The proponent of a JUUL Labs-backed referendum effort in Livermore formally withdrew his petition on Thursday, clearing the way for the special election to be canceled and the new city ordinance banning flavored tobacco sales and implementing other anti-vaping regulations to take effect.
The 10-line letter to the city from Livermore resident Barry Grace doesn’t cite any specific reason for the withdrawal — merely stating a description of the ordinance and legal authority for the request — but it comes less than a month after JUUL pulled out of a similar campaign in San Francisco and then scaled back operations amid new scrutiny from federal regulators over its vapor products.
“As new leadership continues to conduct a broad review of the company’s policies, we have also made the decision to request the withdrawal of the referendum on Livermore’s vapor ban from next year’s ballot,” JUUL officials told the Weekly in a statement Friday.
“JUUL Labs remains committed to our goal of improving the lives of the world’s one billion smokers while keeping our products out of the hands of youth through strong category-wide regulation,” they added.
The city’s ordinance, which was suspended after the referendum petition was submitted this summer, is now in effect — although it was always the City Council’s plan that enforcement of the new regulations wouldn’t begin until Jan. 1, to give city staff and business owners time to prepare, according to city attorney Jason Alcala.
Petition signature-gatherers had been successful in garnering support from enough registered Livermore voters to force the hand of the council in September, when the city leaders opted to schedule the anti-vaping ordinance for a citywide election on March 3 primary ballot, rather than rescind it as JUUL wanted.
Livermore city clerk Sarah Bunting confirmed the withdrawal letter was hand-delivered and filed with her office on Thursday.
The council is scheduled to officially acknowledge the withdrawal and authorize staff to move forward with removing the referendum measure from the ballot on Nov. 25, Alcala said.
The withdrawal request was only possible because of new urgency legislation in Sacramento, Senate Bill 681 by State Sen. Henry Stern (D-Canoga Park), that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Oct. 8 and took effect immediately to allow a local referendum proponent to remove their ballot measure at least 88 days before the election.
Before that, once a referendum measure was scheduled for a ballot, the election had to move forward even if the proponent changed their position.
Representatives of local advocacy group Flavors Addict Kids-Livermore, which spearheaded the public campaign to encourage the council to approve the ordinance in the first place, said they were pleased to the learn of referendum withdrawal.
“Our council passed this ordinance in response to community concerns, and it’s an important piece of our effort to combat the youth vaping epidemic in Livermore. Now that the referendum has been withdrawn, we can begin to enact and enforce these regulations,” they said in a statement Thursday.
“We are proud of our City Council for its courage in standing up and doing what’s right for our kids, and we can now get on with the business of getting these products out of our community and repairing the harm they caused. Today is a great day for the city of Livermore!” they added.
The new ordinance, which was unanimously approved by the council on July 8, outright bans the sale of all flavored tobacco within the city limits, as well as creates a new prohibition of the sale of all tobacco products within 1,000 feet of a “youth-populated area.”
Additionally, the new regulations include a ban on the sale of all electronic smoking devices (unless it is a new product approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) as well as prohibits selling electronic smoking/vaping fluids that are flavored (FDA-approved fluids could be sold only if non-flavored).
The ordinance also establishes the first-ever tobacco retailer license program in the city to be overseen by the Livermore Police Department. The city reports having 71 tobacco retailers currently operating, mainly grocery stores, convenience stores and gas stations. The license fee prices were confirmed at $1,005 for new licenses; $969 for a license renewal.
The new city regulations were scheduled to take effect on Aug. 7 — one month after adoption by the council, as is standard — but it was put on hold once the JUUL-backed referendum petition was filed.
But a lot has changed for the San Francisco-based vapor product company since then.
On Sept. 30, JUUL pulled out of the vaping-related Proposition C campaign in San Francisco — the first of its kind on the ballot in the state.
Then on Oct. 17, the company announced it would suspend the sale of non-tobacco, non-menthol-based flavored products in the U.S., pending a review by the FDA. The federal agency had sent a warning letter to JUUL on Sept. 9 alleging the company was making advertising claims for its e-cigarettes without FDA authorization.
The company continues to say that its products can be a good choice for adults who want to avoid combustible cigarettes. But recent reports by health officials in the U.S. allege that vaping has led to illnesses and even 18 reported deaths.
As for sales of other JUUL and like products in Livermore, local tobacco retailers will have to adjust their practices to meet the new city regulations by the new year.
Even though the new ordinance was suspended for two months, Alcala said he does not expect the City Council to change its original plan to begin enforcement on Jan. 1; business owners and city staff will just have a bit less time to prepare.
And with the withdrawal, the new Livermore regulations are on the books — technically in effect retroactive to Aug. 7, the date the now-lifted suspension began.
A scheduling quirk is resulting in the council not taking up the final, election-cancellation steps until Nov. 25, according to Alcala.
Since the withdrawal letter came in on Thursday, there was not enough time to turn the matter around for Monday’s already scheduled council meeting, Alcala said. With the Veterans Day holiday canceling the first November meeting, the council’s next regular meeting would officially be Nov. 25.
Editor’s note: Information from the Bay City News Service was used in this report.
