The low mark took into account a lack of municipal codes requiring property owners to designate smoke-free apartments or condos and factored in the city's unwillingness to impose smoking restrictions in public places and outdoor dining areas that would exceed minimum state requirements.
But officials question the wisdom of enacting such rules here and were critical of the report for basing grades not on the prominence of tobacco use, but on the number of laws on the books.
"In a way, I think it's kind of presumptuous of the A.L.A to give people grades without looking at the actual conditions in the community. To me, that's more important than whether a law is on the books, and I think [that focus] is short-sighted and unfair to the community," said Councilman Stephen Del Guercio.
"We don't have many multifamily units or really crowded nightclubs or public spaces. Maybe our population is not so dense, maybe there are not as many smokers, but my perception is that these types of issues are not so prevalent [in the city] to warrant adopting measures additional to what the state has required. Should perception change, I would consider it," Del Guercio continued.
Paul Knepprath, vice president for advocacy and health initiatives for the American Lung Association in California, said the report was intended to reward strong anti-smoking initiatives, not speak directly to quality of life in any given place.
"The challenge is for cities to go beyond state law and increase protection against second-hand smoke. In one grading category, the city does get an "A," which the city should be congratulated for, and there are opportunities for the city to improve its grade," Knepprath said.
More than two-thirds of California cities received a failing grade from the A.L.A. for local tobacco-control efforts.
Glendale, where aggressive outdoor and multiunit smoking restrictions recently went into effect, was one of only nine cities to receive an "A" grade.