'
offices, and dentists, offices; provided further, that this
prohibition shall not prevent the establishment of a separate
waiting room in which smoking is permitted, as long as there also
exists a waiting room in the same facility in which smoking is
prohibited. In bed space areas of health facilities used for two
or more patients, smoking shall be prohibited unless all patients
within the room are smokers and request in writing upon the health
care facility's admission forms to be placed in a room where
smoking is permitted.
C. All buildings, vehicles, or other enclosed areas occupied
by city staff, owned or leased by the city, or otherwise operated
by the city, except in areas which the city administrator may
designate as smoking areas.
The city administrator may designate a smoking area only if
the area involved:
1. Is not regularly open to the public; and
2. Does not require major room or building modifications; and
3. Is not regularly occupied by nonsmokers.
In any dispute arising under the smoking area designations
made by the city administrator under this chapter, the rights of
the nonsmoker shall be given precedence.
D. Within any building not open to the sky which is primarily
used for or designated for the purposes of exhibiting any motion
picture, stage drama, lecture, musical recital or other similar
performance whenever open to the public, except smoking which is
a part of a stage performance, including all restrooms, and any
area commonly referred to as a lobby;
E. Within all public areas in every retail store, including
but not limited to, retail service establishments, retail food
0
production and marketing establishments, retail, grocery, and drug
stores;
F. All restrooms open for public use;
G. Within every restaurant and bar.
H. All areas in a laundromat open to and available for use
by the public. (Ord. 1048 § 1 (part) , 1985)
I. Within all areas available to and customarily used .by the
general public in all businesses and nonprofit entities patronized
by the public, including, but not limited to, professional offices
and other offices, banks, hotels and motels.
J. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any
owner, operator; manager or other person who controls any
establishment or; facility described in this section may declare
that entire establishment or facility as a nonsmoking
establishment.
8.16.040 Regulation of smoking in the workplace.
Each employer who operates a workplace in the city shall,
within sixty days of the effective date of the ordinance codified
in this section, adopt, implement and maintain a written smoking
policy which shall contain, at a minimum, the following provisions
and requirements:
A. Any nonsmoking employee may object to his or her employer
about smoke in his or her workplace. Using already available means
of -ventilation or separation or partition of office space, the
employer shall attempt to reach a reasonable accommodation, insofar
as possible, between the preferences of nonsmoking employees and
smoking employees. However, an employer is not required by this
section to - make any expenditures or structural
g
Chan es to
Accommodate the preferences of nonsmoking or smoking employees.
B. If an accommodation which is satisfactory to all affected
nonsmoking employees cannot be reached in any given workplace, the
- preferences of nonsmoking employees shall prevail and the employer
shall prohibit smoking in that workplace. Where the employer
prohibits smoking in a workplace, the area in' which -smoking is
prohibited shall be clearly marked with signs.
C. The smoking policy required by this section shall be
announced within three weeks of adoption to all employees working
in workplaces in the city and posted conspicuously in all
workplaces in the city under the employer's jurisdiction.
D. This section is not intended to regulate smoking in the
following places and under the following conditions within the
city:
1. A private home which may serve as a workplace;
2. Any property owned or leased by a state or federal
governmental agency. (Ord. 1048 § 1 (part) , 1985)
E. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, every
employer shall have the right to designate any place of employment,.
or any portion thereof, as a nonsmoking area.,
8. 16. 050 Posting of signs.
signs which designate smoking or no smoking areas established
by this chapter shall be conspicuously posted in every room,
building or other place so covered by this chapter. The manner of
such posting shall be at the discretion of the owner, operator,
manager or other person having control of such room, building or
other place so long as clarity, sufficiency and conspicuousness are
apparent in communicating the intent of this chapter. (Ord. 1948
§ 1 (part) , 1985)
8.16.060 Compliance.
A. The city administrative officer or his designated
representative shall be responsible for compliance with this
chapter as to facilities which are owned, operated or leased by the
city. The finance director shall provide each business license
applicant with a copy of this chapter.
B. The owner, operator or manager of any facility, business
or agency within the purview of this chapter shall comply with the
provisions of this chapter. Notice of these regulations shall be
given to all applicants for a business license. Such owner,
operator or manager shall post or cause to be posted all no smoking
signs required by this chapter and shall not allow service to any
person who violates this chapter by smoking in a posted no smoking
area.
C. Any place of employment conducted or operated without
compliance with the provisions of Section 8.16.0410 of this chapter
applicable thereto shall be and the same is declared to be a public
nuisance. Whenever there is reason to believe such public nuisance
exists, any affected employee or any resident of the city, in his
or her own name, may maintain an action in equity to abate and
prevent such nuisance and to perpetually enjoin the employer from
maintaining or permitting it. Upon the granting of equitable
relief, in whole or in part, by a court of .competent jurisdiction,
an employer determined to be in violation of Section 8.16.040 of
this chapter shall be liable for the attorney's fees, as may be
determined by the court, incurred by the party bringing the action.
D. The city administrative officer or his designee may
enforce Section 8.16.040 of this chapter by either of the following
actions:
1. Serving notice .requiring the correction of any
violation of that section; or.
2. Requesting the city attorney to maintain an action
for injunction to enforce the- provisions of Section 8.16. 0410 of
this chapter, to cause the correction of any such violation, and
for assessment and recovery of a civil penalty of such violation,
including attorney's fees.
E. Any employer who violates Section 8.16.040 of this chapter
may be liable for a civil penalty, not to exceed five hundred
dollars, which penalty shall be assessed and recovered in a civil
action brought in the name of the people of the city. Each day
such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall
constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. Any
penalty assessed and recovered in an action brought pursuant to
this subsection shall be paid to the finance director of the city.
F. In undertaking the enforcement of Section 8.16.040 of this
chapter, the city is assuming an undertaking only to promote the
general welfare. It is not assuming any duty or obligation, nor
is it imposing any duty or obligation on its officers and
o
: employees, nor it liable in money damages or otherwise to any
person who claims that (1) the city or one of its officers or
employees breached any such obligation,. and (2) the breach
proximately caused injury. (Ord. 1948 § 1 (part) , 1985)
8. 16.070 Violation--Penalty.
Any person who violates any provision of Section 8.16.030 or
8.16.040 of this chapter by smoking in a posted no smoking area,
or by failing to post or cause to be posted a no smoking sign
required by this chapter, or by serving any person who violates
this chapter by smoking in a posted no smoking area, is guilty of
an infraction, and is subject to punishment as provided for in
chapter 1.12 of this code. (Ord. 1048 § 1 (part) , 1985)
8.16.080 Where Smoking Not Regulated. .
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the
contrary, the following areas shall not be subject to the smoking
restrictions of this chapter:
1. Private residences, except when used as a child care or
health care facility.
2. Hotel and motel rooms rented to guests.
3. Retail tobacco stores.
4. A private enclosed office workplace occupied exclusively
by smokers, even though such an office workplace may be
visited by nonsmokers.
5. Any area exterior to the building in which the
establishment or facility is located.
6. Any enclosed rooms in an establishment or facility which
are being used entirely for private functions.
8.16.090 Severability
If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances
shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other
provisions of this chapter which can be given effect without the
invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions
of this chapter are declared to be severable.
SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City
Attorney, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published at
least (3) days prior to its final passage in the Telegram-Tribune,
a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the same
shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after
its said final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance
shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk on and after the
date following introduction and passage to print and shall be
available to any interested member of the public.
u
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the day of
A,1990, on motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote: '
AYES: r
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pamela Voges
APPROVED:
c
City Ad inistrative Officer
I Cot i Att07
I J
ry
.>I
c=�I:
Lu
Lit
'0 u <1
5 iz
R-
-75
r �, T v� �
CID
L" u
CZ ,
C7
LA�2
(n
> cf.
LU <
EMS ONE
-04 -
.:CIS a--
lit
we
lair, o.
a S
ash
T—a I!; kill
ca
-d
Om
-coca
gig
C3
cc,
loco 41,
POP
82
4p
sa as
%lift
T' :-8
43
rs v
ct r
A,
NU,
NO
cp- .4t o.,
Ly cd 6va; m ocz g g
C6
H 'o— ca =048 'n
q)-a.r-
� -��TI0� ������
- v�u�"p�� ^����v���
�� �� �
��vv^� �m-��~_�c��vo��n" mr
June 10 . 1990
amcrt by
Lead Person� I by-
Mavor Ron Dunin
99O Palm Arty
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Dear Mayor Dunin ,
I am writing to express my opinion on the proposed ban on
smoking in San Luis Obispo. I am opposed to the proposal "
As an ex-cigarette smoker l can speak with some experience
and some empathy for those people who enjoy a cigarett*`
after a meal or at other times. As long as there are
designated well -ventilated areas for smokers that do not
�. impinge upon other areas for non-smokers as is presently the
( case at most restaurants in SLO, I 'm for the status quo. I
~-' smoked for 25 vears before quitting cold turkey with no
known detriment to my health and therefore have a little
difficulty with some people who claim ill effects from
someone smoking across the room.
I have no problem with individual businesses that want to
ban smoking within their premises, l am opposed to
governmental decree banping smoking within a ,city, l think
it is a violation of a smoker's rights and a step toward a
police state .
Y l ,
Will iam C . Kent
377 Calle Lupita
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
JU;
� Y C;,�PK
R E C
JOIN
CITY CLERK ���� AGENDA
�hlr1 LMS O91SF0.
DATE 'laOff! #
v��
1 X D•°...-'.'.0 c 08011 CV L@Ji Pcrtp(-•."1
F;
t
Rc^.s�:nh by:
'
4 '�./Gnundi
';I CAG
/J tjity Atty.
'�� IV. fSCAe
Y(.
u y �
i
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 6'1'9a ITEM # . .
ROSS
re;,6.
by:
June 8, 1990
j[1f'GA0
Mr . Ron Dunin , Mayor r 'ryAtty.
San Luis Obispo City Council Gerkvng.
990 Palm Street e&46
San Luis Obispo , CA 93408 7-
Dear Ron :
I am opposed to the smoking ban proposed in the city ordinance
which is under consideration at this time . I believe that every
right that is taken away from any individual is a dangerous
precedent . It is imperative that you as an elected official who
represents all of the people continue to represent all of the
people . I believe that you have done a good job in the past .
I have no objection to asking restaurants to set aside smoking
and non-smoking sections . I even prefer this . I believe in is
up to the individual restaurant owner the determine if or if not
to allow smoking . His patrons will determine his choice . . If
business falls off for either reason he will adjust his policy ;
that is what free enterprise is all about . WHEN THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO IS PREPARED TO PAY THE COST OF LOSS OF BUSINESS TO
THE RESTAURANT OWNER THEN THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO MARE THE DECISION.
If this ordinance is passed the restaurant at the airport will
certainly be a money maker . The city .will lose untold amounts of
tax revenue and the county will benefit .
If you don ' t allow smoking will you then close all of the bars?
Because if someone drinks in a bar and drives a car it is
hazardous to my health . I believe that far more deaths can be
attributed to people drinking in bars than people smoking in
restaurants .
Sincerely ,
Sally A Ross
rLE
C�
1132 VISTA DEL LAGO, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 (805) 544-1745
N'S
b AMERICAN SURVEY
�ttottey-to fight the tobacco industry's mil-
" lions. The are spending $28m on the ad-
r " 5 vertising blitz, which is a chunk of the
money raised through the new cigarette tax.
:L? The 25-cent tax on a packet of cigarettes
was made law in 1988 by Proposition 99,an
initiative that won despite the $21m spent
'" to stop it by the tobacco industry.The tax
F ,��� raises$600m a year and the proposition laid
U' F s` •o `.:..A down how this was to be used:20%for anri-
smoking health education, 35% for hospi-
c"^ tals to treat patients who cannot afford to
_ pay, 10%for doctors to treat poor patients,
5%for tobacco-related disease research,and
5% for fighting fires and for wildlife and
parks (to catch the environmental vote).
The remaining 2517b is to be assigned as
_ ire needed among the same recipients.
The M, or $120m, allotted for anti-
'' 1 smoking•instntction is mainly divided be-
rween the advertising binge, money for
Whitewashing the good life schools to educate the young on the dangers
of smoking,and money for local health dis.
As a result,one billboard owner has agreed Mark Green, criticised the cartoon-style tricts to keep a special watch over high-risk
to display less offensive posters, another Camel advertisements for their appeal to groups: pregnant women, adolescents and
may do the same, and an alcohol firm has children. New York's governor, Mr Mario minorities. But $20m is to be spent on ex-
withdrawn its campaign from the area. Cuomo,has called for a ban on cigarette ma- panded child-health screening, so that
These protests are a response to the in- chines,which can be used by minors. youngsters can be examined not just when
creased targeting of young people and mi- The most effective counrer-attacks so they enter primary school but periodically
nority groups by the tobacco industry.With far have come from black activists.But there throughout their school years.The theory is
demand in decline—mail sales dropped 6% is a snag:many black newspapers and maga- that health-conscious children are less likely
to $35 billion last year—competition be- zines rely on the advertising revenue from to pick up the stroking habit.
tween companies is intensifying for product alcohol and tobacco manufacturers. Local authorities are particularly glad of
- loyalty and for the few flourishing sectors of N the money for health care for the poor.But
the market.Among black adult Americans, how is such spending possible in a state
44% smoke. Four out of five smokers ac- hamstrung by the 1979 initiative that re-
quired their habit before they were 20,and Smoke and stricted all new expenditure on government
half began before they were 11. - services?Voters seem willing to waive their
Mr Butts began to fight back after he spend earlier objections if specific taxes are ear-
read a widely-discussed New England lour- marked for specific purposes.Hence a copy-
nal of Medicine article which showed that car proposal now being drafted by a stare
life expectancy for a roan in Harlem is less ULGPAGE newspaper advertisements legislator for November's election.This pro-
than in Bangladesh,and that the use of alco• F accuse cigarette manufacturers of poses a 5unts•a drink tax on all alcoholic
hot and tobacco is one of the chief causes for "exploitation of minorities,seduction of the drinks,raising about$750m a year.Some of
this. Nicotine is credited with killing 50 young and the selling of suicide".Television which would go on creating alcoholics and
times as many people as do illegal drugs. and radio advertisements repeat the refrain drug addicts and helping the police cope
Although the advertisers have not using comedians and rock and rap musi- with related crime.
brought any prosecutions for fear of inciting cians. Never a state to do things by halves,
trouble, they say that whitewashing California is fighting smoking.
amounts to vandalism,as well as a form of State health authorities, declaring war
censorship which infringes their rights un- on the.tobacco industry, want to cut the
der-the first amendment. They argue that number of Californian cigarette smok-
the hazards of nicotine are well known and ers by three-quarters by the end of the
that it is patronising to restrict people's 1990s. The costs of smoking,then `
right to judge publicity for themselves. The claim, inc u e eat s tot e s 1
Tobacco Institute, the industry's lobby, state each ear anS some ! i ion to c 1�
claims that advertising does not attract new eat care an osc pr ucnvtrv.
smokers but merely encourages existing I he cone o t e campaign has nor
ones to smoke a certain brand. gone unchallenged. Smokers are re-
The activists do not accept any of this senrful.Telephone calls to stare health 7
this.People,they say,du not have the choice offices have been running two-co-one �4 of whether or not to look at billboards.and against the aggressive approach. Califor-
impressionable children are constancly ex- nia's governor,Mr George Deukmejian,has J U N — l
posed to the advertisements. And the anri- expressed discomfort at his hralth officials' C�
smoking campaign, in its more passive bluntness. One newspaper columnist wrote -
forms, has caught on. On the day he was that the campaign"fights smoke with fire". l
sworn into office in February, New York The health officials remain unapolo-
city s commissioner for consumer affairs.Mr getic. For the first time the,,, have their own _
THE ECONOMIST APRIL 28 1990
TA4,, -mai X,�.2 ct Z (-VQ-�a •�� 'Q
/! - 0 Q r/A. 'n ..1.L J� n y.
Elizabeth Geisen MEMNG AGENDA
910 Vista Collados DATA #
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
June 13, 1990
F ED
J03)j
Mr. Jerry Reiss, Councilperson CITY CLERK L
City of San Luis Obispo SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Reiss ,
Since you feel you have the right to impinge on the
personal freedom of smokers by dictating wheke they can and
cannot smoke, I would like to request that you permanently
park your car and go by foot or pedal power because your
car pollutes my air. You have a choice to eat or not to
eat in a restaurant that permits smoking, but I do not have
the choice of choosing streets not polluted by your car.
It is politicians like you who insist on telling others
how to run their lives who are making California an increas-
ingly less desireable place to live. There are so many tre-
mendous problems out there that a politician should not have
the time to spend on a petty issue like this if he is truly
concerned about the welfare of his constituents.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Geisen
44 i)tj(A&�U'ton Uy Le'-(.'P6;"Cl-'
R,:s r 1
.,'by:
q
I V-L:IC1.
U
Atty.
rk-orig.
L-� 14U OUJ-J441-J7OJ j Ui I 1V 7U 7 . 114U . UVI Vc
L
-010S s"Ji".)uy
.ACTION A LEK?
CAR-RT SORT CR70
133574848 3142
-1 Aill 12th St irlaez-
San Luis Obispo, CA 93402
co
URGENT .*** YOUR RIGHTS IN DANGER URGENT
How would you like It If you couldn't smoke at your favorite restaurant or bar?
Well, if your favorite place Is In San Luis Obispo. you may face a smoking ban, not only In
restaurants and bars, but In-vinually every puklLc place In the city.
On Tuesday, June 19, the City Council will vote on a new law that would take away your right
to smoke almost everywhere In town. And smoking on the job would be severely restricted.
This Is an outrageous attack on your rightsl Ws hard to believe that a city In America could
dictate such an unfair smoking policy.
The only way to stop this unreasonable ordinance is for smokers to Immediately contact their
city council members and We them to vote against this harsh smoking ban. Phone your
council members at the numbers listed below. Then follow up with short, personal letters.
Mayor Ron Dunln, 549.7117 Peg Pinard, 549.7105 Penny Rapa, 549.7115
Jerry Reiss, 549.7107 Bill Roalman, 549-7113
Also, It's Important for smokers to attend and speak out at the City Council hearing at 7 p.m.
on Tuesday, June 19 at City Halls 990 Palm Street.
— R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co,
(if you have any questions, call us toll.free at 1-800-333-8683.)
---------------------------------------------------
Please let us know what action you took and If you want to do more for smokers' h hts. Just answer
the following statements, tear off and return In the postage-paid envelope enclosed.
Yes No Yes No
1 wrote a falter to my city C1 0 1 want to do more to protect
oouncil members. my rights as a smoker.
L) F-) I phoned and left a message 0 0 1 would attend a smokers'
for my council members. rights meeting If one were
held In my community. Here
El U =u still interested In is my phone number so I can
ng CHOICE, our free be Invited.
smokers' rights newsletter?
133574848 3142
9 13rovee x
"591 Eth St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93402
SCARD89DE
:"It s lNG ' AGENDA
GATE 1001._14a ITEM
-a7y,
.,.
-HOSPICE-
June 14 , 1990
JU.1
The Honorable Ron Dunin
City of San Luis Obispo
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93403
Dear Mayor Durin:
In regard to the HRC 's recommendations for 1990-91 Grants-In-
Aid funding to be considered at your June 19th meeting, we
would like to express our concern at the $1000 .00 reduction
from last year ' s award.
Please be assured that you have our appreciation for your
past caring and support of our organization, and we truly are
grateful for all your funding.
It is simply that with our growth of clients , the vital
services we perform, and the unduplicated care to such a
growing segment of our citizens we feel a pressing need for
at least an equal budget amount from last year.
We do not envy your task and are sensitive to the overall
picture, but we do hope that you will be able to find a way
to fund our organization at least at the $6000 .00 level , and
we will work hard to raise the supplemental funds in our
diverse and interesting ways .
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,WAS1 14�i
Marcy Villa
Executive Director
MV/kk :; ne-ote>a t.uciy
2-5non0 cy
cc: Peg Pinard :! !o-mccl
Jerry Reiss :, AO
Penny Rappa GCiN Atty 1
Bill Roa lman 1 0!10erk-on9.
I - 1
rr
in
0 4D
Hospice of San Luis Obispo County, Inc. P. 0. Box 1342 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 0 805/544-2266
t
1"
T Ell
t0t
tb a
(tea-
v�
bU c
rk re'
aA-c
(J D
•:i:!e'it0i:.:3(:i:Ofi.IV Loco F8fF4'
yy�f
`GITY I/
� l✓D �,(�s t. C qd
ATE
ii
KATIE HOFFMAN 87 Rafael Son Luis Obispo, California 93405
4e!AO
gindar
CAD
,:I! CLERK
zi 6
CAO
7,A.e
AH'I'ING AGENDA
- ISA: . .6--11�a ITEM # _!
KATIE HOFFMAN 87 Rafael San Luis Obispo, California 93405
J,�t7-
i Denotes action by Lead Pe son
.
R
,e
spond by:
:,_,
^ I W Council
1 I/';IAO
{:-City Atty.
lerk-origg.
i14611 G
7- 7—
MEMN,IG AGENDA
2828 Augusta #39 V*;Denotes act on by lead Perso
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401June 16 , 1990 RECEIVEby
SLO City Council Members 1 81990 _ .. A ,,.
I:✓C;:.L
c•c-ong.
CITY CLERK i:;f/ e
SAN LUIS 00100.CA
i�✓F/�
F
Dear SLO City Council Members:
I urge that you vote TO BAN SMOKING in all public
places in San Luis Obispo. Even if restaurants, employee
lounges, etc. are separated into smoking and nonsmoking
areas, the fans and ventilation systems of those buildings
carry the smoke particles to parts of the buildings in which
nonsmokers are eating, working or resting.
I work in a company in which the employee "break room"
shares a solid wall (no windows, no doors, etc. ) with the
room in which I work. There is never any doubt when it is
break time. It is possible to smell and even sometimes see
a haze of smoke in our room because the smoke is carried
into our room by the ventilation/air conditioning system.
As for restaurants, is it really asking too much to ask
someone not to smoke for an hour (which is probably the
average time a person is in a restaurant for a meal ) so that
his/her habits do not endanger the lungs and lives of
others? I can't imagine that restaurants will lose a large
percentage of business by banning smoking. In fact, they
may gain business! Have you noticed that Hobees, which is a
totally nonsmoking restaurant, is usually quite busy and
often has people waiting outside on the lawn on weekends?
That should be an indication that residents and visitors
appreciate the ban. It should be remembered that many
smokers already willingly do not smoke in the presence of
family or friends who are nonsmokers.
Because some people feel that restrooms are not public
places, I urge you to specify somewhere in the ban that they
are included in the ban . It is almost suffocating to walk
into a restroom in which someone has been smoking!
Whether the ban passes or not, I hope that restaurant
owners, employers, etc . would provide a place for smokers to
go OUTDOORS that is away from the path of their customers.
It is unhealthy and also infuriating to have to walk through
a path of smokers standing a few feet outside the entrance
to a building . The smokers who are thoughtful enough to go
outside should be provided a place to stand or sit that is
away from the mainstream of people entering or leaving a
building.
San Luis Obispo should be proud to be the first city in
the nation to show that it CARES about the health of its
residents and visitors by banning smoking. The ban is not
an attack on the rights of smokers; it is a method of
supporting the rights of all people to breathe clean air.
The cities, states and nation ban many other pollutants that
cause unhealthy environments including smoke from other
activities such as burning trash. Why not include tobacco
smoke?
PLEASE VOTE TO BAN SMOKING FOR THE HEALTH OF OUR
RESIDENTS AND VISITORS!
Sincerely,
Marg ' Coolidge
i
/ Larry o idge
-TING
AGENDA /
0KT _ITEM #
Deno:os action by Lead Person
June 18 , 1990 Respond by:
MTCouncit'
Z AO
City Council Members of �(���YYY
San Luis Obispo - 0my
P.O. Box 8100 V17-I-,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 y� �
Re: Anti-Smoking Bill
Dear Members:
This letter is to voice my objection to a smoking ban within the
city of San Luis Obispo.
If so many customers have objected to smoking don't you think the
owners would have already made their establishments smoke free?
And have you noticed that the smoking sections in restaurants are
usually more occupied than the non smoking sections? I 've even
had to wait for a table in the smoking section while the non
smoking section was completely empty.
The most important issue here is that a few people are telling
others how they should live their lives rather than come up with
a solution that would serve everyone. I can't believe that in this
town of such educated people that the only solution is to create
a ban. Not much thinking involved in that decision.
Yes , I can go without a cigarette while dining, but now I am just
being stubborn. I 'm tired of being blamed for everyone's illnesses
and tired of being the easy target. I have always been a courteous
smoker, usually asking permission first but I have found that the
"do gooders" have been rude and a bit on the paranoid side.
If your votes create this ban I will surely dine in another city.
You prove your point and I ' ll prove mine.
Yo r truly,
T GOODROW RONHOVDEIt
8 Live Oak Lane /� C
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 R EC E I �/Y E
JUN 1 8 190
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
MEETING
DATE - R -9A AGENDA �
June 18, 1990
14gv,)o,ah
Dear Mayor Dunin, ,•'1 d er
I will preface this letter protesting t e anning of smokers in San Luis Obispo
restaurants by stating that I am a non-smoker. I am not writing this in defense
of smokers but in defense of restaurant owners and related businesses.
A restaurant owner should have some choice in deciding the type of clientele he
would like to attract. It is extremely unfair to force him to turn away pay-
ing customers, some of whom may have been loyal supporters of his establishment
for a long period of time. By the same token, it should be left to the choice
of non - smokers to decide if they do or do not wish to patronize a restaurant
that has a smoking section. This is still a free country and cigarette smoking
is not illegal!
If this ban on smoking is adopted, many tourists and convention planners will
probably opt to seek lodgings ouside the city limits which have eating estab-
lishments nearby that have smoking sections. This will have a serious impact
upon San Luis Obispo Hotel/Motel industry and local retail stores who enjoy
and partially depend upon the proceeds from tourist shoppers' business.
These businesses all pay taxes, license fees, etc. to help support our city.
Many, especially local restaranteurs, contribute their services and expertise
to local charity fund raising events.
It is hard for me to believe that the City Council would even consider sup-
porting a proposition that is so contrary to the welfare of the local business
community. ,
I also have a personal interest in this. I want my four local grandsons to be
able to grow up to maturity in this wonderful environment. They won't if
their Dad has to look for "greener pastures" in some other place.
Why not just pass an ordinance requiring restaurants to post a sign on the
front door clearly stating that they have smoking and non-smoking areas?
LET THE DINERS DECIDE!
I fervently hope that you will consider my thoughts on this and cast your vote
against the ban and on the side of the best interests of the SIA business
community.
Sincerely,
Elsa Bushnell
2828 Augusta, Apt. 19
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 iUN i J ! ..•j
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS 0131SPO, CA
11:56-
11116,
AG LE NDA
DAT Aw-9YO ITEM #
We are
eve
C. C.
CS
z e
1fi Denotes action by Lead Person
Respond by:
ouncil
CAO
F/Gily Atly.
/Clerk-odg.
RECEIVE,)
9
199
MY
SAN LE#S GIs
66,��..P
Po.CA