TO: ADAM PIRRIE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: BRAD JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 22, 2025
Reviewed by:
City Manager: AP
SUBJECT:
Title
CANNABIS ZONING AND REGULATORY ORDINANCES AND DIRECTION ON IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK (FUNDING SOURCE: DCC LOCAL JURISDICTION RETAIL ACCESS GRANT)
Body
SUMMARY
The City of Claremont currently prohibits commercial cannabis businesses, except for deliveries from businesses based outside of the City, as permitted under State law. In November 2022, Claremont voters approved a cannabis business tax measure with 61 percent support. Following this, the City Council directed staff to initiate a public engagement process and explore options for regulating cannabis businesses within Claremont.
In 2023, staff held a series of listen and learn workshops on commercial cannabis. Staff shared presentations regarding cannabis business types and regulatory options and received input from community members.
In early 2024, the City Council reaffirmed its priority to continue to evaluate and secure revenue enhancement opportunities, with the potential regulation of cannabis. During the February 6, 2024 Claremont Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informational session and regulatory review. During the meeting, the Commission provided input to staff regarding cannabis zoning regulations. Based on that input, staff has prepared a proposed amendment to the Claremont Zoning Code that would conditionally permit cannabis storefront retail businesses in specific commercial, business/industrial, and mixed-use zones, subject to several “buffering” requirements.
On June 3, 2025, the Claremont Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed cannabis zoning ordinance. While the Commission was generally supportive of allowing storefront cannabis retail in Claremont, there was no supermajority consensus on whether the Claremont Village (CV) zone should be included. Commissioners raised concerns about potential impacts on the Village’s family-friendly character and limited parking availability. The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend approval of two different versions of the cannabis zoning ordinance - one version that would conditionally permit cannabis storefront retailers in the Village (CV and CVO zones) and one version that would not. Because a supermajority vote (five of seven commissioners) is required for a positive recommendation to the City Council, and the motions on both versions of the proposed cannabis zoning ordinances only received four positive votes, the Commission could not advance a positive recommendation on either version of the zoning ordinance.
As a result, the Commission’s actions are considered a negative recommendation under Section 16.315.060 of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC). Therefore, approval of a first reading and adoption of the zoning ordinance by the City Council would require supermajority votes (approval of at least four members). Alternatively, the City Council may choose to refer the zoning ordinance back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, or if a simple majority of the City Council (at least three members) supports the zoning ordinance, the City Council can establish a committee composed of two Planning Commissioners and two Councilmembers pursuant to CMC Section 16.315.090(D). If the committee reviews the zoning ordinance, the City Council could approve a first reading and then adopt the zoning ordinance by simple majority votes (again, at least three members).
The City Council will also consider a business regulations ordinance that would add a new chapter to Title 5 of the Claremont Municipal Code and amend CMC Section 9.72.050. Although the Planning Commission had the opportunity to review and comment on the business regulations ordinance, this was not a zoning ordinance, so the Planning Commission was not required to make a recommendation on the business regulations ordinance. The City Council can approve a first reading of the business regulations ordinance through a simple majority vote. The business regulations ordinance cannot take effect without the zoning ordinance (and vice versa), therefore staff recommends the City Council first determine whether there is supermajority support for the zoning ordinance before the City Council considers the business regulations ordinance.
Finally, if there is supermajority support for the zoning ordinance and simple majority support for the business regulations ordinance, then staff is seeking direction from the City Council on procedural guidelines and review criteria for selection of cannabis storefront retailers that apply for cannabis business permits. The proposed business regulations ordinance would require the City Council to adopt a resolution memorializing these procedural guidelines and review criteria.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council:
A. Consider introducing for first reading and that reading by title only AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TABLE 16.051.A IN SECTION 16.051.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 16.102 TO TITLE 16 OF THE CLAREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT AND REGULATE “CANNABIS STOREFRONT RETAILERS” IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. Because the Planning Commission’s simple majority (4-3) recommendation on this zoning ordinance is deemed a negative recommendation, at least four members of the City Council must vote “yes” to approve an introduction and first reading of this ordinance; and
B. If the zoning ordinance is adopted, consider introducing for first reading and that reading by title only AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 5.54 (“CANNABIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES”) TO TITLE 5 (“BUSINESS REGULATION”) OF THE CLAREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 9.72.050 (COMMERCIAL USE) OF CHAPTER 9.72 (MARIJUANA USES) OF THE CLAREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE CANNABIS BUSINESSES. Because this is not a zoning ordinance, only three members of the City Council are required to vote “yes” to approve an introduction and first reading of this ordinance; however, this ordinance cannot take effect unless the corresponding zoning ordinance is also approved (which requires approval of at least four members of the City Council); and
C. If the introduction and first reading of both ordinances are approved, provide policy direction on key components of a future City Council resolution to implement the Cannabis Business Permit application and evaluation process; and
D. Find this item is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The items above are policy decisions for the City Council. Staff is not making a recommendation (positive, negative, or otherwise) on these items.
Body
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the recommendation, there are the following alternatives:
A. Request additional information from staff.
B. Request changes to the draft zoning ordinance or the draft business regulations ordinance. If the Planning Commission has not previously considered the changes to the draft zoning ordinance, the City Council must refer the draft zoning ordinance back to the Planning Commission for a report. Changes to the draft business regulations ordinance do not need to be referred back to the Planning Commission.
C. If there is simple majority support for the proposed zoning ordinance, the City Council may establish a committee composed of two members of the Planning Commission and two members of the City Council to further study the matter. After the committee reviews the proposed zoning ordinance, the City Council may approve the proposed zoning ordinance by simple majority vote.
D. Take no action. The CMC will continue to prohibit cannabis businesses in Claremont (with the exception of deliveries into Claremont from businesses located outside Claremont).
FINANCIAL REVIEW
In June 2023, the City of Claremont was awarded a Local Jurisdiction Retail Access Grant for $195,000 by the California Department of Cannabis Control. The grant program aims to provide California consumers with reliable access to regulated, tested cannabis in the legal market and reduce demand in the illicit market. The funding may be used to support developing and implementing a cannabis licensing program. Therefore, there will be no impact on the General Fund for the development of this program. If the City does not adopt the Ordinances by October 31, 2025, the City must return any unused funds to DCC.
Because the City of Claremont does not currently permit cannabis businesses (except cannabis deliveries originating from non-Claremont-based businesses), it is difficult to estimate the tax revenue from cannabis businesses. If the City permits cannabis businesses, tax revenues would vary greatly depending on the number of retail businesses allowed. The City’s previous consultant, HdL, estimated that the City could generate approximately $300,000 per retail store annually in revenue, based on the City’s six percent (6%) cannabis tax and sales tax.
The staff cost to prepare this report and administer the program is estimated at $17,500 and is included in the operating budget of the Community Development Department.
ANALYSIS
Claremont Cannabis History
California’s history of cannabis law spans nearly twenty years of propositions and regulatory actions. The Claremont City Council first adopted a ban on commercial cannabis businesses in 2006. On October 9, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), which generally authorized local agencies to allow and regulate cannabis businesses. On January 26, 2016, the City Council adopted an ordinance to clarify that, notwithstanding the newly adopted MMRSA, the City’s preexisting ban on cannabis businesses continues to prohibit cannabis dispensaries, cultivation, and delivery services.
Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), was adopted by California voters on November 8, 2016. The AUMA immediately legalized possession, transport, purchase, use, and transfer of recreational marijuana for individuals 21 years of age or older. Beginning in January 2018, the AUMA also established a State regulatory and licensing program for nonmedical commercial cannabis cultivation, testing, distribution, and manufacturing. Proposition 64 stipulated that if a city did not enact local cannabis commercial licensing restrictions or a ban by January 1, 2018, commercial cannabis businesses could operate with a valid State license. Therefore, until local regulations and interests could be analyzed and identified for implementation, the City of Claremont adopted ordinances to regulate the personal use and cultivation of cannabis and restrict commercial cannabis activities in the City.
On October 25, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2016-11 prohibiting commercial cannabis operations, including retail dispensaries, cultivation, manufacturing facilities, and delivery services within the City. While Proposition 64 allows cities to ban these commercial enterprises, it is important to note that cities cannot prohibit personal cultivation of six plants or fewer for personal use. Cities cannot prohibit deliveries from other municipalities’ cannabis retail locations to their residents. Any restriction on individual adults from possessing or purchasing certain amounts of cannabis or cannabis products for personal use is unenforceable under AUMA. On February 12, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2019-01 to reaffirm the ban on commercial cannabis operations.
On January 26, 2021, the City Council requested that staff engage the community in a discussion on considering cannabis regulations. The City engaged the services of HdL Companies to assist as a consultant in the community outreach process. In March 2022, staff held two virtual cannabis community workshops. Following those meetings, the City Council directed staff to prepare and place a cannabis business tax on the November 8, 2022, General Election ballot for voter approval. The measure passed with sixty-one percent (61%) support from Claremont voters. In January 2023, the City Council set the cannabis tax rates within the Claremont voter-approved ranges.
In 2024, the City Council reaffirmed its priority to continue evaluating and securing revenue enhancement opportunities, including the potential regulation of cannabis. During the February 6, 2024 Claremont Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an information session and regulatory review and provided input to staff regarding cannabis zoning regulations. On June 3, 2025, the Claremont Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider recommending that the City Council adopt a cannabis zoning ordinance. Due to the Commission being unable to reach a supermajority vote, the Commission made a negative recommendation to the City Council.
Community Listen and Learn Sessions
Staff held three “Listen and Learn” community sessions between June and September 2023. During these sessions, staff gave brief presentations on the history of cannabis regulations in Claremont and California and shared policy options available to cities that permit cannabis businesses. Staff also presented a map illustrating the State’s minimum zoning requirements, as well as a 1,000-foot buffer from the Pomona-Claremont border. Following the presentations, attendees were invited to provide comments and input regarding cannabis regulations in Claremont.
There was a mixture of perspectives among attendees. Many expressed general support for allowing cannabis retail businesses in Claremont, provided that sufficient regulations and safeguards were in place. Those who were opposed or conditionally supportive of cannabis businesses raised three primary concerns: crime, parking demands, and the potential adverse impacts of cannabis use on the community. Community members from South Claremont, in particular, voiced apprehensions about a possible increase in criminal activity near cannabis establishments. They also cited concerns about strain on local parking resources, referencing high parking demand at cannabis retail stores in nearby Pomona. Additionally, some community members expressed concerns about the perceived negative effects of cannabis use on individual well-being and the overall dynamics of the community.
February 6 , 2024 Claremont Planning Commission Direction
During the February 6, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented to the Commission regarding cannabis regulatory options. Staff requested input from the Commission on a few primary questions. The feedback provided was incorporated into the Ordinance for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Commission’s recommendations are summarized below:
• Specific Location restrictions:
o The Commission recommended that cannabis businesses be prohibited in neighborhood shopping centers with grocery stores. The current grocery stores in Claremont are: Stater Bros. Market, Vons, Dollar Tree, Trader Joe’s, Sprouts, and Super King Market.
• Buffer Zones
o The Commission recommended maintaining the State-mandated 600-foot radius buffer around schools and daycares.
o When the City of Pomona was developing its cannabis regulations, the City of Claremont requested a 1,000-foot buffer from the Claremont-Pomona border, and the City of Pomona accommodated that request. The City of Pomona made a reciprocal request for a 1,000-foot buffer from the Claremont-Pomona border. The Commission recommended that the zoning ordinance include Pomona’s requested buffer.
• Type of Cannabis Businesses Permitted
o Staff presented a summary of the various types of cannabis business licenses offered by the State, including retail, manufacturing, indoor/outdoor cultivation, distribution, testing laboratories, and microbusinesses. Staff’s recommendation was to only allow storefront retail cannabis businesses.
o The Commission agreed with staff’s recommendation of only allowing for storefront retail cannabis businesses.
• Number of licenses:
o The Commission was in favor of limiting the number of licenses offered. They recommended setting an initial limit of two storefront retail cannabis business licenses.
June 3, 2025 Planning Commission Zoning Ordinance Public Hearing
On June 3, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed cannabis zoning and business regulation ordinances. The Commission received a staff presentation, reviewed public input, and discussed the proposed land use framework and permitting structure.
While a majority of the Commissioners expressed support for allowing cannabis storefront retail businesses in Claremont, there was no consensus regarding whether to include the Claremont Village (CV) and Claremont Village Overlay (CVO) zones. Concerns cited included the Village’s family-friendly character, proximity to public gathering spaces, and limited parking availability.
Two separate motions were made, one to recommend approval including the CV and CVO zones (which was staff’s recommendation) and another excluding the Village’s zones, but each received only four affirmative votes. Chair Emerson, Vice Chair Rahmim, and Commissioner Wong voted “yes” for the version of the zoning ordinance that would conditionally permit cannabis storefront retail in the Village zones. Commissioners Rosenbluth, Alvarez, and Williamson voted “yes” for the version of the zoning ordinance that would prohibit cannabis storefront retail in the Village zones. Commissioner Davis voted “yes” for both versions of the zoning ordinance. Because a supermajority (five out of seven Commissioners) is required for a positive recommendation, the Commission’s action is considered a negative recommendation under the Claremont Municipal Code.
Summary of Zoning Ordinance
The proposed Cannabis Business Zoning Ordinance introduces a new land use classification, “Cannabis Storefront Retail,” as a conditionally permitted use in several commercial, business and industrial, and mixed-use zones including the following; Commercial Professional (CP), Commercial Limited (CL), Commercial Highway (CH), Claremont Village (CV), Business/Industrial Park (B/IP), Mixed Use 1 (MU1), and Mixed Use 2 (MU2) zones. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for cannabis retailers operating in any of these zones.
The Ordinance also adds Chapter 16.102 to Title 16 of the Claremont Municipal Code, establishing land use standards for cannabis businesses. Notably, cannabis businesses must be located at least 600 feet from sensitive uses such as K-12 schools, daycare centers, and at least 1,000 feet from the Claremont-Pomona border. Additionally, cannabis storefronts are prohibited from being located in a shopping center that includes a grocery store.
Like other businesses, cannabis storefront retailers would also need to comply with existing zoning requirements, including standards related to site design, setbacks, signage, and landscaping. Although this is not within the purview of the Planning Commission, the City Council will also consider operational regulations for cannabis businesses, which would be in a new chapter in Title 5 of the Claremont Municipal Code.
Summary of Cannabis Business Regulations Ordinance
The Cannabis Business Activities Ordinance, establishes the regulatory framework for permitting and operating cannabis businesses in Claremont.
Key provisions include:
• Permitted Business Type: Only storefront retail cannabis businesses would be allowed; all other types (e.g., cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, and microbusinesses) are prohibited.
• License Cap: The Ordinance limits the total number of storefront retail cannabis businesses in the City to no more than two.
• Permit and Application Process: Businesses must undergo a multi-phase process including pre-screening, background checks, zoning verification, and a Conditional Use Permit. Final selection of permittees is at the discretion of the City Council following a review and scoring process.
• Operational Requirements: Businesses must comply with extensive security measures, including surveillance, alarm systems, limited access areas, and 24/7 security protocols. Strict odor control measures, labor peace agreements (for employers with 10+ employees), and community benefit agreements are also required.
• Hours of Operation: Storefront cannabis retailers may operate from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, seven days a week. Delivery services are permitted from 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM, seven days a week.
• Prohibited Activities: On-site consumption of cannabis, drive-through or pass-through sales, and any form of advertising visible from outside the premises are prohibited.
• Annual Renewal and Compliance: Permits are valid for one year and must be renewed annually. Renewal is contingent on continued compliance, financial audits, and operational performance.
• City Oversight and Enforcement: The City retains the authority to inspect premises at any time, suspend or revoke permits, and require indemnification and reimbursement for City costs related to enforcement or legal challenges.
This ordinance would be designed to ensure that cannabis businesses in Claremont operate safely, securely, and in a manner consistent with community expectations and State law.
Procedural Guidelines and Review Criteria Resolution
The Regulatory Ordinance requires the City Council to adopt a resolution establishing the procedures and criteria for evaluating and selecting cannabis business permit applications. This resolution must be adopted before applications are accepted and will serve as the administrative framework for implementing the cannabis permitting program.
As outlined in the ordinance, all prospective applicants will first undergo a preapplication screening process. During this step, staff or a qualified consultant will verify eligibility through ownership disclosures, background checks, and site compliance with applicable zoning and buffer requirements. Only applicants who pass this screening will proceed to the formal evaluation phase.
Staff propose the use of a merit-based point scoring system to evaluate qualified applicants. This method is the most commonly used approach in cities across California with limited cannabis permits. It offers transparency and consistency. Under this system, applicants will be evaluated based on predefined categories such as business readiness, security, neighborhood compatibility, local ownership, and proposed community benefits. Each category will be assigned a maximum point value, and applications will be ranked based on their total scores.
The merit-based scoring process is typically conducted by an outside consultant with experience in cannabis permitting to ensure neutrality and consistency. Some jurisdictions have used internal staff or ad hoc review committees, but engaging a third-party evaluator is considered the best practice. In addition to providing technical expertise, using an outside consultant reinforces the objectivity of the selection process and supports public confidence in its fairness.
To develop the final resolution and scoring rubric, staff is seeking City Council direction on several components of the evaluation process:
Evaluation Criteria Weights and Priorities
The City Council is asked to provide direction on which evaluation categories should be included in the scoring rubric and whether any should be weighed more heavily than others. Common evaluation categories used by other cities include business and operational experience, site control and location readiness, public safety and security measures, neighborhood compatibility and public engagement, local or equity ownership, community benefit proposals, and environmental sustainability.
Emphasizing business readiness or secured sites may result in faster project implementation and could favor more well-resourced applicants. The City Council may also consider whether to assign equal weights across categories or to give certain categories higher maximum scores based on policy goals.
Community Benefit Contributions
The City Council is asked to consider how community benefits should be incorporated into the evaluation process. Under the proposed approach, applicants would be required to identify the ways in which their businesses would contribute to the Claremont community. Contributions may include financial donations to local nonprofits, funding for youth or education programs, or local hiring commitments.
One approach is to allow applicants to propose their own community benefit packages, which would be evaluated as part of the scoring process. This method allows for flexibility and encourages innovation. However, it may be more difficult to compare and enforce commitments across applications.
Alternatively, the City Council may establish a minimum required contribution amount or define specific types of eligible community benefits. This would provide greater consistency and predictability.
Permit Timing and Phasing
The ordinance authorizes up to two cannabis business permits, but the City Council may choose to issue them all at once or phase them over time. Issuing both permits in a single application round provides administrative efficiency and maximizes near-term revenue. It also ensures all applicants are evaluated under the same criteria and market conditions.
Alternatively, the City Council may choose to issue one permit initially and delay the second until after the first business has opened and its impact can be assessed. This phased approach would allow the City to evaluate operational performance, compliance, and community response before proceeding with a second award. However, it could delay full implementation and reduce interest or competitiveness among applicants.
Permit Reallocation and Future Flexibility
Finally, the City Council may wish to provide direction on how to handle permit reallocation or future program changes. If a selected applicant withdraws, fails to complete licensing, or is disqualified, the City could reopen the application process or offer the permit to the next-highest scoring applicant.
Reopening the process maintains fairness and allows for updated criteria, but may be time-consuming. Advancing the next-ranked applicant is more efficient but may be less transparent, particularly if time has passed or policy goals have changed.
RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff has evaluated the agenda item in relationship to the City’s strategic and visioning documents and finds that it applies to the following City Planning Documents: Council Priorities, Economic Sustainability Plan, and 2024-26 Budget.
CEQA REVIEW
The proposed code amendments are not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a "project" as defined in Section 15378). CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) and (5) exclude "[c]ontinuing administrative ... activities" and "administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment" from its definition of "project." In the absence of any pending application for any cannabis storefront retailer, any specific environmental effects would be speculative. The environmental effects of prospective future cannabis storefront retailers will be evaluated on a project-by-project basis by the City during the application and permitting processes.
Even if the code amendments were a "project" (as that term is defined in CEQA), they would be exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a) because they are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning and general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. The code amendments would also be exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 1506l(b)(3)'s "general rule" that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this item, in and of itself, will have a significant effect on the environment. On its own, this item merely establishes a regulatory framework; it will not directly result in any physical changes to the environment.
COMMISSION REVIEW
The development of the proposed Cannabis Ordinance involved an extensive public process, including the following Commission review.
• Planning Commission review on February 6, 2024
• Planning Commission negative recommendation to the City Council on June 3, 2025
Minutes from these meetings may be found in Attachments D and E, for reference.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
The agenda and staff report for this item have been posted on the City website and distributed to interested parties. If you desire a copy, please contact the City Clerk’s Office.
Notice of this public hearing was published in the Claremont Courier on Friday, July 11, 2025, and electronic notices were sent to the Cannabis interested parties list.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
Brad Johnson Alex Cousins
Community Development Director Senior Management Analyst
Attachments:
A - Proposed Cannabis Zoning Ordinance
B - Proposed Cannabis Business Regulatory Ordinance
C - Cannabis Zone and Buffer Map
D - Planning Commission Minutes - February 6, 2024
E - Planning Commission Minutes - June 3, 2025