More No Smoking Zones OK’d by the City Council

• Outdoor Dining and Public Events

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council this week, with some debate, agreed to put up no smoking signs in outdoor dining areas and at public events. After some wrangling with the city attorney, the council agreed to add a requirement that restaurant owners must provide ashtrays or receptacles of some sort to dispose of butts.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit smoking within 20 feet of an outdoor dining area. Businesses with outdoor dining areas would be required to post and maintain “no smoking” signs conspicuously within the area, according to a staff report.
The ordinance would also prohibit smoking within 20 feet of any public event, except within a designated smoking outpost. Violators would be subject to the city’s administrative citation procedures, and possibly to other criminal and civil fines and penalties.
City Attorney Christi Hogin also announced at the onset of the meeting, the council agreed to file a lawsuit against Los Angeles County.
A disagreement between the county and the California Contract Cities Association, which includes the City of Malibu, has stalled the city-county law enforcement services agreement. The county currently is only agreeing to extend the matter to August 23, 2009, according to city documents.
The CCCA had entered into agreements with the county in July 2004 for it to provide services to CCCA member cities including law enforcement services. As part of that agreement, the CCCA and the county agreed to establish a liability trust fund to pay for various expenses and losses associated with law enforcement services, according to City Manager Jim Thorsen.
An oversight committee and claims board were established to oversee the operations of the fund and make recommendations regarding claims.
However, in March 2007 and again in December 2008 the county made withdrawals from the fund to reimburse itself for the costs of settling three lawsuits arising from three known assaults by a county sheriff’s deputy while on duty in 2002 and 2003. The CCCA, the oversight committee and the claims board all objected.
“The CCCA disagreed with the county over which agency should bear the legal and fiscal responsibility and burdens related to criminal acts committed by sheriff’s deputies when those acts occurred while providing services covered by the agreements with contract cities. In September the CCCA filed a claim with the county related to the withdrawals,” Thorsen wrote in a memo to the council.
The current agreement between the city and county is due to expire on June 30 to provide more time to settle the dispute. However, when the CCCA requested that its member cities extend the current agreement for one year the county agreed only to the August 30, 2009 timeline.