Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Smoke Shops Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission delays ordinance to restrict smoke shops after heated public hearing
Summary
After hours of staff presentation and a crowded public comment period, the Fresno City Planning Commission continued a council‑initiated text amendment that would create new permitting, location and operating rules for smoke shops and limit their number in the city.
The Fresno City Planning Commission on Monday took up a city‑council‑initiated text amendment (P.23‑03410) to add new definitions, operating rules and permitting requirements for smoke shops and to replace existing tobacco sales rules. After two hours of presentation and nearly as much public comment, commissioners continued the item for further revisions and community engagement and set a return date for the matter.
What the draft would do: Planning staff summarized the major changes in the draft ordinance. The proposed amendment would: - Add new definitions ("smoke and vapor products," "smoking paraphernalia," "smoke shop" and clarify "tobacco retailer"). - Require new smoke shops to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) and a valid business license; establish an amortization for existing smoke shops with an 18‑month period to convert or close (extensions possible under criteria); - Cap smoke shops at seven per City Council district (49 citywide); - Prohibit smoke shops within 1,000 feet of sensitive uses (schools, daycares, parks or other smoke shops); - Set operational requirements, including hours (8 a.m.–10 p.m.), signage and window glazing rules, surveillance cameras, annual inspections and civil fines for sales to minors or unlawful products.
Staff numbers and notice: Planner Phillip Zegris told the commission the city currently identifies about 564 tobacco retailers of which 82 meet the staff definition of "smoke shop." Staff also noted the public‑notice sequence required by CEQA: publication in the Fresno Bee (December 15, 2024) and posting to the state clearinghouse/OPR and county clerk on December 16, 2024.
Why the ordinance was proposed: Staff and the City Attorney’s Office cited enforcement findings that motivated council initiation. Erica Camarena, chief assistant city attorney, told the commission the city’s joint enforcement work with the California attorney general’s office found widespread unlawful activity in many establishments: "we have found that many, almost all of them have loaded weapons behind their counters," Camarena said, adding inspections have found untaxed and flavored tobacco, illicit cannabis, unpermitted modifications and other health and safety violations.
Business owners’ response: A continuous stream of smoke‑shop owners and managers told the commission the draft would close legitimate small businesses and upend employees’ livelihoods. Owners asked for clearer lists of prohibited products, more time and a gentler phase‑in. Fresno Smoke Shop owner Bridal Sefian said he has "been in business for 18 years at that same location" and asked regulators for clearer guidance and time to comply.
Public‑health and community concerns: Several residents and public‑health advocates supported the proposed restrictions and cited proximity to schools and youth exposure to flavored products. Staff also presented metrics used to identify sensitive sites near schools and other tobacco retailers.
Commissioner concerns and final action: Commissioners expressed concern about the ordinance’s economic impact on small business owners, the proposed CUP fee (staff estimated roughly $10,000) and whether a simple lottery cap was the right way to select permitted locations. Several commissioners urged additional outreach and suggested grandfathering or otherwise protecting compliant operators while targeting bad actors.
The commission voted to continue the item to allow staff to return with revisions and more community engagement; the commission set a hearing date for March 19 (continuation motion made and seconded at the meeting). Staff said the draft includes flexibility — for example the amortization period can be extended on a showing of lease or investment burdens — but commissioners asked staff to bring options for grandfathering, merit‑based selection or other protections for longstanding compliant businesses.
What’s next: The Planning Commission will revisit the draft after staff meets with stakeholders and incorporates revisions; any eventual action by the commission would be a recommendation to the City Council, which initiated the ordinance.
