Maria Torres
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Fontana,
TheReal Amparo <the.real.am [email protected]>
Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:59 PM
Planning
PH-F Master Case No. 22-072,
Fontana Canibis Letter.docx
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We are writing regarding PH-F Master Case No. 22-072, Municipal Code Amendment No. 22-006 - Request to approve Master Case No. 22-72; MCA22-006; Request to approve Ordinance No. 2022-XX Repealing Sections 30-6 Through 30-11 of Division 3 of Article 1 of Chapter 30, Amending Chapter 30 Permitted Uses, And Adding Chapter 33, "Cannabis Businesses and Activities."
On behalf of the residents of Fontana who expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code§ 65009{b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code§ 21177{a); Bakersfield Citizens forLocal Control v. Bakersfield {2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. {1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. The residents of Fontana have not been allowed to participate per legal requirements of CEQA due to the short comment period as the city habitually violates the intent of CEQA by preventing comments and hiding Environmental Impacts to the residents of Fontana such as Master Case N.22-072 as it fails to execute a EIR report as precedents set by Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland {2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 {finding that any party who has objected to the Project's environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).
This Master Case N.22-072 utilizes the SWIP Specific Plan Update that was approved and adopted by the City of Fontana {City) on May 8, 2012 pursuant to the certified FEIR; and Master Case N.22-072 states that there is no need to make public an addendum to any further updates of the SWIP FEIR. This is a false statement, and in violation of Quality Act {CEQA) Guidelines {Guidelines) that are contained at Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, beginning with Section {§) 15000. On December 28th, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law completed the rulemaking process and approved amendments and additions to the Guidelines. A draft environmental impact report or proposed negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration that has circulated prior to April 27, 2019 does not need to comply with the updated Guidelines when the document is finalized, however, planners are encouraged to incorporate changes as feasible. Note: If a draft document must be recirculated after April 27, 2019, then it must comply with the updated Guidelines. • Any drafts not circulated before April 27, 2019, must comply with the updated Guidelines. 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Maria Torres
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
Kareem Gongora < [email protected] >
Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:32 PM
Planning
Agenda Item PH-F
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER - THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am writing today IN OPPOSITION to an item on tonight's agenda (06/21/22), items PH-F.
As a longtime resident and former city planning commissioner, I am supportive of commercial cannabis in the City of Fontana, but there should be more community input and engagement before a decision is made. Throughout the region, cities like Corona, Riverside, and Pomona have embraced a process that prioritizes transparency, while also including important discussions regarding social equity and restorative justice.
As stated, I am in support of regulated commercial cannabis in Fontana, however, the ordinance should include labor standards that guarantee jobs entering our community are sustainable for families. In addition, a strong labor peace agreement (LPA) provision, is essential in protecting the interests of the both the city and California. Currently, California requires an LPA for cannabis operators with 20 or more employees. The City of Fontana should consider lowering the threshold to 5 or more employees as it will permit workers to choose what is right for them and their coworkers when it comes to representation in the workplace.
Lastly, I am in full support of a merit-based system that awards points in determining which operators receive permits.
There should be points added for operators that provide the following: paying a livable wage, provide access to healthcare and have signed Collective Bargaining Agreements as well as incorporate social equity.
Ultimately, we should award points to companies who have CBAs, to ensure we bring in the best employers, who are truly committed to our community.
I respectfully ask for your NAY vote to PH-F as it currently reads and direct staff to consider the items discussed in this letter as well as coordinate meetings that engage the public in this process.
Thank you,
KAREEM GONGORA, MAM
C: 909-969-4735 IE: [email protected]
1 ATTACHMENT NO. 5