Corte Madera council directs staff to revise proposed ban on retail tobacco and nicotine sales

The Corte Madera Town Council on Aug. 4 directed staff to revise a draft ordinance that would prohibit the retail sale and delivery of tobacco and nicotine products in town and to return with a new first reading at a later meeting.

Assistant Town Manager Rebecca Vaughn presented the draft, which would repeal chapter 5.06 and expand the town’s existing restrictions to include cigarettes, cigars, little cigars, smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco and related components. Vaughn said the sales prohibition in the draft was written to be operative on Jan. 1, 2027, with an implementation period allowing existing licensed retailers to sell through inventory through Dec. 31 of the operative year. The draft also includes a proposed delivery‑sales prohibition to prevent out‑of‑town retailers from shipping products into Corte Madera addresses.

“Tonight’s item is the consideration and possible introduction of an ordinance that would end the sale of tobacco and nicotine products by businesses in Corte Madera,” Rebecca Vaughn said in the staff presentation.

During a lengthy public comment period, youth speakers and medical society delegates urged the council to adopt the full ban (often described as “option 1”) to protect children and public health. A Redwood High School youth advocate told the council, “I am fully in support of option 1 to ban the sale of all tobacco and nicotine products in the town.” Health‑care representatives and smoking‑prevention coalitions emphasized the role of retail availability in youth initiation.

Local business owners and trade representatives urged caution. The California Fuels and Convenience Alliance and independent retailers said enforcement and evaluation of recent local rules (Ordinance 10‑59) should be allowed to run first, and warned a local ban could shift sales to other jurisdictions or unregulated online sellers. Several retailers and owners asked that the town consider reimbursement or transition assistance; staff noted the draft includes a possible partial reimbursement of the state tobacco retailer license fee as an option.

Council members debated enforcement feasibility, the proposed operative date and whether to allow any product or business‑specific exceptions. Council member Beckman moved to introduce the ordinance with a small wording change (replace the word “authorized” with “approved” in the findings) and to direct staff to return with a revised ordinance reflecting a 30‑day adjustment to the operative date (moving the operative/enforceable date to 01/31/2027 in the revised draft). Council member Ravasio seconded.

On a roll call the motion to direct staff carried 4–1, with Council member Andrews voting no and Council members Beckman, Avasio, Vice Mayor Cuciza and Mayor Thomas voting yes. The council’s direction requires staff to prepare a revised ordinance and to bring it back for a new first reading at the Sept. 1 meeting; formal adoption would occur at a later date.

Town staff said enforcement of a delivery prohibition would likely rely on complaints and interagency coordination and that staff would consult with county and state partners to explore practical measures (including outreach to delivery platforms). Staff also said the draft does not prohibit personal possession or use and would preserve exemptions for FDA‑approved cessation products sold for therapeutic purposes.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft per council direction (wording change and operative‑date adjustment) and return with a new first reading; any final adoption would require a subsequent meeting and vote.