HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PUB SFTY CMSN - 02/14/07 ����� CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 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.
il. ROLL CALL
�
Present: �ITY COUNCIL ACTION:
J�,''PROVED � DENIED
Commissioner James Butz�I�v OTHER
Vice Chair Gloria Kirkwood�TZN DATE -
Commissioner Jim Larsh �
Commissioner Martin Neth�Es s � � �
Chairman Rick Lebel AFSENT;
ABSTAIN•
Also Present: �RIFIED BY•
�riginal on File with City �lerk's OffirE
Councilman Jim Ferguson (arrived at 3:45 p.m.)
Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager
Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services
Lt. Frank Taylor, Palm Desert Police Department
Chief Dennis Dawson, Palm Desert/Riverside County Fire Dept
Stephen Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager (arrived at 4:30 p.m.)
David J. Erwin, City Attorney (arrived at 4:40 p.m.)
Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programs
Pat Scully, Senior Management Analyst
Mary P. Gates, Recording Secretary
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
The Commission viewed a Public Service Announcement (PSA), which is
currentty airing on televison, soliciting volunteers for the Citizens on Patrol
program. Ms. Riddle noted that she was already receiving calls from
interested individuals. While the HSA was currently running at no charge to
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
the City, Mrs. Gilligan noted staff would return at the next Commission
meeting with a report relative to what the costs would be for additional air
time.
Commissioner Butzbach asked whether the City had a working relationship
with Marshall Gilbert and offered to make contact with him.
Mrs. Gilligan suggested that Commissioner Butzbach ask Marshal!Gilbert to
call Ms. Riddle.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of the December 13, 2006, Public Safety Commission
Meeting
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. Request for Ratification of City Manaaer Approval of Request for
Authorization from Palm Desert Police Department to Expend Cal
Cops Grant Funds (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund)
—2006/2007 to Purchase an Ultrasonic Weapon Cleaning System for
Use by Front Line Officers (in the Amount of Approximately
$9,380.13)
Removed for separate consideration under Section V, Consent Items
Held Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Commission
discussion and action.
C. ReQuest for Ratification of City Manager Approval of Request for
Authorization from Palm Desert Police Department to Expend Cal
Cops Grant Funds (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund)
—2006/2007 to Purchase a Big Max Storage Shed from Home Depot
in the Amount of Approximately $498.88
Removed for separate consideration under Section V, Consent Items
Held Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Commission
discussion and action.
2
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
D. Request for Ratification of City Manaqer Approval of Request for
Authorization from Palm Desert Police Department to Expend Cal
Cops Grant Funds (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund)
— 2006/2007 to Purchase New Computers and Software in the
Amount of Approximately $11,734.92
Removed for separate consideration under Section V, Consent Items
Held Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Commission
discussion and action.
E. Request for Ratification of City Manaaer Approval of Request for
Authorization from Palm Desert Police Department to Expend Cal
Cops Grant Funds(Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund)-
2006/2007 for the Purchase of Five Hundred (500) City of Palm
Desert Police Uniform Patches in the Amount of Approximately
$1,131.18
Removed for separate consideration under Section V, Consent Items
Held Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Commission
discussion and action.
Commissioner Nethery requested that Items D and E be removed for separate
discussion under Section V, Consent Items Held Over. Commissioner Butzbach
removed items B and C for separate discussion as well.
Upon motion by Commissioner Nethery, second by Vice Chair Kirkwood, the
remainder of the Consent Calendar(Item A only)was approved as presented by a 5-0 vote
of the Commission.
V. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
B. Request for Ratification of City Mana4er Approval of Request for
Authorization from Palm Desert Police Department to Expend Cal
Cops Grant Funds (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund)
—2006/2007 to Purchase an Ultrasonic Weapon Cleaning System for
Use by Front Line Officers (in the Amount of Approximately
$9,380.13)
Commissioner Butzbach stated that he had dealt with and applied for
these grant funds in the past; he felt the legislative intent was to
spend money in areas that have community impact and advance the
police mission, and he did not necessarily see that with Items B, C, D,
and E. With regard to Item B, he said there was a lot of damage that
could be done to the guns with the ultrasonic weapon cleaning
3
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
system. In addition, the solvents used with this device end up
removing all the oils in the guns that make them operate smoothly,
and there was no time saving for such a system. Overall, he said he
did not feel this was going toward the police mission to get out and
reach the community.
Lt.Taylor noted that the range masters stress the necessity of making
sure officers' equipment is in good working order at all times, and they
feel this device will assist front line officers in getting back out in the
field more quickly.
Commissioner Nethery noted that this grant money would be lost if
not used.
Mrs. Gilligan stated that staff would put together a listing for the
Commission of everything approved through the CalCops Grant
Funds for the past two years. She also noted that these four items
had been approved by the City Manager and were brought to the
Public Safety Commission for ratification. However, in the future, staff
would try to bring these items to the Commission prior to City
Manager approval.
Commission Nethery moved to, by Minute Motion, ratifythe City Manager's approval
of Items B, C, D, and E. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Kirkwood and carried by a
5-0 vote.
C. Request for Ratification of City Manaaer Approval of Request for
Authorization from Palm Desert Police Department to Expend Cal
Cops Grant Funds (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund)
—2006/2007 to Purchase a Big Max Storage Shed from Home Depot
in the Amount of Approximately $498.88
See discussion and action under Item B above.
D. Request for Ratification of City Manaqer Approval of Request for
Authorization from Palm Desert Police Department to Expend Cal
Cops Grant Funds (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund)
— 2006/2007 to Purchase New Computers and Software in the
Amount of Approximately $11,734.92
See discussion and action under Item B above.
4
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
E. Reauest for Ratification of City Manager Approval of Request for
Authorization from Palm Desert Police Department to Expend Cal
Cops Grant Funds(Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund)-
2006/2007 for the Purchase of Five Hundred (500) City of Palm
Desert Police Uniform Patches in the Amount of Approximately
$1,131.18
See discussion and action under Item 6 above.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Selection of New Commission Chair and Vice Chair
Vice Chair Kirkwood moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Commissioner Butzbach
as the Commission's new Chair. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Larsh and
carried by a 5-0 vote.
Commissioner Larsh moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Vice Chair Kirkwood to
a second year as the Commission's Vice Chair. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Nethery and carried by a 5-0 vote.
Mrs. Gilligan thanked Commissioner Lebel for his service as the
Commission's Chair this past year. Chairman Butzbach requested
that Commissioner Lebel continue to act as Chair for the remainder
of this meeting.
B. Palm Desert Fire Services Monthly Report for November and
December 2006
Commissioner Nethery expressed concern with response times of
Station 71 (50% of calls on scene in 5 minutes or less in November;
56% of calls on scene in 5 minutes or less in December). He asked
if there was anything that could or should be done to improve that
percentage.
Chief Dawson said he would look into this and would report to the
Commission at the next meeting.
Chairman Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Palm Desert
Fire Services Monthly Report for November and December 2006. Motion was seconded
by Commissioner Larsh and carried by a 5-0 vote.
5
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
C. Palm Desert Special Enforcement Teams Monthly Statistics for
December 2006 and January 2007 and Year-End 2006 Review
Chairman Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Palm Desert
Special Enforcement Teams Monthly Statistics for December 2006, January 2007, and
year-end 2006 Review. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Kirkwood and carried by a 5-0
vote.
D. Palm Desert Station - Traffic Collision Statistics for November and
December 2006
Upon question by Commissioner Lebel relative to the success of the
DUI checkpoints during the holiday season, Lt.Taylor responded that
the plan for the checkpoints had to be abandoned due to the
President Ford detail. He added that the Department was planning
to do other things in the near future.
Vice Chair Kirkwood moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Palm Desert
Station - Traffic Collision Statistics for November and December 2006. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Nethery and carried by a 5-0 vote.
E. Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Statistics for November and
December 2006 and January 2007
Lt. Taylor noted that he was in the process of making this particular
report easier to read and should have a new format for the next
meeting.
Commissioner Nethery moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Commercial
Vehicle Enforcement Statistics report for November and December 2006 and January
2007. Motion was seconded by Chairman Butzbach and carried by a 5-0 vote.
F. 2006 Annual Public Safety Commission Report
Mrs. Gilligan noted that staff was now starting the 2007 Annual Report
and would be updating it on a meeting by meeting basis so that it
could be produced whenever the Commission needs it. She added
that staff would take this report forward to the City Council as an
informational item.
Commissioner Lebel asked whether Police Department staff had been
trained on the Segway. Lt. Taylor responded that the City Council
had just approved the purchase of the Segways on Thursday,
February 8, 2007, and they would be ordered in the very near future.
6
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
Commissioner Nethery moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Forward the 2006 Annual
Public Safety Commission Report to the City Council as an informational item; 2} receive
and file the report. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Kirkwood and carried by a 5-0
vote.
VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Report Relative to "California Fire Corps" Feasibility
Commissioner Lebel reviewed the report in the packets prepared by
Chief Walt Holloway. He noted the summary on Page 4 of the report
indicating that it would be feasible within the City of Palm Desert and
had a potential to provide a benefit; however,the feasibility wouid only
be as strong as the commitment to the program from both the City
and the Fire Department. He said in Chief Holloway's assessment,
the start-up of a program would require a great deal of commitment,
and once well-established,would require ongoing commitment but to
a lesser degree. If the City chose to embark on this type of a program
with the Fire Department, it could have the opportunity to bolster a lot
of the support functions with very little cost.
Mrs. Gilligan stated that staff's recommendation was to table this until
such time as the Citizens on Patrol program is reorganized and
guidelines are rewritten.
Commissioner Lebel noted that this would not keep the Fire
Department from putting together a program to avail themselves of
augmented support assistance from people in the community.
Mrs. Gilligan agreed but said that in discussing this with the Fire
Department, they would be looking to the City to have a liaison, and
staff would like the opportunity to reorganize the Citizens on Patrol
before considering this program.
Commissioner Nethery moved to, by Minute Motion, table further discussion of this
matter until reorganization of the Citizens on Patrol (COPS) program has been
accomplished or until further need for discussion by the Public Safety Commission. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner Larsh and carried by a 5-0 vote.
7
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
B. Report from City Attorney Relative to Medical Marijuana Ordinance
The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Commission meeting:
�
SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, Assistant City Manager for Community Services
RL Commissioner Rick Lebel
MN Commissioner Marty Nethery
JF Councilman Jim Ferguson
JL Commissioner Jim Larsh
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney
JB Chairman Jim Butzbach
FT Lt. Frank Taylor
GK Vice Chair Gloria Kirkwood
MG Mary Gates, Recording Secretary
SRG I received a phone call, when you get to your next item, from Dave Erwin, and he
is trapped on the runway in Los Angeles, coming back forthis meeting. A helicopter
was disabled, and they couldn't take off, so he said he is still trying to get here, but
if you want to leave that open and continue with the rest, maybe he will be able to
get here. I don't know whether the City Councilmember or the City Manager have
anything to add. We gave you the new version of the ordinance that was...
RL I've reviewed that particular medical marijuana ordinance. This is very, very close
to the about the third or fourth draft that Riverside County had. In fact, it uses some
of the same language, a lot of the same language. If there's nothing within Senate
Bill 420 or within the chaptered Health & Safety Code that's a result of Senate Bill
420, I'm not sure why the attorneys keep bringing up Senate Bill 420 when after it
was enacted, it was chaptered into law by the Governor and is now located under
Health & Safety Code, so Senate Bill 420 is no longer a valid number to use.
There's probably a new Senate Bill 420 this year. But there isn't anything in Senate
Bill 420 or in the chaptered version of the Health & Safety Code that provides or
defines medical marijuana cooperatives, so that really concerns me that the City of
Palm Desert would take it upon its own to define a medical marijuana cooperative
and, therefore, establish itself as an authority deviating from existing State law.
MN I think, Rick, we don't have the City Attorney here, so I'm just guessing, but I think
when you ask the City Attorney, we asked the City Attorney, for two proposed
ordinances, one a prohibition and one regulatory but not a complete prohibition,you
have to have some language to identify what that thing is over there that we're
regulating. And so I think thaYs why they used it. They could have called it
anything, and I don't think they suggest...they say...l don't think they say cooperative
is a word used in the statute. They don't say it is. They say consistent with what
8
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFEN COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
we're talking about. So I think thaYs why they're using the term. It may not be the
right term, but I think you have to give it a name
RL The name cooperative is predominantly used by medical marijuana advocates and
almost exclusively used by Mr. Lenny Swardlow, who's a medical marijuana
advocate from Corona. (unc(ear) found throughout the State advocating medical
marijuana dispensaries or medical marijuana cooperatives, and so there's been a
lot of discussion from that side of the table, if you will, to try to introduce something
that in fact does define it so that they can do what they'd like to do under whatever
law is established by (unclear)
MN Well, I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going to have a place that...l don't
want to use the term dispense...but dispenses, you have to call it something, and
so I think...maybe it's not the right term or maybe it's a term that we wouldn't want
to see in there because it falls in line with an agenda that we don't want to be seen
to endorse. That's got to be why it's in there. You've got to give it a name. Maybe
it should be dispensary, maybe it should be outlet, maybe it should be I don't know.
But iYs got to have a name. So I think...l would guess that's why iYs there.
JF If you look under Section 9.14.030, the fifth definition down attempfs to define
medical marijuana cooperatives.
RL Yes
JF And it lists a number of California Health & Safety Code Sections...
RL Correct.
JF ...I'm not trying to play City Attorney, but I think thaYs his definition at least for the
use of this ordinance.
RL It extrapolates the sections(unclear)extrapolates those sections of Health&Safety
Code that would provide for care giver and a qualified patient and tries to establish
a framework whereby you can put those people together and do it in a cooperative
fashion.
MN He excludes those in his definition.
RL It excludes others that are already defined.
MN A medical marijuana cooperative means any facility where medical marijuana is
made available to and/or distributed by or to two or more persons, two or more of
the following, etc., etc. And then it goes on and says a medical marijuana
cooperative shall not include the following uses as long as iYs regulated by, you
know, an applicable code section.
9
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
RL Right
MN So I misunderstood what you said. He's excluding the ones that are otherwise
regulated.
RL Correct.
MN Okay. So Jim's comment is he's defining it for purposes of this statute this way,
regardless of how somebody else uses it. So whaYs the concern?
RL The concern is that we're providing a definition and entering into legal framework
under the ordinance that would make it permissible to have a cooperative or a
dispensary or some other form that the State Health & Safety Code does not
provide for. It provides for two individuals or an individual and several other
individuals...the primary care giver and those that are qualified patients.
MN But that's how he defines it, in strict accordance with California...he defines it as two
or more of the following: primary care giver, qualified patient, or person with an
identification card.
RL Right
MN I think what he's trying to do is identify it consistently with...maybe we should wait
til we have the City Attorney here and let them explain. We probably ought to put
this over, but iYs an important question, and we need to understand instead of
guessing, and I'm guessing, really, at what he's trying to do, but it looks to me like
what he's trying to do is have it as narrowly defined as possible, consistent with
what is in the Health & Safety Code, and then say that's all you're allowed to have.
Anything else that anybody else is talking about you can't have, and iYs going to be
regulated in this way. I think that's what he is trying to do.
JL And he should be here to explain.
MN Yes, he really should be here.
RL (unclear) Section 9.14.020 the purpose and intent. The purpose and intent is to
regulate and provide something that woutd establish cooperatives.
SRG And if I could add something...this is before the Public Safety Commission at your
request, and Dave has put this together. I think the City...correct me if I'm wrong,
I'll look to the City Manager...our position is we have the one-year moratorium...
JL Yes, we do.
RL Yes.
10
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
SRG ...we are waiting for additional information or legislation, etc. I don't see this going
forward other than if the Commission gets the report from Dave Erwin and makes
a recommendation, we would take that forward, but I don't see that taking it forward
during the time period of the moratorium.
MN You know, last month I asked the question...l know, because I read the verbatim
transcript, even there were some unintelligible or whatever...l asked the question
what is the...l think I may have framed it in terms of the Council...what is the Council
looking for from us, because we talked about when we recommended the
moratorium that the Council can act at the end of a year, they can act in six months,
they can act in a month. And the answer I got, Councilman Kelly said, well we're
not going to tell you what to do. Well, we understand that. We don't want to be told
exactly what to do, but we want to be told...what is it you want us to do in terms of
coming back to you. If we're...if the staff's...if the City Manager and the staff
believe, or the Council believes, that nothing should be done until late in the 12-
month period, near the end of the moratorium, I'd just as soon not spend any time
on this until then...because we've spent a ton of time on it.
JF Let me clarify that. Now that we have our City Attorney, here, we can address...get
into the marrow of this. In reading through your itemized minutes, the discussion,
I saw that it took us almost an entire year just to agree to agree on a series of three
ordinances, one regulating, one banning, and one extending the moratorium, and
if it's going to take us another year,we only have two years, so next December 24cn
we've either got to ban, regulate, or do whatever we're going to do.
MN I think if you looked at the minutes from a year ago and look at those minutes, you'd
probably see that this Commission was asking for alternative ordinances way back
then. I don't think it took us that long, I think we had some issues...
JF I would hate for you to just sit back and assume this is not going to be an issue.
That date is solid, and you have summer coming up, and the Council is going to
want some kind of recommendation from this body in time to act before the 24`n
which means we only have one meeting in December typically,which is the second
Thursday, and then you've got Thanksgiving. We're probably going to need
something from you by October, maybe November at the latest, and coming off of
the summer, it means you're probably going to have to do a little bit of work this
spring.
MN I think we should...it's fresh in our minds, I think we should do it, I'm not suggesting
we shouldn't. But Sheila...l think I misinterpreted what Sheila said.
SRG I stand corrected.
MN Sheila basically said nothing's going to happen for 12 months, just want to let you
know staff's not going to take anything to you for 12 months, and that's true....you
want something...l mean, we could probably come up with a recommendation by
11
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
April or May, if not sooner, if I understand the sense of this. But do you want a
recommendation from us in April or May, or do you want to wait to see what
happens in the meantime and then have a recommendation. I guess thaYs what I'm
asking.
SRG My report was based on my conversations with the City Attorney, who is now here,
so I stand corrected. I thought we probably weren't taking something forward right
away.
DJE I don't have anything to take forward (unclear). We obviously will have to because
we cannot extend the moratorium any longer. Ideally, we had hoped that there
would be some clarification between Federal and State regulationsthatwould clarify
some of the issues, and hopefulty our legislature would do something to clean up
what exists on the books now because the interpretation that is given to the
Compassionate Use Act doesn't fit the terms of that act. I mean, there's nothing
about dispensaries in there or anything of that nature that is promoted as being
permitted by that. Hopefully something would be clarified in that interim period of
time, but it is clear, as Councilman Ferguson says, that we will have to act.
JB With atl the enforcement in the State the last month and a half, all the activity that
we've seen, law enforcement activity, I think most were financial investigations and
arrests and (unclear). What is the status of our business in town right now? Is it still
open, or is there cause to revoke an existing license because of criminal activity?
DJE The license has been revoked.
JB It has been revoked.
JL !s there litigation pending, Lieutenant?
DJE There is, on our part, no litigation. There have been a number of criminal charges
that have been filed.
MN Charges have been filed?
JL Yes, they have.
RL Through the Sheriff's Department?
?? No
DJE No, I don't...some part of the Sheriff's Department. I'm not sure it was out of the
local station necessarily.
FT It was through the Sheriff's Department Special Investigations Bureau.
12
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
SRG Not out of our station?
FT They're not out of our station.
JB Any Federal involvement in it, in the investigation?
FT The charges they filed were State charges through the Riverside County District
Attorney's office.
MN What charges were filed, Lieutenant? Do you know?
FT I read in the paper that it has to do with, I believe, the section with running a
(unclear) business for profit.
?? They say it can't make a profit.
DJE And then you can also charge them with carrying a concealed weapon.
MN Was he, at the time they arrested him, I guess.
RL Does he have a permit in Palm Desert?
DJE We don't issue gun permits.
JF Thank God.
JL So there is some stuff pending (unclear) litigation...
RL Dave, we just started looking through this and commenting on it before you came
in...
DJE Okay
RL ...and one of the comments that I brought up was under the Purpose and Intent,
which is on page 2, top of the page...in this ordinance, we are actually trying to
provide a definition for cooperative that is not defined under State law.
DJE That is correct.
RL And I'm concerned that were the City to do that, it might put itself in a position of
liability of defining something and trying to develop something that...
DJE Well, apparently, there is at least a Deputy Attorney General that seems to think
that we might do that if we pass an ordinance regulating it.
RL Right.
13
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
DJE Regardless of whether we define cooperatives or not.
MN That we might do what?
DJE Just by passing an ordinance that regulates it,that appears to permit it and regulate
it, we may have violated the law. At least that's...maybe that's taken out of context
of what he said...at least there is an Attorney General who says that that potentially
is a violation.
MN A California Attorney General?
DJE Yes.
MN Well, he said that by regulating, it's a violation of the State law?
DJE Potentially Federal law.
RL Federallaw.
GK Federallaw.
MN Oh, so Counsel, it's a Federal Deputy Attorney General.
DJE IYs a Deputy Attorney General...l'm not sure Federal or State, Marty, and I
apologize for that.
MN Okay. It would violate Federal law by regulating it?
?? By authorizing it.
MN Or authorizing it.
JF So the Senate, the Assembly, and the Governor have signed legislation I guess
would be equally culpable.
RL Anyway, thaYs one of the concerns brought out. Another was that in the first page
of the ordinance, we're saying that we're developing something consistent with
Senate Bill 420. This Senate Bill 420, though, was chaptered as a Health & Safety
Code Section. It's probably not this year's Senate Bill 420, so perhaps if something
was in an ordinance,we would omit that and would ratherwrite it consistent with the
various Health & Safety Code sections that were chaptered into law.
DJE We certainly could do that. I think we have reference to 420 in 2004.
RL Correct.
14
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
MN Well, really, isn't the bigger question...this is a pretty comprehensive, regulatory,
proposed or draft ordinance, which we asked for, and it has some changes, I
noticed, from the last one that reflects some of the input that we gave when Bob
Hargreaves was here.
DJE Right.
MN If, in fact,we are considering recommending to the City Council...l mean, we've got
a good, solid draft ordinance here in front of us. It may not be perfect, but it's a
draft ordinance regulating, and we have one that we were given earlier which is
prohibitive.
DJE No.
MN Yes, we got a prohibitive one back in November.
JL A very short one.
MN Very short...(unclear)...basically that's the part that matters.
RL Right.
MN Well, you know what, maybe this is....this is 1102. Maybe this is the one that we
talked about.
DJE And 1105.
MN Was that adopted...it was continued and then the moratorium was adopted.
DJE The moratorium (unclear)
MN So that would be the ordinance that you would propose if we were to...
DJE Yes.
MN Okay. So it seems to me that...
RL So we have the two that we asked for.
MN Yes, we basically have the two that we asked for. We have a pretty good draft of
both, and I guess it would be up to the City Attorney to tell us if he would want to
look at that again and change it or update it, but my view is we shouldn't spend a
lot of time massaging the regulatory ordinance because now we have one that's a
good solid draft...unless we're really inclined to make that recommendation to the
Council. And, by the way, if we have comments, we should give them to the City
Attorney and let him make those changes, but I don't think we want to spend a ton
15
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
of time going over every word of it. I mean, there are some things I have in here
that we coufd talk about, the wording, but really there's a good, solid regulatory
ordinance here, the City Attorney has modified it a couple of times at our request
with some input from us...it seems to me that, either today or at the next meeting,
we ought to be in a position, if we want more information, to make a
recommendation one way or the other with respect to these two ordinances.
JB But we have both of them now.
MN Yes, and the other one I had because I had the old papers on this medical
marijuana stuff...l have some of them. It is 1102 is the one.
DJE ThaYs right.
MN IYs the proposed, and it's got the recitals, the standard recitals, but the operative
section is very simple...medical marijuana dispensaries are prohibited in all City
zones, and no permit shall be issued therefore. End of section. There are other
provisions. There are definitions and some other things. I think we're maybe at the
point, at least in my view, we're at the point where, unless we need more input from
the staff or City Attorney, where we can make a recommendation to the Council.
JL Do they want it that quick?
JB We don't have...require any other refinements to 1102. Didn't we pretty much agree
on...
JL Yes.
DJE I believe that was the draft that was before you once before.
MN You gave it to us as part of the packet on the background back in November.
DJE Right.
MN You came and gave us a packet, and that was in it, and we talked about it at our
December meeting, I believe. I don't know if you'd want to update it or not.
DJE I need to take a look at it. I'd probably want to make sure the definition of
cooperatives and dispensaries...
MN Yeah, it doesn't even...this one I don't think even mentions cooperatives...or
actually, it says(unclear)does not require or provide for the opening of businesses
or cooperatives commonly known as medical marijuana dispensaries, and then it
defines dispensaries, but in any event, it's going to be roughly the same.
DJE Roughly the same.
16
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
MN So, I guess what I'm suggesting is perhaps that maybe...that we make a decision
on this sooner rather than later, whether it's tonight or next time, I don't know, but
I've heard from Councilman Ferguson that the City Council is looking at us to make
a recommendation, and certainly...
RL We should at least make a recommendation (unclear)
MN Yes. I'll leave it to the rest of the Commission...
JB Why don't we...the spring might be a good day...it gives us another month and a
half to kind of think about this, talk among ourselves a little bit (unclear) agendize
it for our April meeting.
MN And then maybe you could actually put in front of us the revised version of 1102,the
updated version, so we can refer to it.
JL And we're not going to make any changes on the one we have today.
DJE If you have changes, you can either tell me today or individually tell me at any time
is convenient.
JB I would think the only change would be to take the bill number out of there and just
refer to the Health & Safety Code.
DJE Just reference the Health & Safety Code.
MN Do you have it in front of you? Do you want a couple of comments real quickly?
DJE Sure
MN 914080 on page 5, Investigation and action on application...
DJE Okay
MN It says we will have, within 45 days, to either accept or reject, or grant or deny, the
application. Would it be...is it possible even to say that if there is no action taken,
iYs deemed rejected,just because we know things get sort of sometimes lost in the
shuffle. I know that doesn't happen in this city, but it does happen in other cities.
So that there's no question that iYs...someone could argue well you didn't act to
deny it. And then on the opposite page, the registration, "A" says within five days
they have to notify you of any new...notify the City of any new employee or
contractor, and then "B" says they have to provide pictures and fingerprinting.
Maybe there should be a time limit in "B" as well.
DJE Okay
17
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
MN How soon they have to provide the pictures and that. And then one last comment,
on eight. This may not be...it seems inconsistent, but the more I think about it,
maybe it's not. "E" says the medical marijuana cooperative may possess no more
than six mature or twelve immature plants. That's under"E". And then "G" says no
marijuana shall be grown or cultivated on the premises. So I guess what the
implication of that is...they can possess them, but they can't possess them on the
premises, and grow them someplace else.
DJE ThaYs correct.
MN Okay, thaYs what was intended.
(Unclear)
MN Those were my only thoughts. So are we going to put this...is there a suggestion
to put it over to the April meeting, is that what...
(Unclear)
JL Put it over to April.
RL Do we have a motion to agendize the item for April?
JB Do we need to identify what the agenda item is right now...review or recommend to
the City Council.
MN Let me ask Sheila to recommend some language...review and...
SRG For the April meeting?
MN Yes, for our April meeting.
SRG It should be request for recommendation...
MN To the Council? Review draft ordinances and make a recommendation to the City
Council?
RL Do we want that in the form of a motion?
MN I think you've got it.
RL Okay.
MN And I'll second it.
RL And we have a second. All in favor.
18
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
JB Aye
G K Aye
JL Aye
RL Aye
M N Aye
DJE I will get the two ordinances redone and back to you in a final form.
MN Also, the last time we talked, I notice in the Minutes, there was going to be some
input perhaps from the Department, and I don't know if you've had a chance to give
that input to the City Attorney, but I know for sure that we'd like to see you do that
if you haven't.
JB Anything non-confidential.
FT Certainly.
SRG And Lt. Taylor was just saying they haven't had an opportunity to comment on this
yet, and Captain Thetford has a couple of things he wanted to discuss with the City
Attorney. By the time we bring it back to you in April, he'll have had those
discussions.
MN So that makes sense.
RL Councilman Ferguson
JF And this is just food for thought, but in talking with Supervisor Wilson...l think he's
the only one that voted for the County ordinance...he saw this as an opportunity to
regulate what is otherwise an illegitimate activity. In the absence of a dispensary,
you have to go out on the street and find somebody to buy it from, usually illegally.
And I don't know that I agree with him or disagree with him, but it certainly was an
interesting point. I went and met with the dispensary owner at some length to find
out where he gets his supply because my hunch is that he probably also buys it
from drug dealers. And might we not want to think about it if...it's a big if...we're
going to regulate a dispensary...require them to acquire their inventory from a legally
defined cooperative under the initiative and statute so that they aren't buying pot
from Oakland that's $6,000 a pound and selling it for$1,000 an ounce and making
$1.2 million a week. Just a thought. Because, I mean, the people that struggle with
this don't like the illegal aspect of its use or its sale and, you know, we've all
struggled trying to define the use(unclear)go out to the physicians...l didn't mention
of the County health card in here, but...you know, we've been focusing on the use,
but there's the acquisition. If you can only have six mature and 12 immature
19
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
plants...you know,why not limit where the dispensary operator acquires his product
so that it fits within the law and just not simply drive deeper underground the illegal
activity of acquiring marijuana in the first instance.
MN So you're suggesting that we put in there a requirement that the source of any
product that is dispensed will be lawful or legal or something like that, and if not,that
would be a reason to pull the permit.
JF Exactly.
MN So, really, what that means is...
JF That means you've got to do what the law says you're supposed to do, or you can't
do your business...
MN Yeah, and what it really means is...the practical effect would be that a dispensary
or cooperative or whatever the heck that thing is out there is going to have to grow
their own. That's what it really means, which is really what the legislation, rightly or
wrongly,was intended to mean. The people that need medical marijuana can either
grow their own or have a "care giver" that would grow it for them, get it for them,
that's really how it was intended.
JF And I suspect that (unclear) it would probably drive production back to the small
cooperatives and users (unclear)
MN It would probably drive the price down, too, you would think. If you could really
enforce it, keep the price down, because iYs...you're right, the guys that are doing
it illegally are making a bundle.
RL That's a good point, and the point strikes a chord in my mind of an article I read in
today's paper, the Riverside paper. The marijuana being grown by the State of
California for a specific health and safety test and testing on patients does not meet
the quality control standards established by the Federal Government. I thought that
was interesting. Can I step back a moment? Did we vote on that?
MG Yes
RL We had a motion and a second.
MG Yes, you did.
RL We did do all that.
JL We had all that.
20
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
RL Thank you. The next item is a report from staff relative to Valley-wide radio...
As clarification, Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this
matter to the meeting of April 11, 2007, at which time the Commission will review the
ordinances as revised by the City Attorney and consider making a recommendation to the
City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Nethery and carried by a 5-0 vote.
C. Report from Staff Relative to Valley-Wide Radio Interoperability
Ms.Scully reviewed her memorandum dated February 7,2007, noting
that the CVAG Technical Advisory Committee would be taking this
issue under advisement at its meeting of February 16, 2007, and
would forward its recommendation to the CVAG Executive Committee
for action. She added that she had requested that CVAG's Valerie
Franklin forward a copy of the Minutes to her as soon as they are
made available.
Chairman Lebel said the San Bernardino County Radio
Communications Agency was currently exploring the next step
because the system they had spent several hundred million dollars on
was going to be obsolete in the very near future.
Ms. Scully responded that this was a problem with such technology
— by the time it is installed, it is obsolete. She said it was apparent
from the newspaper articles attached to her report that the biggest
issue at this time was with local agencies that are not affiliated with
Riverside County Sheriff. She added that the interoperability included
Highway Patrol and other State agencies.
Upon question by Chairman Lebel, Mr. Scully and Mrs. Gilligan
responded that the City controlled its own internal radio
communications (i.e., Public Works radios, cell phones, etc.).
Chairman Lebel suggested that the City explore some type of a user
agreement with Riverside County to be on their system, totally
transparent to them, operating as if it were the City's own private
system and doing it for pennies on the dollar compared to what the
City was doing independently.
Commissioner Butzbach said he knew Sheriff Doyle was very
passionate about this subject, and his position was very much
supported by the Riverside County Police Chiefs'Association as well.
Ms. Scully said she felt it was important to wait and see what CVAG
does with this issue, and Public Safety Commission would be able to
see the actual agreement before it goes to the City Council.
21
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
Chairman Lebel said there were two approaches to the cost factor.
One was being a partner agency, with the County charging the City its
fair share as determined by the County. Another approach was to say
rather than purchase radios and use the system provided by the local
radio dealership, the County could provide the radios, and the City
would pay a monthly charge per radio.
No action was taken on this matter.
IX. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION (S)
Mrs. Gilligan noted that the City Council had approved the request from the
Palm Desert Police department to purchase Segways.
X. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. Comments by Public Safety Commissioners
None
B. Update on the Citizens on Patrol Program
Provided earlier in the meeting
C. Comments by Police and Fire Departments
None
D. Comments by Staff
1. Ms. Scully noted she had received a call today from the Salt
Lake City, Utah, Police Department inquiring about the City's
Video Surveillance Pilot Program. She said the caller indicated
he had found the information on a website and that several
cities were talking and would be inquiring about modeling their
programs after Palm Desert's. She added that she had
fonNarded the appropriate materials to the caller.
2. Mrs. Gilligan distributed copies of a flyer relative to the
upcoming "Every 15 Minutes" program at Palm Desert High
School to be held on Wednesday, February 21, 2007, and
Thursday, February 22, 2007.
22
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2007
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Commissioner Nethery, second by Vice Chair Kirkwood, Chairman
Lebel adjourned the meeting at 5:12 p.m., with the next meeting scheduled to be held on
Wednesday, March 14, 2007.
,,
�� V �
Mary P. Gate , ecording Secretary
23