Thomas Keifer Consulting San Luis Obispo County Tobacco Contr

Transcription

June 2007
Project Director: Susan K. Hughes
Evaluation Consultant: Thomas Keifer Consulting
San Luis Obispo County Tobacco Control Program
2995 McMillan, #282
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805/781-5564
( f ) 8051773-1235
www.slocountv.ca.govkealth/prevention/don~moke.htin
TCS Contract #: 04-40
Contract Period: 7/1/04 to 6/30/07
Made possible by funds received from the California Department of
Health Services, Tobacco Control Program under the above contract
number during the above contract period.
SLO County Tobacco Control Program
Licensing 2007 Final Evaluation Report
Abstract
Objective 1:
By June 30,2007 a minimum of 2 out of 7 jurisdictions within San
Luis Obispo County will adopt tobacco retail licensing policies.
Indicator, 3.2.1 : Proportion of communities with tobacco retail licensing policies
(CORE).
Indicator, 3.1.1:
Extent of compliance with state laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco
sales to minors and requiring ID checking (CORE).
Through community education and support the San Luis Obispo (SLO) County Tobacco
Control Program (TCP) planned to assist jurisdictions in the development and adoption,
of tobacco retail licensing. The rationale was that closer monitoring of tobacco retailers
would result in decreased availability of tobacco to minors.
The targets of the intervention activities were tobacco merchants, local policy makers,
and youth. The activities were designed to support the development and adoption of
local tobacco retail licensing ordinances. The primary activities were three-fold: 1)
community education about licensing and youth access; 2) the development of
community support for licensing; and 3) support to the jurisdiction in drafting the
ordinance. These activities are carried out in each of the targeted jurisdictions: Arroyo
Grande, Grover Beach, and the unincorporated areas of County of San Luis Obispo.
The evaluation plan utilized a single policy adoption-only design. The major evaluation
activities were key informant interviews, merchant surveys, and other process evaluation
activities. Additionally, though the design did not call for it, enforcement activities were
conducted. These were "stings" involving Youth Purchase Surveys and observation of
license posting and STAKE Act signage.
Key Informant Interviews prior to licensing produced data indicating that support from
law enforcement was a crucial component of successful adoption and implementation of
tobacco retail licensing. A potential barrier commonly cited was merchant opposition. A
review of Policy Records indicates that merchant opposition is rare. The overwhelming
majority of Key Informants felt that licensing would be an effective means for reducing
tobacco sales to minors.
Licensing was adopted in two jurisdictions: Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. The
County is set to adopt, once an ordinance is developed. This is expected to occur in the
fall or winter of 2007.
Merchant Surveys were conducted after licensing policies were adopted. While
merchants cannot be said to be highly supportive of licensing, very few reported thinking
that licensing would affect their business in a negative way. In two jurisdictions about
two-thirds of merchants surveyed (65%) reported feeling that it would have no effect.
The other third felt that licensing would be helpful. No merchant reported believing that
licensing would hurt business.
One to two baseline compliance checks were held in the two jurisdictions, yielding a
baseline illegal sales rates of 13% in Arroyo Grande and 23% in Grover Beach.
Sampling rates for baseline stings ranged from 87% to 95% of retailers.
Three and four compliance checks were conducted subsequent to licensing. The samples
ranged from 80% to 100% of the retailers. Youth Purchase Surveys indicated illegal
sales of 6% to 24% in 2004105 (mean = 14%) in Arroyo Grande. In Grover Beach the
rates ranged from 0% to 43% (mean = 26%). Thus, the illegal tobacco sales rate did not
fall after tobacco retail licensing ordinances were passed in either city.
I'
Qualitative data indicate that other than fines issued to clerks, no other enforcement
actions have been taken since licensing was established in either city. Rather, police have
tried to utilize counseling. This result is in line with the experiences of San Luis Obispo,
which enacted retail licensing in 2003. The wording of the ordinance was such that local
enforcement was not possible. Illegal sales rates remained about the same as before
licensing. Once the ordinance was amended to include enforcement, and licenses began
to be suspended, illegal sales rates fell substantially.
In Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach enforcement is possible, but to date not
implemented. Illegal sales rates remain about the same as prior to licensing.
Table of Contents
page
1. Title Page
2. Abstract
3. Table of Contents
4. List of Tables and Figures
5. Project Description
Background
Objective
Intervention
Intervention Targets
Project Settings
6. Evaluation Methods
Evaluation Design
Sample
Data Collection Instruments & Procedures
Data Analysis
7. Evaluation Results
Tobacco Licensing Ordinances
Key Informant Interviews
Merchant Surveys
PC 308 Compliance Checks
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
9. Attachments
1 Instruments
Merchant Survey
PC 308 Compliance Check Protocol
2 Summary Reports & Data Tables
Policy Records
Key Informant Interview Reports
Merchant Survey Reports
PC 308 Compliance Check Data Tables
List of Tables and Figures
Page
Figure 1 Projected Effect of Ordinance on Business (Arroyo Grande)
6
Figure 2
Projected Effect of Ordinance on Business (Grover Beach)
7
Table 1
Arroyo Grande Tobacco Licensing Compliance Checks (2004 to 2007)
8
Figure 3
Compliance Check Illegal Sales Rates (Arroyo Grande: 2004 to 2007)
8
Table 2
Grover Beach Tobacco Licensing Compliance Checks (2004 to 2007)
9
Figure 4
Compliance Check Illegal Sales Rates (Grover Beach: 2004 to 2007)
10
Project Description
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) was the first jurisdiction in San Luis Obispo County
to enact a licensing ordinance regarding tobacco retail licensing, doing so in September
2003. The SLO ordinance contained a number of important provisions: 1) Mobil sales of
tobacco are illegal. 2) Compliance with the ordinance are monitored by the SLO Police
Department, with the ordinance mandating four compliance checks per year of each
tobacco retailer. 3) The cost of enforcement are incorporated into the license fee ($255
per year). 4) Penalties for violation include: 1" violation: 30 suspension of license; 2"*:
60 day suspension; 3'*: 90 day suspension; and 4": revocation of license. Violations
remain on the record for five years.
Much was learned during the implementation of the SLO ordinance. These lessons
strengthened the SLO Tobacco Control Coalition's determination to continue to support
tobacco retail licensing in other SLO County jurisdictions.
Objective
Objective 1:
By June 30,2007 a minimum of 2 out of 7 jurisdictions within San
Luis Obispo County will adopt tobacco retail licensing policies.
Indicator, 3.2.1: Proportion of communities with tobacco retail licensing policies
(CORE)
Indicator, 3.1.1 : Extent of compliance with state laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco
sales to minors and requiring ID checking (CORE)
The rationale is that licensing tobacco retailers provides methodologies to reduce illegal
tobacco sales to minors. This, in turn, reduces tobacco availability to youth.
Intervention
The primary activities were three-fold: 1) community education about licensing and
youth access; 2) the development of community support for licensing; and 3) support to
the jurisdiction in drafting the ordinance. These activities are carried out in each of the
targeted jurisdictions.
Intervention Targets
The targets of the intervention activities were two-fold. The primary targets are youth, in
that it is thought that tobacco retail licensing reduces youth access to tobacco.
Secondarily the targets are tobacco retailers, policy makers, and public employees.
Development and adoption of a licensing ordinance is dependent on an understanding of
its purpose and a commitment to follow through with its enforcement.
Project Settings
There were three communities targeted for tobacco retail licensing: Arroyo Grande,
Grover Beach, and the unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County. The rationale
was to work through a region of the County, building on successes to create support in
other areas. Both of the above-mentioned cities are in the South County Region. The
County was targeted as a means to bridge the gap from the southern areas (San Luis
Obispo and the South County cities, and other jurisdictions such as the Coastal City of
Morro Bay and the North County cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles, which will be
targeted during the next workplan period.
Evaluation Methods
Evaluation Design
The evaluation plan utilized a single policy adoption-only design. The evaluation
activities included: 1) Key Informant Interviews (both before and after policy
implementation); 2) Media Activity Log; 3) Data Collection Training; and 4) Policy
Records for both the businesses and any organizations; and 5) Point-of-purchase Surveys
(both before and after policy implementation).
Though not required in the "policy only" design, the evaluation plan contained
"outcome" data collection. These quantitative data were collected through point-ofpurchase surveys, "stings," involving a PC308 compliance check. Stings were scheduled
at least once prior to policy adoption, and then after adoption four times each year in each
jurisdiction.
Sample
The population was composed of all retail tobacco merchants in the targeted jurisdictions.
In Arroyo Grande there are 19 tobacco retailers. The four stings had samples ranging
from 15 (80%) to 18 (95%), with a mean rate of 88%. In Grover Beach there are 15
tobacco retailers. The six stings had samples ranging from 13 (87%) to 15 (loo%), with
a mean rate of 92%. In the unincorporated communities of San Luis Obispo County there
are 17 tobacco retailers. The one baseline sting had a sample of 88%.
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures
Key Informant Interviews were developed in house to gauge support for and barriers to
tobacco retail licensing in each jurisdiction. Merchant Surveys were also developed in
house to determine merchant awareness of the ordinance, and to gauge their receptivity to
its implementation. The quantitative instrument used during for this objective was the
SLO County Youth Purchase Surveys (YPS). This protocol is based on the State
protocol for YPSs.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data were subjected to frequency and trend analyses. Qualitative data were
analyzed for content and themes.
Evaluation Results
Tobacco Licensing Ordinances
Two jurisdictions passed tobacco retail licensing ordinances during this workplan period.
Arroyo Grande passed its ordinance in February 2005. The vote was 5 to 0. There was
no public comment opposed to the ordinance.
Grover Beach passed its ordinance in August 2005. The vote was 3 to 1 with one
member absent. The member who voted nay stated "that his additional licensing fee
would be financed by legitimate businesses to create additional enforcement upon
themselves. He also observed that a violation of the proposed Ordinance had even more
negative financial consequences to a business than a violation for selling alcohol to a
minor." There was one speaker during public comment opposed to the ordinance. He
felt fining violators who sell to youth would be more effective than licensing.
The County of San Luis Obispo is readying an ordinance, and expects to pass it in the
summer or fall of 2007. TCP staff are currently working with County staff to draft the
proposed ordinance, as directed by the Board of Supervisors.
Arroyo Grande
Two Key Informants were interviewed prior to adoption of the ordinance in October and
November of 2004: the Chief of Police and a member of the City Council. Both were
aware of the proposed ordinance, and both were supportive. The City Council Member
reported support from the Chief of Police to be a crucial component of the effort. A large
number of opposing merchants was identified as a potential barrier or challenge.
After the ordinance three Key Informants were interviewed in November and December
2005: the Chief of Police and two police officers. Two of the three police officials were
aware of the proposed ordinance, while one rating herself as unfamiliar. All of the police
officials were hesitant to indicate support for the effectiveness of the proposed ordinance
in reducing tobacco sales to youth, since implementation was just beginning. All three
KIs felt that enforcement, strict penalties, and merchant education were crucial to the
success of the ordinance.
The Chief of Police was in the process of retiring during implementation of the
ordinance. He felt that would be a barrier. He also cited staffing problems as reasons for
delay. Two of the three KIs felt that the staff of the Tobacco Control Program had been
very supportive in the implementation of the ordinance. The third had only been
involved in the compliance checks.
Grover Beach
Four Key Informants were interviewed prior to policy adoption between February and
May 2004: the Chief of Police, the City Manager, the Mayor, and a police Detective. All
were aware of the proposed ordinance. All were supportive, although the City Manager
was interested in grant funding to support the effort. Two of the other three understood
that the licensing fees would pay for licensing activities. Fees paying for licensing
activities was identified as a crucial component of the effort by two of the four KIs.
Funding and the makeup of the City Council were identified as a potential barrier or
challenge.
Four Key Informants were interviewed post ordinance in March 2006: the Chief of
Police; two police Detectives; and a tobacco retailer. All of the police officials were
aware of the proposed ordinance, while the retailer rated himself as unfamiliar. All of the
police officials were supportive of the effectiveness of the proposed ordinance in
reducing tobacco sales to youth, while the retailer responded the ordinance was extremely
ineffective. The retailer felt that sales to youth was already against the law, and felt the
local ordinance was intended to "make more money for the city." All four KIs felt that
penalties for merchants who sold to minors would lead to the success of the ordinance.
All four KIs felt that the staff of the Tobacco Control Program had been very supportive
in the implementation of the ordinance.
San Luis Obispo County
Two waves of Key Informants were conducted. Initial interviews with three Health
Department and law enforcement officials were done in interviewed in November 2005,
which raised issues pertinent to licensing implementation. After those issues were
resolved, a second wave of interviews was conducted with five policy makers. These
were completed in September 2006.
Data November 2005: All were aware of the proposed ordinance, having reviewed the
information provided by TCP. All understood the purpose of the ordinance was to reduce
tobacco sales to minors. The Health Agency officials were unconditionally supportive.
The Sheriff was supportive of efforts to prevent tobacco sales to minors. He would not
support a high license fee, preferring high penalties. He described licensing fees as
"penalizing merchants who don't sell tobacco to minors." All felt a licensing ordinance
would prevent tobacco sales to minors.
The three Informants gave three different crucial components: Board members
understanding the importance of reducing tobacco sales to minors; support from
the Sheriff; and low licensing fees. Barriers cited included: pro-business BOS
member; revenue and staff time to complete stings; and tobacco merchants.
Data September 2006: All were aware of the proposed ordinance, with three mentioning
the information provided by TCP. All understood the purpose of the ordinance was to
reduce tobacco sales to minors. One member of the Board was unconditionally
supportive. Three were supportive as long as conditions were met, including support and
agreement by all county departments involved, no undue burden on merchants, and no
costs to the County. The fifth member was uncertain, citing his desire to avoid any more
"taxes for business." All felt a licensing ordinance can be effective in 1;reventing tobacco
sales to minors. Their crucial components were: keeping fees as low as possible (2x);
keeping the licensing process and simple and easy as possible (2x); assuring departments
work together, and getting "pro-business" Board members on board. Barriers cited
included: lack of support by Sheriff (2x); merchant opposition (2x); and staff time and
costs.
Merchant Surveys
Arroyo Grande
Surveys were administered in November 2005. Sixteen retailers responded, which is
84% of the total population of 19 retailers.
All respondents were aware of CA Penal Code 308. The majority of respondents (75%)
reported their stores had additional policies beyond state law regarding tobacco sales to
minors. All respondents reported their stores posted "WE CARD" signs. Most
respondents (8 1%) reported their stores posted "STAKE ACT" signs. The overwhelming
majority of respondents (94%)reported their store provided training to employees
regarding tobacco sales to minors. One-quarter of the respondents (25%) reported being
aware of the City of Arroyo Grande's Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance. Three of the
four had read about it in the newspaper, and one had received notification through the
mail. Three of the four had at least a general understanding of the ordinance's purpose.
None of the respondents felt the ordinance would hurt business. Most (67%) felt it would
have no effect, and one-third (33%) thought it would be helpful.
Figure 1
Projected Effect of Ordinance on Business (Arroyo Grande)
Grover Beach
Surveys were administered in.June 2006. Thirteen retailers responded, which is 87% of
the total population of 15 retailers.
All respondents were aware of CA Penal Code 308. The majority of respondents (75%)
reported their stores had additional policies beyond state law regarding tobacco sales to
minors. All respondents (100%) reported their stores posted "WE CARD" signs. Most
respondents (77%) reported their stores posted "STAKE ACT" signs. The majority of
respondents (70%) reported their store provided training to employees regarding tobacco
sales to minors. Most respondents (85%) reported being aware of the City of Arroyo
Grande's Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance. Seven had received notice from the
police. Three had received something in the mail from an unidentified source. None of
the respondents felt the ordinance would hurt business. Most (85%) felt it would have no
effect, and one-sixth (16%) thought it would be helpful.
Figure 2
Projected Effect of Ordinance on Business (Grover Beach)
PC308 Compliance Checks
Compliance checks were conducted prior to policy adoption. After adoption four
compliance checks were to be conducted each year.
Arroyo Grande
There was one baseline sting conducted in Arroyo Grande during this workplan period,
done in January 2004. Two of 18 stores (1 1%) illegally sold tobacco to minors.
Subsequent to passage of the licensing ordinance only one point-of-purchase survey was
performed each year. In those three stings the mean illegal sales rates was 14% (6%,
24%, and 12% - see Table 1 and Figure 3 on the next page). None of the retailers sold
tobacco to minors more than one time since enactment of the licensing policy. There
have been no ordinance enforcement actions (e.g., license suspensions) to date.
I Baseline
( January 2004
( Treatment
( December 2005
( December 2006
1 June 2007
1
1
1
1
I
1
95%
89%
89%
80%
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
13%
6%
24%
12%
Figure 3
Compliance Check Illegal Sales Rates (Arroyo Grande: 2004-2007)
I
I
I
I
I
Stings were done annually due to capacity issues in the Arroyo Grande Police
Department. The Chief, who was the primary champion of tobacco licensing, retired just
after passage of the ordinance. The new Police Chief was too busy for his first year or so
to enforce the policy. This has changed during the last year, and enforcement activities
are expected to increase.
Grover Beach
There were two baseline stings conducted in Grover Beach during this workplan period,
done in November 2004 and January 2005. No retailers made illegal sales in the first
sting, but five did so during the second. Thus, the mean baseline illegal sales rate in
Grover Beach was 19%.
Subsequent to passage of the licensing ordinance four point-of-purchase surveys were
performed. The mean illegal sales rate in those four stings was 26% (0%, 21%, 43%, and
27% - see Table 2 and Figure 4 on the next page).
Only one of the retailers sold tobacco to minors more than one time since enactment of
the licensing policy, doing so the last three times in a row. There have been no
enforcement actions (license suspensions) to date, but clerks have been cited. The Police
have chosen to counsel retailers who make sales to minors. This has worked in most
cases to reduce recidivism, but not to lower sales rates overall. The one retailer who has
sold three consecutive times was fined $100 after the second time, promising to post
signs and conduct clerk education.
Implementation was delayed in Grover Beach for a number of reasons. There was
considerable negotiation about the educational brochure. The Police desired to conduct
stings on their own, yet the Department suffered from capacity issues.
Figure 3
Compliance Check Illegal Sales Rates (Grover Beach: 2004 to 2007)
Conclusions and Recommendations
Quantitative data indicate that in the two jurisdictions with retail licensing ordinances
passed during the current workplan illegal sales rates did not change after licensing was
implemented. In Arroyo Grande the baseline sales rate was 11%, while the mean
treatment rate was 14%. In Grover Beach the baseline sales rate was 1996, and the mean
after-licensing rate was 26%.
Qualitative data indicate that neither jurisdiction has yet to apply enforcement provisions
of their licensing ordinances. No licenses have as yet been suspended. Therefore, there
is no real incentive for merchants to comply with the provisions of the licensing
ordinances.
This exactly mirrors the experience in the City of San Luis Obispo (see San Luis Obispo
Licensing 2007 Case Study, 2007). Tobacco retail licensing was instituted there in
September 2003. Unfortunately language in the ordinance did not allow for local
enforcement. Consequently, illegal sales rates averaged 13% during the two years it took
to amend the ordinance. Once enforcement was initiated the rate fell to a mean of 3%.
As far as planning goes Key Informant Interviews typically reflect the expectation that
merchant opposition will be a key barrier to tobacco retail licensing. Review of policy
records indicates that only one merchant appeared to contest the ordinances in the two
jurisdictions during this workplan.
The two most crucial components of a successful licensing effort have proven to be a
strong champion and active enforcement of licensing provisions. In both instances in this
report that champion has been either the Police Chief or a City Council person.
ATTACHMENT 1
INSTRUMENTS
Merchant Survey
Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance
Key Informant Survey
(Pre- Policy)
Organization:
1. Are you familiar with the proposed tobacco retail-licensing ordinance?
2. Would you support a tobacco retail-licensing ordinance in the city of
Arroyo Grande?
3. Do you think the ordinance will be effective in reducing the illegal sales
of tobacco to youth?
4. Can you name at least one component that you believe would lead to the
success of the ordinance?
5. Can you name any barriers/challenges to passing the proposed ordinance?
6. I n your opinion, what is the main goal of the ordinance?
Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance
Key Informant Survey
(Post-Policy)
Name: ........................
Date: -----------------Organization:.......................................
Title:-----------------------------------------------
1. On a scale of 1 to 5 , with 1 being extremely unfamiliar and 5 being extremely familiar,
how would you rate your familiarity with the tobacco retail-licensing ordinance?
Extremely Unfanlilix 1
2
3
4
5 Extremely Familiar
2. Please indicate your awareness of the number of merchants who are complying with the
ordinance, 1 is not at all aware and 5 is very aware.
Not at all aware 1
2
3
4
5 Very aware
3. On a scale of 1 to 5 , with 1 being extremely ineffective and 5 being extremely effective,
how would you rate the ordinance in its effectiveness in reducing illegal sales of tobacco
to youth? Please explain the reasons for the numerical value.
Extremely ineffective 1
2
3
4
5 Extremely effective
.............................................................
4. In your opinion, what is the main goal of the ordinance?
.............................................................
5 . What 3 components do you think would lead to the success of the ordinance?
6. Were there any barriers during the implementatio~lphase of the ordinance?
.............................................................
.............................................................
7. What 3 components do you think would lead to the failure of the ordinance?
8. Is there anything that could be added to the ordinance that would enhance its
effectiveness?
9. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being very non-supportive and 5 being very supportive, how
would you rate any support you received from the SLO County Tobacco Control
Program during the process of implementing the orhnance? Please explain the reasons
for the numerical value.
Very non-supportive 1
2
3
4
5 Very supportive
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for participating in our survey!
Please complete and fax to 78 1-1235
or mail to
Tobacco Control Program
2995 McMillan Ave. Ste 282
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tobacco Merchant Survey
1. Are you familiar with CA Penal Code 308, which makes it illegal to sell tobacco
products to minors?
2. Does your store have any additional policies other than the required state laws
regarding tobacco sales to minors?
3. Do you post "WE CARD" signs in your store?
4. DO you post "STAKE ACT" signs?
5. Do your employees receive training regarding tobacco sales to minors?
6. If yes, what does the training involve?
7. Are you aware of the City of Grover Beach's Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance?
8. How did you hear about the licensing ordinance?
9. What is your understanding of the purpose of the ordinance?
10. Do you think the licensing ordinance will help, hurt, or have no effect on your
business?
5 = very helpful
3 = no effect
1 = very hurtful
4
=
helpful
2 = hurtful
San Luis Obispo County
Tobacco Control Program
Minor volunteer enters store while law enforcement official waits outside. Upon
attempted purchase law enforcement enters, and makes note of whether sale was
made, as well as whether or not clerk checked the minor's ID. If retailer is not
surveyed, law enforcement makes note as to the reason.
The following data is present on the data form used by law enforcement: Name,
Address, and Phone Number of each retailer in the jurisdiction. Additionally,
there are blank columns for Sale and Ask for ID
ATTACHMENT 2
AND DATATABLES
SUMMARY
REPORTS
Policy Records
Key Informant Interview Report
Merchant Survey Report
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 25,2005
PAGE 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
8.a.
8.b.
8.c.
8.d.
8.e.
8.f.
Dickens, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara
None
Costello
Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listings of cash disbursements for the period January 1, 2005 January 15,2005.
Consideration of Cash Flow AnalysislApproval of Interfund Advance from the
Water Facility Fund.
Action: Received and filed the December 2004 cash report and approve the interfund
advance from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds as; of
December 31,2004.
Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits.
Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of December 31,
2004.
Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City CouncillRedevelopment Agency
Meeting of January 11, 2005 as submitted.
Consideration of Approval of Final Map for Tract 2275 and to Accept Certain
Easements and Improvements for Tract 2275 -Jim and Evadene Dotson.
Action: 1) Approved Final Tract Map 2275; 2) Accepted the public water improvements
that were conditioned for Tract 2275, as constructed; 3) Rejected the sewer
improvements that were conditioned for. Tract 2275, without prejudice as to
future acceptance; 4) Rejected the offer of dedication for public sewer easement, without
prejudice as to future acceptance; and 5) Accepted the 10% warranty security in the
amount of $40,982.68.
Consideration of Council Appointments to Various City Commissions, Boards, and
Committees.
Action: Approved appointments.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a.
Consideration of a Proposed Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.38 to Title 8 of ,the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Providing for the Licensing of Tobacco Retailers,.
Chief of Police TerBorch presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce an
ordinance adding Chapter 8.38 to Title 8 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code providing for the
licensing and regulation of retailers of tobacco products.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing.
Trina Long, Health Educator Specialist, Tobacco Control Program, County of San Luis Obispo
Public Health Department, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Council comments included support of the proposed ordinance; emphasis on the Ci1:y's
responsibility to regulate and enforce regulations regarding illegal tobacco use, especially with
regard to minors; concern over the high percentage of tobacco retailers in the City selling
ClTY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 2 5 , 2 0 0 5
PAGE 3
tobacco products to minors; and clarification that the ordinance would also cover smokeless
tobacco products.
Council Member Arnold moved to introduce an Ordinance as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE ClTY COLlNClL OF THE ClTY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER 8.38 TO THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING OF TOBACCO
RETAILERS". Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
None
Costello
There being 4 AYES, 0 NOES, and 1 ABSENT, the motion is hereby declared to be passed.
9.b.
-
Mixed-Use Project with Two (2)
Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 04-005
Retail Units, Three (3) Office Units, and One (1) Residential Unit; 101 Traffic Way;
Applicant: John Robasciotti.
Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 04-005. Staff responded to questions from Council
regarding easements along E. Branch Street; whether there was access to the building from the
south elevation; clarification regarding the stone veneer faqade; maneuverability within the
parking lot and whether or not garbage trucks would be able to access the parking lot; a
suggestion for the placement of large recycling bins on wheels; project compatibility with
renovations and improvements to the Traffic Way Bridge; clarification of the status of the
billboard on the adjacent property; explanation of the water neutralization fee; concerns
regarding egress from the parking lot onto Traffic Way; and whether there would be a shared
driveway access agreement with the adjacent property.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing.
Mark Vasquez, Norman Vasquez and Associates, representing the applicant, stated that the
project had been designed to resolve a number of issues and constraints on and around the
unique site. He responded to questions and concerns regarding access issues; signage; building
design; and the artificial stone faqade, which would match the stone being used on the Traffic
Way Bridge. He supported installing signs requiring a right turn only onto Traffic Way; however,
he commented that it might be difficult to enforce.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Council Member Dickens complimented the applicant and the architect on the design of the
project and acknowledged that this was a difficult and constrained site due to its small size. He
stated this project would be a nice complement and addition to the Village. He stated that his
review of the negative declaration mitigation measures and conditions of approval address the
areas of concern. He also acknowledged the difficulty garbage trucks would have accessing the
site parking lot. With regard to overall parking, he concurred with the proposal to allow a 20
percent mixed-use parking reduction, supported the credit for two parking spaces for the
dedication to the City of property fronting W. Branch Street, and the payment of in-lieu fees for
the remaining parking spaces. He emphasized the use of the Planned Sign Program and Historic
Minutes: City Council Meeting
August 15,2005
8.
Page 6
Proposed Water Supply Agreement.
City Manager Anderson gave an overview of the staff report regarding entering into a
Water Supply Agreement with the Oceano Community Services District to acquire water
resources to address a potential short-term shortfall in water. He and City Engineer
Garing then responded to Council questions.
Discussion was held regarding increasing costs for water and an overview of the City's
existing water delivery systems.
City Manager Anderson gave an overview of previous actions by the Council to ensure
water resources, such as implementing a tiered water rate system and enhanced water
impact fees, additional water conservation education efforts, further exploration of water
resources in the County by the oil firm Plains Exploration and Production (PXP), having a
consultant review the option of a desalination plant, and the letter of interest submitted
last year to the County for a portion of Lake Nacimiento water.
Action: Upon consensus (Council Member Lieberman absent), the City Council
approved the proposed Water Supply Agreement and authorized the Mayor to execute it
on the City's behalf.
ORDER OF THE DAY: Upon consensus of the City Council, at this time Mayor Shoals changed
the Order of the Day to discuss Public Hearing Item No. 10 next.
PUBLIC HEARING
10.
Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance.
Mayor Shoals read the title to the foregoing item, declared the public hearing open, and
deferred to staff for a report. City Attorney Koczanowicz gave an overview of the staff
report and proposed Ordinance to regulate tobacco retail licensing within City limits. He
then responded to questions from the Council.
Police Chief Copsey stated this Ordinance could help curtail the illegal sale of tobacco
products to minors and that the Department was in the process of developing a juvenile
task force with other law enforcement agencies to work with County health officials on
alcohol and tobacco violations. He further stated the proposed licensing fee would be reevaluated next year and adjusted accordingly.
Mayor Shoals opened the floor to public comments.
The followina person spoke in objection to the proposed Ordinance:
- El Saed, Grover Beach, owner of the Union 76 gasoline station on West Grand
Avenue, who suggested the City instead levy fineslpenalties against store owners who
sold tobacco products to minors.
The followina person spoke in s u ~ ~ o r t the
o f DrODosed Ordinance:
- Howard Mensinger, San Luis Obispo, who stated his cigar-smoking habit required him
to undergo a laryngectomy and that each year he spoke with children and teens
throughout the County regarding the harmful effects of smoking; and
- Susan Hughes, Director of Health Promotional Services, San Luis Obispo County
Public Health Department, who stated the average number of tobacco sales to minors
in Grover Beach was currently three times higher than the state average.
There were no further public comments received, and the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Discussion was held regarding the retail licensing fee providing the financing for
enforcement efforts, potential impacts to retailers who violate the Ordinance, other
agencies adopting similar ordinances, and previous efforts by County Health officials to
educate retailers and to reduce the sale of tobacco products to minors.
Page 7
Minutes: City Council Meeting
August 15,2005
Council Member Ekbom objected to the sale of tobacco products to minors but also
objected to the proposed Ordinance, stating this additional licensing fee would be
financed by legitimate businesses to create additional enforcement upon themselves. He
also observed that a violation of the proposed Ordinance had even more negative
financial consequences to a business than a violation for selling alcohol to a minor.
Action: Upon mls of Mayor Pro Tem VersawlCouncil Member Ashton, the City Council
conducted first reading, by title only, of Ordinance No. 05-06. The motion carried on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Council Member Ashton, Mayor Pro Tem Versaw, and Mayor Shoals.
Council Member Ekbom.
Council Member Lieberman.
Council Members - None.
Ordinance No. 05-06: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grover
Beach, California, Adding Chapter 4.20 t o Article X of the Grover Beach Municipal
Code Providing for the Licensing of Tobacco Retailers. (First R e a d i n g m
Recess:
Reconvene:
9.
Upon consensus of the City Council, the meeting recessed at 8:22 p.m.
At 8:34 p.m., the meeting reconvened with all Council Members present except
for Council Member Lieberman.
-
General Plan Amendment South Grover Beach Land Use Element Circulation
Program and Maps Creating a Cul-De-Sac at the End of Barca and Huber Streets
with an East-West Emergency Access from Barca, Huber, and Griffin Streets, and
Environmental Determination, Negative Declaration - (Continued Public Hearing from
Ju/y 18, 2005.)
Mayor Shoals read the title to the foregoing item, declared the continued public hearing
open, and deferred to staff for a report.
Acting Planner Ill Hawkins gave an overview of the staff report regarding a General Plan
Land Use Element Amendment to delete a proposed east-west street between lower
Barca, Huber, and Griffin Streets, and instead establish cul-de-sacs at the end of Barca
and Huber Streets, with east-west emergency access easements between Barca, Huber,
and Griffin Streets.
City Engineer Garing responded to Council questions regarding the process for "street
abandonments", stating a recorded map dated July 1926 created Barca Street, Huber
Street, and other nearby streets in the surrounding southern area of the City and that
none of those streets and driveways were offered for public use but were for the use of
property owners and successors in interest. He also noted the map included an
"abandonment statement only" for Huber Street, but the City had never "accepted that
portion of the street. He then gave an overview of the process for "street dedications".
Further discussion was held regarding another annotation on the recorded map
regarding the abandonment of a 254. private road easement that could possibly provide
for a City right-of-way.
Discussion was then held regarding the recently adopted Circulation Element that did not
recommend the use of cul-de-sacs in the industrial area, inconsistencies between the
Circulation Element and the Circulation Plan, and street width and parking requirements
for pending projects in the southern industrial area of the City submitted by Thor Ourston
and Mike Ross.
Mayor Shoals invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on
this matter.
Thor Ourston, Grover Beach property owner, gave a brief overview of his proposed
project, and spoke in support of the proposal to establish cul-de-sacs at the end of Barca
and Huber Streets and allow an east-west emergency access between Barca, Huber,
and Griffin Streets. He also requested relief from the requirement for additional street
improvements if the same requirement was not imposed on an adjacent property owner.
SLO COUNTY
TCP PROGRESS
REPORTUPDATE
LICENSINGKEYINFORMANT
REPORT
GROVERBEACHPOST-ORDINANCE
JANUARY
2006
Priority:
(3) Reduce the Availability of Tobacco
Indicator,:
(3.2.1) Proportion of communities with tobacco retail licensing
(CORE).
Indicator,:
(3.1.1) Extent of compliance with state laws prohibiting the sale
of tobacco to minors and requiring ID checking (CORE).
Objective #II:
A minimum of 2 jurisdictions within San Luis Obispo County
will adopt tobacco retail licensing policies.
ACTIVITY 1-E-3
Activity Type: Collection of Process Data - Key Informant Interview
Three Key Informants were interviewed in November and December 2005:
Chief of Police
Police Detectives (2)
Data:
Two of the three police officials were aware of the proposed
ordinance, while one rating herself as unfamiliar.
All of the police officials were hesitant to indicate support for the
effectiveness of the proposed ordinance in reducing tobacco sales to
youth, since implementation was just beginning.
All three KIs felt that enforcement, strict penalties, and merchant
education were crucial to the success of the ordinance.
The Chief of Police was in the process of retiring during
implementation of the ordinance. He felt that would be a barrier. He
also cited staffing problems as reasons for delay.
Two of the three KIs felt that the staff of the Tobacco Control Program
had been very supportive in the implementation of the ordinance. The
third had only been involved in the compliance checks.
SLO COUNTY
TCP PROGRESS
REPORTUPDATE
REPORT
LICENSING
KEYINFORMANT
GROVER
BEACHPOST-ORDINANCE
JULY 2006
Priority:
(
(3) Reduce the Availability of Tobacco
Indicator,:
(3.2.1) Proportion of communities with tobacco retail licensing
(CORE).
Indicator,:
(3.1.1) Extent of compliance with state laws prohibiting the sale
of tobacco to minors and requiring ID checking (CORE).
Objective #II:
A minimum of 2 jurisdictions within San Luis Obispo County
will adopt tobacco retail licensing policies.
ACTIVITY 1-E-3
Activity Type: Collection of Process Data - Key Informant Interview
Four Key Informants were interviewed in March 2006:
Chief of Police
Police Detectives (2)
Retailer
Data:
All of the police officials were aware of the proposed ordinance, while
the retailer rated himself as unfamiliar.
All of the police officials were supportive of the effectiveness of the
proposed ordinance in reducing tobacco sales to youth, while the
retailer responded the ordinance was extremely ineffective.
The retailer felt that sales to youth was already against the law, and felt
the local ordinance was intended to "make more money for the city."
All four KIs felt that penalties for merchants who sold to minors would
lead to the success of the ordinance.
All four KIs felt that the staff of the Tobacco Conbol Program had
been very supportive in the implementation of the ordinance.
1
Arroyo Grande Merchant Survey
Data Summary
December 2005
N=16
Surveys were administered in November 2005.
All respondents were aware of CA Penal Code 308.
The majority of respondents (75%) reported their stores had additional policies
beyond state law regarding tobacco sales to minors.
All respondents reported their stores posted "WE CARD" signs.
Most respondents (81%) reported their stores posted "STAKE ACT" signs.
The overwhelming majority of respondents (94%)reported their store provided
training to employees regarding tobacco sales to minors.
One-quarter of the respondents (25%) reported being aware of the City of Arroyo
Grande's Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance.
Three of the four had read about it in the newspaper, and one had received
notification through the mail.
Three of the four had at least a general understanding of the ordinance's
purpose.
None of the respondents felt the ordinance would hurt business. Most (67%) felt
it would have no effect, and one-third (33%) thought it would be helpful.
Projected Effect of Ordinance on Business
Data Tables
Type of Merchant:
Gas
GasIConvenience
Food/Restaurant
1
6%
2
13%
-
Liquor
1
6%
Market
3
19%
products to minors?
I
yes
I
16
100%)
Require ID under 30 (4), cash register prompt (2). require ID under 27,
tobacco sales at one register only, proper ID, termination, suspension, and
card, card, card.
4. Do you post "STAKE ACT" signs in your store?
6. If yeas, what does the training involve?
New hires (4), video (4), refresher (3), handbook and test, computer
program, online rules, Phillip Morris book, lecture, and sell only with ID
to those under 18. Of the above, 5 require signature with training.
7. Are you aware of the City of Arroyo Grande's Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance?
Fund stings to catch non-compliant store, fine and revoke licenses,
prevent sales to minors with ~unishment,and none.
business?
Grover Beach Merchant Survey
Data Summary
August 2006
N=13
Surveys were administered in June 2006.
All respondents were aware of CA Penal Code 308.
The majority of respondents (75%) reported their stores had additional policies
beyond state law regarding tobacco sales to minors.
All respondents (100%) reported their stores posted "WE C A R D signs.
Most respondents (77%) reported their stores posted "STAKE ACT" signs.
The majority of respondents (70%) reported their store provided training to
employees regarding tobacco sales to minors.
Most respondents (85%) reported being aware of the City of Arroyo Grande's
Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance.
Seven had received notice from the police.
Three had received something in the mail from an unidentified source.
None of the respondents felt the ordinance would hurt business. Most (85%) felt
it would have no effect, and one-sixth (16%) thought it would be helpful.
Projected Effect of
Ordinance on
Business
Data Tables
N=13
Type of Merchant:
products to minors?
Must be over 18 to enter store.
4. Do you post "STAKE ACT" signs in your store?
6. If yes, what does the training involve?
Tell them not to sell to minors (3x);let them know the rules; computerbased training; store-chain training course; talk, show, and explain
consequences; classroom training; orientation.
7. Are you aware of the City of Arroyo Grande's Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance?
Not to sell to minors (5x); don't know (3x); for enforcement of tobacco
law; supposedly keep young people from smoking; and improve the city
through extra revenue.
business?
$I2
Z\? z
P_
m o o
@>
m a>,
>
;o-to0
C" *
gg
z ; z - . z -g'
* zzz
ObO*. 0
C"
0 0 0
zf z ,
m m
0
m o m
o m m 5
a a>,>
a
>
z >al >a 10
_ * >
0 C" 0
a,
I
o m
zg
m
?F F

Thomas Keifer Consulting San Luis Obispo County Tobacco Contr

Transcription

Similar documents

AIRSOFT minefield game copy

Benefits of Your CCC Solutions

GI-211 - Secretly Distribution

1Base Bldg

2013 First Quarterly Report - Lafayette County Health Department

October 30, 2000

On letterhead

Egulf-1d