Written Comment — Santa Monica City Council, January 10, 2023

1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 12:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; Attorney Mailbox; Anuj Gupta; Susan Cline; Denise Anderson-Warren; [email protected]
Subject: January 10, 2023 Council Meeting - Item 10.D - SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTION 4.44.020

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Esteemed Councilmembers -
I write today in overall support of the modifying ordinance concerning smoking prohibitions in our City but have three suggested revisions to 4.44.020(a)(16):

1. Please revise "twenty feet" in Line 1 thereof to "forty feet".

2. Please add the word "alley" between the words "street," and "or", also in Line 1 thereof.

3. Please delete in Line 2 thereof the words "a multi-unit housing building" and replace them with the words "any dwelling".

Why suggested revisions 1. and 2.?
• I live next door to a chronic smoker and although I have the privilege of living within a single family dwelling, that privilege does not protect my family from the impacts of secondhand cigarette and marijuana smoke. Although this chronic smoker typically smokes about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of a 50-foot-wide lot away from our home, it's amazing how concentrated his emissions still often are. We basically cannot open the windows on the north side of our house because he smokes more or less from sun up until he goes to bed late at night. Even with all our windows closed, his smoke even filters into our home through the vents in our crawl space. Based on this personal experience, I don't think 20 feet is nearly enough.
• It's important to call out the alleys explicitly. Having also lived in two different apartments in Santa Monica during the past 25 years, I can state definitively that there can be major issues with chronic smokers in the alleys.

It can get really bad for any multi-family dweller with alley-facing windows. And even now, living in a single family home, my family experiences issues with alley smoke. Even if a chronic alley smoker can say they are "on the move", i.e., walking up and down the alley as they smoke, it's surprising how much of an impact so-called transitory smoke still can have on residents. I am thinking in particular of a person who took work calls or worked on his tablet for hours while chain-smoking in the alley behind an apartment I lived in, generating enormous quantities of smoke all day. I am also thinking of people who park in our neighborhoods for work on our boulevards and who routinely smoke as they walk to and from work, also generating a surprising amount of continuous secondhand smoke. The impact of these exposures over time is well-documented to be very, very bad.

Item 10.D
01/10/2023
1 of 8 Item 10.D
01/10/2023
2 (B) …the R-1s are gone now, right?, and are densifying as we speak with the addition of more and more ADUs plus the introduction of various forms of multi-family housing. Any former R-1 lot with an ADU should be considered, I believe, the equivalent of a multi-family housing situation now from a legal standpoint. (C) Lots in the former R-1s are generally small, and the houses in all but a few very select neighborhoods are built as closely together as our City's multi-family dwellings are. (D) Reflecting these realities, you should extend this revised ordinance to all dwelling units within the City. (E) Bottom line, if secondhand smoke is bad, it's bad for everyone and all residents of our City deserve to be protected & to have some recourse, not just residents of multi-family housing.

Thank you for your consideration of these suggested revisions.

EXTERNAL
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Sent: 1/9/2023 12:38:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: City Council 1/10/23 agenda item 10-D - AMENDING CODE SECTION 4.44.020 Dear Mayor Davis and City Council members,
I support the letter below from Ann Bowman, specifically that 1) the ordinance should apply to all dwellings, not just multi-family housing buildings, and 2) the alleys should be included.

In my immediate neighborhood, old 1-story homes are being replaced by large 2-story homes with 2-story ADUs, which are right next to the alleys. (There seems to be no room between the homes and the ADUs for backyards/green space.)
One of the advantages of living in Santa Monica is the wonderful ocean breeze. But if that breeze carries tobacco smoke, or marijuana smoke, or smoke from fireplaces into your home, it can also be a disadvantage.

Thank you for your consideration.

Zina Josephs
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], denise.anderson[email protected], [email protected] Sent: 1/9/2023 12:21:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: January 10, 2023 Council Meeting - Item 10.D - SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTION 4.44.020
Dear Mayor Davis and Esteemed Councilmembers -
I write today in overall support of the modifying ordinance concerning smoking prohibitions in our City but have three suggested revisions to 4.44.020(a)(16):

Item 10.D
01/10/2023
3 of 8 Item 10.D
01/10/2023
2 1. Please revise "twenty feet" in Line 1 thereof to "forty feet".

2. Please add the word "alley" between the words "street," and "or", also in Line 1 thereof.

3. Please delete in Line 2 thereof the words "a multi-unit housing building" and replace them with the words "any dwelling".

Based on this personal experience, I don't think 20 feet is nearly enough.

• It's important to call out the alleys explicitly. Having also lived in two different apartments in Santa Monica during the past 25 years, I can state definitively that there can be major issues with chronic smokers in the alleys. It can get really bad for any multi-family dweller with alleyfacing windows. And even now, living in a single family home, my family experiences issues with alley smoke. Even if a chronic alley smoker can say they are "on the move", i.e., walking up and down the alley as they smoke, it's surprising how much of an impact so-called transitory smoke still can have on residents. I am thinking in particular of a person who took work calls or worked on his tablet for hours while chain-smoking in the alley behind an apartment I lived in, generating enormous quantities of smoke all day. I am also thinking of people who park in our neighborhoods for work on our boulevards and who routinely smoke as they walk to and from work, also generating a surprising amount of continuous secondhand smoke. The impact of these exposures over time is well-documented to be very, very bad.

(A) Save yourself the time of having to do this down the road because..... (B) …the R-1s are gone now, right?, and are densifying as we speak with the addition of more and more ADUs plus the introduction of various forms of multi-family housing. Any former R-1 lot with an ADU should be considered, I believe, the equivalent of a multi-family housing situation now from a legal standpoint.
(C) Lots in the former R-1s are generally small, and the houses in all but a few very select neighborhoods are built as closely together as our City's multi-family dwellings are. (D) Reflecting these realities, you should extend this revised ordinance to all dwelling units within the City.
(E) Bottom line, if secondhand smoke is bad, it's bad for everyone and all residents of our City deserve to be protected & to have some recourse, not just residents of multi-family housing.

Thank you for your consideration of these suggested revisions.

Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Santa Monica resident, 26+ years
Item 10.D
01/10/2023
4 of 8 Item 10.D
01/10/2023
3 • City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Item 10.D., City Council meeting of Jan. 10, 2023. Thank you!

Item 10.D
01/10/2023
5 of 8 Item 10.D
01/10/2023
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 4:43 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; Jesse Zwick Cc: Ann Hoover
Subject: Fwd: January 10, 2023 Council Meeting - Item 10.D - SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTION 4.44.020

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and City Council members,
I strongly support the suggested revisions below to ordinance amending code section 4.44.020. With the continuing densification of residential and interaction of commercial and residential spaces we have the responsibility and the right to protect the health and well being of ALL residents. Please consider an update to the code as outlined by Ms. Bowman below.

Thank-you.

Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Wilmont Chair
Speaking only for myself.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 12:21 PM
Subject: January 10, 2023 Council Meeting - Item 10.D - SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTION 4.44.020
To: Councilmtgitems <[email protected]>, David White <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Susan Cline <[email protected]>, [email protected] <denise.anderson[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Dear Mayor Davis and Esteemed Councilmembers -
I write today in overall support of the modifying ordinance concerning smoking prohibitions in our City but have three suggested revisions to 4.44.020(a)(16):

1. Please revise "twenty feet" in Line 1 thereof to "forty feet".

2. Please add the word "alley" between the words "street," and "or", also in Line 1 thereof.

3. Please delete in Line 2 thereof the words "a multi-unit housing building" and replace them with the words "any dwelling".

Why suggested revisions 1. and 2.?
• I live next door to a chronic smoker and although I have the privilege of living within a single family dwelling, that privilege does not protect my family from the impacts of secondhand cigarette and marijuana smoke. Although Item 10.D
01/10/2023
6 of 8 Item 10.D
01/10/2023
2 this chronic smoker typically smokes about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of a 50-foot-wide lot away from our home, it's amazing how concentrated his emissions still often are. We basically cannot open the windows on the north side of our house because he smokes more or less from sun up until he goes to bed late at night. Even with all our windows closed, his smoke even filters into our home through the vents in our crawl space. Based on this personal experience, I don't think 20 feet is nearly enough.
• It's important to call out the alleys explicitly. Having also lived in two different apartments in Santa Monica during the past 25 years, I can state definitively that there can be major issues with chronic smokers in the alleys.

Suggested revision 3. -- The City should now extend these regulations to smoking as it impacts the residents of any dwelling within our City, including all smoking within the former R-1 neighborhoods. Why extend to all dwellings? (A) Save yourself the time of having to do this down the road because..... (B) …the R-1s are gone now, right?, and are densifying as we speak with the addition of more and more ADUs plus the introduction of various forms of multi-family housing. Any former R-1 lot with an ADU should be considered, I believe, the equivalent of a multi-family housing situation now from a legal standpoint. (C) Lots in the former R-1s are generally small, and the houses in all but a few very select neighborhoods are built as closely together as our City's multi-family dwellings are. (D) Reflecting these realities, you should extend this revised ordinance to all dwelling units within the City. (E) Bottom line, if secondhand smoke is bad, it's bad for everyone and all residents of our City deserve to be protected & to have some recourse, not just residents of multi-family housing.

Thank you for your consideration of these suggested revisions.

Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Santa Monica resident, 26+ years
• City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Item 10.D., City Council meeting of Jan. 10, 2023. Thank you!
Item 10.D
01/10/2023
7 of 8 Item 10.D
01/10/2023
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Denise Anderson-Warren
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 5:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: 20 FEET IS NOT ENOUGH - Item 10.D - SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTION 4.44.020
From: betzi richardson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 4:49 PM
To: Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]> Subject: 20 FEET IS NOT ENOUGH - Item 10.D - SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTION

4.44.020

EXTERNAL
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren,
I agree wholeheartedly with Ann Bowman’s letter – 20 feet is not enough! Please make the smoking prohibitions ordinance read at least 25 feet, if not 30 or 40. I have been plagued for years by a neighbor who is just over the 20 foot line, but her second-hand cigarette smoke is extremely unpleasant and potentially dangerous. She doesn’t just take a quick smoke, she sits and reads and builds up big clouds of smoke, which are funneled straight toward me.

Please strengthen the smoking prohibition in a more effective way.

City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Item 10.D., City Council meeting of Jan. 10, 2023. Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Betzi Richardson, Board member, Wilmont
916 15th St. #9
Santa Monica,
CA 90403
[email protected]
Item 10.D
01/10/2023
8 of 8 Item 10.D
01/10/2023

Santa Monica City CouncilJanuary 10, 2023

Santa Monica City Council
January 10, 2023