The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009/10/07 - Agenda Packet - Speciall /` ~'.3 w ~, AGENDA CITY COUNCIL, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, October 7, 2009 ~ 3:30 p.m. City Hall ~ Tri-Communities Room 10500 Civic Center Drive 4 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 A. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call: MayorlPresidentlChairman Kurth Mayor Pro TemNice PresidentNice Chairman Michael CouncillBoard/Agencymembers Gutierrez, Spagnolo and Williams B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the Clty Council, Fire Protection District and Redevelopment Agency on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Council, Fire Board and Agency from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Council, Fire Board and Agency may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Council, Flre Board and Agency, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. ITEM OF DISCUSSION D. ADJOURNMENT I, Debra L. McKay, Records ManagerlAssistantGty Clerk, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 30, 2009, per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. STAFF REPORT QTY MANAGER'S OFFICE ~I~~ RANCHO Date: October 7, 2009 CUCAMONGA To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Fabian Villenas, Principal Management Analyst , Subject: Discussion of Phase II of smoking regulations and possible amendments to Chapter 8.21 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the results of the community and stakeholder outreach campaign and provide Staff direction regarding the next steps, if any, needed for Phase II of the City's smoking regulations. BACKGROUND: As social norms change and evolve, the presence of tobacco smoke in public places has become increasingly objectionable to the public. Members of the non-smoking public express concerns that the smoke resulting from the use of tobacco products unfairly impacts the non-smoking public's use and enjoyment of public spaces, and to an undetermined extent, unfairly restricts their ability to access these spaces. Alternatively, smokers have voiced their desire to be able to smoke freely in public spaces. The hazardous effects of secondhand smoke are now well documented. The EPA has concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer in adults who do not smoke. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in nonsmokers. Additionally, the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. In 2006, the California Air Resources Board determined ETS (secondhand smoke) to be a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). Children are particularly vulnerable to secondhand smoke because they are still developing physically, have higher breather rates than adults, and have little control over their environments. Because there is no legally protected "right" to smoke, local communities have great flexibility in adopting laws to protect the health of their residents by limiting the places where people can smoke. Local jurisdictions have the authority both to expand upon the protections provided by state law, and to restrict smoking in many areas that are not covered by state or federal law. California courts have found that "regulating the smoking of tobacco to protect the health of local residents is a valid exercise of local police power." State Smoking Law Assembly Bill 13, the State Law regulating smoking in places of employment (codified in California Labor Code Section 6404.5) took effect on January 1, 1995, although portions of the law regulating smoking in bars and gaming establishments did not become effective until January 1, 1998. The purpose of the State Law was to regulate smoking in places of employment in order to reduce employees' exposure to secondhand smoke. The State Law generally provides that DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO C[ tAP'IER PAGE 2 8.21 OF THE RANQ-IO GUGAMONGA MUNIQPAL CODE OCTOBER 7.2009 smoking is prohibited in enclosed spaces at places of employment, but provides for a number of exceptions. In addition to the workplace smoking law, other sections of California law also regulate smoking. For example, Health and Safety Code Section 104495 prohibits smoking within 25 feet of a children's playground or tot lot. Government Code Section 7597 prohibits smoking inside of, or within 20 feet of any entrance or operable window of, a building occupied by a state, county, or city government agency. Update on Other Tobacco Control Efforts Since this item was last brought to the City Council, landmark federal legislation regarding tobacco control was passed. On June 22, 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 was signed by President Barack Obama. This historic legislation grants authority over tobacco products to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Besides giving the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products, the Act also: Bans candy, fruit, and spice flavored cigarettes. Requires full disclosure of ingredients and additives to the FDA including a description of the nicotine content and delivery, and the health consequences of tobacco products. Stops youth focused marketing in order to reduce young people's access to tobacco products and curb the appeal of tobacco to the young. Measures include a) prohibiting tobacco manufacturers from sponsoring sporting, athletic, and entertainment events; b) prohibiting tobacco manufacturers from selling or giving away clothing or other items that has their brand name or logo; and c) prohibiting distribution of free samples of cigarettes. • Prohibits misleading marketing measures. Tobacco manufacturers may no longer use the terms "light," "low," and "mild" on tobacco products. Requires new warning labels on tobacco products. Also, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance on September 22, 2009 prohibiting smoking at county parks, beaches, golf courses and other public spaces, with some exceptions. Under the ordinance, movie and photo shoots are exempt with a proper permit and golf courses may allow smoking on the courses' open spaces, such as the holes, although it will be banned at the driving ranges, putting greens and areas near buildings. The ordinance goes into effect in late October 2009. American Lung Association State of Tobacco Control Report In recent years, the American Lung Association of California has issued local report cards that grade cities and counties in California on local tobacco control laws. The purpose of the local State of Tobacco Control report is to increase knowledge about local laws and policies that help protect residents from the consequences of tobacco and to encourage leadership where improvement is needed. Grades are awarded in three categories: 1) Smokefree Outdoor Air; 2) Smokefree Housing; and 3) Reducing Sales of Tobacco Products. These three grades are then averaged for one Overall Tobacco Control Grade. DISCCSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMEi`TIS TO Q-IAP'I'ER PAGE 3 8.21 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE OCTOBER 7, 2009 In 2008, the American Lung Association of California graded most, but not all, cities and counties in California. In total, 30 counties and 297 cities received local tobacco control grades. Of these only one city, Glendale, received an overall grade of "A". Eleven California cities received an Overall Grade of "B" and the remaining received either a "C", "D", or "F". The counties of San Bernardino and Riverside were not selected to be graded, therefore Rancho Cucamonga was not graded. Rancho Cucamonga Smoke-Free Efforts On February 6, 2008 City Council approved Ordinance No. 786, which prohibits smoking at all City- owned property. With this action, the City of Rancho Cucamonga joined a growing movement in communities across the country to minimize the exposure of secondhand smoke for children and other nonsmokers. The new restrictions, which became effective March 7, 2008, prohibit smoking at all City-owned public locations. More specifically, smoke-free environments were created in and around all city facilities, such as City Hall, Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, Animal Center, Epicenter (except in designated smoking areas for current tenants with long term lease agreements), community centers, libraries, parks, trails, etc., including the property surrounding these facilities and its parking lots. At that time, staff was also given direction to bring back to the City Council information on the development of Phase II of smoking regulations minimizing the public's exposure to secondhand smoke. Phase II would consist of evaluating smoking restrictions in other parts of the City such as outdoor dining areas, shopping centers, apartment buildings, hotels, streets and sidewalks, outdoor service lines, transit stops, and other similar common use spaces where the public may be exposed to secondhand smoke. At a special Council meeting in December 2008, the City Council discussed their potential interest in implementing no smoking policies in these various aforementioned public places. For each of these identified public places, the City Council was asked to express their interest on whether a smoking restriction should be considered a) completely, b) not at all, or c) somewhere "in between." The following summarizes the Council's interest that was expressed at the December 2008 special meeting. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL'S INTEREST IN NO SMOKING POLICIES (DECEMBER 2008) Complete Restriction No Additional Restrictions "In-Between" Streets and Sidewalks X Hotels-Guest Rooms X Hotels-Common Areas X Outdoor Dining Areas X Transit Stops X Outdoor Service Lines X Shopping Centers X Multi-Family Apartment Units X Multi-Family Common Areas X DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO Q-IAPTER PAGE 4 8.21 OF THE RANQ-IO GUCAMONGA MiJNIC[PAL CODE GCrOBER 7, 2009 ' The City Council also provided direction to implement a community and stakeholder outreach strategy in order to gather public input regarding further restricting smoking. The initial feedback provided by the Council (summarized above) assisted staff in framing the conversation for the outreach efforts and ensuring that the appropriate stakeholders were included in the outreach efforts. Community Outreach Campaign and Survey In Spring 2009, staff launched its community outreach efforts with the distribution of a press release encouraging Rancho Cucamonga residents and visitors to participate in a convenient and anonymous community survey as well as to attend upcoming public workshops. The survey was designed for quick and maximum convenience and was available in two formats; electronically through our City website and a paper version available at city facilities. The electronic version was prominently posted on the City website's homepage while the paper version was available in displays prominently located on public counters at city facilities with substantial foot traffic. These facilities include City Hall, Senior Center, Community Center, Rancho Cucamonga Libraries, Family Sports Center, Animal Care and Adoption Center, and others. After requesting some basic demographic information (age, gender, ethnicity, smoker/non-smoker, etc), the survey asked participants to what extent they would agree or disagree with policies that would prohibit smoking in certain public places., These public places include: • Streets and sidewalks • Hotel rooms • Outdoor common areas at hotels • Outdoor restaurant dining areas and patios • Bus stops and train platforms • Outdoor public service waiting lines (e.g., ATM, ticket lines, etc.) • Shopping centers (including Victoria Gardens) • Residential apartment units • Apartment balconies and patios The electronic survey version also allowed participants to type in comments and suggestions and many took advantage of that. A copy of these comments is included as Attachment A. Seven hundred seventy three (773) completed surveys were collected at the end of the two-month survey period. A majority of these surveys -approximately 85 percent -were completed electronically through the City's website. Efforts were made to ensure the integrity of the survey, however, it should be noted that this was an unscientific survey. A scientific survey can be defihed as a survey that has the following characteristics: a) respondents are not self-selected (everyone has equal chance of participating); b) sample size is large enough; c) demographics of respondents represents population; and d) responses are not tainted by question wording, order of questions or categories, behavior of interviewers, etc. While staff made efforts to see that the community survey met most of these DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AIv1ENDMENTS TO CEiAP'IER PAGE 5 8.21 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE OCTOBER 7, 2009 criteria, respondents were obviously self-selected since the survey was conducted through passive displays at facilities and on our City website, not utilizing random phone surveys or in-person interviews. The informal survey was only meant to provide a general "snapshot" of the community's attitude towards no smoking policies. It should also be noted that efforts were made to avoid mass duplication of surveys or having an individual fill out multiple surveys in order to skew the results. Paper surveys were individually numbered and the electronic survey was programmed to prevent more than one survey being submitted from an individual IP address. Survey Results The informal survey results generally show that the Rancho Cucamonga community supports no smoking policies in public places. The following presents a summary of the survey results. BASIC DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION In order to understand who was participating in the surveys, the survey began with some basic demographic questions regarding age, gender, ethnicity, residency, smoker/non-smoker, etc. The results generally correspond with the general demographics of the overall Rancho Cucamonga community, with the exception of gender (a higher percentage of females - 59% -participated in the survey, compared to 49.8% citywide). Also, it should be noted that Rancho Cucamonga's rate of smokers at 17 percent is lower than the County rate (19 percent) but still higher than the state rate of 14 percent. 17 or under 1% Age 55 or o~ 19% 41-54 ~ 27% 31-40 23% DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO C73AP"IER PAGE 6 8.21 OF THE RANCHO CXJCt1MONGA MUNIC[PAL CODE OCTOBER 7, 2009 Gender I prefer not to answer - 3 RC Residents vs Non-RC Residents Total NorrRC No response Residents ~ 20% Please Select Your Ethnicity 4% 7% Z% DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO CI-iAPTER PAGE 7 8.21 OF 'THE RANC~EiO CUCAMONGA MUNIC[PAL CODE C-cTOBER 7, 2009 Housing Type Apartment Other 12% 3% Condo/ 12% Single Family Home 73% Have You Smoked or Used Tobaooo in the Last 30 Days? Do You Believe Secondhand Smoke Causes Health Problems Don't Krx~~.~ 7% No 9% DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO CEiAPTER PAGE 8 8.21 OF THE RANCHO G7JC.AMONGA MUNIQPAL CODE GCI'OBER 7, 2009 On Average I Dine at Rancho Cucamonga Restaurants: Laws Prohibiting Smoking in Outdoor Dining Areas Would Discourage People from Eating at RC Restaurants Don't Knc 10% The last set of questions collected the participants' opinions on smoking policies at particular public areas where the public may be exposed to secondhand smoke. Specifically, it asks participants to what extent they agree or disagree with policies that would restrict smoking in certain public places. Participants had the option of choosing a) Strongly Disagree b) Disagree c) Agree d) Strongly Agree or e) No Opinion. For all the listed public areas, the survey results indicate that the participants support no smoking policies. In most cases, the support is strong, however, it should be noted that when asking whether they would support no smoking policies in apartment units, the difference between those who agree and disagree is much narrower. DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO CHAI''IER PAGE 9 8.21 OF THE RANCHO CXJC.AMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE C-cTOBER 7, 2009 PLEASE RATE TO WHAT EXTENT YOU AGREE/DISAGREE WITH A POLICY THAT WOULD: Prohibit Smoking in Outdoor Restaurant Dining Areas and Patios No Opinion 1% Strongly Agree ~ 59% Strongly Disagree 20% _ Disagree 10% Agree 10% Prohibit Smoking in Hotel Indoor and Outdoor Common Areas No Opinion 1% Strongly Agree 63% Strongly Disagree 15% Disagree 8% Agree 13% DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO ~iAP'TER 8.21 OF THE RANCHO GUCAMONGA MUMC[PAL CODE OCTOBER 7, 2009 Prohibit Smoking in Hotel Rooms No Opinion Strongly 2% Disagree 15% Disagree 9% Strongly Agree\ ~ Agree 59% 15% Prohibit Smoking in Outdoor Public Service Waiting Lines No Opinion Strongly 2% Disagree 16% Disagree 9% Strongly Agree\ ~ A ree ~ 58% 5% Prohibit Smoking at Shopping Centers No Opinion Strongly 1 % Disagree 19% Disagree 9% Agree 12% _~ PAGE 10 DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO ~-IAP'IER PAGE 11 8.21 OF THE RANCHO QTCAMONGA MUNIQPAL CODE OCTOBER 7, 2009 Prohibit Smoking on Streets and Sidewalks rongly .agree ?7% Disagree 14% gree 12% Prohibit Smoking on Apartment Balconies and Patios No Opinion 6% Strongly Disagree 30% 38% 5% 11% Prohibit Smoking Inside Residential Apartment Units No Opinion 8% Strongly Disagree 26% 37% Agree 13% DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO CfiAPTER PAGE 12 8.21 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE OCTOBER 7, 2009 Prohibit Smoking at Bus Stops and Train Platforms No Opinion Strongly 4% --Disagree 18% ugly Agree 49% Agree 16% Public Workshops In order to ensure that all interested residents, stakeholders, and businesses, had an opportunity to provide their input regarding no smoking policies, staff conducted two facilitated workshops at Central Park on April 30 and May 27, 2009. Prior to the workshops, 442 letters were sent inviting restaurants, apartment managers/owners, major shopping center managers/owners, hotels, non- profits, advocacy groups (such as American Lung Association), Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, County health officials, and other interested parties to the workshops. Press releases were also distributed, flyers were posted at various public facilities, notices were posted on RCTV-3 as well as in the Chamber newsletter, and announcements were made at Chamber meetings and at apartment owners association meetings (Apartment Association Greater Inland Empire). Approximately 20-30 individuals attended each of the workshops and as was expected, opinions ranged from those who strongly supported no smoking policies to those who were opposed to no smoking policies. Attendees were led through a facilitated discussion designed to obtain their input and suggestions on no smoking policies at the aforementioned public places. Attendees also had the opportunity to fill out and submit comment cards. These comment cards are attached for the Council's review (Attachment B). While many comments and suggestions were collected at the workshops and many can be incorporated into an ordinance if given Council direction to draft one, staff has summarized key points that have been expressed at the workshops. These key points are: ^ Prohibiting smoking in private businesses should be a business decision and not mandated by government. ^ Emphasis should be on separating smokers from non-smokers, not restricting the rights of smokers. ^ Smoking should be restricted where non-smokers are "captive" to secondhand smoke exposure such as outdoor service lines and at transit stops. ^ Conversely, smoking should not be restricted in transitory type locations such as streets and sidewalks where exposure to secondhand smoke is in passing only. DISCUSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO C~IAP'IER PAGE 13 $.21 OF THE RANCHO QJCAMONGA MiINIC[PAL CODE OCTOBER 7, 2009 Let the free market determine whether smoking should be prohibited in hotels and apartments. If there is a demand for smoke-free hotels and apartments, then business owners and property owners will adjust to meet demand. Prohibiting smoking in outdoor shopping center should be balanced, such as allowing for designated smoking areas or prohibiting smoking only within a certain distance of business entrances. Stakeholder Outreach Staff made special effort to outreach certain stakeholders in order to make sure their input was collected. At the July 2009 Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors meeting, City staff presented the item and provided the Chamber an opportunity to formally take a position on the issue (whether to support or oppose) or remain neutral. The Board indicated that it wanted to survey its members first. An online survey was emailed to all its members and Chamber staff brought back its member survey results to the Board at its September 29'" Board meeting. The Board reviewed the survey results and due to its low participation (59 responded out of 900+ members) and mixed results, chose not to take a position on this issue. A copy of the Chamber survey results is included as Attachment C. Staff also met with the management staff of Victoria Gardens, General Manager Christine Pham and Assistant General Manager Chris Walter, to gather their assessment on implementing a no smoking policy at the Victoria Gardens Regional Center. Their concerns were primarily centered on the potential impact it would have on their security staff who may be pulled away from essential security/public safety efforts in order to respond to calls regarding no smoking violations. Their general assessment is that smoking is not an issue at Victoria Gardens, they never receive complaints about smoking, and they rarely see someone smoking at the Center. The also pointed out the store and restaurant employees typically smoke outside the back service entrance, away from customers. The Victoria Gardens Management staff indicated that it was willing to take small steps and consider implementing limited smoke-free public areas at the Center. Suggested smoke- free locations include Chaffey Town Square, Guasti Gardens (outside the Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf), and The Orchard (food court outdoor dining area and playground area between Food Court and Starbucks). City staff also did outreach to apartment owners/managers through their regional association, the Apartment Association Greater Inland Empire. Staff attended one of their regional meetings to encourage their participation and distribute flyers, and many attended the workshops including the Association's President and their CEO. As reflected in the workshop's key points, apartment representatives felt that the free market principles of supply meeting demand for smoke-free apartments should dictate rather than government mandates. Conclusion After receiving the results of the community outreach campaign, staff is seeking City Council direction to: A. Table this item and direct staff to no longer move forward on this issue; OR DISCLSSION OF PHASE II OF SMOKING REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO Q-IAP'IER PAGE 14 8.21 OF THE RANCI-IO CUCAMONGA MUNIQPAL CODE OCTOBER 7, 2009 B. Draft an ordinance for the Council's consideration that reflects the Council's interest (as shown on page 3) as well as the information gathered from the community outreach campaign. OR C. Provide any other direction the City Council may wish to give. If the Council chooses Option B, this would also be the opportunity to provide staff with any changes or suggestions. For example, if the Council is no longer interested in prohibiting smoking on streets and sidewalks, then it would be appropriate to provide staff direction at this time. Respectfully Submitted, .. ~ 1 ~ ^ Fabian A. Villenas Principal Management Analyst Attachments: A. Comments received from community survey B. Comment cards submitted at community workshops C. RC Chamber of Commerce survey ATTACHMENT A: Comments Received from Community Survey Smoking Survey I _ _ ___. ____ _ --_ i Please leave us any comments or feedback that you may have: ~ Response Count - , I_-- - 301 ~ ~ __. = ~ answered question 301 - ~ ~ ~ _ _ _-_ ___ _ skipped question 520 ~ Response Text 1 Please add prohibit smoking at all outdoor recreation areas (parks, golf driving Mar 26, 2009 12:42 AM range, etc) where kids participate. 2 Our household would welcome restrictions on where, in public accessible areas, Mar 26, 2009 1:25 AM people can smoke or not smoke. Some of the questions would warrant further explanation. For example, smoking on sidewalks and streets; I am not impacted by a person standing on a sidewalk at say Foothill and Haven or driving in his car. however, move that scenario to Victoria Gardens and I probably would be. Density of areas needs to be considered. Reaching controls into private homes is going too far. As for question 11, people go there to eat, not smoke. We actively avoid any eating establishment that allows smoking on premise today. 3 It has been very unomforable for my family and i when we go out and we have to Mar 26, 2009 2:00 AM cover our baby up because a group of people ae freely smoking! please help!! - W.G. 4 What next?Prohibit fast food restraunts from doing business because it causes Mar 26, 2009 3:59 AM obesity?Close gas stations due to pollution? I know let's go back to prohibition because drunk drivers kill way more people than second hand smoke ever did. I can't stand hypocricy,P.S. I am NOT a smoker but I am an American who enjoys my freedom from excessive government intrusion. 5 I am a cigar smoker not a cigarette smoker. I strongly disagree with a government Mar 26, 2009 6:19 AM regulating the use of a legal substance like tobacco. I believe this effort is based purely on political correctness not verifiable health interests. 6 Smoking is a public health hazard and should be treated as any other risk to Mar 26, 2009 4:53 PM public health. 7 Prohibiting smokers from smoking in well-ventilated areas is wrong. If there is no Mar 26, 2009 9:38 PM air, and the smoke is directly inhaled, it should be prohibited. Prohibiting smoking when someone is on their patio or standing on the street (which these places are well-ventilated), is wrong. We should do more to encourage smokers to partake in this activity (smoking) in well-ventilated areas. Also, Rancho Cucamonga probably has more pollution from automobiles than smoking. Taxpayer money would be better spent educating our community on better utilizing our public transportation system or the health benefits of walking. 8 Passing regulations on information that is highly suspect, IS WRONG!!!! if this Mar 26, 2009 10:02 PM happens all my shopping, eating out and entertainment will be done elsewhere. Smokers pay alot more in taxes then the people pushing this, and Chats without any accomodation. Lets dump Fabian Villenas now. I WANT TO LIVE IN A FREE CITY AND COUNTRY!!! 9 The entire issue is beyond the scope of what government ought to be doing. Mar 27, 2009 12:07 AM Governments need to get out of the business of running (ruining?) people's lives and focus on the tasks for which it exists. 1 of 24 Response Text 10 Hotel rooms should be put aside for smokers and smoking should not be barred Mar 27, 2009 3:24 AM from all rooms. Second hand smoke is bad but don't go off the deep end. 11 stop telling peple how to live their lives!!! Mar 27, 2009 6:22 AM 12 If people are confined in lines and can't move away from a smoker, then it makes Mar 27, 2009 5:58 PM sense not to allow them to smoke. But if they are in a private enclosed area, then they should have the right to smoke. 13 Smokers should not smoke where it would affect another person's health. Mar 27, 2009 6:32 PM 14 A smoke free environment in restaurants and shopping areas will actually Mar 28, 2009 3:55 AM encourage me and my family to visit those places more. 15 I've been in all these situations (who hasn't). For instance, I'd like to sit out on my Mar 28, 2009 4:37 PM patio/balcony without having to smell the smoke from any appartment around me. That's what I dealt with back in the day. Come on, in restaurant patios...if they can't stop smoking for 45 minutes or so to eat, then they should save money by eating at home then they can smoke all they want. Didn't knwo eating was so stressful. Thanks for the survey. 16 I'm in favor of public places have designated smoking areas. Not in favor of Mar 29, 2009 1:33 AM having entire city prohibiting smoke. People who choose to smoke should have a designated place to smoke. I'm against "forcing" buisness to implement a non smoking "law." Buisness should be free to choose such policies for themselves. 17 Smoking anywhere people are congregated in public should require an ordinance Mar 29, 2009 4:17 AM to ban smoking. 18 People who chose to live a healthy live should have the right to do so. It's well Mar 29, 2009 1:34 PM known that smoking causes health problems and therefore it should be banned from all public places. Laws protecting children from smoke from their parents who smoke indoors will be the next logical step in protecting th a health of the next generation. It should be prohibitted to smoke in cars when children are inside. Actually it's is a very sad situation that we need laws like this because of the lack of common sense. 19 I believe that it is a health risk to be exposed to second hand smoke as a non- Mar 30, 2009 1:45 AM smoker. I believe that prohibiting smoking in the city will be beneficial for not only our health, but also for the future health of children in our environments as well as the animals we love. 20 It's one thing to have a "policy" on the books; it will be another to enforce it! Mar 30, 2009 3:05 PM Smokers should have a designated area to smoke in; but, they rarely stay there and the smoke travels too. I'm sure smokers will complain about their "rights." But what about my right to not have myself or my toddler exposed to the smoke that gets carried in the wind from the irresponsible smoker who smokes in crowded public areas with children. 21 i agree that prohibiting smoking in various public and commercial areas Mar 30, 2009 3:09 PM throughout the city will enhance the general health, safety and welfare of this great community. 22 As a smoker, i feel it is important to allow smoking in designated areas outside. I Mar 30, 2009 5:01 PM strongly agree with banning all indoor smoking, except for the apartments. When government begins to regulate what an individual can or cannot do in their own home, it has gone too far. Banning outdoor smoking all together is a very bad idea to sustain patrons. Most smokers are aware of where an appropriate place is when they are out in public but banning it in all outdoor areas is a violation of smokers' rights. 23 We like, seek out and mostly patronize outdoor establishments that do permit Mar 30, 2009 8:30 PM smoking. 24 Don't we have enough rules and regulations to follow! Leave the smokers alone! Mar 30, 2009 8:57 PM 2of24 Response Text 25 I believe there is a way to be courteous in public as a smoker. I do not smoke Mar 30, 2009 10:52 PM when I am waiting in line or if there is a crowd of people. I step away (at least 40+ feet) if I need to smoke at that moment but I usually wait for the appropiate time. There should be more designated smoking areas in the city and.this would not be a issue. In addition, I do not believe in smoking indoors (at all) but when I am outside...especially on a patio, I would like to feel free to smoke if I feel the need to. Thank you. 26 I am extremely sensitive to smoke even though I used to smoke. I believe people Mar 30, 2009 11:28 PM have the right to smoke if they want to but they do not have the right to cause other people to inhale it; this includes children who can not say anything because either they are too young to speak or they are afraid of being punished by their parents. 27 I will take my business to another city if outdoor smoking is banned. Mar 31, 2009 12:59 AM 28 I wholeheartedly believe that the decisions of smoking at a certain location are Mar 31, 2009 4:24 AM best left to property owners, property managers, and property tenants. They alone know what works best for them and their place of business/residence. 29 I don't see that many people smoking outdoor at restaurants in Rancho but Mar 31, 2009 4:31 AM considering what smoking does to our health, it should be discourage as much as possible. 30 I am not a daytime resident of the City and anon-smoker that is very sensitive to Mar 31, 2009 4:44 PM second-hand smoke. I also enjoy shopping, eating and going to the movies at Victoria Gardens. The plaza area just outside the movie theater is packed with smokers on weekend evenings and I have made the decision to visit Ontario Mills theaters instead. Although Ontario Mills does not prohibit smoking the are outside the theater is large and I do not feel like I am forced to inhale the second-hand smoke while waiting in line. 31 More people would eat out, the non-smokers are a higher percentage than the Mar 31, 2009 6:04 PM smokers 32 Hi, I live in the new John Laing townhome complex on Foothill Blvd between Mar 31, 2009 6:07 PM Archibald and Hellman and during several evenings I have a "neighbor" that smoke cigars and the smoke/smell gets so offensive that I am unable to open my bedroom window at night to let fresh/cool air in. Or I leave my window open at night and then have to wake up in the middle of the night to close the window because the smoke in the room get so bad. This usually occurs between 10pm - tam when the neighbor starts to smoke. The bedroom is upstairs and for some reason the smoke carries and lingers right near my window. Very frustrating and is one of the reasons i am in the process of moving to a new place. 33 Smoking is offensive to non-smokers in public areas. Mar 31, 2009 10:42 PM 34 The research speaks for itself. Second has smoke is a toxic carcinogen that can Mar 31, 2009 11:01 PM kill people. Why should all of us suffer beacuse of someone else's addiction. Think of all the children who are being exposed... 35 Victoria Gardens needs to be "SMOKE FREE" Apr 1, 2009 2:21 PM 36 This law, along with many others has been taken way out of context. Based on Apr 1, 2009 6:07 PM the views of the wrong people. This is part of the problems with family lives today and will be more costly in the future. 37 I fully support the idea of prohibiting smoking in any outdoor/indoor public area in Apr 1, 2009 6:18 PM the City of Rancho Cucamonga. My family and I live a "smoke-free" lifestyle and would greatly appreciate the ability to continue that lifestyle while out in public in Rancho. We are avid visitors to Victoria Gardens amongst other Rancho Cucamonga areas and would like to be able to take a deep breath without choking on secondhand smoke.:) 3 of 24 Response Text 38 Although I live in Fontana, most of business in conducted in Rancho Cucamonga. Apr 1, 2009 6:36 PM My children play at your parks, and I am great offended by second hand smoke that hangs in the air and reaches my children, who then have their asthma conditions aggravated. I pray that this becomes a smoke free city and others will follow suit. In this day and age, with all we know about smoking, it should be banned. 39 I think it should be up to a business owner to decide whether he or she wants to Apr 1, 2009 7:01 PM prohibit smoking in outdoor areas. Arise or fall of business will determine the decision; it should not be up to the city to make that determination. 40 I love that our city does have this policy and other cities as well should start this Apr 1, 2009 7:18 PM policy 41 Please make Rancho Cucamonga a nice, clean -smoke-free city. Apr 1, 2009 7:18 PM 42 The Carbon Minoxide you breath from car exhust in public areas is something you Apr 1, 2009 7:24 PM should be concerned about more so. No smoking in public is taking it too far. 43 Second-hand smoke is a violation of individuals, whom do not have a choice to Apr 1, 2009 7:34 PM not inhale others smoke. It leaves helpless individuals at the mercy of others- children, babies etc. 44 I believe everyone has the right to smoke or not but not at the expense of my Apr 1, 2009 7:41 PM children, grandchildren's health. I would like to see an enclosed room at public places that all smokers can go and puff away with each other without putting me and other non-smokers at risk. 45 Thank you for asking! Apr 1, 2009 7:45 PM 46 It is time to take a stand. If we want to eat outside we have to share the smoke Apr 1, 2009 7:51 PM and that is not fair or healthy. Often times you have to go through the ring of smoke to enter buildings and that is not inviting or fair. At apartments often the balconys or patios are next to each other and the smoke travels. How about becoming a smoke free zone. 47 For the 8 years I've lived in my apartment, I have suffered from exposure to Apr 1, 2009 8:04 PM second hand smoke that infiltrates my apartment from neighbors or from smokers standing outside. I am allergic to cigarette smoke and also have asthma, so prohibiting smoking in apartments and every public area would give me a better quality of life. My main interest though, is in prohibiting smoking in and around apartments completely. I applaud Rancho Cucamonga for taking on this challenge and will support it in every way I can. Thank you very much. 48 The city should make a committment to ban ALL smoking in the city limits. The Apr 1, 2009 8:06 PM city should make a committment to utilize more "green" programs as well and would be served from looking at what fellow city Riverside does on this effort as they accomplish quite a bit there. 49 As much as I dislike the smell of cigar and cigarette smoke, I know quite a few Apr 1, 2009 8:38 PM people who partake in this habit and have stopped dining in areas that do not allow smoking in the outdoor areas or the walkways directly adjacent to a facility. 50 I live in a single family home. The neighbor across the street smokes in his front Apr 1, 2009 8:41 PM yard and I have to close my windows so I don't smell the smoke. 51 Smoking in public around non smokers and children infringe on their rights. I have Apr 1, 2009 9:03 PM a child w/asthma and it presents a problem when there are smokers at places he would like to go. 52 I have no problem with segregating smokers from non-smokers. However, until Apr 1, 2009 9:34 PM tobacco is outlawed it should still be permitted within reason. 53 It should be left to the establishment, not the city to designate smoking restrictions Apr 1, 2009 9:58 PM (unless on city property.) 4 of 24 t2esponse Text 54 Most hotels reserve rooms as non-smoking rooms which I think is sufficient. Apr 1, 2009 10:04 PM Owners of rentals, including homes, appartments and business spaces should have the ability to set rules for the indoor areas. Government smoking rules should apply to public areas. Separately, I would encourage offices to have their "smoking areas" set up in an area other than the front of the building. It is unhealthy to have to walk through second-hand smoke and the debris of crushed cigarettes to get into a building. 55 I truly believe that secondhand smoke causes health problems! I believe smokers Apr 1, 2009 10:10 PM would get use to the new laws and probably not be happy but would abide by them. 56 YOU NEED TO HAVE SOME PLACES FOR THE SMOKERS TO STILL HAVE Apr 1, 2009 10:31 PM THERE FREEDOM. I KNOW THAT SECOND HAND SMOKE IS BAD BUT SO IS BREATHING THE SMOG AND GAS STATION TOO SO WE STOP GASING UP TOO??? NEVER DRIVE?? 57 I wholeheartedly approve of prohibiting smoking, but how is it to be enforced? I Apr 2, 2009 3:18 AM frequent R.C. Parks and see that smoking is common at the parks --what can we do about enforcing the prohibition at parks and all the other venues? I think we need, at a minimum, more signs informing people about the no smoking ordinance. 58 Just one of the many reasons I am so very proud to be a resident of the city of Apr 2, 2009 4:09 PM Rancho Cucamonga is the progressive, healthy, family-/community- /environmentally-friendly, and aesthetically pleasing planning decisions our City government has continued to enact and enforce. I STRONGLY believe in protecting individual freedoms, but ONLY when the actions those freedoms allow do not ADVERSELY affect others. An individual who smokes in ANY area open to the public DOES adversely affect others. Even "smoking only" areas don't solve the problem, because the smoke always finds its way into "non-smoking" areas... whether it is blown there by the wind or sucked in by a heating/air conditioning system. Rancho SHOULD lead the way in making ALL areas which are public places in the City SMOKE-FREE!!! In addition, we need to ensure that any and all public areas are protected from even the possibility that smoke from "private" areas will make it into "public" areas!!! 59 i cannot believe how many cigarette butts i see on our streets of rancho - it takes Apr 2, 2009 5:40 PM 7 yrs for a cigarette butt to become biodegradable......in addition to what it does to our wildlife...and then to our food chain, when they are passed into our sewer system.....its 2009 and I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT!!!! THERE IS A GREAT WEB SITE CIGARETTE BUTTS.ORG 60 We don't go to restaurants, motels, or businesses that allow smoking. Apr 2, 2009 7:58 PM 61 I hope that passes. I wish the city of chino would implement this city code Apr 3, 2009 6:31 AM 62 I am a person with lung disease, but believe that non smoking people need to Apr 3, 2009 4:35 PM take it upon themselves to move away if someone is smoking when they come upon them, but also believe that smokers should show common sense also and not expect a smoker to quit when they come upon them. All people need to do is use a little common sense and politeness. 63 If smokers would just be curdious to not smoke near around others there would be Apr 3, 2009 7:23 PM no problem; I recently went out to dinner with my four year old daughter and some lady just lit up and had no care in the world that her smoke was bothering anyone. She chooses to smoke not us. 64 get a life Apr 3, 2009 8:56 PM 65 Second hand smoke is a health concern for everyone and also makes it difficult to Apr 3, 2009 9:33 PM breathe easily when in public areas. It's even more difficult for people who have allergies (or other health concerns) or children. Thank you for being a pioneer in this area! 5 of 24 Response Text 66 I am not a resident but I frequent the Victoria Gardens and other resturants in Apr 3, 2009 11:49 PM Rancho Cucamonga. I enjoy dining in the city; however, I'm alway brothered by secondhand smoke. It's a nuisance when you're trying to enjoy a nice meal. Please make all resturants (in-&-outdoors) smokefree. Also, regarding the apartments, it's difficult to live next to a smoker. The secondhand smoke constantly drifts over into your own residents. I believe apartment managers need to separate smokers from nonsmokers. I don't believe we should tell peolple what to do in their own homes; however, when my neighbor's behavior effects my health the federal and local government have an obligation to step-in and protect residents' health. Thank you for asking our opinion. I appreciate you concern and cooperation in hearing the community voice. 67 whats smoking? Apr 4, 2009 4:54 AM 68 The city needs smoking turists and sale taxes. Apr 4, 2009 3:46 PM I meet my friends for lunch and dinners in other citys where we are welcome. Barbequs is proven to create causer. 69 I would like to see smoking prohibited in every public place and the policy Apr 4, 2009 5:20 PM enforced strictly. 70 Too many rights being taken away already! Apr 4, 2009 6:22 PM 71 One reason for my answers is because regardless of secondhand smoke, many Apr 4, 2009 9:13 PM smokers throw their butts on the ground and eventually pollute our oceans. If you are going to allow smoking in public places, you need to put in ample ashtrays so the butts don't land in the gutters. 72 It would create better family atmosphere Apr 4, 2009 11:19 PM 73 Thank you for providing this survey. I fully support the City of Rancho Apr 5, 2009 12:17 AM Cucamonga's smoke-free effortst 74 My daughter has Asthma and not only does my neighbor smoke on his front stoop Apr 6, 2009 4:32 PM beside us but every resturaunt allows patio smoking so we can't even eat out on the patio as a family on a nice spring evening. 75 Best of luck on your endeavor Apr 6, 2009 4:42 PM 76 Although I no longer smoke, I don't agree that the City should prohibit smoking Apr 6, 2009 5:06 PM outdoors, especially in your own residence such as your own balcony, apartment complex and apartment spa and swimming pool areas. That's going too far. Especially if this the only area a smoker can go since most household no longer allow smoking inside their house/apartment. 77 I agree with non smoking areas but in your awn home or hotel room should not be Apr 6, 2009 9:17 PM included. 78 Outside is okay to smoke...there is no reason a person cannot smoke anywhere Apr 6, 2009 9:32 PM outside...the only place for people to smoke is in there own backyard and now that will be the next thing on your agenda..why don't people focus on the economy and job creation instead of who is smoking outside!! 79 The long term health benefits of prohibiting smoking in highly frequented public Apr 6, 2009 10:17 PM places far outweighs any cost of doing so. 80 Question 7 "Prohibit smoking at shopping centers" is unclear. Apr 6, 2009 10:37 PM 81 Smokers have rights too- restriction at certain places is reasonable, but they still Apr 6, 2009 11:00 PM DO have a right to smoke somewhere. Most smokers ARE willing to smoke in designated areas. If the city restricts all areas it will only be creating more problems and disenfranchise a large group of people. 82 No one should be smoking. It's bad for all people and the environment. Not to Apr 7, 2009 12:46 AM mention the price we pay for the health care of these people with our taxes. 83 ibelieve that we all know that smoking is bad for our health, but it is america and it Apr 7, 2009 3:50 AM is our own choice. i agree with not smoking inside a restaurant, but to ban smoking outside on the patio is redicules. too much government is never good!!! 84 We need to protect our children from second hand smoke. Apr 7, 2009 6:07 AM 6 of 24 Response Text 85 This is part of a continued attempt to make smoking illegal, one step at a time. Try Apr 7, 2009 5:27 PM making smoking pot illegal instead. 86 Too many smokers throw their waste in planters, out their windows, empty out Apr 7, 2009 10:48 PM , ashtrays into parking lots, etc. The more smoking restrictions the better! 87 I have never smoked but people should be allowed to smoke on the street...hotels Apr 7, 2009 11:01 PM they have non smoking and smoking rooms. i think thats good. also if u are smoking and i come up to you, u shouldnt put out ur smoke i walked up to u, u didnt walk up to me. I think there should be a smoking section and non smoking section..smokes are going up in price hopefully people will quit smoking so much. haha. an apartment is ones place of home so they should be allowed to smoke on their balcony or their patios, they are paying their rent so they should be allowed to. Chats just my opinion. 88 I think the effects of secondhand smoke on the enjoyment on food needs to be Apr 8, 2009 1:19 AM considered. I am a non smoker, I think food establishments should be smoke free indoor and out, but in private home residences, and outside away from building entrances, smoking should be permitted. 89 This should take effect as soon as posible in all areas of the city. Other city's in Apr 8, 2009 4:35 AM CA have already taken the initiative of prohibting smoking in the city. 90 I think most people who smoke, do not smoke when they dine. I believe only a Apr 8, 2009 5:17 AM small percentage of these people would do such a thing, especially depending on their company and people surrounding them. A lot of people feel guilty about secondhand smoke. I belive smoking while dining would be much more common at sportsbars, and restaraunts that sell food, but are very popular places to drink at. Example :The Yardhouse 91 I am a Chaffey College student and the second hand smoke is very dffcult there. Apr 8, 2009 3:21 PM 92 I am not a smoker but I believe it is their choice to smoke or not. As long as it's Apr 8, 2009 3:30 PM outside I don't see a problem. And with all the taxes they spend people should stop trying to make smoking illegal EVERYWHERE. Soon you won't be able to light up at your own home and that is b.s. 93 I work in Rancho and would encourage the city not to get involved in this kind of Apr 8, 2009 3:32 PM micromanagement of people's lives. 94 The citizens are losing more of their rights every day. Sad to say, this is not a free Apr 8, 2009 5:34 PM country and those that think it is are sadly mistaken. This is turning into a socialist society and it is scary. 95 I think that living In California Is like smoking a pack a day & what a about Apr 8, 2009 6:55, PM chewing tobacco ? It might not have smoke but you can spit It In someone's drink ! 96 The prohibition of smoking on government property is fine,but priavte businesses Apr 9, 2009 2:44 AM should be allowed to determine what they want to do. If they want to prohibit smoking, they should be allowed to, if the business wants to allow a smoking section, they should be allowed to as well. Then the comsumers will choose what type of establishment they will patronize. 97 I think the city should be completely smoke free. It would be nice if smoking was Apr 9, 2009 3:18 AM banned completely at Victoria Gardens in all areas. 98 as a pregnant woman i can not stand going any where to eat if there is a smoker Apr 9, 2009 4:08 AM smoking in my face and food!! we non-smokers have rights too! 99 If the City implements any of these rules, they need to make sure they are Apr 9, 2009 4:17 PM enforced. Especially restaurant outdoor dining areas. 7of24 Response Text 100 I have not smoked in may years. Though I am in support of banning it in hotels Apr 9, 2009 5:28 PM and apartments since the secondhand smoke will travel through the ventilation system. I am against banning anywhere outside. I am perfectly capable of stepping upwind if someone's smoke is bothering me (which it often does). Most smokers are courteous of others. Who are we to ban this anyway (they pay taxes too and they are out side for goodness sake and they are not endangering anyone outside). Food for though...the more laws we make the more we lose our freedom. Next, someone may be banning something that you feel is perfectly okay. Why must we ban everything that someone else deems unsafe or otherwise disagrees with?! Personally, I rather have my freedom here in the land of the free! Thank you for taking the time to ask. 101 Please don't tell people how to live their lives expecially in apartments. --A non- Apr 9, 2009 6:08 PM smoker ' 102 let them do what they want its there body. the smog we breath every day is worse Apr 9, 2009 7:24 PM them second hand smoke come on ............. 103 I agree with prohibiting smoking inside restaurants and buildings, and limiting Apr 9, 2009 8:07 PM outdoor patios (if the smokers are all eating outside, then no one else can enjoy an outdoor table). However, I don't agree with taking it to the extent of prohibiting on streets and sidewalks, etc...l think this infringes on personal rights to choose, and what is being done is to essentially tell the public they cannot smoke or choose to have this habit. I have NEVER been a smoker, but have had family member that were. 104 Smoking effects non-smokers and we non-smokers have a right not to be Apr 10, 2009 12:01 AM exposed to this habit. 105 While I am aware that second hand smoke is a health hazard, I believe all people Apr 10, 2009 6:23 PM have rights. The act of smoking cigarettes is not illegal last time I checked. I am not a smoker, but I feel that banning people from smoking in certain public areas is wrong. I live in an apartment in R.C and my husband smokes. He does not smoke indoors, but he does like to sit outside on our balcony and smoke. To pass ordinances that ban him from sitting on his balcony (that he pays a high R.C. rental rate for) and smoking is discrimination! What's next? For example, alcohol is also dangerous to the public, ie. drunk drivers. Should the city pass an ordinance that bans us from having a drink because the potential driving hazard or just because some people look down upon people who drink alcohol? What about the exhaust from city work vehicles? That is also hazardous to our health, but I understand that they have a job to do. The world if full of hazardous things, we are hard pressed to avoid them. I can completely understand banning smoking near city buildings, and certain public places. Outdoor eating areas in restuarants? Hey if you don't like smoking, sit inside. We used to have smoking sections remember? Apartment communities? There are all sorts of annoying things that renters have to put up with (loud neighbors, no parking, sound of running water, walking, etc..) That is just part of renting. There are all sorts of things that people do that I don't like, but I understand that people have rights and I would never expect people (who are in their legal right to do certain things) to give them up just for me. Personally, if the city bans smoking in outdoor areas such as restaurants, I will no longer give these places my business! I might even consider moving to a different city as well. If R.C. doesn't want my business or residency, then I will move somewhere that does. A city that does not discriminate against it's residents. 106 Any public areas should be smoke free, but I do draw the line at restricting Apr 11, 2009 2:22 AM smoking inside peoples homes, rented or otherwise. Although, if we could ban smoking where children reside or spend time, that would be good. Grown ups smoking in their own home may be making a poor choice, but not something I would agree to legislate. Everywhere else, NO SMOKING! This is one reason why I love living in RC!!! 8 of 24 Response Text 107 I do believe smoking is bad and should be prhibited in areas open to public, even Apr 11, 2009 11:13 PM if actually private. Business will say they don't like such laws because it will hurt monetarily, but I speak for those who go to restuarants and choose not to smoke. If you could confine smokers in a bubble and not spew their exhaust where I have to breathe, that would great! I think people will go where is convenient to eat over whether or not they can smoke there. 108 As a city business owner I prefer the government not dictate. this type of policy. Apr 11, 2009 11:50 PM 109 take up real issues like over-night parking! Apr 12, 2009 6:36 AM 110 I feel people who are exposed to smoke are victims from the people who do. If Apr 12, 2009 7:11 AM the smokers keep the smoke to themselves -fine, but smokers generally don't care if the smoke affects others. 111 In my opinion laws regarding smoking should be left to the service vendor Apr 12, 2009 10:01 PM (restaurant, hotel, apartments ,etc). City should only be enforcing non-smoking laws in city public areas and only if it reasonably causes harm to others. 112 As long as it is legal in the United States the local governments should not try to Apr 12, 2009 10:17 PM control what a few special interest groups want. Those special interest groups do not speak for the majority of citizens. Most smokers know when and where not to smoke. But saying that people cannot smoke in any open areas is ludicrious. Let us also remember that out door dining was first established because of the banning on smoking in restaurants and bars. The over use of government needs to end. Rancho will encourage citizens who have lived her for a long time to seek enternainment and shopping else where. I for one will make sure that I do that. If I am a smoker or not. 113 I believe that certain areas should be non-smoking, but there should be an Apr 13, 2009 5:04 PM alternative designated smoking area. 9 of 24 Response Text 114 We are now known as the infamous city that denied the 9-11 Memorial Statue to Apr 13, 2009 7:47 PM be built within the city because of politics and neighborhood complaint, we are known as the city that mixed church and state with the billboard disaster that was seen by millions through national media and national news headlines and got the city sued, now we will also be "ooohh, that one city that you can't smoke in...the nanny city". Business will definately decline in Rancho Cucamonga's activity centers. If this law is actually enforced which it probably will be due to the police overload, the people will be outraged. Can you imagine the crowds walking down main street seeing a grown man or woman getting a ticket by an officer on a segway scooter for smoking in an outdoor mall? Is this the image you want to portray downtown Cucamonga as. This area will soon be home to many more shops, bars, restaurants, and corporate offce towers. Are you going to tell the future office building tenants they can't smoke outside their buildings. Are you going to tell the future bar and restaurant owners that people can't smoke anywhere on the premesis? Are you going to tell the shop owners that smokers are only allowed in designated areas that are far away from many of their locations. You know the most pathetic thing I have seen so far is the no smoking sign on the parking structure at downtown Cucamonga's mall. So if you are smoking in your car when you enter the structure are you technically breaking the law...or does the law come into my car telling me what I can and can't do in my own car? I thought the mall would force people to smoke in the parking structures and parking lots instead of placing ashtrays along main street. Why not put a few ashtrays inside the parking structure thus segregating the smokers from the snooty health freaks. Anyways the mall's corporate chain shops and bars will NEVER outlaw smoking at the mall due to large potential declines in sales. If the city of Rancho Cucamonga pursues outlawing smoking at their mall and downtown, the shop owners will push in defense of the smokers because smokers are actually people, customers, and citizens too. They will force the city to have designated smoking areas throughout the mall complex. This will of course cost the city money that no one has thanks to the worst president in American history George W. Bush. Your priorities are all screwed up. Build Central Park. Second hand smoke kills...but outdoors, second hand smoke is non existant due to the fact of being outside. Stop acting like children and build this city on Rock and Roll. ALTA LOMA 115 I can understand you considering a smoking ban on public areas, but if you Apr 13, 2009 8:05 PM consider putting a restriction on hotels in the City, Apartment Buildings, Condos you will not be able to exclude someones backyard. This would be a case straight to the Supreme Court. You will eventually have to disallow smoking in your own home and I personally would fnd myself leaving Rancho and shopping in Rancho. I have personally made everyone I know in Rancho aware of this possibility and nobody is happy, whether they are smokers or not. 116 Although I am not a smoker I respect a person's right to choose to smoke. I think if Apr 13, 2009 10:09 PM someone is outdoors they should be able to smoke. I think it would be okay to have smoking areas in a place like Victoria Gardens, but I don't think it should be prohibited completely. I highly disagree that we should not allow people to smoke in their own apartment. I realize smoking and second hand smoke are health hazards, but I also think government goes too far in dictating what people can and can't do. Thank you for having this survey and showing you care what the people of Rancho Cucamonga think. 117 even though i am anon-smoker, these bans would take the no smoking laws too Apr 13, 2009 11:41 PM far 118 Do not prohibit smoking. It is enjoyable and relaxing at restaurants and hotels Apr 14, 2009 8:14 PM 119 If Rancho Cucamonga bans people right to smoke in there own home or Apr 14, 2009 9:07 PM apartment/balcony. Iwill pull all party funding and announce to the media how far off their rocker this community that I live in is. Lastly, I promise I will vote out any community leader who decides these types off socialist rules/regulations. I will call the media, and push for the ousting of the elected officials. Don't step out of your bounds! 10 of 24 Response Text 120 We still have to remember that this is a FREE country (or at least it used to be). Apr 14, 2009 10:23 PM Not being able to smoke in open air areas is not a good choice. However, banning smoking indoors, bus stops, within 25f1 of an entrance, etc. is not such a bad idea. We are NOT Los Angeles nor do we want to be. 121 I strongly recommend the city educates residents about the effects of smoking, Apr 15, 2009 3:18 AM second hand smoking, and THIRD hand smoking. 122 One of the gripes I have is when people discard there smokes when they are Apr 15, 2009 5:14 PM done. They don't care if they are lit or not and the evidence is found even in my neighborhood.) find them in my yard all the time. 123 I have a child that is 13yrs old and whenever we leave a public place there are Apr 15, 2009 5:43 PM people that are smoking colse to the exit and we tend to hold our breath and dash out. If people want to kill themselves bysmoking, let them do it in their home where other people can't be exposed to them.. 124 If people want to smoke when there are no people near that is fine but when your Apr 16, 2009 2:12 PM eating in a patio area on a nice day and smoke surrounds ycu it makes you not want to eat there anymore. I have nothing against smokers just second hand smoke. 125 I have been waiting for smoking to be banned completely at Victoria Gardens. It Apr 16, 2009 5:57 PM is a beautiful place to visit in rancho and to bring your kids but not when you are outside shopping at an outdoor mall and your lungs are filled with smoke from the person in front of you. 126 i personally have family members who smoke and know ou would lose many Apr 16, 2009 10:31 PM people 127 If someone wishes to poisen there own body that is there own business but why Apr 17, 2009 12:32 AM should we suffer. 128 Please note that while I am a smoker I respect nonsmokers when I smoke and Apr 18, 2009 9:18 PM steer clear of blowing smoke in anyone's direction. However, the idea of stopping people from smoking OUTSIDE should never even be entertained by any government, local, regional or federal. Nonsmokers can be free of secondhand smoke indoors, leave the outdoors for us. 129 THIS IS A GOOD POLICY TO FOLLOW BECAUSE I ALWAYS GO TO Apr 20, 2009 3:10 AM VICTORIA GARDENS ALL THE TIME AND I SOMETIMES NEXT TO A SMOKER AND THE SMOKE FROM THE CIGARETTES ARE DISGUISTING AND UNPLEASING TO ME AND FAMLIYS OF RANCHO. 130 if you are taking away places for everyone to smoke you are only driving away Apr 20, 2009 6:59 PM people who do smoke to other communities. There are more smokers then there are non smokers. As a smoker i say smoking in building and at resturaunts should be discontinued. But, you can not ban smoking all together which it seems like you are trying to do. Please take into consideration that just because i smoke does not mean that I do not have consideration for others and that I have feelings too about you making it seem that i am unwanted. 131 Please let's not forget that we live in the United States of America. Remember Apr 20, 2009 8:43 PM freedom!!!! Stop making so many restrictions.......... 132 This would be awesome to have these places smokefree. Nothing kills your Apr 20, 2009 8:54 PM appetite or evening more than sitting down on a patio at dinner and having the people next to you start smoking. YUCK! I would like to taste my dinner, not die because I went out to dinner. 133 Having had two relatives die from lung cancer caused by smoking, I have first Apr 21, 2009 2:53 PM hand knowledge of the damage that it causes. The more that can be done to prevent further damage, especially to those of use that do not smoke, the better. 134 I tend to conduct business more often at an establishment that does prohibit Apr 21, 2009 5:37 PM smoking. I want my grandchildren to be safe and that every one is entitled to clean air. 11 of 24 Response Text 135 Although I'm anon-smoker, I believe that we as a community should address a Apr 21, 2009 8:45 PM more dire health issue than 2nd hand smoke. How about addressing a 1st hand killer...alcohol. We spend so much time, effort, money, etc toward smoking when drunk drivers, alcohol related domestic violence, and other alcohol related crimes cause more pain and suffering than smoking ever will, I have never heard of a family of four being innocently and immediately wiped out because of 2nd hand smoke. If these special interest groups were really interested in the preservation of quality of life and safety of us Rancho Cucamonga residents, than maybe we should be the "alcohol-free City of Rancho Cucamonga". I know it sounds absurd but no more absurd that asmoke-free Rancho. 136 If the City of RC enacts a no-smoking policy at restaurants, the initial reaction by Apr 21, 2009 8:51 PM most smokers would be to boycott, however, as time goes on, I believe they will return to the restaurants. 137 I'm allergic to smoke. Here is an article from the Asthma and Allergy Foundation: Apr 21, 2009 9:06 PM http://www.aafa.org/d isplay.cfm?id=8&sub=16&cont=68 138 thank you for taking this initiative to the public Apr 21, 2009 10:03 PM 139 It is not local, county or federal governments right to deny individuals the choice of Apr 22, 2009 6:45 PM freedom, especially considering all of the above agencies promote other substances ie... alcohol, sex in these same places and or situations. the city representatives should be more concerned with enticing new business and other revenue sources to come into Rancho, rather than wasting their time and our tax dollars on this type of nonsense. 140 Any place that children would be exposed to secondhand smoke should prohibit Apr 23, 2009 3:48 PM smoking. Adults have the option of leaving areas where smokers are, however children are not able to make that decision themselves. It isn't fair that smokers get to decide to pollute the air for everyone because they choose to smoke. Designated areas would be a compromise for everyone: An example would be one specific place in Victoria Gardens (away from the fountain and restaurants). This would encourage families to continue bringing their kids to this area, and probably spend more money. 141 By removing all of the ashtrays people now throw there butts on the ground. Apr 23, 2009 7:38 PM Cigarettes now litter the ground around the buildings. Your trying to do something good but your not. Now your trying to tell people what they can do in there own homes apartments or not. If a business wants to have smoking rooms they should. If smokers had a little etiquette when others are around. let people know that it is bad etiquette. I haven't seen anyone abide by the no smoking or enforce it 142 I think people who smoke in public places should be socially responsiable and Apr 23, 2009 10:18 PM step away from crowed areas and be careful of where the smoke goes. I dont think it would be right to out law smoking outside, there should be a compromise and keep strick designated smoking areas. 143 I still people smoking at the gardens and in front of markets when they are asking Apr 23, 2009 11:35 PM for money. Also wondering why gang bangers are allowed to bring rotwillers and pit bulls to the gardens?? kathy Miglizzi-909-262-2134 144 if you ban smoking then ban beer drinking too Apr 24, 2009 7:26 PM 145 Smoking is a terrible habit which has been proven to cause sever illness and Apr 24, 2009 11:51 PM death in immediate users and victims of second hand smoke. Smoking should be prohibited in all common areas of our city. 146 I don't like seeing cigarette butts laying around in our beautiful city but smoking in Apr 25, 2009 10:06 PM streets and balconies of homes seems acceptable. 12 of 24 Response Text 147 I understand the need to balance health and economy concerns. Although I Apr 26, 2009 4:55 AM would prefer for smoking to be discouraged outdoors at restaurants, I acknowledge that these establishments need to stay in business, and it may be a difficult time to add restrictions, particularly if neighboring cities do not have the same codes. Best, Melissa 148 I am dealing with secondhand smoke in my building and constantly face health Apr 26, 2009 6:45 AM broblems because of it, as does my son. Any help from the city would make life and breathing easier.Thank you. 149 This law when passed would be long overdue. I believe it is high time innocent Apr 26, 2009 7:28 AM people are protected from second hand smoke from uncaring smokers. 150 PLEASE, PLEASE STOP THE SMOKING IN ANY PUBLIC AREA. Apr 26, 2009 4:33 PM 151 I quit smoking over six months ago. Apr 26, 2009 4:43 PM 152 I've been smoke free for 14+ years and occasionally require supplemental oxygen Apr 26, 2009 5:55 PM for daily activities because of smoking related emphysema. To be anywhere near smokers and smell the second-hand smoke is a sad reminder of my own plight. I'd love to encourage all smokers, especially kids to either not start in the first place or STOP before they get hooked! I wish I'd listened to my own non-smoking children when they begged me to quit, long before the damage to my health was my legacy. 153 i would love it if you banned smoking in all of victoria gardens smoke stinks and Apr 26, 2009 6:44 PM cigerette butts are an enviromental hazard. i would spend more time and money there if it was smoke free. 154 There are fascists of all stripes. If the product of tobacco is so detremental to the Apr 26, 2009 7:58 PM health of everyone within 10 feet of its use, lets simply ban it from use by anyone. Then we can focus on the next ox to-gore. 155 It would be nice to include outside college classrooms. While waiting for classes Apr 26, 2009 8:25 PM outside it is hard to escape the smoke. 156 There are already enough anti-smoking laws imposed by the state. Leave private Apr 26, 2009 9:09 PM business and residences alone. Doesn't the city have enough to do already during these bad economic times? Stop trying to turn Rancho Cucamonga into Berkeley and leave us alone! If a few people were so concerned about "second hand smoke," they wouldn't live in the smog capital of the United States! 157 As a proud resident of Rancho Cucamonga, I believe no person should have to Apr 26, 2009 9:25 PM experience any health problems from second hand smoke. I also believe city workers especially at Heritage Park and Central Park should not be smoking on the properties as I have noted on several occasions, especially weekends. Also, various groups using Central Park facilities in the evening hours are smoking like chimneys on the property, it needs to be stopped. Thank you for protecting the , health of our guests and residents. 158 I feel that with all we know about second-hand smoke, it is irresponsible and Apr 26, 2009 11:12 PM reckless not to inact some laws governing the protection of residents and visitors from it. Although it is not illegal to smoke, the effects of another persons choice to do so should not be forced on those around them. I should not feel like I have to leave an area with my children just because someone has decided to life up a cigarette. It is unfair to protect the rights of others to impose their irresponsibility on those of us who want to remain healthy. 159 FEWER PEOPLE WOULD DIE FROM LUNG CANCER IF THEY WOULD NOT Apr 26, 2009 11:56 PM SMOKE. 2ND HAND SMOKE KILLS, TOO. SMOKING CAUSES OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS, TOO. WHEN WE RENTED OUR APARTMENT AT VILLAGE ON THE GREEN, WE WERE TOLD IT WAS ANON-SMOKING COMPLEX-BUT THEY RENT TO SMOKERS, ANYWAY. WE KNOW THIS. FOR HEALTH REASONS PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE AROUND SMOKE. PASS THE LAWS, PLEASE. 13 of 24 Response Text 160 I feel people have a right to smoke within their own residential areas, and while Apr 27, 2009 4:14 PM walking along a street. I object to people smoking anywhere around restaurants or shopping areas, as they cause me to have to walk through very objectionable adjacent air! 161 People should be allowed to smoke, when it is not endangering other lives around Apr 27, 2009 4:23 PM them. 162 Banning cigarette smoking in a person's home is so ridiculous that it doesn't Apr 27, 2009 4:31 PM deserve the ink to give a response. 163 Although I think making Rancho Cucamonga smoke free is a great idea, I think Apr 27, 2009 5:42 PM you should consider making designated smoking areas at large places, like Victoria Gardens, so as not to discourage smokers from frequenting these locations. 164 I believe some of your questions were to vague. Apr 27, 2009 10:19 PM I believe at RC already has a smoking policy which protects second hand smoke in child common areas, which I frequent. I think there is a fine line to ensure our safety and inhibiting anothers right to choose to smoke. I believe that if you are going to place more regulations you must provide places for smokers to go. Then it is up to non smokers to avoid being there. Lastly I strongly believe that it is OVER regulation to prohibit smoking in ones own apartment- if they pay the rent etc- then they have the right to smoke in their home. Smoking is a legal activity. I think there should be more enforcement on the criminal activity going on in Rancho Cucamonga, Lets keep this a great place to live. 165 Thank you so much for looking into this situation! :) Apr 28, 2009 12:32 AM 166 If Rancho Cucamonga bans smoking I will leave the city and will no longer shop, Apr 28, 2009 3:29 AM dine or live there. It is my right to smoke and I should have the right to do so in public areas that cigarette taxes and my taxes have helped to pay for. This is supposed to be a free country but this is quickly becoming a communist city. 167 Let the patrons decide for themselves if they want to go to a "smoking" Apr 28, 2009 4:23 PM establishment. 168 Let the restaurants deceide if they would like to discourage folks from eating at Apr 28, 2009 8:04 PM their establishment. I will not subject myself to second hand smoke, therefore I would choose not to eat there. This issue will resolve itself by forcing people that smoke to go to resturaunts that allow it, and people that do not smoke will go to resturaunts that don't. We do not need more nanny laws that will force more restrictions on business, when the economy is already in the tank. 169 I used to smoke, but since i quite over 15 years ago smoke bothers me. it should Apr 29, 2009 6:36 AM not be where others are affected by it. it truly bothers me when people throw their lit cigarette butt out of their car window, potential fire hazard 170 When I spend time at the Mall or a nearby park I do not enjoy myself if there is a Apr 29, 2009 2:59 PM person(s) close by who is smoking. I think it is extremely rude and selfish for someone who smokes to do so in the area of someone else who does not smoke. I personally think that persons who wish to smoke in places other than their private living space should do so in designated areas only. People who do not smoke should not be exposed to second hand smoke during the normal course of their day especially at eating establishments. I would defintely support a "NO SMOKING" policy at Victoria Gardens. It is such a beautiful place to shop and relax and second hand smoke can ruin the experience. I have also noticed many young people smoking and "hanging out" with their friends at the mall and I think it encourages unhealthy behavior amongst our youth. Smoking is an xtremely unhealthy and expensive habit that is very difficult to break. Anything we can do as a community to discourage it is better for everyone! 171 About the statement "Laws prohibiting smoking in outdoor dining areas would Apr 29, 2009 8:10 PM discourage people from eating al Rancho Cucamonga restaurants" : I think it would be a balance. More non-smokers would go to R. C. restaurants if there was such a ban yet many smokers may go elsewhere if there was such a ban. 14 of 24 Response Text 172 This non-smoker is tired of seeing smokers getting kicked around. Private entities Apr 29, 2009 10:30 PM should be able to choose their own smoking policies. Prohibition of outdoor smoking is simply silly. Stop eroding our civil liberties and concentrate on continuing to make RC the best city to live and work in in CA. 173 This survey is far too black and white. I believe that people should be able to do Apr 30, 2009 7:06 PM what they want, provided it doesn't affect others. I do not want to punish those courteous smokers who make efforts to stay downwind, those who don't throw butts out their car windows, those who use separate ventilation systems, and those who have their own medical coverage. It is however unfortunate that most smokers are not very courteous. 174 I agree with prohibiting smoking in enclosed areas. But the outside is Apr 30, 2009 8:22 PM everyobdy's. And though I may not like it, it is a matter of tolerance for people different than yourself. This is how totalitarian regimes begin (Nazi Germany). 175 Life-long non-tobacco user. Some questions are too vague - #2: Would prohibit in Apr 30, 2009 8:26 PM indoor common areas but not outdoor common areas, #7: What does "at" shopping centers mean? Indoor, non-smoking areas -Yes. Indoor smoking areas or outdoors at shopping centers - No. #10 -Secondhand smoke -Yes, but not to the degree apparently being perceived in this question. In other words, there needs to be a balance between non-smokers' and smokers' rights in a free society. 176 It seems the health and safety nazis are at it again. They won't be satisfied until May 1, 2009 1:31 AM they're kicking in our front door, and grabbing our kids "for their own good". Do any of these fascists take the bus? "Rancho" Cucamonga? What used to be one of the most beautiful areas f Iled with vinyards now paved over and filled with tens of thousands of smog spewing vehicles. Do any of these hypocritess take the bus? Are they promoting alternative energies. I remember stepping out of the house and almost passing out from the effects of smog. I don't remember ever having that problem with cigarette smoke. How in the hell is smoking on a sidewalk or balcony going to bother anybody? The only thing these people want to do is crontrol other peoples Iives.What did that scumbag Kurth say? "the government is going to have a say in how people lead their lives"!!! Is he insane?we're already to the point where it's going to be required to give a stiff- armed salute. I'm sure Kurth and Jacknik would be very happy with that. The , second hand smoke controversy is a load of crap! Larry A. Singleton PO Box 23 SBdo CA 92404 la rryasi ng I eton @ya h oo. com For questions regarding this BS please call ME. 177 I will actually be encouraged to dine at restaurants at Rancho Cucamonga if they May 1, 2009 1:44 AM are smoke free. 178 ban it all May 1, 2009 2:03 AM 179 Simply stated, smoking should not be allowed an any public areas where people May 1, 2009 2:20 AM congregate (Except perhaps a street or their own vehicle) 180 I think smokers have a right to smoke outdoors, but non-smokers also have a right May 1, 2009 4:34 PM to enjoy the outdoors, such as outdoor restaraunts and walking along Victoria Gardens sidewalks without having to inhale someones nasty cigarette smoke, not to mention the butts that get tossed on the streets and sidewalks creating an eyesore. 181 Now that I am a former smoker, I see, feel and smell what second hand smoke May 1, 2009 7:39 PM dose. It is disgusting and selfish for people to smoke in public areas. Please pass a law that prohibbits public smoking. 182 Doesn't Rancho want regular people living in its city? Seems like every time you May 1, 2009 8:32 PM turn around the city is prohibiting something!!! Come on how can you say people can't smoke in their own homes! 183 They may have the right to smoke and poison their bodies but I also have the right May 1, 2009 9:11 PM to breathe clean air that is free from those toxins. 15 of 24 ' Response Text ' 184 Please! Enough is enough. I'm a huge supporter of indoor smoking bans because May 2, 2009 4:56 AM indoor smoke lingers, stinks, burns my eyes, and makes me cough (I have asthma). Nobody is getting sick nauseated because of outdoor smoking. If we ban outdoor smoking, let's also start banning diesel trucks, SUVs, heavy perfume, and public flatulence. From a health perspective, 1 think standing next to an idle bus if far more toxic than walking by a smoker in passing. I know these laws feel good to , people who have such strong emotions against smoking, but this crosses the line. 100% of every indoor public place is already smoke-free by law. An outdoor- smoking ban is not based on science but on emotions and only serves to further criminalize people who use a legal product. Plus who is going to enforce this? Are we going to have a smoking police force patrolling the streets? I can think of far better uses of resources and more pressing issues that the city should be addressing. And if the ban is not going to be actively enforced, then this is just social engineering, which is not the city's job. Enough is enough. The ban might be politically correct but does not use common sense. Stand up for the rights of all by NOT passing this silly, unenforceable ban! 185 i think people just need to deal with it and suck it up cause there is noway you May 2, 2009 5:32 AM guys are gonna outlaw smoking!! i think that trying to stop people from smoking is just gonna make them want to do it more because of the simple fact that it would be outlawed and people think well lets break the law.. think about it. it will never pass so stop pushing it any further :-( you guys are making us smokers suffer enough with the taxes on a pack of cigarettes 186 Although I don't agree with inhibiting people's behavioral choices in public, certain May 2, 2009 6:53 AM areas are important to protect for the health of those around them. 187 I myself am anon-smoker. I grew up in a family of smokers. I have been around May 2, 2009 12:34 PM smokers most of my life and have been in airplanes and restaruants when. smoking was allowed in them. I have spent countless Sunday nights at the church bingo hall growing up. You could walk in there and see a curtain of smoke from all the smokers playing bingo. They hype of toxins in second hand smoke is being blown way out of proportion. If second hand smoke is as bad as they advertise, then why am I still around. Why have there not ever been reports of mass deaths at the old bingo halls in the 60[s and 70's with all the smoke that was in the air. Yes, second hand smoke can be irritating but it is not deadly. This should be more of a common sense issue and one of courtesy to one another. One example on the survey asked about smoking in line. An atm line was referenced. I have yet to stand long enough in a line at an atm that long. Even if a smoker was there, I could always move to the upwind side or the smoke could leave it in the car for a few minutes. Just a simple act of courtesy on the smokers part. Outdore smoking areas were created so smokers could have a place seperate from the non- smokers. Things worked out very well with that arraingment. Why not leave things alone that were working? 188 I'd welcome the ban on smoking in public places within the city, as would my wife May 2, 2009 2:39 PM and our young children. There's nothing worse than being subjected to second hand smoke, such as while waiting outside a restaurant to get a table. Though I am past the apartment dweller stage of my life, when I lived in apartments in the past, the tobacco smoke from coming from neighboring apartments was always bothersome, and you couldn't really avoid it in the place that you lived. Also, I can tell you that any message being taught to our kids about not smoking is failing by the time they reach high school. 189 Due to Victoria Gardens no smoking rule, I do all my shopping at the Ontario Mills May 2, 2009 3:56 PM where I can go outside and smoke this also includes where I dine. Sorry but because of your no smoking rules I do most of my shopping and dinning in Ontario. 190 I have children who have asthma. I also work with children who have the same May 2, 2009 4:08 PM problem. Being around people who openly smoke in their homes and public areas are detrimental the health of those around them. This is a proven fact and should not be ignored. 16 of 24 ResponseText 191 people have the right to smoke if they want to, people who doesn't smoke also May 2, 2009 4:24 PM have the right not to put up with people smoking on a public place, i think the city should have specific areas for smokers, the way we all can get along, respecting everybody personal decision. 192 Something should also be done about people who wear too much cologne. As an May 2, 2009 4:58 PM asthmatic, that is my second biggest trigger, after tobacco products. 193 if you want to prohibit smoking stop selling the tobocco products or stop using the May 2, 2009 5:21 PM tax revenue. it is not against the law for any body to smoke or less you could not buy then products. if you pass the law the revenue of money in rc would decline probably by 30-40%. 194 in confined areas smoke my cause discomfort but in the outdoors you have a May 2, 2009 6:16 PM choice to leave.......do not want politicians making policy of free choice...... 195 2nd hand smoke is horrible, especially to those of us are asthmatics due to 2nd May 2, 2009 9:05 PM hand smoke. I strongly support any and all ordinances to limit the exposure of 2nd hand smoke while out in public. 196 I believe that if smoking is prohibited on apartment balconies and patios it should May 3, 2009 2:15 AM also be prohibited in backyards of residential homes. Most backyards are not very large. Smoke from neighboring backyards can make it VERY unhealthy to be in your own backyard. 197 I have been diagnosed with asthma. My doctors told me that the fact that I grew May 3, 2009 5:24 AM up in a household of smokers (even though I did not smoke) this contributed to my developing asthma. I am a firm believer that second-hand smoke is a real health threat. 198 I am not a smoker and I think it is a disgusting habit. However, I think laws like this May 3, 2009 2:35 PM limit everyone's freedom and are unfair to smokers. Where•will it stop? Next you'll be banning stores from selling these products that are actually legal to use in our state and country. Although it is very unhealthy, shouldn't a person be responsible for their own decisions. Everyday people eat fast food. It's bad, but it's their choice. In addition, you would be forcing people to stay at home, which is bad for business. With all that said, I think there are things that can be done to make . smokers and non smokers happy. For hotels and apartments, there can be smoking and non smoking sides of the building or maybe even entrie buildings. The same rule can apply to parks. I'm sure you guys can find a happy medium to this situation if you work on it. 199 The intent to curtail smoking in this city has gone too far. I have yet to encounter May 4, 2009 2:45 PM rude smokers; only rude non-smokers. Let's move on to more important issues. 200 Ihave aone-year-old daughter and am concerned for her health. I don't typically May 4, 2009 3:38 PM take her to Victoria Garden's because I don't want her to be exposed to second hand smoke. We typically go to Montclair if she is shopping with me. 201 I still see people smoking while filling cars with gas! Parking in.handicapped May 4, 2009 5:50 PM spaces. How will RC enforce this if it is made law or will it be a joke like so many unenforced laws. 202 Since some of the questions weren't specific enough, I support banning smoking May 4, 2009 9:19 PM in outdoor dining areas and lines where you are a captive audience, so to speak. I don't have a problem with smokers in pool, common or public areas as long as there is space to put distance between me and the smoker. All common indoor spaces should be nonsmoking. Hotel rooms should be designated smoking/nonsmoking. Better yet, smoking/nonsmoking floors? 203 I am very pleased to know the city is looking to change this. May 5, 2009 4:04 PM 204 To Q:10: there are other cancer causes May 5, 2009 9:12 PM Disel Dump Trucks, Earth moving Equipment 205 My husband and I eat out at least 3 times a week and we enjoy eating in the May 5, 2009 9:51 PM outside patio areas to watch the sunset. We are bothered by patrons smoking in , these areas because it ruins our dinner and our health. 17 of 24 Response Text 206 Stop already. I'm anon-smoker but you don't need to Police EVERYTHING!!!! May 6, 2009 4:38 PM 207 I believe it is not government's responsibility to govern personal choices by setting May 6, 2009 5:46 PM these standards. 208 STOP SMOKING!!! IT'S BAD FOR EVERYONE... May 6, 2009 6:27 PM I have 2 small children and I hate the smell of smoke. 209 For the last question, I think laws prohibiting smoking in outdoor dining areas May 6, 2009 7:19 PM would encourage people to eat at Rancho Cucamonga resteraunts. 210 I think at the least smoking should be prohibited at all outdoor dining areas May 7, 2009 2:10 AM throughout the City especially at Victoria Gardens. I was at the Yard House a few months back after the mall had closed and was eating a late dinner with friends outside and there were two tables around us that were smoking. It was very unpleasant. 211 stop interfering in peoples lives. i am not a smoker but people do have the right to May 7, 2009 3:37 PM smoke. if you want to stop this then make the cigarettes illegal, if this law in enacted i will move out of the city as i am tired of local goverments protruding in peoples everyday lives. we also know that this is just another ploy to develop revenue for the city by issuing citations to smokers. although i do agree that second hand smoke may cause some problems i can assure you it is far less than the everyday exposure we are subjected to from the pollution in the air. laws like this and the amount of our taxdollars that were spent on even coming up with this proposal is what really makes the people of rancho Cucamonga sick. all ' of you incompetent officials should be replaced. i am sure this proposal was created by someone trying to jump on a bandwagon for the sake of their job seciruty. you should all be ashamed of yourselves. 212 I'm not a smoker, but those that have the addiction need specified and posted May 7, 2009 5:04 PM areas in which they can smoke. Having a designated area with plenty of ventilation is a good idea. 213 Smokers do not have a right to pollute the air we breath, it permeates the fabric of May 7, 2009 6:50 PM everything its exposed, by design. I have a vested interest in public employees not smoking, I have to pay their health care bills. 214 Second-hand smoke affects those the smoker never comes in contact with as May 7, 2009 11:59 PM smoke travels. 215 I understand that smoking is a choice, however for those of us who do not smoke May 8, 2009 6:09 PM we should not be exposed to second hand smoke. I support prohibiting smoking in all public place such as outdoors patios, malls, and any venue which one is waiting in line. 216 Science has proven that second hand smoke is harmful -additional fact - A Child May 8, 2009 7:22 PM born in So Caif has it's cancer risk set within the first 2 weeks due to the air quality which includes cigarette smoke - I avoid many RC restaurants because they allow patio smoking, which I thought was already prohibited by a State Law 217 We cannot prohibit everything. People have the right to smoke as long as it isn't in May 8, 2009 7:57 PM my face or next to my dining table. 218 I thought it was illegal to smoke in any public place in California but from what I've May 8, 2009 8:02 PM seen so far this law goes largely unenforced! Example: Dean's Bar and Thrill, whatever) right there at the corner of Grove and San Berardino rd. They smoke inside, they smoke outside at the entrance, there's just smoke everywhere; hell they even have ashtrays on the bar! Other places around town have smokers standing right next to the entrances making you wlk through it or hold your breath as you walk in. The city isn't going to do anything about this I get that, I just wish they would quit playing with the idea and pass a law already! 18 of 24 Response Text 219 I have problems with going to local places, like Gilbertos on Foothill Blvd, and the May 9, 2009 4:36 AM allow smoking inside where it is a cloud of smoke. I reported the problem to local police & city for six months before something was done. They stopped smoking inside for a couple of weeks then started again. I was told the city was reactive and not proactive with the enforcement. I was and am disappointed to be in a city that now after two years is finally doing something about it. Very sad. 220 I think the City currently has fair policies in place regarding smoking. Anything May 10, 2009 12:57 AM above and beyond the current policies would be too restrictive of personal freedom. 221 I beleive secondhand smoke is a health concern when smokers and nonsmokers May 10, 2009 2:48 PM are in enclosed areas for a long period of time 222 I only smoke socially, but I believe that it is an individuals right to smoke in public. May 11, 2009 5:27 AM 223 I think that what you are doing will have a positive impact on the people of our May 11, 2009 8:37 PM city, being 21 I'm subjected to second hand smoke constantly, so I'm glad that my opinion is being regarded. 224 as a smoker i do not somke anywhere near children or elderly people. i try and be May 12, 2009 12:03 AM as cautious as i can due to my nasty habit 225 Let's make Rancho Cucamonga a totally smoke free city! May 12, 2009 12:19 AM 226 Smoking should be banned from locations that could damage property and from May 12, 2009 4:25 AM locations that would require those who do not want to be exposed to secondhand smoke to make unreasonable accomodations so as not to be exposed to the smoke (e.g., an unreasonable accomodation would be exiting a ticket line at a movie theater in order not to be exposed to the smoke). 227 whats next no blacks allowed in rancho Cucamonga May 12, 2009 6:58 AM No Jews allowed no muslins only yellow shoes ect. ect. This is America!!!!!!!!! You are going to far!!!!! 228 I think people have been over-reacting regarding this issue. I wish the City would May 12, 2009 2:21 PM pay just as much attention to the abuse of alcohol in public places as well. I have the control to keep my son away from a smoking environment but cannot protect him from people who decide to go out to dinner and consume to much alcohol then take a walk through Victoria Gardens or any other shopping area and then get behind the wheel of their care putting my entire family in harms way. 229 Smokers should have their right to smoke, but they do not have the right to May 12, 2009 5:03 PM endanger the health of non-smokers. Even if the City prohibits smoking in public areas, smokers still have the freedom to smoke in their private homes so they should not complain. 230 As a society we should not blame everything on smoking. Current attitude May 12, 2009 5:28 PM encourages health complacency in people who never smoke. EVERYONE is at risk of lung cancer. Even young people who never smoked. 231 I would love to see this city go to a no smoking policy especially in public areas. I May 12, 2009 5:34 PM have two young children and I like to keep them away from anything unhealthy (especially smoke) as much as possible. As for a person smoking within their own residence or on their own property, I feel that they should have at least that freedom as long as they are respectful to their neighbors. For instance, if the neighbors young kids are playing in the backyard, they should smoke in the house or in the front yard to keep the smoke as far away as possible. 232 We're not talking about confned spaces like airplanes, bars and indoor May 12, 2009 8:14 PM restaurants. There are also alternatives for non-smokers. 233 Smoking is gross! I was at the Garden's today and smoke smell was filling the May 13, 2009 4:07 AM parking garage on the 1st level. It was blowing through from the patio near the play ground. It made me cough. It was diffcult to breathe. One kids were exposed; and two the whole garage smelled of it. I would love a ban on smoking here in R.C. 234 There should be a time restraint on the law. like after 9pm it is ok. May 13, 2009 7:42 AM 235 Designate smoking areas, don't outlaw them. May 13, 2009 5:12 PM 19 of 24 Response Text ' 236 The scientific connection between secondhand smoke and health is NOT well May 13, 2009 5:21 PM enough established to support any legislation. City best worry about haw to get along without state money. Secondhand smoking laws are unenforceable. If you enact you will lose my vote for assembly/city council. 237 designated areas away from the public at places like victoria gardens, other May 13, 2009 7:57 PM shopping areas 238 Smokers I have met or known in my life are quite courteous and avoid contact May 14, 2009 1:29 AM with non-smokers as much as possible. We are aware and try to comply with the need of non-smokers for clean air . No new law is needed to further prohibit the smoker from what few areas they are permitted to be in. As a minority I hope fairness, reason and compassion prevail. 239 Prohibit someone from smoking outside, and in own property is not right. May 14, 2009 5:54 PM 240 Not smoking in outdoor public areas, such as restaurant patios and waiting lines is May 14, 2009 6:13 PM understandable. But to ban smoking in the open outdoors is unconstitutional ! It's ones right. No one, Including the government has the right to tell you what to do with a legal product. 241 I think it is extremely unfair to prohibit smoking completely from shopping areas May 14, 2009 6:33 PM and most common areas. If such laws take effect, I hope that designated smoking areas will be close and easily accessible as to not "punish" smokers. When will we start to ban "sick" people from restaurants because we aren't comfortable sharing their air? _) 242 Please enact some level of restriction. May 15, 2009 9:03 AM 243 I think this is a wonderful idea, why should myself and my children be exposed to May 15, 2009 10:13 PM these toxins because people have dirty hobbits. 244 I feel that smoking should be stopped within this city. I have a 10 month old son May 16, 2009 2:11 PM who does not have the option of walking away from a smoker and he should not have to live with the effects of second-hand smoke. 245 Why should smoker's have a greater right to foul the air everyone else breathes in May 16, 2009 4:40 PM public settings? Smoking in public is a privilege, not a right. Clean air is a natural right that even smokers want 246 Public health concerns are not to be taken lightly. However, PERSONAL May 16, 2009 7:02 PM FREEDOM, should be respected. A person should be allowed to smoke in their home, car or outdoors in a public area such as on the street or park. These are public areas that belong to the general public and smoking in these areas does little harm. I beleive that Government is over stepping their boundaries and taking away our freedoms a little at a time. 247 I strongly agree that smoking should be prohibited from the May 16, 2009 10:37 PM Victoria Gardens mall since we still have to smell the smoke from the people who are outside of a store or restaurant. 248 I thought we lived the USA, land of the "free"? May 17, 2009 7:22 PM Don't smoker's have right too? WHAT'S NEXT? Ban gum chewing, nail biting, and fast food! When does it end people? We're talking about legal discrimantion here. If it's raining out and you don't like getting wet you move, right? If the smoke bothers you, use your two legs and MOVE! Why don't you focus your attention on banning cell phones! The cause brain cancer, bad drivers, lazy children and annoying loudmouths who braodcast their conversation to the world. 249 I love eating outdoors when I dine out. Unfortunately I don't even try anymore as May 18, 2009 12:00 AM even if I am seated in an area where there appear to be no smokers it's just a matter or time before someone lights up and my meal is ruined. Please stop smoking in any public area. Smokers have the right to smoke in their homes and cars but that's about it... 20 of 24 Response Text 250 Second hand smoke is more a nuisence than a health threat. The millions of May 18, 2009 12:52 AM vehicle that travel through RC daily cause more of a health issue. Please do not demonize smokers. Yes I smoke but I respect others when I do. Do the same for me? 251 I was a waitress at Vinces in Ontario and was thrilled when the non smoking ban May 18, 2009 2:36 AM came into effect. Some thought that restaurants ,bars etc, would lose business, but that was not the case and still is not today. I feel that public outdoor smoking invades my rights in that I don't smoke nor do I want my family exposed to any smoke. If Rancho wants to make there be a non smoking policy in public areas then maybe they should have designated areas like Disneyland where people can smoke that is not too close to the public. I just hope that if there is a city policy, that violations will be given out at places like Victoria Gardens. I think that it will be hard to enforce non smoking at places where police are not usually present. 252 It is a persons right to smoke outside where people can choose to move away if it May 18, 2009 3:59 AM bugs them and where air is circulating. 253 I believe that smoking should be prohibited in areas where people gather. Eating May 18, 2009 3:37 PM areas, parks, etc. Prohibiting smoking on sidewalks and public streets is going a little too far. I think that more non smokers would eat at restaurants in Rancho Cucamonga if smoking wasnt allowed in outdoor dining areas. There have been many occasions when I have been offered outdoor seating and I declined due to the fact that people were smoking there.. I would be more apt to eat in restaurants if they were smoke free. 254 Smoking is an addiction and addicts are a protected class. Go ahead with these May 18, 2009 7:46 PM laws and find yourself with a class action lawsuit 255 They will adaptor quit smoking. ANY smoke intake is deadly May 19, 2009 2:34 AM 256 I strongly agree with policies prohibiting smoking in extremely public places where May 19, 2009 9:51 AM people need to wait together (like bus stops). I agree with policies prohibiting smoking in all outdoor public places. I disagree with policies prohibiting smoking in private buildings because that would be taking it a little too far. I disagreed with the prohibition of smoking in hotel rooms because the implementation of that policy should be left far the hotel property owner to decide. Hotel rooms are already designated as smoking and non-smoking anyway-- and the smoking rooms can be easily avoided by choice. It seems like it would be a pointless double policy (for inside hotel rooms). 257 I am a social smoker. I agree that shopping centers, and resturants should May 19, 2009 4:16 PM banned smoking. Now as for my apt patio i should have the right to smoke. 258 I support the city's efforts to prohibit smoking in high-traffic public places, but I May 19, 2009 7:22 PM would not support any sort of effort to prohibit smoking in private, or contained, or specially designated places. 259 When the survey asked if I had smoked within the last 30 days, I answered in the May 19, 2009 11:14 PM afffirmative, however, my "smoking" is an occasionally cigar. . Also, question #2 contained in the survery is actually two separate questions. Outdoor pool areas are f ne, indoor hallways are not. 260 As a parent with small children, we often choose to dine outdoors at restaurants May 19, 2009 11:18 PM so that we have more space for the kids or to enjoy the fresh air and nice weather. However, when someone starts to smoke, our whole family experience is ruined. Smoking should not be permitted at restaurants, whether indoors or out. 261 I may live in Ontario, but I spend a lot of time in Rancho Cucamonga. If Rancho May 20, 2009 12:04 AM had a no smoking policy for apartment buildings, inside/outside, I would certainly consider moving there. There is ndthing more disgusting than having to breathe in someone else's smoke while I am in my own apartment. 262 I don't think people should be able to smoke at outdoor shopping areas like the May 20, 2009 2:52 AM Victoria Gardens 21 of 24 Response Text 263 Thank you for this survey, hopefully the city of Rancho can help cut down on May 20, 2009 3:31 AM second hand smoke. Its dangerous to babies, children, elderly and non-smokers who have no say or choice in the matter. Why should we (non-smokers) have limited places to choose from when picking a restaurant just to protect ourselves from second hand smoke? Or have to smell the smoke coming through the walls in a joint apartment/townhome bldg or can't have the windows open for fresh air because a neighbor is a chain smoker and does'nt stop smoking until the wee hours of the night? Its not really fair. Its everyones right to smoke if they choose....but its also not their right to make that decision for non-smokers. I don't think they realize that second hand smoke is just as dangerous, and the ones that do realize it just don't care anyways. 264 Reason for not going to local restaurants more often is because of the smokers in May 20, 2009 8:45 PM the outdoor areas. I would also like to enjoy the outdoors but I am prohibited because of the smokers. 265 Just the fact that you're considering this is great! The sooner the better. May 22, 2009 8:24 PM 266 With secondhand smoke i become very ill, for example, one time i got so ill from May 22, 2009 9:50 PM secondhand smoke I blacked out. Thank You for having this Survey, Thanks 267 I have never smoked and don't care to. Want I can't stand is the "control freaks" May 22, 2009 11:08 PM that have to control every aspect of our lives. Get a life other than restricting others rights. An establishment should be able to determine if they or any part of the establishment should be non-smoking... Let the market determine. 268 I hate seeing cigartes buds allover the place.inthe parks streets crubs,parking lots May 23, 2009 7:28 PM everwhere you look they are there. do people not use their ash trays in the cars anymore??? 269 I don't think that you can make the blanket statement that second-hand smoke May 24, 2009 1:33 AM causes health problems. At what levels? And, as far as the apart smoking rules go, you can't smoke inside, you can't smoke inside: is that RC's way of controlling whether people smoke or not? Gee, I guess that we should be happy that the city is "taking care of us." Why not just put up a sign that says smoking permitted here...if someone doesn't like it they can make another choice. People have the choice to walk clear of smokers or not sit in the same outdoor smoking areas. Our "Land of the Free" becoming the land of the free as long as you let the government make your choices for you! 270 I might became this city resident, that is why I entered that survey. reg 11: May 25, 2009 1:16 AM everywhere restaurants across whole state of tali are full of people although smoking is prohibited. My company of more than 2.5K employees is smoke-free zone. No-one quit the job there because ofanti-smoking policy. 271 Just because I'm anti-smoking, I can't see completely banning smoking outdoors. May 25, 2009 8:33 AM We all have rights 8 I'd hate to see what else "government" would prohibit. I wish smokers would be courteous so that laws would not be enacted. 272 Private dwellings; hotels,apartments,patios,arefust that "Private" and the local May 25, 2009 3:04 PM government should not concern itself with governing personal freedoms. 273 I hate when I am dinirig on the patio on a beuatiful day with my husband and 4 May 26, 2009 12:45 AM mth old and someone lights up a cigarette. It ruins everything. I strongly agree that we should prohibit smoking in our city. We live in a beautiful city and lets get rid of the nasty cigarette smell. 274 I believe although it may discourage smokers it will encourage the many more May 26, 2009 3:54 PM non-smokers to eat in Rancho Cucamonga, knowing that they can eat and enjoy the environment in peace. I don't know how many times I had to leave an outdoor environment where I was enjoying either my food or such simply because a smoker decided to ruin the environment for all those around. I choose not to smoke, therefore I believe I shouldn't have to inhale someone else's anywhere in a public environment. 22 of 24 Response Text 275 Ive worked at subway and chipotle both with outdoor seating the only feedback May 26, 2009 4:52 PM ive received is from nonsmokers driven inside on a beautiful day because of inconsiderate smokers ruining the taste of their food and causing breathing and eye discomfort Good for you in sticking up for the Majority for a change woo hoo 276 i work and shop in rancho Cucamonga. The worst part of second hand smoke is May 26, 2009 6:49 PM when you exit buildings and have to pass through the smoke or standing in line/or in close proximity with a smoker while you wait your turn for any type of service. 277 As anon-smoker, I do not like to inhale other people's cigarette smoke, and find it May 26, 2009 7:07 PM disgusting. I also do not want to worry about the health risks of second hand smoke. 278 I do not believe prohibiting smoking in outdoor dining areas would discourage May 26, 2009 10:51 PM people from eating in Rancho Cucamonga restaurants but even if it discouraged a few, many many more would definitely be Encouraged, especially me! On a beautiful day I cannot eat outside because of the smokers. Many times I have had to leave before I wanted to because of them. 279 I feel that Rancho Cucamonga should promote a Healthy LifeStyle....allowing May 27, 2009 3:17 AM smoking in any areas that would potentially be in contact with a non smoker promotes an unhealthy lifestyle. 280 Passing by someone who is smoking leaves an oder on your clothing, plus if i May 27, 2009 5:18 AM worked at a restaurant or anywhere i d HATE to empty out a ash tray.... 281 I believe that smoking in public common areas May 27, 2009 4:05 PM should not be allowed. People with health issues and/or children would definitely be discouraged from enjoying themselves due to the large health risk of second hand smoke. 282 This seems to be an ongoing effort to restrict lawful activities and must not May 27, 2009 5:22 PM happen in this city. 283 It's a slippery slope when you take away people's freedom in outside areas. May 27, 2009 6:02 PM 284 In my opinion, smoking should be forbidden while driving. Being stuck behind a May 27, 2009 8:58 PM car in which the driver and/or passengers are smoking, creates a terrible odor for the drivers trailing behind the car. 285 I don't smoke; it's a disgusting habit. But I checked "disagree" to question #1 May 27, 2009 10:21 PM because I don't think that someone smoking on a public street where people are in motion will bother anyone. But when there are smokers in a situation where everyone is standing still and can't easily move away (as in a theatre line or bus stop), then I think that outside smoking should be prohibited . 286 I hate smoking as much as anyone, so much so that I have never even tried it. May 27, 2009 10:22 PM However, this is still America and people should be able to smoke in their own homes, whether they are renting or own. Smoking on a dining patio in a restaurant is not okay. Smoking on public streets, while annoying, should not be prohibited; they are tax paying citizens too. 287 This is obsurd.... May 27, 2009 10:31 PM 288 No has every been killed by secondhand smoke! May 27, 2009 10:51 PM 289 I think that if one is•going to get sick it is just going to happen no matter what one May 27, 2009 11:36 PM does. 290 I've lived apartments both times the person below smoked. I have horrible May 28, 2009 1:54 AM allergies as it is and things like that only irritate it more. My grandpa died from lung cancer due to smoking for so many years so issues such as this hit close to home. 291 I already thought this was illegal. It really should be! May 28, 2009 2:12 AM 292 They have rights too May 28, 2009 3:02 AM 293 lets not add any more restrictions on people. ~ May 28, 2009 5:26 AM 23 of 24 Response Text 294 Smoking and secondhand smoke is horrible for persons with asthma! My Sep 29, 2009 3:45 PM husband and three of my four children have asthma so I'm really hoping to eliminate cigarette smoke in public areas! 295 Be strong take a stand to protect children and elderly!!! Sep 29, 2009 3:54 PM 296 Establish a City Smoking Patrol. I have Asthma, starting Emphazema, Allergies Sep 29, 2009 4:11 PM from long-term exposure to (work) 2nd-hand smoke--eyes burn and throat near smoke. 297 Don't Care. I have never smoked and I hate smoking but I hate the Government Sep 29, 2009 4:24 PM telling people what they can and can't do even mare. 298 Let them smoke in their home or far from others. Sep 29, 2009 4:25 PM 299 Leave us alone. Sep 29, 2009 4:30 PM 300 It is interesting that your survey's are all located in non-smoking locations!!! Non- Sep 29, 2009 4:32 PM smokers should stay away from designated areas!!! I can always eat at restaurants outside the City. There is room in the City for both smokers and non- smokers-each group has rights. The City has other problems A) Members of the City Council, B) City Budget, C) Central Park, D)Business closures in the City. There is already too much government involved in peoples lives. 301 If you don't smoke don't go near the ashtray! Being a smoker 1 never litter-if the Sep 29, 2009 4:33 PM smoke bothers someone, and I always ask, I put it out. I'm already taxed up the wazoo and I'm affraid for everyone to find out what else will be if I can't buy it legally, I should be able to use it. 24 of 24 ATTACHMENT B: Comment Cards Submitted at Workshops I"m a resident of San B, butI frequent the many shops, restaurants and theater at Victoria Gardens and I'm glad you are considering this ordinance. Many cities & counties have passed and are passing similar ordinances that restrict smoking in outdoer areas such as: Doorways, ATM lines, movie lines, and city parks. Cigarette smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds and secondhand smoke contains many of these same chemicals. The National Toxicology Program estimates that at least 250 chemicals in secondhand smoke are known to be toxic. And secondhand smoke has been designated as a known cancer-causing agent by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and an occupational carcinogen by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The CDC has evidence that secondhand smoke is associated with heart disease, respiratory illness, lung cancer, lower respiratory tract infections, childhood asthma and sudden death infant syndrome. The CA Air Resources Board declared secondhand smoke a toxic air contaminant. In January 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General stated there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke. Studies conducted in several communities, states, regions, and countries have found that the implementation of smoke-free laws is associated with rapid and substantial reductions in hospital heart attack admissions. These reductions appear to be more pronounced among non-smokers than among smokers. Research by the U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services in 2006, showed that smoke- ~. free policies are the only effective way to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke. After New York implemented a state law in 2003 requiring virtually all indoor workplaces and public places to be smoke-free, average levels of respirable suspended particles (a measure of secondhand smoke levels) declined by 84% in 20 hospitality settings.2 Locally, tobacco smoking is responsible for almost 2,000 San Bernardino County residents deaths annually. This is more deaths than alcohol, illegal drugs, suicide, homicide, car accidents, fire and AIDS COMBII~TED! And so you know how it affected our community fiscally, SB County paid approximately $2 million for hospitalizations due to smoking related illnesses in 2000. So, on behalf of the 87% ofnon-smoking Californians, please pass this ordinance to protect our health and quality of life. (EI~'FORCEMENT?) 1. In Zion, Ill., it is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats; and. other domesticated animals kept as pets. 2. To keep any of the incarcerated beast from picking up bad habits, the town of Manville , NJ decreed that it is illegal to feed whiskey or offer cigarettes to animals at the local zoo. 3. In 1930, the City Council of Ontario passed an ordinance forbidding roosters to crow within the city limits. 4. Back in 1924, a monkey was convicted in Indiana of the crime of smoking a cigazette and sentenced to pay a 25 dollaz fine and the trial costs. 5. In Los Angeles, a man is legally entitled to beat his wife with a leather belt or strap, but the belt can't be wider than 2 inches, unless he has his wife's consent to beat her with a wider strap. 6. Loins may not be taken to the theater in Maryland. In 2010 Rancho Cucamonga there is no smoking yet stores in Rancho Cucamonga may sell cigarettes. HUH? This supposed health aid in Rancho Cucamonga is nothing more than mortar to place a stepping stone in the political cazeer of our mayor. He is going up for a state assembly vote and if elected will leave our city with a mess. The mess is simple. There is no smoking at city hall and the grounds of city hall. YET, lawyers and city hall employees go outside and smoke and the no smoking ordnance is not enforced. If we expand it further, who enforces it? The Daily Bulletin just stated that there are more home break-ins in Rancho Cucamonga. Who do the police go after those who break in homes or a visitor to our city smoking while taking an evening stroll. We are allowed to smoke in Quake stadium but not on the sidewalks. The hypocrisy is whole situation is overwhelming. I do not smoke, I will never smoke and, I do not encourage anyone to smoke. Yet I will not allow a simple freedom to be trampled upon. Our federal Government sells cigarettes to our troops at a fraction of the cost and if any of our troops come home they face jail time for smoking. NOT on My Watch. Let us give dignity to the Law Enforcement Officers. Arresting someone for home break-ins not arrest someone for smoking How demeaning. Additionally, if we ban. smoking as we ban fireworks is it not logical to ban the sale of cigazettes as we do for fireworks. NO silly laws, NO mortar for a political stepping stone, A Thousand times NO! ~ • • ~ • • • • • RANCHO C,UCAMONGA Please give us your suggestions and comments regard-ing ~ proposed smoking polices in Rancho Cucamonga ' -- - -------- ---- -- - . Comments : T~ yt~U WAN' `To (~Aa ~-.ok s ,~+~ ~N o~cz C.i-~yLSZA~ca,,o C.VC..A~mONG~~ ~ \ I tv A.J SaLSO ~N l ~~ ~ta1-~ C ~0 F' ~o~G~~~~S ~ ~~~ 1~oc~'T \~cav~e. ~tv`~S ~o .. 1~0 ~ ~ O~ (t_~Mwv ~. y.~tiv Lb RP~~FR, U- -- Thank you, the City of Rancho Cucamonga values your opinion. ANCHO CUCAMONGI~ Comments: ~a~l'04 c a ~ • • • • • • • • Please give us your suggestions and comments regarding proposed smoking polices in Rancho Cucamonga ----------------- -------- 'u~--ems c~~~ ~,~-r .¢s ~.yQ ~s ~ ~o ~, v~ a !r~ ~L, . -gT JS ~ ~ 4 ~ ~P~~iH Q ~~ ~~11 %~'J 'L~/~CGr~ , Thank you, the City of Rancho Cucamonga values your opinion. • • • • • • • ' • • Please give us your suggestions and comments regarding RANCxo CUCAMONGA proposed smoking polices in Rancho Cucamonga - - - - -- -- - > ./ ~ ~~ ~--~ecss~ ' ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~` Comments: X - I -a+ - ~ ~an;~d. ~ ~ ~ n / tt,(S '~ C~/,~',~ cl ~` a ~.,~ Thank you, the City of Rancho Cucamonga values your opinion. • • • • • • • ' • • Please give us your suggestions and comments regarding RANCHO proposed smoking polices in Rancho Cucamonga CUCAMONG~{ ------ --/ -- - - - --- --- ---- Comments: ~ 1x~-7~~ ~Y'~~c~ ~SScee ~s ~~~, -r~c"fs o~ ~acc~ rkse o ~n S ~o~e ~^S ~N~ of ~,(~2v~oH s ~~d ~v s>uo~'~rc.e ~- ~-~er ~ccd ces.2 ~wuQ ,wi ww /t ~ 'ru~c.2 ~/~e one swolc~ c, ane'l~ w¢ ~ aced w~~ Aker ~ tr2 r o q s ~ ~ iaQ Cd u cQr ir~~ rush r (,~!<.n ~ C4-j~ ro r~ia laws ~-ega~ A` o~esl~~ fid~cx~ aue~~o , ems, s (uK~ o~r.¢osc; ~6N0 CAN~FR vac ~ie~a a~ ~I ~ S'cu.o K Thank you, the City of Rancho Cucamonga values your opinion. t~ ~ /~aund 1~' ~~ d C~u'Se 2arf~er em. -S'r~ ,f l • ~ ~ • • • • • - • 7~ Please give us your suggestions and comments regarding C CAAMONGA _proposed smoking polices in Rancho Cucamonga ~ Comments: ~~.ecc~ 7~0 ~U /~~ ~~ ~ y~t~'rtea y~~ ~.dnn,~clh ~h~6 Gl~~~.~ l~lnu~ wu .r ~,~~ru~,s~i~ Thank you, the City of Rancho Cucamonga values your opinion. ~ • • • • • • • ~ Please give us your suggestions and comments regarding RANCHO proposed smoking polices in Rancho Cucamonga CuCAMONG~ - --------- - -- ----- Comments: ~au/5 (,/~ ~,/~o~zcEMF..l~-- ~ ~ G~/ .c/ /GL /~ ~~ c~/`/6cO,~CE~ - ~ji.![E2dv .~srfl~1v/~iY! Thank you, the City of Rancho Cucamonga values your opinion. • • • • • e • ' • • Please give us your suggestions and comments regarding RANCHO CUCAMONGA proposed smoking polices in Rancho Cucamonga - - -- - - - - - - -- - Comments: '~~~~~ /~~ S~o~r~/I/6' /~/ ~G~~P/,~'~ 9/1~ ~ y ~~Tid~ ~~Y.PU ~/,!.~/Y~" /~.~ Del ~ r-fa~i1,~ ~/is~v ~~~ /~ s~i~~r~G' ~ ice'-/YG' ~f% ~ ~A ~ P/~iL,~ i,~s Thank you, the City of Rancho Cucamonga values your opinion. ANCHO CUCAMONG~ Comments: ~Nb~ • • • • • • • • • Please give us your suggestions and comments regarding proposed smoking polices in Rancho Cucamonga --- -\-'--- ---- - ~ ~ V ~- ~~ n~, ~ ~ ~~-ONC' ~ \S ~ v ~~ Thank you, the City of Rancho Cucamonga values your opinion. • • • • • • • • • I Please give us your suggestions and comments regarding 1 RANCHO l proposed smoking polices in Rancho Cucamonga J C,UCAMONGA - --- -- -- -- - ------ -- --- --- Comments: _~L/1 ~'~~~~,~~,~ ~j(.v> /~6G ~~ ~~~~~ ~' ~..,~a~~ c /~!/ a «<-~ Thank you, the City of Rancho Cucamonga values your opinion. ~~ ATTACHMENT C: Chamber of Commerce Survey Results Constant Contact Survey Results Survey Name: Sewntlhand Smoking Survey Response Status: Padlal 8 Completed Filter. None $ep 28, 2008 6:10:54 PM 1: Please'dioose d category that bast deaenbas your business: " . 1 = Restaunnq 3 • Financial Idstitution; 3 =Non ProhL 4-. Mome bksatl Business, S=Etlueagen In50[utlan ~6 ApdrtmeM, ]= Rotels/M t Is, 9'= Metlmal Facility, 9 =ONer plae in comment :_ 2,On aveaga, I dme at Rancho Odcemonga iestauianta Top numberis the count of respantlants - selecling the opfion. Bottom % is pemenl of At least 3-I 4 or more tlnws a the total respondents selecting ttm option. ~ Never td Omesa momh tlmesa monlp month 2 16 14 29 .. . d.: Please indicate the fkelihooC that your business can be eRe~ted~by the "NO Srriokmg Policies". -~~: ....;t ToD number is the wo tot respondams ' selecting 1ha opfion. Bottom %is percent of the total respontlanls selecting the option. Not At All least Likely Most Likely Absolutaiy 45 t3 1 2 ]4% 21% ].% 3% 6.'Pleasd take a moment t6 expresc your opinion and feedback regarding "No 9eioking Policies".~.' ' ."... ,.. 40 Response(s) .. .. ... . ~.~~•... r~~~N~~a =. ~~~~w~=~~ew~~a .=~.~~~ 16% 30% 16% 33% 5% Prohibit smoking a1 apadmenl be!wNes and 21 20 7 10 3 Oalios 34% 33% 11% 18% 5% Laws prWlibiling smoking In ouWwrdinning 7 ~ 7 15 31 -1 areas. 11% 11% 26%• 51% 2% ltrrr ~~~ 1640 Second St. Suite 207 Norco, CA 92860 Phone: 951-371-1311 Fax: 951-371-9111 Email.• inthezone0 Jatt.net Community opinion Survey Results (Spring 2009) Donna R. Newton Project Director 951-3 71-1311 This letterhead is funded by Prop. 99, The Tobacco Tax Initiative of 1988. In the Zo Introduction Public opinion polls were conducted with members of the public at 9 locations and times in three cities: Rancho Cucamonga (5 locations), Corona (3 locations), and Riverside (1 location, so far) from February 2009 through June 2009. Short self-report public intercept surveys assessed their attitudes towards smoke-free housing (Objective 3) and smoke-free zones azound public waiting areas (Objective 5). The azeas covered by the survey include: 1. Respondent characteristics (gender, age category, city of residence and smoking status) 2. Attitude toward smoke-free housing complex (MiJH) and smoke-free common areas 3. Attitude towazd smoke-free zones azound public waiting areas or service lines Frequencies were computed for all variables for each city. A total of 91 surveys were conducted in Rancho Cucamonga, 119 in Corona, and 22 in Riverside. Comparisons are made between self-reported smokers and non-smokers. Summary of Key Findines Respondent characteristics. For all cities, the majority of respondents were female (Rancho Cucamonga=60.4%, Corona=68.1%, Riverside=72.7%). The average age of respondents in the Rancho Cucamonga sample was 32.76 years (SD=13.5, range of 15-80), 28.21 (SD=17.2, range of 13-77) in Corona, and 70.64 (SD=9.8, range of 50-89) in Riverside (a Senior Center). Ethnicity was not assessed because, based on experience in conducting previous surveys, a significant portion (a third or more) of respondents failed to report ethnicity, or expressed reluctance to do so. In Rancho Cucamonga, 31.9% reported that someone in their household smoked, and 36.3% of respondents said they personally used tobacco in the past yeaz. In Corona, the figures were 22.7% and 19.3%, and in Riverside were 40.9% and 22.7%. (The figure for Rancho Cucamonga indicates that some respondents did not count themselves as a member of their household in response to that survey item.) These results aze shown in Table 1 below. Page 1 2. Attitude toward smoke-free areas. Respondents were given four statements related to smoke-free areas: two for housing complexes, and two for waiting azeas or service lines. Because there were so few "don't knowlunsure" responses, they were combined with the "no" responses. Most respondents in all cities [Rancho Cucamonga=89.3%, Corona =94.9%, and Riverside=68.2%] said they were interested in living in smoke-free housing (of only those looking for housing), and would support the adoption of a policy for smoke-free common areas (86.8%, 92.4%, and 86.4%, respectively). Most respondents in all cities [Rancho Cucamonga=91.2%, Corona=84.9%, and Riverside=72.7%] supported the adoption of a policy for smoke-free zones around public waiting areas or service lines. The majority in all cities said they had been bothered by tobacco smoke in public places (80.2%, 74.8%, and 59.1%, respectively). When comparisons were made between those who used tobacco and those who did not, those who used tobacco were less likely to be interested in smoke-free housing (RC and Corona), support adoption of a smoke-free common areas policy (Corona), support policy adoption of smoke-free zones around public waiting azeas or service lines (Corona), and were less likely to be bothered by tobacco smoke in public places (RC and Corona). The sample size in Riverside was too small to detect significant differences between smokers and non-smokers. Page 2 Conclusions Page 3 y '~ ~~ ~ ®•® e® e ® ~ p~® `~ ® c O -a~+ qqVqqq e~ `^, `7 W `~ ~ . x '~~. ,~ ~ , ~~ ~ ~~ «, ~~ ~;, u ~~~~ ~ ~ N~~~ "" S '~~ ~ ` ~~ , ~8 Tt4 j- ~' 1 5 4. S ~. 5~ jq>ry6 a ,,.E~ t ~ ~» ~'i,1~{~ ~~1~ ~tY vr~~'Yy~ N.Fdas~N~ ~.~ ~5 ~x~ r ~'~ St =~ S i' ~,~, 5 yh' p4yf~^y ~ 1I 3'y 5 R b l th~~ ~~3 ~~ ~ a~" q'~g'FRilY S~f^Jr `~"" ~ °s'4 ~~~~, Src~' si 7~ .~ o S .® ^~ ~d ® p N ~ ~ a--~ ~ O ~ U ~ ~ .-. E ~ L ~ O ° ~ ,~, ~ •-. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ N U O ~ ~ ~ C .-. O }, rn L a~ W ~ ~ Q ~ N ~ ~ QM O U V ~L L `i U ~ ~ O cn ~ O N .-. LL U ~ U ~ ~ N Q O I J N I I 1 ~ N >+ N ~ O O U O L •O L- ~}' • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ L ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Q 2 ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ T _ O ~ ~~ ~ ~ -N ~ ~.O O ~ ,~ 0 ~ ~ Q= }' N ~ O U . _ U ~ c i= ~ ('a O ~ (~ c _ ~ • ~ Cn O N ~ C 1 G 1 1 ~ ~ o e® ^® e~ ®o s U C ~ ~ 7+ ~ L p ~ T M M W ~J ~ ~ ~ Y (Q Q O U ~ ~ O __ E N ~ ~ N ~ U . U 'O ~ Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ V W ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U C L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o M to ~ N M u~i ~ N ~ ~ ~ U _ (t5 II ~ ~ ~ p N N o - fn ~ N ~ ~ o .~ ~ O ~ 'L O ` ~ O o o C ++ tCf ~ ~' (C1 U ~ M N c N U U ~ ~ ~ i i° ~ ~i ~ U c c ~ p U ~ p • • N ~ • tCi c9 F- V I I i I >+ d ®® N t0 L N p O ~ Q ~ L f~ Q C L ~-.~ U) ~ v j 0 ~ Q ~ Q.. ~ ~ ' L ~ ~ X ~ L ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ cQ •~ ~ ~F N . ~ ~- o rn ~. Q. U ~- :~ Q N ~ ~ ~ O o ~ ~ o ~ ~ w.. ~ O ~ U o „ ~ ,~ a~ (C ~ w- U ~ ~ ~ `~- N ~ N ® ~ ~ ' ~ ° O Y ' ® ~ •V N ~ ` Ri ~ o L Q D ~ Q O M ~ _ ® ~ ~ ~ r ~ VJ ~ .~ V/ ~ Q. ~ ~ i..f~ ® (n ~ I 0 N O R _. o rn r ~ ,c ~ m m ~, 3 >~__;~ cj-o , o .~ ~ : v ~ ~- Z M. .,a •~ ~ }C':':i fA:.W O ~ ~ ,O Y O ,~ ~ ,L'O O S A- 1~0 ~ ~ .Q •~ L Y Q N U ~ ~ ~ O ~ "~ ~ ~ U (lf 0~0 N Q- ~ ~ U .~Q Q. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 07 CO 1~ tC to ~ M N r T e® ~ ~ Ae std ~ ~ '~. it9 v- M ~ .O O a"I ~ U O d. ~ _ ++ C7 L ~O C ~ O C N N N O Q N ~ C ~ O ~ L O ~ ~> N ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ .-. o ~ N ~ ~ v~ . •L ~ o ~ ~ ~ r L ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ O . (~ L ((~ .b+ . >` (if ~ ~ O O t~ ~? -~-+ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O .~-+ ~ a . O N C N ~ o0 O +-+ ~ ` ~ `~ U U O u O ~ vOi N O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ O I I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ U O ~ ~ U ~ U ~° ~ p N ca N ~ ~ ~ C U ~ ~ ;~ C N to ~ ~ (~ ~ V ~ N ~ U ~ ~ _ ~ ~ -O ~ O U ~ ~ ~ I n c. ,.. N O C O t6 V O J L ~ ~ ~ w.+ ~ Y ~ . ~ L Q ~ C C U ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ U ~ ~ N ~ U ~ ~ O 0 ~ is N ~ _ Q Atif Introduction In the Zone Tobacco-Free Pri door Waiting Area Observational Survey ] Objective S-E=3 ject .eport; - 2009 , ,, , Observations of smoking behavior and tobacco litter were conducted at 4 different locations (waiting areas or service lines) in Rancho Cucamonga in March 2009. Two observation visits were at each location, on different days and times. An observation form was developed based on a form used by the evaluator for similar projects in the past (e.g., to assess smoking behavior and tobacco litter at race tracks and public recreation areas), and adapted to suit the needs of this project. The Outdoor Waiting Area Observation Survey Form used assessed the following information: 1. Location waiting area and date/time of observation period 2. Presence of smoking and number of people smoking 3. Presence and amount of tobacco litter Frequencies were computed for all variables for the four locations (8 observations). Percentages of observations where smoking were observed are presented by locafion/waiting area. Summary of Kev Findings 1. Location, and dates and times of observation. The specific sites and times of observations for Rancho Cucamonga, by location and waiting area, are shown in Table 1 below. 2. Presence of smoking and number of smokers. Overall, of the 4 locations/waiting azeas, smoking was observed in 3 (75%) or 5 of the 8 observation periods (62.5%), with a total of 17 persons observed smoking (or a mean of 3.4 smokers per observation where smoking was observed). Rates of observed smoking aze summazized by location/waiting azea in Table 1 below. 3. Presence and amount of tobacco litter. Overall, litter was observed in all of the 4 locations/waiting areas (100%), at each of the 8separate observations. Of those 8, 3 (37.5%) had more than 10 cigazette butts, 3 (37.5%) observations had less than 5 butts, and 1 (12.5%) observation had 5-10 butts. The presence of litter and the amount of litter is found in Table 1 below. Page 1 Table 1: Waitin Area Smokio ,and Litter Observations b Location, Date and Tiroe -Rancho Cucaroon a Visit Location Wa~tmB Area Date Time Anyone smokin ? # of smokers Litter Present? Litter # butts I Food Hall; 2/21/09 12:00 p Yes 6 Yes > 10 2 Victoria Gardens Family play area 2/27/09 12:30 p Yes 2 Yes 5-10 1 Outside 3/19/09 I:IS Yes 2 Yes <5 2 Victoria Gardens Food Court 3/21/09 10:00 a Yes 5 Yes > 10 1 3/29/09 11:00 a No Yes > 10 2 Albertsons Entrance 3/30/09 4:00 No Yes <5 1 3/26/09 2:00 No Yes <5 2 Walmart Entrance 3/29/09 10:00 a Yes 2 Yes 5-10 Summary: . . , ; 'Based on the"results of his baseline observational survey, smoktng was observed:in most.: (3; out of 4)'of the`public waiting areas where observations; were conducted, with an average of 3 smokers per location'where smoking was_ observed: Tobacco litter;was observed at all locations and of each_observation. Page 2 - iorTobaccv Pdicy ' & Organizing ~N[[ICAN IUNG I,f30C1AT10N ,r...._ Dining Areas Richmond x June 2009 Martinez nowato x, April 2008 TABLE OF COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR SECONDHAND SMOKE ORDINANCES The twenty-five cities and counties with comprehensive ordinances are listed on the table below, which details each outdoor area where a community prohibits smoking in its ordinance. When there are limitations or exceptions to the full definition of the seven possible outdoor areas, rt is noted with an asterisk. Entryways Public Events ~ i""r `°`r"r ~ Service Areas Sidewalks Worksites Areas X X X X X X X X x X ~ X •~~~ X '~ X P ~ ~ X x x x x X X X' X x x x~ x x x x x x x X X X tmeryvme December 2006 Calabasas X X X February 2006 X X X X 'Glenda. - ~I!o~:+, for cre:~tion of desi0natetl smoking Section in outdoor ain.n) ' 'B~rtxni, - al~cws restaurants io app~y for a designeleo outdoor srnol:irg section that can cover Dublin -recreation areas tloes not include community parks 'Th d O k ll t t l f f upp to 40C~o of dining area ' s -a ows res auran ousan a s to app y or a permit or a designated outdoor smoking Burbartk -service areas prohibition tloes not mGude mdrvidual bus stops in section if certain conditOns are met 'Thousand Oaks -smoking prohibitions only apply to recreaborial areas under the city's authority; pubbc rights-of-way 'Burbank - onty prohibRS smoking on Sidewalks in downtown Burbank city parks are order a separate jiaisdiction 'Baldwin Park -only prohibits smoking at farmer's markets 'Albany -allows exceptions for permitting smoking in outdoor areas at stand-alone bars if certain 'Laguna Woods -only applies to restaurants. not bars cwWiaons are met ' 'Mann County -avows ezcep6ons fa permitting smoking at outdoor dining at bars if certain Albany -only prohibtts smoking on sidewalks adjacent to school pr and sidewalks on conditions are met Solano Avenue between San Pablo Avenue and the City of Berkeley lurtsdicttonal border 'Santa Monica -only prohibits smobrxf at farmer's markets 'Novato -allows ezceptwns for permitting smoking in outdoor areas at stand-abne bars if certain 'Santa Monies -only appplies to sidewalks at the Third Street Promenade conditions are met 'Santa Rasa - serwce areas prohidtian only includes dowrmown transit mall 'Berkeley -only prohibits smoWrg on sidewalks in commercial areas 'Santa Rosa -only applies to sidewalks at Comstock mall and Jeµi Way This material was made possible by funds received from the Cal rtorma Department of Public Health, under contract #09-11173. The Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing • American Lung Association in California 1029 J Street, Suite 450 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone: (916) 554.5864 • Fax: (916) 442.8585 • www.Center4TobaccoPolicy.org Barite Rosa X X X X X* X' June 2006 ,~~ 0 1 ~_' ~-, ~_ ~~1 s ~~ O ~1 V ti~~ ~1 i ~~ O ^~~ -~ ~~ 0 CV ~ ~ ~_ ti~~ _~_~ 1 ~1 L ~ ~_ .,_ ~~l ~_ ~~~ C.) ., q. ~~ O 1 Oi ~~ ~~' ~~, ~~ I\11 Z o C O (0 E L C U (~ 00 c O U ~U C O U O .~ ^L LL N .~ N C .~ Q (a U U (a L O U d a 0 0 N~ I..L a Q Y L O a U (a a~ L L _~ 0 Y (~ a Q /~ v J X N Z a +r N ~ '~ O ~ .~ N ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ U _' c~Ua ~~ ~ cQ Q~ U L~ cn •~~ N ~ .L ~.-~ ~~ ~ i C ~; Q V O O ~, Q ~ i C ~ ~ O U U '~ '~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ (6 O ~ _~ U ~ ~ C ~ O ~_ O ~ '~ ~ ~ U Q ~ N to M i ~ O X _- cE ~cc~ ~~ m~ ~' ~~ o ~-~ ~~ ~ ~ 0' ~~ ~N~ oc L_~ L p 'L ~ ~ .~ U ~ Q .a ~'~~ ~~~ ~~ c~0 fn C (B CV ~~ ~~~ ~~ °o ~~ ~;L° O~ a~~ can o ~ °~ ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ = E s ~ ~ o c ~ O ~ C ~ (n N N OU W can W c ~ ~ O ~ cOn a~ ~ . • ~ ~ = ~ cn o -~ c "-' ~~ - c~ o ~ U ~ ~ ~ C ~ O " C ~ N ~ Q' ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ([3 ~ ~ ~ ~--~ N ~ +~ ~ ~ O O fn -p ~ .-. ~ p ~ ~ N N U ~ C C ~ C ~ Q ~ ~ X > > ^ ~ C .~ C C N O U_ Q O c N N L Q. .~ C .~ (6 C L U t f~ C 3 J MM~. W - ~ ~ ~~ Q c~ .~ c ~ C~ O U ~ ~ ~ ( ` L ~ ~ /N ~ (~ ~ / ~ }+ ~ ^,~^, ~ W } ~I ~ V/ I7'~ C --U Q _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C O Q A O O L N ~ _ ~UQ V V ~_ ~~ Q LL Z ~ W° z m H N 0 0 W ~GD~Q~ W OM°UV ~~NVQ N ~ a ~ . _ °CU ~vz OoC ~z°Z~ a0aa~ ® ~ Uw~= .,f N F- c U U .' U L is L C N U c U L y-+ C L ca ~L Y L c~ d 71 H -~ c~ U a~ .` ~_ J L N U is .~ Q ~ (Cf ~ ~ .Y O j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~' _ ~L O ~- ~"' O Q O ~ U p ~', p N ~ O U ~ ~ ~ ~ N O, O ~ ,~, V' ~ ~ ~ c ~ o O O U }~' L i '~ Q O ~ O ~ U ~ ~ O O N ~ O U .~ a--~ L ~--~ N ~ .U C ~ •- ~ O ~ (~ L ~~ !A O Q .~ N ~U 'V O C ~ O ~ U o ~ ~ °o ~ N O W ~L U ~ N ~ ~ O O U N (6 Q a. C Q N U ^ ^ ^ .~. O O N L V 0 `/ /T ~ `c a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ x x x x x x x ~, ~~ o ~ cn t, ~ ;'~ ` . ,., = c6 y c c O O U L Q ~ O ~ Z ~ c ~ o ` a . E X X ~ o ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ cn Q ~ U ~f C~ U ~ n ~~~ ~ ~ E E L 0 ~ L Q L 0 N 0 ~ Q C ~ ~ ~ = 2 O ~ O OU ~ ~Q ~. s v L 0 ~+ 0 V 0 0 N C .~ Q N U C J .~ U C 0 ~ .L ~ ~ _ ~ (a ~ N N _ N ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ^L I..L ~..L cc G ~~// I..L _~ O U Q O O U N L N L ooaooooo _ rV ~ = E : ,'k 3i i .. ~Eee~Mn-' 'oiE ~: ~~~yyy a ~ ~ii ~J.~ ~ a _ ~,-~ ~' ~ ~ b "l. f ' a`q~*f~ • s c. ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~4 F~: e +RJ C C C _ I~ -_ -I~ .}J .. ~ U a~ ~ ~, ~ (> -_ cn ~ ~ °' }' ~ `~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ cn ~ cn ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ O N (~ U V °' ~ o~ L >\ o ~ .U v> >, ~ c~ o O ~ ~ ~ (~ - o ~ ~ N cn . .~ Q c~ a ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ O N (~ ~U O .Q Q M ~ ~ ~ W ~ 21~ W~ Q ti ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i 'd C 47 O ^ ~~ O ^ O •~ V ^ /N \V ~.~ a L L O rl .~+ O C L N L Q H ~ M C f~ O ^_ L 0 ^ L 0 •~ V • A ~~~ C ~ ~ o ^, T ~_ Z a~ ~C U OC C O Z C .~ DC U DC U ~ ~ Z ~ o - N N H N a ~ o ~ ~ r .V W L 0 0 ~ ~ N ~ o H ~ ~ o a. m 3 ~ ~ ~ -~ c ~~ °' $ E ~ ~ a r° c° m z U~ Q¢ a O ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^ ^ 0 ,--~ i Q~ O ~' M ~--+ C Q7 '~'' N (O +--~ Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ o O ~ ~ U o H d O a } Z M o c Y C ~ ~ c o Z o~ D O ._ ~ C O ~ 7 V ~a .~ ~ ~ c 0 ~ ~ L ~ ~ o o ~ a~ o '~ ._ ~ °' m a .,. o ~ ~ 0 o E f6 E ~ ~ ~ °' v o ~ M ~ +-+ O ~ N m ~ ~ $ a o ~~a~- ^ ^ ^ o a o ~ ~ c ~ ~ Q N m d C ~ ~c U ~ OC L it Q a ~ ~ r O ~° W C Cf O C ~ Y ~ O E o N d ~, a C d t ~ O ~ ~ V a ~ wo J Y o c 0 1 ^ ~--i N U O .~ (~ _~ 0 -F~ a--~ X •--+ (~ ~~~ a~ 0 ea a ~v c ea a~ C ~C C 3 tll d O O .~ 7 0 ,c rn c Y O N ~.. O a ~ o 'Q O r' O Z ~ o ~1 ~ ~ 0 C d V C ' a ' ,:. 0 r - - cn 0 a c n c s .o c 0 a` o 0 z N N o ~ N Q ~ Q~ z~ ~' a~ ^ a~ rn~~ a,o a~ o cao v~i° ~~ ~ N N ~O ~ ~ p Q d ~--r ~_ ~U O Q .~ L ~_ L 0 ~--+ ~--+ X N O I- .~. a--+ ~--~ ~_ ~U O .~ N _~ N O O X ca O H •~. 1 .;-~ (~ ~_ ~U O Q .~ N N (~ _~ N i 0 0 ~~ C X N ~--+ ~.~ ~. a~ N Y ~ ~ ~ ;,., y1 N 3 ~~ m v c e~ Y3 m °' c 0 vs c Y O E o N ~= 'c 'a o ~_ O M t O O Z a a~i c J vs c T a~ ~a ~~~ ~ o ~ ~ as ~ ~ tv ~ p .~ d V I 7 a L O O O c O c ~ o ._ N o ~ N t O O Z L a a~ ca ~ a' rn~ ~_ ~ N Q~ ~° v ~' '~ 0 ~o rn~ Q~ a~ ~' o0 0 .~ cn , N N o ~~ Q a~ ~, i ~ ~ ~ O ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ a ~o .~ -~ c a 0 m .r c ~ Y .O O .C o ~ ~ N w+ O Z z O V a m ~o a~ ~ `_' 0 rn ~r ti N p ~ ~ (~ ~ L ,A A O o c~ s N L M ~ O O ~~ Q ~~ ~ a ~ cLa ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Q ~ LO (~ ~ C ~ ~ ~~ a~ ~ ~ LU ~.c ~ ~ ~ ~_ p ~ Q~> ~ QO ~N~~ ^ ^ N O~ O p .~ > ~ o U ~ N ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o -~~c~~ cn v, -_ U L (~ ~ O ~ ~ o ~~~ ~.~.>_ ~ .> ~ .- L cpn ~ o N ~ Q N ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ C O U ~ - _~ ~ _ i U cn (~ (~ N ~ Q (~ N ~ ~ L ~ C N ' ~ N ~ L `i • O ~ Y ~ O O ~ ~ ~ C C (~ ~ U ~ (~ O N tII ~ ~ p ~ N ~ C p O i O ~ ~ ~ ~ Y N O ~ i O ~ ~ ~ L O Y N O .~ O ~~ C N ~ O1 O ~ O Q ~ N L ~ N ~ m ~ ~ ~ cn a~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 3 ~ m ~ .U ~ O }' }' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ L ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ _ O `/ ~--~ Cn W ~ ~ ~ ~ ?' J O ~ ^ ^ cn ^ cn ^ O ^ yN L N fit, L L' v{; +i U ~ N •Q O ~ Y Q ~' ~ ~, ~ O O ~ O ~ O i •~ ~ O ~ .E ~U ~ O ~ Q ~ C ~ O r^~ ~ V J U O ~ cv Z ~~ ^ .s1a s v L s as U c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O .X ~ U ~ ~ o ~ ~C L O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ O ~ U , L ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ +~~ C o ~ . . 0 O L U M~ W a ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ (~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n L `J U ~~ O O (~ U ~ .Q ~ ~ W .~ ~ ~ .-~ c~ ~' ~ .~ c ~ ~ c~ - 0 ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ _ ~ a~ ~ L ~ ~ (6~ (, ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~ y L ~ O Y c ~ ~ ~ 'V O ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.C ~(~ Q ~_ N ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ N p -~ ~(~ Z ~ ~ c~ Q ~ U U ~ C ~ ~ c C ~ O ~ C O ~ ~ ~ ~-' c6 }' O O +~ C ~, L O L Q ~ D ~ U ~ }, ; ~ a~ ~ ~' ~ o ~ ° ~ ~ ~ c Z O O ~ .~ Y = ~ ~ O ~ U C L C ~ +~ - O ~ - _ ~ U ~ ~ N U N ~, ~ ~ p , cn _ z c~ j `+ ~ .~ u ~ Z N ,~ ~ N N Q ~ ^ ^ P } ~^ `u~ I L~ T ^~ O V O ^ ~~ W L a .s ._ 3 a •~ V i ^~ X X X X X X X ~ C C ~ O '~ ^ '' vJ j~ ''r Wes.,^.. ~ ~ C O p y:.r U ~ 1 O ~ F Z is 4 `. N ~ ~. o a~ w °-~~ X X o ~' ~ U ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ (d C O ~ Q ~ ~ O N v ' C O a~ ... ~ m a ~ U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cif C7 cn ~ ~ w o o m m + + (n N O ~ O O N ~ LL' rp ~ ~ ~ a C ~ 6 c :. :_ (0 ~ f6 N ~ 2 2 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ Q 1 O `~ ~, ~_ ~~l s