Council May Rework Anti-Smoking Law

The City Council’s efforts to give Long Beach one of the toughest no-smoking laws in the state appear to be headed for the ashcan.

Faced with a pro-smoking petition signed by thousands of residents, the council this week indicated that it will water down the anti-smoking ordinance it adopted in April.

The petition, signed by about 30,000 people, gave the council the choice of either repealing the no-smoking ordinance or putting it before local voters for approval in a public referendum.

While the council’s only action Tuesday was to refer the matter to committee, it was clear that city leaders want to avoid both the delay and six-figure cost of a referendum.

“I feel it would be a waste of money at this time,” said Mayor Ernie Kell, noting that the petition had nearly twice the number of signatures needed to return the ordinance to the council.

The law, which was automatically suspended when the petition was filed with the city, never had a chance to go into effect. It would have completely outlawed smoking in restaurants as of Jan. 1, 1994, and in the meantime would have required eating establishments to expand their no-smoking sections to two-thirds of seating capacity. The law also would have banned smoking in city buildings and all work sites.

“We represent people who smoke and don’t smoke and (we) have to be fair,” Councilman Ray Grabinski said. “We were on the right track . . . perhaps we reached too far.”

Long Beach’s retreat mirrors that of other Southern California cities that have tried and failed to keep cigarette smoke out of restaurants. Beverly Hills officials, for example, briefly outlawed restaurant smoking four years ago but then relented under intense pressure from the restaurant industry.

Bellflower, however, has retained its 3-month-old ban on restaurant smoking despite a wave of protests.

In remarks at Tuesday’s meeting and in interviews, Long Beach council members indicated that they are ready to replace the ordinance with less sweeping restrictions that would, for instance, permit some puffing in restaurants.

It was the ban on lighting up in restaurants that sparked the greatest outcry against the smoking law, which passed the council unanimously. Restaurant owners complained bitterly that their business would suffer, and smokers groused about their rights.

“Restaurateurs cannot accept the ban,” said Randal Hernandez of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, who also said he has received complaints from office building owners. “We’re not pro-smoking. We just want to make sure the business person can accommodate their customers and employees.”

Shortly after the measure was adopted, local smokers joined forces with a statewide political action committee backed by the tobacco industry and circulated petitions around the city demanding repeal of the law.

The petition, recently validated by the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder’s office, has itself been controversial. The political committee, Californians for Fair Business Policy, hired signature-gatherers who were accused by some of making misleading statements that obscured the true intent of the petition.

“The petition people out there were giving misinformation,” Councilman Evan Anderson Braude said at Tuesday’s council meeting.

Last month, the city clerk’s office received letters from 89 residents asking that their names be removed from the petition. Some said they signed the document under the impression that it favored a no-smoking ordinance. A spokesman for the organization has said signature gatherers were told not to misrepresent the petition but may not have always fully understood its wording.

If the council were to place the no-smoking ordinance on the ballot for a public vote, the measure would be suspended until the June, 1992, council elections. Moreover, the city clerk said her office would have to spend more than $250,000 extra to expand the balloting citywide for the ordinance vote.

Eager to get another law on the books quickly and reluctant to spend such sums in a time of pinched city finances, council members indicated they would rather redraft the ordinance. The committee is expected to make its recommendations to the full council within a few weeks.