Opponents of Smoking to Target 2 More Cities : Laws: Coalition plans to focus efforts in Oxnard and Port Hueneme in wake of Camarillo’s approval of a tough ordinance.

After yet another victory--this time in Camarillo, where the City Council adopted a tough new anti-smoking ordinance--health advocates said Thursday they will turn their attention to Oxnard and Port Hueneme, which will consider similar laws later this spring.

Following a four-hour-long public hearing, the Camarillo council voted 3-2 Wednesday to adopt the tougher of two alternative ordinances, one that bans smoking in most public places in the city, including all restaurants and most other businesses.

In voting for the ordinance, Camarillo joined a growing list of Ventura County cities that have adopted tough no-smoking laws--a trend that delights Frederick H. Bysshe Jr., chairman of the Smoking Action Coalition of Ventura County.

The coalition, formed in 1987, has successfully lobbied for adoption of similar ordinances in the cities of Ventura, Thousand Oaks, Ojai, Moorpark, unincorporated parts of Ventura County and now Camarillo, Bysshe said. Only Simi Valley has declined to adopt a tougher ordinance.

“We were very pleased and gratified by the council’s actions,” Bysshe said after the Camarillo vote. “It is in keeping with the core elements of the ordinances which we believe are designed to best protect the nonsmoking public--those being bans in restaurants, businesses and other public places.”

The coalition is made up of the executive directors and members of the Ventura County medical and dental societies and the Ventura County chapters of the heart, lung and cancer societies.

“We now are going to turn our focus to Oxnard,” Bysshe said. “I wouldn’t call what we are doing a full-on campaign, but it is our goal to see the cities in this county provide the protections to the non-smoker that they should.”

Oxnard Mayor Manuel Lopez recently called for the City Council to examine a no-smoking ordinance and said he would tentatively favor an ordinance like the one Camarillo officials adopted.

“I’m leaning toward supporting an ordinance that would provide real protections against second-hand smoke,” Lopez said. “The evidence is in and I think it’s clear what kind of danger that second-hand smoke presents to nonsmokers.”

Port Hueneme Mayor Orvene Carpenter said he will ask his colleagues on the City Council to authorize city staff to begin studying a no-smoking ordinance at the council’s May 4 meeting.

“I think it’s time to look into this, and during the meeting I hope to ask staff to begin researching an ordinance that would be appropriate for Port Hueneme,” Carpenter said. “I recognize the dangers of secondhand smoke, but at the same time, I don’t want to do something that would unfairly hurt businesses in our city.”

But unlike Oxnard and Port Hueneme, city officials in Santa Paula and Simi Valley said that they have no plans to beef up their current ordinances, which ban smoking in publicly owned buildings but do not affect restaurants or businesses.

“Nothing’s being considered at this time,” said Santa Paula City Administrator Arnold Dowdy. “It’s an issue that’s not been raised by the council.”

In Simi Valley, the City Council decided last October to leave its current ordinance in place, turning aside requests from residents to toughen the city’s ordinance to include a ban on smoking in restaurants or other public places.

Fillmore city officials could not be reached for comment Thursday.

During the Camarillo council meeting Wednesday, officials had two options:

* A less restrictive ordinance that would have allowed smoking in restaurants and nonprofit bingo games so long as there were separate no-smoking rooms and separate ventilation systems.

* The ordinance they ultimately selected, which imposes an outright ban on smoking in all public places save tobacco shops, bars and private residences.

Sitting before a near-capacity crowd, Mayor Ken Gose and council members Charlotte Craven and Stan Daily said they voted for the harsher ordinance out of concern for the public’s health.

“I believe now, as I always have, that this is a health issue and not a personal-rights issue,” Craven said. “I believe this ordinance does the most to address the dangers and problems associated with secondhand smoke.”

But council members David M. Smith and Michael Morgan dissented, saying they believed the tougher ordinance would place an unfair burden on the owners of restaurants and small businesses.

“I believe that most restaurants can’t afford to make the changes this ordinance will require of them,” Morgan said. “I think that we have an alternative here that largely achieves the same goals without imposing these kinds of burdens.”

But Gose cast the final, deciding vote, saying he had thought about the ramifications of his action for a long time.

“I am still absolutely convinced that this is a serious health issue,” Gose said. “For me, it’s the only way I can justify supporting it.”

The ordinance will come back before the City Council for a second reading at its April 27 meeting and will become law 30 days later.