Redwood City studies new smoking rules

Redwood City’s regulations currently allow for some exceptions, but the county is looking for cities to hop on board, Amanda Anthony, economic development manager, said. 

The county’s ordinance requires two on-site inspections by San Mateo County Health a year and an annual fee of $672. The ordinance also regulates the location of tobacco retail stores, not allowing them to be established within 1,000 feet of youth populated areas or 500 feet from another tobacco retailer. 

If cities adopt this ordinance, the county will be the one to administer the permit program and provide enforcement, if they adopt without any alteration. 

“It takes a big step forward in regulating and promoting public health measures,” Anthony said. “It reduces tobacco access to all, it reduces marketing to youth and enforcing when those provisions are violated.” 

However, the county’s ordinance is strict on hookah and could affect the three currently operating businesses that have hookah lounges. The state law has some exemptions for the sale of flavored tobacco, like hookah, that Redwood City has taken advantage of.  

Hookah is often smoked in a group as a social activity, and originated as a cultural and social practice among Middle Eastern communities, Indians, Armenians and Persians, which councilmembers said they still want to respect. 

“We are a city that embraces lots of different cultures and lots of different entertainment and we welcome everybody, so that’s tough,” Councilmember Kaia Eakin said. 

The county ordinance, as written, does leave some room for possible flexibility, Anthony said, because it specifically outlines the restriction of hookah in “enclosed spaces.” Defining what that means, and whether outdoor spaces covered with canopies count, will be something the city will also study. 

“There is a really narrow way for them to continue doing business as they sell flavored tobacco,” Anthony said. “It would have to change how they would sell it if they wanted to continue to sell it.” 

However, keeping the hookah lounges around is not a priority for Councilmember Diane Howard who believes it’s more important to address the public health concern that comes with tobacco retail regulations. 

Tobacco retailers “will do anything to capture the new audience,” Howard said, and the priority of the council should be deterring young people who are more likely to engage with tobacco through sweet and flavored products. 

“People who are smoking hookah who are in their 70s and 80s, they’re going to be mad at us, I know that, but we’re trying to prevent the young people from getting hooked,” she said. “I have to care about that. We all care about that.” 

If the city were to establish its own ordinance, it would allow for more flexibility in provisions, making the city responsible for permitting, inspections and enforcement. 

However, Anthony said the city would need to figure out which department would be responsible for this, and it would cost the city anywhere from $110,000 to $175,000 annually to maintain. This would likely result in a $2,000 annual fee to businesses, which is more than three times what the county would charge

“The cost of business for us to do it is a lot, I think it puts a lot of pressure on our staff,” Councilmember Alicia Aguirre said. “I’m a little bit leery about adding it as our own.” 

Vice Mayor Lissette Espinoza-Garnica said having the jurisdiction to control what they allow, and enforcement of any regulations made, is of importance. 

“I would prefer the city to have its own ordinance,” Espinoza-Garnica said. “I do think of the word puritanical when I think of an outright ban on certain behaviors such as vices.” 

Cities that opted to let the county regulate and enforce include Brisbane, East Palo Alto, Millbrae, Menlo Park, San Carlo and San Mateo. Burlingame and South San Francisco have adopted their own city ordinance — San Bruno also allows for hookah lounges — and San Bruno and Foster City are currently alongside Redwood City considering which road to take. 

The City Council is also considering limiting smoking in public right of ways, or city-owned areas such as parking garages, sidewalks and streets. 

With concerns of secondhand smoke and public nuisances, Councilmember Elmer Martínez Saballos said he would be in favor of more restrictions on where smoking is permitted.

“I think if we have restrictions at pedestrian malls, at our really big corridors, we’re protecting the overall health of our community,” Martinez Saballos said. “I think it’s equally important to have designated smoking areas so that folks don’t feel like this is something they need to hide from public view.”

Other members of the council added that they should approach this topic and future decisions carefully, considering that people who smoke often have an addiction. City regulations now prohibit smoking in multifamily buildings. 

Mayor Jeff Gee said because of current city regulations, the council should be thoughtful in their future decisions. 

“If you can’t smoke in your housing, or within 15 feet of buildings, in some neighborhoods, what’s left?” Gee said. 

City staff will continue studying both policy considerations, engage with stakeholders, and will present their findings to the council at a future date for possible adoption.