> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Smoking ban to expand - URL: https://www.smdp.com/smoking-ban-to-expand/ - Published: 2007-12-13T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-24T04:23:12.000Z - Author: Kevin Herrera - Tags: Business, Promenade, #archive-import *Businesses to be held liable for allowing patrons to smoke* CITY HALL Promising to invest in a marketing and education campaign that emphasizes the positives of being smoke-free, the City Council on Tuesday directed attorneys to draft a law that would make business owners and their employees liable for knowingly or intentionally allowing customers to smoke in outdoor dining areas. The 5-0 vote in favor of strengthening the city’s existing smoking ban was in response to complaints from residents and non-smoking advocates that some restaurants and bars were allowing customers to light up nearly a year after the ban went into effect, some going so far as to set out ashtrays. Smoking is currently prohibited at all beaches and parks; the Santa Monica Pier, except in designated areas; within 20 feet of the entrance or window to an open business; the Third Street Promenade; all Farmers’ Markets and all outdoor dining areas and waiting areas like bus stops and ATM lines. “The important thing here is that this is to protect the people,” Councilman Kevin McKeown said. “This is not a new direction. This is an ordinance we’ve already passed and that was to make it safe for people to eat at a restaurant.” The council will have the option of setting the fine for non-compliance. It was suggested by staff to make the fine $250 — the same charged to smokers who are cited for smoking in areas covered by the ban. However, some councilmem-bers learned that a $250 fine could grow to nearly $900 because of penalties assessed by the courts, and suggested a lower amount for the first offense. “I think the fines should be more commensurate,” Councilman Ken Genser said. “The fine struck me as fairly high for the offense.” Several representatives from the business community said they are in favor of protecting the public from the damaging effects of second-hand smoke, which has been classified as a toxic air contaminant. However, they believe more needs to be done to inform people of the law and called on the council to set aside enough money to produce attractive signs, posters and fliers similar to what Beverly Hills has done with its “fresh air dining” campaign that features “90210” signs, with the emphasis on the “02” for oxygen. The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce believes a lack of funding to educate residents, visitors and businesses on the proposed change would place an undue burden on the business owners and managers expected to comply. “We can put a positive spin on this, as Beverly Hills has done,” said Tom Larmore, chamber board chairman. When City Hall passed the ban on smoking in outdoor dining areas late last year, no signs were visible along the Third Street Promenade for weeks, and it took even longer for businesses to receive “Fresh Air Santa Monica” signs to hang in their windows. Assistant City Manager Gordon Anderson said city staff plans to present the ordinance early next year at a time when the council will be considering adjustments to the city budget. Funds could then be made available for outreach efforts. In addition to making businesses liable, the council also requested that a new law be drafted prohibiting smoking anywhere on the grounds of Santa Monica libraries after complaints were received about smokers congregating at entrances and in parking lots. Apartments and condos could be next, as the council asked city staff to provide information on what other California cities are doing to control smoking in multi-unit housing. Information on tobacco retail licensing will also be provided in that report. Jurisdictions across the state have passed laws requiring tobacco retailers to pay local licensing fees before selling cigarettes or cigars. Money generated is often used to fund antismoking campaigns and undercover options targeted at businesses selling to minors. The council is also interested in pharmacies. City attorneys have been asked to bring forth a non-binding resolution that would recommend local pharmacies refuse to sell any tobacco products. Those who can’t stand breathing in second-hand smoke praised the council for adding liability and libraries into the mix. They complained of eating at restaurants and watching waiters do nothing as customers puff away. Others mentioned being hit in the face with a cloud of smoke as they entered libraries around town as smokers took the last few puffs before walking in. Willow Evans, a resident since 1986, said she has tried to patronize more restaurants and show her support for fresh air dining, but she has had her meals “ruined by second-hand smoke.” “Honestly, if you go out late at night … all the smokers are out,” Evans said. “It’s like a smoking party and they are really rude to anybody that tells them there’s an ordinance that you can’t smoke. It’s been pretty rough. “I just feel like the pulse on what’s really going on has to be felt by a few more people.” Smokers had a very different reaction to the council’s decision. They feel as if their rights were being trampled upon given that tobacco is not illegal and is sold in places were smoking is not allowed, such as the promenade. Some also worried about the council’s interest in possibly restricting smoking in apartments. “This is criminalizing a non-criminal activity …,”said resident Bruce Cameron.“They’ve gone into the restaurants and the bars and they are coming into your house pretty damn soon.” It is still unclear if the council will ban smoking in rental housing. It has been done in other cities, including Belmont, however, there is some concern about what the ban would do to rent controlled tenants. Would landlords use it as a way to evict tenants, or could the ban be considered a loss of an amenity, requiring some kind of reduction in rent? “I think we should hear from the rent control board,” Mayor Pro Tem Richard Bloom said. As for creating a new licensing fee to sell tobacco, the Los Angeles County board of supervisors is considering a $235 annual permit fee for merchants in unincorporated areas. The money would be used to strengthen efforts to keep minors from smoking. Critics say it would hurt mom-and-pop stores already struggling because of high taxes and expensive rents. David Weiss of Lone Wolf Cigars & Mens Accessories on Broadway just off the promenade, said the smoking ban has had a negative impact on his business and adding another fee would be more of a financial hardship. He questioned why the council is so focused on cigarettes when people hurting themselves every day by eating fatty foods, drinking excessive amounts of liquor and breathing in polluted air caused by auto emissions. “They are taking this too far,” said Weiss, who would like the council to consider limiting tobacco sales to only tobacco shops as a way to make up for revenue lost because of the ban. “When I’m having a meal, I don’t like people smoking around me either,” Weiss added. “I’m happy to have no smoking in patios and restaurants, but leave it alone. “Stop trying to take it to the next level.” ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/55/9f/559f9abc-8372-4a2e-8c2d-27386da4e363/content/images/2026/10/121307-01_01.jpg) FRANK CAPELLO PAGE 11 THE BIBLE: BOXED SET (Photo: PHOTOS BY) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/55/9f/559f9abc-8372-4a2e-8c2d-27386da4e363/content/images/2026/10/121307-01_02.jpg) SMOKE OUT: Business will soon be held liable for patrons smoking in outdoor dining areas. (Photo: Photo courtesy) *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 13, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/121307.pdf?ref=smdp.com)