CITY OF ~

SAN JOSECAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY

RULES COMMITTEE: 12-08-10ITEM: H.2

MemorandumTO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND

CITY COUNCILFROM: Councilmember Ash Kalra

Vice-Mayor Judy ChircoCouncilmember Sam Liccardo

SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: December 2, 2010

Approved

SUBJECT: SECOND-HAND SMOKE

RECOMMENDATION

1. Direct Staff:a) to apply for funds recently made available from the Santa Clara County

Public Health Department;b) to amend the Workload Assessment dated August 26, 2010, to include

other resources being offered by the Santa Clara County Public HealthDepartment and other agencies; and

c) to explore these additional funding and resource opportunities.

2. Direct Staff to prepare a draft ordinance amending San Josd Municipal Code section9.44.040, to limit smoking in outdoor areas of restaurants.

3. Direct Staff to prepare a draft ordinance amending San Jos~ Municipal Code section9.44.030 to:

a) Prohibit smoking in public service lines; and

b) Extend the prohibition of smoking to include unenclosed common areas ofmulti-family residential properties.

4. Direct Staff to report to the Community and Economic Development Committee regardingthe status of the application for County funding no later than February 28, 2011.

BACKGROUND

On June 9, 2010, a memorandum authored by Councilmembers Ash Kalra and Nora Campos andtitled "Update of San Josd Municipal Code 9.44.030 and 9.44.040" was considered by the RulesCommittee (a copy of the June 9th memorandum is attached). The June 9th memorandum soughtto combat the harmful impacts of secondhand smoke by prohibiting smoking in outdoor diningareas of restaurants, by prohibiting smoking in public service lines such as ATM and movietheater lines, and by expanding Municipal Code Section 9.44.030’s current prohibition againstsmoking within enclosed "public and common areas of multifamily residential areas" to includeunenclosed areas of multifamily residential areas which are open to public or unrestrictedcommon access. Following discussion of the memorandum, the Committee directed Staff toreturn in August 2010 with a complete workload assessment.

On September 1, 2010, the Rules Committee was presented with Staff’s August 26th workloadassessment (attached). The worldoad assessment estimated that policy analysis of this proposalwould entail three to fonr weeks of Staff time to .review and draft an amended ordinance andupdate schedule of fines and eight to 40 hours of Staff time to prepare memoranda andenvironmental clearance. The report also noted that community outreach would require 16 to 24hours of Staff time and approximately $6,500 for printing and mailing. Lastly, the report alsoestimated that a fully-implemented complaint response and enforcement program would require$381,307 to fund 2.35 positions (2.0 FTE Code Enforcement Inspectors, 0.10 Code EnforcementSupervisor, 0.10 Code Enforcement Division Manager, 0.05 Code Enforcement Deputy Director,and 0.10 Senior Office Specialist) and that a partially-implemented program (1.0 FTE CodeEnforcement Inspector) would cost $222,828. The report ultimately recommended that the Citydefer to the Santa Clara Public Health Department in order to reduce the City’s level ofengagement on this issue. The Committee chose not to consider the proposal, and instead choseto reconsider the issue as part of the Spring 2011 Council committee work plans or the 2011-2012Proposed Budget.

This memorandum is being submitted to update the Rules Committee on recent developmentssince this issue was last considered by the Committee, and to show that by working incollaboration with Santa Clara County and other partners, the cost and Staff workload associatedwith this initiative can be largely defrayed, allowing San Josd the opportunity to lead on thiscrucially important health issue that impacts of all San Josd citizens.

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE SEPTEMBER

On October 19, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ban smokingin locations such as county parks, shopping malls, hotels and motels, and multiunit residences.The proposed initiative would also prohibit smoking within 30 feet of any outdoor service area,such as a restaurant or movie theater line. Already the initiative is being touted as one of the mostaggressive attempts to prevent secondhand smoke exposure.

As the Committee knows, the Santa Clara County Public Health Department (PHD) announced inSeptember that funding provided by a federal grant was available to cities within the county fortobacco prevention measures. The City applied for these funds, and on November 10, 2010, itwas announced that San Jos~ had been awarded funds totaling $128,190. These funds have beenearmarked to support the ordinance proposed as part of the Mayor’s Revised June BudgetMessage that would require retailers to obtain a license from the City in order to be permitted tosell tobacco products.

In addition, the PHD recently stated that additional funding has become available for anti-smoking measures, and that San Josd could secure funding in the amount of $19,921. However,PHD has also made it clear that these funds could only be used for an outdoorsmoking/secondhand smoke initiative, and not for the retail licensing measure.

This memorandum seeks to emphasize that this is San Josd’s opportunity to become one of thehealthiest big cities in the nation by comprehensively addressing the destructive impact thattobacco has on the health of our residents. As set forth below, PI-ID and other organizations areoffering significant resources and funding, but in order to leverage these resources, we must actquickly. Everyone is cognizant of the current fiscal situation in San Josd as well as Staff’s currentworkload, but the fact remains that with the funds and resources being offered by the County andothers, this initiative can be implemented at much less cost than it will likely cost in the future.

Workload Assessment and Relevant Resources

Staff’s workload assessment can be divided into three general areas of potential expenditure ofStaff hours and funds: (1) policy analysis, research and ordinance drafting; (2) outreach; and (3)enforcement and compliance. However, with the funding and other resources already beingoffered by the County, not to mention yet-to-be-explored avenues of cooperation and resources,the ultimate cost to the City, both in terms of funding and workload, can be significantly defrayed.

Policy Analysis, Research, and Ordinance DraftingStaff’s assessment estimated that Code Enforcement and the City Attorney’s Office would need tospend a combined three to four weeks to conduct research and to draft the ordinance. Staff alsoestimated that preparing the relevant memoranda and conducting the required environmentalclears would take an additional eight to 40 Staff hours.

The Santa Clara County Public Health Department has stated that it could provide up to 40 hoursof research, including but not limited to providing data to Staff regarding the steps taken by otherjurisdictions that have implement similar policies. PHD has also offered at least fifteen hours ofassistance from PHD’s Public Health Law and Policy Department in conducting research,developing a policy, and drafting the ordinance. For example, PHD has compiled detailed dataregarding the tobacco-related policies adopted by other municipalities, which would greatlylessen the amount of research needed to be conducted by Staff. Significantly, PHD also has awealth of knowledge regarding the strategies used by other jurisdictions to implement similarpolices. In short, with PHD’s assistance, there would be no need to "reinvent the wheel" withrespect to drafting an ordinance and conducting the necessary legal research.

Public OutreachStaff’s workload assessment predicted that proper public outreach, including holding publichearings, would require 16 to 24 Staff hours, and that meetings with stakeholders, such as localbar owners, restaurateurs, and multi-unit residence owners would require an additional 16 to 24hours.

PHD has stated that it could provide up at least 20, and perhaps as much as 100 hours of outreach.PHD has also offered to convene community meetings and stakeholder meeting, to host 20 hoursworth of training sessions for both business stakeholders and Staff, and to assist with educatingbusiness owners about the impact of any new smoking policy. In addition, PHD has offered toassist in other ways, such as disseminating informational material, delivering signs, and assistance

with media development: Lastly, PHD has also indicated that it may be able to cover the entirecost of any necessary signage.

It should be noted that the bulk of the costs typically associated with public outreach usuallyoccur within the first year following the enactment or amendment of an ordinance. Staff hasspecifically indicated that the same would be true with respect to the outreach costs for thisinitiative, which underscores the need for the City to act promptly to take advantage of thefunding and resources being offered by the County.

EnforcementThe workload assessment concluded that implementation of this policy would require at least onefull-time Code Enforcement Inspector, and possibly as many as 2.35 FTE to fully implement anenforcement process, at an estimated cost of $381,307.

Recent history and recent actions’taken by local jurisdictions demonstrate that this policy will notrequire the level of enforcement that Staff predicted. For example, when the City Councilapproved a smoking ban for San Jose parks in 2007, no additional enforcement staff, full-time orpart-time, was needed. Smoking within the workplace has been banned since 1994, and smokingin bars has been banned since 1998. The infrastructure to deal with smoldng-related complaintsalready exists; therefore, this proposed policy would not likely require additional full-timeemployees specifically tasked with enforcement-related duties. Even if additional staffing wasrequired, it is extremely unlikely that 2.35 FTEs would be required.

Even though it is unlikely that additional FTEs will be required if this policy is implemented,PHD has still offered to provide 25 to-100 hours of enforcement. PHD is ready to assist withinvestigating complaints and citing repeat violators. PHD is also willing to coordinate with otherorganizations, such as Breathe California, which operates the Secondhand Smoke Helpline, tocollect, collate, and pass along complaint information to Code Enforcement. In fact, BreatheCalifornia has recently offered to investigate complaints, and to report back to Code Enforcementwhere appropriate.

The discussion above is not a comprehensive list of the resources that the County and otherorganizations can provide. There are additional creative ways that the City and County can worktogether to simultaneously develop a tobacco policy that have yet to be explored. For example,since the retail tobacco policy is designed to be "100% cost-recoverable," earmarking a smallportion of the grant funds awarded to San Jos6 for this initiative should be discussed. In addition,PHD has indicated that there may be additional funds available now that the initial grant awardshave been announced. In other words, there are many different avenues worth exploring thatcould make this initiative even more cost-effective and less work-intensive for Staff. However,we will not find how successful a creative, cooperative approach can be if we do not at least takethe preliminary step of seriously considering this issue. This decision must be made quickly, asall activities funded by the grant must be completed by March of 2012.

Everyone is aware of San Jos6’s current fiscal situation, but the reality is that despite theseconstraints, the City makes decisions each week that result in the expenditure of time and money.Thus, it is not simply a question’ of funds and Staff resources, but a question of priorities. SanJos6 should be in the forefront leading on this issue, and serving as a model for how other majorcities treat exposure to secondhand smoke. We have been given an opportunity to lead on anissue that will significantly improve the health of our constituents for generations to come, and to

do so at a significantly lower cost than such an initiative would typically entail. San Josd cannotand should not pass up this opportunity.

-CITY OF ~

S - JOSECAI~ITAL OF SIL[C©N VALLEY

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND~C-ITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT: SEE BELOW

MemorandumFROM: Councilmember Ash Kalra

Councilmember Nora Campos

DATE: June 9, 2010

Approved Date

REPLACEMENT

SUBJECT: UPDATE OF SAN JOS~ MUNICIPAL CODE 9.44.030 AND9144.040

R CO m)AT*ON

1. Direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance amending San Jos6 Municipal Code section9.44.040, to only permit smoking in outdoor areas of restaurants from 9 pm to closing.

2. Direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance amending San Jos6 Municipal Code Section9.44.030 to:

a) Prohibit smoking in public service lines; and

b) Extend the prohibition of smoking to include, unenclosed areas of publicand common areas of multi-family residential areas.

BACKGROUND

It has long been known that smoking cigarettes has extremely negative effects on a person’shealth. It has become increasingly known that secondhand smoke has similar negative impactson those who are subjected to it. In a report issued in 2006 the Surgeon General stated,"Scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke."According to the Surgeon General, approximately 60 percent of US children ages 3 to 11 yearsold are exposed to secondhand .smoke; that equates to 22 million children. The U.S. SurgeonGeneral Report further stated, "Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or workincrease their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30percent...Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the

cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart, disease and -lung cancer." According to theU.S. Department of Health and-Human Services’ Centers for Disease an&Prevention, more than440,000 people die in-the United States from tobacco-relateddiseases every year. Tobaccorelated death is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

The-Centers for -Disease Control and Prevention states secondhand smoke, also known asEnvironmental- Tobacco -Smoke (ETS), -contains~ over 250 chemicals- knovcn to. be toxic.According to The National Cancer Institute, 50 of the chemicals are known-to- cause cancer.Secondhand smoke causes about 3;000 lung cancer deaths and 3-~,000-heart disease deaths inadult non-smokers in the United States each year, in addition to the harm it creates upon youngchildren. Secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 38,000 deaths among non-smokersannually in the U.S. Secondhand smoke is known to cause prenatal manifestation ofdevelopment toxicity, postnatal manifestations of development toxicity, female and-maletoxicity, adverse respiratory effects, carcinogenic effects and cardiovascular effects.

With knowledge of the deleterious effects of tobacco smoke, the State of California-has been aglobal pioneer in taldng drastic steps to reduce the rate of smoking in the_population. In the late1980’s, California started an aggressive anti-smoking education campaign. Soon after, San LuisObispo became the first city in the world to ban smoking in all buildings open to the public. Theentire state followed suit later in.the decade. The results of these efforts saw the smoking rate ’inthe state tumble from 22.7% in 1988 to 13.3% in 2006. California’s adult smoking rate was at14% percent in 2006. California has the second lowest adult smoking rate in the nation afterUtah,-and among children 12 and under, California has the lowest smoking rate in the nation.

ANALYSIS

The above recommendations would help create a healthier’ and family friendly environmentthroughout the City of San Josd, while helping with the City’s economic prosperity. OtherMunicipalities in California, such as San Francisco, Calabasas, and Oakland, have taken thesteps to protect residents from unnecessary exposure to harmful secondhand smoke.

According to California Department of Public Health research, 75.8% of Californians agree’thatsmoking should be prohibited in outdoor dining areas at restaurants. Smoke free outdoor diningbefore 9 pm will allow families to enjoy outdoor dining establishments under safe conditions butalso enable restaurants to have the flexibility to allow for limited outdoor availability forsmoking patrons.

Although some may suggest smoke-free dining would cause sales to decline, studies have shownthat when the California Smoke-Free Workplace Law was extended to restaurants and bars, salesincreased in those establishments. According to the California Board of Equalization data, salesincreased an additional $879,816,000 in 1998 in those establishments which sold alcohol, theyear the California Smoke-Free Workplace Law went into effect in restaurants. In a phonesurvey conducted by Breathe California of local eating establishments, 83% of thoseestablishments surveyed said they would not oppose a smoke-free dining ordinance.

The City of San Jos~ does not have regulations to protect residents who may be waiting in aservice line from the dangers and inconvenience of secondhand smoke. Service lines includeareas where people commonly have to wait outdoors, such as ATM and movie theater lines.

Families should not have to be exposed-to sec-ondhand smoke while waiting to buy a ticket to amovie or while dining at a restaurant. ,

Currently, San Jos~ Municipal Code.-section 9.44.030b prohibits, smoking in "_Public andcommon areas of multi_family residential areas:All enclosed areas of apartments,condominiums and mobile home parks_ whi¢ti _are open to public .access or to tmrestfictedcommon access-by the residents of such places." Smoking regulations should be extended totmenciosed areas 6fapartments, condominiums and mobile home parks which are open to publicaccess or to unrestri¢~ed common access by residents to prevent secondhand smoke exposm’e toresidents. So, this change would simply require the removal of the word "enclosed" from thecurrent Code.

CITY OF ~

SAN JOSECAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY

RULES COMMITTEE: 09-01-10ITEM: H.lb

MemorandumTO: RULES & OPEN GOVERNMENT FROM: Ed Shikada

COMMITTEE.

SUBJECT: DATE: 08/26/10

Date

SUBJECT: WORI~OAD ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCEPROHIBITING SMOKING IN OUTDOOR AND COMMON AREAS

As directed by the Rules and Open Government Committee on June 9, 2010, staffhas prepared aworkload assessment for the proposed update to San Jose Municipal Code 9.44.030 and 9.44.040as initiated by a June 3rd memorandum from Councilmembers Kalra and Campos. The worldoadassessment is attached.

In order to facilitate the completion of this and future worldoad assessments, staff has formattedthe attached report using a new template that attempts t0 address key elements for City Councilconsideration. We would appreciate any feedback from Council on this format and itsapplicability in the future.

EDWARD K. SH1KADAAssistant City Manager

For questions on the attached workload assessment, please contact Mike Harmon at 277-4703,

Introduction

This report provides an outline of the policy issues, cost implications, and other pertinentinformation for addressing the subject Council referral. The format of this report isintended to provide an easy-to-understand presentation of information, addressing thefollowing topics:

Summary and Context of the ProposalScope and Approach to Policy AnalysisImpact on Other Priorities and Relationship to Current City ServicesAlternative Approaches for ConsiderationRecommendations

It should be noted that this workload assessment is simply a preliminary analysis of theissue as presented. Further analysis and outreach to interested’ stakeholders may lead toa modified understanding of the work required to address the subject of this referral, aswell as additional policy options for City Council consideration.

I. Summary and Background on the Proposal

On June 9, 2010, the Rules and Open Government Committee discussed a proposal fromCouncil members Kalra and Campos, to prepare a draft ordinance to prohibit smoking inoutdoor areas of restaurants before 9:00 p.m. and to prohibit smoking in public servicelines and in unenclosed areas of public and common areas of multi-family residentialareas. The memorandum from Councilmembers Kalra and Campos, dated June 3, 2010,is attached.

The Rules and Open Government Committee referred the issue to staff for a workloadassessment and report back to the Committee in August.

Workload Assessment of Proposed Smoking Prohibition in Outdoor and Common AreasPage 2

1. What is the purpose/intended outcome of the proposal?

The proposal is directed at reducing the.negative health effects of secondhand smoke,specifically in public areas of restaurants and multifamily residential developments.

2.~ How does the proposal address the issue(s)?

The proposal would amend the San Jos6 Municipal Code ("Code") Section 9.44,.Regulation of Smoking, specifically General Prohibition, to include outdoor areas ofrestaurants before 9:00 p.m., public service lines, and unenclosed outdoor common areasof multi-family .residential properties.

If directed by the City Council, PBCE’s Code Enforcement Division, in coordination with thePolice Department and the City Attorney’s Office, would prepare amendment(s) to SanJose Municipal Code ("Code") Section 9.44, Regulation of Smoking, specifically GeneralProhibition, to include outdoor areas of restaurants before 9:00 p.m., public service lines,and unenclosed outdoor common areas of multi-family residential properties. Theproposed amendment would expand outdoor areas wherein smoking is prohibited. ’

Given the variety of possible subsequent steps, implementation and enforcement of theamended Code sections is not specifically addressed in this workload assessment.

I1. Scope and Approach to Policy Analysis

In order to develop a proposed ordinance for City Council consideration, staff would needto conduct an analysis of policy options, conduct outreach, and develop policyrecommendations..This analysis would include a review of other similar statutes, and anylegal challenges, in restricting smoking in outdoor common areas, including outdoorseating in restaurants, that may have been approved to accommodate, the smokingpatrons. In addition, staff will examine the enforceability of outdoor smoking regulations.This analysis would also need to take into consideration potential implications, if any,related to upcoming marijuana state ballot measures and any proposed regulation of theuse of marijuana for recreational and medical purposes.

1. What is the estimated time and cost to complete the required policy analysis, includingcoordination with other City departments and/or the Redevelopment Agency?

Code Enforcement staff would work closely with the City Attorney’s Office to review theCode and draft the amendments to ensure legal viability of those proposed changes. Thecurrent Code section should also be reviewed for inclusion of provisions related to the useof medical marijuana by qualified patient individuals and/or the use of marijuana for

Workload Assessment of Proposed Smoking Prohibition in Outdoor and Common AreasPage 3

recreational purposes. In addition, the Schedule of Administrative Fines will need to bereviewed and possibly updated to assign fine amounts to new sections being added to theCode,

The review and drafting of an ordinance to amend the Code and updating of the Scheduleof Administrative Fines is estimated to take three to four weeks, including staff time of alldirectly participating departments and offices.

The preparation of memoranda and required environmental clearance is estimated to takean additional 8 to 40 hours of staff time.

The time associated with outreach and public hearings is noted under section 6 below (anadditional 16 to 24 hours of staff hours spread over the entire project period ofapproximately two months).

This time estimate does not include indirectly affected staff in the City Manager’s Office,City Clerk’s Office, and other City departments involved with placing items on the Councilagenda, broadcasting the meetings, archiving the documents, etc.

What community stakeholders are expected to be enga.qed in the consideration of this

¯ San Jose Residents¯ Working Partnerships USA¯ Breathe California¯ Silicon Valley Leadership Group¯ Businesses with out-door smoking areas that would need to monitor and prohibit

smoking until after 9 p.m.¯ California Apartment Owners Association¯ Santa Clara County Real Estate Board¯ San Jose Downtown Association as well as individual Restaurants, Bars and

Associations° Hotel, Motel and Apartment Owners¯ National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP)¯ Neighborhood Business Districts¯ Neighborhood Associations¯ City of San Jose - for facilities with outdoor smoking currently allowed or not

regulated such as the Airport and Convention Center¯ .County of Santa Clara¯ San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce¯ Ethnic Chambers of Commerce¯ American Lung Association¯ Banks with ATM’s¯ Theater Owners¯ Medical Marijuana Patients¯ Others

Workload Assessment of Proposed Smoking Prohibition in Outdoor and Common AreasPage 4

3. What outreach and engagement plan does staff anticipate, including the estimated timeand cost to implement the plan?

Code Enforcement staff would convene a single meeting of all community stakeholders toobtain their ideas and feedback on the proposed ordinance (approximately 8 hours of stafftime to prepare, convene, and summarize the meeting). If the Council requested additionalcommunity meetings, each meeting would require approximately 4 to 6 hours of additionalstaff time.

Given the expected opposition by certain groups, staff would likely need to follow up withindividual or groups of stakeholders, estimated to be an additional 8 to "16 hours of stafftime.

!!1. Impact on Other Priorities and Relationship to Current City Services

1. How would this effort impact other priorities, and what is its relationship to current City. services?

The City Attorney’s Office has estimated that there are approximately twenty otherordinances currently pending in their office, including, but not limited to: the MedicalMarijuana Ordinances, the San Pedro Square Kiosk Ordinance, the Tobacco PermittingOrdinance, the Public Entertainment Ordinance, the Cost-Sharing Ordinance, the TaxicabCNG and Alternative Fuel Ordinance and updates to the Massage Ordinance and the TowOrdinance. Therefore, developing or amending the Smoking Ordinance would impact andpush back deadlines for the listed ordinances.

It should be noted that the County of’Santa Clara has expressed an interest in providingfunding resources to support this effort. In March 2010, the Santa Clara CountyDepartment of Health was awarded a $6.975 million grant through the. FederalCommunities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) Tobacco Prevention and ControlProgram, funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), toaddress tobacco prevention and exposure to second-hand smoke over the next two years.

The Santa Clara County Department of Health indicated that San Jose might be eligible for$90,000 - $160,000 of grant funds from the Santa Clara County for tobacco preventionrelated policy development workwith the following funding priorities:

Workload Assessment of Proposed Smoking Prohibition in Outdoor and Common AreasPage 5

Reduce Exposure to Secondhand Smoke¯ Establish a countywide model for smoke-free policies on university and college

campuses in Santa Clara County by strengthening existing andlor adopting andimplementing new campus policies to become 100% smoke-free.

° . Restrict smoking in outdoor areas, such as; parks, trails, service lines and outdooreating areas.

° Strengthen local city smoke-free workplace protection policies to addressexemptions in the currentcity smoke-free policy.

Limit Zobacco Sales to Youth¯ Prohibit tobacco retailers from operating within a 1,000 feet radius of schools, parks,

or playgrounds, and other youth populated areas.

The availability of these resources may have the potential to support a portion of one staffposition within PBCE to conduct many of the duties required for this effort. However, thefunding level would be insufficient to reinstate prior staffing in a manner that would avoidimpacts to other service priorities.

2. What are on,qoin.q cost, revenue and/or operational considerations related to thisproposal?

This workload assessment is to amend Title 9.44 and conduct outreach only. There is nostaffing proposed for enforcement.

If fully implemented (complaint response and pro-active enforcement), ongoing annualizedfunding needed would be $381,307 to fund 2.0 FTE Code Enforcement Inspectors, 0.10Code Enforcement Supervisor, 0.10 Code Enforcement Division Manager and 0.05 CodeEnforcement Deputy Director, and 0,10 Senior Office Specialist.

If partially implemented (1,0 FTE Code Enforcement Inspector for complaint responseonly), the ongoing cost would be $222,828 annually,

If the Council would like the staff to proactively conduct outreach, the preparation ofmaterials would take approximately 40 hours of staff time and cost approximately $6,500for printing and mailing.

Workload Assessment of Proposed Smoking Prohibition in Outdoor and Common AreasPage 6

IV. Alternative Approaches for Consideration

Based On staff’s preliminary review of this issue and understanding of ongoing efforts bythe County of Santa .Clara, a number of options could be considered by the City Council asmeans to advance the intended outcome of the proposed ordinance. Options identified todate include:

In partnership with the Santa Clara County Health Department, develop PublicService Announcements. This would reflect a public education/awareness focus,targeted at the general public.

ao Expand City Council Resolution 74695, that encourages landlords and propertymanagers of multi-unit housing complexes to promote and market smoke freeproperties, to encourage our residents to stop smoking in outdoor areas that couldaffect other residents, such as; parks, trails, service lines and outdoor eating areas.This would similarly reflect a public education/awareness focus, in this case focusedon landlords, property managers, and similar business interests.

Request the Santa Clara County Public Health Department, as the lead agency, todevelop a County-wide or multi-jurisdictional approach to regulations and conductrelated outreach. This would advance the issue from a broader area of impact, andCity staff would need to participate in order to ensure that San Jose’s interests arerepresented. However, this level of engagement would be significantly lessresource intensive for the City.

Do Hold this proposal at this time, and reconsider prioritization as a part of the Spring2011 Council committee workplans or 2011-12 Proposed Budget. This would allo~vthis initiative to be considered within the context of other priorities, and resourcesallocated accordingly.

V, Recommendations

In recognition of competing priorities and resource limitations, staff recommends thatOption C above - request Santa Clara County lead agency- be pursued. This approachhas the potential to realize a greater economy of scale and allow community stakeholdersto address their concerns in a coordinated manner across jurisdictional boundaries. Staffwould work with the County Public Hea{h Department to design an approach thataddresses the issues identified in this workload assessment, and report to the City Councilany follow-up actions required.

This recommendation notwithstanding, should the City Council direct staff to proceed withthe development of the proposed ordinance, staff will modify workplan priorities as needed.