City planning commission votes down proposed ordinance to regulate standalone vape shops

At a meeting of the planning commission, members voted 2–3 to reject an ordinance that would amend Chapter 27 of the city code to define and regulate standalone vape shops.

Staff told the commission the amendment is a "land use text amendment" intended to target standalone vape shops rather than individual resident behavior and noted a council member’s letter laying out goals including public‑health concerns about marketing to teenagers. "Scope is limited to standalone vape shops and their regulation," staff said, adding that the change is not intended to "regulate the individual behavior of residents."

The draft ordinance would identify a vape shop in two ways: a retail establishment that derives 25 percent or more of its sales from the covered product categories, or one that dedicates 25 percent or more of interior floor area to those products. Staff described a practical measurement method for the floor‑area test: draw a rectangle around the sales area so code enforcement can assess whether the rectangle covers more than 25 percent of the store. Staff said revenue is often easier for other jurisdictions to enforce, but the rectangle method simplifies measuring physical space.

Staff also explained why the amendment focuses on vape‑type retailers and generally excludes CBD or THC specialty stores that resemble wellness or beverage shops. Staff said products sold in vaping cartridges are included under the proposed rule, while gummies or beverages would not be covered.

Commissioners asked about enforcement and edge cases. Commissioner Brown noted the rectangle measurement would typically arise only when a complaint or business‑license review triggered code enforcement; staff confirmed that enforcement would generally follow a complaint or licensing step. Commissioner Abson sought and received clarification that meeting either the 25 percent sales test or the 25 percent interior area test would qualify a business as a vape shop.

A commissioner who opposed the motion warned the ordinance appeared to regulate conduct rather than land use and could expose the city to litigation. "I think we're buying the city litigation with this ordinance," the commissioner said, arguing the proposal could be difficult to enforce and called it ‘‘bad law for the sake of making law.’’

Commissioner Brown moved to approve the ordinance as amended by staff; Commissioner Moss seconded. After brief debate, the motion failed on a 2–3 vote. The chair said no immediate alternate motion was offered and the commission moved on to other business and later adjourned.

The action ended the item for this meeting; staff and commissioners did not adopt an alternative direction on the ordinance during the session.