Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves stricter tobacco-sales ordinance after debate on enforcement and small-retailer impacts
Summary
The City Council approved a second-reading ordinance establishing a tobacco-retailer permit, staged penalties and coordination with state enforcement; the council debated protections for small retailers and enforcement methods before passage.
The Los Angeles City Council approved a second-reading ordinance to regulate tobacco sales, add a city tobacco-retailer permit and establish staged penalties after state enforcement. Council members debated whether the ordinance would be unduly punitive for small "mom and pop" retailers, and the council accepted assurances from the city attorney that the measure provides warnings and uses state sting operations for enforcement. The ordinance passed on the second reading by recorded vote.
Supporters said the ordinance is an important step to curb underage tobacco access; critics raised concerns about enforcement costs to small retailers and urged an education component. City Attorney representatives told the council that the ordinance was drafted to allow progressive enforcement: the first violation triggers a warning, and repeated violations can lead to permit suspension under rules discussed at the hearing.
City Attorney staff responded to retailer concerns at the hearing. Tim McCosker (city attorney staff) said in response to questions that "the ordinance is not unduly punitive. In fact, we think it's very fairly drafted to provide opportunities to the business to ... have a gradual increase of their violations lead to more drastic measures." He and other city staff explained that most enforcement will use contracted state investigators conducting undercover sting operations; after state administrative remedies and due process, the state will notify the city and the city will take licensing actions.
Council members pressed for clarifications. Council member Hernandez asked whether any California cities had similar ordinances; city staff identified San Francisco and numerous other jurisdictions as having comparable rules. Council member Pacheco supported a longer disqualification window and said he favored a five-year period to track repeat violations rather than a one-year window. The council discussed a sanction in which five violations in five years would result in a one-year prohibition on selling tobacco products; council staff indicated that the ordinance contains that outcome as described by members during debate.
Some council members proposed on-site notification and a 48-hour cure period after a violation is detected; that amendment failed on a council roll call. City Attorney staff opposed on-site notification because undercover stings would be compromised and enforcement resources would be harmed.
On second reading the council approved the ordinance (recorded vote: 14 ayes as shown in the clerk's tally). The council and city attorney said they would review implementation data after six months to consider adjustments, and the city will distribute educational materials to retailers as part of the enforcement program.
The ordinance establishes a permit system, progressive penalties tied to state enforcement findings, and a structure for city licensing action after state adjudication and notice. Council members said they expect a follow-up review after implementation data are collected.
