Planning commission urges council not to adopt proposed La Habra smoke-shop zoning change

The La Habra Planning Commission on Monday voted 3-1 to recommend that the City Council not adopt an ordinance (Zone Change ZCA-205-055) that would define "smoke shops" in the municipal code and bar new smoke shops in all zones.

City staff, led by Susan Kim, director of community and economic development, told commissioners the proposed code change would add a definition for smoke shops (examples included conditions such as 20% of floor area devoted to tobacco products, 60% of gross sales from tobacco, or 50% or more of transactions involving tobacco) and would prohibit new smoke shops in every zone. Kim said 68 locations in La Habra currently hold state tobacco-retailer licenses and staff estimated about 20 businesses would meet the staff-proposed smoke-shop definition. She also said the City Council had adopted a 45-day moratorium on new smoke shops on Aug. 18 and was expected to consider extending that moratorium on Sept. 15.

The issue drew extended questioning from commissioners about enforcement mechanics and the ordinance's focus on a subset of retailers. Commissioners asked how staff would verify the 20% floor-area or 60% gross-sales thresholds, how hours of operation could be limited, and whether state licensing and tax records would provide enforceable data. Kim explained staff could use business-license information, sales-tax records and on-site inspections as compliance tools and that other cities use similar definitions and enforcement approaches.

Debate centered on competing goals the council had set out — reduce the number of tobacco retailers over time while not affecting existing businesses immediately — and on the fairness and legal risk of singling out smoke shops. Several commissioners expressed concern that the proposed change would leave 68 existing retailers untouched while preventing new small businesses from opening, and one commissioner argued the proposal risked losing tax revenue and could expose the city to lawsuits. Other commissioners and staff cited public-health research and examples from Gardena, Anaheim, Stanton and Fullerton, which have used moratoria, local permits or licensing to address concentrations of tobacco retailers.

After discussion, the commission voted to recommend that the City Council not adopt the draft ordinance. The formal motion on the record recommended the council decline to approve ZCA-205-055; the motion passed 3-1. The Planning Commission did not adopt a competing regulatory package (such as an immediate tobacco-retailer licensing program) but several commissioners asked that the council consider options to regulate existing tobacco retailers or to extend the moratorium while staff returns with more analysis.

What happens next: The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Staff told the commission that if the council ultimately proceeds with an ordinance, staff anticipated a first reading (staff noted an illustrative schedule including a possible Oct. 6 first reading and Oct. 20 second reading) and that an adopted ordinance would take effect 30 days after adoption.

Sources for this article are the Planning Commission meeting transcript and staff presentations on the ZCA-205-055 proposal.