Beverly Hills Bans Smoking in Restaurants

The Beverly Hills City Council voted Tuesday night to make its city the first in California to adopt an outright ban on smoking in restaurants.

The ordinance, which would also forbid smoking at public meetings--such as those of the City Council--and in all retail stores including supermarkets, while making exceptions for private banquets, cocktail lounges and restaurants located in hotels, was adopted by unanimous vote of the five-member council.

Approval came in spite of determined opposition from the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce, which numbers 74 restaurants among its membership.

“Why are we pioneering in this field?” demanded Rudy Cole, spokesman for the Beverly Hills Restaurant Assn., a group organized especially to fight the proposed ordinance. Let us at least wait until Los Angeles passes such a law.”

He asked the council to give the restaurant owners 30 days to bring a plan of voluntary compliance before the council.

Doctor’s Position

But Dr. Spender Kerner, a spokesman for the American Lung Assn., insisted that adoption of the smoking ban was a matter of urgency.

“The issue,” he said, “has to do with the adverse effect of secondhand smoke” on nonsmokers. He cited the recent report of the U.S. Surgeon General, which blamed ambient smoke for a variety of health problems.

Beverly Hills Mayor Charlotte Stadaro concurred.

“For too long,” she said, “we have been suffering when we go to restaurants to eat. There are a lot of people who don’t want to take their families to restaurants because they are exposed to health hazards by smoking.”

The ordinance was one of the most controversial in the recent history of the city. And some of the controversy was related to the exemptions.

Restaurants in hotels were freed from the ban on grounds that too many foreign visitors would find themselves unwittingly violating the law because of their unfamiliarity with local custom. And private banquets were exempted because those who attend them would be able to make their own decisions about whether they wished to be where smoking was allowed.

Under the ordinance, restaurant owners would be required to post signs prohibiting smoking in dining areas. Those violating the ban would be cited for a misdemeanor, subject to fine or a jail term.

But Mike Sims, vice president of the Chamber of Commerce, said he could see no reason for the issue to be raised in the first place.

“The restaurant owners are not receiving any complaints,” he told the council, “so why create a new law?”

The new law will come up for a second vote on March 3 and, if approved again, would take effect 30 days later. A similar law is on the books in Aspen, Colo.