News

Danville seeks to clarify smoking ban

Ordinance would update rules for apartment, condo complexes

The Danville Town Council is set to consider Tuesday clarifying recently implemented regulations that prohibit smoking at multifamily housing complexes.

The council members in November approved a new ordinance to ban smoking within residential units in multifamily complexes such as apartments and condominiums, as well as on patios or balconies in those complexes and all common areas of the building and property -- other than designated smoking areas.

But after those regulations took effect May 1, town officials said confusion arose about certain complexes in town, like some in Crow Canyon Country Club, that have one-story, attached single-family homes grouped in sets of three or more and therefore fall under the smoking ordinance's multifamily definition.

Danville staff recommends the council narrow the scope of the original ordinance to multifamily buildings with four or more units. "This is consistent with the town's original intent," city attorney Rob Ewing and assistant to the town manager Nat Rojanasathira wrote in their staff report to the council.

Town officials also received inquiries about how the smoking rules apply at complexes that feature a mix of single-family and multifamily buildings. They suggest an amendment to clarify that the ban applies to all common areas of any complex that has at least one building meeting the multifamily definition.

"This will ensure consistency and make the application of the ordinance more readily understandable to affected owners and tenants," Ewing and Rojanasathira wrote.

The council on Tuesday will consider introducing the ordinance establishing the clarifications and advancing it for final approval July 19. The meeting is set to start at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Meeting Hall at 201 Front St.

In other business, the council will present a proclamation declaring this as Parks Make Life Better Month.

Henry Perezalonso, manager of the Recreation, Arts and Community Services Department, will give a presentation updating the council on recent department activities and accomplishments.

Council members will receive a semi-annual update on the TRAFFIX program, which is a joint venture among the town, city of San Ramon, Contra Costa County and the school district aimed at addressing congestion caused by school-related traffic in the area's busiest intersections.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by San Ramon Resident
a resident of San Ramon
on Jul 5, 2016 at 12:15 pm

I wish San Ramon would adopt the same ordinance that Danville has. Living in a townhome complex with adjoining walls and driveways as well as windows less than 10 ft apart, makes the smoke unbearable. If you want to smoke, smoke inside your own home. Seeing a neighbor smoking in the street with his pajamas on doesn't help the neighborhood or improve home values.


Like this comment
Posted by Greg T
a resident of Danville
on Jul 5, 2016 at 5:31 pm

The one-story, single-family, townhomes at Crow Canyon Country Club are grouped in clusters of 4, not 3 as stated in article. They are not condominiums in the legal sense of the word. Adding to their complexity is that the country clubs land intertwines with the HOAs.


1 person likes this
Posted by Tom
a resident of Danville
on Jul 6, 2016 at 8:37 am

I am curious about why the conservatives aren't freaking out about this. After all this is a prime example of government overreach and taking away a personal right. Isn't this just another example about how liberals are destroying the Tri Valley by bringing over their agenda of government domination of our lives and choices. Shouldn't real Americans have the right to smoke weherever they please. Oh wait this is something they agree with


3 people like this
Posted by Long term resident
a resident of Danville
on Jul 6, 2016 at 5:45 pm

Tom:

If you want to go there, there is a slippery slope. I personally hate the smell of smoke and don't like to endure it in confined spaces. However, with the recent ban on single use plastic bags, a new smoking ordinance, etc. we are losing some personal freedoms and choices. Within reason, these are acceptable, but they can get out of control. I travel all over the world and have grown a great appreciation for the freedom we have in this country. If certain people didn't abuse it, then we wouldn't need to add ever more regulations and laws.

Of course, I guess for those smokers who are unaware of the law or claim to have not intentionally violated it, they can always get off just like Hillary did with her e-mail scandal.!!


6 people like this
Posted by Huh?
a resident of Danville
on Jul 7, 2016 at 10:00 am

Long Term Resident,

You mean when Hillary did the same thing that Powell and Rice did when they were SoS?

One of the most important purposes of government is to protect things larger than individuals, particularly when individual actions have effects far beyond them. The plastic bag ban is a perfect example: these plastic bags have significant environmental impacts that, in the long term, far outweigh the benefits of their convenience. Similarly, smoking in multi-family buildings affects the health of those that are not choosing to partake in knowingly unhealthy activity.

Lastly, I keep hearing that smoking and using disposable plastic bags are part of our "freedoms". Where do you find these freedoms? I don't recall any provision of the Constitution allowing individuals the inalienable right to use plastic bags or smoke cigarettes. To the contrary, the Tenth Amendment specifically delegates regulation of issues related to health and safety to the states (which, in turn, is delegated by the states to local governments to the extent not preempted by state law).

I don't know when the GOP became an anarchist party, but the GOP I remember was in favor of small federal government and localization of power to the states. You may disagree with the law, but the idea that it is governmental overreach is simply not true. If this were the federal government, I might agree (although the environmental impacts of the plastic bags would certainly make sense for federal regulation).


3 people like this
Posted by Long term resident
a resident of Danville
on Jul 7, 2016 at 8:42 pm

Huh:

Thanks for repeating the Hillary campaign narrative. First, even if Powell and a Rice sent over 100 classified e-mails from their personal servers, two wrongs don't make a right. Prosecute them too. Second, just like after the O.J. trial, we are sadly reminded that different rules and laws apply to the rich and powerful in this country. In that respect, we are no better than many of the third old countries we consider to be corrupt. A very sad reflection on our country and legal system.

As for the regulations, I appreciate your offer to dictate and protect me. The fact that you want to control the size of the soda drinks I can buy, the contents of meals I buy for my kids at fast food restaurants, the bags I use at grocery stores, what my neighbors can do, and designate Sanctuary Cities to protect illegals really helps me. I am most grateful to you and others. What will you think of next?? Like many people, you are fine with controlling other people's lives because you know what's best for all of us.


4 people like this
Posted by Huh?
a resident of Danville
on Jul 8, 2016 at 8:07 am

How does the OJ trial have anything to do with this? 1. That happened 20 years ago. 2. OJ was a black man in a city riddled with police violence against black people. 3. It was a jury trial. 12 randomly selected individuals decided his fate based on the evidence presented. It was not "the different rules and laws that apply to the rich and powerful."

Fortunately, it seems you have now abandoned your silly argument that you have some "freedoms" that protect you ability to use plastic bags or smoke cigarettes in a multi-family unit. I frankly don't care what your view is on the regulations that take place. There are always going to be differences of opinion on the wisdom of certain laws or regulations. But your prior position that the Town lacked the authority to do this because it violated your "freedoms" was ridiculous. Glad we are making progress with your understanding of civics.


4 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Danville
on Jul 8, 2016 at 9:14 am

John is a registered user.

Dear Long Term Resident,

I buy your argument. I also want your address so I can park my 18 wheeler on the street in front of your house (maybe even blocking your driveway, I will leave room for you to drive across your lawn to get out), I also want to stand on the street all night blasting my stereo turned toward your house and let my horse crap on the sidewalk by your house.

After all those are my freedoms and I should have the right to do anything I please even if it offends others or has the perception of endangering the health of others. Sound good?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Premarital and Couples: Tips for Hearing (Listening) and Being Known
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,350 views

Alameda County Grand Jury calls out supervisors
By pleasantonweekly.com | 7 comments | 1,015 views