05 - Laserfiche WebLink

properties. She advised in the interim, staff received public correspondence and the City Council has been copied on all responses. Mayor Brown opened public comment. Gregory Rawls expressed concern over the rights of homebuyers because fewer than 10% of California adults smoke and expects this number to go down. He suggested adding a smoking disclosure as a real estate sales requirement. He noted ownership rights are already limited by nuisance laws for loud music, lawn-watering restrictions, and other regulations such as banning the burning of firewood during Spare the Air periods. He questioned the existence of building codes mitigating smoke in condominiums and townhouses. David Stark, representing the Bay East Association of Realtors, expressed support for the ordinance and advised the modifications over lease agreement language make it practical and should help achieve the City Council's goals while also protecting private citizens' rights and liberties. He urged the City Council to approve the ordinance as presented tonight. He offered to convene a meeting with real estate professionals about buyer preferences. Afshin Zand explained property rights for condominium owners end at the walls and they do not have the right to contaminate what lies beyond their walls according to the Davis-Stirling Act. He urged the City Council to pass the ordinance with the appendix presented at the last meeting banning indoor smoking. He advised second-hand smoke causes 40,000 deaths annually among adults and negatively impacts over 300,000 annually and noted enforcement is the same for apartments and condominiums. Paul Cummings, Tobacco Control Program Director for the Alameda County Public Health Department, stated exposure to second-hand smoke is a concern and reported they have been contacted by concerned Pleasanton residents over the past two weeks and offered support for educational services. Mayor Brown closed public comment. In response to Councilmember Testa, Ms. Seto clarified the Davis-Stirling Act governs private property and states people own the airspace within their condominium unit but advised there are different rules for townhomes, triplexes, fourplexes, and other types of units impacted by this ordinance. She advised Mr. Zand's comment is not something regulated by the Davis-Stirling Act. She reported the City is not out of legal compliance. She noted the City does not enforce the private rules of an HOA and advised in-home smoking is something they can regulate within their community. Ms. Seto clarified the Davis-Stirling Act regulates real estate where there is common property ownership but does not impose upon the City to regulate health and safety. The City's proposal is a different kind of health and safety regulation. She explained it is a City Council policy decision to decide if the City is fully protecting public health and safety without an in-unit smoking ban. There is no requirement under State law and every community takes a different approach to in-unit smoking. Ms. Seto clarified for ownership units, the Building department advised each unit has separate ventilation and indoor air space. She clarified the standards and construction is higher in for-sale units even if the codes may be the same for how the units are divided. She advised builders of for-sale units take extra effort to make them more insulated. In response to Councilmember Testa. Community Development Director Ellen Clark confirmed the standards are the same for having separate ventilation systems in ownership and rental units but noted a builder can always go above the minimum standards at their discretion. She clarified other areas of the building code may have different standards but not in the aspects being discussed tonight. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 18 December 21. 2021