Laserfiche WebLink
stupplAL fi��( 2 CI�a�• provided to the City Couni <br /> After Distribution of Packet <br /> - G -20- 17 <br /> - - Rental Dale <br /> Housing <br /> Association <br /> June 19,2017 <br /> Mayor Jerry Thorne and the Pleasanton City Council Sent via email <br /> Pleasanton City Hall <br /> 200 Old Bernal Avenue <br /> Pleasanton,CA 94588 <br /> Dear Mayor Thorne and Respected Council, <br /> Members of the Rental Housing Association of Southern Alameda County provide <br /> approximately 2,800 rental housing units in Pleasanton that will be affected by this ordinance. <br /> There are a few suggestions we would make to manage some ambiguity and ease some of the <br /> burden placed upon the housing providers. <br /> Section 9.26.020.J.: Delete "snuff, chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco" from the definition, as <br /> leaving it included would de-facto ban them as well. There are no "second-hand smoke issues" <br /> with these products, and housing providers should not be forced to terminate tenancies on this <br /> basis. <br /> Section 9.26.030.A.3. makes smoking illegal in enclosed and unenclosed common areas, and <br /> Section 9.26.030.B.2. dictates that a portion of the common area may be designated as a <br /> "Smoking Area", yet Section 9.26.035.A.1. mandates that a designated smoking area"Shall be <br /> unenclosed..." We believe that the housing provider should maintain the right to determine <br /> whether the smoking area should be enclosed or unenclosed as long as it is in compliance with <br /> Section 9.26.030.A.3. <br /> Section 9.26.030.B.3 places an untenable burden on the housing provider regarding medical <br /> marijuana. We ask that this item be deleted, and that the definition of non-smoking include <br /> marijuana in all cases. Monitoring and enforcement of medical marijuana considerations are <br /> virtually impossible, and public-health-related concerns especially regarding exposure to <br /> children are dramatically increasing. <br /> Lastly, given that it is becoming increasingly difficult to rent a former smoking apartment to <br /> non-smokers, we ask that Section 9.26.060.A. be amended to include item 4 as follows: a <br /> statement that renters who breach the non-smoking provision of the lease by smoking in the <br /> rental unit will have the cost of professional smoke remediation deducted from their security <br /> deposit. <br /> While we believe this ordinance is in the overall health interest of housing community,there <br /> will be a significant incremental short term financial burden on the housing providers: <br /> o More units than normal will be vacant as smokers seek other accommodations. <br /> o The units will be vacant longer,as the remediation process is often multi-phased and <br /> time consuming. <br />