Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Time is now 7pm. I call the regular meeting of the Claremont Planning Commission to order. Please rise if you are able to face the flag and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Well, the secretary, please read the role.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Here.

Commissioner Davis.

Here.

Commissioner Rosenbluth.

Here.

Commissioner Williamson. Here. Commissioner Wong. Vice Chair Rameen.

Present.

Chair Emerson.

Here. Thank you. I understand there are no ceremonial matters, presentations, or announcements tonight.

That's correct.

Thank you. The Commission has set aside 30 minutes for persons in the audience who wish to comment on items that are not listed on this agenda, but are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Members of the audience will later have the opportunity to address the Commission on all items that are on the agenda when the Commission considers those items. The city has discontinued taking public comment via Zoom or telephone. The public comment will be taken in person or in writing. Written public comment received prior to 3 p.m. today has been distributed to the commission and placed in the city document archive. There's a link to the document archive on the city website calendar listing for the meeting. Will the secretary please state how many general public comments were received and distributed?

There were none.

There were none. Thank you. General public comment for items not on the agenda will resume later in the meeting if there are speakers who did not get an opportunity to speak because of the 30 minute timeline. The Brown Act prohibits the Commission from taking action on oral requests related to items that are not on the agenda. The Commission may engage in a brief discussion, refer the matter to staff, and or schedule a request for consideration at a subsequent meeting. Before I open public comment, I'd like to remind audience members that out of respect for these proceedings and for others in the audience to refrain from behaviors such as cheering, jeering or clapping. The Commission requests but does not require speakers to identify themselves. When it is your turn to speak, please state your name unless you wish to remain anonymous. Each speaker will be allowed up to three continuous minutes. Members of the audience will have the opportunity to address the Planning Commission regarding items that are on the agenda at the time the Commission considers those items. If you wish to speak during public comment on items not on the agenda, please approach the podium. Are there any members wishing to address the Commission on items not on the agenda? Seeing none, I will close public comment and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Moving on to the Consent Calendar, which is the Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 20, 2025. All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. Planning commission or one or more commissioners or commissions have previously considered most of the items on the consent calendar. The commission may act on these items by one motion following public comment. Only commissioners may pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion. The commission will waive reading of resolutions. Each resolution will be numbered following commission approval. Now is the time for those in the audience who wish to comment on the consent calendar. Each speaker will be allowed three continuous minutes to comment on the consent calendar. Are there any members of the public in the council chamber who wish to speak to the consent calendar? Seeing none, I will close public comment. Would any commissioner like to pull an item for discussion or is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I'll move approval of the consent calendar. Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar. May I have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Alvarez?

Yes.

Commissioner Davis?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenblum?

Aye.

Commissioner Williamson? Yes. Commissioner Wong? Yes. Vice Chair Rameen?

Abstain.

Chair Emerson?

Aye. The motion passes five to zero with two abstaining due to absence from the meeting. We move on to public hearings. Generally, the public hearings will confirm to the following procedure. There'll be a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, the public hearing, a staff response, commission discussion only, and an explanation of the appeals process. The first public hearing is a consideration of an amendment to the Claremont zoning code to allow cannabis storefront retail business as a conditionally use permitted use in specific commercial business, industrial and mixed use zones. Applicants are provided a total of 10 minutes to address their items. Applicants may reserve a portion of their time for rebuttal or a summary conclusion. unless otherwise directed by the chair, all other speakers providing public input will be allowed three continuous minutes to speak, which cannot be delegated. Does staff have a presentation?

Yes. So good evening commissioners. Tonight's staff is presenting a proposed amendment to the Claremont zoning code related to cannabis businesses. The amendment if approved would allow cannabis storefront retail as a conditionally permitted use in certain zones within the city. So since it has been some time since cannabis was last discussed by the commission, I will provide a brief overview of Claremont and state's cannabis history. So in 2006, the city adopted an ordinance prohibiting all commercial cannabis operations. Then in 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, which was the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which legalized recreational cannabis for adults 21 years or older. Proposition 64 also created a dual licensing framework. So this allowed cannabis businesses to operate only if they had both a state license and local authorization. It preserved local control, meaning that cities could continue to prohibit or regulate commercial cannabis businesses within their jurisdiction. In response, Claremont adopted an ordinance to reaffirm its ban while continuing to allow personal use and home cultivation under state law. In 2019, the city council again reaffirmed its prohibition. Then in 2021, the council directed staff to engage the community on whether the city should consider allowing cannabis businesses or not. In 2022, staff held two community workshops for input from residents and business community. Following those meetings, the city council recommended placing a cannabis business tax on the general election ballot to establish tax rates for all business, for all cannabis business types, if they were to be allowed. And in November, 2022, the Claremont voters passed measure CT or cannabis tax with 61% support. Then in 2023, the city held three cannabis listen and learn community sessions to gather feedback and educate residents on cannabis business types and regulatory options. And then finally, in early 2024, the Planning Commission held a study session on cannabis regulations, zoning, and provided input to help guide the draft ordinance for you tonight. The proposed zoning ordinance introduces a new land use classification, canvas storefront retailers. So it'd be a conditionally permitted in several zoning districts, subject to planning commission's review and approval. The permitted zones include those listed on this slide, and a conditional use permit would be required in all cases, allowing the city to evaluate each site specifically. The ordinance also creates a new chapter 16.102 titled Cannabis Businesses. And this establishes zoning standards for cannabis businesses, includes buffer requirements, which are measured as a straight line distances from property line to property line. This includes a 600 foot buffer from K through 12 schools and state licensed daycare centers. When the city of Pomona was developing its cannabis regulations, Claremont requested a 1,000-foot buffer from our border, citing concerns about the potential impacts on our community. Pomona honored that request and has since asked for the same in return. So that reciprocal 1,000-foot buffer is included in Claremont's draft ordinance. As previously requested by the planning Commission canvas storefronts are prohibited in shopping centers that include a grocery store. Businesses would also be required to comply with all existing zoning standards such as site design setbacks and landscaping the ordinance also includes enforcement tools such as fines and the ability to revoke a CP if needed. So the cannabis map is meant to provide a visual overview of where cannabis storefronts may be eligible based on proposed zoning districts and required buffers. We do have some limitations due to our GIS system. but it's not an official zoning map, but rather a general planning tool. It's also important to note that these show a point in time. So for example, if a licensed daycare were to close, there would no longer be a buffer around that parcel creating additional possible cannabis locations. Any actual business proposal would first require zoning verification and then go through the conditional use permit process for public review and planning commission consideration. I'll go into detail on maps in the following slides and I apologize It might be a little difficult to see up there, but this map shows the northern portion of Claremont with Foothill being near the bottom and the 210 freeway near the top. The purple zones, purple areas represent zones where cannabis businesses may be eligible with a conditional use permit. And the blue line shows the 600 foot buffer from K through 12 schools. And the orange line shows a 600 foot buffer around currently licensed preschools and daycares. You can also see the red line at the bottom left of the map, which represents the 1,000 foot buffer from the Pomona border. This shows the central part of the city. I wanna just click back. There we go. This shows the central part of the city with the village in the middle and Peppertree Square near the bottom. Just to know Peppertree Square would not be eligible due to the buffer around Oakmont Elementary School. This shows South Claremont with the 1000 foot buffer reaching past the freeway, which makes all auto center drive parcels ineligible. Due to this, the Claremont freeway or CF commercial zones were not included to be eligible for cannabis retail businesses. So this shows a bit of a closer view of the village. So due to the 600-foot buffer around schools and daycares, the 1,000-foot buffer along the Pomona border and limited commercial space in the city, there are few potential for cannabis businesses. And this slide shows a closeup with the purple zones outside of the orange buffer being eligible under the proposed ordinance, which would be about half of the CV zone parcels. Here's the same without the street names. And this is a zoomed in view of the Claremont Industrial Complex. So many of these parcels would also be eligible for a cannabis business CUP. The draft cannabis regulatory ordinance outlines the potential operational framework for cannabis businesses in Claremont. This ordinance is being provided for informational purposes only and the commission is not being asked to make recommendations on that ordinance or be reviewed and considered by the city council at a future meeting. We've included it to give the commission context on how cannabis businesses would be permitted and regulated if zoning and regulatory ordinances were adopted. It's also a working draft and will be modified and refined before it's presented to the city council. And we appreciate the commissioners who have shared their input regarding that prior to the meeting. Here are a few key highlights from the draft regulatory ordinance. Only storefront retail cannabis businesses would be allowed. No cultivation, manufacturing, or testing. The ordinance sets a cap of two licenses citywide. And businesses must go through a multi phase approval process, including pre screening background checks zoning verification CP and Council selection. operating hours would be limited to 9am to 9pm seven days a week and there'd also be strict requirements for security odor control and compliance monitoring. So with that, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolution before you. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. So I want to note that our consultant, David Kaufman, from SCI is present, as well as Ms. Patterson, our city attorney, to answer any additional questions.

Thank you. What is SCI?

SCI Consulting?

Yes.

It's a consulting firm for cannabis and business taxation.

Does SEI stand for anything or just?

Last names.

Thank you. OK. Are there any questions from the commission? And I'll begin with Mr. Rosenbluth. Oh, OK.

Thank you. You mentioned that the cannabis business ordinance chapter 5 is not before us today. But the beginning of one of the whereas clauses of that ordinance says that the Planning Commission was given the opportunity to review these amendments. So I don't quite understand what our role is in response to that ordinance.

Yeah, our municipal code only requires the Planning Commission's input on zoning amendments. We are happy to take any input.

Okay, I understand that part of it. I don't understand why the whereas says that the Planning Commission was given the opportunity to review these amendments at a duly noted hearing, same language that's in the ordinance that we are talking about today. It looks like exactly the same wording. And if it is, I have some comments to make, that's all. I don't wanna understand the justification for limiting the business permits to two.

Hi, Alicia Patterson, City Attorney. I can help with this. When we were teeing this up for the commission, we kind of went through a thought process of one is clearly within your purview, you have to look at it. That's the zoning piece. The regulatory piece, we had the option of not having the commission look at it. That could have gone straight to the council, but we thought because they do, complement each other and go together. It made sense to bring them both to you. We didn't know if the planning commission would want to review and comment on the regulatory piece. We wanted to give the commission an opportunity to look at it and an opportunity to provide comments. That's completely voluntary. on the part of the commission. So that's up to you. And I think that that's a good point about that recital. We put that in, but I think if the commission's direction is we don't want to review it, we don't want to provide comments, we would have to revise that recital to reflect that maybe that you were given an opportunity, but the commission chose not to provide comments to the council on that piece.

Okay, thank you. Given that we're not sure whether we want to provide comment or not, there is one question I have, and that is, what was the rationale for limiting the maximum number of businesses to two in that ordinance?

Yeah, so that's been a standard practice among California cities ever. many of them do it based on population size. So looking at other comparably sized cities, I believe that two would be sufficient. It's also based on regional demands too. So we have the neighbor to the south, Pomona has a number of locations now, but on either side of us, Laverne, San Dimas, Upland don't permit cannabis. So it's trying to account for that additional demand. around us. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Davis.

So I think I may have by email provided just a quick comment on the regulatory. I'm not sure if that was on base or or not, but it looked like the labor There's a portion that requires cannabis dispensaries of over 20 employees to enter into labor agreements. I think the state changed it in 2024 to 10. Just want to maybe just take a quick look at it. If it's not on base, no worries.

Yeah, I believe that went into effect July 2024. This ordinance was drafted before then, but we can make that change.

Just caught that when I was reviewing it. PB, Peter Vitale, wider comment I have is just looking at the map and all the restrictions and how I mean quite frankly it's confusing it's easier when you blow it up and looking at what we have on on paper. PB, Peter Vitale, Is it what why not just find some sites and decide that's where we want them and put that into the ordinance rather than try to like build it into zoning and then have everything cut out, I mean we wouldn't that be easier.

I think the way that it's written tries to be more future thinking with potential uses. So we're not limited based on what the current land uses are today, but it's able to adjust over time. So if businesses close, both cannabis or a kindergarten or something. Okay.

Totally understanding that, but I think just in the spirit of transparency with the community, that if zoning changed, that they'd want to know that that site was now eligible to specifically host a dispensary rather than have it happen because something closed or something was rezoned, if that makes sense.

Yeah. Some other cities have done cannabis overlay zones. That was something Pomona did recently. So the commission's welcome to make a recommendation for us to take that approach. However, after reviewing other cities' ordinances, we believe that this would be best for the community. Thank you. Thanks.

Mr. Alvarez.

Based on the zoning here, are the colleges included on the zoning of the 600 fields?

No, those won't be included. It's only K-12 schools.

Oh, even that it could be minors in the college? Is that what we're considering, or we're just taking it as that's what the state is doing as a recommendation, or maybe like just common practice?

Yeah, that part is in line with the state's recommendations regarding K-12s. They don't have any recommendations for universities, and I haven't seen that in other California cities.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williamson.

Oh, thank you. Mr. Cousins, I have a question about one part of the code that's proposed, 16.102.060, and this is actually rather minor. It concerns the rather specific and unique security measures for retail cannabis businesses for security both inside the business as well as outside. And so in the text, I was just going to offer the suggestion that where it reads cannabis business shall comply with all applicable standards, blah, blah, blah, and then height and size, architectural review, parking, and then I would suggest putting in security measures if that is agreeable to staff and the commission as adequately and comprehensively covering the special issue of security that is mandated already.

Yeah, we can make that change. I believe that the security requirements in Chapter 5 should be sufficient, but if you would like that highlighted in the zoning code.

Yes. The reason for my suggestion is that in this particular section of 102.06.0, it's addressing the design issues and the security issues would play into that.

Okay.

Is that it?

Yes, thank you.

Commissioner Wong?

Just a real quick question. It looks like your map doesn't apply or it didn't exclude any of the centers that have grocery anchors or there was no buffer applied for those?

no centers so you could just walk us through which ones i know for sure cl in the upper and the upper is is is a no-go because of the bonds yeah so that's the one just north of the 210 there that that purple and that's unfortunately another limitation of our gis um so similar to the the cp north of 210-2 those are now residential units so those can be cannabis businesses. The other one would be Trader Joe's, but that's not included on there because that is a specific plan.

Oh, so that's not commercial then along that corridor?

It wouldn't be included within this ordinance. The other one would be the Stater Brothers along Foothill and Sprouts, and neither of those are included as a permittable zone or on that map.

Because I thought we, you know, identified when we looked at these maps a while ago when we did our, and refresh me if I'm wrong, when we did the workshop, I thought a lot of businesses along the Foothill Corridor, I mean that Foothill area, were in this map originally. So, I mean, this is a very small section and even where you are at Indian Hill, where it looks like the majority of the Foothill businesses are, Um, there's, you know, it's basically restricted by a daycare. It looks like, or daycare or preschool, which is probably, you know,

So yeah, that zones out most of the ones along Indian Hill and Foothill for the Trader Joe's development because of Planning Commission's recommendation to prohibit Canada's businesses in those locations. We decided not to move forward with amending those specific plans.

Like for example, like that boat area where some of those other businesses are, those areas would not qualify?

No, and that's because of their proximity to the schools. schools. And mountain view, I believe. Okay.

So that's off of Indian Hill and our mountain and foothill. Okay. So, but those, those aren't even zoned correctly then is what I'm saying, even if they were outside this buffer zone.

Yes.

Okay. Cause I could have, you know, I vaguely remember, you know, us seeing a different map where there was more properties that qualified under the commercial zone along the Foothill corridor. that aren't identified on this map. So I just wanna make sure, is this map that we're looking at true and accurate of all the zoning, regardless of buffers? Or is there could be possibly due to your GIS system, some zoning areas that along the Foothill Corridor that are excluded from this map?

No, um, we, we won't be, or the, the ordinance doesn't propose, um, to add cannabis businesses as a conditionally permitted use to those zones, just because they are buffered out. Um, so you'd have to do an ordinance amendment anyway, to remove that buffer. So you could then add the zones as, um, as allowing cannabis as a permitted use.

Okay. So currently we're just moving forward in these B-I-C-H-C-L-C-N-C-P-C-B-M-U-1-M-U-2. Correct. And this map represents all those zones within the city? Correct. Whether it's in a boundary or whether it's in a buffer or not in a buffer?

Yes. Okay.

Thank you. And then the last thing I just had is more of a comment since we're not able to comment or change the regulatory one. It's just, you know, I think... even though I know it's came up at this commission is holding it to two permits, I think it's gonna create a monopoly. I think it's gonna create a pretty steep price on the permit price for those two applicants or those two permits. And I think allowing more permits or at least the ability to have more permits and create a competitive market is gonna be better for the city and the residents. That's my comment.

Vice-chair Rameen.

No question now, maybe some later.

Thank you. I have a few questions, and one of them refers to earlier, well, actually over the weekend, I sent several questions to the director and our attorney. Given what it is we're being charged with, I'm not certain the status of my questions in the and the various responses, do we need to address these or are these just everything that we're doing tonight is making a suggestion whether to submit a ordinance with some changes, not all of which will be defined specifically? Is that correct?

Are you referring to both ordinances or one of them specifically?

What we're supposed to be doing tonight.

yeah so you would be making a recommendation for the zoning ordinance so that's the the one that's attached to the resolution um the other one you're welcome to to recommend changes to but you won't need to approve that their resolution or recommend approval okay so so the bulk of of the the details of section uh

section five is the details of the ordinance itself which we are not uh specifically making a recommendation on correct correct okay um but we can voice our concerns about what is not or is in them. Two questions come to mind, which I don't see addressed anywhere in the process. And this could happen several years down the road. What if a preschool or a daycare wants to open and open within 600 feet of an existing permitted cannabis center?

So it's based on the time they became a permitted canvas business So they wouldn't be required to close if a preschool then will be able to open There's no buffer for preschools only cannabis businesses How about a daycare center?

Yeah, they could open well I'm very confused now. We said that there's no cannabis centers within 600 feet of a preschool or daycare center And then my question is, let's say we have a cannabis store opens, fully permitted, it's running, and now a person wants to open a daycare center, but they're within 600 feet of the existing cannabis center. Will we not allow them to open?

No, they would still be able to open the cannabis business.

Over the course of time, the 600 foot barrier, quote unquote, disappears.

It would adjust over time.

It would what?

Adjust over time.

How would it adjust over time?

So as businesses come and go, if one cannabis business opened and another one wants to open somewhere else, then that 600 foot buffer would still apply. But a business coming in after the fact.

I'm still not getting a clear answer to my question. You're a fully licensed cannabis center. And there's a 600 foot barrier around you. Okay. I'm a new daycare center and I want to open across the street from you. Can I do that?

So the timing is what's important here. It's who is coming first.

We have an existing permitted cannabis center is going, is operating business and a new daycare center now wants to open within 600 feet.

There is nothing in these draft ordinances that would prohibit that from happening. So if the cannabis business is there first and the cannabis business has its CUP and then other sensitive uses like daycare centers wanna come in and locate within 600 feet of the cannabis business, these ordinances would not stop that from happening. That would be the choice of the sensitive use to say, what we're trying to do through this is have sensitive uses that are already cited, not be subjected to now cannabis businesses within the buffer.

Okay, that's what I mean by saying over time that 600-foot fence disappears.

I wouldn't say it disappears because that fence is still going to, these sensitive uses are going to move and change over time.

But that will only apply to new cannabis businesses, not to new daycare centers or child care.

So you are correct that the way this is drafted is that once a cannabis business is in place, sensitive uses can move into the buffer zone around the cannabis business, but that's going to be the choice of those sensitive uses. So if you're a daycare provider that doesn't want to be located within 600 feet of a cannabis business, you as a daycare provider can decide not to choose a site that's within 600 feet of an existing cannabis business.

Let me ask you then, why are we putting this restriction in for cannabis centers locating, but not for these other sensitive uses?

So you certainly could, that would be a policy choice for the city to make that you want to protect sensitive uses on behalf of sensitive uses. I think the rationale for these ordinances is that it should be up to the sensitive use where it wants to locate and whether it's comfortable locating near a cannabis business. But if the sensitive use doesn't want that forced on them, that's what these buffers protect them from.

Okay. But only initially. Okay. For the shopping centers with food, so the cannabis center store would not be allowed in the shopping center that is sort of doing food, the Vons, the Trader Joe's, etc. How close to the center that has a food store is For instance, the set of buildings where the Claremont Community School of Music is, which is between the Stater Brothers and the Sprouts Center, would a cannabis center be allowed in that set of buildings? It's in neither the Stater Brothers nor the Sprouts Shopping Center.

So that for the grocery stores it's not based on a 600 foot buffer it's based on the shopping Center itself that's why. No in this proposed ordinance, and this is something that the planning Commission has the ability to say no, we want. A buffer around the Center, not just the Center itself to be an ineligible site, so if you wanted like. basically the businesses that are not in that shopping center but also the business is 600 feet around the shopping center to be included that's something that could be added into the ordinance but that's not what's in front of you tonight so you'd have to provide that direction to staff okay i would like to make that suggestion because uh theoretically then you could have just outside the property line of a of the bonds

You could have someone say oh well i'm not in the shopping Center so I want to open here and you can't prohibit it, so I think we should certainly consider. The the overall effect and not some of the details um. Within the ordinance, I do have a question of 5.230, which is, what's the status of the store operation during the appeal process? And this is referring to a cannabis storefront that has an appeal. So the appeal process- So the city managers, whoever wants to suspend the license. And while this appeal process is going on, can the cannabis store continue operation or must they suspend operations while they're being suspended, but they're appealing the suspension?

So the appeal process- it's in front of, well, it's being reviewed by you tonight, but this is part of the regulatory ordinance that goes to council, would allow the cannabis business, if it's already operating and permitted, to continue to operate during the appeal process while it's pending, unless there is a threat to health, safety, or welfare. And so in order for the city to basically summarily shut down the business, either temporarily or pending appeal, they would need to make a finding that there's a threat to health, welfare, or safety. Otherwise, the business would be allowed to continue to operate, and that's consistent with what's in our code for basically all businesses right now.

Okay. I would think it would be advantageous to include that specifically within 5XX230. It is. It's the second G. During the approval process, the license store may continue operation.

It is in there. It's in G. Where?

G.

G says absent a threat to health safety or welfare, a timely appeal of the city manager's decision of non-renewal suspension or revocation of a cannabis business permit shall stay the city manager's decision until the city council discuss, sorry, decides the appeal.

Okay, that doesn't seem as clear as I would want, but what the heck. And some other changes which I've already gotten the responses to. Okay, thank you. The chair will open to public comment on this topic. Are there any members of the public in the council chamber who wish to speak to this item? You'll have.

Can I before the public comment?

We'll come back to you.

Okay.

You'll have up to three continuous minutes. Speak directly into the microphone. Thank you.

Yeah, shutting a cannabis operation down. Now, could it be like shutting a motel down for prostitution down in South Claremont? Anyway, I'm Paul Wheeler. I live at 2258 North Indian Hill, and I'm speaking as a fourth-generation Claremont business person, not as a city commissioner. Over 40 years ago, I was the architect applying for Exxon at the corner of Claremont Boulevard and Foothill for a gas station, it's now Chevron, and the client asked for beer sales. And I was told by the city, don't go there, it's not a good idea and you can get your beer elsewhere. And I went by there tonight and still there is no beer and there's no beer sales at gas stations. And you can get anywhere else in Claremont. Like marijuana, you can go to Pomona or you can have it delivered. It's not a good idea. I talked with a former Claremont police chief who said that crime will spike around sales points of cannabis. So the voters of Claremont were asked cleverly a few cycles ago whether they wanted their cannabis taxed. And a bunch of people, like 60%, said yes. But we were not asked as citizens on whether we wanted it or not. Now, this town, we've worked about 130 years to create a vibrant town. And I think the marijuana sales is not a good idea. And if it's approved, that will be changed, but not for the good. And I thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission? You'll have up to three continuous minutes. Please speak directly into the microphone.

My name is Vicki Noble and I'm speaking on behalf of myself, not as a police commissioner. I have been interacting with the city on this cannabis issue since 2023. I attended the Listen and Learn workshops in 2023. Alex Cousins has done an excellent job in summarizing and presenting information regarding the operation of cannabis businesses within our community. However, the only thing missing is addressing the excessive amount of traffic generated by cannabis business in a shopping center. As part of our learning experience back in 2023, Jim Keith, Bob Kearns, and I visited the three largest existing cannabis dispensaries in Pomona. The main feature that all three businesses had in common were that they all had their own private parking lot providing parking for 40, 24 and 27 cars respectively. They were all privately fenced parking areas. And two of the three businesses featured private armed security personnel watching over the parking and monitoring the number of patrons allowed to enter the cannabis business. think the draft ordinance brought before you tonight does address all those types of security concerns except for the excessive amount of parking availability which appears to be needed for this type of business the only other issue i have is the wording of five point XX.120 community benefits on page 13 of the draft ordinance, which states any community benefits that a cannabis business agrees to provide in exchange for a cannabis business permit shall be deemed a condition of approval for the cannabis business permit. Failure to provide the community benefit shall be grounds for revocation of the cannabis business permit. On the face of it, it almost sounds like pay to play. And maybe I just don't understand it. I just need to have it explained to me, but it didn't come across well. But other than those two items, I'm very happy with the draft ordinance. I did read through the whole thing. I was surprised that the city has addressed all the issues that community members were asking about. And so I would hope that you would approve it and send it on to the city council. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the commission on this topic? You'll have up to three minutes. Please speak directly into the microphone.

Three whole minutes, Jane. What an honor. Doug Lyon, Douglas Lyon, Claremont resident. So this is all about cannabis storefront retail businesses. I don't know what the impetus was for this, for this to ever have gotten this far. I can't understand who would have been pushing for this. This is not a good idea. This is not the kind of activity that the whole community of Claremont either needs or wants. This is not a good idea. This is not the kind of business that we want in Claremont. This is not the kind of business that should be in Claremont. Please do not, I'm asking you, please do not adopt any sort of resolution or ordinance or anything based on this. We don't need this. We don't want it. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission? You'll have up to three continuous minutes. Please speak directly into the microphone.

Okay. Hello, my name is Megan. I am a cannabis nurse educator. I have a master's degree in medical cannabis therapeutics, and I serve the community in educating people how to use cannabis appropriately. I have patients with dementia. who are using low-dose THC, and right now their family members have to drive to Pomona and deal with Catalyst to get them their medicines, that they don't have to be snowed out on antipsychotic harmful medications. And I just want to put some stuff into perspective with the Foothill Corridor issue and being in the centers or close to the centers that... We sell alcohol in those centers, right? And children are allowed in those same places that we sell alcohol. And alcohol is far more dangerous, far more harmful, far more addictive than cannabis is. We're talking about a plant that can help heal people. So just to put that into perspective that we're so worried about being in these spaces, but we have far more harmful substances in spaces that are accessible to children. So just to have that in your minds when you're thinking about this. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this issue? You'll have up to three continuous minutes. Please speak directly into the microphone.

Thank you, Sonia Stump. And I agree with a couple of the previous speakers that I'd be happy if we didn't have marijuana in stores in Claremont, but it seems like that's the direction we're going. I wanted to know if you guys checked out the security issues that the people in Pomona have been dealing with I'd like to know the stats, like police responses and different issues that they've had, the crime statistics in other words. And I understand medical marijuana can do a lot of good things. I really oppose having a marijuana store in the village. We don't need that. We have enough parking issues in the village. I would like to see that taken off of the plan. And I think that some of the other areas would be probably fine with it. We saw some pretty neat stores that they have in Hollywood and different places, nice, shiny, bright. stores that looked like inviting and everything in there. I would hope that whatever would be approved would be in a nicely run, nicely looking store. But as I said, I'd really rather it not. But for sure, I'd really like to see the village not be a part of the place where marijuana stores would be able to open. I am a little concerned about image. We have a lot of college students here. I can see parents coming and doing a site check on the town and not being too impressed with seeing a marijuana store in the downtown just a couple blocks from the colleges. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this topic? Peggy, you'll have three continuous minutes.

Good evening. Murray Monroe, longtime resident, cannabis user. I just want to be upfront with you folks. And it is wonderful that you guys are taking this and taking a look at it. There are a lot of areas in this where you have schools, daycare, and these other areas. You also have places like Amazon and you have Walmart and the little mom and pop shops are getting blown up. All right. We have vacancies all over. Cannabis is taking over and helping people with pain with heroin. There's reduction. People will use this versus taking their opiates. I don't know if you, I mean, as we get older, I had a hip replacement. I don't know about you, but those opiates are very constipation. So after three days, I couldn't take the opiates anymore. So cannabis is a help for that. And they're shrinking tumors with this. The medicine is there. And a lot of people have been dealt with an awful lot of negativity. Claremont was a dry city. And literally, the teachers that I shot pool with, my dad, You couldn't get beer in Claremont. And you see how that's changed. And this will change too. And you've seen California in 1996 did the medical cannabis. The first. Colorado was the first to legalize it. And how many problems do you hear over there? Is there a boogeyman going on here? Are we worried about this? No. All these cameras are tied to the police department. So you have security. You have security in the parking lot. And if you have problems, you have more security. And it actually deters crime when you take these things. But I mean, look, there's a thousand foot buffer that there's an agreement with the city of Pomona. So you're not going to see anything within a thousand feet. And when you look at Claremont Music School there. You got Mountain View School across the street. There's your 600-foot buffer. So you have to take a look at some of these things and strategically look at where can we put this that will benefit and help these communities or help these vacant shops because we're getting rid of retail and we're building homes. And there are people like Larry Schroeder who's disappointed that you put housing in a commercial zone. And you lost that tax revenue. Well, this is one way to get it back. And it's up to you folks to help guide the thing and put it where Sue Keith is not too happy with you putting it in South Claremont. All right. But there are only so many zones that you have available. So do your best. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this topic? You'll have up to three minutes. Please speak directly into the microphone.

Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Raul Trevino. I'm actually a resident here in Claremont. One of the things that the new ordinance didn't cover was in effective January 1st of 2025, there was a bill, which is Bill 1775, which allowed some of the dispensaries to also incorporate lounges and cafes within the business is that something that the new ordinance is going to address to as well that's all thank you is there anyone else who would like to address us on this topic

Seeing none, I bring the discussion back to the Commission, closing public comment. I bring it back for Commissioners.

Chair, I did want to mention that we did receive two written public comments.

Thank you for doing that. We had, there were two public written comments that were received prior to three today, which have been incorporated in the website. one one was in favor one was opposed um i'll bring it back to the commission for a discussion and i'll start with commissioner williams on this time

I'm in favor of the resolution at hand. I think our city ballot measure introduced this issue to the community in the appropriate way. And so moving forward with this ordinance, proposal to the city council with our support is the appropriate way for Claremont to go. I do have some concerns only about Cannabis retail storefront retail cannabis in the village area because I've seen firsthand the intensity and the high activity degree of parking issues at cannabis retail cannabis sites and It's the village just can't accommodate that so I would be in favor of the recommendation to the City Council to remove the Claremont Village zone from consideration for that. Apart from that, I'm in favor of moving forward with a positive recommendation to the city council.

Thank you. Commissioner Wong.

I guess, you know, I'm going to be on the different sides of opinion. I don't think we should limit the zones. I don't feel that the village should get any special treatment. Yeah, I think if we're going to allow these businesses, you know what I mean, we have to allow them in whatever areas, you know what I mean, that by zone or by right that they're allowed to go in. To the contrary, I think the village has the most parking in the city, you know what I mean, as far as the number of spaces. It does draw a large crowd, and it does get quite busy, and I do understand that. But, you know, to say, hey, you're not allowed here because there's no parking, you know, I don't I don't see that as a as a viable thing as long as they're providing the security measures and stuff like that, so I will not be in agreeance of carving out the village zones. Furthermore, I know it's a slippery slope and I think I was the guy that. kind of introduce the idea of the neighborhood centers. I, you know, just looking at this boundary map, it's just, I'm not even sure if there's too many viable solutions and where these type of businesses could go outside of the business park off of Monte Vista. And that's kind of truly it, you know what I mean? And the village, those are the two largest zones of where, where these, where these ideal businesses can go. And if we start drawing lines around every neighborhood center, we're gonna be basically taking out any kind of viable location for these type of businesses. So those are just my thoughts right now.

Thank you. Commissioner Alvarez.

Yes, I have a question. Um, this is going back to one of the public comments that I do believe that when it was introduced as the borders, the boats to see if the cannabis business was, uh, should it be taxed? I don't think it was included that we wanted the business to set up in Claremont. That's just how it is because it's been already taxed. I mean they sell it in Pomona has been taxed here. I mean it's already taxed. I don't know if we get a tax revenue from that. but it's already taxed. So there's a little confusion on how it is, and I agree with the public comment on that. And I have another question for you. The tax revenue that we're getting in here, as far as I remember, there was an opportunity here for the Claremont City Council to revenue, and I remember a comment that Commissioner Rahim said that it was not identified as one of the... So I wonder why all of a sudden just came out into place and how much are we looking into getting tax revenue in the city if it is because the truth of the matter is that when you have retail businesses selling cannabis, you're gonna get a lot of black market and they're gonna pop up in houses, they're gonna pop over here. I'm not sure that the expenses of the police department investigative units were still going to come out ahead with some kind of profit. And this is just happening in cities that they can't control it. They pop up here, and then as soon as investigations happen with the police, then they just move on and then set up shop somewhere else. So I don't know if we have any data with that, like how the cities are doing with this problem, how much it's costing the police departments to actually overcome the criminality of underground. I do understand that cannabis might be good for ailments, people who go through cancer replacements and all of that, but I think we need more data with that to make sure that we're actually going to make a profit. As far as the Claremont Village, I think we should exclude it. This is true. One of the public comments said that we don't have parking, and it's just overwhelming. It's a recreational drug. It is a medical drug. So when you add those two together, people who needs it, people who likes it, there's a lot of cars and people walking, making lines. And this area of the Claremont Village is, I don't know if you noticed, but a lot of the students from El Roble and the Claremont High, they frequent it. And we parents, we okay, we are gonna be okay. But if we continue to add businesses that they require a lot of traffic, I mean, vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic that is gonna be on the side streets, it might be a problem. If it is going to be the Claremont Village, then I think we should do it. And is it possible that we can even levy an extra tax? Because I've seen it, I've been reading articles, and I've been trying to get my hands into this, and there's a lot of pop-ups that even, I don't know, there's some investigation, I won't say names and all that, because it's just LA Times and investigative reporting and all of that, that Even the businesses that are legally established, they actually set up shops somewhere else, and they make profits, and then they just pull out all their money. It's just a little bit of a mess. So I wonder if the police department had any input on all of this, or if we were checking, like Pomona, how are they doing with the expenses to crush criminality? I think we're in the early stages of this. I don't know, is there any extra levy tax? We can levy a tax extra for the city of Claremont just here that we can make like $300,000 a year if we make more.

Yeah, I believe there are a couple of questions in there. So I'll do my best to address some of them. Thank you. The tax rates approved by the voters were within a range. I believe it was 4% to 7%. The council set it at 6%. That is what we've seen regionally across other cities. The cannabis market and the cannabis businesses have been struggling ever since the legalization due to the continued use or purchasing from the illicit market. So still in California, majority of cannabis is purchased on the black or illicit market, not through these types of stores. someone, someone who is a dealer of cannabis, it's unlikely that they would go to a legal retail shop and then sell that cannabis on the side, just because there are additional taxes on top of that cannabis and make it more expensive than going to the illicit market. So you're already selling something, you know, for, for more than they could get elsewhere. Um, For increasing the tax, we have an additional 1%. We could increase it. We also have sales tax that we could collect on the sales. We did speak to Pomona earlier in the process, about a year ago. And at that time, there had been no calls to service for any of their locations. We've talked to other cities about it, too. And it is a concern initially that cities and residents have. But due to the high insecurity of these types of businesses, they aren't. a very high target. If you're choosing between a business that has armed security and one that doesn't, you're typically gonna go for the one without armed security and being covered in cameras and whatnot. We also have requirements for cash management. So overnight, they won't be leaving cash in the registers. It'll be locked up. So really, if someone does decide to burglarize, they're going to get maybe a few thousand in cannabis product that they have to go sell to make money. Does that answer? I'm sure you had other questions.

Yes, sort of. Just I wish we just had more information related to the data that police departments are doing. And then Pomona is just one, which is one. But I think we should just explore more other cities that they're actually dealing with the criminality. I mean, it's a misdemeanor. It's not even a felony for just growing or setting up. I was reading here through it. It's a misdemeanor. So the chances that this is going to... I mean, for us, this is a big thing, but, you know, there's people that just... But it is just... I think it's just so easy for this to become a problem. And, I mean, if this is going to be approved because I'm going to be overwhelmed, I don't think we're ready for this in the city of Claremont, but if they want to exclude the Claremont Village, I'm all for it. I just don't think that we should add more... work to the police department because this is going to be overwhelming. It's happening in other cities. And I thank you for all of that. This is great. Great work and all that you're giving me that. But I think we should, if anything is going to be approved, let's just assume that we can include the Claremont Village because it's just going to be quite a madness in here. And I thank you. And thank you for your answers. I appreciate it.

Chair, if I could just add a little bit more to the questions and comments that Commissioner Alvarez was addressing. In addition to speaking directly with the police chief at Pomona who conveyed to me personally they have zero law enforcement issues with their facilities, we also talked to Palm Springs at length. I think our Zoom call with them was over an hour long, and they had a system in place where there was unlimited access They were just allowed by right to open in any commercial district. There was no CUPs. There was no constraints. They reported no police problems to us. We've spoken to the city of Fontana and several other cities that have pretty much shared the same exact story with us. They have more problems with their bars, and as you heard another speaker, alcohol issues, and really zero problems with their cannabis businesses. I actually worked for the city of Pomona for a decade before I came to Claremont and in charge of code enforcement there as well. And the black market type of operators that you mentioned could occur in Claremont. I worked closely with the police department there and the city attorney's office to shut some of those down. And they were very challenging to shut down. But Claremont's been very proactive, and we haven't had those type open in Claremont in many, many years. I think I can only think of one possibly in the past. That was a lot of years ago. So I don't anticipate that problem in Claremont at all. If we get legal ones to open, the black market illegal types that you're talking about popping up and opening and then leaving when they get found out, that just doesn't occur in Claremont. because our citizens are very on top of their neighborhoods, and people would call us day one when one of those opens, so I do not foresee that being a problem. But again, we don't have hard facts and data from police departments, but I can tell you we have talked to various other cities, and the storyline seems to be the same, that they actually appreciate the more activity and more eyes and ears on the street. Yes, we have heard from, again, an earlier speaker tonight, you heard about parking counts and parking lots and things like that. But again, I think the crime issue is not risen to the point where it's costing police departments extra money. It's actually been very lucrative financially to cities. And I know the taxation system is changing and that it's a changing world right now, but I just thought I'd add those comments.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Davis.

So I remember the last meeting when we specifically excluded shopping districts, I thought the primary reasoning was around increased traffic and inconvenience to people going in and out of the stores. So I think the same logic applies to Claremont Village to me. So I'd be in favor of excluding it from the amendment. Personally, I would limit it to just those identified as CV on the map. and leave open maybe some of the adjacent property the adjacent zoning there's not much obviously but i think there's one kind of larger parcel that's a mixed this mixed use too um that might be suitable for i mean there's only two permits out there right now um but yeah i i just think for all the reasons already said by fellow commissioners about the village is just not something that seems to me to be logistically workable there

Thank you, Commissioner Rosenbluth.

Thank you. Generally, if we're going to have storefront cannabis businesses, I find that this zoning ordinance seems to cover almost everything that I would be concerned with. and would generally support it, except I would like, probably make it part of a motion later, that the CV and CVO zones, both with and without display windows, be removed from the table, allowing a CUP, so that on chart table 16.051.A, For the CV CVO and CV. Oh with display window. We would not allow a CUP in those areas we For the reasons that some of the public comment had and other commissioners this business these types of businesses don't seem compatible with the family nature and pedestrian nature of the village they We already don't allow tattoo establishments or check cashing establishments in the CV area. And these businesses certainly seem to be similar to those and there's similar reasons for not allowing them. So we already have a precedent for keeping certain types of businesses out of the Claremont Village zone. And in additionally, I don't I'm a little concerned about how in Claremont Village they might affect certain existing businesses and actually reduce the business that by people being concerned about the type of customers being attracted by the storefront businesses and might actually drive away some of the traffic that we already have in Claremont Village. And lastly, I really don't see how much any part of Claremont Village could support the security and loitering requirements that are in the chapter five amendment, if that were to pass. I don't see any way that a business opening up in Claremont could ensure that there's no loitering within 50 feet of their business. There's just no way to do it. I don't see any kind of parking that could be secure and securely managed within Claremont Village. It would seem to me that these businesses need to have a way where all the parking for their particular business, if they're gonna patrol it, is observable. And the idea of putting those businesses where the parking is behind other businesses and other places doesn't seem appropriate at all. So I can only support this ordinance if we remove Claremont Village and Claremont Village overlay from the allowed table. Other than that, uh think that uh I earlier been uh as far as chapter five was concerned wanted to make the comment that I thought that limiting it to two um permits for the whole city seemed to be in a very artificial and inappropriate thing that I would like to see uh how many people would apply for a permit, um, and, uh, find an area where they could put it right now. It looks like just the business park will be, um, available. There are two business parks. There's one on arrow as well as the one off of karma Boulevard. And both of those don't seem to have any other serious restrictions around them. And, um, Then there are certain other areas like the multi-use area, which might also be appropriate, where the security demands could be made and passed. So I think with the idea that we remove Claremont Village Zone and Claremont Village Overlay Zone from the ordinance, I would be in support of this. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Ramirez?

Before making my comments, I want to ask it sort of a tangential question that came from the discussion with the chair. What is our geographic definition of a shopping center? Let me move this away from abstract. For example, consider the Sprout Shopping Center. There's Sprouts and then there are a few businesses attached ending at Sanctuary. then there's a separation and then there's another building that starts with Petco Unleashed and then there's a cafe and so forth. Do these two separate buildings constitute one shopping center or are they two shopping centers?

So for the purposes of this ordinance, the prohibition applies to all businesses located within a contiguous commercial development that shares common access, parking, or management. So I believe under that definition, it would be considered part of that shopping center.

Okay, so that would be considered one. and then the Claremont Community School of Music creates a separation, and although they share sort of a parking lot and there are some doctor's offices, and then after that we get to, State of Brothers. So then the State of Brothers and whatever's attached to it is considered a separate one, right? Correct. Even though Claremont Community School of Music and the few businesses associated with this share the same parking access.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood, but those wouldn't be allowed under this ordinance either? They're not in the zone.

None of those businesses are in the zone.

It's also quite a few excluded because of the school buffer. So you see that that's almost that whole commercial area. There's pretty much nothing off foot.

All right. Yeah. So the Claremont Community School of Music is not because it's in the zone of another school. But had that other prohibition not been there, then, for example, a cannabis business could have opened within that building that's attached to the Claremont Community School of Music.

Yes, yes. So if the grocery store is included in there, sorry, I'm not familiar with that school. Yeah, if they share parking and common access, then yes, be excluded. Okay.

All right. It's just kind of a theoretical question, mainly because they're all excluded. Regarding the the what we have at hand, I don't see any basis for rejecting this. And the ordinance as written, I find it satisfactory. Regarding the matter of the Claremont Village zones i i personally i'm of the opinion that we don't have a parking problem it's a longer discussion to be had uh i see it as a perception problem more than an actual parking problem but that's neither here nor there my preference would be that we don't take those off of what is permitted uh the the uh I think with all with with all the regulations and the ordinance we have and the history that we have of these businesses. And the history, we have of these businesses their operations police departments from neighboring cities. some of the reading that I've done, I don't think they will create a safety problem, a police problem. And I don't think there would be more of a negative thing compared to a number of businesses we have that provide alcohol for consumption onsite. These businesses wouldn't even allow consumption or use onsite. So I would intend to vote yes on this. And depending on where we go, I would be happy to include the Claremont Village locations in what is permitted.

Thank you. I will call for a recess for 10 minutes. Thank you. Is there anyone out in the lobby?

Pardon?

Thank you. If there are people in the lobby where read. We are. Ending the recess. It's been 10 minutes and I called meeting back to order. Thank you.

Commissioner Rosenbluth. Thank you, Chair. In response to the question that Commissioner Romain raised about parking in the village, it isn't the amount of parking that's the issue. It's the security of the parking, which is required under Chapter 5 of the proposed other ordinance that we're just commenting on that makes the village area unsuitable. And with that comment, I would like to make a motion. that the planning commission adopt a resolution of the planning commission.

Excuse me, may I interject a little more discussion on that? We can have discussion after I make the... Well, I haven't had my chance to make my comments either. But on that point also, and for the other, several other issues, I think the... if we approve it tonight we're not approving automatically anyone who applies they still have to come to us for a cup for their specific proposed location at which time we'll also be able to address the current issues at the moment of who are the adjacent neighbors how far are they from from other businesses and the parking issues. So I think we just need to remember that we're not doing a blanket permission for all potential applicants. Every applicant for a permit will have to come to us also for a CUP. And at that time, we can address the issues of, is there a parking security issue? Is there a location issue? What are the other issues relative to the specific application? Does that... also coincide with your thoughts?

Not completely. I still feel that the Claremont Village Zone and Village Overlay Zone would not be appropriate, and I wouldn't want to leave that open. I could not support it if they're still included in Table 16.051.A. So is it okay if I go ahead with the motion I was going to make?

i'm sorry i had some other questions okay that i wanted to uh address before we took our recess uh and i'd like the uh either the director or the city attorney to address we mentioned the parking requirements and the security is certainly an issue but we also cannot require if i understand it any parking requirements within a thousand feet of a high usage zone How does that affect this?

Chair, if I could just clarify the question. Are you referring to the latest bill that deals with the train depot location, a half mile radius within that, as we've discussed?

Right. And that we cannot enforce any parking requirements within the half mile of the high transit zone. How does that interact with the parking requirements proposed in this?

It's true that we would look at it in one sense, like a retail use, that we would attempt to treat the same. But I think if there's security measures that address parking lots, that it would be a case-by-case basis, as you stated a minute ago, through the CUP process.

doesn't excuse me uh director doesn't the um high transit zone area only apply to residential development that we can't reply our parking for residential development it it's for all uses within a half mile all users there's a couple there's a couple of carve outs um that i'm not remembering off the top of my head at this moment but it's essentially for most every use within a half mile radius okay thanks thanks for the clarification

Mr. Johnson, excuse me, a quick follow-up. Does not the state requirements for parking lot security, such as having all the parking surrounded by a perimeter fence that's patrolled with security, doesn't that supersede our city requirements? or even the parking issue.

Are you saying that's a requirement you're reading in the security requirements tonight?

Yeah, right. So we have the cannabis legislation, the state cannabis legislation, those requirements for security regarding the parking for the storefront retail cannabis. And then this other regulation considering city parking requirements within a transit area. So which, do we know which, which regulation, you know, survives between those two.

I don't know. I'll ask you where, is there a state requirement? The commissioner is asking about fencing of the parking lot. Or is it strictly just in our security measures if they have a parking lot?

I don't believe our security requirements, or we have a requirement for a fenced parking lot. And it's not a state requirement either.

It's not. Oh, I understood that it was. Interesting.

I guess the related clarification, at least for me, is does the state prohibition on parking requirements within a half a mile refer only to the quantity, or can we also, for these stores, require security issues?

So this is an off the cuff we didn't prepare an analysis of this, but the way that our ordinance covers the parking ratio and parking requirements is basically treating commercial cannabis, as if it's any other commercial business. It doesn't have like a cannabis specific parking ratio in the proposed ordinance my interpretation would be that if it's within. the distance to public transit, that it wouldn't be required to provide any parking, just like any other commercial business wouldn't be required to provide parking if it's in that zone. We do have separately security requirements for parking areas where if you do provide parking, it needs to be properly monitored, properly secured, properly fenced. But for those businesses that are within the transit corridor and that are exempt from parking requirements, if they didn't want to provide parking, I don't think our ordinance can trump the state law. That's my take on it. So if that's a concern, then that's something that we should probably screen out those zones for cannabis businesses.

So if the city elects to not exempt the village that's more than a half a mile from the new transit station, then the parking security portions of this ordinance has no effect.

Well, it would have no effect because the business would have no parking. So if you're not providing parking for your business because you're in an area, yeah.

And yet somehow the business will have patrons.

Just like any other business in those areas. I mean, that's a good question to direct to the state, I guess. The patrons, I guess they assume will be using the public transit system.

And may I just add that it is well understood, correct, that any storefront retail cannabis business does entail significant traffic, significant customer traffic.

So I'm looking to people who, there were a handful of cannabis businesses in areas like West Hollywood, I think, where there wasn't parking on site. It was sort of similar to the Claremont Village. And so I'm going to defer to Alex and Brad, because I know they looked at those businesses.

Yeah, and after hearing concerns during the listen and learn sessions, that was a specific question we brought up to Palm Springs. Pasadena and... So I'm blanking, West Hollywood. So they said they haven't experienced the same parking type of demand or issues like our Pomona stores to the south. So I know that's often referenced because they do have high turnover, high demand. But I think they are more of a regional draw just due to the size of those businesses. you know, what we've seen Palm Springs, they're smaller boutique stores, they don't have the high traffic and the other cities compared it more to something like a pharmacy post office, a popular bakery in town. So the traffic, you know, it has comparable levels to those other retails and it is short parking to where they're driving in, they pick up their product and they're out within 15 minutes.

Okay, thank you. That answers my question. Anyways, although I do have another question. And I guess our attorney may have to address this one. Also, the resolution that we're being asked to do tonight. Section three states. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Section three states at the last, the planning commission recommends the city council approve the code amendment as set forth in the exhibit attached here too, and made a part thereof. That includes all of the details that we've had questions about. So I think this addresses Mr. Rosenbluth's question earlier. If presuming that if we recommend this, we're also recommending the details of the exhibit of the code amendment, which includes all of those details. Is that a correct understanding?

Are you referring to title five?

I'm referring to section three of the resolution that we're being asked to pass. Yes. It says that the exhibit approved the code amendment as set forth in the exhibit attached here too. I understand. Which is all of exhibit... It includes all the details.

Yeah. So chapter five, that section is a separate attachment. So it's all part of the same report. But if you look on the staff report at the end attachments, it's listed as a separate attachment. So the resolution only includes the Title 16 ordinance.

That says the attachment. including the attachment, which is the ordinance, page two, page three. I'm going to try it goes on through 16102, etc, etc. That's all the the quote, the attachment.

yeah, and this is, I think, sort of a function of compiling the PDF where it's not clear that there's a nested attachment that goes with. The planning Commission resolution and that nested attachment is the zoning code ordinance the title 16 ordinance that's what the planning Commission. is recommending Council approval of in section three of the planning Commission reso and then separate from that an attachment to the staff report, not the ordinance. is for informational purposes, the proposed Title V regulations, which are still a work in progress. They're marked a draft. We would welcome feedback from the Commission on those, but that's not part of the recommendation resolution tonight.

I'm still totally confused. Of only have the attachment that includes all the section for section 516 106.

So I think maybe one thing that's helpful is that the planning commission resolution refers to it as an exhibit, and then it's labeled exhibit at the top of ordinance number, not numbered yet, but the title 16 ordinance. And then if you get through that ordinance, the next thing is labeled attachment B and that's the draft regulatory ordinance for the title five amendments that we've brought to you for informational purposes and for feedback, but that's not going to be part of the section three recommendation to counsel.

Basically, for the purpose of our vote, whatever it is, ignore attachment B. I'm going to prior prior to B.

Okay, attachment B. And I go to the page before that. And that's the end of the what we're recommending to the city council, which includes section 654 16.102 point, whatever, whatever, whatever. The permitted use table 16.050. All of that is what we're recommending specifically uh it just says at the top of that exhibit correct that's correct and that that exhibit is part of what we're recommending is that correct yes okay including all of those details all of those details are everything under title 16. right okay when you get to attachment b those details are not part of the recommendation Okay, so for the permitted uses and the zones that would be included. So if we're passing this, then we're recommending that all of the Claremont Village CVO, CVC be included as available with a CUP, correct?

That's how it's drafted, but that's something that the Planning Commission can ask us to change. So if you want to remove the village, the Planning Commission can ask that that be removed from this resolution.

And all of the chapter 16.102 cannabis businesses, all of the details as presented is what we would be voting for or against, correct?

Yes. Title 16.102.

okay we would not be voting on anything contained in attachment b that is correct okay i just want to make sure that we're all clear on what it is we would be involved with uh commissioner rosenbluth you look like you you had a smile oh just just getting ready to make a motion can i make one more comment uh commissioner wong

I just want to remind my colleagues here, we sat through the housing element where we listened to a ton of public comment about the division of the community, South versus North, and all that. I think this is just going to deepen the division of our community if we decide to say, hey, the village is too good for cannabis. I don't smoke cannabis. I don't do anything with cannabis, and I'm not sure if anyone on this commission does either, but I know it has a negative stigma stigmatism just based on the comments that, you know, that we've kind of been hearing up here. And I just, you know, I, I really can't support excluding the village cause I think it's just going to provide another division to our community. Um, and I know it sounds like we're pretty split up here. Um, but I just want to remind my colleagues, you know what I mean? We sat through that, we sat through North versus South. And now, you know what I mean? I think this is just going to bring another division to our community where it says the Claremont village is too good to have cannabis. So I just want to remind my colleagues of that before we make a motion.

Just clarification, commissioner Wong. So you will vote no if the village is excluded. I will vote no if the village is excluded.

Okay, also as a reminder that we will get to revisit when the CUP application process for any business, proposed business, to readdress traffic and any other issues that we think are appropriate at the time for that business.

Can we take a tally and see who is in favor or no of the Claremont Village so there was a vote? I hope it's gonna be just tank. Is that okay?

I think the proper process, Chair Emerson, is to see how a motion plays out, correct?

I'm open to a motion. You're ready for a motion? You are ready for a motion now? I am.

I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Claremont, California, recommending that the City Council adopt amendments to Title 16 of the Claremont Municipal Code to 1, amend Table 16.051.A in Section 16.051.01. to zero to add a new use cannabis storefront retail as a conditionally permitted use and to add a new chapter 16.102 titled cannabis businesses with the following changes that the option for a CUP be removed from CV slash CVO and CVO with display window in table 16.051.A and that the security language that commissioner Williamson suggested earlier be added to this section. I don't remember which section you wanted that to go into. Commissioner Williamson.

That was section 16.102.060 compliance with other applicable zoning and development standards.

Security language to 16.102.060. Sorry? No, this is categorically exempt from CEQA because it's not a project. And if it were a project, it would still be exempt from

Yes, it's strictly a regulatory.

Yeah, strictly regulatory. Do I have to go through the motion again? Do we understand the following changes? Or should we run through that again?

I understand the changes. I was going to second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any additional discussion? Or do you want to go right to a vote? All right. You weren't raising your hand. No.

Okay. Just one point to Commissioner Wong's concern, just to persuade you to change your position. The two business parks, one is south and one is north. So it doesn't divide the city. The two areas that we think are most likely to have it, in fact, don't divide the city.

But you're saying the center of the city is too good to- Not too good.

Not too good. That it has a specific character- and that this would change the character in ways that would change it.

We just sat here for the last 15 minutes when you said that it was because of parking. The director said that there was no parking requirements, and you're still holding to it.

No, it was because of security in the village. You're not going to change my mind, so just stop. Okay, well, then I'll stop. That's why I asked for it. Thank you.

If I just may say, I think that Claremont Village is not that it's too good or it is too bad. It's just we have to consider it because there's a lot of kids when they get out of school.

And besides, it's all around the community. So if that's the thing, then we should just keep this thing right here, right here and now. And no, no area should have cannabis. And that's and that's Emerson.

There's a motion on the table and it's been seconded.

Well, let me just finish. There's kids all the way around. Yeah, there's the schools all the way around. And when we get off at school, they are not under the care of the school district. And they are here. And it's our responsibility as the planners commission. And I respect, Commissioner Wong, your input. And I'm not here to change your opinion. But I'm just voicing my approval for what Commissioner Rosenblum is going to propose.

I'll call the question.

Thank you.

I will call the question, which is to approve the resolution with the following changes, exempting the CV areas and clarifying the sections 16102060 on parking security. I call the question for a roll call vote.

Commissioner Alvarez?

Yes.

Commissioner Davis? Yes. Commissioner Rosenbluth? Aye. Commissioner Williamson? Yes. Commissioner Wong? No. Vice Chair Rameen?

No.

Chair Emerson?

No. Okay, the resolution, the motion passes four to three.

No, it doesn't pass. It passes. We need five votes. We need five votes.

We need five, a super majority or just simple?

I looked it up, it is super majority, five votes, like six or more are present.

Okay, so the motion fails on a vote of four to three. Is there another motion pending?

Commissioner Wong, do you want to propose the original and see how it goes first?

I'll make the motion to move the motion as presented and as recommended by staff.

And second.

And. So there's a motion by Commissioner one second by Vice Chair remain to. move the resolution as as printed and also noting that it is exempt from sequel. call for roll call vote.

Commissioner Alvarez no. Commissioner Davis yes. Commissioner Rosenbluth?

No.

Commissioner Williamson?

No.

Commissioner Wong?

Yes.

Vice Chair Rameem?

Yes.

Chair Emerson?

Yes. And that also fails on a four to three vote. So either we need to revisit it or I guess the other option is to So the city council, we were able to unable to come to a recommendation.

Question does the city council need our recommendation.

Okay, your microphones off.

Sorry about that. If the vote fails, it is deemed by the code a recommendation of denial of the code amendment. So that's how it would be brought to the city council.

Okay.

And I'll just state, because I'm the only one person who switched their vote from the first. So I do agree with Chair Emerson that we do have a second chance to assess each business if they were to apply in the Claremont Village. So it's not like we're giving a blanket approval to Claremont Village. I will say I have a lot of reservations on whether it's possible to work there, but I'd rather give something to the city council knowing that we still have the ability to say no to a particular business and a particular setup as we go forward.

Commissioner Davis, I welcome that, and I'm glad that you changed your vote because that's the exact sentiment. We're not approving or saying, hey, these things are automatically approved in the village. It's still going to have to go through the same CUP process, but I think right off the bat saying that it's too good and excluding it without any kind of hard evidence of why it wouldn't work there or specific evidence that it wouldn't work there

not right right there i think i you know we could add one more thing there is a second i mean or the first gate if you will that they have to get a business license from the city council and i think the city council would use their discretion to make sure they're choosing the right type of operators to fit in the right type of portions of the of the city or i would hope so right right so there's not just we're not just voting and blanking it's not like a free-for-all in the village at this point if we were to reconsider and vote yes to this.

If you look, excuse me, chair. If you look at the wording, this ordinance has separated the process of getting a permit and getting a CUP. So in fact, you can get, people could apply for CUPS without having a permit. They just have to get a permit in order to use the CUP. And therefore at the time the CUPs are being discussed, you have no idea whether the people that are asking for it would meet the permit requirements. That couldn't be something that this commission could consider at that time because they wouldn't know whether a permit would be available or not. There's no connection between the two. If they get a CUP without a permit, they have six months to get a permit. Otherwise, the CUP fails. But these are separate processes. And I think the idea of creating a situation where this commission has to look at potential CUPs for an area where these businesses are inappropriate is not the way this commission should recommend to the city council. So I don't know how anybody else wants to proceed, but if this goes through as denying this, as long as the city council understands the reason why we divided on approving it, I think I'm happy with the situation.

I have a question for the city attorney. So if we decide that we didn't came to an agreement, the majority vote is not in, it moves to the city council to make the decision.

It does. The code contemplates the situation. It says you need supermajority to bring forward a positive recommendation. If you don't get a supermajority positive recommendation for any reason, it just goes forward to the council as a recommendation of denial. The council will then need a supermajority to pass it.

then I guess I'm happy with this result.

Okay. So what, what is the consensus?

I will, in my opinion, just leave it to the city council, because I don't think any body of us is just going to bend our beliefs or body. So that's just a, we can just call it a night.

Okay. Um, Mr. Rosenbluth, would you want to reintroduce your motion or?

If you think it would be a good idea, I would be happy to reintroduce my motion. And that would be, I would be happy to make the motion I proposed previously with the changes to table 22. 16.051.a and to adding security to the new section 16.102.060. That's correct.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

We have the original motion for the resolution exempting with the changes of exempting the Claremont village zones and increasing the parking security requirements. I'll call for roll call vote again, please.

Commissioner, the safety wasn't clear. Mr. Okay, thanks.

Commissioner Alvarez?

Yes.

Commissioner Davis?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenbluth?

Aye.

Commissioner Williamson? Yes. Commissioner Wong?

No.

Commissioner Rosenbluth?

He doesn't get two votes.

I'm sorry. Commissioner Rameen, I'm sorry. Why not? Commissioner Rameen?

Let's start the roll call over, please.

Commissioner Alvarez? Aye.

Yes.

Commissioner Davis? Yes. Commissioner Rosenbluth?

Aye.

Commissioner Williamson? Yes. Commissioner Wong?

No.

Commissioner Rameem?

No.

Vice Chair, I mean, Chair Emerson, I'm sorry.

No. So we again have a four to three on that resolution. I will entertain a resolution with no changes.

I don't think it's going to help here, Chair. I think the parties are kind of stuck. I think the only person in limbo is Commissioner Davis over there.

Am I correct, Commissioners?

He's just going to keep saying yes.

Am I correct, commissioners, that the addition of the security measures issue to 16-102-060 wasn't at issue?

I'll agree to that one, but not excluding the village and not dividing our city with this ordinance. Yeah, I believe, you know what I mean? Just like I've said already and Commissioner Davis has already said, we're gonna have the time to look at these individual applications at a CUP level and to exclude them right here, right off the bat is a clear, it's a clear unfair thing to say that a certain portion of the city or a certain class of the city gets to be free from this, either if you look at it a burden or a benefit.

Well, I think the members of the city council are adults. They'll look at these proceedings. They can make up their own minds. You know, I'm okay with that.

Yeah, I think they'll note our concerns and where our issues lie, yeah.

So is it the consensus that we are not changing our votes?

Seems to be.

Okay. I believe that is the consensus then is that it would be a four to three vote on either of the options. And so the finding is that we are Denying recommending the adoption of section 16051020 and 16102, and it's still exempt from CEQA. Do we need any further discussion? Thank you. We move on to reports then.

Yes. Uh, thank you chair members of the commission. Just an update on city council meetings since this commission last met at the, uh, May 27th, um, city council meeting, there was a public hearing for the city ventures, 70 unit town home, um, development proposed on vacant land at the tennis club at eight 40 South Indian hill Boulevard that this commission is, uh, familiar with it. Also recently heard this item. Due to one of the council members absence, the city council voted to continue this item to its June 10th 2025 meeting to have the opportunity to have all city council members present for a vote. The public comment portion of the meeting was completed. So although the item is open and continued public hearing, we expect a vote to resume on June 10th for that item. And as far as upcoming planning commission items on our upcoming agendas, we don't have any items tentatively scheduled. That could change any day though. And if it does, I will certainly let the commission know and we'll be on for our next meeting. That's all I have tonight.

Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have just general comments you'd like to make or do we want to go home?

I'll just make a general comment. Thank you to staff for the presentation tonight and trying to get this ordinance across the line and hopefully it'll still be successful at city council.

i i amplify that it's it's a a big deal it's a big and complicated ordinance and uh it's always hard working out all of the details and to get everything internally consistent and addressing all the concerns i think from the questions that i had answered uh by staff indicates there are some other details yet to be changed for the City Council to consider.

I just want to thank you, too, for your great work. Thanks for all the time. Unfortunately, we just can't come to an approval, but I'm sure the City Council will take that into consideration.

Thank you. okay thank you very much uh the next regular meeting of the claremont planning commission will be held on june 17 2025 at 7 p.m in the claremont council chamber 225 west second street we are adjourned