Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Balch stated this is still a gray area for him. He advised he would be agreeable to the <br /> staffs recommendation for vehicles to be permissible smoking areas. <br /> Assistant City Attorney Seto confirmed the proposed language does not permit smoking in a vehicle. <br /> Councilmember Balch clarified he would allow smoking in a vehicle, contrary to the staffs <br /> recommendation. <br /> Councilmember Balch stated the private-party suit should be a separate item. He advised if you are at <br /> your fourth or fifth violation then perhaps it should be the basis for a lawsuit. <br /> Interim City Manager Dolan stated the item could be continued if the Council need more time to make <br /> the decision or if the Council wants to impose a set number of violations before it takes effect. <br /> City Attorney Dan Sodergren stated this is also tied to administrative penalty provisions in the PMC. In <br /> response to City Attorney Sodergren, Assistant City Attorney Seto clarified the administrative <br /> enforcement mechanisms are on a rolling 12-month basis. She clarified Councilmember Balch is <br /> discussing the private lawsuit section and this would not be the basis to support a private lawsuit unless <br /> someone had four violations. City Attorney Sodergren expressed his initial misunderstanding with what <br /> was being discussed. <br /> Councilmember Balch stated he would not like it to be where a single violation would not be the basis of <br /> a lawsuit, adding he will not support frivolous lawsuits in Pleasanton. He advised the basis of frivolous <br /> can be debated. He stated he wants there to be some process evaluated by the City before a private <br /> suit can be filed. <br /> Assistant City Attorney Seto clarified the City would not be evaluating the process. She advised this <br /> could be a situation where if a neighbor wants to sue over two violations the City will not say they <br /> cannot sue them. She stated he is asking to change the language in the PMC to make it four violations <br /> but a potential litigant could always access public records to show there have been two violations and <br /> this could conceivably be enough to convince a judge there is a private nuisance. She stated it would <br /> be hard for her to judge what would be the basis to support a private nuisance accusation for not <br /> knowing the damages the litigant would be arguing. <br /> City Attorney Sodergren stated it often happens in a noise context where you can still bring a private <br /> nuisance action even if it does not violate a City ordinance's noise thresholds. He advised it is on a <br /> specific case basis so it can be hard to generalize. <br /> Mayor Brown stated she is unsure if they have the authority to prohibit those lawsuits, but advised it is a <br /> good goal. <br /> Councilmember Balch stated he did not want the first violation to be the basis for a lawsuit. <br /> Mayor Brown stated they cannot control this as Councilmembers. <br /> In response to City Attorney Sodergren, Councilmember Balch confirmed he is looking to strike Section <br /> 9.27.045.A as he does not want residents to enforce a City code but rather just be able to bring a <br /> general nuisance lawsuit. <br /> Assistant City Attorney Seto clarified the section about lease violations is in Section 9.027.035. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 12 of 18 December 7, 2021 <br />