From: Jacob Patterson
To: Lemos, June
Cc: Peters, Sarah; O"Neal, Chantell; Gurewitz, Heather; [email protected] Subject: 3/28/22 CC Mtg, Item 8E concerning public comments listed in the IS/ND for the cannabis ordinances project Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 11:22:28 AM
City Clerk & City Council,
This email is primarily informational since no final action is actually contemplated for this agenda item but I still think it is important to consider as this project progresses through the City's review process. I am not providing any opinion or my personal recommendation concerning the cannabis regulations policy decisions, which I will likely reserve for oral or future public comments but I want to point out what appears to be a fairly significant error if it is carried through to the actual adoption process for the relevant ordinances within this overall project updating the City's cannabis regulations.
The IS/ND that is included in the agenda materials for Monday's meeting purports to be published with the public comments on the draft IS/ND received by the City during the formal review and comment period but the comments that are included in that attachment appear to be incorrect and should be revised. First, there are duplicates of several public comments.
Second, there are comments about the ordinances themselves or the policy decisions and not about the IS/ND (some are combined on both topics so those are appropriately included).
Third, there are several very significant comments about the alleged inadequacy of the IS/ND that were submitted about the IS/ND during the formal public and responsible agency review and comment period as part of the public hearing process before the Planning Commission that are omitted in their entirety (see, e.g., February 23, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, Item No. 6A).
These omitted comments include comments submitted from me about the City's water model questioning the water supply analysis as it applies to this project. There are also comments incorporating the City's meeting materials and meeting video for the January 25, 2021 City Council meeting to demonstrate that the baseline conditions and even the scope/details of the project description in the draft IS/ND is inaccurate and therefore the resulting analysis in the draft IS/ND is flawed. I understand this is just a preliminary discussion and not the required noticed public hearing where you will potentially take action on this proposed ordinance that is recommended for approval by the Planning Commission but these apparent errors concerning the public comments on the draft IS/ND are very significant and should be corrected prior and a revised (accurate) draft IS/ND incorporating the actual public comments received on the draft IS/ND should be included as this item moves forward.
In general, it is a standard and best practice to actually log submitted comments in the order they are received during the formal review and comment period for a draft CEQA document.
Based on the inaccuracies and disorganization of the comments in the attachment for Monday's meeting, this probably wasn't followed for this particular project. I think you should consider following those best practices in the future.
Regards,
--Jacob