BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 795
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 795 (Block)
          As Amended  June 29, 2011
          Majority vote
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |54-23|(May 23, 2011)  |SENATE: |29-9 |(August 29,    |
          |           |     |                |        |     |2011)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
            
           Original Committee Reference:    G.O.  

           SUMMARY  :  Grants authority to the governing bodies of the 
          California State University (CSU), the University of California 
          (UC), and each community college district (CCD) to set smoking and 
          tobacco enforcement standards, impose fines, and post signs 
          stating the tobacco use policy on campus.  Specifically,  this 
          bill  :  

          1)Provides that the governing bodies of CSU, UC, and each CCD have 
            the authority to:

             a)   Set enforcement standards for their local campuses; and, 

             b)   Impose a fine for a first, second, and third offense and 
               for each subsequent offense.  The amount of fines is to be 
               determined by the local governing body.  Funds shall be 
               allocated to include, but not be limited to, the designated 
               enforcement agency, education and promotion of the policy, 
               and tobacco cessation treatment options.  The civil penalty 
               shall not exceed $100.

          2)Requires each community college district, CSU campus and UC 
            campus, which adopts enforcement and fine measures to post signs 
            stating their tobacco use policy on campus, as follows: 

             a)   The locations where smoking or tobacco use is prohibited 
               and permitted.

             b)   Inform employees and students of the tobacco use policy 
               and enforcement measures employed on their campuses.

          3)Provides that if a campus adopts the enforcement and fine 
            measure, as defined, it shall, and the UC may, inform employees 
            and students of the tobacco use policy and enforcement measures 








                                                                  AB 795
                                                                  Page  2

            employed on their campus.

           The Senate amendments  clarify that each community college district 
          shall be granted the authority to set smoking and tobacco 
          enforcement standards, impose fines, and post signs stating the 
          tobacco use policy on campus.  
           
           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Prohibits smoking inside a public building, or in an outdoor 
            area within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance or window of a 
            public building, or in a state-owned passenger vehicle.  
            Authorizes a person to smoke in any other outdoor area of a 
            public building unless otherwise prohibited by state law or 
            local ordinance, and a sign describing the prohibition is 
            posted. 

          2)Allows cities, counties and colleges to adopt more restrictive 
            ordinances prohibiting smoking.

          3)Makes it an infraction for a person to smoke within 25 feet of a 
            playground or sandbox area.

          4)Requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (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 DPR, except as allowed in 
            designated areas. 
           
          FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee, no significant costs associated with this legislation.

          COMMENTS  :

           Purpose of this bill  .  According to the author, existing law 
          authorizes colleges and universities to adopt and enforce smoking 
          and tobacco control policies but it is not specific on the type of 
          enforcement.  Many colleges have indicated they are hesitant to 
          adopt stronger policies because they have no way of enforcing the 
          current ones.  By adding enforcement language to current law, 
          colleges will have the authority to "cite and collect revenue" as 
          a form of enforcement. 

          The author notes, every day students, faculty and guests at 
          California's public colleges and universities unwillingly breathe 








                                                                  AB 795
                                                                  Page  3

          secondhand smoke on campuses that endangers their health.  The 
          Center for Disease Control named smoking as the leading cause of 
          preventable death, disease, and disability in the United States.  

          The author states, in an effort to protect public health, complete 
          smoking bans already exist at several California college campuses 
          and in certain cities.  This bill would follow these examples and 
          give California's colleges the tools they need to reduce the 
          exposure to secondhand smoke among students thus lowering the 
          risks of coronary heart disease and lung cancer.

           Background  .  According to the sponsor, the American Lung 
          Association in California, existing law prohibits the smoking of 
          tobacco products in an enclosed space of employment (Labor Code 
          Section 6404.5) and within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance, or 
          operable window of a public building (Government Code (GC) Section 
          7596-7598) which includes public colleges and universities.  The 
          law does not however include any enforcement protocols.  The only 
          language regarding enforcement states that cities, counties, and 
          public colleges/universities can adopt and enforce stronger 
          policies.  

          The sponsor states that GC Section 7597(b) gives colleges the 
          authority to adopt and enforce policies stronger than state law; 
          however, the section is missing a code reference which would grant 
          the authority to do punitive enforcement.  For example, in the 
          California Vehicle Code, colleges are given the authority to write 
          citations to individuals who violate a campus parking regulation. 

          For that reason, San Francisco State University cites violators by 
          citing California Education Code Section 89031 which gives the CSU 
          Board of Trustees authority to regulate their local campus 
          grounds.  That authority was granted in 2002, by the CSU Board of 
          Trustees who delegated this authority to each campus by adopting a 
          Title 5 Code of Regulations which gave local presidents authority 
          to "cite and collect revenue" for smoking violations on campus.  
          The resolution was adopted in response to discussions and concerns 
          about secondhand smoke.  Currently, within the CSU system, Fresno 
          State, Humboldt, San Marcos, and San Francisco limit smoking.

           In support  .  Proponents state this bill will give authority to any 
          CCC campus, campus of the CSU, or campus of the UC to enforce 
          local and campus-wide smoking and tobacco regulations and 
          policies.  By adding enforcement language to the existing law, 
          California's colleges will have the authority to "cite and collect 








                                                                  AB 795
                                                                  Page  4

          revenue" as a form of enforcement.  It is a small fix that will 
          have tremendous impact.

          Proponents of this bill emphasize that California has always been 
          a leader in tobacco control efforts in the United States and 
          throughout the world.  Proponents believe that this bill will 
          positively affect public college students, faculty, and staff from 
          the dangers of secondhand smoke.

          Proponents state that exposure to secondhand smoke also increases 
          the risk of lung cancer and low birth-weight babies.  Secondhand 
          smoke has been declared a toxic air contaminant by the California 
          Air Resources Board since outdoor tobacco smoke levels may be as 
          high as indoor secondhand smoke levels.  The California 
          Environmental Protection Agency attributes 4,000 deaths annually 
          from secondhand smoke exposure, while the California Department of 
          Public Health estimates the adult health-related cost of smoking 
          in California at $9.14 billion in 2004 alone. 

           Prior legislation  .  SB 4 (Oropeza) of 2009, which was vetoed, 
          would have made it an infraction for an individual to smoke on a 
          state beach or a state park, as specified.  

          AB 2067 (Oropeza), Chapter 736, Statutes of 2006, prohibits 
          smoking in specified areas of covered parking lots and adds a 
          definition of enclosed spaces to current law that already 
          prohibits smoking in enclosed spaces of employment to include 
          areas such as lobbies, lounges, waiting areas, elevators, 
          stairwells and restrooms that are a structural part of the 
          building.  

          AB 1583 (Koretz) of 2003, which failed passage, would have 
          prohibited smoking at all state beaches, excluding parking lots 
          and non-sand campgrounds. 

          AB 454 (Yee) of 2003, which was held in the Senate Natural 
          Resources and Wildlife Committee, would have prohibited smoking on 
          state beaches except within 20 feet of a waste receptacle.  

          AB 846 (Vargas), Chapter 342, Statutes of 2003, prohibits smoking 
          inside public buildings and within 20 feet of a doorway, entryway, 
          window, or ventilation intake system duct of a public building.  
          Provides that this prohibition does not preempt the authority of 
          any county, city, or city and county from adopting an ordinance 
          regulating smoking around a doorway, entryway, window, or 








                                                                  AB 795
                                                                  Page  5

          ventilation intake system duct of a public building in any manner. 
           Provides that this prohibition does not preempt the authority of 
          any CCC, CSU, or UC campus to adopt and enforce additional smoking 
          and tobacco control ordinances, regulations, or policies that are 
          more restrictive than the applicable standards required by this 
          bill.

          AB 188 (Vargas), Chapter 150, Statutes of 2001, prohibits smoking 
          and the disposal of smoking related waste within 25 feet of any 
          playground or tot lot sandbox area.  A violation of this law is an 
          infraction and is punishable by a $250 fine for each incident. 
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Eric Johnson / G. O. / (916) 319-2531


                                                                 FN: 0001927