Anaheim moves to regulate smoke shops, limit hours and require tobacco retail permits amid crime concerns

The Anaheim City Council introduced an ordinance May 14 to create a tobacco retail regulatory permit, require distance separations from schools and parks, set operating hours and allow permit suspension or revocation for noncompliance.

Planning staff and Anaheim Police Department investigators told the council that a subset of smoke shops were connected to illegal activities ranging from narcotics sales to unlawful gambling. Sergeant Chris Cooper said investigators found criminal actors exploiting a gap in regulation and that a new permit and operating rules would give police and planning staff tools to address problem locations.

Under the proposal, retailers whose visible inventory dedicates 15% or more of floor area to tobacco products or paraphernalia would need a tobacco retail permit; the permit would not apply to businesses where tobacco is clearly ancillary to operations. New operational rules would require a 1,000‑foot separation from “sensitive uses” such as schools, community recreation centers and parks, and 500 feet between tobacco retailers. The draft ordinance would prohibit retail sales between midnight and 6 a.m. and would allow civil fines and administrative suspensions (for example, up to 10 days for a first violation, up to 30 days for a second violation and permit revocation for further violations).

Police presented data showing 78 smoke shops across Anaheim and said criminal calls for service clustered near several locations. Chief Armendariz and Sergeant Cooper said the ordinance is intended to preserve public safety while protecting lawful businesses. Staff also proposed a process for existing stores to apply for permits by the later of their next business license renewal or January 2026; operators could request limited hardship exemptions (for example, based on existing long‑term leases or significant investment) while the city implements the new rules.

During public comment and council discussion members signaled support for the ordinance; Councilmember Nick Ribalcaba asked staff to consider expedited review for locations generating frequent calls for service. Councilmember Maaz asked about nitrous oxide sales; staff said those sales occur across multiple retail types and would be better addressed by a separate ordinance rather than as a tobacco‑specific rule.

Councilmember Meeks cautioned staff to watch for economic impacts on small convenience stores that sell single beverages or small items to lower‑income customers, and staff said the ordinance includes discretion to consider context and to apply thresholds and conditions tailored to each location. The council introduced the ordinance unanimously; the formal vote to introduce passed 7‑0.