3/16/22, 10:18 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQAI… 2/2
San Jose City Council
200 E. Santa Clara St.
San José, CA 95113
January 20, 2022
Re: Smokefree Multi-Family Housing Proposal
Dear San Jose Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
The Tobacco-Free Coalition of Santa Clara is made up of organizations and individuals committed to addressing the harmful influences of tobacco in communities throughout Santa Clara County.
We are writing to you today to express our disappointment at the revised Smokefree Multi-Family Housing proposed ordinance, and to let you know that we have SWITCHED our position to OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED.
Prior to this moment, we have been appreciative of the support of the Council for regulating secondhand smoke drifting within multi-family housing. However, the changes made to the ordinance at the December 9, 2021 Neighborhood Services & Education Committee Meeting have caused us to withdraw our support.
In particular, the exemption of cannabis smoke from the ordinance makes the ordinance ineffective and detrimental.
To note:
● While passing a law only regulating tobacco smoke may seem sensible, enforcement will be impossible. Every potential violator will simply claim to be smoking cannabis.
And victims impacted by drifting smoke will hesitate to complain not knowing if they are being impacted by cannabis or tobacco smoke. All of which leaves the tobacco portion of the law ineffective and meaningless.
● All types of secondhand smoke are harmful. There are several studies that show that emissions from marijuana and tobacco cigarettes have been found to contain many of the same toxic chemicals and carcinogens. Some studies are listed below this letter for your reference.
● The proposal being considered by San Jose would seem to contradict state law. The California Department of Cannabis Control states that you cannot smoke cannabis where it is illegal to smoke tobacco, per California Proposition 64 (2016). ● The survey results reported from your city staff reveal the extent of the problem.
Almost 40% of respondents report being exposed to marijuana smoke in the past 30 days.
● All of the other cities in Santa Clara County that have a smokefree multi-unit housing policy include cannabis (Palo Alto, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Monte Sereno, Milpitas, Cupertino and unincorporated Santa Clara County).
San Jose should align with these cities. In addition, over 70 other cities in California have passed a strong smokefree housing policy that does not exempt cannabis.
Those living in multi-unit housing, including children, the elderly, the disabled, and communities of color — our most vulnerable citizens — are also those most vulnerable to the harms of secondhand smoke and deserve our protection.
We no longer believe this ordinance will protect them.
We ask that you delay the ordinance to give us further time to discuss our concerns with you. We will be opposing this ordinance as proposed.
Let’s work together to protect all residents from all types of dangerous secondhand smoke in their homes.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Marvin & Carol Baker
Coalition Co-Chairs
Studies for your reference:
● Graves, B.M., Johnson, T.J., Nishida, R.T. et al. (2020). Comprehensive characterization of mainstream marijuana and tobacco smoke, Scientific Reports, 10, 7160, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63120-6
● Sheehan, T. J., Hamnett, H. J., Beasley, R., and Fitzmaurice, P. S. (2019). Chemical and physical variations of cannabis smoke from a variety of cannabis samples in New Zealand, Forensic Sciences Research, 4:2, 168-178, DOI:
10.1080/20961790.2018.1445937
● Moir, D., Rickert, W. S., Levasseur, G., Larose, Y., Maertens, R., White, P., and Desjardins, S. (2008). A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions, Chemical Research in Toxicology 21 (2), 494-502, DOI: 10.1021/tx700275p ● Ott, W. R., Zhao, T., Cheng, K., Wallace, L. A., Hildemann, L. M. (2021). Measuring indoor fine particle concentrations, emission rates, and decay rates from cannabis use in a residence, Atmospheric Environment: X, Volume 10, 100106, ISSN 2590-1621, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2021.100106
San Jose City Council
200 E. Santa Clara St.
San Jose, CA 95113
March 16, 2022
RE: San Jose City Council - Rules and Open Government Committee Meeting (File#:
ROCG 22-109 - Smoke-Free Housing Agenda Item)
Dear Respected City Council Members,
First, thank you for your efforts in protecting San Jose residents from secondhand smoke in multi-unit housing (“MUH”). I, as a concerned constituent, am beyond grateful for your attention to this matter. That said, I was deeply disappointed to see that the City is not considering a more robust ordinance that would protect all San Jose MUH residents. I was shocked to see that certain types of MUH and certain types of smoke will not be covered by the ordinance, which means my community and I will continue to be exposed to toxic secondhand smoke in our homes.
I urge you to carefully consider the health of all San Jose residents and protect them from dangerous and toxic secondhand smoke in their homes (regardless of type of MUH), even if that means delaying the ordinance to give us further time to discuss our concerns regarding the proposal.
A more robust ordinance would contain the following critical provisions to protect all MUH residents:
• Any building with 2 or more units- even duplex residents who share a common wall should be protected from the dangers of secondhand smoke. • Condominiums and townhomes (which are quite often high-density housing) - we should not deprive condo/townhome residents of their right to breathe clean air simply because they happen to live in a condo or townhome. They will absolutely still be subject to noxious secondhand smoke - the legal classification of their residence is irrelevant, and their lungs are just as important as anyone else’s.
• All smoke, such that residents are protected from all types of noxious secondhand smoke exposure (not just traditional cigarette smoke).
These provisions are logical, will protect all of our residents,benefit the City in several ways (physically, socially, economically), and willprevent a patchwork of differing protections for different residents simply based on the type of MUH. As you may know
many neighboring cities/counties (i.e., Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Monte Sereno, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County) have already passed smoke-free housing policies that restrict smoking in multi-unit housing with these very provisions. We should do the same for our beautiful City of San Jose.
Several scientific studies have established that secondhand smoke exposure is harmful and deadly. In fact, the U.S. Surgeon General has unequivocally stated that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. It contributes to health problems such as asthma, heart disease, lung cancer and stroke. Children, pregnant women, those with respiratory issues, the elderly and the disabled, our most vulnerable citizens, are also the most vulnerable to secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke drifts from other units (e.g., balconies, patios, garages) and from common areas in all types of MUH. Secondhand smoke drifts in through open windows and doorways, but also through cracks, electrical outlets, ventilation systems and plumbing. The only solution to protecting our citizens, especially our youth, elderly and disabled populations, from secondhand smoke exposure is to make our communities completely smoke-free.
Again, I urge you to carefully consider the health ofall San Jose residents and protect them from toxic secondhand smoke in their homes, even if that means delaying the ordinance to give us further time to discuss our concerns. Not a single day goes by where we smell smoke in our homes and see hundreds of toxic cigarette butts littered all over our community. We trust you will make the right decision for our health and safety and help ban smoking entirely in and around all types of MUH communities.
Our lives depend on it.
Sincerely,
Haris Khan
3/21/22, 1:05 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Notice This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication (or an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is respons ble for delivering it to the intended recipient), or if you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including any attachments, without reading or saving them in any manner The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e mail, including attachments, is proh bited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: Tessa Baizer
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 6:37 PM
To: ; ; ; ;
; ; ; ;
; ; ; ;
;
Cc: Nadia Aziz <
Subject: Agenda Item 7.2: Amendment to Chapter 9.44 of the San Jose Municipal Code
Dear Mayor and City Council
Please review the a ached le er, which discusses our concerns with the proposed amendments to Chapter 9.44 of the San Jose Municipal Code.
Best regards,
Tessa Baizer
Staff A orney
Law Founda on of Silicon Valley