[00:00:01]
THE MEETING WILL PLEASE COME TO ORDER.[ LA HABRA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 100 EAST LA HABRA BOULEVARD LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA 90631 Please note that should all business not be concluded by 10:00 p.m., the Chair shall either authorize an extension of time to said meeting or continue all unfinished items to a future meeting, date certain, or date uncertain.]
THE AUDIENCE PLEASE STAND AND JOIN? COMMISSIONER LOGAN CANNON IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE, THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC, WHICH STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDI WITH LIBERTY.
WILL THE SECRETARY PLEASE CALL ROLL CHAIR MACHA HERE.
HERE, COMMISSIONER LOGAN CANNON.
HERE, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER CARDENA HAS AN EXCUSED ABSENCE.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
PUBLIC COMMENTS SHALL BE RECEIVED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE GOVERNING BODY MEETING AND LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER INDIVIDUAL WITH A TOTAL TIME LIMIT OF 30 MINUTES FOR ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS, UNLESS OTHERWISE MODIFIED BY THE CHAIR.
SPEAKING TIME MAY NOT BE GRANTED IN OUR LOAN TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL FOR PURPOSES OF EXTENDING AVAILABLE SPEAKING TIME AND COMMENTS MUST BE KEPT BRIEF, NON-REPETITIVE, AND PROFESSIONAL IN NATURE.
THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS ANY ITEM ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR OR IF CITY BUSINESS NOT APPEARING ON THE SCHEDULED AGENDA PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5 4 9 5 4 0.3 A.
SUCH COMMENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONDED TO BY THE GOVERNING BODY DURING THE MEETING, DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THE ITEMS, ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR, OR ANY ITEM NOT APPEARING ON THE AGENDA? OKAY.
WE WILL NOW CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
ALL MATTERS ON CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION.
UNLESS A COMMISSIONER CITY STAFF MEMBER OR MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE REQUEST SEPARATE ACTION OR REMOVAL OF AN ITEM REMOVED, ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOLLOWING THE CONSENT CALENDAR PORTION OF THIS AGENDA.
PUBLIC COMMENTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER INDIVIDUAL WITH A TOTAL TIME LIMIT OF 30 MINUTES PER ITEM THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION, UNLESS OTHERWISE MODIFIED BY THE CHAIR SPEAKING TIME AND NOT BE GRANTED IN OUR LOAN TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL.
FOR PURPOSES OF EXTENDING AVAILABLE SPEAKING TIME AND COMMENTS MUST BE KEPT BRIEF, NON-REPETITIVE, AND PROFESSIONAL IN NATURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME IS THE CONSENT CALENDAR, WHICH INCLUDES ITEMS ONE AND TWO.
ALL ITEMS WILL BE BE APPROVED WITH ONE VOTE UNLESS AN ITEM IS REMOVED.
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WISH TO REMOVE AN ITEM? OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO HAVE AN ITEM REMOVED? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, MAY I PLEASE HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER LOGAN CANNON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RAMSON.
EVERYONE PLEASE ENTER YOUR VOTE.
WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS EVENING.
THE PROCEDURES WILL BE AS FOLLOWS.
THE CHAIR WILL INTRODUCE THE ITEM AND THEN STAFF WILL GIVE A REPORT ON THE ITEM.
THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM WILL BE RECOGNIZED FIRST AND THEN THE COMMISSION WILL HEAR FROM THOSE IN OPPOSITION.
REBUTTALS WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR.
AFTER ALL HAVE SPOKEN, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED AND THE COMMISSION WILL DISCUSS THE MATTER AND TAKE ANY ACTIONS IT DEEMS APPROPRIATE.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND LEAVE IT AT THE LECTERN.
WHEN YOU COME FORWARD TO SPEAK, YOU'LL FIND THE SPEAKER'S CARDS ON THE TABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE CHAMBER.
WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR.
THERE SHOULD BE NO DIRECT EXCHANGES BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE.
PUBLIC COMMENTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES PER INDIVIDUAL WITH A TOTAL TIME LIMIT OF 60 MINUTES FOR ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS.
FOR EACH PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UNLESS MODIFIED BY THE CHAIR, COMMENTS MUST BE KEPT BRIEF, NON-REPETITIVE AND PROFESSIONAL IN NATURE.
TONIGHT'S FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS, EXCUSE ME, CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ZONE CHANGE 25 DASH 0 0 3 TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER, 18.65 SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS TO TITLE 18 ZONING AND AMEND SECTION 18.0 4.030 TERMS DEFINED AND SECTION 18.0 6.040 LAND USES OF TITLE 18 ZONING OF THE LAHABRA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 18.65.
UM, DO WE, DID WE RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE FOR THIS ITEM? NO, WE DID NOT.
[00:05:01]
DO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT? GOOD EVENING.WE DON'T HAVE A LENGTHY STAFF REPORT.
WE SIMPLY WANT TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW STAFF REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TIME TO FURTHER REFINE THE ORDINANCE AND WE'RE REQUESTING THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER CONTINUANCE TO THE SEPTEMBER 22ND MEETING.
AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF TO ASK SONYA.
WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYONE.
WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM, ANYONE, WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL CALL ON THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.
MAKE A MOTION CON TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ZONE CHANGE 25 DASH 0 0 0 3.
A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MANLEY AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOGAN CANNON.
EVERYONE PLEASE ENTER YOUR VOTES.
TONIGHT'S SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS DULY NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE.
25 DASH 0 0 0 5 AMENDING SECTION 18.0 4.030 OF CHAPTER 18.04 AND SECTION 18.0 6.040 OF CHAPTER 18.06 OF TITLE 18 OF THE LA HABER MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE SMOKE SHOPS AND TO REFLECT THAT NEW SMOKE SHOPS ARE PROHIBITED IN ALL ZONES.
DID WE RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE FOR THIS ITEM? NO, WE DID NOT.
AND LET'S HEAR THE STAFF REPORT.
SUSAN KIM, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
I'M GONNA GET YOU TO THIS MANUALLY.
WELL, IT'S JUST, I CAN'T EVEN, IS THIS FAR ON? CAN'T EVEN CLICK IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY'S OVER.
AT LEAST THE AIR CONDITIONING WORKS.
WE CAN, YEAH, IF WE CAN'T GET IT UP, WE CAN JUST DO THE SLIDES.
TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION WILL ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
HOW ARE SMOKE SHOPS DEFINED? HOW ARE SMOKE SHOPS REGULATED? HOW MANY SMOKE SMOKE SHOPS ARE THERE IN LA HABRA? WHY ARE SMOKE SHOPS A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH? WHAT ARE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES DOING? AND WHAT DOES THE CITY COUNCIL WANT US TO DO? SMOKE SHOP IS A TERM THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY DEFINED OR USED IN THE HARE MUNICIPAL CODE.
IT GENERALLY REFERS TO RETAILER WHERE THE MAIN PRODUCT IS TOBACCO.
TOBACCO RETAILERS ARE ADDRESSED IN TITLE
[00:10:01]
IX, PUBLIC PUBLIC PEACE AND WELFARE OF THE LA HARE MUNICIPAL CODE.SO SEPARATE FROM TITLE 18, WHICH WE USUALLY DEAL WITH, IT HAS TO DO WITH ZONING.
AND THESE REGULATIONS HAVEN'T BEEN AMENDED SINCE THEY WERE ADOPTED BACK IN 1999.
THEY DEFINE A TOBACCO RETAILER AS ANYONE THAT OPERATES A BUSINESS THAT SELLS TOBACCO.
SO THAT COULD BE ANYTHING FROM A GROCERY STORE TO A SMOKE SHOP.
AND IT REGULATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TOBACCO CAN BE SOLD, SUCH AS AGE RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIRED SIGNS, BUT IT DOES NOT REGULATE THE LOCATION.
TITLE 18, WHICH IS OUR ZONING CODE, TYPICALLY ADDRESSES WHERE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES MAY LOCATE WITHIN THE CITY.
THE ZONING CODE DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC ZONES IN WHICH TOBACCO RETAILERS OR SMOKE SHOPS MAY LOCATE ZONE.
THE ZONING
SORRY, I LOST MY, THAT'S OKAY.
UM, SO WHERE CAN A SMOKE SHOP LOCATE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ORDINANCE? THAT'S BEFORE YOU WILL AMEND THE ZONING CODE TO DEFINE A SMOKE SHOP, UM, UNDER ONE OF THESE THREE MEASURES.
SO, LIKE I SAID, US TYPICALLY MORE THAN, WELL IN THIS CASE, 50% OF THE TRANSACTIONS AT THE LOCATION INCLUDE THESE TYPES OF PRODUCTS AND IT WOULD PROHIBIT NEW SMOKE SHOPS IN ALL ZONES.
SO WHAT ARE THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR SELLING TOBACCO? TOBACCO RETAILERS REQUIRE A STATE LICENSE THAT NEEDS TO BE RENEWED ANNUALLY AND THE FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN PUBLIC SEIZURE AND, AND BUSINESS CLOSURE.
AND THESE, THIS, THE STATE LICENSE IS, AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT, ARE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
CALIFORNIA STATE LAW HAS SOME OF THE MOST STRINGENT AGE RELATED RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU SEE RIGHT HERE.
YOU HAVE TO BE 21 TO PURCHASE, YOU HAVE TO VERIFY THE PURCHASER'S AGE.
AND IT, UM, MORE RECENTLY, UM, PROHIBITS THE RETAIL SALE OF MOST FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FLAVOR ENHANCERS.
UM, STATE LAW ALLOWS CITIES, CITIES TO ADOPT MORE STRINGENT REGULATIONS AND IT ALLOWS US TO HAVE A LOCAL LICENSE OR A PERMIT.
SO IN LA HARA, THERE'S 68 LOCATIONS THAT HAVE THESE STATE LICENSES, AND THEY'RE FROM EVERYTHING FROM LARGE GROCERY STORES, CONVENIENCE MARKETS, DOWN TO, THERE'S TWO DONUT SHOPS AT SELL TAB TOBACCO AS WELL AS SMOKE SHOPS.
AND WHAT WE FOUND IN LOOKING OVER THE DATA IS THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 20 SMOKE SHOPS THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD MEET THE DEFINITION THAT IS PROPOSED TONIGHT.
ACCORDING TO THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, THE TOBACCO EPIDEMIC IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST HEALTH THREATS THE WORLD HAS EVER FACED, AND RESPONSIBLE FOR OVER 7 MILLION DEATHS ANNUALLY, AS WELL AS DISABILITY AND LONG-TERM SUFFERING FROM TOBACCO RELATED DISEASES.
LAHABRA HAS MORE THAN ONE TOBACCO RETAILER FOR EVERY 1000 RESIDENTS.
THE OVER CONCENTRATION OF TOBACCO LICENSES HAS BEEN NOTED BY PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCIES AS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO HIGHER PREVALENCE OF SMOKING.
THESE FINDINGS ARE PARTICULARLY APP APPLICABLE TO YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE INFLUENCED BY MARKETING CAMPAIGNS AND OVER, OVER CONCENTRATION HAS BEEN CORRELATED IN SOME CASES WITH ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS SUCH AS DELINQUENCY AND VIOLENCE.
SO WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OPTIONS ON HOW WE CAN REGULATE THESE THAT WE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL.
THE FIRST IS A MORATORIUM, WHICH IS A STRINGENT TEMPORARY MEASURE TO PROHIBIT A LAND USE.
IT REQUIRES A DOCUMENTED HEALTH SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE CONCERNS.
AND IT REQUIRES A FOURTH, FIFTH VOTE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
OTHER CITIES ALSO HAVE TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSES.
IT'S TYPICALLY ISSUED ADMINISTRATIVELY AND IT CAN BE REQUIRED TO BE RENEWED ANNUALLY.
SO THIS IS MORE LIKE A BUSINESS LICENSE AND THERE'S THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH, AND THAT'S A LAND USE OF TITLE.
THEN IT'S A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL AND IT REQUIRES A HEARING TO REVOKE 230 CITIES IN CALIFORNIA REQUIRE LOCAL LICENSES OR PERMITS AND THEY, IN ORANGE COUNTY, THEY INCLUDE ANAHEIM, BUENA PARK, SANTA ANA, STANTON, AND WESTMINSTER.
AND THERE'S VARIOUS WAYS THEY ADDRESS THE SMOKE SHOPS THAT WE LOOKED AT IN SEVERAL CITIES ACROSS, UM, CALIFORNIA IN GARDENA, THEY, AND THEY ADOPTED A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM, WHICH IS FOLLOWED BY AN ORDINANCE THAT PROHIBITED NEW SMOKE SHOPS IN STANTON.
THEY ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING TOBACCO RETAILER REGISTRATION, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO A LICENSE.
AND THEN IN 24, THEY ADOPTED A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THAT TOBACCO RETAILER REGISTRATION.
AND THEN IN NOVEMBER OF 2024, THEY ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE WITH MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS AND A TWICE A YEAR COMPLIANCE,
[00:15:01]
UM, CHECKS.ONE THING TO NOTE ABOUT THE TOBACCO RETAILER REGISTRATION OR A TOBACCO LICENSE IS THAT AS A WAY THAT CITIES CAN RAISE FUNDS IN ORDER TO DO THE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN ORDER TO GO OUT AND DO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE IN FULLERTON.
IN APRIL OF 2025, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE A TOBACCO SALES PERMIT FOR ALL TOBACCO RETAILERS IN A CUP FOR SMOKE SHOPS.
AND THEN IN ANAHEIM IN JUNE OF 2025, THEY ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRED ALL TOBACCO RETAILERS TO OBTAIN A TOBACCO RETAILER PERMIT.
THE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED WITH THE RENEWAL OF A BUSINESS LICENSE AND IT INCLUDED SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION.
SO HOW DID WE GET HERE? BACK IN APRIL, THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED A STAFF REPORT DISCUSSING THE FEASIBILITY OF BOTH PLACING MOR OF PLACING A MORATORIUM ON, UH, NEW SMOKE SHOPS.
THEN ON AUGUST FOUR, THEY RECEIVED A STAFF PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC CONTENTS COMMENTS AND FOLLOW.
THEN THE PRESENTATION WAS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SAW TONIGHT AFTER CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION, THEY DECIDED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO IMPACT ANY OF THE EXISTING TOBACCO RETAILERS, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TOBACCO RETAILERS OVER TIME.
AND THEY, CITY COUNCIL INITIATED THIS ZONE CHANGE TO PROHIBIT NEW SMOKE SHOPS.
AND THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO REQUESTED AN URGENCY ORDINANCE TO PLACE A 45 DAY MORATORIUM ON NEW SMOKE SHOPS, WHICH WAS ADOPTED ON AUGUST 18TH.
AND WE'RE EXPECTING IT TO BE, UM, EXTENDED AGAIN ON SEPTEMBER 15TH AFTER THE 45 DAY PERIOD ENDS.
SO BEFORE YOU, AS THE RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE FOR YOU, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEEN PREPARED, IF IT'S IMPROVED, CITY STAFF ANTICIPATES PRESENTING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A FIRST READING ON OCTOBER 6TH, A SECOND READING ON OCTOBER 20TH, AND THEN THE ORDINANCE WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS LATER.
AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
UM, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE REAL GENESIS OF THIS? WAS IT PUBLIC OUTCRY OR WAS IT JUST CONCERN FROM OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT THERE WAS SECONDARY EFFECTS AROUND SMOKE SHOPS OR, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHERE DID THIS COME FROM? AS I MENTIONED, THIS UH, ITEM WAS INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ AND MAYOR PRO TEM.
UM, MADRONA WAS THE SECOND ON IT.
AND THEY HAD HEARD PREVIOUS COMMENTS DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS ABOUT, UH, DURING PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THEIR MEETINGS AS WELL.
AS YOU MAY RECALL, WHEN WE BROUGHT FORWARD THE MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, WE DID GET SOME COMMENTS AT THAT HEARING ABOUT PROHIBITING SMOKE SHOPS.
SO WHAT, I GUESS WHAT MAKES THIS UNHEALTHIER THAN THE 68 OTHER PLACES YOU CAN BUY TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN THE TOWN IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM ATTENDING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS IT WAS GOAL OF CITY COUNCIL TO NOT ALLOW ANY NEW ONES TO COME IN TO BUSINESS.
UM, AND ALSO, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS WE HAVE IN LA HABRA? NO.
I WAS NOT DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.
THAT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS ITEM.
BUT THIS IS RELEVANT RESTAURANTS THAT SERVE FRIED FOODS.
WOULD IT BE SAFE TO SAY THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE FAST FOOD JOINTS IN THE HOP THAN THERE ARE SMOKE SHOPS? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
SEE, THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE US IS HEART DISEASE.
AND WHAT IS IMPLICATED MORE THAN SMOKING AS A RISK FACTOR IS OBESITY.
AND YET WE'RE NOT HEARING ANYTHING ABOUT RESTRICTING FAST FOOD, RESTAURANTS, DONUT SHOPS, WHICH WE HAVE.
I MEAN, SO MANY, SOME OF WHICH ALSO SELL TOBACCO.
APPARENTLY WE HAVE BAKERIES EVERYWHERE.
WE HAVE FRIED FOOD EVERYWHERE.
WE HAVE PLACES, RESTAURANTS, HIGH-END RESTAURANTS THAT SEND SELL ALCOHOL.
THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IS ALSO LINKED TO, TO THE RISK OF HEART DISEASE.
THE TOP 10 CAUSES OF DEATH IN THE US ARE HEART DISEASE, NUMBER ONE.
THREE IS COVID, FOUR ACCIDENTS, FIVE, STROKE, SIX, CHRONIC LOWER RESPIRATORY DISEASES, SEVEN, ALZHEIMER'S, EIGHT DIABETES, NINE CHRONIC LIVER DISEASE, AND 10 KIDNEY DISEASE.
AND WHAT'S IMPLICATED MORE THAN SMOKING IS OBESITY.
ALSO HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE AND HIGH CHOLESTEROL ALL RELATED TO BAD
[00:20:01]
DIETS, BUT YET THERE'S NO IMPETUS TO STOP OR PUT A MORATORIUM ON FAST FOOD CHAINS.UM, SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THE EMERGENCY HERE.
UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE, THE SLIDE WITH THE CITIES WHO HAD MORATORIUMS. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY SMOKE SHOPS GARDENA HAD BEFORE THEY ADOPTED THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM? I DO NOT, BUT THAT MAY BE IN THE STAFF REPORT FURTHER DOWN.
WE'VE GOT A COPY OF GAR GUARDIA'S ORDINANCE, WHICH PROBABLY DOES STATE THAT.
BUT I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW.
YEAH, BECAUSE 20 LOCATIONS JUST, I MEAN IT JUST, THERE, I DON'T SEE THE, THE EMERGENCY.
BUT IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY MORE QUESTIONS, PLEASE MM-HMM
I'M ALWAYS FORGETTING TO TURN IT.
I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.
I HAD A MILLION QUESTIONS AND YOU ANSWERED EACH AND EVERY ONE OF 'EM.
SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE TO ASK YOU ANY QUESTIONS.
I HAVE A GREAT UNDERSTANDING AND I UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF, OF ALCOHOL AND EACH ONE OF THESE ISSUES CAN BE PRESENTED INDEPENDENTLY.
'CAUSE THEY ALL HAVE INDEPENDENT DIFFERENCES.
BUT I'M FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON JUST SMOKE SHOPS.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WAS A GREAT, UH, PRESENTATION.
IT WAS VERY INFORMATIVE AND I HAD A MILLION QUESTIONS AND I DON'T, BECAUSE YOU ANSWERED THEM ALL.
SO WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THAT? YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.
THE PRESENTATION WAS OUTSTANDING.
I CAN I ASK A FEW QUESTIONS? UM, FOR ANAHEIM, UM, JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER, UM, DIRECTOR KIM, IN JUNE OF 2025, THEY DID THOSE THREE BOLD ITEMS, UM, REQUIRED THE RETAILERS TO OBTAIN A TOBACCO RETAILER PERMIT.
IS THAT LIKE THE TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSE, LIKE THAT REGULATORY PERMIT CORRECT.
THAT YOU REFERENCED ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE? CORRECT.
AND SO THAT'S A PERMIT THAT GETS ISSUED TYPICALLY ADMINISTRATIVELY.
IS THAT HOW IT'S ISSUED IN ANAHEIM? YES.
UM, AND THAT'S RENEWED ANNUALLY IN ADDITION TO THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE THAT'S RENEWED ANNUALLY.
AND THEN HOW ARE THEY ABLE TO, IF, YOU KNOW, UM, KIND OF DISTINGUISH, UH, THE HOURS OF OPERATION ON THOSE? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THEY DO ON THE RETAILER PERMIT, UH, INDIVIDUALLY OR IS IT KIND OF BROAD STROKE ACROSS THE BOARD? IT'S PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE PERMIT AND THE HOURS OF OPERATION WERE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN THEY ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE.
SO FOR ANAHEIM, THAT'S LIKE A STANDARDIZED THING.
SO, UH, ONE SMOKE SHOP COULDN'T BE OPEN UNTIL ONE WHILE ANOTHER ONE WAS ABLE TO BE OPEN UNTIL 2:00 AM OR IT WOULD HAVE MY UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR ORDINANCE.
AND THE RESOLUTION THAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT IS HELPING US WITH A LOT OF LANGUAGE.
JUST THE, LIKE THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS A SMOKE SHOP.
IT'S REALLY MAKING IT QUITE SIMPLE.
WE DEFINE IT AND THEN WE PROHIBIT IT.
AND WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL HAS A DESIRE TO, UM, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TOBACCO RETAILERS OVER TIME, I MEAN, THE THOUGHT THERE THAT WE'RE JUST NOT SAYING IS AS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOME OF THESE RETAILERS GO OUT OF BUSINESS THAT WE WOULD JUST NOT BE REPLACING THEM WITH A NEW SMOKE SHOP.
THEY COULD REPLACE, UH, WITH THE NEW SMOKE SHOP IF THEY WERE GOING TO THE SAME LOCATION THAT HAD A TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE AND A BUSINESS LICENSE ON THE DATE OF THE, UM, EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE.
SO BECAUSE THAT'S A LAND USE ISSUE MM-HMM
BUT AT, IF ANY NEW TOBACCO RETAILERS WERE TO COME IN ON A NEW LOCATION THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.
SO CUR CURRENTLY, WE'LL CALL IT A SMOKE SHOP SINCE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CALLING IT MM-HMM
UH, CURRENTLY A SMOKE SHOP TO OPEN IN THE CITY OF LAHABRA.
WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IF, IF TOMORROW I WANTED TO OPEN UP A SMOKE SHOP ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GET A LICENSE FROM THE STATE AS WELL AS A BUSINESS LICENSE FROM THE CITY.
AND I'M JUST, I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME MAYBE FOLLOWING THE LOGIC ON HOW WE'RE REDUCING ANYTHING OVER TIME.
SO ONE OF THEIR GOALS WAS TO REDUCE IT OVER TIME.
[00:25:01]
OUR LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES SECTION OF THE CODE, IF THAT LOCATION WHERE THERE WAS A SMOKE SHOP GOT TURNED INTO A DIFFERENT USE, UM, FOR INSTANCE A CARD SHOP, THEN IN THE FUTURE IT COULDN'T REVERT BACK TO A SMOKE SHOP.ONCE THAT USE HAS BEEN SWITCHED OUT FOR ANOTHER USE, IT CAN'T GO BACK TO THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE.
SO IN, IN MANY CASES, I MEAN THESE, THESE SMOKE SHOPS ARE GONNA BE OPERATING IN A LOCATION THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT PROBABLY THAT THE SHOP OWNER ITSELF OR THE OPERATOR DOESN'T OWN.
THE BUILDING THAT THEY'RE OPERATING IN, I THINK IS PROBABLY MORE COMMON THAN NOT.
YOU'D HAVE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A RETAIL SITE AND ONE OF THOSE SITES IN THAT RETAIL STRIP MALL, WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL IT, WOULD BE OPERATING AS A A SMOKE SHOP.
AND IF THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS, HOW IT'S WRITTEN.
IF THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS, IF IF THEY WERE ABLE TO BE REPLACED WITH A SMOKE SHOP, THAT WOULD BE OKAY, PROVIDED THE SMOKE SHOP'S ABLE TO GET THE LICENSE, YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE THINGS.
IF THE NEW OPERATOR OR IF THE LANDLORD, YOU KNOW, DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO PUT SOMEBODY ELSE IN THAT UNIT, THEN THAT LOCATION NO LONGER WOULD BE AN OPTION FOR A SMOKE SHOP IN THE FUTURE.
AND IN THE PAST, 'CAUSE I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT FOR, FOR QUITE SOME TIME AS WELL, AND I, I DO, I DON'T HAVE THE DATA.
UM, THIS, THE PRESENTATION'S HELPFUL BECAUSE IT GIVES YOU THE DATA, BUT THE 14, YOU KNOW, SMOKE SHOPS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, YOU CAN SEE THAT.
YOU CAN FEEL THAT I, I CAN SHARE, UM, SOME OF, YOU KNOW, THE SPIRIT OF WHERE THE CHAIR IS, IS COMING FROM, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW.
AND YOU, YOU DO DEFINITELY FEEL THE INFLUX IN, IN OTHER BUSINESSES AS WELL, BUT JUST TO FOCUS ON SMOKE SHOPS.
NOW, FOR THESE 14 SMOKE SHOPS, OR, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO GET BACK INTO IF THERE'S BEEN A SMOKE SHOP IN, IN HERE SINCE THE SIXTIES, WHAT WAS REQUIRED, YOU KNOW, TO GET THAT SMOKE SHOP IN THE SIXTIES IS PROBABLY VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY.
BUT FOR THESE 14 SMOKE SHOPS TO OPEN, OR FOR THE, THE SMOKE SHOPS THAT HAD OPENED IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCEDURE FOR THAT? THEY WERE CONSIDERED A RETAIL USE, WHICH IS PERMITTED BY WRIGHT IN COM, MOST COMMERCIAL ZONES BY CUP AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND PROHIBIT IN RE RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
SO, UM, FOR INSTANCE, IF THEY WERE GOING INTO A COMMERCIAL ZONE, THEY WOULD JUST NEED TO COME GET A BUSINESS LICENSE.
IF THEY WERE DOING ANY TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, THOSE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS WOULD NEED TO GET, UH, BUILDING PERMITS.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION, THEY WOULD NEED TO GO THE STATE TO GET THEIR TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE.
SO THE TOBACCO LICENSE FROM THE STATE NO MATTER WHAT.
SO FOR THE COMMERCIAL, UM, COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREAS VIA BUSINESS LICENSE THROUGH THE CITY, AND IF THERE WERE ANY TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, THAT WOULD HAVE TO REQUIRE SOME CITY INVOLVEMENT.
AND FOR THE RETAIL LOCATIONS, I, I, I MISSED THAT PART.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY'D BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER RETAIL USE, SO THEY'RE TREATED, I I USED A CARD SHOP, UM, SAY A HALLMARK STORE.
OR A PHONE STORE WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR.
BAKERY HAS SEPARATE LAND USE REQUIREMENTS IN OUR CODE.
UM, IS THAT TRUE OF LIKE ANY, LIKE RESTAURANT RESTAURANTS REQUIRE A CUP RESTAURANT REQUIRES A CUP UNLESS, YEAH, UNLESS THEY'RE ONE OF OUR, UM, TAKEOUT RESTAURANTS FOOD TO GO.
I MEAN, I, I, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SAVE MAYBE SOME OTHER COMMENTS THAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW FOR WHEN WE GET INTO DISCUSSION AND FOCUS MORE ON QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
BUT THE, I HAVE A THOUGHT HERE.
I JUST NEED TO LOOK AT THE, THE ZONING MAP IN FRONT OF ME.
AND I, WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT, I, I HAVE A COUPLE ANOTHER JUST QUICK QUESTIONS.
SO, SO THE 20 SMOKE SHOPS FROM 2008, SO BEFORE 2008, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SMOKE SHOPS IN THE CITY AT ALL.
WE DIDN'T HAVE A RECORD OF IT IN OUR BUSINESS LICENSES, NO.
AND I, IT COULD BE, THAT WAS AROUND THE TIME THAT WE AMENDED THE CODE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAME IN SEPARATELY AS OUR STORES.
I REALLY CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT PREVIOUS HISTORY.
'CAUSE WE, WE DID, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY OF 'EM ARE STILL LEFT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A, WE DID HAVE SMOKE SHOPS.
OTHER THAN THIS 20 YOU WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT HAVE COME AND GONE
[00:30:01]
OVER THE YEARS.UM, SO, SO, UH, I HAD A FOLLOW UP QUESTION WITH THAT AND I FORGOT, UH,
WHENEVER, UM, WITH CHAIR'S PERMISSION, UH, THE 68, UH, LOCATIONS WITH LICENSES, WE'RE ABLE TO DETERMINE LIKE THAT THOSE ARE ACTIVE LICENSES.
AND ARE THOSE RENEWED ANNUALLY THROUGH THE STATE? YEAH.
THE INFORMATION CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE STATE.
THERE'S A DATABASE OF ALL THOSE LICENSES AND THOSE WERE CROSS-CHECKED AGAINST OUR BUSINESS LICENSES TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAD BOTH.
AND IS, IS THAT AN ANNUAL RENEWAL PROCESS WITH THE STATE FOR THOSE? YES.
AND SO WE VERIFY THERE'S 68 THAT ARE ACTIVE THROUGH THE STATE THAT HAVE ACTIVE BUSINESS LICENSES.
AND, AND AS COMMISSIONER RAMSON WAS STATING, I MEAN, BEFORE 2008, WE CERTAINLY HAD SOME THAT WERE JUST WOULD BE IDENTIFIED TODAY AS SMOKE SHOPS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION TO REALLY DEFINE IT THAT WAY.
UM, SO FOR ALL OF THESE 20 SMOKE SHOPS THAT HAVE COME TO EXIST IN THE LAST, IS THAT 17 YEARS? UH, SINCE 2008, THAT'S WHAT OUR, OUR RECORD SHOWS US HERE ON THE PRESENTATION.
UM, NONE OF THOSE WOULD'VE REQUIRED A CUP? NO, THEY WERE TREATED AS A PERMITTED RETAIL USE UNLESS THEY WEREN'T IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THOSE WERE IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE BECAUSE IT IS SO EASY TO JUST GET A PERMITTED USE AND TO GO INTO THAT LOCATION.
THERE'S A LOT OF OUR USES REQUIRE CEPS.
RETAIL IS ONE OF THE FEW USES THAT DOESN'T.
WELL, AND I MEAN A SMOKE SHOP, IS IT, IT'S RETAIL.
SO FOR THEM TO GO INTO AN INDUSTRIAL AREA WOULDN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE FOR THEM.
UH, AS A BUSINESS OPERATOR, PROBABLY THE, AND SO FOR THE RETAIL USE, UH, NO CUP IS REQUIRED.
AND WHAT, UM, GUIDELINES WOULD THE CITY HAVE, IF ANY, AT ALL REGARDING HOURS OF OPERATION OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE? WE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO REQUIRE THEM TO COMPLY WITH ANY STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS OR THE REQUIREMENTS THAT I WAS TALKED ABOUT IN, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS TITLE IX, BUT IN THE CITY OF LA HARBOR, WE WENT THROUGH A PROCESS A FEW YEARS AGO WHERE WE LOOKED AT, UH, ELIMINATE OR MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE 24 HOURS A DAY VERSUS ONES THAT DON'T.
AND AT THAT TIME, THE COUNCIL DECIDED NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH HAVING A DIFFERENCE.
SO UNLESS THROUGH A CUP, THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE LIMITED, THERE'S NO OTHER, NOTHING ELSE TO LIMIT THOSE HOURS OP OF OPERATION.
UM, ANOTHER WAY TO SAY THAT IS WE DON'T HAVE ANY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY HOURS.
THERE'S, THERE'S, SO BECAUSE THE, THE SERVICE STATIONS, THE CONVENIENCE MARKETS, THE SEVEN 11, WHATEVER IT IS, I MEAN, IF THEY OPERATE 24 7 AND THEY HAPPEN TO BE, AND, AND I KNOW THAT THEY ARE ONE OF, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER MANY OF THOSE WE HAVE IN THE CITY, SOME OF THOSE 68 LOCATIONS, THEY'RE OPEN WHENEVER THEY DECIDE TO BE OPEN AND CORRECT.
AND AS THESE NEW 20 JUST SPECIFICALLY DEFINED SMOKE SHOPS HAVE COME TO EXIST, I MEAN, THEY, THEY COULD BE OPENED.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY IN THE CITY THAT ARE OPEN 24 HOURS A DAY, BUT, BUT THEY COULD BE.
WE DON'T HAVE A LIMITATION ON THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR RETAIL BUSINESSES.
AND THE RESOLUTION THAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT WOULDN'T BE MODIFYING HOW THOSE BUSINESSES OPERATE IN THAT WAY.
SO WE CAN STOP SMOKE SHOPS ALTOGETHER, UM, BY APPROVING THE RESOLUTION TO TONIGHT, UH, YOU KNOW, AT THE CITY COUNCIL'S RE REQUEST, UM, BUT WE'RE REALLY NOT DOING MUCH OF ANYTHING TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE EXISTING SMOKE SHOPS.
IF WE WANTED TO ADDRESS THE EXISTING TOBACCO RETAILERS, WE COULD LOOK AT DOING A TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSE.
IT WOULD REQUIRE A FEE ANALYSIS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD CHARGE A FEE AND WE'D NEED TO MAKE SURE THE FEE COVERED THE ACTUAL COST OF PROVIDING THE LICENSE AS WELL AS ANY ENFORCEMENT.
SO THAT WOULD BE A LONGER TYPE PROCESS.
IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT, UM, IF YOU CHOOSE TO, WELL, WHETHER OR NOT YOU, YOU'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT.
SO WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL, THOSE TYPES OF LICENSES ARE UNDER THE PURVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE NOT LAND USE ORDINANCES.
AND SO, UM, THEY COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR US TO PURSUE HAVING TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSES AT THE CITY LEVEL.
SO THEY'D NEED TO KNOW THAT IT'S TAKING ON THAT EXTRA BURDEN OF WORK TO PROCESS THE LICENSES
[00:35:01]
AS WELL AS DO THE ENFORCEMENT COMES WITH THE COST.YOU NEED STAFF TO, TO REVIEW THE LICENSES AND THEN YOU NEED STAFF TO GO OUT AND VERIFY THAT THEY'RE OPERATING ACCORDING TO ANY REQUIREMENTS.
WE HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, UM, IN ANAHEIM, AND I BELIEVE FULLERTON WAS LOOKING AT IT AS WELL, THEY HAVE DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS.
SO IF YOU HAVE A NEW TOBACCO RETAILER THAT COMES IN, IF WE TOBACCO RETAILER, NOT SMOKE SHOP, BECAUSE IF WE PROHIBIT SMOKE SHOPS, THEY CAN'T COME IN.
BUT IF WE HAVE ANOTHER RETAILER THAT WANTS TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING THEY SELL UP TO 50%, THEY, WE COULD HAVE DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT.
UM, WE COULD HAVE DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS FROM SCHOOLS.
THOSE ARE ALL OPTIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT WOULD GET MORE AT THE, HOW DO WE START REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LICENSES BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE ENFORCEMENT ON THE TOBACCO RETAILERS THERE ARE OUT THERE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ADOPT, UM, THEY ARE OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE TO WHETHER WHATEVER CODE REQUIREMENTS WE MIGHT ADOPT AS WELL, UH, OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WE MIGHT ADOPT AS WELL AS ANY STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS.
RIGHT NOW, UM, THE MAJOR MEANS FOR ENFORCEMENT IS, UM, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
IF IT'S A CITY, UM, ISSUE, TYPICALLY WE GO OUT AND LOOK FOR THE THINGS IN TITLE IX.
I'LL TELL YOU, WHEN I HEARD THAT THERE WERE TWO DONUT SHOPS THAT SOLD TOBACCO, I KIND OF QUESTIONED THE DATA.
AND I HAD OUR CON ENFORCEMENT INSPECTORS GO OUT AND THEY WENT OUT, SAW THE CORRECT SIGNAGE AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THERE AND BOUGHT SOME CIGARETTES AND, AND MOVED ON.
THE, UM, SO IT, I MEAN IT IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S BEEN THIS INFLUX AND THE TIMELINE FROM ALL THE OTHER CITIES THAT WERE CITED IN THE REPORT FOR US, UM, YOU KNOW, DOES INDICATE THAT OTHER CITIES, YOU KNOW, MAYBE HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS TO OUR CITY AND IN RECENT HISTORY HAVE, YOU KNOW, DONE THINGS TO TRY TO MITIGATE THAT HOWEVER THEY DECIDED TO DO THAT.
BUT IT, IT, IT DOES SEEM LIKE THAT THAT'S KIND OF A TREND.
HOWEVER, WE'RE JUST KIND OF TURNING AWAY FROM THE 68 EXISTING LOCATIONS.
AND, AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE 20 SMOKE SHOPS ARE PART OF THE 68, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO WE'RE JUST, HEY, WE LET THIS TRAIN GET WAY DOWN THE ROAD.
NOW WE DECIDE WE DON'T LIKE IT, WE'RE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT THESE 68 PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE, YOU KNOW, GOOD LUCK.
THAT WAS THE DIRECTION WE SEEN FROM COUNCIL.
AND I, AND TO BE SURE THERE WAS CLEAR DELIBERATION ABOUT WHETHER WE WANTED TO IMPACT EXISTING BUSINESSES OR IF THIS WAS JUST ABOUT NEW SMOKE SHOPS AND THE CITY COUNCIL MADE THE DECISION THAT THEY WOULD NOT WANT TO IMPACT EXISTING.
WELL, THEY HAVEN'T QUITE MADE THAT DECISION BECAUSE THE CODE AMENDMENT NEEDS TO GO TO THEM, BUT THEY DIRECTED US TO PREPARE A CODE AMENDMENT.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS? YEAH, I RE I REMEMBERED MY OTHER QUESTIONS.
SO BE HAVING TO GET A STATE LICENSE SIMILAR TO GETTING AN A, B, C TYPE OF PROCESS AND TO INSPECTOR STATE INSPECTORS COME OUT AND CHECK ANY OF THESE SHOPS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH THE RULES.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE STATE PROCESSES.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE TO.
I ONLY KNOW THAT THEY REQUIRE A STATE LICENSE AND THAT THEY KEEP A DATABASE OF THEM.
THEY KEEP A DATABASE OF THEM THAT IT'S, UM, ENFORCED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
AND THEN WHEN WE USING THE EXISTING SO THAT WE'RE STICKING IT TIED TO THE LAND.
SO IF I OWN MY SMOKE SHOP AND I SELL IT TO YOU, YOU CAN KEEP IT OPEN AND WE CAN GO DOWN THAT CHAIN FOR 20 OWNER OWNERS INDEFINITELY.
WE'RE NOT REALLY, WE'RE NOT REALLY GETTING RID OF ANYTHING AS LONG AS, AS LONG AS WHAT THEY'RE DOING COMPLIES WITH OUR LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE SECTION.
BUT IT, BUT IT WOULD BE SAFE TIED TO THE LAND, OTHER LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE TIED TO THE LAND.
I GOT, I GOT A COUPLE MORE DIRECTOR.
UM, THE FIRST QUESTION IS FOR IN, IN THE PRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, AS WE DEFINE A SMOKE SHOP, 20% OR MORE OF THE FLOOR DISPLAY AREAS DEVOTED TO, TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR PARAPHERNALIA, CERTAINLY THAT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S MEASURED.
I MEAN, 20% OF A HUNDRED PERCENT, RIGHT? SO WHEN A BUSINESS COMES TO THE CITY AND SAYS, I I WANT TO OPEN A BUSINESS, AND THEY FILL OUT THE APPLICATION JUST LIKE ANY BUSINESS WOULD,
[00:40:02]
HOW IS THAT SOMETHING THAT JUST PRACTICALLY GETS FLESHED OUT AT THAT POINT? OFTEN WE'RE ABLE TO TELL BY THE NAME OF THE BUSINESS OR THE TYPE OF PRODUCTS IT SAYS THAT THEY'LL BE SELLING, WHERE WE CAN ASK MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY THEY'LL BE SELLING.YOU KNOW, IN THE EXTENT THAT WE IDENTIFIED THAT A NEW SMOKE SHOP HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED AND WE WENT OUT THERE.
OR EVEN IF THERE COULD BE AN EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORE THAT DOESN'T SELL, UM, DOESN'T SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR DOESN'T DO IT ALL, YOU KNOW, THIR 20% OF FLOOR AREA AND THEY SWITCHED TO THAT, WE COULD GO OUT AND SEE HOW THAT CHANGED.
AND THEN WHAT IS, UH, I THINK THIS IS GOOD FOR, FOR EVERYBODY TO PROBABLY UNDERSTAND.
I MEAN, HOW, HOW DOES THE CITY KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT ITEM, 60% OF GROSS SALES ARE FROM THESE TYPES OF PRODUCTS.
HOW, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT FROM OUR BUSINESS LICENSE TAX RECEIPTS? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WE, WE WOULD ASK FOR THAT INFORMATION FROM THEM SO THAT WE WOULD KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, IF THAT, IF THEIR SALES TAX RECEIPTS WERE SHOWING THAT THEY WERE SELLING TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR NOT SELLING TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS GONNA BE AT THE POINT WHEN WE REALIZE THAT THERE'S A SMOKE SHOP THERE, IT'S YEAH, IT'S DONE RIGHT.
AND ANY ONE OF THOSE THREE, SO IF WE CAN'T VERIFY VERSUS THE TAX RECEIPTS, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE 20%.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S DIFFERENT MECHANISMS TO LOOK AT.
WE TOOK THIS DEFINITION FROM OTHER CITIES, UH, GARDENA AS AN EXAMPLE WHERE IT SEEMS TO BE WORKING FOR THEM.
AND I JUST DON'T KNOW THE, THE MECHANICS OF THAT ARE JUST FASCINATING TO ME.
AND, AND I I, I DON'T MEAN TO BELABOR THIS, BUT YOU KNOW, THE CITY COUNCIL THINKS IT'S IMPORTANT AND WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.
I I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TOO, SO LET'S HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
THAT DOESN'T SEEM, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM VERY, VERY FOOLPROOF TO ME.
UM, IT, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE, OKAY, I COULD OPEN UP A STORE AND I COULD MAKE SURE THAT I DON'T HAVE 20% OR MORE OF TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS IN MY STORE.
AND MY, MY SALES, I DON'T KNOW THE MECHANICS BEHIND THAT.
SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO, EVERY TIME THAT SOMEBODY RINGS UP TOBACCO ON MY REGISTERS JUST SAYS CHIPS AND, AND THOSE GET TURNED INTO THE CITY AS PART OF THEIR TAX.
SO THAT'S THE MECHANICS THAT I'M ASKING ABOUT.
AS YOU KNOW, TOBACCO PRODUCTS ARE TAXED DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER PRODUCTS.
SO YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THAT IF THEY WERE, UM, IF THEY WEREN'T IDENTIFYING THEM AS TOBACCO PRODUCTS, THAT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT TAX FRAUD.
AND THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION THERE, I SUPPOSE, RIGHT? LIKE CASH SALES AND, AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
UH, AND THEN 50% OR MORE OF THE TRANSACTIONS.
AND SO IS THIS PART OF THE ELEMENTS DIRECTOR THAT, LIKE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL'S POINT OF VIEW, YOU, YOU WERE THERE FOR THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND, AND I HEARD THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL, BUT DO YOU BELIEVE THAT KIND OF MONITORING ALL OF THAT, IF WE WERE TO OPEN MORE SM SMOKE SHOPS IN THE FUTURE, WOULD JUST BE PRETTY TEDIOUS AND SO IT'S EASIER JUST TO SAY NO MORE? WELL, SO AS INDICATED IN THE INFORMATION, THERE WERE 10 THAT WERE OPENED OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, SO TO A YEAR, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? SO I, I KNOW THAT THE, SO 14 OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS YOU SAID? YEAH.
I'M SORRY, 14 OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
AS THOSE LICENSES ARE COMING IN, BUSINESS LICENSES ARE COMING IN, PLANNING STAFF REVIEWS EVERY BUSINESS LICENSE TO MAKE SURE IT'S A USE THAT'S PERMITTED IN THAT ZONE.
AN INVESTIGATION COULD START AT THAT POINT, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA BE NECESSARY IF, IF THE, IF THE RESOLUTION TONIGHT'S APPROVED, NONE OF THAT'S GONNA BE NECESSARY.
IT WOULD BE NECESSARY IN, WE WOULD NOT SIGN OFF ON THE BUSINESS LICENSE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A USE THAT'S PROHIBITED.
BUT, BUT FOR THE TW FOR THE 20 SMOKE SHOPS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY, WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THOSE.
SO STAFF IS NEVER GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THEIR GROSS SALES AND ALL OF THAT FOR THOSE 20.
STAFF'S NOT GONNA HAVE TO DO ANY OF THAT WORK AT THIS POINT? NO.
IF WE DON'T APPROVE ANY OTHER, IF SMOKE SHOPS ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO OPEN IN THE CITY OF LAHABRA, ONCE THE RESOLUTION'S PASSED, UNLESS, YOU KNOW, A, A RESOLUTION SUBSEQUENTLY WERE TO MODIFY THAT OR CHANGE THAT OR REMOVE THAT, STAFF'S NEVER GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT ANY OF THESE THINGS.
AND THIS WORK IS JUST ELIMINATED COMPLETELY TO PROHIBIT A USE.
WE NEED TO DEFINE IT AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A DEFINITION.
AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE THE DEFINITION AND IT'S DEFINED, THEN WE SAY, OKAY, WE HA WE KNOW WHAT THAT'S CALLED.
WE JUST DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
AND SO THE WORK'S NOT NECESSARY.
IT COULD BE IF A USE CAME IN ILLEGALLY.
[00:45:01]
AND THEN THE LAST THING FOR NOW IS THE, IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU TALKED ABOUT, UM, JUST WHEN ON, ON THE PAGE WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE CONCERNS, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, THE RETAILERS IN THE HA OR ANYWHERE FOR THAT MATTER, YOU KNOW, THE HEALTH CONCERNS, UM, THE OVER CONCENTRATION HAS BEEN CORRELATED IN SOME CASES WITH ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS SUCH AS DELINQUENCY AND VIOLENCE.DO WE HAVE ANY RECORD OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD KIND OF LINK THAT TO THE SMOKE SHOPS, UH, THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY IN THE CITY? THE CHIEF OF POLICE WAS ASKED THAT AT THE COUNCIL MEETING AND HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SAY WHETHER THERE WAS A RECORD OF IT.
SO WHERE DO WE GET THAT FROM? THE INFORMATION THAT'S THERE IS FROM THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT, IT'S PART OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS COMPLETED FOR THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY ASSESSMENT, WHICH DETERMINED THAT THE CITY OF LA HABRA HAS MORE TOBACCO, RE HAS AN ABOVE AVERAGE TOBACCO RECENT LICENSE, RETAIL LICENSE, NUMBER OF TOBACCO RECENT LICENSE,
AND OVER THE LAST, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS AS 14 OF THOSE SMOKE SHOPS HAVE COME TO EXIST IN LAHABRA, UH, I HAVE NOT HEARD THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, WEIGH IN, IN ANY WAY AT ANY TIME PUBLICLY ABOUT, HEY, THIS ISN'T GOOD FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, CAN WE PLEASE STOP THIS? ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING? I AM NOT AWARE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
WHAT I CAN POINT YOU TO IS, IN ANAHEIM, THEY DID SOME SIGNIFICANT POLICE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE SMOKE SHOPS IN THAT CITY, WHICH IS WHAT LED TO THEIR TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE.
AND SO IF WE BELIEVE THAT THE 20 IS OVER CONCENTRATED, AND IF WE BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE REALISTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS ATTRIBUTED OR TIED TO THOSE IN SOME WAY, IT'S JUST PERPLEXING TO ME THAT WE DON'T WANNA DO ANYTHING TO ADDRESS THOSE.
UM, IT'S LIKE YOU JUST GOT IN WHEN THE GETTING WAS GOOD AND WE'LL JUST DEAL WITH IT AS A CITY AND, AND THIS IS HOW WE'RE DEALING WITH IT.
UH, YOU WOULD LIKE TO, AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION, YOU COULD RECOMMEND IT, RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL LOOK AT WAYS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF, IS THAT WITHIN OUR TOBACCO RETAILERS? IS THAT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW? YOU CAN CERTAINLY INCLUDE IT IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
THERE'LL BE THIS DELIBERATION WILL BE A PART OF THE STAFF REPORT, THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY CAN CONSIDER THAT IN WHAT THEY, THEY BRING FORWARD.
AS I MENTIONED, THE TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE IS A GOOD WAY TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH IS WHY IT'S NOT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
OF, OF ALL THE CITIES THAT YOU LOOKED AT AND, AND YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT ALL 230.
DID ANY OF OF THE CITIES TAKE THE, UH, A VERY SIMILAR APPROACH TO WHAT WE'RE WE'RE DOING AND PROPOSING HERE TONIGHT? YES.
THIS EXAMPLE IS DIRECTLY FROM GARDENA.
SO IN MARCH OF 23, THEY ADOPTED A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM.
AND THAT'S THE, IS THAT WHAT'S EXPIRING? YES.
IN 40, IN 45 DAYS UNLESS IT'S, UM, EXTENDED.
AND THEN WHEN, WHEN THEY GOT TO THE POINT WHERE THEY DID WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT, THEY WERE ABLE TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT NEW SMOKE SHOPS.
DO YOU KNOW IF GARDENA DID ANYTHING TO ADDRESS THE EXISTING ONES? UM, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING.
WE CAN ONE, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
IT, IT WASN'T A PART OF THE RECORD THAT I REVIEWED FOR THEM.
I I JUST HAVE THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE MORATORIUM? WHAT IS THE POINT OF PROHIBITING NEW SMOKE SHOPS? JUST, I MEAN, I I'M HEARING REASONS IN SUPPORT OF IT THAT FRANKLY I'M JUST NOT BUYING.
SO I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE POINT IS.
LIKE WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEY HAVE DIRECTED US TO DO THIS.
SO WOULD YOU, BECAUSE IF HEALTH WAS THE REAL REASON, RIGHT? IF, IF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY WAS THE REAL REASON FOR THIS, WOULDN'T WE BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT RETAILERS WHO SELL LARGER VOLUMES THAN SMALL BUSINESSES? BECAUSE THESE SMOKE SHOPS ARE SMALL BUSINESSES, RIGHT.
THESE DONUT SHOPS ARE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT SELL TOBACCO, BUT WALMART SELLS TOBACCO.
YOU KNOW, UH, ALL THE GROCERY STORES SELL TOBACCO.
WE'RE NOT GONNA BE PLACING A MORE A MORATORIUM ON THOSE RETAILERS.
[00:50:01]
LARGER VOLUMES OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS THAN A SMOKE SHOP IF HEALTH WAS THE REAL REASON.AREN'T WE MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE LARGER RETAILERS? YOU ARE CORRECT IN WHAT'S BEFORE YOU.
TONIGHT IS A PROHIBIT PROHIBITION ON SMOKE SHOPS.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING ELSE.
I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, BUT IF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS, YEAH, YEAH.
WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE WILL HEAR FIRST FROM ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
NOW WE WILL HEAR FROM THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ITEM.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM NOW AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
YOU'RE NOT, I'M NOT READY FOR YOU.
I, I, AGAIN, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THIS.
UM, I, 'CAUSE AS YOU POINTED OUT, UM, A SMOKE SHOP THAT'S 800 SQUARE FEET, A HUNDRED PERCENT SELLING TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND I'M ASSURING THIS NOT JUST THE TOBACCO, BUT THE PARAPHERNALIA THAT GOES WITH IT IS GOING TO BE WAY SMALLER THAN THE FOOTPRINT OF A LARGE GROCERY STORE THAT'S SELLING PROBABLY MORE TOBACCO.
BUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT 20% OF THEIR BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, IT, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THESE GUYS ARE BEING SINGLED OUT.
AND, AND I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND WHY.
'CAUSE TYPICALLY I'M, I'M MORE FAMILIAR WITH, UM, DEALING WITH ALCOHOL AND YOU KNOW, WITH THOSE, WHEN YOU HAVE HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF ALCOHOL IN PLACES, THEN YOU GET SECONDARY EFFECTS.
YOU KNOW, YOU GET GANGS HANGING OUT, YOU GET, YOU KNOW, TRASH AND GRAFFITI AND ALL THAT STUFF.
SO IT DOES, I'M, I'M NOT SEEING ANY INFORMATION BEFORE ME TONIGHT THAT WE'RE GETTING ANY SECONDARY EFFECTS FROM THESE SMOKE SHOPS.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE CAUSING A PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO ME.
BUT AGAIN, I DIDN'T, SUSAN DOESN'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, ANY INFORMATION ABOUT SECONDARY EFFECTS.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, I ASKED HER AND THE POLICE EITHER EITHER DIDN'T INVESTIGATE 'EM OR THEY, THEY'RE SAYING WE DON'T HAVE THEM.
SO I'M, I'M, I'M JUST NOT SURE WHERE TO GO WITH THIS.
AND, AND I MEAN, I, I KNOW THINGS ARE NOT BLACK AND WHITE, YOU KNOW, IN LIFE SOMETIMES AS AS MAYBE I OR OTHERS MIGHT WISH THAT THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LINE IS, IS BEING DRAWN IN THE SAND AT THIS POINT IN TIME BY CITY COUNCIL AND THESE ARE, ARE THEIR DESIRES.
IT, IT IS HARD THOUGH WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW, ACCEPT THAT THERE'S A LOT OF LEEWAY FOR THE 68, YOU KNOW, RETAILERS IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW AND, AND THE 20 THAT ARE JUST EXCLUSIVELY SMOKE SHOPS.
I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN SOME WAYS, LIKE I'M TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF, OF MY MOUTH.
I, I SHARED THE, SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS.
I THINK COMMISSIONER RAMSON THAT YOU BROUGHT UP AND, AND SOME OF THE, THE CONCERNS THAT, UM, CHAIR, MY MACHA, UM, BROUGHT UP.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, FEEL GREAT THAT ON ONE HAND WE'RE SAYING, WELL THESE ARE ARE NOT GREAT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT LET'S JUST LEAVE THE 20 THAT EXIST, YOU KNOW, OPERATING HOWEVER THEY OPERATE.
AND, AND I, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T WANT TO SINGLE ANY SPECIFIC BUSINESS OUT, BUT I KNOW THAT, THAT THERE ARE SOME SMOKE SHOPS IN THE CITY THAT ARE OPERATING, UM, WELL INTO THE MORNING AND
AND THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS, THERE'S LOTS OF DISCUSSION, THERE'S LOTS SOMETIMES OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND FEEDBACK.
AND JUST BECAUSE YOU HAPPEN TO BE IN A COMMERCIAL USE, AND MAYBE THIS MIGHT TURN INTO A QUESTION, UM, MAYBE COMMISSIONER RAMSEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS.
BUT IF A RESTAURANT WANTED TO OPEN IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE AND WAS MAKING NO TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, WOULD A CUP BE REQUIRED? WELL, IF THEY, IF THEY HAVE THE CUP ALREADY AND THEY DON'T MAKE ANY CHANGES, IT'S JUST A CHANGE OF OWNER OR SOME MINOR INTERIOR CHANGES.
A NEW, BUT A NEW, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD NOT NEED A NEW CUP, BUT A NEW RESTAURANT, LIKE IF THERE WAS A NEW RESTAURANT THAT WAS GONNA GO ON AT THE NORTHGATE, YOU KNOW, SHOPPING CENTER
[00:55:01]
AND THE EX, THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER, NOT THE CLOSED DOWN ONE.SO LIKE SMOKE AND FIRE IS CLOSED, RIGHT? YEAH.
THEY WENT AWAY AND THERE'S THAT CUP, I BELIEVE IS STILL ACTIVE.
SO IF A NEW RESTAURANT ACTIVE, THAT PROPERTY OWNER COULD FIND ANOTHER RESTAURANT TO COME IN AND TAKE THAT SPOT WITH THAT CUP THAT'S BEEN APPROVED.
NOW THERE'S, AS LONG AS THE NEW BUSINESS COMPLIES WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE SO FAST FORWARD, CVS CLOSES RIGHT THERE.
AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT IN A RESTAURANT WHERE CVS WAS, WE'D, THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE A CUP FOR THAT.
THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S A CHANGE OF LAND USE.
AND WE, AND WE SEE THAT QUITE A BIT AND ATTACH TO THOSE CS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS LIKE A HUGE CONCERN ALWAYS IS HOURS OF OPERATION AND FOR A, A SMOKE SHOP THAT JUST KIND OF SKIRTED BY, UM, 'CAUSE OF HOW THINGS WERE WRITTEN IN, IN THE CODE IS, SO WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE US DO SOME SORT OF A MOTION WHERE WE FORWARD IT TO THE COUNCIL THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE THIS MODIFIED WITH HOURS OF OPERATION? WELL, ON THE EXISTING ONES, IN ADDITION TO NOT ALLOWING NEW ONES, I'M NOT SURE THE CHAIR, I'M NOT SURE THE CHAIR WOULD LIKE THAT.
I, I, I COULD TELL YOU RIGHT NOW HOW I'M GONNA VOTE.
I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW I'M GONNA VOTE NO ON A MORATORIUM.
AND I HAVE A LIST OF REASONS WHY NOT.
YOU KNOW, NOT JUST THAT THIS IS LITERAL DISCRIMINATION LEAVES US OPEN TO, UM, LAWSUITS.
I MEAN THAT, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST THING THAT THAT GOT LOOKED AT BECAUSE I KNOW MUNICIPALITIES ARE BEING SUED FOR THIS KIND OF THING.
UM, BUT I WOULD SAY, I MEAN WELL LET'S, LET'S, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU GUYS WERE TALKING ABOUT FIRST.
LET'S, LET'S FIGURE THAT OUT FIRST AND THEN I'LL TELL YOU WHY I'M GONNA VOTE NO ON THIS.
'CAUSE THERE'S NO WAY I'M GONNA VOTE.
I MIGHT BE AMENABLE TO A CUP SOMETHING REQUIRING A CUP OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THE TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT.
BUT I'M ABSOLUTELY AGAINST DISCRIMINATING AND IT'S AGAINST A BUSINESS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR VICES.
WELL, BECAUSE TO, TO GO TO BACK TO MY SCENARIO AND THE MORATORIUM, JUST FOR CLARITY, I THINK IT'S ALREADY IN EFFECT.
RIGHT? SO, SO THAT, THAT IS WHAT IT IS.
THE, THE RESOLUTION ILL-ADVISED MORATORIUM.
AND THE RESOLUTION TO ADOPT, YOU KNOW, THE ORDINANCE IS, IS WHAT'S BEFORE US.
UM, BUT TO GO BACK TO MY CVS, IF THAT CVS, YOU KNOW, WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, OKAY, THAT'S GONE AND WE'RE GONNA OPEN A RESTAURANT THERE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CUP.
BUT IF THE CVS WAS GONE AND WE DON'T WANNA OPEN UP A RESTAURANT THERE, UM, AND LET'S SAY THIS HAPPENED SIX MONTHS AGO BEFORE THE MORATORIUM WAS IN EFFECT, A SMOKE SHOP COULD HAVE OPENED THERE AND COULD BE OPENED 24 HOURS A DAY WITHOUT A CUP.
WE WOULD NEVER, THE CITY DIDN'T HAVE A MECHANISM TO REALLY CONTROL HOURS OF OPERATION IN THAT EXAMPLE.
WE'VE ONLY HAD IT FOR 45 DAYS THAT THE MORATORIUMS BEEN IN PLACE.
WHICH GOES ME BACK TO AUGUST 5TH OR SOMETHING WRITTEN IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE MORATORIUMS IN PLACE FOR ANOTHER 45 DAYS.
IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS IT'S ONLY BEEN IN PLACE FOR 45, 45 DAYS IS COMING TO AN END, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO ADOPT NINE.
THEY ADOPTED IT ON AUGUST 18TH FOR THE FIRST TIME.
45 DAYS FROM AUGUST 18TH FROM AUGUST, AUGUST 18TH.
SO, UM, STAFF IS PLANNING TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR NEXT MEETING TO ASK THEM TO EXTEND IT ANOTHER 10 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS.
WHAT IF WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE AND WE WANT THE COUNCIL TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM FOR ANOTHER YEAR AND TO LOOK INTO SOME OF THESE THINGS IN MORE DETAIL.
WELL, I, AGAIN, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING CLOSE TO THAT, UH, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING THAT WE'RE, WE CAN RECOMMEND, THIS IS ALL ON, ON THE RECORD, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I'M SURE THE CITY COUNCIL IS, IS REALLY EXCITED TO LISTEN TO THESE CONVERSATIONS.
UM, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU SOME OF 'EM ALREADY KNOW MY OPINION.
BUT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT MOVING A RESOLUTION TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MORATORIUM TONIGHT.
SO THIS IS JUST, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION FOR THEM TO HEAR AND MAYBE, WELL, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THEY ADOPT THE, THE ORDINANCES DRAFTED.
WELL, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THAT ORDINANCE PROBABLY ISN'T GONNA GET PASSED BY US, SO, BUT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO RECOMMEND IT.
WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
AND, AND SO RIGHT NOW, LOOK WHAT THERE'S FOUR OF US.
SO IF IT WAS A TWO, TWO VOTE, IT WOULDN'T PASS.
WELL, I, I, FOR EXAMPLE, I, WE, WE KNOW WHERE THE CHAIR STANDS.
I I, I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST SAY WHY I STAND WHERE I STAND.
BECAUSE THERE ON THE, FOR ME, IT'S NOT JUST NO, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A RE I HAVE REASONS.
UM, THE FIRST ONE IS THE LOSS OF TAX REVENUES.
WERE YOU AWARE THAT CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA FUNDS TOBACCO CONTROL PROGRAMS WITH TOBACCO TAXES? THAT'S HOW WE FUND THOSE PROGRAMS THROUGH TOBACCO TAXES.
[01:00:01]
WE JUST PASSED A TAX INITIATIVE IN LA HABRA, UM, TO MAKE SURE WE COULD CONTINUE FUNDING THE CITY AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS.I SUPPORTED THIS INITIATIVE, I WALKED IT, WORKED ON THIS INITIATIVE, AND YET NOW WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE BASICALLY TURN AWAY TAX REVENUE.
BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND, TOBACCO IS TAXED DIFFERENTLY.
IT'S TAXED AT A HIGHER RATE THAN OTHER RETAIL, JUST LIKE ALCOHOL.
AND WE USE THOSE TAXES TO FUND TOBACCO CONTROL PROGRAMS. UM, WHY ARE WE RISKING THROWING AWAY TAX REVENUE, UM, WHEN THERE'S A RISK OF THE RISE OF A GRAY AND BLACK MARKET? WHY ARE WE GONNA GIVE THAT, THAT REVENUE TO THE BLACK MARKET WHEN WE CAN HAVE IT IN OUR MUNICIPALITY? THAT'S JUST BAD BUSINESS.
AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THIS PROMOTES THE IDEA THAT SOME VICES ARE MORE ACCEPTABLE, ACCEPTABLE THAN OTHERS.
DESPITE WHAT DATA AND EVIDENCE TELLS US THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE IN THE US OF DEATH IS HEART DISEASE.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE UNDERLYING CAUSE BEING A ATHEROSCLEROSIS, WHICH IS FATTY DEPOSITS BUILDING UP ON THE WALLS OF THE ARTERIES THAT CARRY BLOOD TO YOUR HEART.
IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HEALTH STUFF, THEN THESE ARE THINGS THAT ALSO NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR A MORATORIUM ON OTHER BUSINESSES THAT, THAT CAUSE DIFFICULTIES WITH HEALTH.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THIS ONE PARTICULAR INDUSTRY.
AND I WONDER WHY, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR SOME VICES.
AND SOME VICES ARE OKAY, BUT SOME ARE NOT.
AND I JUST DON'T BUY INTO THAT.
YOU KNOW, I, I JUST, I FIND THAT CITING HEALTH CONCERNS IN THIS CONTEXT IS DISINGENUOUS.
'CAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THINGS THAT ARE FAR WORSE.
I MEAN, WHAT'S THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH FOR CHILDREN? I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO ANSWER THAT.
I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM KNOWS THAT.
UM, AND THIS ALSO SMACKS OF PROTECTING EXISTING BUSINESSES FROM COMPETITION.
I WANT TAX REVENUE IN THIS CITY.
I WANT US TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT ALCOHOL SALES TAX.
I WANT US TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT TOBACCO SALES TAX, ALL, YOU KNOW, AND, AND BRING MONEY INTO OUR ERS.
UM, BUT WHAT THIS DOES, AND THIS, YOU KNOW, AND I WANT FROM AS MANY SOURCES AS POSSIBLE, WHAT THIS DOES IS IT CREATES AN UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE PENALIZING SMALL BUSINESSES BECAUSE, WHAT IS IT, 20 OR MORE OF THE 20% OR MORE OF THE FLOOR DISPLAY AREAS DEVOTED TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
60% OF GROSS SALES ARE FROM TOBACCO PRODUCTS, OR 50% OR MORE OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE FOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
BUT YET WE CAN HAVE A LARGE RETAILER, WHICH SELLS WAY MORE TOBACCO, WAY MORE ALCOHOL, BUT WE'RE GONNA ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
BUT WE'RE GONNA KILL ANY NEW BUSINESS IN FAVOR OF THE BIG BUSINESSES.
I MEAN, LARGE COMPANIES CAN PAY FOR CS, THEY CAN SELL THE SAME PRODUCTS, AND THEY CAN BENEFIT FROM THESE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST SMALL BUSINESSES.
IT, IT JUST DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT.
WHY ARE WE PROTECT, WHY, I MEAN, WE SHOULD BE PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESSES AND JUST ON A PERSONAL LIBERTY TIP, ADULTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONSUME AND MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES REGARDING PURCHASING LEGAL PRODUCTS.
AND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, OR WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO IS REALLY PATERNALISTIC.
AND I, FRANKLY, I'M NOT REALLY IN FAVOR PATERNALISTIC ARGUMENTS.
YOU KNOW, I'M AN ADULT WITH AGENCY AND I DON'T WANT YOU TELLING ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT BUY, WHERE I CAN OR CANNOT BUY IT IF IT'S LEGAL.
UM, I, I THINK THAT AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN COMMERCIAL ZONES, I THINK THEY'RE FINE.
I DON'T WANT THEM IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
I DON'T WANT THEM BY SCHOOLS, THAT SORT OF THING.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM RESTRICTING WHERE THEY OPERATE.
BUT THE IDEA OF SAYING, WE DON'T WANT YOUR KIND OF BUSINESS HERE SMACKS OF DISCRIMINATION AND JUST THIS IDEA THAT SOME TYPES OF BUSINESSES ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TOBACCO.
I AM ALLERGIC TO TOBACCO SMOKE.
I HATE IT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M NOT GONNA, I'M NOT GONNA DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY SMELL TOBACCO AT OR SELL TOBACCO.
UM, THE OTHER THING IS, I THINK THAT PART OF THE DRIVE BEHIND THIS MORATORIUM OF SMOKE SHOPS IS THE FACT THAT THEY DO SELL, UM, CANNABIS THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO CANNABIS PRODUCTS.
AND I THINK THERE'S A BIT OF DISCRIMINATION, A BIT OF DISCRIMINATORY INTENT THERE.
I, I, I KNOW THAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ARE GETTING SUED FOR THIS KIND OF THING, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD WANNA OPEN OURSELVES UP TO THESE KIND OF LAWSUITS.
'CAUSE I GOTTA TELL YOU, IF I WANTED TO OPEN UP A SMOKE SHOP IN HERE AND I KNEW ABOUT YOUR MORATORIUM, I WOULD SUE YOU GUYS IF IT WAS ME.
UM, LIKE IF, IF I WAS A BUSINESS OR, OR SOME SORT OF ASSOCIATION THAT REPRESENTS THESE BUSINESSES, I'D BE ALL OVER THAT, ALL OVER IT BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE TO
[01:05:01]
REGULATE AND TO SAY, HEY, ALL HOURS OF OPERATION, YOU CAN'T OPERATE IN THESE ZONES.BUT TO SAY, WE JUST DON'T WANT YOUR BUSINESS HERE BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU SELL IT, IT JUST MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE TO ME.
AND, AND I, AND ALSO TO GO BACK TO THE, ARE WE SAYING THAT TOBACCO CAUSES DELINQUENCY? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? BECAUSE I, THAT JUST SEEMS KIND OF SILLY AND I I JUST DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S ANY SORT OF EMERGENCY REQUIRING CITY ACTION HERE.
I MEAN, CALIFORNIA LAWS ARE ALREADY THE MOST STRINGENT IN THE, IN THE COUNTRY.
I MEAN, WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO DO? THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M GONNA BE VOTING NO, ABSOLUTELY NO ON A MORATORIUM, BUT I'D BE WILLING TO DISCUSS THINGS LIKE COP PS AND TOBACCO RETAIL AND, YOU KNOW, LIMITATIONS.
BUT MORATORIUMS, NO, NO MORE LAWSUITS AGAINST OUR CITY.
I I, I WON'T BE MAKING THE MOTION.
SO IF IF IT COMES BEFORE US, I, I WOULD PROBABLY BE A NO VOTE.
UM, BUT I WON'T MAKE THE MOTION SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
A MOTION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MADE TONIGHT.
UM, JUST MATTER OF, OF RECORD, RIGHT.
WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO SEND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL AND IF WE ALL VOTE NO, THE RECOMMENDATION IS NO
SO I, I, OF COURSE, CITY ATTORNEY DO, DO WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TONIGHT? THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM IS FOR YOU TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SAYING THEY DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS ORDINANCE, THEN YOUR MOTION AND RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE.
HOWEVER, IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION.
AND ONCE IT GETS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, IT'S UP TO THEM TO DECIDE WHETHER TO MOVE IT FORWARD.
THEY'RE NOT BOUND BY YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REVISIT THIS.
UM, I IF, IF THEY WANT TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM AT THEIR NEXT MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, UM, I I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT.
UM, COMMISSIONER RAMSON, I KNOW YOU SUGGESTED MAYBE, YOU KNOW, TAKING A, A YEAR, UM, TO KIND OF RE-LOOK AT THAT.
THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S HOW MUCH LONGER YOU CAN EXTEND IT FOR, RIGHT? I WOULD A YEAR AND FIVE DAYS OR WHATEVER IT WAS, OR I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
I, MADAM CHAIR, WOULD YOU BE SUPPORTIVE OF, OF RECOMMENDING THAT? I HAVE MORE TO SAY, BUT I'LL STOP THERE.
ARE YOU ASKING IF, IF I'M IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION THAT WOULD EXTEND THE MORATORIUM FOR A YEAR? I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT.
UM, SO WHAT I WILL CONTINUE TO SAY IS, I, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.
AND OVER THE COURSE OF THAT YEAR, WHAT I'D LIKE CITY COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER IS WHAT WE'RE DOING TO REGULATE THE EXISTING SMOKE SHOPS OR RETAILERS WITH A TOBACCO LICENSE.
WHAT CAN WE DO, UM, LEGALLY AND WHAT ARE WE DOING TO REGULATE THOSE? BECAUSE IT, IT DOESN'T SEEM, DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT THAT, GO BACK TO MY EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, CVS COULD CLOSE AND A SMOKE SHOP COULD GO IN THERE AND THEY COULD BE OPEN 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.
AND IF WE REALLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND THESE SMOKE SHOPS, THEN, THEN LET'S, YEAH, MAYBE MADAM CHAIR, MAYBE A PROVE IT, BUT MAYBE B LET'S, LET'S PRETEND LIKE WE ACTUALLY DO BELIEVE THAT THEN AND, AND HAVE SOME REGULATION, BUT TO JUST TURN A BLIND EYE TO ALL 68 OF THOSE.
AND SOME, AS YOU MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE DO SO BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE S INTIMIDATED WHATEVER, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO CALL IT BY SOME OF THE BIGGER OPERATIONS OUT THERE.
AND THE, THE GUYS WHO GET SQUEEZED THE MOST ARE, ARE THESE SMALLER SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS THAT ARE TRYING TO COME TO LAHABRA.
AND, AND I GET THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT OPINIONS, THERE'S DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, VIEWS AND THOUGHTS ON, ON ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT IT JUST, IT, IT, IT SEEMS VERY SIMILAR TO THE OPERATION OF A, A BAKERY, UM, A RESTAURANT.
AND THE ZONING IS SIMILAR IN THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE BUSINESSES COULD OPERATE IN COMMERCIAL ZONES.
THOSE BUSINESSES COULD OPERATE IN RETAIL ZONES AND IN ORDER FOR THOSE BUSINESSES TO OPERATE, I MEAN, WE HEAR A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON HOURS OF OPERATION THAT, I'M JUST GONNA KEEP HARPING ON THAT BECAUSE I, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
AND THE CITY COUNCIL SEEMS LIKE THEY BELIEVE THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS INCONGRUENT THAT WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO ADDRESS THOSE
[01:10:01]
EXISTING ONES.AND THE ONLY REASON THAT I CAN DEDUCE FROM THAT IS WE DON'T WANNA BURDEN STAFF MORE AND, AND RESOURCES TO REGULATE THOSE.
AND SO THE EASY THING TO DO IS JUST SAY NO MORE.
UM, WHICH THAT'S AN APPROACH TO TAKE.
AND, AND THEY MAY HEAR OUR RECOMMENDATION OR MY RECOMMENDATION, AND IF ANY OF YOU AGREE WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY CAN STILL DECIDE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT.
BUT, UM, I, I'M NOT IN SUPPORTIVE OF THE RESOLUTION AS IT'S WRITTEN.
I GUESS I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL TO, UM, EXTEND THE MORATORIUM FOR AS LONG AS THEY SEE FIT UP TO A YEAR AND TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT WHAT WE COULD DO TO REGULATE THE EXISTING SMOKE SHOPS IN THE CITY.
AND I WOULD SECOND THAT CONFER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY PER MINUTE.
ARE THEY ALLOWED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE MORATORIUM? SINCE IT'S NOT UNDER THEIR PURVIEW? IT'S NOT IN THEIR PURVIEW.
SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE CAN WE JUST, YOU CAN YOU JUST REMOVE THAT PART OF MY RECOMMENDATION FROM THE MOTION? SO WE'LL JUST MAKE A MOTION THAT, DO YOU WANT ME TO RESTATE IT? CITY ATTORNEY? YEAH.
SO I, I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, RECONSIDER, UH, THE REGULATION OF THE EXISTING SMOKE SHOPS IN THE CITY.
UM, AND, AND TAKE A LOOK AT, AT WHAT WE COULD DO THERE TO, YOU KNOW, BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONGRUENT WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT ARE CITED THAT WE BELIEVE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND WE'RE ADDRESSING THOSE BY, YOU KNOW, NOT ALLOWING ANY MORE SMOKE SHOPS IN THE CITY, BUT WE'RE LETTING THE ONES THAT ARE HERE KIND OF DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO.
AND I THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO CITY COUNCIL SHOULD RECONSIDER THAT.
UM, MADAM CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU IS SPECIFIC TO NEW SMOKE SHOPS AND THE MOTION IS RELATING TO EXISTING.
SO CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL AS IT RELATES TO THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE? JUST TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, I JUST DON'T THINK WE'RE VERY CLEAR ON THAT.
I, I, I, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING.
I THINK OUR, OUR IS THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER REGULATION OF EXISTING SMOKE SHOPS IS THE, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE MORATORIUM IS THE, THE, THE, THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM FOR A YEAR.
BECAUSE NOW I DON'T, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I'M, WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN'T SAY THE WORD MORATORIUM.
WELL, THE MORATORIUM IS NOT IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.
IT SOUNDS, SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE HAVE A FAIRLY CLEAR CONSENSUS.
AND THE MOTION WOULDN'T BE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL TO NOT ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE.
AND ALL OUR REASONS WHY ARE STATED ON THE RECORD, AND THE COUNCIL CAN LISTEN TO THE TAPE IF THEY'RE INTERESTED IN WHY WE MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REJECT THE RESOLUTION, UM,
THEN I, THEN I SECOND THAT MOTION.
SO WE, SO I, I GUESS IT WOULD BE A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE.
25 DASH OH OH FIVE ZCA 25 0 0 5 AMENDING SECTIONS 18.04030 TERMS DEFINED OF CHAPTER 1804 DEFINITIONS SECTION 1806 0.40 OF LAND USES AND CHAPTER 1806 OF ZONES ESTABLISHED ZONING MAP BOUNDARIES AND LAND USES OF TITLE 18 ZONING OF THE LAHABRA MUNICIPAL CODE.
I DON'T THINK YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T NEED TO MAKE A SEQUEL DETERMINATION ON A NO VOTE.
SO, SO THAT WOULD BE THE WHOLE, YEAH.
SO JUST AS A POINT OF ORDER, WE HAVE A VALID MOTION WITH A SECOND.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, REMEMBER, A YES VOTE MEANS TO NOT TO ADOPT.
AND A NO VOTE WOULD MEAN TO ADOPT AND CHANGE MY VOTE.
ON THE, NO, CLEAR, CLEAR VERONICA.
EVERYBODY PRESSED THE WRONG BUTTONS? HERE WE GO.
YOU CONFUSED AGAIN, PLEASE? YES, YES MEANS NO.
IT'S LIKE A STATE PROPOSITION.
[01:15:01]
NO A YES VOTE BECAUSE I, I AGREE.IS IN FAVOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ADOPTING THE ORDINANCE.
A NO VOTE IS IN FAVOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE ORDINANCE A VOTE? NO.
JASON, CAN YOU VOTE AGAIN PLEASE? LIKE ALL THOSE ISSUES SHOULD BE SEPARATE AND VOTE SEPARATE.
SO THREE VOTES TO NOT APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE.
SO MOTION PASSES, UH, WITH A, TO NOT APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 25 0 0 0 5.
TONIGHT'S FINAL PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS DUE DULY NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 25 DASH 0 0 4 TO ADD A NEW SECTION 17.2070 TO CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 AND A NEW SECTION 18.2 4.060 TO CHAPTER 18.241 B AND R ONE C, SINGLE UNIT DWELLING ZONE OF TITLE 18 OF THE LA HABER MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL NINE AND SENATE BILL FOUR 50 RELATING TO TWO LOT SUBDIVISIONS AND TWO UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
DID WE RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE FOR THIS ITEM? NO, WE DID NOT.
MADAM CHAIR, DO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT? GOOD EVENING.
I'M SONYA LOUIE, PLANNING MANAGER HERE TO PRESENT YOU WITH ZONE CHANGE NUMBER 25 DASH ZERO FOUR.
THE ZONE CHANGE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING WILL IMPLEMENT STATE PROVISIONS UNDER SENATE BILL NINE AND SENATE BILL FOUR 50.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL AFFECT CODE REGULATIONS CONTAINED WITHIN TITLE 17, WHICH COVERS THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS TITLE 18 COVERING THE CITY'S ZONING UM, REQUIREMENTS.
THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROVISIONS IS TO ENABLE TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND OR URBAN LOT SPLITS FOR ALL PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN SINGLE UNIT DWELLING ZONES.
SB NINE WILL ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN A DU AND OR JADU USING ONE OF THESE COMBINATIONS GRAPHICALLY DEPICTED HERE.
IN EACH OF THESE SCENARIOS, A MAXIMUM OF FOUR UNITS MAY BE DEVELOPED IF A LOT WERE TO BE SPLIT, YOU COULD HAVE ANY ONE OF THESE COMBINATIONS SHOWN AND EACH SCENARIO, NO MORE THAN TWO UNITS CAN BE DEVELOPED ON EACH LOT.
CREATED FROM AN URBAN LOT SPLIT, A PROPERTY MAY NOT QUALIFY UNDER SB NINE.
IF IT IS LOCATED IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, A HISTORIC DISTRICT, A HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE, A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA, OR FLOODWAY OR A PROTECTED HABITAT AREA.
IT WOULD ALSO BE INELIGIBLE FOR SB NINE ALLOWANCES IF IT DEMOLISHES OR ALTERS HOUSING WITH AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS IF IT AFFECTS HOUSING SUBJECT TO RENT OR PRICE CONTROL.
IF IT AFFECTS PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY A TENANT WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
THERE ARE GENERAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND URBAN LOT SPLITS THAT STIPULATE FIRST, THAT APPLICATIONS BE SUBJECT TO A MINISTERIAL APPROVAL WITHIN 60 DAYS.
SECOND, THE CITY IS PROHIBITED FROM IMPOSING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO TWO UNITS THAT ARE 800 SQUARE FEET OR SMALLER.
AND FINALLY, STATE PRO STATE LAW PROVISIONS SPECIFY THAT THE CITY MAY REQUIRE ONE PARKING SPACE, BUT NO PARKING WOULD BE REQUIRED IF THE SITE IS WITHIN HALF MILE OF A HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR, MAJOR TRANSIT STOP OR CAR SHARE VEHICLE.
PROPERTY OWNER MUST LIVE ON ONE OF THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS WHEN DEALING WITH
[01:20:01]
AN URBAN LOT SPLIT.ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN LOT SPLITS INCLUDE THAT THE LOTS MUST BE IN SIMILAR IN SIZE, MEANING THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN A 60 40 SPLIT IN SIZE AND NO LOT CAN BE LESS THAN 1200 SQUARE FEET.
PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO AN URBAN LOT SPLIT CAN BE SPLIT AGAIN, AS AN URBAN LOT SPLIT, A PROPERTY OWNER CANNOT SPLIT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND EACH LOT MUST HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THE CITY CANNOT REQUIRE SETBACKS FROM NEWLY CREATED LOT LINES TO EXISTING STRUCTURES.
AND FINALLY, DEDICATIONS OF EASEMENTS MAY BE REQUIRED IF NECESSARY, AND THAT WOULD BE FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AND OR FACILITIES.
SO IN CLOSING, FOR THE RECORD, STAFF HAS BEEN REFERRING TO STATE LAW TO APPLY S SB NINE AND SB FOUR 50 PROVISIONS.
UM, WHILE THESE PROVISIONS HAVE NOT YET BEEN CODIFIED, THE PASSAGE OF ZONE CHANGE 25 DASH 0 0 0 4 IS EXPECTED TO ULTIMATELY ENABLE THE CITY'S CODE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 25 DASH 0 0 4.
AS ALWAYS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE.
AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
I HAVE A, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND, AND THEY'RE KIND OF ALL GONNA LINK TOGETHER AND THEY KIND OF ALL WRAP UP INTO TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ISSUE,
SO YOU INDICATE THAT EACH LOT MUST HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
CORRECT? THAT'S A PRETTY LOADED SENTENCE THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY DEFINITION IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT SAYS WHAT ADEQUATE ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS.
AND THE REASON, AND THE REASON I BRING THIS UP IS BECAUSE IN THE ORDINANCE, YOU, YOU, YOU'VE ALSO PROHIBITED THE ABILITY TO DO FLAG LOTS.
OKAY? SO I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU SINGLED OUT FLAG LOTS.
MAYBE YOU CAN AN ANSWER THAT LATER AFTER I FINISH.
BUT WHAT ALL THIS TIES BACK TO IS WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF PROPERTIES NORTH OF WHITTIER BOULEVARD THAT USED TO BE COUNTY ISLANDS, PRIVATE ROADS, FLAG LOTS EVERYWHERE.
SO CAN THEY UNDER SB NINE SPLIT THEIR LOT OR THEY HAVE TO BE ON A PUBLIC STREET? CAN IT BE OFF THE PRIVATE STREET? CAN IT BE OFF AN EASEMENT THROUGH THE PROPERTIES? AND THAT'S AN AWFUL LOT OF HOUSES.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT STACKS UP AGAINST, UM, SB NINE.
SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S KIND OF THE GIST OF MY QUESTION FOR NOW.
AND THEN I HAVE SOME FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AFTER THAT.
SO I FIRST LIKE TO CHECK AND DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, THERE WAS YES, YOU, UH, BRIEF DISCUSSION.
WE WERE GOING TO LOOK INTO WHETHER THE STATE REQUIREMENT IS TO PROHIBIT FLAG LOTS.
AND I JUST WANT TO FIRST CHECK ON THAT.
IF I MAY ANSWER MADAM CHAIR, THAT REQUIREMENT IS NOT IN STATE LAW.
THAT WAS WHAT STAFF ELECTED TO INCLUDE IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND IF I MAY ON THE QUESTION OF THE ACCESS, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT HAS TO BE ACCESS TO A PUBLIC ROAD.
HOWEVER, THAT IS THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENT, AND WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENT.
THE STATE LAW SPECIFIC SPECIFICALLY SAID, I'M SAID, SO IS THE STATE LAW PROHIBIT US FROM NOT ALLOWING FLAG LOTS AND THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A DEFINITION OF WHAT ADEQUATE PUBLIC ACCESS MEANS.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WAS, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE DID BROKE ANY LAWS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T STAY, SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, OR, OR SHOULD WE SAY SOMETHING IN THE ORDINANCE.
I'M JUST KIND OF, THAT'S JUST KIND OF A GRAY AREA TO ME.
AND AGAIN, AND I JUST BRING THIS UP BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL THESE REALLY ODD LOTS AND, AND THEY, THEY, YOU KNOW, I, I CERTAINLY KNOW OF A COUPLE THAT ARE RATHER LARGE AND SOMEBODY COULD COME IN AND, YOU KNOW, DIVIDE IT INTO TWO AND GET THEIR FOUR UNITS, BUT IT'S ON AN EASEMENT ACCESS ROAD.
AND, AND USUALLY, AND THAT'S KIND OF THE SECOND PART OF THIS, IS WHEN DEVELOPERS COME IN AND WANT TO DO THOSE KIND OF MAPS, THEN YOU GET THE PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT INVOLVED SAYING,
[01:25:01]
OH, YOU GOTTA PUT A CUL-DE-SAC IN WITH A TURNAROUND RADIUS OF WHAT, WHATEVER THAT IS.AND YOU GOTTA DO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND YOU GOTTA FIRE, YOU KNOW.
SO HOW DOES, HOW DOES THIS STACK UP AGAINST REQUIREMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES? CAN WE, YOU KNOW, IS THERE THINGS THAT, DOES SB NINE PROHIBIT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM ASKING FOR CERTAIN THINGS UNDER, UNDER SB NINE CITY STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE THERE'S ANY PROVISIONS THAT WOULD UNDERMINE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
WELL THAT'S, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S A KEY QUESTION.
I MEAN, 'CAUSE WHEN, WHEN THE STATE ADOPTS THESE ORDINANCES, THEY REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY.
YOU CAN TELL BY THE WAY THEY'RE, THEY'RE APPROVED, THEY'RE JUST CRAMMING AS MANY HOUSES INTO AS MANY PLACES AS THEY CAN WITHOUT PARKING.
SO, SO MY REAL QUESTION IS, IS, YOU KNOW, HOW DOES, HOW DOES THIS STACK UP AGAINST THE NORMAL PUBLIC SAFETY TYPE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE PUT ON LOT SPLITS FROM THE, YOU KNOW, FOR FIRE AND, AND ACCESS.
SO I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY KEY THING TO RESOLVE THERE IS I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE.
I KNOW IT IS WHAT IT IS AND THAT'S WHAT WE GOTTA DO.
BUT IT'S, LIKE I SAID, IT'S JUST THESE, ALL THESE WEIRD LOTS WE HAVE.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, AND LET ME GET THE PAGE NUMBER, UM, WHAT I WAS GOING TO STATE WAS THERE'S LANGUAGE IN HERE REQUIRING AN EASEMENT, BUT IN THE EVENT, UM, A WIDER EASEMENT THAN 10 FEET WOULD BE REQUIRED.
IT COULD BE DETERMINED BY FIRE OR UTILITY COMPANY.
RIGHT? THAT'S SO IS YOU, THAT'S, YOU'RE REFERRING TO D FIVE WHERE IT SAYS LANDLOCKED PARCELS.
SO, SO LANDLOCKED PARCELS PRETTY CLEARLY SPELLS OUT THEY'RE NOT ADJACENT TO ANY KIND OF A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
SO, YOU KNOW, SO THAT, SO IN THIS CASE, THEY CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH AN EASEMENT IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, TO GET, 'CAUSE IF YOU GOT A LOT AND YOU SPLIT IT THIS WAY AND ONE IN FRONT, ONE IN FRONT ON THE PRIVATE ROAD AND ONE AT THE BACK, RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, THEY GOT TO HAVE AN EASEMENT, WHICH REALLY ISN'T ANY DIFFERENT AT THE END OF THE DAY THAN CALLING IT A FLAG LOT BECAUSE IT'S JUST, IN THAT CASE, THE OTHER PERSON OWNS THE PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO IT BEING AN EASEMENT.
BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE SOME ACCESS TO THE LOT IN THE BACK WHEN YOU DO STUFF LIKE THAT.
JASON COULD PROBABLY CHIME IN ON THIS.
I'M KIND OF IN HIS BUSINESS NOW, SO, BUT WHAT W WHAT'S THE, THE DEFINITION OF A FLAG LOT AS, AS YOU, YOU KEEP REFERRING TO IT AND, AND WHERE IN THE CITY ARE YOU REFERRING TO? LIKE ALL THE FLAG LOTS.
SO AS YOU CAN GO UP, YOU CAN GO UP EUCLID, YOU CAN GO UP CYPRUS, YOU CAN GO UP, UM, CITRUS, ANY, ANY OF THOSE.
AND WHAT A FLAG LOT HAS IS YOU HAVE ONE, ONE HOUSE THAT FRONTS ONTO THE STREET AND THEN, THEN YOU SEE WHAT LOOKS LIKE A DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS A 20 OR 30 FOOT WIDE PIECE OF DIRT THAT GOES UP TO THE LOT BEHIND IT.
AND THAT'S NOT AN EASEMENT, IT'S AN ACTUALLY OWNED BY THAT PROPERTY BEHIND IT.
SO IS IT KIND OF LIKE, REMEMBER THE, THE COMMUNITY OVER BY THE STARBUCKS THAT'S GONNA BE DEVELOPED ON UH, WHITTIER BOULEVARD, WOULD THAT BE KIND OF LIKE A FLAG LOT WHERE IT'S NO.
WHERE IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD? NO, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, IN, THAT'S THE CASE OF THEY'RE ON A PRIVATE ROAD.
BUT THAT PRIVATE ROAD HAS ACCESS TO A PUBLIC ROAD.
SO DOES THAT MEET THE, THE DEFINITION OF ADEQUATE RIGHT.
WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU USE A WORD LIKE ADEQUATE ADEQUATE IN AN ORDINANCE, THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR STAFF TO INTERPRET IN THE LONG RUN BECAUSE IT IS JUST TOO, TOO AMBIGUOUS.
SO I, I JUST KNOW IF WE CAN, IF IS THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO APPROACH THAT OR DIFFERENT CHOICES OF WORDS PERHAPS.
ARE WE PULLING SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE LIKE DIRECTLY FROM, FROM THE STATE? THIS WAS RECOMMENDED AND DRAFTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
HOWEVER, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE COMMISSION HAS THE OPTION WE COULD MOVE FORWARD ON THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND STRIKE OUT THE REQUIREMENT.
THE REGULATIONS STIPULATING THAT FLAG.
BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INFORM THE COMMISSION GENERALLY FLAG LOTS ARE SEEN AS UNDESIRABLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T PROMOTE UNIFORMITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT
[01:30:01]
UNUSUAL SITUATION WHERE ONE LOT'S TUCKED BEHIND THE OTHER.IT DOES REQUIRE THE LAYERING OF MULTIPLE OR, UH, TYPES OF EASEMENTS.
NOT JUST AN ACCESS EASEMENT BUT EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES AND WHATNOT.
IT'S, BUT UH, NONE OF THIS IS DESIRABLE BY A LOT OF PEOPLE.
NONE, NOTHING IN SB NINE IS DESIRABLE TO THE CITY.
IT CAN'T WAYS AND, BUT THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS IT'S, IT'S THE LITTLE BIT OF CONTROL THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE.
WELL AGAIN, IF YOU WANTED TO, WELL, I'M OFF THE CITY GETTING AS MUCH CONTROL AS WE HAVE, BUT WE HAVE ALL THESE UNUSUAL LOTS AND, AND CAN WE PROHIBIT AND TWO UNITS BEING PUT ON THESE LOTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE PUBLIC ACCESS.
THAT'S IS KIND OF MY QUESTION WHERE I'M GOING.
SO IF I HAVE A FLAG LOT, GOT IT.
I ALREADY HAVE A HOUSE IN THE FRONT, I COULD PUT A SECOND HOUSE IN THE FRONT AND THE LOT BEHIND IT.
I COULD SPLIT THAT IN TWO AND PUT TWO MORE ON THERE.
'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY AN EXISTING FLAG LOT.
AND YOU CAN ONLY, YOU CAN ONLY SPLIT IT THOUGH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IF, YOU KNOW, IT MEETS THOSE REQUIREMENTS, A A LOT OF PROPERTIES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME OF THESE LARGER PROPERTIES, PROBABLY THE ONES YOU'RE REFERRING TO, COMMISSIONER SLAND ARE, ARE GONNA BE UNABLE TO BE SPLIT.
RIGHT? BECAUSE IT, IT HAS TO BE.
AND, AND 60 40 IS, IS THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT THAT SB NINE USES OR THAT THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THE MINIMUM LOT AREA NEEDS TO BE 1200 SQUARE FEET.
MEANING YOU COULD TAKE A 3000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY, SPLIT IT.
ONE LOT WOULD BE 1800 SQUARE FEET.
THE OTHER LOT WOULD BE 1200 SQUARE FEET.
MOST LOTS ARE BEYOND THAT SIZE, OBVIOUSLY NUMBER ONE, GOOD LUCK FINDING A LOT SMALLER THAN 3000 SQUARE FEET IN THE CITY.
BUT TWO, IF THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING, YOU KNOW, HOUSE, SINGLE FAMILY, WHATEVER ON IT, THAT THREE YEAR RESIDENCY THING, WELL, TWO THINGS.
YOU KNOW, IF A TENANT HAS BEEN THERE FOR THREE YEARS, THAT WAS LIKE ONE COMPONENT, RIGHT? LIKE, UM, BUT THEN THE, THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THAT A PROPERTY OWNER, UH, HAS TO HAVE THREE YEAR RESIDENCY.
IT DOESN'T SAY THREE YEAR OWNERSHIP.
AND THERE'S A DISTINCTION THERE.
AND, AND WELL IT DOES 'CAUSE IT SAYS PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE A RESIDENT OF ONE OF THE UNITS, RIGHT? SO, SO A DEVELOPER COULDN'T PURCHASE A PROPERTY AS NON-OWNER OCCUPIED FOR THREE YEARS AND THEN HAVE THIS LONGER PLAN TO DEVELOP IT IN THIS WAY.
AS I, AS I'M UNDERSTANDING IT, THAT, THAT THEY CAN, THIS IS ONE OF THESE WEIRD LOOPHOLES THAT I SEE IN THE LAW IS PROVE RESIDENCY.
IF I LIST THAT AS MY LEGAL ADDRESS AND I DON'T ACTUALLY LIVE THERE, WHO'S GONNA GO AROUND AND CHECK FOR THAT? MM-HMM.
YEAH, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO HOUSING POLICE YET
IT WOULD HAVE TO GETTING CLOSE, BUT NOT, BUT NOT YET.
AND CERTAIN WAYS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DECLARE RESIDENCY, RIGHT? RIGHT.
BUT A LOT OF PROPERTIES ARE JUST NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO BE DIVIDED.
'CAUSE THE, THAT'S, THAT'S THE THING THAT SAVES LAHABRA IS MOST CITIES, 90, 90% OF THE PROPERTIES IN OUR SINGLE FAMILY ZONES ARE SO SMALL, THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO EVEN EVEN QUALIFY TO SPLIT UNDER SB NINE.
BUT, BUT WOULDN'T THAT, WOULDN'T THAT BE, BUT THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE SECOND, THE ADUS WHERE THEY GET THE SECOND UNITS AND STUFF BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE LESS STRINGENT.
BUT, AND, AND THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE MUCH, BUT ISN'T A FLAG LOT CONSIDERED AN ADJACENT PROPERTIES AREN'T THOSE CONSIDERED ADJACENT PROPERTIES? SO THAT'S, IT'S ALREADY AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.
YOU CANNOT SPLIT ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
SO A FLAG LOT, RIGHT? IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT HERE'S A PROPERTY AND HERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY AND THEY'RE ACCESSED BY A PRIVATELY OWNED ROAD AND THEN THEY SPLIT BOTH IN TWO, RIGHT? YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
ONLY ONE OF 'EM CAN SPLIT, I THINK BECAUSE WHAT IT SAYS IS YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T SPLIT IT IN TWO RIGHT NOW AND THEN COME BACK THREE YEARS LATER AND SPLIT EACH ONE OF THOSE INTO TWO AGAIN.
YOU CAN'T TELL YOUR NEIGHBOR ONCE, ONCE YOU'VE DONE IT, YOU'VE DONE IT.
YOU CAN'T TELL YOUR NEIGHBOR IT.
BUT IT SAYS CANNOT SPLIT ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
BEFORE I GET TO ADDRESSING THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE COMMISSION, SO THE PROVISIONS UNDER SB NINE HAVE EVOLVED MAKING IT EASIER TO BUILD HOUSING.
ONE OF THE PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS UNDER STATE LAW IS THAT WE SO LONG, WE CANNOT APPLY AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD MM-HMM
THAT PRECLUDES ONE FROM DEVELOPING TWO UNITS OR A, UM, URBAN LOT SPLIT.
SO IF SOMEBODY HAS A SUBSTANDARD LOT, WHAT WE WOULD THINK OF AS BEING A SUBSTANDARD LOT, THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO RIGHT.
BUT DO SO AND NOT NECESSARILY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
[01:35:01]
OF OBJECTIVE SETBACKS.NO, NO PLOT WITH BUT, BUT, BUT MY QUESTION YEAH, WE GET, I GET THE QUESTION GOES BACK THOUGH TO THE ACCESS.
A ADEQUATE AT ADEQUATE ACCESS.
IS THAT AN SB NINE OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE PUT IN THE STAFF REPORT? AND IF IT'S AN SB NINE, DOES IT DEFINE WHAT ADEQUATE ACCESS MEANS? UH, MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, I KNOW THE WORD ADEQUATE IS USED IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THE WORD ADEQUATE IS ACTUALLY IN THE ORDINANCE.
THE PROVISION THAT, UH, SONYA HAS BEEN REFERRING TO STATES THAT THERE MUST BE AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THE OTHER PARCEL AND IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND MUST CONNECT TO THE SAME CURB CUT AND APRON AS THE OTHER PARCEL.
IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY SAY IT HAS TO HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS OR TO A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SO, BUT JUST TO ADD TO THAT BEFORE YOU ADD YOUR QUESTION UNDER, YOU'RE TOO SURE I CAN'T SEE YOU IN THE CORNER, CAN SEE YOU THERE.
IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT A, A LOCAL AGENCY, THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU COULD IMPOSE IS THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO OR ADJOIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SO IN SOME WAYS THEY WROTE THE LAW THAT YOU COULD IMPOSE THAT THEY HAVE TO BE ADJACENT TO OR PROVIDE ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH WOULD WELL BE MORE STRINGENT THAN WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN WHAT WE WELL THAT'S WHAT I'M, THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING THESE HOUSES THAT ARE ON PRIVATE ROADS.
SO IF I, AND I'M FOUR HOUSES IN, IN THE BACK AND I WANT TO SPLIT MINE IN TWO, DOES THAT PRIVATE ROAD MEET THAT REQUIREMENT? I, I MAY SO SAID SO JUST MAGDA LANE, JUST TO PICK ONE OUT.
ONE LITTLE STREET THAT COMES UP ONTO CYPRUS AND IT GOES BACK INTO A WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THREE OR FOUR STREETS WITH ZILLIONS, A LOTS IN, THERE'RE ALL ON PRIVATE STREETS.
SO IF I WANNA SPLIT ONE OF THOSE BACK THERE, DOES COMING OUT ON THE PRIVATE STREET TO, TO CYPRUS COUNT AS MEETING THAT OR CAN WE SAY NO, YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING.
IT'S ONLY HAS ACCESS OFF OF A PRIVATE STREET.
THAT WOULD BE EASEMENT TO A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT PRIVATE STREET.
IF SO, SO ALL THOSE PRIVATE ROADS CONNECT TO PUBLIC STREETS AT SOME POINT? CORRECT? I SO AS LONG AS ANY PRIVATE ROAD CONNECTS TO A PUBLIC STREET, THEY CAN YOU CAN DO THE LOT SPLITS BACK IN THERE.
AS LONG AS THERE'S AN EASEMENT THAT THEY CAN SHOW AND DECLARE AND RIGHT.
THERE'S PROBABLY NOT ANY PRIVATE ROAD IN THE CITY THAT WOULDN'T AT SOME POINT CONNECT TO A PUBLIC STREET.
I'M ON A PRIVATE ROAD THERE, THERE MIGHT BE
A LOT, LOT OF WEIRD STUFF HAPPENED UP IN THERE WHEN THEY WERE ANNEXING AND, AND ALL THAT STUFF THAT WAS BUILT IN THE COUNTIES.
WELL LET, LET'S, I MEAN HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT IS THIS ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE ON OUR, I MEAN WHAT I'M SAYING IS THINGS LIKE FLAG LOTS AND THESE EXCEPTIONS, HOW MANY OF THEM ARE THERE GONNA BE AND IS IT GONNA BE SO IMPACTFUL THAT WE COULDN'T ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION? I IF THERE MAY, THEY, THEY, THERE MAY WELL BE, UM, YOU WOULD, YOU ARE THE EXPERT ON THIS AND I HAVE LEARNED A LOT JUST IN LISTENING TO YOU.
I SAID I I HAVEN'T READ SB NINE IN THREE YEARS.
UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, IF PEOPLE, SO I, I KNOW SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT A REALLY BIG LOT UP THERE AND HE'S BEEN TRYING TO GET A, A PARCEL MAP APPROVED THROUGH ENGINEERING FOR LIKE FIVE YEARS AND THEY KEEP SAYING NO AND BECAUSE THEY WANT A, A TURNAROUND IN DRIVEWAYS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF.
SO IF HE WANTS TO DO THAT NOW, IF HE WANTS TO SPLIT THAT LOT INTO TWO, CAN HE DO THAT UNDER THIS ORDINANCE WITHOUT NEED NEEDING TO PROVIDE ANY OF THOSE CUL-DE-SACS OR FIRE DEPARTMENT THING? SOUNDS LIKE TODAY COULD BE DAY AS LONG AS HE'S GOT AN EASEMENT ROAD TO THE PUB TO TO THE PUBLIC ROAD, HE COULD SPLIT THAT LOT IN TWO WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ALL THE STUFF THAT THEY'VE BEEN ASKING HIM TO DO AS A TRACK MAP.
IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THAT'S A PUBLIC HEALTH, A PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD, THEY CANNOT, SO THOSE TYPE OF FIRE REQUIREMENTS, IF THEY'RE NOT MET, CREATE A PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD.
IS THAT, WOULD THAT BE SINCE, SINCE WHEN DOES THE STATE CARE ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD? DOES IT REALLY SAY THAT IN SB NINE? YES, IT DOES.
THAT, THAT'S LIKE THE, THE SAVING GRACE PROBABLY FOR, FOR MANY CITIES, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT WANNA PUSH BACK AGAINST THIS IN SOME WAY.
RIGHT? IF, IF WE CAN DETERMINE THE, AND THE CITY GETS TO DECIDE THAT, AND THEN I, I GUESS THE CITY COULD END UP FINDING
[01:40:01]
THEMSELVES IN A BATTLE IF, IF THAT PROPERTY OWNER THOUGHT OTHERWISE.AND, AND, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CITY CAN HAVE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT, RIGHT? BUT THAT'D BE LIKE, THERE'S NOT VERY MANY TOOLS FOR A CITY TO KIND OF PUSH BACK AGAINST SB NINE, BUT THAT'S, OH THERE'S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ONE WOULD BE THAT, BUT YOU CAN'T USE THAT VERY OFTEN.
IT'S A VERY HIGH BAR TO USE THAT ONE.
UM, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I'D SAY SB NINE AS INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORT WAS THEN AMENDED BY THE ADDITIONAL, UM, LEGISLATION AND IT'S CONTINUALLY BEING REFINED OVER THE YEARS.
WHAT I'M SEEING IS IT'S IN DEFERENCE TO THE PERSON WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP HOUSING.
YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS CLEAR FROM, FROM THE GET WELL, YEAH, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT GOES BACK TO THIS FIRE THING BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SAY YOU'RE NOT GONNA CREATE ANY MORE FLAG LOTS BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN'T GET IN THERE.
BUT IS THAT NOT TREATING THE PROPERTY OWNERS EQUAL WITH ALL THOSE LOTS THAT ALREADY EXIST LIKE THAT UP THERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? I HAVE A LIKE WHY CAN'T I HAVE IT? THEY HAVE IT.
A QUESTION, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, IS, IS THIS RESOLUTION JUST, YOU KNOW, A SHORT WAY FOR ME TO DESCRIBE THIS WOULD JUST BE THE, THE CITY KIND OF MAKING SOME ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS TO IMPLEMENT INTO THE CITY REQUIREMENTS THE SPIRIT OF SB NINE? UH, YES, I BELIEVE SO.
I MEAN THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO CODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB NINE, WHICH THE CITY HAS NOT YET DONE AND THE ORDINANCE ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE TO THE EXTENT IT CAN UNDER THE RESTRICTIONS OF SB NINE AND FOUR 50.
ARE, ARE YOU OR STAFF AWARE OF JUST ANY, ANY NEIGHBORING CITIES? WELL, I, OKAY.
I JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY IN THE STATES HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME I YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.
BUT HAVE, HAVE OTHER CITIES DONE THE SAME THING? CODIFIED THEY THEY'RE REQUIRED TO.
LAHABRA IS BEHIND ON THAT FRONT.
HAS TO BE THEN BECAUSE, SO JUST MAYBE TO CLARIFY IN THIS, JUST THIS SECTION I WAS READING IN UNDER UH, E SIX ON PAGE FIVE OR E ONE, IT SAYS THE CITY SHALL, SHALL NOT REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION OR RIGHT OF WAY OR THE CONSTRUCTION OF OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCELS BEING CONDITION FOR THE MAP.
SO IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS OR THE CITY SAYING WE WANT A CUL-DE-SAC THAT'S AN OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT AND THIS TELLS ME WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T MAKE THEM DO THAT.
I WAS JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECT.
I POINT TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DENIAL THAT ARE IN SECTION G OF BOTH UM, THE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 AND TITLE 18 AND IT SAYS THE CITY MAY DESI DENY THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MAKES A WRITTEN FINDING BASED UPON A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE EFFECT AS DEFINED AND DETERMINED IN THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE UPON THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR WHICH THERE IS NO FEASIBLE METHOD TO SATISFACTORILY MITIGATE OR AVOID THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT.
SO IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS SAYING THE ONLY METHOD OF MITIGATING THIS STREET IS TO PUT IN A CUL-DE-SAC AND THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S BEYOND A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.
AND THAT'S A, I I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.
WE HAD THE REAL LIFE VERSION OF THIS A FEW YEARS BACK ON HIDDEN LANE, WHICH IS JUST GOES IN AND IS TOTALLY A DEAD END AND SOMEBODY WANTED TO BUILD A NEW HOUSE IN THERE AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STARTED WITH, WE GOTTA HAVE A PLACE TO TURN A TUCK TRUCK AROUND AND WHATEVER.
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT WENT AWAY BECAUSE THEY FOUND SOME OTHER FIRE REGULATIONS OR WHERE THE FIRE MARSHAL COULD MAKE EXCEPTIONS OR WHATEVER.
SO THEY WAS ABLE TO DO IT WITHOUT HAVING TO PUT ANY KIND OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN THERE.
SO IT, THAT PROPERTY IS BEING REQUIRED TO PUT A CUL-DE-SAC IN AT THE END OF THE PROPERTY.
I LIVE ON A DOUBLE CUL-DE-SAC.
THEY DO TURN AROUND IN THERE
ALRIGHT GUYS, I I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, WE WILL HEAR FIRST FROM ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND SEEING NONE NOW WE WILL HEAR FROM THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ITEM.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM NOW AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AND SEEING THAT THERE IS NO OPPOSITION, WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL CALL ON THE FLASHING, EXCUSE ME, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.
UH, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAHABRA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
[01:45:01]
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 24 DASH 0 0 4 TO ADD A NEW SECTION 17 2 7 0 PARCEL MAPS FOR URBAN LOTS SPLITS TO CHAPTER 17.2 PARCEL MAPS OF TITLE 17 SUBDIVISIONS AND A NEW SECTION 18.2 4 0 6 0 2 UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO CHAPTER 18.24 R ONE A R ONE B AND R ONE C SINGLE UNIT DWELLING ZONES OF TITLE 18 ZONING OF THE LA HABRA MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL 9 20 21 AND SENATE BILL 4 50 20 24 RELATING TO TWO LOT SUBDIVISIONS AND TWO UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT KNOWN AS CA PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 6 5 8 5 2 2 1 K AND 6 6 4 1 AT SEVEN N THERE A SECOND.A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MANLEY AND SECONDED BY MYSELF.
EVERYONE PLEASE ENTER YOUR VOTES.
CAN I ASK THE COMMISSION TO CLARIFY, IS THAT WITH OR WITHOUT FLAG? LOTTS? UH, THERE WAS NO MODIFICATION TO THE RESOLUTION AS IT WAS PROPOSED.
MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO AND THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM STAFF THIS EVENING? NO COMMENTS FROM STAFF.
ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? NO.
I JUST HAVE THE ONE TOMORROW IS FIRE YOUR STOVES NIGHT FOR EL CERRITO ELEMENTARY, OUR WONDERFUL COATING SCHOOL.
AND IF YOU GO AND EAT A TACO NAZO, WHICH IS THE BEST TACO IN LA HABRA, UM, PART OF THE PROCEEDS WILL GO TO EL EL CERRITO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
SO, YAY, THAT'S TOMORROW NIGHT.
UM, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2025.