Monday, July 1, 2024
Port Hueneme City Hall
250 North Ventura Road, Port Hueneme, CA 93041
5:30 PM Closed Session | 6:30 PM Regular Meeting
Attached is correspondence related to Agenda Item No. 9: Smoking in Multi-Unit Residential Buildings: Survey Results and Consideration of City Regulations, which was received following the posting and distribution of the July 1, 2024, Agenda:
• Email including informational materials received from Yaneth L. Rodriguez, Center for Health Equity in the Americas - Department of Population and Public Health Sciences - Keck Schoool of Medicine of USC, dated Monday, July 1, 2024 From: Rodriguez, Yaneth
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 2:49 PM
To: City Clerk; Perez, Misty; McQueen-Legohn, Martha; Gama, Steven A.; Hernandez, Laura D.; Marnez, Bobby; Council WebMail
Cc: Lourdes Baez Conde; Yaneth Rodriguez ([email protected])
Subject: Port Hueneme City Council Public Comment, Agenda item #9 Aachments: SF MUH Informaon Leer for Port Hueneme 7.1.2024.pdf SF-MUH-Cal-Enforcement-Guide (PHLC).pdf
Dear Port Hueneme City Council members,
I am aaching a leer with informaon that includes research findings from USC related to smokefree mul-unit housing. Also aached is a resource made available by the Law and Policy Partnership to End the Commercial Tobacco Epidemic that guides decision-makers on the best opons for equitable enforcement as it relates to smoke-free mul-unit housing policies.
Please let me know if you have any quesons or need more informaon.
Thank you, Yaneth
Yaneth L. Rodriguez, MPH
Center for Health Equity in the Americas
Department of Populaon and Public Health Sciences
Keck School of Medicine of USC
University of Southern California
[email protected]
University of Southern California
1845 N. Soto Street, SSB 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90089-9239 • Tel: 323 442 8210 • Fax: 323 442 8201 July 1, 2024
City of Port Hueneme
250 N Ventura Road
Port Hueneme, CA 93041
RE: Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing Residential Buildings: Survey Results and Considerations of City Regulations
Dear Port Hueneme City Council,
We are aware you are discussing smoking in multi-unit residential buildings and will be sharing survey results and considerations for city regulations. As you consider the health of the community, we would like to share information as well as research findings from the University of Southern California, that we hope is useful in your consideration of the development of any future regulations.
Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in multi-unit housing and outdoor spaces is a serious health threat given that secondhand smoke from tobacco and marijuana drifts into housing units from neighboring units, balconies, patios, and both indoor and outdoor common areas. We know that SHS smoke exposure can have both short- and long-term health risks, especially for people with existing health conditions like asthma, other respiratory conditions, heart disease, and cancer.
At USC we conducted a research study titled, Triangulum (Tobacco, E-Cigarettes, Marijuana) Secondhand Smoke Exposure in Low Socioeconomic Multi-Unit Housing, under the guidance of Principal Investigator, Dr. Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati. We asked tenants if they would support a smoke-free/vape-free policy in their housing complex. An overwhelmingly 86% of all survey respondents were in favor. Among tobacco smokers, 81% were in favor, and among marijuana smokers, 72% were in favor of a smoke-free/vape-free policy in their housing complex.
1 Even individuals who smoke are in favor of smoke-free/vape-free policies. Attached is a copy of a research slide we previously presented to the Bell Gardens City Council.
In summary, smoke-free air protections for all multi-unit housing properties have the potential to protect residents especially children, the elderly, and people with disabilities from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. Also attached is a resource made available by the Law and Policy Partnership to End the Commercial Tobacco Epidemic, that guides decision-makers on the best options for equitable enforcement.
We hope that this research can educate and inform your decisions. Please let me know if you have any questions our team may be able to answer.
Sincerely,
Yaneth L. Rodriguez, MPH, Project Manager
Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine of USC 1845 N. Soto St., Office 302N; Los Angeles, CA 90032
1. Triangulum (Tobacco, E-Cigarettes, Marijuana) Secondhand Smoke Exposure in Low Socioeconomic Multi-Unit Housing.
Principal Investigator: Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati, PhD, MPH. Funded by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of California (TRDRP) Grant Number: 26IR-0022 and the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (NIH NCI) Grant Number: P30CA014089
September 2022
www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco
Overview
This guide is designed to help decisionmakers
and stakeholders enacting or modifying smokefree multi-unit housing policies in determining the best options for equitable enforcement.
It is meant to be used as a companion to the
Partnership’s model ordinance, which contains
more detailed language and explanation of various
enforcement choices. For further information on
topics relevant to multi-unit housing ordinances,
such as content on cannabis regulation or tenant
resources, see our California resource page.
Not all jurisdictions have the same resources or
community preferences, so we have included
a range of enforcement options and provided
context for the benefits and cautions of each
from an equity perspective. We have provided
recommendations as to which enforcement
options are considered best practices and
more equitable (coded green ), which
options might require some more caution
or consideration (coded yellow ), and the
options that the Partnership recommends
against (coded red ). Some of these options
have been used across many jurisdictions, while
others are emerging strategies.
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. Exposure to secondhand
smoke in multi-unit housing can lead to poor
health, including asthma and other lung problems,
particularly among pregnant women, children,
and the elderly. The health impacts of secondhand
SMOKE-FREE MULTI-UNIT
HOUSING ENFORCEMENT GUIDE
www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Enforcement Guide 2 smoke are also felt most by communities of color, and other vulnerable groups. For instance, Hispanic/Latinx residents and African American children have some of the highest secondhand smoke exposure levels. Thirdhand smoke — residual nicotine and other chemicals left on furniture, walls, and other surfaces by commercial tobacco1 smoke — is also toxic, particularly to children.
Enforcement is important to ensure effective compliance and implementation of smoke-free multiunit housing policies. Enforcement can and should achieve the dual goals of protecting residents from secondhand smoke exposure and ensuring housing stability for all residents whenever possible.
Several factors should be considered in pursuing these goals, such as: the likely effectiveness of enforcement; equity (balancing the public health benefits of smoke-free housing policies with the risks of housing instability and associated health harms or negative social outcomes such as racial profiling posed by different enforcement mechanisms); and the process of enforcement. Part of the consideration for equitable enforcement should involve determining which entity (e.g., code enforcement, landlord, city or county attorneys, the public, police) is best positioned to effectively enforce and will result in the fewest potential negative collateral consequences.
In addition to the enforcement options discussed below, engaging in an education campaign such as providing educational materials or presentations for residents, staff training, and signage or notices to residents could reduce the number of tenants in violation of any policy. Further, including cessation information in an education campaign can promote behavior change and support people in quitting. See our model ordinance for more information.
We acknowledge that in the context of the current housing crisis, particularly concerns around COVID-19 and expiring eviction moratoriums, there is an understandably heightened concern around the best options for enforcement in this area. The Partnership stands ready to provide legal technical assistance on questions related to a particular jurisdiction or enforcement strategy.
September 2022
www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Enforcement Guide 3 Most preferred/most equitable
Proceed with caution
Not recommended by the Partnership
Enforcement Options
Graduated enforcement by landlord
Benefits
{ 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 (see NYC Housing Authority example, MN model lease addendum, or other examples)
{ Providing cessation materials can help support smokers affected by smoke-free policies to quit
{ Using steps like “resetting the clock” if there has been no violation for a certain period, or if a tenant has completed cessation support counseling, can give residents second chances and incentivizes compliance
{ Can prohibit eviction as a penalty
Cautions
{ These tiered steps may not be sufficient to obtain compliance, so there may need to be a stronger penalty as a last resort
Civil fines against landlords/HOAs
Benefits
{ Civil fines for landlords for violations of smoke-free ordinances can be effective at incentivizing enforcement by landlords, and can also be graduated { Can be an effective incentivize for HOAs, as they have fiduciary responsibility for their owners’ money
{ Can limit the potential negative consequences of direct enforcement against tenants, such as civil fines
September 2022
www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Enforcement Guide 4 { Can allow tenants to initiate enforcement by registering a complaint with a designated local government employee
Cautions
{ Landlords or HOAs may be motivated to take stronger steps against tenants than they otherwise would, potentially including actions like eviction Community service
Benefits
{ As an alternative to civil fines, community service can limit the financial hardship on residents { Can be tailored to assist tobacco cessation or tobacco waste cleanup efforts Cautions
{ Community service may still pose a financial hardship to some individuals, such as if they are required to miss work or arrange for childcare
{ If enforced by police, may open the door to other collateral consequences { May require community to invest in new resources or programs Restorative justice2
Benefits
{ Restorative justice, if all impacted parties agree to participate as an alternative to other enforcement, can be a very effective way to repair harm and potentially transform behavior Cautions
{ Requires involvement of individuals trained in restorative justice practices, so may have some budget impacts
{ Since it requires willing participation from all parties, it may not always be possible to use this approach
Nuisance3
Benefits
{ Permits a range of nuisance abatement tools commonly used by city or county attorneys, such as restraining orders, or preliminary or permanent injunctions September 2022
www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Enforcement Guide 5 Cautions
{ May require too many local government resources to be widely used { May expose marginalized communities to unnecessary involvement with law enforcement { May result in escalated consequences or misdemeanor charges in some jurisdictions Enforcement through lease
Benefits
{ Including smoke-free requirements in lease terms (with appropriate language translations) creates clear expectations for new and existing tenants Cautions
{ Depending on how drafted, could allow for evictions, which can impact health outcomes and worsen existing economic disparities (see full discussion below) Civil fines against tenants
Benefits
{ Enforcement by housing inspectors, health departments, or other civil employees removes the potential collateral consequences from police/criminal enforcement { Could act as a deterrent in some circumstances
Cautions
{ May be a budget impact on a jurisdiction to add new duties to city or county workers { Administrative fines may cause financial hardship depending on a resident’s financial circumstances
{ Risk of discriminatory/unequal enforcement
Private civil right of action
Benefits
{ Allowing private civil actions can help ensure there is adequate enforcement of smokefree policies { Gives some agency to tenants to act on their own behalf September 2022
www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Enforcement Guide 6 Cautions
{ When directed against other tenants, there is a risk of discriminatory/unequal enforcement { Can foster distrust and hostility between tenants
{ May burden the judicial system
{ Litigants may struggle to prove smoking occurred
Eviction in limited circumstances4
Benefits
{ Could be used as a last resort for repeat violations of no-smoking policy to protect the health of other tenants
{ Could specify a certain number of warnings/violations before an eviction could proceed to allow for multiple chances to comply (see example, page 30) { Could allow for no lease renewal instead of immediate eviction as alternative Cautions
{ Can impact health outcomes and worsen existing economic disparities, particularly for Black, Indigenous, or other people of color who are disproportionately renters (63% in CA, compared to 50% if homeowners)
{ Can make it more difficult for individuals to obtain other housing { Could be used as pretext to remove tenant when a landlord or another resident wants to evict for a reason unrelated to smoking
{ If can be applied to smoking by guests, can penalize tenants for others’ actions { Knowing that eviction could be an outcome for a neighbor might discourage residents from reporting smoking policy violations
{ Elderly residents could lose housing as a result of another family member’s smoking Eviction as a first response
Cautions
{ In addition to the cautions listed above, using a “one strike” approach to eviction risks housing instability for tenants without giving them an opportunity to correct or, even better, the opportunity to pursue cessation with the CA Smokers’ Helpline or through local treatment programs
September 2022
www.publichealthlawcenter.org/caltobacco Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Enforcement Guide 7 Criminal enforcement
Cautions
{ Criminal sanctions have been shown to have negative public health consequences and engender inequities.
{ Often disproportionately targets individuals of color and can lead to collateral consequences including impact on immigration status, triggering a probation or parole violation, a summons leading to a criminal record or a warrant, or increased distrust of law enforcement. { If an enforcement action triggers more severe criminal sanctions, could potentially jeopardize housing, benefits, education, and employment.
This publication was prepared by the American Lung Association in California and the Public Health Law Center, a nonprofit organization that provides information and legal technical assistance on issues related to public health. The Center does not provide legal representation or advice. The information in this document should not be considered legal advice. This publication was made possible by funds received from Grant Number 19-10229 with the California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program, and the American Lung Association in California.
Endnotes
1 The Public Health Law Center recognizes that traditional and commercial tobacco are different in the ways they are planted, grown, harvested, and used. Traditional tobacco is and has been used in sacred ways by Indigenous communities and tribes for centuries. Comparatively, commercial tobacco is manufactured with chemical additives for recreational use and profit, resulting in disease and death. For more information, visit: http://www.keepitsacred.itcmi.org.
When the word “tobacco” is used throughout this document, a commercial context is implied and intended. 2 Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm caused by crime and reducing future harm through crime prevention. It often involves a cooperative process where willing stakeholders meet to discuss the harm and how to bring about a resolution. See www.restorativejustice.org.
3 A public nuisance is a legal doctrine that applies when a person unreasonably interferes with a right that the general public shares in common. Local ordinances can declare violations of the smoke-free ordinance to be a public nuisance, opening up this enforcement option.
4 NOTE: Even in jurisdictions that have included eviction as an enforcement option, the majority have not evicted residents for violating smoke-free policies. Given the understandable and growing concern around eviction and housing stability, though, increasingly jurisdictions are pursuing smoke-free multi-unit housing policies that prohibit eviction as an enforcement option. The Partnership is available to provide legal technical assistance tailored to the preferences of local jurisdictions.
September 2022