Existing law makes it an infraction punishable by a fine of $250 for a person to smoke a cigarette, cigar, or other tobacco-related product within 25 feet of a playground or tot lot sandbox area.

This bill would make it an infraction punishable by a fine of up to $100 for a person to smoke, as defined, on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system or to dispose of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system. The bill would establish a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime.

This bill would require the Department of Parks and Recreation to develop and post signs at entrances or strategic locations, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation, of state coastal beaches and units of the state park system to provide notice of the smoking prohibition. The bill would require the smoking prohibition to be enforced only after signs have been posted. The bill would authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to designate, by posted order, areas within units of the state park system as exempt from the smoking prohibition, as specified.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law makes it an infraction punishable by a fine of $250 for a person to smoke a cigarette, cigar, or other tobacco-related product within 25 feet of a playground or tot lot sandbox area.

This bill would make it an infraction punishable by a fine of up to $100 for a person to smoke, as defined, on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system or to dispose of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system. The bill would establish a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime.

This bill would require the Department of Parks and Recreation to develop and post signs at entrances or strategic locations, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation, of state coastal beaches and units of the state park system to provide notice of the smoking prohibition. The bill would require the smoking prohibition to be enforced only after signs have been posted. The bill would authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to designate, by posted order, areas within units of the state park system as exempt from the smoking prohibition, as specified.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law makes it an infraction for a person to smoke a cigarette, cigar, or other tobacco-related product within 25 feet of a playground or tot lot sandbox area.

This bill would make it an infraction for a person to smoke, as defined, on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system or to dispose of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system. The bill would establish a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime.

This bill would require the Department of Parks and Recreation to develop and post signs at state coastal beaches and units of the state park system to provide notice of the smoking prohibition. The bill would require the smoking prohibition to be enforced only after signs have been posted. The bill would authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to designate, by posted order, areas within units of the state park system as exempt from the smoking prohibition, as specified.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law makes it an infraction for a person to smoke a cigarette, cigar, or other tobacco-related product within 25 feet of a playground or tot lot sandbox area.

This bill would make it an infraction for a person to smoke, as defined, on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system or to dispose of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system. The bill would establish a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime.

This bill would require the Department of Parks and Recreation to develop and post signs at state coastal beaches and units of the state park system to provide notice of the smoking prohibition. The bill would require the smoking prohibition to be enforced only after signs have been posted. The bill would authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to designate, by posted order, areas within units of the state park system as exempt from the smoking prohibition, as specified.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law makes it an infraction for a person to smoke a cigarette, cigar, or other tobacco-related product within 25 feet of a playground or tot lot sandbox area.

This bill would make it an infraction for a person to smoke, as defined, on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system or to dispose of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system. The bill would establish a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime.

This bill would require the Department of Parks and Recreation to develop and post signs at state coastal beaches and units of the state park system to provide notice of the smoking prohibition. The bill would require the smoking prohibition to be enforced only after signs have been posted.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

 VETO  

Bill No: SB 386

Author:

:

Vote: 7

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-2, 3/28/17

AYES: Hertzberg, Allen, Atkins, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Stern

NOES: Stone, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/17

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 29-11, 5/30/17

AYES: Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, De León, Dodd, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Newman, Nguyen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak

SENATE FLOOR: 28-12, 9/13/17

AYES: Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, De León, Dodd, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Newman, Nguyen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener

NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak, Wilk

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 56-22, 9/12/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits smoking on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system, with some exceptions. Smoking is defined as the use of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, any type of lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, and electronic smoking devices.

ANALYSIS: Existing law provides (Health and Safety Code Section 104495) smoking is prohibited inside a public building, in a state-owned vehicle, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main entrance, exit, or window. Smoking or disposing of smoking-related waste is prohibited within 25 feet of a playground or sand box area.

This bill:

1. Makes it an infraction for a person to smoke or dispose of smoking-related waste on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system.
2. Requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to develop and post signs to provide notice of the smoking prohibition prior to enforcement. These signs are required to be posted at the entrance or a strategic location at each beach or state park unit.
3. Defines the smoking restriction to include cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and any type of lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, and includes the use of electronic smoking devices.
4. Establishes the maximum fine for this infraction at $100.
5. Exempts devices that are used as props in a motion picture, television program, or similar filmed audiovisual work, provided that the filming is properly permitted by the California Film Commission, the film set is closed to the general public, and any waste is immediately removed from the beach or park.
6. Exempts smoking used for ceremonial purposes by a federally recognized Native American tribe or a nonfederally recognized, California Native American tribe listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.
7. Authorizes the Director to designate areas within the units of the state park system, except state coastal beaches, as exempt from the smoking prohibition.

Background

Many cities and counties have adopted ordinances prohibiting smoking, including at public beaches. In 2003, Solana Beach in San Diego County was the first California city to prohibit smoking on a city beach. In addition, the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco, the Cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, Huntington Beach, Pasadena, Carson, and Davis, among others, have adopted ordinances banning smoking in parks or public beaches. Furthermore, some colleges, including University of California, have prohibited smoking on campus.

The Legislature has considered identical and similar bills over the past 10 years. In 2016, SB 1333 (Block) was vetoed by the Governor. SB 1333 contained similar language to SB 386 at bill introduction, and was amended to include language providing the DPR with greater flexibility than SB 386. The veto message read, “this bill bans smoking at state beaches and parks. The complete prohibition in all parks and beaches is too broad. A more measured – and less punitive – approach might be warranted.” In 2010, SB 4 (Oropeza) was passed by the Legislature with similar language to SB 386, but with exemptions for adjacent parking lots and designated campsites at state beaches and with a lower maximum fine. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 4, with a veto message that argued SB 4 expanded too much government intrusion in private life, and saying that the bill “crosses an important threshold between state…and local decision-making.”

In California State Parks, which includes nearly 300 individual units, some smoking prohibitions already exist for particular situations. The State Parks system currently prohibits smoking on specific guided walks and trails, as well as when fire danger is high.

According to the California Department of Health, smoking prevalence for adults in California has declined from 23.7% in 1988 to 11.6% in 2014, second lowest in the United States.

Comments

The Governor will determine if this bill is now acceptable or not. SB 386 is similar to previous bills with similar smoking restrictions at state parks. SB 386 does address part of the previous 2016 veto message by authorizing the Director to designate areas where smoking can occur and by including certain exemptions to the smoking prohibition, thereby decreasing the breadth. However, SB 386 has the same maximum fine as previous vetoed bills, and therefore, may be viewed as similarly punitive.

Does discarded smoking waste present a large pollution problem? Outside of the health costs and individual benefits, cigarette filters are a pollution problem on California beaches. Among several beach cleanup studies, cigarettes are clearly the most common litter by number, although volume estimates are less commonly reported. The source of cigarette pollution on beaches is both through direct litter from beach users, as well as cigarette remains that are transported from sidewalks and streets to beaches through storm drains and other stormwater systems. The pollution impact of cigars and electronic cigarettes has not been well studied and is likely far less than cigarette pollution. Finally, the cost of clean-up of all litter to communities can be substantial. A 2012 study estimated that 90 coastal communities in California paid over $520 million to combat litter.

Does smoking waste impact marine life? Cigarette butts can have a lasting presence in the environment and impact marine wildlife. Although small in size, cigarette filters are slow to degrade and can be dangerous to wildlife as a choking or toxic hazard. Specifically, the filters for cigarettes are made from cellulose-acetate, which along with other residual chemicals in smoking waste can be toxic to fish and invertebrates. Birds, fish, and other wildlife can also mistake cigarette butts as food, which can cause choking or disrupted digestion.

Smoking restrictions vs. littering restrictions. Under existing law, littering on public property has been a unlawful in California since the 1970s (California Vehicle Code §42001.7), including on state beaches and in state parks. However, littering as an infraction is difficult to enforce, and even with a dramatic decrease in smoking prevalence in California, cigarette butts have remained the most commonly collected litter in cleanup efforts, and therefore a recalcitrant pollution problem. A smoking restriction would be easier to enforce than litter laws, because littering is fairly inconspicuous while smoking is less so. A smoking restriction would also be more expansive than litter laws because it applies to electronic cigarettes, which have become much more popular in recent years, cigars, and pipes, which are much less likely to pollute state parks and beaches.

How might this impact cannabis use on state beaches and in state parks? SB 386 defines cigarette to include “any other weed or plant as an alternative or supplement to tobacco or nicotine,” and smoking to include “inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic in any manner or form.” Therefore, it could be interpreted to include cannabis.

Have other states passed broad smoking restrictions for state parks and beaches? In 2009, Maine prohibited smoking in state parks and historical sites. In 2016, New Jersey approved a measure that prohibits smoking at any state park or forest, county or municipal park, or state or municipal beach. The fine in New Jersey is $250 for a first offense, with subsequent increases for further offences, and Maine law authorizes fines up to $100.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the estimated costs of SB 386 include one-time costs between $840,000 and $1.1 million (General Fund) for the purchase and installation of signage. The DPR estimates each sign will cost between $150 and $200. The smoking ban would apply to up to 280 state parks, with an estimated 20 signs per park. This estimate does not include any additional costs associated with the California Environmental Quality Act or Coastal Commission permits, if determined to be applicable.

SUPPORT: (Verified 10/12/17)

American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

American Lung Association

California Fire Chiefs Assocation

California Firefighters' Association

California Optometric Association

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

Californians Against Waste

Cancer Action Network

County Health Executives Association of California

Fire Districts Association of California

Heal the Bay

March of Dimes

Plastic Pollution Coalition

San Francisco Baykeeper

Save the Bay

Seventh Generation Advisors

Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

State Lands Commission

Surfrider Foundation​

The 5 Gyres Institute

Upstream Policy

2 Individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/12/17)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: One of the main arguments in support of this bill by both the author and supporters is the negative environmental impact of tobacco product waste on beaches. According to the author, “Various nonprofit organizations have found that discarded cigarette butts were the number one waste item found on beaches. According to a study by the California Ocean Protection Council, about 40% of debris collected by the California Coastal Cleanup day in 2010 were trash from smoking-related activities.”

In addition, supporters point out the fire risk posed by smoking in State Parks and health risks. Supporters argue that second-hand smoke can cause asthma in children or trigger asthma problems for children or adults who have asthma, and can cause lung cancer in people who have never smoked.

The American Lung Association argues that “according to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. In 2006, the California Air Resources Board classified secondhand smoke as a ‘Toxic Air Contaminant’ in the same category as asbestos, cyanide and arsenic – all of which can lead to serious illness and death.

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

I am returning Senate Bill 386 without my signature.

This bill prohibits smoking on state coastal beaches and throughout the State Park System, and requires the Department of Parks and Recreation to post signs to notify the public of the smoking ban.

Last year I vetoed Senate Bill 1333, a similar measure, because I believed that such a far-reaching prohibition in every state park and on every state beach was too broad. In addition, the fine prescribed in this bill for lighting one cigarette is excessive: $485 dollars, after the mandatory assessments.

If people can't smoke even on a deserted beach, where can they? There must be some limit to the coercive power of government.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 56-22, 9/12/17

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Eggman, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Chen, Cunningham, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Gallagher, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough

Prepared by:

1/2/18 10:09:52

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 386

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-2, 3/28/17

AYES: Hertzberg, Allen, Atkins, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Stern

NOES: Stone, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/17

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 29-11, 5/30/17

AYES: Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, De León, Dodd, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Newman, Nguyen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 56-22, 9/12/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits smoking on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system, with some exceptions. Smoking is defined as the use of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, any type of lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, and electronic smoking devices.

Assembly Amendments:

1. Revise the maximum fee in the bill to $100 for a smoking infraction.
2. Clarify that the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is required to develop and post signs at entrances or strategic locations of state coastal beaches and units of the state park system, as determined by the Director of DPR (the Director), to provide notice of the smoking prohibition.
3. Exempt smoking for ceremonial purposes by state or federally recognized Native American tribes.
4. Authorize the Director to designate areas within units of the state park system, except state coastal beaches, as exempt from the smoking prohibition.

ANALYSIS: Existing law provides (Health and Safety Code, Section 104495) smoking is prohibited inside a public building, in a state-owned vehicle, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main entrance, exit, or window. Smoking or disposing of smoking-related waste is prohibited within 25 feet of a playground or sand box area.

This bill:

1. Makes it an infraction for a person to smoke or dispose of smoking-related waste on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system.
2. Requires the DPR to develop and post signs to provide notice of the smoking prohibition prior to enforcement. These signs are required to be posted at the entrance or a strategic location at each beach or state park unit.
3. Defines the smoking restriction to include cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and any type of lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, and includes the use of electronic smoking devices.
4. Establishes the maximum fine for this infraction at $100.
5. Exempts devices that are used as props in a motion picture, television program, or similar filmed audiovisual work, provided that the filming is properly permitted by the California Film Commission, the film set is closed to the general public, and any waste is immediately removed from the beach or park.
6. Exempts smoking used for ceremonial purposes by a federally recognized Native American tribe or a nonfederally recognized, California Native American tribe listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.
7. Authorizes the Director to designate areas within the units of the state park system, except state coastal beaches, as exempt from the smoking prohibition.

Background

Many cities and counties have adopted ordinances prohibiting smoking, including at public beaches. In 2003, Solana Beach in San Diego County was the first California city to prohibit smoking on a city beach. In addition, the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco, the Cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, Huntington Beach, Pasadena, Carson, and Davis, among others, have adopted ordinances banning smoking in parks or public beaches. Furthermore, some colleges, including University of California, have prohibited smoking on campus.

The Legislature has considered identical and similar bills over the past 10 years. In 2016, SB 1333 (Block) was vetoed by the Governor. SB 1333 contained similar language to SB 386 at bill introduction, and was amended to include language providing the DPR with greater flexibility than SB 386. The veto message read, “this bill bans smoking at state beaches and parks. The complete prohibition in all parks and beaches is too broad. A more measured – and less punitive – approach might be warranted.” In 2010, SB 4 (Oropeza) was passed by the Legislature with similar language to SB 386, but with exemptions for adjacent parking lots and designated campsites at state beaches and with a lower maximum fine. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 4, with a veto message that argued SB 4 expanded too much government intrusion in private life, and saying that the bill “crosses an important threshold between state…and local decision-making.”

In California State Parks, which includes nearly 300 individual units, some smoking prohibitions already exist for particular situations. The State Parks system currently prohibits smoking on specific guided walks and trails, as well as when fire danger is high.

According to the California Department of Health, smoking prevalence for adults in California has declined from 23.7% in 1988 to 11.6% in 2014, second lowest in the United States.

Comments

The Governor will determine if this bill is now acceptable or not. SB 386 is similar to previous bills with similar smoking restrictions at state parks. SB 386 does address part of the previous 2016 veto message by authorizing the Director to designate areas where smoking can occur and by including certain exemptions to the smoking prohibition, thereby decreasing the breadth. However, SB 386 has the same maximum fine as previous vetoed bills, and therefore, may be viewed as similarly punitive.

Does discarded smoking waste present a large pollution problem? Outside of the health costs and individual benefits, cigarette filters are a pollution problem on California beaches. Among several beach cleanup studies, cigarettes are clearly the most common litter by number, although volume estimates are less commonly reported. The source of cigarette pollution on beaches is both through direct litter from beach users, as well as cigarette remains that are transported from sidewalks and streets to beaches through storm drains and other stormwater systems. The pollution impact of cigars and electronic cigarettes has not been well studied and is likely far less than cigarette pollution. Finally, the cost of clean-up of all litter to communities can be substantial. A 2012 study estimated that 90 coastal communities in California paid over $520 million to combat litter.

Does smoking waste impact marine life? Cigarette butts can have a lasting presence in the environment and impact marine wildlife. Although small in size, cigarette filters are slow to degrade and can be dangerous to wildlife as a choking or toxic hazard. Specifically, the filters for cigarettes are made from cellulose-acetate, which along with other residual chemicals in smoking waste can be toxic to fish and invertebrates. Birds, fish, and other wildlife can also mistake cigarette butts as food, which can cause choking or disrupted digestion.

Smoking restrictions vs. littering restrictions. Under existing law, littering on public property has been a unlawful in California since the 1970s (CA Vehicle Code §42001.7), including on state beaches and in state parks. However, littering as an infraction is difficult to enforce, and even with a dramatic decrease in smoking prevalence in California, cigarette butts have remained the most commonly collected litter in cleanup efforts, and therefore a recalcitrant pollution problem. A smoking restriction would be easier to enforce than litter laws, because littering is fairly inconspicuous while smoking is less so. A smoking restriction would also be more expansive than litter laws because it applies to electronic cigarettes, which have become much more popular in recent years, cigars, and pipes, which are much less likely to pollute state parks and beaches.

How might this impact cannabis use on state beaches and in state parks? SB 386 defines cigarette to include “any other weed or plant as an alternative or supplement to tobacco or nicotine,” and smoking to include “inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic in any manner or form.” Therefore, it could be interpreted to include cannabis.

Have other states passed broad smoking restrictions for state parks and beaches? In 2009, Maine prohibited smoking in state parks and historical sites. In 2016, New Jersey approved a measure that prohibits smoking at any state park or forest, county or municipal park, or state or municipal beach. The fine in New Jersey is $250 for a first offense, with subsequent increases for further offences, and Maine law authorizes fines up to $100.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the estimated costs of SB 386 include one-time costs between $840,000 and $1.1 million (General Fund) for the purchase and installation of signage. The DPR estimates each sign will cost between $150 and $200. The smoking ban would apply to up to 280 state parks, with an estimated 20 signs per park. This estimate does not include any additional costs associated with the California Environmental Quality Act or Coastal Commission permits, if determined to be applicable.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/12/17)

American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

American Lung Association

California Fire Chiefs Assocation

California Firefighters' Association

California Optometric Association

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

Californians Against Waste

Cancer Action Network

County Health Executives Association of California

Fire Districts Association of California

Heal the Bay

March of Dimes

Plastic Pollution Coalition

San Francisco Baykeeper

Save the Bay

Seventh Generation Advisors

Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

State Lands Commission

Surfrider Foundation​

The 5 Gyres Institute

Upstream Policy

2 Individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/12/17)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: One of the main arguments in support of this bill by both the author and supporters is the negative environmental impact of tobacco product waste on beaches. According to the author, “Various nonprofit organizations have found that discarded cigarette butts were the number one waste item found on beaches. According to a study by the California Ocean Protection Council, about 40% of debris collected by the California Coastal Cleanup day in 2010 were trash from smoking-related activities.”

In addition, supporters point out the fire risk posed by smoking in State Parks and health risks. Supporters argue that second-hand smoke can cause asthma in children or trigger asthma problems for children or adults who have asthma, and can cause lung cancer in people who have never smoked.

The American Lung Association argues that “according to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. In 2006, the California Air Resources Board classified secondhand smoke as a ‘Toxic Air Contaminant’ in the same category as asbestos, cyanide and arsenic – all of which can lead to serious illness and death.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 56-22, 9/12/17

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Eggman, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Chen, Cunningham, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Gallagher, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough

Prepared by:

9/13/17 10:19:27

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 386

Author:(Glazer)

As Amended Ver:September 7, 2017

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 29-11

SUMMARY: Prohibits smoking, or disposing of used cigarette waste, on a state beach or in a state park. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a person from smoking on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system. The prohibition applies to cigars or cigarettes containing tobacco or any other weed or plant used as an alternative or supplement to tobacco or nicotine, and also includes electronic and vapor cigarettes.
2. Exempts certain tribal uses of tobacco products.
3. Prohibits a person from disposing of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state coastal beach or in a state park unit.
4. Makes a violation of this bill an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to $100.
5. Requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to post signs providing notice of the smoking prohibition, including at entrances or strategic locations, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation. Provides that the smoking prohibition shall be enforced on state coastal beaches and in state park units only after signs have been posted.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Makes it an infraction to smoke a cigarette, cigar or other tobacco-related product within 25 feet of a playground or sandbox, punishable by a fine of $250 per incident.
2. Prohibits smoking inside a public building, in a state-owned vehicle, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main entrance, exit or window.
3. Allows cities, counties and colleges to adopt more restrictive ordinances prohibiting smoking.
4. Requires the DPR to administer and protect state park properties for the use and enjoyment of the public. Prohibits smoking in state parks upon a finding of extreme fire hazard by the DPR, except as allowed in designated areas.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Increased one-time costs estimated to be between $840,000 and $1.1 million (GF) for the purchase and installation of signage. The DPR estimates each sign will cost between $150 and $200.
2. The smoking ban would apply to up to 280 state parks, with an estimated 20 signs per park. This estimate does not include any additional costs associated with the California Environmental Quality Act or Coastal Commission permits, if determined to be applicable.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, "By prohibiting smoking at state parks and beaches, this bill would promote individual health by diminishing second hand smoke exposure, ensure the health and safety of animals from cigarette butts that would otherwise be consumed by them, and lastly it would help preserve the beauty and safety of our state beaches and parks by removing one of the most commonly discarded items, cigarette butts, which often lead to devastating fires."
2. Background. The DPR currently prohibits smoking in state park buildings, on trails, on specific guided walks, and during high fire seasons. The state park system includes 300 miles of state beaches and 280 state park units covering a total of 1.3 million acres.

According to data compiled by the Ocean Conservancy from coastal clean-up collection efforts nationwide, cigarette litter continues to be the most commonly found waste item. In 2015 over 2 million pieces of cigarette butt litter were retrieved from U.S. beaches. Cigarette butts have been the most common type of trash found during coastal cleanup days for the past 30 years. Cigarette litter has been found in the stomachs of fish, birds, whales and other marine animals who mistake them for food. Cigarette filters also contain cellulose acetate, a type of plastic that breaks down slowly and never fully decomposes. According to information provided by the Surfrider Foundation, the toxic chemicals in used cigarette filters also leak out into the aquatic environment when submerged in water. The Surfrider Foundation estimates that Americans discard more than 175 million pounds of cigarette butts every year. In addition to the litter problems associated with cigarettes, smoking poses forest fire hazards and was the cause of four of the 25 worst wildfires in California between 1929 and 1999, causing the state billions of dollars.

1. Prior and Related Legislation. AB 725 (Levine) is substantially similar to this bill. AB 725 is currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1142 (Bloom) of the 2014 Legislative Session and SB 1333 (Block) of the 2016 Legislative Session were substantially similar to this bill. AB 1142 failed passage in the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee and SB 1333 was vetoed by the Governor. According to the Governor, "The complete prohibition in all parks and beaches is too broad. A more measured – and less punitive – approach might be warranted."

Analysis Prepared by: Catherine Freeman / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0001998

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 386

Author:(Glazer)

As Amended Ver:July 13, 2017

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 29-11

SUMMARY: Prohibits smoking, or disposing of used cigarette waste, on a state beach or in a state park. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a person from smoking on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system. The prohibition applies to cigars or cigarettes containing tobacco or any other weed or plant used as an alternative or supplement to tobacco or nicotine, and also includes electronic and vapor cigarettes.
2. Exempts certain tribal uses of tobacco products.
3. Prohibits a person from disposing of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state coastal beach or in a state park unit.
4. Makes a violation of this bill an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to $250.
5. Requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to post signs providing notice of the smoking prohibition. Provides that the smoking prohibition shall be enforced on state coastal beaches and in state park units only after signs have been posted.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Makes it an infraction to smoke a cigarette, cigar or other tobacco-related product within 25 feet of a playground or sandbox, punishable by a fine of $250 per incident.
2. Prohibits smoking inside a public building, in a state-owned vehicle, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main entrance, exit or window.
3. Allows cities, counties and colleges to adopt more restrictive ordinances prohibiting smoking.
4. Requires the DPR to administer and protect state park properties for the use and enjoyment of the public. Prohibits smoking in state parks upon a finding of extreme fire hazard by the DPR, except as allowed in designated areas.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Increased one-time costs estimated to be between $840,000 and $1.1 million (General Fund) for the purchase and installation of signage. The DPR estimates each sign will cost between $150 and $200.
2. The smoking ban would apply to up to 280 state parks, with an estimated 20 signs per park. This estimate does not include any additional costs associated with CEQA or Coastal Commission permits, if determined to be applicable.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, "By prohibiting smoking at state parks and beaches, this bill would promote individual health by diminishing second hand smoke exposure, ensure the health and safety of animals from cigarette butts that would otherwise be consumed by them, and lastly it would help preserve the beauty and safety of our state beaches and parks by removing one of the most commonly discarded items, cigarette butts, which often lead to devastating fires."
2. Background. The DPR currently prohibits smoking in state park buildings, on trails, on specific guided walks, and during high fire seasons. The state park system includes 300 miles of state beaches and 280 state park units covering a total of 1.3 million acres.

According to data compiled by the Ocean Conservancy from coastal clean-up collection efforts nationwide, cigarette litter continues to be the most commonly found waste item. In 2015 over two million pieces of cigarette butt litter were retrieved from United States beaches. Cigarette butts have been the most common type of trash found during coastal cleanup days for the past 30 years. Cigarette litter has been found in the stomachs of fish, birds, whales and other marine animals who mistake them for food. Cigarette filters also contain cellulose acetate, a type of plastic that breaks down slowly and never fully decomposes. According to information provided by the Surfrider Foundation, the toxic chemicals in used cigarette filters also leak out into the aquatic environment when submerged in water. The Surfrider Foundation estimates that Americans discard more than 175 million pounds of cigarette butts every year. In addition to the litter problems associated with cigarettes, smoking poses forest fire hazards and was the cause of four of the 25 worst wildfires in California between 1929 and 1999, causing the state billions of dollars.

1. Prior and Related Legislation. AB 725 (Levine) of the current legislative session is substantially similar to this bill. AB 725 is currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1142 (Bloom) of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session and SB 1333 (Block) of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session were substantially similar to this bill. AB 1142 failed passage in the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee and SB 1333 was vetoed by the Governor. According to the Governor, "The complete prohibition in all parks and beaches is too broad. A more measured – and less punitive – approach might be warranted."

Analysis Prepared by: Catherine Freeman / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0001710

Date of Hearing: July 19, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 386

Author:(Glazer) – As Amended Ver:July 13, 2017

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits smoking or disposing of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state beach or in a state park. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a person from smoking on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system. The prohibition applies to cigars or cigarettes containing tobacco or any other weed or plant used as an alternative or supplement to tobacco or nicotine, and also includes electronic and vapor cigarettes. Exempts props used for filming under specified conditions.
2. Exempts the use of a cigar, cigarette, pipe or other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product used for ceremonial purposes by a federally recognized Native American tribe, or a nonfederally recognized California Native American Tribe on a specified list maintained by the Native American Hertitage Commission, from the definitions of “smoke” or “smoking”.
3. Prohibits a person from disposing of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state coastal beach or in a state park unit.
4. Allows the Director of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to exempt areas within units of the park system, except state coastal beaches, from the smoking prohibition after considering public health and safety and potential fire risk.
5. Requires DPR to post signs providing notice of the smoking prohibition. Provides that the smoking prohibition will be enforced only after signs have been posted.
6. Makes a violation of this bill an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to $250.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Increased one-time costs estimated to be between $840,000 and $1.1 million (GF) for the purchase and installation of signage. DPR estimates each sign will cost between $150 and $200.

The smoking ban would apply to up to 280 state parks, with an estimated 20 signs per park. This estimate does not include any additional costs associated with CEQA or Coastal Commission permits, if determined to be applicable.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “By prohibiting smoking at state parks and beaches, this bill would promote individual health by diminishing second hand smoke exposure, ensure the health and safety of animals from cigarette butts that would otherwise be consumed by them, and lastly it would help preserve the beauty and safety of our state beaches and parks by removing one of the most commonly discarded items, cigarette butts, which often lead to devastating fires.” 
2. Background. DPR currently prohibits smoking in state park buildings, on trails, on specific guided walks, and during high fire seasons. The state park system includes 300 miles of state beaches and 280 state park units covering a total of 1.3 million acres.
3. Prior and Related Legislation. AB 725 (Levine) is substantially similar to this bill. AB 725 is currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1142 (Bloom) of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session and SB 1333 (Block) of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session were substantially similar to this bill. AB 1142 failed passage in the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee and SB 1333 was vetoed by the Governor. According to the Governor, “The complete prohibition in all parks and beaches is too broad. A more measured – and less punitive – approach might be warranted.”

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 386

Author:(Glazer) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2017

SENATE VOTE: 29-11

SUBJECT: State beaches and parks: smoking ban

SUMMARY: Prohibits smoking, or disposing of used cigarette waste, on a state beach or in a state park. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a person from smoking on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system. The prohibition applies to cigars or cigarettes containing tobacco or any other weed or plant used as an alternative or supplement to tobacco or nicotine, and also includes electronic and vapor cigarettes.
2. Prohibits a person from disposing of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state coastal beach or in a state park unit.
3. Makes a violation of this bill an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to $250.
4. Requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to post signs providing notice of the smoking prohibition. Provides that the smoking prohibition shall be enforced on state coastal beaches and in state park units only after signs have been posted.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Makes it an infraction to smoke a cigarette, cigar or other tobacco-related product within 25 feet of a playground or sandbox, punishable by a fine of $250 per incident.
2. Prohibits smoking inside a public building, in a state-owned vehicle, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main entrance, exit or window.
3. Allows cities, counties and colleges to adopt more restrictive ordinances prohibiting smoking.
4. Requires the DPR to administer and protect state park properties for the use and enjoyment of the public. Prohibits smoking in state parks upon a finding of extreme fire hazard by the DPR, except as allowed in designated areas.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, a similar bill, AB 725 (Levine), of this session:

1. Would incur increased, one-time costs, estimated to be between $840,000 and $1.1 million (general fund), for the purchase and installation of signage. DPR estimates each sign will cost between $150 and $200.
2. The smoking ban would apply to up to 280 state parks, with an estimated 20 signs per park. This estimate does not include any additional costs associated with the California Environmental Quality Act or Coastal Commission permits, if determined to be applicable.

COMMENTS: This bill prohibits smoking on state beaches or in any state park units.

Author’s Statement:

By prohibiting smoking at state parks and beaches, this bill would promote individual health by diminishing second hand smoke exposure, ensure the health and safety of animals from cigarette butts that would otherwise be consumed by them, and lastly it would help preserve the beauty and safety of our state beaches and parks by removing one of the most commonly discarded items, cigarette butts, which often lead to devastating fires.  

Background: According to data compiled by the Ocean Conservancy from coastal clean-up collection efforts nationwide, cigarette litter continues to be the most commonly found waste item. In 2015 over 2 million pieces of cigarette butt litter were retrieved from U.S. beaches. Cigarette butts have been the most common type of trash found during coastal cleanup days for the past 30 years. Cigarette litter has been found in the stomachs of fish, birds, whales and other marine animals who mistake them for food. Cigarette filters also contain cellulose acetate, a type of plastic that breaks down slowly and never fully decomposes. According to information provided by the Surfrider Foundation, the toxic chemicals in used cigarette filters also leak out into the aquatic environment when submerged in water. The Surfrider Foundation estimates that Americans discard more than 175 million pounds of cigarette butts every year. In addition to the litter problems associated with cigarettes, smoking poses forest fire hazards and was the cause of four of the 25 worst wildfires in California between 1929 and 1999, causing the state billions of dollars.

In addition to the litter problems and fire hazards created by smoking, the author notes the hazards of second hand smoke. Tobacco smoking causes an estimated 443,000 deaths per year, of which 73,000 are nonsmokers, according to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control. The United States (U.S.) Surgeon General has concluded there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke, and the California Air Resources Board has categorized second hand smoke as a toxic air contaminant.

Other studies have found that the non-biodegradable plastic in cigarette butt filters can be toxic when consumed by marine wildlife. Toxic chemicals leached from discarded cigarette butts have also been found to present a biohazard to water fleas, which play an important role in aquatic ecosystems by transferring energy and organic matter from primary producers such as algae to higher consumers such as fishes. The Ocean Protection Council's Implementation Strategy on Marine Debris recommends that smoking be prohibited on state beaches.

Some supporters of this bill cite to a study showing the levels of secondhand smoke exposure outdoors can reach levels attained indoors. The study cited in support of these claims was conducted by researchers at Stanford University and published in the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association in May 2007. The study, which is entitled "Real-Time Measurement of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Particles," was the first peer reviewed study of systematic measurements of outdoor tobacco smoke concentrations. The main conclusion of the study was that outdoor tobacco smoke levels can be substantial under certain conditions, but are highly dependent on wind conditions and proximity to active smokers. The study found during periods of active smoking, peak and average outdoor tobacco smoke levels near smokers could rival indoor tobacco smoke concentrations, but that outdoor tobacco smoke levels dropped almost instantly after smoking activity ceased.

Unlike indoor levels of second hand smoke, which decay slowly over a period of hours, outdoor tobacco smoke levels dropped abruptly to zero when smoking ended. In addition, outdoor tobacco smoke levels approached zero at distances greater than two meters from a single cigarette, and were nearly zero when in a constant upwind direction from an active cigarette. Nevertheless, the study found outdoor tobacco smoke levels can be high during periods of smoking in locations where persons are near active smokers, especially when downwind. Therefore, it is possible for outdoor tobacco smoke to present a nuisance or hazard under certain conditions. Examples given of scenarios where outdoor tobacco smoke levels might be high include eating dinner with a smoker on an outdoor patio, sitting next to a smoker on a park bench, or standing near a smoker outside a building.

The study also noted children who accompany a smoking parent or guardian may experience substantial exposure, and persons who spend a significant portion of their time within a few feet of active smokers are also likely to receive relatively large total outdoor tobacco smoke exposures over the course of a day, possibly exceeding the EPA 24-hr health standard for fine particles. If one is upwind from a smoker, levels most likely will be negligible. However, if the smoker’s position changes or one spends time downwind from a smoker, then moving to a distance of two meters can reduce the likelihood of experiencing elevated particle exposure from outdoor tobacco smoke.

Prior and Related Legislation:

AB 725 (Levine) of this session is substantially similar to this bill. AB 725 includes an additional provisions to allow the director to exempt certain areas of the park system from this bill and to consider health, safety and fire risk in making that decision. That bill passed the Assembly floor and is in the Senate.

SB 4 (Oropeza) of 2010, AB 1142 (Bloom) of 2013, and SB 1333 (Block) of 2016, were substantially similar to this bill. SB 4 was enrolled but vetoed by the Governor. AB 1142 passed this committee but failed passage in the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee. SB 1333 (Block) of 2016 was vetoed by the Governor. According to the Governor on SB 1333, "The complete prohibition in all parks and beaches is too broad. A more measured – and less punitive – approach might be warranted."

Suggested Amendments: If this bill moves forward, the author should consider, given the Governor’s previous veto messages, amendments that would limit the scope of the bill to just state beaches, estuaries and bays, but allow discretion in other areas of the state.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

5 Gyres Institute, The

American Heart Association

American Stroke Association

American Lung Association in California

Association of California Healthcare Districts

California Park & Recreation Society

California State Firefighters’ Association

California State Lands Commission

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

Californians Against Waste

Heal the Bay

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Save the Bay

Seventh Generation Advisors

Surfrider Foundation

Upstream Policy

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Catherine Freeman / W., P., & W. /

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 386

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-2, 3/28/17

AYES: Hertzberg, Allen, Atkins, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Stern

NOES: Stone, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/17

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits smoking on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system. Smoking is defined as the use of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, any type of lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, and electronic smoking devices.

ANALYSIS: Existing law provides (Health and Safety Code, Section 104495) smoking is prohibited inside a public building, in a state-owned vehicle, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main entrance, exit, or window. Smoking or disposing of smoking-related waste is prohibited within 25 feet of a playground or sand box area.

This bill:

1. Makes it an infraction for a person to smoke or dispose of smoking-related waste on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system.
2. Requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to develop and post signs to provide notice of the smoking prohibition prior to enforcement.
3. Defines the smoking restriction to include cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and any type of lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, and includes the use of electronic smoking devices.
4. Establishes the maximum fine for this infraction at $250.
5. Exempts devices that are used as props in a motion picture, television program, or similar filmed audiovisual work, provided that the filming is properly permitted by the California Film Commission, the film set is closed to the general public, and any waste is immediately removed from the beach or park.

Background

Many cities and counties have adopted ordinances prohibiting smoking, including at public beaches. In 2003, Solana Beach in San Diego County was the first California city to prohibit smoking on a city beach. In addition, the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco, the Cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, Huntington Beach, Pasadena, Carson, and Davis, among others, have adopted ordinances banning smoking in parks or public beaches. Furthermore, some colleges, including University of California, have prohibited smoking on campus.

The Legislature has considered identical and similar bills over the past 10 years. In 2016, SB 1333 (Block) was vetoed by the Governor. SB 1333 contained similar language to SB 386 at bill introduction, and was amended to include language providing the DPR with greater flexibility than SB 386. The veto message read, “this bill bans smoking at state beaches and parks. The complete prohibition in all parks and beaches is too broad. A more measured – and less punitive – approach might be warranted.” In 2010, SB 4 (Oropeza) was passed by the Legislature with similar language to SB 386, but with exemptions for adjacent parking lots and designated campsites at state beaches and with a lower maximum fine. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 4, with a veto message that argued SB 4 expanded too much government intrusion in private life, and saying that the bill “crosses an important threshold between state…and local decision-making.”

In California State Parks, which includes nearly 300 individual units, some smoking prohibitions already exist for particular situations. The State Parks system currently prohibits smoking on specific guided walks and trails, as well as when fire danger is high.

According to the California Department of Health, smoking prevalence for adults in California has declined from 23.7% in 1988 to 11.6% in 2014, second lowest in the United States.

Comments

The Governor will determine if this bill is now acceptable or not. SB 386 is similar to previous bills with similar smoking restrictions and does not address the previous 2016 veto message.

Does discarded smoking waste present a large pollution problem? Outside of the health costs and individual benefits, cigarette filters are a pollution problem on California beaches. Among several beach cleanup studies, cigarettes are clearly the most common litter by number, although volume estimates are less commonly reported. The source of cigarette pollution on beaches is both through direct litter from beach users, as well as cigarette remains that are transported from sidewalks and streets to beaches through storm drains and other stormwater systems. The pollution impact of cigars and electronic cigarettes has not been well studied and is likely far less than cigarette pollution. Finally, the cost of clean-up of all litter to communities can be substantial. A 2012 study estimated that 90 coastal communities in California paid over $520 million to combat litter.

Does smoking waste impact marine life? Cigarette butts can have a lasting presence in the environment and impact marine wildlife. Although small in size, cigarette filters are slow to degrade and can be dangerous to wildlife as a choking or toxic hazard. Specifically, the filters for cigarettes are made from cellulose-acetate, which along with other residual chemicals in smoking waste can be toxic to fish and invertebrates. Birds, fish, and other wildlife can also mistake cigarette butts as food, which can cause choking or disrupted digestion.

Smoking restrictions vs. littering restrictions. Under existing law, littering on public property has been a unlawful in California since the 1970s (CA Vehicle Code §42001.7), including on state beaches and in state parks. However, littering as an infraction is difficult to enforce, and even with a dramatic decrease in smoking prevalence in California, cigarette butts have remained the most commonly collected litter in cleanup efforts, and therefore a recalcitrant pollution problem. A smoking restriction would be easier to enforce than litter laws, because littering is fairly inconspicuous while smoking is less so. A smoking restriction would also be more expansive than litter laws because it applies to electronic cigarettes, which have become much more popular in recent years, cigars, and pipes, which are much less likely to pollute state parks and beaches.

How might this impact cannabis use on state beaches and in state parks? SB 386 defines cigarette to include “any other weed or plant as an alternative or supplement to tobacco or nicotine,” and smoking to include “inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic in any manner or form.” Therefore, it could be interpreted to include cannabis.

Have other states passed broad smoking restrictions for state parks and beaches? In 2009, Maine prohibited smoking in state parks and historical sites. In 2016, New Jersey approved a measure that prohibits smoking at any state park or forest, county or municipal park, or state or municipal beach. The fine in New Jersey is $250 for a first offense, with subsequent increases for further offences, and Maine law authorizes fines up to $100.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, total costs for the purchase and installation of signage are estimated to be approximately $1.1 million (General Fund). California DPR estimates that each sign will cost between $150 and $200 (excluding any additional costs associated with CEQA or the Coastal Commission, where applicable). The smoking ban would apply to 280 parks, with an estimated 20 signs per park.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/26/17)

American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

American Lung Association

California Firefighters' Association

California Optometric Association

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

Californians Against Waste

Cancer Action Network

County Health Executives Association of California

Heal the Bay

March of Dimes

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Save the Bay

Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

State Lands Commission

Surfrider Foundation​

The 5 Gyres Institute

Upstream Policy

1 Individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/26/17)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: One of the main arguments in support of this bill by both the author and supporters is the negative environmental impact of tobacco product waste on beaches. According to the author, “Various nonprofit organizations have found that discarded cigarette butts were the number one waste item found on beaches. According to a study by the California Ocean Protection Council, about 40% of debris collected by the California Coastal Cleanup day in 2010 were trash from smoking-related activities.”

In addition, supporters point out the fire risk posed by smoking in State Parks and health risks. Supporters argue that second-hand smoke can cause asthma in children or trigger asthma problems for children or adults who have asthma, and can cause lung cancer in people who have never smoked.

The American Lung Association argues that “according to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. In 2006, the California Air Resources Board classified secondhand smoke as a ‘Toxic Air Contaminant’ in the same category as asbestos, cyanide and arsenic – all of which can lead to serious illness and death.”

Prepared by:

5/27/17 16:23:24

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 386 (Glazer) - State beaches and parks: smoking ban

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 386 prohibits smoking or disposing of a used cigar or cigarette waste on a state beach or a state park system. The bill also establishes a maximum fine of $250 for a violation of this law, and requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) to post signs indicating that smoking is prohibited.

Fiscal Impact:

Approximately $1.1 million (General Fund) for the purchase and installation of signage. CDPR estimates that each sign will between $150 and $200 (excluding any additional costs associated with CEQA or the Coastal Commission, where applicable). The smoking ban would apply to 280 parks, with an estimated 20 signs per park.

Background:

Under existing law, smoking is prohibited inside a public building, in a state-owned vehicle, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main entrance, exit, or window. Smoking or disposing of smoking related waste within 25 feet of a playground or sandbox area is prohibited and punishable by a $250 fine for each incident (Section 104495 of the Health and Safety Code).

Under state law, there is no prohibition against smoking in an outdoor area of a public building unless otherwise prohibited by state law or local ordinance, and signs describing the prohibition are posted. However, many cities, counties, and colleges have adopted more restrictive ordinances prohibiting smoking. For example, the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco, the Cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, Huntington Beach, Pasadena, Carson, and Davis, among others, have adopted ordinances banning smoking in parks or public beaches.

The State Parks system currently prohibits smoking in certain situations, such as on specific guided walks, buildings, and trails. Additional smoking restrictions are imposed where there are high fire dangers.

Proposed Law:

This bill:

1. Prohibits smoking on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system.
2. Prohibits a person from disposing of used cigar or cigarette waste on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system.
3. Specifies that a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
4. Requires CDPR to develop and post signs at state coastal beaches and units of the state park system to provide notice of the smoking prohibition set, and specifies that the smoking and disposal prohibitions can only be enforced after signs have been posted.

Related Legislation:

SB 1333 (Glazer, 2016) would have prohibited smoking or disposing of a used cigar or cigarette waste on a state beach or a state park system, and would have established a maximum fine of $250 for a violation of this law. The bill would have also required the CDPR to post signs indicating that smoking is prohibited. This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown.

AB 1142 (Bloom, 2013) would have prohibited smoking at state parks and beaches and would have established a fine of $250 for a violation. Died in Assembly Governmental Organization Committee.

SB 4 (Oropeza, 2009) would have prohibited smoking at state parks and beaches and established a fine of $100 for a violation. It also included an exemption for designated campsites at state beaches, and stated that the ban would go into effect after signs were posted. Vetoed by the Governor.

Staff Comments:

Veto Message. This bill includes the same language as SB 1333 (Glazer, 2016), which was vetoed by Governor Brown. In his veto message, the Governor indicated that “the prohibition in all parks and beaches is too broad. A more measured - and less punitive - approach might be warranted.” This bill does not address the concerns expressed.

State Mandate. This bill constitutes a state mandate. However, under the California Constitution, costs associated legislation defining a new crime or changing an existing definition of a crime are not reimbursable.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Robert Hertzberg, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 386 Hearing Date: March 28, 2017

Subject: State beaches and parks: smoking ban

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

1. Under existing law (Health and Safety Code, Section 104495) smoking is prohibited inside a public building, in a state-owned vehicle, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main entrance, exit, or window. Smoking or disposing of smoking-related waste is prohibited within 25 feet of a playground or sand box area.
2. Many cities and counties have adopted more restrictive ordinances prohibiting smoking, including at public beaches. In 2003, Solana Beach in San Diego County was the first California city to prohibit smoking on a city beach. In addition, the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco, the Cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, Huntington Beach, Pasadena, Carson, and Davis, among others, have adopted ordinances banning smoking in parks or public beaches. Furthermore, some colleges, including University of California have prohibited smoking on campus.
3. The Legislature has considered identical and similar bills over the past 10 years. In 2016, SB 1333 (Block) was vetoed by the Governor.SB 1333 contained similar language to SB 386 at bill introduction, and was amended to include language providing the Department of Parks and Recreation with greater flexibility than SB 386. The veto message read, “this bill bans smoking at state beaches and parks. The complete prohibition in all parks and beaches is too broad. A more measured – and less punitive – approach might be warranted.” In 2010, SB 4 (Oropeza) was passed by the Legislature with similar language to SB 386, but with exemptions for adjacent parking lots and designated campsites at state beaches and with a lower maximum fine. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 4, with a veto message that argued SB 4 expanded too much government intrusion in private life, and saying that the bill “crosses and important threshold between state…and local decision-making.”
4. In California State Parks, which includes nearly 300 individual units, some smoking prohibitions already exist for particular situations. The State Parks system currently prohibits smoking on specific guided walks and trails, as well as when fire danger is high.
5. According to the California Department of Health, smoking prevalence for adults in California has declined from 23.7% in 1988 to 11.6% in 2014, second lowest in the United States.

PROPOSED LAW

1. This bill would make it an infraction for a person to smoke or dispose of smoking-related waste on a state coastal beach or in a unit of the state park system.
2. The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) would be required to develop and post signs to provide notice of the smoking prohibition prior to enforcement.
3. The smoking restriction is defined to include cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and any type of lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation. The restriction also includes use of electronic smoking devices.
4. The maximum fine for this infraction is set at $250.
5. Devices that are used as props in a motion picture, television program, or similar filmed audiovisual work, provided that the filming is properly permitted by the California Film Commission, the film set is closed to the general public, and any waste is immediately removed from the beach or park, are exempted.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

One of the main arguments in support of this bill by both the author and supporters is the negative environmental impact of tobacco product waste on beaches. According to the author, “Cigarette waste has proven to be very detrimental to the environment. Various nonprofit organizations have found that discarded cigarette butts were the number one waste item found on beaches. According to a study by the California Ocean Protection Council, about 40% of debris collected by the California Coastal Cleanup day in 2010 were trash from smoking-related activities.”

Furthermore, the author points out the fire risk posed by smoking, particularly in State Parks. According to the author, “California has been known to be prone to wildfires. Statistics show that there were roughly 68,417 fires that burned about 10,125,149 acres in the 2015 fire season. In 2014, there were 63,417 fires that burned 3,577,620 acres. Ninety percent of those fires are caused by humans and discarded smoldering cigarettes are largely responsible. The prevalence of smoking increases the likelihood of a wildfire and potential destruction in state parks.”

The American Lung Association argues that “according to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. In 2006, the California Air Resources Board classified secondhand smoke as a ‘Toxic Air Contaminant’ in the same category as asbestos, cyanide and arsenic – all of which can lead to serious illness and death. Currently, 365 communities throughout California have adopted policies that prohibit smoking in their recreation areas. These communities know that adopting policies that restrict smoking in areas frequented by children and families they are protecting their residents from exposure to a toxic air contaminant.”

Furthermore, supporters argue that second-hand smoke can cause asthma in children or trigger asthma problems for children or adults who have asthma, and can cause lung cancer in people who have never smoked.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

None received

COMMENTS

1. Does this bill address the Governor’s 2016 veto? The committee may wish to ask the author of SB 386 how he plans to address Governor Brown and Governor Schwarzenegger vetoes of similar bills. Does it make sense to give DPR authority to carve out exceptions to this smoking prohibition?
2. Does discarded smoking waste present a large pollution problem? Outside of the health costs and individual benefits, cigarette filters are a pollution problem on California beaches. Among several beach cleanup studies, cigarettes are clearly the most common litter by number, although volume estimates are less commonly reported. The source of cigarette pollution on beaches is both through direct litter from beach users, as well as cigarette remains that are transported from sidewalks and streets to beaches through storm drains and other stormwater systems. The pollution impact of cigars and electronic cigarettes has not been well studied and is likely far less than cigarette pollution. Finally, the cost of clean-up of all litter to communities can be substantial. A 2012 study estimated that 90 coastal communities in California paid over $520 million to combat litter.
3. Does smoking waste impact marine life? Cigarette butts can have a lasting presence in the environment and impact marine wildlife. Although small in size, cigarette filters are slow to degrade and can be dangerous to wildlife as a choking or toxic hazard. Specifically, the filters for cigarettes are made from cellulose-acetate, which along with other residual chemicals in smoking waste can be toxic to fish and invertebrates. Birds, fish, and other wildlife can also mistake cigarette butts as food, which can cause choking or disrupted digestion.
4. Smoking restrictions vs. littering restrictions. Under existing law, littering on public property has been a unlawful in California since the 1970s (CA Vehicle Code §42001.7), including on state beaches and in state parks. However, littering as an infraction is difficult to enforce, and even with a dramatic decrease in smoking prevalence in California, cigarette butts have remained the most commonly collected litter in cleanup efforts, and therefore a recalcitrant pollution problem. A smoking restriction would be easier to enforce than litter laws, because littering is fairly inconspicuous while smoking is less so. A smoking restriction would also be more expansive than litter laws because it applies to electronic cigarettes, which have become much more popular in recent years, cigars, and pipes, which are much less likely to pollute state parks and beaches.
5. How might this impact cannabis use on state beaches and in state parks? SB 386 defines cigarette to include “any other weed or plant as an alternative or supplement to tobacco or nicotine,” and smoking to include “inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic in any manner or form.” Therefore, it could be interpreted to include cannabis.
6. Have other states passed broad smoking restrictions for state parks and beaches? In 2009, Maine prohibited smoking in state parks and historical sites. In 2016, New Jersey approved a measure that prohibits smoking at any state park or forest, county or municipal park, or state or municipal beach. The fine in New Jersey is $250 for a first offense, with subsequent increases for further offences, and Maine law authorizes fines up to $100.

SUPPORT

5 Gyres

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

American Heart Association

American Lung Association

American Stroke Association

California Optometric Association

California State Firefighters’ Association

Californians Against Waste

County Health Executives Association of California

Heal the Bay

Save the Bay

Surfrider Foundation

The County Health Executives Association of California

Upstream Policy

1 Individual

OPPOSITION

None Received

-- END --