HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-2021_Open Session_items 6, 7, 16 and 20_Negrete, E_rec'd after deadline_RedactedFrom:Valerie Montoya on behalf of Council
To:Public Comments
Subject:FW: Public comment
Date:Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:58:15 AM
Public Comment from yesterday’s meeting.
From: E Negrt [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:59 PM
To: Damon L. Alexander
Cc: Council
Subject: Public comment
Caution - This email originated from outside the City - Verify that the Email display name and Email address are consistent. - Use caution when opening attachments.
Good evening council members,
This communication is to share my public comment regarding agenda items 6, 7, 16
& 20.
Agenda item 6 Code Amendment- Downtown Advisory Committee: I oppose the
Code Amendment-Advisory Committee which if approved would include non-City-
residents (Section 2 page 34 & 35).
Agenda item 7 Ordinance Updating Chapters 9.92 and 9.93:
Read section C of page 64 and section 3 of page 66, I read the language as
conflicting given that section C of page 64 states "Payment of the fine waives the
responsible party's right to the administrative citation hearing and appeal process"
and section 3 page 66 states in part "If the hearing officer determines the
administrative citation should be upheld, then any fine amount on deposit with the
City shall be retained by the City".
How could there be any amount on deposit if payment would mean that a
resident/party would give-up their right to contest the citation.
In addition to clarification for that, there is a need to be more clear in other sections
and to make language without "may's" and clarify what is reasonable amount of time
and what determines other than the discretion of an officer who gets a $1000 daily
fine and who gets one every 30 days; is the decision based on who has made a
campaign contribution or where is the clear language that provides fairness.
Like for example, the marijuana swapmeet that remained opened for months at the
corner of Marshall and E Street and received One $1000 fine versus the house that
was vacant after the senior died and her house was being fined $1000 daily while the
bank searched for the next of kin.
Agenda item 16 Gun Buyback Program: Is there anything to prove that buying back
guns including broken guns is an effective crime deterrent. If the council is inclined to
support this please consider a cap of no more than ten thousand dollars.
Agenda item 20 Parking lot improvements at Perris Hill and Lytle Creek: council
members, please drive by both parks before supporting the fixing of the parking lots. I
recall the parking lot at Lytle Creek being redone about two years ago. Our streets
continue to be dire need of repair and the same goes for our sidewalks, if you believe
the public funds would be of better use at those two parking lots than to use that
money in street repair please share with the public why. I oppose the increase of
funding for the Lytle Creek parking lot.
Respectfully,
E. Negrete
Isaiah 30:21
Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you
saying "This is the way, walk in it".
The sender is covered per the California Whistleblower Protection Act
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email is intended only
for the use of the individual(s) named above. It may contain confidential, privileged
and/or protected information. Any unauthorized review, use, forwarding, copying,
disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
please alert the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Thank you. Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC
SS 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.