Sacramento council to seek end of 'healthy food' exemption for tobacco retailers; directs staff on fees and enforcement

The Sacramento City Council discussed a staff report on city code changes to tobacco retailer licensing and directed staff to return with proposed ordinance language to eliminate the 2020 "healthy food" exemption, adjust license fees, and strengthen enforcement.

The report from the Community Development Department showed that the number of tobacco retail licenses in the city rose from 240 when the last amendment passed to 311 today, an increase of 71 licenses. "Of those 71, 27 open using the healthy foods exemption, while 44 were able to open without that healthy foods exemption," said Sean Bartos, Community Development Department, during the presentation. Bartos also said code enforcement issued about 300 notices of violation for flavored tobacco after the initial ban.

Council members and public-health advocates said the exemption had not achieved its stated goal of increasing healthy-food access and had become a loophole that increased retailer density. Rachel Alvarez, vice chair of the Greater Sacramento Smoke and Tobacco Free Coalition, urged the council to remove the exemption entirely. "We urge this council to remove the healthy food exemption in its entirety from City Code," Alvarez said during public comment. Kimberly Bankston Lee, executive director of the Soul Project, said the exemption "has not increased access to healthy food" and cited state data that local tobacco retail density remains high and disproportionately close to schools.

Councilmember concerns and staff responses

Councilmembers pressed staff on how the exemption had been enforced and whether stores actually carried meaningful healthy food. Councilmember Maple asked whether inspectors had verified store inventory; Bartos said inspectors visit each tobacco retailer twice a year and verify the minimum standards for the exemption are being met, but that compliance often consists of the bare minimum items (for example, sugary cereals or juices) that technically satisfy the ordinance. On enforcement, staff said a notice of violation typically gives about 10 days to correct deficiencies before penalties are pursued.

Mayor Pro Tem Guerra led council direction to staff, calling the exemption a failed experiment and urging immediate action. Guerra asked staff to return with ordinance language removing the exemption, to "right-size" tobacco retail licensing (TRL) fees so enforcement is fully funded, and to evaluate making TRLs nontransferable. As an interim threshold, Guerra asked that future prospective tobacco retailers in spaces smaller than 15,000 square feet and within 1,000 feet of an existing retailer would be ineligible for the exemption.

Vice Mayor Talamantes and Councilmember Vang voiced agreement with eliminating the exemption and adding restrictions on retailer density. Councilmember Dickinson and others recommended additional measures listed by community partners, including phasing out commercial tobacco sales over a multi-year period, clearer protocols for enforcement, and tobacco-waste mitigation funded by license fees.

Public comment and community context

Speakers from public-health coalitions and local residents urged stronger limits to protect youth and communities of color. Pleshette Robertson, a District 8 resident, urged phasing out commercial tobacco sales over three to five years and recommended making licenses nontransferable and increasing fees to cover enforcement and waste cleanup.

Councilmembers also noted geographic concentration of retailers in areas with worse health outcomes, mentioning District 2, South Natomas, Northgate and parts of South Sacramento. Councilmembers discussed the possibility that county policy would mirror the city's moves, as Sacramento's earlier ban on flavored tobacco led to nearby jurisdictions and the state taking similar steps.

Next steps

The item was presented as an informational report; council did not take a final vote on ordinance language. Staff were directed to return with proposed code changes to eliminate the healthy-food exemption, a recommendation to adjust TRL fees to reflect enforcement costs, options on nontransferability of licenses, clearer enforcement protocols (including notice timelines), and proposals for tobacco-waste mitigation. Council indicated an intent to consider phasing and implementation timelines when the staff report returns.

The discussion referenced prior action: a 2018 flavored- and menthol-tobacco ban, a 2020 adoption of the "healthy food" exemption, and state-level updates that will produce an attorney general list of unflavored tobacco products later in the year. The council indicated it expects staff to return with ordinance language and cost estimates for enforcement and mitigation in a future meeting.

Votes at a glance: none — informational item; staff directed to return with ordinance and fee recommendations.