Sitting in his smoking chair, flicking ashes into a can, a Temecula renter relaxes in the shade of his apartment patio pulling drags off his Marlboro Light.

His name is Brad and he doesn't want any trouble, which is also why he doesn't want to give his last name. For eight years, he has rented an apartment on Pujol Street in Old Town and in that time he said he has never had any complaints from his neighbors about his smoking.

However, this guilty pleasure on his front stoop could soon become a crime. The Temecula City Council is considering restricting smoking in apartment buildings, both inside and outside of residences.

Brad put the finished cigarette butt into the can and said, "If the city says I would have to smoke in the parking lot, I will. But I just think people should have the right to make their own decisions."

The Temecula City Council is scheduled to decide March 27 whether to join the growing roster of cities in the state, nation and world that have put the squeeze on smokers. However, one rule Temecula is considering would take the city a step further than most have.

Along with a proposal to ban smoking in public parks, outdoor restaurant patios and common gathering places of private businesses -- restrictions growing more common around the country -- Temecula seeks to extend its reach inside apartment buildings and senior apartments.

No 'innate right'

The idea of a smoking ban was first floated by the City Council in August. Temecula mayor Chuck Washington and Councilman Mike Naggar were directed to serve as a subcommittee to propose versions of smoking bans.

While Naggar's ordinance targets smoking in parks and other outdoor common areas, Washington's focused on multiunit dwellings, such as apartments.

"People are making assumptions that there is an innate right to smoke, and there is not," Washington said. "A person should have the right to live somewhere their health isn't adversely affected."

Washington's proposal would require all new developments with 10 or more units to designate at least 25 percent of those units to be nonsmoking. The ban would include not only the interior of the apartments, but balconies, private outdoor areas, decks and patios. Condominiums or attached owner-occupied homes would be exempt.

As for existing multifamily residences, landlords would have an eight-year grace period to get at least 25 percent of those units in compliance with the nonsmoking designation. Senior apartments would have five years to comply.

"We were actually very conservative in the time frame for existing apartment buildings and senior homes to catch up," Washington said. "But we want these changes to be immediate for new development."

Washington said that, while apartments are private areas, smoke can travel into another person's living space, causing an invasion of rights and a threat to health.

"There are people in this community who are really concerned about their health," said Washington, a former smoker. "This is not about the smoker and what they can and cannot do. This is about trying to protect the health of people who don't have the monetary means to live in a detached home."

Property rights?

Karen Fricke, executive director of the Apartment Association Greater Inland Empire chapter, said that, while well-meaning, these types of government actions are an intrusion into private business.

"The apartment association would be concerned with a new ordinance to make 25 percent of existing units to be designated as smoke-free," Fricke said. "We would ask there would be a grandfather clause for the existing smokers in those units, so we are not forced to make people move and vacate the apartment unit."

Fricke added that there would have to be a provision for the enforcement. She said leases would supersede the ordinance.

"Those companies that want to go (smoke-free) have already done so," Fricke said.

Temecula is not alone in seeking to restrict the smoking habits inside people's homes. Belmont, a suburb of San Francisco with a population of about 25,000 people, rolled out a smoking ordinance in November that was considered by many to be the most restrictive U.S. smoking ban.

Belmont is considering banning smoking everywhere but single-family detached homes and those yards.

Terri Cook, Belmont city clerk, said that city's council took public comments from about 40 people on the proposed smoking ban Tuesday. The ordinance is still in the preliminary stages. A vote could be taken as soon as April 10.

Cook said the proposal originally began as an effort to classify smoking in apartment buildings as a public nuisance. She said the issue snowballed from there.

"There was nothing that governed private property, which is where the discussion has gone," she said.

Cook said the proposed ban has raised a stir at City Hall.

"A majority of the correspondence is from people who live outside of the city limits," she said. "Some of it has been from people who say, 'If you do this, I'm never going to come to your town.' But then there have been other people who have applauded the council."

Similar bans

Temecula's neighbor to the north has recently enacted a less-restrictive smoking ban, and communities throughout San Diego County have been passing ordinances primarily aimed at beaches and parks.

It has been six months since the Murrieta City Council adopted an ordinance Sept. 19 to ban smoking in outdoor dining areas, children's play areas and schools. The law also prohibits smoking within 15 feet of a business's main entrance. Murrieta's smoking ban is essentially the same as the smoking ban Naggar is pushing for in Temecula.

Murrieta police Sgt. Ron Driscoll said the city is using the first few months of the ban to educate businesses and residents about the restrictions.

"We want to give people a chance to be compliant," he said.

Driscoll said last month that the city had not yet issued any citations relating to the smoking ban, which went into effect in mid-January. He said the enforcement of the ordinance is complaint-driven and that officers will not be acting as the "smoking police."

He said Murrieta and Temecula could benefit from having similar bans in both cities.

"There is so much overlap between our residents, it would be nice to have it uniform between the two cities," Driscoll said. "If Temecula adopts its own ban, it will beneficial for Murrieta residents as well who visit, shop or eat in that city and vice versa."

Contact staff writer Nicole Sack at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2616, or nsack@californian.com.