2005 AGN JUN 21 I05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CALIFORNIAIT 71,11 May 31, 2005 G ROCERS ASSOCIATION I he portions of the proposed ordinance in conflict with state law arc the following• I . I'he portion of Section 6.18.090 A which provides, "An owner is deemed to have actual notice three days after the doosit of written notice in the United States mail ....' This provision is inconsistent with and preempted by B&PC Section 22435.7(b)(2) which provides "...the owner of the shopping cart, or his or her agent, receives actual notice from the city.....” Clearly, "deposit" of notice in the U.S. mail is significantly different than "receives actual notice" and the State Statute must be controlling. The proposed ordinance should mirror State law with respect to "receipt", not -mailing" of any notice. 2. Section 6.18.090 D and L of the proposed ordinance appear to provide that shopping cart owners arc obligated to pay redemption fees within the first three Sa-r,'fiLz c50 )., .ra-o.-:AJS410 1Au U L: 448 AS45 Pos 010"14A°71)} Lf. Sul 4 +�rAO rax 11,2 13- 1.61 Honorable Mawr Deirdre 11. Bennett Cm of COIQ)n 650 North La Cadena Drive Paw, J. J. Colton, CA 92 324 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 0-08-05 cn:non or m4 ew.a R.Wn E. Sties Cn,I ,Mry nM "., w Dear Mavor Bennett: Rrar V e Chair JayMabimxt On behalf of the California Grocers Association ("CGA") I would like to express Lo la—h Mutru N Wa our concerns regarding portions o1 Proposed Ordinance No. 0-08-05 relating to the 5aunU Vba dial, abatement of -.abandoned" shopping carts. loM llwrm The California Grocers Association is a non-profit, state-wide trade association representing the food industry since 1898. CGA represents approximately 500 William •A„ems RW , retail members operating over 6,000 stores in California and Nevada and approximately 300 grocery supply companies. Because of the thousand, of �re�ry shopping carts used be our members in and around the City of Colton, our members will he adversek impacted b} two specific provisions within the ' proposed ordinance, both of %.hich are inconsistent with and preempted by in Californias Business & Professions Code. provisions Initially, it must be noted that B&PC Section 22435.7 clearly and expressly preempts provisions in local ordinances that arc inconsistent with state law. I he portions of the proposed ordinance in conflict with state law arc the following• I . I'he portion of Section 6.18.090 A which provides, "An owner is deemed to have actual notice three days after the doosit of written notice in the United States mail ....' This provision is inconsistent with and preempted by B&PC Section 22435.7(b)(2) which provides "...the owner of the shopping cart, or his or her agent, receives actual notice from the city.....” Clearly, "deposit" of notice in the U.S. mail is significantly different than "receives actual notice" and the State Statute must be controlling. The proposed ordinance should mirror State law with respect to "receipt", not -mailing" of any notice. 2. Section 6.18.090 D and L of the proposed ordinance appear to provide that shopping cart owners arc obligated to pay redemption fees within the first three Sa-r,'fiLz c50 )., .ra-o.-:AJS410 1Au U L: 448 AS45 Pos 010"14A°71)} Lf. Sul 4 +�rAO rax 11,2 13- 1.61