Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Public Safety Commission 12/13/06 �-��--�. CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION - - APPROVED MINUTES '�� , . Wednesday, December 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. 11. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner James Butzbach Vice Chair Gloria Kirkwood Commissioner Jim Larsh Commissioner Martin Nethery Chairman Rick Lebel Also Present: Mayor Pro Tem Richard S. Kelly Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services Lt. Frank Taylor, Palm Desert Police Department Stephen Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programs Jorge Rodriguez, Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal Pat Scully, Senior Management Analyst (arrived at 3:55 p.m.) Mary P. Gates, Recording Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes of the November 8, 2006, Public Safety Commission Meeting Rec: Approve as presented. Commissioner Larsh moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Kirkwood and carried by a 5-0 vote. V. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Palm Desert Fire Services Monthly ReportforSeptemberand October 2006 Commissioner Nethery expressed appreciation to the Fire Department personnel for all they do. He stated that several weeks ago his mother had a situation and called the paramedics twice, and they treated her wonderfully. Mr. Aryan noted that the major renovations to the Mesa View Fire Station were complete. A final walk-through had been done, with a very minimal punch list. He invited Commissioners to visit the station, noting that a more formal grand opening would be held after Christmas. Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Palm Desert Fire Services monthly reports for September and October 2006. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Larsh and carried by a 5-0 vote. B. Palm Desert Special Enforcement Teams Monthly Statistics for October and November 2006 Commissioner Larsh moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Palm Desert Special Enforcement Teams monthly statistics reports for October and November 2006. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Kirkwood and carried by a 5-0 vote. 2 APPROVED MINUTES PUBUC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 C. Palm Desert Station - Traffic Collision Statistics for October 2006 Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Palm Desert Station -Traffic Collision Statistics report for October 2006. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Nethery and carried by a 5-0 vote. D. Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Statistics for October 2006 Commissioner Nethery noted a typographical error on the report wherein the titles "Total Overweight (Lbs)" and "# of Overweights" should be reversed. Lt. Taylor agreed. Upon question by Commissioner Butzbach, Lt. Taylor responded that one deputywas assigned to commercial vehicle enforcement covering all three Cove cities(Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells). Commissioner Nethery moved to,by Minute Motion, receive and file the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Statistics for October 2006. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Kirkwood and carried by a 5-0 vote. E. Consideration of Request from Palm Desert Police Department for Approval of Acquisition and Deployment of Segway Electronic Personal Assistive Mobility Device (EPAMD) i2 Police Model Lt. Frank Taylor reviewed the staff report, noting that these two devices would be in addition to the bicycles currently being used by the Police Department, and they would be used mainly throughout the business district of the City; however, they could also be used for special assignments within the park, at special events, at the mall, Golf Cart Parade, etc. He noted there had been a change in design since the devices were first before Public Safety Commission; the original models had a throttle turn, and now the operators can maneuver by leaning in the direction they want to turn. He showed a video of the devices in use at the Promenade Mall in Temecula. Upon question by Chairman Lebel relative to costs for these devices other than the initial purchase price, Lt. Taylor responded that they had three-year warranties for parts. He added that they were electric and could run for approximately 12 hours (or 25 miles) on a single charge; the time to recharge the battery pack would be approximately 2 hours, and top running speed was 12 miles per hour. Upon question by Commissioner Butzbach, he said the Palm Desert Police Department would require its officers to wear helmets when 3 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 , operating the Segway; City ordinance required that as well. Commissioner Butzbach asked whether using these devices as a law enforcement tool would require any amendment to the City o�dinance or if law enforcement was exempt. Mrs. Gilligan responded that they would be exempt. She said while there was a restriction in the City's current ordinance, State law allows them, and State law would supercede the City's ordinance. Commissioner Butzbach asked whether there were any down sides to these devices such as damaged property or injury. Lt. Taylor responded that there had been a recall in the past dealing with the computer software. When the Segway got on wet grass, the computer would try to catch up, the wheels would spin back to stop itself, and there was a case where an operator fell off. The software had subsequently been upgraded to resolve that problem. He added that he was not aware of any other significant injuries occurring. Commissioner Nethery said he felt these devices were perfect for enclosed areas like shopping malls. He asked what advantages there would be over bicycles for outside areas. Lt. Taylor responded that they were an additional tool to assist the Police Department and would allow officers to do some specialty things. Commissioner Nethery noted that other police departments currently using these devices indicated there was not a lot of down time because of the technology and how well they are made, and Lt. Taylor agreed. Mrs. Gilligan asked whether these devices were being used currently at the mall by security . Lt. Taylor responded that while he had not yet seen any at the mall, he had been advised by mall security that they would be temporarily acquiring a couple. Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, recommend to the City Council approval of the Palm Desert Police Department's request to acquire and deploy two (2)Segway Electronic Personal Assistive Mobility Devices(EPAMD). This equipment could be purchased,with authorization from the City of Palm Desert, through the expected SLESF grant funds for FY 06/07. The costs for acquiring the Segway i2 Police Model would be approximately $11,970.07, including all applicable sales tax. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Larsh and carried by a 5-0 vote. Commissioner Butzbach asked how long it would take to purchase the vehicles if approved by City Council, and Lt. Taylor responded that it would be approximately three weeks. 4 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 F. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Email from Gary Milliman, City Manager for the City of South Gate, Regarding a Public Records Request from the ACLU Relative to Video Surveillance. No Commission action necessary or taken. 2. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Public Safety Committee Meeting Handout from Meeting of November 13, 2006, Relative to Valley-Wide Communications Upgrade & Support Radio Interoperability Ms. Scully stated that funding was still being sought to implement this program, and it was #1 on the priority list of projects for the CVAG Public Safety Committee. Upon question by Chairman Lebel relative to whetherthe County had determined whether to form a JPA or a consortium, she said it was her understanding from the last discussion that a consortium was being considered because of the legal wording as to what constitutes a JPA as opposed to a consortium. Chairman Lebel noted that when the County made its presentation to the Public Safety Commission in 2002, representatives indicated there were a number of things being considered as far as securing funding (i.e., grant funding, additional few cents per month added to telephone bills, etc.). Mr. Scully stated that the few cents per month on the telephone bills was still being discussed. Although progress was being made, it was very slow. Chairman Lebel expressed concern with the delay and felt it was critical for law enforcement agencies to be able to communicate with each other, especially in situations such as bank robberies, major disasters, etc. He said this was something that was addressed by the Department of Homeland Security after September 11, 2001, and a lot of Federal dollars were made available to provide for interoperability between public agencies. He was concerned that there was funding available, and no one was using those funds. He asked whether either Lt. Taylor or Chief Rodriguez had heard anything from their respective agencies regarding County communications. Lt. Taylor said that as a result of the last Commission meeting, he had obtained the information included with this Agenda, although he had not attended any meetings. 5 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 Chief Rodriguez said he was aware of ineetings being held, and it was his understanding some grant monies had already been obtained from Homeland Security. He added while the Fire Department could communicate throughout the State with most agencies, there was still some work to be done. He said they had problems communicating with the Sheriff's Department, which operated on 800mhz, while the Fire Department was working toward that. Commissioner Nethery said a representative of the US Forest Service had mentioned at the 2002 presentation that his organization also had a problem communicating with other agencies. Chief Rodriguez noted that their radios were programmable, and they could program in the frequencies of other agencies most of the time, but it was still frustrating trying to communicate during times of disaster. Mrs. Gilligan noted that concerns raised at this meeting were well-noted and documented. She suggested that staff send a fetter to the City Council outlining those concerns and asking that the City send a letter to Supervisor Roy Wilson. In addition, Ms. Scully would do research with the County and present that information at the next Commission meeting. The Commission concurred. 3. Riverside County Interagency Communications Network (RCICN). Discussed as part of Item #2 above. VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS None 6 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. Consideration of Report from City Attorney Relative to Three Alternative Ordinances Dealing with Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the City of Palm Desert The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Commission meeting: Key RL Chairman Rick Lebel BH Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney MN Commissioner Marty Nethery GK Vice Chair Gloria Kirkwood JL Commissioner Jim Larsh JB Commissioner Jim Butzbach FT Lt. Frank Taylor SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, Assistant City Manager for Community Services RSK Mayor Richard S. Kelly RL Consideration of a report from the City Attorney relative to three alternative ordinances dealing with medicaf marijuana dispensaries in the City of Palm Desert. And I notice that rather than "dispensaries," they've now changed the term to "cooperatives." I'm still researching Senate Bill 420 aswell asthe chaptered version under the Health and Safety Code and can find no definition whatsoever of cooperatives as well as dispensaries. I guess we have a presentation from our Deputy City Attorney. BH I'm here, more than anything else, to answer questions. In your package you have the three ordinances, one of which seeks to permit and regulate, one of which seeks to prohibit, and the third is an extension of the current moratorium that will be before the City Council tomorrow. The moratorium expires on, I think, the 24th of this month, so we need to extend it regardless of what we're going to do, just to keep everything in place. So we have the three ordinances, and in terms of background, I don't know how recently you discussed this, but the District Attorney, Riverside County District Attorney, came up with an opinion that basically says dispensaries in any form, the way they're operated, are illegal under California law. They don't comply with the Compassionate Use Act. And then,just recently, within the last week or so, there was a trial court decision on the County's...some of the counties sued the State basically to get a declaration that the Compassionate Use Act was preempted by Federal law, and the trial court decided that no, it's not because the Compassionate Use Act basically just decriminalizes a narrow spectrum of activity within the State of California. So it doesn't directly conflict wit the Federal law, but I'm sure that will be subject to appeal. We also have a report 7 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 from the Sheriff's Department on the recent action over there at Canna Help. So I'm...whatever you guys want to (unclear). MN Before we get to the report (unclear) what kind of ruling was it (unclear)...was it a summary judgment motion or was it at the end of a...l mean, was it a definitive appealable order as far as you understand it? BH Yes, I think it was...l mean, it was (unclear)judgment on the pleading, so... MN Judgment on the pleading. BH I've got copies of it if you'd like to have them. MN Not a published opinion that anybody can rely on. BH It's not binding on... MN Not binding on other courts or other jurisdictions, so (unclear) he decided that it's... RL There wasn't a conflict between (unclear) MN Well, he said it's not preempted by Federal law, so that allows the State to regulate it, and the argument was iYs a narrow area, so it's okay. BH You know, basically what he found was that the Federal law criminalizes just about all activity with respect to marijuana. The State law, the Compassionate Use Act, decriminalized certain aspects of that behavior in California only...the Federal continues to apply. So there was really no direct conflict, it just said it's not going to be a violation in California if you do use it...you know, if you grow your own and do a cooperative. Obviously, people look at it different(unclear)and there's actually other cases working their way up. Some of the interesting ones are...a police officer seizes marijuana on a Compassionate Use kind of context and then there's an order for him to return it to the...(unclear) conviction, ordered to return it to the defendant. Well, arguably, thaYs a violation of Federal law for the police officer doing that kind of activity, so (unclear). The litigation will probably wind through the courts for a few years, and I think most of this, sooner or later the courts are going to decide most of this stuff is illegal (unclear). RL It's pretty clear after reading and rereading and rereading both the original (unclear) Senate Bill 420 and the chaptered version and the Health and Safety Statutes, beginning with 11357 through 11362.83 that the Legislature apparently took great pains to(unclear)provide for both the care giver and the qualified patient and never, clearly never, did provide for dispensaries, cooperatives, or anything of that form, though the medical marijuana advocates, and I have been at those meetings, and I know you have too because I've seen you there...the medical marijuana advocates 8 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 would indicate that Senate Bill 420 especially permitted cooperatives,and it doesn't. There's not a word in 420 about that. (Unclear) RL No, not a thing. And one of the things that I think concerns me with respect to the draft ordinance that would permit was the definition of a cooperative when it's not further defined or not otherwise defined in State or Federal law. Another was that the police chief would be designated as the building licensing department for enforcement, and I'm a bit concerned about that the way the draft ordinance is written. That would be down at the bottom of page 2 initially, under the definitions. And then, again, on page 5 under Investigation and Actions on an Application, talking about how the building official will conduct a background check of the applicant and employees and conduct an investigation of the application, and I think that's more under the realm and parameter of the law enforcement agency as opposed to a building official. But, there again, things change these days. I'm not sure today what the powers of a building official are. Maybe they are police powers, although I haven't been aware of that. MN Just so Bob knows, we, at our last meeting, Bob, we adopted a recommendation to the Council to extend the moratorium for a year. I believe that's probably going to happen tomorrow based on your comments last time, Councilman Kelly, and so...obviously you don't have all five votes, but....and that makes sense because we're not going to do anything in the meantime. And then we wanted to see the ordinances and go through the process of trying to figure out what we should do and make a recommendation to the Council. We don't need to do it tonight, but in reading the one that allowed but subject to conditions, I saw the plan requires...the plan they submit must show schools, parks, etc., within a thousand yards, but I didn't see anywhere in there, and I may have missed it because I just read it one time, where it prohibits them being within a thousand yards. They have to show it on the plan...is that something that ought to be in there or is that just implicitly discretionary with the licensing agency? BH I agree with you iYs not...there is no prohibition, and I think probably the idea was at least in making the land use decision it would be germane to the discussion to know where those uses are. MN They told us last time this was based...did he say Redlands? ?? Redlands JL Redlands MN Was it Redlands or... RL Rocklin 9 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 (Unclear) MN Not necessarily based on it but used as a model because it was a very strict ordinance, and I don't know if you got that in there but I know there are State statutes that limit...or there used to be...liquor stores within so many yards of a UC campus or something like that. That's gone by the wayside now, but if that were something that could be put into the statute and enforceable, I'd say it ought to be more than a thousand yards away, but at least that from schools, parks...what were the other categories? GK (unclear) education, daycare facilities... MN Right. That's just my thoughts, one of my thoughts (unclear) RL And on page 9 of that same draft, if I could draw your attention to Items L, M, and N, Item I indicates that the cooperative would not be able to engage in commercial sale and could only be operated as a not-for-profit organization. But it doesn't establish any parameters as to how you determine whether or not commercial sale is being done and how that can be either investigated or determined as opposed to just sale to meet their costs or whatever. So something should identify how that would be determined. MN It kind of talks about that because it says it can't be sold at a profit. RL It can't be sold at a profit, right, but it doesn't say how you would investigate to determine if a profit is being made. It doesn't establish any parameters. JL Isn't that what the Feds did under the premise that there was profit, when the Feds came in? FT You mean recently? (Unclear) BH (unclear) we were going to have a report from the Sheriff's Department on their action...that was incorrect (unclear). But I think it was reported in the newspapers that was the subject (unclear) RL That was the subject, correct. So in order to do that, somehow there would have to be a provision whereby the books, so to speak, would have to be investigated to determine whether or not thcre is a transfer of the product for a fee to make costs orwhetherthere is any profit in there. I also recall seeing Mr....l can't recall his last name....Stacy? SRG Hochanadel 10 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 RL ...on television when that occurred, saying that although they weren't making a profit, they're entit{ed to meet reasonable expenses including cars, homes, and anything else that reasonable expenses might be deemed permissible. I don't believe that that was the intent of what the Legislature wrote. MN Well, the way they're going to address that, Rick, is salary. The guy that runs it is entitled to a salary, and then the question becomes whaYs a reasonable salary for a guy running that because that would be...if you had an employee. If I owned the business, I'd pay myself a salary and a car allowance maybe...a home, I don't know how you could justify that. But thaYs going to be where the rub is, and if you're too specific in there, of course then somebody, you know, that does...l don't do this stuff, but somebody like me that reads this ordinance will figure out that...if the drafting of an ordinance or a contract or anything is...be specific enough to cover what you really are worried about but not so specific that...you draw it so narrowly...there's a loophole, and that's the hard part about doing these things and being too specific. But it would be nice...and thaYs why sometimes there's a statute or an ordinance and then there's regulations interpreting it, which you have in your field. But you're right,that's how they're going to get around this not-for-profit or for- profit is by paying a healthy salary. One problem is going to be what business do you compare it to? A pharmacy, a licensed pharmacy? It's going to be a real problem for the City and for law enforcement to enforce that part of it, and I'm not sure I know...l mean, I know I don't know an answer, but other cities have dealt with it, and I assume this is probably somebody's best shot at trying to address it. RL Right BH Most cities have just prohibited it. JL It's the easiest thing to do. RL It is. Under Item L... JL Yet we've stumbled around...somebody did (unclear) RL Under Item L on page 9, it indicates that a medical marijuana cooperative shall provide the police chief with the name, phone number, and fax of the on-site community relations staff person. If there are operating problems...if there are problems, to make good faith efforts to resolve the problems if there are any cause or complaints made to the police department,the planning department...l gather the police chief here, again, would be the one that's defined as the building official, not our police chief because iYs already been defined in the ordinance as the building official. JL There is no cooperative (uncfear) belaboring this back and forth, and there is no cooperative. 11 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 RL I'm just trying to point from a... FT (unclear) talks about the police chief being (unclear) SRG Our planning department, business license...why the building department? MN (unclear) business licensing department. RL Right SRG And the building department is different from the planning department, and as I read it, I see planning department throughout, and thaYs for zoning purposes, etc. I guess the building department would be more in tune to making sure that the place was constructed. RL So this police chief as defined would be the head of the business license department. SRG No, I think it would be our police chief. JB Oh, well that makes it confusing, though. Perhaps the definition should be changed. MN I read this that code enforcement would have primary responsibility...isn't that the business licensing department? SRG Business license is part of finance. Code enforcement is part of the building department,and the planning department really is the one that works in conjunction, for the most part, with business licenses because they're checking out the zoning and the regulations as to permitting the business in a particular area. MN So we need to clarify this definition of police chief. SRG We do. MN I mean police chief can, I assume, delegate the administrative responsibility to another City office, and I kind of read it as that and that the police chief is in charge, but it may be it ought to say the police chief for the City of Palm Desert or his delegee or something...l don't know...(unclear) the City Attorney to figure out. BH Typically...normally you have the business licensing department that takes care of business licenses, and then you have the zoning, the planning department looks at it, and they always refer to the planning department and say is this an appropriate use of that particular place, planning department says yes it's an appropriate use, then business licensing goes through all the requirements for the particular license and issues the license. In this case, the way it's set up, apparently, the police chief 12 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 is actually going to be the licensing person or his authorized representative. So it's the police chief thaYs going to issue the license and has to make sure the license complies with all the background check and all that, and at the same time refers to the planning department to make sure that the location is appropriate. And now why we have the building official in here... FT If I could just add one thing...this is a draft ordinance, and we haven't... RL We haven't discussed that. FT ...a review of it. We are in the process of looking at it, so... JB You have (unclear) FT Excuse me. JB You have (unclear) same feeling. FT Well, there are a lot of things to go through. SRG I think the Police Department is receiving this at the same time as the Public Safety Commission. The Police Department has not... JL Let's give this... RL They have not weighed in on it yet. JL ...a little time. LeYs give this a little time. FT And it's good informational items. JL I stil{ like Chapter 25.112. And if you'll look at that, you'll see that 25.112.020 says "prohibited". RL Right. Before we move to that one, though, let's... JL Why don't we finish it? The Police Department hasn't even gone over it yet. RL But the Attorney needs to be able to get our input to make any changes or corrections, if that's going...if that will happen down the road. MN Can I just frame a question here? Maybe this is what...maybe this is the question. When we first looked at this and sort of talked about it,whatever, many months ago, the sense of the Commission was prohibition... RL Correct. 13 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 MN ...not permit it with conditions. Since then, I think we've gotten the...l've gotten the impression, and I guess this is the question...l have the impression that what the Council wants us to do is to present it with two alternatives, and then the Council will make the decision...the with the recommendation, I'm sure, between the two, but two definite alternatives, which means help polish the statute and raise these kinds of things, but two ordinances. If the Council is asking us, and I guess I'm directing this to staff, if the Council is asking us...just tell us what you prefer, just tell us, you know, do you want to...what the Commission recommends, period, and don't need to present us with two proposed ordinances, that makes life a lot simpler. RL Oh, it sure does. MN And we don't need to do some of this. I mean, we might want to, and maybe it's good if we give input, but I guess that's the question. What's the Council looking for from us because that's why we're here really is to assist the Council. RL As indicated a couple of times, our opinion. SRG I think, because the Council is considering this tomorrow night whether or not to continue the moratorium, if you have a specific opinion as to....you know, you've already taken action recommending that they do that as a result (unclear) MN I'm not thinking of tomorrow night. I think that's done. I'm thinking in the future. SRG I think that if you took direction tonight, or this afternoon, that might be valuable in its consideration tomorrow, that's up to you. I mean, if this Commission believes one way or the other and takes action, we will forward it to the City Council as part of the consideration. Maybe that is that you ban it, and if you don't ban it, then you give us direction as to how best to proceed with the ordinance. Because honestly and truly, Commissioner Nethery, I don't know that I could give you a specific answer. MN A sense of...l wasn't thinking about tomorrow night because they decided that last time. I was thinking...the idea from last time was we were going to look at this at our January meeting, I think, really. We were going to have the moratorium in place so that then the Council can act any time. They can act next month or they can act 12 months from now, and then in the meantime, we were going to see alternative ordinances, look at them, discuss them, and then make a recommendation to the Council. And so I wasn't thinking that were necessarily going to do that today because we just got these, it's a draft, it's not polished. I don't think we're ready to do that yet. But what I'm asking in the future when we do, you know, when this comes back and we really consider it and we're ready to raise our hands and make a recommendation...is Council or staff recommending, either way you want to do it...l guess we can do whatever we want, but I'm trying to get a sense of what the Council is looking for. 14 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 RSK Council is not supposed to tell you what to do. MN That's right. GK No. RSK ThaYs why you're here. MN Absolutely. (Unclear) RSK It does no good for us to influence you. I'm going to listen. I'm not going to try and influence you in any way. MN And we appreciate that, but... (Unclear) SRG ...a consensus I was feeling among the Commission. If that's your consensus, send it forward, and if it's not, then...but that's what the Council is looking for, your input, your opinion. MN Okay. At least that answers the question. We're just supposed to do whatever we think is appropriate. RL Before we leave that first draft, again, Item N on page 9, if I could...l know... JL They haven't even seen it yet. RL I know, and they're looking at it now. On Item N on page 9, it indicates a cooperative would not permit cultivation, distribution, or saie for a profit. That again points out the fact that we need...if this ordinance were going to go through, we need to discern how to discern whether or not profit is being made.. JL That has to be defined in whatever proposal is made to the licensing. RL Correct. JL IYs not getting any of my votes anyway. SRG I think it's good if you've got comments on the proposed so we can give it back to the City Attorney, that's excellent. We can come back at the January meeting and give you a better feel for what the Council's direction is as a result of their discussing it tomorrow night. But I think this is a great start with your comments. 15 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 We'll redraft it and bring it back because iYs going to be a work in progress for a while. JL (unclear) Sheriff's Department to be able to sit down with their staff that's been involved with this. If this is the first that Lt. Taylor has seen it, he's no different than we are as far as trying to go through this mumbo jumbo. Anyway, what are we going to do? RL Do we have any comments with respect to draft ordinance number 1102? JL I don't...it's all jumbled. It's got cooperative in it. RL No, the ordinance 1102 to prohibit. JL I thought it was. JB Chapter 25.122 RL Any comments with respect to any corrections or additions or deletions or clarifications? JL No. It's magnificent. RL Move to approve? JL I know I don't have the original one, but when was 1102 written? SRG Christmas Eve last year. JL When was it drafted? SRG It was passed by the Council in a special meeting last Christmas Eve. JL So almost a year ago, yet somehow they got a business license. BH They had a renewal. JL And a renewal. SRG Their license was existing when this action took place, when 1102 was adopted. They already had a license. JL Did we vote for 1102? SRG It was an urgency ordinance. It did not come through the Public Safety Commission because the Council set a meeting and took action on it. 16 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 JL So we didn't have a chance at that. RSK Well, there was one out there, and we didn't want more. GK Right RL Right RSK So we had to do something quick. RL Exactly JB When the ordinance was acted on, did it not become law because of the moratorium? MN This copy says continued to date uncertain, and iYs not signed. Was it, in fact, adopted? SRG It was adopted Christmas Eve. BH I think 1102 might be...it was an ordinance that we brought forth prohibiting it. SRG And then the Police Department brought it forward working with the City Attorney's office. ThaYs how all of this started. BH And then on Christmas Eve, we adopted the urgency ordinance. MN I thought the urgency ordinance was the moratorium. Is that what 1102 is? ThaYs the prohibitive ordinance. (Unclear) MN But that was never adopted. 1102 was not adopted. SRG You don't have in here the adopted ordinance, and it establishes the moratorium for a period of, I believe, initially 90 days, and then the Council had to re-enact... MN That's in the memo. SRG ...for a year. BH The urgency ordinance is further back. JB Yes, iYs the last document in the set. JL The moratorium? 17 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 JB The moratorium, yes. JL And right before that is... BH Well, there's the agreement before (unclear) JB Mr. Chairman... RL Yes JB ...just as a comment, being as the Council is going to take action tomorrow night in terms of extending the moratorium, which I think is most likely, or iYs the recommendation, that we put this off until January, but for the Sheriff's Department to get their input into it, their feelings and how they feel about it, their perceptions, and come back and we have a report from the Police Department on their ideas. I think we've given the City Attorney our ideas today on some of the changes here, but then we still have two options. But if we came back and proposed a recommendation, you know, based on what we know from the Sheriff's Department what we perceive as California law, that we can make a recommendation, if we so choose, to recommend (unclear). RSK Sheila, it would not be inappropriate for them to recommend the continuing the moratorium for a year. JL We did that. SRG They did that at the last meeting. MN That's done. JL Yes, we were unanimous in that. JB That would be our recommendation or opinion to the City Council. If they chose to do otherwise, they have the...if they want to proceed, they have this backup of the consideration of the controls on such shops. MN Well, what you're really saying is let's put it over til the January meeting or maybe even February. We can get a revised version of both ordinances, both drafts, get input from the Sheriff's Department, and then we'll consider it, and we'll take action or we won't take action depending on what the sense of the Commission is then. That's really what you're suggesting, right? JB I thought thaYs what I said. MN Yes, you did. 18 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 JL Is there a re-write on this 1102? SRG IYs 1106. IYs referred to (unclear). 1102 was the proposed ordinance; 1106 was the one that was adopted creating the moratorium. JL Well, is there a re-write on it? RL On 1102? JL No, on 1106, or is this all we have on the prohibition? SRG That's all you have on the prohibition. That's not before the Council, thaYs before you, unless you gave it to them...l'm sorry, did you? RL 1102 is in the package. BH 1102 was a proposed prohibition and was never enacted. JL So there was never a re-write on it. So all we have is this... RL Correct. JL ...but yet we've got all this other jumbo. MN Why do you need a re-write on the prohibition? (Unclear} JL Okay, I'm seconding Commissioner Nethery's... SRG And I'm going to throw out a concern. Lt. Taylor has said that's putting...he'll make every attempt to come back with comments, but that's a short period of time in which he can react to total overview of either one. JB Is February...? FT February would be fine. SRG And we'll give you a report in January on Council action. RL There's a motion on the floor by Mr. Butzbach and a second by Commissioner Larsh that we put this over... JL Now it's February. RL ...to the February meeting. All in favor... 19 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 JB Aye G K Aye JL Aye RL Aye MN Aye RL Opposed...none. I'd like to ask a question now, just to get a sense of the Commission...members of the Commission. From what we've seen to date, is there an inclination one way or the other to recommend denial or recommend accept... GK Prohibition? RL ...recommend denial or prohibition as opposed to modification and permission? JB I think thaYs a fair question. I would lean towards, right now, from what I know and research that I've done, is prohibition. JL And per everything that I've heard and done and know about, I would also lean toward prohibition. RL Okay. GK My position is the same as last month — prohibition. MN And I think if I had to choose right now, I probably would, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. You know, I read that paper by the...is it the County Counsel? RL County Counsel MN And as I said last time, and I haven't read it but once, and that carefully, so I'll choose my words carefully, but it seemed to me like there were some gaps in the reasoning there. Maybe that's just my lawyer coming out, but I didn't follow that that well, and I want to look at it again before I'm confident that we're on solid ground, and we really have to rely on the City Attorney. I think it depends, assuming there's no liability exposure to the City with this guy, put him out of business, or we have to talk about how we deal with that. I'm leaning toward prohibition, too. RSK What does the Chairman think? I didn't hear the Chairman speak. RL My feeling hasn't changed, although I've tried to keep an open mind, and I've done a lot of research, and I've gone over the materials time and time again. I would still lean toward prohibition. 20 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY C4MMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 JB Why don't we have some comments on the raid or the investigation. MN Can I say one thing before...can we ask the City Attorney's office also to address that in February, that issue of now how do you deal with the existing...if the City Council were to adopt the prohibition, I'm sure you would anyway, but how do you deal with the existing cooperative or dispensary or whatever they're calling it, and does it present any liability or exposure to the City if that were to be the final decision by the Council. RL I would suspect with Federal action and closure of the business even for one day, that would probably give us an opportunity to revoke the license anyway under the current conditions. BH What are your damages if you're running an illegal business. MN Right. BH You're right. Given the amount of money thaYs apparently flowing through that business, you can expect that there's going to be... RL Some defense BH ...a vigorous defense. RL Sure BH It could go on for some time. MN I believe I interrupted Lt. Taylor, and I'm sorry. FT The Sheriff's Department is contracted by the City of Palm Desert for law enforcement services. There's a specific group within the Sheriff's Department that is the Palm Desert Police Department. Also in the Sheriff's Department, we have multiple units that conduct any types of special investigations, including gangs, narcotics, intelligence. Our special investigations bureau for the Sheriff's Department was the lead agency in the search warrant that was done on Canna Help.The search warrant, as you probably all saw in the news, was an investigation into the sales for profit issue under the Health and Safety Code, and the Pa1m Desert Police were not part of that investigation. We were not part of the services of the search warrant that occurred there, and that investigation and the sales for profit issue is continuing by the special investigations bureau. MN Of the County of Riverside Sheriff's Department? FT Correct. 21 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 MN Oh, so it wasn't the Federal...wasn't it reported that it was Federal agents that did that in the paper? JB No, it was Federal peopie the one in Palm Springs, I thought. JL Well, was there any liaison between the Sheriff and the Federal people? FT Well, I can't tell you who was there because there are different task forces all over the place. In the Valley here,there is the Sheriff's Department Special Investigation Bureau that does narcotics enforcement,the Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force that does narcotics enforcement. You have the Coachella Valley Violent Crimes Gang Task Force; along with gang investigations, they do a little bit of, because of the overlap of narcotics and gangs, they do some work in that. So there are multiple groups that are involved in certain investigations. I hope I answered your question. JB You did. (Unclear) FT IYs another group. Even though it's within the Sheriff's Department, iYs another unit, and it's another branch of the Department. MN When charges have been filed, that's public information. I'm sure (unclear) heard about that. FT The District Attorney's Office is the charging authority. RL We are now at the point in our Agenda where we have a report on City Council actions.... IX. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION (S) Mrs. Gilligan noted that the December 14'h Council meeting would include the reseating of Jim Ferguson and Jean Benson as well as the new seating of Cynthia Finerty and the annual selection of a new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem. She noted that the Agenda for the next Public Safety Commission meeting would include the annual selection of a new Chair and Vice Chair. X. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. Comments by Public Safety Commissioners 1. Commissioner Butzbach noted there were a lot of gated communities in Palm Desert with unmanned gates that 22 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 required transponders or "clickers" for people to enter. He asked what the Police Department's policy was as far as entering these communities, whether it be a case of an emergency call or a call of a mundane nature. He said he did not believe they had Knox Box keys. Lt. Taylor responded that the Police Department had a certain number of Knox Box keys that were issued by the Fire Department to allow entry to these communities. He said it was his understanding that all patrol units had them so they could respond in emergencies, as many times they were the first to arrive. He said he also believed most of the country clubs had Knox Box outlets. 2. Chairman Lebel reminded staff, Fire Department, and Police Department that the last several years, the Commission has requested year-end reports in order for Commissioners to be able to provide constituents with information as to what the Public Safety Commission has been doing. He said these reports were typically expected some time in April, and the Commission could then provide input to the City Council for budget sessions. B. Update on the Citizens on Patrol Program Mrs. Gilligan noted this program was still in suspension until such time as a specific defined plan is determined. A meeting was scheduled to be held in January. She stated that staff, with assistance from Captain John Fanning, was working on a Public Service Announcement through Time Warner to recruit volunteers. C. Comments by Police and Fire Departments 1. Lt. Taylor noted the Blue Light Ceremony that was being held tonight at the City of La Quinta in honor of fallen officers. This event was held in conjunction with the National Project Blue Light. He added that the blue lights on the Palm Desert Station would be on every night until the first of the year. 2. Lt. Taylor noted that the substation at Monterey and Highway 111 was open and avaifable to the public, staffed by a Community Services Officer. This was in addition to the existing substations located at the Albertson's Center on Washington and inside the WalMart on Monterey Avenue. 23 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 3. Chief Rodriguez noted the following events: a) Toy Drives tomorrow at severaf of the Stations; 2) holiday safety talk on Friday morning with Dan at Ruby's; 3) Christmas tree safety burn demonstration Friday afternoon at 2pm at Town Center Station 33 in conjunction with Chief Avila of Desert Hot Springs. D. Comments by Staff None XI. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Kirkwood moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:12 p.m. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Nethery and carried by a 5-0 vote, with the next meeting scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 10, 2007. r • _`� Mary P. G te Recording Secretary 24