Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tobacco Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

San Bruno council sets March 11 hearing to consider adopting county tobacco-retailer rules

San Bruno City Council · February 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The San Bruno City Council introduced an ordinance by title on Feb. 11 to adopt San Mateo County tobacco-retailer regulations by reference and set an adoption hearing for March 11, 2025; staff said the county program would limit flavored tobacco and e-cigarette device sales and would have minimal fiscal impact versus creating a costly local licensing program.

The San Bruno City Council on Feb. 11 voted to introduce, by title, an ordinance to adopt San Mateo County tobacco-retailer regulations by reference and set a public hearing on adoption for March 11, 2025. Council members voted unanimously to set the hearing.

City staff told the council the county program would restrict sales of flavored tobacco products, prohibit sales of e-smoking devices and include buffers around youth-populated areas such as schools and parks to limit retailer concentration near children. Staff said most existing retailers in San Bruno would remain able to operate so long as they maintain required licenses, but that at least one hookah lounge would face significant changes to its business model if the county rules were adopted without amendment.

Staff presented three options: take no local action (no additional protections beyond state law), adopt the county program by reference (recommended by staff and described as having a minimal fiscal impact for the city), or establish a local licensing program (staff estimated roughly $250,000 in annual administration costs and corresponding retailer fees). The staff analysis said a local program could require a new staff position and annual fees that would far exceed current county fees.

After hearing public comment from a business representative who raised questions about health permits and grandfathering, the council moved to introduce the ordinance by title and scheduled the March 11 adoption hearing to allow statutorily required additional public notice. The council recorded the motion as passing unanimously.

What happens next: staff will publish the additional notice required for adoption by reference and return the ordinance for the public hearing and final council action on March 11, 2025.