The Santa Rosa City Council approved revised regulations banning the sale of flavored tobacco and e-cigarettes after officials relaxed restrictions on transferring retail licenses between business owners.
The change appeared to appease three council members who had opposed a similar set of regulations last month over the potential fallout for small businesses.
The new city law stems from a March 2023 City Council meeting in which members directed City Hall to develop a tobacco retail license aimed at curbing youth smoking.
The resulting original ordinance would have been one of the toughest in the county, and it earned the first of two required votes from the council on May 21.
But the policy failed to get the necessary support during what typically would’ve been a routine second vote in early June, with members split on the government limits being placed on businesses.
At issue in the original proposed ordinance was a provision that allowed license transfers to family members and companies with related shareholders but required that a new business owner apply for a new license if the business were sold.
The new owner would have had to comply with a proposed 600-foot setback between the business and youth-oriented areas such as parks and schools. A city analysis found 40 businesses fell within the buffer zone.
Staff stripped that language from the revised ordinance, grandfathering in existing businesses even if the business is sold.
Vice Mayor Mark Stapp, who was among the council members concerned limiting transfers to new owners would undercut a business’ value, said the revised regulations still make it tougher for young people to purchase products without placing an undue burden on small businesses.
“I very much like what you’ve come back with,” Stapp told staffers during Tuesday’s hearing.
Mayor Natalie Rogers and Council member Jeff Okrepkie cast the other two votes last month against the original ordinance. They backed the revised ordinance Tuesday, which passed in a 6-0 vote. Council member Eddie Alvarez recused himself because he owns a cannabis dispensary.
The measure will come back for a second formal vote next month and licensing and enforcement will start in January, if adopted.
Council member Dianna MacDonald, who had supported a stronger ordinance, said it was critical that the council reach an agreement and get an ordinance on the books.
“I’m not happy that it had to come back again for reconsideration. We were almost there,” she said ahead of the vote. “But I do think that it’s great that we were able to come to some conclusions and get this in place now.”
Most of the provisions in the ordinance remained unchanged from what was first proposed in May.
Retailers that sell tobacco products will be required to apply for a license with the city. They will be barred from selling flavored tobacco and any electronic smoking devices and must comply with certain packaging and pricing standards, among other regulations.
The ordinance restricts the number of retail licenses citywide to the lesser of the current number of state-licensed retailers — 118 as of May — or one retailer per 2,500 residents, equivalent to about 72 licenses.
The number of licenses would gradually decrease as shops close or lose their license and no new licenses will be issued until the total number falls below the cap.
The city will partner with Impact Sonoma, a tax-funded county agency tasked with supporting tobacco prevention efforts, to conduct inspections and the city’s code enforcement team will address infractions and issue fines.
Retailers could face up to $400 for each violation identified during a first inspection and up to $1,200 per violation found during a third inspection within five years. The city will revoke a business’ license after the third infraction.
The total fine per instance will not exceed $10,000 under the updated fee structure.
The ordinance also allows code enforcement officers to cite and fine retailers selling tobacco products without a city license.
Council member Chris Rogers, who was absent during the prior vote, said he supported the measure but felt the penalties were too lenient and the city should take a tougher approach to tackling bad actors.
“The reality is three chances for bad operators is probably at least one chance too many,” he said. “The first time is probably at least a miscommunication. The second time it’s malicious. The third time you know it’s a design flaw.”
No local business owners spoke during Tuesday’s meeting but Jaime Rojas, a representative with the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, said most retailers are complying with existing state rules banning flavored tobacco.
Tobacco products are already highly regulated and local regulations aren’t needed, Rojas said.
Though California prohibited the sale of most flavored tobacco in 2022, citing the appeal and health risks for children, a coalition of health care providers and community members who have advocated for anti-smoking regulations locally have said such policies will help close loopholes in the state policy, which has carveouts for flavored premium cigars and other products. Local rules also give municipalities more tools to crack down on operators flouting laws, advocates say.
You can reach Staff Writer Paulina Pineda at 707-521-5268 or paulina.pineda@pressdemocrat.com. On X (Twitter) @paulinapineda22.
Most Popular
Comments / 0