Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20210803 Late Correspondence
TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK AUGUST 3, 2021 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting. Item No. H 1 4 5 6 Description of Material Revised response letter to D.A. Gascon from City Attorney Email from Lenee Bilski Emails from: Carolynn Petru; Cindy Heitzman; Howard Berger Emails from: Alix Helena Politanoff Email from Carolynn Petru ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, August 2, 2021**. ~.,;:::d, Teresa Takaoka L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\202112021 Coversheets\20210803 additions revisions to agenda .docx From: Sent: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Ara Mihranian Tuesday, August 3, 2021 12:44 PM CityClerk; wwynder@awattorneys.com; Elena Gerli August 3, 2021 CC Agenda Item No. H -Revised Letter to DA Gascon Response to Gascon Letter.docx --2d lteration_clean.docx; Response to Gascon Letter.docx --2d lteration_redline.docx High Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, For your consideration at tonight's meeting as Agenda Item No. H, City's Response Letter to D.A. Gascon, is a revised letter prepared by the City Attorney. Attached is a clean version and one that identifies the revisions in track changes. Essentially, the revised letter removes reference to Propositions 47 and 57, includes language on victims, and relocates the footnotes to the end of the letter . The attached letters will be provided as late correspondence. Please contact me directly with any questions or comments, and DO NOT REPLY TO ALL. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5202 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ~ Do you rea ll y need to print th is e-mai l? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. 1 H- 0 --· -. -- •-,, ___ ,_ o--- Conn.-c-t with th• City from Y°O"r phone or tobletf DOWNLOAD 'hl:r ;,pv A.volfoble In th• App StOf"e ond Google Plov , (.t T 1• ()~ .. l · • Google Play 2 Honorable George Gascon [CITY LETTERHEAD] August 3, 2021 Los Angeles County District Attorney Hall of Justice 211 West Temple Street Los Angeles CA 90012 Honorable District Attorney: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes acknowledges receipt of your July 21, 2021 letter. Unfortunately, your letter arrived after the community urged the Council to adopt its resolution of "no-confidence" at the City Council meeting of July 20, 2021. The City does appreciate your thoughtful comments. Like you, the City Council acknowledges that reforms within the criminal justice system are warranted. However, criminal justice reforms that go to an extreme will, in our view, actually serve to undermine public safety. i It is out of our concern for public safety and for the victims of criminal conduct that, for the reasons that will follow, we must respectfully disagree with your directives which we view as "extreme." For example, the Humphrey decision, to which your letter makes reference, does require that a court review three criteria in making a bail determination.ii But, our Supreme Court certainly does not go as far as your Special Directive 20-06. Your "extreme" special directive, on the other hand, commands that your staff "shall not request cash bail for any misdemeanor, non-serious felony, or nonviolent felony offense." We are advised that the maximum discretion your directive authorizes is for your prosecutors to request that a court impose the "least restrictive means" which you describe as anything from "no conditions" to electronic monitoring or home detention. For the community of Rancho Palos Verdes, this policy strays far beyond the requirements of the California Supreme Court and represents a significant danger to public safety.iii We are equally troubled by your "extreme" Special Directive 20-07 which declines to prosecute certain misdemeanor charges, including trespassing, disturbing the peace, criminal threats, drug and paraphernalia possession, under the influence of controlled substance, public intoxication, and resisting arrest. The study to which you cite, and upon which you seem to rely for your directive, hardly offers a conclusive endorsement of this directive. In the words of the authors of that study, the very most than can be said of their analysis is that "( o )ur findings imply that not prosecuting marginal nonviolent misdemeanor defendants substantially reduces their sub-sequent criminal justice contact. ... " (Emphasis added.) Particularly concerning to the City Council is the prospect that, under your directive, many serial misdemeanants will never be prosecuted for their chronic violations. We urge you to consider that such individuals can wreak havoc on a community and make our residents feel unsafe in their own homes and neighborhoods. 01203.0001/730788.2 Most "extreme," in our view, is your Special Directive 20-08 & 20-08.2. This directive provides that "[i]f the charged offense is probation-eligible, probation shall be the presumptive offer absent extraordinary circumstances warranting a state prison commitment." (Emphasis added.) Unfortunately, our research indicates that nearly every crime is probation eligible, up to and including murder. Carjacking is probation eligible. Kidnapping is probation eligible.iv What typically results in an alleged crime being ineligible for probation is the addition of a sentencing enhancements; the use of a deadly weapon or infliction of great bodily injury for example. Since the filing of all but a handful of sentencing enhancements is prohibited under your directive, we are concerned that this means that nearly every crime remains probation eligible. Moreover, your directive does not define what constitutes an "extraordinary circumstance" that would justify a deviation from your directive. As we understand your policy, your prosecutors are required to offer a plea bargain that results in the defendant going home on probation rather than serving time in custody. We have also reviewed the additional study to which your letter makes reference. For our part, we would urge you to carefully consider the peer reviewed study prepared by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, entitled "Sentence Length and Recidivism: A Review of the Research" which we view as reaching a contrary conclusion. We are advised that data available from the U.S. Department of Justice demonstrates that the number of crimes committed during the years that California enacted and enforced tough sentencing for habitual felons, crime rates dropped dramatically. Comparing crimes reported in 1992 with 2011, there were 932,996 (45%) fewer of the seven major crimes, 190,681 (55%) fewer violent crimes, and 2,129 (54%) fewer murders. As a consequence, the City feels an obligation to support the actions taken by your Deputy District Attorneys' Association in successfully challenging some of your directives before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. We have directed the City Attorney's office to closely monitor the appeal of this case (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCP04250, Second Appellate District Case No. B310845). Notwithstanding, the City appreciates that you have agreed to abide by the decision of the lower court. Please understand that our support for this lawsuit is not intended as an afront to you personally or professionally, but rather as a respectful way to oppose what we believe are "extreme" directives that are contrary to the best interests of justice. Finally, the City is strongly supportive of those policies that protect public safety, particularly through the provision of mental health and social services; respectfully, your directives undermine crime deterrence and prevention, considering that many proposed pre-filing diversion programs are either unfunded or have yet to be created. We urge you to reevaluate your directives in light of the concerns raised in this letter and the unintended adverse impacts the same are having on public safety on Los Angeles County residents. Sincerely, Eric Alegria Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 01203.0001/730788.2 cc: L.A. County Board of Supervisors Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association Jackie Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager Captain James Powers, Lomita Station, L.A. County Sheriff's Department Association of Deputy District Attorneys In an "op. ed." piece, dated June 21, 2021, entitled "It's Time for Californians to Recognize that Prop. 47 Criminal Justice Reform Failed," The Times of San Diego observed that "San Diego County [is] inundated with property crime . . . . But even if the crime victim has a video of the thief stealing a package off a porch or a bicycle from the driveway, not much will be done to apprehend the perpetrator due to ... restrictions imposed by Proposition 47. This proposition, approved by voters in 2014, makes it almost impossible to incarcerate shoplifters and thieves. Proposition 47 it is a failed experiment in criminal justice reform that needs to be changed so we can put a stop to property crime. . . . The intent of the law is admirable, but the unintended consequences are a public safety disaster for San Diego residents and store owners." 2 The Humphrey opinion sets forth a three-part framework to assist courts in making a bail determination: Non-Financial Conditions. provided "the record reflects the risk of flight or a risk to public or victim safety, the court should consider whether nonfinancial conditions of release may reasonably protect the public and the victim or reasonably assure the arrestee's presence at trial." Money Bail The Defendant Can Reasonably Afford to Pay. "If the court concludes that money bail is reasonably necessary, then the court must consider the individual arrestee's ability to pay, along with the seriousness of the charged offense and the arrestee's criminal record, and-unless there is a valid basis for detention-set bail at a level that the arrestee can reasonably afford." Pretrial Detention Order. "[I]f the court concludes that public or victim safety, or the arrestee's appearance in court, cannot be reasonably assured if the arrestee is released, it may detain the arrestee only if it first finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that no nonfinancial condition of release can reasonably protect those interests." 3 We are advised that the following is a non-exhaustive list of crimes that are considered neither serious nor violent which thus qualify for zero cash bail under your policy: Solicitation to commit murder; Felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code §Section 245(4)(a); False imprisonment to prevent arrest such that it increases the risk of harm to the victim in violation of Penal Code§ 210.5; Felony domestic violence resulting in a traumatic condition in violation of Penal Code § 273 .5; Felony use of force or threats against a witness or victim of a crime in violation of Penal Code§ 140; Felony resisting a peace officer and causing serious injury in violation of Penal Code§ 148.10; A felony hate crime with present ability to commit violent injury, or which does cause injury pursuant to Penal Code§ 422.7; Felony elder or dependent adult abuse likely to cause great bodily harm or death in violation of Penal Code § 368(b )(1) ; Molestation of a child aged 15 and older in violation of Penal Code § 288( c ); Sexual penetration of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of Penal Code § 289(b ), ( d) or ( e ); Sodomy of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of Penal Code § 286(f), (g), or (i) ; Oral copulation of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, 01203.0001/730788.2 a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in ( of Penal Code § 287f), (g), or (i) ; Human trafficking of a minor for commercial sex acts in violation of Penal Code§ 236.l(c)(l). 4 Moreover, as you acknowledge, the voters of California rejected Proposition 25 which would have eliminated cash bail. 5 This "extreme" directive, in our view, only facilitates recidivism among offenders. As you know, California has among the highest rates of recidivism in the nation. According to a 2012 report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, more than Sixty-five percent of those released from California's prison system return within three years. Seventy-three percent of the recidivist committed a new crime or violated parole within the first year. These numbers have not changed significantly over the years. A probation-presumptive directive will, in our judgment, only embolden lawlessness rather than protect our community. 01203.0001/730788.2 Honorable George Gascon [CITY LETTERHEAD] August 3, 2021 Los Angeles County District Attorney Hall of Justice 211 West Temple Street Los Angeles CA 90012 Honorable District Attorney : The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes acknowledges receipt of your July 21, 2021 letter. Unfortunately, your letter arrived after the community urged the Council to adopt its resolution of "no-confidence" at the City Council meeting of July 20 , 2021 . The City does appreciate your thoughtful comments. Like you, the City Council acknowledges that reforms within the criminal justice system are warranted. Propositions 47 and 57, for example, enjoyed support among the electorate. California has saved millions of dollars by reducing the number of people needlessly imprisoned. Reinvesting those savings into communities by incentivizing prevention and treatment, and creating educational and economic opportunities, \Vill help make our communities safer. However, criminal justice reforms that go to an extreme will, in our view , actually serve to undermine public safety.~+_ It is out of our concern for public safety and for the victims of criminal conduct that, for the reasons that will follow , we must respectfully di sagree with your directives which we view as "extreme." For example, the Humphrey decision , to which your letter makes reference, does require that a court review three criteria in making a bail determination.~1-But, our Supreme Court certainly does not go as far as your Special Directive 20-06. -1-___ IR-n-::ta-Rn--"-"+lO-Rp,---,. e~d+-."--"-l'lp>Hie~c,@,e,-;, dHia'l-l't8'edF1--+1]UfHn'H'e\--,2,J,-l1---,-,_,.24Jo~2+1,,.--,eF1Jn'l-l'tHCitwle!Rd---=-'c+'ltl'-'S,.__,_y;-Hjm<»,eP--J-R'O=»r~c-ar:JJ/-Hif'AOl<lPn""'ina,n,ris-wh,~ReP1C¥0Wg<Rn;.:;iz'PC-l-l,14.¼a<lll'-IP='lr4::0>R-'fJ. 47 Criminal .Justice Reform Failed," The Times of San Diego observed that "San Diego County [is] inundated with property crime . . . . But even if the crime victim has a video of the thief stealing a package off a porch or a bicycle from the driveway, not much •.viii be done to apprehend the perpetrator due to ... restrictions imposed by Proposition 4 7. This proposition, approved by voters in 2014, makes it almost impossible to incarcerate shoplifters and thieves. Proposition 4 7 it is a failed experiment in criminal justice reform that needs to be changed so we can put a · stop to property crime. . . . The intent of the law is admirable, but the unintended consequences are a public safety disaster for San Diego residents and store o•.vners." 1----1T-t=hi..e,-1Hcfiuwm<»,p~J""'1r'+'ey,µ•+io-RpHCinH<iOAinA-J.1se~t.._s :i+fo=»'rt1+hl--Ja+'tr+hrH=<e~e>-pR,al'l-lrt+-Rfr:aal'l'.mwe~v,1+·0»crl"'-"'+<to:+-aws~SM'iS:J.-t-ACOAlU~rt+<s....ii1-Rn--i:mR,a~kAinR-g=a+1b~a,1-1-·1+1dlP'etwe't'lrmm.uinl41a'1'-1tieAO=n: Noe Fieaneial Conditions. provided "the record reflects the risk of flight or a risk to public or victim safety, the court should consider whether nonfinancial conditions of release may reasonably protect the public and the victim or reasonably assure the arrestee's presence at trial." Money Bail The Defendant Can Reasoeablv A.fford to Pav. "If the court concludes that money bail is reasonably necessary, then the court must consider the individual arrestee's ability to pay, along with the seriousness of the charged offense and the arrestee's criminal record, and unless there is a valid basis for detention set bail at a level that the arrestee can reasonably afford ." 01203.0001/730788.2 Your "extreme" special directive, on the other hand, commands that your staff "shall not request cash bail for any misdemeanor, non-serious felony, or nonviolent felony offense."J __ We are advised that the maximum discretion your directive authorizes is for your prosecutors to request that a court impose the "least restrictive means" which you describe as anything from "no conditions" to electronic monitoring or home detention. For the community of Rancho Palos Verdes, this policy strays far beyond the requirements of the California Supreme Court and represents a significant danger to public safety _iii4 We are equally troubled by your "extreme" Special Directive 20-07 which declines to prosecute certain misdemeanor charges, including trespassing, disturbing the peace, criminal threats, drug and paraphernalia possession, under the influence of controlled substance, public intoxication, and resisting arrest. The study to which you cite, and upon which you seem to rely for your directive, hardly offers a conclusive endorsement of this directive . In the words of the authors of that study, the very most than can be said of their analysis is that "( o )ur findings imply that not prosecuting marginal nonviolent misdemeanor defendants substantially reduces their sub-sequent criminal justice contact. ... " (Emphasis added.) Particularly concerning to the City Council is the prospect that, under your directive, many serial misdemeanants will never be prosecuted for their chronic violations. We urge you to consider that such individuals can wreak havoc on a community and make our residents feel unsafe in their own homes and neighborhoods. 1-1-1- 1-1-1- PFetFial Detention OFdeF. "[I]f the court concludes that public or victim safety, or the arrestee's appearance in court, cannot be reasonably assured if the arrestee is released, it may detain the arrestee only if it first finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that no nonfinancial condition ofrelease can reasonably protect those interests." J We are advised that the following is a non exhaustive list of crimes that are considered neither serious nor violent which thus qualify for zero cash bail under your policy: Solicitation to commit murder; Felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code §Section 245(4)(a); False imprisonment to prevent arrest such that it increases the risk of harm to the victim in violation of Penal Code§ 210 .5; Felony domestic violence resulting in a traumatic condition in violation of Penal Code§ 273.5; Felony use of force or threats against a witness or victim ofa crime in violation of Penal Code§ 140; Felony resisting a peace officer and causing serious injury in violation of Penal Code§ 148.10; A felony hate crime vlith present ability to commit violent injury, or which does cause injury pursuant to Penal Code § 422.7; Felony elder or dependent adult abuse likely to cause great bodily harm or death in violation of Penal Code § 368(b)(l) ; Molestation of a child aged 15 and older in violation of Penal Code § 288(c); Sexual penetration of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of Penal Code § 289(b), (d) or (e); Sodomy ofa mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of Penal Code§ 286(£), (g), or (i); Oral copulation ofa mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in (of Penal Code § 287f), (g), or (i); Human trafficking ofa minor for commercial sex acts in violation of Penal Code§ 236.l(c)(l). 4---~~foHlr~etto-v,ve~r'c-, -+1a-s-s -\)/.f,'OfHU-,a*C*la-HnHO',...,.V~leo\{'dwgtee~, -uthCH-ei----·v.1orntceerP-s.----<oA-1fF-Chfl-al1+itiff'OIF!ffiR-lifRa---1reeej*. e\flC-Hte\fidF-P"""rRCowpfAO~Si1-AtifAO-Hn~2""'51--4,\v,/.A'hfllic:;i:hi-v.v,l-{J'OfHU-uld-hwa•=,re eliminated cash bail. 01203.0001/730788.2 Most "extreme," in our view, is your Special Directive 20-08 & 20-08.2. This directive provides that "[i]f the charged offense is probation-eligible, probation shall be the presumptive offer absent extraordinary circumstances warranting a state prison commitment." (Emphasis added.) Unfortunately, our research indicates that nearly every crime is probation eligible, up to and including murder. Carjacking is probation eligible. Kidnapping is probation eligible_iYc5 What typically results in an alleged crime being ineligible for probation is the addition of a sentencing enhancements; the use of a deadly weapon or infliction of great bodily injury for example. Since the filing of all but a handful of sentencing enhancements is prohibited under your directive, we are concerned that this means that nearly every crime remains probation eligible. Moreover, your directive does not define what constitutes an "extraordinary circumstance" that would justify a deviation from your directive. As we understand your policy, your prosecutors are required to offer a plea bargain that results in the defendant going home on probation rather than serving time in custody. We have also reviewed the additional study to which your letter makes reference. For our part, we would urge you to carefully consider the peer reviewed study prepared by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, entitled "Sentence Length and Recidivism: A Review of the Research" which we view as reaching a contrary conclusion. We are advised that data available from the U.S. Department of Justice demonstrates that the number of crimes committed during the years that California enacted and enforced tough sentencing for habitual felons, crime rates dropped dramatically. Comparing crimes reported in 1992 with 2011, there were 932,996 (45%) fewer of the seven major crimes, 190,681 (55%) fewer violent crimes, and 2,129 (54%) fewer murders. As a consequence, the City feels an obligation to support the actions taken by your Deputy District Attorneys' Association in successfully challenging some of your directives before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. We have directed the City Attorney's office to closely monitor the appeal of this case (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCP04250, Second Appellate District Case No. B310845). Notwithstanding, the City appreciates that you have agreed to abide by the decision of the lower court. Please understand that our support for this lawsuit is not intended as an afront to you personally or professionally, but rather as a respectful way to oppose what we believe are "extreme" directives that are contrary to the best interests of justice. Finally, the City is strongly supportive of those policies that protect public safety, particularly through the provision of mental health and social services; respectfully, your directives undermine crime deterrence and prevention, considering that many proposed pre-filing diversion programs are either unfunded or have yet to be created. We urge you to reevaluate your directives in light of the concerns raised in this letter and the unintended adverse impacts the same are having on public safety on Los Angeles County residents. c5 __ ---¼-T-i+hii-s-s-"-ee-lf-lXtffire~m™e~"-dH-1i-Rre~cHti~veB-,-,--iiH-n-+omurr ..,,.V*iewv.,-,.r, -+omncHl)f---' -Hfal€C+1-ih!+i. tafHte!eS.-rR"e!&CHiid1-1-1i1,A-'issicmR-Ha1Hmlf'Omn.µ.g-+oHCffiH"e!l'l-ndAte~r1-.-,s.--P/>...:.s,....,)#'01HU-1lHmH10fW-cV/, California has among the highest rates of recidivism in the nation . According to a 2012 report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, more than Sixty five percent of those released from California's prison system return within three years . Seventy three percent of the recidivist committed a new crime or violated parole within the first year . These numbers have not changed significantly over the years. A probation presumptive directive will, in our judgment, only embolden lawlessness rather than protect our community. 0 I 203 .000 I /730788.2 Sincerely, Eric Alegria Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes cc: L.A. County Board of Supervisors Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association Jackie Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager Captain James Powers, Lomita Station, L.A. County Sheriff's Department Association of Deputy District Attorneys In an "op. ed ." piece, dated June 21, 2021, entitled "It's Time for Californians to Recogniz e that Prop. 47 Criminal Justice Reform Failed," The Times of San Diego observed that "San Diego County [is] inundated with property crime . . . . But even if the crime victim has a video of the thief stealing a package off a porch or a bicycle from the driveway, not much will be done to apprehend the pemetrator due to ... restrictions imposed by Proposition 47. This proposition, approved by voters in 2014, makes it almost impossible to incarcerate shoplifters and thieves . Proposition 47 it is a failed experiment in criminal justice reform that needs to be changed so we can put a stop to property crime. . . . The intent of the law is admirable, but the unintended consequences are a public safety disaster for San Diego residents and store owners ." 2 The Humphrey opinion sets forth a three-part framework to assist courts in making a bail determination: Non-Financial Conditions . provided "the record reflects the risk of flight or a risk to public or victim safety, the court should consider whether nonfinancial conditions ofrelease may reasonably protect the public and the victim or reasonably assure the arrestee's presence at trial." Money Bail The Defendant Can Reasonably Afford to Pay . "If the court concludes that money bail is reasonably necessary, then the court must consider the individual arrestee's ability to pay, along with the seriousness of the charged offense and the arrestee's criminal record, and-unless there is a valid basis for detention-set bail at a level that the arrestee can reasonably afford ." Pretrial Detention Order. "[I]f the court concludes that public or victim safety, or the arrestee's appearance in court, cannot be reasonably assured if the arrestee is released , it may detain the arrestee only if it first finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that no nonfinancial condition of release can reasonably protect those interests." 3 We are advised that the following is a non-exhaustive list of crimes that are considered neither serious nor violent which thus qualify for zero cash bail under your policy: Solicitation to commit murder; Felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code §Section 245{ 4){a); False imprisonment to prevent arrest such that it increases the risk of harm to the victim in violation of Penal Code§ 210.5; Felony domestic violence resulting in a traumatic condition in violation of Penal Code§ 273 .5; Felony use of force or threats against a witness or victim of a crime in violation of Penal Code§ 140; Felony resisting a peace officer and causing serious injury in violation of Penal Code§ 0 1203 .0001/730788 .2 148.1 O; A felony hate crime with present ability to commit violent injury, or which does cause injury pursuant to Penal Code§ 422.7; Felony elder or dependent adult abuse likely to cause great bodily harm or death in violation of Penal Code§ 368(b)(l); Molestation of a child aged 15 and older in violation of Penal Code § 288(c); Sexual penetration of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of Penal Code § 289(b), (d) or (e); Sodomy of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of Penal Code § 286(f), (g), or (i) ; Oral copulation of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in ( of Penal Code § 287f), (g), or (i) ; Human trafficking of a minor for commercial sex acts in violation of Penal Code§ 236.l(c)(l). 4 Moreover, as you acknowledge, the voters of California rejected Proposition 25 which would have eliminated cash bail. 5 This "extreme" directive, in our view, only facilitates recidivism among offenders. As you know, California has among the highest rates of recidivism in the nation . According to a 2012 report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, more than Sixty-five percent of those released from California's prison system return within three years. Seventy-three percent of the recidivist committed a new crime or violated parole within the first year. These numbers have not changed significantly over the years . A probation-presumptive directive will, in our judgment, only embolden lawlessness rather than protect our community . 01203.0001/730788.2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com > Tuesday, August 3, 2021 4:12 PM CC; CityClerk Aug . 3, 2021 CC Appeal re : Pine Tree item # 1 CAUTION: This email ori inat ed from out side of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes . Dear Mayor and Council members, Thank you for continuing this Public Hearing regarding View Restoration and saving the Pine Tree . I did not find the information I expected in the latest Staff Report. Mayor pro tern Bradley requested a "definitive analysis of the trimming options" at the July 20th meeting. Where is that? Councilman Dyda said that there were a lot of unanswered questions. Yes! But in the Memorandum of April 29, the July 20 Staff Report and the Aug. 3 Staff Report I find only same information. Nothing new. What is the definition of "shoreline"? Is "whitewater" a part of the shoreline view or a part of the ocean view? Can Staff or Applicant produce what shoreline view is hidden behind the palm & pine tree from 4324 Admirable? Since this is on the far right side of the viewing area, it does not fit the definition of "substantial". Could that view be restored by removing the pine or will it still be obstructed by the palm? Fig. 4 photo clearly shows the lower portion of the tree is what's blocking the shoreline view. The Arborist fails to give details as to the height from the ground that would free up the view. It seems to me it would not be enough to harm the tree. I have had tall pines reduced by half without killing the tree. There is nothing in the previous report that states that the arborist considered trimming from the bottom . It was always Crown Reduction from the top down. Only after the public brought up that other option did the arborist vaguely opine on that option. April 29 Memorandum states : In order to eliminate the significant view impairment, the tree must be reduced to the illustrated yellow dashed height level." That's from the top down! Illogical since the obstruction is at the bottom of the tree. A more specific Arborist report should be in the Staff Report to clarify the consequences of the various options. I expected a detailed measurement of the tree and also a measured indication on a photo of how much needed to be trimmed. That is missing from today's report. Only dotted lines on one side, not on both. Is it two feet? 5 ft.? There has been no outreach to the residents as there was with other City Trees View Restoration applications such as the one down the road opposite Seaview where the Portuguese Bend Club residents were consulted regarding the Seaview residents view obstruction from City Trees. DATE : APRIL 4, 2018 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT NO. 18-14 1 I Palos Verdes Drive South View Restoration Project: In 2016, the City received complaints from property owners in the Seaview Tract regarding view impairing trees along Palos Verdes Drive South. Since that time, View Restoration Staff conducted view assessments from several of these properties and determined that at least 18 City-owned trees along Palos Verdes Drive South significantly impair views of the Ocean and Catalina Island. In order to avoid adverse impacts to the properties fronting Palos Verdes Drive South within the adjacent Portuguese Bend Club community (East Tract 16540), Staff contacted the Homeowner's Association (HOA) to present a tree trimming plan that best achieved the purpose of recovering views with minimal impacts to these residents. As a result of these discussions, an agreement was reached between the Portuguese Bend Club HOA and the Seaview Tract residents to conduct the trimming. Why was there no such community engagement for this city-owned tree at the cul-de-sac ? What I did not hear from Council or Staff, was how interested parties would be invited to participate in nformation gathering before this Aug. 3 continuation. Muni Code Sec. 17.02.040 # 6 a states "Foliage that is located in the center of a view frame is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than foliage located on the outer edge of the frame." The strip of shoreline is off to the outer edge of the view frame from 4324, whereas the more prominent views of the Landmarks of Catalina Island and Inspiration Point are not blocked by the pine tree. There is a lot more foliage inside the B-6 yellow bubble than just the lower branches of the pine tree. With the yellow bubble as the definition of the view of the shoreline, I'm not seeing that the pine tree itself is any more than about a 15 percent of the blockage. Is that "substantial"? The word "substantial" appears to be less subjective when applied to a specific view "feature" or "element" such as Catalina Island, the horizon or Inspiration Point. The Staff Report does not address these features which are ot obstructed. Please direct Staff to document how this lack of maintenance of City property will be rectified in the near future as this property is designated RECREATIONAL PASSIVE on the City's 2018 Official Land Use Map. Sorry to take up so much of your time, but I believe restoring the view is important for the neighbors along with saving a beautiful tree from brutal destruction. Please vote to save the tree by careful trimming from the bottom up at the correct time of year to restore the view for 4332 Admirable. Thank you for your service to our wonderful city. Stay well. Lenee Bilski Palos Verdes Drive South. Since that time, View Restoration Staff conducted view assessments from several of these properties and determined that at least 18 Ocean and Catalina Island. In order to avoid adverse impacts to the properties fronting Palos Verdes Drive South within the 2 adjacent Portuguese Bend Club community (East Tract 16540}, Staff contacted the Homeowner's Association (HOA} to present a tree trimming plan that best achieved the purpose of recovering views with minimal impacts to these residents. As a result of these discussions, an agreement was reached between the Portuguese Bend Club HOA and the Seaview Tract residents to conduct the trimming DATE: APRIL 4, 2018 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT NO. 18-14 Palos Verdes Drive South View Restoration Project: In 2016, the City received complaints from property owners in the Seaview Tract regarding view impairing trees along Palos Verdes Drive South. Since that time, View Restoration Staff conducted view assessments from several of these properties and determined that at least 18 City-owned trees along Palos Verdes Drive South significantly impair views of the Ocean and Catalina Island. In order to avoid adverse impacts to the properties fronting Palos Verdes Drive South within the adjacent Portuguese Bend Club community (East Tract 16540), Staff contacted the Homeowner's Association (HOA} to present a tree trimming plan that best achieved the purpose of recovering views with minimal impacts to these residents. As a result of these discussions, an agreement was reached between the Portuguese Bend Club HOA and the Seaview Tract r Muni Code Sec. 17.02.040 # 6 a states "Foliage that is located in the center of a view frame is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than foliage located on the outer edge of the frame." The strip of shoreline is off to the outer edge of the view frame from 4324, whereas the more prominent views of the Landmarks of Catalina Island and Inspiration Point are not blocked by the pine tree. There is a lot more foliage inside the B-6 yellow bubble than just the lower branches of the pine tree. With the yellow bubble as the definition of the view of the shoreline, I'm not seeing that the pine tree itself is any more than about a 15 percent of the blockage. Is that "substantial"? Palos Verdes Drive South. Since that time, View Restoration Staff conducted view assessments from several of these properties and determined that at least 18 Ocean and Catalina Island. In order to avoid adverse impacts to the properties fronting Palos Verdes Drive South within the adjacent Portuguese Bend Club community (East Tract 16540), Staff contacted the Homeowner's Association (HOA) to present a tree trimming plan that best achieved the purpose of recovering views with minimal impacts to these residents. As a result ofthese discussions, an agreement was reached between the Portuguese Bend Club HOA and the Seaview Tract residents to conduct the trimming DATE: APRIL 4, 2018 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT NO. 18-14 Palos Verdes Drive South View Restoration Project: In 2016, the City received complaints from property owners in the Seaview Tract regarding view impairing trees along Palos Verdes Drive South. Since that time, View Restoration Staff conducted view assessments from several of these properties and determined that at least 18 City-owned trees along Palos Verdes Drive South significantly impair views of the Ocean and Catalina Island. In order to avoid adverse 3 impacts to the properties fronting Palos Verdes Drive South within the adjacent Portuguese Bend Club community (East Tract 16540), Staff contacted the Homeowner's Association (HOA) to present a tree trimming plan that best achieved the purpose of recovering views with minimal impacts to these residents. As a result of these discussions, an agreement 4 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Catzilla <carolynn .petru@gmail.com > Monday, August 2, 2021 6:31 PM cc Jon Sansom; Branded West; CityClerk City Council Agenda Item No . 4 -Bubbles the Whale CAUTION : This email ori lnated from ou t side ofi t lil e Cit ofi Rancho Palos Verdes. Honorable Mayor & City Council Members- I was delighted to see the restoration of Bubbles the Whale back on the City Council's agenda after a long hiatus. I remain a strong supporter of saving this iconic piece of RPV history and putting her on display at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center for everyone to enjoy once again. It's very sad that Bubbles has been languishing in the City's maintenance yard for more than a decade longer than she was on display at the entrance to Marineland. Please get her out of that purgatory and allow her to once again enchant new and old fans alike. Bubbles has an important story to share about how much our values have evolved since19S0's regarding captive performing animals. She will fit in beautifully with PVIC's mission to appreciate these intelligent and important creatures in the wild, and the critical need to protect their ocean habitat. I urge the City Council to approve the staff's recommendation . Thank you for your consideration and your service to our community . Best regards, Carolynn Petru RPV resident and Bubbles fan 1 If. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Le Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 2, 2021 5:36 PM CityClerk Fw: Letter of Support-Bubbles the Whale Bubbles the Whale -Rancho Palos Verde.pdf From: Cindy Heitzman <cheitzman@californiapreservation .org> Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 2:20 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: brandedwest@gmail.com <brandedwest@gmail.com> Subject: Letter of Support-Bubbles the Whale CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Ver es. Dear Mr. Mihranian, I am pleased to submit the attached letter of support for the restoration and reinstallation of Bubbles the Whale at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center in Rancho Palos Verde. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions . CALIFO A PR SERVATIO F 0 u D Cindy Heitzman, Executive Director l 0 l The Embarcadero, Sui t e 120 San Francisco, CA 94 10 5-1215 415-495-0349 T Join CPF today! www.ca liforniapreservation.org 00@0 0 1 Lf. August 2, 2021 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Attn : Ara Mihranian, City Manager 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Email: AraM@rpvca.gov ,, CALIFORNIA PR E SERVATION F OUNDAT 0 N RE: Restoration and Installation of the Marineland Bubbles Statue at the Point Vincente Interpretative Center Dear Mayor Alegria and Members of the City Council, I am writing today in support of the restoration and preservation of the iconic Bubbles the Whale sculpture, the entry beacon of architects 1954 Pereira & Luckman Marineland Oceanarium. The California Preservation Foundation (CPF) is a membership-based organization headquartered in San Francisco. Since 1977, we have assisted thousands of individuals and organizations in their efforts to protect historic and cultural resources throughout California . Preserving this piece of California history is consistent with our mission by providing statewide leadership, advocacy and education to ensure the protection of California's diverse cultural heritage and historic places. We hope you will support the efforts to preserve and install this unique artifact within the Point Vicente Interpretive Center, a recreational and educational park with the natural and cultural history of the Peninsula, and special emphasis on the Pacific gray whale migration. Yours truly, Cindy L. Heitzman Executive Director l 0 l THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 120 SAN FRAN CISCO, CA 94 l 05-l 2 15 4 15 .495 .0349 CP F@CA LI FORN IAPRESERVA TIO N. ORG WWW CALIFORNIAPRESERVATION ORG BOARD OF TRUSTEES PR ESIDENT C hristine Lozzorello, Pasadena VICE-PRES IDENT, PR OGRAMS Naomi Miraglia, FAlA, San Francisco VICE-PRE SIDENT, DEV ELOPME NT Bill Schaeffer , Napa TR EAS URER Jeffrey Coldwell, Pasadena SECR ETARY Adrion Fine, Los Angeles Corson Anderson, Socromenlo Antonio Costillo, Wes/ Hollywood Rita Cofield , Sovtheosl las Angeles Christin a Dikos, San Francisco Annabel Enr iquez, Los Angeles Michael Gibson, Esq., Redondo Beach Andrew Marion i, Sonoma Willett Moss, PLA, FAAR Son franc,sco Trudi Sandmeier, Los Angeles EX ECU TI VE DIRECT O R Cindy L. Hei tzman From: Cory Linder Sent: To: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1 :52 PM hberger@realcomm.com Cc: CC; CityClerk Subject: RE : Bubble statue Mr. Berger: Thank you for your email regarding Bubbles the Whale and the pending discussion at tonight's City Council meeting. Your input will be included in late correspondence. THANKS, CORY CORY A. LINDER, Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Recreation and Parks 310-544-5260 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19 , visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Howard Berger<> Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 20211:39 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: Bubble statue CAUTION : This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear RPV City Council, As a former PV resident I would ask you to please vote to restore the Bubbles the Whale statue to the interpretive center close to the former Marineland site. From my home I looked at that statue every day and feel it is a great opportunity to honor that memory. Thank you, Howard Howard Berger Managing Partner, SVP Programs Realcomm Mobile: (310) 770-7839 1 Office: (702) 272-0602 hberger@realcomm.com realcomm.com 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Alix Politanoff <apolitanoff@bhs -inc.org > Tuesday, August 3, 2021 10:36 AM CityClerk Handout for city council ahead of tonight's city council meeting TCPP _OA_POSReport_BHS_RPV _FinaI_080321 _Rev1 .pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hello, I will be providing public comment tonight regarding the proposed smoke-free multi-unit housing ordinance (Regular Business, Item 5) and I was wondering if you could share this document with all of Council. Our agency, Behavioral Health Services Inc ., is a subcontractor of the LA County DPH Tobacco Control and Prevention Program and in 2019 -20 we conducted surveys with RPV residents regarding their opinion of smoke -free outdoor areas . This document reports our findings from those surveys. Thank you , A LI X HELENA POLITANOFF, MA (she /h er ) I Project Coord in ator Behavioral Health Services, lnc./NCADD I Tobacco Contro l & Prevent ion Program 1334 Post Avenue I Torrance, CA 90501 (310) 328-1460 Ext. 242 I C (310) 365-8097 I apo lit anoff @bh s-in c.o rg • Plt£\IE NII T hi s ema il d iscla imer was generated by Fo refront which has scanned the email and attachments using 6 scanning eng ines for all known viruses . CONF IDENTIALITY NOTICE : T he information contai ned in th is transmission may be privileged , confidential and protected from d isclosure under Federa l Confidentia lity Laws (42 CFR Part 2 and 45 CFR Parts 160-164). Any dissemination , distribution , or dup lication of this commun ication is strict ly prohibited without the consent of the writer. If you are not the intended recipie nt, or you have received th is communication in error, please notify the sender immed iately at the email address above and destroy all e lectron ic and hard copies of the commun ica tion , includ ing attachments . BHS is a 501 (c) (3) charitab le organization and eli gible to rece ive tax-deduct ible contributions . Please visit http://www.bhs-inc .org . Mission: The mission of BHS is to tran sform lives by offering hope and opportun ities for recovery , wellness and independence 5. SMOKE-FREE OUTDOOR AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RANCHO PALOS VERDES Strong public support observed among Rancho Palos Verdes residents for smoke-free outdoor area policies. 87% support a total ban of smoking in outdoor dining patios support a total ban of smoking around . service areas (e.g., transit stops, ticket lines, ATM lines, designated passenger drop-off/ pick-up areas) 84% support a total ban of smoking at public events (e.g., farmers' markets, fairs, concerts} support a total ban of smoking around doorways & windows (e.g., within 25 ft. of privately-owned buildings} ■ • SMOKE-FREE OUTDOOR AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RANCHO PALOS VERDES reported being exposed to secondhand smoke (SHS) in outdoor areas last year consider SHS exposu re in outdoor areas harmful to their health Residents are in favor of the following to help maintain smoke-free outdoor areas : Signage (e.g., No Smoking signs) 90% Community Events (e.g., public forums, community meetings) 76% Media Campaigns (e .g ., Social media , print, TV, radio, etc.) 82% Sou rce: 2019 Outdoor Areas Pub lic Opinion Su rvey. Tobacco Contro l & Prevention Program, Los Angeles Coun ty Department of Public Health. ■ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This report presents public opinion survey data collected in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes between March 14, 2019 through March 31, 2020. 293 residents completed the survey, representing persons of varied sex, age groups, racial/ethnic groups, and tobacco use status. This survey is based on a convenience sample of Rancho Palos Verdes residents, and may not refl ect t h e views of all residents. 3% of respondents are current tobacco users (n=8) & 97% of respondents are non-tobacco users (n=284). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . For more information, please contact: Alix Politanoff from Behavioral Health Services at (310) 328-1460 Ext. 242 or apolitanoff@bhs-inc.org ffpcouuNbTYl~IFCLosHAeNGaELEISth ",' © 2021. California Department of Public Health. Funded under contract #CTCP-17-19 . Rev. 08/21 From: Sent: To : Subject: Attachments: Ali x Politanoff < apolitanoff@bhs -inc.org > Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1 :03 PM CityClerk RE : Handout for city council ahead of tonight's city council meeting 08032021 -LOS -RPV -MUH .PDF CAUTION: Thi s email origina t ed fr om out si de of t he Cit of Ranch o Pa lo s Verde s. Hello, I also have one more item, a letter of support from the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, if you could please provide this to Council as well. Thank you. Best, ALIX HELENA POLITANOFF, MA (she/h er) I Project Coord i nator Behaviora l Health Services, lnc./NCADD I Tobacco Cont r o l & Prevent io n Program 1334 Post Avenue I Torrance, CA 90501 (310) 328-1460 Ext. 242 I C (310) 365-8097 I apo l ita noff @bh s-inc .org • P1tEVOfTIO From: Alix Politanoff Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 202110:36 AM To : 'cityclerk@rpvca .gov' <cityclerk@rpvca .gov> Subject: Handout for city council ahead of tonight's city council meeting Hello, I will be providing public comment tonight regarding the proposed smoke -free multi-unit housing ordinance (Regular Business, Item 5) and I was wondering if you could share this document with all of Council. Our agency, Behavioral Health Services Inc ., is a subcontractor of the LA County DPH Tobacco Control and Prevention Program and in 2019 -20 we conducted surveys with RPV residents regarding their opinion of smoke -free outdoor areas . This document reports our findings from those surveys . Thank you, ALIX HELENA POLITANOFF, MA (she/h er) I Project Coord i nator Behavioral Health Services, lnc./NCADD I Tobacco Contro l & Prev ent ion Program 1334 Post Avenue I Torrance, CA 90501 (310) 328-1460 Ext. 242 I C (310) 365-8097 I apo li ta noff @bh s-in c.o rg • l'lt(V(N'JIO:tl 1 S. This ema il disclaimer was generated by Forefront which has scanned the email and attachments using 6 scann ing eng ines for all known viruses . CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged , confidential and protected from d isclosure under Federa l Confidentiality Laws (42 CFR Part 2 and 45 CFR Parts 160-164). Any dissemination , distribution , or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited w ithout the consent of the writer. If you are not the intended recipient, or you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately at the email address above and destroy all electronic and hard copies of the communicat ion, including attachments . BHS is a 501(c) (3) charitable organization and eligib le to receive tax-deductible contributions . Plea se visit http ://www.bhs-inc.org . Mission : The mission of BHS is to transform lives by offering hope and opportunities for recovery , wellness and independence 2 August 3 , 2021 The Honorable Eric Alegria City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 Dear Mayor Alegria and City Council: • ~tancer Action ffli Ne~work™ ~- The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) is committed to protecting the health and well-being of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, and as such , supports the creation and implementation of Smoke-Free protections for all multi-unit housing (MUH) residents-those who live in apartments as well as condominiums. No one should have their health put at risk by others , including their neighbors, and those risks are the same, whether housing is rented or owned. ACS CAN urges this council to prioritize creation of an ordinance that will protect all residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The negative health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are well documented; secondhand smoke contains at least 7,000 chemicals, including hundreds that are toxic. The U.S. Surgeon General has declared that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause serious health effects, especially for the very young, the elderly, or those who are ill. Smoke-Free laws, such as those that eliminate smoking in multi-unit housing, reduce exposure to secondhand smoke and reduce the incidence of cancer, heart disease, and other conditions caused by exposure to smoke, as well as prevent the worsening of symptoms among people who already suffer from those conditions . Living in MUH requires different standards of behavior due to shared walls and common spaces. Smoke-Free policies are added to the lease and communicated to tenants in the same way other lease provisions are communicated. Signs should be posted on the property, and re s idents are made aware of the penalties for violating this provi s ion of their lease. Enforcement of Smoke- Free policies is very much like enforcement of all other lease conditions. Prohibiting smoking in MUH improves the quality of life and helps to protect the health of nonsmoking residents by preventing the unintentional exposure that many receive as the result of smoking neighbors. More than 80% of Californians completely prohibit smoking in their homes , and yet, in MUH, one smoking resident can expose the neighbors in all surrounding units. Californians are making wiser choices for themselves and their families , and they should not have to endure being exposed to the smoke of others. Everyone has the right to breathe clean air, especially in their own homes. Creating an ordinance that would prohibit all smoking in MUH units, on balconies, patios , and in common areas, as well as within all hotel rooms would help to protect all residents who live in MUH within the America n Cancer Society Ca n cer Action Network 100 Corporate Pointe, Suite 350 • Cu lver City, CA 90230 626 .995 .0809 • FAX : 626.568 .2888 • Primo .Castro@Cancer .org City of Rancho Palos Verdes. ACS CAN urges this council to make the health of Rancho Palos Verdes residents a priority and begin creation of a comprehensive MUH policy. Sincerely, /J~ 9· Cu±-~ Primo J. Castro Director, Government Relations American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network 100 Corporate Pointe, Suite 350 • Culver City, CA 90230 626.995.0809 • FAX: 626.568.2888 • Primo.Castro@Cancer.org From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Catzilla <carolynn.petru@gmail.com > Monday, August 2, 2021 7:48 PM cc CityClerk City Council Agenda Item No. 6 -Naming a City Facility for Councilman Dyda CAUTION: This email orl lnated fram outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes. Honorable Mayor & City Council Members- It's not hyperbole to say that Councilman Ken Dyda is a living legend in our community. It would be next to impossible to find anyone who has provided more service and made more contributions to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the community at-large, than Mr. Dyda. Therefore, it would be very fitting to name the Civic Center property in his honor, preferably as the Ken Dyda Civic Center. To me, the property is the embodiment of everything Ken Dyda stands for as a civic leader and has fought tirelessly to preserve for us all for over 50 years . Thank you for considering my input! Carolynn Petru Rancho Palos Verdes 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: C~OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK AUGUST 2, 2021 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, August 3, 2021 City Council meeting: Item No. K 2 3 4 5 Description of Material Additional information from Staff Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tern Bradley and Tatiana and Siamak Esteghball; Emails from: Tatiana and Siamak Esteghball; Rick Morales; Gina Whittlesey and Debrey Miao; Robert and Margaret Keller; Letter from Elizabeth Graves Updated Attachment A (List of CCAC Applicants) Emails from: Erik Van Breene; Bill Whelan; Jill Whelan; Aimee Lloyd; Marilyn (Young) Cronin; Candi Parks Gershuni Emails from: Claud Moradian with Los Angeles County Department of Public Health/Tobacco Control and Prevention Program; Janet Gagnon with Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) Respectfully submitted, ~~ Teresa Takaoka L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\2021\2021 Coversheets\20210803 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx From: Megan Barnes Sent: To: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 1 :43 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Memo Regarding Item K Attachments: image001 .jpg; image003.png; image004.png; image00S .png; 20210728_Memo .pdf; image006.jpg Late corr for Item K Megan Barnes Senior Administrative Analyst mbarnes@rpvca.gov Phone -{310) 544-5226 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov DOWNLOAD ..... 'ittr RPV Avoiloble in th e App Store and Google Play ; f J 1.rd cud iir1 U11· • AppStore 1 I ! ~f T I ~ ~ :a,.,J ~ • Google Play This e-ma il message conta ins information be long ing to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended on ly for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours . To help prevent the spread of COV/0 -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk -ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 20211:42 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Memo Regarding Item K Good Afternoon Mayor and Council Members, Please see the attached memo regarding Item Kon Tuesday's council agenda (letter on indoor masking), which notes today's announcement from the California Department of Public Health recommending mask use for indoor public settings regardless of vaccination status. Thank you, 1 Megan Barnes Senior Administrative Analyst mbarnes@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5226 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk -ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. 2 MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: CC: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Megan Barnes, City Manager's Office Ara Mihranian, Karina Banales, City Manager's Office July 28, 2021 Additional Information for 8-3-21 City Council Meeting Item K Today, after the transmittal of the August 3 agenda, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) updated its masking guidance to recommend mask use for indoor public settings regardless of vaccination status, following guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although the staff report for Item K noted the new CDC guidance, it stated that CDPH had not updated its guidance as of the writing of the report. From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, August 2, 2021 11:19 AM CityClerk Subject: Fw: 30137 Avenida Tranquila -Initial Email Records with Mr Morales Le From: David Bradley <david .bradley@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, August 2, 202110:13 AM To: Tatiana <kivachook@yahoo .com> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca .gov> Subject: RE: 30137 Avenida Tranquila -Initial Email Records with Mr Morales Tatiana, It was a pleasure meeting you yesterday, and thank you for taking the time to let Councilman Cruikshank and I tour your project. Thanks for the note and the email trail of some of your recent correspondence. See you tomorrow night. Regards Dave David Bradley Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilmember and Mayor Pro Tern david.bradley@rpvca.gov (310) 487 -2418 Cell Phone City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Tatiana [mailto:kivachook@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 8:30 AM To: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca .gov> Subject: 30137 Avenida Tranquila -Initial Email Records with Mr Morales CAUTION : This email ori inated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear honorable Councilman Bradley , It was a true honor meeting you in person yesterday . We were all impressed by your care , full attention , and your heroic efforts (can not describe it otherwise) on climbing that parapet wall to asses the situation . I am honestly proud to be a resident of the community with such devoted leadership . And I hope inside of my heart that one day I can volunteer my services to the city in similar way as you . You truly inspired me and thank you for that. 1 On the other note, I was mentioning that we were trying to reach out to Mr Morales before the 3rd level plan was even finalized . I looked up through my email and the earliest was October 27,2020 ( so less then a year ago). Since that time, we tried reaching out through Maricela (planning department), by walking and knocking , and through our attorney. All our efforts produced zero results . Instead of addressing his concerns with us, Mr Morales organized a true opposition against our project in the neighborhood . Please see records bellow: The irony is that his firm was actually hired by us at one point in our remodeling process to asses the wall damage in the basement. So Mr Morales had all our project plans on remodeling and basement conversion dating way back to early 2019. His current misuse and alteration of information is at minimum -unethical. Once again, Thank you for your time and your services to the city, Tatiana& Siamak Esteghball 30137 Avenida Tranquila 323-401-1284 -----Forwarded Message ----- From: Tatiana <kivachook@yahoo .com > To: Maricela Sagarnaga-Guillean <mguillean@rpvca .gov > Sent: Saturday, March 6, 2021, 10: 12:08 PM PST Subject: Fw: Rv: 30137 avenida tranqui la Good Evening Maricela , Per our conversat ion yesterday, I am forwarding you the record of our attempt to reach out to Mr Morales before our project was determined complete for neighborhood compatibility review . His email was shared with us by his partner/coworker as his firm was working on our basement conversion a year prior to our loft addition (as you can see in additional emails). Unfortunately , he had never followed up on our request to initiate a dialogue regard in g our project and his concerns . Sincerely , Tatiana Kivachook 30137 Avenida Tranquila -----Forwarded Message ----- From: Tatiana <kivachook@yahoo .com > To: R ick <rick@pvec .com > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020, 04:24:30 PM PDT Subject: Re: Rv: 30137 avenida tranquila Good Afternoon Mr Morales , This is Tatiana & Sam. We are your neighbors from 30137 Avenida Tranquila. We are reaching out to resolve any concerns that you might be having with our outgoing project. Is it privacy you are worried about? We can show you that your privacy will not be affected. Is it views you are going for? -We can discuss potential lower level of parapet walls . Do you dislike our project entirely? We can so lv e that by planting some bushes/trees , simil ar to our neighbor , that would cover up our building ent ir ely . We believe if we initi ate a conversation , we can find a satisfactory solution . We will be in RPV this Thursday and it would be 2 great if we could meet and discuss any of your concerns . Another option -we are always available over the phone or zoom meeting . We are moving to the neighborhood to raise our 2 very young children where they and us could find good friends . We hope you will be one of them. Looking forward to hearing from you soon , Tatiana & Sam 323-401 -1284 On Wednesday, June 12, 2019, 1 :40:49 PM PDT, Tatiana <k ivachook@yahoo.com> wrote: John , Thanks for responding right the way. Now the contractor is telling me that if we move Jacuzzi and Shower 2 ft away from the retaining wall -we can use space as is . I will email Jason myself right now just to make sure if it is the solution (it would solve the issue). Tatiana On Wednesday, June 12 , 2019 , 1 :01 :32 PM PDT , John Schuricht <john@pvec.com> wrote: Would you send me a pdf of whatever architectural plans you submitted to the city , so I can speak with Jason? John Schuricht, Structural Engineer Palos Verdes Engineering 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste . 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Ph: (310) 541 -5055 Fax: (310) 541 -0321 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Tatiana < kivachook@yahoo.com > Monday, August 2, 2021 11 :31 AM CityClerk Scott Wellman; Kelsey K. August 3 CC Agenda Item No. 2 -30137 Avenida Tranquila Appeal 30137 Avenida Tranquila Appeal Rebuttal.pptx CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of t:he Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes. Good Morning, Attached is the supporting power point presentation for tomorrows Agenda Item Not 2 -30137 Avenida Tranquila at 7pm. This is a rebuttal of appeal supporting docs. Please include it in tomorrows hearing. Thank you, Tatiana & Siamak Esteghball 30137 Avenida Tranquila Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 323-401-1284 1 Appeal Lacks Any Ground The Same 3 Complaints • Reviewed 3 times by Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department & • Planning Commission Based on • Misleading Photoshopped Images • Substantial Omission of Facts • Intentionally Incorrect Information II Privacy • No Privacy Issues Determined by • City Staff • Several Planning Commission • Miao's & Whitlesey Properties • In front of Golf Course • Open to 100s of Golfers a day • Misleading Photoshoped Images by Appellants • The Same if not more views provided by • Existing balcony • Front Yard V, OJ bO re E --c OJ C. 0 ..c V, 0 -1-' 0 ..c a.. bO C: ·--c re OJ -V, ·- --re C: 0 ·--1-' C: OJ -1-' C: - ·-V, V, a, -\ " u u <C +J 0 z ffe V, ·-a, > ro w r Intentionally Misleading Photoshoped Images Wrong Proportions of Silhouettes View of the Person from 2nd Level Balcony .,:':.·'.t~~;'.?r,~ ,,-~'. . ;..,• ,., ., _ - • Deck/Balcony is about 47 FEET away • Direct Neighbors Kenny & Marie Scott -Support our Project Intentionally Incorrect Information & Omission of Facts by Construction Specialists • Whitsley Residence is not our direct neighbor • Whitsley claim" extreme" invasion of privacy (2 houses away from us) • Omission of facts that the same or less views are provided by • existing balcony • Existing windows • Front yard • Misleading, confusing, and incorrect information on the location and size of the proposed addition: • There is no kitchen on the 3rd leve l • There are 3 separate permits and not 2 • Misleading on location and size of the deck/balcony • Discussing parapets -not part of the proposed addition • Views -Not part of the review M. Existing Balcony View Balcony/Deck View Demand for absolute privacy for wrap around balcony? ('\.• > .... ,._ QJ c.. 0 ,._ c.. ,._ ::l 0 l'l.O C u V) ~ Vl ~ ~ 0 ""'C (]J C -~ ·-> QJ ""'C Vl ~ ,._ .E > 0 u re -c > ·c 0.. C ·-QJ .... ::l ~ 0 Vl ..c <t: ,._ C .E (]J ""'C C ..c re E u QJ 0 -1,-J ·-~ V) .... 0 ro ■- ~ Miao's ''5 th Bedroom with Side Deck'' N-., View from Debrey and Lawrence Miao's side deck adjacent to a bedroom Deck? • Balcony/Deck View ~~~· L~:-~.~J4, Front Ya rd View 3 rd Story Loft & Balcony/Deck Size & Location • 305ft Loft Addition with 881 Sq ft Balcony/Deck • On the 2nd floor • Lowest level of down slopping house • Hidden by • Setback position • 3 rd level structure • Large Balconies/Decks are part of immediate neighborhood ~ _ ... i i. --,, •r l •' -• /_,,-,• '~-,. I I•• "ft".. ~ ~ ;~~..... ~_,;' , . I ; ' t-'-'--.----=---t -1 1 --..!:'.....-:,, .,.. •• ,,. "'1 ~ .... -----I . ~~ = -,,:.-,, --="'-""'• -~ CT ,I I. .,._ ~1'.~-... •. ~ ec~-=· r:-=;;,~J['F~~-~ :r-r ~.:.__ ~--;,.... ~-·-. .... ''.'--:=~-!: ., ...... ...... 1 I ~-I I I II 4\,,._ ~;• I ;,• ........ -- '\1',..,,.. I _ __j pgopog:o ,w p.002 f!.1~. ~ u OJ 0 ~ 0 0 -LL ""C C N I ro -·-:::, c-c ro ~ OJ ~ q- r----- M 0 m > C 0 u -ro co L.... 0 0 LL "'C C N ""C C ::::, 0 L.... <C C. ro L.... ~ ro -·-::::, C"' C ro ~ QJ ~ LO U) 0 0 m > C 0 u -ro cc L.... 0 0 LL ""C C: N "'C C :::J 0 L.... <( C. ro L.... ~ ro ·-:::J C"' C ro ~ QJ ~ LO U) 0 0 m L.... 0 0 LL ""C C: N > C 0 u ro co ~ u QJ 0 I ro ""C ·-""C C QJ -c.. V) UJ QJ ~ r----. m 0 0 m 30073 Ave Esplendida -Wrap Around Balcony/Deck V) ~ u OJ 0 ~ C 0 u -ro co ""C C ::, 0 L.. <C C. ro L.. ~ ,+-J V) OJ L.. u N ~ 00 lO Fundamental Property Rights Violations: • Appellant -"there is definitely no need to go up higher to have a "better view"" • The right to build and enjoy the use of your land of whatever the local zoning and building codes allows • Remodeling and or Construction Impossible if • property rights of use restricted by dislikes of the neighbor • Appellant -3 rd Floor Loft with Balcony Deck & Blocked Views • We ~re wi~hin our property right of 16'x30' envelope height to build our home without cons1derat10n of the views. • Miao's Property is much taller and bulkier • No Variance permit is asked • RPVMC doesn't restrict on number of floors, deck/ balcony locations, and its size • Determined Compatible by • Planning Department Staff • Planning Department Director • Planning Commission • Project appear as • One story from the street level • 3 rd level is barely visible and levels with parapets • Down slopping Property • ist level is bellow ground level • Levels well with Miao's property and Scott's landscaping • 2 story from Golf course • Due to small size and set back position 3 Story House on Ave Tranquila • Existing flat Roof • Existing 3 story house on the street • Balcony Vs Deck Definition 30042 Avenida Tranquila Neighborhood Compatibility DOES NOT RESTRICT MODERNIZATION OF EXISTING OR NEW HOUSING BUT IS DESIGNED TO ASSIST WITH SMOOTH TRANSITION BETWEEN OUTDATED BUILDINGS AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS. "Neighborhood Compatibility is achieved when a new home or addition to an existing home is deigned in a manner that blends in with the following characteristics of the immediate neighborhood: • Scale of the surrounding residences • Architectural styles and building materials • Font, side and rear yard setbacks" Each criteria is met: • addition is not visible from most sides • Down slopping house • Minimal added square footage • Set back position from all sides • Within the same architectural style and building materials • All setbacks requirement are met • From upper hillside elevations -more architectural balance • Roof level variations • Levels better with bulkier Miao's modern looking building Ill Neighborhood Compatibility Vs RPVMC • -· • 11 11 'I 11,...,. ....... . • Existing Immediate Residences are built in late l 960's • Our new addition blends in well with immediate neighborhood properties. • It also complies with all City of Racho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. • The following city officials already determined our compatibility: • City Staff • Community Director • Planning Commission View Impingement & Misleading Claims • Within "The "By-right" Height Envelope Of 16 Feet/30 Feet Envelope • VIEWS NOT CONSIDERED • Solid Parapets Are Not Part Of The Addition • Lack Of Views Prior To Our Remodeling 2018 Continues Use of Incorrect Images in the Appeals Actual Deck/Balcony Perimeter ~ ~, " . . ... I -~ I I I I :1 I ....... ...... ~~·- ~~---- _... ... ,. ;.f:.._s._ \,:.,n,._ . .,. -~-·-- _L!l'"i.=,:,,; ........ ---·~-=- "t:~---. y,·~i. - t.U ---- ......, ~ -· ... ff "::1-~-.. t-1'==-;.,. /tati:' J t ·1,~--':.c -~-.. -~ .... =1 ... .,..,,-:-..:· ...-;;.~~-,., .. ,.,., ~~ f· ·~~ 1 -~-~ I I: . -··•~-J. P$.O~:J) -~@ f\UO~ ,:.h1.~, Refused any Communications ... ~ From: Tatiana <kivachook@yahoo.com> To: Rick <rick@pvec.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 27 , 2020, 04 :24 .:30 PM PDT Subject: Re: Rv: 30137 avenida tranqu ila Good Afternoon Mr Morailes , This is Tat iana & Sam. We are your neighbors from 30137 Avenida Tranqui la.. We are reaching out to resolve any concerns that you m ight be having with our outgoing project. Is it privacy you are worri ed about? We can show you that your privacy w ill not be affected. Is it views you are going for? -We can discuss potential lower level of parapet walls . Do you dislike our proj ect entire ly? We can solve that by p lanting some bushes/trees, similar to our nei,ghbor, that woul'd cover up our bu il ding entirely. We believe if we in itiate a conversation, we can find a satisfactory solution. We will be in RPV this Thu r sday and it would be great if we could meet and discuss any of your concerns. Another option -we are always available over the phone or zoom meeting .. We are moving to the ne ighborhood to raise our 2 very young ch ildren where they and us cou ld find good friends. We hope you wi ll be one of them. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Rick Morales <rick@pvec.com> Monday, August 2, 2021 7:54 AM CityClerk Gina Whittlesey; Bill; Romo; Debrey Miao; Lawrence Miao PowerPoint Presentation -Part 1 -Appellant Rick Morales -Council Meeting August 3rd at 7 pm. 08-01 -21 _Rick Morales presentation.pdf; 08-01-21_Rick Morales presentation.docx CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hi City Clerk : Attached is Part 1 -(14) pages of my PowerPoint to be used for my presentation tomorrow evening which is required to be submitted by 10 am this morning. Please confirm your receipt of this email and please let me know if you have any issues with uploading it to be used properly that evening. Thank you . Regards , Rick Morales President Palos Verdes Engineering Corporation 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste. 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Ph: (310) 541 -5055 Fax: (310) 541 -0321 ----------Forwarded message --------- From : Domingo Ottolia <dco@obastudio.com > Date : Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 1:20 PM Subject: Updated presentation To: Rick Morales <rick@pvec .com > Good afternoon Rick, Attached you'll find an updated Word file and a PDF of your presentation. I'll follow up with a call. 1 Al/\, Ll:W /\p Ottolia & Barnes Architecture office: {310)375-0107 mobile: {310)293-2436 www.OBAstudio.com 2 We're asking for your consideration to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a new 3 rd story roof deck, and a 3 rd story addition at 30137 Avenida Tranquila. My neighbors and I have the following objections. • Privacy -the proposed project would eliminate the privacy of our neighbor's home and back yard. • Neighborhood Character -it's our opinion that the project is incompatible with our neighborhood . • View impingement -the proposed project would compromise existing views. Pa ge 1 Rick Morales USC Civil Engineering, Building Science -1982 Co-founder of Palos Verdes Engineering -1985 My wife Rosy and I have lived directly across, and to the south , of the proposed project for over 20 years . Page 2 Privacy In our opinion, the proposed project would eliminate the privacy of our neighbor's back yard. ' ------ Privacy intrusion -a view from the Whittlesey's back yard. Pa ge 3 Privacy intrusion -a view from the Miao's back yard . Page 4 Privacy intrusion -a vi ew from the Miao 's kitchen, side bedroom deck, and laundry room Pages Neighborhood Character Unfortunately, the proposed project would be the only one in our neighborhood to have three stories, a total flat roof, and a third story 881 square foot roof deck . This project would not preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of our existing neighborhood . Page 6 It would be the only three story house wi t h a third story roof deck in our neighborhood. No other house has a third story, total flat roof, or third story roof deck Existing neighborhood is designed to respect privacy. \_, '""'"'~c, '(J~f I~ U.--.CJ'f'ff !: z,~~,~'-"7-.," l.ll FLAT ROOF .u"!?'¥P>(•-t"!;f'<t¥ I I::' FLAT ROOF JJ:H,qf'J('.,>.1""tJ'V' "' FLAT ROOF ROOFING TO OE l!OT-MO PP CLASS "A" c::•;f?,'"' .J.r&f'"f">f.•"...,(V;: ROOFING TO BE HOT-Mo rr CLASS "A" (,'.'.• ;e .. J,.,.r,;,;,r,.,,-"'l'l.A' ROOfl._G TO UE HOT-MO PP CLASS "A" C:"~!' .J!"'"l"<ff'<~-,, ":Pl,' Jt;Hq_<",'f .. « <"tf'~• ROOFl1':G TO UE HOT-M OPP l ·I:! FU.T ROOF JPt'f:"JO"!"'"'"•I' C LASS ·A-c.::• ~"- .J.."1-r~r".11~1 ryrv· -<;i.f'"'r_/' t 1:12 FLAT ROOF .1rr<,ff4f'•<r. n~•r ~ • r~·tr>P<f~~•" "'~. r ;U:;:=================..i • ;--.·,-: -l(J .. t .... RALC'ONY TO BE DEX-0-TE.~ Wf;,\ TH ER WEA R CLASS" • f.-<~:f'" 26'.(r l.ffQU)r· f N)LOFT CLG HT i-6" 4-0"X i;.i,-~ (N)\\'JNOO W ~""P."'1 .. 1:11 J(Tf'"IF;,f/.'fC,f'V,' FLA'f ROOF ROOl'ING TO BE HOT•MO PP Cl.ASS "A" cc •:-s• IN)BALCONY SSI SO FT. ·I 17'.6" t ~XT-0" !N!_WJ~W -.=,J"'!r-"· I'\..! t~.l)N'-.q,C-~· ,,.,,.,,._/ r..;.rrf•!- DAI.CONY TOBE0~-0-TEX Wf.,\THERWF..A R c~,ss ·,-,~ 1 ... 11.;:P-X''>lo,rt• i~ ROOFING TO BE llOT-MO PP CLASS "A" (;'.:" ~fY• 3 '-6 " high guardrail ~;;;/q~~~~~~ph~~h ~;{r~~~ .. ~:· J<Y-0- PROPOSED 3RD FLOOR PLAN The proposed third story deck is 881 square feet, larger than a four car garage. It 's a wonderfu l space to have large gatherings. Please think of how many people can gather in this space and how many of these people will have uninterrupted views from above to the ne ighbor's home and back yard. Pa ge 7 Neighborhood Character -rebuttal to Staff's new finding #6 New house found by Planning staff at 30041 Avenida Tranqui/a Page 8 • House found by Planning staff at 30041 Avenida Tranquila is not "just outside of the closest 20 homes." • Every applicant in front of our Planning Commission and every applicant that is working through a Height Variation process with the Planning Department cannot bring into bear the character homes outside the 20 closets homes. By the same measure, Planning should not be able to cite this project as justification. • If Planning thought that the proposed third story and third story roof deck are within the character of the neighborhood, then their original justification for its approval should still be -valid, and the introduction of a new home outside of the closest 20 homes would not be relevant. • If Planning believes that the introduction of a new home which is outside the closest 20 homes is relevant, then this deviation from the review process should be extended to all future applicants. All Height Variation applications should be reviewed in the same manner, and by the same regulations. No one application should be given special privileges. • House found by Planning staff at 30041 Avenida Tranquila does not have a third story 881 square foot roof deck but a loft in the second floor. • No other third story roof deck exists in our neighborhood 0) Q) 0) ro n... Privacy infringement -rebuttal to Staff's new finding #3 and 7 ,, ;..,.,,,,.-r,. I I~ ~LAT ftOOI' 1r11•,r..-,~"'""•· 1.12 f"1t~r ~~,-, '"f"W R~::~~BE ClASS ",\" •:Pc ,,..,_,,<>•..:•"'"'l"I· 1;~;~~111' Cl.,1.s.S·/\· a,;..·;~.,,,.,.,,.,;,,,;. ROOflS<;TORI llO'T~\101"' 1,: Ft.AT ROOF ,,.,r., . .,,,.,.,.,., :1;~1£:.~ .,,.,,. ~.:/'t;;,~ --~- 'rivacv ,r,frii 1.12 rl.ATl!O(')r ROOF1SGT08f: IIOT-.,401'1' ("LASS "/\" ~:•:-,-, ·,_ ~ ;~-::.1•: "-:JJ I, r, r::;.•lf.Jf" ___ ,i\; BALC'OSY TOIU!OEX.0-TEX 1\'EATIIERWEAR ~;"· ~1 "I / I ROOf"INCi TQ H~ llOT-MOPI' l"U.SS"/\" c• ;e~ :'?'.''If''('• •.1-nr<1r,r,,,~,.,,. -~--,,,~_./ ! '\ eROPOSED 3RD FLOOR PLAN jilJ A second story deck is a very different than a 881 square foot third story roof deck. This proposed third story roof deck would be ten feet higher than the existing second floor deck and would allow an unprecedented, clear, and uninterrupted view from above to the adjacent home and rear yards. Page 10 Privacy infringement -rebuttal to Staff's new findings # 3 & 7 Staff's finding that, because second story decks already exist, thus the approval of a third story roof deck would not create "additional privacy impacts" is misleading for the following reasons: • The proposed third story roof deck would be ten feet higher than the existing second floor deck and would allow an unprecedented, clear, and uninterrupted view from above to the adjacent home and rear yards. • Because of the existing landscape, the existing second story decks are somewhat shielded from direct visual contact -see photos below. • Additional privacy infringements would be created because this 881 square foot roof deck would increase the amount of gathering space and give its users a clear and uninterrupted view from above to the adjacent rear yards. Page 11 View Impingement The increase in the ceiling height of the south section of the proposed project along with the solid perimeter parapets, add an additional 8 feet of vertica l height. This increased building height significantly eliminates our ocean as shown in the following photographs. Pa ge 12 In conclusion We are not opposed to our neighbors improving their property, however we believe that the improvement should respect the privacy of its neighbors, and the existing neighborhood character. Our opposition to the proposed third story and third story roof deck is because we believe that the project does not take into consideration Page 13 The privacy of its neighbors The existing character of the neighborhood The views of its neighbors If this project is approved, it will set a precedent for similar projects in RPV. L-----'\ \ l" ~--y//\ ·. ~ \\-" f----~· . ' Page 14 , § I "j "· / ~./ -/ ~7}7li· ''>---._ / @;:( I--/. / ' t -I I "i ~ -_; i ' ®' l®i \ I -'-I ,.,. • -"{ I ·r--;i""',i~ i _ _,' 6 ' \:;J .... I "'·• \ . ~ \ \ -\/\/~~--;.-;1e \ \ __ ~~ . \ 1 1/ ·T,Jj;J__ . ~ / ~ \ \ :·, "' 0 II n.4> ✓/\ ___ \ \ y · _J _~ ' ' ' •/ I ·,, r_;-1 ).., 'L I-· ., -·, ..-· '•--•--' I -•-I \ . \~A ,- MAPL EGEl\"O 0 lndlc:atesM.lp KeyNu~ ,_.,,_ lndlcatcsAs~uor's Pate~ Number \ \ \~~::--/, / \ ./ Public Notification Study '"' 30137 Ave nida Tra nquila Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 AP N 7588-014-006 October 31 , 2019 1N t 9»6 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Rick Morales < rick@pvec.com > Monday, August 2, 2021 7:56 AM CityClerk Gina Whittlesey; Bill; Romo; Lawrence Miao; Debrey Miao PowerPoint Presentation -Part 2 -Appellant Rick Morales -August 3rd Council Meeting PVEC_08022021_072055_ 145951 .pdf AUTION: This email ori ina te d fr om ou tsi de of t he Ci t of Ra ncho Palo s Verd es. Hi City Clerk: Attached is Part 2 -(12) pages for my PowerPoint presentation for tomorrow evening which is due by 10 am this morning. Please confirm you received this email and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Regards, Rick Morales President Palos Verdes Engineering Corporation 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste. 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Ph: (310) 541-5055 Fax: (310) 541-0321 ----------Forwarded message --------- From: <mike@pvec.com > Date: Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:44 AM Subject: Scan to E-mail To: <rick@pvec.com > Sending device cannot receive e-mail replies. 1 ' \. \ \ w MAP LEGEND 0 Indicates Map Key Number N ,, .. .,,. ooo Indicates Assessor 's Parcel Number Public Notification Study For 30137 Avenida Tranquila Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 APN 7588-014-006 October 31 , 201 9 JN 19336 / . . / I ('C C ·-C !... C E C !... ~ t Cl <..: t Q I.- PETITION: STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF DECK AT 30137 AVENJDA TRANOUILA TO RECIPIENTS· Mayor Eric Alegria Mayor Pro Tern David L. Bradley Council John Cruikshank Council Ken Dyda Council Barbara Ferraro We oppose the construction of a roof deck. We urge the city council to overturn the Planning Commissions' decision for construction of a roof deck at 30137 Avenida Tranquila, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275. Name Address + ZIP Code -x,,::.-1 Lr Atx, .. , , -~ Ix G-I ,,,~ \./ ,1,~ ~ic L · b~(; 1-( h' I" 5T f"( J7 . t<P-v/ (ti q:;2_75- 3 u c-~ C) /4'.\ v en idet-7?11117--a, c-, , (~ / c~ .4 er(,,; 2 7 ~ - '/( 1:_~,,/ ,,' ---~ PETITION: STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF DECK AT 30137 AVENiDA TAANQUiLA TO RECIPIENTS: Mayor Eric Alegria Mayor Pro Tern David L. Bradley Council John Cruikshank: Council Ken Dyda Council Barbara Ferraro We oppose the construction of a roof deck. We urge the city council to overturn the Planning Commissions' decision ·for construction of a roof deck at 30137 Avenida Tranquila, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275. Name Address + ZIP Code PETITION : STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF DECK AT 30137 AVENJDA TiRANQUILA TO RECf PIENTS : Mayor Eric Aiegria Mayor Pro Tern David L. Bradley Council John Cruikshank Council Ken Dyda Council Barbara Ferraro We oppose the construction of a roof deck. We urge the city council to overturn the Planning Commissions' decision for construction of a roof deck at 30137 Avenida Tranquila, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275. Name Address + ZIP Code 3 " 3) ~ c 11 ,,.,,, 1 No r o f-___ v E (') J .£. V C..-/1 Cf o&·;t;" 3 L) ) -; {i / 'd A_c . ( ) i '~ p v:· l_-, Si nature PETITION : STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF DECK AT 30137 AVENIDA TRANQU.ILA TO RECIPIENTS : Mayor Eric AJegria Mayor Pro Tern David L. Bradley Council John Cruikshank Council Ken Dyda Council Barbara Ferraro .. We oppose the construction of a roof deck. We urge the city council to overturn the Planning Commissions1 decision for construction of a roof deck at 30137 Avenida Tranquila, Rancho Palos Verdesw Ca 90275. Name Address + ZIP Code Si nature Kt Mayor Eric .Alegria Pro Tern David L Bradley Council John Cruikshank Council Ken Dyda Council Barbara Ferraro We oppose the construction of a roo·f deck. We urge the city council overturn the Planning Commissions~ decision ·for construction of a roof deck at 30137 Avenida Tranquiia, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275. Na.me .j } t'-~~ .. ~=-"__:_1 r:!_·"'-__ &~ f / e vtfl l~-~ ~~--.;;;.+c:::;. ______ , ...... =-+·+----1 iJ Ci ) 1 h -A:'(\,}¥ f\'O) 3o) 7c, . The construction of a roof deck and 3rd story level PETITION TO STOP: @ 30137 Avenida Tranquila, Rancho Palos Verdes. Case#: PLSR2019-0365 Name Address Email Address Signature 6~~ tt I IS' /41:=~!.J. ';'i• ~ p~~ wtt# t CIJµt,. >e,c,\S ~e,u tr,P.. t:,~t.. #As/-11/M' wq-_·~--~ t~~ ~~ Hit 1-ltbl ~tJ6l\.lfcA\--~ 411/t/L. Cd"f ,I A-·1 /'t!?1-✓ rJ Peri ~tf\<t C·'t<._f:":>1 R..'i}-pvot~JJ uosQ't.~-t ~;1l111;f;;; 4 / /0,cl. 1 'Ko s y 30 1 +~ Avcri,1#1 •-17 ~:fu f\.11 nv-P--l~5 h" r v'!Y'7'71,n I"" ~o~,s V '---..__,,1 PETITION TO STOP: Name Address The construction of a roof deck and 3rd story level @ 30137 Avenida Tranquila, Rancho Palos Verdes. Case #: PLSR2019-0365 . The construction of a roof deck and 3rd story level PETITION TO STOP: @ 30137 Avenida Tranquila, Rancho Palos Verdes. Case#: PLSR2019-0365 Name Address Email Address Signature G1c h 5 .'Sdi) ~ ~ (>1 t'~ Ale l1 1 '~ -~ 0r,J/? l t)) (\ ___ C . -·--· -----------., tl 11 I , --z () , ") 7 I(},-/ N' /1 (A.)# j r,L,e St:!-/ ~1;----( , ·•-.,I I--~--' l<-' .'-11 ,rf Le.' -t!i ~ 1./i:'....~~-L"--Tl}~•V , ) ~. -,, ( /.,T/ ;\-!_ rfli____<.,,iL. rt . .-lit';: ---/ l--'-;,> -,, ' ' ' ,, ( , __ (_ r_.,' ·• / '· t / 3 ~ , ' ~ it~ry "' l~ l ~_Jr.\ ~ w,Vr -[> .I 1 'i~ \ ,_ 1rJ,r ,, ., I \ \ \ ', A1,,::;_1v1on --r;-::_Jj /(.,, l,'L< I '--fl I ( - l ~ I. j\)C~~ ltre1vr ,r ,,._ \ V '~) Jo-I \11. Ar1tk~t-, (, ~"f ~(/1Svty~\ '"' ('f I , (,,NY\. i\'7'-Nf 'vv1 / A /1 YI / / I _, !J The construction of a roof deck and 3rd story level PETITION TO STOP: @ 30137 Avenida Tranquila, Rancho Palos Verdes. Case #: PLSR2019-0365 Name Address Email Address _Signature ,(?DF;f({ I f.t., --/ c> I 5' { JZJ:'> r .'< p f< O ~ .,Lf Al J) ,IV\ /}-/{_ C-J F:--/ Jq/;f 1 ✓ G: L L-..,f R R ,P:v . l 'Yt '/r:.,1),11 .2 (}{) I (A t,.t} IHI._ .(I/},, 1r / 11v)1~/I/ 0 ~/ /j fl,(/i-)(:f.A£E7T ?o 1 ~c ,..e e sr A' ~ 10¼~ Vh.~( ~~v··./~: ~ £1 J./ CL ! c /?.. I?. Pv cA 10)1) ~I ~~ 0 7/15/2021 I i-. PETITION TO STOP: Name ' I I I Address Mail -Richard Xie -Outlook The construction of a root deck and 3rd story level @ .30137 Avernda Tranquila, Rancho Palm Verdes Case II PLSR2019-0365 ---+-----------r-----------+------------ 1 i 1---············,.-+--·•···-····--·--····-~----+· f-·----------,------------i- https //outlook. live. comitnail/0/inbox/id/ AQMkADAw ATYwMAltOWJmMC04MmlzL TAw Ai0wMAoARgAAA611 ctRI 1 n lhBg 882zvFWvEsHAF n Ukllkl 0pN Cm. . 111 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 2, 2021 11 :26 AM CityClerk Fw: PowerPoint Presentation -Part 1 -Appellant Rick Morales -Council Meeting August 3rd at 7 pm . From: ginawhittlesey@gmail.com <ginawhittlesey@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 9:06 AM To: 'Debrey Miao' <tdsmiao@hotmail.com>; 'Rick Morales' <rick@pvec.com>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'Bill' <bwhit53@sbcglobal.net>; 'Romo' <rosymol@cox.net>; 'Lawrence Miao' <1miao6@yahoo.com> Subject: RE : PowerPoint Presentation -Part 1 -Appellant Rick Morales -Council Meeting August 3rd at 7 pm. CAUTION: if lilis email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hi Debrey, I went there again on Saturday and no one would answer the door. So, we have tried 4 times. Maybe you can go today and see if they will answer the door if it's just you. If you could try and talk with them . Gina From: Debrey Miao <tdsmiao@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 9:01 AM To: Rick Morales <rick@pvec.com>; CltyClerk@rpvca.gov Cc: Gina Whittlesey <ginawhittlesey@gmail.com>; Bill <bwhit53@sbcglobal.net>; Romo <rosymol@cox.net>; Lawrence Miao <1miao6@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: PowerPoint Presentation -Part 1 -Appellant Rick Morales -Council Meeting August 3rd at 7 pm. Good Morning, everyone, We did not have 30041' s signature. I am thinking if we can visit 30041 begging them if they can: • Let us in, take a picture, or • sign a prepared letter indicating that what we can see from the street is not a room, just a raised ceiling, or • even, have the city clerk search for the original floor plan that was filed with the City. We can not not doing anything as a sitting duck . Their action should be able to help us a lot. Debrey From: Rick Morales <rick@pvec .com > Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 7:53 AM To: CltyClerk@rpvca .gov <CltyClerk@rpvca.gov > Cc: Gina Whittlesey <ginawhittlesey@gmaii.co m >; Bill < bwh:t53@sbcglo ba I. net>; Romo < rosy mo l@cox.net>; Deb '8 • Miao <tdsmiao@hotmail.com >; Lawrence Miao <1miao6@yahoo.com > Subject: PowerPoint Presentation -Part 1 -Appellant Rick Morales -Council Meeting August 3rd at 7 pm. Hi City Clerk: Attached is Part 1 -(14) pages of my PowerPoint to be used for my presentation tomorrow evening which is required to be submitted by 10 am this morning. Please confirm your receipt of this email and please let me know if you have any issues with uploading it to be used properly that evening. Thank you. Regards, Rick Morales President Palos Verdes Engineering Corporation 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste . 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Ph : (310 ) 541 -5055 Fax: (310 ) 541-0321 ----------Forwarded message--------- From: Domingo Ottolia <dco@obastudio.com > Date: Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 1:20 PM Subject: Updated presentation To : Rick Morales <rick@pvec.com > Good afternoon Rick, Attached you'll find an updated Word file and a PDF of your presentation. I'll follow up with a call. Domingo Ottolia , A1A, LEED Ap Ottolia & Barnes Architecture office : (310)375 -0107 mobile: (310)293 -2436 www.OBAstudio .com 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 2, 2021 8:20 AM CityClerk Re: Aug 3 agenda item: comment on purposed observation deck on Ave Tranquila From: Rob and Margie Keller <robandmargie2001@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 1, 2021 9:57 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Aug 3 agenda item: comment on purposed observation deck on Ave Tranquila CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. To the RPV City Council: Re : the construction of an observation deck on Ave Tranquila The Council is being asked at the August 3rd meeting to approve the inclusion of an observation deck topmost on a major reconstruction that is currently ongoing at 30137 Ave Tranquila . We feel that such a structural feature is inappropriate for our neighborhood and urge the Council to disapprove the request. The issue here is one of privacy, which will be lost to adjoining homeowners by anyone on the deck viewing the surrounding area. Of course, Rancho Palos Verdes is a naturally hilly community, which contributes to its charm . And because of its hilly nature, some homeowners have properties that might easily be visible from neighbors at a higher elevation . This is to be expected . But such views have existed unchanged over time, and prospective home buyers could always consider a potential loss of privacy when deciding whether or not to purchase a particular location in our community. The construction of a high deck, however, is very different from natural topography . Adjoining homeowners, previously enjoying a measure of privacy, will now lose that. Afterall, the primary purpose of this design is nothing less than that of a rooftop viewing platform . Additionally, the structure may block the views of other homeowners . We have lived in our home in Rancho Palos Verdes for 42 years now and have enjoyed the beauty and tranquility that the community has provided . The approval of the structure being proposed is neither appropriate nor consistent with the best features that Rancho Palos Verdes has and should continue to provide to its current and future residents . Thank you for your consideration . Sincerely, Robert and Margaret Keller 7018 Crest Road, RPV 90275 310 -541-9332 1 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 30, 2021 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission decision 30137 Avenida Tranquila Case# PLSR2019-0365 Dear Mayor Alegria and members of the City Council: I am writing to ask for your consideration to reverse the May 11, 2021 Planning Commission decision. Just because a proposed project may conform to code does not mean that it is compatible with the neighborhood. Fortunately, the Neighborhood Compatibility assessment is designed to preserve our homes and our community. Our concerns are: 1. The roof top deck project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. a. No other homes in the Country Club neighborhood have roof top decks. b. The home already has a second floor balcony so an additional roof top deck is not necessary. c. There are no roof decks in the neighborhood, only balconies. 2. The size of the addition is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. a. The size of each of the surrounding homes are between 3000 and 4500 square feet with one home exceeding 6000 square feet. 1. The proposed project would make this house the largest on the street and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The structure is disproportionate in size to the surrounding neighborhood. ii. The proposed roof top deck would be 881 square feet in size and could accommodate a large crowd, leading to increased noise and affecting the quality of life to all nearby neighbors. 3. Approving this project establishes a precedent of other homes applying for and building roof top decks, eroding our community expectations about residential zoning. 4. The design of the addition is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood for two reasons: The design of the addition is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As noted in the Neighborhood Compatibility Notebook, the architectural styles in Rancho Palos Verdes typically resemble California Ranch, Spanish Colonial and Mediterranean architectural styles. These typical homes are generally constructed with natural materials, muted earth tones and simple roof forms. a. First, the design with a separate third-story addition is incongruous with the surrounding neighborhood. The roof is no longer a simple roof form. The design does not match the character of the neighborhood as most roofs are pitched roofs. No other house on this street has a third-story addition on its roof. As a result, the new roof does not appear similar to the roofs typically seen throughout the neighborhood, in terms of either style or pitch. b. Second, the building design is also incompatible with the neighborhood as it appears to have a parapet and other design elements. i. This design does not appear to resemble a typical Rancho Palos Verdes California Ranch, Spanish Colonial or Mediterranean architectural style. It does not blend in with the architectural style and building materials of the immediate neighborhood in terms of scale and character. No other homes in the neighborhood have parapets. 1. Because the parapet was an over-the-counter approval, it was not submitted with this proposal. But taken as a whole, the parapet design is incompatible with the surrounding homes. ii. The surrounding homes are primarily natural materials with stucco and simple roof forms and do not have parapet facades. 5. The patio addition will be visible from the street. The patio addition is currently obscured by a parapet which the property owners represented on May 11, 2021 would be lowered or constructed of glass. As of July 28, 2021, no plans to lower or change the construction of the parapet have been submitted. 6. The project was submitted and approved in phases. The project has been submitted and approve piecemeal, possibly in order to avoid Neighborhood Compatibility reviews. First, the flattened roof was approved. Then the parapet was approved through an over-the-counter application with no silhouette. Then the additional square footage and roof patio were submitted with the required silhouette. 7. As noted previously, the proposed addition significantly affects the view from our front windows from every vantage point. a. We respectfully request that the measurements used to determine the average of 15'8" be recalculated. Please confirm the measurements of the elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access to the ridge line which were used to determine the average elevation of 15'8". We were initially notified that the average elevation was 15'6". b. Unfortunately, the height of the proposed structure was not carefully designed to respect views, as defined in Section 17.02.040 of the RPVMC, as the viewing area of our neighboring property was blocked. As noted in the Neighborhood Compatibility report, residents are encouraged to take their neighbor's view into account when designing a project below 16' in height. The obstruction of our view was not taken into account when designing the project with a 15'8" height. c. After we invited the property owners to see their house from our front side, they acknowledged that we did have a view impacted by their proposed project although they reiterated that the project was within the 16' allowance. Even after the homeowners saw the impact of their project on our view from the entire front side of our home (and the major reason we purchased this home), they made no changes to the height of their project. d. We recognize that the City is guaranteeing that the project is within the height limitations and will not increase. We hope that the city is also taking into consideration that any patio umbrellas and furniture would not exceed the height restrictions and further impact our view. View at the time we purchased our house in October, 2017: Thank you for reviewing our concerns about this project. Elizabeth Graves Elizabeth Graves 30130 Avenida Tranquila List of applicants as of July 27, 2021 Civic Center Advisory Committee Nishigandha Emde David Koch Eric Nulman Carolynn Petru Additional applicants as of July 30, 2021 Sunny Lai 3 , A-1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Late correspondence Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Ara Mihranian Monday, August 2, 2021 1 :20 PM CityClerk Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Matt Waters FW : Letter of Support for the Preservation of the Bubbles the Whale Statue LAC-Bubbles_Restoration-2021.8.2 .pdf Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5202 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca .gov www .rpvca .gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or prote cted from disclosure . The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named . Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohib ited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender imm ediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. DOWNLOAD 'tit:,-_-~ p V C --Avollobl• in th• App Stor• ond Googl• Ploy , [)o hnl o ,ttl o n t h ,• • AppStore C,£1 IT O N :,. • Google Play From: Erik Van Breene <vanbreene@laconservancy.org> Sent: Monday, August 2, 202112:55 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> 1 4. Cc: Adrian Fine <afine@laconservancy.org>; Branded West <brandedwest@gmail.com> Subject: Letter of Support for the Preservation of the Bubbles the Whale Statue CAUTION: This email orl imated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear Ara, Please find the Los Angeles Conservancy's letter of support for the preservation of the Bubbles the Whale statue, which is being voted on tomorrow at City Council. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you have any questions. Best, Erik Erik Van Breene Preservation Coordinator Los Angeles Conservancy 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 826 Los Angeles, CA 90014 (213) 430-4206 J vanbreene@laconservancy .org Pronouns: He/ His/ Him/ Mr. laconservancy .org E-News -Facebook -Twitter -lnstagram Membership starts at just $40 Join the Con servancy today 2 August 2, 2021 Sent Electronically Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Attn: Ara Mihranian, City Manager 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Email: AraM@rpvca.gov RE: Refurbishment and Installation of the Marineland Bubbles Statue at the Point Vincente Interpretative Center Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: On behalf of the Los Angeles Conservancy, I am writing you in support of proposed restoration and installation of the Marineland Bubbles statue at the Point Vincente Interpretive Center (PVIC). The iconic Bubbles the Whale statue once stood at the entrance of the Pereira & Luckman designed Marineland Oceanarium and is an iconic piece of Palos Verdes history. As noted in the staff recommendation, there is significant affection and nostalgia for Marineland and its pioneering work with marine mammals, including the real-life Bubbles the Whale which captivated audiences for 20 years in Palos Verdes and another 30 years at San Diego's SeaWorld after the closing of Marineland. We encourage you to vote in favor of the preservation and installation of this unique fiberglass statue at the PVIC as a way to help educate visitors about Marineland's significance and legacy. Ii LOS ANGELES CONSERVANCY 523 Wes t Sixth Stree t. Suite 826 Los Angeles. CA 90014 213 623 2489 OFF ICE 213 623 3909 FAX laco nserva ncy.org About the Los Angeles Conservancy: The Los Angeles Conservancy is the largest local historic preservation organization in the United States, with nearly 5,000 members throughout the Los Angeles area. Established in 1978, the Conservancy works to preserve and revitalize the significant architectural and cultural heritage of Los Angeles County through advocacy and education. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 430-4203 or afine@laconservancy.org should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, /wll.lt f,fA/f-,~ Adrian Scott Fine Senior Director of Advocacy From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Friday, July 30, 2021 7:18 AM CityClerk Subject: Fw: Refurbishment of Bubbles the whale From: Bill <billwhelan1@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 202110:31 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Refurbishment of Bubbles the whale CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing to show my support for the restoration and relocation of Bubbles the whale at the interpretive center. I was born and raised in Abalone Cove and was fortunate to have a $5.00 yearly pass to Marineland. Bubbles is not only a historic icon but holds a special place in many peoples past. Bubbles would make an amazing educational opportunity for the youth of today. Respectfully yours, Bill Whelan Sent from my iPhone 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Friday, July 30, 2021 7:18 AM CityClerk Le From: Jill Whelan <jillwhelan7@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 202111 :18 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov> Subject: CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing to show my support in the relocation of Bubbles the Whale, formerly from Marineland, to establish its new home at the Interpretive Center . It is important for the history of the great city of Rancho Palos Verdes to be preserved and shared with all future generations through the memory of Bubbles. Thank you Jill Blakely Whelan 1 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, August 2, 2021 8:27 AM CityClerk Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Fw: Bubbles the Whale Follow up Flagged From: Aimee Lloyd <aimeesimslloyd@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 9:33 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Bubbles the Whale CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Please refurbished Bubbles the whale Sent from my iPhone 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 2, 2021 8:25 AM CityClerk Fw: Bubbles From: Marilyn Cronin <spotprawn2020@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 3 :08 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Bubbles CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes. I grew up in Abalone Cove . Went to prom w/Bill Whelan. We ALL went to Marineland •. It would be great to see Bubbles up & enjoyed! Thanks for keeping him! But can we keep him safe from vandals? His vulnerability is my only concern @ Int. Center. I offer my backyard with an ocean view!@ Marilyn (Young) Cronin 1 If. From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 2, 2021 8:22 AM CityClerk Fw: Bubbles Refurbishment From: Candi Gershuni <candinco@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2021 2:07 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Bubbles Refurbishment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear City Council Members, I heartily support the proposed refurbishment of Bubbles the Whale! When I was a kid, I went to Marineland frequently with my family and friends. Seeing Bubbles by the marquee at the entrance delighted me each time. As a resident of the Palos Verdes Peninsula for 56 years I urge you to please restore Bubbles to former glory. It will mean a lot to thousands of people, I have no doubt!! Thank you. Sincerely, Candi (Anne) Candi Parks Gershuni CandiNco@gmail.com 310-378-4443 310-600-2405 cell/ texts 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Octavio Silva Monday, August 2, 2021 9:50 AM CityClerk Steven Giang; Ara Mihranian; Ken Rukavina Subject: Attachments: FW: Resources for smoke-free spaces CA-Smoke-free-MUH-Model-Ordinance.pdf; MUH_MA TRIX_MAR 2021.pdf; OA_ MA TRIX_July_2021.pdf; PHLC-Outdoor-Smoke-free-Model-Ordinance.pdf; Regulating- Smoking-in-MUH.pdf; SF-MUH-Equitable-Enforcement-Strategies.pdf Hi Teri, Please see email below and attachments as late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 5. Thank you, Octavio Silva Deputy Director/Planning r-~ ....... DOWNLOAD Manager octavios@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5234 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov .,,, ..... ~ O w , ..... .. -. -· •· D -- '11/.';; r;, :)v , fJ ,1,11 10 h l 1111 11'1 1• ,_,,( T 1T ..._-,.. • App Store ,, • Google Play This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited . If you received th is ema il in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk -ups are limited to one person at a time . Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Claud Moradian <cmoradian@ph.lacounty.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 8:15 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Megan Garcia <MGarcia2@ph.lacounty.gov> Subject: Resources for smoke-free spaces 1 5. CAUTION: This email originated from outside af t lile City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hello Octavio, Ken, and Ara, My name is Claud Moradian with the LA County Department of Public Health-Tobacco Control and Prevention Program. I oversee our policy initiatives on secondhand smoke throughout the County . I was informed about the recent staff report to be presented on the August 3rd Council meeting and wanted to thank you for taking the time to research the issue of smoke-free multi-unit housing . We are currently funding Behavior Health Services (BHS) to work on the issue of smoke-free outdoor areas in PRV; our office however can provide additional information about the issue of smoke -free multi-unit housing. I've attached a few documents that may be of interest to you, including: o A matrix of smoke-free multi-unit housing ordinances in the County o A matrix of smoke-free outdoor area ordinances in the County o Sample model ordinances for smoke-free multi-unit housing and outdoor spaces from Public Health Law Center (PHLC) o A report from PHLC about regulating smoking in multi-unit housing o A report from PHLC about enforcement options for smoke -free multi-unit housing I can also connect you to staff attorneys at PHLC for additional legal information and technical assistance, should the City decide to move forward with a policy solution to the issue areas. If you would like more resources or have any questions, please free to reach out to me (email or call my cell 818 434 6049). Best, Claud Moradian, M.P.H . Program Manager Tobacco Control & Prevention Program Los Angeles County Department of Public Health 3530 Wilshire Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 213-351 -7340 213-351 -2707 fax cmoradian@ph.lacounty.gov http://www.lapublichealth.org/tob 2 ~f~Ji!~~~~~~ro m NON-SMOKING MUL Tl-UNIT HOUSING ORDINANCES LOS ANGELES COUNTY Calabasas Glendale Santa South Burbank* Pasadena Monica Pasadena Year Passed: 2008 2008 2009 2010 POLICY PROVISIONS Create separate smoking and non-smoking sections X X Prohibit smoking in at least 75% of the individual units X (80%) X (80%) Prohibit smoking in indoor common areas X X X X Prohibit smoking in outdoor common areas X X X X Designate smoking area away from doors and windows X X (2010) X (2012) X Prohibit smoking on balconies and patios X (2010) X (2010) Disclosure of the location of smoking units to prospective X X X (2012) X tenants Prohibit smoking in buffer zones (balconies and patios of X X smoking-permitted units directly adjacent to non -smoking units) Declare second -hand smoke a nuisance in housing X X X Include a phase-in plan X X (2012) Apply to condominiums X X X Apply to existing housing X X X X Apply to new housing X X X X Enforcement plan • public education X X X • smoke-free lease terms X X • private citizen enforcement X X X • local government enforcement X X X Includes electronic cigarettes X X X X Includes marijuana X X X X *Smoking is prohibited in units that share a common ducting system and in children 's play areas and the swimming pool area when children are present . ** Landlord s are required to disclose to prospective tenants about the no-smoking policy . © 2021. California Department of Public Health . Funded under contract #CTCP-17-19 . For more information please contact the Tobacco Control and Prevention Progr am at 213-351-7340. 2010 2011 X (100%) X X X X X X X** X X X X X X X X X X X X Last updated 5/11/2021 ~E€!,I~:!~!~!~com NON-SMOKING MUL Tl-UNIT HOUSING ORDINANCES LOS ANGELES COUNTY Compton Baldwin Carson Huntington Temple City Culver Park Park City Year Passed: 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2014 POLICY PROVISIONS Prohibit smoking in at least 75% of the individual units X (100%) X (80%) X (80%) X (100%) Prohibit smoking in indoor common areas X X X X X Prohibit smoking in outdoor common areas X X X X X Designate smoking area away from doors and windows X X X Prohibit smoking on balconies and patios X X X Disclosure of the location of smoking units to prospective X*** tenants Prohibit smoking in buffer zones (balconies and patios of X X X smoking-permitted units directly adjacent to non -smoking units) Declare second-hand smoke a nuisance in housing X X X X X Include a phase -in plan X X X X X Apply to condominiums X X X X (rental units only) X Apply to existing housing X X X X X Apply to new housing X X X X X Enforcement plan • public education • smoke -free lease terms X X X X X • private citizen enforcement X X X X • local government enforcement X X X Includes electronic cigarettes X X X X X Includes marijuana X X X X X X *** Landlords are required to disclose to prospective tenants about the no-smoking policy and location of smoking and non-smoking units. In single-family dwellings licensed as Family Day Care Home, persons with legal control must disclose to pa rents/guard ians if smok i ng is permitted and does occu r at facility. Last updated 5/11/2021 © 2021. California Department of Public Health . Funded under contract #CTCP-17 -19. For more information please contact the Tobacco Control and Prevention Program at 213-351-7340. ~E~!~:~:!i~~!~t. NON-SMOKING MUL Tl-UNIT HOUSING ORDINANCES LOS ANGELES COUNTY Manhattan El Monte Beverly Hills Bell West Beach Gardens Hollywood Year Passed: 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 POLICY PROVISIONS Create separate smoking and non-smoking sections Prohibit smoking in at least 75% of the individual units X (100%} X (100%} X (100%} X (100%} Prohibit smoking in indoor common areas X X X X X Prohibit smoking in outdoor common areas X X X X X Designate smoking area away from doors and windows X Prohibit smoking on balconies and patios X X X X X Disclosure of the location of smoking units to X X prospective tenants Prohibit smoking in buffer zones (balconies and patios X X of smoking-permitted units directly adjacent to non- smoking units) Declare second-hand smoke a nuisance in housing X Include a phase-in plan X X X Apply to condominiums X X X X Apply to existing housing X X X X X Apply to new housing X X X X X Enforcement plan • public education • smoke-free lease terms X X X • private citizen enforcement X X X • local government enforcement X X X Includes electronic cigarettes X X X X Includes marijuana X X X X Last updated 5/11/2021 © 2021. California Department of Pub lic Health. Funded under contract #CTCP-17-19 . For more information please contact the Tobacco Control and Prevention Program at 213-351-7340. «~!I€li~~!grom [ JURISDICTION Agoura Hill s* ~lhambra * Arcadia * Artesia * Avalon Azusa * Baldwin Park Bell * Bell Gardens * --- Bellflower Beverly Hills * Bradbury Burbank* Calabasas * Carson * Cerritos * Claremont ** Commerce Compton * Covina * Cudahy Culver City * Diamond Bar Downey* Duarte Dining Area (Outdoors) X X X* X X X X ---- X X X X X OUTDOOR SECONDHAND SMOKE ORDINANCES LOS ANGELES COUNTY OUTDOOR AREA WHERE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED Entryways Sidewalks Public Parks Service Areas Golf Courses Public Events Outdoor X X X X X X X X X X X --- X X X X X X X X X X X* X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X --- X X X X X X X X X X X* X* X X X* X X X X X X X Worksites X X X ------------------ X* X* SHS Nuisance X X X X Last updated 07/20/2021 ©2021. California Department of Public Health. Funded under contract #CTCP -17-19. For more information please contact the Tobacco Control and Prevention Program at 213-351-7309 . ~E€~~f ~€~~!!~ogrnm [ JURISDICTION El Monte* El Segundo ---- Gardena * Glendale * ------ Glendora * Hawaiian Gardens * Hawthorne * ---Hermosa Beach * Hidden Hills Huntington Par ~* Industry Inglewood * Irwindale La Canada - Flintridge * La Habra Heights * La Mirada * ------ La Puente La Verne * Lakewood Lancaster ---- Lawndale * Lomita * Dining Area (Outdoors) X X X X X OUTDOOR SECONDHAND SMOKE ORDINANCES LOS ANGELES COUNTY OUTDOOR AREA WHERE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED Entryways Sidewalks Public Parks Service Areas Golf Courses Public Events Outdoor SHS Nuisance ------ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X* X X X X X X X X* ©2021. California Department of Public Health. Funded under contract #CTCP-17 -19. Worksites X X ------. ---------- X X X X X X X X ---------- Last updated 07/20/2021 For more information please contact the Tobacco Control and Prevention Program at 213 -351 -7309. ~E!!!~~~~~~,om [ JURISDICTION OUTDOOR SECONDHAND SMOKE ORDINANCES LOS ANGELES COUNTY OUTDOOR AREA WHERE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED Dining Area (Outdoors) Entryways Sidewalks Public Parks Service Areas Golf Courses Public Events Outdoor SHS Nuisance Long Beach * Los Angeles City * Lynwood Malibu * Manhattan Beach * X X X X X X X X -------x X X X X* X* X* X* X Worksites ------------- Maywo~d Monrovia * Montebello ------------· ------- Monterey Park * Norwalk* ---- Palmdale * Palos Verdes Estates * Paramount X X X X X X X* X* X* Pasadena * X X X* X ------ Pico Rivera * X Pomona * ___ X ----· --~----- Rancho Palos X* Verdes * Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates Rosemead San Dimas * -~-X X X X X X X X X X ©2021. California Department of Public Health. Funded under contract #CTCP-17-19. For more information please contact the Tobacco Control and Prevention Program at 213-351-7309. X* X X X X Last updated 07/20/2021 X ~~~~!I€~~~~ogrn m OUTDOOR SECONDHAND SMOKE ORDINANCES LOS ANGELES COUNTY I JURISDICTION I OUTDOOR AREA WHERE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED Dining Area Entryways Sidewalks Public Parks Service Golf Courses Public Events Outdoor SHS Nuisance (Outdoors) Areas Worksites --- 1San Fernando * X X X X X San Gabriel X ------------- San Marino Santa Clarita * X ----------- Santa Fe Springs X* Santa Monica * X X X* X X X* -----------· -------·--------- Sierra Madre X X* Signal Hill South El Monte* X X South Gate X* --- South Pasadena * X X X X X* ----Temple City * X X X X X X ·---------- Torrance * X Unincorporated X X* X X X* LA County * Vernon ----. -------- Walnut X West Covina * X* ----·---------------- West Hollywood X* X Westlake Village Whittier X - TOTAL 33 22 16 72 24 5 30 6 6 Last updated 07/20/2021 ©2021. California Department of Public Health . Funded under contract #CTCP-17 -19. For more information please contact the Tobacco Control and Prevention Program at 213 -351-7309 . ~~:~!I€li~~!grom [ JURISDICTION OUTDOOR SECONDHAND SMOKE ORDINANCES LOS ANGELES COUNTY OUTDOOR AREA WHERE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED Dining Area (Outdoors) Entryways Sidewalks Public Parks Service Areas Golf Courses Public Events Outdoor Worksites SHS Nuisance Key X* Policy that does not prohibit smoking in 100% of the specified area . Considered Comprehensive Policy including 5 of7 areas: Dining areas, Entryways, Public Events, Recreation Areas, Service Areas, Sidewalks, and Worksites. * Includes Public Plazas & Dining Parklets * Includes Tobacco Cannabis and ESD's * Includes Tobacco and Cannabis * Includes Tobacco and ESD's ©2021. California Department of Public Health. Funded under contract #CTCP-17-19. For more information please contact the Tobacco Control and Prevention Program at 213-351-7309. Last updated 07/20/2021 PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California / January 2021 Law and Policy Partnership to End the Commercial Tobacco Epidemic SMOKE-AND TOBACCO-FREE 0 TDOOR AREAS Model Ordinance ~~ This Smoke- and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas Model Ordinance was prepared for California cities and counties interested in creating smoke- free or tobacco-free outdoor areas in their jurisdiction.1 Over the last decade, many California communities have passed tobacco-free laws or regulations that cover outdoor areas such as parks, recreational facilities, beaches, outdoor workplaces, restaurant and bar patios, transit waiting areas, and public events such as county fairs and farmers' markets. As of January 2019, more than 235 California cities and counties had adopted outdoor secondhand smoke ordinances.2 This 2020 model ordinance builds on a similar Smoke-Free Places ordinance developed by Changelab Solutions in 2013 and up- dated in 2018. The Public Health Law Center acknowledges the excellent work done by Changelab Solutions in creating the original ordinance. For more guidance on indoor areas, see our Model Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Ordinance. 2 Tarn D. Vuong et al., California Tobacco Facts and Figures, Cal. Dep't Public Health (2019), https://www.cdph.ca .gov/Prograrns/CCD- PHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Docurnent%20Library/ResearchandEva1uation/FactsandFigures/CATobaccoFactsandFigures2019.pdf. ~"-------------------------------------------■ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco IJt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAWCENTER al Mitchell Hamline School or law / ,=American Lung Association . California ------------------ This model ordinance is based on an independent and objective analysis of the relevant law, evidence, and available data, as well as work done for the California Tobacco Control Program. The model offers cities and counties several options to tailor the ordinance to meet local needs. Readers should consider all the evidence and decide for themselves which approach is appropriate for their smoke-free or tobacco -free outdoor area needs. This policy pairs well with our Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance . .,., Policy Benefit s Public Health Impact. Tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death in California.3 Secondhand smoke has repeatedly been identified as a health hazard, and the U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.4 3 U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS., THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF SM O KING: 50 YEARS OF PROGRESS, A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL (2014), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK179276 .pdf. 4 U.S. DEP 'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS., THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF I NVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE TO TOBACCO SMOKE, A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL (2006), https:/iwww.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2006/index.htm . January 2021 .,,,,~-------------------------------------------- www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 2 l!Jlt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAWCENTER at Mitchell Hamline Sc h ool of Law / TAmerican Lung Association. California ----------------------------------------- In 2006, the California Air Resources Board identified secondhand smoke as a toxic air contaminant, in the same category as the most toxic automotive and industrial air pollutants, and a serious health threat for which there is no safe lev e l of exposure.5 In its research, the Board monitored secondhand smoke concentrations at outdoor locations at an airport, a junior college campus, a public building, an office complex, and an amusement park. It found that when smokers were present, concentrations of secondhand smoke levels could be similar to those in indoor areas that allowed smoking.6 Many studies have also found that levels of second hand smoke exposure outdoors can reach levels recognized as hazardous, depending on direction and amount of wind, number and proximity of smokers, and enclosures such as walls or roofs.7 For jurisdictions pursuing a tobacco-free policy, smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to smoking and causes its own share of death and disease. This includes nicotine addiction, many types of cancers, and increased risk for heart disease and stroke.8 Outdoor tobacco-free laws also help those who are trying to quit, by eliminating the sight and sme ll of tobacco use. As with all tobacco-free policies, these measures send a message to children and youth that tobacco use is not an acceptable behavior or a norm in the community. E-cigarettes. As electronic smoking devices have proliferated and youth usage has soared, many localities have expanded or amended their outdoor clean air measures to prohibit the use of any tobacco product, including e-cigarettes. Electronic smoking device aerosol is not harmless water vapor. Evidence continues to build that exposure to electronic smoking device aerosol, including secondhand exposure, has immediate impacts on the human respiratory and cardiovascu lar systems, and thus likely poses a risk to human health.9 5 Cal . Envtl. Protection Agency, Frequently Asked Questions -Environmental Tobacco Smoke, https://ww2.ar b.ca.gov/our- work/programs/environmental-tobacco-smoke-identified-toxic-air-contaminant. 6 Cal . Envtl. Protection Agency, Technical Support Document for the Proposed Identifi cat ion of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Part A: Exposure Assessment at V6-V19 (2003), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/si t es/defa ult/files/ c lassic//toxics/id/summary/etspt_a.pdf. 7 See sources cited in attached Model Policy infra, nn.14-19. 8 See, e.g., INTERNAT IONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, WORLD HEALTH ORGAN IZATION, Smokeless Tobacco and Some Tobacco-Specific N-Nitrosamines, 89 IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carc inogenic Risks to Humans (WHO, l nt'I Agency for Research on Cancer, ed., 2007), https://publications.iarc.fr/107. 9 See sources cited in attached Model Policy infra, nn.25, 27, 29-35; see also Public Health Law Center, E-Cigarettes (web- site with many resources on options on reg ulating e-cigarettes) . January 2021 .#~.S-----------------..i-----------~-------------- www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 3 IJ1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAWCENTER at M itchell Hamline School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . Cali fornia Environmental Impact. Discarded cigarette butts are a non-biodegradable form of litter that can take decades to break down. Cigarette filters are made of the plastic material cellulose acetate , which breaks down into microplastics, moving deep into the food chain and wate r supply.10 Used cigarette butts are known to leach toxic amounts of nicotine, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, and heavy metals such as lead and cadmium, potentially for years after use.11 Even unsmoked cigarette butts are toxic to animals, plants, and aquatic life .12 Discarded cigarettes are also a significant cause of outdoor fires, accounting for hundreds of millions of dollars in annual costs in environmental damage, personal property losses, firefighting expenses, and restorative efforts.13 For more information on tobacco product waste, see our publication Tobacco Product Waste: Frequently Asked Questions. E-cigarettes also create many environmental problems. E-cigarette cartridges typically contain hazardous substances such as nicotine, as well as other potentially harmful constituents, such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, and toluene.14 Discarded devices may leach lead, cobalt, and other substances into the environment in toxic amounts. Toxic chemicals from commercia l tobacco product waste can accumulate in animals, soil, and aquatic ecosystems. ~~ Cannabis Considerations Secondhand cannabis smoke is a health hazard. The California Environmental Protection Agency includes cannabis smoke on its list of chemicals known to cause cancer.15 Exposure to secondhand cannabis smoke leads to cannabinoid metabolites in bodily fluids and has caused individuals to report psychoactive effects.16 10 WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZAT ION, ToBACCO AND ITS ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACT: AN OVERV IEW 26 (2017), https://apps.who.int/ iris/bitstream/handle/10665/255574/9789241512497-eng.p df. 11 Hiroshi Moriwaki et al., Waste on the Road side, 'Poi-Sute' Wa ste: Its Distribution and Elution Potential of Pollutants into Envi- ronment, 29 WASTE MANAGEMENT 3 (2009). 12 Dannielle S. Green et al., Cigarette Butts Hav e Adverse Effects on Initial Growth of Perennial Ryegrass and White Clover, 182 ECOTOX ICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 109418 (2019). 13 See, e.g., Nat'I Park Serv., Wildfire Causes and Evaluations, https://www.nps .gov/art icles/wildfire-causes-and-evaluation.htm. 14 Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz et al., Leve ls of Selected Carcinogens and Toxicants in Vapour from El ectronic Cigarettes, 23 TosAc- co CONTROL 133-9 (201 4). 15 See sources cited in attached Model Poli cy infra, nn.11 , 39. 16 See source cited in attached Model Policy infra, n.41. January 2021 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 4 IJta PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER a l Mitchell Ha m li n e School of law / f American Lung Association , California With the state legalization of cannabis for adult use in California, there are a few things to keep in mind for outdoor smoke-free ordinances. Under state law, except for authorized special events, cannabis use is prohibited in all public places and within 1,000 feet of any school, day care, or youth center when children are present.17 State law likely already prohibits cannabis use in areas contemplated under an outdoor smoke-free ordinance. Once tobacco smoking is prohibited in these areas, cannabis smoking will also be prohibited under state law.18 ,.,,., Legal Considerations Although outdoor tobacco -free policies have proliferated in recent years, only a few have been legally challenged. In most cases, courts have upheld local laws prohibiting smoking in outdoor areas on the grounds that such laws : (1) are within the authority of local governments to protect public health, safety, and welfare; and (2) are not preempted by statewide smoke-free laws.19 In California, state law prohibits smoking within 25 feet of playgrounds and tot lots as well as within 20 feet of public buildings, and expressly authorizes local communities to enact additional restrictions.20 In fact, California cities and counties have the legal authority to adopt local laws that prohibit all outdoor tobacco use in areas not already covered by state law.21 ,.,,., Customizing the Ordinance Context boxes are included throughout the ordinance to explain some key provisions. These boxes are not meant to be included in any final ordinance. A city or county wishing to adopt all or part of this ordinance should keep this in mind and remove the context boxes. In some instances, blanks (such as [ ___ ]) prompt you to customize the language to fit your community's needs. In other instances, the ordinance offers you a choice of options (such 17 (AL. HEALTH & SAFETY (ODE§ 11362.3(a)(l) & (2). 18 CA L. H EALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 11362.3(a)(2) (stating that the state smoke-free law "does not permi t any person to .. smoke cannabis or cannabis products in a location whe re smoking tobacco is prohibited"). 19 See, e.g., Gallagher v. Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2012) (upholding the City of Clayton's ordinance prohibiting smoking on any city-owned or -leased property, including buildings, grounds, parks and p laygro unds, which a city resident had challenged on const itut ional grounds, asserting that "the health threat of secondhand smoke from outdoor tobacco use is de minim[i]s," and that the city lacked a suffic ient rationale for prohibiting it), http://media.ca8.uscourts. gov/opndir/12/ll/ll3880P.pdf. 20 (AL. HEALTH & SAFETY (ODE§ 104495; (AL. Gov'T (ODE§§ 7596-7598. January 2021 21 CAL . LAB. (ODE§ 6404.5(h) . .1~:.:;;;;==========================================::i www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 5 l!J1' PUBLIC H E ALTH ~LAWCENTER at Mitchel l Harn li ne Sc h ool of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California as [ choice one/ choice two]). Some options are followed by a note that describes the legal provisions in more detail. A degree of customization is always necessary to make sure the ordinance is consistent with a community's existing laws. Such customization also ensures that communities are using this model ordinance to address local needs and promote health equity. ,,,, Tips for Using This Model Ordinance The best possible world is one without the death and health harms associated with commercial tobacco use. Communities differ on their readiness and willingness to adopt certain commercial tobacco control policies intended to help make that world a reality. For that reason, this model ordinance represents a balance among state and federal minimum standards, best public health policy practices, and practical implementation for local governments in Ca l ifornia. This model ordinance contains severa l policy components that communities may or may not choose to adopt at this time that may go beyond minimum state and federal requirements. While the Public Health Law Center does not lobby, advocate, or directly represent communities, we can provide legal technical assistance through our publications and referrals to experts in the field. Education, stakeholder and community engagement, and a strong advocacy plan are key steps in adopting effective commercial tobacco control policies. If a community is unaware of available resources for engaging the community and developing an advocacy plan, or if a local government is considering adopting an ordinance and is interested in learning about the range of resources available, please contact the Public Health Law Center. If you have any questions about this ordinance, you can reach us at publichealthlawcenter@ mitchellham l ine.edu. This publication was prepared by the Public Health Law Center, a nonprofit organization that provides information and legal technical assistance on issues related to public health . The Center does not provide legal representation or advice . The information in this document should not be considered legal advice. This model ordinance was made possib le by funds rece ived from Grant Number 19-10229 with the Ca lifornia Department of Public Hea lth, California Tobacco Control Program, and the American Lung Association in California. January 2021 ,,,,_,_ _________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 6 IJl1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~ LAW CENTER at M itch ell Hamli ne Sc hool o f Law / ,=American Lung Association , California January 2021 -------- AN ORDINANCE OF THE [ CITY/COUNTY OF __ ] AMENDING THE [ ___ ]MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE SMOKING [ AND TOBACCO USE] The [ city council/county board of supervisors J of [ ___ J does ordain as follows: SECTION I. [ See Appendix A: Findings] Note Findings are brief statements of fact or statistics that outline the issue being addressed, support the need for the policy, and help clarify the policy goal. A findings section is important because it provides the evidentiary basis for the proposed commercial tobacco control policies. The findings section is part of the ordinance and legislative record, but it usually does not become codified in the municipal code. In addition to serving an educational purpose and building support for the ordinance, the findings can also serve a legal purpose. If the ordinance is challenged in court, the findings are an admissible record of the factual determinations made by the legislative body when considering the ordinance. Courts will generally defer to legislative determinations of factual issues, which often influence legal conclusions. A list of findings supporting this model ordinance appears in "Appendix A: Findings." Jurisdictions may select findings from that list to insert here, along with additional findings on local or regional conditions, outcomes, and issues that help make the case for the law. SECTION II. [Article/Chapter] of the [ City/County of ___ ] Municipal/County Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. [ ___ ('1) ]. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this [ article/chapter J the following definitions shall govern unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (A) "Cann abis" has the meaning set forth in California Business and Professions Code Section 26001, as that section may be amended from time to time. (B) "Electronic smoking device" means any device that may be used to deliver any aerosolized or vaporized substance to the person inhaling from the device, including, but not limited to, an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, vape pen, ore-hookah. ,1 ,1..-smm ______ s:amizam-.s:mma-mm:mmlili=lm11111111a.111m:i:m:ma:a.-1111B11iim:m:1i:ml!El:E:i:lllil3:IIC:ili;:;;;arm:Z11111-111111 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 7 l!Jt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . Cali fornia January 2021 (C) "Employee" means any person who is employed or retained as an independent contractor by any employer in consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit, or any person who volunteers his or her services for an employer. (D) "Employer" means any person or nonprofit entity that retains the service of one or more employees. (E) "Enclosed area" means all space between a floor and a ceiling that is bounded by w a lls, doorways, or windows, whether open or closed, covering more than 50 percent of the combined surface area of the vertical planes constituting the perimeter of the area. A wall includes any retractable divider, garage door, or other physical barrier, whether temporary or permanent. Note It is against state law to smoke or use electronic smoking or vaping devices, such as e-cigarettes, in an enclosed space at a place of employment or owner-operated business. (Labor Code section 6404.5). A place of employment is any place where employees or owner-operators carry on their work. Local governments may impose and enforce their own indoor smoking restrictions if they apply to areas not covered by state law. City of San Jose v. Dep't of Health Services, 66 Cal. App. 4th 35, 44 (1998). However, to the extent that state law currently prohibits smoking in an enclosed place of employment, a local government may only enforce the state law (and not a similar local law) (Labor Code section 6404.5). If a jurisdiction has a separate clean indoor air act, it should ensure this ordinance aligns with any definition of enclosed areas so that all enclosed and unenclosed areas are covered. (F) "Multiunit Residence" means property containing two or more units, including, but not limited to, apartment buildings, common interest developments, senior and assisted living facilities, and long-term health care facilities. (G) "Outdoor Dining Area" means any publicly or privately owned outdoor area, including streets and sidewalks, that is available to or customarily used by t he general public or an employee, and that is designed, established, or regularly used for consuming food or drink. ~,#.:0..----------------------------------------- www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 8 l!J1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitc hell Hamline Sc h ool of l aw / TAmerican Lung Association . California January 2021 ----------------------- Note Smoking in indoor dining areas is already prohibited by state law (Labor Code section 6404.5). (H) "Person" means any natural person, business, corporation, partnership, cooperative association, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity. (I) "Place of employment" means an area under the control of an employer that an employee or the general public may enter in the normal course of operations, regardless of the hours of operation, including work areas and construction sites. (J) "Public event areas" means any publicly or privately owned place used for an event open to the general public, regardless of any fee or age requirement, including a farmers' market, parade, fair, or festival. (K) "Public place" means any publicly or privately owned place that is open to the general public, regardless of any fee or age requirement, including sidewalks, streets, parking lots, plazas, shopping areas, stadiums, or sporting facilities . Note This is a very broad definition, intended to include all public areas that do not fall within other definitions in this Model Ordinance. The definition includes sidewalks and streets. If a jurisdiction would prefer not to cover sidewalks and streets, it could substitute the following definition: "Public place" means any publicly or privately owned place that is open to the general public, regardless of any fee or age requirement, including parking lots, plazas, shopping areas, stadiums, or sporting facilities. The term "public place" does not include streets or sidewalks used only as pedestrian or vehicular thoroughfares. ~,#.~-----------------------------------------· www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 9 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitch e ll Ha mline Sc h ool o f Law / ,=American Lung Association. California January 2021 -------------------- Note State law prohibits cannabis smoking in "a public place." (Health and Safety Code section 11362.3(a)(1)). While this phrase is generally understood to include places open and accessible to the public, "public place" is not defined in the statute so the definitions may be interpreted differently. (L) "Recreational area" means any publicly or privately owned area [, including streets and sidewalks located within the area, J that is open to the general public for recreational purposes, regardless of any fee or age requirement. The term "Recreational Area" includes, but is not limited to, facilities, parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, restrooms, beaches, picnic areas, spectator and concession areas, golf courses, walking paths, gardens, hiking trails, bike paths, riding trails, roller and ice-skating rinks, skateboard parks, amusement parks, zoos, and aquatic areas. Note The bracketed text allows a jurisdiction to select whether to apply the restrictions to streets and sidewalks. If a jurisdiction includes an exemption for streets and sidewalks, it is worth considering what impact congregating tobacco use in those areas will have on users of the facility or neighbors to the facility. Although this definition applies to all recreational areas, state law (Labor Code section 6404.5) already prohibits smoking inside places of employment, so Section [ ___ C3) (a)] limits the prohibition to outdoor recreational areas only. (M) "Service area" means any publicly or privately owned area, including streets and sidewalks, that is designed to be used or is regularly used by one or more persons to receive a service, wait to receive a service, or to make a transaction, whether or not such service or transaction includes the exchange of money. The term "service area" includes, but is not limited to, areas including or within 25 feet of information kiosks, automatic teller machines (ATMs), service lines, bus stops or she lters, or cab stands. www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 10 IJt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER al M itch ell Hamli ne Sc h ool of Law / =!= American Lung Association, Ca li forn ia January 2021 --------- Note Although this definition applies to all service areas, state law (Labor Code section 6404.5) already prohibits smoking inside places of employment, so Section [ ___ (*3)(a) J limits the prohibition to outdoor service areas only. (N) "Service lines" means an outdoor line in which one or more persons are waiting for or receiving service of any kind, whether or not the service involves the exchange of money, including but not limited to, ATM lines, concert lines, food vendor lines, mobile vendor lines, movie ticket lines, and sporting event lines. (0) "Smoke" or "Smoking" means: (1) inhaling, exhaling, or burning, any tobacco, nicotine, cannabis, or plant product, whether natural or synthetic; (2) carrying any lighted, heated, or activated tobacco, nicotine, cannabis, or plant product, whether natural or synthetic, intended for inhalation; or (3) using an electronic smoking device or hookah. (P) "Tobacco product" means: (1) any product that is made from or derived from tobacco, or that contains nicotine, that is intended for human consumption or is likely to be consumed, whether inhaled, absorbed, or ingested by any other means, including but not limited to, a cigarette, a cigar, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff, or snus; (2) any electronic smoking device and any substances that may be aerosolized or vaporized by such device, whether or not the substance contains nicotine; or (3) any component, part, or accessory of (1) or (2), whether or not any of these contains tobacco or nicotine, including but not limited to filters, rolling papers, blunt or hemp wraps, hookahs, mouthpieces, and pipes. "Tobacco product" does not include drugs, devices, or combination products authorized for sale by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as those terms are defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. ,,,,, __________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 11 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchell Haml ine School of Law / rAmerican Lung Association . California (Q) 'Tobacco product waste" means any component, part, or remnant of any tobacco product. Tobacco product waste includes any waste that is produced from the use of a tobacco product, including all tobacco product packaging and incidental waste such as lighters or matches, whether or not it contains tobacco or nicotine. (R) "Tobacco use" means the act of smoking or the consumption of any other tobacco product in any form. (S) "Unenclosed area" means any area that is not an enclosed area. Sec. [ __ ('3) ]. PROHIBITION OF SMOKING [ AND TOBACCO USE J IN UNENCLOSED AREAS. Note January 2021 This section prohibits smoking in a wide range of outdoor areas. If a community wants to prohibit the use of all tobacco products (including smokeless products like chewing tobacco and snus), then it should include the optional bracketed text referring to tobacco use. (A) Smoking [ and tobacco use] is prohibited in the unenclosed areas of the following places within the [ City/County of ___ ]: (1) Recreational areas; (2) Service areas; (3) Outdoor dining areas; (4) Places of employment; (5) Public event areas; or (6) Other public places. (B) Nothing in this [ article/chapter J prohibits any person or employer with control over any property from prohibiting smoking [ and tobacco use ] on any part of such property, even if smoking [ or tobacco use J is not otherwise prohibited in that area. ,,,,, ... _IIIEIBDlllli _ _. _________ llElilllillilllm_. _______ llll:l ___ lllillli:aaira-------■ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 12 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Haml ine School or Law / TAmerican Lung Association , Ca li fornia January 2021 ---------· [(C) It is not a violation of this [ article/chapter J to use tobacco as part of a Native American spiritual or cultural ceremony. Approval from [ city/county J administration must be requested and received prior to the ceremony.] Note Some smoke-free policies provide exceptions for traditional, ceremonial, and sacred uses of tobacco practiced by some tribal communities, while prohibiting the use of commercial tobacco. If you would like more information about this topic, please visit keepitsacred.org. Sec. [ __ (*4) J. SMOKE-FREE BUFFER ZONES. Smoking in all unenclosed areas shall be prohibited within 25 feet from any area in which smoking is prohibited under Sec. [ ___ (*3) J of this [ article/chapter J or by any other law. This prohibition shall not apply to unenclosed areas of private residential properties that are not multiunit residences. Note If a jurisdiction preferred to cover private residential unenclosed areas when they are within 25 feet from an enclosed area covered by the law, it could remove this last sentence. Sec. [ __ (*5) ]. TOBACCO WASTE. (A) No person or employer shall permit smoking ash receptacles within an area under their control and in which smoking [ or tobacco use J is prohibited by law, including within twenty-five (25) feet from any area in which smoking [ or tobacco use J is prohibited. The presence of smoking ash receptacles in vio lation of this subsection shall not be a defense to a charge of smoking [ or tobacco use J in violation of any provision of this [ article/ chapter]. (B) No person shall dispose of tobacco product waste within the boundaries of an area in which smoking [ or tobacco use J is prohibited. ~,,, _________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 13 l!J1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law / =f= American Lung Association . Ca li fornia January 2021 -------------- Sec. [ __ ( '6) J. ENFORCEMENT. Note Enforcement of smoke-free outdoor area policies is important because there is no risk-free amount of exposure to secondhand smoke and because we know that even outdoors, secondhand smoke can reach hazardous levels. But enforcement should balance the goal of protecting the public from secondhand smoke exposure with the knowledge that punitive measures are unlikely to help those struggling with tobacco addiction to end their tobacco use. Research tells us the best approaches to help those confronting addiction are counseling and education . Since most people will refrain from smoking if they know a tobacco-free policy is in place, the best way to improve enforcement is to educate the public and local businesses about the policy throughout the implementation process. Greater community compliance will be achieved if the policy is easy to understand, the boundaries and areas covered under the policy are clearly identified, and active steps are taken to communicate its impact to all affected groups. We also know that there are significant equity concerns with criminal penalties. For instance, racial profiling and discriminatory racial patterns are well documented in the enforcement of many crimes, including lower-level offenses. Another consideration is that the criminal process may trigger a probation or parole violation, a summons that could create a criminal record or a warrant, or other significant ripple effects in an individual's interaction with the justice system. In turn, these criminal sanctions could jeopardize the individual's housing, benefits, education, and employment. For these reasons, the enforcement provisions in this model policy do not include criminal sanctions. We also recommend prioritizing non-law enforcement interactions, such as starting with other civil public employees like recreation center staff, before contacting law enforcement to enforce the policy. We focus primary responsibility for enforcement on property owners by holding them accountable with appropriate civil penalties for any failure to enforce the rules required under this law. While we do include monetary administrative penalties, we acknowledge that these too can carry risks of discriminatory enforcement and create financial hardship, and we recommend pursuing enforcement actions against property owners whenever possible. We do not include private lawsuit enforcement options in this Model Policy, due to the potential for abuse. The following provisions are designed to offer several enforcement options to the jurisdiction and residents. While not all enforcement mechanisms may be pursued, allowing multiple enforcement mechanisms in the ordinance may increase the likelihood of compliance, enforcement, and, in turn, protection from second-hand smoke. ,#~------------------------------------------■ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco -Free Outdoor Areas 14 1!11' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M i tch ell Haml ine Sc h ool of Law / f American Lung Association . California --------------- (A) No person or employer shall permit smoking [ or tobacco use J in an area that is under the contro l of that person or employer and in which smoking [ or tobacco use J is prohibited by this article or any other law. (B) A person or employer that has control of an area in which smoking [ and tobacco use J is prohibited by this [ article/chapter J shall post a clear, conspicuous, and unambiguous "No Smoking" [ and "No Tobacco Use" J or "Smoke-Free" [ and "Tobacco -Free" J sign at each entrance to the area, and in at least one other conspicuo us point within the area. The signs shall have letters of no less than one inch in height and shall include the international "No Smoking" symbol. Signs posted on the exterior of buildings to comply with this section shall include the 25-foot distance requirement set forth in Sec. r __ _ (*4)]. The presence or absence of signs shall not be a defense to a charge of smoking [ or tobacco use J in violation of any other provision of this [ article/chapter]. Note January 2021 To encourage cessation, a jurisdiction may also want to consider adding a cessation hotline or other cessation information to signage. Potential language to promote this could be: "At least one sign placed in each place where smoking is prohibited must include the following tobacco cessation hotline number: ___ " To provide information about how to submit complaints, another option is to include the following language: "At least one sign with the [ City/ County J phone number for complaints must be placed conspicuously in each place in which smoking is prohibited." In addition, jurisdictions may want to indicate on their signs that use of electronic smoking devices is also prohibited and include an illustration of an electronic smoking device. (C) [ City/County J staff and volunteers will be notified about the requirements of this [ article/chapter J through the employee manual. (D) [City/County] staff w il l communicate the requirements of this [article/chapter] to public event organizers. [ City/County J staff will also make periodic observations of recreational areas and other [ city/county J property co vered by this [ article/ch apter J to monitor for compliance. Anyone found by [ city/county J staff to be violating this [ article/ ~,,,:.-________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 15 Ill PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW C ENTER at M itchell Hamli ne Sc hool of Law / =t=American / -Lung Association . California chapter J will be reminded of its requirements and asked to comply before being subject to ejection from the property. (E) A person or employer that ha s control of an area in which smoking [ and tobacco use J is prohibited by this [ article/chapter J shall direct anyone who is smoking [ or using tobacco J in violation of this [ article/chapter J to extinguish the product being smoked [ or stop using the tobacco product]. If they do not stop smoking [ or using the tobacco product ], the person or employer shall refuse any service and shall immediately ask them to leave the property. If the ejection is from a public event, it shall be for the duration of the public event. (F) No person or employer shall intimidate, threaten any reprisal, or effect any reprisal, for the purpose of retaliating against another person who seeks to attain compliance with this [ article/chapter]. [(G) The [ Director of ___ J or their designee shall conduct an ongoing educational program to explain and clarify the purposes and requirements of this [ article/chapter], as well as to provide guidance to persons or employers about compliance. Lack of receiving or participating in such education program shall not be a defense to a violation of this [ article/chapter].] Sec. [ __ (*7) ]. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. (A) Each refusal to comply with a request from a [ city/county J employee in violation of Secs. [ ___ (*6)(d) or (e) J may be subject to a [ fifty dollar ($50) J administrative fine. Note January 2021 A jurisdiction may also wish to include a non-monetary penalty here as an alternative to the administrative fine, such as required community service. (B) A person or employer that has control of an area in which smoking [ and tobacco use J is prohibited by this [ article/chapter J and that fails to comply with this [ article/chapter J shall be guilty of an administrative fine punishable by: (1) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation. (2) A fine not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars ($150) for a second violation within one year. ~~ .. ----------------------------------------■ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 16 l!Jl PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW C E NTER at Mitchell Haml ine School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association , California -------------- (3) A fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) for each additional violation within one year. (C) Multiple violations of this [ article/chapter J by a person or employer that has control of an area in which smoking [ and tobacco use J is prohibited by this [ article/chapter J may result in the suspension or revocation of any permit or license issued to the person for the property on which the violations occurred. (D) Any violation of this [ article/chapter J is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. Note January 2021 By expressly declaring that a violation of this ordinance is a public nuisance, this provision allows enforcement of the ordinance by the city or county through the administrative nuisance abatement procedures commonly found in municipal codes. It also facilitates restraining orders, or preliminary or permanent injunctions to stop the nuisance. (E) Any violation of this [ article/chapter J may be remedied by a civil action brought by the [ city attorney/county counsel ], including, but not limited to, administrative or judicial nuisance abatement proceedings, civil code enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief. Note It is common to provide that the local government's lawyers may go to court to seek injunctions and other penalties in addition to fines. The express provision for injunctive relief lowers the showing required to obtain a preliminary or permanent injunction as described in IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, 35 Cal. 3d 63 (1983). (F) Each instance of smoking [ or tobacco use J in violation of this [ article/chapter J shall constitute a separate violation. For violations other than for smoking, each day of a continuing violation of this [ article/chapter J shall constitute a separate violation. (G) The remedies provided by this [ article/chapter J are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies availab le at law or in equity. ~~ .... ----------------------------------------■ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 17 lllt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchell Hamli ne School of Law / ,=American Lung Association , Cali fornia -·--------- SECTION Ill. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION & SEVERABILITY. It is the intent of the [ City Council/Board of Supervisors J of the [ City/County J of [ ___ J to supplement applicable state and federal law and not to duplicate or contradict such law and this ordinance shall be construed consistently with that intention. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The [ City Council/Board of Supervisors J of the [ City/County J of [ ___ J declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase independently, even if any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases were declared invalid or unenforceable. Appendix A: Findings. WHEREAS, tobacco use causes death and disease and continues to be an urgent public health threat, as evidenced by the following: • The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that tobacco kills up to half of its users, amounting to more than 8 million deaths each year worldwide, including nearly half a million people who die prematurely from smoking in the United States alone;2 • Tobacco use causes disease in nearly all organ systems and is responsible for an estimated 87% of lung cancer deaths, 32% of coronary heart disease deaths, and 79% of all chronic obstructive pulmonary disease deaths in the United States;2 • The estimated economic damage attributable to smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke in the United States is nearly $300 billion annually;2 • Despite significant progress, tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the United States,2 and • [ insert local tobacco toll data if available J WHEREAS, tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death in California 2 and continues to be an urgent public health issue, as evidenced by the following: • An estimated 40,000 California adults die from smoking annually;3 January 2021 1.1.:..----------------------------------------- www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 18 l!J1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of law / =t= American Lung Association . Cali fornia ------------------ • Each year, smoking costs California an estimated $13.3 billion in direct health care expenses, $3 .6 billion in Medicaid costs, and $10.4 billion in productivity losses;4 • Research indicates that more than 25% of al l adult cancer deaths in California are attributable to smoking;5 and • [ insert local tobacco toll data if available J WHEREAS, significant disparities in tobacco use ex i st in California, which create barriers to health equity,6 as evidenced by the following: • African American (17.0%) and American Indian (19.1%) Californians report a higher smoking prevalence than white Californians (11.8%);7 • The American Indian population in California reports the highest cigarette smoking rate among adults, and American Indian youth report the highest rate of smoking among high schoo l students;7 • Californians with the highest levels of educational attainment and annual household income report the lowest smoking rates;7 • Those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender in California report smoking at higher rates than those who do not;7 • Californians who live in multiunit housing report smoking cigarettes at a higher rate (13.1%) than those who live in a house (9.7%);7 • Californians who reported experiencing psychological distress in the preceding month smoked at a rate far higher (26.7%) than the average statewide smoking rate (11.0%);7 and • [ insert local tobacco toll data 1f available J WHEREAS, secondhand smoke has been repeatedly identified as a health hazard, as evidenced by the following: • In 2006, the U.S. surgeon genera l concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke;8 • In 2006, the California Air Resources Board identified secondhand smoke as a toxic air contaminant, in the same category as the most tox i c automotive and industrial air pollutants, and a serious health threat for which there is no safe level of exposure;9·10 January 2021 ,,,,,,,.,. ________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke -and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 19 l!Jla PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchel! Hamli ne School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association , California • In 2006, the California Environmenta l Protection Agency added secondhand smoke to the Proposition 65 l i st of chemicals known to t he state of California to c ause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm;11 WHEREAS, exposure to secondhand smoke anywhere has negat ive health impacts, and exposure to secondhand smoke can occur at significant levels outdoors, as evidenced by the following: • Levels of secondhand smoke exposure outdoors can reach levels recognized as hazardous, depending on direction and amount of wind, number and proximity of smokers, and enc losures like walls or roofs;12 -18 • Smoking cigarettes near build i ng entryways can increase air pol l ution levels by more than two times background leve l s, with maximum levels reaching the "hazardous" range on the United States EPA's Air Quality lndex;15•17 and • To be completely free from exposure to secondhand smoke in outdoor places, a person may have to move 20 to 29 feet away from the source of the smoke, about the width of a two- lane road;75•79 ·2 0 WHEREAS, exposure to secondhand smoke causes death and disease, as evidenced by the following: • Since 1964, approximately 2.5 million nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke;2 • Secondhand smoke was responsible for an estimated 34,000 heart disease-related and 7,300 l ung cancer-related deaths among adult nonsmokers each year during 2005-2009 in the United States;2 • Research indicates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of coronary heart disease by 25% to 30% and increases the risk of stroke by 20% to 30%;2•2 1 and • Secondhand smoke kills more than 400 infants every year;22 WHEREAS , el ectronic smoking device aerosol may be considered a health hazard, as evidenced by the following: • Research has found electronic smoking device aerosol contains at least 12 chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm,11 •23 •24 such as forma l dehyde, acetaldehyde, lead, nickel, chromium, arsenic, and toluene;24 •25 January 2021 ,.,,,_:.a ________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 20 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamli ne School of Law / ±American // T ~~~~iaAssociation , • Electronic smoking device aerosol is not harmless water vapor as it contains varying concentrations of particles and chemicals with some studies finding particle sizes and nicotine concentrations similar to, or even exceeding, conventional cigarette smoke; 24 •26-28 • Evidence continues to build that exposure to electronic smoking device aerosol, including secondhand exposure, has immediate impacts on the human respiratory and cardiovascular systems, and poses a risk to human health;24•26 •28-34 • Given the increasing prevalence of electronic smoking device use, especially among youth and young adults, widespread nicotine exposure resulting in addiction and other harmful consequences ser i ous concerns;24 ·26•35,36 WHEREAS, secondhand cannabis smoke has been identified as a health hazard, as evidenced by the following: • The California Environmental Protection Agency includes cannabis smoke on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer;11 •37 • Cannabis smoke contains at least 33 known carcinogens;37 • In one study, exposure to cannabis smoke in an unventilated setting resulted in detectible levels of cannabinoids in non-smoker participants' b l ood and urine, and participants experienced minor increases in heart rate and impaired cognitive performance;38 and • A recent systematic review of the literature concluded that secondhand exposure to cannabis smoke leads to cannabinoid metabolites in bodily fluids and individuals experiencing self-reported psychoactive effects;39 WHEREAS, laws restricting the use of tobacco products have recognizable benefits to public health and can reduce medical costs; these outcomes, consistently demonstrated in peer- reviewed research, include the following: • Reduced prevalence of tobacco use;4 0 A1 • Reduced secondhand smoke exposure, as measured by self-report and laboratory analysis of biomarkers or indoor air;40-43 • Increased cessation of tobacco use ;4 0 A1 • Reduced initiation of tobacco use among young people;40 • Fewer hospitalizations from tobacco-related diseases, such as asthma and cardiovascular disease;40•41 •4 4 and January 2021 ,#~-------------------------------------------- www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 21 l!Jt. PUBLIC H E ALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law / =f= American Lung Association . California • An estimated annual savings rate in the U.S. of $148,000 to $409,000 (2011 U.S. dollars) per 100,000 people in averted secondhand smoke-related healthcare costs;40 Inc l ude the following findings about smokeless tobacco if your community will be incorporating the optional language to create completely tobacco-free spaces. [ WHEREAS, smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to smoking and causes its own share of death and disease, as evidenced by the fol l owing: • Smokeless tobacco use can lead to nicotine addiction;24 s • Smokeless tobacco use causes oral, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers/4546 • Smokeless tobacco use is associated with increased risk for heart disease and stroke ,46-48 and stillbirth and preterm delivery;49,50 and • [ insert local smokeless tobacco use disparities data if avai l ab l e J J WHEREAS, tobacco waste is a major, consequential, and persistent source of litter, as evidenced by the following: • The roughly 6.3 trillion cigarettes smoked globally each year result in 300 billion packs that produce almost 2 mill ion tons of waste paper, cellophane, foil, and g lue as well as trillions of butts littered across roadways, sidewalks, parks, and other green spaces;57 ,52 • Both tobacco industry and peer-reviewed research found that most smokers admit littering their cigarette butts,53,54 for example, one study found 74.1% of smokers admitted littering cigarette butts at least once in their life and 55.7% admitted to littering them in the past month;54 • In an observational study of nearly 10,000 individua ls, 65% of smokers disposed of their cigarette butts as l itter;54 • Cigarette butts are perennia ll y the most common form of l itter co ll ected during cleanup programs worldwide,53,56 for example, in 2018, cigarette butts made up nearly 16% of al l litter collected through cleanup programs in the U.S. (809,538 out of 5,106 ,515 items);56 • Cigarette butts are often cast onto sidewalks and streets, and frequently end up in storm drains that flow into streams, rivers, bays, lagoons, and ultimately the ocean;51 • Non-cigarette forms of tobacco waste, such as p lastic cigar tips and l ittle cigar wrappers, also significantly contribute to litter;57-59 January 2021 l'.1.------------------------------------------· www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 22 IJ1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER al Mitchell Hamli ne School of Law / ,=American Lung Association . Cali fornia • Waste from electronic smoking devices has become a recognized and growing form of litter.58·60•61 For example, a recent study among twelve high schools in the San Francisco Bay Area found that electronic cigarette waste made up nearly 20% (172 of 893 items) of all tobacco or cannabis product waste found on school property with the largest amount (152 items) and highest percentage (39.4%) of electronic cigarette waste observed at upper income schools;58 and • As of August 2019, the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency recognizes nicotine- containing electronic smoking devices as acute hazardous waste when disposed;6 2 WHEREAS, cigarette butts, smokeless tobacco, and electronic smoking devices pose a health threat of poisoning to young children, as evidenced by the following: • In 2018, American poison control centers logged nearly 13,000 cases involving exposure to cigarettes, cigarette butts, electronic smoking devices, or other tobacco products, and of these, more than 10,000 (79.0%) occurred in children aged 5 years and younger;63 • Among the 10,266 cases of nicotine and tobacco product exposure recorded in 2018 among children 5 years of age and younger by American poison control centers, 50.3% involved cigarettes, 18.4% involved electronic smoking devices, and 8.0% involved other tobacco products;6 3 • The annual number of electronic cigarette exposure cases among children less than 5 years of age reported to American poison control centers increased from 10 in 2010 to 1,835 in 2018, a 14,015% increase;64 and • Children who ingest tobacco products can experience vomiting, nausea, lethargy, and gagging,65 withe -liquids potentially posing a greater risk of toxicity or fatality through either ingestion or transdermal absorption;66 WHEREAS, exemptions and loopho les in California's smoke -free workp lace laws 67 disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color as well as those who work predominantly outdoors as evidenced by the following: • California Labor Code does not prohibit smoking in cabs of trucks, long-term care facilities, outdoor p laces of employment, tobacco shops, private smokers' lounges, and up to 20 percent of hotel rooms. Employees in these areas are disproportionately individuals of low- income and individuals of color;68 • One study in Ca l ifornia found Hispanic/Latino workers were most like ly to report secondhand smoke exposure at work (19.5%), followed by non-Hispanic other race January 2021 ~,:.. ________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 23 '1JI. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law / rAmerican Lung Association. California (13.7%), Asian/Pacific Islander (10.5%), African American (10.4%), and Caucasian (9.7%) workers;69 and • In a survey of employed Bay Area young adults, 32.6% reported workplace exposure to secondhand smoke, nearly all of whom (95.7%) reported outdoor exposure, and most of whom worked in one of four occupational categories: construction and extraction, transportation and material moving occupations, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance, and food preparation and serving;7° WHEREAS, California cities and counties have the legal authority to adopt local laws that prohibit all tobacco use indoors and outdoors in areas not already covered by state law;7 1 WHEREAS, state law prohibits smoking within 25 feet of playgrounds and tot lots as well as within 20 feet of public (state, county, city, or community college district) buildings, among other locations, and expressly authorizes local communities to enact additional restrict i ons;72 -74 WHEREAS, there is broad public recognition of the dangers of secondhand smoke and support for smoke-free air laws, as evidenced by the following: • A 2017 survey of California adults found that an overwhelming majority agree that secondhand smoke causes cancer and 82 .1% agree that aerosol and vapor from electronic smoking devices are harmful;75 • A 2018 survey of California adults found widespread public agreement that smoking should not be allowed at public beaches (78%);7 and • In a 2015 survey of California voters, 70% supported prohibiting electronic smoking device use where smoking is prohibited;76 WHEREAS, as of January 2019, there are more than 235 California cities and counties with outdoor secondhand smoke ordinances/ WHEREAS, as of April 1, 2020, more than 140 local jurisdictions in California prohibit the use of electronic smoking devices in specific locations;77 WHEREAS, as of October 2017, there are more than 210 California municipalities with local laws restricting smoking in parks,78 64 with local laws restricting smoking at beaches,79 104 with local laws restricting smoking in all bar patio and outdoor dining places,80 and 112 with local laws restricting smoking at outdoor public transit waiting areas;81 WHEREAS, there is no Constitutional right to smoke;82 and January 2021 ~~------------------------------------------■ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 24 1!11.. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Haml ine School of Law / ,=American Lung Association . California NOW THEREFORE, it is the intent of the [ City Council/County Board of Supervisors], in enacting this ordinance, to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare by discouraging the inherently dangerous behavior of smoking [ and tobacco use J around non -tobacco users, especial ly children; by protecting the public from exposure to secondhand smoke where they live, work, and play; by reducing the potential for children to wrongly associate smoking [ and tobacco use J with a healthy lifestyle; and by affirming and promoting a healthy environment in the [ city/county]. Endnotes Wor ld H eal th Orga ni za tion. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic , 2019: Offer Help to Quit Tobacco Use. Geneva: World H ea lth Organization. 2019 . Available at: https://apps.who .int/iris/handle/1066 5/326043. 2 U.S. Department of Heal th and Human Se rv ices. The Health Consequences of Smoking : 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014. Availabl e at: https://www .ncbi.nlm .nih.gov/books/NBK179276/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK179276.pdf. 3 Centers for Disease Control and Preve ntion. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs -2014. U.S. Departmen t of Hea lth and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Nationa l Center for Chronic Dis ease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/ toba cco/s tateandcommunity/best _practices/pdfs/2014/comprehensive.pdf. 4 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The Toll of Tobacco in Cal ifornia. https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/problem/toll-us/ california. Accessed June 15, 2020. 5 Lortet-Tieulent J, Sauer AG, Siege l RL, et al. State-leve l cancer mortality attributable to c igarette smoking in the United States. JAMA Intern Med . 2016;176(12):1792-1798. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed .2016.6530. 6 U.S. National Cancer Institute. A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Di sparities. National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph 22 . NIH Publication No. 17-CA-8035A. Bethesda, MD : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National In stitutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. 2017. Available at: https://can- cercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/22/index.html. 7 California Tobacco Control Program, California Department of Public Health. California Tobacco Facts and Figur es 2019. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca .gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Re- searchandEva1uation/FactsandFigures/CATobaccoFactsandFigures2019.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2020. 8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The He alth Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke. A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of H ea lth and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cent er for Chronic Disea se Prevention and Health Promotion , Office on Smok in g and Health. 2006. Available at: www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2006/index .h tm . 9 Air Resources Board, California Environm en tal Protection Agency. Frequently Asked Questions -Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/factsheetets.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2020. 10 California Identifies Secondhand Smoke as a "Toxic Air Contam in ant" [press release]. January 26, 2006. Avai lable at: www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr012606.htm. Accessed June 17, 2020. 11 Office of Environmental Healt h Hazard Assessment, California Env i ronmental Protection Agency. The Propo sition 65 Li st. https://oehha .ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65 -list. Accessed June 17, 2020. January 2021 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 25 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER al Mitchell Hamline School of law / TAmerican Lung Association . Cal ifornia January 2021 -------------·~---- 12 Air Resources Board, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agen- cy. Technical Support Document for the Propo sed Id entification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Appendix Ill. 2005. Available at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/ets2006/app3exe.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2020. 13 Sureda X, Fernandez E, Lopez MJ, Nebot M. Secondhand Tobacco Smoke Exposure in Open and Semi-Open Settings: A Systemat ic Review. Environ Health Perspect . 2013;121(7):766-773. doi:10.1289/ehp.1205806. 14 Licht AS, Hyland A, Trav ers MJ, Chapman S. Secondhand Smoke Exposure Levels in Outdoor Hospitality Venues: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review of the Research Literature. Tab Control. 2013;22(3):172-179. doi:10.1136/tobacco - contro l -2012-050493 . 15 Klepeis NE , Ott WR, Switzer P. Rea l-time measurement of outdoor tobacco smoke particles. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2007;57(5)522-534. doi:10.3155/1047-3289.57.5 .522. 16 Sureda X, Bilal U, Fernandez E, et al. Second-hand Smoke Exposure in Outdoor Hospitality Venues: Smoking Visibility and Assessment of Airborne Markers. Environ Res. 2018;165:220-227. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.04.024. 17 Kaplan B, Carkoglu A, Ergor G, et al. Evaluation of Secondhand Smoke Using PM2.5 and Observations in a Random Stratified Sample in Hospitality Venues From 12 Cities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(8):1381. doi: 10.3390/ ijerph16081381. 18 Zhang M, Garcia AD, Zamora M , Anderson IA, Jativa DF. Exposure to Secondhand Tobacco Smoke at Airport Terminals. J Environ Public Health. 2019;2019:9648761. doi: 10.1155/2019/9648761. 19 Repace J. Benefits of Smokefree Regulations in Outdoor Settings: Beaches, Golf Courses, Parks, Patios, and in Motor Vehi- cles. William Mitchell Law Rev 2008;34(4):1621-1638. Available at: https://open .mitche l lhaml ine.ed u/wmlr/vol34/iss4/15/. 20 Hwang J, Lee K. Determination of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Exposure by Distance from a Smoking Source. Nicotine Tab Res . 2014;16(4):478-484. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntt178. 21 DiGiacomo SI, Jazayeri MA, Barua RS, Ambrose JA. Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Cardiovascular Disease. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2018;16(1) 96. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16010096. 22 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC Vital Signs-Secondhand Smoke: An Unequal Danger. February 2015. Avai lable at: www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/2015-02-vitalsigns.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2020. 23 California Tobacco Control Program, California Department of Public Health. State Health Officer's Report on [-Cigarettes: A Community Health Thr eat. Sacramento, CA. 2015. Available at: www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCD IC/CTCB/ CDP H %2 0 Docu m ent%2 0 Li bra ry/ Policy/EI ectron i c Sm o ki ngDevi ces/S t ate H ea Ith E cigRe port. pdf. 24 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public Health Consequences of [-Cigarettes. 2018. Washing- ton, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24952/public-hea lth-consequenc- es-of-e-ciga rettes. 25 Fowles J, Barreau T, Wu N. Cancer and Non-Cancer Risk Concerns from Metals in Electronic Cigarette Liquids and Aerosols. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(6):2146. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062146. 26 U.S. Department of Health and Hum an Services. [-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2016. Available at: https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezpl.lib.umn.edu/books/NBK538680/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK538680.pdf. 27 Romberg AR, Miller Lo EJ , Cuccia AF, et al. Patterns of nicotine concentrations in electronic cigarettes sold in the United States, 2013-2018. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019:201:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.05.029. 28 Cao DJ, Aldy K, Hsu S, et al. Review of Health Consequences of Electronic Cigarettes and the Outbreak of Electronic Cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury. J Med Toxicol. 2020 Apr 16. Doi: 10.1007/s13181-020-00772-w. www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 26 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itch ell Ham li ne School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . Cali fornia 29 Staudt MR, Sa lit J, Kaner RJ, Ho llm ann C, Crysta l RG. Altered lung biology of healthy never smokers fo l lowing acute inhalation of E-cigarettes . Respiratory Research. 2018:19:78 . doi:10.1186/s12931-018-0778-z. 30 Tzortzi A, Teloniatis SI, Matiampa G. et al. Passive exposure toe-cigarette emissions: Immediate respiratory effects. Tob. Prev. Cessation. 2018;4(May) 18. doi.org/10.18332/tpc/89977. 31 Shields PG, Berman M, Brasky TM, et al. A Review of Pulmonary Toxicity of Electronic Cigarettes in the Context of Smok- ing: A Focus on Inflammation . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(8):1175-1191. do i 10.1158/1055-9965.EP l-17-0358. 32 Visser WF, Klerx WN, Cremers HWJM, et al. The Health Risks of Electronic Cigarette Use to Bystanders. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(9):1525 . doi: 10.3390/ijerph16091525. 33 Bayly JE, Bernat D, Porter L, Choi K. Secondhand Exposure to Aerosols from Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Asthma Exacerbations Among Youth With Asthma. Chest . 2019;15 5(1)88-93. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.10.005. 34 Tzort zi A, Teloniatis S, Matiampa G, et al. Passive Exposure of Non-Smokers to E-Cigarette Aerosols: Sensory Irrita- tion, Ti ming and Association With Volatile Organic Compounds. Environ Res. 2020;182:108963. doi: 10 .1016/j.en- vres.2019.108963. 35 Cullen KA, Ambrose BK, Genztke AS, et al. Notes from the field: use of electronic cigarettes and any tobacco product among middle and high school students -United States, 2011-2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(45):1276- 1277. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6745a5. 36 Lin C, Baiocchi M, Halpern-Felsher B. Longitudinal trends in e-cigarette devices used by Californian youth, 2014-2018. Addict Behav. 2020;108106459. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh .2020.106459. 37 Californ ia Environmental Protection Agency. Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Cannabis Smoke. Sacramento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Reproductive and Cancer Haz- ard Branch. 2009. Available at: https://oehha.ca .gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/chemicals/finalmjsmokehid.pdf. 38 Herrmann, ES, Cone, EJ, Mitchell, JM, et al. Non-Smoker Exposure to Secondhand Cannabis Smoke II: Effect of Room Venti lation on the Physiological, Subject ive, and Behavioral/Cognitive Effects. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;151:194-202. doi 10.1016/j .dru ga lcdep.2015.03 .019. 39 Holitzki H, Dowsett LE, Spackman E, Noseworthy T, Clement F. Health effects of exposure to second-and third-hand marijuana smoke: a systematic review. CMAJ Open. 2017;5(4):E814 -E822. doi:10.9778/cmajo.20170112. 40 Commun ity Preventive Services Task Force. Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Smoke-Free Policies. 2012. Available at: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/tobacco-use-and-secondhand-smoke-expo- su re-smoke-free-policies . 41 Young W, Karp S, Bialick P, et al. Health, Secondhand Smoke Exposure, and Smoking Behavior Impacts of No-Smoking Policies in Public Housing, Colorado, 2014-2015. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:E148 . doi: 10.5888/pcd13.160008. 42 Hollar TL, Cook N, Quinn D, Phillips T, Delucca M. Smoke-free multiunit housing policies show promise in reduc- ing secondhand smoke exposure among racially and ethnica lly diverse, low-income seniors. J lmmigr Minor Health . 2017 ;19( 6) :12 81-1289. doi.org/10.1007/sl 0903-016-0430-2. 43 Sureda X, Martinez-Sanchez JM, Fu M, et al. Impact of the Spanish Smoke-Free Legislat ion on Adult, Non-Smoker Exposure to Secondhand Smoke: Cross-Sectional Surveys Before (2004) and After (2012) Legislation. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e89430. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089430. 44 Mayne SL, Widome R, Carroll AJ, et al. Longitudinal Associations of Smoke-F ree Policies and Incident Cardiovascular Disease: CARD /A Study. Circulation. 2018;138(6):557-566. doi: 10.1161/C IR CULAT IO NAHA.117.032302. 45 World Health Organization. /ARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Volume 89: Smokeless Tobacco and Some Tobacco-Specific N-Nitrosamines. Lyon (France): World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2007. Available at: https://publications.iarc.fr/107. January 2021 ,#,#..t!!!m!m!:!li!:!2:!!!:!IBl!lllml!l!!llllllallll!a _________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 27 Ill PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itc hell H amline Sc hool o f Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California 46 Inoue-Choi M, Shiels MS, Mc Neel TS, et al. Contemporary Associations of Exclusive Cigarette, Cigar, Pipe, and Smoke- less Tobacco Use With Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality in the Uni ted States. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2019;3(3):pkz036. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkz036. 47 Arefalk G, Hambraeus K, Lind L, Michaelsson K, Lindahl B, Sundstrom J. Discontinuation of smokeless tobacco and mortality risk after myocardial infarction. Circu lation. 2014;130(4):325-32. 48 Rostron BL, Chang JT, Anic GM, et al. Smoke less Tobacco Use and Circu latory Disease Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Open Heart. 2018;5(2):e000846. doi: 10 .1136/openhrt-2018-000846. 49 Baba S, Wikstrom A-K, Stephansson 0, Cnattingius S. Influence of snuff and smoking habits in early pregnancy on risks for stillbirth and early neonatal mortal ity. Nicotine Tab Res. 2014;16(1):78 -83. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntt1 17. 50 Gould GS, Havard A, Lim L, The Psanz Smoking in Pregnancy Expert Group, Kumar R. Exposure t o Tobacco, Environ- mental Tobacco Smoke and Nicotine in Pregnancy: A Pragmatic Overview of Reviews of Maternal and Child Outcomes, Effectiveness of Interventions and Barriers and Facilitators to Quitting. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(6):2034. doi 10.3390/ijerph17062034. 51 Novotny TE, Lum K, Smith E, Wang V, Barens R. Cigarettes Butts and the Case for an Environmenta l Policy on Hazard- ous Cigarette Waste. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(5):1691-1705. doi: 10.3390/ijerph6051691. 52 Novotny TE, Aguinaga Bia lous S, Burt L, et al. The environme nta l and h ea lth im pacts of t obacco ag ri cu ltu re, cigarette manufacture and consumption. Bull Wor ld Health Organ . 2015;93(12):877-880. doi: 10.2471/BLT.15.152744. 53 Smith EA, Novotny TE. Whose Butt Is It? Tobacco Indu stry Research About Smokers and Cigarette Butt Waste. Tab Con- trol. 2011;20(Suppl 1):i 2-9. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.040105. 54 Rath JM, Rubenstein R a, Curry LE, Shank SE, Cartwright JC. Cigarette litter: Smokers' attitudes and behaviors. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2012;9(6):2189-203. doi 10.3390/ijerph9062189. 55 Schultz PW, Bator RJ, Large LB, Bruni CM, Tabanico JJ. Littering i n Context: Personal and Env i ronmental Predictors of Littering Behavior. Environ Behav. 2013;45(1):35-39. doi: 10 .1177/0013916511412179. 56 Ocean Conservancy, In terna t ional Coastal Clean up. Th e Beach and Beyond -2019 Report. Washington, DC: Ocean Con- servancy. 2019. Available at: https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Final-2019-ICC-Report.pdf. 57 Hardy SD, Barto lotta J. Pl astic cigar tips debris: Exp loring use and disposal issues for Lake Erie beaches. Marine Pollut Bull . 2018;137:262-266. doi 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.020. 58 Mock J, Hendlin YH. Notes From the Field: Env i ronmental Contamination From E-cigarette, Cigarette, Cigar, and Ca nn ab is Products at 12 High Schools -San Francisco Bay Area, 2018-2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(40):897-899. doi : 10.15585/mmwr.mm6840a4. 59 Public Hea lth Law Center. Commercial Tobacco, Health, and the Env ironment. Sa int Paul, MN: Public Health Law Center, Mitchell Hamline School of Law. 2019. Avai lable at: https://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/ Commerica l-Tob acco-Health -and-the-Env ironment.pdf. 60 Hendlin Y H. Alert: Pub lic Health Implications of Electronic Cigarette Waste. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(11):1489- 1490. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304699. 61 Public Hea lth Law Cente r. Disposing of [-Cigarette Waste.· FAQ for Schools and Others. Saint Paul, MN: Public Health Law Center, Mitchell Ham line School of Law. 2019. Ava i lable at: https://www.publ ichea lthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/ resou rces/Dispos i ng%2 0of%20E-Cigarette%20 Waste%20 Pub I ica tion -FI N AL.pdf. 62 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; EPA Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals and Amend- ment to the P075 Listing for Nicotine, 84 Fed. Reg .§ 5816 (August 21, 2019) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 266(p)). January 2021 ~I'...__ ________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 28 l!JI.. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline Sc hool of Law / =t= American Lung Association , California 63 Gumm in DD, Mowry JB, Spyker DA, et al. 2018 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers ' National Poison Data System (NPDS): 36th Annual Report. C/in Toxicol. 2019;57(12):1220-1413. doi: 10 .10 80/15563650. 2019 .1 6 77022. 64 Wang B, Liu S, Peroskie A Poisoning Exposure Cases Involving E-Cigarettes and E-Liquid in the United States, 2010- 2018 . C/in Toxicol. 2020;58(6)488-494. doi: 10.1080/15563650.2019. 65 Lewander W, Wine H, Carnevale R, et al. Ingestion of cigarettes and cigarette butts by children -Rhode Island, Jan- uary 1994-July 1996. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 19 97;46(6):125-128. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/ mmwrhtml/00046181.htm. 66 Chang JT, Rostron BL. Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Liquid Nicotine Exposure in Young Ch ildren Present- ing to US Emergency Departments, 2018 . lnj Epidemiol. 2019;6:43. doi 10.1186/s40621-019-0219-6. 67 Cal. Lab. Code§ 6404.5. 68 ChangeLab Solutions. Left Behind in the Smoke: How Exemptions in California's Smokefree Workplace Act Affect Health Inequities. Oakland, CA: ChangeLab So lu tions . 2019. Available at: https://www.changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/ files/2019-06/LeftBehi nd In TheSmoke_FI NAL_20190626.pdf. 69 Max W, Sung H-Y, Shi Y. Exposure to Secondhand Smoke at Home and at Work in California. Public Health Reports . 2012;127(1):81-88. doi 10.1177/00333549121270 0109. 70 Holmes LM, Ling PM. Workplace secondhand smoke exposure: a lingering hazard for young adults in Cal ifornia . Tobacco Control. 2017;26(e1):e79-e84. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-052921. 71 Cal. Lab. Code§ 6404.S(h). 72 Cal. Health & Safety Code§ 104495. 73 Cal. Gov. Code§§ 7596-7598. 74 Cal. Ed. Code§ 89031 . 75 California Tobacco Con trol Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2018 . Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health. 2018. Availab le at: https://www.cdph.ca .gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCD IC /CTCB/CDPH%20Docu- ment%20 Li brary/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigures/CATobaccoFactsFigures2018.pdf. 76 Unger JB , Barker D, Baezconde-Garbanati L, Soto, DW, Sussman, S. Support for electronic cigarette regulations among California voters. Tob Control. 2017;26(3) 334-337. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-052918. 77 Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. States and Municipalities with Laws Regulating Use of Electronic Cigarettes. Available at: https://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/ecigslaws.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2020. 78 Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. Municipalities with Smokefree Park Laws. Available at: https://no-smoke. org/wp-content/up lo ads/pdf/SmokefreeParks .pdf. Accessed June 11, 2020. 79 Amer icans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. Municipalities with Smokefree Beach Laws. Available at: https://no-smoke. org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/SmokefreeBeaches.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2020. 80 Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation . Municipalities with Smokefree Outdoor Dining and Bar Patio Laws. Avail- able at: https://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/SmokefreeOutdoorDining.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2020. 81 Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. Municipalities with Smokefree Outdoor Public Transit Waiting Area Laws. Available at: https://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Smokefree TransitStops .pdf. Accessed June 11, 2020. 82 Public Health Law Center. There Is No Constitutional Right to Smoke or Toke . Saint Paul, MN: Public Health Law Center. 2019 . Available at: https://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/No-Constitution- al-Ri ght-Smoke-Toke-2019.pd f. January 2021 ~1..c::=========================================::::::i www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-and Tobacco-Free Outdoor Areas 29 PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California / July 2020 Law and Policy Partnership to End the Commercial Tobacco Epidemic SMOKE-FREE MULTIUNIT HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE l'I' Introduction This Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance was prepared for California cities and counties interested in creating smoke -free multiunit residences by prohibiting smoking on the premises. T his 2020 model ordinance builds on the ordinance developed by Changelab Solutions and released in 2018 . The Public Health Law Center acknowledges the excellent work done by Changelab Solutions in creating the original ordinance . This model ordinance is based on an independent and objective analysis of the relevant law, evidence, and available data, as well as work done for the California Tobacco Control Program. The model offers cities and counties a variety of options to tailor the ordinance to meet local needs. Readers should consider all the evidence and decide for themselves which approach is appropriate for their multiunit housing needs . l'I' Customizing the Ordinance Context boxes are included throughout the ordinance to explain some key provisions . T hese boxes are not meant to be included in any final ordinance. A city or county wishing to adopt all or part of this ordinance should keep this in mind and remove the context boxes . .,~ .. ---------------------------------------- www.publichealthlawcenter.org/c altobacco IJ1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAWCENTER at Mitche ll Hamline Scho o l of law / TAmerican Lung Association . California In some instances, blanks (such as L _____ ])prompt you to customize the language to fit your community's needs. In other instances, the ordinance offers you a choice of options (such as [ choice one/ choice two ]). Some options are followed by a comment that describes the legal provisions in more detail. A degree of customization is always necessary to make sure the ordinance is consistent with a community's existing laws. Such customization also ensures that communities are using this model ordinance to address local needs and engender health equity. ""'""' Tips for Using This Model Ordinance The best possible world is one without the death and health harms associated with commercial tobacco use. Communities differ on their readiness and willingness to adopt certain commercial tobacco control policies that are intended to help make that world a reality. Accordingly, this model ordinance represents a balance between state and federal minimum standards, best public health policy practices, and practicality for city governments in California. T his model ordinance contains several policy components that communities may or may not choose to adopt at this time that may go beyond minimum state and federal requirements. While the Public Health Law Center does not lobby, advocate, or directly represent communities, we can provide assistance through our publications and referrals to experts in the field. Education, stakeholder and community engagement, and a strong advocacy plan are key steps in the adoption of effective commercial tobacco control policies. If a community is unaware of the resources available to it for engaging the community and developing an advocacy plan, or if a city is considering adopting an ordinance and is interested in learning about the range of resources available, please contact the Public Health Law Center. If you have any questions about this ordinance, you can reach us at www.publichealthlawcenter.org. This publ ication was prepared by the Pub lic Health Law Center, a nonprofit organization that provides information and legal technical assistance on issues related to pub li c health. The Center does not provide legal representation or advice. Th e inform ation in this document shoul d not be considered legal advice. This model ord inan ce was made possible by funds received from Gran t Number 19-10229 with the California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program, and the American Lung Association in Ca l ifornia. July 2020 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 2 l!Ja PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTE R at M it ch ell Hamline School of Law / f American Lung Association . California July 2020 ------------ AN ORDINANCE OF THE [ CITY/COUNTY OF ____ ] PROHIBITING SMOKING IN AND AROUND MULTI UNIT RESIDENCES AND AMENDING THE [ ____ ] MUNICIPAL CODE The [ city council/county board of supervisors J of the [ city/county of ___ J does ordain as follows: SECTION I. [ See Appendix A: Findings] Note A findings section is important because it provides the evidentiary basis for the proposed commercial tobacco control policies and demonstrates the jurisdiction's reasoning for adopting specific provisions. This findings section reflects language appropriate for all of the provisions suggested. The findings section is part of the ordinance and legislative record, but it usual ly does not become codified in the municipal code. An ordinance based on this model ordinance should include findings of fact -data, statistics, relevant epidemiological information, for instance -that support the purposes of this ordinance, as well as any legal precedent that directly supports the ordinance. In addition to serving an educational purpose and building support for the ordinance, the findings can also serve a legal purpose. If the ordinance is challenged in court, the findings are an admissible record of the factual determinations made by the legislative body when considering the ordinance. Courts will generally defer to legislative determinations of factual issues, which often influence legal conclusions. A list of findings supporting this model ordinance appears in "Appendix A: Findings." Jurisdictions may select findings from that list to insert here, along with additional findings on local or reg ional conditions, outcomes, and issues that help make the case for the law. SECTION II. [Article/Chapter] of the [ City/County of ___ ] Municipal/ County Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 1. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this [ article/chapter J the following definitions shall govern unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (A) "Common Area" means every area of a multiunit residence that residents of more than one unit are entitled to enter or use, including, but not limited to, halls, pathways, lobbies, courtyards, elevators, stairs, community rooms, playgrounds, gym facilities, swimming pools, parking garages, parking lots, grassy or landscaped areas, restrooms, laundry rooms, cooking areas, and eating areas. l'I.A::=========================================i www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 3 1!11., PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchell Hamline School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California (B) "Common interest development" means: (1) A community apartment proj ect as defined in California Civil Code section 4105, or any successor legislation; (2) A condom i nium project as defined in California Civil Code section 4125, or any successor legislation; (3) A planned development as defined in California Civil Code section 4175, or any successor legislation; and (4) A stock cooperative as defined in California Civil Code section 4190, or any successor legislation. (C) "Electronic smoking device" means any device that may be used to deliver any aerosolized or vaporized substance to the person inhaling from the device, i ncluding, but not limited to, an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, vape pen, ore-hookah. (D) "Home owners' association" or "HOA" means an organization or entity established for the purpose of managing or maintaining a common interest development. A homeowners' association shall also mean "association" as defined in California Civil Code section 4080, or any successor legislation. (E) "Landlord" means any person or agent of a person who owns, manages, or is otherwise legally responsible for a unit in a multiunit residence that is leased to a residential tenant. For purposes of this ordinance, a tenant who sublets their unit (e .g., a sublessor) is not a landlord. (F) "Multi unit Residence" means property containing two or more units, including, but not limited to, apartment bu i ldings, common interest developments, senior and assisted living facilities, and long -term health care facilities. [ Multiunit Residences do not include the following: (1) a hotel or motel that meets the requirements of California Civil Code section 1940(b)(2); (2) a mobile home park; (3) a campground; (4) a marina or port; (5) a single-family home, except if used as a health care facility subject to licensing requirements; and July 2020 ~,,_:.. ________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke -free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 4 l!Ja PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW C ENTER at M itchell Hamline School of Law / ±American / T ~~~'~:ssociation . July 2020 ------ (6) a single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit or second unit permitted pursuant to California Government Code sections 65852.1, 65852.2, or 65852.22 or an ordinance of the [ city/county J adopted pursuant to those sections, except where the accessory dwelling unit or second unit is rented or is used as a health care facility subject to licensing requirements. J Note This definition is used in conjunction with the definition of unit in this model ordinance, which makes clear that this term is limited to dwelling spaces. Because the definition of unit in this ordinance is very broad, a community may want to limit the types of dwelling places covered by the smoke-free housing ordinance. Hotels and motels are included in the list of optional exemptions because many communities regulate smoking in these facilities using a smoke-free workplace ordinance, but there is no legal reason hotels and motels could not be made completely smoke-free using this model ordinance. Single-family residences are suggested as an exemption because the definition of un it in this ordinance includes individual bedrooms in a single-family home. Thus, a two-bedroom free-standing house would be a multiunit residence per the definitions in this ordinance, unless the exemption is included. With the new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) law taking effect Jan. 1, 2020, the optional language would make clear that the ordinance only applies to ADUs where they are rented or used as a licensed health care facility. Note that the definition of multiunit residence without any exemptions includes the following types of dwelling places: apartments, condominium projects, townhomes, stock cooperatives, and co-housing; affordable housing (for seniors, disabled tenants, Section 8, etc.); long-term health care facilities, assisted living facilities, hospitals, and family support facilities; hotels, motels, single-room occupancy facilities, dormitories, and homeless shelters; mobile home parks, campgrounds, marinas, and ports; as well as single-family homes and single-family homes with an in-law unit. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires public housing agencies to adopt a policy prohibiting smoking in all indoor areas, including residential units, and outside spaces within 25 feet of indoor areas. ,#~------------------------------------------ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 5 1!11.. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitch e ll Hamline Sch ool of Law / =t= American Lung Association . Cali fornia (G) "Nonsmoking Area" means any area in which smoking is prohibited by (1) this [ article/chapter J or other law; (2) binding agreement relating to the ownership, occupancy, or use of real property; or (3) a person with legal control over the area. (H) "Person" means any natural person, partnership, cooperative association, corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity, including government agencies. (I) "Smoking" means: (1) inhaling, exhaling, or burning, any tobacco, nicotine, cannabis, or plant product, whether natural or synthetic; (2) carrying any lighted, heated, or activated tobacco, nicotine, marijuana, or plant product, whether natural or synthetic, intended for inhalation; or (3) using an "electronic smoking device." [Smoking does not include the use of traditional, sacred tobacco as part of an Indigenous practice or a lawfully recognized religious, spiritual, or cultural ceremony or practice.] Note Some smoke-free policies provide exceptions for traditional, ceremonial, and sacred uses of tobacco practiced by some tribal communities, while prohibiting the use of commercial tobacco. If you would like more information about this topic, please visit keepitsacred.org. (J) "Unit" means a personal dwelling space, even one lacking cooking facilities or private plumbing facilities, and includes any associated exclusive-use area, such as a private balcony, porch, deck, or patio. "Unit" includes, without limitation, an apartment; a condominium; a townhouse; a room in a senior facility; a room in a long-term health care facility, assisted living facility, community care facility, or hospital; a room in a hotel or motel; a dormitory room; a room in a single-room occupancy facility; a room in a homeless shelter; a mobile home; a camper vehicle or tent; a single-family home; and an accessory dwelling unit or second unit. July 2020 I'~ .. ---------------------------------------- www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 6 l!J'6 PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchell Ham li ne School of Law / ,=American Lung Association , Cali fornia July 2020 Sec. 2. SMOKING RESTRICTIONS (A) Effective 90 days from [ effective date ], smoking is prohibited anywhere on the premises of a multiunit residence, including units, common areas, and other outdoor areas. (B) No person with legal control over any multi unit residence shall permit smoking anywhere on the premises of the multiunit residence. Note The strongest approach from a public health standpoint is to prohibit smoking anywhere on the premises. However, if a jurisdiction wants to allow some outdoor smoking, the narrowest way to do so would be to include a designated smoking area (DSA). Again, from a public health standpoint, the preferable approach would be to allow on the premises only one DSA that is required to be at least 25 feet from interior areas and from areas frequented by children. Here is sample language that would allow this: Replace the current subsection Sec. 2(8) with the following new subsections: (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), smoking is permitted in designated smoking areas if they meet the following conditions: (1) Must not be an enclosed area; (2) Must be at least twenty-five (25) feet from any: (a) outdoor recreation area such as a tennis court, swimming pool, and picnic area; or (b) outdoor area primarily used by children such as a playground; (3) Must have a clearly marked perimeter; and (4) Must be i dentified by conspicuous signs. (C) No person with legal control over any nonsmoking area of a multiunit residence shall permit smoking in the nonsmoking area, except as provided in subsection (b). (continued) l'~'..a-----------------------------------------· www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 7 IJ1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California July 2020 Note (continued) Insert as new subsection (d) in Sec. 1 (Definitions): (D) "Enclosed area" means all space between a floor and a ceiling that is bounded by walls, doorways, or windows, whether open or closed, covering more than 50 percent of the combined surface area of the vertical planes constituting the perimeter of the area. A wall includes any retractable divider, garage door, or other physical barrier, whether temporary or permanent. If limiting outdoor smoking to one DSA is not feasible, the next most protective approach would be to follow the Department of Housing & Urban Development's approach and include a 25-foot "buffer zone." Please contact the Public Health Law Center for more information on this approach. Note This model ordinance includes a 90-day phase -in of the smoke-free requirement to allow time for public officials to educate tenants and management about the requirements of the ordinance. Some smoke-free multiunit housing ordinances allow current leases to expire before the smoke-free requirements take effect in those units. We believe this approach is not necessary since lease provisions cannot conflict with local laws . Note The CA Labor Code Sec. 6404.5, which prohibits smoking in places of employment, exempts private residences in Sec. 6404.5(e)(6). Local jurisdictions are able to impose more restrictions on smoking than state law; but if a jurisdiction has incorporated Sec. 6404.5 and the decision is made to have this ordinance apply to residential private property rentals, then consider adding the following sentence to the above subsection (a): "This section applies notwithstanding [ citation to local incorporation of Sec. 6404.S(e)(6) ]." ,,,,.,,._. _________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 8 Ill PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchell Hamline Sch ool o f Law / TAmerican Lung Association. Ca liforn ia July 2020 (C) No person with legal control over a common area in which smoking is prohibited by this [ article/chapter J or other law shall permit the presence of ashtrays, ashcans, or other receptacles designed for or primar i ly used for disposal of smoking waste within the area. Sec. 3. REQUIRED AND IMPLIED LEASE TERMS FOR ALL NEW AND EXISTING UNITS IN MULTIUNIT RESIDENCES. Note This section requires that smoking restrictions be included in a lease for the rental of a unit in any type of multiunit residence (e.g., an apartment building, common interest development, or single - room occupancy facility). By including these provisions in lease agreements, smoking becomes a violation of both the lease and the local ordinance. Thus, landlords may enforce the smoking lease terms just like any other condition in the rental agreement. Further, by including the "third-party beneficiary" provision, other residents of the multiunit residence can enforce a lease's smoking restrictions. (A) After [ effective date ], every lease or other rental agreement for the occupancy of a unit in a multiunit residence entered into, renewed, or continued month to month shall be amended to include the following provisions: (1) A clause providing that as of [ effective date + 90 days ], it is a material breach of the agreement to smoke or allow smoking: (a) in the unit, including exclusive-use areas such as balconies, porches, or patios; and (b) in any common area of the multiunit residence [ other than a designated smoking area ]. Sample Language The bracketed language above and in the sample language below regarding DSAs is to be included if a building has a DSA. "Tenant agrees and acknowledges that the premises to be occupied by tenant and members of tenant's household have been designated as a smoke-free living (continued) ~~'..m-----ll:DICIIIIRBlll __________ ~ialllllmZl_llllli ___________ Cl.912911111 ___ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 9 IJ1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchell Hamli ne Sc h ool of Law / =t= American Lung Association . California Sample Language (continued) environment. As of [ effective date+ 90 days], tenant, members of tenant's household, and any guests under control of the tenant will not smoke anywhere: July 2020 (A) In the unit rented by tenant, including any associated balconies, decks, or patios; (B) In the common areas of the property, including, but not limited to, lobbies, hallways, stairwells, elevators, laundry rooms, community rooms, community bathrooms, or offices; or (C) On the outdoor grounds of the property, [ other than a designated smoking area, J including, but not limited to, entryways, playgrounds, pool areas, walking paths, or sitting areas. "Tenant acknowledges that a breach of the smoke-free policy may render tenant liable to landlord for the costs to repair tenant's unit due to damage from smoke odors or residue. A breach of the smoke-free policy is a breach of the lease and grounds for immediate enforcement action, including potential termination of the lease by the landlord. "Tenant will inform tenant's guests of the smoke-free policy. Tenant will also promptly give landlord a written statement of any incident where tenant observes smoking not allowed by this policy or believes smoke is migrating into the tenant's unit from sources outside the tenant's unit." (2) A clause providing that it is a material breach of the agreement for tenant to violate any law regulating smoking while anywhere on the property, or to allow any other person subject to the control of the tenant to engage in such behavior. Sample Language "It is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to violate any law regulating smoking while anywhere on the property. Moreover, it is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to allow any other person subject to the control of the tenant to violate any law regulating smoking while anywhere on the property." www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke -free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 10 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association , California July 2020 (3) A clause expressly conveying third -party beneficiary status to all occupants of the multiunit residence as to the smoking provisions of the lea se or other rental agreement. Sample Language "Tenant agrees that other tenants of the rental community are third-party beneficiaries of tenant's smoke-free policy agreement with landlord. A tenant may sue another tenant for an injunction to prohibit smoking or for damages but does not have the right to evict another tenant. Any lawsuit between tenants does not create a presumption that the landlord breached this lease." (B) Whether or not a landlord complies with subsection (A) above, the clauses required by those subsections shall be implied and incorporated by law into every agreement to which subsection (A) applies as of [ effective date+ 90 days ]. (C) A tenant who breaches, or allows any other person subject to the control of the tenant to breach, a smoking provision of a lease or other rental agreement for the occupancy of a unit in a multi unit residence shall be liable for the breach to (1) the landlord; and (2) any occupant of the multiunit residence who is exposed to smoke or who suffers damages as a result of the breach. (D) Failure to enforce any smoking provision required by this [ article/chapter J shall not affect the right to enforce such provision in the future, nor shall a waiver of any breach constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach or a waiver of the provision itself. Note This is a technical legal provision designed to prevent a court from inferring a permanent waiver of a smoking-related provision from a pattern of lax enforcement. Sec. [ _ (*4)]. REQUIREMENTS FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES. The following requirements apply to multiunit residences other than units in a common interest development that are not being rented: (A) On or before [ effective date+ 90 days], every landlord shall deliver to each unit a copy of this [ ar ti cle/chapter J and a written notice clearly stating: ,,~ .. ----=----------------------------lmllllllll: _______ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 11 l!llti PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Haml ine School of Law / ,=American Lung Association . California (1) All units are designated nonsmoking units and smoking is prohibited in a unit, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio, as of [ effective date+ 90 days ]; and (2) Smoking in all common areas or outdoor areas [, except for specifically designated smoking areas, J is a violation of [ this article/chapter J as of [ effective date+ 90 days J. (B) As of [ effective date], every landlord shall provide prospective tenants with written notice clearly stating that: (1) Smoking is prohibited in units, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio, as of [ effective date + 90 days]; and (2) Smoking is prohibited in all common areas and outdoor areas [, except for specifically designated smoking areas, ] as of [ effective date + 90 days ]. (C) As of [ effective date+ 90 days], the person or persons with legal control over common areas shall post and maintain clear and unambiguous "No Smoking" signs at entrances and exits, in common areas, and in conspicuous places adjoining the property grounds. In addition, as of [ effective date+ 90 days ], the person or persons with legal control over the multiunit residence shall post and maintain signs in sufficient numbers and locations in the multiunit residence to indicate that smoking is prohib ited in all units. The absence of signs shall not be a defense to a violation of any provision of this [article/chapter]. "No Smoking" signs are not required inside or on doorways of units [ , except for hotels or motels that meet the criteria listed in California Civil Code section 1940, subdivision (b)(2)]. Note July 2020 If your community excludes hotels and motels from the definition of multi unit residences (Section *1 Definitions), then do not include the optional language in grayscale in the last sentence. (D) Landlords with knowledge of violations shall take reasonable steps to investigate and enforce the regulations, includ i ng a written notice to the resident of the landlord's knowledge of the violation, a request to cease the violation, and the course of action to be taken if the violation is not corrected. [ The landlord shall also provide resources provided for free by the [ city/county] to assist with nicotine dependence, such as referrals to quitline or online resources.] """~:.c:===;:;:;.i=====z::::.::::::..======;;:;:z:i=i:;;;;=::.::.:....::==,1/l;;;;;;;:;;:;;:c;;;;;================::11 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 12 l!Jt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAWCENTER at Mitchell Haml ine School of Law / ,=American / Lung Association . Ca liforni a Sec. [ _ C 5)]. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS. The following requirements apply to common interest developments: (A) On or before [ effective date+ 90 days ], the HOA shall provide to all owners of units a copy of this [ article/chapter J and written notice clearly stating that: (1) Smoking is prohibited in units, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio, as of L effective date + 90 days]; and (2) Smoking is prohibited in all common areas and outdoor areas [, except for specifical ly designated smoking areas, J as of [ effective date + 90 days ]. (B) As of [ effective date J every seller of a unit sha ll provide prospective buyers or renters, a copy of this [ article/chapter J and written notice clearly stating that: (1) Smoking is prohibited in units, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio, as of [ effective date + 90 days]; and (2) Smoking is prohibited in all common areas and outdoor areas [, except for specifically designated smoking areas, J as of [ effective date + 90 days ]. (C) As of [ effective date+ 90 days ], the HOA, or any person having legal ownership or control over common areas, shall post and maintain clear and unambiguous "No Smoking" signs in sufficient numbers and locations in the common interest development to make it obvious to a reasonable person that smoking is prohibited throughout the common interest development. The absence of signs shall not be a defense to a violation of any provision of this chapter. (D) HOAs with knowledge of violations shall take reasonable steps to investigate and enforce the regulations, including a written notice to the resident of the HOA's knowledge of the violation, a request to cease the violation, and the course of action to be taken if the violation is not corrected. [ The HOA shall also d istribute resources provided for free by the [ city/county J to assist with nicotine dependence, such as referrals to quitline or online resources. J July 2020 ~~------------------------------------------■ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 13 IJt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchell Hamli ne Sc hool o f Law / TAmerican Lung Association . Ca lifornia Sec. [ _ ('5)]. NUISANCE; OTHER (A) The provisions of this [ article/chapter J shall be liberally construed to protect the public health to the maximum effect possible. Notwithstanding (1) any provision of this [ article/ chapter J or of this code, (2) any failure by any person to restrict smoking under this [article/chapter], or (3) any explicit or implicit provision of this code that allows smoking in any place, nothing in this code shall be interpreted to limit any person's legal rights under other laws with regard to smoking, including rights in nuisance, trespass, property damage, and personal injury or other legal or equitable principles. Note The subsection spells out that the intent of this ordinance is to create new smoke-free areas and enhance the right to smoke-free environments. This ordinance does not provide smokers with any "safe harbors" from existing laws that might already impose potential liability for smoking. (B) Any violation of this [ article/chapter J is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. Note By expressly declaring that a violation of this ordinance is a nuisance, this provision allows enforcement of the ordinance by the city or county via the administrative nuisance abatement procedures and penalties commonly found in municipal codes. The jurisdiction may want to cross-reference its nuisance code with this section to ensure consistency. (C) Nonconsensual exposure to smoke from smoking occurring on or drifting into [ residential J property is a nuisance. July 2020 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke -free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 14 IJlt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchel l Haml in e Sc hool o f Law / =t= American Lung Association . July 2020 California Note The declaration in subsection (8) that smoking is a nuisance extends far beyond the residential context. Once smoking is declared a nuisance, nuisance abatement laws can be used to address smoke around doorways, at businesses, in public venues, and anywhere else it may occur. However, declaring smoking a nuisance is particularly helpful in the housing context because it eliminates the need to prove that some particular level of exposure has occurred and that such exposure is an unjustified intrusion or hazard. California Government Code section 38771 explicitly authorizes cities to declare nuisances by ordinance. Counties may declare a nuisance pursuant to the broad police power set forth in the California Constitution, article XI, section 7. Sec. [ _ ("8)]. PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT. Note Enforcement of smoke -free multiunit housing policies should balance the goal of protecting residents from secondhand smoke exposure with the goal of ensuring housing stability for all residents. Several factors should be considered in this balance, such as the likely effectiveness of enforcement; equity (balancing the public health benefits of smoke-free housing policies with the risks of housing instability and associated health harms or negative social outcomes posed by different enforcement mechanisms); and the process of enforcement. Criminal and monetary administrative penalties can carry significant risks of discriminatory enforcement, financial hardship, and housing instability for residents. In the context of housing, another concern is the prospect of unintended criminal, immigration, and Due Process consequences as a result of potential increased interactions with law enforcement. Another consideration for such criminal charges and penalties is how the criminal process may trigger a probation or parole violation or similar significant ripple effect in the residents' interaction with the justice system. Increased involvement with the criminal justice system could lead to more severe criminal sanctions, and possible incarceration. In turn, these criminal sanctions could jeopardize the individual's housing, benefits, education, and employment. These (continued) .11..---------------------=---------------------■ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 15 l!J1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAWCENTER a t Mitchell Hamli ne School o f Law Note (continued) / =t= American Lung Association . Ca lifornia risks should be carefully weighed by the municipality as policymakers consider whether to include criminal and monetary penalties and how to structure those penalties. July 2020 For these reasons, the enforcement provisions in this model policy do not include criminal sanctions, and focus primary responsibility for enforcement on landlords and HOAs as the managers of such properties by holding them accountable with appropriate civil penalties for any failure to enforce the rules required under this law. Penalties for individual residents are limited to violations that include harassment or retaliation for seeking enforcement of the law. The following provisions are designed to offer several enforcement options to the jurisdiction and residents. While not all enforcement mechanisms may be pursued, allowing multiple enforcement mechanisms in the ordinance may increase the l ike lihood of compliance, enforcement, and, in turn, protections from second and third-hand smoke. (A) The remedies provided by this [ article/chapter J are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. (8) Any person exposed to secondhand smoke as a result of a violation of this [ article/ chapter J may initiate enforcement of this [ article/chapter J by registering a complaint with the [ city/county manager ], or his or her designee. (C) Enforcement of this chapter shall be the responsibility of [ department of housing inspections/public health/other]. In addition, any code enforcement official may enforce this chapter. (D) Landlords or HOAs found to have violated this [ article/chapter J are subject to a civil fine not less than [ two hundred fifty dollars ($250) J and not exceeding [ one thousand dol l ars ($1,000) J per violation. Note This provision provides civil fines for violating the ordinance. It requires that a traditional civil suit be filed by the city or county (possibly in small claims court). The fine amounts can be adjusted but cannot exceed $1,000 per violation. (See California Government Code section 36901.) ,##, .. _______________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 16 IJlt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchell Haml ine School o f Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California (E) No person shall intimidate, harass, or otherwise retaliate against any person who seeks compliance with this [article/chapter]. Any person in violation of this subsection is subject to a civil fine not less than [ two hundred fifty dollars ($250) J and not exceeding [ one thousand dollars ($1,000) J per violation . Note July 2020 This subsection allows penalties for any person who intimidates, harasses, or otherwise retaliates for persons seeking compliance with this ordinance. These fines may be too steep for some residents, which could put their housing stabi lity in jeopardy. Community service may be provided as an alternative option. The following language could be added to this paragraph: "Residents of the multiunit residence in violation of this subsection may be subject to community service as an alternative to a civil fine." (F) In addition to other remedies provided by this [ article/chapter J or otherwise available at law or in equity, any violation of this [ article/chapter J may be remedied by a civil action brought by the [ city attorney/county counsel ], including, without limitation, administrative or judicial nuisance abatement proceedings, civil code enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief. Note It is common to provide that the local government's lawyers may go to court to seek injunctions and other penalties in addition to fines. The express provision for injunctive relief lowers the showing required to obtain a preliminary or permanent injunction. A public agency should think carefully about the nuisance abatement procedure it chooses in enforcing this ordinance after it is adopted. A local government may provide for treble damages for the second or subsequent nuisance abatement judgment within a two-year period, as long as the ordinance is enacted pursuant to Government Code section 38773.7. Treble damages are not available, however, under the alternative nuisance abatement procedures in Government Code section 38773.1 and Health & Safet y Code section 17980. Government Code sect ion 38773.5 establishes a procedure for nuisance abatement where the cost of the abatement can be collected via the property tax roll as a special assessment against the property on which the violation occurs. www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 17 IJ/l PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Haml ine School of Law / =t= American Lung Association . California (G) Any person may bring a civil action to enforce this [ article/chapter J to prevent future violations and may sue to recover actual or statutory damages, including court costs, and attorney fees. SECTION Ill. CONSTRUCTION, SEVERABILITY. It is the intent of the [ city council/board of supervisors J of the [ city/county J of [ ____ J to supplement applicable state and federal law and not to duplicate or contradict such law and this ordinance shall be construed consistently with that intention. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The [ city council/board of supervisors J of the [ city/county J of [ ___ J hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. APPENDIX A: FINDINGS WHEREAS, tobacco use causes death and disease and continues to be an urgent public health threat, as evidenced by the following: • The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that tobacco kills up to half of its users, amounting to more than 8 million deaths each year worldwide,1 including nearly half a million people who die prematurely from smoking in the United States alone;2 • Tobacco use can cause disease in nearly all organs of the body and is responsible for an estimated 87% of lung cancer deaths, 32% of coronary heart disease deaths, and 79% of all chronic obstructive pulmonary disease deaths, in the United States;2 • 5.6 million of today's Americans who are younger than 18 are projected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness;2 and • The estimated economic damage attributable to smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke in the United States is nearly $300 billion annually; and 2 WHEREAS, tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death in California 2 and continues to be an urgent public health issue, as evidenced by the following: July 2020 ,,,,, ... _______________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 18 l!llt, PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAWCENTER at Mitchell Hamline Sc hoo l of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . Cali fornia • An estimated 40,000 California adults die from smoking annually;2 • Each year, smoking costs California an estimated $13 .3 billion in direct health care expenses, $3.6 billion in Medicaid costs, and $10.4 billion in productivity losses;3 • Research indicates that more than 25% of all adult cancer deaths in California are attributable to smoking;4 and [ insert local data if available J WHEREAS, significant disparities in tobacco use exist in California which create barriers to health equity,5 as evidenced by the following: • African American (17%) and American Indian (19.1%) Californians report a higher smoking prevalence than white Californians (11.8%);6 • The American Indian population in California reports the highest cigarette smoking rate among adults; and American Indian youth report the highest rate of smoking among high school students;6 • Californians with the highest levels of educational attainment and annual household income report the lowest smoking rates;6 • Those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender in California report smoking at higher rates than those who do not;6 • Californians who live in multiunit housing report smoking cigarettes at a higher rate (13.1%) than those who live in a house;6 • Californians who reported experiencing psychological d istress in the preceding month smoked at a rate far higher (26.7%) that the average statewide smoking rate (11.0%);6 and [ insert local data if available J WHEREAS, secondhand smoke has repeatedly been identified as a hea lth hazard, as evidenced by the following: • In 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke;7 • In 2006, the California Air Resources Board identified secondhand smoke as a toxic air contaminant, in the same category as the most toxic automotive and industrial a i r pollutants, and a serious health threat for which there is no safe level of exposure;8 ·9 July 2020 ,,,,_ __________________________________________ _ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 19 1!11.. PUBLIC HEALTH f':;;;,LAWCENTER at M itchell Haml ine School of Law / f American Lung Association . Ca lifornia • In 2006, the California Environmenta l Protection Agency added secondhand smoke to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm;10 • The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Condition i ng Eng i neers (ASH RAE) finds that acceptable indoor air quality i n multiunit housing requires the absence of secondhand smoke, cannabis smoke, and aerosol from electronic smoking devices;11 • The American Heart Association and the American Lung Association recommend all adults and children be protected from secondhand smoke in multiunit housing;12,13 WHEREAS, exposure to secondhand smoke causes death and disease, as evidenced by the following: • Since 1964, approximately 2.5 million nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke;2 • Secondhand smoke was responsible for an estimated 34,000 heart disease-related and 7,300 lung cancer-related deaths among adult nonsmokers each year during 2005-2009 in the United States;2 • Research indicates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of coronary heart disease by 25% to 30% and increases the risk of stroke by 20% to 30%;2,14 • Secondhand smoke kills more than 400 infants every year;15 WHEREAS, electronic smoking device aerosol may be considered a health hazard, as evidenced by the following: • Research has found at least twelve chemicals in electronic smoking device aerosol known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm,10 ,16,17 such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, lead, nickel, chromium, arsenic, and toluene;17,18 • Electronic smoking device aeroso l is not harmless water vapor as it contains varying concentrations of particles and chemicals with some studies finding particle sizes and nicotine concentrations similar to, or even exceeding, conventional cigarette smoke;11,19 -21 • Evidence continues to build that exposure to electronic smoking device aerosol, including secondhand exposure, has immediate impacts on the human respiratory and cardiovascular systems, and poses a risk to human health;11,19,21-27 July 2020 ,1.1.:.c::========================================:::i www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 20 IJll PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitch ell Hamline School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California • Given the increasing prevalence of el ectronic smoking device use, especially among youth and young adults, widespread nicotine exposure resulting in addiction and other harmful consequences is a serious concern;17·19•28·29 • Indoor air experts and health authorities, including the U.S. Surgeon General, American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, and the State of California Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee (TEROC), all support inclusion of electronic smoking devices in regulations of smoking and other tobacco product use;11•19•30,31 WHEREAS, secondhand cannabis smoke has been identified as a health hazard, as evidenced by the following: • The California Environmental Protection Agency includes cannabis smoke on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer;10 •32 • Cannabis smoke contains at l east 33 known carcinogens;32 • In one study, exposure to cannabis smoke in an unventilated setting resulted in detectible levels of cannabinoids in non-smoker participants' blood and urine, and participants expe r ienced minor increases in heart rate and impaired cognitive performance;33 and • A recent systematic review of the literature concluded that secondhand exposure to cannabis smoke leads to cannabinoid metabolites in bodily fluids and individuals experiencing self-reported psychoactive effects;34 WHEREAS, nonsmokers who live in multiunit dwellings can be exposed to neighbors' secondhand smoke, as evidenced by the following: • Research demonstrates that secondhand smoke in multiunit housing can and does transfer between units, seeping into smoke-free areas from areas where smoking occurs;35 • Residents of multiunit housing have higher levels of cotinine (a biomarker for nicotine) in their blood and saliva than those living in detached houses;36 • Among children who live in homes in which no one smokes indoors, those who live in multiunit housing have 45% higher cotinine levels than children who live in detached houses;36·37 • Twelve studies have found between 26% and 64% of residents of multiunit housing report secondhand smoke drifting into their home;36 July 2020 ~,1,c=.======================================:::!::=::::1 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke -free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 21 1!11.. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Haml ine School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . Cali fornia • Surveys have found that 65% to 90% of multiunit housing residents who experience secondhand smoke in their home are bothered by it,36 and a 2019-2020 sur vey documented variations in secondhand smoke source among multiunit housing residents in Los Angeles County, who reported secondhand smoke exposure from tobacco (39%), marijuana (36%), and e-cigarettes (9%);38 • Between 44.0% and 46.2% of Californians living in multiunit housing with personal smoke- free home policies are exposed to secondhand smoke in their home;39 WHEREAS, harmful residues from tobacco smoke can be absorbed by and cling to virtually all indoor surfaces long after smoking has stopped and then be emitted back into the air, making this "thirdhand smoke" a potential health hazard, as evidenced by the following: • Thirdhand smoke contains carcinogenic materials that accumulate over time, presenting a health hazard long after the initial smoke is gone;40•41 • Studies consistently find that thirdhand smoke remains months after nonsmokers have moved into units where smokers previously lived,42 and a recent study documents that it can remain in units for years;43 • Human exposure to these thirdhand smoke carcinogens can occur through inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption through contact with carpeting, furnishings, or clothing;44 • Thirdhand smoke potentially poses the greatest danger to infants and toddlers, who crawl on rugs and furnishings and place household items in their mouths;44 • Nonsmoking people who are exposed to thirdhand smoke have significantly higher nicotine and cotinine levels than those who have not been exposed to thirdhand smoke;42 • Research has shown that thirdhand smoke damages human cellu lar DNA45A 6 and is carcinogenic at exposure levels relevant to residents of multiunit housing;46 WHEREAS, smoking is a leading cause of fire-related injury and death,47 and contributes to health inequities, as evidenced by the following: • During 2012-2016, U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated 18,100 smoking- related structure fires, which resulted in an estimated 1,130 injuries, 590 deaths, and $476 million in direct property damage;48 • During 2012 -2016, smoking materials caused 5% of reported home fires, 23% of home fire deaths, 10% of home fire injuries, and 7% of the direct property damage from home fires;48 July 2020 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 22 IJt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamli ne Sc hool of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California • African American males and American Indian males have the highest mortal ity rates for fire-related deaths; altogether, African Americans accounted for 19% of all fire-related deaths in 2017, but made up only 13% of the U.S. population;47 • Elderly people 85 or older have the highest fire death rate, and the risk of dying from smoking-related fires increases with age;47 [ insert loca l data if available J WHEREAS, an estimated 28% of Californians (or 7.3 million people) live in multiunit housing;49 WHEREAS, the U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure; and that separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely prevent secondhand smoke exposure;7 WHEREAS, smoke -free housing policies resulted in a 24% reduction in self-reported exposure to secondhand smoke exposure among racially and ethnically diverse seniors living in low- income multiunit housing properties;50 WHEREAS, several studies have confirmed that smoke-free multiunit housing policies are an effective method to reduce secondhand smoke exposure in multiunit housing;50 -52 WHEREAS, secondhand smoke exposure occurs more often in multiunit housing compared to separate, single-unit housing;49,53 ,54 and therefore contributes to tobacco-related health inequities. For example, in California, when compared with adults who live in single-family houses, adults who live in multi unit housing are more likely to be: • People of color (62.9% of residents of multiunit homes versus 49.6% of residents of single- family houses);49 • Lower-income or below the poverty line (46.8% versus 27.0%);49 • Lacking a high schoo l diploma (21.4% versus 14.8%);49 • Current smokers (17.5% versus 13.2%);49 as well as • Uninsured (23.4% versus 14.2%);49 WHEREAS, secondhand smoke in multiunit housing is a significant threat to the health and safety of California children, as evidenced by the following: • About a quarter of those who live in multiunit housing (25.2%) are under the age of 18;39 July 2020 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 23 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itch ell Haml ine Sch ool of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . Cali fornia • The home is the primary source of secondhand smoke exposure for children;15 • A national survey found that 56.4% of U.S. youth living in apartment units in which no one smokes have elevated blood cotinine levels above 0 .05 ng/ml, indicat i ng they have been exposed to potentially dangerous levels of secondhand smoke;37 • The same survey also found that children who live in homes in which no one smokes indoors have 45% higher cotinine levels if they live in apartments compared with detached homes;37 WHEREAS, research consistently demonstrates that a majority of multiunit housing residents, including a large portion of smokers, supports smoke -free policies in multiunit residences,36•55•56 and that support is even greater among residents with children;56 WHEREAS, research demonstrates that a majority of adults supports smoke-free policies in multiunit residences, as evidenced by the following: • 73.7% of U.S. adults surveyed favor smoke-free public housing;57 • 65% of Californians surveyed favor restricting smoking inside apartment units;58 [ insert local data if available J WHEREAS, there are significant savings from adopting a smoke-free multiunit housing policy, as evidenced by the following: • Prior to i mplementation, the U.S. Department of Hous i ng and Urban Development's smoke- free public housing policy was conservatively estimated to produce an annual savings of 4 to 8 million dollars a year for U.S. public housing authorities in renovation-related costs,59 and 30 to 109 million dollars per year in health care costs in California alone;60 • Implementing statewide smoke-free policies in multiunit housing property would save property owners in California an estimated $18 .1 million in renovation expenses each year;61 WHEREAS, in 2016 the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a final rule requiring all public housing agencies to adopt smoke-free policies to protect residents from secondhand smoke exposure effect ive February 2017;62 WHEREAS, chi l dren, low-income tenants of public housing, and members of racial and ethnic minority groups are disproportionately exposed to secondhand smoke; and smoke-free housing policies have shown potential to reduce exposure in these populations;63•64 July 2020 _,,,_ ______ am _ _.-=-=------------fDl!laam11ma .. m11111111Z11 ____ .am::111B:maam111:11S111-■ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 24 lf/!lla PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitche ll Ha m line Sch ool of law / =t= American Lung Association . California WHEREAS, California state law allows local governments to adopt ordinances that permit residential rental agreements to prohibitsmoking tobacco products within rental units;65 WHEREAS, more than 140 California cities and counties have adopted smoke-free multiunit housing ordinances;6 WHEREAS, there is no Constitutiona l right to smoke;66 WHEREAS, California law declares that anything which is injurious to health or obstructs the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance;67 WHEREAS, local governments have broad latitude to declare nuisances and are not constrained by prior definitions of nuisance;67•68 NOW THEREFORE, it is the intent of the [ city council/county board of supervisors J in enacting this ordinance, to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare by discouraging the inherently dangerous behavior of smoking around nontobacco users; by protecting children from exposure to smoking where they live and play; and by protecting the public from nonconsensual exposure to secondhand smoke in and around their homes, Endnotes World H ealth Organization . WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic , 2019: Offer Help to Quit Tobacco Use. 2019. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/326043. 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress . A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK179276.pdf. 3 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The Toll of Tobacco in California. Available at: www.t obaccofreekids.org/problem/toll- us/california. Accessed June 2, 2020. 4 Lortet-Tieulent J, Sauer AG, Siegel RL, et al. State-level cancer mortality attributab le to cigarette smoking in the United States. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(12):1792-1798. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6530. 5 U.S. National Cancer In stitute. A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities. National Cancer Institute Tobacco Contro l Monograph 22. N IH Publication No. 17-CA-8035A. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. 2017. Available at: https://can- cercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/22/index.html. 6 California Tobacco Contro l Program, California Department of Public Health. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Re- searchand Evaluation/Factsand Fi gures/CATobaccoFactsandFigures2019.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2020. July 2020 ,,~ .. ----------------------------------------■ www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 25 Ill PUBLIC HEALTH 'f;;;/LAWCENTER at Mitchell Hamlin e School of law / TAmerican Lung Association . California 7 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S . Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and He alth Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2006. Available at: www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2006/index.htm. Accessed June 2, 2020. 8 Air Resources Board , Ca l ifornia Environme ntal Protec tion Agency. Fr eque ntly Asked Questions -Environmental Tobac- co Smoke. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/environmental-tobacco-smoke-identified-tox- ic-air-contaminant. Accessed June 2, 2020. 9 California Identifies Secondhand Smoke as a "Tox ic Air Contaminant" [press release]. January 26, 2006. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr012606.htm. Accessed Jun e 2, 2020. 10 Office of Environmental Health Ha za rd Assessment, California Environmental Pro tec tion Agency. The Proposition 65 list. https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-l ist. Accessed June 19, 2020. 11 American Society of Heat in g Refrigeratin g and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASH RAE). 2075 Adden da Supplement to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-20 13, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta, GA : ASH RAE. 2015 . Available at : https://www.ashrae.o rg/file%20library/technical %20res ources/standards%20and%20guide1ines/standards%20 addenda/62_ 1_2013_2015supplement_20150203. pdf. 12 American Heart Association. Policy Position on Smoke-Free Policies in Multi-Unit Housing . Wa shington, DC: American Heart Association. 2013. Available at: www.heart.org/idc/groups/ahaecc-public/@wcm/@adv/documents/download- able/ucm_ 469126.pdf. 13 American Lung Assoc iation. Publ ic Policy Position -Healthy Air. Chicago, IL: American Lung Association. 2019. Available at: https://www.lung.org/policy-advocacy/public-policy-agenda/public -policy-position-h ea lthy-air. Accessed June 2, 2020. 14 Di Giacomo SI, Jazayeri MA, Barua RS, Ambrose JA. Env iro nmental Tobacco Smoke and Cardiovascular Dise ase. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;16(1):96. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16010096. 15 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC Vital Signs -Secondhand Smoke: An Unequal Danger. February 2015. Avai lab le at: www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/2015-02-vitalsigns.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2020. 16 California Tobacco Control Program, California Department of Public Health. State Health Officer's Report on [-Cigarettes. A Community Health Threat. Sacramento, CA. 2015 . Available at: www.cdph .ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCD IC/CTCB/ CDPH%20Document%20Library/Po l icy/ElectronicSmokingDevices/StateHealthEcigReport.pdf. 17 National Academies of Sciences, Eng i neer i ng, and Med ic ine. Public Health Consequences of [-Cigarettes. 2018. Washing- ton , DC: The National Academies Press. Available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24952/public-healt h-conseq uenc- es-of-e-cigarettes. 18 Fowle s J, Barreau T, Wu N. Cancer and Non-Cancer Risk Concerns from Metals in Electronic Cigarette Liquid s and Aerosols. Int J Env iron Res Pub lic Hea lth. 2020;17(6):2146. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062146. 19 U.S. Department of Hea lth and Human Services. [-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of th e Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disea se Control and Prevent ion, Nat io nal Center for Chron ic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion , Office on Smoking and Health. 2016. Available at: https://www-ncbi-nl m-n i h-gov.e zp 1.1 i b. um n.ed u/books/N B K538680/pdf/Bookshelf _NB K538680.pdf. 20 Romberg AR, Miller Lo EJ, Cuccia AF, et al. Patterns of nicotine concentra t ions in electron ic cigarettes so ld in the United States, 2013-2018. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 :201:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.05.029. 21 Cao DJ, A ldy K, Hsu S, et al. Review of Health Consequences of Electronic Cigarettes and the Outbreak of Electronic Ciga rette, or Va ping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury. J Med Toxicol . 2020 Apr 16 . Doi: 10 .1007/s13181-020-00772-w. July 2020 www.publichealth lawcenter.org/ca l tobacco Smoke-free Mu lt i unit Housing Mode l Ord i nance 26 IIJa PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER al Mitchell Hamli ne School of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California 22 Staudt MR, Sa lit J, Kaner RJ, Hollmann C, Crystal RG. Altered lung bio logy of healthy never smokers following acute inhalation of E-cigarettes. Respiratory Research . 2018;19:78. doi:10.1186/s12931-018-0778-z. 23 Tzortzi A, Teloniatis SI, Matiampa G. et al. Passive exposure toe-cigarette emissions: Immediate respiratory effects. Tab . Pr ev. Cessation. 2018;4(May):18. doi.org/10.18332/tpc/89977. 24 Shields PG, Berman M, Bra sky TM, et al. A Review of Pu l monary Toxicity of Electronic Cigarettes In The Context of Smoking: A Focus On Inflammation. Cancer Epi demi ol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(8):1175-1191. doi:10.1158/1055-9965. EPl-17-0358. 25 Visser WF, Klerx WN , Cremers HWJM, et al. The Health Ris ks of Electro nic Ciga rette Use to Bystanders. Int J En vi ron Res Public Health. 2019;16(9):1525. doi : 10.3390/ij erph16091525 . 26 Bayly JE, Bernat D, Porter L, Choi K. Secondhand Exposure to Aerosols From Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Asthma Exacerbations Among Youth With Asthma. Chest. 2019;155(1)88-93. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.10.005. 27 Tzort zi A, Teloniatis S, Matiampa G, et al. Passive Exposure of Non-Smokers to E-Cigarette Aerosols: Sensory Irrita- tion, Timing and Association With Volatile Organic Compounds. Environ Res. 2020;182:108963. doi: 10 .1016/j.en- vres.2019.108963.28 Cullen KA, Ambrose BK, Genztke AS, et al. Notes from the field: use of electroni c cigarettes and any tobacco product among middle and high school students-United State s, 2011-2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2018;67(45):12 76-12 77. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6745a5. 29 Lin C, Baiocchi M, Halpern-Felsher B. Longitudinal trends in e-cigarette devices used by Californian youth, 2014-2018. Addi ct Behav. 2020;108:106459. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106459. 30 American Society of H eating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASH RAE). ASHRAE Position Document on Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Atlanta, GA: ASH RAE. 2019. Available at: https://www.ashrae.org/file%20library/about/ position%20documents/ashrae_pd_environmental_tobacco_smoke_2 019.pdf. 31 State of California Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Comm ittee (TEROC). Position on Electronic Smoking Devices (AKA £-cigarettes). 2015 . Available at: www.cdph.ca .gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCD IC/CTCB/CDPH%20Docu- ment%20Library/TER0C/l nfoGraphicReportsLetters/TEROCECigarettePositionStatementl22215.pdf. 32 California Environmental Protection Agency. Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Cannabis Smoke . Sacramento, CA: Cali- fornia Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Branch. 2009. Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/chemicals/finalmjsmoke- hid.pdf. 33 Herrmann, ES, Cone , EJ, Mitchell, JM , et al. Non-Smoker Exposure to Secondhand Cannabis Smoke II: Effect of Room Ventilation on the Phy siological, Subjective, and Behavioral/Cognitive Effects . Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;151:194-202. doi: 10.1016/j.druga lcdep.2015 .03 .019. 34 Holitzki H, Dowsett LE, Spackman E, Noseworthy T, Clement F. Health effects of exposure to second-and third-hand marijuana smoke: a systematic review. CMAJ Open. 2017;5(4):E814-E822. doi:10.9778/cmajo .20170112. 35 King BA, Travers MJ, Cummings KM, Mahoney MC, Hy land AJ. Secondhand smoke transfer in multi unit housing. Nico- tine Tab Res. 2010;12:1133-1141. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntql62. 36 Snyder K, Vick JH, King BA. Smoke-free multiunit housing: a review of the scientific literature. Tab Control. 2016;25:9-20. doi 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051849. 37 Wilson KM , Klein JD, Blumkin AK, Gottlieb M, Winickoff JP. Tobacco smoke exposure i n children who live in multi unit housing. Pediatrics . 2011;127(1):85-92. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2046. July 2020 ,1~;.::::::===========~================================:1 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 27 l!Jla PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchell Hamlin e Schoo l of Law / TAmerican Lung Association . California 38 Toy P, Yount C, Meng YY, et al. Health at Risk: Policies Are Needed to End Cigarette, Marijuana, and [-Cigarette Secondhand Smoke in Multi-Unit Housing in Los Ange les. Los Angeles, Calif.: UCLA Center for Health Po l icy Researc h. 2020. Available at: http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/publications/Documents/PDF/2020/Health-at-Risk-policybrief-may2020.pdf. 39 King BA, Babb SD, Tynan MA, Gerzoff RB. National and state estimates of secondhand smoke infiltration among U.S. multiunit housing residents. Nicotin e Tab Res. 2013; 15(7):1316-1321. doi:10 .1093/ntr/nts254. 40 Kuschner WG, Reddy S, Mehrotra N, Paintal HS. Electronic cigarettes and thirdhand tobacco smoke: two emerging health care challenges for the primary care provider. Int J Gen Med. 2011;4:115-20. do i:10.2 147/IJGM.Sl6908. 41 Whitlatch A, Schick S. Thirdhand Smoke at Philip Morris. Nicotine Tab Res. 2019;21(12):1680-1688. do i: 10.1093/ntr/ nty153. 42 Matt GE, Quintana PJE, Zaka r ian JM, et al. When smokers move out and non-smokers move in: residential thirdhand smoke pol l ution and exposure. Tab Control. 2011;20(1):el doi:10.1136/tc.2010.037382. 43 Matt GE, Quintana PJE, Hoh E, et al. Persistent Tobacco Smoke Residue in Multiunit Housing: Legacy of Permissive Indoor Smoking Po l icies and Challenges in t he Implementation of Smoking Bans. Prev Med Rep . 2020;18:101088. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101088. 44 Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, Jacob P, Singer BC, Destaillats H. Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-me- diated reactions of nicot i ne with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards. Proc Natl Acad Sci US A. 2010;107(15):6576-81. doi:10.1073/pnas.0912820107. 45 Hang B, Sarker AH, Havel C, et al. Thirdhand smoke causes DNA damage in human cells. Mutagenesis. 2013;28(4):381- 91. doi:10.1093/mutage/get013. 46 Han g B, Wang P, Zhao Y, et al. Thirdhand Smoke: Genotoxicity and Carcinogenic Potential . Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2019;6(1):27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.cdtm.2019.08.002. 47 U.S. Fire Administrat ion . Fire in the United States 2008-2017. Emmitsburg, MD: Department of Homeland Security, Fed- era l Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fire Administration. 2019. Available at: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/down- loads/pdf/publications/fius20th.pdf. 48 National Fire Protection Association. Home Fires Started by Smoking. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protect ion Association. 2019. Available at: https://www.nfpa .org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/US-Fire- Problem/Fire-causes/ossmoking.ashx. 49 Chambers C, Sung H, Max W. Home Exposure to Secondhand Smoke among People Living in Multiunit Housing and Single Family Housing: A Study of California Adults, 2003-2012. J Urban Hea l. 2015;92(2):279-90. doi:10.1007/sll524- 014-9919-y. 50 Hollar TL, Cook N, Quinn D, Phillips T, De l ucca M. Smoke-free multiunit housing policies show promise in reduc- ing secondhand smoke exposure among racially and ethn ically diverse, low-income seniors. J lmmigr Minor Health. 2017;19(6):1281-1289. doi.org/10.1007/sl0903-016-0430-2. 51 Gentzke AS, Hyland A, Kiviniemi M, Travers MJ. Att itudes and Experiences w ith Secondhand Smoke and Smoke-Free Policies Among Subsidised and Market-Rate Mult i unit Housing Residents Living in Six Diverse Communities in the USA. Tab Control . 2018;27(2) 194-202. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053374. 52 Young W , Karp S, Bialick P, et al. Health, Secondhand Smoke Exposure, and Smoking Behavior Impacts of No-Smoking Policies in Public Housing, Colorado, 2014-2015. Prev Chronic Dis . 2016;13:El48. doi: 10.5888/pcdl3.160008. 53 Nguyen KH, Gomez Y, Homa DM, King BA. Tobacco Use, Secondhand Smoke, and Smoke-Free Home Rules in Multiunit Hous i ng. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):682-692 . doi: 10.1016/j.amepre .2016.05.009. July 2020 www.pub l ichealthlawcente r.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 28 Illa PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAWCENTER at Mitchell Hamline Sc hoo l of law / TAmerican Lung Association . California 54 Ho lmes LM, Llamas JD, Smith D, Ling PM. Drifting Tobacco Smoke Exposure Among Young Adults in Multi unit Housing. J Community Hea lth. 2020;45(2):319-328. doi 10.1007/s10900-019-00743-5. 55 Delgado-Rendon A, Cru z TB, Soto D, Baezconde-Garbanati L, Unger JB. Second and Thirdhand Smoke Exposure, Atti- tudes and Protective Practices: Results from a Survey of Hispanic Residents in Multi unit Housing. J Immigrant Minority Health. 2017;19(5):1148-1155. doi.org/10.1007/s10903-016-0540-x. 56 Wilson KM, Torok MR, McMillen RC, et al. Tobacco-Smoke Incursions and Satisfaction Among Residents With Children in Mu ltiunit Hous i ng, United States, 2013. Public Health Rep. 2017;132(6) 637-645. doi: 10.1177/0033354917732767. 57 Wang TW, Lemos PR , McNabb S, King BA. Att itudes toward Smoke-Free Publ ic Housing among US Adults, 2016. Am J Prev Med. 2018 Jan;54(1):113-118. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.08.026. 58 American Lung Association of Ca li fornia. California Voter and Rural Voter Attitudes About Secondhand Smoke in Mult i-U nit Housing: Public Opinion Survey. 2018 . 59 McFarlane A, Djoko Y, Woodward A. Instituting Smoke-Free Publ ic Housing: An Economic Analysis. Cityscape. 2017;19(3):435-448. Available at: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodica ls/cityscpe/voll9num3/ch24.pdf. 60 King BA, Peck RM, Babb SD. National and State Cost Savings Associated wit h Prohibit i ng Smoking in Subsidized and Public Housing in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E171. doi: 10.5888/pcdll.140222. 61 Ong MK, Diamant AL, Zhou Q, Park HY, Kaplan RM . Est imates of smok in g-re lated property costs in California multiunit hous i ng. Am J Public Health. 2012; 102(3):490-493. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300170. 62 In st itutin g Smoke-F ree Public Housing, 81 FR 87430 (December 5, 2016). www.federalregister.gov/docu- ments/2016/12/05/2016-28986/instituting-smoke-free-public-housing. Accessed June 4, 2020. 63 V ijayaraghavan M, Schroeder SA , Kushel M . The effectiveness of tobacco con trol policies on vulnerable populat ions in the USA : a review. Postgrad. Med J. 2016 ;92:670-676. doi.cirg/10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-133193 . 64 Hafe z AY, Gonzalez M , Kulik MC, Vijayaraghavan M, Glantz SA. Uneven Access to Smoke-Free Laws and Policies and Its Effect on Health Equity in the United States: 2000-2019. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(11):1568-1575. doi: 10 .2105/ AJPH.2019.305289. 65 Cal. Civ. Code§ 1947.5. 66 Public Healt h Law Center. There Is No Constitutional Right to Smoke or Toke. Sa in t Pau l, MN: Public Hea lth Law Center. 2019. Avai !ab le at: https://pu bl ichea Ith I awcenter.org/sites/defau lt/fil es/resources/No-Constitution- al-Right-Smoke-T oke-2019 .pdf. 67 Ca l. Civ. Code§ 3479. 68 In Re Jones, 56 Cal.App.2d 658, 663 (1943); See also Cal. Const., art. X I,§ 7 and Cal. Gov. Code§ 38771. July 2020 www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance 29 A PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law / SMOKE-FREE HOUSING / May 2021 RECULATINC SMOKINC IN MULTI-UNIT HOUSINC ~ Exposure to secondhand smoke is not just a discomfort and an annoyance, but a serious health hazard .1 For tenants and owners of multi -unit housing, such as apartments and common interest communities, commercial tobacco smoke from a neighboring unit that infiltrates their homes can pose a daily problem.2 As a result, many local governments, housing authorities, and property owners of multi-unit housing are taking proactive steps to prevent or eliminate secondhand smoke from infiltrating living space and to provide housing that i s 100 percent smoke-free. This guide provides basic guidelines to communities about policies that address secondhand smoke infiltration in multi-unit housing.3 The Public Health Law Center has created this series of l egal technical assistance guides to serve as a starting point for organizations interested in implementing certain tobacco control measures. We encourage you to consult with local legal counsel before attempting to implement these measures.4 For more details about these policy considerations, please contact the Center. www .publichealthlawcenter.org 1!11., PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER al Mitche ll Hamline Sc h ool or Law Policy Benefits A smoke-free policy for a multi-unit housing complex, such as an apartment building or common interest community, can benefit all parties concerned -residents, as well as landlords and property owners. • Protection from Secondhand Smoke: Secondhand smoke travels through lighting fixtures, cracks in walls, around plumbing, under doors, and in shared heating/ventilation. Drifting smoke outdoors can travel into nearby windows, doors, and ventilation systems. Tobacco smoke exposes users and bystanders to serious health risks, such as lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma attacks, respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, and other conditions.5 Air quality experts have concluded that "the only means of avoiding health effects and eliminating indoor [environmental tobacco smoke] exposure is to ban all smoking activity inside and near buildings."6 The most important benefit of a smoke-free housing policy is that it enables residents, employees, and other visitors to breathe air free of hazardous secondhand smoke. • Market Advantage: Surveys show that a growing number of residents and owners are seeking smoke-free housing and are willing to pay more to ensure their home environments are smoke-free.7 Apartments, and units in common interest communities that smell of smoke are harder to rent and sell. • Reduced Costs: Smoke-free housing policies can save landlords and property owners excess building maintenance costs, because cleaning and replacement expenses are significantly higher in units with residents who smoke. Depending on the length of residency and amount of smoking in a unit, turnover costs can be hundreds of dollars higher for units in which smoking has occurred. All of the following can add to these costs: cleaning or repainting walls; cleaning or replacing carpets, drapes, appliances and fixtures exposed to smoke; or replacing floors and countertops burned by cigarettes.8 • Reduced Fire Risk: The use of cigarettes and other combustible tobacco products is a leading cause of residential building fires and a cause of almost a quarter (23 percent) of annual home fire deaths.9 A smoke-free policy reduces the risk of fire and provides increased safeguards to tenants and their property. • Positive Modeling: Multi-unit housing developments are often highly visible within a community. Thus, when a development adopts a smoke-free policy, the public, local government and organizations learn of the benefits of such a policy and may be encouraged to adopt similar measures in other settings. Moreover, since children and youth May 2021 www.publichealthlawcenter.org Regulating Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 2 l!JI. PUBLTC HEALTH ~ LAW CENTER at Mitch ell Haml in e Sc h ool o f Law often reside in multi-unit housing developments, a smoke-free policy can help reduce youth initiation through positive modeling behavior. • Legal Liability: The rise of smoke -free housing policies has spurred an increased awareness of the legal liability of landlords, management companies, condominium associations, co-op owners and residents who smoke to prevent secondhand smoke exposure .70 Lawsuits related to secondhand smoke exposure in housing include claims based on legal theories such as nuisance, warranty of habitability, and quiet enjoyment.11 In addition, residents with p r e-existing physical conditions aggravated by secondhand smoke may file complaints under disability laws, such as the Fair Housing Act.12 Policy Elements An effective smoke-free housing policy typ i cally includes the following elements: • An introduction that explains the policy's purpose. • Clear, consistent definitions of important terms, such as "smoking," "smoke," "prem i ses," and "common area," to help ensure that the policy is interpreted, implemented, and enforced in ways that effectively protect the entire community within a building or complex. o A comprehensive definition of smoking would include the use of electronic cigarettes and lighted or heated tobacco, nicotine, or other plant products, including hookah and marijuana. • Description of who must comply, such as tenants, guests, employees, and business visitors . • Disclaimers that the landlord, management company, or homeowners association is not acting as a guarantor of the policy. This provision helps protect landlords, management companies, or homeowners associations of smoke-free buildings from claims brought by tenants injured as a result of unknown policy violations. • A provision allowing one tenant to bring a claim directly against another tenant based on secondhand smoke intrusion. The non-smoking tenant could get a court order requiring the tenant who smokes to take action to stop the smoke infiltration. • Graduated enforcement provisions that provide warnings, cessation information and opportunities for residents to remedy violations before more punitive measures are taken, such as fines or eviction.13 May 2021 www.publichealthlawcenter.org Regulating Sm o king in Multi -Unit Housing 3 Ill PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Haml ine School or Law • Clear guidelines related to enforcement, including the following: o Where the policy will be enforced (e.g., in common areas, units, balconies, patios, outdoor areas, and/or setbacks from entrances) o How it will be enforced (e.g., through verbal warnings, warning letters, fines, and/or eviction) o The responsibilities of property managers, including requirements to post warning signs and consistently enforce the policy o The responsibilities of tenants, including an obligation to notify guests and visitors of the policy and to report violation s) o A requirement that smoke-free leases and agreements be signed by both parties (e.g., the tenant and the landlord) Other Policy Considerations Some jurisdictions encourage or require landlords, management companies, or homeowners associations to adopt smoke-free policies in multi-unit dwellings. Before adopting a smoke-free policy, landlords, management companies, or homeowners associations should review the local laws to ensure that the property's smoke-free policy will complement any existing requirements. Smoke -free Affordable Housing. The trend toward smoke-free affordable housing is accelerating. In recent years, multiple federal agencies and the Surgeon General have encouraged the development of smoke-free affordable housing.14 Significantly, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) now prohibits smoking in all public housing, meaning that individuals may no longer smoke in individual units, common areas, or within 25 feet of residential and administrative public housing buildings.15 Some public housing author ities are also requiring mixed-finance properties and project-based housing voucher properties to be smoke-free, and some are making their smoke-free policies stricter than HUD requires (by, for example, prohibiting e-cigarette use).16 Landlords that accept ind ividual Housing Choice Vouchers may adopt smoke-free policies of their own.17 For more information about this rule, visit the HUD website or read HUD's Smoke-free Public Housing Rule: An Overview. Low Income Housing Tax Credit. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit program provides federal tax credits to states and local government units to stimulate the development of affordable housing.18 Loca l governments can develop criteria for the type of housing they want in their communities. States such as California,19 Mai ne,20 Minnesota,21 and New Hampshire,22 as well as cities such as Minneapolis and St. Pau l, Minnesota,23 have included the adoption of smoke- May 2021 www.publichealthlawcenter.org Regulating Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 4 IJtt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itc hell Ham line School of l aw free policies for proposed building projects as mandatory prerequ i sites or as optional criteria for consideration in the awarding of tax credits. Requiring Smoke-free Multi-Unit Housing. Some jurisdictions prohibit smoking in multi-unit housing. In Belmont, California, for example, smoking is not allowed in common areas, individual units of multi-unit housing, or outdoors within 20 feet of windows or doors.24 As of March 2021, the only such policies are city or county policies in California. A list of jurisdictions with these policies in place is available from the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.25 Disclosing Smoking Policies for Multi-Unit Buildings. A grow i ng number of communities are requiring that multi-unit rental apartment buildings and common interest communities disclose their smoking policies to prospective tenants and buyers. For example, Oakland, California,26 and the State of Oregon 27 have passed laws that require the owners of rental apartment buildings to disclose the smoking policies for their buildings, whether the policies are smoking permitted, smoking restricted, or smoke -free . The laws do not mandate that units be smoke - free; they simply require that prospective tenants be notified of the smoking policies and location of smoking and non-smoking units. The Oakland ord i nance also requires that sellers of condominiums disclose the smoking policy for the unit and the complex.28 When a smoke- free or smoking permitted disclosure statement is included in a standard lease for multi -unit dwellings, tenants are alerted to living environments that may be hazardous to their health. May 2021 www.publichealthlawcenter.org Regulating Smoking in Multi -Unit Housing 5 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law May 2021 Disclosure policies are not as effective in protecting public health as policies that prohibit smok ing, but they can serve a role in alerting policymakers to the dangers of secondhand smoke in residential settings and provide prospective tenants or buyers with helpful information. Examples of Select Policies Below are examples of smoke-free policies in select multi-unit housing locations. If you consider adapting any language from these policies, take care to ensure the provision in question is practical and legal in your jurisdiction. Please note that the Public Health Law Center does not endorse or recommend any of the following policies. These examples are included simply to illustrate how different multi-unit housing developments have approached the smoke-free issue. Name California Apartment Association Breathe Easy Maine Smoke-Free Apartments Live Smoke Free Utah Department of Health Other Helpful Resources Location California Maine Maryland Minnesota Utah Sample Policy Sample Smoke-free Lease Addendum Model Smoke -free Policies and Other Documents Rental Model Smoke-free Lease Addendum for Multi-Unit Dwellings Common Interest Community Model Smoke-free Lease Addendum for Multi-Unit Dwellings Model Smoke -free Policies and Other Documents Model Smoke Free Policies and Related Documents The Public Health Law Center has a web page containing several publications and resources on smoke-free policies in apartments, condominiums, affordable housing, and other multi- unit dwellings, and best practices for smoke-free policies. In addition, the site includes a Minnesota-specific Model Smoke-Free Lease Addendum (2020); Model Smoke-Free Condo Policy (2020); and information on Smoke-Free Tribal Housing Policies (2020); Smoke-free Multi- Unit Housing: Equitable Enforcement Strategies (2020); and Marijuana in Multi-Unit Residential Settings (2019). Other organizations, such as Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, have web pages containing the latest news and resources on smoke-free housing initiatives. www.publichealthlawcenter.org Regulating Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 6 lf!ll PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline Sc hool of Law Contact Us Please feel free to contact the Public Health Law Center at publichealthlaw@mitchellhamline. edu with any questions about the information included in this guide or to discuss local concerns you may have about implementing such a policy. T h is publication was prepared by th e Publi c Health Law Center at Mitchell Ham line School of Law, Saint Paul, M i nnesota. The Center provides information and technical assistance on law and policy issues related to public hea lth. Th e Center does not provide legal advice or enter into attorney-cl ient relationships, and this document should not be considered legal advice. This publication was made possible by funding from Clean Air for All: The Smoke-Free Public Housing Project and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily repre sent the official views of Clean Air for All or the Foundation. Endnotes U .S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN Srnvs ., THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF SMOK ING -50 YEARS OF PROGRESS: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL (2014), https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/consequ ences-smoking-exec-summary.pdf. 2 Th e Public Health Law Center recognizes that traditional and commercial tobacco are different in the ways th ey are planted, grown, harvested, and used. Traditional tobacco is and has been used in sacred ways by Indi ge nous communi- ti es and tribes for centuries. Comparatively, commercial tobacco is manufactured with chemical additives for recre- ational use and profit resulting in disease and death. For more information visit: http://www.keepitsacred .itcmi.org. When the word "tobacco" is used throughout this document, a commercial context is implied and intended. 3 This publication contains general guidelines on smoke-free housin g that could apply to all multi-unit housing types, includ ing common interest communities and rental properties, including condominium associations, as well as tenants and property managers. 4 The information contained in this document is not intended to constitute or replace legal advice. 5 U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., supra note 1, at 2-4. 6 AM. Soc'y OF HEATING, REFRIGERATING & AIR-CONDIT IONING ENG'Rs , ASH RAE POSITION DOCUMENT ON ENVIRONME NTAL TOBACCO SMOKE 5 (2020), https://www.ashrae.org/Fi l e%20 Library/About/Position %20 Documents/pd_enviro nmen- ta1-tobacco-smoke-2020-07-1 .pdf. 7 SMOKEFREE HOUSING PROJECT, A LANDLORD'S GUIDE TO No-SMOKING POLICIE S 5, https://www.co.lincoln.or.us/sites/de- fault/files/fileattachments/health_amp_human_services/page/4327/landlordguide.pdf. 8 Rachel E. Wilbur et al., 12 Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing Policy: Caretakers' Perspectives on Economic and Personal Impacts, INT'L J. ENv'T RsCH. Pus. HEALTH 8092, 8093 (2015), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic1es/PMC4515710/pdf/ ijerph-12-08092 .pdf ("Few studies .. have attempted to document the actual cost savings achieved at properties with a smoke-free MUH policy. Ong et al. found that properties with a comprehensive smoke-free policy experienced fewer smoking-related costs than properties with a partial or non-existent smoke-free policy, with properties ex periencing average smoking-related costs of $282 per unit. Further, in a study of affordable housing properties in North Carolina, property managers reported that turnover costs are on average $348 higher in units where tenants have smoked ."). 9 MARTY AHRENS, NAT'L FIRE PROT. Ass'N, HOME FIRES STARTED BY SMOKING 1 (2019), https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/ News-and-Research/ Fire-statistics-a nd -reports/US-Fi re -Prob I em/Fi re-ca u ses/ossm o king . ashx. May 2021 www.publichealthlawcenter.org Regulating Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 7 l!Jlt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchell Hamli ne Sc hool of Law 10 Susan Schoenmarklin, Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, Infiltration of Secondhand Smoke into Condominiums, Apart- ments and Other Multi-U nit Dwellings: 2009 (2009), https://publicheal thl awce nter.org/sites/default/files/re sources/ tclc-syn-condos-2009. pd/. 11 Id. at 4-10. 12 Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabil- ities, including those with severe breathing problems. It applies to owners and operators of most hou sin g, including apartments and project-based housing vouchers and other HUD-assisted hou sing. 13 Public Health Law Center, Smoke-free Multi-unit Hou sing: Equitable Enforcement Strategies (2020), https://www.publi- chealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/SF-MUH-Equitable-Enforcement-Strategies.pdf. 14 FED. HEALTHY HOMES WORK GRP., ADVANC ING H EA LTHY HOUS ING : A STRATEGY FOR ACTION (2013), https://www.hud.gov/ sites/documents/STRATPLAN_FINAL_1U3.PDF; U.S. DEP'T OF HOUS ING & URBAN DEV ., LEADING OUR NATION TO HEALTH IER HOMES: THE HEALTHY HOM ES STRATEG IC PLAN (2009), https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/documents/hh_strategic_plan. web_posting.pdf; Unnumbered Letter from Tammye Tr evi no, Administrator, Housing and Community Facilities Program , to State D i rectors Rural Development, November 21, 2012, http://www.ca rh.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/M(_RD- SmokeFreePol icy.pdf. 15 U.S . DEP'T OF HOUS ING & URBAN DEV., SMOKE-F REE POLICY RECOMMENDED CHECKLIST, https://www.hud.gov/sites/docu - ments/2_SMOKEF _POLICYCHECKLI ST.PDF. 16 Id .; Smokefree Public Hou sing -One Year Later, AM. NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS FOUND. (July 11, 2019), https://no-smoke.org/ s m okefree-pu bl i c-ho using-one-yea r-I at er. 17 See Smokefree Publi c Hou sing -One Year Later, supra note 16. 18 Low -income Housing Tax Credits, U.S. DEP'T OF HOUS ING & URBAN DEV., https://www.h uduser.gov/PORTAL/datasets/l ihtc. html (last updated June 5, 2020). 19 CAL. CODE REGS . tit. 4, § 10325(c)(8)(C) (2019). 20 99-346 Me. St. Hous. Auth. § 5(L) (2020). 21 LIVE SMOKE FREE , Low-INCOME HOUS ING TAX CREDITS IN MINNESOTA 1 (2020), https://mnsmokefreehous in g.org/wp-con- tent/u ploads/Low-I ncome-Housing-Tax-C redits-i n-M N. pd/. 22 N.H. Hous. Fin. Auth. 109 06(1) (2020). 23 LIVE SMOKE FREE, Low-INCOME Hous1NG TAX CRED ITS IN MINNESOTA 1 (2020), https://mnsmokefree housing.org/wp-con- tent/uploads/Low-I ncome-Housing-Tax -C redits-i n-M N .p d/. 24 BELMONT, CAL ., MUN ICIPAL CODE§ 20.5-3(a)(3)-(4) (2021). 25 AM. NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS FOUND., U.S. LAWS FOR 100% SMOKEFREE MULTI-UN IT HOUSING (2021), https://no-smoke.org/ wp-content/uploads/pdf/smokefreemuh .pdf. 26 OAKLAND, CAL ., MUN ICIPAL CODE§ 8.30.050 (2021) .. 27 OR . REV. STAT.§ 90.220(4) (2021). 28 OAKLAND, CAL., MUNIC IPAL CODE§ 8.30.050 (2021). May 20 2 1 www.publichealth lawcenter.org Regulating Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing 8 A PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamli ne School of Law / SMOKE-FREE HOUSING SMOKE-FREE MULTI-UNIT HOUSINC Equitable Enforcement Strategies ~ There is no safe level of secondhand smoke exposure, whether that exposure happens at work, in public spaces, or within the home.1 The health problems associated with secondhand smoke exposure in multi-unit housing have been well documented for decades.2 www.publichealthlawcenter.org Nonetheless, it is on ly recent ly that comprehensive public policy measures to address secondhand smoke exposure in multi - unit housing have been adopted through government polic i es. These policies include the smoke-free rule 3 for public housing adopted by the U.S. Department of Hous i ng and Urban Development (HUD) and a growing number of local jurisdictions that have adopted similar protections for residents of multi-un it housing.4 l!Jlt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitch ell Ha m line School of Law November 2020 The private housing sector continues to move in this direction, with individuals declaring their own homes smoke-free 5 and owners of multi-unit housing prohibiting smoking in units, common areas, outdoor areas, or property-wide.6 Housing stability is a key indicator in the social determinants of health.7 In the context of smoke -free housing, housing stability cuts two ways: on the one hand, residents who are not protected from secondhand smoke exposure in multi-unit housing experience harmful health impacts that force them to choose whether to remain in housing that jeopardizes their health or leave that housing. These residents deserve the opportunity to live in housing that does not threaten their health or force them to leave their homes.8 On the other hand, people who smoke often face housing instability themselves due to lower incomes and poor health. These two complicated dynamics converge at the place of smoke-free housing policy enforcement: smoke -free policies that are in place to protect residents and improve their housing stability are the same policies that, when enforced, may put another resident's housing stability in jeopardy because of possible penalties or eviction. This fact sheet provides several examples of graduated enforcement for smoke-free multi-unit housing that attempt to achieve the dual goals of protecting residents from secondhand smoke and protecting housing stability for all residents. Graduated Enforcement: Protecting the Health of Residents and Promoting Housing Stability of All Residents A graduated enforcement structure helps ensure better compliance with a smoke-free policy by providing multiple steps for enforcement and providing the opportunity for residents to change their behavior before infractions rise to the level of lease termination.9 If eviction is used to enforce the policy, it should be used only as a last resort. Concerns have been expressed that smoke -free policies could serve as a pretext to remove tenants for other reasons. A graduated enforcement structure helps guard against this by creating a multi-step enforcement process that includes efforts to work with tenants who are facing the challenge of overcoming nicotine dependence or addiction. It is possible to support tenants suffering from nicot i ne dependence or addiction while at the same time ensuring that residents, guests, property management, and staff are safe from the harms of secondhand smoke exposure. Under a smoke-free housing policy, residents are not required to quit smoking to reside at the location, but they are prohibited from smoking wherever the policy designates. A graduated enforcement structure allows for tenant education and the provision of cessation resources throughout the enforcement process. www.publichealthlawcenter.org Smoke-Free Multi -Unit Housing 2 IJllt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitch ell Hamline Sc hool or Law Cessation Resources November 2020 In supplying information and resources on tobacco cessation during the enforcement process, property management, boards, and owners should rely on evidence-based cessation programs, such as the following resources: • All states have quitlines with counselors who are trained specifically to help smokers quit. Call this number to connect directly to your state's quitline (hours of operation and services vary from state to state): 800-QUIT-NOW (784-8669). • The North American Quitline Consortium website includes a clickable map to identify Quitline resources in your state. • The National Cancer Institute cessation website contains tools and tips to quit, including smoke-free texting programs, information on nicotine replacement therapy, smoke-free apps, and building your own quit plan. The National Cancer lnstitute's trained counselors provide information and support for quitting in English and Spanish. Call Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. CST at 877-44U-QUIT (877-448-7848). • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website provides information on quitlines, apps, texting support, developing a quit plan, and much more. www.publichealthlawcenter.org Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing 3 '1Jt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~ LA\V CENTER a t Mitch e ll Hamlin e S c hool of l aw November 2020 Along with a graduated enforcement approach, there are many things that property owners and managers can do to encourage the successful implementation of a smoke-free policy, including engaging residents early on in the process of adoption of the smoke -free policy through announcements and providing a clear timeline for policy adoption, providing educational material or presentations for residents, staff training, cessation materials and support, and signage.10 The primary aim should be to set residents up for success by providing them with all the information they will need to comply with the policy, including clear advance notice of the smoke-free policy and clear parameters for the policy. For example, if the policy allows a designated smoking area, residents could be provided a map of the location before the policy is adopted . Property managers should also establish a clear enforcement process and apply it uniformly to all residents, guests, and staff. Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Rental Housing Graduated Enforcement Examples The examples below can be adapted to the needs of different property types, according to state or local legal requirements. Please contact the Public Health Law Center for technical assistance on smoke-free housing policies and to review or provide other sample language for graduated enforcement. a Public Health Law Center Model Smoke-Free Lease Addendum for W Minnesota (2020) The Public Health Law Center has created the following sample graduated enforcement language that can be included in a comprehensive smoke-free lease or lease addendum. It provides two verbal warnings, a written warning, and a notice to vacate with an opportunity to remedy, along with the provision of smoking cessation resources before the final consequence of lease termination. "Violation Enforcement (a) The first violation shall result in a verbal warning and reminder of the smoke-free policy. (b) The second violation shall result in a verbal warning and provision of smoking cessation resources and materials. (c) The third violation shall result in a written warning and provision of smoking cessation resources and materials. www.publichealthlawcenter.org Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing 4 l!Jt. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAWCENTER at M itche ll Ham li ne School of Law November 2020 ------- (d) The fourth violation shall result in a notice to vacate with an option to remedy/cure, and provision of smoking cessation resources and materials. (e) The fifth violation may result in a 10-day notice to vacate without the option to remedy or cure."11 0 Private Property Management Example "Enforcement . Any deviation from the smoke-free policy by any tenant, a member of their household, or their guest will be considered a lease violation. Violations of the smoke-free policy will be enforced as follows: First violation: For the first violation, a Notice of Infraction warning letter will be given to the tenant indicating that a violation of the smoke-free policy has occurred, and the date of the infraction. Second violation: For the second violation, the tenant will be asked to meet with the property manager to review the smoke-free policy and a second Notice of Infraction letter will be given. (Note: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and measures in place to reduce the spread of the virus, an alternative to an in-person meeting could include requiring a virtual meeting and/or a signed acknowledgement that the tenant has reviewed the policy.) Third violation: The third violation will be considered a material breach of the lease and the tenant will be subject to immediate termination of the lease." 0 Boston Housing Authority, Boston, Massachusetts "After the first violation, we gave the person in violation another copy of the nonsmoking policy; the policy is in their lease. After the second violation, we held a private meeting. If there was a third violation, we would have the smoker sign an agreement not to smoke within the nonsmoking area. Only after the fourth violation wou l d we talk to our lega l department about penalties or eviction. However, we got a lot of feedback from residents and staff about how this process was taking too long and how it was different from the enforcement of our other policies. In response, we compressed the first three steps into one step."12 www.publichealthlawcenter.org Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing 5 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at M itchel l Haml in e Sc h ool of Law November 2020 -------- 0 Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA), Minnesota Enforcement The CDA must enforce smoke-free policies when a resident is in violation of the policy. When enforcing the lease, the CDA will provide Public Housing residents due process and allow them to exercise their right to an informal and formal hearing. The CDA will not evict a resident for a single violation of this policy. As such, the CDA will implement a graduated enforcement action plan. Prior to pursuing eviction for violation of the smoke -free policy, the CDA will fo llow the enforcement action plan (see below). Resident termination and eviction will be pursued only as a last resort. Enforcement Action Plan The CDA shall give a resident two (2) opportunities to remedy non -compliance with the smoke - free policy. The follow i ng is an outline of the enforcement procedure: 1st Infraction: Management will have an informal meeting with the resident and issue a written Notice of Non-Compliance to the resident that will remind the resident of the smoke -free policy and their obligation to comply with the policy in accordance with their lease agreement. The informal meeting may include a telephone conversation and/or an in -person conversation at the building office or other designated location. Management will also provide cessation materia l to inform residents of the resources available to them. 2nd Infraction: Management will issue a Second Notice of Non-Compliance in writing and have a forma l meeting with the resident to review this pol icy, citing potentia l consequences for future violations of their lease agreement. Management will require the resident to sign a Stipulat ion Agreement. In addition, cessation material will be given as a resource to the resident. 3rd Infraction: Once a resident has incurred a third vio lation, the matter will be treated as a breach of the lease agreement and management will issue a 30-day notice to vacate. Legal action may be taken for vio lation of the smoke -free policy. At each stage in the enforcement procedure, CDA staff will seek to remind non -compliant residents about the opportunity to participate in a smok i ng cessation program, although this reminder shall not be a prerequisite to enforcement."13 www.publichealthlawcenter.org Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing 6 l!J1' PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER at Mitchell Hamline School of Law November 2020 419 Bayonne Housing Authority, New Jersey • "First violation = verbal warning and cessation materials • Second violation = verbal warning and cessation materials • Third violation = written warning and cessation materials • Fourth violation = legal Notice to Cease subject to BHA's grievance procedure • Fifth violation = the BHA has the discretion to terminate the Lease Agreement We investigate all complaints of smoking violations and track actions on an Excel spreadsheet. We provide adequate warnings prior to legal action to ensure the complaint is valid and not merely neighbors fighting with each other. When investigating smoking complaints, we send an inspector who speaks with the head of household and has them sign another lease addendum. So far, no legal action has been necessary."14 0 Duluth HRA, Minnesota "The City of Duluth 's Housing and Redevelopment Authority's smoke-free housing enforcement plan includes multiple steps to provide written notice and in-person meeting with the resident before, upon a third infraction, the eviction process may be pursued: • If smoking is observed, a letter is sent to the tenant. The letter includes the smoke -free policy lease language and notice of the infraction. The tenant may contest the infraction. The same notice is sent for first and second observed violations. • If the PHA receives a written complaint and staff members do not observe a violation, an appointment is scheduled to discuss the complaint so that the tenant has an opportunity to tell his or her side of the story. • If the PHA receives more than three validated infractions, eviction proceedings may begin. o The eviction process includes an informal meeting, formal hearing, and court. When the PHA holds the informal meeting, the tenant and PHA can often resolve the eviction with a settlement. Settlements can include a plan to go outside to smoke or, if the tenant is interested, referrals for cession services. www.publichealthlawcenter.org Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing 7 ~ PUBLIC HEALTH 'f;;;J LAWCENTER al Mitchell Hamline Sc hool o f law November 2020 o The PHA prefers to work out a settlement. Eviction often does not always go through on the third infraction, but it could occur on the sixth or seventh infraction."15 0 HUD's Graduated Enforcement Parameters HUD does not offer specific graduated enforcement language in its smoke-free publ ic housing rule and emphasizes that local public housing authorities typica l ly set their own lease enforcement provisions to a ll ow for local flexibility. However, HUD makes clear in its guidance on its smoke-free rule that eviction is not allowed on a first infraction and should be a last resort.76 HUD provides the following suggested graduated enforcement steps: "Implement a graduated enforcement approach including some or all of these steps: • Referral to smoking cessation services. • Verbal warning. • Written warning. • Final notice. • Eviction proceedings."17 To Fine or Not to Fine? While some graduated enforcement pro visions i nclude purely punitive fines, the Center does not include such a measure because frequently residents with low or fixed incomes are unable to afford the f i nes. Puniti ve fines may not be lega l in some jurisdictions or some housing types (public hous i ng). Furthermore, punitive fines may create housing instabi l ity if residents cannot afford to pay the i r rent or meet other living costs as a result of being fined. Some graduated enforcement models allow the property ow ner to recover the costs of cleaning or repairing a unit if it has been damaged as a result of smoking. An y fees to recover the costs of damage should be limited to no more than the actua l costs incurred. (For more informat ion on fines in the context of pub l ic housing, see Nationa l Housing La w Pro j ect, A Guide to Equitable Smoke-Free Public Hous ing (2020) pp. 27-28.)] www.publichealthlawcenter.org Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing 8 l!JI.. PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAW CENTER al Mitchell Hamline Sc hool of l aw November 2020 For further information, visit the Public Health Law Center's smoke free housing web page. Our resources include: • Model Smoke-Free Lease Addendum (2020) • Model Smoke-Free Condo Policy (2020) • Smoke-Free Tribal Housing Policies (2020) • Marijuana in Multi -U nit Residential Settings (2019) This publication was prepared by the Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, Saint Paul, Minnesota. The Center provides information and technical assistance on law and policy issues related to public health. The Center does not provide legal ad vice or enter into attorney-client relationships, and this document should not be considered legal advice. This publication was made possible by funding from Clean Air for All: The Smoke-Free Public Housing Project and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It s contents are solely the re sponsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of Clean Air for All or the Foundation. www.publichealthlawcenter.org Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing 9 #!Ila PUBLIC HEALTH ~LAWCENTER at Mitchell Ham/in e School of Law November 2020 Endnotes U .S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUM. Srnvs., THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF I NVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE TO TOBACCO SMOKE: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL 65 (2006). 2 See American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, Housing and Secondhand Smoke: Bibliography (2020), https://no-smoke. org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Housing-Bibliography.pdf. 3 Instituting Smoke-Free Public Housing, 81 Fed. Reg. 87,430, 87,430-44 (Dec. 5, 2016) (to be codified at 24 C.F.R. pts. 965,966). 4 See American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, U.S. Laws for 700% Smokefree Multi-Unit Housing (2020), https://no- smoke .org/wp-content/up loads/pdf/smokefreemuh.pdf. 5 See Brian A. King et al., Prevalence of Smokefree Home Rules -United States, 7992-1993 and 2070 -2011, 63 MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WKLY. REP. 765 (2014), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6335.pdf. 6 See Miche l le C. Kegler et al., A Qualitative Study of the Process of Adoption, Implementation and Enforcement of Smoke-Fr ee Policies in Privately-Owned Affordable Housing, 19 BMC Pus. HEALTH 1071 (2019), https://bmcpublichea lth.biomedcentral. com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12889-019-7404-y; Brian A. King et al., Prevalence and Predictors of Smoke-Free Policy Imple- mentation and Support Among Owners and Managers of Multiunit Housing, 12 NICOT INE AND TOBACCO RsCH. 159 (2009); Andrea S. Licht et al., Attitudes, Experiences, and Acceptance of Smoke-Free Policies Among US Multiunit Housing Residents, 102 AM. J. oF Pus. HEALTH 1868 (2012). 7 U.S. Off. of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Hea lthy Peop le 2020 Social Determinants of Health Interventions and Resources: Quality of Housing, HEALTHY PEOPLE, https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/so- ci a I-d et erm i nan t s-h ea Ith/in terve nt ion s-resou rces/q ua I ity-of-h o using. 8 See generally Amy Y. Hafez et al., Uneven Access to Smoke-Free Laws and Policies and Its Effect on Health Equity in the United States: 2000-2019, 109 AM. J. OF Pus. HEALTH 1568 (2019). 9 See Michelle C. Kegler et al., Implementation and Enforcement of Smoke-Free Policies in Public Housing, 34 HEALTH EDuc. Rsm 234 (2019). 10 See Association for Nonsmokers' Rights Minnesota, Resources for Property Managers, LIVE SMOKE FREE, https://mn- smokefreehous i ng.org/resources/property-managers/#steps-smoke-free. 11 Public Health Law Center, Model Smoke-Free Lease Addendum 4 (2020), https ://www.publichea lth lawcenter.org/sites/ default/files/resources/PHLC-Model-Smoke-Free-Lease-Addendum.pdf. 12 U.S. DEP'T OF Hous. AND URB. DEV., IMPLEMENT ING HU D's SMOKE-FREE POLICY IN PUBLIC HouslNG 27 (2017), https://www. hud.gov/sites/documents/SMOKEFREE_GUIDEBK.PDF. 13 Email from Dakota County Community Development Agency. 14 Email from Patricia Madison, Assistant Exec. Dir., Hous. Auth. of the City of Bayonne. 15 U.S. DEP'T OF Hous. AND URB. DEV ., supra note 12, at 11. 16 Id. at 16. 17 U.S. Dep't of Hous. and Urb. Dev., Smoke-Free Policy Recommended Checklist, https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/2_ SMOKEF _POL ICYCHECKLIST.PDF. www.publichealthlawcenter.org Smoke-Free Multi-Un it Housing 10 From: Sent: To: Cc: Janet Gagnon <janet@aagla.org > Thursday, July 29, 2021 10:44 AM Eric Alegria; David Bradley; John Cruikshank; Ken Dyda; Barbara Ferraro CityClerk ; Daniel Yukelson ; Danielle Peretz Subject: City Council Meeting 8/03/21 Agenda Item 5 -Consideration of Smoke-Free Policy in Multifamily Units Attachments: AAGLA Letter re Rancho Palos Verdes Smoke Free Ordinance-072921 Final.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hon . Mayor Alegria and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: Attached for your review is a letter submitted by the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) regarding agenda item 5, scheduled for the Council's consideration at the August 3rd City Council meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration. Janet M. Gagnon JanetM. Gagnon, Esq. Senior Manager, Government Affairs Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles 621 South Westmoreland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90005 t: 213/384-4131 ext.307 I f: 888/384-4131 I ianet@aagla.org www.AAGLA.org Twitter Facebook The Voice of Multifamily Housing Since 1917 © 1 5. APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES July 29, 2021 AAGLA "Great Apartments Start Here!" Janet M. Gagnon, Esq. Senior Manager, Government Affairs j anet@aagla.org 213 .3 84.4131; Ext. 307 Via Electronic Mail Hon. Mayor Eric Alegria and Members of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Re: Consideration and possible action to initiate code amendment proceedings to amend the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) to develop a smoke-free ordinance in multi-family housing units. (Agenda Item 5) Dear Hon. Mayor Alegria and Members of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: At the August 3rd City Council meeting, the Council will be discussing possible code amendment proceedings to develop a smoke-free ordinance in multifamily housing units. As the Council engages in this discussion, the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA or Association) would like to be included in the discussions and the opportunity to share our extensive industry knowledge should the Council direct that staff explore this matter further. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA or Association), established in 1917, represents more than 10,000 members that own or manage more than 200,000 rental housing units throughout San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. Our Association was recently granted an expansion of its charter through the National Apartment Association to include the City of Long Beach and the surrounding cities, and we now represent the interests of Rancho Palos Verdes' rental housing providers. The Association has a great deal of experience on the topic of smoke-free multifamily housing. Over the past several years, we have collaborated with the University of California at Los Angeles' (UCLA) Center for Health Policy Research on behalf of the City of Los Angeles to survey housing Page 1 of 2 APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES AAGLA "Great Apartments Start Here!" providers and conduct research on smoke-free housing and to help establish guidelines for adopting smoke-free multifamily housing policies. Additionally, we have collaborated on two studies conducted on behalf of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, one of which is still ongoing, to assess smoke-free housing policy implementation and enforcement within four incorporated cities and most recently within unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. We appreciate the City Council Staffs efforts in fully investigating the extent of the issue in Rancho Palos Verdes, the research on the 13 out of 88 cities in Los Angeles County that have similar ordinances and the number of units in Rancho Palos Verdes that would be impacted by a new smoke- free multifamily housing ordinance (3,197). We agree with Staffs recommendation that if the City Council decides to move forward with such an ordinance, the City Council should first direct Staff to conduct opinion surveys and meetings with residents, homeowners' associations, and other stakeholders with the intent of gaining insight on their smoking preferences for consideration at a future meeting. We would request that AAGLA and multifamily housing providers specifically be added to this list for surveys and meetings, since they represent 34% of the units that would be directly impact by such an ordinance. Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters. If you have any questions, please call me at (213) 384-4131; Ext. 307 or contact me via electronic mail at janet@aagla.org. Very truly yours, Janet M. Gagnon, Esq. Page 2 of 2