2005 AGN JUN 21 I05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Gilbert Canizales Director of Local Government Relations California Grocers Association 555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 450 Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: City of Colton - Comments on Proposed Ordinance No. 0-08-05 Dear Mr. Canizales: The law firm of Best Best & Krieger LLP serves as the City Attorney for the City of Colton. The City received your letter dated May 31, 2005 with your comments on proposed Ordinance 0-08-05 which amends specific sections of the Colton Municipal Code regarding regulation of abandoned shopping carts. The City has asked us to respond to the concerns expressed in your letter. We wish to first point out that the proposed ordinance will amend only certain sections of the City's existing shopping cart regulations, which are contained in Chapter 6.18 of the Colton Municipal Code. The proposed ordinance will leave most of the existing sections of that chapter in tact. The main purpose of the proposed ordinance is to clarify some of the existing language in Chapter 6.18. From your letter, we understand that you are concerned with what constitutes "actual notice" as described in the proposed ordinance. Specifically, your concern was stated in your letter as follows: 111. The portion of Section 6.18.090 A which provides, 'An owner is deemed to have actual notice three days after the deposit 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. " We believe you may have misread the above referenced language in the proposed ordinance. The ordinance language does not equate "deposit of written notice in the United RVPUB\NGSI694993.1 BEST BEST S KRIEGER LLP A G MMA LN41® LNBNIIT P I!AlNIP MWWN0 PRD'L1lN)MAL WIIPOMMNS RIVERSIDE LAWYERS ONTARIO (951) 6851450 5 PARK PLAZA, SURE 1 500 (909) 9896564 - IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 - INDIAN WELLS 5)49) 263-2600 SAN DIEGO (760) sea -261 1 (949) 2600972 FAX IS 19) 525-1300 BBKLAW.COM — SACRAMENTO (9 16) 3254000 DEAN DERLrrH DEAN.DERLETH@BBKLAW.COM June 13, 2005 Gilbert Canizales Director of Local Government Relations California Grocers Association 555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 450 Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: City of Colton - Comments on Proposed Ordinance No. 0-08-05 Dear Mr. Canizales: The law firm of Best Best & Krieger LLP serves as the City Attorney for the City of Colton. The City received your letter dated May 31, 2005 with your comments on proposed Ordinance 0-08-05 which amends specific sections of the Colton Municipal Code regarding regulation of abandoned shopping carts. The City has asked us to respond to the concerns expressed in your letter. We wish to first point out that the proposed ordinance will amend only certain sections of the City's existing shopping cart regulations, which are contained in Chapter 6.18 of the Colton Municipal Code. The proposed ordinance will leave most of the existing sections of that chapter in tact. The main purpose of the proposed ordinance is to clarify some of the existing language in Chapter 6.18. From your letter, we understand that you are concerned with what constitutes "actual notice" as described in the proposed ordinance. Specifically, your concern was stated in your letter as follows: 111. The portion of Section 6.18.090 A which provides, 'An owner is deemed to have actual notice three days after the deposit 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. " We believe you may have misread the above referenced language in the proposed ordinance. The ordinance language does not equate "deposit of written notice in the United RVPUB\NGSI694993.1