Santa Clarita officials temporarily stubbed out an e-cigarette discussion Tuesday, while restricting operations on aggressive sales reps and massage parlors.

City leaders directed staff to take another look at a proposed ordinance that could limit where residents can “vape,” after more than a dozen supporters of “the vaping community” explained why the vapor-based product shouldn’t be legislated the same way as their tobacco cigarettes.

Ultimately, city officials pointed to pending legislation on the matter (SB 24), and the fact that scientists have not come to a consensus on potential health risks as a few of the reasons why it might be prudent to hold off on a move.

“Staff is going to come back and bring a new item to the council on e-cigarettes on a date to be determined,” said Gail Morgan, Santa Clarita city spokeswoman. “In the meantime, the staff is going to be looking at the status of any legislation with regard to any transit, parks or law enforcement as it relates to the e-cigarette.”

Electronic cigarettes are often marketed as tobacco-free nicotine delivery devices, and typically, instead of burning tobacco, a user draws air through the device; an airflow sensor or a physical power button activates a battery that powers an atomizer to produce an aerosol from liquid containing nicotine and flavourings, according to a study on e-cigarettes.

“E-cigarettes are nicotine delivery devices designed to look and feel like a traditional cigarette, a pen or a fashion accessory,” according to the National Institute of Health.

City Councilman TimBen Boydston, who said he quit smoking without the help of e-cigarettes, acknowledged there was a difference “between smoking and vaping,” because “smoking (hangs in the air),” he said, whereas “the vapor is basically water, and it dissipates much more quickly.”

However, how it could be “very annoying in a small area” to people who don’t want to be around the vapors, which was the point made by Mayor Marsha McLean, as well as council members Dante Acosta and Laurene Weste.

The city’s discussion for a vape ordinance was brought about due to “numerous complaints” about close-quarters vaping from the Transit and Parks departments, according to city officials.

There was also discussion about a desire to limit the modeling of smoking behaviors in front of children as part of the logic for those in favor of limiting vaping to vape shops.

As Councilman Bob Kellar pointed out, putting “E” in front of cigarettes “isn’t doing any them any favors” in convincing opponents of smoking that they’re offering a healthy alternative.

But he also acknowledged there was a potential positive if the product helps people quit smoking.

Aggressive sales and massage parlors

Ordinances for both aggressive sale and massage parlors were approved on a first hearing Tuesday at City Hall.

(Also approved) Chapter 11.35 – Aggressive Solicitation and Solicitation at Specific Locations

With an increasing homeless population within the City, panhandlers and solicitors are becoming a growing problem. The Sheriff’s Department received a total of 48 complaining calls regarding aggressive solicitation in 2014. While solicitation is a protected First Amendment right, aggressive solicitation is not. In responding to complaints, Sheriff’s Deputies are currently limited on what actions they can take to address grievances, as the Santa Clarita Municipal Code currently only regulates commercial aggressive solicitation. While it is a misdemeanor under the California Penal Code (Section 647(c)) to accost other persons in a public place for the purposes of begging or soliciting, offenders who are prosecuted through the District Attorney’s Office often have charges dismissed or are given lenient penalties.

A new chapter in the Municipal Code is proposed to prohibit any type of aggressive solicitation and to provide a way for the City to prosecute offenders. Also, since the courts have upheld support for ordinances that prevent solicitation in specific sensitive locations or those that create a captive audience for a solicitor, this new chapter will also include restrictions to solicitation in sensitive areas.

There are four main provisions to this chapter.

Prohibition of solicitation within a public place that is aggressive, coercive, intimidates, or causes fear for

Prohibition of solicitation in sensitive areas. Sensitive areas include: within 30 feet of any bank, automatic teller machine (ATM), bus, bus stop, or public transportation facility.

Prohibit any person from soliciting on private property if the owner, tenant, or legal occupant has asked the person to not solicit or has posted signs indicating solicitation is not permitted on the property. The definition of “private property” is any land not owned by the government or designated for public use as a public place. Private property where the public or a substantial group of persons has access is not considered private property in this instance. This provision would not prevent the solicitation from occurring in public places such as shopping centers or business establishments.

(Also approved)  Chapter 5.08 – Massage Parlors

In September of 2014, the California State Assembly approved Assembly Bill 1147. This bill prohibits the City from regulating massage practitioners, as they are regulated by the California Massage Therapy Council. The bill restores some of the regulatory power to the City by allowing for continued regulation of massage business owners and the ability to regulate hours of operation for massage businesses.

Information received from the Sheriff’s Department and the Community Preservation Division indicate that illicit activities associated with massage parlors tend to occur in the late night and early morning hours. City staff has researched hours of operation limitations established at numerous benchmark cities, in addition to completing a window survey of over 20 existing massage businesses in the Santa Clarita Valley. Staff recommends the limiting of massage businesses hours of operation to between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. in an effort to deter illegal activities, while not conflicting with typical operating hours of legitimate massage businesses. These hours mirror those adopted for massage businesses in other cities, including Pasadena, Ventura, Glendale, and Palmdale.

The proposed updates to this chapter include: 1) removing code language that regulates individual massage therapists; and 2) restricting massage businesses’ hours of operation to between 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.