Tuesday’s City Council meeting was an ambitious affair to say the least. With an agenda already packed to bursting point and public input in plentiful supply, it was evident from the outset that this session would sail into the night. Without a doubt, one of the most hotly debated and divisive issues was that of the needle distribution program that impacts, among other locations, Christine Emerson Reed Park. And to further complicate the matter, two overlapping Discussion Items on this were addressed early on Wednesday morning as the meeting moved passed the midnight hour.
At the request of Councilmember Oscar de la Torre, Vice Mayor Lana Negrete and Mayor Phil Brock, City Council asked the City Attorney and City Manager to draft language of proposed resolutions for consideration by the League of California Cities, Independent Cities Association and Westside Cities Council of Governments, itself asking the State Legislature and Governor to change laws to provide for local control over the dissemination of syringes and other drug paraphernalia in local communities.
Moreover, the City Manager was requested to assist in submitting the draft resolutions to each of the above mentioned organizations for consideration of adoption. In the past, the City Council has taken action to demand that the County cease the distribution of syringes, needles and other drug paraphernalia in its parks and away from schools. As part of previous Council actions, the City also demanded that the County relocate the distribution of needles and other drug paraphernalia to an indoors location.
Unfortunately, opinion within City Council on this matter remains exactly as it was, dividing along predictably political lines. However, in addition to any opposing points of view, the issue is a legally complicated one.
Negrete provided a succinct introduction, adding, "There was engagement [in 2021] with the county from the City Manager's office, at which point we discovered that it … was illegal for us to stop the county from doing this program in the park," she said.
City Attorney Doug Sloane further clarified, "Yes, because of state law, we are preempted in having any local control over the program … State law preempts the city from having any control over the program." This state of affairs very much applied to the second, successive Discussion Item as well.
City Manager David White had an important contribution to add to proceedings. "The one request we'd like to make is holding off on directing us to go to the League of California Cities, because we learned that their deadline to accept the resolution was August 17, that deadline has obviously passed.
"[Moreover] they actually did reach out to us. They are considering drafting language and legislation in the next year, so they would like to come meet with us and better understand our concerns. So I think it would be best for us to observe what legislation they prepare and then weigh in on that before we prepare a resolution for the league."
Discussion continued as it has in week’s past, although perhaps it was because the time was nearing 2 o’clock in the morning or possibly because this discussion has already gone around the houses multiple times — or a combination of both — but many councilmembers on both sides of the political divide appeared exasperated, with each one firmly entrenched in their position on this matter.
The motion was ultimately made by de la Torre and seconded by Negrete and passed 4-3 (Brock, Negrete, de la Torre and Parra all voted yes, Davis, Torosis and Zwick all voted no).
The second part of this discussion was solely at the request of de la Torre that the City Attorney and City Manager eliminate the distribution of all drug paraphernalia and equipment, including but not limited to opioids, needles, syringes, glass pipes, straws, rolling paper, miniature spoons, etc, in our parks, other City-owned spaces and anywhere closer than 1,000 feet away from any school, other educational facility, church, senior center or senior living facility, YMCA/YWCA, or Boys and Girls Clubs. The only exception would be Narcan.
And again, the City Attorney clarified that, "Because state law specifically says that the cities cannot prohibit these types of items. They can't prohibit the distribution of it or the use of them, so we have no authority to regulate it."
De la Torre moved the item and it was seconded by Brock, "For kicks," as he added. However there was a little confusion as Torosis said, along with her "no" vote, "I’m pretty sure we’ve just been told that this might be illegal."
Nonetheless, voting followed exactly the same lines, 4-3, but only before even more confusion ensued.
"It's incredibly inappropriate to vote for something we've just been told is absolutely illegal [and] the city attorney just informed us that this is, in fact, something that he cannot enforce because it's against the law to enforce it," Davis said, adding that the distinction between needles and pipes was important to remember and warned of losing sight of one in favor of the other.
"But I mean, after being told by the City Attorney that this is essentially a futile gesture, it seems to me strange that we would even consider it."
White attempted to clarify, "What is the expectation of the City Attorney, the City Manager, with this item, I just want to make sure I clearly understand what we're to do," he said, adding, "Like the City Attorney said, he can't draft anything. And I just want to know what the expectation is of the two of us."
"It’s for public consumption," de la Torre said in-between back and forth comments from the dias.
"The most we could do is what was reflected in the last item, we can request the state to change the law. That's really all we can do," Sloan responded.
scott.snowden@smdp.com
