Auburn holds public outreach on possible retail cannabis rules; staff to brief council in October

City of Auburn staff hosted a public outreach meeting on proposed retail cannabis sales and delivery, explaining policy options, fiscal projections and public-safety considerations while collecting in-person and online input.

The staff member leading the session opened by describing the outreach process and the tools attendees should use to submit comments, saying, "I'm trying to get you out of here in an hour or less. I wanna be respectful of people's time..." The same staff member summarized past steps in the process, noting council discussion began about two years earlier and that further work on regulations resumed in early 2024 and again in August 2025.

Why it matters: Allowing retail cannabis would change local land-use and public-safety oversight, could generate city tax revenue and make Auburn eligible for state community grants tied to cannabis excise collections, but it also raises questions about traffic, proximity to schools, enforcement and how many retail licenses the city would permit.

Discussion highlights

Economic potential and grants — Staff presented budget projections comparing Auburn to nearby cities and noted that, if allowed, retail cannabis could be a new local tax source. The presenter said state excise taxes had risen from about 15–16% to as high as 19% and described community grants some cities received: "Grass Valley got 3,000,000. Marysville got 3,000,000. Nevada City got 3,000,000," with some smaller grants cited at about $600,000.

Delivery already occurring — Staff told the group that delivery services advertise service into Auburn from businesses outside the city and that those deliveries effectively provide retail access today. The presenter described a common delivery workflow: orders go through an operator's server then to a nearby driver, which participants called a retail-like service despite the operator being outside Auburn's boundaries.

Buffering, locations and safety — The session reviewed location options and regulatory tools. Staff said California law still includes a 600-foot buffering requirement for medicinal cannabis near schools and similar youth-focused sites; recreational setback rules are more discretionary and can be set by the city. Attendees and staff discussed possible retail zones including the Highway 49 corridor, High Street/downtown and other commercial nodes, and raised concerns about parking, pedestrian safety and potential congestion near event periods.

Selection and oversight models — Staff outlined options for how Auburn might allocate any retail licenses: first-come, first-served; an RFP/competitive process with a review committee; or limiting licenses by a per-capita formula (staff cited Grass Valley's approach of one retail license per about 7,500 residents). They also described development agreements as a tool for ongoing oversight: "Development agreements ... are required by state law to be reviewed every year," staff said, adding that annual review is a mechanism to hold operators accountable.

Community concerns and viewpoints — Residents asked about traffic, smell-control requirements for strip-mall locations, proximity to bars and schools, and how many operators the city should allow. One resident, identified in the meeting transcript as Bernie, urged the city to act: "If this does not get a warm reception, we're just gonna have this activity a half mile up the road and all the revenues ... will be gone. It's our opportunity," he said. Other attendees argued that well-run dispensaries can provide neighborhood benefits, including community donations and assistance to local safety efforts.

Process and next steps — Staff said the city is holding two in-person meetings and an online survey; the presenter reported 166 survey responses at the time of the meeting and that the online polling would remain open until roughly a week before the October council meeting. The presenter told attendees: "From there, I plan to go back to the city council in October and request report out to them on our outreach efforts ... and then ask direction. That direction will be, do you want me to start drafting a cannabis ordinance?" No ordinance was presented or voted on at the outreach session.

No formal actions — The session was an information- and input-gathering meeting; council action has not occurred. Staff will report collected input to the City Council in October and seek direction about ordinance drafting and next steps.

Ending

The city will hold a second meeting the following week (staff said it would be online at 6:00 p.m.) and continue the online survey; staff asked residents to use the survey and said results and written comments will be archived for the council report in October.