My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020
>
051920
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2020 3:21:10 PM
Creation date
5/14/2020 3:21:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/19/2020
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
The first regulation relates to proposed flavored tobacco sales restrictions. The definitions of <br /> "flavored tobacco" and "tobacco products" were presented. The definitions will be incorporated into <br /> the City's proposed ordinance. The proposal is for tobacco retailers to be prohibited from selling <br /> flavored tobacco products city-wide. Tobacco stores may sell them, however, it restricts store entry <br /> to persons 18 or older. It would allow adults to retain access to legal products. <br /> The proposed e-cigarettes sales restriction will include the state definition of "electronic smoking <br /> device" and paraphernalia. The proposed regulation would prohibit tobacco retailers city-wide from <br /> selling electronic smoking devices and related paraphernalia. Tobacco stores may continue to sell <br /> electronic smoking devices and related paraphernalia with store entry limited to those 18 or older <br /> while allowing adults to retain access to legal products. The restriction on flavored tobacco and <br /> electronic smoking devices would go into effect in 12 months to give tobacco retailers time to <br /> change their business models. <br /> The third proposed restriction relates to restricting tobacco sales within a 1000-foot buffer from <br /> public schools, parks, and recreation facilities to limit youth exposure to tobacco products at retail <br /> sites that youth frequently patronize. The 1000-foot buffer is similar to buffers used by other cities <br /> in Alameda County. The restriction would intentionally apply the buffer to new uses adjacent to <br /> public schools, parks, and recreation facilities, with exemptions for existing tobacco stores and <br /> tobacco retailers. The grandfathered uses would become legal non-conforming uses. <br /> The fourth item is to authorize staff to develop a Tobacco Retailer Licensing (TRL) program, <br /> delegated to the City Manager, to better achieve compliance with restrictions, and impose penalties <br /> for violations. <br /> The fifth item is related to possession of tobacco products by persons under 21. Currently, the <br /> Municipal Code prohibits possession if under the age of 18. This would amend the code to prohibit <br /> possession if under 21, as the smoking age was raised to this age in 2016. The possession would <br /> be subject to confiscation and referrals to diversion or anti-addiction program for multiple violations. <br /> There would be no fines and no criminal penalties. Other restrictions not recommended were <br /> minimum pack sizes and pricing, "go dark" or limiting advertising in stores to not expose youth, <br /> however there were concerns regarding first amendment rights. <br /> Mayor Thorne requested clarification regarding hookah uses and staff noted it was a type of tobacco <br /> pipe. He further inquired about First Amendment rights, as related to covering alcohol products. <br /> Assistant City Attorney Seto noted that targeting certain products may make the City a subject of <br /> potential litigation. . Mayor Thorne was not sure it was really a First Amendment issue. <br /> Mayor Thorne inquired regarding the diversion programs which Police Chief Eicher noted is run by <br /> the Police Department, in partnership with the school district, and offered in lieu of prosecution for <br /> youth who have commited crimes.. <br /> Councilmember Testa inquired whether there was a charge for the diversion program, to which <br /> Police Chief Eicher replied there is no fee. Councilmember Pentin inquired how 18 — 24 year olds <br /> would be included in the diversion program. Councilmember Narum inquired as to how many <br /> infractions would be considered multiple infractions. In response to the Council inquiries, the Police <br /> Chief stated it would likely be habitual users who would be included in the program, however details <br /> still need to be worked out. Assistant City Attorney Seto acknowledged the Police Chief has <br /> discretion as to when the individual would be referred to the diversion program. <br /> Councilmember Pentin inquired regarding the State program for diversion. Assistant City Attorney <br /> Seto stated the State program does not have fines or community service, it is related to distribution <br /> rather than possession. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 8 of 14 February 18, 2020 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.