City Council Meeting: October 10, 2006

Agenda Item: 7-B

To: Mayor and City Council 

From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney

Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Prohibiting Smoking in Specified Outdoor Locations

Recommended Action

Staff recommends that Council introduce for first reading the attached proposed ordinance which prohibits smoking in the following locations in the City: outdoor dining areas; outdoor service areas; areas within 20 feet of entrances, exits or open windows of buildings open to the public; the Third Street Promenade; and the Farmers Markets.

Executive Summary

At its meeting on July 25, 2006, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance expanding the locations at which smoking is prohibited in the City. After discussing the recent reports of the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Surgeon General regarding second-hand smoke, reviewing recent legislation in other locations, and hearing testimony from the public, Council directed staff to prohibit smoking at each of the five locations described above.

The attached proposed ordinance fulfills Council’s directive, with one modification. Staff recommends limiting the 20-foot prohibition to open windows at public buildings.

In addition, this Staff Report contains the following new information obtained since Council last visited the issue in July:

1. A new summary of studies on the economic impact of smoking prohibitions;

2. Updated information from other locations regarding the implementation of outdoor smoking laws; and

3. More detailed information on locations adjacent to the Third Street Promenade where smoking would still be allowed under the proposed ordinance.

Discussion

Summary of Studies on Economic Impact of Smoking Prohibitions

At the Council meeting on July 25, 2006, a concern was raised that prohibiting smoking at outdoor dining areas and the Third Street Promenade might hurt business revenue. Staff responded that all available information from other California cities, other states, and other countries indicated that anti-smoking laws were either neutral or beneficial to business including locations where tourism is an important part of the economy.

Staff has since obtained a summary of relevant studies addressing the economic impact that anti-smoking laws have had on businesses. The summary, prepared by Healthier Solutions, Inc., is attached as Appendix A to this staff report.

The summary indicates that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that smoking restrictions either improve, or have no measurable impact on, the economic success of affected businesses. Reports included in the summary also describe the efforts of the tobacco industry to create false or misleading studies on the subject.

Implementation of Similar Smoking Laws in Other Cities

An outreach survey was done by the California Clean Air Project and Healthier Solutions of other locations that have implemented similar outdoor smoking restrictions. The survey included nine California cities. It found the following:

1. Of nine California cities surveyed, all reported excellent success with implementing and enforcing outdoor smoking laws. Compliance has been high and public acceptance has been very good.

2. Berkeley, which has had smoke-free outdoor dining since 1997 and was among the first two cities to implement a smoke-free radius outside businesses, reported that their program has been “hugely successful.” In nearly ten years, Berkeley has had only two occasions on which follow-up visits were required at businesses due to violations.

3. Calabasas, which recently adopted the most restrictive outdoor smoking law in the nation, reports that its program is going very well. City officials received a small amount of early negative feedback after the adoption of the ordinance. However, that stopped after about one month. Since then, compliance has been excellent as has acceptance by the business community.

4. The California cities reported no negative impact on business due to outdoor smoking restrictions.

5. Hawaii has yet to implement its statewide law which goes into effect in November. However, early public response is very positive. State officials met with representatives from tourism agencies that do business with Japanese tourists. The agencies reported that their foreign tourists are used to increasing smoking restrictions in the U.S. and the agencies did not foresee a negative impact from the new state law. Various local governments there, including on the “Big Island” of Hawaii, already had strong smoking restrictions in place. The Big Island conducted a study which showed no negative impact on tourism from the previous smoking prohibitions there.

Locations Adjacent to the Third Street Promenade Where Smoking Will Still Be Allowed

Some concern was expressed about where individuals in the Third Street area would be able to smoke under the proposed ordinance, in light of the Promenade ban and the 20-foot radius outside businesses generally. In response to these questions staff investigated the locations near the Third Street Promenade where smoking would still be allowed under the proposed ordinance. Staff discovered that on each of the four cross streets intersecting the Promenade (Broadway, Santa Monica, Arizona and Wilshire), there is ample space only steps from Third Street that is more than twenty feet from business entrances. Smoking would be permitted at these locations under the proposed ordinance. Additionally, staff concluded that a person walking anywhere on the Third Street Promenade would not have to walk more than one-half block to get to a location where smoking would be permitted.

Public Outreach

Staff previously spoke with a number of local agencies whose constituents would be affected by the proposed ordinance. More recently, staff met with Convention & Visitor’s Bureau staff and Board. They expressed concerns about the law impacting international tourism and about educating international travelers if it passes. If Council adopts the ordinance, staff will conduct a further campaign of public outreach to various business and government organizations and the public to educate about the law, to oversee signage and other measures, and to help facilitate the law’s implementation.

Budget/Financial Impact

No significant cost to the City is associated with the recommended action. Staff anticipates that expenses will be covered by the existing budget. Staff is informed that some funds for signage and outreach are available through Los Angeles County and the State of California. Publicity, education, and enforcement are expected to entail only modest amounts of City staff time and expense. If additional resources are required, staff will address that need in future budget requests.

Prepared by: Adam Radinsky, Head, Consumer Protection Unit

Paula Rockenstein, Consumer Affairs Specialist

Attachment 1

ORDINANCE

Approved:	Forwarded to Council:
Marsha Jones Moutrie City Attorney	P. Lamont Ewell City Manager