Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Public Safety Commission 09/13/06 �-��-� CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES ''� , . Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 3:30 p.m. Administrative Conference Room I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Chairman Rick Lebel. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner James Butzbach Vice Chairman Gloria Kirkwood Commissioner Jim Larsh Commissioner Martin Nethery Chairman Rick Lebel Also Present: Mayor Jim Ferguson Councilman Richard S. Kelly Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services Steve Thetford, Asst. Chief, Palm Desert Police Department Walt Holtoway, Battalion Chief, Palm Desert/Riverside County Fire Dept Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programs Pat Scully, Senior Management Analyst Mary P. Gates, Recording Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CITY COI�NCTL ACT'ION: None APPROVED � DENIED 1tECFIVED_�T�— OTHER MBBTING DATE AYss: �e Fe��'��Q�_______�-�— � NOES• p�e. �,asENT. �Ione. ABSTATN: one� ' VERIFIED BY• Original on•File with City Clerk's Office APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes of the June 14, 2006, Public Safety Commission Meeting. Commissioner Butzbach noted that the medical marijuana verbatim transcript referred to the City of Rockland, and it should actually be the City of Rocklin. With that correction, Commissioner Nethery moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Butzbach and carried by a 5-0 vote. V. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Palm Desert Fire Services Monthly Report for May, June, and July 2006. Mrs. Gilligan noted that Chief Otero had been promoted to Deputy Chief in charge of Eastern Riverside County. Dennis Dawson had been appointed Chief in his place, and staff would make sure he receives the Public Safety Commission Agenda in the future. Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Palm Desert Fire Services Monthly Report for May, June, and July 2006. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Larsh and carried by a 5-0 vote. B. Palm Desert Special Teams Monthly Statistics for June and July 2006. Chairman Lebel thanked Deputies DaSilva and Tapp for all of their hard work as part of the Palm Desert Target Team. Vice Chairman Kirkwood moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Palm Desert Special Teams Monthly Statistics for June and July 2006. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Larsh and carried by a 5-0 vote. 2 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 C. Palm Desert Station - Traffic Collision Statistics for May and June 2006. Commissioner Larsh moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Traffic Collision Statistics for May and June 2006. Motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Kirkwood and carried by a 5-0 vote. D. Correspondence from Citizen Sandra Coleman Relative to Concerns About Traffic Circulation in and around Canyon National Bank and the Adjacent Church Parking Lot on Country Club Drive Mrs. Gilligan noted that while the initial correspondence from Ms. Coleman was addressed to the Public Safety Commission, it was directed to staff and the Police Department for response due to the timing of the Public Safety Commission meetings. Ms. Coleman had been advised and understood thatthe City had no jurisdiction overthe area in question, as it was private property. Lt. Thetford added that while the church had a sign advising people of inerging traffic, the problem was with people coming from the bank parking lot. He noted that the misunderstanding was with whether or not this violated any City ordinances, but there was nothing for the Sheriff's Department to enforce,as this was a design/engineering flaw with the way the property sits right now. Commissioner Butzbach expressed concern with the City being exposed to liability for allowing such a condition to exist, even though it is on private property. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly noted that the City had approved the design of the parking lot, and the City may have some liability because of that. Commissioner Nethery asked if there was anything the City's Planning or Building Departments could do, since the design was apparently not working out as well as it should. Chairman Lebel suggested that the City place a sign at the street entrance cautioning drivers about the blind driveway. Mr. Greenwood responded that even that would have to occur on the private property and would have to be voluntary by the property owners. He noted that in the State of California, if a property owner identifies an issue like that, they are responsible for it. If they knew 3 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 enough about the problem to put a sign up, they should have fixed it rather than put up the sign. Lt. Thetford noted that he had looked at the area. There was some signage advising of the merge, although he was not sure additional signage would fix the problem. He said he felt a "T" intersection would probably be safer than the "Y" intersection currently there, and cutting down some of the foliage would probably solve the problem. However, the Police Department could not require the property owner to do that. Mr. Greenwood stated this was really the responsibility of the property owners. A letter could be sent advising them that this matter has come to the attention of the City and asking that they please see what they can do to resolve the situation. Lt. Thetford said he felt this would meet the Police Department's requirement as far as bringing this problem to their attention; however, he asked whether the City or Police Department would incur liability by knowing about it and not doing anything. He felt putting the property owner on notice would put the City/Police Department in a better situation to defend any liability. Chairman Lebel said he felt this would be an appropriate position to take. He asked if it would be appropriate for the letter to indicate that a citizen has made a complaint and expressed concern, the matter has been reviewed by appropriate City departments, it has been noticed that the area in question is on private property, the citizen has been so advised, and it appears the property owner can do something to help resolve the situation. Mr. Greenwood said staff would send a letter to each of the property managers/owners to let them know this issue has come up and ask that they address it. Mayor Ferguson suggested that the letter be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to mailing. The Commission agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly left the meeting at 4:10 p.m. 4 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 E. Request for Acceptance of Cal COPS (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funding - SLESF) Grant Award Commissioner Nethery noted that Lt. Thetford had indicated in the staff report the "proposed use" of the funds, and he asked if that meant there was some flexibility in how the funds are used as long as that use falls within the guidelines of the grant. Lt. Thetford responded that the Police Department had flexibility throughout the year to change how the money is spent. He noted that in the past, the Department had been allowed to buy furnishings for the new substation, which was something not allowed in the way the grant was initially written. In orderto get around that, the Department went to the Commission for Cal COPS and was awarded an exemption. He said if a disaster, emergency, or major event were to arise in the near future, and funds were needed to support the Police Department's operation, those funds could be diverted for that use. Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, concur with the Police Department's proposal and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Cal COPS (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funding- SLESF) Grant Award of$100,000 to be used to cover the cost for the 2006 Holiday Theft Suppression Program, support the Special Enforcement Team's programs, vehicle, and communications expense, and the acquisition of necessary equipment to support front line law enforcement services. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Larsh and carried by a 5-0 vote. F. I nformational Items 1. Email Relative to 2006/07 California State Budget Public Safety Issues Informational item only— no action taken. 2. Correspondence from Assemblyman John Benoit Relative to 2006/07 Funding for CVAG Priority Public Safety Programs Informational item only— no action taken. 3. Desert Sun Article of July 13, 2006, Entitled, "Fisherman's Wharf Pot Club Tests New San Francisco Law" Informational item only— no action taken. 5 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 4. 10'h Annual Peace Officer & Public Safety Appreciation Day and Awards Luncheon - 11/21/06 at Desert Springs Marriott Upon question by Ms. Scully, all five Commissioners indicated they wished to attend this luncheon. 5. Update on Trauma Intervention Programs, Inc. (TIP) Lt. Thetford noted that he felt this was a good resource and a good quality of life program. He stated that a CVAG committee would be discussing it, and there was a possibility the program could be reinstated; however, at this point, it had been suspended. VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. Update on Video Surveillance Pilot Program (continued from the meeting of June 14, 2006) Lt. Thetford provided a brief history of this pilot program. The Committee felt it should be done on a limited basis for the first year to see how many businesses actually participate. He noted the staff report in the packets and offered to answer any questions. Upon question by Chairman Lebel, he said the proposal was to initially have the program for one year and open it up to ten businesses, with the cost to be included in the next fiscal year's budget cycle. Chairman Lebel asked whether there had been any discussion relative to periodic evaluation of the program. Ms. Scully responded that the Committee determined this would be a function of the City's Code Enforcement Department, and there would be continuous monitoring of the program to ensure compliance with the type of equipment, maintenance, etc. Lt. Thetford added that the program would be monitored for effectiveness of the cameras for the ten businesses, and this data could then be used to show other businesses that it is a viable program. He noted that the proposal also included equipment specifications in order to ensure the highest quality video to assist law enforcement in identifying criminals. While the original proposed ordinance was just for convenience stores,the Committee decided to open up the program to all retail. 6 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 Mr. Ponder stated that research showed that cities with this type of surveillance ordinance in place have reduced their crime rates by up to 40% in some cases. Upon question by Commissioner Nethery, Lt.Thetford responded that the budget would include $3,000 per system. With regard to the cost of Code Enforcement personnel, Ms. Scully noted that Mr. Ponder had indicated a willingness to take on that duty for the one-year period; if the program were to continue after that, he would prepare a White Paper for presentation to City Council to add staff. Commissioner Nethery asked whetherthere had been anydiscussion relative to having these businesses contribute to the cost of the system. Lt. Thetford responded that the Committee's proposal was to have the businesses contribute to the cost, with the City to match them 50/50. Ms. Scully added that the businesses would also have to comply with the regulations that will be established for the type of equipment and agree to have the monitoring by Code Enforcement. Upon further question by Commissioner Nethery with regard to what would happen if more than 10 businesses came forward wanting to participate, staff responded that this was something that would have to be considered. Commissioner Nethery stated he felt it would be interesting to look at other cities to see how they have dealt with this type of situation. He said he felt it would be difficult to force existing businesses to participate and suggested the program be limited to new businesses. Ms. Scully noted that in discussing this with the City Attorney, he said businesses already in existence would be grandfathered in under the ordinances that were in effect when they took out their business licenses. Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the pilot video surveillance program and direct staff to develop specific program standards and prepare a program budget for submission during the annual upcoming budgetary process. Commissioner Nethery asked whether there was time for staff to develop the pilot program, taking into account comments made, and bring the program back to the Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Scully responded that this was the Committee's original intent. She said members of the Committee would get together, develop 7 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 standards, and bring specific program details to the Public Safety Commission, including the application form. Commissioner Butzbach withdrew his motion. Commissioner Nethery moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to develop the program details in light of the comments made at this meeting and bring the entire program back to the Public Safety Commission as soon as possible (at the November meeting) so the Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Larsh and carried by a 5-0 vote. VIII. OLD BUSiNESS A. Review and Recommendation to the City Council Relative to an Ordinance Either Banning Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the City of Palm Desert or Allowing Same with Specific Restrictions The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting: � RL Chairman Rick Lebel JL Commissioner Jim Larsh SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services ST Lt. Steve Thetford, Sheriff's Department JF Mayor Jim Ferguson MN Commissioner Marty Nethery GK Commissioner Gloria Kirkwood PS Pat Scully, Senior Management Analyst HP Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager JB Commissioner Jim Butzbach RL At this point we're under Old Business...Review and Recommendation to the City Council Relative to an Ordinance Either Banning Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the City of Palm Desert or Allowing Same with Specific Restrictions. I know this is an issue we've dealt with for some time, and as we left it last, the City Attorney was going to look at that. JL There's no City Attorney here. RL There's no City Attorney here. SRG He was scheduled to be, but... 8 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 RL I do know that this afternoon at 1:30, the County of Riverside, the Planning Commission for the County of Riverside, was having an open hearing in La Quinta regarding the same issue, and the County has proposed an ordinance...excuse me, the Planning Commission has proposed an ordinance forthe County's review, and as we speak, there are perhaps 30 or 40 people over there at the City Council Chambers speaking on behalf of and in support of or in opposition to the ordinance that the County has proposed. I did make a copy off the County's website of the proposed ordinance, and iYs being passed out to us as we speak. The County has taken the position to provide an ordinance which would provide some specifications and restrictions regarding medical marijuana dispensaries or medical marijuana cooperatives, though neither dispensaries nor cooperatives are defined under the Health & Safety Code. There was a proponent for, in this afternoon's presentation, a proponent for the ordinance that indicated that dispensaries and medical marijuana cooperatives are in fact defined under Senate Bill 420. I'm not sure whether Senate Bill 420 is just a Senate Bill or whether it's been chaptered and signed into law by the Governor, so that's something to be considered, perhaps to take a look at. Do we have any report from staff regarding this item? SRG I'll defer to Lt. Thetford. There is a committee that has been working with the City Attorney and our P�anning Department and our City Manager. Lt. Thetford is a key player in that, so I'll turn it over to you. ST Well, as you know, we were both sitting at the same meeting. My intent when I went to the meeting was to just sit down and listen to hear what they had to say, since I wasn't able to make the meeting in Riverside. This is the east end of the County's opportunity to have a hearing. We did have Sheriff representation there to listen to the hearing over there. I might add that what you're looking at, just so I can give you the lay of the land here, the first two pages is not exactly the ordinance. There's actually a draft ordinance. What you're looking at behind it with the memorandum...that ordinance is the proposed ordinance from the marijuana advocacy group. And the reason why I point that out is because when I first sat down, this was passed out by the advocacy group, and I thought this was what the County of Riverside Planning Department was proposing, and it is not. This is their proposed amendment. RL This is off the County's website. ST I know. They put it up because it was submitted by Lanny Swardlow. RL I see. ST And the reason why I don't....l looked for two specific things when I first looked into it. Number one, I looked for the requirement to have a medical marijuana card, which is not in this ordinance, which I knew there was something up. So one of two things...either the County wavered and decided to take that recommendation out 9 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 after listening to Lanny, or this was not their ordinance. The second thing I looked at was where were the requirements they were putting upon the Sheriff's Department or law enforcement in general. And in this ordinance, it talks about law enforcement taking the letters of recommendation just on face value and moving on without telling us exactly how we were supposed to do that. So I knew something was up. Mr. Harrod, who is noticed on the first page, he's the Project Planner, he actually handed out the true draft, and I will make sure that the Committee gets that as well as Council, and iYs what the County is proposing. And what it does....at that point, when I saw there was a difference, I made sure that I had the opportunity to speak. Again, I was going to see what was said, and I was going to leave and get to this meeting, but as soon as I saw that Lanny had a change of heart here, keeping in mind Mr. Swardlow's position has changed. When he invited Captain Kilday and myself to his meeting, his medical marijuana meeting, he was a strong advocate and supporter of the medical marijuana I.D. card program because that...he supported the fact that that was the only way that his people were not going to be harassed. RL Right. ST And that was what we should do, and that was when he was basically good friends and in cooperation with all of the dispensaries. Well, I got the feeling at this meeting that he's no longer in good graces with the dispensaries. As a matter of fact, he was bashing the dispensaries for charging too much money for marijuana. He's now siding with, you know, we shouldn't even have dispensaries, we should have co-ops where groups of people, six or more, should be able to grow marijuana at a common residence and be able to make marijuana cheaper. RL Correct. ST And he talked about Proposition 215... RL (unclear} he did propose that. ST ...he spoke about Proposition 215 and the Compassionate Use Act, which specifically stated that the purpose of this is so that people that need marijuana can get it safely and cost-effectively. That was his platform. It's not cost-effective to go to dispensaries any more when before that was his platform...you need to go to dispensaries because thaYs the only way to do it...and then his other is cost- effective, which I didn't hear him say but I knew it was coming was...if you charge $150 for a medical marijuana card, how is that cost-effective for individuals. So I got up and spoke to the Planning Board, and I posed our position from law enforcement, both from a representative of the Riverside Sheriff's Department, and I also made sure that they understood that I was also representing the Palm Desert Police Department. I mentioned the fact that we do have a dispensary, we've been dealing with this issue for quite a while, our experience with our dispensary so far, 10 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 after we worked out some of the rough edges, they've been professional and worked cooperatively with us to try and come to a resolution. I wasn't advocating the use of nor the restriction of it, I was talking purely from a position of what your law enforcement agency in Riverside County and Palm Desert have to deal with. And I strongly recommended that they maintain the requirement to have a medical marijuana card stay in their ordinance. I also mentioned to them that there were a couple of things in Lanny's draft, or Mr. Swardlow's draft, that was a little bit problematic. IYs always interesting to me when people say law enforcement will do this but don't tell us exactly how we're supposed to do, which is what our biggest problem with the medical marijuana law is because it doesn't really tell law enforcement how we're supposed to deal with it. And it might be of interest to the City of Palm Desert that the people that were there to get ready to speak to the Planning Commission were the same line of people that were here to talk to you. I venture to guess, and I didn't get a chance to say this, and I wish I had, to the Commission, I would pose one thought to you. Ask each one of these people where they're from, and note the fact of how many of them actually live in Riverside County. RL There is a lady that spoke representing nine years of work as a medical marijuana dispensary in Marin County. There's a gentleman from Las Vegas who drove four and a half hours to speak in favor of. There was a gentleman from San Bernardino County indicating that at least Riverside County was concerned with compassionate use, and San Bernardino County was kicking them out the door, so they had to come to Palm Desert to get their supplies. ST I explained one more thing to the Commission, or to the Planning Commission. I brought to their attention the definition of a primary care giver as defined by the law is one individual who cares for a group of people and is their primary care source. What we're seeing in the field is these medical marijuana letters with multiple colored little dots on them, and from our interviews from talking to the subjects that we're contacting with marijuana who had an overabundance of marijuana,we found out that, yes, Canna Help is their primary care giver. So are finro different places in Palm Springs. So they buy their marijuana here, and then they go over and buy there, and they go buy there. So they're not really going with the spirit of the law and the way the law is intended. I apologized to the Commission for not befng able to stick around and answer questions. I would have loved to, but I said if you have questions please ask me. The only question I was really asked was, since they knew that Palm Desert had been dealing with it, they asked me what Palm Desert's position was at this point. I explained to them that, you know, we've looked at the issue, we do have a dispensary that is up and running in our city. We haven't had...have we had our little problems? Yes. Do we have a major issue with them from a law enforcement perspective? No, we don't. We've been trying to work cooperatively in the spirit of the way the law is written, and the City of Palm Desert right now is looking at an ordinance. Now, whether we're going to go with an ordinance or not, I don't know, but I have seen a draft ordinance from the City of 11 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 Palm Desert, they've asked me how it compared to the County draft, I said it's extremely similar, very similar, in the fact that it does require a medical marijuana card, in the fact that it does require extra security on the property, in the fact that it does require a specific zone. I didn't get into the specifics of the fact that our zoning put Canna Help in the wrong place. But we do pa�allel them in that position. I told them that we are in the process of still dealing with, and I told them also that we may be watching the County to see what they do. I think it's important for us to see what they do because whichever direction we go, and if we decide that we're going to go in a regulation mode, then we probably should see what they do so we don't have a major conflict with them, not that we couldn't make it more restrictive. It would be nice if we fell in line with the restrictions they had and even maybe stricter if we agree with what they're doing. So that was kind of how I left it, and you stayed longer than I did. But things I will do....l will provide the current draft from the Planning Commission to the Commission and the Council and this body, so you'll have that as well. RL There were supporters there, including Lanny, there were more than he, that indicated to County Counsel that they had no authority whatsoever to be more restrictive than the State. ST Yes, he specifically stated that it was against the law for them to require medical marijuana cards. And I'm not an attorney, but that's not what our attorneys are telling us. As a matter of fact, our attorneys are telling us quite the contrary. If you read the spirit of the way it's written, it goes into great detail on setting up the medical marijuana card system. RL It sure does. ST And I made the point to say that, you know,there are multiple flaws in this law. One of the flaws is if we don't require medical marijuana cards, we'll have a situation like we had recently. A kid went into...an individual went into Canna Help and presented a false letter. Canna Help, in their best interests, looked at it, had the time to take, you know, 35, 45 minutes to an hour to try and verify this guy's letter to find out that it was a fraudulent letter. And I use the fraudulent term in meaning that it was not legitimate, not in the legal term meaning it's a violation of the law. They brought it to out attention in good faith, and we looked into it. IYs not a violation of the law to put one of these letters together...it's not a violation of the law. It is a violation of the law, by the code, to falsely make a medical marijuana card, so this person pretty much was allowed to walk, and we documented the incident. IYs the way the verbiage in the law is. But we do have it documented. But I made that point because that also hampers law enforcement. My whole point with them was whichever direction the County goes, whichever direction the City goes, don't...and you're going to hear this line of people that are going to tell you about the value of it. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing give your law enforcement the ability to deal with it in the field. Mr. Swardlow was a major advocate in the fact that if we had 12 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 medical marijuana cards, if we stopped somebody and ran this card, they'd be out of there in five to ten minutes versus...now his platform is this letter that would take us, if it was during regular business hours, up to an hour, and you want your law enforcement officer tied up for an hour trying to verify a medical marijuana case? Their intent is to have us turn a blind eye and let it move on without questioning it, and I don't think that's appropriate. RL It was interesting that the lady from Marin County who runs a medical marijuana dispensary at that location and a cooperative has 4,000 patients, 4,000 qualified patients. She's been doing it for nine years. They spent the first six months running the riffraff out of town and the trash out of town. One of the things that they do is to require an identification card. In fact, it was her specific business, according to her, that assisted the State in developing the standards for identification cards. And she felt very positively that an identification card should be required. Anyway, as I recall, and according to our minutes of the last meeting, we kind of left it that... SRG City Attorney RL ...with the City Attorney to develop a proposal that would try to restrict it as well as develop a proposal... JL He was going to do two, he was going to do one restrictive... RL Correct JL ...and one (unclear) ?? One that would prohibit. SRG The City Attorney was to be here, but we will reagendize it and make sure someone from his office is here next time, but... (Unclear) SRG ...met with Assemblyman Benoit about the language of the bill, the law. Have you heard anything...you gave him... ST I have heard from him. I met him at the groundbreaking for Xavier High School, and I was directed to provide him with a one-inch stack of paperwork, similar to what I provided, almost identical to what I provided to our City Council and also to our City Attorney. I provided it to him and had a short conversation with him and explained to him what our main issue was, and our main issue was the verbiage and the vagueness of it from a law enforcement perspective, again not from the ethical perspective of is it right or wrong. But the way the law reads right now is problematic, and we asked him to look into it. He took it on submission. I then saw 13 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 him at a meeting probably two months ago at another location, and basically, the impression I had was that they weren't going to do anything with it because iYs one of those issues that I don't think anybody wants to touch. Anybody that is actually dealing with the issue is commendable. From a political perspective, iYs my impression that it was dangerous for anybody to touch it. You know, the people that are actually going out and addressing the issue, again, from a law enforcement perspective, I still stand on the position that you have a conflict between Federal and State law, but I have to abide by the law, and our direction from our agency is we will recognize California law until we're told otherwise. San Bernardino and San Diego have the opposite perspective. Their agencies are telling them no, we don't recognize it, so we go with what our law enforcement agency tells us to, and if the City has an ordinance that is more restrictive,that helps us out, you know...we were ahead of the County for a long time, and they finally jumped in because now iYs affecting them. RL I still have a question as to where it appears in the Health & Safety Code that...or defined... where medical marijuana cooperative or medical marijuana dispensary is defined. I don't find it in the Health & Safety Code. I ran copies of both sections of the Health & Safety Code that addressed that. I shouldn't say sections...both chapters. Sections 11362.7 through 11362.83, and Health &Safety Code Sections 11357 through 11362.9. ST That's the issue with the way that whole section is written. You have different people reading into it with their own interpretations, and there are very few absolutes. The only absolute thing in this whole law is what the title is, the Compassionate Use Act. I don't argue the point that we have people that are critically ill and that this might be a viable solution to them. And I think there is evidence to prove that that may be the case, and I think thaYs about the only thing in my opinion that is solid in this law. The issue of what defines a cooperative,what defines a primary care giver...is defined, in my mind, and I interpret it different than the advocates do; however, there is nothing to back it up from a perspective....what if you get somebody who is not abiding by the primary care giver, which is what we have now? What happens if somebody does have a letter thaYs not a legitimate letter`? That's where the loopholes are in the law. When we met with...when we were invited to Mr. Swardlow's TV show and sat down in front of a group of people and answered a barrage of questions, one of the biggest questions we got was regarding cultivation of marijuana and how do we, as law enforcement, define how much is under...well, it's a canopy formula that defines how many plants are under a canopy. And the answer is, even from our marijuana experts is, you'll get ten different answers if you talk to ten different experts. So there is a definition issue there. They like to paint it as a (unclear) issue, and iYs not. RL There is a definition issue, and I'm concerned, at least one of my concerns is why should we define a medical marijuana dispensary when iYs not defined under State law? Why should we take that upon ourselves to define it and to make provision for 14 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 it when State law does not provide that definition? I think thaYs one concern that I have. So it appears that we'll need to hofd it over again. SRG Sorry. And I want to ask Lt. Thetford one more question. Do we have an update on the two lawsuits, San Diego and San Bernardino? ST No, and I don't expect that we're going to see anything for a while. Again, this is not a political thing that somebody wants to grab and run with. I don't see...let me give you another example. CVAG on Monday, on the agenda, is for somebody from the US Attorney's Office to attend that meeting and speak, and that was a commitment made by UnderSheriff Lingle. He had somebody lined up. That person fell through. I'm aggressivefy trying to find a followup person. I've worked with the DEA on several cases. We've talked about this issue. The US Attorney is happy to support the DEA's effort when they're going after large medical marijuana dispensaries, they're going after asset forfeiture. But they're not really interested in getting into State or City politics. So I have a feeling that I'm going to be calling, and I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling I may be calling CVAG to say you're probably going to have to bump that speaker because I can't find somebody. The US Attorney's position is they're dealing with Federal law. IYs a violation of the law, no ifs, ands, or buts. What they're doing is illegal according to the Federal Constitution and Federal as they see it now. But San Diego and San Bernardino...nothing as of yet, and I expect it will probably be several months if not several years before we see anybody even pick up the case, if they even do that. It was recommended by the Attorney General, I believe, for them to actually take a look at it. RL Very good, so we'll continue that. SRG It will be on your next Agenda, and someone from the City Attorney's office will be here. Discussion of this issue continued under "Report on City Council Action(s)" as follows: JF We had talked about marijuana a little bit yesterday, and I think Lt. Thetford did a commendable job of recognizing that there are legitimate uses for medical marijuana, and then there are recreational uses for marijuana, and the difficulty has been how to parse between the two. And, you know, we did strike an accord with the advocates over Christmas on the card issue. They don't like getting cards, but thaYs probably because it does do the parsing that we hoped it would do. And, you know, the way the law is written, there is no provision for dispensary anywhere, so they've taken collectives and cooperatives, and they've tried to bootstrap that into a dispensary, which I disagree with personally. On the other hand, you have to have a medical doctor write a recommendation for you to get this. The only reason iYs a recommendation is because if it's a prescription, then iYs under the FDA, and that's banned under the FDA. But, at the same time, I've seen doctors write prescriptions for Percocet and all kinds of drugs far worse than marijuana. And I 15 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 think the card system was probably the best compromise that we reached, and that is if you have a letter from a doctor recommending this, and you go to the County, and you get the card, and they verify the letter, and you need this for medicinal purposes, great. Have your card, law enforcement will leave you alone. I think that's the compact that was struck. ST Absolutely. JF If you've got some bogus, xeroxed letter that you got from some attorney in Oakland, and no offense, but you and I both know... MN I don't hang out in Oakland. JF ...that that's not going to fly. And I personally talked to Supervisor Wilson, Supervisor Stone...l know that they're looking at this very heart of the County. I was at the Board of Supervisors meeting a week ago last Tuesday, and they did send it back to the Planning Commission. I think they're wrestling with it the way that we're wrestling with it, and I guess my personal druthers would be to wait for the Board of Supervisors action from Riverside County and then take a look at it, whether we think it's too lenient, too restrictive, you know...and fine tune it from there. RL Or whether they made enough accommodation (unclear) JF Well, if iYs going to be a County-wide ordinance, you know, it's going to comptetely surround us, and we may as well sort of dovetail our efforts. I am adamant about sticking with the card requirement. The owner of Canna Help has about 500 cards issued now. I did meet with Supervisor Wilson,who has somebody from the County coming down every Thursday and issuing cards here iocally, so it's not a question of them having to drive to Riverside. Okay, it may be 150 bucks, but how much do you and I pay for heart medication? I mean, iYs outrageous. As to the price of marijuana, l guess that's up to the market, although you go into the dispensary here and you see some of the prices, and you wonder how these people can possibly afford it to begin with. And I haven't talked to Lanny in a while, but I know that he's got some widely varying views, and his view of a cooperative is that somebody can rent a 20,000 square foot warehouse and grow 200 plants, and thaYs just as legitimate as if somebody is an individual user. And I've dealt with the DEA, and 1 know that they do not want to work on an individualized basis, so if iYs a personal use situation, they're really not going to get involved. But the fellow that they arrested up in Sky Valley was it? ST Yes JF A couple months ago...had hundreds of plants. And so they're more into the drug dealers, if you will. I don't know where the City's going to come down on this issue. 16 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 I'm personally against dispensaries, but as you may have read in the paper yesterday, my father-in-law is taking Marinol so he can get an appetite to eat. So I recognize there is legitimate use for it, and our struggle is to parse out the legitimate users that need it under a doctor's recommendation versus the recreational users that just want to go get stoned every day. And if you go over to our dispensary, you'll see that 90%of the people are there just getting stoned every day. And I, you know...we've got a moratorium on the books right now, and I don't know how iYs going to resolve itself, but my druthers would be to not throw out the baby with the bath water, and how we do that I don't know, but I'm going to be looking to you guys for advice and input on that. And so, please be open-minded and give us some very thoughtful recommendations on how to do that. MN Well, what we talked about was that the City Attorney would come and help us answer some questions and, more particularly, provide a couple of alternatives. One may be very restrictive or an outright ban, and one subject to some conditions. You know, obviously if the County is going to act sooner rather than later, it would sure be nice to have that in front of us before we make a recommendation to the Council and of course the Council before it makes a decision because we could compare and see if iYs, you know, a good model to follow. What's the...any idea what the timing is at the County level? Did you say the Planning Commission is having hearings on it now? ST They had a hearing on the east end of the County at the Board of Supervisors office, and now they've done one down here, so my guess is they'll now take whatever they get testimony-wise, go back into discussion to see if they're going to amend their ordinance at all, if any, and then take it before the Board of Supervisors, so I'm not sure how long that's going to take. JL Are we talking next year? ST No, my guess is it will probably be in the next month or two that they'll probably be bringing it before the Board of Supervisors. They seem to be very intent on addressing the issue, you know, in somewhat of a timely manner now. And, again, they've called and asked us what we're doing. They called and asked for our advice. I mean, I'm in touch with....we have a chief who works administration. He's also an attorney (unclear) representative of the Sheriff, who is up on the issue. In fact, {'ll be writing him an email tonight to tell him what happened at this meeting so he is aware of what occurred. They were the ones that met in Riverside after talking to me and finding out what our issue is so we're all on the same sheet of music. I have a feeling that...they're not dragging their feet like they were before because now it's impacting them, and they did take into effect that we've been dealing with it for a while. So their ordinance actually started with our first draft, and it gained more teeth as we had further discussion. So I'm hoping that in the next month or two we will have something back from the Board of Supervisors, and a decision will 17 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 be made, and whatever it is, it is, and then we can move forward in whatever direction we're going to go. MN So do we...Mr. Chairman, do we want the City Attorney representative here next meeting, or do we want to have him in November(unclear)There may be an action by the County by then. Mayor Ferguson said his understanding is there may be action by the Board of Supervisors within four to six weeks. RL Right, but I believe we have an upcoming situation that also needs to be addressed or discussed, and that would be the resolution of whether or not to extend an existing business license. PS I think (Unclear) PS December 15t is when that moratorium expires. MN That's the moratorium, but didn't we talk about last time the September 30th expiration...something in the Minutes we talked about September 30`h expiration of... RL Of their business iicense. MN ...of their license or of their... JL (unclear) we extended that. MN That's the moratorium. IYs different than the approval of the business license. JF Our business license is not regulatory in nature... RL Right JF ...it's simply taxing in nature. So whether we choose to collect money from them ar not really doesn't have an effect on whether he stays in business or not. MN So the moratorium is really the more pertinent... JF Yes. MN Alright (Unclear) SRG It can be extended, the moratorium. The Council could... 18 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 JF Up to two years. SRG ...for an extension up to two years. MN So that doesn't put a time pressure on us to get a recommendation for the Council from our October meeting. We could just as soon hear from the City Attorney in November, and maybe in the interim hear from the County if the County takes action. SRG That's fine. MN Is that what the Council is looking for, from your point of view, looking for from us? JF From my personal point of view, I'm not suggesting that you follow the County, but I'd like for you to get the benefit of their wisdom, whatever it is. MN What I'm asking is...is the Council looking to this Commission to come up with a proposal out of our October meeting so you'll have something from us... JF No, not necessarily. MN Okay. GK I was just thinking that it would be better to go ahead and get the information from the City Attorney and see what he's proposing, and let us have an opportunity to review that and come back at our November meeting, and then by then perhaps we will have information with regard to the County Supervisors. JF Actually,we retained special counsel through Richards,Watson 8�Gershon on what the City legally had to do and not do under Prop 215. Might it not be better to get somebody from them here? SRG Sure. JF Was it Fred Snow or...l can't remember who it was. SRG David Snow, I think. ST I don't know if this is the proper venue, but Commissioner Nethery brought up an interesting point that kind of gave me a concern. If the concern is that the business license isn't a regulatory issue and is just a taxing issue, I would bring up the proposal that, you know, rather than...if the idea and the intent is to let them just not extend but to stay in limbo, we won't take any of the funds taxing, and let it carry, I think it's a good idea. My concern is, and your point is, that I would like to, if there's any way of recommending, that we make sure that we give explicit 19 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 instructions to staff to make sure that if that license comes in to be renewed, that they are not to renew it. JF Well, that's how we got into this whole mess. ST That's my point. JF A business license was issued based on a perception of what the Council wanted to do, without Council approval, and then that was used as sort of an imprimatur of legitimacy, which we never expected. ST Right, and my concern is, and I may be off base, I want to make sure that the City doesn't get latched into some further commitment if it happens to get updated for another year versus let's say six months down the road you decide that you want to ban it, and they have no license, and that's one less sticky thing. So I just posed that idea that might be a good recommendation. JF It's actually...Cathedral City's approach was we don't issue business licenses to dispensaries because we don't recognize them, and if you want to operate under State law, good luck, but we're not going to give you a license. HP Technically, you can, if they're not meeting the standards, revoke their license. There is a provision in the ordinance to do that, and technically you can't operate if you don't have the license, even though it is a tax. JF Yeah, we went through that in January. MN You said the same thing, Jim...l'm just looking at the minutes, and we were talking about this issue, and Lt. Thetford said that there was an agreement that this operator had signed that said he would only sell product to dispensary people who obtain a valid current medical card issued by the Riverside Department of Health Services, in April. And we were talking about revoking the license, and if he violated that, then you'd have a basis to revoke the license was the discussion. It's going to expire September 30th, somehow we got that, and one option would be to have the City Attorney tell us whether it would be valid not to renew it without risk. And at that point,you said,Councilman Ferguson,you said the initial analysis came from our City Manager, not necessarily the City Attorney, was that our business license was not regulatory in nature, strictly a taxing license. And you said the same thing. Maybe you can't shut down the business, you don't get tax from it. JF Right MN So that was one of things that we were going to have the City Attorney look at, whether(unclear)You said iYs odd to me that I don't know it's unregulatory it gives them the right, etc. under our ordinance, and we were talking...that was the context, 20 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 part of the context (unclear) talking about the City Attorney, so maybe having somebody in October come and talk to us about that or at least try to address the issue because if the license expires, and renewing it doesn't mean anything, or not renewing it doesn't mean anything in terms of control, it's just a pure taxing issue, then that September 30'h deadline....iYs nothing, but it would be nice to know. JF It sure would. SRG You might have an opportunity to ask before we do...Council could ask that question. JF (unclear) do it tomorrow. SRG Because we're closing in on September 30'h. I'm not in the loop, and I don't want to sound apologetic, but it is the Police Department, Planning Department, and City Manager's Office, so I'm a little uneducated as to whaYs going on with the marijuana ordinance. And I apologize about the City Attorney. We did prepare a transcript so that all of your comments were available for him to review as well as your draft that you had prepared. Maybe we should have called and reminded, but we'll make sure he is here at the next meeting. (Unclear) JF I would say, by and large, given that I wouldn't want to be here if I had a perfect world and could have planned it differently. But since we are here, we've got an operator who is a believer. You know, whatever your feelings are about marijuana, he's got two-thirds of his intestine missing from a water skiing accident, and he does use it enhance his appetite and, you know, takes his...has agreed to the card system, and whether we have dispensaries or not is an open issue that will be decided at some point later. But right now, he's not posing a major health and safety problem... RL Right. JF ...and I say let's wait for the County and...everybody's, you know, doing this on this issue, looking for somebody to take the lead. And right now the County, through Supervisor Stone and Supervisor Wilson, who's opinion I respect highly, have said we're going to try and do something meaningful. And I just want to give us an opportunity to take a look at what that is. MN Yeah. GK Mayor Ferguson, is there any kind of notation on the business license for him to not renew at this point? I mean, have we put anything in the file that states that we... 21 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMfSSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 JF Our City Manager's position is that we can simply not renew his business license and just let him operate without paying the tax, that there's no legal requirement for you to pay a tax. Since marijuana dispensaries are not in our Code, they're not required to have a business license. GK Have we made sure that we do not issue a renewal? JF Correct. RL So it's just a nonconforming use (unclear) JF IYs an unaddressed use. RL Oh, okay, unaddressed use. MN IYs not even a zoning issue (unclear) RL Okay. I'm ready to move forward and get off this subject. SRG We'll have all of this back with a report from both attorneys next month. JL ThaYs for October? SRG Yes. RL Thank you. JB Pat, maybe they'd like to participate in the pilot program and have video surveillance... PS There you have it. He'll be a new business if his license expires. JF One of the conditions of his April 5'h agreement was to have video surveillance on his premises. ST They already have it in place. PS But is it any good? ST Actually, iYs very good. They actually monitor it. There concern is not us coming after them. There concern is (unclear), and they want to see them hitting the door. MN So they have external as well as internal surveillance? 22 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 ST They have internal and external surveillance, I guess, but they have internal and external surveillance for their own protection. You know, they are trying to do it right. There may be an ulterior motive for surveillance, but they have it for their protection. I'm concerned about their safety because of the amount of money they take in and the property they have inside. I'm concerned about them being ripped. I'm concerned about the fact that they have weapons inside there to protect themselves. (Unclear) RL Okay, moving forward, under Reports and Remarks..... IX. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION (S) Mayor Ferguson stated that the issue of crime in Palm Desert did come up the previous day at a breakfast meeting, and he commended the Sheriff's Department. He said Channel 2 raised this issue about a month ago regarding burglaries and jewelry store robberies and seemed to imply that the influx of people into Palm Desert was raising crime. He said he had gone over statistics for the last 11 years and found that Palm Desert's crime was flat, while growth had increased substantially. He said one could argue quite credibly that crime in Palm Desert has actually decreased. X. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. Comments by Public Safety Commissioners None B. Update on the Citizens on Patrol Program Mrs. Gilligan noted that staff had run into a snag administratively with the Citizens on Patrol (COPs)and had put the program in a suspense mode until such time as staff has a chance to meet with them and define their role in the community. She noted there had been several resignations; however, she said the City believed in the program, would continue to support it, and would get it up and running in the fall. She added that the snag was the fact that several COPs had followed a private vehicle into a parking lot because they claimed the driver had run a stop sign. It was difficult for staff to sit down and discuss this situation with the two COPs individuals because they were not available. Staff decided to go back through and review the program and saw many areas that needed attention. 23 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 Lt.Thetford added that according to the COPs bylaws, members were supposed to be non-confrontational for their own safety, and that was law enforcement's concern. He said that while members would not be going out on patrol and having contact with the public until staff can meet with the Captain and come up with a stronger understanding of the role of COPs members, there were still operational/organizational things they can do in the meantime. C. Comments by Staff Lt. Thetford thanked Mayor Ferguson for his talk the previous day at the Mayor's Breakfast. He felt his speech was well-done, and it was appreciated by law enforcement. He atso noted that was the Acting Commander of the Palm Desert Station, as Captain Kilday was going to Riverside. Ms. Scully noted that the California Legislature had adjourned for this session and would reconvene the first week of December. She added that one-third of the Assembly would be new members next year. XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Butzbach moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:05 p.m. Motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Kirkwood and carried by a 5-0 vote, with the next meeting scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 11, 2006. Q Mary P. G te , Recording Secretary 24