TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
Wendy Kaserman, City Manager
Shawn Hagerty, City Attorney
FROM: James Jeffries, City Clerk
DATE: April 8, 2026
SUBJ: Updated Meeting Materials – April 8, 2026, City Council Meeting The attached correspondence for the below-mentioned Items was received and is being provided for your consideration.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(2) Approval of Meeting Minutes of the Santee City Council for the Regular Meeting of March 25, 2026. (City Clerk – Jeffries)
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
(5) Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP-2025-0004) for a DriveThrough Quick-Service Restaurant on a 2.02-Acre Lot at 9207 Mission Gorge Road (APN 383-124-52-00) in the General Commercial (GC) Zone, and Finding the Project Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Applicant:
Lawrence Rafou, Primo Developers LLC). (Planning and Building – Sawa) From: SS DD
To: James Jeffries
Subject: Submitted Public Comments For 4/8/2026 Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:08:35 PM
Attachments: El Cajon City Council 3.10.2026 Minutes page 3.png Hello to the Jolliest Clerk in the West…or East…County.
Here are my comments on Item 2, Non-Agenda, and Item 5 to distribute for tomorrow night’s Council meeting.
Thanks so much and hope you had a peaceful Easter,
-Truth
Item 2:
Is the City of Santee following State Law by NOT including within its Minutes the list of people who submitted Public Comments by email?
Santee may be the ONLY City that omits that information. Specifically, I know for a fact that submitted public comments and their authors are publicly acknowledged in the Cities of Lemon Grove, El Cajon, and Imperial Beach.
Recently, Mayor Bill Wells even asked Clerk Angela if she’d like to read my submitted comments aloud.
Now, because of the content of those particular comments, it would’ve been HILARIOUS if she had, but it also would’ve been awkward and she was under no legal obligation to, so she declined.
Point is: Why does the City of Santee fail in its legal obligation to publicly acknowledge submitted public comments by name aloud, and as part of the recorded Minutes? I’ve attached a photo of the latest Minutes of El Cajon’s March 10th, 2026 meeting to show an example of how it’s done in a less detailed way (versus a short summary version).
(Full Minutes accessible here:
https://www.elcajon.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/29908/639100337407270000) Please look into this potential legal issue, as Santee should only resist compliance to State Laws that don’t apply to Transparency.
Non-Agenda:
Considering that the City of Santee and MTS provide NO Public Transit access or true Walkability through the DARK streets to City Hall, that’s another great justification for Remote Public Comment access. I mean, just trying to find the building is a challenge… Eventually, All Committees and Commissions will likely need to comply with SB707, too. It may not fit need, but it does fit the spirit of the Law. Not pushing it, just saying…
Consider NOT having the Clerk call out the last 3 or 4 digits of someone's phone number. It's a huge privacy concern. The County correctly withholds that information.
The City of San Diego, MTS, and SANDAG do NOT. SANDAG once briefly referred to speakers as "Call In User #_", but they quickly abandoned that format. I don't know why.
One recommendation to avoid the 4 digits is to refer to the name someone used to sign up to speak. It's a respect thing to use one's name anyway.
To point out Hypocrisy in those who would demand or desire a video of someone providing comment:
Have you ever considered requiring video for Public Comments delivered by Email Or does Council not care about emails because they’re not “broadcast” on TV/online to secure the public attention of Council?
What if someone else went in person and read my emailed comments they accessed from the Public Record?
What if I posted my emailed comments onto Social Media? Would that not also be “broadcasting” it?
More people probably look at my posts than watch your Council meetings.
To specifically address Council’s comments at the last March 25th, 2026 meeting:
Laura – No, you can’t require someone to state their location before speaking. You can politely request it and people can ignore you. I’ve done that before for Manuela Aguirre in IB~
And No, you can’t Ban any speaker from redressing government. That is 100% unlawful. Ask the County, who tried and FAILED. The topic was pushed by the Rag known as the Union-Tribune in 2024 during the beginning of the Terra The Tyrant Era, and it was an ugly, long battle with legal threats.
May I suggest ear plugs for the babies in the room.
Ronn – No, SANDAG doesn’t do 60 second comments anymore, thank God. They’ve provided 2 minutes for about a year now. They used to allow 3 minutes until Corrupt Nora Vargas was dropped the reigns of political power by Naughty Nathan Fletcher.
Censorship tends to be a Progressive trait…
Rob – Speaking time isn’t usually experimentally Dictated by a Council, but instead by a Policy that determines speaking time by the “amount of speakers and the complexity and length of the items”.
Based on Rob’s Egotistical, SD/LA Progressive-like attitude, I can easily see Rob pushing to limit comments to 60 seconds just like the County. Because how dare anyone have an opinion on anything and be Civically Engaged.
It doesn’t make sense to me as someone who has helped many a stranger and even opposition sign up to speak at meetings, knowing it would make for a longer meeting, but still wanting to hear out the differing opinions of others and ensure their Right to Redress…despite receiving no Stipend to hear it. For me, limiting Public Comment is an Extreme measure used sparingly with Evidence, not a knee jerk reaction out of fear and/or venom for hearing diverse opinions.
Rob is incorrect that a call-in speaker can’t be asked to stay on topic. It’s called Policy and Order. It happens at SANDAG, MTS, APCD, and the County, where the Chair has asked people to get back on topic. Meeting Order is a Chair’s responsibility. Chaos is a choice.
Disrespect is also a choice.
Rob’s lines of: “Another platform to hear themselves”, “jibber-jabbering”, and “limit[ing] some of those people” is yet another Negative, Discriminatory judgment and ASSumption by a Council Member who clearly sees himself as a Free Speech Dictator.
And it was further evidenced by the pompous line: “Credibility of the meeting”.
Credibility is determined by the Council’s Actions. If a Council Member is Denigrating the public, no one will have Respect, as Council has then killed its own credibility as an entity capable of Representing the public.
Luckily, people like myself realized long ago that Rob's arrogance does NOT accurately represent Santee’s Council Body.
And if someone’s “bored” at a meeting, that’s THEIR problem, they can leave. Because it’s normal that meetings are boring – NOT BURRITO-FILLED, Rob. …And how much credibility does a meeting have if Council Members are referring to “hoes” in their Committee Updates?
Ending on a Positive:
I LOVE the City’s new America’s 250th-themed logo! I love it so much, I shared it with friends, including some on other City Councils to make them jealous.
Feel free to keep that logo FOREVER‼
Slap that logo on everything and put it all in an online merch booth.
Item 5:
I think it’s amazing that 1 comment was received. Gold star for that person.
That being said…likely another Junk Food Eyesore for the City. Why do people like junk? Why is it that only fried chicken and car washes sale? Somebody prove me wrong, please.
Here’s hoping for a drive-thru Matcha joint.
Or hey…maybe Better Buzz found a better spot?
The location in IB is already open, come on.
You’ve arrived at the end, kudos.
I actually have more Non-Agenda thoughts and ideas, but I tried to be somewhat reasonable on length, so I'll save them for next time.
You’re welcome,
-Truth
--
Sent with https://mailfence.com
Secure and private email