From:
Subject: Fw: Tobacco retailer ordnance
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 1:49:46 PM
Attachments:
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hello Councilmember ,
After several requests of meeting , APCA was able to meet on zoom with Council President Esparza on this Monday and communicate with Councilmember Karbassi’s via email , regarding the Tobacco Retail License ordinance.
We made clear that APCA supports protecting youth and enforcing the law against businesses selling to minors or knowingly selling illegal tobacco products. However, several provisions remain unclear, particularly the license cost, treatment of technical violations, employee-related violations, license transfers, and possible duplication with the existing smoke-shop ordinance.
Councilmember Karbassi asked us to provide our concerns in writing. I am forwarding that email below for your review.
We respectfully ask you to support continuing the ordinance so these concerns can be discussed and appropriate amendments considered before final adoption. Our goal is an effective ordinance that protects youth while treating responsible retailers fairly.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Andy Chhikara
Chairman, APCA
From the health department website data showing the trend Get Outlook for iOS
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 8:25 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Tobacco retailer ordnance
Thanks Bill
On Aug 24, 2026, at 3:55 PM, wrote:
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good afternoon, Councilmember Karbassi,
Thank you for responding. You sent this email on late hour on Friday; I appreciate it your thought and your goal of developing a balanced policy that helps legitimate businesses while targeting operators who break the law. We share that goal.
In response to your request, I have outlined APCA’s principal concerns below. Before doing so, I also want to provide some background on APCA’s position. But we are concerned on rushing this ordinance as is will have future impacts and less impactful, high cost on small and good operators.
APCA has consistently supported reasonable measures that protect youth and address illegal operators. We openly supported Councilmember Esparza’s smoke shop ordinance and told retailers that illegal tobacco products and drug paraphernalia must be removed. We also made clear that APCA members should report businesses that continue to violate the law.
APCA members have previously shared information about suspected illegal activity with Councilmembers, Code Enforcement and other City representatives.
APCA also supported raising the legal tobacco age from 18 to 21 and restrictions on displaying cigarettes and tobacco products at the front counter. When Fresno was experiencing concerns about the oversaturation of beer sign and over saturation license , we met with Councilmembers Sal Quintero and Luis Chavez in mid 2011-2013, regarding irresponsible operators, excessive signage and enforcement against bad actors. We also worked constructively with Councilmember Arias on the Good Neighborhood CUP ordinance in 2020.
Our members operate neighborhood stores where many of our own children and family members have worked. We do not support the sale of illegal flavored tobacco or vape products. Businesses that knowingly sell illegal products or sell tobacco to minors should be subject to meaningful enforcement. Those operators also create an unfair competitive disadvantage for responsible retailers.
Our concerns are not intended to weaken the ordinance. There are so many things crumped in this which have huge impact on good operators of small business. We want to ensure that it distinguishes deliberate or repeated illegal conduct from correctable administrative mistakes. The following are some of the principal issues : If we had ample time to ask the writer so small operator who don't have deep pockets can be answered to and APCA can help that process if we know these answers.
1. Annual license fee and accountability: What is the actual annual cost of this program and what keeps the retailer fee tied to that cost?
2. At $1,000 per retailer, the fee could generate approximately $600,000 annually if applied to roughly 590 retailers. We would like to understand the City’s estimated cost of administering the program, how the fee was calculated, how the funds will be used and whether the amount will be periodically reviewed.
3. Does Code Enforcement or the City have data from the last 12–24 months showing tobacco violations broken down by type of retailer— specialty smoke/tobacco shops versus convenience stores, gas stations, liquor stores, grocery stores and other retailers?
4. Opportunity to cure technical violations
For paperwork, license-display, recordkeeping, training-record and similar administrative violations, the ordinance should provide a reasonable opportunity to correct the violation.
5. Separate serious sales violations from administrative violations Selling illegal products or selling tobacco to minors should carry serious consequences. Administrative violations should follow a separate and proportionate enforcement process and should not automatically count toward revocation in the same manner.
6. Protection for responsible owners who properly train employees:
Employee accountability
If an owner has written policies, provides and documents employee training, and promptly takes corrective action after an employee violation, those efforts should be considered when determining the penalty. This would not protect an owner who knew about, permitted or ignored illegal conduct.
7. Progressive and proportional enforcement
Suspension or revocation should generally be reserved for repeated or intentional serious violations. Retailers should receive clear notice of alleged violations and have access to a fair review or appeal process.
8. Coordination with the existing smoke shop ordinance
We would like to understand how the TRL ordinance will operate alongside the City’s existing smoke shop ordinance, avoid unnecessary duplication and make effective use of the enforcement tools already available.
9. Education and implementation period: License transferable Before penalties begin, the City should provide retailers with clear written requirements, compliance information and a reasonable period to understand and implement the new rules.
There are some solutions we have, which we have had success in past discussion with council. We believe a min Margin ordinance can help youngster not to be able to buy. Ca state tax has cig prices high and you can see the decline on sales of Tobacco. This
Tobacco sales continue to decline while neighborhood businesses face increasing operating expenses, regulatory requirements and fees. We support strong action against illegal sellers, but we also want to ensure that responsible businesses are not placed at risk of suspension or closure because of a correctable technical mistake.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this written list. We finally met with Councilmember Esparza and his City staff on ZOOM call to discuss some points to help develop a policy that protects youth, strengthens enforcement and treats legitimate businesses fairly.
Thank you again for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Andy Chhikara
Chairman
American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association (APCA)