San Bruno trims cannabis zoning

Councilmember Sandy Alvarez said she would like to eliminate Tanforan and downtown from possible locations because she is worried children and high school students hang around those locations and it is hard to keep them 600 feet away.

The state recommends buffering cannabis businesses within 600 feet of youth centers, day care centers, schools, parks and public libraries, according to a staff report.

“We have children, we have high school students that do hang out in the mall. If we do have stores or dispensaries in the mall, it wouldn’t prevent them to basically distance themselves,” Alvarez said. “In addition to the downtown area, it’s the same concept.”

However, Councilmember Tom Hamilton, who was the sole vote against the amendment, didn’t understand some of Alvarez’s reasoning. Hamilton argued why the other councilmembers felt it was necessary to remove downtown from possible locations when he said the largest business there is a casino.

“As far as the Tanforan goes, I’m not going to die on that hill. I am fine with proceeding there. But, using the argument that we should exclude the downtown because children walk through it is odd because that means children don’t walk El Camino Real,” Hamilton said.

People under 21 can’t enter a dispensary, they can’t loiter in front of it, and smoking marijuana in public is illegal, he added.

“If this isn’t for you, just keep walking,” Hamilton said.

Hamilton is concerned about reducing the limit for retail stores because the council could decide it wants more stores in the future and the process would have to start over again.

“If we wanted to walk before we run, then we would only approve one or two now or in the near future and see how it goes,” Hamilton said.

He added the council could approve more applicants as they come or at its discretion.

In October, the council adopted its commercial cannabis ordinance, which outlined the types of marijuana businesses would be allowed in the city. The ordinance allowed for a maximum of four cannabis businesses in the city, three of which would be retail stores and one delivery service. The ordinance restricted cultivation, manufacturing, on-site consumption and temporary events.

The city’s ordinance allows for one distribution facility, which is allowed to package and distribute to state licensed cannabis businesses and has no interaction with the public.

In November 2020, San Bruno voters approved a 10% tax rate on gross revenue of any commercial cannabis sales that the city allows. Retail cannabis sales are subject to a 15% state excise tax and the city’s 9.875% sales tax. The City Council has the authority to adjust the business tax rate with a municipal code amendment, according to a previous staff report.

However, the new council had a change of heart when it came to how it wishes to facilitate cannabis businesses, which Hamilton didn’t agree was wise. The purpose of allowing four retail stores under the ordinance is to obtain a greater pool of applicants, he said.

“As a council we would be able to look at the applications and look at the ones that have the best security practices, the best track record, the best look and feel, the best location from the sites available, and make our determination there,” Hamilton said.

The council would use its discretion to allow zero retail stores if it can’t find a qualified applicant, he added.

Councilmember Marty Medina’s comments aligned with Hamilton’s, even though he voted for the amendments. Downtown has a smoke shop, liquor store, massage parlor and a hookah bar, he said, and people have a choice to patronize those places if they wish.

“You are not allowed to purchase alcohol if you are a minor and [there are] security measures in places and [there’s] really high consequences for a minor. They are not allowed in. It’s not going to happen,” Medina said.

Councilmember Michael Salazar said if it was his choice, there wouldn’t be any cannabis stores in the city, although he understands the tax revenue value.

“It does provide us with an opportunity for the tax revenue regardless of what I personally think of the industry in general,” he said. “I do believe this will be the next big tobacco and we are opening an opportunity to profit. ... I question whether that’s the type of city we want to be.”

Peter Gilli, director of Community and Economic Development, said the ordinance changes the council made will go to the Planning Commission tentatively Feb. 21 and then it will be read in front of the council March 14. If the ordinance is amended, the new rules will go into effect at the end of April when the application period for cannabis operators opens, Gilli said.