The fate of an existing hookah shop is weighing on the San Bruno City Council as it considers implementing San Mateo County’s tobacco retailer ordinance, directing staff to explore alternatives to spending more money or forcing the business to shut down.
The county’s tobacco ordinance requires cities to ban sales of flavored tobacco — including hookah — and e-smoking devices and includes distanced-based requirements for new retailers, which cannot be located near “youth populated areas” like schools or playgrounds or within 500 feet of existing retailers.
If cities choose not to implement the ordinance, the county will not provide tobacco regulation services, which San Bruno has used since 2009, Community Development Director Peter Gilli said at the council’s Feb. 27 meeting.
Implementing a local regulation service would cost San Bruno around $250,000 and one-time impact fees for setting up the program, Gilli said. The city could recover 80%-90% of the cost through fees on local tobacco retailers, but they would run around $7,500 a year — much higher than the county’s charge of $672 per year.
“The city has enough problems now to try to take on a problem like this — I’m not saying we’re not going to try — but we’re hearing this is going to cost more money,” Councilmember Marty Medina said. “Either it’s the federal government or the state or the Board of Supervisors telling the city what you need to do now, or you’re on your own, and it’s not cool.”
Staff was directed to reach out to the city of Burlingame, which recently decided to implement a local ordinance that essentially follows county guidelines but allows for two hookah locations within the city, as well as the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.
Burlingame recently delayed the first reading of its ordinance to weigh concerns around banning tobacco products at pharmacies, which is another mandate of the county ordinance.
San Bruno has one hookah retailer, Paradise Hookah Lounge, whose owners spoke at public comment against implementation of the county ordinance. They’re the only business in San Bruno who would be forced to shut down due to the program, Tabitha Mazahreh said.
“We have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to underage patrons even coming into our business,” she said. We don’t play around with this. This is not a joke, this is a business that feeds a family, and this is a law that would only affect us.”
As a family with four young children, the business is serious about ensuring underaged patrons don’t have access to tobacco products, Tabitha Mazahreh said, but the hookah shop is their livelihood and has stayed above board and up to date on all licenses.
Alam Mazahreh added that the family invested significant income to continue the business during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We were closed during the pandemic for a year and invested all this money to stay alive. Now you guys want to bring this up after we put in over $300,000?” he said.
Councilmember Tom Hamilton said that he believed usage of hookah should be up to the individual, but that San Bruno was facing a difficult situation since it previously relied on the county for tobacco regulation.
“It’s one of those things people can choose to go in there and use that product or choose not to,” he said. “[The] problem I have with all of this … this is not an action the city is taking, we’re not arbitrarily singling out a business. We’re having to respond to a changing condition here in the county.”
He advocated for the city to take a realistic look at its finances before agreeing to implement an expensive local regulation program.
Mayor Rico Medina suggested that the city potentially collaborate with Burlingame in understanding the finances of a local program.
Currently, Millbrae, San Carlos, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and the city of San Mateo have adopted county regulations, Gilli said.
San Bruno resident Wesam Dawah said that although he wasn’t a personal fan of smoking, he didn’t think the city should ban individuals from the choice to use hookah.
“Paradise Lounge is in a closed environment, I heard they have a zero tolerance policy. Just like a bar that’s down the street from them that’s open to anybody, they can go ahead and get a drink and get drunk and perhaps drive and affect other people — versus a hookah lounge that is non-toxic, people can drive and get home safely,” he said.
Bob Gordon, a member of the San Mateo County Tobacco Education Coalition, advocated for the ordinance’s potential impact of ending tobacco sales at pharmacies.
“Councilmembers do have the power to change what the definition of a pharmacy is for a whole generation … pharmacies are a place to get better, not get cancer,” he said.
Overall, public comment speakers asked the city to consider the impact that the countywide ordinance could have on Paradise Hookah Lounge, including resident Eleni Katout.
“I don’t smoke, this doesn’t personally affect me, but you just heard from the family this will personally affect. There is a pattern here where you’re listening to people’s personal experiences and just ignoring them,” she said. “Let them have their business, let them stay open. We can go back to the drawing board, and if the rest of the county guidelines are something you want to adopt, it’s doable.”
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.