Redondo Beach council imposes suspension and strict conditions after flavored‑tobacco inspection at Manhattan Beach Smoke Shop

The Redondo Beach City Council on March 3 voted 3‑2 to place the Manhattan Beach Smoke Shop’s business license (No. 330177) under a 90‑day suspension and to require strict conditions — including immediate compliance with the city’s smoke‑shop conditional use permit rules, new window/signage restrictions, restitution for staff hours, and a snapback revocation provision — after a March 18, 2025 inspection by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) and Redondo Beach Police Department found flavored nicotine products in the store.

City prosecutor Stephanie Johnson, who urged revocation, told the council the evidence showed the licensee had possessed flavored tobacco products in violation of state and local law and asked the council to consider permanent revocation. "I would ask that city council please impose a permanent revocation of business license 330177," Johnson said during the city’s presentation. She cited Redondo Beach Municipal Code provisions and Health and Safety Code 104559.5(b)(1) and noted CDTFA’s involvement in the inspection.

The evidence the city presented focused on photographs, a CDTFA inspector declaration, and inventory seized at the March 18 inspection. Sergeant Joshua Spry of the Redondo Beach Police Department described the scene: product on public display and in unlocked storage on the sales floor and additional inventory in a back storage area. Spry testified that CDTFA documented “1,630 total sales units” collected into evidence with an estimated retail value of $24,644 and said, based on quantity and the presence of an operating point‑of‑sale, it was his opinion the items had been possessed with intent to sell; he did not, however, say he personally observed sales during the inspection.

The owner, identified in the record as Ferris Adamo, responded through counsel and in person. Appellant counsel Sam Zweig said the appellant would submit on portions of the record but asked the council to note the cannabis‑beverage evidence the owner described as hemp drinks bought from a wholesaler. Adamo told the council he had been "fooled" by a supplier and said he did not know the drinks were unlawful: "I didn't know I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to carry them," he said on the record. Adamo also said the confiscated flavored items represented a small share of his overall inventory and warned that losing the business could trigger a loan default: "I will be in default of my loan if the business is closed," he said.

Members of the public urged strict enforcement of the state flavored‑tobacco ban and the city’s smoke‑shop ordinance. Melissa Decant, citing voter‑approved Proposition 31 and local efforts to curb flavored tobacco sales, said enforcement was necessary to protect youth. Other residents questioned whether the state agency could review sales records or tax filings to determine whether banned products had been sold.

Council deliberations split along enforcement‑versus‑remediation lines. Some council members argued the record supported permanent revocation under Redondo Beach Municipal Code 6‑1.26 and related state law because flavored products had been possessed and displayed. Others said the city’s recently adopted tobacco penalties (which include a first‑violation suspension provision) and the practical consequences for the property weighed in favor of a structured conditional approach.

The majority adopted a substitute motion that imposes a 90‑day suspension (not immediate permanent revocation), requires immediate compliance with the city’s conditional use permit conditions for smoke shops (including removal of visible product and advertising from exterior view), mandates clear signage that the shop does not sell flavored tobacco or cannabis products, provides for inspections by code enforcement and police, requires staff to calculate reasonable restitution for investigation and prosecution hours, and includes automatic revocation if the operator violates tobacco or cannabis laws again. The council instructed staff to prepare a formal resolution reflecting those conditions and return it for council consideration (and potential mayoral veto) at a future meeting; the staff report and proposed resolution will be made available to the appellant in advance.

City officials emphasized that cultivating compliance and protecting public health — particularly given the state ban on flavored tobacco products — motivated enforcement. The council’s action directs staff to produce a written resolution capturing the approved conditions; the appellant was invited to submit comments on the draft resolution before the council takes the item back up.

The council closed the hearing and adjourned the meeting. The staff report and draft resolution will be available ahead of the next council meeting, and the council set a follow‑up date for consideration of the resolution.