In Wake of Recent Protest Community Remains Outraged Over Proposed Relocation of Cannabis Shop in San Bernardino

Alyssah Hall

The San Bernardino City Council remains steadfast in its decision to relocate a cannabis shop to the city’s Sixth Ward, while the community remains outraged over the council’s choice to move forward with the initiative.

On June 17, 2026, San Bernardino City Council members voted 4-3 for the proposed relocation of a cannabis retail store to 1602 West Highland Ave. A press conference and peaceful protest opposing the proposed relocation of a cannabis store to San Bernardino’s Sixth Ward was held on Aug. 2, 2026. 

The event was organized by former San Bernardino City Councilmember, Rikke Van Johnson with the theme of  “Community Yes, Cannabis No.” In  attendance were faith leaders, community leaders, former elected officials,  and residents of San Bernardino. 

The press conference united neighborhood advocates who believe that the proposed location for a cannabis shop is incompatible with the surrounding community that includes families, senior housing, churches and small businesses. Organizers called for responsible economic development that reflects the community’s long-term vision, enhances the quality of life for all of its residents, and ensures its community voices remain central in local land-use decisions. 

Black Voice News recently spoke with former assemblymember and community leader Cheryl Brown for an update on the coalition’s fight against the proposed location of San Bernardino’s sixth ward for the cannabis retail store. 

“We’re waiting to hear back from the attorney, and we haven’t heard from either,” Brown said. 

Brown explained that the coalition is now waiting for a response from the council and shared why this proposed location is a poor choice. 

According to Brown, none of the council members who voted in favor of the proposed location actually visited the area to notice that there is senior housing located on the opposite side of the street and that the facility is not allowed to have any smoke in the building. 

“The people are still upset [about the proposed location] and we had a great turnout of neighbors and friends who came to protest,” Brown advised.  

“It’s not on the [upcoming] city council agenda and so they’re kind of trying to be quiet with it, but we don’t want it to be quiet because we don’t want other people to have to go through what we went through in this community,” Brown continued. 

According to Brown, the ordinance for cannabis was changed without making it known to Black and Latino newspapers that serve the affected areas of the proposed location. 

“They put it in the other paper, in their daily paper. They didn’t put it in our papers that serve the area being affected over here. They didn’t do anything like that when it came to the public notice. So that’s another big problem,” Brown explained. 

“This movement is about the people and those courageous enough to stand up and speak out on behalf of their community,” said Van Johnson during the council meeting on  Aug. 2, 2026. “This is not simply about one business. It is about ensuring residents have a voice in decisions that shape the future of their neighborhoods.”

The proposed cannabis retailer would occupy a former neighborhood market through the relocation of an existing cannabis business license. Although supporters have pointed to the tax revenue generated by San Bernardino’s commercial cannabis program, many residents remain worried that the proposed location is not appropriate for an area surrounded by churches, senior housing, neighborhood-serving businesses, and family residences.

The press conference was followed up by a San Bernardino City Council meeting on Aug. 5, 2026, at the Norman F. Feldheym Central Library where community activists and leaders like Brown and Van Johnson shared their concerns about the proposed relocation of the cannabis store and asked for the decision to be rescinded. 

“Today, I stand here with our residents, our seniors, our church members, our library patrons, and families from across this community, united by a common purpose. We are here because our community has once again been ignored,” Van Johnson said. 

“The City of San Bernardino has approved a commercial cannabis business at 1602 W. Highland Avenue despite serious concerns about its proximity to residential properties, a church, a school administrative office, and a public library. We believe this decision conflicts with the very standards established to protect neighborhoods like ours,” Van Johnson continued. 

Van Johnson shared that San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 5, Section 10.250 instructs the city to consider the proximity of religious facilities and libraries before granting a permit. He also explained that Iglesia Universal Church is located less than 60 feet from the proposed cannabis store location, while the Dorothy Inghram Branch Library and the San Bernardino City Unified School District’s Western Highland Administrative Annex, sits on a parcel 500 feet away. Van Johnson said that despite these institutions serving  and strengthening their community every day, the permit for the cannabis store relocation was still approved. 

“This is about more than one business. It is about trust. It is about accountability. It is about whether the voices of residents’ matter when decisions are made that affect the neighborhoods where we live, worship, learn, and raise our families,” Van Johnson said. 

“Our seniors deserve respect. Our children deserve protection. Our churches deserve consideration. Our neighborhood deserves to have their voices heard. Today, we stand together and send a message that cannot be ignored,” Van Johnson stated. 

Brown greeted the San Bernardino mayor and city council, sharing that the more she investigates their rational for their 4-3 vote on the cannabis store relocation, the more her anger and outrage grows. 

“You ignored and disrespected our westside community after being told by the 6th ward council member Mario Flores, that this location was not a suitable location for that business because currently there are two churches too close,the library is too close, and the city is looking at building housing on the empty land across the street on Highland Ave. and Medical Center Drive. You ignored him,” Brown said.

“I found out the school district had sent you a letter in June, also strongly objecting to locating this cannabis store there, because their educational building is located 500 feet from the cannabis store location. You ignored and disrespected the seven duly elected school board members of our school district, which is another government agency requesting you consider a “Sensitive Buffer” concern. You did not even mention them during the hearing,” Brown explained. 

Brown continued saying the council ignored the relocation concerns and objections of  Council Members Treasure Ortiz and Sandra Ibarra,  former Council member Kim Calvin,  and Planning Commissioner Delores Armstead.

“But you did hear the billionaire request that he needed to make money and the city could make money off the poor citizens on the west side of town. You did not ignore him,” Brown said. 

“In your Ordnance MC-1519 it states that this amendment would not be a detriment to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare or impact the quality of life of the city residents.  We disagree,” Brown stated.

Brown asked the council to tell her what are the positive benefits that the cannabis store would bring to the west side community to improve the health, safety and quality of life. She told the councils that their coalition will not ignore their June 17 decision until they rescind it. 

Black Voice News recently spoke with Cheryl Brown for an update on the coalition’s fight against the proposed location of San Bernardino’s sixth ward for the cannabis retail store. 

“We’re waiting to hear back from the attorney, and we haven’t heard from either,” Brown said. 

Brown explained that the coalition is now waiting for a response from the council and shared why this proposed location is a poor choice. 

According to Brown, none of the council members who voted in favor of the proposed location actually visited the area to notice that there is senior housing located on the opposite side of the street and that the facility is not allowed to have any smoke in the building. 

“The people are still upset [about the proposed location] and we had a great turnout of neighbors and friends who came to protest,” Brown advised.  

“It’s not on the [upcoming] city council agenda and so they’re kind of trying to be quiet with it, but we don’t want it to be quiet because we don’t want other people to have to go through what we went through in this community,” Brown continued. 

According to Brown, the ordinance for cannabis was changed without making it known to Black and Latino newspapers that serve the affected areas of the proposed location. 

“They put it in the other paper, in their daily paper. They didn’t put it in our papers that serve the area being affected over here. They didn’t do anything like that when it came to the public notice. So that’s another big problem,” Brown explained.