Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUPPTL INFO - Noise Dist. & Entertainment Establshmnts PRELIMlNARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 F. Business District Team Report —August 2007 Commissioner Larsh moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Business District Team Report for August 2007. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Nethery and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Chairman Butzbach ABSENT. . G. Consideration of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapters 9.24 (Noise � Control) and 9.25 (Multiple Responses to Loud Parties and � Gatherings) � The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Minutes: � DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney MN Commissioner Martin Nethery SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM/Community Services Division GK Vice Chair Gloria Kirkwood JL Commissioner James Larsh DJE I would apologize to the Commission. That report, the draft of it, did not get done...the ordinance. So the Commission knows what we're doing, currently our ordinance provides, as it relates to noise, utilization of sound measurement machines and equipment. We're finding that that may not be the best way to accomplish that regulation. Many of the cities in California are going to another type of ordinance, which is basically that that disturbs a reasonable person...that is prolonged...more the nuisance type area as opposed to a technical measurement. The technical measurement many times gets challenged whether the operator of the equipment is trained, whether they've had the proper training with the equipment, if the equipment is properly calibrated, and what the other surrounding noise may be in the area. What the staff has done is put together another ordinance, and we had some discussion ongoing at the staff level, and it's kind of been passed to me to potentially put two parts together, if you will. We have in our existing ordinances some regulations that deal with sound measurement as it relates to pool equipment, it already exists in other parts of our ordinance. In other words, the pool equipment has to be below a certain decibel level, within a certain number of feet. And the same type of measurement is required with regard to leaf and dust blowers. lt refers to a decibel level as well. As opposed to changing those, what I'm doing is putting together a draft which has the utilization of the sound equipment, leaving it for utilization with the swimming pool equipment and the leaf blowers, and also adding to that potentially, depending on what this Commission and the Council might say, its utilization for stationary sound sources such as a well site, 4 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 something of that nature as opposed to using the other type of noise ordinance. But putting the two together has become a task. I hope to have that done this next week and get that ordinance to you so that you can review the draft. RL Dave, would that...would your work in that area also apply to places such as those that have been a problem in the City of Palm Springs and other cities relating to night clubs and entertainment with respect to sound and decibel levels within a certain area? DJE It would apply. RL Or even out on EI Paseo? DJE The entertainment type venues would be regulated by the other one, not the sound measuring devices. RL But there would be a sound element in that one also? DJE There is a sound element in it. RL Very good. MN Has this new approach, which is... DJE Apparently, iYs not new, Marty, in a lot of cities in California. MN Well, has it been tested for vagueness and constitutionality? DJE Yes, it has. MN It's passed muster? DJE Yes. MN Then, it sounds great because... DJE And hopefully it will be one that will have less ability to be challenged. MN Yes. RL I noticed on this item on the Agenda, it also indicates multiple responses to loud parties and gatherings. DJE That ordinance basically sets some penalties, some notification on the first response, and then some relatively elevated penalties for second responses. I 5 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 think you will be happy...it really is addressed to loud parties that continue even after warnings. MN Has the Police Department had some input into that, since obviously they are the ones that are going to be enforcing it. DJE Yes, they have. SRG We received direction from the City Council this spring. The City is growing, the business community is (inaudible) as we grow, and these were areas that Council felt we needed to address. We've had the City Attorney's office, the Police Department, our Code Enforcement (Hart Ponder and Pedro) who are out there doing the work all the time and had great input into it. And Lauri Aylaian, our Planning Director, assumed this responsibility and has done a yeoman's job moving it forward. We told the Council we would have it back to them in the fall with comments from Public Safety, and these two ordinances are before you as a result of that. RL If I might add to the research and materials...l'm sure you have a (inaudible), David, I have a chapter from another municipal code related to cost recovery for police services at large parties on private properties... DJE I'd like to see that. RL ...where they have multiple activities. DJE Okay. I have a couple of them like that, but any more are welcome. DK Is there any action that you're requiring? SRG I would suggest that you have a motion to continue this to your next meeting. DJE Continue it to the next meeting if you would please. GK Okay, do we have a motion? MN So moved. RL Second. JL Second. 6 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 GK All in favor...aye JL Aye RL Aye MN Aye H. Consideration of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 5.100 Relative to Entertainment Permits The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Minutes: � JL Commissioner James Larsh SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM/Community Services Division GK Vice Chair Gloria Kirkwood DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney RL Commissioner Rick Lebel MN Commissioner Martin Nethery FT Lt. Frank Taylor, Palm Desert Police Department LA Lauri Aylaian, Planning Director CF Councilmember Findy Finerty JL We are going to get the entertainment ordinance, correct? GK Correct SRG You have that in front of you, I believe. GK H is Consideration of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapgter 5.100 Relative to Entertainment Permits...ltem I in your packets. City Attorney...Mr. Erwin. DJE This is also something that went through much the same process as the Noise Ordinance. I got this one finished a little quicker than the other. We initially started off with the idea of regulating nightclubs and then basically felt that we really ought to be regulating entertainment because the definition of nightclub usually is relatively limited, and we do have a lot of other sources of entertainment which do create noise, do create traffic, other than nightclubs. And that's what this ordinance is designed to attempt to regulate, at least to manage, if you will, by requiring...and staff didn't do this, but I changed it a little bit. An 7 APPROVED MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 GK All in favor...aye JL Aye RL Aye MN Aye H. Consideration of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 5.100 Relative to Entertainment Permits The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Minutes: � JL Commissioner James Larsh SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM/Community Services Division GK Vice Chair Gloria Kirkwood DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney RL Commissioner Rick Lebel MN Commissioner Martin Nethery FT Lt. Frank Taylor, Palm Desert Police Department LA Lauri Aylaian, Planning Director CF Councilmember Findy Finerty JL We are going to get the entertainment ordinance, correct? GK Correct SRG You have that in front of you, I believe. GK H is Consideration of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapgter 5.100 Relative to Entertainment Permits...Item I in your packets. City Attorney...Mr. Erwin. DJE This is also something that went through much the same process as the Noise Ordinance. I got this one finished a little quicker than the other. We initially started off with the idea of regulating nightclubs and then basically felt that we really ought to be regulating entertainment because the definition of nightclub usually is relatively limited, and we do have a lot of other sources of entertainment which do create noise, do create traffic, other than nightclubs. And that's what this ordinance is designed to attempt to regulate, at least to manage, if you will, by requiring...and staff didn't do this, but I changed it a little bit. An 7 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 entertainment permit is required. It is not a Conditional Use Permit. This is basically a staff function. It can be appealed to the Planning Commission and the Council, but it starts off as a staff function with an entertainment permit. That is for any business, nightclub or otherwise, where entertainment is going to be furnished on an ongoing basis for five or more days in a six-month period. That's not very many. RL I like that concept. DJE And for less than five days...actually we didn't, initially, at staff level, provide any sort of permit. I've added in a temporary permit for those because I can see businesses that don't ordinarily entertain, and I hate to use an example, but a tattoo parlor. They were going to have the motorcycle group in a parking lot at Presidents Plaza with a dj and stuff like that. So I've added a temporary entertainment permit. RL IYs a one-time event...intended as a one-time event? DJE Yes. And they would have been excepted under this. And I thought maybe we should not have that. But the basic ordinance goes into some detail about what has to be provided, and it does go through staff and the Police Department in the permitting process. There are a number of other regulatory items in here. There are requirements for, depending upon the issuance of the permit, security guards. RL Or Police officers. DJE Or Police officers, yes. And that is the staff's determination. It can be appealed, but they don't get a permit until it's issued, so if they want to appeal it, iYs not issued. RL I have a couple of questions regarding that. DJE Sure RL One of them comes under Section 5.100.070, review and investigation when an applicant is applying for the permit. It indicates within ten days after receipt of an application, the Director of Development Services, etc. or so on and so. And I wondered...is that enough time for a background investigation of an applicant? DJE No, that's...this is just for the determination. The staff, once an application is received, has ten days to decide whether they want more information or not. RL Okay 8 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 DJE And iYs not until that ten days has run and the information requested has been provided that the time for issuing it, which is 30 days, starts to run. RL Okay DJE So it's...an application must be complete before any time limit starts running. RL So that would provide the opportunity, if it was deemed necessary, to do a background investigation. DJE Yes RL On the next page, with respect to noise under Item 6, that caught my eye again as it relates to issues we've had in Palm Desert with a couple of businesses and issues they've had in Palm Springs many, many times. And I wondered whether or not sufficient sound could be more adequately defined to include a certain decibel level within a certain... DJE We're trying to get away from the decibel level... RL Are you? DJE ...on the entertainment. It just...in my research of cities, it has been subject to more challenge than the other type of regulation. And I think you will see that. You will see the difference in it with the other ordinance when it comes in because these kind of work together. These ordinances will work together. RL Okay. Some of the things that come to mind are the Greek Festival that we had in Palm Desert, that we have every year in Palm Desert., the entertainment at a couple of our businesses on EI Paseo that have occurred. There have been complaints from neighboring prope�ties...you know, things of that nature that I thought might be caught in this area, unless you're catching it in the other one. DJE We're catching it in both, hopefully. RL Very good MN Dave? DJE Yes MN Just looking at that same thing, it says the noise inside the establishment shall not be audible anywhere on adjacent property or public rights-of-way. Well, two things....one, it says "inside" the buildings. Some places have outside entertainment. I'm thinking of a restaurant on EI Paseo that has outside 9 PRELIMfNARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 entertainment and music. I live above that, and music carries at certain times of the year but, you know, if it's off at a certain time and iYs not too loud...this would kind of preclude that, at least by implication...outside music. And I don't know...do we want to do that is a question. I don't know, but it's something we � need to think about. And the other one is "shall not be audible anywhere on adjacent property or public rights-of-way." It wouldn't offend me if, you know, two feet onto the....in a business district, finro feet onto the next property or six feet onto the next property you can hear. I mean...audible at all...l mean, if iYs like a whisper...it seems like a very strict standard...not audible anywhere on adjacent property or the public right-of-way. DJE It is strict. MN Yeah. DJE Okay, maybe too strict MN It would seem iYs almost...certainly you're not going to have anybody with outside music or with the door open when the weather is nice and the music inside or very rarely. And I just wonder if...at least, I think that's something we need to think about and talk about. DJE Okay RL On the next page, under Public Nuisance, I didn't know whether that was adequately defined. It seems that it isn't really defined. Is it defined somewhere else in the code? DJE Yes, it is. Public nuisances are defined in the code. RL Under Operating Requirements, under Hours under Operating Requirements, was there a specific reason or rationale why the hours were selected to be open between two a.m. and seven a.m.? DJE I don't think there's any particular rationale. RL In other words, the nightclub should (inaudible) DJE (inaudible) alcohol, they have to close it. JL The ABC dictates you close at 2. RL No, the ABC dictates you stop serving alcohol at 2, but they could be open until 6 or 7 in the morning. 10 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 MN So you're suggesting it ought to say that they can be open, but they shouldn't have music (inaudible) What are you suggesting? DJE Well, this basically says they would close. RL But they're permitted to open at 7 in the moming? DJE Yes RL Why not 2 in the afternoon? DJE Or 10 in the morning? I don't know. RL Right, okay. SRG On the hours, we went to several different cities... DJE And I think this is generally the hours... SRG ...this is the general time. RL Is it? Alright. MN Of course, the other thing that I think about when I read this is...there are entertainment establishments in this valley which are not subject to State law, and so what we do is we tell an entertainment establishment that it can't stay open...l think it needs to be regulated...but it can't stay open after finro o'clock. That's just going to push business to those establishments which are not ...cannot be regulated by State, County, or City government, which, you know, I guess it only makes the monopoly better, but I'm not sure thaYs something we want to do, either. I would think there would be establishments that might stay open all night as long as the sound or the...obviously, you can't serve liquor after 2...the sound level is down. I don't know. SRG I think too in addressing this from a Police standpoint, using one facility thaYs entertainment oriented, if something happens there, iYs usually at that time of day between 1 and 2, and they have been significant enough that they've taken our whole Police Department over there at one entity. And then what happens to the rest of the City. So in trying to work out (inaudible) regulations, we did come up with the hours, and I'll defer to Lt. Taylor, but I think we took the Police Department's input and tried to accommodate that the best to protect the City as a whole. MN Now this is a sound regulation, right? 11 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 DJE No, this is an entertainment ordinance. MN I'm sorry, entertainment...it's an entertainment regulation, and so what it really says is if any business that is going to offer entertainment at any time during the day can't be open between 2 and 7. I'm not sure that follows for me, but maybe I'm... DJE No, this says a nightclub. SRG Right, a nightclub MN Oh, well it says... DJE Nightclub is separately defined. MN Okay, this is only nightclubs. SRG Right DJE This is only nightclubs MN Okay, I'm with you. I didn't read it that way. Okay, I see now. RL In that same section, Dave, under Operating Requirements, the bottom of that page and the top of the next page, indicates occupant capacity and number of security guards, and you had indicated previously that the Director of Development could determine whether security guards or police officers might be required. I would suggest consideration of a Section 1 A, if that's Section 1, consideration of a Section 1 A , that when Police officers are specified to be on the premises, that a Police services fee should be charged, and I have a recommendation for that with respect to Police services fees indicating what the fee should be, to include any costs for actual cost of inedical treatment required by Police officers, to include repair or replacement of any property damaged, to include the City reserving the right to seek fees in excess of a certain amount, and also that those fees would be considered as a debt to the City, collectible by suit if necessary. But I have those recommendations typed up for you. DJE Okay, great. Thank you. RL I'm not sure if thaYs an appropriate hourly rate. I took the hourly rate of $75 to include rate of salary and benefits. That might be a little low. DJE I think it's a little low. RL It may be. 12 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 DJE (inaudible) RL We may need to adjust that. FT What usually happens on this, and I think when we have these, the time we end up charging for events, these end up being in the realm of special events. RL Correct FT We charge a flat fee, which is...right now iYs running at $62.44 for each of the...anybody who contracts with...and these are extra duty officers. They're not pulling officers that are on patrol, but these are additional officers that are coming in and are provided because of this event. RL Correct FT Part of what...in this ordinance, what it looks like is that we're able to spend some time evaluating everything that is going on with this event and come up with a recommendation for how many people that they're going to need and whether it's security guards or just Police officers or a combination of them both. And the flat rate...it keeps us consistent with all of the events that we do on a special basis. We're doing some events in the next two weeks up on Hovley right now because of the construction that's going on there, and we have the high holy days at Temple Sinai that are going on, and we're doing a bunch of traffic control over there. And we have a flat rate that we charge for those special events. And to stay consistent all the way, we would recommend continuing that and not change it in any way from what we normally do. RL What I've suggested in that particular Police services fee would give the discretion for the Department of...is it Development Services? DJE Right, thaYs the way it's written. RL Right, for that department to charge up front, if a person is going to have an event, a $750 amount as kind of a "we'll hold your check until we determine what fees might be necessary" but the fees would be a certain hourly rate and would provide for everything such as injuries or property damage or things of that nature. FT Well, normally what we do on these rates is (inaudible) I assume they would have to provide those monies up front before this event to us to contract for those other peopie to come in. DJE Right, we're not going to bill them. 13 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 RL I've given Dave a couple of copies (inaudible) MN Sounds like, though...Rick, what you're talking about is when you're asked to help with off-duty Police officers, and this sounds like something where maybe, I haven't read it, but this sounds like something where you're called to a problem area, and... RL No MN IYs not? RL No, this would be an up-front. FT We've sat, and we've met a lot about this....iYs an up-front type thing. For example, if one of the establishments that is a nightclub is...what they normally do is they play music inside their club, whether they serve food or alcoholic beverages or however they do that, but they just have normal music. And then what we run into on an occasional basis is they'll have a special event that goes on, and they'll bring in a disc jockey or an entertainer from out of town, they'll bring a band in, they'll advertise it on every radio station, and then what ends up happening is all of a sudden there is this huge group of people that show up at these establishments, and it really taxes our services because as alcohol is mixed with large numbers, the potential for violence increases. And so at certain times in the past we've had the whole group of...the Palm Desert Police Department is dealing with an issue at one establishment, and that really doesn't help with the public safety for the City as a whole. And being a contract city, we can pull some resources in from other places to help in those types of situations, but what ends up really good about this is that up-front we can say based on our experience and different things that have happened, we can say here is the number of people that are needed, and then they pay up-front for those people for this certain number of hours, and an additional group of officers would be there and be able to deal with the event. SRG Right now, though, we don't have any way of knowing, which this will require, about these special events. We found out that we were getting a rapper who had just been let out of the LA County Jail, everybody in LA was coming down...we found out at the eleventh hour. We got the Fire Department over there for occupancy levels, got the Police Department over there. This would make the establishment come to us and get the permit... RL Yes, exactly SRG ...and then we can be proactive rather than reactive. 14 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 RL Exactly, and that's why I introduced the concept of this other provision because it says not only would you be liable for this, but you may be liable for these other expenses as well. And I think the property owner should know up front. SRG Because right now we're not recouping any of the costs. RL Correct LA I think...l certainly understand the concept. What I would suggest, though, rather than inserting it in the Operating Requirements, the operating requirements are generally for the entertainment on a day-to-day basis year-round. Dave had provided for a temporary use entertainment permit. And I think, if I'm understanding you correctly, thaYs what you're trying to target for the additional cost. RL Not necessarily, although certainly either that section of the ordinance or a separate handout could be provided to the applicant for a temporary permit which indicates these are potential costs you might face. LA Part of our goal with the temporary permit is to be able to have something that can be reviewed at a meaningful level by the Police and by the different depa�tments so that, in Public Works and Code Compliance, so that we can determine for this particular event what is appropriate precautions and measures that need to be taken so that we can look at that. And that is one instance where we wanted to be able to say it's not acceptable for you to provide your own security guard services, and we think Police officers need to be in attendance there, and we would be able to assign, if thaYs what the Commission is looking for, we would be able to recoup the costs for that... RL Right LA ...whereas the... RL And that's a proactive approach. I'm glad to see... LA ...that's exactly what we would like to do. The section that we were just citing here, though, is for...these are the operating requirements for their day-to-day business, karaoke bars...on a year-round basis, which probably would not have officers sent out for extra duty. MN What I was hearing from Frank was the program where you have an ongoing situation or even some individual, like the Greek Festival or the high holy days....a f�at fee is just easier to deal with, and it's worked fine. And maybe this type of an option for an unusual event, a special event, somehow you've got to 15 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 weave it into the ordinance so that iYs available when you need it, but for every entertainment facility you don't want to have to have this kind of situation. Right, that's what you were...l guess both you guys were suggesting. RL Exactly MN That makes sense. RL You bet. There is another section on the next page, Dave, with respect to an item, Subsection (f) for Intoxicated Persons. That would be under Section 5.100.090, Operating Requirements....the third page over, which would be subsection 3f, identified as Intoxicated Persons. "No person who is intoxicated or under the influence of drug shall be allowed to enter or remain on the premises, whether as a patron or entertainer." MN The lead-in is the Director of Development Services shall consider the request...waive the requirement if the following findings can be made... RL No, right MN Isn't that what that is, a lead-in for that? So this is the lead-in for... RL Oh, okay, right, and then subsections under that, correct. MN So thaYs saying, Dave, is that saying the applicant can request a waiver or reduction of security, and it can be granted by the Director only if the Director can make the following findings, that no intoxicated person will be allowed to enter. DJE Has been allowed....it really should be (inaudible) RL ThaYs going to be tough. MN Shall be allowed, it should be... RL That's going to be tough. But with respect to... DJE Not necessarily. Reading the significant incident report that I get from Lt. Taylor, it's fairly easy to see some of these things occurring. They have allowed people that are intoxicated to be on the premises. (inaudible) MN So this is really a hindsight thing. A, for instance, says there have been no instances of disorderly conduct, so what you're saying is it really should say no 16 . PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 person who is intoxicated has been allowed....essentially, in the past, this guy has a clean record, so he can ask to reduce the number of security guards... DJE That's the idea. MN I've got you. DJE I need to look at the grammar. I forgot to change that. MN That makes sense, then. If you've got a clean record and there haven't been any incidents, maybe he can get a reduction and save some money if warranted. DJE Correct MN That makes sense. RL In that respect, and with the consideration of potentially intoxicated persons in and around the premises, I had another recommendation regarding public consumption of alcoholic beverages and possession of any open alcoholic beverage container. That might lead into... DJE We may be preempted by State law. JL Open container on the sidewalk... ?? That may be (inaudible) DJE Regardless of whether it's State law or not, if that's occurred, then (inaudible) JL Well, you're backed up either way. MN We could certainly include language in there, Dave, a catch-all language, that says there have been no prior violations of State... DJE County or local city ordinances MN Something like that, you know, relating to... RL Again, I think preemptive (inaudible) JL Right RL Preemptive and proactive...if the person operating a person would have that foreknowledge, that those considerations may...in providing a permit to that person or revoking a permit. 17 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 ?? Correct GK Any other comments? JL I have a comment back (inaudible) back page where it says Night Club, 5.100.150 "Any existing night club or business establishment legally in effect on the effective date of this Ordinance shall have ninety (90) days to comply with this chapter." That means that some of these smaller places, especially along the access road of Highway 111 that every Friday and Saturday night they have their...and he knows what I'm talking about...their acid rock bands come in. They're not really professional, but they make a lot of noise, and people are out on the sidewalks and everything else. They will have to go back, even though they've been doing it for almost two years, they'll have to go back and get that license. Did you hear that, Frank, we can get rid of two places. DJE The question is whether you want to wait 90 days or not. If you remember, an ordinance process...it has to be two readings at the Council level, and if the Council accepts it, 30 days thereafter, so....even if you started now, you're looking at 45 days for the process before iYs effective, and then another 90 days. RL And then 90 days. DJE And my question is...is 90 days too long? RL (inaudible) GK (inaudible) MN A lot depends on whether staff can....(laughter)...let me finish my thought. LA I think 90 days is good because there are a number of businesses out there, and staff is going to have to be doing a lot of research on each of these and their applications. RL There will be a lot. LA It can be intensive (inaudible) I think 90 is a good number. RL I do have a question with respect to Section 5.100.110, which relates to suspension, revocation of a permit and that entire process. Having faced something of this nature with the medical marijuana business situation, would this permit a business to continue under suspension or appeal? Because it looks like a suspension or an appellant process could linger for months. 18 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 DJE It could, and that is (inaudible) RL And nothing addresses whether or not a business could continue even if they've been suspended...if the permit has been suspended, and during the appellant process...this would provide by lack of any other condition, would provide for the business to continue to operate. DJE I guess there really are two types of notices that we could be thinking about under this process. One is a suspension because there is some gross violation of some of this, so the suspension is effective immediately in 24 hours or something like that, subject to the right to appeal, but the permit is suspended in the meantime. RL Right DJE Or if there is something such as they need to repair the doors or some other type of problem that needs to be done, perhaps a different time limit. I can't think of any other good example at the moment. RL Well, if fire exit doors with panic hardware have been made inoperable because of damage to the door, you wouldn't permit them to chain them for 30 or 45 days. DJE That is correct. The question is should they be given time to complete those measures, and what this says is they have ten days in which to do that. And a question is whether the permit should be suspended in that period of time. MN I think you'd really have to have exigent circumstances in order to have an immediate suspension without due process, without a hearing. I think you'd really have to have...otherwise, iYs probably not constitutional, and probably you could run into court and get an injunction, enjoin the City, and who needs that hassle when you're going to put somebody out of business. But I bet if you had some kind of a showing of...l don't know if exigent or how you'd define it, but... DJE We have to, I think, be very careful about how we do define that. I think we could do that. MN You know, a finding of danger to the health, welfare...something like that. GK A safety issue of some kind. MN Yes...immediate safety issue, hazard...but that would probably be something that would be good to put in there, but iYs going to take a pretty strong showing. DJE Let me see what I can come up with. 19 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 RL Excellent GK Overall, I think iYs very appropriate (inaudible) DJE Let me see if I can't make some modifications to it and get it back to you and at the same time get the other ordinance to you so that you've got it all together. I think it will be clear. MN Dave, would you talk to staff and maybe get some input from staff and the Police Department. The thing about, you know, inside the establishment...do we really want to curtail all outside music or does that take a special permit or is it just...whether iYs inside or outside, you've still got to get the permit and we don't care about it...the implication is, you know, because of at least that one section that either it doesn't address outside music or it is barred. DJE You know, this really addresses things other than music, too... MN Right DJE ...some of which don't make noise. You know, you can think of different types of plays or events that do not really create noise that would fall under entertainment, so let me see what I can come up with, what we can come up with... SRG We have a commitment to bring this back in the fall to the City Council. If we delay this to the Public Safety Commission's October meeting, we're looking at November or December. November and December each have one Council meeting. I would defer to Councilmember Finerty....we have two options. One is to take the verbatim transcript and a revised ordinance to the City Council with recommendation or comments that Public Safety has, or the second being to continue this until your meeting in October, which is going to delay the process. So I would defer to Councilmember Finerty...which do you think? Do you think the Council is looking for this now? MN We're not going to have the other one until next month anyway, are we? Well, not that they can't be done separately, but we won't have the other one until next month. CF I think as Dave indicated, the two will work hand in hand. DJE I think it would make more sense from the...when you look at them together. They do work together. CF So you think that is logic...it might be better to get the other one, review at the Public Safety Commission's October meeting, and then have your final changes, 20 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 or suggested changes, here, and then put them both to the Council at the same time. DJE Okay CF But I'm one of five. MN Well, November is still the fall. I'm willing to talk to Mayor Kelly about that if he doesn't agree with me. RL But if there are exigent circumstances and a true need to push this forward, I don't have any objection whatsoever. I think we've had an opportunity to provide some input either on this ordinance or on the proposed ordinance that Dave hasn't finished yet. I think we've made some points. SRG The Police Department will tell you they would like to have it sooner than later. And if the Council takes action on it in December, iYs not going to go into effect until January, the end of January, because you have the finro readings, and it will be the end of January in the middle of the season. CF Well (inaudible) the dates...what is the date of the October Public Safety Commission meeting? SRG The 10th CF The 10th. So if it is conceivable, it could go to the Council's second meeting in October. SRG It would be the next day. CF No, second meeting in October. DJE The second meeting is going to be... SRG Oh, the second meeting, I'm sorry. CF Is that workable? DJE Sure CF Okay DJE First reading then...second reading first meeting in November, it would be effective the first week or finro of December. 21 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 MN And if they wanted more input, it would be the beginning of January to go into effect shortly after the first of the year...or at the second meeting in December, right? FT I guess our concern on it is that because of the old establishments that are given 90 days to get to that point, now the season is about to begin, and (inaudible) and if we end up that it goes in front of the Council the end of October, then we're looking at into January before the 90-day time frame comes up. RL For existing (inaudible) CF But the 90-day time frame is really as a result of staff and the work that Lauri suggested needs to be done, so if staff is aware starting today that this is the work that is coming at you, there is no reason why your department couldn't get started now, and maybe we could cut the 90-day requirement. LA I think the obstacle that we'll run into is that in order for the various departments to review any business, they're going to need a complete application package from the business, and until we receive those, we don't really have anything to be looking at as far as reviewing their operations and their staffing and their business practices. One thing I might suggest that would help us get halfway there sooner is that the requirement for the temporary entertainment permit would be able to take effect immediately or 30 days after the ordinance. MN Doesn't the Council, Dave, have the discretion to declare something an urgency? DJE Yes, the Council could declare it an urgency ordinance. MN And it goes into effect in, what, 30 days? DJE Immediately MN Immediately, so you could do that with the temporary, or you could even do that with the entire ordinance if the... DJE What we have done on occasion is take identical ordinances and have the Council approve an ordinance as an urgent matter, it becomes effective that day, and at the same meeting have first reading on an ordinance and let it go through the normal process. What you have done is you have limited the ability to challenge the urgency ordinance to 45 days. CF I like that MN And really, that's up to the Council to make that decision. 22 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 DJE It takes a 4/5ths vote. MN It just seems to me, I mean...these are significant changes in what we're doing, and we haven't even seen this one yet, and we talked about it, but....l mean, if the Council wants to hear serious input from us, I think we wouldn't be doing our job correctly if we were to just say go straight to the Council with this one, number one, and number two, this is pretty serious stuff... DJE Yes, it is MN ...and it's going to affect every business...if the Council believes it really is that urgent, given what Lt. Taylor said, then the Council has the power to make it...pass it as an urgency ordinance. DJE You certainly can put it together in that manner. LA Would you be able to make whatever findings need to be made in the recommendation for urgency (inaudible) DJE I think we could do that. (inaudible) JL Would that satisfy you to do it that way? FT Yes, it helps. It's just the time frame of it is to have consistency the way that it's worded right now is what our concern was. There are events that are happening...there were events last week, and they'll continue and they'll just grow in nature. Like I said before, it really taxes our services. I mean, we can take care of them, but I'm really concemed when these things occur about the safety of the residents of the City of Palm Desert because these things happen at one or two o'clock in the morning. JL They don't happen at 10 at night. RL Well, some of these things, as an example the Greek services fee, the Council could really adopt that by resolution. DJE Yes...typically, thaYs what we do...the fees are (inaudible)...it's easier to change. SRG But the other language would have to be in the ordinance, as Commissioner Lebel suggested, about medical costs and liability, etc. Would that not have to be in the ordinance versus the resolution? DJE Yes 23 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 MN It's one thing...l mean we had some ongoing businesses that have entertainment, and I understand...l mean, I'm gathering now that you're telling us that some of those are a problem, but they're ongoing businesses, and we kind of live with them and maybe we, whether we like them or not, we ought to take a measured approach there. But the temporary ordinance, the one for the one- time... RL The temporary permit MN ...the temporary permit for the less than five days, basically, iYs a special event, a tattoo parlor that is going to have a motorcycle parlor, five days a year they don't have entertainment but now they're going to do it...l know that's not the only concern, but that could certainly be an urgency situation. DJE I think the whole ordinance can be. MN I mean, and that could go right then. That temporary, especially if you were going to...l mean, you could take that to the Council next month or the next meeting, adopt it, and then we could look at it again. DJE I would rather have the whole thing. MN Makes sense to me, but I'm just (inaudible) LA But it certainly won't take effect...it won't have that 90-days for waiting for processing of applications. MN Right, but then you could act on that and could cut out that part of it at least. DJE That's not (inaudible) SRG But staff's going to be...we wouldn't be able to go out and contact businesses and start enforcing this or let them know about it (inaudible) DJE Well, I think we let them know about it (inaudible) SRG Would they get a notice that the ordinance was going to be heard by the City Council? DJE Yes...l don't care whether they do that or not. There is no requirement that we give notice to them that we're going to consider the ordinance. I think we need to tell them if the ordinance passes that it is passed. If you want to notify them, that's fine, it doesn't matter. 24 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 SRG It's better than having staff do it and then having it amended and then Council gets it. But that's your call, Dave. GK How long does that take usually when an ordinance comes down (inaudible) DJE Well, there is no particular notice requirement. This has to show on an agenda... GK Right DJE ...a posted agenda...posted 72 hours in front of the meeting. An urgent ordinance just has to show on the agenda. The Council can pass that at that meeting. It is effective that day. Then at that same meeting they can pass the same ordinance as a regular ordinance, and that would be effective approximately 45 days later. What you've done is you've created a gap of 45 days that if somebody wants to challenge whether that ordinance is an urgent one or not, that's all the time they have to do it. They can go in and try it at that point, but to have them overturn a discretionary decision of the Council is very difficult to do. MN Especially in 45 days in this courthouse where you can't get a civil case to trial. DJE ThaYs correct. LA One thing that we can do as Councilmember Finerty suggested as far as what staff can do in advance to get ready is we can certainly prepare a mailing list and information to identify all the businesses that will be impacted, and those can go out the day after the ordinances passes notifying people that they've got 90 days and need to get the applications, and by the way here are your forms to fill out, we're waiting for you at City Hall. MN How do you do that, through your Business License Division? Is that how you identify them? LA I imagine that would be how we would do that. MN Or the Police Department or a combination of the two? ?? A combination of the two. MN Here are the ones who need to be on the list. DJE There are some that... LA A special list 25 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 (inaudible) RL I have a question for Lt. Taylor. Would any of these establishments, to your knowledge or recollection, have any occasion where they would permit crowd surfing or stage diving? FT You know, I haven't heard those things advertised. I think there are events that generate themselves... RL Because I know that that generally ends up creating a demand for law enforcement and fire services for injuries sustained during those types of activities. FT I think whenever you get that many people in one place to where they can support a person above their heads, then there's probably a need for some type of additional security. MN Probably the crowd surfing is the least of the worries. RL I will submit this language to Dave for review, but there's a prohibition of crowd surfing and stage diving...language that you might want to look at. GK Any other comments? Shall we go ahead and entertain a motion to continue this to the October meeting? MN Both of those items, right? GK Well, we already did one. MN We've done G already. So moved. GK We're going to continue it. JL Second GK All in favor...aye JL Aye RL Aye MN Aye GK Thank you very much. 26 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 CF And then if we could have the noticing so that for sure it comes to us on October 24th, the second meeting in October. SRG Yes CF That would be great. Thank you. SRG Lt. Taylor will not let us forget. VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS None VIII. OLD BUSINESS None IX. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION (S) Councilmember Finerty noted that the Council would be meeting the following day. X. REPORTS AND REMARKS 1. Comments by Public Safety Commissioners None 2. Update on the Citizens on Patrol (COPs) Program Mrs. Gilligan noted that there was a whole new team that was out in the community. They also had vehicles that were far better identified than in the past. Lt. Taylor added that Sgt. Robert Perdue was the Police Department liaison to the Citizens on Patrol and meets with them regularly. He added that current and potential membership was now at approximately 15 individuals. Mrs. Gilligan noted that one task assigned to COPs members was to go through parking lots in the City to make sure the handicapped parking spaces were well-marked. She said in many of the lots, the striping had faded, signs were missing, etc., and the City had received many complaints about this subject. Upon question by Commissioner Nethery about duties of the members, she 27 PRELIMINARY MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2007 VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. Consideration of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapters 9.24 (Noise � Control) and 9.25 (Multiple Responses to Loud Parties and ' Gatherings) — Continued from the Meeting of September 12, 2007 The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Minutes: � JB Chairman James Butrbach SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM/Community Services JL Commissioner James Larsh BH Deputy City Attorney Bob Hargreaves HP Code Compliance Manager Hart Ponder GK Vice Chair Gloria Kirkwood LA Planning Director Lauri Aylaian FT Palm Desert Police Lt. Frank Taylor RL Commissioner Rick Lebel JB Now under Continued Business is the Consideration of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapters 9.24 (Noise Control) and 9.25 (Multiple Responses to Loud Parties and Gatherings). This has been continued from the September 12, 2007, meeting. SG As you can tell from your packets, staff has been busy working with the City Attorney on making... JL Is the last one we got the final? SG I think it's the last one that Mary emailed to you. JB It was emailed yesterday... JL I think I have three different ones here. JB So chuck them out. BH Hart, you want to run with this one? HP You know what? Lt. Taylor and Code Enforcement have been involved in various noise problems after hours, different clubs and businesses. What we've 4 PRELIMINARY MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2007 done is we've taken the opportunity to really look at what other jurisdictions have been doing, what has been successful with the State...and Commissioners, what you have before you is something that Ciry staff and the Police Department feel is the best possible tool that we could have to be able to address these after hour noise violations. And there are a number of things that we've addressed there, and it includes not only noises that are associated with public activities, but we're also maintaining things in there like stationary noise sources, like a loud pool pump, things that may need a decibel meter. But we're also using what the courts seem to be very comfortable...prima facie violations where...you can tell by the complaints we've received and the situations that we've had that we can line up the witnesses, we can line up staff's testimony, and we can be able to go forward with a good case if we can't correct it on the voluntary level. This actually reflects other noise ordinances that we've had, like the barking dog noise ordinance, we wind up prima facie situation where you can tell it's a problem, we've had residents come to testify before the court, and we have never lost a case. So it's really based on firm foundation of what the court has come to expect when we have to go into enforcement mode, and it's also taken...we've also taken some other things from other jurisdictions that we have seen work, and we're very confident about it. And we ask for your support. JB Jim, do you have any comments? JL We had some comments at the last meeting, and it looks like some of them that were addressed by Rick were addressed in here, that he and...l think it's an ordinance that is encompassing and catches a lot of areas, and I think it's a good ordinance. JB Gloria, do you have any comments? GK I agree. I think that some of the things that we addressed last time seems like they went ahead and added them, and I think it's an ordinance that is definitely something we need to see enforced. JL There is some latitude there so...I mean, at your discretion. And there's also that area we get to where we have to take further action. I think iYs good. NOTE: COMISSIONER LEBEL ARRIVED AT 2:25 P.M. JB Over the last several years, a number of municipalities have been introducing such ordinances. I went online with several cities I was familiar with and studied their ordinances, and I think some of the key ingredients in ours far exceed what other cities have on their books. So it is a good piece of work. I know it's been gone over, fine-tuned, re-edited several times. I think iYs a good piece of work. Does the City Attorney's office have any comments about the work? 5 PRELIMINARY MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2007 BH I understand that there's been an incredible amount of work, both on the staff level and the different departments. I have not been directly involved in the effort. Dave Erwin and another associate were, so they were the ones who were bringing it forward. I'm here to try to answer questions if you have them, but my understanding is it reflects not only the experience of our own people but the experience of other jurisdictions that have attempted to (inaudible) these problems. LA I'd like to add just from a staff standpoint that one of the things about the noise ordinance that we're talking about is that it is designed to work in tandem with one of the other ones that we're looking at here, which allows the City to recoup costs for repeated violations, so the two of them really are meant to dovetail and to work together with each other and cover kind of a broad range of situations. And on each of these, we would...the staff recommendation would be that you recommend to the City Council that these be approved substantially as to form. I think there are a couple I's that still need to be dotted and Ys crossed that we'd like to address, but as far as...we'd like your approval and recommendation regarding the policies established in these. JB Just, you know, one area, Lt. Taylor, that I was look at was that if...and this would include a residential home or apartment building...if deputies are called out to a loud disturbance at 11 o'clock at night and just, you know, go out, advise, shut it down, what have you, take names, and they leave, and three hours later it's cranked back up, does this qualify under the response that you could recover particularly...whether you shut it down or there is some type of an arrest or complaint filed at that time, or do we have to live with the posting of the property so to speak. FT Well, I think from looking...I'd have to defer to the City Attomey on that. LA The property is posted on the first...the first time an officer visits, the property is posted at that time. If they are called back in half an hour or a day, it's still... JB It still applies. JL How long does that posting stay there? LA I'm sorry? JL How long does that posting stay there, because you're into the next day. 6 PRELIMINARY MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2007 LA Yes, and that I would have to double check on. But the intention was that if it is the same event that is being responded to...in other words, technically, you could (inaudible) the intent is that it would qualify as multiple responses. HP And remember, too, it won't just be the posting. We'll subsequently look at the property records and make sure the property owner will also get it through other means. So iYs going to be a process where we will prove that not�cation was served and posted. JL Even though the owner is not there? HP That is correct. JB Could I have the Commission Secretary note that Commissioner Lebel has arrived, please. JL And that he was late. JB I know in reading the Minutes from the previous meeting, Commissioner Lebel had some very good questions and thoughts about this, and I'd like to defer to Rick to see if those questions have been satisfied. RL They have been. JB Okay JL So you read through this, and you're satisfied? RL Yes, I did. LA And I will clarify that...I just checked on it...if you respond to the same premises more than once in a 60-day period... JL Oh, okay. LA So thaYs a heck of a wedding that goes on. That would also cover, for instance, a night club or something if you have to come out more than once. JB This is applicable, though, that the posting has to remain in place or if it disappears...not like removing the Coroner's seal, but... FT From a law enforcement perspective, all our calls for service are recorded, so iYs just a matter of.... 7 PRELIMINARY MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2007 JB That would be in the CAD system? FT It's done by address in the database, so we can go to the address and find (inaudible) LA It does say on the face of the notice that it must remain in place for 60 days or else there's a $100 penalty associated with removal. JL Oh, okay. JB Is there a motion from the Commission? GK We are making a motion to go ahead and make a recommendation to the City Council to go ahead and approve the overall ordinance? JL Or are we sending it to the City Council for... JB We're sending a recommendation to the Council to adopt. GK Okay, I'll make that motion. JB Okay RL Second JB It's been moved and seconded to direct staff to forward this matter to the City Council with recommendation for approval of an ordinance adopting Chapter 9.24 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Noise Control ordinance) and an ordinance adopting Chapter 9.25 of the Palm Desert Munic+pal Code under multiple responses to loud or unruly parties, gatherings, or other similar events. Those in favor of that motion please signify by saying "aye°. G K Aye JL Aye RL Aye JB Aye. Any opposition "no"....so recommended. 8 PRELIMINARY MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2007 B. Consideration of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 5.100 Relative to Entertainment Permits (Continued from the Meeting of September 12, 2007) The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Minutes: Kev: JB Chairman James Butzbach BH Deputy City Attorney Bob Hargreaves LA Planning Director Lauri Aylaian JL Commissioner James Larsh HP Code Compfiance Manager Hart Ponder RL Commissioner Rick Lebel GK Vice Chair Gloria Kirkwood SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM/Community Services JB Item Number B under Continued Business is Consideration of Palm Desert Municipal Code 5.100 Relative to Entertainment PeRnits. This was also continued from the meeting of September 12, 2007. BH Mr. Chairman, again I'm going to defer to staff who has been working so diligently on this. LA The entertainment permit is (inaudible) last meeting there were some minor suggestions that were made by the Commission, and we've attempted to incorpo�ate them. The intent of this ordinance is to establish a process by which businesses that serve as entertainment venues are required to come in and get a license to operate as an entertainment venue, and when they have special events that would accommodate additional patrons or additional guests that cross a threshold where we would require additional protection on behalf of the City...in other words, assignment of additional police officers (inaudible), they would have to come in and get a separate temporary use permit or temporary special event permit for those events. So this would get existing businesses to come in and get entertainment permits to operate on a year-round basis and then make a separate trip in if they're going to have special events. I think that this will give us better enforcement tools, especially for events that have large crowds attending them where we don't always get the amount of notice that we would like and we don't always have the staff ready to respond and the tools at hand. JB Existing forms of entertainment are grandfathered in? 9 PRELIMINARY MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2007 LA No, they're not. They would all... JB They'd have to go through the process? LA Correct. JL Everybody's going to have to go through it? LA Yes JL The ones along Highway 111... LA Yes JL All of them LA Anything that qualifies under the definition of entertainment, which covers bars, lounges, all kinds of special events and gatherings...anybody that offers, you know, live music or... JB It runs anywhere from a single individual to a large band, so to speak? LA I think it's focused on businesses, you know, commercial enterprises that...l don't see this as a single individual. JL It sounds like you've targeted any night spot or restaurant that stays open after ten... LA Pretty much night clubs is what we're looking at. JB Well, a homeowner that's having, say, a wedding reception in their home, and they hire a band or outside disc jockey for that home, does that come under this... LA Not under the entertainment... JB Not under the entertainment...this falls back to the noise ordinance. LA Yes. JL Oh, back to the noise. 10 PRELIMINARY MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2007 HP And the reason being is that is considered a non-commercial activity, and the tools are in place where the Sheriff and anybody who responds has the authority to address things like this. JB Thank you. Rick, any comments? RL Unless I missed it, I didn't notice provision for the payment of fees for law enforcement services like we had in the... (inaudible) RL We did do that under the multiple responses to loud and unruly parties... LA This would not require the payment of fees for law enforcement for an entertainment permit. This again is what they've kind of operate under year- round. If they apply for the special permit, and that requires additional law enforcement, that is where we would require that they reimburse the City. RL Okay, I see it now. JL So you've taken care of the ownership situation if the applicant...a lease situation. Do they still have to get some permission from the owner of the property? LA Yes, I believe so. JL Under Section 12, if the applicant is not the owner of the property (inaudible) the applicant shall submit a notarized statement signed by the property owner. ThaYs at{ they have to do? LA Typically that would be a landlord/tenant situation where you have (inaudible) JB Gloria, did you have any comments or thoughts? GK No...thank you. (inaudible) RL There is one typo on page 12...page 12, subsection E2... LA "lest"? RL Yes...should be "least" 11 PRELIMINARY MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2007 LA Thank you. RL Other than that, it appears again that staff has incorporated all of our prior comments, and I really appreciate that. JB Good observation. The Chair would entertain a motion. RL I make a motion to recommend to the City Council for consideration for adoption of Ordinance Chapter 5.100 Entertainment Ordinance in the City of Palm Desert. GK Second RL IYs been moved and seconded to direct staff to forward this matter to the City Council with recommendation for approval of an ordinance adopting Chapter 5.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code relative to entertainment permits in the City of Palm Desert. Those in favor please signify by saying "aye" G K Aye J L Aye RL Aye JB Aye...any opposition "no"...hearing none, so recommended. SRG I saw Captain Thetford at noon, and he said to tell you thank you, thank you...we've been working on this for a while, and he had a part in it as well. JB Again, kudos to staff, Ha�t, and the City Attorney's office for a{I the diligence and hard work... JL And now 30 days after City Council... SRG It goes to the City Council on the 25th...did Dave not say that it would be an urgency ordinance? LA We did have discussion at the last meeting... SRG And he said that we would then follow up with a regular adoption of the ordinance for second reading, and then it would go into effect 30 days after the second reading. Then they would adopt it as an urgency ordinance that goes into effect immediately. JB Immediately, correct. That's good.......There is no Old Business pending.... 12