CCMIN040682 - Laserfiche WebLink

479 Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on this item. Mr. Jack Ingerson, Danville, representing Z & M Investors, requested that his client's property on Sonoma Drive be removed from the weed abatement list as they plan to start development of this parcel within 30 days; the building permits are waiting to be picked up at this time. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on this item. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Wood, and seconded by Council- member Mohr, that Resolution No. 82-122, authorizing the appropriate staff members to proceed with the abatement of the nuisance caused by noxious or dangerous weeds growing on certain properties in the City of Pleasanton as set forth in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 82-98, except that no action shall be taken with respect to the Z & M property on Sonoma Drive for sixty (60) days, be adopted. F" The roll call vote was as follows: ~ AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer CO NOES: None C~ ABSENT: None Drug Paraph.ernalia Ordinance Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 82:134) dated April 1, 1982, regarding this matter. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on this item. Mr. Mike Dyer, Pleasanton resident and concerned parent, stated that drug abuse is a community problem and that an ordinance prohibiting the sale of drug parapher- .... nalia would be a strong position to take to control this problem. He encouraged adop- tion of the ordinance. Mr. Frank C. Brandes, Jr., 6889 Corte Sonada, stated he concurred with the pre- vious speaker, and urged Council to adopt the ordinance to ban the sale of drug paraphernalia in Pleasanton. Ms. June Vierra, 4271 Pleasanton Avenue, stated that as a teacher in the Pleasanton school system, she felt there is a great need for this kind of ordi- nance, and agreed with the previous speakers regarding this matter. Mr. Steve Hollowell, representing Portable Madness, spoke in opposition to the ordinance, citing the following reasons: (1) if passed, the ordinance would accom- plish nothing related to the stated goals, but rather be a large waste of tax money for enforcement and litigation, as well as confuse the public about the cause of drug abuse; (2) the city lacks the authority to legislate in this area since the state has occupied the field with SB 95, SB 1660, and AB 2442; (3) there are two cit ' more bills in the State Legislature, AB 2501 and SB 341, that would negate the y s actions when passed; (4) the U. S. Supreme Court will be rehearing this issue soon; (5) the ordinance has several constitutional problems besides preemption, including vagueness, lack of rational purpose, unenforceability, and selective enforcement, that several courts have overturned similar ordinances in other states and that a Santa Barbara court overturned a similar ordinance on the basis of preemption and the 1st Amendment; (6) the ordinance would have no impact on drug abuse; and (6) "paraphernalia" would actually be glamorized by passing the ordinance, and addi- tionally, a black market could be established. Mr. Hollowell stated that the problem as it relates to minors has been dealth with already, and this law is aimed at adults. He urged Council to suspend judgement until the U.S. Supreme Court and the State Legislature act; and not waste tax dollars on an ordinance that could be overturned or for that matter could be ignored. 10. 4/6/82