Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After extended debate, Loma Linda council directs staff to research tobacco retail‑license enforcement models
Summary
Following a lengthy presentation and public comment, the council voted to direct staff to study how other cities implement and enforce tobacco retail licensing before returning with ordinance or fee proposals.
The Loma Linda City Council spent a substantial portion of its meeting discussing the potential for a local tobacco retail license (TRL), directing staff to research enforcement practices used by other cities before returning with a draft ordinance.
City staff explained that state law already requires cigarette and tobacco retailers to hold a state license under the California Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, but noted some cities maintain an additional local TRL to fund inspections, compliance and education. Staff pointed to examples across California with fees ranging from roughly $475 to $595 annually, and in some jurisdictions much larger initial fees intended to cover inspection and enforcement costs.
Council members raised concerns about enforcement capacity and budget impact. "What I need to know is what's the impact on city staff, what does code enforcement look like? What kind of fees are we talking about charging businesses?" one councilmember said, calling for specifics before committing to the program. Other members argued a local license signals a public‑health stance and provides local enforcement tools.
Public‑health advocates urged action. Brianna Ramirez, an intern pharmacist and member of the Coalition for a Tobacco‑Free San Bernardino County, asked the council to continue moving the process forward: "My main ask of you today is that you strongly consider continuing to move forward with the process of adopting a tobacco retail license." Highlands High School senior Laura Cortez told the council that students are being offered tobacco products at school and urged stronger local measures.
During debate, councilmembers differed on whether a TRL would add meaningful enforcement beyond state law or simply create more bureaucracy. One councilmember suggested a "lean" approach — using targeted stings and enforcement under existing law — while others said a local ordinance and associated penalties would create more local muscle and accountability.
A motion directing staff to draft an ordinance with proposed fees and enforcement options was introduced, and a substitute motion asking staff to first compile and compare other cities' TRL ordinances and enforcement experiences was presented and adopted. The substitute motion carried; staff were directed to return with comparative information on enforcement models, staffing implications and likely fee structures.
The council did not adopt a licensing ordinance at the meeting; it asked staff for more detailed analysis of enforcement approaches and costs before any ordinance would be brought forward for adoption.
