HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-07-30; City Council; ; Amendment to the Carlsbad Municipal Code to prohibit smoking in multi-unit residences (ZCA2024-0004)CA Review __AF__
Meeting Date: July 30, 2024
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Mike Strong, Assistant Director of Community Development
mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2721
Subject: Amendment to the Carlsbad Municipal Code to prohibit smoking in multi-
unit residences (ZCA2024-0004).
Districts: All
Recommended Action
Hold a public hearing and:
1.Consider the introduction of an ordinance adding Chapter 6.15 to the Carlsbad
Municipal Code to prohibit smoking in multi-unit residences (Exhibit 1).
2.Consider the enforcement options provided in the staff report and provide direction.
Executive Summary
The Housing Element is the part of the city’s General Plan that focuses on housing issues. In
addition to policies, programs and objectives that encourage housing development, the
Housing Element also includes programs that promote safe and healthy living environments.
Housing Element Program 1.12 directed the city to consider by December 2023 the merits of an
ordinance that would prohibit smoking in multi-family housing throughout the city. To satisfy
this requirement, the City Council received a report on Aug. 22, 2023, describing different
options to regulate anti-smoking housing environments. At the conclusion of that presentation,
the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would prohibit smoking in and
around multi-unit residences throughout the city. The City Council also expressed interest in
reviewing potential education and enforcement options.
This staff report responds to that direction and includes an ordinance for the City Council’s
consideration that would prohibit smoking in multi-unit residential buildings and in their
outdoor common areas. It includes an option that would allow for the creation of designated
outdoor smoking areas that meet specific criteria.
The proposed ordinance would ban smoking of tobacco and cannabis products, including
vaping, inside and outside multi-unit buildings containing three or more units, including
apartment buildings, condominiums, townhomes, senior and assisted living facilities and long-
term health care facilities. It would apply to both rental and for-sale housing units.
Because the city’s Police Department and Code Enforcement Division have minimal resources
to conduct additional enforcement efforts, the draft ordinance recommends shifting the
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 1 of 127
enforcement role from the city to private parties, meaning landlords, homeowner associations
and tenants may take legal action against violators by filing civil suits against them.
If approved, the new rules would go into effect Jan. 1, 2025.
Explanation & Analysis
Background
In many instances, state law gives California cities and counties the right to adopt and enforce
local laws to limit exposure to secondhand smoke. There are several jurisdictions throughout
California that have adopted comprehensive smoke-free air laws. These laws prevent people
from smoking in outdoor dining areas, concerts, markets and fairs and other outdoor
recreational areas as well as in public places such as sidewalks.
Like many other cities in the state, and many counties, the City of Carlsbad enacted its own
smoke-free air laws. Specifically, the city adopted an ordinance in 2008 to prohibit smoking in
public parks, trails, and beaches (Ordinance No. NS-894) and an ordinance in 2012 to prohibit
smoking within 20 feet of an outdoor dining area (Ordinance No. CS-188). These ordinances
established Chapters 6.14 and 11.32 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code respectively. The city has
no other types of smoke-free air laws.
The City Council adopted the Housing Element Update for the 2021–2029 eight-year planning
period in 2021. This updated Housing Element includes programs that the city is required to
implement over the eight-year planning period that describe how the city can address its
housing needs and improve housing equity.
Program 1.12 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element directs the city to consider the adoption of a
smoke-free multi-unit residence ordinance by December 2023. As noted above, the City Council
received an informational presentation about possible regulations on smoking and secondhand
smoke in multifamily homes on Aug. 22, 2023. As an outcome of this meeting, which included
public comments from several smoke-free advocacy groups and organizations, the City Council
directed staff to prepare an ordinance for City Council consideration and possible adoption.
The City Council also expressed interest in reviewing potential education and enforcement
options to support the implementation of the ordinance, while minimizing impacts to staff
resources. The City Council also expressed concerns about how the ordinance would be
enforced, in that the prospective ordinance would likely add additional enforcement
responsibilities to the Code Enforcement Division and/or the Police Department, neither of
which have the resources to take on this additional enforcement work. As a result, the City
Council asked that options be included in the report that do not involve additional staffing and
minimize impacts to existing city resources. (The staff report from that meeting is provided as
Exhibit 3, and the meeting’s minutes are Exhibit 4.)
Secondhand smoke in multi-unit residences
Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke that comes from the burning end of a cigarette,
cigar, or pipe, and the smoke breathed out by the smoker, or the or vaping fumes or aerosol
from a vaping device. It has been found to contain more than 7,000 chemicals, hundreds of
which are toxic and about 70 that can cause cancer. Research demonstrates that secondhand
smoke in multi-unit housing can transfer between units and common areas through walls,
ceiling crawl spaces, doorways, windows and shared ventilation systems, involuntarily exposing
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 2 of 127
tenants in adjacent units. The only way to guard against involuntary exposure to secondhand
smoke is to eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. More background information on non-smoking
polices and the impacts of secondhand smoke is presented in Exhibit 2.
More than 80 cities and counties in the state have enacted some sort of smoke-free housing
law. Some policies prohibit smoking in all units or prohibit it in a certain percentage of units,
while others prohibit smoking only in common areas. In general, smoke-free housing policies do
not prohibit people who smoke from living in a non-smoking unit or require smokers to quit.
Smoke-free policies simply require that there be no smoking in units designated as smoke-free
and/or prohibit smoking in common areas, except where specifically permitted.
No municipalities in the San Diego region, including the County of San Diego, have adopted laws
that partially or wholly restrict smoking in multi-unit residential buildings.
Anti-smoking ordinance
In response to the City Council’s direction, city staff prepared a draft ordinance based on a
model ordinance published by the Public Health Law Center. This model ordinance was
prepared specifically for California cities and counties interested in creating smoke-free housing
by prohibiting smoking on the premises. Using this as a foundation, staff developed the draft
ordinance (Exhibit 1), which would add a Chapter 6.15 to the Carlsbad Municipal Code titled
“Prohibition of Smoking in Multi-Unit Residences.” Some of the more significant provisions of
the draft ordinance:
• Applies to existing and proposed multi-unit residences, which includes any rental or for-
sale housing development with three or more units (Exception: Hotels, single-family
homes with accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units, and mobile
homes in a mobile home park are not subject to this ordinance).
• Smoking would be prohibited indoors, including individual units and associated
balconies, porches, decks, and patios.
• Smoking would be prohibited in exterior common areas, such as halls, pathways,
lobbies, stairwells, mail areas/rooms, community rooms, playgrounds, pools, laundry
rooms and parking lots.
• A designated smoking area could be established outdoors by landlords or property
managers but must be sufficiently distant – at least 25 feet – from units and other
outdoor amenities. A smoke-free buffer zone of 25 feet would limit drifting secondhand
smoke from entering non-smoking areas. This proposed exception would give landlords
and property managers a choice to accommodate any residents who smoke and set
parameters for where smoking would be allowed, subject to the criteria and standards
of the ordinance.
Enforcement
Several factors should be considered when contemplating how to prohibit smoking in multi-unit
residences, such as the likely effectiveness of the ordinance and how to balance the process of
enforcement. Part of the consideration for enforcement involves determining which entity, that
is, the Police Department, the Code Enforcement Division, landlord or property manager, and
what process, that is by criminal or civil action, etc. is best suited to effectively implement the
ordinance and/or most likely to result in the fewest conflicts and negative consequences.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 3 of 127
Challenges
According to the California Department of Finance’s 2024 estimates, there are 13,709 multi-
units in the city. Based on other cities of a similar size in the state with city-wide smoke-free
housing policies, it is anticipated that the city would field from one to 10 complaints per month
in the initial 12-month period after the ordinance would go into effect. Based on the level of
effort expected to handle a typical complaint, staff anticipate that it would require up to 30
hours per month to process, inspect, report and resolve the ten violations. The Police
Department and Code Enforcement Division do not have the resources to conduct these
additional enforcement efforts.
Even if additional staffing resources were provided – estimated to be 0.5 full-time equivalent,
or FTE, positions – implementing the draft ordinance would still be challenging. Based on
conversations with other jurisdictions with smoke-free housing laws, law enforcement officers
or code enforcement officers generally do not issue citations for a first offense. In fact, it is
difficult for them to issue citations at all because the officer must either observe the violation in
progress, see other compelling evidence that a violation had occurred, or have the alleged
violator admit to the violation.
There are three factors that could frustrate enforcement of a smoking prohibition in multi-unit
residences:
1) Timely response
2) Enforcement authority to identify violators
3) Jurisdiction or enforcement responsibility
• Timely Response
Law enforcement officers and code enforcement officers have the authority to inspect
residential properties to enforce compliance with relevant laws and regulations. They
respond and prioritize complaints based on issues dealing with the health and safety of
the community. Tobacco control laws are low on the list of enforcement priorities in
many jurisdictions. Funding, staffing and operational priorities all contribute to this
problem. Depending on the time of day and priority of cases, the response to a non-
emergency, smoking violation would likely be within 24 hours, that is, the next business
day, which makes it difficult to gather proof of a smoking violation.
• Enforcement authority to identify violators
Multi-unit residential tenants have the right to possession until they are evicted or
voluntarily surrender the premises for right of entry. If a tenant or homeowner does not
consent to a law enforcement or code enforcement officer coming into their home, the
officers cannot enter without a warrant. Exceptions to that rule may include emergency
situations in which obtaining a warrant is not possible, such as if the unit was on fire.
Because the city has an inability to freely enter a private residence, it would be
extremely difficult to investigate and catch a smoker in the act.
• Jurisdiction or enforcement responsibility
The primary obligation of the law enforcement officer or code enforcement officer is to
investigate complaints, document evidence of a violation and identify a responsible
party to correct the violation. Unlike some other states, California law does not require
people to provide identification to law enforcement officers upon request, which means
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 4 of 127
there is no law that says smoking violators must identify themselves. Because the
violation doesn’t elevate to an emergency situation, law enforcement officers and code
enforcement officers may be unable to identify a multi-unit residential tenant and issue
a notice or citation without the cooperation of a landlord or property manager.
Enforcement options
Option 1 – City enforcement
As mentioned above, neither the Police Department nor the Community Development
Department’s Code Enforcement division have the resources to assume enforcement
responsibilities of the proposed ordinance. Staff estimate that at least half of a full-time
equivalent position (FTE) will be needed to effectively implement the enforcement program.
The fully burdened rate, that is including benefits, training and other personnel costs, for a 0.5
FTE code enforcement officer is $27,360, and for a 0.5 FTE police officer is $144,310.
While the cost of a code enforcement officer is significantly less in comparison to a police
officer, the code enforcement officer works between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays and would
not be available to respond to complaints outside those times. For the reasons detailed in the
challenges section above, staff do not recommend this option.
Pros
• Administrative fines for violations can be an effective incentive to comply with the
ordinance, rather than using eviction as a code enforcement remedy.
• May avoid neighbor-to-neighbor conflicts, reducing a potential source of distrust
and hostility between tenants. It’s easier for the complaining party to speak up and
register complaints, relying on the city to investigate and document evidence of a
violation.
Cons
• The city’s existing resources are not sufficient to provide timely response and
investigate complaints, document evidence of a violation and identify a responsible
party for all of the approximately 13,700 multi-unit residential properties in
Carlsbad. Furthermore, code enforcement officers are unable to respond to
complaints after business hours, when many violations would be expected to occur.
• Administrative fines may cause financial hardship depending on a tenant’s financial
circumstances.
• If a violator is given multiple chances to comply, repeat administrative fines may not
be sufficient to obtain compliance, so there may need to be a stronger penalty as a
last resort. This could entail unnecessary involvement with law enforcement officers
and/or code enforcement officers.
• The city does not initiate investigations of a potential violations based on
anonymous complaints, so a violator could still identify the complaining party.
Option 2 – Civil enforcement
A second option is to extend enforcement power to those individuals who are directly affected
by violations of the smoke-free housing policies. If the ordinance states that secondhand smoke
is a “nuisance,” residents may use nuisance enforcement to address unwanted exposure to
secondhand smoke. Declaring other residents as “third-party beneficiaries” in the ordinance
and leases grants people living in the same multi-unit residential building limited rights to
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 5 of 127
enforce smoking restrictions in leases. Without the declaration, other residents usually have no
legal right to enforce the lease terms, because they are not a party to the agreement, and the
power to enforce the terms of the lease rests solely with the landlord or property manager.
By permitting residents to enforce smoke-free housing rules in court via civil action, that is, a
lawsuit, the traditional barriers to enforcement can be bypassed and residents can ask a court
for an injunction or a conditional judgment. An injunction is a court order either prohibiting or
compelling an act (i.e. orders a smoker to stop smoking in any area where smoking is not
permitted). An injunction is an available remedy in some divisions of the Superior Court but not
in Small Claims Court. However, a small claims court may issue a conditional judgment, which
gives the defendant a choice between meeting certain conditions – such as not smoking – or
paying a fine.
Pros
• By permitting tenants to enforce smoke-free housing rules in court, the traditional
barriers to enforcement can be bypassed.
• Private civil actions can help ensure there is adequate enforcement by giving the
power to those individuals that are directly affected by violations. Tenants can
choose to act on their own behalf.
• Can limit the potential negative consequences of direct enforcement against a
tenant. Courts may offer a range of nuisance abatement tools, such as preliminary
or permanent restraining orders or conditional judgments.
Cons
• It may not always be possible to use this approach because it requires a complaining
party who is willing to pursue civil enforcement. Litigants may struggle to prove
when and where smoking occurred, which may lead to distrust and hostility
between tenants.
• Knowing that going to court could be an outcome might discourage residents from
reporting smoking policy violations.
• Court fines may cause financial hardship, depending on a tenant’s financial
circumstances.
Option #3 – Landlord (lease agreement) enforcement
A third option is to place enforcement responsibility on landlords and property managers.
Under this approach, the city could require landlords and property managers to inform
individuals of the smoking prohibitions at the time a unit is rented or sold. Additionally, the
ordinance could require landlords and property managers to include the smoking prohibition as
a term in a lease or other rental agreement.
Whenever a lease contains a no- smoking term, this provision makes smoking against the law in
addition to being a violation of the lease. This provision would also apply to any codes,
covenants and restrictions for common-interest developments like condominiums. This means
that when a landlord or property manager amends an existing rental agreement or creates a
new one to include the “no-smoking” lease term, smoking in violation of those lease terms then
becomes illegal, not just a lease violation. Smoking would be a violation of a lease and would be
considered a nuisance violation, and landlords and property managers would be able to enforce
the smoking lease terms just like any other condition in the agreement or the codes, covenants
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 6 of 127
and restrictions, such as common provisions regarding noise, use of laundry facilities and
damage to common areas.
Pros
• Including smoke-free requirements in lease terms (with appropriate language
translations) creates clear expectations for new and existing tenants.
• Could specify a certain number of warnings/violations before an eviction could
proceed to allow for multiple chances to comply.
• Taking tiered steps to violations such as providing material on quitting smoking,
verbal or written warnings to tenants, informal conferences or requiring written
acknowledgment of the policy can improve compliance. Eviction could be used as a
last resort for repeat violations of a no-smoking policy, to protect the health of other
tenants.
Cons
• Some graduated enforcement mechanisms cause financial hardship, and if eviction
is used as a last resort, it may make it more difficult for individuals to obtain other
housing.
• Knowing that eviction could be an outcome for a neighbor might discourage
residents from reporting smoking policy violations.
Based on concerns about enforcement, the draft ordinance proposes the enforcement
mechanisms reflected in Options 2 and 3 to implement the proposed smoke-free housing law.
To avoid the challenges detailed in the section above, including a "third-party beneficiary"
provision enables other residents of a multi-unit residential building to enforce the smoking
restrictions. Further, the draft ordinance would require smoke-free provisions to be placed in
new lease or sales agreements, making smoking a violation of both the agreement and the local
ordinance.
Education
Sufficient education mechanisms can increase compliance rates and reduce the need for active
enforcement. Education, stakeholder and community engagement and a strong outreach plan
are key steps in the adoption of effective smoke-free ordinances.
Smoke-free laws are often described as “self-enforcing,” which means that, generally,
individuals voluntarily comply without any involvement of administrative and/or legal
enforcement processes. The draft ordinance requires posting of signage to serve as public
notification. Landlords and property managers of multi-unit residential properties would be
required to post signs and tenants must sign agreements either in the form of a lease or lease
addendum. The city would still be able to assist in handling initial complaints and landlords and
property managers with mediation tools.
Specific outreach strategies to support the implementation of the ordinance and an
implementation timeline are provided in Exhibit 6, most of which has already been developed
by other jurisdictions and agencies. Any necessary adjustment efforts can be completed within
existing department budgets. If additional outreach was desired, such as direct mail to tenants
of multi-unit residential buildings and all owners of multi-unit properties, staff would need to
return with an estimated cost and seek an additional budget appropriation to cover printing,
production and mailing expenses.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 7 of 127
Housing Commission
In keeping with its City Council-approved 2023-24 work program, the Housing Commission,
considered the anti-smoking ordinance with focus on education and enforcement on Feb. 8,
2024 (Exhibit 5). The commissioners’ comments focused on the following points:
• Consider the budget for outreach and how best to measure success or impact of
outreach.
• Any city mailers or signage should be available in different languages.
• A point of contact at the city should be designated in all outreach material to ensure
consistent responses.
• Having designated unenclosed smoking areas to accommodate smokers and allowing
smoking in areas removed from non-smokers.
• The city should promote reasonable enforcement measures. There shouldn’t be any
intrusive or recurring investigations.
• It makes sense to hold landlords and property managers accountable.
At that meeting, staff heard concerns about “staffing resources” and “heavy-handed
enforcement,” which were similar to the comments made by City Council members at the City
Council’s Aug. 22, 2023, meeting. However, by using the enforcement mechanisms under
Options 2 and 3, staff do not believe the draft ordinance creates an unusual risk of such
problems. Violations in multi-unit residential buildings can be handled in-house, through
landlords and property managers. This would be in the form of graduated enforcement by the
landlord or property manager taking tiered steps to violations such as verbal or written
warnings or requesting informal conferences, etc.
The draft ordinance also includes a provision that allows enforcement by private individuals. An
individual may then enforce the ordinance by bringing a civil suit on their behalf, or on behalf of
the general public.
Community Engagement
The draft ordinance was sent to 89 apartment owners, 47 property management companies,
and 492 multi-unit billing parties – a total of 628 recipients – for a two-week public review
period. The draft ordinance was also sent to the Vista Community Clinic, Southern California
Rental Housing Association, and the California Apartment Association, where the information
was passed along to their members.
The public review period of the draft ordinance began on April 8 and ended on April 22, 2024.
The city received feedback from 27 community members during the public review period.
Public comments received were mostly in opposition to the draft ordinance. Many described
the draft ordinance as an “overreach.” Some comments also sought clarity on how the
ordinance would be enforced and on which properties would be required to comply with the
proposed ordinance. Written responses to each public comment were prepared. Exhibit 7
provides all comment letters received during the public review period and a response to each
comment. Additional correspondence received after April 22, 2024, through noon, July 24,
2024, are provided in Exhibit 8.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 8 of 127
If the City Council adopts the proposed ordinance, additional outreach will need to be provided
to those affected to support implementation, as outlined in Exhibit 6. As noted above, the city
does not have resources budgeted to provide additional education and stakeholder and
community engagement. If additional outreach were desired, staff would need to return with
an estimated cost and seek an additional budget appropriation.
Fiscal Analysis
The proposed ordinance was processed using existing staff resources and existing departmental
budget. However, there may be on-going costs to the city’s General Fund associated with
adopting and enforcing this ordinance. The proposed smoke-free ordinance would have
resource impacts on city staff time and financial resources depending on the level of
enforcement and/or outreach required by its implementation.
The Police Department and Code and Enforcement Division have minimal available resources to
conduct additional enforcement efforts. Staff estimate that an additional 0.5 full-time
equivalent position would be needed to support a city-sponsored enforcement program.
However, with proper education and outreach prior to ordinance implementation, and with
consistent education when complaints are received, that number is expected to decrease over
time.
If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation and supports alternative enforcement
mechanisms (Option 2 and 3 - placing enforcement responsibility on the landlord or private
persons via civil action), then no additional resources would be needed to support ordinance
implementation.
The strategies for ensuring successful implementation require some level of staff resources.
This may include developing materials to educate the community about the policy, establishing
and administering a complaint process, etc. Those services that the city may accommodate
within the existing departmental budgets are provided in Exhibit 6. The city has no budgeted
resources to perform additional outreach or education.
Next Steps
The City Clerk’s Office will prepare the ordinance for adoption at the next regular City Council
meeting. Once adopted, the City Clerk’s Office will publish the ordinance or a summary of the
ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation within 15 days. The ordinance will be effective
30 days following its adoption.
Although the proposed ordinance would be effective 30 days after the second reading, under
the proposed ordinance it would be unlawful for any person to smoke in their multi-unit
residence starting on Jan. 1, 2025. Prior to the effective date, the city would conduct public
outreach to inform tenants, landlords and property managers about the regulations (Exhibit 6).
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 9 of 127
Environmental Evaluation
In keeping with California Public Resources Code Section 21065, the proposed project to
strengthen the city’s smoking regulations for indoor air quality does not qualify as a project
within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act because it has no potential to
cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment. The goal of the proposed amendments to the Municipal
Code are to enhance protections for people against the dangers of secondhand smoke, reduce
fire hazards, and reduce property damage caused by tobacco smoke. Therefore, the
recommended action does not require environmental review.
Exhibits
1. City Council ordinance
2. Smoking and secondhand smoke background information
3. Aug. 22, 2023, City Council staff report, Housing Element Program: Options to Develop a
Smoke-Free Multifamily Housing Ordinance (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
4. Aug. 22, 2023, City Council meeting minutes (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
5. Feb. 8, 2024, Housing Commission staff report (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
6. Ordinance outreach and education strategies
7. Public comments received during the public review period and response to comments
8. Additional correspondences received after April 22, 2024 through noon, July 24, 2024
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 10 of 127
Exhibit 1
ORDINANCE NO. .
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 6.15 TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN MULTI-UNIT RESIDENCES
CASE NAME: SMOKE-FREE MULTI-UNIT HOUSING ORDINANCE
CASE NO.: ZCA 2024-0004
WHEREAS, tobacco use causes death and disease and continues to be an urgent public health
threat; and
WHEREAS, exposure to secondhand smoke causes death and disease; and
WHEREAS, nonsmokers who live in multi-unit residences can be exposed to neighbors'
secondhand smoke; and
WHEREAS, smoking is a leading cause of fire deaths and fire-related injury, and contributes to
fire-related health inequities; and
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 exposures; and
WHEREAS, several studies have confirmed that smoke free multi-unit residential policies are
the most effective method to fully reduce secondhand smoke exposure in multi-unit residences; and
WHEREAS, there is no constitutional right to smoke; and
WHEREAS, a local ordinance that authorizes residential rental agreements to include a
prohibition on smoking within rental units is not prohibited by California law; and
WHEREAS, local governments have broad latitude to declare nuisances and are not constrained
by prior definitions of nuisance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, ordains as follows that:
SECTION I: The above recitations are true and correct.
SECTION II: The Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by adding Chapter 6.15 to read as
follows:
Chapter 6.15
PROHIBITION OF SMOKING IN MULTIUNIT RESIDENCES
Sections:
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 11 of 127
6.15.010 Purpose and intent.
6.15.020 Definitions.
6.15.030 Smoking restrictions.
6.15.040 Lease agreement requirements.
6.15.050 Noticing requirements for rental properties
6.15.060 Noticing requirements for common interest developments.
6.15.070 Nuisance.
6.15.080 Private enforcement.
6.15.090 Limitations and exceptions.
6.15.100 Rules of construction.
6.15.110 Severability.
6.15.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the smoking of tobacco, or any other weed or plant or
substance, in multiunit residences or common areas. This chapter protects the public from
nonconsensual exposure by reducing the number of locations in the city where exposure to
secondhand smoke may occur.
6.15.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter the following definitions shall govern unless the context clearly
requires otherwise:
“Common area” means every enclosed area and unenclosed area of a multiunit residential
development that residents of more than one unit are entitled to enter or use, including
entryways, halls, pathways, lobbies, courtyards, elevators, stairs, community rooms, playgrounds,
gym facilities, swimming pools, pool areas, offices, parking garages, parking lots, grassy or
landscaped areas, restrooms, laundry rooms, cooking areas, and eating areas.
“Common interest development” means:
1. A community apartment project as defined in California Civil Code section 4105, or any
successor legislation;
2. A condominium 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.
“Designated smoking area” means an area where smoking is permitted, as designated by a landlord,
HOA or other person with legal control of the premises and has been established and maintained
in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
“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 an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, vape
pen, or e-hookah.
“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.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 12 of 127
“Existing unit” means a unit in existence on or before January 1, 2025.
“Homeowners’ 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.
“Landlord” means any person or agent of a person who owns, manages, or is otherwise legally
responsible for a unit in a multiunit residence leased to a residential tenant. For purposes of this
ordinance, a tenant who sublets their unit (e.g., a sublessor) is not a landlord.
“Multiunit residential development” means property containing three or more units, including
apartment buildings, common interest developments, senior and assisted living facilities, and
long-term health care facilities. Multiunit residential developments 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 duplex building designed exclusively for occupancy by two households living independently
of each other and containing two units; except if one unit is used as a health care facility
subject to licensing requirements;
5. a single-family home designed as a free-standing unit which is separated (detached) from any
other unit, except if used as a health care facility subject to licensing requirements; and
6. a single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit
permitted pursuant to California Government Code sections 65852.1, 65852.2, or 65852.22
or Section 21.10.030 of this code, except where the accessory dwelling unit or junior
accessory dwelling unit is used as a health care facility subject to licensing requirements.
“New lease” means any lease or rental agreement or renewal or extension of lease or rental agreement
that allows a person to occupy a unit that is entered into on or after January 1, 2025.
“New unit” means a unit that is issued a certificate of occupancy and approved for occupancy after
January 1, 2025, or any unit that is leased or rented for residential use for the first time after
January 1, 2025.
“Nonsmoking area” means any area in which smoking is prohibited by
1. this chapter or another law;
2. binding agreement relating to the ownership, occupancy, or use of real property; or
3. a person with legal control over the area.
“Person” means any natural person, partnership, cooperative association, corporation, personal
representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity, including government
agencies.
“Rent” means the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the use or possession or the
right to the use or possession of any room or rooms or portion thereof for dwelling, lodging, or
sleeping purposes, valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise,
including all receipts, cash, credits, and property and services of any kind of nature, without any
deduction therefrom whatsoever.
“Smoke” or “smoking” means and includes (1) inhaling, exhaling, or burning, any tobacco, nicotine,
cannabis or plant product, or other substance, whether natural or synthetic; (2) carrying any
lighted, heated or activated tobacco, nicotine, marijuana, or plant product, or other substance,
whether natural or synthetic, intended for inhalation; or (3) using an “electronic smoking device.”
“Unenclosed area” means any area that is not an enclosed area.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 13 of 127
“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,
garage, parking space, 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 junior accessory dwelling unit.
6.15.030 Smoking restrictions.
A. Effective January 1, 2025, smoking is prohibited anywhere on the premises of a multiunit
residential development as follows:
1. In all new units;
2. In all existing owner-occupied units within a common interest development;
3. In all existing tenant-occupied units governed by a new lease or renewal or extension of lease
or month to month tenancy; and
4. In all common areas.
B. Notwithstanding subsection A, smoking is permitted in designated smoking areas if they meet the
following conditions:
1. Are not an enclosed area;
2. Are at least twenty-five feet from any:
a. doorway, window, opening, or other vent into an enclosed area, including an enclosed
area not regulated by this chapter;
b. enclosed or unenclosed recreation area such as a tennis court, swimming pool, and
picnic area; or
c. enclosed or unenclosed area primarily used by children such as a playground.
3. Have a clearly marked perimeter;
4. Are identified by conspicuous signs installed and maintained by the landlord, HOA or other
person with legal control over the designated smoking area; and
5. Have receptacles designed for and primarily used for disposal of smoking waste and that are
maintained free of smoking-related litter, including cigarette butts.
6. Must not overlap with any area in which smoking is otherwise prohibited by this chapter or
other provisions of state or federal law.
C. No person with legal control over any nonsmoking area of a multiunit residential development
shall permit smoking in the nonsmoking area, except as provided in subsection B.
D. No person with legal control over a common area in which smoking is prohibited by this chapter
or other law shall permit the presence of ashtrays, ashcans, or other receptacles designed for or
primarily used for disposal of smoking waste within the area.
6.15.040 Lease agreement requirements.
A. After January 1, 2025, every lease or other rental agreement for the occupancy of a unit in a
multiunit residential development entered into, renewed, or continued month-to-month shall
include the following provisions:
1. A clause providing that it is a material breach of the agreement for the tenant to knowingly
and intentionally allow, or engage in, smoking in the unit, including exclusive-use areas such
as balconies, porches, or patios. The clause shall be substantially similar to the following:
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 14 of 127
It is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to engage in smoking in the unit or
exclusive use areas such as balconies, porches, or patios. Moreover, it is a material
breach of this agreement for tenant to knowingly or intentionally allow any other person
subject to the control of the tenant to engage in smoking in the unit or exclusive use
areas such as balconies, porches, or patios.
2. A clause providing that it is a material breach of the agreement for tenant to knowingly and
intentionally allow, or engage in, smoking in any common area of the multiunit residence,
including entryways, playgrounds, pool areas, walking paths, or sitting areas, except in an
outdoor designated smoking area. The clause shall be substantially similar to the following:
It is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to engage in smoking in any common
area of the property, including entryways, playgrounds, pool areas, walking paths, or
sitting areas, except in an outdoor designated smoking area, if one exists. In addition, it
is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to knowingly or intentionally allow any
other person subject to the control of the tenant to engage in smoking in any common
area of the property, including entryways, playgrounds, pool areas, walking paths, or
sitting areas, except in an outdoor designated smoking area, if one exists.
3. 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. The clause shall be substantially similar
to the following:
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 knowingly or intentionally allow any other person subject to the control of the
tenant to violate any law regulating smoking while anywhere on the property. Tenant
will inform tenant’s guests and/or subleases of the non-smoking 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.
Violation of the above is just cause for the landlord to refuse to renew a lease for
another lease term or to terminate tenancy. Landlord shall first provide an opportunity
to the tenant to cure the violation, then may issue a notice of non-renewal or to
terminate tenancy for a subsequent violation.
4. A clause expressly conveying third-party beneficiary status to all occupants of the multiunit
residential development as to the smoking provisions of the lease or other rental agreement.
The clause shall be substantially similar to the following:
Other occupants of the property are express third-party beneficiaries of the provisions
in this agreement regarding smoking. As third-party beneficiaries, other occupants of
the property may enforce the smoking provisions by any lawful means, including by
bringing a civil action in a court of law against the tenant or occupant smoking or the
person knowingly or intentionally allowing any other person subject to the control of
the tenant to violate any law regulating smoking while anywhere on the property. This
provision does not create a private right of action for a tenant or occupant against the
landlord for any damages the tenant or occupant may suffer due to another tenant’s
breach of any smoking provision.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 15 of 127
B. Whether or not a landlord complies with subsection A above, the clauses required by subsection
A shall be implied and incorporated by law into every agreement to which subsection A applies as
of January 1, 2025.
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 multiunit
residential development shall be liable for the breach to (1) the landlord; and (2) any occupant of
the multiunit residential development who is exposed to smoke or who suffers damages as a result
of the breach. This chapter does not create a private right of action for a tenant or other occupant
against a landlord for any damages the tenant or occupant may suffer due to another tenant's
breach of any smoking provision in a lease or other rental agreement, so long as the landlord has
fully complied with the terms of this chapter.
D. Failure to enforce any smoking provision required by this chapter shall not affect the right to
enforce the 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.
6.15.050 Noticing requirements for rental properties.
The following requirements apply to multiunit residential developments, other than units in a common
interest development that are not being rented:
A. On or before January 1, 2025, every landlord shall deliver to each unit a written notice clearly
stating:
1. All new units and existing units governed by a new lease or other rental agreement are
designated nonsmoking units and smoking is prohibited in a unit, including any associated
private balcony, porch, deck, or patio, as of January 1, 2025; and
2. Smoking in all common areas or outdoor areas except for specifically designated smoking
areas, is prohibited as of January 1, 2025.
B. As of January 1, 2025, 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 sufficient numbers
and locations in common areas, and in conspicuous places adjoining the property grounds to make
it obvious to a reasonable person that smoking is prohibited. The absence of signs shall not be a
defense to a violation of any provision of this chapter. “No Smoking” signs are not required inside
or on doorways of units.
C. Landlords with knowledge of violations shall take reasonable steps to investigate and enforce the
regulations, including 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, including but not limited to eviction for failure to cease smoking on the property. The
landlord shall also distribute resources provided for free by the city to assist with nicotine
dependence, such as referrals to a quitline or online resources.
6.15.060 Requirements for common interest developments.
The following requirements apply to common interest developments:
A. On or before January 1, 2025, the HOA shall provide to all owners of units a written notice clearly
stating that:
1. Smoking is prohibited in units, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio,
as of January 1, 2025; and
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 16 of 127
2. Smoking is prohibited in all common areas, except for specifically designated smoking areas,
as of January 1, 2025.
B. As of January 1, 2025, every seller of a unit shall provide prospective buyers or renters, a written
notice clearly stating that:
1. Smoking is prohibited in units, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio,
as of January 1, 2025; and
2. Smoking is prohibited in all common areas, except for specifically designated smoking areas,
as of January 1, 2025.
C. Every covenant, condition and restriction (CC&R) applicable to a multiunit residential
development adopted or amended after January 1, 2025, shall include the conditions set forth
below:
1. A clause providing that it is a material breach of the CC&Rs to allow or engage in smoking in
any unit, including exclusive-use areas, such as balconies, porches, or patios;
2. A clause providing that it is a material breach of the CC&Rs for an occupant or any other
person subject to the control of the occupant to engage in smoking in any common area of
the multiunit residence other than a designated smoking area;
3. A clause providing that it is a material breach of the CC&Rs for an occupant or any other
person subject to the control of the occupant to violate any law regulating smoking while
anywhere on the property; and
4. A clause expressly conveying third-party beneficiary status to all occupants of the multi-unit
residential development as to the smoking provisions of the CC&Rs.
D. As of January 1, 2025, 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.
E. 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 distribute resources provided for free by the city to assist with nicotine
dependence, such as referrals to a quitline or online resources.
F. An owner-occupant who breaches or allows any other person subject to the control of the owner-
occupant to breach a smoking provision of the CC&R shall be liable for the breach to (1) the HOA;
and (2) any occupant of the multiunit residence who is exposed to smoke or who suffers damages
as a result of the breach. This chapter does not create a private right of action for an owner-
occupant or other occupant against a HOA for any damages the owner-occupant or occupant may
suffer due to another owner-occupant's breach of any smoking provision, so long as the HOA has
fully complied with the terms of this chapter.
G. Failure to enforce any smoking provision required by this chapter shall not affect the right to
enforce the 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.
6.15.070 Nuisance.
A. Any smoking in violation of this chapter is a public nuisance.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 17 of 127
B. Nonconsensual exposure to smoke from smoking occurring on or drifting into residential property
is a nuisance.
6.15.080 Private enforcement.
A. Any person, including a legal entity, organization, or a government agency, acting for the interests
of itself, its members, or the general public, may bring a civil action against any tenant or owner-
occupant violating the provisions of this chapter. Upon proof of a violation, a court shall award the
following:
1. Damages in the amount of either:
a. Upon proof, actual damages; or
b. With insufficient or no proof of actual damages, $500 for each violation of this chapter
("Statutory Damages"). Each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no person suing on behalf of the
general public shall recover Statutory Damages based upon a violation of this chapter if
a previous claim brought on behalf of the general public by another person for Statutory
Damages and based upon the same violation has been adjudicated, whether or not the
person bringing the subsequent claim was a party to the prior adjudication.
2. Exemplary damages, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant
(i.e., person violating this chapter) is guilty of oppression, fraud, malice, retaliation, or
conscious disregard for the public health.
3. This section does not create a private right of action for a tenant against a landlord, or an
owner-occupant against a HOA, for any damages the tenant or owner-occupant may suffer
due to another occupant’s breach of any smoking provision in a lease or other rental
agreement or CC&R, so long as the landlord or HOA has fully complied with the terms of this
chapter.
C. The person may also bring a civil action to enforce this chapter by way of a conditional judgment
or an injunction. Upon proof of a violation, the court shall issue a conditional judgment or an
injunction.
D. Notwithstanding any legal or equitable bar against a person seeking relief on their own behalf, a
person may bring an action to enforce this chapter solely on behalf of the general public. When a
person brings an action solely on behalf of the general public, nothing about such an action shall
act to preclude or bar the person from bringing a subsequent action based upon the same facts
but seeking relief on their own behalf.
E. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a person from bringing a civil action in small claims court to
enforce this chapter, so long as the amount in demand and the type of relief sought are within the
jurisdiction of that court.
F. No person may bring an action pursuant to this section unless that person has first made a good
faith attempt to resolve the situation informally with the offending party, including written notice
of this section to the offending party and a written request to cease smoking in the multiunit
residential development at least 30 days before filing suit.
G. No person shall intimidate, harass, or otherwise retaliate against any person who seeks
compliance with this chapter.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 18 of 127
6.15.090 Limitations and exceptions.
Nothing in this chapter shall limit or preclude the enforcement of any other applicable laws or limit the
remedies available for violations of this chapter, including the enforcement provisions of Chapter 1.10
of this code. Nothing in this chapter shall create a right of action in any person against the city or its
agents to compel public enforcement of this chapter against private parties.
6.15.100 Rules of construction.
The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to protect the public health to the maximum
extent possible. Notwithstanding (1) any provision of this chapter or of this code, (2) any failure by any
person to restrict smoking under this 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.
6.15.110 Severability.
If any portion of this chapter, or its application to particular persons or circumstances, is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the decision will not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter or the application of this chapter to persons
or circumstances not similarly situated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; and the City
Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary
of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the ______ day of
__________, 2024, and thereafter
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the __ day of ________, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
_________________________________
CINDIE K. McMAHON, City Attorney
_______________________________________
KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 19 of 127
_______________________________________
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 20 of 127
Smoking and Secondhand Smoke
Background Information
On July 30, 2024, the City Council will review and consider the first reading of an ordinance that
restricts smoking in multi-unit residential common areas (indoors and outdoors), creates smoke-
free buffer zones from any designated smoking area, and prohibits smoking in individual units.
Research has identified many benefits to enacting smoke-free policies in multi-family residential
complexes. The intent of this document is to provide background information on smoking and
second hand smoke and smoke-free air laws.
Secondhand Smoke and Health
Understanding the health consequences and diseases caused by smoking has provided the
scientific foundation for public health actions aimed at tobacco use prevention, cessation, and
protection from second-hand smoke exposure. Smoking and secondhand smoke cause life
threatening diseases including lung cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and other
serious illness. More than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking.
Tobacco product use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, killing
more than 480,000 people each year.1
Secondhand smoke is smoke from burning tobacco and marijuana products, like cigarettes, cigars,
hookahs, or pipes. Exposure to secondhand smoke can happen at work, at home, or even outdoors
–which puts everyone at risk for lung cancer and other serious health problems. Frequent and
recurring exposure to secondhand smoke can cause health problems such as asthma, heart
disease, cancer and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, as well as worsen a chronic illness.
Secondhand smoke is a carcinogen, which means that it is known to cause cancer and has
especially negative effects on children, who show levels of exposure to secondhand smoke more
than twice those of adults. Children, the elderly, and the disabled are especially vulnerable to
exposure to secondhand smoke, yet they are the least able to avoid it.
Secondhand smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals, many of which are toxic and around 70 can
cause cancer.2 It's known to cause serious health issues such as ear infections in children, more
severe asthma attacks, heart disease, lung cancer in adults who have never smoked, and is a
known cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). There is no safe level of exposure to
secondhand smoke; even brief exposure can be harmful.
1 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; The Health
Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General (2004).
2 National Library of Medicine. Secondhand Smoke. Available online at
https://medlineplus.gov/secondhandsmoke.html
Exhibit 2
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 21 of 127
Since 1964, approximately 2.5 million nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by
exposure to secondhand smoke3. 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.4 In 2006, the California Air Resources Board declared
secondhand smoke to be a Toxic Air Contaminant. Public health authorities have concluded that
the only way to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke is to require completely smoke-free
environments. Secondhand smoke has repeatedly been identified as a health hazard, and the
American Heart Association and American Lung Association recommend all adults and children be
protected from secondhand smoke in multi-family housing.5
Cigarette and electronic cigarette smoke inside a building travels to other apartments or units and
affects other tenants, which may want to or need to live in a smoke-free environment. Even
though units are separated by walls, floors, and doors, the gases and particles from secondhand
smoke can circulate through apartments. The toxic gases and particles from secondhand smoke
can’t be removed by ventilation systems. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air
Conditioning Engineers, which sets international standards for indoor air quality, unanimously
agreed that secondhand smoke can’t be removed by ventilation and air filtration6. Opening
windows is also considered not effective to avoid secondhand smoke exposure. The only way to
prevent secondhand smoke exposure in residential buildings is by adopting and enforcing smoke-
free policies. Smoking outside the building near windows and doors can also draw smoke into the
building. Therefore, in general most smoke-free housing policies do not let residents smoke near
buildings.
Background of Smoke Free Air Laws
California Indoor Clean Air Act was passed in 1976 (Health and Safety Code Sections 118875 et.
al), declaring that tobacco smoke was a hazard to the health of the general public. The Act
limited smoking in public areas and mandated nonsmoking areas in hospitals, restaurants and
bars. Over the years, the State Legislature continued to adopt new smoke-free air laws, which
prohibited the consumption of tobacco-related products in certain areas of private properties and
businesses and restricted smoking to designated outdoor locations. Today, smoking is also
prohibited in all government and private workplaces, public schools, casinos/gaming
establishments (tribal establishments exempt), retail stores, recreational/cultural facilities and
3 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.
4 The Health Consequences of Smoking – 50 Years of Progress, A Report of the Surgeon General (2014). Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK179276.pdf
5 American Heart Association, Policy Position on Smoke-Free Policies in Multi-Unit Housing (2013). Available at:
http://tobaccopolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/030.pdf. American Lung Association, Public Policy
Position - Healthy Air (2019). Available at: https://www.lung.org/policy-advocacy/public-policy-agenda/public-policy-
position-healthy-air
6 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE Position Document on
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (2020). Available at:
https://www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/About/Position%20Documents/pd_environmental-tobacco-smoke-2020-07
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 22 of 127
childcare facilities. California law permits local governments to restrict the smoking of tobacco in
multi-family residences.
Like mentioned previously, there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand
smoke can’t be controlled in buildings because the toxic fumes and particulates it contains drift.
Smoke can drift through walls, ceiling crawl spaces, doorways, windows, and shared ventilation
systems, involuntarily exposing tenants in adjacent units.7 For tenants and owners of multi-family
housing, such as apartments and common interest communities, tobacco smoke from a
neighboring unit that infiltrates their homes can pose a daily problem. As a result of this hazard,
many local governments have taken proactive steps to prevent or eliminate secondhand smoke
from infiltrating living space and to provide housing that is 100 percent smoke-free, regardless of
the preference of the property owner or property manager. As of this writing, according to the
American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation8, there are 82 local agencies in the state that have
enacted a law that prohibits smoking in 100% multi-family housing properties. There are an
additional 18 local agencies in the state that restrict smoking in some private units of multi-family
housing.9
Public Opinion about Secondhand Smoke Exposure
The proportion of Californians reporting exposure to secondhand smoke from tobacco and
marijuana and electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) vapor has grown over time, despite an increasing
number of smoke-free local laws in the State within the last 10 years. A 2022 Online California
Adult Tobacco Survey10 found that approximately half (50.9%) of participants reported being
exposed to either secondhand tobacco smoke or vape aerosol in the past two weeks. Key findings
showed that sidewalks were the most reported location of secondhand smoke (46.4%), followed
by homes (34.6%), recreational spaces (including parks and beaches) (34.3%), then outdoor dining
areas (28.1%). In the same survey, Californians were asked their opinions about strategies that
would likely end the smoking epidemic. The areas with the highest agreement was for smoke-free
outdoor dining areas (81.1%), followed by smoke-free multi-family housing (66.3%), and reducing
the number of stores that sell tobacco (64.7%).11 According to a 2021 Vista Community Clinic
survey, approximately 72% if Carlsbad multi-family residents support a city ordinance that would
make multi-family housing completely smoke-free and 56% of multi-family respondents were
bothered by secondhand smoke (refer to attachment).
Policy Benefits of Smoke-Free Air Laws in Multi-Family Housing
1. Protection from Secondhand Smoke: Secondhand smoke travels through walls, ceiling
crawl spaces, doorways, windows, and shared ventilation systems. Tobacco smoke
exposes users and bystanders to serious health risks, such as lung cancer, cardiovascular
7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Going Smokefree Matters: Multiunit Housing (2020). Available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/ tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/going-smokefree-matters/multi-unit
8 American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation - U.S. Laws for 100% Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing (2024). Available at:
http://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/smokefreemuh.pdf
9 Ibid.
10 California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program. Key findings from the Online California
Adult Tobacco Survey: 2022 results. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health (2023).
11 Ibid.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 23 of 127
disease, asthma attacks, respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, and other
conditions.12 Air quality experts have concluded that “the only means of avoiding health
effects and eliminating indoor tobacco smoke exposure is to ban all smoking activity inside
and near buildings.”13
2. 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. Smoke-free housing can reduce tenant turnover
and increase tenant satisfaction. That means fewer tenant complaints and requests for
relocation and reasonable accommodation. A 2020 survey of 4,800 Los Angeles multi-
family tenants found that nearly 92% would support either a full ban or some restrictions
on smoking in multi-family housing units. This percentage is larger than the number of
multi-family complexes that institute some form of non-smoking policy (46%) thus
indicating a demand that is not being met14. Depending on the length of residency and
amount of smoking in a unit, turnover costs can be significantly higher in units in which
smoking has occurred than in non-smoking units. Examples of extraneous expenses include
(but not limited to): cleaning or repainting walls; cleaning or replacing carpets, drapes,
appliances and fixtures exposed to smoke; or replacing floors and countertops burned by
cigarettes.
3. 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%) of annual
home fire deaths.15 Smoking cigarettes and other products in the home is especially
dangerous because they may come into contact with flammable furniture, bedding,
curtains, clothes, and other items, and start a fire. The risks are even higher in buildings
with large numbers of elderly or disabled residents who may have mobility issues that will
not allow them to escape from a fire16. Close to 50% of all deaths from residential smoking-
related fires are people over the age of 65.17 A smoke-free policy reduces the risk of fire
and provides increased safeguards to tenants and their property.
4. Legal Liability: The rise of smoke-free housing policies has spurred an increased awareness
of the legal liability of property owners, management companies, condominium
associations. Lawsuits related to secondhand smoke exposure in housing include claims
based on nuisance(s), warranty of habitability, etc. In addition, If a resident has a health
12 U.S. Department of Health & Human Servs., The Health Consequences of Smoking — 50 Years of Progress: A Report
of the Surgeon General (2014). Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/consequences-smoking-exec-
summary.pdf
13 ASHRAE (2020), supra
14 UCLA Center of Health and Policy Research. Health at Risk: Policies are Needed to End Cigarette, Marijuana, and E-
Cigarette Secondhand Smoke in Multi-Unit Housing in Los Angeles (2020).
15 Marty Ahrens, National Fire Protection Association, Home Fires Started by Smoking (2019). Available at:
https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/ News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/US-Fire-Problem/Fire-
causes/ossmoking.ashx
16 Change Lab Solutions. Economic benefits of smoke-free housing (2014). Available at:
http://www.changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/Appendix_2-Economic-benefits-smokefreehousing_
FINAL_20140417.pdf
17 National Fire Protection Association. The smoking-material fire problem (2013). Available at:
http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fire-causes/smokingmaterials
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 24 of 127
condition that is exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke — such as asthma,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, multiple chemical sensitivity disorder,
environmental illness, or other respiratory or heart conditions — then the resident may be
considered to have a disability, typically referred to as hypersensitivity to smoke. Residents
with pre-existing physical conditions aggravated by secondhand smoke may file complaints
under disability laws. Federal statutes that might be used to aid tenants bothered by
secondhand smoke include the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and
the Federal Fair Housing Act. California statutes that could help tenants with health
conditions include the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil
Rights Act.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 25 of 127
Exhibit 3
Aug. 22, 2023, City Council staff report, Housing Element
Program: Options to Develop a Smoke-Free Multifamily
Housing Ordinance
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 26 of 127
Exhibit 4
Aug. 22, 2023, City Council meeting minutes
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 27 of 127
Exhibit 5
Feb. 8, 2024, Housing Commission staff report
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 28 of 127
OUTREACH AND EDUCATION STRATEGIES
EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AND PROVIDE NOTICE ABOUT THE NEW POLICY.
Task Details of Activity Form Launch Date(s)
Make information
available online through
city channels
This information should include
an explanation of the new law, a
summary of the provisions, the
effective date, etc.
City email
newsletter,
social media
Sept. 1 and
Dec. 1
Create a project website The city will create and maintain
a page on the city’s website
dedicated to the ordinance.
Interested parties will be able
view project documents and find
information. The website may
also include additional resource
information and links to the
websites of relevant community
health organizations.
Website with
short URL
Sept. 1
(Initial launch
April 2024 to
provide
proposed draft
ordinance for
public review)
News releases News releases will be circulated
to announce the ordinance and
provide notice about the new
policy. The city will work with
local media outlets and
encourage them to use the
website for more information.
Press releases July 31 and
Dec. 1
Emails to stakeholders
(email)
City staff will send email updates
at key milestones to keep
interested parties aware of the
ordinance and timeline for
implementation. An initial
potential list of interested parties
will be compiled from existing
resources. Targeted emails will be
sent to Chamber of Commerce,
Housing Authorities, landlords
and property management
companies.
Email to
stakeholders
Aug. 1,
Sept. 1,
Oct. 1,
Nov. 1 and
Dec. 1
Exhibit 6
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 29 of 127
PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AND PROPERTY OWNERS
Task Details of Activity Form Launch Date(s)
Designate a point-of-
contact with the city
Provide contact information
online
Website Sept. 1
Provide sample smokefree
or “No Smoking” signage
Provide electronic template Website
Sept. 1
Provide sample
notification letters
explaining the new law for
tenants
Provide electronic template Website
Sept. 1
Provide sample warning
letters
Provide electronic template Website
Sept. 1
PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR TENANTS
Task Details of Activity Form Launch Date(s)
Provide information on
how to comply with the
new law (email)
Create a mailer/flyer for
distribution by stakeholders.
Digital mailers/flyers would be
sent to landlords and property
managers and other stakeholders
to be printed for on-site posting
or otherwise delivered (in-person
or electronically) to residents.
Translated materials of the same
information will be provided to
assist non-English speaking
populations (different languages).
Email blast to
stakeholders for
flyer/mailer
delivery
Oct. 1
Provide sample complaint
forms (for use by
residents)
Provide electronic template Website
Sept. 1
Provide smoking cessation
resources
Direct to community organization
resources (County of San Diego,
etc.) and/or provide contact
information and electronic
packets online
Website
Sept. 1
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 30 of 127
SET UP A SYSTEM TO PROVIDE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION AND HANDLE COMPLAINTS
Task Details of Activity Form Launch Date(s)
Identify the department
and staff that will respond
to questions and handle
complaints
Develop internal FAQ and
designate a point of contact.
Establish a phone number, email
address, etc. ensuring
interagency collaboration where
appropriate (e.g., the Police
Department, City Manager’s
Office, local Department of Public
Health and other agencies).
FAQ (internal
use)
Sept. 1
Establish procedure for
responding to complaints
Establish a phone number, email
address, etc. and protocol for
handling complaints. Keep record
of landlord and property
manager contacts. Create
correspondence template and
way to monitor the status and
frequency of complaints.
Maintain a
complaint log to
register issues.
Consider a web-
based form for
questions and
comments
Dec. 1
OPTIONAL STRATEGIES ****NOT PLANNED. NOT COVERED BY THE BUDGET****
Task Details of Activity Form Est. Cost
In-person visits Schedule presentations and visits
with property managers,
landlords and residents to review
the ordinance and how to
comply.
In person +
email follow up
$6,000 to cover
scheduling
presentations
and printing
materials to
provide during
visits
Direct mail
Develop and send an
informational mailer to current
occupants of units affected by
the ordinance, property owners
and property management
companies.
Mailer $12,000+ for
mailer printing
and postage
costs
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 31 of 127
Draft Ordinance Public Review
Response to Comments
This document presents the comment letters submitted during the public comment period for
the draft ordinance, which started on April 8, 2024 and concluded on April 22, 2024. Written
responses were prepared to address comments received during this review period.
This document is organized as follows:
Section 7.1 - List of Commenters
Section 7.2 - Common Responses
Section 7.3 - Comment Letters Received and Responses to Comments
As indicated in Section 7.3 of this document, the comment letters are organized by date of
receipt. Each letter is assigned a number and each comment that requires a response within a
given letter is also assigned a number. For example, the first letter that was received is from
William Creagan of Southwest Equity Partners, and their correspondence is designated as
“comment letter no. 1.” When a comment is not directed to significant issues, the response
indicates that the comment has been acknowledged and no further response is necessary.
Rather than repeating responses, common responses to general opposition or support are
provided in Section 7.2 of this document. In other cases, a comment letter may raise or present
more than one issue, comment, or question. For example, the first letter that was received that
raises or presents more than one issue, comment, or question is the letter from Jason
McDonald, Active Care Bressi Ranch. This correspondence is, therefore, designated a letter
(“comment letter no. 7”) and the first comment received within letter no. 7 is then labeled “A”
and the unique comment labeled “comment No. 7-A.”
A copy of each comment letter is provided in Section 7.3.
Section 7.1 List of Commenters
On April 8, 2024, the draft ordinance was electronically sent to 89 apartment owners, 47
property management companies, and 492 multi-unit billing parties for a two-week public
review period (628 total recipients). The draft ordinance was also sent to the Vista Community
Clinic, Southern California Rental Housing Association, and the California Apartment
Association, where the information was passed along to their members. The public review
period of the draft ordinance began on April 8, 2024 and ended on April 22, 2024.
Exhibit 7
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 32 of 127
During the two-week public review period, the city received feedback from 27 community
members. Feedback received after the April 22, 2024 is provided in a separate attachment.
During the public review period, a total of 27 comment letters were received. Of these, 14
letters were in opposition, 5 letters were in support, and 8 didn’t express a specific position but
asked for clarification or suggested edits to the draft ordinance. Several letters received
presented either general support or general opposition for the draft ordinance and did not
include specific questions or comments that warranted a response. Given that these letters
presented general comments, a general response is all that was provided.
In the table below, comment letters have been categorized by sender (e.g., agency,
organization, individual) and assigned a unique letter designation, based on the date of receipt.
The list of commenters and the unique letter designators for each letter are listed below.
TABLE 1: LIST OF COMMENTERS
Letter
No.
Commenter Agency, Organization, or
Individual
Stated Position
1 William Creagan Southwest Equity Partners Opposition
2 Maria Osorio Laurel Tree Apartment Property
Manager
Support
3 Debra Sullivan Fairgrove Property Management Support
4 Alan Parry Individual No position / not clear /
changes requested
5 Thane Rivers Pacific View Townhomes HOA Opposition
6 Gina Falcon-Heneghan N.N. Jaeschke, Inc. No position / not clear /
changes requested
7 Jason McDonald Active Care Bressi Ranch Opposition
8 Kevin Smith Voscana HOA Opposition
9 John Forester Individual Support
10 N/A Individual Opposition
11 Linda Recker Individual Opposition
12 Russ Tarvin Grey Falcon Properties Opposition
13 Michael Merceri Windsong HOA No position / not clear /
changes requested
14 Cheryl Knebel Individual Opposition
15 Sheilla McNulty Individual Opposition
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 33 of 127
16 Alexa Saxon Individual Opposition
17 Sue Gardner Individual Opposition
18 David Palmer Individual Opposition
19 Chris Schoeneck Individual Opposition
20 Mark O’Connor City of Encinitas Environmental
Commission
No position / not clear /
changes requested
21 Holly Lewallen Chamberlain Property
Management
Support
22 Gary Pearson Individual Opposition
23 Molly Kirkland Southern CA Rental Housing
Situation
No position / not clear /
changes requested
24 Gena Knutson Individual Support
25 Lynda Barbour American Cancer Society No position / not clear /
changes requested
26 Melanie Woods California Apartment Association No position / not clear /
changes requested
27 Bob Krupnik Individual No position / not clear /
changes requested
Section 7.2 Common Responses
As mentioned previously, several letters received presented either general support or general
opposition for the draft ordinance and did not include specific questions or comments that
warranted a response. Given that these letters presented general comments, a general
response is all that was provided. Rather than repeat responses to recurring comments in each
letter, the common responses outlined below were prepared, which will be referenced in
Section 7.3.
Section 7.2.1 General Opposition - The City of Carlsbad (City) acknowledges the comment and
notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the draft
ordinance, and does not raise a substantive issue beyond the merit of the project. Given that
the comment is general, a general response is all that is provided. Therefore, no further
response is required. The City will include the comment as part of the July 30, 2024 staff report
for review and consideration by the City Council prior to a final decision on the ordinance.
Section 7.2.2 General Support - The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the
opinions of the commenter, including general support of the draft ordinance, and does not
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 34 of 127
raise a substantive issue. Given that the comment is general, a general response is all that is
provided. Therefore, no further response is required. The City will include the comment as part
of the July 30, 2024 staff report for review and consideration by the City Council prior to a final
decision on the ordinance.
Section 7.3 Comment Letters Received and Responses to Comments
This section includes all comment letters received during the public review period and a
response to each comment.
Each comment letter received during this comment period is reproduced here in its entirety,
with the exception of the original email sent by the city for notice and certain attachments and
appendices. Each written comment letter is designated with commenter code (number) in
upper right-hand corner. Within each written comment letter, individual issues, comments, or
questions are labeled with a letter in the right margin of the correspondence.
In the table below, a response to each comment letter is provided. Most of the letters received
presented either general support or general opposition to the draft ordinance. Given that these
letters presented general comments, a general response has been provided. Eight of the
comment letters received identified more than one issue, comment, or question that requires a
unique response (comment letters nos. 7, 12, 13, 16, 21, 23, 25, and 26 provide more than one
unique comment). To assist in referencing a comment, the table below uses the same coding
system with numbers in the top right corner and letter placed right margin next to each unique
comment, with a corresponding numbered response (i.e., “response to comment no. 7-A”). In
some cases, a city response to a comment may refer to another comment that has been
previously coded to facilitate responses.
TABLE 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Letter
No.
Commenter City Staff Response
1 William Creagan General statement of opposition. See Section 7.2.1 for a response to
comment.
2 Maria Osorio General statement of support. See Section 7.2.2 for a response to
comment.
3 Debra Sullivan General statement of support. See Section 7.2.2 for a response to
comment.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 35 of 127
4 Alan Parry The state owns the vast majority of beaches in Carlsbad, starting at
South Ponto all the way to Oak Avenue. The city owns the beach area
north of Oak Avenue to the Oceanside border. Smoking and vaping is
prohibited on State beaches and parks. Chapter 11.32.110 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) prohibits smoking and vaping at
Carlsbad parks and beaches.
5 Thane Rivers General statement of opposition. See Section 7.2.1 for a response to
comment.
6 Gina Falcon-
Heneghan
The commentor provided a general comment. No response required.
7 Jason McDonald Response 7-A: The commenter is expressing a concern that the
proposed smoke-free housing ordinance is an overreach of regulation.
The ability to implement certain tobacco control measures is a matter
of public policy, and subject to City Council review and approval. Since
this is a general statement of opposition, see Section 7.2.1 for a
response to comment.
Response 7-B: In general, enforcement of city laws has traditionally
been a complaint-driven process. That is, police officers or code
enforcement officers only respond when complaints are registered. If
the city’s Police Department or Code Enforcement Division were to
take a lead with enforcement on this issue, no one from the city would
be going out into the community to try to find someone who’s
smoking in their apartment or condo unit. Enforcement would be
reactive to complaints (i.e., responding when someone calls) – with
the theory that the worst violations would generate the most
complaints, helping officers respond to the biggest priorities.
However, because the Police Department and Code Enforcement
Division currently have minimal resources to conduct additional
enforcement efforts, the draft ordinance recommends shifting the
enforcement role to private persons, rather than the city taking the
lead. By including these provisions in lease agreements, smoking
becomes a violation of both the lease and the local ordinance and is
considered a nuisance. Thus, landlords and property managers may be
better able enforce the “no smoking” lease terms more so than other
more arbitrary conditions in the rental agreement (smoking would
now be both a breach of contract and a violation of city law). As an
alternative enforcement mechanism, enforcement would also be
extended to those individuals that are directly affected by the
violations of the smoke-free housing ordinance through a “third-party
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 36 of 127
beneficiary” provision. By permitting residents to enforce smoke-free
housing rules in court via civil action, the traditional barriers to
enforcement can be bypassed and residents can ask for an injunction
or a conditional judgment.
8 Kevin Smith The commenter is expressing a concern that the proposed smoke-free
housing ordinance is an overreach of regulation. Since this is a general
statement of opposition, see Section 7.2.1 for a response to comment.
Regarding the draft ordinance and the proposed smoke-free housing
policy, staff has assisted the City Council in the presentation of smoke-
free housing-related issues, gathering related facts based on objective
and credible studies and sources, to help inform the decision-making
process. Based on that research, it is apparent that many other local
governments in California have taken proactive steps to prevent or
eliminate secondhand smoke from infiltrating living spaces and to
provide housing that is 100% smoke-free, regardless of the preference
of the property owner or property manager. According to the
American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, there are 82 local agencies
in California that have enacted a law that prohibits smoking in 100%
multi-family housing properties.
9 John Forester See response to comment no. 4; however, the parking lot near 3095
Ocean Street is not located within the state beach or park. Since it is
located within the public right of way, it is not subject to State or local
smoking prohibitions.
10 N/A General statement of opposition. See Section 7.2.1 for a response to
comment.
11 Linda Recker The commenter is expressing a concern that the proposed smoke-free
housing ordinance is an overreach of regulation. The ability to
implement certain tobacco control measures is a matter of public
policy, and subject to City Council review and approval. Since this is a
general statement of opposition, see Section 7.2.1 for a response to
comment. You may also refer to response to comment nos. 7-B, 12-B,
12-D, and 13-A for more information about enforcement.
12 Russ Tarvin Response 12-A: The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed
smoke-free housing ordinance and questions its purpose. The
commenter also suggests that the draft ordinance would curb the
smoker’s quite enjoyment of their home. Certain “private issues” can
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 37 of 127
become a public problem when the extent or nature of the use or
activity (such as smoking) poses a health and safety risk to others (e.g.,
noise, hoarding, animals, etc.). The ability to implement safeguards
against private issues can be a matter of public policy.
Regarding the draft ordinance and the proposed smoke-free housing
policy, staff has assisted the City Council in the presentation of smoke-
free housing-related issues, gathering related facts based on objective
and credible studies and sources, to help inform the decision-making
process. Based on that research, the argument for implementing the
measure is that exposure to secondhand smoke is not just a
discomfort and an annoyance, but a serious health hazard. Even
though units are separated by walls, floors, and doors, the gases and
particles from secondhand smoke can circulate between units. Closing
windows does not prevent exposure and toxic gases and particles from
secondhand smoke can’t be removed by ventilation systems.
Secondhand smoke can travel from areas where smoking occurs to
living spaces and common areas through walls, ceiling crawl spaces,
doorways, windows, and shared ventilation systems, involuntarily
exposing tenants in adjacent units. Allowing smoking in shared
housing makes safe and stable housing difficult to achieve health for
all residents.
With the rise of smoke-free housing policies has come an increased
awareness of the legal liability related to secondhand smoke exposure
in housing include claims based on nuisance, warranty of habitability,
and quiet enjoyment of the home of the nonsmoking tenant, rather
than the perceived rights of the smoker (see response to comment no.
16-B). In addition, tenants with pre-existing physical conditions
aggravated by secondhand smoke may file complaints under disability
laws, such as the Fair Housing Act. So, the proposed smoke-free
housing ordinance isn’t curbing the smoker’s quiet enjoyment of their
property. Rather, a smoke-free housing ordinance will likely benefit
landlords and property owners who might otherwise be subject to
legal claims from tenants about secondhand smoke exposure.
Response 12-B: Enforcement of smoke-free housing laws is important
to ensure effective compliance and implementation of smoke-free
multi-unit housing policies. Not all jurisdictions have the same
resources or community preferences, so there are a range of
enforcement options. As stated in response to comment no. 7-B, due
to existing staffing levels and competing resource priorities for all
departments involved (Police Department and Code Enforcement
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 38 of 127
Division), staff are not positioned to dedicate resources for
enforcement of the ordinance. The solution proposed in the draft
ordinance is to extend enforcement power to those individuals that
are directly affected by violations of the smoke-free housing policies.
(Please refer to response to comment no. 7-B for a more detailed
response on the enforcement remedy proposed.) The draft ordinance
also allows the landlord or property manager to implement graduated
enforcement. A graduated enforcement process might look like a
resident receiving educational information, cessation support referrals,
and warning letters for their first few violations. Then there could be a
consideration of graduated fines, community service, or other
consequences for additional violations, including eviction. Taking
tiered steps to violations such as providing cessation materials, verbal
or written warnings to tenants, informal conferences, or requiring
written acknowledgment of the policy can improve compliance.
Response 12-C: It is acknowledged that the premises of some existing
multi-unit buildings may not a sufficient “open-air” space to
accommodate an outdoor smoking area. The draft ordinance includes
specific separation requirements to consider designating an outdoor
smoking area. Pursuant to the terms and limitations of the draft
ordinance, a designated smoking area could be established outdoors
by landlords or property managers but must be sufficiently distant
from units and other outdoor amenities (25 feet). If there is a
designated smoking area, it needs to be located in a manner than
prevents smoking near doorways, operable windows, and intake vents
of smoke-free buildings to hep protect nonsmokers from secondhand
smoke drifting back into the building.
Response 12-D: The commenter questions how someone could
determine the presence of secondhand smoke or where it might be
coming from within or adjacent to a multi-unit building. Enforcement
should be a complaint-driven process. As proposed in the draft
ordinance, enforcement would be extended to those individuals that
are directly affected by the violations of the smoke-free housing
ordinance. (See response to comment nos. 7-B and 12-B.) Regarding
the draft ordinance and the proposed smoke-free housing policy, staff
has assisted the City Council in the presentation of smoke-free
housing-related issues, gathering related facts based on objective and
credible studies and sources, to help inform the decision-making
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 39 of 127
process. Based on that research, the argument for implementing the
measure is that exposure to secondhand smoke is not just a
discomfort and an annoyance, but a serious health hazard.
Beyond sight and smell, secondhand smoke can be easily measured.
This may be done by testing indoor air for chemicals found in smoke
since it consists of thousands of chemicals. The gas phase of smoking
consists of air, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and many other
chemicals, including nicotine, carbonyls, hydrocarbons, nitrogen
oxides, pyridine, ammonia, nitrosamines, and hydrogen cyanide. The
particulate phase, “tar,” consists of thousands more chemicals,
including alkaloids, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, polonium-210,
nickel, cadmium, arsenic, and lead. A healthcare provider can also test
the level of cotinine in a blood, saliva, or urine sample.
Response 12-E: See response to comment nos. 7-B and 12-B.
13 Michael Merceri Response 13-A: The draft ordinance has been updated to clarify that it
does not create a private right of action for a tenant against a landlord,
or an owner-occupant against a HOA, for any damages the tenant or
owner-occupant may suffer due to another occupant’s breach of any
smoking provision in a lease or other rental agreement or CC&R, so
long as the landlord or HOA has fully complied with the ordinance’s
noticing, leasing, and signage requirements. Please also refer to
response to comment nos. 7-B and 12-B for more information.
Response 13-B: Pursuant to the draft ordinance, “no smoking” signs
must be posted at entrances and exits, in sufficient numbers and
locations in common areas, and in conspicuous places adjoining the
property grounds to make it obvious to a reasonable person that
smoking is prohibited. “No Smoking” signs are not required inside or
on doorways of units.
Response 13-C: If the draft ordinance is adopted, the city will create
and maintain a page on the city’s website dedicated to the
ordinance’s implementation with resources for property managers,
landlords, and tenants. The recommendation is to also delay the
implementation date so that there is time for awareness and
education. Interested parties will be able view project documents and
find information online, through the city website. The website may
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 40 of 127
also include additional resource information and links to the websites
of relevant community health organizations.
14 Cheryl Knebel General statement of opposition. See Section 7.2.1 for a response to
comment.
15 Sheilla McNulty General statement of opposition. See Section 7.2.1 for a response to
comment.
16 Alexa Saxon Response 16-A: The commenter expresses opposition to certain
aspects of the proposed smoke-free housing ordinance since it might
preclude the use of cannabis. Regarding the draft ordinance and the
proposed smoke-free housing policy, staff has assisted the City Council
in the presentation of smoke-free housing-related issues, gathering
related facts based on objective and credible studies and sources, to
help inform the decision-making process. Based on that research, the
argument for implementing the measure is that exposure to
secondhand smoke, whether from tobacco or cannabis sidestream
smoke or mainstream smoke, is not just a discomfort and an
annoyance, but a serious health hazard. Sidestream smoke is the
smoke that is released from the end of a cigarette, cigar, pipe, joint,
etc. It roughly accounts for 85% of secondhand smoke exposure.
Mainstream smoke is the smoke exhaled from the smoker, which has
less concentration of chemicals because the substance typically burns
cleaner at the higher temperatures created when smoking. Known
carcinogens present in marijuana smoke include acetaldehyde,
arsenic, benzene, chromium, formaldehyde, isoprene, lead, mercury,
nickel, and quinoline. Exposure to particulate matter, such as
marijuana smoke, can cause respiratory symptoms similar to tobacco
smoke. Even though units within a multi-unit building are separated by
walls, floors, and doors, the gases and particles from secondhand
smoke can circulate between units (see response to comment no. 12-
A).
Smokefree multi-unit buildings create a healthier living environment
for all residents, including people who smoke and their families.
Smokefree policies do not mean that people who smoke have to quit,
and it does not mean that people who smoke have to move out.
People who smoke simply need to go to appropriate areas to smoke.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 41 of 127
With respect to pain syndromes, and if there is a preference to avoid
over the counter and prescription medications, there are several
alternatives to smoking cannabis. These include edibles, such as THC-
infused gummies.
Response 16-B: The CA Labor Code Section 6404.5, which prohibits
smoking in places of employment, exempts private residences in Sec.
6404.5(e)(6). However, local agencies are able to impose more
restrictions on smoking than State law. There is no such thing as a
constitutional “right to smoke,” since the U.S. and California
constitutions do not extend special protection to smokers. The U.S.
and California constitutions both guarantee certain fundamental rights
and protect certain classes of persons from all but the most
compelling government regulation. Local laws that limit how and
where people may smoke have survived legal challenges claiming that
smoking is protected by the U.S. and California constitutions.
Regarding the assertion that there is a “right to smoke,” the courts
have consistently found that there is no special protection of smoking
that has constitutional significance. Proponents of smokers’ rights also
claim that the government should not be able to pass smoke-free laws
because smoking is a personal choice that falls under the
constitutional right to liberty. However, the constitutional right to
liberty does not shield smokers from smoke-free legislation. Smoking
is not a specially protected liberty right under the Due Process Clause
nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
17 Sue Gardner General statement of opposition. See Section 7.2.1 for a response to
comment.
18 David Palmer Response 18-A: See response to comment no. 12-D.
Response 18-B: It is acknowledged that all indoor spaces provide
“shared air spaces” for its occupants. However, individuals who live in
multi-unit buildings, including apartments and condos, are particularly
more susceptible to involuntary secondhand smoke exposure in their
home because there is less control over their environment. A tenant
in a multi-unit building will share air space with not only the occupants
of the unit, but also adjacent units. For a general response, city staff
was directed to pursue a “multi-unit” smoke-free housing ordinance
and was not directed to consider other housing types.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 42 of 127
Regarding the draft ordinance and the proposed smoke-free housing
policy, staff has assisted the City Council in the presentation of smoke-
free housing-related issues, gathering related facts based on objective
and credible studies and sources, to help inform the decision-making
process. Based on that research, the argument in support for this
smoke-free housing ordinance is that exposure to secondhand smoke
is not just a discomfort and an annoyance, but a serious health hazard.
Secondhand smoke can infiltrate throughout a building along various
pathways (see response to comment no 12-A). Exposure to
secondhand smoke in multi-unit housing facilities may vary depending
on building structure, building age, location of unit, and where
smoking is allowed. Unlike a single-family home, even if a family
adopts a household rule to not smoke in the home, secondhand
smoke can migrate from other nearby units and still enter the unit and
other shared areas where smoking is allowed. Separating smokers
from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot
completely prevent secondhand smoke exposures. The only way to
guard against involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke is to
eliminate smoking in indoor spaces.
Response 18-C: General statement of opposition. See Section 7.2.1 for
a response to comment.
19 Chris Schoeneck General statement of opposition. See Section 7.2.1 for a response to
comment.
20 Mark O’Connor The commentor provided a general comment. No response required.
21 Holly Lewallen Response 21-A: General statement of support. See Section 7.2.2 for a
response to comment.
Response 21-B: The commenter suggests adding “hotels/motels” and
“mobilehome parks” to the smoke-free housing ordinance. For a
general response, city staff was directed to pursue a “multi-unit”
smoke-free housing ordinance and was not directed to consider other
housing types.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 43 of 127
Regarding the recommendation to include a “hotel and motel”
category to the types of prohibited units, it is important to note that a
100% smoking prohibition has already been applied to hotel and
motels (and applies to all forms of transient lodging). Before Jan. 1,
2024, CA Labor Code Section 6404.5, which prohibits smoking in
places of employment, exempted up to 20% of the guestroom
accommodations in a hotel or motel (timeshare) in Sec. 6404.5(e)(1).
However, a new law went into effect on Jan. 1, 2024 (Senate Bill 626)
that now requires all California hotels and motel rooms to be 100%
smokefree.
Regarding mobilehome parks, the draft ordinance exempts
mobilehome parks because a mobilehome unit is not a multi-unit
building. City staff was given direction to pursue a “multi-unit” smoke-
free housing ordinance and was not directed to consider other
housing types. Furthermore, mobilehome units do not share common
walls with other units. Please refer to response to comment no. 18-B
for more information about how detached structures should be
treated differently than multi-unit buildings. The argument for
implementing the measure to include units within a multi-unit
building rather than a mobilehome is that for tenants and owners of
multi-unit housing, such as apartments and condominiums, smoke
from a neighboring unit is more likely to infiltrate their homes
resulting in a greater chance of daily and recurring exposure to many
hazardous chemicals.
22 Gary Pearson General statement of opposition. See Section 7.2.1 for a response to
comment.
23 Molly Kirkland Response 23-A: See response to comment no. 13-A.
Response 23-B: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Response 23-C: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Response 23-D: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Response 23-E: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Response 23-F: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 44 of 127
Response 23-G: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Response 23-H: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Response 23-I: See response to comment no. 13-C.
Response 23-J: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Response 23-K: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Please also refer to response to comment no. 13-A.
Response 23-L: See response to comment no. 13-C.
Response 23-M: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Please also refer to response to comment no. 13-C.
Response 23-N: This is a comment on how to implement the required
signage and specifically the commenter is asking from assistance from
local health advocates. If the ordinance is adopted and requires future
noticing, leasing, and signage requirements, the goal is to make sure
that landlords and property owners will be successful with
implementation. For this purpose, please see response to comment
no. 13-B. Furthermore, the city can help research and coordinate
access to free or subsidized resources to the extent that they are
available.
Response 23-O: Changes requested have been made to draft ord. to
address the comment on landlord and property manager
responsibilities, and how to handle violations, including graduated
enforcement and notice of lease non-renewal and eviction. Please
also refer to response to comment nos. 7-B and 12-B.
Response 23-P: Having access to safe, affordable, stable housing is a
key to both physical and mental health outcomes. But allowing
smoking in shared housing makes safe and stable housing difficult to
achieve health for all residents. Smokefree housing policies should be
enforced by a landlord or property manager in an equitable way that
supports residents (both people who smoke and who do not smoke),
reduces financial penalties, and reduces contact with law
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 45 of 127
enforcement. A graduated enforcement process might look like a
resident receiving educational information, cessation support referrals,
and warning letters for their first few violations. Then there could be a
consideration of graduated fines, community service, or other
consequences for additional violations, including eviction. Taking
tiered steps to violations such as providing cessation materials, verbal
or written warnings to tenants, informal conferences, or requiring
written acknowledgment of the policy can improve compliance. It also
can help correct behavior, using eviction or non-lease renewal as a last
resort remedy.
Response 23-Q: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Please also refer to response to comment no. 13-A.
24 Gena Knutson General statement of support. See Section 7.2.2 for a response to
comment.
25 Lynda Barbour Response 25-A: The commenter suggests referring to the Public
Health Law Center’s model ordinance. The model ordinance was
utilized as a starting point (base) for the development of the draft
ordinance.
Response 25-B: General statement of support. See Section 7.2.2 for a
response to comment.
Response 25-C: The commenter expresses recommendations to
include additional enforcement mechanisms and graduated
enforcement. Some of the changes requested have been made to
draft ord. to encourage graduated enforcement (see response to
comment nos. 23-P). However, the draft ord. still recommends shifting
the enforcement role to private persons, rather than the city taking
the lead. By including the “no smoking” provisions in lease
agreements, smoking becomes a violation of both the lease and the
local ordinance and is considered a nuisance. As an alternative
enforcement mechanism, enforcement would also be extended to
those individuals that are directly affected by the violations of the
smoke-free housing ordinance through a “third-party beneficiary”
provision. (See response to comment nos. 7-B and 12-B.) The
argument in support of extending enforcement power to those
individuals that are directly affected is to allow tenants to act on their
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 46 of 127
own behalf and to allow some degree of agency to protect the health
of other tenants (achieving the goals of protecting residents from
secondhand smoke exposure). The city’s existing resources are not
sufficient to provide timely response, investigate complaints,
document evidence of a violation during a “smoking” event, and
lawfully identify a responsible party. Furthermore, code enforcement
officers are unable to respond to complaints after business hours,
when more violations would be expected to occur. The code
enforcement officer works between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm weekdays
and will be unable to respond to complaints or be in a place observe
the behavior.
Response 25-C: The commenter suggests adding accessory dwelling
units to the smoke-free housing ordinance. An accessory dwelling unit
is an independent dwelling unit with its own exterior door and has
facilities for living, cooking, eating, bathing, sleeping, laundry and
sanitation. An accessory dwelling unit can be a new detached unit, an
attached expansion and/or conversion of an area of an existing
dwelling unit. City staff was directed to pursue a “multi-unit” smoke-
free housing ordinance and was not directed to consider other
housing types. Accessory dwelling units are not a multi-unit building.
As such, the definition of “multi-unit residence” is not recommended
to change. The ability to implement certain tobacco control measures
is a matter of public policy. The argument for implementing the
measure to include units within a multi-unit building rather than an
accessory dwelling unit is that for tenants and owners of multi-unit
housing, such as apartments and condominiums, are more likely to
have incidents of smoke migration. A tenant in a multi-unit building is
in a confined space and may have up to four common walls with
adjacent units (two on the side and one above and one below). A
multi-unit tenant will accordingly share air space with all four adjacent
units, which increases the odds (greater chance of daily and recurring
exposure to many hazardous chemicals). Of course, exposure to
secondhand smoke in multi-unit building may vary depending on
building structure, building age, location of unit, and where smoking is
allowed. The definition of “multi-unit residence” provided in the draft
ordinance is the same definition used in the aforementioned model
ordinance published by the Public Health Law Center (which was
recommended by the commenter). The draft ordinance and model
ordinance both indicate that the smoke-free housing ordinance only
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 47 of 127
applies to accessory dwelling units where they are rented or used as a
licensed health care facility.
26 Melanie Woods Response 26-A: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Response 26-B: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Response 26-C: Changes requested have been made to draft ord.
Response 26-D: The commenter is seeking direction on the type of
sign that must be installed for a landlord or property owner to be in
conformance with the draft ord. The draft ord. does not specify the
type, size, or material of “no smoking” sign. The requirement (as
amended) is to “post and maintain clear and unambiguous “No
Smoking” signs at entrances and exits, in sufficient numbers and
locations in common areas, and in conspicuous places adjoining the
property grounds to make it obvious to a reasonable person that
smoking is prohibited.” This provides some flexibility to the landlord
or property manager to select a specific sign type to accommodates
their needs.
Response 26-E: See response to comment no. 13-C.
Response 26-F: Changes requested have been made to the draft ord.
Response 26-G: Changes requested have been made to the draft ord.
Please refer to response to comment no. 13-A.
Response 26-H: Changes requested have been made to the draft ord.
Response 26-I: The resources provided by the commenter were
utilized to change the draft ord.
27 Bob Krupnik Response 27-A: The commenter suggested emailing the draft
ordinance to the Fire Department’s list of HOA contacts. The draft
ordinance was electronically sent to 89 apartment owners, 47
property management companies, and 492 multi-unit billing parties
(628 total recipients) as part of the outreach and all HOAs were
contacted to participate in the public review period.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 48 of 127
Response 27-B: The commenter indicates that the history of the
project was reviewed and believes that some of the draft ordinance is
based on the Public Health Law Center’s model ordinance. This
response confirms that the model ordinance was utilized as a starting
point (base) for the development of the draft ordinance.
Response 27-C: The commenter suggests exempting townhomes
because there are firewalls and more separation in their design. There
could be two methods of design separation. One method is by a
double wall (Section R302.2.1) and the other method is a common
wall (R302.2.2). Secondhand smoke transmission with the double wall
method is much less likely, but it may still occur with common walls.
Common walls cannot have plumbing or mechanical equipment but
can have electrical installations (plugs, switches, wiring, etc.), which
are permitted pursuant to the electrical code. Due to cost, common
walls are the most frequently utilized design type. Notwithstanding, all
multi-unit units (regardless of type) share common design and
construction standards. The California Building Code, California
Residential Code, and California Fire Code contain design and
construction guidelines for a minimum level of structural integrity, life
safety, fire safety, and livability. Those standards require separation of
fire wall and smoke barrier assemblies regardless of multi-unit type
(i.e., apartments, condos, or townhomes). The primary difference is
that with a townhome, most units have their own roof tops and attics
and a condo building has a shared roof for all the units. Therefore,
staff recommends not modifying the ordinance and keeping this
housing typology in the multi-unit residence definition, as directed by
the City Council.
Response 27-D: See response to comment no. 18-B.
Response 27-E: See response to comment no. 21-B as “timeshares”
are regulated as “transient lodging.”
Response 27-F: See response to comment no. 26-D.
Response 27-G: The commenter explains that it may be difficult to
initiate amendments to an HOA’s CC&Rs and obtain membership
approval to add the smoke-free housing ordinance language required.
There is no requirement that forces existing HOAs to amend their
CC&Rs immediately after passage of the ordinance. The draft
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 49 of 127
ordinance only requires the language to be added to the CC&Rs when
the HOA is already amending their CC&Rs, which may occur years into
the future.
Response 27-H: See response to comment no. 13-C.
Response 27-I: See response to comment no. 13-C.
Response 27-J: See response to comment no. 13-C.
Response 27-K: Changes requested have been made to the draft ord.
to clarify the same, shared obligation.
Response 27-L: See response to comment nos. 7-B, 12-B, and 13-A.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 50 of 127
Comment No.1
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 51 of 127
4/30/24, 8:48 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
RE: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
William Creagan <willc@southwestep.com>
Mon 4/8/2024 12:24 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc:Elaine Nielsen <elainemarie70@gmail.com >
Can we say "More Government Overreach?"
Dictate what you want when it comes to common public areas owned by the City, but inside someone's
unit?
What next, Cameras inside peoples apartments?
You will not get any support here on this proposal.
Less Government = Happier more Free People.
Will Creagan Ill
Chairman
Southwest f:quitr Vartnen
Cell 760.419.5300
Office 760.642.0400
380 Stevens Avenue, Suite 311
Solana Beach, CA 92075
WillC@SouthwesteR .com
From: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 11:58 AM
Cc: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Some people who received this message don't often get email from mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov. Learn why this is
imRortant
Ca ution: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders
you do not trust.
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking (including
vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except for certain
designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and comment. It is
attached to this email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property managers and
multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take public input. (The ordinance
ultimately presented to City Council may change based on public feedback.) You are receiving this email
because you own a multi-unit building or unit within a multi-unit building or manage the property and
may be impacted by such smoking prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
What kinds of properties are included in the draft ordinance? Property containing three or more
residential units, including:
• Apartment buildings
• Condos
• Senior and assisted living facilities
• Long-term health care facilities
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1.2024.417 .1 00&key=92db09d3-fa 19-1 a48-b35d-718225f7 c09d&fileExt=.ms... 1 /2
Comment No.2
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 52 of 127
4/30/24, 8:48 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
RE: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Maria Osorio <mosorio@maacproject.org>
Mon 4/8/2024 12:37 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Good afternoon,
Laurel Tree became smoke free community since 2010, and I love it.
MARIA OSORIO Laurel Tree Apartments Property Manager
MAAC I 1307 Laurel Tree Ln, Carlsbad CA 92011
mosorio@maacRroject.org I Tel 760.918-1780 EX 1401 I Fax 760 918-1764
maacRroject.org
From: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 11:58 AM
Cc: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
You don't often get email from mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov. Learn why this is imRortant
Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening
attachments. When in doubt, contact your IT Department
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking (including
vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except for certain designated
outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and comment. It is attached to this
email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property managers and
multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take public input. (The ordinance
ultimately presented to City Council may change based on public feedback.) You are receiving this email
because you own a multi-unit building or unit within a multi-unit building or manage the property and may
be impacted by such smoking prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
What kinds of properties are included in the draft ordinance? Property containing three or more
residential units, including:
• Apartment buildings
• Condos
• Senior and assisted living facilities
• Long-term health care facilities
• Single family homes licensed as care facilities
What is not included? Multiunit residences do not include the following:
• Hotels and motels
• Mobile home parks
• Campgrounds
• Single family homes (including those with accessory dwelling units)
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1 .2024.417 .1OO&key=794ea252-0da9-554f-b14a-52eb8bd33016&fileExt=.m... 1 /2
Comment No.3
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 53 of 127
4/30/24, 8:48 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
RE: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Debra Sullivan <dsullivan@fairgrovepm.com>
Mon 4/8/2024 1 :06 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Thanks for this, Mike.
I fully support this ordinance. I have managed two communities here in Carlsbad (Jefferson Houe II at
2848 Jefferson St and The Village Apt. Homes at 87 4 Home Ave in the Village area of Carlsbad) for
these last 5+ years. When I began working here only the non-senior community on Home Ave was
already smoke free. Since then, a few years back, we began, and finally completed over the course of
that next year, converting Jefferson House II, a senior community, to a smoke free community.
Thanks for all you are doing.
Debbie Sullivan, ARM®
Onsite Manager
Office 760-434-6026
Email dsullivan@FairgroveP-m.com
2848 Jefferson St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ea FAIRGROVE
From: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 11:58 AM
Cc: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking (including
vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except for certain
designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and comment. It is
attached to this email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property managers and
multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take public input. (The ordinance
ultimately presented to City Council may change based on public feedback.) You are receiving this email
because you own a multi-unit building or unit within a multi-unit building or manage the property and
may be impacted by such smoking prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
What kinds of properties are included in the draft ordinance? Property containing three or more
residential units, including:
• Apartment buildings
• Condos
• Senior and assisted living facilities
• Long-term health care facilities
• Single family homes licensed as care facilities
What is not included? Multiunit residences do not include the following:
• Hotels and motels
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1 .2024.417 .1 00&key=89b25a98-561 c-f946-b36e-5a 1ee3637422&fileExt=.m... 1 /2
Comment No.4
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 54 of 127
4/30/24, 8:49 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Re: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Alan Parry <alanjparry@gmail.com>
Mon 4/8/2024 1 :43 PM
To:Mike Strong < Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Mr Strong,
I am President of the Seaslope Estates Owners Association (SEOA) Board of Directors. SEOA is
composed of 20 Units and is located at 2955 Ocean Street, Carlsbad. In the 40+ years we have owned
our unit, NEVER has an smoke from the units above or on each side of our unit been an issue or
'smelled' by us. However, cigar and cigarette smoke, from persons on the 'beach' has and is an issue
as during the summer months, our balcony door and windows are open and the smoke 'wafts' into our
unit. So, and ordinance should also address the issue of NO SMOKING on the BEACH.
Alan J. Parry
480-567-4074
On Apr 8, 2024, at 11:57 AM, Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban
smoking (including vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit
homes, except for certain designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for
public review and comment. It is attached to this email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property
managers and multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take
public input. (The ordinance ultimately presented to City Council may change based on
public feedback.) You are receiving this email because you own a multi-unit building or unit
within a multi-unit building or manage the property and may be impacted by such smoking
prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
What kinds of properties are included in the draft ordinance? Property containing three or
more residential units, including:
• Apartment buildings
• Condos
• Senior and assisted living facilities
• Long-term health care facilities
• Single family homes licensed as care facilities
What is not included? Multiunit residences do not include the following:
• Hotels and motels
• Mobile home parks
• Campgrounds
• Single family homes (including those with accessory dwelling units)
Where would smoking be banned?
• In units
• Private balconies
• Porches
• Decks
https://outlook.office .com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation ?native Version= 1 .2024.417 .1 00&key=baec 7 a40-9070-f64f-bc03-b335b2dd7305&fileExt= .ms... 1 /2
Comment No.5
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 55 of 127
4/30/24, 8:49 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Re: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Board President < pacificvtpresident@gmail.com >
Mon 4/8/2024 2:05 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
For myself [sic] and others
I would like to see an ordinance banning pooping and peeing in public, breaking into cars, business
homes, walking the streets naked, camping in public and private spaces, leaving needles and trash in
Carlsbad, overdosing and using our public services. Instead Carlsbad seems to want to encourage this
by giving out hotel rooms and other benefits.
I am not alone, most CBAD citizens would rather work on the drug addicts that are
overrunning downtown first, then harassing the smokers and kids riding bikes.
The priorities are upside down.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 11 :58AM Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
! The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking
(including vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except
for certain designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and
1 comment. It is attached to this email.
I
'. Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property
managers and multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take
public input. (The ordinance ultimately presented to City Council may change based on
1 public feedback.) You are receiving this email because you own a multi-unit building or unit
. within a multi-unit building or manage the property and may be impacted by such smoking
prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
' ; What kinds of properties are included in the draft ordinance? Property containing three
1 or more residential units, including:
• Apartment buildings
• Condos
• Senior and assisted living facilities
• Long-term health care facilities
• Single family homes licensed as care facilities
What is not included? Multiunit residences do not include the following:
• Hotels and motels
• Mobile home parks
• Campgrounds
• Single family homes (including those with accessory dwelling units)
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1 .2024.417.1 00&key=22d2f732-42f6-8e4e-9934-a8d6c24941 e2&fileExt=.ms... 1 /3
Comment No.5
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 56 of 127
4/30/24, 8:49 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Assistant Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
442-339-2721 direct I mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov
Thane Rivers
Pacific View Townhomes
Homeowner/Board Member
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1.2024.417 .1 00&key=22d2f732-42f6-8e4e-9934-a8d6c24941 e2&fileExt=.ms... 3/3
Comment No.6
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 57 of 127
4/30/24, 8:49 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
RE: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Gina Falcon-Heneghan <gheneghan@nnj.com>
Mon 4/8/2024 2:42 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Thank you Mr. Strong for the email information that I find interesting.
Thank you, in advance, for your anticipated understanding and/or cooperation in this matter.
Gina Falcon-Heneghan, CMCA®, AMS®
Sr. Community Association Manager/Director of After-hours Service
N. N. Jaeschke, Inc. -An Associa® Company
9610 Waples Street, San Diego CA 92121
If I am not available to handle your customer service requests or NNJ's Customer Service Department at 858.550-7900 or
Nnj.customer.service@nnj.com.
Side note: You may be and/or are receiving this email and/or response outside of business hours due to my work schedule.
Associa ® -Bringing positive impact and meaningful value to every community.
3 :1 ~ ~BEST
)~~MANAGED
~~COMPANIES
Recognizing private company succes~
From: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 11:58 AM
Cc: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Some people who received this message don't often get email from mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov. Learn why this is
imP-ortant
Caution: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] This email originated from outside the company.
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking (including
vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except for certain
designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and comment. It is
attached to this email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property managers and
multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take public input. (The ordinance
ultimately presented to City Council may change based on public feedback.) You are receiving this email
because you own a multi-unit building or unit within a multi-unit building or manage the property and
may be impacted by such smoking prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
What kinds of properties are included in the draft ordinance? Property containing three or more
residential units, including:
• Apartment buildings
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1.2024.417 .1 00&key=967c79bf-297 e-0c42-8319-8699cc9ccf9d&fileExt=.ms... 1 /3
Comment No.7
A
B
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 58 of 127
4/30/24, 8:49 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
RE: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Jason McDonald <jmcdonald@activcareliving.com >
Mon 4/8/2024 5:21 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Banning smoking and vaping indoors in shared rooms, even rooms paid for privately, seem$ reasonable.
Reasonable for subjecting a room mate to second hand smoke. Plus it would include safety concerns for
fire danger with impaired people having a dangerous item in an indoor space.
Banning smoking in apartments and condos and the patios, balconies etc seems an over reach. Those
are private spaces. Neighbors can choose to close their windows if there is smell or second hand
smoke.
For me it always come down to enforcement. What cop is going to enforce a ban on someone having a
smoke on their private balcony?
Make it a simple fire ordinance and it will have much more effective enforcement since landlords can
evict someone for not following fire code. Make vaping included since they can set off fire alarms and
emitting a toxic substance and should be included in the fire code. Much easier to enforce.
cA"crwCuur
CJJressi '"Rench
RL:il11'L'7.:!i'11r MtttltH_!..' CJr·,~
Jason McDonald
Exernti L•'e Director
.A.::tivCare L~, ing -Re.sldentia! r111 B11orv Ca e
(7 6, ) 695-240 cell
5255Nvgaard Street (75 )60,3-·9999off e I (76 )6 3-9 4 fifax
Car!IDad, CA 9201}9 activcareliving.com
From: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 11:58 AM
Cc: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. This message might not be safe, use caution in opening it.
If in doubt, do not open the attachment nor links in the message.
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking (including
vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except for certain
designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and comment. It is
attached to this email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property managers and
multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take public input. (The ordinance
ultimately presented to City Council may change based on public feedback.) You are receiving this email
because you own a multi-unit building or unit within a multi-unit building or manage the property and
may be impacted by such smoking prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
What kinds of properties are included in the draft ordinance? Property containing three or more
residential units, including:
• Apartment buildings
• Condos
• Senior and assisted living facilities
• Long-term health care facilities
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1.2024.417 .1 00&key=a276b64d-af23-f248-9211-ef95784e90d4&fileExt= .ms... 1 /2
Comment No.8
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 59 of 127
4/30/24, 8:50 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Fwd: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Kevin Smith <kevin_t.smith@yahoo.com>
Mon 4/8/2024 6:14 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
I will start by saying that I don't smoke, but I know many that do. If I did smoke and there were not a
grandfather clause that exempted me from this, I would sue the city. This is a major overreach. People
that already live here did not have a choice when choosing to live here and now have to move. I AM
in favor of a smoking ban ... in public places and common areas. But if someone chooses to smoke in
their own home, that is their choice. Whether or not it happens to be connected to someone else's
home. If this does pass, how will you enforce it? Barge into every home and see if anyone is smoking?
Count on people "ratting out" their neighbors? Why don't you fix the crime or homeless issues before
going after people that smoke? If people can't smoke and reduce the number of cigarettes they buy,
how will you replace that revenue? (Taxes on cigarettes ... ). Basically, I think this is a very bad idea that
will cost the city a lot of money and the Council has a LOT of more important issues to work on than
this. Thanks.
Kevin Smith
Voscana HOA President
1680 Fairlead Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Leann Robbins <lrobbins@propadvantage.com>
Date: April 8, 2024 at 3:40 :03 PM PDT
To: boos4320@gmail.com, Kevin Smith <kevin_t.smith@yahoo.com>, kathleen
< kathyzacher@msn.com >, jeremy@jeremypoincenot.com, Krishnarao Appasan i
<kappasani@gmail.com>
Subject: FW: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
FYI
Respectfully,
Leann Robbins, CCAM
Sen ior Community Manager
PropertyADVANTAGE SM
5142 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California 92008
760.585.1 714 direct office • 760.438.6886 fax
Performance is our Priority! Please refer us to your friends and colleagues!
t-.1.,1._ -· 11-· ,4.,,..,.., ...... u: ..................... , ............ ;11,.,1 ............... 1: .... 1,1 ............ +,.,.,... .... 1 A ..... +: ...... +: ......... "> ....... +:.,,.,.\ /n..-r-ir.n--1 'l/'\'JA A 17 1 ()f'\JU,,::n,-A ~o1 i ,-.1 ''.LAArl7_ ~nA.1 _Q?1 ~-7oAAi:::;?QQo?rlQ.R.filo~vt= 1 /~
Comment No.9
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 60 of 127
4/30/24, 8:50 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Re: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
John Forester <johnforester7@gmail.com>
Mon 4/8/2024 7:17 PM
To:Mike Strong < Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Hi Mike,
Thanks for sharing this.
We like the idea.
Any chance the pa rking lot next to our building at 3095 ocean street can be incorporated into this
law?
It's rare that a day goes by when we don't smell cigarette or marijuana smoke blowing on to and into
our condos.
Regards,
John Forester
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 8, 2024, at 11 :58AM, Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban
smoking (including vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit
homes, except for certain designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for
public review and comment. It is attached to this email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property
managers and multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take
public input. (The ordinance ultimately presented to City Council may change based on
public feedback.) You are receiving this email because you own a multi-unit building or unit
within a multi-unit building or manage the property and may be impacted by such smoking
prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
What kinds of properties are included in the draft ordinance? Property containing three or
more residential units, including:
• Apartment buildings
• Condos
• Senior and assisted living facilities
• Long-term health care facilities
• Single family homes licensed as care facilities
What is not included? Multiunit residences do not include the following:
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1 .2024.417 .1 00&key=03dce8ba-2778-6c4a-8d 17-7962c4 7 4d35f&fileExt=.m... 1 /2
Comment No.10
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 61 of 127
4/30/24, 8:50 AM Proposed No Smoking Ordinance
Proposed No Smoking Ordinance
tk1ane8459@aol.com <tklane8459@aol.com>
Tue 4/9/2024 9:03 AM
To:Mike Strong < Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Are you serious? You want to prohibit smoking in condos, apartments and outside these places,
but it is okay for hotels, motels, single family homes? What's next-drinking alcohol in condos,
apartments?
Who is responsible for initiating this ordnance? Who introduced it, who is pushing or backing it?
I
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Comment No.11
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 62 of 127
4/30/24, 8:51 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
RE: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Linda Recker <lrecker@cox.net>
Tue 4/9/2024 11 :24 AM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc:'Linda Recker' < lrecker@cox.net>
Mike, thanks for send ing this out.
As a condo homeowner, HOA president and non-smoker, here is my feedback.
This would be gross over-reach by the government. Just as the City is opposed to the heavy handedness of
Sacramento, I would oppose this equally heavy handed approach by the City.
1) HOAs already have this protection. It 's called the CC&Rs . Homeowners in a multi-family community
should be able to vote on whether or not they want these restrictions (we already have some of these
restrictions in place).
2) Telling a homeowner they can't smoke in the home they own is terribly unfair. Similarly, owners should
be able to decide for themselves if they care whether or not renters smoke on their property.
3) Apartment owners should also be able to make their own rules and not have city ordinances shoved
down their throats.
4) I can't speak to health care facilities -seems like they wouldn't want to allow it for a variety of reasons
but again, they shou ld be able to make their own rules.
5) If statutes today somehow don't allow the owners of these properties to make these kinds of rules for
themselves then perhaps the city should only go so far to say that they are able to. Then, let capitalism
work and get out of the business of telling private property owners how to run their lives.
6) Sacramento is already making this the biggest Nanny state in the country. The city shou ld not fall into the
same trap.
Respectfully,
Linda Recker
From: Mike Strong [mailto:Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 11:58 AM
Cc: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking (including
vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except for certain
designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and comment. It is
attached to this email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property managers and
multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take public input. (The ordinance
ultimately presented to City Council may change based on public feedback.) You are receiving this email
because you own a multi-unit building or unit within a multi-unit building or manage the property and
may be impacted by such smoking prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
What kinds of properties are included in the draft ordinance? Property containing three or more
residential units, including:
• Apartment buildings
• Condos
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1.2024.417 .1 00&key=04146877-c20e-bd4b-b04a-c44d96e9a731 &fileExt=.m... 1 /2
Comment No.12
A
B
C
D
E
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 63 of 127
4/30/24, 8:51 AM
Smoking ordinance
Russ Tarvin < russt@gfhousing.com >
Tue 4/9/2024 11 :32 AM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Hi Mike,
Smoking ordinance
I have reviewed the new rules, and I have a few concerns with this law.
1. This is really curbing one groups (smokers) quiet enjoyment of their property (as a renter or
owner) for another groups. Similarly, the city's noise laws are not being enforced with strength
which also is impacting quiet enjoyment of property, but you are aggressively going after
smokers? I am confused as to what this accomplishes.
2. As to smoking indoors, all our rental agreements state that the tenant cannot smoke indoors, but
because the courts are not enforcing that clause in our contracts, we are unable to enforce that
clause. What actions is the city taking to enforce this law so that the courts will take this more
seriously than they do the current contract and evict tenants that are breaking the contract?
3. You are not giving good guidance of where the area should be located. Most of the common
areas are not big enough to even have these.
4. Smelling smoke is the offense, and there is not a great way to figure out where the smoke is
coming from. With the density levels you are looking to do or must do, this is going to be a hard
thing to figure out.
5. You are putting strong language that must be put into the lease or agreements, but there is no real
recourse for landlords to remove tenants for this. There are very few judges that would evict
tenants for these violations, but the fines are substantial for landlords.
Thank you,
Russ Tarvin ~
Senior Property Manager I REAL TOR® /:_ ==_. -&._.
Associate Licensee I CaiBRE # 02078626 •
C .. (760) 525-0686 I www.gfhousing.com
GREY FALCON PROPER Tl ES
russt@gfhousing.com
www.GFHousing.com
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
h++n~•//ro, ,t1,..,,..,1, ,.,ffi,-.o ,-.romim<>il/rloonlinL-/nmlr,,-.r,IA,-ti""tir,n?n:>ti\/P\/Ar,::ir,n:1 ?1)?4 417 1(ll)R.kA\/='.'.\fMl4117-rl74h-fih4 7-::in::lr.-::lhP.rl!i7::l!=la9fO&fileExt=.ms... 1 /1
Comment No.13
A
B
C
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 64 of 127
4/30/24, 8:52 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
FW: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Michael Merceri <mercerimichael59@gmail.com>
Tue 4/9/2024 12:35 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc:'Hollis Liebe' <hollis@pernicanorealty.com>
@ 1 attachments (144 KB)
Draft Ordinance re Smoking in Multi-Unit Residences.pdf;
Hi Mike:
Thanks for sending this out. Can you answer the following things that come to my mind. I am on the board of an
HOA condominium unit called Windsong Cove off of Chinquapin Ave.:
1. I assume the HOA is not the police in this matter, it is a civil action between an offender and the injured
party (victim?). We do not need to be a party to the action between the two.
2. Does the smoking area need to be clearly marked by the HOA? Does HOA need to put up "no smoking"
signs?
3. If there are actions that the HOA would need to take if this is passed, can you please list them for me so we
can be properly prepared.
Thank you in advance.
Regards
Michael Merceri
From: Hollis Liebe <hollis@pernicanorealty.com>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 12:00 PM
To: Michael Merceri (mercerimichael59@gmail.com) <mercerimichael59@gmail.com>
Subject: FW: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Sharing as FYI
Have a wonderful day!
Hollis Liebe, CCAM
Certified Community Manager
2851 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 230 I San Diego, CA 92108
0: 619-543-9400 IF: 619-543-96251 www.Rernicanorealty.com
Stay connected with your community with our new app!
Pernicano Connect can send notifications for your HOA right to your phone!
Jj
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1.2024.417.1 OO&key=36315344-bffe-7e46-a111-84b5e72aOd4e&fileExt=.ms... 1/4
Comment No.14
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 65 of 127
4/30/24, 8:56 AM
Smoking Ordinance
Cheryl Knebel <cheryl_knebel@hotmail.com>
Wed 4/10/2024 9:55 AM
To:Mike Strong < Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Hi Mike,
Smoking Ordinance
Our HOA informed us of an anticipated new ordinance regarding smoking. I am a condo owner at
3173 via Iris, Carlsbad 92009 -part of Villas de La Costa.
I am strongly against this idea. I am a non-smoker but challenge the restriction on smoking inside a
privately owned residence. I understand that smoking is awful for those who live next door. I wouldn't
like it. However, as a homeowner, no one should be able to dictate what I do inside my residence as
long as it is legal.
Respectfu I ly,
Cheryl Knebel
Get Outlook for iOS
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
httos://outlook.office.com/mail/deeolink/orotocolActivation?nativeVersion=1.2024.417 .1 00&kev=1c644476-f5e3-6c40-ae95-11 feb352d9f7&fileExt=.ms... 1 /1
Comment No.15
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 66 of 127
4/30/24, 8:57 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Re: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Shiella McNulty <shiellamcnulty@gmail.com>
Thu 4/11/2024 10:43 AM
To:Mike Strong < Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
@ 1 attachments (4 KB)
image001 .gif;
Wow Mike. I'm a lifetime non-smoker and I would LOVE to never smell pot or cigarettes burning near
me again! It's disgusting! HOWEVER, this proposal goes too far from a societal perspective .... do we
really want to squeeze our neighbors AGAIN when they are addicted to a substance that, apparently,
gives them some relief or enjoyment? In their own home? (And I don't remember seeing pot, etc
named as being illegal in this ordinance which, of course, it would have to be included so ... good luck
to us all with THAT!)
I have housed retired Marines that are missing limbs and they smoke BOTH substances despite all the
VA resources available to them .... who am I to tell them they can't be addicted? And then ENFORCE it?
As if! Im buried trying to find insurance for my properties! So my current tenants of 1 0+ years have to
MOVE if they want/need to smoke in their living room? What if they're in a wheelchair upstairs .... they
have to elevator outside and 25' away to satisfy their need for nicotine? Or find a single family
dwelling they can afford to move to? Again ... as if! The City can/should enforce this type of ordinance
at their affordable housing communities, where tenants are being subsidized and, therefore, lose some
measure of autonomy. But disrupting private citizens, in their own (rented) homes, with no allowance
for waiver by those affected? What if it's a 4 unit property and they all smoke .... then who cares except
me, who has to clean out the smell when they move? Folks living in Cbad, in rental multi-unit housing,
have enough problems .... do we really mean to enter their living rooms and ban the only thing left
keeping them halfway sane?! Don't put ME in that line of fire, dude ... l'm not equipped! Besides, we'll
just end up needing an individual waiver program that EVERYONE will apply for (aka, emotional
support animals) -is Cbad ready to administer THAT boondoggle? Blech -so many problems and too
few solutions when people are all so very self-absorbed, right? Thank u for being there, Mike
... whichever way this swings!
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, 11 :58 AM Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
I Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
' The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking
! (including vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except
for certain designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and
comment. It is attached to this email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property
I managers and multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take
1• public input. (The ordinance ultimately presented to City Council may change based on
public feedback.) You are receiving this email because you own a multi-unit building or unit
within a multi-unit building or manage the property and may be impacted by such smoking
' prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
httnd/rn ,tlrv,k-nffir<> rnm/m:>il/rl,:,,:,nlink-/nrntnN1IAr.ti\/1=1tir,n?n::1th1P.\/P.r~ir,n=1 ?0?4 417.1OOR.kP.\/=A7RrlhOr.4-AP.f!i-h440-9016-fdd4af2cc120&fileExt=.ms. _. 1 /3
Comment No.16
A
B
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 67 of 127
4/30/24, 8:57 AM smoke-free multi-unit proposal
smo ke-free mu lti-unit proposal
Alexa Saxon <acsaxon4@gmail.com>
Thu 4/11/2024 5:10 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
This is way, way, way too heavy-handed. So intrusive! If someone's smoking becomes a nuisance,
others can seek relief under their CC&Rs in condo complexes, or the state laws generally. We are a
family of non-tobacco smokers. However, our adult children have prescriptions for cannabis, one to
relieve a pain syndrome and another to address a painful digestive disorder. Cannabis has prevented
my son from needing an opioid prescription. Definitely the lesser of two evils! What would my kids
have to do, scurry off to the smoking area when they are in pain, perhaps in the middle of the night? If
this proposal passes, you are setting yourselves up for lawsuits, which as a former attorney I am
confident you will lose. State laws supercede local ordinances and smoking is legal on a state level.
What a waste of time, money and law enforcement resources! What comes next, bans on drinking and
swearing in your own home? Such nonsense!
Best Regards,
Alexa Saxon, Senior Realtor
DRE# 01861969
SDAR's "Realtor of the Year, 2021"
North County, Boutique Brokerage category
Distinctive Homes CA
Ranch and Coast Magazine's "Brokerage of the Year, 2022"
Direct: 760-803-9585
Email: acsaxon4@gmail.com
www.distinctivehomesca .com
TOP 10 Most Nominated Realtor Brokerage in 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 & 2020
San Diego's BEST Union Tribune Reader Poll
I
_____ J
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1 .2024.417 .1 00&key=B 17 4337 4-7735-7f49-8c53-5626ebe3b7d2&fileExt=.m... 1 /1
Comment No.17
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 68 of 127
4/30/24, 8:57 AM Smoking ordinance proposed for Carlsbad
Smoking ord inance proposed for Carlsbad
Sue Gardner <suegardner1@gmail.com>
Fri 4/12/2024 2:13 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Please tell me this is an April Fools's joke. I cannot believe this could even be discussed. Maybe you should be
addressing the kids on e-bikes with no crash helmets, and two on a bike, and texting while cycling ; and zero road
sense; secondly all the red light runners in this town -never a day goes by when I do not see this. □ □
Should this ordinance be passed I would be curious how you would go about penalizing anyone who smokes in the
privacy of they own home?
A Carlsbad resident (non smoker)!
Sue Gardner
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
" .: · • · · = · · --··· ,. __ ,,,., ___ ,,_,,, __ ~,~MI"~,;.,,,1,r.n?n<>ti11,.\/,:,rc,ir,n=1 ?fl?4 417.100&kev=75f205c5-0d0e-8740-a46d-1517abd2c81f&fileExt=.ms... 1 /1
Comment No.18
A
B
C
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 69 of 127
4/30/24, 8:58 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Re: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
David Palmer <jahcoltrane@sbcglobal.net>
Wed 4/10/2024 8:05 PM ·
To:Mike Strong < Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Hi Mike,
I'm a member of a HOA board in Carlsbad and a resident for 24 years . Thanks for
sending this info.
This looks like a enforcement nightmare for our police force. Can't we allow them to
concentrate on crime.
This ordinance will be used for petty disputes between occupants wasting the officers
time. Trust me, I spend a lot of time dealing with these issues .
And why is single family home exempt? Apartment and condo are homes too. Why
do they get different rules.
It's up to the landlords and owners to determine whether smoking and vaping is
allowed inside their units.
It's up to the landlords and owners to enforce and collect fines for non-compliance
with a smoking/vaping ban.
Please revised the proposal to restrict your jurisdiction to outside our homes and I
might actually open the PDF next time.
I'm a non -smoker and a non-vapor for the record.
Thanks
David
Never mind the civil liberties issues with in unit enforcement.
On Apr 8, 2024, at 11 :57 AM, Mike Strong < Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:.
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban
smoking (including vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit
homes, except for certain designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for
public review and comment. It is attached to this email.
Comment No.19
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 70 of 127
4/30/24, 8:59 AM Smoke-Free Multi-unit Housing Concern
Smoke-Free Multi-unit Housing Concern
Chris Schoeneck <chris.schoeneck@gmail.com>
Mon 4/15/2024 10:15 AM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Honorable Council members and Mr. Strong -
Thank you for sending out the draft ordinance for smoke-free multi-unit housing. I understand this
was drafted by staff as part of the approved Climate Action Plan (CAP). In reviewing the draft, I urge
Council to not aP-P-rove this ordinance.
While I do not smoke and separately have small children and am concerned about second-hand/ third
hand smoking, I feel this ordinance is burdensome to those that either choose to rent or are not able
to purchase single family residences. The ordinance currently seems to target those that cannot afford
to purchase multi-million dollar homes in our lovely city of Carlsbad. To not be able to smoke at your
private residence may only increase smoking in public realm .
I have a concern about preventing people from smoking in their private residences. Neighbors
become watchdogs and can claim impacts to neighbors with potential cash benefits of $500/ day (as is
currently written). This will add strain to an already stressed legal system. While I appreciate a
dissuasive punishment to discourage smoking, I think this will create greater animosity between
neighbors. This also seems burdensome to quiet enjoyment, a typical right within residential and
commercial leases. Landlords certainly have the right to create no smoking clauses in their lease today
and should they choose to do so, their residence can choose to live there or look elsewhere.
It is illegal to drive under the influence. With marijuana being legal in the state of California, the home
seems to be the best place to smoke as it has the least impact to the the public realm and encourages
compliance with not driving after smoking. I am concerned that if smoking is banned in residences,
'coffee shops' like those in Amsterdam will pop up to create safe spaces to smoke, similar to bars.
Except we now have more people smoking and needing to get home, potentially encouraging driving
under the influence. I'm not a supporter of marijuana, but I understand others' desire and right to use
it, medical or medicinal.
Culturally, there those that participate in smoking as part of their way of life. Banning smoking in
residences may adversely impact those that do use smoking of some kind or another as part of their
cultural or religious ways.
Lastly, as a father of two small children, I've done significant research into second-hand and third-hand
smoking. There are more ways to be adversely impacted than just smoking. Burning of incense for
example can have the same impact. This seems to be missing from the ordinance if the goal is to
prevent second-hand and third-hand smoking, along with impacting neighbors in multi-family
communities.
Thank you for your time and consideration on the draft no-smoking ordinance. I appreciate you taking
time to read through my and others comments on the draft. I appreciate staff's time and effort in
putting forth the draft to comply with the conditions of the City's CAP.
chr.s
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1 .2024.417.1 00&key=93ae2565-6b68-1 34a-b9ae-8d6abd8723d2&fileExt=.... 1 /2
Comment No.20
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 71 of 127
4/30/24, 8:59 AM Carlsbad MUH Ordinance
Carlsbad MUH Ordinance
Mark O'Connor < moconnor@sandiego.surfrider.org >
Sun 4/21/2024 3:38 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Hi Mike,
Ethan Carr from VCC sent me an email about your great work on the Carlsbad MUH Ordinance. I am
• an Encinitas Environmental Commissioner and played a role in Encinitas passing a public smoking
ban. I like what I read in the ordinance. I am hoping to get MUH into our next work plan. I have a
great relationship with the San Dieguito Alliance for Drug Free Youth who would really like to see
Encinitas do something similar.
I'm going to keep an eye on what happens in Carlsbad and move forward down the road.
I think Ethan thought I might be of some help since I assisted with the public smoking ordinance. If I
can be of any help, please email me or call me. Good Job!
Mark
Mark O'Connor
Environmental Commissioner
City of Encinitas
760-500-5631
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Comment No.21
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 72 of 127
4/30/24, 8:59 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Re: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Holly Lewallen <holly@cpmteam.com>
Mon 4/22/2024 11 :52 AM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
~ 1 attachments (24 KB)
Smoke Free Coalition Ordinance Review.docx;
Hi Mike,
Please see my attached response. Sorry for the delay in getting this back to you and thank you for all
you do.
With Regards,
Holly Lewallen I Maintenance Supervisor
Chamberlain Property Management I www.cRmteam.com
DRE License #: 02083544
(760)547-2756 Direct
2653 Roosevelt St., Suite D
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Main Office Hours:
Monday -Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Saturday 9:00 am-4:00 pm I Sunday • Closed
After Hours & Weekend Emergency Phone: 760-715-7103 or 760-621-3285
If you suspect a gas leak in the home please contact SDGE immediately 1-800-411-7343.
If you are requesting regular maintenance, please click here.
Connect with us on your favorite Social Media channel!
c;;,..Jngggram,J.QgQ, media, network, new, social,29uare icon
[;}~ook,J.QgQ, media, network, share, social,29uare icon t;;}.elR icon
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 11 :58AM Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
, Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking
(including vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except
• for certain designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and
comment. It is attached to this email.
I Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property
managers and multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take
public input. (The ordinance ultimately presented to City Council may change based on
public feedback.) You are receiving this email because you own a multi-unit building or unit
within a multi-unit building or manage the property and may be impacted by such smoking
prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
https :/ /outlook.office.com/mail/deeplin k/protocolActivation ?native Version= 1 .2024.417 .1 00&key=bf436b38-f349-a248-9285-9bccbf3fOa95&fileExt= .msg... 1 /3
Comment No.21
A
B
C
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 73 of 127
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
-------Est. 1986
Response on Chapter 6.15 -PROHIBITION OF SMOKING IN MULTIUNIT RESIDENCES
By Holly Lewallen I Maintenance Supervisor I Chamberlain Property Management
04/22/2024
As a property manager and maintenance supervisor, I am excited that the city council is considering an
ordinance to ban smoking and vaping in multi-family communities. I believe the assistance in helping
enforce such a policy will greatly help property management companies, landlords and residents to
reduce overall cost whether financial or health related and will benefit the environment by having less
areas impacted by the litter from those habits to accumulate.
In reviewing the current proposal, I feel that it effectively covers the needs of all parties involved and
assists in areas where legal action will be needed to help reduce these costs in the future. The only item
that I would consider changing would be the multi-unit residences that will not be included in the
ordinance, as I believe having the ordinance cover all multi-unit properties would help more tax paying
citizens and the health of our city.
I would recommend that the council consider adding hotels, motels, and mobile home parks to the list
of multi-unit properties that would fall under this ordinance. I feel that much like property management
companies, hotels and motels have clauses added to their rental terms that prohibit smoking and vaping
in units, but the ordinance would help those owners with legal support when having to bring these
matters to court.
I also feel that many mobile home parks rely on natural gas as a source for cooking and heating. By
continuing to allow these residents to smoke at the property, whether indoors or on the property
grounds, they create a liability to the park itself and the surrounding neighbors. This could be reduced if
they were held to the same terms as other multi-unit properties and dwellings.
Overall, the ordinance would be a great support to many Carlsbad taxpayers and residents by helping
reduce costs, improve overall health and by making our city look less littered by the debris from these
habits.
Thank you for your consideration of this ordinance.
With Regards,
Holly Lewallen I Maintenance Supervisor
Chamberlain Property Management I www.cpmteam.com
DRE License#: 02083544
{760)547-2756 Direct
2653 Roosevelt St., Suite D
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Comment No.22
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 74 of 127
4/30/24, 9:00 AM Ban on activities in private property -Smoke-Free Multiunit [sic] Housing
Ban on activities in private property -Smoke-Free Multiunit [sic] Housing
Gary <ggpggp@pacbell.net>
Mon 4/22/2024 12:48 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc:Keith Blackburn < Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov> ;Melanie Burkholder < Melanie.Burkholder@carlsbadca.gov>
Who gave you the right to dictate personal behavior in private property?
You are an insult to your oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of
America.
Staff can go to hell for all I care because you are simply tools of the progressive
left.
Gary Pearson -Carlsbad Resident
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Comment No.23
A
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 75 of 127
4/30/24, 9:01 AM Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
RE: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Molly Kirkland <mkirkland@socalrha.org>
Mon 4/22/2024 12:57 PM
To:Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
@ 1 attachments (36 KB)
Carlsbad Draft Non-Smoking Ordinance -SCRHA comments edits.docx;
Hello Mike,
Please see the attached. Some suggested edits in Blue and comments in Red.
I think perhaps our biggest concern is the legal liability. We want to make sure that so long as housing
providers take the steps that the law allows, that they can't be sued for violating the ordinance. As we
mention, outside of eviction or terminating tenancy, housing providers have no other enforcement
options. They can't force anyone to comply and do not have police powers to ticket and fine.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
Molly Kirkland, Director of Public Affairs
Southern California Rental Housing Association
9655 Granite Ridge Drive #200, San Diego, CA 92123
Office: 858.278.8070 I Direct: 858. 751.2200
mkirkland@socalrha.org I www.socalrha.org
From: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 11:58 AM
Cc: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking (including
vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except for certain
designated outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and comment. It is
attached to this email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property managers and
multi-unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take public input. (The ordinance
httos://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/orotocolActivation?nativeVersion=1 .2024.417 .1 00&kev=c4f49f8b-0bce-8144-954f-7 d46d5ad6013&fileExt=.ms... 1 /3
Chapter 6.15 PROHIBITION OF SMOKING IN MULTIUNIT RESIDENCES
Sections:
6.15.010 Purpose and intent.
6.15.020 Definitions.
6.15.030 Smoking restrictions.
6.15.040 Lease agreement requirements.
6.15.050 Requirements for rental properties.
6.15.060 Requirements for common interest developments.
6.15.070 Nuisance.
6.15.080 Private enforcement.
6.15.090 Limitations and exceptions.
6.15.100 Rules of construction.
6.15.110 Severability.
6.15.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the smoking of tobacco, or any other weed or plant, or
substance, in multiunit residences or common areas. This chapter protects the public from
nonconsensual exposure by reducing the number of locations in the city where exposure to
secondhand smoke may occur.
To prove violation of the ordinance in court, it would be difficult or impossible to establish what
was being smoked/vaped. By prohibiting smoking of any substance you remove that issue.
6.15.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter the following definitions shall govern unless the context clearly
requires otherwise:
“Common area” means every enclosed area and unenclosed area of a multiunit residence that
residents of more than one unit are entitled to enter or use, including halls, entryways, pathways,
lobbies, courtyards, elevators, stairs, community rooms, playgrounds, gym facilities, swimming
pools, pool areas, offices, parking garages, parking lots, grassy or landscaped areas, restrooms,
laundry rooms, cooking areas, and eating areas.
“Common interest development” means:
1.A community apartment project as defined in California Civil Code section 4105, or any
successor legislation;
2.A condominium project as defined in California Civil Code section 4125, or any successor
legislation;
Comment No.23
B
C
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 76 of 127
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.
“Designated smoking area” shall mean an area where smoking is permitted, as designated by a
landlord, HOA or other person with legal control of the premises and has been established and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
“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 an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-
pipe, vape pen, or e-hookah.
“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.
“Existing unit” means a unit in existence on or before January 1, 2025.
“Homeowners’ 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.
“Landlord” means any person or agent of a person who owns, manages, or is otherwise legally
responsible for a unit in a multiunit residence leased to a residential tenant. For purposes of this
ordinance, a tenant who sublets their unit (e.g., a sublessor) is not a landlord.
“Multiunit residence” means property containing three or more units, including apartment
buildings, 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 single-family home which is a free-standing dwelling unattached to any other dwelling, except
if used as a health care facility subject to licensing requirements; and
5. a single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit permitted
pursuant to California Government Code sections 65852.1, 65852.2, or 65852.22 or Section
21.10.030 of this code, except where the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit
is rented or is used as a health care facility subject to licensing requirements.
“New lease” means any lease or rental agreement or renewal or extension of lease or rental
agreement that allows a person to occupy a unit that is entered into on or after January 1, 2025.
Comment No.23
D
E
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 77 of 127
“New unit” means a unit that is issued a certificate of occupancy and approved for occupancy after
January 1, 2025, or any unit that is leased or rented for residential use for the first time after January
1, 2025.
“Nonsmoking area” means any area in which smoking is prohibited by
1.this chapter or another law;
2.binding agreement relating to the ownership, occupancy, or use of real property; or
3.a person with legal control over the area.
“Person” means any natural person, partnership, cooperative association, corporation, personal
representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity, including government
agencies.
“Smoke” or “smoking” means and includes (1) inhaling, exhaling, or burning, any tobacco,
nicotine, cannabis or plant product, or other substance, whether natural or synthetic; (2) carrying
any lighted, heated or activated tobacco, nicotine, marijuana, or plant product, or other substance,
whether natural or synthetic, intended for inhalation; or (3) using an “electronic smoking device.”
“Unenclosed area” means any area that is not an enclosed area.
“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,
garage, parking space, 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 junior accessory dwelling unit.
6.15.030 Smoking restrictions.
A.Effective January 1, 2025, smoking is prohibited anywhere on the premises of a multiunit
residence as follows:
1. In all new units,
2.In all existing units governed by a new lease, or renewal or extension of lease or month to month
tenancy, and
Month-to-month and renewed leases are not new leases. Housing providers may change
the terms of existing month-to-month rental agreements/leases but that does not render
them new. Renewed leases are typically done so with all the same terms or conditions in
place unless spelled out otherwise.
3. In all common areas.
B.Notwithstanding subsection A, smoking is permitted in designated smoking areas if they meet
the following conditions:
Comment No.23
F
G
H
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 78 of 127
1.Are not an enclosed area;
2.Are at least twenty-five feet from any:
a.doorway, window, opening, or other vent into an enclosed area, including an enclosed area not
regulated by this chapter;
b.enclosed or unenclosed recreation area such as a tennis court, swimming pool, and picnic area;
or
c.enclosed or unenclosed area primarily used by children such as a playground.
3. Have a clearly marked perimeter;
4.Are identified by conspicuous signs installed and maintained by the landlord, HOA or other
person with legal control over the designated smoking area; and
5.Have receptacles designed for and primarily used for disposal of smoking waste and that are
maintained free of smoking-related litter, including cigarette butts.
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.
D.No person with legal control over a common area in which smoking is prohibited by this chapter
or other law shall permit the presence of ashtrays, ashcans, or other receptacles designed for or
primarily used for disposal of smoking waste within the area.
6.15.040 Lease agreement requirements.
A.After January 1, 2025, 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 include the
following provisions:
in Terms of Tenancy requires at least 30 days notice, with an additional 5 days required if the notice
is mailed. Will the City provide ample education and outreach to housing providers in time for them
to comply?
1.A clause providing that it is a material breach of the agreement for the tenant to knowingly and
intentionally allow, or engage in, smoking in the unit, including exclusive-use areas such as
balconies, porches, or patios. The clause shall be substantially similar to the following:
It is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to engage in smoking in the unit or exclusive use
areas such as balconies, porches, or patios. Moreover, it is a material breach of this agreement for
tenant to knowingly or intentionally allow any other person subject to the control of the tenant to
engage in smoking in the unit or exclusive use areas such as balconies, porches, or patios.
2.A clause providing that it is a material breach of the agreement for tenant to knowingly and
intentionally allow, or engage in, smoking in any common area of the multiunit residence, including
entryways, playgrounds, pool areas, walking paths, or sitting areas, except in an outdoor
designated smoking area. The clause shall be substantially similar to the following:
Comment No.23
I
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 79 of 127
It is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to engage in smoking in any common area of the
property, including entryways, playgrounds, pool areas, walking paths, or sitting areas, except in an
outdoor designated smoking area, if one exists. In addition, it is a material breach of this agreement
for tenant to knowingly or intentionally allow any other person subject to the control of the tenant
to engage in smoking in any common area of the property, including entryways, playgrounds, pool
areas, walking paths, or sitting areas, except in an outdoor designated smoking area, if one exists.
3.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. The clause shall be substantially similar to the
following:
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
knowingly or intentionally allow any other person subject to the control of the tenant to violate any
law regulating smoking while anywhere on the property. 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. Violation of the above is just cause to
terminate tenancy. Owner or their agent shall provide an opportunity to cure to tenant then a notice
to terminate tenancy for subsequent violation.
Since a tenant who sublets is not considered a landlord, it might be prudent to alter to read “Tenant
will inform tenant’s guests and/or sublessees of the non-smoking policy.” Please note “non-
smoking” versus “smoke-free.” Suggest instead “non-smoking laws and rules.” Also suggest the
language making it clear tenancy can be terminated for violations. Added it to the clause above.
4. A clause expressly conveying third-party beneficiary status to all occupants of the multiunit
property as to the smoking provisions of the lease or other rental agreement. The clause shall be
substantially similar to the following:
Other occupants of the property are express third-party beneficiaries of the provisions in this
agreement regarding smoking. As third-party beneficiaries, other occupants of the property may
enforce the smoking provisions by any lawful means, including by bringing a civil action in a court
of law against the resident smoking or the person knowingly or intentionally allowing any other
person subject to the control of the tenant to violate any law regulating smoking while anywhere on
the property.
Who would they sue? The smoker? The tenant? The landlord? Does landlord have the power to
evict a tenant who continues to smoke/allow smoking on the premises? It is unfair to penalize a
landlord for a tenant smoking, where landlord has no power to evict tenant should they refuse to
comply. To that end, added some eviction language below in 6.15.050 D.
B.Whether or not a landlord complies with subsection A above, the clauses required by subsection
A shall be implied and incorporated by law into every agreement to which subsection A applies as
of January 1, 2025.
Comment No.23
J
K
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 80 of 127
Lettering typo. No C.
D.A tenant or occupant who breaches, or allows any other person subject to the control of the
tenant or occupant to breach, a smoking provision of a lease or other rental agreement for the
occupancy of a unit in a multiunit residence shall be liable for the breach to (1) the landlord or
HOA; and (2) any occupant of the multiunit residence who is exposed to smoke or who suffers
damages as a result of the breach.
E.Failure to enforce any smoking provision required by this chapter shall not affect the right to
enforce the 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.
The City should create its own addendum for housing providers to use that includes the required
clauses listed above. It’s the city’s ordinance, provide the resource.
6.15.050 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 January 1, 2025, every landlord shall deliver to each unit a copy of this chapter and
a written notice clearly stating:
Again, the City should provide the required notice to housing providers to distribute to residents.
Additionally, while a notice with the language below isn’t burdensome, a copy of The Chapter is; it’s
wasteful and can be costly depending on how many units owned or managed. As currently drafted,
it is 7 pages. We experienced this in City of San Diego with the Tenant Protection Guide that is 18
pages. Some owners and managers spent hundreds (and in a few cases thousands) of dollars to
print the guide in order to comply. It should be written into the ordinance that a written notice with
a link to the Chapter or a City of Carlsbad webpage with the ordinance language meets the
requirements. With all the climate goals we should not overlook the use of paper when tenants can
be directed to a dedicated online source. That source should also provide resources for nicotine
dependency.
1. All new units and existing units governed by a new lease are designated nonsmoking units and
smoking is prohibited in a unit, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio, as
of January 1, 2025; and
2.Smoking in all common areas or outdoor areas except for specifically designated smoking areas,
is a violation of this chapter as of January 1, 2025.
B.As of January 1, 2025 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 January 1, 2025; and
2. Smoking is prohibited in all common areas and outdoor areas except for specifically designated
smoking areas, as of January 1, 2025.
Comment No.23
L
M
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 81 of 127
C.As of January 1, 2025, 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 January 1, 2025,
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 prohibited
in all units. The absence of signs shall not be a defense to a violation of any provision of this
chapter. “No Smoking” signs are not required inside or on doorways of units.
Are the City or the organizations who pushed for the ordinance going to provide free signage to
housing providers? This is an unfunded mandate otherwise.
D. Landlords with knowledge of violations in their unit shall take reasonable steps to investigate
and enforce the regulations, including 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, including eviction for failure to cease smoking on the property. The landlord shall
also provide resources provided for free by the city to assist with nicotine dependence, such as
referrals to a quitline or online resources.
D should make it clear that landlords are only responsible for violations that occur where they have
legal control, since below, smoke drifting onto a rental property is a nuisance. What are reasonable
steps and enforcement? Owners and managers investigate and address complaints but must also
provide all residents due process, especially if they do not witness the violation. If residents don’t
comply with a request to cease the violation, the only action available to housing providers via the
law is to either terminate tenancy or evict but the ordinance needs to make that clear for courts to
interpret. Termination of tenancy will take a minimum of 30 to 60 days depending on the length of
tenancy. Eviction, for those in fixed-term leases or refusing to adhere to a termination notice, takes
4 to 12 months depending on circumstances. Housing providers have no other legal tools to
address violations. In the interim, if a resident continues to smoke, there needs to be clear
language in the enforcement section that if a housing provider has taken these steps, there are not
in any way liable if a resident continues smoking during those timeframes. Additionally, in a court
case for a nuisance violation or the like, written testimony from neighbors is not admissible.
Neighbors or those complaining of smoking must show up in-person to testify. If they refuse, a
housing provider may lose their case. What then?
Also, will the city be assisting the displaced residents with finding new housing? Housing providers
are the ones who are going to be accused of displacing renters and increasing homelessness, not
the City, despite only trying to comply with the ordinance. It seems the City should be responsible
for more intervention to help the resident quit smoking while the resident is still housed.
6.15.060 Requirements for common interest developments.
The following requirements apply to common interest developments:
A.On or before January 1, 2025, the HOA shall provide to all owners of units a copy of this chapter
and written notice clearly stating that:
1.Smoking is prohibited in units, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio, as
of January 1, 2025; and
Comment No.23
N
O
P
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 82 of 127
2.Smoking is prohibited in all common areas, except for specifically designated smoking areas, as
of January 1, 2025.
B. As of January 1, 2025, every seller of a unit shall provide prospective buyers or renters, a copy of
this chapter and written notice clearly stating that:
1.Smoking is prohibited in units, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio, as
of January 1, 2025; and
2.Smoking is prohibited in all common areas, except for specifically designated smoking areas, as
of January 1, 2025.
C.Every covenant, condition and restriction (CC&R) applicable to a multiunit residence adopted or
amended after January 1, 2025, shall include the conditions set forth below:
1.A clause providing that it is a material breach of the CC&Rs to allow or engage in smoking in the
new unit, including exclusive-use areas, such as balconies, porches, or patios;
2.A clause providing that it is a material breach of the CC&Rs for an occupant or any other person
subject to the control of the occupant to engage in smoking in any common area of the multiunit
residence other than a designated smoking area;
3.A clause providing that it is a material breach of the CC&Rs for an occupant or any other person
subject to the control of the occupant to violate any law regulating smoking while anywhere on the
property; and
4. A clause expressly conveying third-party beneficiary status to all occupants of the multiunit
residence as to the smoking provisions of the CC&Rs.
D.As of January 1, 2025, 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.
E.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 distribute resources provided for free by the city to assist with nicotine
dependence, such as referrals to a quitline or online resources.
6.15.070 Nuisance.
A. Any violation of this chapter is a public nuisance.
As defined where?
B.Nonconsensual exposure to smoke from smoking occurring on or drifting into residential
property is a nuisance.
6.15.080 Private enforcement.
Comment No.23
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 83 of 127
A.Any person, including a legal entity, organization, or a government agency, acting for the
interests of itself, its members, or the general public, may bring a civil action against any person
violating the provisions of this chapter. Upon proof of a violation, a court shall award the following:
Specify the action would be brought against the smoker/occupant. Landlord should not be
responsible for fines incurred due to tenant behavior. At a minimum provide landlord the ability to
evict smokers, so landlord can enforce this ordinance.
1. Damages in the amount of either:
a. Upon proof, actual damages; or
b.With insufficient or no proof of actual damages, $500 for each violation of this chapter
("Statutory Damages"). Each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation. Notwithstanding
any other provision of this chapter, no person suing on behalf of the general public shall recover
Statutory Damages based upon a violation of this chapter if a previous claim brought on behalf of
the general public by another person for Statutory Damages and based upon the same violation
has been adjudicated, whether or not the person bringing the subsequent claim was a party to the
prior adjudication.
2.Exemplary damages, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant (i.e.,
person violating this chapter) is guilty of oppression, fraud, malice, retaliation, or conscious
disregard for the public health.
B.The person may also bring a civil action to enforce this chapter by way of a conditional judgment
or an injunction. Upon proof of a violation, the court shall issue a conditional judgment or an
injunction.
C. Notwithstanding any legal or equitable bar against a person seeking relief on their own behalf, a
person may bring an action to enforce this chapter solely on behalf of the general public. When a
person brings an action solely on behalf of the general public, nothing about such an action shall
act to preclude or bar the person from bringing a subsequent action based upon the same facts but
seeking relief on their own behalf
D.Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a person from bringing a civil action in small claims court to
enforce this chapter, so long as the amount in demand and the type of relief sought are within the
jurisdiction of that court.
E. No person may bring an action pursuant to this section unless that person has first made a good
faith attempt to resolve the situation informally with the offending party, including written notice of
this section to the offending party and a written request to cease smoking in the multiunit
residence at least 30 days before filing suit.
F.No person shall intimidate, harass, or otherwise retaliate against any person who seeks
compliance with this chapter.
6.15.090 Limitations and exceptions.
Nothing in this chapter shall limit or preclude the enforcement of any other applicable laws or limit
the remedies available for violations of this chapter, including the enforcement provisions of
Comment No.23
Q
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 84 of 127
Chapter 1.10 of this code. Nothing in this chapter shall create a right of action in any person against
the city or its agents to compel public enforcement of this chapter against private parties.
6.15.100 Rules of construction.
The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to protect the public health to the
maximum extent possible. Notwithstanding (1) any provision of this chapter or of this code, (2) any
failure by any person to restrict smoking under this 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.
6.15.110 Severability.
If any portion of this chapter, or its application to particular persons or circumstances, is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the decision will
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter or the application of this chapter to
persons or circumstances not similarly situated.
Comment No.23
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 85 of 127
From:scott knutson
To:Mike Strong
Subject:I support Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing in Carlsbad
Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 1:54:00 PM
Hello Mike,
My name is Gena Knutson. My husband and I own a condo at Seaport Villas at 7009 Goldenrod Way,
Carlsbad, CA 92027. We have had tenants in the unit since 2007 and we have had a non-smoking policy
in our lease language since that time. We have never had complaints from neighbors regarding drifting
secondhand smoke and we have never had a problem renting out the unit.
From a business perspective, having a smoke-free policy saves us money. We retain tenants longer,have reduced maintenance and turnover costs along with reduced risk of fire. Also, it’s an amenity astenants are not exposed to the dangers of thirdhand smoke which is left over smoking residue found onsurfaces where someone has smoked and can last for years.
I have worked in the public health field for 20 years and my specialty is promoting and educating
community members on tobacco prevention and policy work. I am very familiar with the problems of
drifting secondhand smoke and multi-unit/family housing and the impacts it can have on children, the
elderly and those with disabilities made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. I have worked with
many tenants of multi-unit housing over the years and have seen how secondhand smoke has affected
their health. Some of their stories are heart breaking.
Carlsbad is known for its healthy lifestyle and is family-friendly too. I am very excited to hear that
Carlsbad is moving forward with a policy to ban smoking in multi-unit housing and will be the first city in
San Diego County to have this policy. This policy will create safer and healthier environments for
everyone, Carlsbad is making a difference in the lives and well-being of its residents.
Sincerely,
Gena Knutson
PS - this same email was sent to the Carlsbad elected officials.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Comment No.24
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 86 of 127
Comment No.25
A
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 87 of 127
4/30/24, 9:02 AM Carlsbad Smoke-Free multi unity housing ordinance -ACS CAN Input
Carlsbad Smoke -F ree multi unity housin g ordinanc e -ACS CA N Input
Lynda Barbour < lynda.barbour@cancer.org >
Mon 4/22/2024 2:07 PM
To:Mike Strong < Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc:Jennifer Gill (Jennifer.Gill@vcc.org) <Jennifer.Gill@vcc.org>
@ 3 attachments (2 MB)
2024.04.22 Carlsbad SFMUH ACSCAN recommendations.pdf; 2022PHLC SF-MUH-Cal-Enforcement-Guide.pdf; PHLC 04.23 SF-
MUH-National-Model-Ordinance.pdf;
Hi Mike,
We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback to the ordinance you have drafted.
Attached please find out letter, and two additional documents that you may find useful that I am referencing in
our letter.
I am confident that you already have seen the Model ordinance developed by the Public Health Law Center (PHLC}
that I have attached; I wish to point out their analysis in Section 6. Other Remedies {p.19) regarding private
lawsuit as a remedy and Section 7 of the model ordinance (p. 20) provides several options to choose from that can
be tailored for your city.
Thank you for your consideration . We look forward to the next steps.
Sincerely,
Lynda Barbour
• American
Cancer
Society
11 1) car:-icer
,....-Action
~ Network-
Lynda Barbour, MPH
Senior Government Relations Director, So. California &
Grant Program
619.624.1517 Im: 619.742.4861
PO Box 910549
San Diego, CA92191
fightcancer.org 11.800.227.2345
This message (including any attachments) is intended exclusively for the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain proprietary, protected, or
confidential information. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. If
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/protocolActivation?nativeVersion=1 .2024.417 .1OO&key=e90e05bb-63bd-8647-ac73-b9f8c9797072&fileExt=.m... 1 /1
Comment No.25
B
C
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 88 of 127
April 22, 2024
Mike Strong
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
• American
Cancer
Society
111) car:1cer
~Action
~ Networkw
Re: Smoke -Free Multi-Family Housing draft ordinance
Dear Mr. Strong,
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network's mission is to advocate for evidence-
based public policies to reduce the cancer burden for everyone. We are encouraged that Carlsbad is
taking steps to adopt a comprehensive policy that prohibits smoking in all multi-unit housing. All
people should be able to enjoy healthy housing, free of secondhand smoke and other dangerous
conditions. Smoke-free multi-unit housing policies provide significant health protections for all ;
these are especially important for medically fragile people, such as cancer patients and vulnerable
populations, such as young children and seniors.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback in support of the comprehensive smoke -
free multi-family housing ordinance. The draft ordinance has many good components, such as
requiring all new units to be smoke-free, including all common areas, requiring new lease
addendums for all multi-family housing, and including owned properties in the ordinance. The plan
to have the policy implemented on January 1, 2025, will also allow for adequate time to educate the
public, property owners and managers, and residents pm the policy, promote cessation support
resources, and allow for signage placement before implementation; these are all found to facilitate
a successful policy.
We submit the following issues and recommendations for your consideration:
1) We are concerned that the enforcement of the ordinance appears to be primarily through
private and civil actions. While we appreciate that this allows residents to have some agency
to act on their own behalf, we are very concerned that it will put an undue burden on a
renter who may not have the time or resources to take on the problem in court, making it
unlikely they will take this action to prevent nonconsensual secondhand smoke exposure.
A) We urge a change to the ordinance to include some additional appropriate enforcement
measures. For example, violations should be managed in the same way any violation of a
lease is managed, and violations should be delineated in the lease.
B) An equitable enforcement plan should include graduated enforcement by the landlord or
property manager, with eviction as the very last resort and administrative enforcement
by the city to assure enforcement by property owners and managers.
C) I have attached two documents: One that outlines the pros and cons of different
enforcement options and the other provides model language for different options for
enforcement.
Lynda Barbour, MPH, Sr. Director, Government Relations,
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network www.FightCancer.org
PO Box 910549; San Diego, CA 92191
W: 619-624-1517 C: 619-742-4861 lynda.barbour@cancer.org
Comment No.25
D
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 89 of 127
2) The draft ordinance exempts ADUs. When there are shared walls, ventilation, or plumbing
the risk of nonconsensual smoke exposure is present.
a. If you intend to exempt these types of units, we recommend only exempting ADUs
with no shared walls, ventilation, or plumbing.
With the adoption of this ordinance, Carlsbad will lead the way as the first city in San Diego County
to have a comprehensive smoke-free multi-family housing policy and we are eager to support this
action. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
,~i~~ :a~-Barbour, MPH
Senior Government Relations Director,
Southern California American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
Lynda Barbour, MPH, Sr. Director, Government Relations,
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network www.FightCancer.org
PO Box 910549; San Diego, CA 92191
W: 619-624-1517 C: 619-742-4861 lynda.barbour@cancer.org
Comment No.26
A
B
C
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 90 of 127
Mike Strong
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mike,
Melanie Woods <mwoods@caanet.org>
Monday, April 22, 2024 4:06 PM
Mike Strong
California Apartment Association -Non-smoking ordinance
Below please find our comments on the draft non smoking ordinance. I apologize if these are a little choppy. I am
running a high fever today. I would like to request the opportunity to meet with you to better explain some of the
comments. Thank you.
6.15.040(0): CAA requests a provision stating the landlord is not liable to tenants based on another tenant's
violation of the ordinance, it would make sense to be included at the end of this section. Something along the lines
of: "The Ordinance does not create a private right of action for a tenant against a landlord for any damages the
tenant may suffer due to another tenant's breach of any smoking provision in a lease or other rental agreement, so
long as the landlord has substantially complied with the terms of this Ordinance." This is VERY important for us to
have included because otherwise, the inclusion of the third party beneficiary status in (a)(4) allows tenant B to sue
landlord over tenant A's conduct.
6.15.050(A): CAA believes we should not include a copy of the ordinance with the notice. That is much more paper
and a burden for the landlord. A city created form with a link to the city website where tenants can access the info
makes the most sense for two reasons: (1) it's less paper and (2) it makes it very easy to comply and ensure that
the notice provided meets the city's objective -otherwise you'll have every landlord coming up with their own
version.
6.15.050(B): Notices to potential tenants are a compliance burden with little upside. By the end of 2025,
essentially all multi-family buildings will be 100% non-smoking under the terms of the ordinance (and will have
signage indicating as much) -so it's not like having earlier notice of the policy is going to give the tenant an
opportunity to opt out or seek alternative housing in the city that allows smoking.
6.15.050(C): CAA requests clarification on the no smoking signs requirement. Our first question is regarding the
second sentence which states: "In addition, as of January 1, 2025, the person or persons with legal control over
the multi unit residence shall post and maintain signs in sufficient numbers and locations in the multi unit
residence to indicate that smoking is prohibited in all units." This requirement could be interpreted two different
ways: (1) the City intended this sentence to require the "No Smoking" signs referenced in the prior sentence to be
placed around the property in sufficient numbers and locations to indicate that smoking is all prohibited in all
units. In other words, this sentence's additional requirement is regarding the volume and disbursement of the "No
Smoking" signs at the property; (2) the city is requiring different signs be posted, in addition to the "No Smoking"
signs, that specifically state and/or indicate that smoking is prohibited in all units. We need the City to confirm
what it means. Our preference would be for the first interpretation so landlords are only required to post standard
"No Smoking" at the property and are not required to also post other custom signs that specifically state and/or
indicate that smoking is prohibited in all units. We could point out how the cost and burden of compliance with the
ordinance would increase significantly if property owners were required to have custom signs made to comply
with the ordinance. While it might seem like a small thing to the city, it's a compliance burden that-again -with
little upside. Standard "no smoking" signs can be purchased relatively cheaply at home depot and similar stores,
this would seem to indicate that landlords need to get customs signs made, which is expensive and frankly just
less likely to happen (this is also a good example of why we don't want a "full compliance" standard for the third
party beneficiary protection). Also, what is the point of specifically requiring signage that either in content, or just
1
Comment No.26
D
E
F
G
H
I
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 91 of 127
in volume and placement (i.e., regardless of which interpretation applies), indicates that smoking is prohibited in
units -is that not the point of the lease provisions?
** In reading this again, we'd also note that this sentence (that smoking is prohibited in all units beginning 1 /1 /25)
conflicts with section 6.15.030 and 6.15.040 which together provide that the in-unit prohibition begins 1/1 /25 for
new units and existing units with new tenancies but doesn't begin for pre-existing tenancies until the prohibition is
added to their lease/rental agreement. We should ask the city to clarify.
Our second question would be if the City could confirm that the "No Smoking" signs required by the first sentence
of Section 6.15.050(C) are the stock type "No Smoking" signs that can be purchased at any hardware or office
supply store.
6.15.050(D):: "The landlord shall also provide resources provided for free by the city to assist with nicotine
dependence, such as referrals to a quitline or online resources." We assume this means this should be included in
the notice to the resident and not that landlords have to provide this information in general, like brochures in the
lobby? Assuming the former is intended, perhaps the city should create a form notice with the included nicotine
dependence info for landlords to use. If the latter was intended, it is worth noting that not all properties have a
common area conductive to producing physical materials -so that would be a real problem. Having a city website
with all that information, and for that website to be included in the form notice the city provides makes way more
sense. It has the added benefit of making it easy for the city to update materials as they see fit and would likely be
cheaper than printing and delivery costs for physical materials.
6.15.070(A): The idea that any violation of the ordinance is a public nuisance is concerning, since that could be
something minor like a landlord's failure to provide sufficient number of "no smoking signs." We believe the intent
is that smoking in violation of the ordinance is a nuisance -and if so, that should be clarified .
6.15.080: Enforcement is by private action and allows an entity to bring an action on behalf of an individual or "the
general public". Without an explicit exception stating the landlord is not liable to tenants based on another
tenant's violation of the ordinance (see my notes on section 6.15.040D) then a tenant's group or other tenant
could sue the landlord along with the offending tenant and would because the landlord is likely to have a greater
ability to pay than the tenant.
CAA would request that same language noted in section 6.15.040D be included in this section too to make it clear
that landlords cannot be sued unless they've not complied with their obligations in the ordinance. I'd also note
that this section allows for enforcement of any violation of the ordinance -not just smoking in violation of the
ordinance (same concern as 6.15.070) -and thus creates a real risk of landlords getting sued by opportunistic
plaintiffs lawyers (or tenant groups, more likely) over ticky-tack violations, especially since there's no requirement
that the violations be substantial AND there's statutory damages (no proof of harm needed). Subsection (C)'s
provision is especially concerning in this regard -it's basically a mini-PAGA (private attorney general action) that
would seem to allow one person to collect double damages. One additional amendment we could seek to address
this concern would be to limit representative actions to injunctive relief (no damages)-meaning when someone
sues in a representative capacity and not on their own behalf the only relief they can seek is an injunction, not
money damages.
Other no smoking ordinances
Fresno's is very similar to this but has the exception stating landlord is not liable to tenants based on another
tenant's violation of the ordinance.
Oakland 's ordinance only prohibits smoking in indoor and outdoor common areas of properties with two or more
units (inside unit is ok to smoke). Also requires signs be posted , its notice requirements are less
burdensome/specific so CAA's existing lease and/or smoking addendum could likely work. Enforcement is mainly
done by the city but the ordinance does allow for private right of action. The ordinance doesn't provide any specific
2
Comment No.26
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 92 of 127
liability for landlords but they could be liable for an infraction for failing to comply with the notice and sign
requirements because the ordinance provides that any violation is an infraction.
San Jose's ordinance prohibits smoking in indoor and outdoor common areas of multi unit properties (inside unit is
ok to smoke). Also requires sign age, no notice requirements (besides the posting of signs). The ordinance is
enforced by the City's Code Enforcement Dept. Landlords are protected from liability if they post signs as required
by the ordinance and notify tenants that their actions are in violation of the ordinance.
Redwood City's prohibits smoking in common areas and in unit. It more clearly grandfathers in the prohibition for
existing units -the prohibition begins on 1 /1 /18 for new units and 1 /1 /19 for existing units. It contains the liability
exception for landlords: "This article shall not create additional liability for a landlord to any person for tenant's
breach of any smoking provision in a lease or other rental agreement for the occupancy of a unit in a multi-unit
residence if the landlord has fully complied with this section." RWC Municipal code 15.35(c)(4). Has similar notice
requirements, including the notice to prospective tenants.
Melanie Woods Vice President, Local Public Affairs
California Apartment Association
mwoods@caanet.org 6 19-219-514 7
CAA Services: Events and Education Insurance Tenant Screening
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
3
Comment No.27
A
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 93 of 127
Mike Strong
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mike,
Bob Krupnik <bkrupnik@gmail.com>
Monday, April 22, 2024 4:21 PM
Mike Strong
Teresa Acosta
Re: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
24 04 22 input on proposed prohitition of smoking in multiunit residences.pdf
Attached are my comments during the Public Review Period.
Thanks for sending me the recent email on this. I would not have otherwise known. I suspect that many HOAs are
completely unaware. I really encourage the City to reach out to all of the HOAs. This will be a real shocker! The City fire
department has a list of contacts as they send an annual bill for 'inspection'.
Regards,
Robert Krupnik
908-256-0036
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 2:58 PM Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Good morning, property manager and multi-unit landlords or homeowner:
The City of Carlsbad is working on developing an ordinance (city law) that would ban smoking (including
vaping) inside and outside apartments, condos and other multi-unit homes, except for certain designated
outdoor spaces. The ordinance is now available for public review and comment. It is attached to this email.
Before submitting the ordinance to the City Council, city staff is reaching out to property managers and multi-
unit landlords and homeowners to review the proposal and to take public input. (The ordinance ultimately
presented to (!ty Council may change based on public feedback.) You are receiving this email because you
own a multi-unit building or unit within a multi-unit building or manage the property and may be impacted by
, such smoking prohibition or may be interested in the ordinance.
What kinds of properties are included in the draft ordinance? Property containing three or more residential
units, including:
• Apartment buildings
• Condos
• Senior and assisted living facilities
• Long-term health care facilities
• Single family homes licensed as care facilities
What is not included? Multiunit residences do not include the following:
• Hotels and motels
1
Comment No.27
B
C
D
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 94 of 127
4 Miller Lane
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889
April 22, 2024
Mike Strong
Assistant Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Public Review Period-proposed Prohibition of Smoking in Multyuunit Residences
Mike:
This will serve as my input on the proposed Prohibition of Smoking in Multiunit Residences
ordinance.
I am the owner of a residence in a town home community in Carlsbad, CA. I rent out my property, so
I am considered a landlord. I also serve as the President of the community's homeowners
association HOA). The views expressed are my own, not those of the HOA Board or membership.
In preparation, I've viewed the portions of the August 22, 2023 City Council Meeting and February 8
2024 Housing Commission meeting related to a ban on Smoking in Multiunit Residences. I've also
reviewed the history and the contents of the model ordinances from the Public Health Law Center.
It appears that Carlsbad has utilized one of these models as a basis for its proposal.
Scope of Prohibition:
One size does not fit all in characterizing multiunit housing. A number of the comments on
secondhand smoke at the above City meetings dealt with apartments, condos, and common
ventilation systems across living units. Town homes can be very different, with all exterior entrances
that are separate for each living unit, foundation to roof fire-proofed walls between living unitsj with
each living unit occupying from the first floor (on the foundation) to the attic -no living unit above
or below. I recommend that the City Council exclude such town home communities from the
proposed Ordinance. I recognize that most of the California municipalities that have implemented a
smoking prohibition ordinance have not down such exclusions. Perhaps it requires more research
by the City staff to define and list the exclusions, but it is important.
I see that single-family properties are excluded. There were concerns expressed at the August 22
and Feb 8 meetings about children affected by adults smoking in their living units. If there will be
no exclusions on types of multiunit properties covered by the proposed ordinance, I recommend
that the City Council include all single-family properties in the ordinance. A child exposed to an
adult smoking on the inside of s single-family home is no different than in a multifamily living unit,
as far as secondhand smoke is concerned. Also, numerous single-family communities in Carlsbad
have residence near each other, with windows on the sides of the buildings and small backyards or
patio; secondhand smoke easily wafts to a neighbor's property.
Comment No.27
E
F
G
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 95 of 127
2I Page
If town homes are retained in the ordinance, I recommend that the "multiunit residence" clearly
include timeshare communities. These are a combination of owner-occupied, owner-rented, and
rented out by hotel management companies that operate the community under contract. Clarity is
important to distinguish from hotels that are excluded.
Signage 6.15.050 C and 6.15.060 D.
As presently written, these are confusing. The HOA, in the case of my community, is responsible for
the common areas, the association property, and the exterior of all buildings. Reading the definition
of" multi unit residence" in the proposed ordinance, the HOA would be responsible. The interior of
each of the individual living units within each building is the responsibility of the respective owner.
In this case, does the landlord (or owner of a living unit that is owner-occupied) have any
responsibility for sign age?
I recommend that sign age be placed in one section of the proposed ordinance.
I find the terms "clear and unambiguous no smoking signs", as well as 'obvious to a reasonable
person" to be vague, especially given the proposed enforcement mechanism. I recommend that
the city include in the ordinance (Appendix) the exact signage (dimensions, graphics, text) for each
of the areas where the ordinance requires signs.
As signs are not required in doorways or on the inside of units how would a guest know that
smoking is prohibited inside (unless the signage in the community was very detailed)?
Has the City staff calculated the cost to the HOA for purchasing the installing the required signage.?
I know the City is concerned about the cost to the City of the ordinance. Likewise, the City Council
should be aware of the startup cost impact on the communities before voting on the ordinance.
I cannot reasonably determine the signage requirements for my community. There are three vehicle
entrances and two pedestrian entrances from public streets, at least 15 entrances from private
roads in the community to the common areas, and over 50 private gated patio entrances to the
living units. I welcome a City staff or council member to walk the community with me.
I recommend that the City indicate in the ordinance that it will provide guidance, on request, to the
HOAs on specific sign age requirements, perhaps charging a nominal one-time fee for the
community (not per building). If the HOA installs signage based on the City's guidance, this would
serve as a defense in a tort claim.
HOA
Amending or restating the CC&Rs is difficult to achieve, as a majority or super-majority of
ownership interests is required for voting. The requirement in the proposed ordinance for inclusion
of the conditions in C. 1-4 on any amendment to existing CC&Rs will make it more difficult if not
impossible to pass. Owners may otherwise agree to the changes that were the motivation for
amending the CC&Rs, but reject or refuse to cast a vote based on disagreement with the City
conditions C.1 -4 which have nothing to do with the reason for the CC&R change.
Comment No.27
H
I
J
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 96 of 127
3I Page
I recommend that 6.15.060 C. be changed to apply only to CC&Rs adopted or amended for
common interest developments that are registered with the California Secretary of State on or after
Jan 1, 2025.
The proposed ordinance will still apply to existing common interest developments without
amending CC&Rs. Forcing amended CC&R to state C.1-4 is redundant. There are a number of
areas where state or local law or regulation supersede CC&Rs.
Required Notices -Landlord and HOA
The proposed ordinance contains notice requirements in the Lease, Rental, and Community
Interest Development sections. One would have to carefully copy n paste, and review with an
attorney to create the proper notice. I recommend that the ordinance provides (in Attachments)
samples for each which can be used as-is:
• Lease Agreement Addendum
• Notice to Existing Renters
• Notice to Prospective Renters
• Seller Notice to prospective Buyers/ Renters
• Notice from HOA to violators
• HOA notice to Owners
I recommend that the City work with trade organizations (CAR-Realtors, CAA -Apartment) for
Lease Agreement Addendum samples and make them available to non-members of the
organizations.
Education
Despite the comments made at the August 22, 2023 City Council meeting, I cannot find a section
on the proposed ordinance specific to Education that will be provided by the City. I recommend
that an Education and Resources section is included in the ordinance. This will assure Landlords
and HOAs of the startup and ongoing support that the City will provide. If this is not included in the
ordinance, my view is there is no commitment.
Resources
There are requirements in the proposed ordinance on Landlords and HOAs:
The landlord shall also provide resources provided for free by the city to assist with nicotine
dependence, such as referrals to a quitline or on line resources.
Comment No.27
K
L
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 97 of 127
41 Page
The HOA shall also distribute resources provided for free by the city to assist with nicotine
dependence, such as referrals to a quitline or online resources
What is the difference between the landlord providing and the HOA distributing? Is there a greater
responsibility on what the landlord needs to do (provide vs distribute)? Does the landlord have to
arrange the appointments for the tenant with the resource?
Do these requirements apply at the time of ordinance startup or ongoing obligation.
If this is a permanent requirement, I recommend that the City commit, in the ordinance, to provide
a permanent department point of contact for the Landlord and HOA to obtain the list of available
resources.
Private Enforcement
Upon reading this section, I characterize this as the vigilante enforcement clause -
a
variation of
what has been adopted in another state within the past couple of years!
There were comments at the August 2023 City Council Meeting and February 2024 Housing
Commission meeting about the ordinance "partnering" with landlords and HOAs to provide them
with resources to curb smoking in their communities.
The text:
Any person, including a legal entity, organization, or government agency, acting for the
interests of itself, its members, or the general public, may bring a civil action against any
person violating the provisions of this chapter
I interpret the section as fully exposing a landlord and HOA tort claims without limit.
For example, person A claims person B was smoking. Person A notifies person B, landlord, HOA.
Person A is not satisfied, then files a claim against person B, his/her/they landlord, and the HOA.
There is no clause about penalties for frivolous claims, I recommend such a penalty clause be
added to the ordinance.
This section, as written, even awards $500 when this is insufficient or no proof of actual damage.
Clearly, this is encouraging persons to file claims.
HOAs attempt to foster an environment where all owners and their tenants can live in a harmonious
environment with minimum interference. The Private Enforcement clause appears to be contrary to
this.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Krupnik
Caution: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders
you do not trust.
You don't often get email from mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov. Learn why this is important
From:William Creagan
To:Mike Strong
Subject:RE: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Date:Wednesday, May 1, 2024 5:23:24 PM
Attachments:image001.gif
Hi Mike,
You are going to do what you are going to do but know that the more restrictions you place on
properties and property owners the less likely people will be to want to move into those restrictions.
Therefore, you hurt the values of the real estate in your area. Basic concept but missed by so many
today.
Best of luck.
Will Creagan III
Chairman
Southwest Equity PartnersCell 760.419.5300
Office 760.642.0400
380 Stevens Avenue, Suite 311
Solana Beach, CA 92075
WillC@Southwestep.com
From: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 9:50 AM
To: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Re: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Blind copied property managers, landlords, and HOA billing parties:
On April 8th I sent an email notifying you that the city had begun working on a draft ordinance proposal
to potentially ban or limit where smoking could occur on multi-unit residential properties. The public
review period was set for two weeks.
We received 27 emails expressing support or opposition to the proposal. We are in the process of
reviewing each correspondence.
This email is to let you know that we received your comment letter. (All that responded with
comments are being sent this email.)
Exhibit 8
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 98 of 127
From:Liz Williams
To:Mike Strong
Subject:Feedback on draft smokefree multi-unit housing ordinance
Date:Thursday, May 2, 2024 5:10:48 PM
Hello Mr. Strong,
I’m reaching out on behalf of Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights to provide feedback on Carlsbad’s
draft smokefree multi-unit housing ordinance.
To start, thank you for putting the time and effort into this important public health issue. Requiring
multi-unit residences to be smokefree will protect residents from the harmful effects of secondhand
tobacco and marijuana smoke, and will have a direct and significant impact on the health and
wellbeing of residents living in multi-unit residences. Smokefree multi-unit housing is a powerful way
to have a broad, positive community impact by reducing secondhand exposure where many people
spend much of their time—especially children, the elderly, and people with disabilities—and can
suffer from persistent levels of exposure.
Likewise, Carlsbad would be in very good company by expanding smokefree protections to include
multi-unit housing. Currently, more than 100 cities and counties in California have enacted local laws
that regulate smoking in units of multi-unit housing, and you can see an overview of these policy
provisions here: Matrix of Smokefree Multi-Unit Housing Policies in California (April 2024) Notably,
49 of these jurisdictions have enacted the best practice policy of requiring all units of all multi-unit
residential properties with 2+ units be smokefree, including no smoking or vaping of tobacco or
cannabis. These strongest best practice policies align with the policy language in the California
Smoke-free Multiunit Housing Model Ordinance that was designed for use by California
communities.
Having read the draft ordinance available for public review, I’d like to share some feedback.
1. We’re very pleased to see that the definition of smoking is inclusive of cannabis and vaping, which
is very important given that exposure to all types of secondhand smoke, and aerosol from vaping
products, poses health risks to residents. Likewise, it is easier to understand, communicate,
implement, and enforce a policy when all types of smoking and vaping are treated equally.
2. We are likewise glad to see that the definition of “Multiunit residence” includes both rental and
owner-occupied properties, because drifting secondhand smoke does not discriminate based on
whether residents rent or own their unit. All residents, regardless of their financial situation and
ownership status, deserve to breathe smokefree air at home.
3. We are concerned that the definition of “Multiunit residence” includes property containing three
or more units, as opposed to properties with two or more units, which is both the best practice and
the standard across the vast majority of jurisdictions that have enacted these policies. The best
practice is for smokefree multi-unit housing ordinances to cover properties with 2+ units in order to
include duplexes, since smoke can drift between these units. Likewise, if the property owner lives in
one unit of a duplex, it can be more challenging for a resident who is exposed to secondhand smoke
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 99 of 127
to speak up and ask for a smokefree environment when it is their landlord who is creating the smoke
exposure due to the power differential. Can you share the reasoning for why the proposal would
cover properties with 3+ units rather than 2+ units?
4. Another concern is that the enforcement of the ordinance is limited to private enforcement
options. More jurisdictions are adopting smokefree multi-unit housing ordinances with city
enforcement mechanisms, involving agencies such code enforcement, environmental health, and/or
the county tobacco prevention program, as part of a more equitable approach that provides
additional support beyond the resident filing a complaint with their landlord or HOA. Engaging a
local agency in the enforcement process can help facilitate an education-focused enforcement
process that provides information, such as warning letters and cessation resources, to people who
are violating the ordinance, as opposed to primarily using financial and legal penalties.
Additional information can be found in the Public Health Law Center’s California Smoke-Free
Multi-Unit Housing Enforcement Guide.
Another resource that might be of interest is the California Healthy Housing Coalition’s
Principles for Equitable Smoke-Free Multifamily Housing at http://cahealthyhousing.org/shs/.
I’m a member of the coalition and this short document was collaboratively developed by
tobacco control, public health, legal, and tenant rights partners to help provide
recommendations to communities that are looking to adopt smokefree multi-unit housing laws.
These principles were developed with a health equity lens with the intention of being
supportive of all tenants having access to safe, equitable housing, and special focus was paid to
the enforcement of these laws.
5. My reading of the draft ordinance indicates that the smokefree provisions are stated as effective
1/1/25 for new units, and for existing units governed by a new lease (e.g. when a new tenant moves
into an existing unit/building, or when a term lease is renewed?), so that raises the question of what
about existing units that are in the middle of a one-year lease when the ordinance is enacted? Can
you clarify whether the smokefree requirements will be in effect for all residents and all properties
as of January 1, 2025, regardless of where one is in their lease term?
Thank you for your work on this issue, and please let me know if you have any questions.
Liz Williams (she/her)
Project & Policy Manager
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights |nonsmokersrights.org
American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation |no-smoke.org
2530 San Pablo Ave, Suite J | Berkeley, CA 94702
510-841-3032 x314 (office)
Join Us! | Email Alerts
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 100 of 127
From:La Costa Hills
To:Mike Strong
Subject:Draft Smoking Ordinance
Date:Friday, May 3, 2024 9:50:10 AM
Dear Mr. Strong,
Our board has reviewed the draft of the proposed smoking ordinance. We have found several
areas that are onerous and/or unacceptable.
The first is the scope of the ordinance. Banning smoking in common areas at common interestdevelopments may be reasonable, but forbidding owners and tenants from smoking in their
own homes and exclusive use areas is extreme. And quite possibly a violation of anindividual's right to the quiet enjoyment of their home.
Also requiring the HOA to enforce an ordinance such as this is beyond the purview of the
association's responsibilities. It seems since the city of Carlsbad is creating the ordinance theyshould also enforce it. Not taking responsibility for enforcement of your own ordinance
reflects poorly on the city.
We are striving to maintain a quality project for our owners and tenants. Posting a bunch ofsigns all over the project is not in keeping with this goal.
--
Sincerely,
La Costa Hills, BOD
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 101 of 127
From:Jennifer E. Gill
To:Mike Strong
Subject:FW: Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Proposal in Development
Date:Tuesday, May 7, 2024 9:42:42 AM
Attachments:image013.jpg
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
image017.png
image018.png
Carlsbad SFMUH Ordinance_PHLC 5.6.24.docx
Hi Mike,
As part of our work with the CDPH, we are able to get technical assistance from Public Health Law
Center on draft policy language for various tobacco regulations. I sent the draft ordinance for
Carlsbad to see if they had any feedback on the policy. I have attached their comments for your
review. Please let me know if you have any questions and I can get them to PHLC for you.
I hope you’re doing well.
Best,
Jennifer
Jennifer E. Gill, MPH (she/her/hers)
Program Manager
Tobacco Control Program
P 760-631-5000 ext 1001 F 760-414-3786
Jennifer.Gill@vcc.org
www.vcc.org
email signature logo
Valuable Connected Care: Meeting the health and wellness needs of the community
Follow
Us:
Sign up for
our
Newsletter!
VCC is the proud recipient of the highest level Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) recognition
award from the NCQA
HIPAA Privacy Notification: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain informationintended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, youare hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review,
dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 102 of 127
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify usimmediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 103 of 127
Chapter 6.15
PROHIBITION OF SMOKING IN MULTIUNIT RESIDENCES
Sections: 6.15.010 6.15.020 6.15.030 6.15.040 6.15.050 6.15.060 6.15.070 6.15.080 6.15.090 6.15.100 6.15.110
Purpose, and intent, and findings. Definitions. Smoking restrictions. Lease agreement requirements. Requirements for rental properties. Requirements for common interest developments. Nuisance. Private enforcement.
Limitations and exceptions.
Rules of construction. Severability.
Commented [PHLC1]: Carlsbad requested feedback on this draft’s language and any recommendations on its legality. To begin, as you may know, the Public Health Law Center does not lobby, nor does it provide legal representation or advice. However, based on our experiences with commercial tobacco regulatory policies throughout the country, we are able to provide you with our observations and other educational information for your own evaluation of the policy. This information is for educational purposes only; we do not request that a policymaker take any specific action in regard to our comments, nor should our comments be considered a replacement for legal advice. If you require a legal opinion, we encourage you to consult with local legal counsel. That said, we hope that our comments and suggestions are helpful to you. We have left comments in the margins below that pertain to this draft’s language and legality as well as recommended additions, deletions, and changes to consider to strengthen the ordinance.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 104 of 127
6.15.010 Purpose, and intent, and findings.
The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the smoking of tobacco, or any other weed or plant, in multiunit residences. This chapter protects the public from nonconsensual exposure by reducing the number of locations in the city where exposure to secondhand smoke may occur. 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.2
WHEREAS, tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death in California2 and continues
to be an urgent public health issue, as evidenced by the following:
• 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 tobacco toll data if available]
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 distress 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]
WHEREAS, secondhand smoke has repeatedly been identified as a health hazard, as evidenced by
the following:
Commented [PHLC2]: 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 included within the ordinance. The findings section is part of the ordinance and legislative record, but it usually 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 section 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. If Carlsbad is interested in reducing the amount of facts included, or including additional findings on local or regional conditions, outcomes, and issues, PHLC is available to assist.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 105 of 127
• 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 air pollutants,
and a serious health threat for which there is no safe level of exposure;8,9
• In 2006, the California Environmental 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 Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
finds that acceptable indoor air quality in 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 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 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;17,19-21
• 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;17,19,21-27
• 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 is a serious concern;17,19,28,29
• Indoor air 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
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 106 of 127
• Cannabis smoke contains at least 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
experienced 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
• 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 survey 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 cellular DNA45,46 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
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 107 of 127
• 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
• African American males and American Indian males have the highest mortality 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 local fire data, if available]
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
multiunit 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 school 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
• The home is the primary source of secondhand smoke 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, indicating 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
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 108 of 127
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 support data, if available]
WHEREAS, there are significant savings from adopting a smoke-free multiunit housing policy, as evidenced by the following:
• Prior to implementation, the U.S. Department of Housing 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 effective February 2017;62 WHEREAS, children, 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
WHEREAS, California state law allows local governments to adopt ordinances that permit residential rental agreements to prohibit smoking tobacco products within rental units;65
WHEREAS, more than 153 California cities and counties have adopted smoke-free multiunit housing
ordinances;6
WHEREAS, there is no Constitutional right to smoke;66
WHEREAS, people in low socioeconomic conditions are disproportionately exposed to harms
associated with tobacco use. 69
WHEREAS, people in low socioeconomic conditions disproportionately face risks of eviction:
• Eviction risks are considerably higher in low socioeconomic status areas, in comparison with
gentrified and high socioeconomic status areas; 70
• Neighborhoods with more tenant-protective laws have lower than average eviction rates; 71
• Evictions can destabilize communities that are already socioeconomically disadvantaged,
perpetuating cycles of crime and poverty; 72
WHEREAS, for all the foregoing reasons the City of Carlsbad finds that there a strong public interest
in reducing the number of evictions faced by disadvantaged community members as well as increase
the support disadvantaged community members receive to effectively engage in cessation therapy.
Accordingly this ordinance inclusion of an eviction defense for disadvantaged community members
engaging in cessation support services will serve the public interested by regulating the time of
nuisance related evictions where the nuisance allegation stems from smoking conduct.
NOW THEREFORE, it is the intent of the City Council 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
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 109 of 127
homes.
6.15.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter the following definitions shall govern unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
"Common area" means every enclosed area and unenclosed area of a multiunit residence that residents of
more than one unit are entitled to enter or use, including 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.
"Common interest development" means:
1. A community apartment project as defined in California Civil Code section 4105, or any
successor legislation;
2. A condominium 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.
"Designated smoking area" shall mean an area where smoking is permitted, as designated by a landlord,
HOA or other person with legal control of the premises and has been established and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
"Electronic smoking device" means any product containing or delivery nicotine or any other substance,
whether natural or synthetic, intended for human consumption through inhalation of aerosol or vapor
from the product. Electronic smoking device includes, but is not limited to, devices manufactured, marketed, or sold as e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, vaping devices, mods, tank systems, e-hookah, or under any other product name or descriptor. Electronic smoking device includes any component part of a product, whether or not marketed or sold separately.any device that may be used to deliver any aerosolized or vaporized substance to the person inhaling from the device, including an a-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, vape pen, ore-hookah.
"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.
"Existing unit" means a unit in existence on or before January 1, 2025.
"Homeowners' 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.
"Landlord" means any person or agent of a person who owns, manages, or is otherwise legally responsible
for a unit in a multiunit residence leased to a residential tenant. For purposes of this ordinance, a
tenant who sublets their unit (e.g., a sublessor) is not a landlord.
"Multiunit residence" means property containing three or more units, including apartment buildings, 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);
2.1. Aa mobile home park;
3.2. a campground;
4.3. a single-family home, except if used as a health care facility subject to licensing requirements; and
5.4. a single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit permitted pursuant to California Government Code sections 65852.1, 65852.2, or 65852.22 or Section
21.10.030 of this code, except where the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling
Commented [PHLC3]: The city council could consider this definition of electronic smoking device, which is more comprehensive. For example, this definition includes components or accessories within the meaning of an electronic smoking device.
Commented [PHLC4]: The city council could consider making this two or more units, which would make this ordinance more comprehensive by including duplexes.
Commented [PHLC5]: The city council could consider deleting the exception for hotels and motels. As of the start of this year, state law already prohibits smoking in all hotels and motels (see SB626). Including the exception here for hotels/motels might incorrectly suggest that it is permissible to smoke in hotels/motels.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 110 of 127
I -__ I
_-_ I
unit is rented or is used as a health care facility subject to licensing requirements.
"New lease" means any lease or rental agreement that allows a person to occupy a unit that is entered into
on or after January 1, 2025.
"New unit" means a unit that is issued a certificate of occupancy and approved for occupancy after January 1, 2025, or any unit that is leased or rented for residential use for the first time after January 1, 2025.
"Nonsmoking area" means any area in which smoking is prohibited by
1. this chapter or another law;
2. binding agreement relating to the ownership, occupancy, or use of real property; or
3. a person with legal control over the area.
"Person" means any natural personhuman, partnership, cooperative association, corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity, including government agencies.
"Smoke" or "smoking" means and includes (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, marijuanacannabis, or plant product, whether natural or synthetic, intended for inhalation; or (3) using an "electronic smoking device."
"Unenclosed area" means any area that is not an enclosed area.
"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 junior accessory dwelling unit.
6.15.030 Smoking restrictions. A. Effective January 1, 2025, smoking is prohibited anywhere on the premises of a multiunit residence as follows:
1. In all new units,
2. In all existing units governed by a new lease, and
3. In all common areas.
B. Notwithstanding subsection A, smoking is permitted in designated smoking areas if they meet the following conditions:
1. Are not an enclosed area;
2. Are at least twenty-five feet from any:
a. doorway, window, opening, or other vent into an enclosed area, including an enclosed area not regulated by this chapter;
b. enclosed or unenclosed recreation area such as a tennis court, swimming pool, and picnic area; or
c. enclosed or unenclosed area primarily used by children such as a playground.
3. Have a clearly marked perimeter;
4. Are identified by conspicuous signs installed and maintained by the landlord, HOA or other person with legal control over the designated smoking area; and
5. Have receptacles designed for and primarily used for disposal of smoking waste and that are maintained free of smoking-related litter, including cigarette butts.
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.
D. No person with legal control over a common area in which smoking is prohibited by this chapter or other law shall permit the presence of ashtrays, ashcans, or other receptacles designed for or primarily used for disposal of smoking waste within the area.
Commented [PHLC6]: The city council could consider this alternative phrasing. “Natural person” might suggest the notion of naturalization and thus imply that only citizens are persons in this ordinance. A more comprehensive smoke-free policy could recognize that people other than citizens might also be renters who smoke in violation of the ordinance or who are affected by another renter who smokes.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 111 of 127
i-----__J
6.15.040 Lease agreement requirements. A. After January 1, 2025, 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 include the following provisions:
1. A clause providing that it is a material breach of the agreement for the tenant to knowingly and intentionally allow, or engage in, smoking in the unit, including exclusive-use areas such as balconies, porches, or patios. The clause shall be substantially similar to the following:
It is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to engage in smoking in the unit or exclusive use areas such as balconies, porches, or patios. Moreover, it is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to knowingly or intentionally allow any other person subject to the control of the tenant to engage in smoking in the unit or exclusive use areas such as balconies, porches, or patios.
2. A clause providing that it is a material breach of the agreement for tenant to knowingly and intentionally allow, or engage in, smoking in any common area of the multiunit residence,
including entryways, playgrounds, pool areas, walking paths, or sitting areas, except in an
outdoor designated smoking area. The clause shall be substantially similar to the following:
It is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to engage in smoking in any common area of the property, including entryways, playgrounds, pool areas, walking paths, or sitting areas, except in an outdoor designated smoking area, if one exists. In addition, it is a material breach of this agreement for tenant to knowingly or intentionally allow any other
person subject to the control of the tenant to engage in smoking in any common area of the
property, including entryways, playgrounds, pool areas, walking paths, or sitting areas,
except in an outdoor designated smoking area, if one exists.
3. 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. The clause shall be substantially similar to the
following:
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 knowingly or intentionally allow any other person subject to the control of the tenant to violate any law regulating smoking while anywhere on the property. 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.
4. A clause expressly conveying third-party beneficiary status to all occupants of the multiunit property as to the smoking provisions of the lease or other rental agreement. The clause shall be substantially similar to the following:
Other occupants of the property are express third-party beneficiaries of the provisions in this agreement regarding smoking. As third-party beneficiaries, other occupants of the property may enforce the smoking provisions by any lawful means, including by bringing a civil action in a court of law.
B. Whether or not a landlord complies with subsection A above, the clauses required by subsection A
shall be implied and incorporated by law into every agreement to which subsection A applies as of January 1, 2025.
0. A tenant or occupant who breaches, or allows any other person subject to the control of the tenant or occupant to breach, a smoking provision of a lease or other rental agreement for the occupancy of a unit in a multiunit residence shall be liable for the breach to (1) the landlord or HOA; and (2) any occupant of the multiunit residence who is exposed to smoke or who suffers damages as a result of the breach.
E. Failure to enforce any smoking provision required by this chapter shall not affect the right to enforce
the 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.
Commented [PHLC7]: The city could consider removing these provisions, which raise equity concerns, as making it a material breach of a lease to violate the ordinance can make eviction a much more likely outcome. Eviction can cause housing instability, stays on a person’s record, and can lead to worse health outcomes, so there are reasons to avoid provisions that make eviction more likely to result. We suggest non-renewal of lease as an alternative to eviction.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 112 of 127
6.15.050 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 January 1, 2025, every landlord shall deliver to each unit a copy of this chapter and a written notice clearly stating:
1. All new units and existing units governed by a new lease are designated nonsmoking units and smoking is prohibited in a unit, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio, as of January 1, 2025; and
2. Smoking in all common areas or outdoor areas except for specifically designated smoking areas, is a violation of this chapter as of January 1, 2025.
B. As of January 1, 2025 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 January 1, 2025; and
2. Smoking is prohibited in all common areas and outdoor areas except for specifically designated smoking areas, as of January 1, 2025.
C. As of January 1, 2025, 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 January 1, 2025, 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 prohibited in all units. The
absence of signs shall not be a defense to a violation of any provision of this chapter. "No Smoking"
signs are not required inside or on doorways of units.
D. Landlords with knowledge of violations shall take reasonable steps to investigate and enforce the regulations, including 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 to assist with nicotine
dependence, such as referrals to a quitline or online resources.
6.15.060 Requirements for common interest developments.
The following requirements apply to common interest developments:
A. On or before January 1, 2025, the HOA shall provide to all owners of units a copy of this chapter and
written notice clearly stating that:
1. Smoking is prohibited in units, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio,
as of January 1, 2025; and
2. Smoking is prohibited in all common areas, except for specifically designated smoking areas, as of January 1, 2025.
B. As of January 1, 2025, every seller of a unit shall provide prospective buyers or renters, a copy of this
chapter and written notice clearly stating that:
1. Smoking is prohibited in units, including any associated private balcony, porch, deck, or patio,
as of January 1, 2025; and
2. Smoking is prohibited in all common areas, except for specifically designated smoking areas, as
of January 1, 2025.
C. Every covenant, condition and restriction (CC&R) applicable to a multiunit residence adopted or amended after January 1, 2025, shall include the conditions set forth below:
1. A clause providing that it is a material breach of the CC&Rs to allow or engage in smoking in the new unit, including exclusive-use areas, such as balconies, porches, or patios;
2. A clause providing that it is a material breach of the CC&Rs for an occupant or any other person
subject to the control of the occupant to engage in smoking in any common area of the multiunit residence other than a designated smoking area;
3. A clause providing that it is a material breach of the CC&Rs for an occupant or any other person
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 113 of 127
subject to the control of the occupant to violate any law regulating smoking while anywhere on the property; and
4. A clause expressly conveying third-party beneficiary status to all occupants of the multiunit residence as to the smoking provisions of the CC&Rs.
D. As of January 1, 2025, 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.
E. 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 distribute resources provided for free by the city to assist with nicotine dependence, such as referrals to a quitline or online resources.
6.15.070 Nuisance. A. Any violation of this chapter is a public nuisance.
B. Nonconsensual exposure to smoke from smoking occurring on or drifting into residential property is a nuisance.
6.15.080 Private enforcement. A. Any person, including a legal entity, organization, or a government agency, acting for the interests of itself, its members, or the general public, may bring a civil action against any person violating the provisions of this chapter. Upon proof of a violation, a court shall award the following:
1. Damages in the amount of either:
a. Upon proof, actual damages; or
b. With insufficient or no proof of actual damages, $500 for each violation of this chapter ("Statutory Damages"). Each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no person suing on behalf of the general public shall recover Statutory Damages based upon a violation of this chapter if a previous claim brought on behalf of the general public by another person for Statutory Damages and based upon the same violation has been adjudicated, whether or not the person bringing the subsequent claim was a party to the prior adjudication.
2. Exemplary damages, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant (i.e., person violating this chapter) is guilty of oppression, fraud, malice, retaliation, or conscious disregard for the public health.
B. The person may also bring a civil action to enforce this chapter by way of a conditional judgment or an injunction. Upon proof of a violation, the court shall issue a conditional judgment or an injunction.
C. Notwithstanding any legal or equitable bar against a person seeking relief on their own behalf, a person may bring an action to enforce this chapter solely on behalf of the general public. When a person brings an action solely on behalf of the general public, nothing about such an action shall act to preclude or bar the person from bringing a subsequent action based upon the same facts but seeking relief on their own behalf.
D. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a person from bringing a civil action in small claims court to enforce this chapter, so long as the amount in demand and the type of relief sought are within the jurisdiction of that court.
E. No person may bring an action pursuant to this section unless that person has first made a good faith attempt to resolve the situation informally with the offending party, including written notice of this
section to the offending party and a written request to cease smoking in the multiunit residence at least
30 days before filing suit.
F. No person shall intimidate, harass, or otherwise retaliate against any person who seeks compliance with this chapter.
Commented [PHLC8]: The city council could consider removing this provision in the interests of equity, as nuisance can be used as a criminal penalty.
Commented [PHLC9]: This section seems to leave enforcement to the judicial system. This may be understandable especially for communities with limited resources for enforcement. One concern, however, is that it can be quite costly to bring a lawsuit. This could compound disadvantage on people who are already comparatively disadvantaged, as people lacking financial resources might not be able to afford these steps to get smoking intrusion to stop. Another concern is that lawyers may be reluctant to take these cases, making enforcement difficult. We suggest a graduated enforcement process that involves the local government enforcing against landlords and tenants through use of fines, as well as alternative options to fines like community service. The following is the language from our model SFMUH ordinance: (B)Complaints received by the Department, under this section shall be addressed as follows: (1)Residents and their Guests. Upon receipt of complaints of alleged violations of Section 2 of this Chapter, the city will initiate the following process: (a)For a first complaint, the Department will investigate to locate the unit from which smoking may be coming, notify the suspected resident in writing of the alleged violation, and will conduct an educational outreach visit, either in person or remotely; (b)For a second substantiated complaint within one year of the first complaint, the Department will send a second written notice to the suspected resident of the alleged violations, and will conduct an additional educational outreach visit, either in person or remotely, and provide information to participate in a tobacco cessation program. This second substantiated complaint must come from a different resident as the first complaint, or if from the same resident, must be thirty days from the first complaint; (c)For a third substantiated complaint within one year of a first complaint, the Department will send a final written notice to the suspected resident, and may send a notice to the landlord or HOA of the alleged violations, including information from the previous two complaints and that this is the final notice before punishment by fine , and will conduct a final educational outreach visit, either in person or remotely; (d)Upon a fourth substantiated complaint and subsequent substantiated complaints within one year of the first complaint, the resident will be issued a civil citation by the Department and the city may provide the HOA or landlord a letter with notice of the complaint. The resident must: (i)Pay a civil fine pursuant to the fine schedule established under Section 7 of this Chapter; or (ii)Participate in a community service program established by the department or complete approved, evidence-based tobacco cessation program, including but not limited to telephone counseling, group counseling, or individual counseling; or (iii)Participate in a restorative justice process established by the Department. The restorative justice ...
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 114 of 127
6.15.090 Limitations and exceptions.
Nothing in this chapter shall limit or preclude the enforcement of any other applicable laws or limit the
remedies available for violations of this chapter, including the enforcement provisions of Chapter 1.10 of
this code. Nothing in this chapter shall create a right of action in any person against the city or its agents to
compel public enforcement of this chapter against private parties.
6.15.100 Rules of construction. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to protect the public health to the maximum extent possible. Notwithstanding (1) any provision of this chapter or of this code, (2) any failure by any person to restrict smoking under this 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.
6.15.110 Severability.
It is the intent of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad 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 of the City of Carlsbad 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.If any portion of this chapter, or its application to particular persons or circumstances, is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter or the application of this chapter to persons or circumstances not similarly situated. 1 World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2019: Offer Help to Quit Tobacco Use.
2019. 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. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK179276.pdf.
3 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The Toll of Tobacco in California, www.tobaccofreekids.org/problem/toll-us/california.
4 Lortet-Tieulent J, Sauer AG, Siegel RL, et al. State-level cancer mortality attributable 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 Institute. A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities. National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph 22. NIH Publication No. 17-CA-8035A. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. 2017. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/22/index.html.
6 California Tobacco Control Program, California Department of Public Health. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2022. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigures/CaliforniaTobaccoFactsAndFigures2022.pdf.
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 Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2006. www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2006/index.htm.
8 Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency. Frequently Asked Questions—Environmental Tobacco Smoke. www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/factsheetets.pdf.
9 California Identifies Secondhand Smoke as a “Toxic Air Contaminant” [press release]. January 26, 2006. www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr012606.htm.
10 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. The Proposition 65
Commented [PHLC10]: The city council could consider this paragraph on severability, which is a bit more extensive. For example, this version makes the intent of the city council clear and explicit.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 115 of 127
list. https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list.
11 American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 2015 Addenda Supplement to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2013, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. 2015. https://www.ashrae.org/file%20library/technical%20resources/standards%20and%20guidelines/standards%20addenda/62_1_2013_2015supplement_20150203.pdf.
12 American Heart Association. Policy Position on Smoke-Free Policies in Multi-Unit Housing. Washington, DC: American Heart Association. 2013. www.heart.org/idc/groups/ahaecc-public/@wcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm_469126.pdf.
13 American Lung Association. Public Policy Position – Healthy Air. Chicago, IL: American Lung Association. 2019. Available at: https://www.lung.org/policy-advocacy/public-policy-agenda/public-policy-position-healthy-air.
14 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.
15 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC Vital Signs—Secondhand Smoke: An Unequal Danger. February 2015. www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/2015-02-vitalsigns.pdf.
16 California Tobacco Control Program, California Department of Public Health. State Health Officer’s Report on E-
Cigarettes: A Community Health Threat. Sacramento, CA. 2015. www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Policy/ElectronicSmokingDevices/StateHealthEcigReport.pdf.
17 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes. 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24952/public-health-consequences-of-e-cigarettes.
18 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.
19 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-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. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/books/NBK538680/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK538680.pdf.
20 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.
21 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.
22 Staudt MR, Salit J, Kaner RJ, Hollmann C, Crystal RG. Altered lung biology 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 to e-cigarette emissions: Immediate respiratory effects.
Tob. Prev. Cessation. 2018;4(May):18. doi.org/10.18332/tpc/89977.
24 Shields PG, Berman M, Brasky TM, et al. A Review of Pulmonary Toxicity of Electronic Cigarettes In The Context of
Smoking: A Focus On Inflammation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(8):1175-1191. doi:10.1158/1055-
9965.EPI-17-0358.
25 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.
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 Tzortzi A, Teloniatis S, Matiampa G, et al. Passive Exposure of Non-Smokers to E-Cigarette Aerosols: Sensory
Irritation, Timing and Association With Volatile Organic Compounds. Environ Res. 2020;182:108963. doi:
10.1016/j.envres.2019.108963.
28 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.
29 Lin C, Baiocchi M, Halpern-Felsher B. Longitudinal trends in e-cigarette devices used by Californian youth, 2014–2018.
Addict Behav. 2020;108:106459. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106459.
30 American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). ASHRAE Position Document on
Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. 2019.
https://www.ashrae.org/file%20library/about/position%20documents/ashrae_pd_environmental_tobacco_smoke_2019.pdf.
31 State of California Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee (TEROC). Position on Electronic Smoking
Devices (AKA E-cigarettes). 2015.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 116 of 127
www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/TEROC/InfoGraphicReportsLett
ers/TEROCECigarettePositionStatement122215.pdf.
32 California 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 Hazard Branch. 2009. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/chemicals/finalmjsmokehid.pdf.
33 Herrmann, ES, Cone, EJ, Mitchell, JM, et al. Non-Smoker Exposure to Secondhand Cannabis Smoke II: Effect of Room Ventilation on the Physiological, Subjective, and Behavioral/Cognitive Effects. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;151:194–202. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.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, Hyland AJ. Secondhand smoke transfer in multiunit housing. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12:1133-1141. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq162.
36 Snyder K, Vick JH, King BA. Smoke-free multiunit housing: a review of the scientific literature. Tob 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 in children who live in multiunit housing. Pediatrics. 2011;127(1):85-92. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2046.
38 Toy P, Yount C, Meng YY, et al. Health at Risk: Policies Are Needed to End Cigarette, Marijuana, and E-Cigarette Secondhand Smoke in Multi-Unit Housing in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, Calif.: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. 2020. 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. Nicotine Tob 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. doi:10.2147/IJGM.S16908.
41 Whitlatch A, Schick S. Thirdhand Smoke at Philip Morris. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21(12):1680-1688. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty153.
42 Matt GE, Quintana PJE, Zakarian JM, et al. When smokers move out and non-smokers move in: residential thirdhand smoke pollution and exposure. Tob Control. 2011;20(1):e1. 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 Policies and Challenges in the 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-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S 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 Hang 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 Administration. Fire in the United States 2008-2017. Emmitsburg, MD: Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fire Administration. 2019. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fius20th.pdf.
48 National Fire Protection Association. Home Fires Started by Smoking. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association. 2019. 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 Heal. 2015;92(2):279-90. doi:10.1007/s11524-014-9919-y.
50 Hollar TL, Cook N, Quinn D, Phillips T, DeLucca M. Smoke-free multiunit housing policies show promise in reducing secondhand smoke exposure among racially and ethnically diverse, low-income seniors. J Immigr Minor Health. 2017;19(6):1281–1289. doi.org/10.1007/s10903-016-0430-2.
51 Gentzke AS, Hyland A, Kiviniemi M, Travers MJ. Attitudes and Experiences with Secondhand Smoke and Smoke-Free Policies Among Subsidised and Market-Rate Multiunit Housing Residents Living in Six Diverse Communities in the USA. Tob 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:E148. doi: 10.5888/pcd13.160008.
53 Nguyen KH, Gomez Y, Homa DM, King BA. Tobacco Use, Secondhand Smoke, and Smoke-Free Home Rules in Multiunit Housing. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):682-692. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.009.
54 Holmes LM, Llamas JD, Smith D, Ling PM. Drifting Tobacco Smoke Exposure Among Young Adults in Multiunit
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 117 of 127
Housing. J Community Health. 2020;45(2):319-328. doi: 10.1007/s10900-019-00743-5.
55 Delgado-Rendon A, Cruz TB, Soto D, Baezconde-Garbanati L, Unger JB. Second and Thirdhand Smoke Exposure, Attitudes and Protective Practices: Results from a Survey of Hispanic Residents in Multiunit 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 Multiunit Housing, United States, 2013. Public Health Rep. 2017;132(6):637-645. doi: 10.1177/0033354917732767.
57 Wang TW, Lemos PR, McNabb S, King BA. Attitudes toward Smoke-Free Public 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 California. California Voter and Rural Voter Attitudes About Secondhand Smoke in Multi-Unit Housing: Public Opinion Survey. 2018. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WTyBzOvxA_YJ:https://center4tobaccopolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Smokefree-Multi-Unit-Housing-General-and-Rural-Poll-2018-1.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.
59 McFarlane A, Djoko Y, Woodward A. Instituting Smoke-Free Public Housing: An Economic Analysis. Cityscape. 2017;19(3):435-448. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol19num3/ch24.pdf.
60 King BA, Peck RM, Babb SD. National and State Cost Savings Associated with Prohibiting Smoking in Subsidized and Public Housing in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E171. doi: 10.5888/pcd11.140222.
61 Ong MK, Diamant AL, Zhou Q, Park HY, Kaplan RM. Estimates of smoking-related property costs in California multiunit housing. Am J Public Health. 2012; 102(3):490–493. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300170.
62 Instituting Smoke-Free Public Housing, 81 FR 87430 (December 5, 2016). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/05/2016-28986/instituting-smoke-free-public-housing.
63 Vijayaraghavan M, Schroeder SA, Kushel M. The effectiveness of tobacco control policies on vulnerable populations in the USA: a review. Postgrad. Med J. 2016;92:670–676. doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-133193.
64 Hafez 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 Health Law Center. There Is No Constitutional Right to Smoke or Toke. Saint Paul, MN: Public Health Law Center. 2019. https://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/No-Constitutional-Right-Smoke-Toke-2019.pdf.
67 Cal. Civ. Code § 3479.
68 In Re Jones, 56 Cal.App.2d 658, 663 (1943); see also Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7 and Cal. Gov. Code § 38771.
69 Public Health Law Center. San Francisco’s Tobacco Retail Density Regulation: An E-Cigarette Policy Case Study. Saint Paul, MN: Public Health Law Center. 2022. https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/ecigarette-policy-case-san-francisco.pdf.
70 Hepburn, P, Louis R, Desmond M. Gentrification’s Role in the Eviction Crisis. Eviction Lab. October 2, 2023. https://evictionlab.org/gentrifications-role-in-the-eviction-crisis/.
71 Housing Matters. How State Renter Protection Policies Affect Eviction in Communities of Color. Urban Institute. December 6, 2023. https://housingmatters.urban.org/research-summary/how-state-renter-protection-policies-affect-eviction-communities-color.
72 Abby Boshart. How Eviction Affects Neighborhoods. Housing Matters: Urban Institute. June 7, 2023. https://housingmatters.urban.org/articles/how-eviction-affects-neighborhoods.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 118 of 127
From:Liz Williams
To:Council Internet Email; City Clerk
Cc:Mike Strong
Subject:Letter of support for smokefree multi-unit housing
Date:Friday, May 17, 2024 12:36:35 PM
Attachments:Letter to Carlsbad CA_MUH_05.16.24.pdf
Dear Mayor Blackburn and members of the Carlsbad City Council,
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights would like to submit the attached letter of support for expanding
Carlsbad's smokefree protections to include multi-unit housing.
Sincerely,
Liz Williams (she/her)
Project & Policy Manager
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights |nonsmokersrights.org
American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation |no-smoke.org
2530 San Pablo Ave, Suite J | Berkeley, CA 94702
510-841-3032 x314 (office)
Join Us! | Email Alerts
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 119 of 127
PO Box 2941, Berkeley, CA 94702 • 510.841.3032 • nonsmokersrights.org ANR is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit lobbying organization and contributions are not tax deductible. Tax ID: #94-598713
May 16, 2024
Mayor Keith Blackburn
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Blackburn and members of the Carlsbad City Council,
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights is writing to express our support for the proposed 100% smokefree
multi-unit housing ordinance to protect the health and safety of multi-unit residents in Carlsbad. Taking
action on this important public health issue will help ensure everyone’s right to a smokefree
living environment.
Carlsbad has the opportunity to be a public health leader by protecting your residents from the harmful
effects of secondhand tobacco and marijuana smoke by prohibiting smoking in all multi-unit residences,
including apartments and condominiums. Smokefree multi-unit housing is a powerful way to have a
broad, positive community impact by reducing secondhand exposure where people spend much of their
time—especially children, the elderly, and people with disabilities—and can suffer from persistent levels
of exposure.
Carlsbad would be in good company by joining the more than 100 California cities and counties that
have already enacted laws requiring all multi-unit housing properties to be 100% smokefree.
We are glad that the proposed ordinance includes a definition of smoking that is inclusive of cannabis
and vaping, which is very important given that exposure to all types of secondhand smoke, and aerosol
from vaping products, poses health risks to residents. Likewise, the comprehensive definition will
facilitate compliance, because it is easier to understand, communicate, implement, and enforce a policy
when all types of smoking and vaping are treated equally.
Likewise, we are pleased to see that the definition of “Multiunit residence” includes both rental and
owner-occupied properties, because drifting secondhand smoke does not discriminate based on
whether residents rent or own their unit. All residents in multi-unit properties, regardless of their
financial situation and ownership status, deserve to breathe smokefree air at home.
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights is concerned that the definition of “Multiunit residence” includes
property containing three or more units. Covering multi-unit residences with two or more units is both
the best practice and the standard across the vast majority (81%) of jurisdictions that have enacted
these policies. The best practice is for smokefree multi-unit housing ordinances to cover properties with
2+ units in order to include duplexes, since smoke can drift between these units. Likewise, if a property
owner lives in one unit of a duplex, it can be more challenging for a resident who is exposed to
secondhand smoke to speak up and ask for a smokefree environment when it is their landlord who is
creating the smoke exposure, due to the power differential.
Action needs to be taken on this issue because secondhand smoke does not stay in the unit of a person
who smokes. Secondhand smoke can drift through multi-unit buildings and enter common areas
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 120 of 127
AMERICANS FOR
..... NONSMOKERS' RIGlffS
PO Box 2941, Berkeley, California 94702 • 510.841.3032 • nonsmokersrights.org
ANR is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit lobbying organization and contributions are not tax deductible. Tax ID: #94-598713
and units occupied by non-smokers, where it becomes a nuisance and health risk to other residents.
Research shows that up to 65% of the air in an apartment unit can come from other units in the building,
and that secondhand smoke drifts under doors, through windows, hallways, and ventilation ducts, and
through gaps around outlets, pipes, fixtures, and walls.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that nearly 5 million California multi-
unit housing residents who keep a smokefree home are still exposed to a neighbor’s secondhand
smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General confirmed that there is no risk-free level of exposure to
secondhand smoke, and that exposure can have both short and long term health risks, especially for
people with existing health conditions like asthma and other respiratory conditions, heart disease, and
cancer.
Smokefree multi-unit housing can help address health disparities faced by low-income residents and
communities of color living in multi-unit residences. The CDC reports that 2 in every 5 children—
including 7 in 10 black children—remain exposed to secondhand smoke, and the U.S. Surgeon General
confirmed that the home is the primary place children are exposed. Studies show high rates of
exposure to secondhand smoke in low-income multi-unit housing, and lower-income individuals are
also more likely to have health conditions that are exacerbated by secondhand smoke.
Smokefree multi-unit buildings create a healthier living environment for all residents, including people who
smoke and their families. It’s important to note that a smokefree building does not mean that people who
smoke have to quit and it does not require people who smoke to move out. People who smoke simply
need to go outdoors to appropriate areas to do so.
All multi-unit residents in Carlsbad deserve a stable and healthy living environment, including
the right to breathe smokefree air at home.
Thank you for your leadership and desire to make Carlsbad the best place to live, work, and visit.
Please feel free to contact me at 510-841-3045 if you have questions, comments, or feedback.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Hallett, MPH
President and CEO
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights is a national, member-based, not-for-profit organization based in Berkeley, CA
that is dedicated to helping nonsmokers breathe smokefree air since 1976.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 121 of 127
r,
From:Peggy Walker
To:City Clerk; Keith Blackburn; Priya Bhat-Patel; Melanie Burkholder; Carolyn Luna; Teresa Acosta
Subject:Yes on SF MUH
Date:Thursday, May 16, 2024 6:02:53 PM
Dear Mayor Blackburn and City Council Members,
I’m writing to support smoke-free MUH policy coming before you June 11th. I support itbecause I understand the extreme difficulties of living with secondhand smoke drifting intoyour residence for a family member with asthma.
For asthmatics, it’s really important to avoid secondhand smoke of any kind-- cigarettes,cigars, e-cigs and vapes, and that includes marijuana smoke.
Secondhand smoke from those products irritates airways and is a common “trigger” for anasthma attack. That means coughing, shortness of breath, wheezing and tight pain in the chestfor asthmatics. It’s just not healthy and it it can be frightening.
Anyone breathing secondhand smoke can breathe in more than 7,000 chemicals, includinghundreds that are toxic, and about 70 that are carcinogens.
That’s why I've always supported nonsmoker’s rights to clean air. And, while it’s especiallydangerous for asthmatics to breathe in secondhand smoke, no one, really, should have tobreathe in those dangerous chemicals and toxins. Nor should small children be subjected tothirdhand smoke -- that's toxic residue from smoke that soaks into fabrics, draperies, carpetsand other surfaces. It's impossible to get rid of it, and is absorbed by toddlers crawling oncarpet or couches, or touching other substances.
Please support the smoke-free MUH ordinance to ensure the rights of, not just
asthmatics, but all people, children especially, who deserve the freedom of clean airin their homes. It’s life!
Best Regards,
Peggy Walker
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 122 of 127
From:Kelly McCormick
To:City Clerk; Keith Blackburn; Priya Bhat-Patel; Melanie Burkholder; Carolyn Luna; Teresa Acosta
Subject:Vote YES for Smoke Free Multi-Unit Housing in Carlsbad
Date:Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:00:24 PM
Hello Mayor Blackburn and City Council Members,
I am writing as a 20 year resident of Carlsbad, asking you to support an ordinance
making all multi-unit housing in Carlsbad 100% smoke and vape free (including
cannabis).
This ordinance would benefit public health and protect quality-of-life.
There is no safe level of secondhand smoke. Children who are exposed, are more
likely to suffer from sudden infant death syndrome, bronchitis, pneumonia, ear
infections, and asthma attacks. Adults are more likely to develop lung cancer, heartdisease, and breathing problems.
Secondhand smoke seeps through windows, doorways, ventilations systems, and
electrical outlets. The residue sticks to virtually everything, from children’s toys tocarpeting, drapes, and furniture.
In a recent survey shared by the County of San Diego’s “Live Well” office, nearly 70%of Californians answered that “apartment complexes should require all the units to
be tobacco smoke-free and vape-free.” Even 61% of renters said they supported a
ban on smoking inside units.
This ordinace would benefit property owners, as well, by reducing the costs of
insurance and cleaning between tenants, and by reducing fire risk.
A smoke free multi-unit housing ordinance would be a win-win for Carlsbad residentsand property owners.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kelly
Kelly McCormick
3213 Avenida de Sueno
Carlsbad, CA 92009
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 123 of 127
From:Alice Wolicki
To:Mike Strong
Subject:Feedback re proposed smoking ban ordinance
Date:Monday, June 3, 2024 7:50:18 PM
The purpose of this email is to give you and the City of Carlsbad my feedback concerning the proposed smoking
ordinance ban. Due to my own personal and ongoing situation I am definitely in favor of this ban. My current
scenario only reinforces the need for this ban to be approved.
I live in the Mulberry condo community of Bressi Ranch. I have had the pleasure of living in this affordable housing
for the last 19 years and my unit is directly above garages. Unfortunately I have a neighbor who insists upon
smoking marijuana in her garage with her garage door open. As a result of her garage being directly underneath my
home windows, her “smoke “ rises and enters my home. This becomes difficult for me because this same smoke is
offensive to me plus it affects me medically. I have spoken to this neighbor many times ensuring her that she is
entitled to smoke wherever she wants but I do object to the smoke entering my home and affecting me negatively.
The last conversation we had she became confrontational in front of another neighbor and told me to keep my
windows and doors closed at all times and there won’t be a problem. Needless to say, it has become very
uncomfortable. I am a senior citizen on a limited income and do not have air conditioning so having my windows
open for fresh air is important to me-I love my home and would love to enjoy my beautiful community but dealing
with this problem is very frustrating. I am hoping and praying that this ordinance is adopted so I have some hope it
will help my situation. Thank you for considering my request.
Alice Wolicki
2687 Alameda Cir
Carlsbad CA 92009
619 933-8910
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 124 of 127
From:Kelli Layton
To:Mike Strong
Subject:Smoke Free Multiunit housing
Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 8:22:12 PM
I’m so glad to hear Smoke Free Multiunit housing is being discussed for Carlsbad. I have a neighbor who smokes
nightly. Now that it’s summer, I’m sad to close windows and doors to breathe easy. It’s warm in our house and we
need cool evening air for relief. I hope to make our community smoke free. Anything I can do to help support or
help it be approved?
Thank you,
Kelli Layton
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 125 of 127
From:LeAnn Wissink
To:Mike Strong
Subject:Carlsbad smoking ordinance development
Date:Monday, July 15, 2024 4:20:32 PM
Hi Mr Strong,
I have read and reviewed this ordinance that your department is preparing for the city council.
My overall view of the ordinance is that it is counterproductive and not scientifically sound in stopping second hand
smoking.
Deaths in a year due to second hand smoking are 38000 lives as stated by the signs now being displayed at gas and
grocery stores. Just because a non-smoker dies of cancer does not mean second hand smoking caused the death. I
have seen elderly people live a good life over 90 and they were exposed to second hand smoke for decades and died
of natural causes. A lot of time coroners put blame on smokers just because they lived with smokers in the family.
But the truth is that we have poor air quality, which we do not smell but inhale every minute of the day from all cars,
and trucks, fuel or battery operated. Don’t disregard wildfires which we have many of that can cause immense
permanent damage to our bodies especially the lungs and affect large numbers of people.
Saying second hand smoking will kill you instills a fear and paranoia unnecessarily. Holistic therapy of releasing
toxins from your body I find is helpful. Thinking you are going to get cancer from second hand smoke is not
justified and causes a power of suggestion you will get cancer.
So that is my first statement on this overly aggressive ordinance. The strictest smoking ordinance in the entire state
is this one for the City of Carlsbad.
As a resident of this fine city of Carlsbad over 25 years I have lived under Bud Lewis as mayor and those who
followed him. I must say as time has gone by things have changed and we are dwindling in budget and struggling
financially but Carlsbad is resilient I know it is. Enforcing this ordinance is going to task the city finances for police,
social workers, health personnel and the ordinance puts the burden on calling for owners, investors, management
companies, apartment managers to be the enforcement for this ordinance and to hand out to offenders literature on
smoking like that is going to make a difference. Since when did they turn into health advisers. Unfortunately there
are no in patient medical facilities like alcohol addiction programs have to focus on smoking. The quitline or online
resources do not help people to quit. Check out success with the no butts line program years ago. You will probably
find less than 10 % quit successfully in that program. If there was a patient facility, maybe we would not need to
consider this kind of ordinance. Nicotine as they say is harder to combat than heroin. Which has been proven to be
so. It takes an in-patient facility to be successful.
With the use of marijuana we are finding it is highly addictive and alters brain function at any age. We should be
working on making marijuana illegal again because it is the drug of choice for children and is chemically ruining
their full functioning into adulthood. We see this in school shooters as they are usually mentally ill and have had a
high rate of drug use causing withdrawals and solitude.
Did you know that second hand marijuana smoke can make others in the room/car test positive to marijuana even
though they are not the one smoking the substance? Also, marijuana smoking in designated areas causes all exposed
to find their mental health is affected by this particular smoke. Worse than cigarettes!
Section 6.15.080 Private enforcement goes way too far and takes away the civil rights of people who smoke. No one
should be detained for exercising their constitutional liberty rights. A2 How can you prove damages for any of those
accusations? This is way overboard and on the verge of a police state. I would say this is the strictness ordinance of
any city in the United States. This attack on smokers of all kinds should be a compassionate effort to successfully
institute a push for hospitals to deal with the issue of smoking on an inpatient program basis. Nicotine withdrawals
are real and triggers should be identified to successfully quit. To do this a phone call or online program is not going
to do that, believe me. It opens up violent reaction to family members and possibly increase suicide rates. Nor do
nicotine anonymous groups, similar to alcholics anonymous work because after the group you have to go back home
and deal with the same triggers and the cycle goes on. Any psychiatric professional would confirm this to be true.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 126 of 127
So what do we do in the meantime before hospitals can create the in patient programs. Believe it or not Burning
candles dissipates the smoke and dissolves the smell of a smoker in any room. Burning incense is also a way to
eliminate the odor of smoking. Fans are helpful inside as well. Let’s leave it up to the individual how they handletheir personal interior air space.
My understanding of condo construction vs apartments is that condos have a separate wall barrier with heavyinsulation which eliminates smoke from the unit to the next door unit. So there is no second hand smoke intrusioninto neighboring unit. If you live alone you should be able to smoke in your condo home.Not everyone can afford a single family home so you can live in freedom of being regulated.
Condominiums should be exempt from this ruling rather they stand alone or buildings of 3 units or more because ofthis.
So counterproductive to send smokers outside to a specified location 25 feet away from complex. First of all mostmulti family complex homes are not large enough in the common area to have a designated smoking area toaccommodate smokers. Designated Smoking areas only open up an area larger as to where the smoke dissipatesbeyond 25 feet and more people are affected than if the smoke was confined to the home. It would cause those unitsclosest to the designated area to find its property value decline as well.
It should be up to owner to leave it up to their guests and vendors to waive any responsibility inside their unit.
Open air spaces like parking lots or cars parked on street should not be restricted either.
WHO is going to service the ashtray receptacles? People plug them up with trash, etc and can cause a fire. Or somejust throw their butts on the ground anyway.Who is going to clean that up?Vandals?
Well that got a little lengthy but I think I covered most of the bases. I hope your department can remain objectiveand that you see this ordinance takes smokers freedom’s away and legally targets people for smoking even 1cigarettes in the wrong place.
Please review and feel free to reach out to me with any questions.
Thank you for your time and hopefully you can revise this ordinance or eliminate it until more concretecomprehensive programs are in place. Helping those smokers get in-patient treatment programs so the smokersthemselves can get the help they need. So this ordinance would not be necessary.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email.
Respectfully submitted,LeAnn Wissink
Sent from my iPhoneCAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
July 30, 2024 Item #10 Page 127 of 127
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
July 30, 2024
To Carlsbad City Council,
Lydia Greiner < lgreiner@sdsu.edu >
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 2:41 PM
City Clerk
Agenda Item 10
SFMUH Carlsbad CenterforTobaccoandthe Environment 07302024.docx
--All Receive -Agenda Item # JD.
For the Information of the: d.OTY COUNCIL
Oat 'JI;}/ CA ✓ CC ./
CM ~ACM /DCM(3)~
On behalf of [insert Organization name], I am writing to support efforts to expand smoke-free protections by
adding Chapter 6.15 to the Carlsbad Municipal Code to prohibit smoking in multi-unit residences (Case Name:
Smoke-Free Multi-Unit H_ousing On;Jinance; Case No.: ZCA 2024-0004) within the City of Carlsbad.
San Diego State University's Center for Tobacco and the Environment strives to prevent, reduce, and eliminate
tobacco's toxic legacy of environmental pollution and harms to human health caused by decades of
commercial tobacco sales and use. Researchers at the Center aim to achieve this mission by engaging with
both community members, leaders, and elected officials.
We believe that everyone deserves to live, work, and play in environments free of toxic tobacco chemicals. In
particular, our homes should be free of toxic tobacco smoke residue, a mixture of chemicals that deposits on
surfaces, in dust, and re-emits into the air for years after smoking has stopped. It is difficult and costly to
remove. The most effective way to prevent the accumulation of this toxic residue is to prohibit smoking in
indoor environments, particularly in multi-family housing where tobacco smoke infiltrates neighboring units.
(Please visit cte.sdsu.edu for more information.)
Living in multi-family complexes with neighbors who smoke can lead to exposure to secondhand smoke and
serious health problems. In homes, secondhand smoke can travel from outdoor areas and through doors,
windows, hallways, ventilation ducts, and through gaps around outlets, fixtures and walls creating an unsafe
environment for residents. While secondhand smoke seems to disappear, it almost instantly begin the
transformation to thirdhand smoke, settling on surfaces and it dust, ultimately becoming embedded in walls,
carpeting, curtains, cabinets, and furniture.
Multi-family housing complexes with smoke-free policies can create equitable living spaces for residents that
may not be able to move due to financial or other circumstances. Prohibiting smoking throughout multi-family
complexes including common areas, entryways, inside units and on balconies and patios, protects the health
of all residents and can be beneficial to landlords by reducing renovation costs, risk of fires and increased
insurance costs.
Carlsbad can join the list of over 84 cities in California who have adopted a policy that regulates smoking in
multi-family housing in an effort to protect their residents from drifting secondhand smoke and long term
impacts of overall smoke exposure.
1
A smoke-free multi-family housing policy would add to the city's commitment to health equity among our
diverse communities, provide support for those struggling with addiction and properly prioritizes providing
healthy environments for residents to live in.
We appreciate the ongoing leadership and dedication to helping communities achieve their best health.
Sincerely,
Georg E. Matt, PhD,
Co-Director
Center for Tobacco and the Environment
Director
Thirdhand Smoke Resource Center
Lydia Greiner, DrPH
Associate Director
Thirdhand Smoke Resource Center
Rachael Record, PhD
Associate Director
Thirdhand Smoke Resource Center
Sarah Lavallee, PhD
Center Coordinator
Center for Tobacco and the Environment
Lydia Greiner, DrPH, APRN
Associate Director
Thirdhand Smoke Resource Center
Co-Director
Policy Research Center for Tobacco and the Environment
Research Scientist
San Diego State University Research Foundation
9245 Sky Park Court #225
San Diego, CA 92123 . "'te I CenterforTobacco w._. and the Environment
~... cte.sdsu.edu
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
2
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
John Bottorff <j@cleanearth4kids.org>
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 2:51 PM
City Clerk
Comment for Agenda Item #10
City of Carlsbad Stop Smoking Agenda Item #1 0.pdf
CleanEarth4Kids.org asks the Council to vote yes on Agenda Item #10. Our full comment is attached.
Thank you,
John Bottorff
CleanEarth4I(ids.org
949-439-5459
J@CleanEarth4Kids.org
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
CleanEarth4Kids.org
July 29, 2024
RE: Support Smoking Ban in Multi-Unit Housing
Mayor Blackburn and the Carlsbad City Council,
CleanEarth4Kids.org asks you to vote yes to ban smoking in multi-unit housing. We
support comprehensive enforcement, combining Options 1, 2 and 3.
Almost 80 cities and counties in California have already passed ordinances to stop
smoking and vaping in multi-unit housing.1
The use of tobacco,2 marijuana,3 and vapes/e-cigarettes is proven to be harmful to
human health.4 Smoking harms the smoker and everyone around them.5•6 1 in 3
non-smokers and 2 in 5 children are exposed to secondhand smoke in multi-unit
housing.7
Take Additional Actions
CleanEarth4Kids.org asks the City of Carlsbad to consider the following additional
actions to protect our air and children's health:
1. Implement a public smokin~ ban like the City of Encinitas.8
2. Pass an ordinance to stop all sales of smoking products, including tobacco,
cannabis, cigars, e-cigarettes and vapes. The cities of Beverly Hills and
Manhattan Beach have banned the sale of tobacco, e-cigarettes, vaping devices
and cannabis.9•10
a . An alternative is a Tobacco Free Generation {TFG) ordinance like
Brookline, MA where anyone born after January 1, 2000 will never be
able to legally buy tobacco or vaping products.11•12
First and Secondhan d Smoke
Firsthand smoke is the smoke breathed by a smoker and increases the chance of
1 http: / /no-smoke. org / wp-con tent/uploads / pdf/ smokefreemuh. pdf
2 https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic information/health effects/index.htm
3 https· I lwww samhsa gov/marijuana
4 https: / /my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/21162-vaping
5 https • / /www who jnt /news-room /fact-sheets /detail /tobacco
6 https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco /secondhand-smoke/health.html
7 https· / /www cdph ca gov(Pragrams/CCDPHP/DCDIC/SecondhandSmokeTnMnjtj-unitH@singFactSheet pdf
8 https://www.encinitasca.gov/government/ departments /development-services /smoking-ordinance
9 http:/ /www.beverlyhills.org/ citymanager / smokinginformation/ currentsmokingregulations /
10 https: / Iwww.manhattanbeach.gov/ environmental-sustainability/ brea the-free-m b-smoke-free-pu blic-areas
11 h ttps: / / www. phaionline. org / proi ects /tobacco-control /innovative-tobacco-control/ tobacco-free-generation/
12 https • / /www publichealthlawcenter org/webinar /tobacco-free-generation-brooklines-model-ending-tobacco-us
1
many types of cancer, heart disease, stroke and lung diseases.13 •
Secondhand smoke is breathed in by those around smokers. 14 Smoke inhalation
harms health, including coronary heart disease, strokes, and lung cancer.15 Every
year in California, secondhand smoke causes approximately 30,000 asthma attacks.
400 lung cancer deaths and over 3.600 cardiac deaths.16 In children, secondhand
smoke can cause coughing, sore throats, ear infections, respiratory infections, and
asthma attacks.17
Secondhand smoke is a toxic air contaminant causing cancer, lung infections,
bronchitis, asthma attacks, ear infections, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
and many other health issues. 18 Air purifiers do not get rid of secondhand smoke
which can travel through doo"rways, cracks in walls and electrical/plumbing lines.19•20
There is NO safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.21 According to the CDC, 7
in 10 black children are exposed to secondhand smoke and the home is the main
place where they are exposed. 22
Secondhand smoke also exposes children to lead. 23 Lead is a neurotoxin that
accumulates over time. There is no safe level of exposure to lead according to the
World Health Organization, 24 Centers for Disease Control25 and the American
Academy of Pediatrics. 26
Lead is especially toxic to children and unborn babies.27 It damages kids' brains and
nervous systems, lowers IQ, causes behavior problems and is linked to higher rates
of suspension and detention along with lower reading and math test scores.28•29 Kids
in families with one smoker had lead levels 14% higher than in non-smoking homes
and 24% higher with 2 or more smokers in the home. 30
Thirdhand Smoke
13 https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco / data statistics /fact sheets/health effects/ effects cig smoking/index.htm
14 https: / / www cancer, gov /publications I dictionaries /cancer-terms I def/ secondhand-smoke
15 https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/health.html#:-:text=In%
16 https· I /cchealth org/tobacco/facts php#:-·text=Every%20year%2Qjn%20Ca]jfornja
17 https: / /kidshealth.org/ en/parents/ secondhand-smoke.html
18 https· / /www cdc gov/tobacco /data statistics /fact sheets/secondhand smoke/health effects /index htm
19 https: / /www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle /adult-health/ expert-answers /air-purifier-smoke /fag-20058555
20 https://www.epa.gov/ iag /what-can+do-about-secondhand-smoke-coming-my-neighbors-apartment
21 https: / /www cancer gov I about-cancer I causes-prevention /risk I substances I secondhand-smoke
22 https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns /tobacco /index.html
23 https· //www smokefreehousjngny org/secondhand-smoke-sjgnificant-source-of Iead exposure-for-children I
24 https: / /www.who.int/ news-room/ fact-sheets/ detail /lead-poisoning-and-health
25 https· //www cdc gov/nceb /lead /faqs/Iead-faqs htm
26 https: / /www.aap.org/en-us /advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/lead-exposure/Pages/default.aspx
27 https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/health-effects.htm
28 https: / /www.nber.org/papers /w23392
29 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4387706/
30 https • L twww. smokefreehousingny org I secondhand-smoke-significant-source-of-Iead-e'Wosure-for-children t
2
Thirdhand smoke is the toxic residue from smoking that is left on surfaces and even
in dust.31 The smoke residue can stick to furniture, windows, walls, and floors, as
well as skin, hair, and clothing. 32 Only four weeks of exposure to thirdhand smoke is
equivalent to smoke levels in the homes of smokers, making it just as harmful as
firsthand and secondhand smoke. 33
Thirdhand smoke has the same damaging effects such as a higher risk of developing
lung cancer and asthma.34 It can also harm the liver, brain, immune system and
reproductive system and cause type 2 diabetes.35•36 Children are especially
susceptible to the health effects of thirdhand smoke as they crawl on the floor and
put objects in their mouths.37
Thirdhand smoke has been found to persist in houses, apartments and hotel rooms
after smokers move out.38 Handwashing only drops the toxin levels temporarily,'they
are back 40-60 minutes later.39 So even if someone doesn't smoke around their kids,
they are still exposing them to toxic chemicals.
Smoke Harms Expecting Mothers and Children
Cigarette smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals with at least 69 known to cause
cancer including benzene and formaldehyde. 40
Tobacco smoke also contains PM 2.5 which causes chronic lung diseases and many
other harmful health effects.41•42
Childhood exposure to PM2. 5 is linked to asthma, 43 which is the leading cause of
school absences44 and the third leading cause of hospitalizations among children
under 15.45 Poor air quality increases the likelihood of asthma attacks, breathing
difficulty~ 46 increased emergency room visits, 47 and hospitalization. 48 Air pollution
can also inflame the brain, central nervous system, and hearts in children. 49•50
31 https: / /no-smoke.org/smokefree-threats/thirdhand-smoke/ ,
32 https:I/www.cdph.ca.gov/Prowams / CCDPHP /DCDIC / CTCB / CDPH%20Document
33 https: //portlandpress.com/Biomarkers-of-disease-can-be-detected-in-mice-as
34 https: / /www. bannerhealth com/ the-dan~ers-of-thirdhand-smoke-to-you -and-your-children#
35 https: I /www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/ 160302181717.htm
36 https· / /thjrdhandsmoke org/what-does-thjrdhand-smoke-ex;posure-do-to-our-bodjes/
37 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles /PMC3784302 /
38 https· //www veryweUheaJtb com /what-is-third-hand-smoke-2248867
39 https: I I www. safetyandhealthmagazine. com /researchers-find-nicotine-on-hands-of-kids-whose-parents-smoke
40 https: //www.lung.org/guit-smoking/smoking-facts/whats-in-a-cigarette
41 https· / /www sciencedirect com/science/article/pii/S0013935119307078
42 https: / /www.epa.gov/pm-pollution /health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm
43 https: //www scjencedjrect com/science/article/pjj/S0J 604J 2D22DD224D
44 https: //aafa.org/asthma/asthma-facts
45 bttps· //www epa gov/chj)dren /childrens-enyjronmental-hea!th-facts
46 https: / /resphealth.org/clean-air /understanding-air-pollution/
47 https: / / j amanetwork. com /j oumals / jamanetworkopen / fullarticle / 2801735 ?resultClick=3
48 https: / /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6546668/
49 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7352229
50 https: / /pubmed.ncbi nlm.nih.gov /35921508
3
As pregnant women inhale polluted air, pollutants travel to the tissues, brain, liver,
lungs, and organs of the fetus. 51•52 Black carbon can enter the placenta, circulation
system. and the organs of the fetus via the mother's blood. 53•54
Exposure to air pollution during pregnancy and infancy55 is linked to increased rates
of stillbirth,56 preterm birth,57 low birth weight,58 SIDS (Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome),59 and decreased development of the brain, among other long-term severe
effects.60
Exposure to air pollution, even at low levels during pregnancy and childhood
significantly harms children's health. 61
Air pollution harms unborn babies. 62 Dr. Paul Fowler's extensive research, webinar,
and presentation clearly show a 26% increase in stillbirths when air pollution is
increased by just 10 µg/ m3. 63•64
Smoking And Vaping Tobacco Products Harm Kids
Tobacco use during childhood and adolescence causes significant health problems65
such as respiratory diseases and cancer,66 memory and cognitive issues,67 and
various heart diseases.68 Smoking also harms brain development.69 Nicotine harms
hippocampus-dependent memory with varying degrees of impairment to both
short-term and long-term memory after just four weeks of use.70•71
Nicotine and Addiction
Nicotine is quickly absorbed and goes directly to your brain, making it easier to
become addicted. 72 The adolescent brain is sensitive to nicotine as it has not fully
developed and smoking during adolescence increases the risk of psychiatric disorders
51 https· //pubmed ncbi nlm nib gov/32556259 I
52 https: / /www.thee;µardian.com/ toxic-air-pollµ tion-particles-found-in-lungs-and-brains-of-unborn -babies
53 https: / /www.livescience.com/black-carbon-reaches-placenta.html
54 https: //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36719212/
55 https: / /jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen /fullarticle/2767260
56 https· / /www.sciencedirect com /science /article /abs /pii /S0269749121003328
57 https: / / med. nyu. edu /pediatrics/ divisions/ environmental-pediatrics/ air-pollu tion-preterm-births
58 https· //pubmed ncbi n]m nib goy/22726801 /
59 https: / /www.sciencedirect.com/science/article /abs /pii/S0045653520337139
60 https: / /www.washington.edu/news/2022 /07 / 12/uw-link-between-air-pollution-and-child-brain-development
61 https: / /www.lung.org/ clean-air/ outdoors /who-is-at-risk/ children-and-air-pollution
62 https: / /pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /36208643 /
63 https· //youtu be/40Ga9 St.JOO
64 https: / /www.healthandenvironment.org/ assets /images/ CHE%20Jan%202023%20Fowler.pdf
65 https· / /www hmg org/q.uit-smokjng/smoking-facts /tobacco-use-among-chi]dren
66 https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco / data statistics /fact sheets /health effects /effects cig smoking/index.htm
67 https· //www webmd com /brain /news 120221222 /sh1dy-1inks-smoking-to-memory-loss-cognitive-dec1ine
68 https: / /www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/50th-anniversa:ry/pdfs Ifs smoking cvd sos pdf
69 https: / / e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov /knowtherisks.html#:~ :text=
70 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles /PMC6018186 /#:~:text=Nicotine%20exposure
71 https: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic1es/PMC9270881 /
72 https: //teen.smokefree,gov /the-risks-of-tobacco/nicotine-addiction
4
and cognitive impairment as adults.73
Nicotine is highly addictive, just 5 cigarettes/day can make someone addicted.74 It is
just as addictive as cocaine or heroin. 75 Smoking tobacco releases dopamine, 76 a
neurotransmitter that signals a pleasurable experience, which reinforces the effects
of nicotine and increases the odds of addiction. 77 Nicotine addiction is very difficult
to stop, between 30%-50% of US smokers try to quit each year with only 7 .5%
succeeding. 78
Addiction to nicotine has detrimental impacts on the brain and can also cause
increased blood pressure, and heart rate, along with hardening of the arterial walls,
leading to a heart attack. 79•80
The Black Community Is Targeted By Predatory Big Tobacco
Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the US with
especially high rates in the African American community. 81 Over 45,000 African
Americans die prematurely every year from tobacco-caused diseases with an
estimated 85% smoking menthol-flavored cigarettes.82 Less than 10% of Black
smokers used menthol cigarettes in the 1950s.83 The Black community has been the
focus of the tobacco industry's predatory marketing, especially in low-income areas. 84
The use of menthol makes it easier to smoke beca.use of its cooling effect, increasing
the intake of nicotine and toxic smoke while making it harder to quit smoking. 85
Smoking Waste
Cigarette butts are the #1 most littered item86 on Earth (4 .5 TRILLION a year)87 and
# 1 in California as well. 88 Butts are a major source of plastic p ollution, each made of
15,000 strands of microplastic and are filled with toxic chemicals like arsenic and
lead which get into our water and environment. 89•90 Additionally, tobacco product
packaging adds 2 million tons of waste every year.91 In the US, 5 vapes/e-cigarettes
73 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543069/
74 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419325 /
75 https· //www ncbi nlm nih gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846
76 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946180
77 https: //nida nib gov/publjcatjons /dmgs-brains-behavior-science-addjctjon /drugs-brain
78 https: / /iarnanetwork.com /journals /jarnanetworkopen /fullarticle / 2797599
79 bttps· //truthjnjtjative org/researcb-resources /harmfnl-effects-tobacco /njcotioe-and-ymmg-braio
80 https: / /www.heart.org/ healthy-lifestyle /quit-smoking-tobacco I how-smoking-and-nicotine-damage-your-body
81 https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data statistics/fact sheets/fast facts
82 https· / /www sayingblacklives. org I files (ugd / 29e3b2 51 eb6e3ea3284d40b 1 e932291 Scf8b82.pdf
83 https: / /www.tobaccofreekids.org/what-we-do/industry-watch/menthol-report
84 https· / /tmthjnjtjatjve org/research-resources /targeted-communities /why-tobacco-racjal-justjce-issue
85 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles /PMC3088444 /
86 https-//oceanconservancy org/wp-contentluploads 12021 10212020-1cc-Report Web FINAL-0909 pdf
87 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc /articles /PMC4129234 /
88 https: //uhs.berkeley.edu/tobaccofacts
89 https: / /pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /33360456 /
90 https: //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /26668440 /
91 https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth /infographics /tobacco /tobacco-lifecycle html
5
are thrown away every second, 150 million every year, and each one is e-waste
(metal, plastic, circuitry, batteries) along with toxic chemicals.92
Social Cost of Smoking
There is also a direct cost to society from smoking. According to the CDC, smoking
cost the US over $600 billion in 2018 including more than $240 billion in healthcare,
almost $185 billion in lost productivity and another $7 billion lost because of
secondhand smoke.93
City of Carlsbad: Stop Smoking
Everyone is at risk from smoking, not just smokers. Smokers hurt themselves and
everyone around them and the environment, including expecting mothers and
children. Please take a:ction to protect youth and their future and stop smoking and
other sources of air pollution in Carlsbad.
CleanEarth4Kids.org asks you to vote yes to ban smoking in multi-unit housing. We
support comprehensive enforcement, combining Options 1, 2 and 3. We also ask you
to direct staff to draft ordinances for a public smoking ban like the City of Encinitas.
Th3you,
dvr-~~
Suza e Hume
Educational Director and Founder
S@CleanEarth4 Kids .org
(760) 518-2776
CleanEarth 4 Kids. org
Additional Resources:
Please go to our Team 3: Smoking and Vaping Hurts Your Health page for more
information. 94
1. Smoke-Free San Diego Resources 95
2. Implementing & Enforcing a Smokefree Multi-Unit Housing Ordinance 96
3. Secondhand Smoke in Multi-unit Housing 97
92 https· //www thebureaujnvestjgates com /djsposab!e-vapes-flood-us-market
93 h ttps: / /www.cdc.gov I tobacco I data statistics / fact sheets I fast facts /cost-and-expenditures.html
94 https: / /cleanearth4kids.org/nosmoking
95 https: //smokefreesandiego.org/
96 https: //www.changelabsolutions.org/implementing-enforcing-smokefree-multi-unit-housing-ordinance
97 https: I (www cdph ca gov/Pro1"fams/CCDPHP/DCDIC/SecondhandSmokeinMulti-unitHousingFactSheet pdf
6
4. Thirdhand Smoke in Multi-unit Housing 98
5. US Laws for 100% Smokefree Multi-Unit Housing 99
6. Secondhand Marijuana Smoke Fact Sheet 100
7. Vaping: Deadly Products Target Kids 101
8. E-cigarette Use Exposes Teens to Toxic Chemicals 102
9. 4 Marketing Tactics E-Cigarette Companies Use to Target Youth 103
10. How the Vaping Industcy is Targeting Teens and Getting Away With It 104
98 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs / CCDPHP /DCDIC /ThirdhandSmokelnMulti-unitHousingFactSheet.pdf
99 https· I /no-smoke org(}&l}-content/up]oads /pdf/smokefreemuh pdf
100 https: / /no-smoke. org / secondhand-marijuana-smoke-fact-sheet/
101 https: //newsforkids.net/articles/2019 / 10/ 16/vapirig-deadly-products-target-kids
102 https: //psychiati:y.ucsf edu /news le-cigarette-use-exposes-teens-toxic-chemicals
103 https: / / tru thiriitiative. org / tobacco-iridustry-marketing / 4-marketing-tactics-e-cigarette-companies-use-target
104 https· / /www theglobeandma,il.com /canada /article-va,ping-advertisine;-marketine;-investie;ation I
7
From:cecilia velazquez
To:City Clerk
Subject:Agenda Item #10 - AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN MULTIUNIT
RESIDENCES.
Date:Tuesday, July 30, 2024 1:36:53 PM
Hello Mayor Blackburn and Carlsbad City Council. My name is Cecilia Kalivas and I am a
resident of Carlsbad, District 2.
This comment is in response to Agenda Item #10 - AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBADMUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN MULTIUNIT RESIDENCES. I wanted
to thank you for considering a smoke-free policy for multi-family housing here in Carlsbad.This topic is very important to me because I live in a condo community and have experienced
secondhand smoke from neighboring units firsthand. In fact, I have a neighbor who has COPDwho also struggles with secondhand smoke exposure in her home. As someone who is part of
a community who is very active in health and safety. I think it would be of best efforts to havepeople breathy safe air.
Thank you,
Cecilia Kalivas, MPH CHW
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
All Receive - Agenda Item #____ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL
Date: ______ CA____ CC____ CM____ ACM____ DCM (3)____
10
7/30/24 x x
x x x
From:Molly Kirkland
To:City Clerk
Cc:Council Internet Email; Keith Blackburn; Priya Bhat-Patel; Melanie Burkholder; Carolyn Luna; Teresa Acosta; Mike
Strong
Subject:SCRHA Letter - Item 10 - July 30, 2024 Agenda
Date:Monday, July 29, 2024 11:52:51 AM
Attachments:SCRHA Letter - Carlsbad Smoke Free Ordinance.pdf
Hello,
Please find attached a letter from the Southern California Rental Housing Association
regarding Item 10 on tomorrow’s council agenda.
Thank you,
Molly Kirkland, Director of Public Affairs
Southern California Rental Housing Association
9655 Granite Ridge Drive #200, San Diego, CA 92123
Office: 858.278.8070 | Direct: 858.751.2200
mkirkland@socalrha.org | www.socalrha.org
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
All Receive - Agenda Item #____ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL
Date: ______ CA____ CC____ CM____ ACM____ DCM (3)____
10
7/29/24 x x
x x x
9655 Granite Ridge Drive, #200
San Diego, CA 92123 T: 858.278.8070 www.socalrha.org
July 29, 2024
Mayor Keith Blackburn and City Councilmembers
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sent Via Electronic Transmission
RE: ITEM 10 - SMOKE-FREE MULTI-UNIT HOUSING ORDINANCE
Dear Mayor Blackburn and Councilmembers:
On behalf of the Southern California Rental Housing Association (SCRHA) I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to share our concerns with the proposed Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing
Ordinance.
SCRHA has a standing policy position against such ordinances because they pose
administrative challenges, create legal liability for rental housing providers, and force housing
providers to enforce city law. Moreover, we believe that most rental multifamily rental properties
already have a smoking ban or limitation in place as this has been the trend for more than a
decade. Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 332 into law in 2011 which codified the right
of a rental housing provider to make their properties non-smoking and SCRHA has long
provided resources to members to help them transition properties to non-smoking.
SCRHA would like to commend city staff, specifically Mike Strong and his team, for the
collaborative outreach to stakeholders and the consideration of our concerns. We appreciate
that many of our suggested changes were incorporated into the draft ordinance. The language
addressing a private right of action against a landlord is of particular importance in helping
ensure that rental housing providers are not penalized for the actions of renters who chose to
ignore rules.
Unfortunately, our members’ experience with smoking at rental properties and with other cities
pursuing draft ordinances reinforces that there is simply no way to craft an ordinance that will
adequately balance enforcement and liability with non-smoking requirements. As previously
stated, most rental housing providers have smoking policies in place and have a duty to address
a quiet enjoyment complaint from a resident. If a resident complains about a neighbor’s
smoking, it will be investigated but all parties are entitled to due process. Without witnessing the
smoking, it is difficult for a housing provider to prove. And there is no provision in the law that
allows a housing provider to enter a renter’s unit to verify smoking. It is ultimately a “he-said
she-said” scenario. Should a resident refuse to stop smoking, a housing provider is left with the
choice of attempting to displace that resident or risking a neighboring resident moving
voluntarily to get away from the smoking, or worse, having the affected resident sue the owner
or manager. When it comes to smoking and other complaint-based lease violations, many
members report that rule-abiding residents become frustrated and move because of the
difficulty and the length of time it takes housing providers to address nuisance behavior. Most
Southern California
Rental Housing Association
9655 Granite Ridge Drive, #200
San Diego, CA 92123 T: 858.278.8070 www.socalrha.org
renters are entitled to an opportunity to cure lease violations before a tenancy can be terminated
or an eviction pursued, and the unlawful detainer process can take six months or more. Also,
some affected neighbors may be unwilling or unable to testify against the smoking neighbor.
SCRHA encourages rental housing providers to voluntarily implement non-smoking rules at their
properties. It is not only good for the health of residents and the community, but it is less wear
and tear on rental units. While we cannot formally support the ordinance, the draft before you is
vastly improved from the initial draft and we thank city staff for that. SCRHA would like to
request an annual review/report so that the council can review data related to complaints,
requests for assistance, utilization of resources, and provide an opportunity for stakeholders like
SCRHA to share their members’ experiences with unintended consequences and suggest
possible improvements.
If SCRHA can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 858-278-8070 or
mkirkland@socalrha.org.
Sincerely,
Molly Kirkland
Director of Public Affairs
Southern California
Rental Housing Association
From:Holly Lewallen
To:City Clerk
Subject:Pro Smoke Ban In Multi-Family Housing
Date:Monday, July 29, 2024 10:54:06 AM
To whom it may concern,
On behalf of Chamberlain Property Management, I am writing to support efforts to expand
smoke-free protections by creating smoke-free multiunit housing within the City of Carlsbad.
As a property manager, I strive to make our community as safe and habitable as possible. Iknow that where you live can have a tremendous impact on your health. Living in multi-
familycommunities where residents smoke or vape exposes others to secondhand smoke and serious
health problems. In homes, secondhand smoke can travel from outdoor areas and throughdoors, windows, hallways, ventilation ducts, and through gaps around outlets, fixtures and
walls creating an unsafe environment for residents. While property managers, owners andlandlords can voluntarily implement a smoke-free policy for their community, it can be
challenging to enforce. Having the backing from the City of Carlsbad will provide an addedlayer of authority to the property manager, helping residents comply with the policy.
Carlsbad can join the list of over 84 cities in California who have adopted a policy that
regulates smoking in multi-family housing in an effort to protect their residents from driftingsecondhand smoke and long term impacts of overall smoke exposure.
Property managers that have implemented a smoke-free policy already understand the many
benefits of such a policy, including healthier residents and staff, reduced renovation costs, riskof fires and insurance costs. A smoke-free multi-family housing policy would allow for all
properties in the city to experience these benefits and more. It will add to the city’scommitment to health equity among our diverse communities, provide support for those
struggling with addiction and properly prioritize providing healthy environments for residentsto live in.
We appreciate the ongoing leadership
With Regards,
Holly Lewallen | Maintenance SupervisorChamberlain Property Management | www.cpmteam.comDRE License #: 02083544
(760)547-2756 Direct2653 Roosevelt St., Suite DCarlsbad, CA 92008
Main Office Hours: Monday - Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pmSaturday 9:00 am- 4:00 pm | Sunday - ClosedAfter Hours & Weekend Emergency Phone: 760-715-7103 or 760-621-3285
If you suspect a gas leak in the home please contact SDGE immediately 1-800-411-7343.
If you are requesting regular maintenance, please click here.
Connect with us on your favorite Social Media channel!
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Janis
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item 10– Prohibit smoking in multi unit housing
Date:Monday, July 29, 2024 2:35:48 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor and Esteemed City Council Members,
I am writing in support of prohibiting smoking in multiunit housing in Carlsbad. I believe that a prohibition
will protect those who live in multiunit housing from secondhand smoke and will help ensure thatresidents are able to enjoy a safe and healthy environment.
I was raised by a single mother who was a chain smoker. Consequently, I was exposed to tobacco smoke
in the small two bedroom apartments in which we lived. I developed lifelong asthma, which I believe is
related to secondhand smoke exposure. A multiunit smoking ban would have protected me from the 250
harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke, including hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia,
I wasn’t the only one who was impacted by my mother’s smoking. Our neighbors were also affectedbecause the smoke entered their apartments through open windows, air vents, and shared hallways. Canyou imagine being a renter in today’s difficult housing market and having no choice but to live in anapartment in which your children are exposed to a neighbor’s secondhand smoke?
When I was young, less was known about the health impacts of secondhand smoke, but we know better
now, and when we know better, we must do better. Please follow the lead of the 80 cities across
California that have already taken steps to protect their residents, including children, from toxic tobacco
smoke.
With gratitude, Janis Jones
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
All Receive - Agenda Item #____ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL
Date: ______ CA____ CC____ CM____ ACM____ DCM (3)____
10
7/30/24 x x
x x x
From:LeAnn Wissink
To:Mike Strong
Cc:LeAnn Wissink
Subject:2nd request Carlsbad residents smoking ordinance development
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 9:05:28 PM
Mr Strong,
Are you in receipt of my email letter below and will it be researched and included in the upcoming council meeting7/30/2024?I would like to emphasize that the smokers should be the focus here and guiding them or helping them with ahealthy stop smoking campaign. That is the crux of the matter.Please advise this will be read by staff. Questions to me at1-760-613-7890Thank youKind regards,LeAnn Wissink
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 15, 2024, at 4:20 PM, LeAnn Wissink <leann.wissink16@gmail.com> wrote:>> Hi Mr Strong,>> I have read and reviewed this ordinance that your department is preparing for the city council.>> My overall view of the ordinance is that it is counterproductive and not scientifically sound in stopping secondhand smoking.> Deaths in a year due to second hand smoking are 38000 lives as stated by the signs now being displayed at gas andgrocery stores. Just because a non-smoker dies of cancer does not mean second hand smoking caused the death. Ihave seen elderly people live a good life over 90 and they were exposed to second hand smoke for decades and diedof natural causes. A lot of time coroners put blame on smokers just because they lived with smokers in the family.But the truth is that we have poor air quality, which we do not smell but inhale every minute of the day from all cars,and trucks, fuel or battery operated. Don’t disregard wildfires which we have many of that can cause immensepermanent damage to our bodies especially the lungs and affect large numbers of people.>> Saying second hand smoking will kill you instills a fear and paranoia unnecessarily. Holistic therapy of releasingtoxins from your body I find is helpful. Thinking you are going to get cancer from second hand smoke is notjustified and causes a power of suggestion you will get cancer.> So that is my first statement on this overly aggressive ordinance. The strictest smoking ordinance in the entirestate is this one for the City of Carlsbad.>> As a resident of this fine city of Carlsbad over 25 years I have lived under Bud Lewis as mayor and those whofollowed him. I must say as time has gone by things have changed and we are dwindling in budget and strugglingfinancially but Carlsbad is resilient I know it is. Enforcing this ordinance is going to task the city finances for police,social workers, health personnel and the ordinance puts the burden on calling for owners, investors, managementcompanies, apartment managers to be the enforcement for this ordinance and to hand out to offenders literature onsmoking like that is going to make a difference. Since when did they turn into health advisers. Unfortunately thereare no in patient medical facilities like alcohol addiction programs have to focus on smoking. The quitline or onlineresources do not help people to quit. Check out success with the no butts line program years ago. You will probablyfind less than 10 % quit successfully in that program. If there was a patient facility, maybe we would not need toconsider this kind of ordinance. Nicotine as they say is harder to combat than heroin. Which has been proven to beso. It takes an in-patient facility to be successful.>> With the use of marijuana we are finding it is highly addictive and alters brain function at any age. We should beworking on making marijuana illegal again because it is the drug of choice for children and is chemically ruining
All Receive - Agenda Item #____ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL
Date: ______ CA____ CC____ CM____ ACM____ DCM (3)____
10
7/29/24 x x
x x x
their full functioning into adulthood. We see this in school shooters as they are usually mentally ill and have had a
high rate of drug use causing withdrawals and solitude.
> Did you know that second hand marijuana smoke can make others in the room/car test positive to marijuana eventhough they are not the one smoking the substance? Also, marijuana smoking in designated areas causes all exposedto find their mental health is affected by this particular smoke. Worse than cigarettes!>> Section 6.15.080 Private enforcement goes way too far and takes away the civil rights of people who smoke. Noone should be detained for exercising their constitutional liberty rights. A2 How can you prove damages for any ofthose accusations? This is way overboard and on the verge of a police state. I would say this is the strictnessordinance of any city in the United States. This attack on smokers of all kinds should be a compassionate effort tosuccessfully institute a push for hospitals to deal with the issue of smoking on an inpatient program basis. Nicotinewithdrawals are real and triggers should be identified to successfully quit. To do this a phone call or online programis not going to do that, believe me. It opens up violent reaction to family members and possibly increase suiciderates. Nor do nicotine anonymous groups, similar to alcholics anonymous work because after the group you have togo back home and deal with the same triggers and the cycle goes on. Any psychiatric professional would confirmthis to be true.>> So what do we do in the meantime before hospitals can create the in patient programs. Believe it or not Burningcandles dissipates the smoke and dissolves the smell of a smoker in any room. Burning incense is also a way toeliminate the odor of smoking. Fans are helpful inside as well. Let’s leave it up to the individual how they handletheir personal interior air space.>> My understanding of condo construction vs apartments is that condos have a separate wall barrier with heavyinsulation which eliminates smoke from the unit to the next door unit. So there is no second hand smoke intrusioninto neighboring unit. If you live alone you should be able to smoke in your condo home.> Not everyone can afford a single family home so you can live in freedom of being regulated.>> Condominiums should be exempt from this ruling rather they stand alone or buildings of 3 units or more becauseof this.>> So counterproductive to send smokers outside to a specified location 25 feet away from complex. First of all mostmulti family complex homes are not large enough in the common area to have a designated smoking area toaccommodate smokers. Designated Smoking areas only open up an area larger as to where the smoke dissipatesbeyond 25 feet and more people are affected than if the smoke was confined to the home. It would cause those unitsclosest to the designated area to find its property value decline as well.>> It should be up to owner to leave it up to their guests and vendors to waive any responsibility inside their unit.>> Open air spaces like parking lots or cars parked on street should not be restricted either.>> WHO is going to service the ashtray receptacles? People plug them up with trash, etc and can cause a fire. Orsome just throw their butts on the ground anyway.> Who is going to clean that up?> Vandals?>> Well that got a little lengthy but I think I covered most of the bases. I hope your department can remain objectiveand that you see this ordinance takes smokers freedom’s away and legally targets people for smoking even 1cigarettes in the wrong place.>> Please review and feel free to reach out to me with any questions.>> Thank you for your time and hopefully you can revise this ordinance or eliminate it until more concretecomprehensive programs are in place. Helping those smokers get in-patient treatment programs so the smokersthemselves can get the help they need. So this ordinance would not be necessary.>> Please acknowledge receipt of this email.>
> Respectfully submitted,
> LeAnn Wissink
>>> Sent from my iPhoneCAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From:Kelli Layton
To:City Clerk
Subject:Smoke Free Multiunit Housing
Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 8:28:06 PM
I’m so glad to hear Smoke Free Multiunit housing is being discussed for Carlsbad. I have a neighbor who smokes
nightly. Now that it’s summer, I’m sad to close windows and doors to breathe easy. It’s warm in our house and we
need cool evening air for relief. We actually like to keep our windows open year round but we especially need them
open in the summer. I hope we can make our community smoke free.
Thank you,
Kelli Layton
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From:Council Internet Email
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: ACS CAN letter re Item 10 - Smoke Free housing
Date:Monday, July 29, 2024 8:08:02 AM
Attachments:ACSCAN_RGB_sm_.png
2024.07.30 Carlsbad Item 10 LoS SFMUH.pdf
From: Lynda Barbour <lynda.barbour@cancer.org>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 7:42 AM
To: Council Internet Email <council@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: ACS CAN letter re Item 10 - Smoke Free housing
Dear Mayor and Members of the Carlsbad City council,
Please accept our letter in support of the Carlsbad Smoke- free housing policy under
consideration tonight.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue.
Lynda Barbour
Sr. Government Relations Director
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
Lynda Barbour, MPH
Senior Government Relations Director, So. California &Grant Program
+1 (619) 6241517 | m: +1 (619) 7424861
PO Box 910549
San Diego, CA 92191
fightcancer.org | 1.800.227.2345
This message (including any attachments) is intended exclusively for the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain proprietary,
protected, or confidential information. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, copy, or disseminate this
message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
• American
Cancer
Society 11 ]) Car:-icer
~ Action
r...ia Network~
Lynda Barbour, MPH, Sr. Director, Government Relations,
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network www.FightCancer.org
PO Box 910549; San Diego, CA 92191
W: 619-624-1517 C: 619-742-4861 lynda.barbour@cancer.org
July 29, 2024
The Honorable Mayor Keith Blackburn
Mayor, City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
council@carlsbadca.gov
Re: Item 10 Smoke - Free Multi-Family Housing ordinance
Dear Mayor Blackburn and Members of the Carlsbad City Council,
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network’s mission is to advocate for evidence-
based public policies to reduce the cancer burden for everyone. We are pleased to see the
comprehensive policy that prohibits smoking in all multi-unit housing on the agenda.
This policy, when implemented with good enforcement, will provide significant health
protections for all; these are especially important for medically fragile people, such as cancer
patients and vulnerable populations, such as young children and seniors. Landlord and lease
agreements are an important component of enforcement of this policy; they allow for management
of most issues.
However, we remain concerned that the only additional remedy for tenants who are
impacted by secondhand smoke after repeated attempts to resolve this is to take civil action. Most
renters will not have the time or financial resources to take on the problem in court, making it
unlikely they will be able to address the problem of secondhand smoke exposure.
In the interest of getting this policy implemented as soon as possible, I ask that this council
to pass this policy tonight and direct staff to monitor the enforcement issue, perhaps with a
complaint line during the first year to assess the extent of the problem and then report back to
council on the status of the implementation and make any recommendations for changes as
needed.
With the adoption of this ordinance, Carlsbad will lead the way as the first city in San Diego County
to have a comprehensive smoke-free multi-family housing policy and we urge your yes vote.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lynda Barbour, MPH
Senior Government Relations Director,
• American
Cancer
Society 11 1) car:icer
~Action
~ Network'"
Lynda Barbour, MPH, Sr. Director, Government Relations,
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network www.FightCancer.org
PO Box 910549; San Diego, CA 92191
W: 619-624-1517 C: 619-742-4861 lynda.barbour@cancer.org
Southern California American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
Multi-Unit Smoking
Mike Strong, Assistant Director of Comm. Dev.
Comm. Dev. Department
July 30, 2024
{city of
Carlsbad
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION
•2021 Housing Element required city to consider smoke-free ordinance for multi-unit buildings.
•City Council presentation on Aug. 22, 2023 meeting.
•City Council provided direction on how to move forward.
- Direction to staff to pursue ordinance and
return with more information about
education and enforcement {city of
Carlsbad
CONSIDERATIONS
•Researched other best practices
•Public Health Law Center model ordinance
•Education (property managers, landlords,
and tenants)
•Enforcement challenges
-Timely enforcement
-Enforcement authority to identify violators
-Jurisdiction of enforcement responsibility {city of
Carlsbad
ENFORCEMENT LEAD OPTIONS
•City enforcement
-Police Department
-Code Enforcement
•Civil enforcement with third party
beneficiary
•Property Management, Landlord, or HOA
lead
{city of
Carlsbad
•84 CA cities and counties have
adopted 100% no smoking multi-
unit policies
•Another 16 have adopted partial
prohibitions
•No cities in the San Diego region,
including San Diego County have
adopted smoke free multi-unit
policies
AMERICAN NONSMOKERS’ RIGHTS
FOUNDATION
,A~l~I AMERICAN NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS FOUNDATION
U.S. Laws for 100% Smokefree Multi-Unit Housing
April 1, 2024
This list represents oommunities wilh laws that regulate smoking in private units of mufti-unit housing.
As of April 1, 84 municipalities have enacted a law at the city or county level that prohibits smoking in 100% of
private units of rental multi-unit housing properties. Of these municipalities, 77 have laws that prohibits
smoking in 100% of private units of both rental and owner-occupied multi-unit housing properties. The vast
majority of the laws-72 municipalities-apply lo properties with 2 or more units.
For public housing policies., see U.S. Public Housing Authority Policies Restricting or Prohibiting Smoking_
See Definitions and Explanatory Notes starting on page 4.
Visit our smokefree multi-unit housing page at no-smoke.orgfat-risk:Qlaces/homes/ for more information.
Municipalities with Laws for 100% Smokefree Multi-Unit Housing:
This table represents communities that have municipal laws al the city or county level that prohibit smoking in
100% of private units of !ill specified types of multi-unit housing. These laws apply lo both privately-owned
and publidy-owned multi-unit residences, as well as all existing and future buildings, and do not pennit rurrent
residents to oontinue smok.ing In the building (i.e. no "grandfather" dause). Most, but not all, municipal laws
include condominiums and other owner-occupied properties.
Municipalities marked with# require multi-unit buildings to be 100% smokefree when the law is in full effect as
of the listed Final Effective Dale. Municipalities marked Some under "% of Units Currently Smokefree· will be
100% when the law is in full effect.
o/, of Units Final Effective Minimum Includes Includes Municipality State Currently Date Number of Patio/ Condos Smokefree Units Balcony
1. Alameda CA 100% 1/112013 2 Yes Yes
2. Alameda County• CA 100% 7/112022 2 Yes Yes
3. Albanv CA 100% 3124/2018 2 Yes Yes
4. American Canvon CA 100% 6115/2023 2 Yes Yes
5. Bell Gardens CA 100% 61112021 3 Yes Yes
6. Belmont CA 100% 1/812009 2 Yes Yes
7. Belvedere CA 100% 11/9/2017 2 Yes Yes
8. Benicia CA 100% 91212020 2 Yes Yes
9. Berkeley CA 100% 5/1/2014 2 Yes Yes
10. Beverlev Hills CA 100% 1/112019 2 Yes Yes
11. Brisbane CA 100% 6/312017 2 Yes Yes
12. Buena Park CA Some 8110/2023 2 Yes Yes
13. Burlinaame CA 100% 2113/2016 2 Yes Yes
14. Clavton CA 100% 5/112019 2 Yes Yes
15. Com□ton CA 100% 1/1/2013 3 Yes Yes
16. Concord CA 100% 1/112021 2 Yes Yes
17. Contra Costa Counlv" CA 100% 7/112019 2 Yes Yes
2"i30SanPii JAwnue SuiteJ 84:lfkeley CA947?21'51O841"l0321510841 3071Faxl "K>-smoke0tgl11Jo@ro-YDOkeorg
ANRF • e 501c3 ;;Jnprofitorganu:ation and donations are tax ded I 'T"ax ID #94,292213ti
{city of
Carlsbad
•84 CA cities and counties have
adopted 100% no smoking multi-
unit policies
•Another 16 have adopted partial
prohibitions
•No cities in the San Diego region,
including San Diego County have
adopted smoke free multi-unit
policies
AMERICAN NONSMOKERS’ RIGHTS
FOUNDATION
% of Units
Municipality State Currently
Smokefree
18. Corte Madera CA 100%
19. Colati CA 100%
20. Crescent Citv CA 100%
21. Cudahv CA 100%
22. Culver Citv CA 100%
23. Cuoertino CA 100%
24. Dalv Cftv CA 100%
25. Danville CA 100%
26. El Cerrito CA 100%
27. El Monie CA 100%
28. Emeryvi lie CA 100%
29. Fairfa• CA 100%
30. Firebauah CA 100%
31. Foster City CA 100%
32. Fresno CA 100%
33. Guadaluoe CA 100%
34. Half Moon Bay CA 100%
35. Healdsbura CA 100%
36. Hercules CA 100%
37. Huntinoton Park CA 100%
38. Larkspur CA 100%
39. Los Gatos CA 100%
40. Manhattan Beach CA 100%
41. Marin County' CA 100%
42. Mill Valley CA 100%
43. Mm brae CA 100%
44. Miloilas CA 100%
45. Monte Sereno CA 100%
46. Mooroark CA 100%
47. Morro Bav CA 100%
48. Mountain View CA 100%
49. Novato CA 100%
50. Pacific Grove CA 100%
51. Pacifica CA 100%
52. Palo Alto CA 100%
53. Pasadena CA 100%
54. Petaluma CA 100%
55. Pinole CA 100%
56. Pleasanton CA 100%
57. Rancho Cordova CA 100%
58. Redwood City CA 100%
59. Richmond CA 100%
60. Rohnert Pail< CA 100%
61. Ross CA 100%
62. San Anselmo CA 100%
63. San Bruno CA 100%
64. San Carlos CA 100%
65. San Mateo CA 100%
Final Effective Minimum
Date Number of
Units
6/1712022 2
11112017 2
111/2022 2
11312020 2
5126/2016 2
101112021 2
112112014 2
5/112016 3
101112015 2
8/1912017 3
71112019 2
11112023 2
71112019 2
111512015 N/S
11112022 2
8127/2020 2
111512020 2
51612020 2
6113/2020 10
71112013 2
911712022 2
612512017 2
51512017 3
10114/2021 2
11118/2016 2
11112020 2
11112022 2
10/1/2020 2
21112019 2
8/112020 2
11112022 3
11112018 2
101112021 2
1019/2020 2
11112018 2
11112013 2
11112014 2
10118/2019 2
71112022 2
111412021 2
11112019 2
11112011 2
4/23/2018 2
2/912020 2
11812016 2
2122/2018 2
71812020 2
11114/2015 2
Page2 of5
Includes
Patio/
Balcony
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NIS
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
NIS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NIS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Includes
Condos
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
{city of
Carlsbad
•84 CA cities and counties have
adopted 100% no smoking multi-
unit policies
•Another 16 have adopted partial
prohibitions
•No cities in the San Diego region,
including San Diego County have
adopted smoke free multi-unit
policies
AMERICAN NONSMOKERS’ RIGHTS
FOUNDATION
o/. of Units Final Effective Minimum Includes Includes Municipality State Currently Date Number of Patio/ Condos Smokefree Units Balcony
66. San Mateo Countv• CA 100% 2/412016 2 Yes Yes
67. San Pablo CA 100% 71112021 2 Yes No
68. San Rafael CA 100% 11/14/2013 3 Yes Yes
69. Sanla Clara CA 100% 8/112019 2 Yes Yes
70. Sanla Clara Countv" CA 100% 2/912012 2 Yes Yes
71. Sanla Rosa CA 100% 81712016 2 Yes Yes
72. SaraloQa CA 100% 9116/2016 4 Yes Yes
73. Sausalito# CA Some 513112024 2 Yes Yes
74. Sebastoool CA 100% 1112/2011 2 Yes Yes
75. Sierra Madre# CA Some 101112024 4 No Yes
76. Sonoma CA 100% 12/12/2016 2 Yes Yes
77. Sonoma County• CA 100% 1112/2013 2 Yes Yes
78. Soulh San Francisco CA 100% 1119/2017 2 N/S Yes
79. Sunnvvale CA 100% 9123/2016 2 Yes Yes
80. Tiburon CA 100% 10/16/2018 4 Yes Yes
81. Union Citv CA 100% 2123/2012 2 Yes No
82. Valleio CA 100% 912112022 2 Yes Yes
83. Wa.lnut Creek CA 100% 1130/2014 2 Yes Yes
84. Windsor CA 100% 8115/2017 2 Yes Yes
11 = In California, county laws only cover unincorporated areas of the county, and do not cover cities in
lhe county. Cities located within the counly need to adopt lheir own local laws.
Municipalities with Laws that Partially Restrict Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing:
This table represents communities that have municipal laws al the city or oounty level thal restrict smoking
in some private units of multi-unit housing, but do not require multi-unit buildings to be 100% smokefree.
The trend is now for communities lo adopt laws that require multi-unit properties to be 100% smokefree, as
listed in the chart above. It is not recommended that communities adopt the types of partial laws represented In
lhe chart below.
Municipalities marked Some under ""All Units Currently Smokefreer have some buildings that are required to
be 100% smokefree. Often, lhese laws prohibit smoking in all newly oocupied buildings or newly leased units,
but either do not address smoking in existing buildings or only apply to a certain percent of units in existlng
buildings.
Municipalities marked No under "All Units Currently Smokefree?" have !!Q buildings required to be 100%
smokefree now or In the future. These laws may apply to only a certain percent of units in existing and future
buildings, or pennit current residents to continue smoking in the building indefinltely (a "grandfather" clause)_
Additionally, communities not represented on this list may have local laws that do not address smoking in
private units, but restrict smoking in multi•unit housing to a lesser extent, such as by prohibiting smoking in
Indoor common areas or only on patios and balconles.
Pagel of S {city of
Carlsbad
•84 CA cities and counties have
adopted 100% no smoking multi-
unit policies
•Another 16 have adopted partial
prohibitions
•No cities in the San Diego region,
including San Diego County have
adopted smoke free multi-unit
policies
AMERICAN NONSMOKERS’ RIGHTS
FOUNDATION
All Units Min. ¾of Initial
Municipality State Currently Units Effective Final Min.# Includes
Smokefrae? Currenfly Data Effective Date of Units Condos
Smokefraa
1. Baldwin Park CA Some 100% nr,w/ 6/21/2012 12/2/2014 2 Yes 80%existing
2. Burbank CA No N/S 5/1/2011 5/1/2011 N/S Yes
3. Calabasas CA No 80% 1/1/2012 Not Soecified 2 No
4. Dublin CA No 75% 1/1/2011 1/1/2013 16 NIS
5. Fremont CA Some 100% nr,w/ 2/1/2017 Not Specified 2 Yes 0%exlstlng
6. Glendale CA Some 100% nr,w/ 6/27/2013 Nol Specified 2 Yes 0%exlstlng
100% nr,w/
7. Jurupa Valley CA Some designated 3/612021 Nol Specified 3 No
e:dstlng units
8. Lafayette CA Some 100% nr,w/ 2/10/2014 Nol Specified 3 Yes OK.@xlstlng
9. Loma Linda CA No 70% 1/1/2012 NotSoecified 2 No
10. Oakley CA No 100% nr,w/ 3/13/2014 4/1/2014 2 Yes 0%exlstlng
11. Pleasant Hill CA Some 100% MW/ 5/512010 Nol Specified 4 No 50%exlstlno
12. Riverside CA No 100% nr,w/ 7/2812022 7/28/2022 2 No OK.existing
100% nr,w/
13. Santa Monica CA Some designated 5/21/2013 Nol Specified N/S Yes
e:dstlng units
14. South Pasadena CA Some 100% nr,w/ 3/312011 Nol Specified 2 Yes SOK.existing
15. Temecula CA No 25% 12/7/2007 6/7/2012 10 N/S
16. West Hollywood CA Some 100% nr,w/ 5/19/2021 7/15/2021 3 Yes 0%exlstlng
Definitions and Explanatory Notes:
Communities on the two charts of municipal laws adopted a munlCipal ordinance to regulate smoking in all
(first chart) or some (second chart) types of multi-unit housing.
# = Law requires multi-unit buildings to be 100% smokefree when the law Is fully in effect on the stated
Final Effective Date, but currenUy the law provides partial coverage.
"'= In California, county laws only cover unincorporated areas of the county, and do not cover cities in
the county. Cities located within the county need to adopt their own local laws.
Minimum Percent of Units Currently Smokefree:
The percent of specified multi-unit housing that is currenUy required to be smokehee:
100%: All units in specified multi-unit housing must be smokefree.
Another stated 0/.: The stated percent of units in specified multi-unit housing must be smokefree.
Pag@4 ofs
{city of
Carlsbad
ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES IN OTHER CITIES
•City enforcement (33 of 100)
-Police Department (17 –e.g., Brisbane & Manhattan Beach)
-Code Enforcement (11 –e.g., Berkeley & Hercules)
-Police and Code (5 –e.g., Beverly Hills & Buena Park)
•Civil enforcement with third party beneficiary (3 of 100)
-Riverside, El Monte & Culver City
•Property Management, Landlord, or HOA lead (none, but 18 have Code Enforcement overseeing property manager obligations)
•Mixed enforcement (64 of 100)
-Civil enforcement and property management (5 of 100 inc. Concord,
Emeryville, Santa Monica, Sierra Madre, & Vallejo)
EDUCATION
•Smoke-free laws are often described as self-
enforcing.
•Educate the public and provide notice about
the new policy.
•Provide the resources for property managers,
landlords, and HOAs.
•Provide resources for tenants.
{city of
Carlsbad
PUBLIC INPUT
•Housing Commission meeting on Feb. 8
•Public review period from April 8 to April 22.
-Response to comments provided.
•Changes made to draft ordinance.
•Additional correspondences received.
{city of
Carlsbad
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
•Bans smoking (including vaping) inside and
outside multi-unit buildings of three or more units.
-Allows for an exception for certain
designated outdoor spaces.
•Enforcement by landlords, HOAs, and property owners. Also adds a third-party beneficiary provision.
•The new rules would go into effect Jan. 1,
2025.
{city of
Carlsbad
WHAT IS INCLUDED
•Apartment buildings
•Condos
•Senior assisted living facilities
•Long-term health care facilities
•Single-family homes licensed as care facilities
{city of
Carlsbad
WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED
•Hotels and motels
•Mobile home parks
•Campgrounds
•Single-family homes
•Accessory dwelling units
{city of
Carlsbad
RECOMMENDATION
•Consider the various enforcement options
•Introduce ordinance adding Chapter 6.15 to
the CMC
{city of
Carlsbad