|
The roll call vote was as followS:
<br />AYES: Councilmen Butler, Kephart, Mercer, good, and Mayor Brandes
<br />NOES: None
<br />ABSENT: None
<br />
<br />Matters for =he Information of the Council
<br /> Hr. galker presented the Information Report (IR 80:3) of the Director of Public
<br />Works and Utilities dated February 28, 1980, regarding downtown lighting levels.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Walker presented the City Council Agenda Planning Report for March, April,
<br />and May.
<br />
<br />REPORTS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
<br />International Business Machines Corp., ~t el, v..~ounty. of Alameda~ Cities of 0~.kla~d,
<br />HaT~ard~ .San .Leandro, Eme~yvi.l!et F;emont, Newark~ Berkeleyt .Alban~ Union City,
<br />Livemore, andPleasanton, et a.1
<br /> Mr. Levine presented his report dated February 28, 1980, regarding this matter.
<br />
<br /> It was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Mayor Brandes, that the
<br />City Attorney be authorized to formally request the County to provide defense in
<br />the law suit of International Business Machines Corp., et el, v. County of Alameda,
<br />Cities of Oakland, Hayward, San Leanalto, Emeryrills, Fremont, Newark, Berkeley,
<br />Albany, Union City, Livemore, and Pleasanton, et al.
<br />The roll call vote was as follows:
<br />AYES: Councilmen Butler, Kephart, Mercer, good, and Mayor Brandes
<br />NOES: None
<br />ABSENT: None
<br />
<br />Ar~lysis of Drug Paraphernalia Bills now'Pendin~ and Report on. Paraphernalia Con-
<br />ference at Lakewood
<br /> Mr. Levine presented his report dated March 6, 1980, regarding this matter.
<br />reviewed the various bills now being considered relative to drug paraphernalia re-
<br />gulation.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Levine reported on the Conference he artended in Lakewood on March 10, 1980.
<br />He stated there-was a large turnout from cities in California as well as other states,
<br />which included city attornies, police officers, and elected officials. He said there
<br />were several keynote speakers including the District Attorney of Los Angeles County
<br />and the Attorney General, all of whom urged a strong stand be taken on the drug para-
<br />phernalia regulation. Mr. Levine advised that several ordinances and bills were dis-
<br />cussed with varying degrees of control, and possible methods to regulate. He stated
<br />the pre-emption issue was discussed, which could cause a further loss of local con-
<br />trol should the legislature adopt a sale to minors measure without a non-pre-emption
<br />clause. He advised that the Hayes bill contained a partial pre-emption clause.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Levine stated that the Criminal Justice Committee of the Assembly will be
<br />hearing some of the bills on drug paraphernalia on Monday, March 17, 1980, in
<br />Sacramento, and suggested that possibly some members of the Council might want to
<br />attend this hearing to voice the City of Pleasanton~s position on this matter.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Levine advised there was another bill that was presented recently by
<br />Assemblyman Ellis prohibiting drug paraphernalia manufacturing, sales and possesT
<br />sion.
<br />
<br /> After considerable discussion, Council took a position in support of all bills
<br />regulating the sale of drug paraphernalia but preferrin~ one of general prohibition.
<br />Local a~encies should be allowed to continue to regular in their own city if any
<br />
<br /> lo. sill/so
<br />
<br />
<br />
|