My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020
>
021820
>
12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2020 2:27:44 PM
Creation date
2/13/2020 11:51:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/18/2020
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
NOTES
TOBACCO ORDINANCE
Document Relationships
12 ATTACHMENTS
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\021820
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
addresses concerns about tenant spaces in shopping complexes with large <br /> parking lots. <br /> Attachments 10 and 11 are maps showing the 1,000 foot buffer around public schools, <br /> parks and recreation facilities, with tobacco retailers and stores shown as red dots. In <br /> total 14-18 tobacco retailers, and 4 tobacco stores are currently located within the <br /> proposed buffer. <br /> Committee and Commission Recommendations <br /> The Youth Commission recommended a 1,000 foot buffer around public schools, parks <br /> and recreation facilities, but with a grandfathering provision for existing tobacco stores <br /> only. The Planning Commission recommended regulations similar to those <br /> recommended by staff, above. The EVC supported a restriction on sales at tobacco <br /> retailers within 1,000 feet of schools only, and with tobacco stores grandfathered. <br /> Regulations in Other Tri-Valley Cities <br /> Attachment 7 shows that Dublin and Livermore also impose buffers around certain <br /> youth gathering spaces, but with some differences on the type of uses around which the <br /> buffers would apply; and for Dublin, a smaller (500 foot) buffer from parks, libraries and <br /> recreation facilities (and some other uses), and 1,000 feet from schools. All the cities in <br /> Alameda County which have adopted such buffers have allowed pre-existing uses <br /> within those buffers to continue to sell tobacco products, which is the same approach in <br /> the proposed ordinance <br /> Alternatives <br /> As alternatives to the proposed restriction, the City Council could consider: <br /> A. Prohibiting tobacco sales for existing as well as new retailers (i.e. not <br /> grandfathering tobacco retailers.) <br /> B. Restricting sales around public schools only. <br /> 4. Authorize staff to developer Tobacco Retailer Licensing (TRL) program. The majority <br /> of Alameda County jurisdictions that impose restrictions on tobacco sales also operate a <br /> Tobacco Retailer License program, which requires any retailer of tobacco products to <br /> obtain a separate license. These licensing programs provide the jurisdiction with a <br /> better ability to track the locations where tobacco is being sold, and to enforce local <br /> regulations by imposing penalties or revoking a license if violations are found. <br /> Proposed Regulations <br /> To better ensure compliance with the prohibitions on the sale of flavored tobacco <br /> products and electronic smoking devices and related paraphernalia, as well as test for <br /> underage sales, or other violations, the proposed ordinance (Attachment 1, in new <br /> §9.32.090) directs the City Manager to administratively develop and enforce a tobacco <br /> retailer licensing (TRL) program. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.