HomeMy Public PortalAbout13) 8.B.2nd Reading and Adoption of Tobacco Retailer PermitAGENDA
ITEM 8.8.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 4, 2012
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jose E. Pulido, City Manage(t
Via: Robert Sahagun, Public Safety and Services Manager
By: Giselle Corella, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO 12-965, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ADDING ARTICLE D
('.TOBACCO RETAILER PERMIT ORDINANCE") OF CHAPTER 2
CUBUSINESS PERMITS") OF TITLE 5 C'BUSINESS LICENSE AND
REGULATIONS") OF THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 12-965 (Attachment "A"),
an Ordinance of the City of Temple City, modifying Chapter 2 ("Business Permits") of Title
5 ("Business License and Regulations") of the Temple City Municipal Code regarding the
regulations that will promote responsible tobacco retailing through the addition of Article D
(''Tobacco Retailer Permit Ordinance").
BACKGROUND:
1. On May 19, 2009, City Council received public input urging the City to implement a
smoking ban.
2. On July 21, 2009, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 09-928 prohibiting smoking
in City Parks.
3. On December 10, 2010, a City Codes Review Ad Hoc Committee (i.e ., Mayor
Chavez and Council Member Sternquist) was formed to address the challenges
City staff was encountering in its attempts to enforce the City's Municipal Code.
4. During the months of January and February 2011, staff conducted a review of the
entire Municipal Code to identify its deficiencies, and to provide the Ad Hoc
Committee with recommendations to better facilitate compliance.
5. On March 9, 2011, Community Preservation staff met with the Ad Hoc Committee
City Council
December 4, 2012
Page 2
to discuss the difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Municipal Code. This
includes inconsistent provisions, ambiguous verbiage and outdated requirements
that no longer reflect the goals of the City, as well as the lack of necessary
enforcement tools needed to mandate compliance from persons who refuse to
voluntarily comply with applicable requirements.
6. From April through October 2011, Community Preservation staff (including City
Prosecutor James Eckart) and the Ad Hoc Committee discussed various methods
of addressing the deficiencies, including possible amendments to the City's
Municipal Code.
7. On November 15, 2011, the City Council approved the first round of proposed
code amendments that would facilitate improved enforcement of the Municipal
Code and subsequent compliance of violations. The ordinances approved were:
Ordinance No. 11-948 -Shopping and Laundry Cart Containment, Retrieval and
Abatement; Ordinance No. 11-949 -Abandoned and Vacant Property Registration,
Maintenance and Security Requirements; and Ordinance No. 11-950 -Public
Nuisance Regulations.
8. On March 20, 2012, the Community Development staff and City Prosecutor James
Eckart met with the Ad Hoc Committee to discuss methods for addressing the
failing ("F") grade Temple City received for insufficient local tobacco control
policies as published by the American Lung Association's State of Tobacco Control
2012 -California Local Grade Results. The Ad Hoc Committee then gave staff
direction to proceed with drafting a Tobacco Retailer Permit Ordinance.
9. On May 1, 2012, the Ad Hoc Committee met with staff and the City Prosecutor to
review the first draft of the proposed Ordinance. Based on the American Lung
Association's State of Tobacco Control 2012-California Local Grade Results, and
recommendations from the City Prosecutor, the Ad Hoc Committee provided
direction to amend the initial draft based on aforementioned input.
10. On June 19, 2012, the Ad Hoc Committee met with staff and the City Prosecutor to
review the revised first draft of the proposed Ordinance. The Ad Hoc Committee
provided feedback, recommendations, and directed staff to submit the proposed
Ordinance to the City Council for consideration.
11. From the months of July through October 2012, staff met several times with the
City Prosecutor to ensure that the recommended revisions to the proposed
Ordinance were being incorporated based on the Ad Hoc Committee's direction.
12. On November 8 and November 12, 2012, public notices regarding the introduction
and first reading of the proposed Ordinance No. 12-965 was published in the
Temple City Tribune.
13. On November 20, 2012, Ordinance No. 12-965 was introduced to the City Council
for first reading, by title only, modifying Chapter 2 ("Business Permits") of Title 5
City Council
December 4, 2012
Page 3
("Business License and Regulations") of the Temple City Municipal Code regarding
the regulations that will promote responsible tobacco retailing through the addition of
Article D (''Tobacco Retailer Permit Ordinance"). After a lengthy discussion regarding
the enforceability of said Ordinance, the City Council approved the Ordinance by a
majority vote.
ANALYSIS:
During the past months, the City has enacted several amendments (i.e., Property
Maintenance, Shopping Cart Containment, and Vacant Property Registration) to the
Temple City Municipal Code (TCMC) aimed at maintaining and enhancing the City's
quality of life . Staff's review and analysis of State law and the TCMC has demonstrated
that the City's existing laws have not been adapted to adequately respond to growing
concerns by City officials and the public, regarding responsible tobacco retailing as it
pertains to discouraging the sale and distribution of tobacco and nicotine products to
minors.
Studies and Statistics
The State has declared smoking as the single most important source of preventable
disease and premature death in California. The United States Department of Health &
Human Services and the American Lung Association have concluded that, every day,
approxim'ately 4,000 minors smoke their first cigarette, and almost 1 ,000 minors begin
smoking. In 2007, the rate of illegal tobacco sales to minors was approximately 11%
with a statewide average of 16% in non-traditional tobacco retailers such as deli, meat,
and donut shops.
Although the California legislature has enacted laws to curb the illegal sale and
distribution of cigarettes, research demonstrates that local tobacco retail ordinances are
the most effective at reducing the illegal sale and distribution of tobacco. In some cities,
such as Beaumont and Berkley, the youth sale rates have decreased by 43% after the
adoption of a tobacco retailer permit and license ordinance (Attachment "8").
There are over 1 00 communities throughout California that have passed tobacco retailer
licenses. The American Lung Association's Matrix of Strong Local Tobacco Retailer
Licensing Ordinances (Attachment "C") has identified 86 California communities that
have strong and effective local tobacco retailer licensing and permitting ordinances. The
neighboring cities of San Gabriel, Baldwin Park, Monterey Park, Sierra Madre , South
Pasadena, Los Angeles, and Glendale are recognized by the American Lung
Association to have ordinances which are effective in reducing the sale of tobacco
products to minors due to enhanced enforcement and increased monitoring.
Local and State Regulations
For the purpose of regulation, local governments are authorized to license every kind of
lawful business transacted in the City pursuant to existing California statutory authority.
City Council
December 4, 2012
Page4
Additionally, local governments have general and Constitutional police powers to make
and enforce local laws to protect the public health and welfare.
In recognizing the dangers presented by tobacco use, the State has enacted legislation
targeted at preventing the sale or transfer of tobacco products to minors. Penal Code
Section 308(a) penalizes the knowing sale or transfer of tobacco to a person under the
age of 18 years ("minor''), however, the penalty is minimal and it does not hold store
owners accountable . The California Legislature has also adopted "The Stop Access to
Kids Enforcement Act" or ''The STAKE Act" declaring the State Department of Public
Health to be the primary enforcement agency in eliminating the illegal purchase and
consumption of tobacco products by minors. This section also authorizes the
Department of Public Health, to assess civil penalties against any person, firm, or
corporation that sells or gives tobacco products to a minor. The Food and Drug branch
of the Department of Public Health is empowered to enforce the STAKE Act, however, it
has limited State funding devoted to enforcing tobacco control laws .
Current Business License Regulations
Although Title 5 of the TCMC contains general provisions to partially protect the health
and safety of the community (e.g ., through provisions requiring that prerequisite permits
be obtained for certain businesses such as liquor stores), Title 5 lacks provisions that
would assist in the prevention of sales to minors of tobacco products. The primary
purpose behind such regulations is to ensure the orderly operation of business activities
in a manner that best protects the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Currently,
the City does not require a regulatory business permit for tobacco retailers .
Tobacco Retailer Permit Ordinance Overview
The proposed Ordinance would require that all persons who sell or offer for sale,
tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco paraphernalia, obtain a "Tobacco Retailer
Permit" from the City. The proposed Ordinance sets out the application and review
process for tobacco retailer permits, including: basis for denying an application and the
procedures for challenging and appealing a denial of a tobacco retailer permit. The
proposed Ordinance stipulates that tobacco retailer permits are nontransferable and any
change in business ownership or name of business would require a new permit.
The proposed Ordinance also sets several operating requirements for all tobacco retailers
including the mandatory public display of their tobacco retail permit and checking the
identification of any person who appears to be under the age of 30. The proposed
Ordinance authorizes "compliance monitoring" to allow the City and the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department to investigate all tobacco retailers to ensure their compliance
with local, State, and Federal laws.
In an effort to deter the sale of tobacco products to minors and to facilitate compliance
with other applicable provisions of the law, the proposed Ordinance provides for the
imposition of an administrative fine and the suspension or revocation of the tobacco
retailer permit upon a determination that the tobacco retailer (or any of the retailer's
City Council
December 4, 2012
Page 5
agents/employees) has violated any condition of the tobacco retailer permit or any
provisions contained within the proposed Ordinance.
Under the proposed Ordinance, the administrative penalty for violations escalates from
an administrative fine and a 30-day suspension of the retailer's authorization to sell
tobacco (for a 1st violation) to an increased administrative fine and a revocation of the
tobacco retailer permit (for a 3rd violation within a sixty month period). It further prohibits
the issuance of a new tobacco retailer permit to any retailer who has had a prior permit
revoked within the preceding 12 months.
To protect the tobacco retailer's right to due process of law, the proposed Ordinance
sets forth the procedures for suspending or revoking a tobacco retailer permit, as well
as the tobacco retailer's ability to challenge and appeal such action .
CONCLUSION:
City Council approval of the proposed Ordinance will encourage responsible tobacco
retailing which will assist in the prevention of the illegal sale and distribution of tobacco
and nicotine products to minors throughout the City and the greater San Gabriel Valley.
FISCAL IMPACT:
After the proposed Ordinance becomes effective on January 3, 2013, the City will
generate revenue from the tobacco retailer permits . However, the increase in revenue will
be used to offset the costs incurred from the monitoring and enforcement of the tobacco
retailer permit.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Ordinance No. 12-965
B. Tobacco Retailing Licensing is Effective
C. Matrix of Strong Local Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinances
Attachment "A"
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
ORDINANCE N0.12-965
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
ADDING ARTICLED ("TOBACCO RETAILER PERMIT ORDINANCE") OF
CHAPTER 2 e'BUSINESS PERMITS") OF TITLE 5 ("BUSINESS LICENSE
AND REGULATIONS") OF THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS , Section VII of Article XI of the California Constitution provides
that a City may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and
other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and,
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has recognized the danger of
tobacco use and has made reducing youth access to tobacco product a high
priority, as evidenced by the facts that:
• The Legislature has declared that smoking is the single most important
source of preventable disease and premature death in California (Cal.
Health & Safety Code §118950);
• State law prohibits the sale or furnishing of cigarettes, tobacco
products, and smoking paraphernalia to minors, as well as the
purchase, receipt, or possession of tobacco products by minors (Cal.
Pen. Code §308 );
• State law requires that tobacco retailers check the identification of
tobacco purdiasers who reasonably appear to be under 18 years of
age (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §22952) and provides procedures for the
State Department of Public Health to use minors to conduct onsite
compliance checks of tobacco retailers (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
§22952);
• State law prohibits the sale of tobacco products and paraphernalia
through self service displays with limited exceptions for tobacco stores
(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§22960 and 22962);
• State law prohibits the sale of "bidis" (hand-rolled filter-less cigarettes
imported primarily from India and Southeast Asian countries) except in
adult-only establishments (Cal. Pen. Code §308 .1 ); and,
• State law prohibits the manufacture, distribution, or sale of cigarettes in
packages less than 20 and prohibits the manufacture, distribution, or
sale of "roll-your-own" tobacco in packages containing Jess than 0.60
ounces of tobacco (Cal. Pen. Code §308.2); and,
WHEREAS, State law requires all tobacco retailers to be licensed by the
Board of Equalization primarily to curb the illegal sale and distribution of
Page 1 of 18
cigarettes due to tax evasion and counterfeiting (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
§§22970.1 and 22972); and,
WHEREAS, despite the State's efforts to limit youth access to tobacco,
minors are still able to access cigarettes, as evidenced by the following
determinations made by the United States Department of Health and Human
Services and/or the American Lung Association:
• Every day, nearly 4,000 children under 18 years of age smoke their first
cigarette, and almost 1,000 children under 18 years of age begin regular
daily smoking;
• In 2007, 20% of high school students reported smoking within the previous
30 days
• Among middle school students who were current cigarette users in 2004,
70.6% were not asked to show proof of age when they purchased or
attempted to purchase cigarettes from a store, and 66 .4% were not
refused purchase because of their age;
WHEREAS, the Californ i a Legislature has expliciHy stated that the
Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003 (contained within Cal.
Bus . & Prof. Code §§22970 et seq .) does not preempt or supersede any local
tobacco control law other than those related to the collection of state taxes , and
that local licensing laws may provide for the suspension or revocation of the local
license for any violation of a state tobacco control law (Cal. Bus. & Prof.
§22971 .3); and,
WHEREAS, California courts in such cases as Cohen v. Board of
Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 277, and Bravo Vending v. City of Rancho Mirage
(1993) 16 Cal. App . 4th 383, have affirmed the power of the local governments to
regulate business activity in order to discourage violations of law; and,
WHEREAS, approximately seventy~eight (78) cities and counties in
California have passed tobacco retailer licensing ordinances in an effort to stop
minors from smoking; and,
WHEREAS, research demonstrates that local tobacco retail ordinances
dramatically reduce youth access to cigarettes , as evidenced by a review of
thirteen California communities with strong tobacco retailer licensing ordinances
in 2007 that showed that the youth sales rate dedined in twelve of the thirteen
communities, with an average decrease of 68% in the youth sales rate ; and,
WHEREAS, California retailers continue to sell tobacco to underage
consumers, as evidenced by the following determinations of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services:
Page 2 of 18
" N e a r l y 1 1 % o f a l l t o b a c c o r e t a i l e r s u n l a w f u l l y s o l d t o m i n o r s i n 2 0 0 7 ;
" N o n - t r a d i t i o n a l t o b a c c o r e t a i l e r s s u c h a s d e l i , m e a t , a n d d o n u t s h o p s s o l d
t o m i n o r s i n 2 0 0 7 a t a m u c h h i g h e r r a t e t h a n t h e s t a t e w i d e a v e r a g e , a s
h i g h a s 1 6 % ;
" T e e n s s u r v e y e d i n 2 0 0 2 s a y t h e y b o u g h t t h e i r c i g a r e t t e s a t : g a s s t a t i o n s
( 5 8 % ) , l i q u o r s t o r e s ( 4 5 % ) , a n d s u p e r m a r k e t s a n d s m a l l g r o c e r y s t o r e s
( 2 9 % c o m b i n e d ) ;
W H E R E A S , a r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a t o b a c c o r e t a i l e r p e r m i t w i l l n o t u n d u l y
b u r d e n l e g i t i m a t e b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t i e s o f r e t a i l e r s w h o s e l l o r d i s t r i b u t e c i g a r e t t e s
o r o t h e r t o b a c c o p r o d u c t s t o a d u l t s . I t w i l l , h o w e v e r , a l l o w t h e C i t y t o r e g u l a t e t h e
o p e r a t i o n o f l a w f u l b u s i n e s s e s t o d i s c o u r a g e v i o l a t i o n s o f F e d e r a l , S t a t e , a n d
l o c a l t o b a c c o - r e l a t e d l a w s ; a n d ,
W H E R E A S , t h e C i t y h a s a s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t i n p r o m o t i n g c o m p l i a n c e
w i t h F e d e r a l , S t a t e , a n d l o c a l l a w s i n t e n d e d t o r e g u l a t e t o b a c c o s a l e s a n d u s e ; i n
d i s c o u r a g i n g i l l e g a l p u r c h a s e o f t o b a c c o p r o d u c t s b y m i n o r s ; i n p r o m o t i n g
c o m p l i a n c e w i t h l a w s p r o h i b i t i n g s a l e s o f c i g a r e t t e s a n d t o b a c c o p r o d u c t s t o
m i n o r s ; a n d f i n a l l y , a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , i n p r o t e c t i n g c h i l d r e n f r o m b e i n g l u r e d
i n t o i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y t h r o u g h t h e m i s c o n d u c t o f a d u l t s ; a n d ,
W H E R E A S , i t i s t h e i n t e n t o f t h e C i t y C o u n c i l i n e n a c t i n g t h i s o r d i n a n c e t o
e n c o u r a g e r e s p o n s i b l e t o b a c c o r e t a i l i n g a n d t o d i s c o u r a g e v i o l a t i o n s o f t o b a c c o -
r e l a t e d l a w s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e w h i c h p r o h i b i t o r d i s c o u r a g e t h e s a l e o r d i s t r i b u t i o n
o f t o b a c c o a n d n i c o t i n e p r o d u c t s t o m i n o r s , b u t n o t t o e x p a n d o r r e d u c e t h e
d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e a c t s r e g u l a t e d b y F e d e r a l o r S t a t e l a w a r e c r i m i n a l l y
p r o s c r i b e d o r t o a l t e r t h e p e n a l t i e s p r o v i d e d t h e r e i n .
T H E C I T Y C O U N C I L O F T H E C I T Y O F T E M P L E C I T Y , C A L I F O R N I A ,
D O E S H E R E B Y O R D A I N A S F O L L O W S :
S E C T I O N 1 . A r t i c l e D ( "