Fresno council deadlocks 3-3 on ordinance to regulate smoke shops after months of debate

The Fresno City Council voted 3-3 on March 13 on a proposed text amendment to the city’s development code that would have defined “smoke shops,” limited their number and imposed a conditional-use permitting and operational regime for new and existing establishments.

The measure was sponsored by Vice President Miguel Arias and co-sponsors, who said the change was needed after city inspections documented widespread illegal activity at numerous smoke shops. “95 percent of them were engaging in selling illegal tobacco products which they knew was illegal for them to sell,” Vice President Arias said during the debate, summarizing the city’s recent inspection results.

Council supporters said the ordinance sought to create a clear legal definition and tools—location buffers, operating-hour limits, signage rules, annual inspections and fines—to stop illicit sales of flavored tobacco, unlicensed cannabis products and in some cases gambling and weapons. “These establishments . . . were attracting the criminal element and increasing crime in the area,” Arias said, citing joint inspections by code enforcement, the state attorney general and police.

Opponents and many business owners told the council the ordinance would sweep up long‑running lawful retailers and put people out of work. “It’s unethical, un-American, and it’s not right,” said Fabian, who identified himself as owner of Fresno Smoke Shop and said his store had operated for 16 years with all permits. “Please, I urge you guys, think about it, reconsider, work with us.”

Public-health and community groups called for licensing and stronger local enforcement. Josiah Zuniga of the Fresno County Tobacco Free Coalition and Abel Arevalo, co-chair of that coalition, recommended a tobacco retail license (TRL) to fund retailer education and enforcement rather than the city’s proposed smoke-shop permit structure. “A TRL is an evidence‑based practice proven to reduce illegal activity,” Arevalo said.

Councilmember Miguel Arias moved to approve the text amendment—identified in staff materials as revisions to development code sections (including 15‑27‑061 and proposed new definitions in 15‑62‑08)—with several sponsor amendments (including an increase from an originally proposed cap to seven smoke shops per council district, fines for prohibited items, and authority to seize illegal flavored products). The motion was seconded but failed in roll call 3-3: Councilmembers Esparza, Arias and Preya voted yes; Councilmembers Maxwell, Richardson and Council President Carbassi voted no, so the amendment did not pass.

Why it mattered: City staff told the council there are roughly 564 tobacco retailers citywide, with about 15 percent meeting the proposed smoke-shop definition, and that many inspected locations were near schools or other sensitive uses. Sponsors said the city’s current code contains no definition for standalone smoke shops and no consistent regulatory framework; they argued that created enforcement gaps and a recurrent public‑safety burden.

What the ordinance would have done: Staff presentations and the draft amendment show the proposal would have—among other actions—required conditional use permits for new smoke shops, capped smoke shops at seven per council district (49 citywide) unless the council acted to change that cap, prohibited certain product sales and vending machines, required video surveillance and staff training, limited hours (typically 8 a.m.–10 p.m.), and created an amortization period (about 18 months) for existing shops to change operations or apply for a CUP.

Community reaction: Dozens of speakers addressed the council. Business owners and employees emphasized livelihoods, taxes and the potential for a black market if legal shops were closed. Public‑health advocates, school trustees and community groups urged stronger regulation, enforcement and licensing to protect youth from illicit flavored tobacco and unregulated cannabis products. An attorney representing smoke‑shop interests warned of constitutional challenges and potential financial liability to the city.

What’s next: With the ordinance defeated, the council did not adopt the proposed regulatory framework. Sponsors and opponents indicated willingness to continue negotiations; several council members asked staff and legal counsel to return with refined language and additional information (for example, clearer definitions and data identifying which existing retailers had documented egregious violations). The council also discussed using seized funds and grant resources to support retailer education and enforcement, but legal staff said seized cash would require an asset‑forfeiture process and might not be reliable funding.

Speakers quoted in this article were located in the meeting transcript for the March 13, 2025 Fresno City Council meeting and are listed in the article’s speaker section.