Calabasas smoking ban could target apartments
By Joann Groff joann@theacorn.com

Information presented at last week's city council meeting revealed that 80 percent of Calabasas residents support the city's secondhand smoke ordinance, and more than two-thirds of the people would approve expanding the law to apartment buildings.

Paul Goodwin of the Goodwin Simon Victoria research polling firm confirmed that the residents are pleased with the ordinance, which went into effect 15 months ago.

"I've been polling for 17 years, and I've looked at a lot of controversial issues," Goodwin said. "I can't think of another issue where you get this kind of consensus and, I might add, across all the usual political boundaries: democrats, republicans, nonpartisans, young, old, across the board."

In March, Goodwin Simon Victoria interviewed 300 randomly selected registered voters asking for feedback in three areas: their attitude toward the law, the enforcement of the law and their opinions on protecting tenants of multifamily housing from secondhand smoke.

Seventy-two percent of the people said the law was working very well or somewhat well, and 74 percent of people say the law is an appropriate way to protect people from secondhand smoke, including 53 percent of smokers. However, 22 percent said the law went too far.

Forty-six percent approved of the way the city is enforcing the law, while 42 percent weren't sure.

Also, 47 percent say they've seen someone violating the law, and 32 percent say they've experienced secondhand smoke since the law went into effect. Only 13 percent of those surveyed said they'd seen someone warned or fined.

"Your ordinance is very, very popular amongst voters of Calabasas, to an extent you rarely see, especially for an ordinance that in theory was supposed to be controversial, and it clearly is not among your voters," Goodwin said. "The only concern we see is in enforcement where you have sizeable proportions who say they've seen some kind of violation."

As for possible expansion, those surveyed, as well as a group who attended the meeting, expressed their support. More than 10 people in the audience sported badges advocating "Smoke-free Choice in Apartments."

By a 67 to 25 percent margin, residents said they'd favor a law to require smoke-free sections in apartment buildings, similar to the support shown for a law that would require some buildings of complexes to be entirely smoke-free (68 percent to 26 percent).

Esther Schiller is the executive director of SAFE, Smoke-free Air For Everyone.

"People who have some kind of chronic illnesses are more vulnerable to tobacco smoke exposure," Schiller said. "They are entitled to a reasonable accommodation under fair-housing laws. That is usually a move to another unit, but if there are no smokefree sections, or better still, smoke-free buildings, these vulnerable populations don't have a way to be protected.

"Perhaps it's time to look at the needs and desires of your apartment residents."

Alicia Lopez, program director of the tobacco prevention program at Valley Community Clinic in North Hollywood, explained how smoke drifts through plumbing, under doors and down halls.

For two years, Lopez endured secondhand smoke coming into her apartment, causing problems for her 7yearold daughter with respiratory problems.

"We had to have the windows closed at all times, and it still came through," Lopez said. "It was hellacious, and I'll do anything I can to help."

Councilmember Barry Groveman and Mayor Pro Tem Mary Sue Maurer said they've been meeting with the people at the Archstone complex to discuss possible issues with the ordinance. They have a draft of a possible amendment but asked for input to work on it further.

"In some respects, we've forced (smokers) inside. We now have a duty to take the next step," Groveman said. "This is not a ban. We aren't banning cigarette smoking. We don't tell people what to do, but we are entitled to regulate where that harm occurs.

"If we can set designated areas where people can have that habit but not expose people, we will really make another giant leap forward."

Maurer said the amendment draft included setting aside some portion of apartment buildings as nonsmoking and grandfathering in those tenants that already smoke.

In addition to the grandfathering aspect, the council stressed placing outposts outside of nonsmoking buildings for those who have guests who smoke.

Also, the amendment draft may include making all new units that come into the city smoke-free.

Councilmember Dennis Washburn was concerned about the legality of making private apartment buildings smoke-free, while Groveman compared it to allowing someone to put explosives in their home.

"There is no serious legal question," said city attorney Michael Colantuono. "We are really just changing social expectations. The law is very clear. There is no constitutional right to smoke. We could prohibit smoking in the city today if we wanted to."

Mayor James Bozajian remained concern about the amendment

"I find certain aspects of this troubling with regard to private property rights," said Bozajian, who stressed he didn't want city staff policing apartment buildings. "I'm not saying I'm going to vote against it automatically, but I'm inclined to. I'm going to think about it."